Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the i'm-gonna-cry dept.
Crafter wrote to us with the news that the Kansas State Board of Education is dropping evolution
as a school mandated teaching. I'm speechless-I thought I was living in 1999, not 1799.
I've seen this point before. I still think of it as a desparate method to reconcile two groups of which one exists simply to conflict with the other. God could have invented evolution. Why? This universe is so full of holes at the quantum level that it might just as well not be here. Maybe it isn't. I see life as having a goal and we're spending too much time looking back to reach it. God would have wasted a lot of energy creating evolution and we're definitely wasting our efforts on it. "Improve the machine and you may profit tenfold--improve Man and you will profit ten thousand fold." --Kahn Noonian Sihn
-Admiral Coeyman
I agree, but the problem is much worse for teacher
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
Like the media, teachers are often used as tools (often unwittingly, but sometimes coercively) for power (corporations, religions, governments, special interest groups, etc.) to disseminate propaganda. As a participant in the Evergreen educational experiment, I think that following the Evergreen model would alleviate a lot of the problems we see today. Rather than forcing students to eat a certain mental diet, we should open up and let them choose freely. In my opinion, the ideal educational instutions would have no requirements and no grades, just like Evergreen. However, Evergreen failed in some ways because it stopped just short of the real ideal. There really should be no degrees, and education should be viewed as an all-ages lifelong process. Already degrees mean very little in the workplace. Mostly they indicate that you're willing to stick with something for a while. But a list of courses and an interview process are *far* more effective in determining someone's education than a grade. That's why nobody really pays attention to grades and diplomas anymore. If you've got the skills, you're in. So getting rid of all this baggage makes perfect sense in a modern contect, because when you need to learn something, you just go back to school and learn it. The idea that 4 years and a degree makes you fit for another 40 or 50 years of living is crazy in a society experiencing as much change as we do. The nice thing about dropping all these requirements is that you suddenly get something you've never had before: MOTIVATED LEARNERS! Why? Because there's no other reason to be in school! It's hard and it costs money! If you're not learning something in a system that has no external socio-economic goals (grades/diploma etc) then you've got no reason to be in school. Instantly all the people that don't really want to be in school would leave. Or just take courses that they liked. Factoring education out of the power structure entirely and making it free and open would have a tremendous positive impact on our nation. The kids that want to learn X will learn it. The kids that don't want to won't learn it right away, but they might come back later when and if they're ready. No longer would people go to school for a "degree". They'd go for *an education*! What's more, it would greatly reduce the political problem of determining what gets taught in schools because students would pick and choose what they want to learn rather than having it rammed down their throats. We need a free marketplace of ideas and thinkers, not a political process for determining propaganda.
Perhaps you need to study evolutional theory before making statements about it which you are not qualified to make. Scientists do not assert that humans evolved from chimpanzees. They assert that all primates shared a common ancestor, and evolved along diverging paths into the separate primate species which exist today.
Sign.. I know..my English sucks... Can't find time to learn it better... But I will learn it, while Kansas kids still will grow up to be arrogant morons. Just like some people around here..
When evolutionary theory is based on the theory of a geological column that could somehow represent the age of the earth, and the column itself is based on evolutionary theory, then you have a circular argument, and it should be acknowledged as such. I think it's great that the evo-theory isn't mandatory curriculem in that state anymore. I think it's great that some free thinking folks are questioning the established dogma and deciding that there may be other hypothesis worth teaching. Shoot, forty-nine other states still mandate this. What's the matter, can't we accept one being a little different? We're all such hypocrites. Why can't we be a little more forgiving and open minded toward one another? (I know why... Hurray for freedom, honesty and diversity!!!:-)
Re:Might I remind you...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nonsense. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. An enormous amount of energy flows through the terrestial ecosystem every day. (In in the sunshine, out during the night.)
Interesting Quotes from very intelligent people. Just some food for thought
"It is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected." [Quastler, Henry. The Emergence of Biological Organization, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7.]
"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." [R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.]
Sir Fred Hoyle, an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College Cardiff. He was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge. He is a well known and well respected scientist. - "The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programs of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order." - "...one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10(20)(2000) = 10(40,000), an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology from Harvard University, states, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
The authors of the book, Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, admit, "links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing"
Thomas Heinze, author of Creation vs.. Evolution states, "not a single fossil has been found that can be considered to be a transitional form between the major groups, or phyla."
George Wald, of Harvard University, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation of living organisms is impossible." Wald is an evolutionist and one of the leading biology professors of the world.
A professor at Cornell University, and a leading world expert on how evolution affects society states, "Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanical principles...the result is that there are no purposeful principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces. Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws."
George Wald of Harvard University states, "I choose to believe that which I know is impossible, rather than accept the unthinkable - which is special creation."
Re:2+2=5
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's a basic truism that all measurements are only approximations.
We did not evolve from apes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A major problem with a lot of these discussion threads is the belief that humans evolved from apes/chimpanzees/gorillas,etc. This is incorrect. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. By repeating this nonsense that humans evolved from other primates only plays into the hands of some die-hard creationists who don't really understand what natural selection is about. The other primates are not "lesser" species; they are as evolved as humans are. With this Kansas legislation I am now convinced that we are in a Dark Age. I go to Walden Books and see that the science "section" is a 1.5 foot section of shelf space. "New Age" idiocy covers three shelves, and books on prophecy and Nostradamus covers another. Kwan
Ive been to Kansas. No signs of evolution there!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Will someone elaborate the differences between microevolution (adaptation) and macroevolution (the rise of new species)?
I, for one, am unaware of any scientifically documented and repeatable experiments which demonstrate that members of one species can become members of an entirely new species (which cannot interbreed).
Will they next ban the teaching of astronomy and mandate astrology instead?
Will it be back to teaching that the sun rotates around the earth in a perfect circle.
Or will it be that the earth is flat, held up on the back of a giant turtle?
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
Amphigory
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I agree with you. I think that it is legitimate to attempt to discern God's methods.
However, I think blindly and dogmatically teaching a theory which makes little or no sense (i.e. speciation etc. purely through random mutations to useful traits) is pointless. My point is that natural selection is being defended not because most scientists think it's true (they don't) but because they are afraid of stepping back from this after they fought so hard against the creationists in the monkey trials.
Whether you like it or not, the numbers on natural selection just don't work out. Especially when you consider irreducibly complex systems like the mammalian eye or blood clotting. Seriosly, read that book. It's good.
-- -- Slashdot sucks.
Measuring time
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While I don't necessarily believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, I also tend to question the ages assigned by scientists to the universe, the earth, or various artifacts. It seems to me that even scientific estimates of these ages often involve many assumptions, which may or may not be correct.
What is interesting is that many people and especially the media, often take for granted as fact, scientific ideas and theories. Even though the very scientists who created them would be more likely to describe them as probable, but not necessarily true.
Re:Is Evolution fact?
by
Jeff+Ballard
·
· Score: 1
Most of the Slashdot comments I have seen have portrayed Evolution as fact. When, in fact, Evolution is a theory, just as any other scientifically established theory. There are facts supporting Evolution, but there are also facts discrediting Evoultion.
Its BOTH. Its a theory just like the law of Gravity is a theory -- we can't prove that just because for as long as anyone can find that the Earth had a gravitational of 9.80665 m/(s**2) that tomorrow it will not be something else.
Since it cannot be proven to be false for all instances, it cannot be more than a theory. It is a fact based upon the definition of the word fact.
Ignorance is the enemy, truth is the answer. Well, before you spout off what a fact is, please look up the definition (#4).
--
Good Fast Cheap. Pick any two.
Re:Logically, No Evolution == No Newtonian Mechani
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Creationist don't say that science can't be taught. All of them that I know believe that science is valid. The big thing that alot of them wish to discuss is idea that perhaps "We didn't come from bacteria and ammino acids." Since the religion of science can't deal with that idea as even being a possibility we are stuck with extremes. The extreme up till now is that we evolved from acids. Now its going to start to swing the other way.
The other point on this is that most if not all creationists I've had the opportunity to talk to that are scientists, firmly believe that since the time of creation we have evolved. (Oops.. did I hear that right.. Evolution) They fight the idea that we evolved and they can support alot of their theories just as valid (if you can view it unbiasedly) as any of the Evolutionists can.
True scientists accept the fact that they could be wrong and are willing to discuss these ideas openly and be proven wrong.
Well teletubbies ARE evil... Along with Barney, I bet they are the two biggest brain-cell-killers currently on TV.;-)
Re:Yup, observe evolution!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Humans are better. Period. What do we not control? I see lots of apes in cages controlled by humans, but I have yet to see a human in a cage controlled by an ape, also in reagrds to observing evolution, you are making an error, I believe. I have not read the whole story of this wallabie thing, but that is evolution within species as I see it written, as compared to evolution from one species to the next, like a cat and a dog are different species, but a dog from africa is not a different species than a dog from russia, but they act different and have different tolerances, but they are still one species, if this has been misdirected, sorry but I don't know what this wallabie shit is...
God said it, and I see no reason to not believe it. But God didn't say it. Someone wrote it down in the book, but as to where they got that idea I don't know. Ancient Hebrew myth, I suppose.
It is Fact, not a theory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. It has been witnessed in the lab. and it has been observed over the past 150 yrs. Now there are differing ideas as to how evolution actually occurs, and questions of origin, but there is no dispute over evolution as a fact. We know Evolution to be a fact, in the same way we know that the earth revolves around the sun. It isn't a question anymore, except for those religious morons who still believe that David Koresh (god, yahweh, whatever you want to call him) created the universe 5000 yrs ago with the earth as its center. I like to think of those imbeciles as ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand, refusing to see the world around them.
I'm glad I don't live in Kansas.
Re:Science will still march on.
by
znu
·
· Score: 1
It's simply impossible to disprove Creationism because it goes along with the idea that God is omniscient. Carbon dating proves that the universe is much more than several thousand years old, as does the fact that we can see the light from objects billions of light years out, but all this evidence can be dismissed by someone who believes in an omniscient God. I've heard the argument that the reason we can see light from more than a few thousand light years away is that God created the light in transit. There is simply no way to disprove such things, so you must apply Occam's(sp?) Razor. It's much simpler to conclude that we can use carbon dating to show that things are millions of years old and we can see light from billions of light years away because the Universe is actually that old, rather than that is was created by some omniscient being with the objective of tricking us into believing it is that old.
I am dreaming the entire Universe. None of it is real. Prove to me that isn't true. There's no way you can. It's the same thing, but IMO far more likely than Creationism.
Besides which, Creationism explains nothing at all. If God created the Universe and life, where did God come from?
-- This space unintentionally left unblank.
That makes NO sense
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I believe (hope) you meant that the rate of change of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That would be consistent with the rest of what you said. As the universe expands, it's potential energy increases and it's kinetic energy (heat) decreases. Energy is transferred, but the total amount in the universe has been fixed ever since the big bang.
Just my observation about wallabies. Your prove is kind of weak. IFAIK you can develop resistance to some poisons and still be inter-fertile with the rest of the population. 'Apparently they are also no longer inter-fertile with the Australian species'. 'Apparently' is not a scientific term either.
Question is more like this: homo sapiens has 46 pairs of chromosoms, our believed closest relatives chimpanzees have 48: http://www.amnh.org/enews/headl/e1_h6.html 98% percent of genes are the same. But...
Could you describe a scenario how these species evolved from a common ancestor from point of view of macro-evolution? ( Not that I am against this relationship )
Even in case of very slim chance of mutation to livable creature with different number of chromosomes then its parents have, who it is going to mate with. ( AFAIK humans in this case have either Down's or Turner's Syndrome depending on direction of deviation from normal^H^H^H^H^H^H usual number). That means mutation which results in the change of number of chromosomes can not be just random event. Darwin did not explain it. I read the book about 20 years ago though, so I might forget.
Oh, well, I guess I have an idea. It could be some kind of virus or other kind of infection. Are we all some kind of sick apes or something?:-)
You can? I can't. Theories can be disproven, if observations counter them. Most believers in the Biblical account of creation would not consider their "theory" disproved even if observed evidence contradicted it. They'd sooner discard their observations than their Holy Book. And science doesn't work that way. If the evidence indicates that your hypothesis (or theory) is flawed, you fix the flaws or discard the hypothesis. You don't discard the evidence. That's why Biblical creation should never be taught in science classes.
Not because it's wrong (who am I to say?)
But because it's unscientific.
A Rose by Any Other Name...
by
kronius
·
· Score: 1
I, personally, subscribe to the view that there's some force that could just as well be called God as called anything else.
It is an irony that the religious fanatics, in their blind faith, are basically insulting their god in this rejection of evolution.
I particularly like the above comment because that is basically the same way I feel, only I call the "force" Physics.
-
--
- It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
It is not absurd to teach a belief which has put forward no theory to explain what we know of biology? Which has made no correct predictions? It is not absurd to lower the bar to zero?
I am not wrong about this; I've followed the writings of creationists. I've had dinner with D. Gish. They flattly have no theory, and don't seem to understand what the word means.
Okay, while I am not a trained biologist, I thought that the whole Punctuated Equilibrium thing was a pretty good account for why "transition" fossils are rare.
The rarity of intermediate forms can be interpreted as evidence that evolution tends not to happen gradually and homogenously in large populations over large ranges (which you need for decent odds that any will get laid down as fossils). Convenient? Maybe, but this may just be the way things are.
It seems reasonable to me that a population filling a particular ecological niche could stay at the same "local maximium" on the fitness landscape for a long time, but then in response to a change in the niche (climate change, new predator, etc) the original population is rapidly replaced with something else that was already occupying the new niche nearby. Instead of a fossil record that reflects gradual evolution of direct lineages, you could get a fossil record that looks more like wholesale replacements of populations by their "cousins", as it were.
This is very handwavey, and no doubt misses much of the flavour of Punctuated Equilibrium, but I've run out of time - got a bus to catch (really!).
-- -Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
Re:about God's existence
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think agnosticism seems to be growing more rapidly here in the States. I believe in part due to the large number of ignorant zealots. It's easier to avoid confrontation with a "Christian" when you tell them that you don't consider the question of whether or not God exists to be something that you as a mere mortal are fit to ponder, than when you tell them that you are certain the beliefs upon which they have based their identity are patently false.
Not an AC, just too lazy to log in at 1:22 AM.
Charles Egan cegaNO_SPAM123@oklahoma.net
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
I just felt like pointing out that this thinking is exactly the opposite of the scientific method.
So? While I won't dispute that the scientific method has proven to be very useful in many areas, it's a long way from perfect and it's a long way from useful in every sphere. I've never claimed that the truthfulness of the Bible is or should be subject to verification via the scientific method.
It's not as if evolutionists haven't done the same thing, either. They have always assumed a materialist view of the world, even though such a model cannot explain consciousness. They claim that ethics can exist independent of at least some god of some sort, but this claim is pure balderdash.
Evolutionists are no less "guilty" (if one must use such a term) than Christians of holding to a raft of unchallenged presuppositions. As such, they are no less religionists than the most pious Puritan.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why does one prevent the other??? Granted they do not mesh exactly but what does to our 'small' ape like brains ??? Evolution is merely a concept to explain the ability to learn and grow with/or without thought involved. Could it be that God is evolving ?? "A brain ache is a sign of mental exercise" archfeld@hotmail.com
Wish I could deny it, but alas I can't. Crazy as charged.
I'm rather shocked at the quantity of responses that imply removing evolution from the state required curriculum is a good move, I had thought slashdotters more rational.
If we extend this logically to removing all scientific theories, whats left? There are NO scientificly proven facts, just things we've measured to a given tolerance. Oh, we only throw out the ones that happen to disagree with some religous belief? Ah, now I get it!
Jim
On the nature of the postings
by
spRed
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that these posts seem to fall into one of three categories, keeping in mind that ppl that devote most of their time to religion don't read slashdot:
1) People are blowing this way out of proportion. They aren't requiring that creationism be taught, they are merely NOT requiring that evolution be taught as gospel (pardon the pun)
2) There is plenty of evidence for evolution, these the people in Kansas are depriving their children of a large body of scientific study.
3) the "right wing" "funies" "religious whackos" are taking over. Why is it that the most insane sounding posts on this board are the ones demonizing others of being irrational, jerk-knee, and with absolutely no grounding in rationality? (and name calling to boot)
An aside on./ readers: You are looking at, and conversing with, ppl who are generally in technical fields. They are more likely to be atheists and agnostics that the avg population. Even if they aren't one of those two, (like me) they are bound to be more versed in the sciences than the average joe.
The debate that is going on here/should/ be about how one school system managed to seperate itself from church and state (in the current sense) by removing a restriction on what it/could/ teach from that which is predominantly popular and believed ( one of the reasons for outlawing a state sponsored religion )
Does this open the path that kids in Kansas may be denied the evidence for evolution? certainly.
What we should all hope this means is that _we_ will have more of a say in what our children learn, without having to resort to home schooling. (I dearly hope I don't have to homeschool my children, but I will if I have to)
sp-Red
ps, I only read the first 200 posts, so I don't expect you will have read this one either.
-- .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
Re:Has anyone thought about it?
by
Nater
·
· Score: 1
...there's no definitve proof that Darwin was right. After all, his theories on natural selection turned out to be partially incorrect.
As did Newton's theories of motion. Partially, but not enough to make them useless. We can't just expect our legislators to understand relativity or evolution, though. After all, the only education they ever got was in school.:)
--
I like to play children's songs in minor keys. "We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Nuke Kansas!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
People...this is a battle that has been fought already. I always considered it a victory over stupidity. But..here it is again! Is the battle against the darkness of ignorance going to be like Vietnam, where ground can be won..but not held? The world is being overrun by morons. When they overtake the positions of power, like they have done with this school board in Kansas, we are all doomed. Nuke Kansas!!!
Re:Here's what evolution has been observed
by
cleancut
·
· Score: 1
Assuming evolution is fact (which, despite arguments to the contrary can only be "proven" by mangling the Scientific Method(and I'm not talking about "Survival of the Fittest" or evolution of very simple orginisims)) why aren't the overwhelming majority of large species hermaphrodites? I'm not a biologist, but it would seem to me that finding mates in order to reproduce would me much easier for such a species. Easier reproduction would lead to faster evolution, which would in turn lead to domination over other species.
Just as all of an artist's works share some similarities, couldn't this "genetic progression" you refer to be that the species were created by the same intelligence?
As far as I understand it, the belief that a "big bang" created the universe is similar to shaking a puzzle in it's box, throwing the pieces on the table, and having them all fall perfectly into place. From an mathematical standpoint, this is impossible.
It seems that it's easier to not even consider the possibility that a far greater intelligence created us. It's much easier to stick with a questionable theory which cannot be proven, and in my view seems highly implausible.
In order to believe evolution you have to have more faith than I do. You prefer to go out on a limb to explain the universe, rather then consider the possiblity that man is not the most intelligent being in the universe.
Re:Violent overthrow of USA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Come on guys. The Declaration of Independence is not law, the constitution and its admendments are.
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
cpt+kangarooski
·
· Score: 3
Historically, right-wing and religious particularly Protestant) fundamentalism have been very close. Look at voting patterns for, say, people from the Bible Belt who consider themselves very religious. Think they're all voting Democrat? I think not.
You're not from the South, are you? _Historically_, ever since the end of the War Between the States, Southerners have voted Democratic. Hell, there usually weren't even Republicans on the ballots in most places. Lincoln was a Republican, and a Republican-strong North moved in on us, and this caused about a hundred years' worth of resentment down here. Back then, the Republicans were more of a liberal party and the Democrats were more conservative. They've since flip-flopped.
The South finally began to vote Republican when Nixon was campaigning in the late 60's. The civil rights movement, which was also not all that popular among a goodly number of Southerners (and very popular among others) had some strong ties to the Democrats. Nixon realized that Southern voters were being ignored, and engineered an amazing Republican turnout down here. So your 'history' only seems to go back about thirty years, IMHO.
-- --
This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And according to Heisenburg, can we be certain of *anything*?
Maybe a better reference would be Hodel?
Heisenberg principle is not about inability to be certain - it is just about some properties of some physical variables describing a system. Quantum mechanics is actually quite deterministic - but not in a "common" sense.
-- <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Um, what about amphibians?
by
jonabbey
·
· Score: 1
I always wonder why people who go on about the lack of transitional forms totally disregard the ambhibians. Aren't they transitional between fish and reptiles?
Talking about fossils is talking about gross morphology, but we see evidence of family relations everywhere when we look at the DNA.
Since DNA is passed down from parent to child down through the generations, the DNA resident in any particular organism is itself a record of that organism's ancestral past, particularly when compared to another organism.
The creationist insistence that evolutionary theory should mean that we find skeletons of half-fish half-water buffalo or the like is just silly. Really stretching it, if you ask me. Grasping at straws.
Eeeeeeverybody Knows that the human race....
by
GreyFauk
·
· Score: 1
Started from just two people.... Adam and Eve.... Who were tragically stranded on this planet when their inter-stellar drive ceased functioning.
It took them 2 years to slowly motor their way into our system (the closest at the time) and find that this planet was habitable (mostly).
The rest is history. Poorly documented of course... but I'm sure it would be wonderful if someone found their flight recorder... ya know?
-- Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same)
You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Re:Atheist and proud of it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You are 100% right We need to educate strong minded, rational, self thinking people, NOT some religious maniacs. Religion is a strong force in today's society, BUT WE HAVE TO STOP IT. If you take a look at human history, you will see that in 99% of the cases religion just caused wars, murders, manipulations and in global has done nothing good for society at all.
Keep them ignorant, keep your power --Fucked Up College Kids We shall NOT BE IGNORANT.
Re:God is Big
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
the concept of evolving over millions of years merely by killing those who are weaker and in your way and creating man as a resemblance to a loving god
While I am somewhat biased due to being a Christian, I feel as tho I am fairly open minded in accepting others ideas. I have found, that evolution is no more factual than creation, or any other origin of the earth theory, they are all just that, theories. I don't understand why evolution is taught as fact, while creation is looked at as if it is some ancient dis-proven belief. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creation, and in mans efforts to remove God from the picture, we have lowered ourselves to the level of monkeies.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bravo... "I'll pick the one that explains the way I perceive the universe more accurately. You, of course, are free to do the same." that sums it up quite nicely....
1) Theories cannot be proven 2) Theories CAN be disproven 3) creationism has been disproven
Therefore: even if evolution is disproven, creationism will still be wrong.
I'm guessing that 3 will hit a few hot buttons, so let me define what I think creationism is: The world and universe was created by a supreme being who goes by the name of "God" or "Yawheh" or "YWHW" (not sure of the spelling on the last one).
Brant
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You bring up a very good point.
On a second level, evolution is distinguished from this "creation science" in that it most certainly is falsifiable (unless you're talking to a fanatic). Just look at what these "c.s." (spooky, huh?) guys are saying: so many ways that evolution *could* be incorrect.
On the other hand, the "god made us and all the animals out of meat" (or whatever) argument is apparently always defended in such a way that it could *never* be proven wrong. Even if it is.
So evolution can be disproven, as the "c.s." guys have tried to show us, while arguing that "c.s." cannot. This may be worth more in the educational context than whether evolution is correct or not, since I'm sure the current explanation using it has certain flaws and truths.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There are literally thousands of extant homo erectus fossils and hundreds of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cromagnon) fossils. Cromagons are so similar to present day humans that they are classified with them down to the subspecies level. However, cro-magnon populatons are observably different than present day populations. I can't prove that present day humans evolved from Cromagnons any more than I can prove that modern techno evolved from 60's electronic music (ie Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream) but it seems pretty self evident (in both cases). BTW, Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory is pure genius. It seems unbelievably obvious when you examine the mechanism of evolution: populations change because some individuals have more reproductive success than others. If a population is not under pressure, change should likely be slow. Put it under pressure, change should likely be fast. For example, have a food source disappear and individuals that have a characteristic which allows them to change food sources or survive with less are going to be "suddenly" significantly more reproductively successful than the others. Their genes will form a larger part of the next generation and "rapid" evolution will occur. Basically, populations don't change unless they have to. Populations under pressure have to - hence rapid evolution. It makes considerably more sense than pure gradualism, and certainly isn't grasping at straws.
this is extremely and utterly boring... the drool is right now coming out of my mouth... BORING... BORING... BORING... do what i do skim over the news section containing utterly boring news like this and go directly to the comic page...
ack ack thppt 8-ppppppppp
-- sages say the path is narrow and hard to follow...narrow as
the edge of a razor...
Evolution is a gradual change that takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
Nope. Not even. Evolution of a new species (a group which does not reproduce with members of the original species) has been observed in insects within a single human lifetime. Of course insects have much shorter generations (making it feasible to observe this in a relatively small interval of time), but the principle is the same.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
So you push the problem back to the scale of the universe. The problem still exists.
Nope. The universe cannot experience "heat death" so long as it is expanding. Expansion keeps "diluting" the existing stock of entropy. If the universe were static or contracting, then the problem would exist, but an expanding universe amounts to an infinite heat sink.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How do you know it doesn't happen. Have you lived a billion years?
Sigh You're missing the point of evolution. It isn't pure randomness. The randomness of genetic variation and mutation just creates a population that can be selected from. For a good refutation of this, and many other creationist arguments, read Dawkins ("Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Selfish Gene") or for something a bit more philosophical, Daniel C. Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". The truth is that Neo-darwinism is on great scientific ground. The even more important truth is that even if it is disproved or superceded by another theory, creationism will still be wrong.
You're an idiot. Where are those drug-resistant bacteria coming from? Is it perhaps, just perhaps, evolutionary? The environment changed (antibiotics became common), and the bacteria which had a formerly useless genetic quirk (immunity to the effects of various antibiotics) are able to thrive.
Or God just made them in the last 50 years. You decide.
If you don't believe in carbon dating, don't believe in atomic bombs or atomic power. Care to snack on some Plutonium?
Sigh. I swear, the rest of the civilized world must just laugh its ass off at the US. We have states outlawing basic science education in the midst of a technological (and biological!) revolution. I wonder how long it would take for me to brush up my Japanese?
From what i've read about the fossil evidence, pretty much every "major find" that provides a transitional form from some ape-like ancestor to us has been a hoax. In fact, i think there are only 2 or 3 max confirmed fossils that support this theory. But there are TONS of fossils found. Just not any transitional fossils. Lots of fossils of species, but no evidence of a change of species. So now the proponent of evolution come up with "punctuated equilibrium" which says that a species will stay the same, and then jump, or evolve rapidly into something different.
Yeah - that's why there's no evidence, of course!
That's really stretching it, if you ask me. Grasping at straws.
Recent fossils == Mummies. The meat on those frozen mammoths is still edible (it has been fed to dogs, although whether they like dry leathery meat is another question). These things are young, you're missing the point.
There is no guarantee these will not be wiped out in some geologic turn of fate, glaciers, erosion, subduction (okay, long shot) or whatever. Geological times are LONG, and glaciers move like lightning in comparison. Will all those mummies be around in 60 million years? Will future species be able to find them?
It's too bad to hear you brag that the freshmen you taught at Stanford were dummies. The ones I taught at Cornell were pretty bright. Maybe the bright ones avoided your classes.
Call it evolution, call it adaptation, call it what you will. I personally call it life. To me they all are terms for the same thing. The weak traits die out and the strong traits survive. It is not always the prettiest way to handle things, but it works. How do I know that it works? If it didn't would life have continued, and even propigated on this planet for the last billion or so years? I think that the answer to that is obvious. I am a little offended that people refuse to teach evolution in the classroom. That means that they are not promoting the education of life. I guess that they expect man to handle all evolution, after all that is what people are preached to about day after day. "Man is dominant. It is man's duty to take over the world." I disagree, but apparently there are some people in KAnsas who disagree with me. Alas, what a truly blind world we live in. Check out this book, it is very interesting: "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn - it will change the way you look at man. --------------------------------------------
-- Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
What you're pointing out isn't so much a comment on evolution as it is a comment on classification systems. Of course there aren't finds "between species"; all "between species" finds are assigned their own species.
--
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have to ask. Not just you, but many who are commenting on this topic. Have any of you taken even an introductory college course on genetics. I hope most of find this issue deserving more than a casual philosophical or dogmatic comment. Doubtless, there is still much to be done (Mendel published in what 1866?) expecially with regard to evolutionary genetics. Fossils may lend to phenotypic studies, but the underlying and decisive problems are genetic and having a fossil doesn't equate to having the genotype. Go read about Polymerase Chain Reaction and other genetic techniques that might finally bring resolution to some of these questions. Read about gene therepy of Adenosine Deficiency Disorder. There is much that is relevant and signicant underlying the ideas of evolution. Yes, I find it incredible to think about the origins of the human race, but I find it no less impossible than "God made me this way." Evolution not only provides a plausible (and importantly, investigable) explanation for the origins of life, it also might explain that some of came from monkeys (with which we share 98% of our DNA, hmm) and how some of us may share a heritage with the ass (it's lonely in Kansas).
We leave in a time when finally mans (and woman's) imagination can almost be matched by reality. When the impossible is possible (good example, Windows being replaced as the only operating system available, now who would have believed that), where scientific break-throughts come every other day. We live in the age of enlightenment. Where there actually may be hope for us as a species. Then this type of thing comes along and makes me ashamed to be human. Those people are so sad and pathedic that they must try and brainwash children to prop up a dying way of life. It really is so sad.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4.5 billion years isn't enough? even allowing 2 billion years for the cell to develop, that's still 2.5B years of productive time... Our entire known history goes back less than 10k...
"The even more important truth is that even if it is disproved or superceded by another theory, creationism will still be wrong."
What? How could you possibly know this? You are stating a religious belief, not a scientific belief. Any real scientific theory is falsifiable, yet you have said in essence that evolution as a whole _cannot_ be disproved.
That's as absurd as saying, "The even more important truth is that even if the phlogiston theory of heat is disproved or superceded by another theory, the caloric theory will still be wrong."
The fact is the some -- not all -- of evolution theory is, as Philip Johnson puts it "basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact." This quote is from http://www.firstthings.com/ ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html.
Fundies are against teaching of the evolution because it would contradict their religious myth about the age of the planet.
The only way you can get your mind to refute evolution is if you actually believe that earth is only a few thousand years old.
Evolution is a gradual change that takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Just looking in the past few thousand years we see some bits of changes in humans, not really that much to be really noticeable. The change has been more in the accumulation of knowledge than anything else. There is abundant proofs that over the past millions of years humans have evolved from some similar species, perhaps not as close as to chimps as some may think but the same family nevertherless.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does not succumb to accurate hypothesis testing (which is neccessary to convert a theory to a fact). Accurate hypothesis testing involves making a hypothesis, testing and verifying it throught empirical evidence. Thermodynamic principles and entropy can be demonstrated over and over again in experiments. Evolution however is merely a gathering of data (granted an enormous amount of data) and making a bunch of assumptions that appear to fit. We cannot set up an experiment and gather empiricle data to *demonstrate* evolution, thus it is not a fact. The act of drawing conclusions from data that is not "createable" nor "repeatable" and accepting these conclusions as "facts" is one of the greatest philisophical mistakes that people make in the thinking process.
In my own lifetime I have seen more scientists waffle over the facts of species evolution , black holes, stellar evolution, social engineering and you name it.
You seem to be having some difficulty telling the difference between the Scientific Method and lies and evasions. Science is about challenging beliefs and conclusions. It is not strange that scientists change their opinions. They are not trying to deceive you, they are just trying to find the facts. As for lies and evasions, well, that's what creationists do.
If Kansas wants to remove evolution then good for them. That's your democracy in action after all.
While we're voting on evolution, let's get together and vote on a few other things. Let's get rid of gravity and that nutty speed of light limit. No one needs those things.
Here's a hint. That evolution has happened and continues to happen is as established a fact of nature as both of those things. The major disputes scientists are now having are with the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
If you honestly believe that politics or religion has anything to say about these issues, then with all due respect, you're just not very bright.
gene
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The timeline of the Christian creation myth, as espoused by the majority of biblical creationists (in my experience), and derived from a literal interpretation of the bible, has been more than adequately refuted by scientific evidence; therefore, even if Darwin's theory of the origin of species is eventually disproved or superceded, any creationist theory dependent on this timeline would still be wrong.
So you push the problem back to the scale of the universe. The problem still exists.
Nonsense. At the scale of the universe, entropy is increasing. Logic points out quite clearly that the same is true of our solar system, which can be assumed to be a pretty closed system. The increase in order brought about by life is somewhat less than the increase in disorder brought about by everything else that goes on around here.
From what I've read about the fossil evidence, pretty much every "major find" that provides a transitional form from some ape-like ancestor to us has been a hoax.
When was, to pick one example, Australopithecus, or Homo Habalis, shown to have been a hoax?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
-- (currently testing something about signatures here)
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Obviously there isn't enough raw material in a cup of water and a teaspoon or so of saliva to make much of anything. But if you take a vat of the simple chemicals found in old rock samples and run electricity through it (lightning ought to work just as well), you get amino acids. There are no credible arguments that it's impossible, because every step can be demonstrated to work; the only question is whether we actually happened this way.
There are over 1 Million radio frequencies running by and through you right now, you can't see it, you can't feel it, but you know I'm right. How do you know?
A lot of inventions wouldn't work if it weren't true, and they do seem to, so either it is or I have to assume the entire world is engaged in a giant perfect conspiracy to fool me for no apparent purpose. And believing it is useful; it helps explain things in the world I actually perceive.
Believing some super-powerful being magicked us out of the void doesn't tell me anything about us, what else It has created, what It has been doing since then (or will do), or what (if anything) It wants. And other than a few books being peddled by pedophiles who want your money in return for telling you what to do, there's nothing more suitable about that theory than any other.
Darwin had no proof and you guys make him sound like god
There is no proof outside of pure math and abstract logic; everything else is just finding the theory that best fits the evidence and predicts what will happen in the world. And unlike god, we can be pretty sure about whether he existed and what he wanted everyone to believe.
They do not seem to understand the nature of what they are talking about, chaos. The chaotic nature of the universe explains evolution. From order to disorder. Natural selection does not break the law of entropy it molds it. Lets say you have an animal that is perfect for warm climate, no fur, not much need for water, etc. Every once in a while there is a genetic change (mutation) which causes an a furry version of that animal. It does'nt survive very long because the warm climate does not allow it (natural selection). If there is a tilt in the earth's axis which causes very cold climate, those furry animals will flurish while the bare animals will die or migrate elseware. I don't understand how this is not logical. Bacteria do this all the time, hence drug resistant bacteria. What is unscientific about evolution?
--------------------------- ^_^ smile death approaches.
Your view of enthropy is incorrect. In order for the sun to reverse the flow of enthropy, it would have to absorb energy, not radiate it. You'd turn the sun into a 'white hole' with your theory. If evolution dogma is as opinionated as that story, we're doing scientific investigation a disservice to allow evolution into the dictionary. 1) Darwin did not invent evolution. His theory was that the 'containing' principle of 'natural selection' could be used constructively. He later realized that it didn't really work. 2) Secularism IS a religeon. 3) There were a number of suicides attributed to the spread of the theory of evolution so the one quote is not hard to prove wrong. I could go on but there's no use in it. You have your faith and I have mine.... -Admiral Coeyman
You can't prove that the universe wasn't just created by a 35 meter long crayfish 5 minutes ago. (Oh, you have memories from before 5 minutes ago? Well, you were created with those memories, you never realy did/experianced anything before 5 minutes ago!).
As the high priest of the One True Church of Last-Tuesdayism I have to protest against this abdominable disgrace. Everybody in his right mind knows that the universe was created last Tuesday, 11:41 pm, by an invisible pink unicorn named Moe (and not "Mue", as some stupid heretic cretins maintain).
Sheesh. The truth is so easy to see!
--
Stephan
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>Perhaps if one reads "Darwin's Black Box" one >might get a better understanding of the numbers >involved in "evolution by change". The central premise in "Darwin's Black Box" that Behe uses as the basis for his argument, namely that "irreducibly complex" systems cannot arise through successive small modifications from a previous system, is wrong. Once you have a faulty premise, you can "prove" anything even if your logic is impeccible. Behe's position is *extremely* intellectually dishonest, it's just a rehash of the main objection to Darwin's ideas that was discredited abouta hundred and twenty years ago. "Darwin's Black Box" is pseudoscientific creationist propoganda, and if you allow yourself to be influenced by this book, I'm afraid you've been had by a con trick. See http://www.talkorigins.org/ for more detailed critiques of Behe's "book".
> There is abundant proofs that over the past > millions of years humans have evolved from some > similar species, perhaps not as close as to > chimps as some may think but the same family > nevertherless.
A subtle mistake here, and one that many fundamentalists use to goad people into disbelieving evolution. Humans and chimps come from a common ancestor--humans don't come from chimps. That opens up two veins of attact for fundamentalists: Why are there still chimps, then? Are your ancestors chimps?
I'm only being picky because those fundamentalists are a slippery bunch. Surely the work of the devil.
--
Mike van Lammeren It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
>Recent fossils == Mummies. The meat on those >frozen mammoths is still edible (it has been fed >to dogs, although whether they like dry leathery >meat is another question). These things are >young, you're missing the point.
You see that episode of North of 60. MMMmmmmm, Mamoth stew.;`)
The reason the evidence seems sketchy is that it is, kind of. But there is A LOT of it. Think about fossils. Today, a cow lies down in a field and dies. Does it leave a fossil? No.
So the fact that people can find fossils of transitional forms is amazing in and of itself. But here's where the non-rationals jump in. You have a prior form. And a descendant form. There is a gap, a missing link. The "creation scientists" attack the fact that we don't have a videotape of all stages of evolution as it progressed.
So one day, a paleontologist working in some terrible dusty hot place finds a skull and a legbone, never before seen. Wow! A missing link between A and B. The creation science whoops up "Well now you have TWO gaps. Explain that."
Or they say, "Thermodynamics says that things progress from order to disorder. Ergo evolution is impossible." Except it's entropy they mean, and the earth isn't a closed system (we have a sun) so that rule is completely wrong to apply.
It's moronic, and it's really what they argue. They are proven wrong again and again.
'Or they say, "Thermodynamics says that things progress from order to disorder. Ergo evolution is impossible." Except it's entropy they mean, and the earth isn't a closed system (we have a sun) so that rule is completely wrong to apply."'
So you push the problem back to the scale of the universe. The problem still exists.
There is not much evidence for evolution. Perhaps if one reads "Darwin's Black Box" one might get a better understanding of the numbers involved in "evolution by change". Basically it says that in a billion years monkeys with sand can make PIII 500's with linux. Doesn't happen
Yes it does - if it dies in a swamp, or in high mountains, or in dry desert - taht's how fossils we find now appeared. There are numerous finding of recent fossils - remember Inca children in Ands? Mammoth in Siberia? Medieval knight in Germany?
You are a moron. And secondary education in U.S., to quote Bart Simpson, sucks and blows at the same time. I know, I tought freshmen at Stanford.
i've always wondered how scientific our teachings on evolution are. they sound like plausable ideas, but the evidence doesn't seem to be there... its always seemed sketchy to me. better send scooby & gang to investigate
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It DID happen. And it didn't take a billion years, only a couple of... what... 10's of millions?
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well then Brant, tell me then, how many years (approximately) will it take to become me, if I spit into a cup of water? There are all the ingredients needed (according to the "theory" of evolution). Hell, there's even germs in my spit! So what, in 1 Billion years, my spit will be me? is that what you are trying to convince me of? Who is the stupid one? evolution doesn't work like stated in the school, it's a myth, it's not fact, if it was, it would be called the "fact of evolution" not the theory. Also, theories while have no proof, also do not encounter proof AGAINST it like evolution does. Why don't you people read?? Do your own research instead of what Mr. Smith your 6th grade teacher has told you? He's an accountant for heaven's sakes, what the hell does he know??? Creationism says that there is someone more powerful and he created everything. How do you disprove that? There are over 1 Million radio frequencies running by and through you right now, you can't see it, you can't feel it, but you know I'm right. How do you know? Don't you ask for proof? You can't see it. But YET you take it as FACT, and you believe it. So what makes it so different than creationism? I can't stand it when people say things like what you have just said, without logical thought, and self done research. All corporate workers live in a cubical, it's printed in Dilbert, so it must be true right? Why don't you be a man and do your own research and draw your own conclusions based on educated deduction, instead of mis-quoting other people who's study you've never even completely read? Darwin had no proof and you guys make him sound like god (of which I see you don't believe in, so you have a conflict of interest internally)
I think it's amazing how thousands of people can scream about cultural acceptance over geeks on one week then be totally culturally bigoted over religious and scientific issues the next. You people astound me.
In my own lifetime I have seen more scientists waffle over the facts of species evolution , black holes, stellar evolution, social engineering and you name it. And every time some new theory gains popularity it is announced as being irrefutable. If Kansas wants to remove evolution then good for them. That's your democracy in action after all.
If what I said is nonsense, I'm making a point with it. If what I said makes perfect sense, you obviously missed the point.
Soon they'll be learning that it was actually a venture cooperation between Al Gore and MicroSoft that lead to what is genereally known as "the evolution" today. While Al Gore was on the comittee, MicroSoft created the standards and buried the core of evolution deep, so to hinder competition through insight. In the spirit of these times, and not to be branded a monopoly, they have over time released small bits of outdated evolutionary specs to the public. Who said history isn't constantly repeating itself ??
And you know this because you have measured the length of the bacterial genome and found it to have increased? Pardon me if I do not take you seriously.
Just because the bacterium became resistant to something does not mean it increased in complexity. It just means that it was changed to become better at a particular task, like resisting hexachlorophene or streptomycin. If the superior proteins had no more amino acids than the originals, the complexity of the DNA molecule would not necessarily have changed at all. It would just be a different sequence.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Your view of enthropy is incorrect. In order for the sun to reverse the flow of enthropy, it would have to absorb energy, not radiate it. You'd turn the sun into a 'white hole' with your theory.
The word is "entropy", and it is obvious that you failed thermodynamics. Entropy is carried by flows of energy and matter. The solar energy which flows into Earth has less entropy than the low-temperature heat that Earth radiates away. Thus, the flow of energy from the Sun allows (but does not require; re-read your intro thermo textbook) entropy to be removed from the Earth, QED.
If evolution dogma is as opinionated as that story, we're doing scientific investigation a disservice to allow evolution into the dictionary.
We're doing a tremendous disservice to the children of the USA to allow any concessions to the religious right in their science classes. To avoid teaching science which questions Creationist dogma requires that evolution be short-changed as a subject; since understanding of modern biology requires an understanding of evolution and its principles, this basically puts these children into a state where they require remedial classes in order to get a science degree. I should not have to point out that this is a luxury that we cannot afford.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Somebody explained the motor of randomness and selection as follows: Your automatic clock lives on your random arm-movement to lower entropy (i.e. to gain useful energy). But it can't do this without a device that allows some movements and disallows other (thats selection). Without any selection, no gain in energy. Now it is quite reasonable that the survival of the fittest is such a selection-mechanism with living beings. However, this doesn't help explaining the creation of life (if you will) because this mechanism obviously doesn't apply yet and there has not been (to my knowledge) any observation of such a mechanism in matter itself. In all the flash-in-the-soup experiments i've read of there has always been an additional "trap" set up by the experimentator to prevent falling back into previous state.
No, Evolution says that once a stable ecosystem exists it will autoselect for the most fit members and as the level of fitness increases (over the generations), so will charactoristics change to be more adapted to the enviornment.
I doubt that your spit is a stable ecosystem, and even if it were, I doubt a human (esp you) would be the result of the evolution of the organisms in your spit.
Radio Waves: If I realy cared to, I could build a device which would be able to detect those radio waves in such a way that I believe the output of the device. I cannot build a device that will detect the existance of a diety.
The current level of human knowledge makes it impractical to personally test all the scientific theories in existance. The theory of evolution was explained to me by someone who I tend to trust, who got it from a book written by a scientist who he said he trusts. Without trust... human society doesn't properly function. (Or you get some real weird shit, read book 2 of the Deathworld Trilogy by Harry Harrison for a fictional account of a [semi-]functional society without trust.
I have no good way to disprove the existance of a devine entity, but it's so ludicrus I have no reason to need to disprove it. There is no evidence for the existance of a divine entity, and therefore there is no reason for me to accept it as likely. You can't prove that the universe wasn't just created by a 35 meter long crayfish 5 minutes ago. (Oh, you have memories from before 5 minutes ago? Well, you were created with those memories, you never realy did/experianced anything before 5 minutes ago!).
-- -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So basically, you were too closed minded to give it a chance. The theory conflicts with your religious beliefs, so it must be wrong. Sorry, that just isn't how science works. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. However, at this time, it is the theory that best fits the facts. Once you make blind faith (religion) into your basis for a belief, it ceases to be science. I'm not anti-religion, I just believe strongly in the separation of religion from science (and politics).
therefore, even if Darwin's theory of the origin of species is eventually disproved or superceded, any creationist theory dependent on this timeline would still be wrong.
Thank you. You are right in this point. I do add, however, that refuting _a_ creationist timeline does not prove evolution.
Do yourself a favor - get some science education. As far as your current question is concerned - there is a good FAQ mentioned in this group - link here . I will save my arguments - we need to be on the same level of basic knowledge to discuss FACTS.
And just where did I say my (physics) students were dummies? Now, they were quite bright kids - that made the lack of basic science and math education that they brought from school even more obvious. It's a fact. Sorry.
Perhaps. Spit into a cup of water. Leave it for a while. It'll probably get mouldy. Hell, there might be several different kinds of mould. They might compete. If there's a source of food, they'll continue to grow. (If there isn't, you may need to throw a few bits and pieces into the cup every so often. Life doesn't survive without nutrition of some sort or another.) If there's competeition, natural selection will come into play. You'll possibly end up with a slightly better mould than you started with - one that can compete for food more effectively. Keep this up for a billion years. Varying conditions every so often will help keep things moving along nicely. It's difficult to say what you'd end up with after a billion years - but it'd almost certainly not be what you started with.
Also, theories while have no proof, also do not encounter proof AGAINST it like evolution does.
Of course they do. It leads to refinement of the theory to better explain what's going on. It's called scientific progress.
Darwin had no proof
Of course he didn't. You don't tend to find proof of theories lying around. You find evidence. You form a hypothesis from this evidence. You attempt to disprove the hypothesis. If you do, then you try to figure out a better hypothesis. If you don't, then you accept the hypothesis as a theory. Evolution is a pretty good explanation for the evidence we have. It doesn't explain everything - neither did Newtonian physics. Better theories that explain more evidence will come along, but I'd tend to think that they'll be based on current theories of evolution in the same way that Einsteinian physics builds on Newtonian.
And as for "You can't disprove God, so he might exist"? You're right. God can't be disproven. However, there is a large body of evidence that suggests creationism isn't correct. And given the choice between two world views (the scientific one, or "things happen because of certain basic patterns of behaviour" and the religious one, or "things happen because God makes them happen") I'll pick the one that explains the way I perceive the universe more accurately. You, of course, are free to do the same.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I majored in Geology (Hydrology, specifically)at the University of New Orleans. I was attracted to the field by the wonderful blend of academia and practical field work you get to do. Plus I like being outside. I never finished my degree, and decided to pursue computing instead. Why? Well... I spent a whole year in an honors historical geology class, which is basically an in-depth study of the taxonomy of the fossil record. And when you look at the fossil record in a historial perspetive, at first it seems that the historical (progressive?) evolution of animals throughout the aeons cannot be disputed. But then, when I took my biology classes, I started learning about genetic mutations, and the amazing fact that the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations take place in 'dormant'areas of the DNA strand where they essentially have no effect. It is extremely rare for a mutation to affect the physiology of an animal. There have been studies of "mutation pressure" done which is a theory descrbing how in extremis, the mutation occurance rate in simple organisms sometimes increases dramatically due to changing environmental conditions. However no one has been able to prove this phenmomenom in anything more complex than a bacteria. The number of random mutations which have to occur to develop something complex, like say, the echolocation apparatus of a dolphin, are staggering. Not to mention the number of mutations which have to occur before a dolphin can learn how to use its sonar apparatus to find food and evade danger. If you take a mathematical model of mutations which actually create beneficial traits in animals, and even discounting failures, THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TIME IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, even without the gaps and 'missing links' to account for a brine shrimp, much less a human being. When asked about this, my professors stared dumbly. Evolution, both physiologial and behavioral does happen. However, is natural selection the crucible of creation, or not? If one looks at reigning scientific theory of, say, 200 years ago, one finds that many of the 'facts' believed back then, were, well, silly. But could you tell the learned men of the time that? Nope. I wonder what Theory of Evolution interpreted as fact will be thought of 200 years from now? So I quit Geology because I was expected to believe, against the belief of my own heart, that we as people are just bald, smart monkeys. To me, the complexity, symmetry and beauty of the natural world testify of something bigger, something grander, something divine. I quit Geology because I could not foster a belief in Evolution as anything more than a theory put forth by learned men of the world, too smart for God, to explain their existence.
Re:Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Simple. The DNA molecule got more complex. You've assumed that mutation is a constructive force. Even in a genetic bottleneck, the mutation is destructive in some way. -Admiral Coeyman
Can't spell 1st, can't count to two -- I don't suppose you've heard of evolution? Personally, I can't wait.
Alright! Let's go!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Finally! It's been a while since/. had a good, rip-roarin' religious debate. Ready... fight! --Atheist.
Re:Alright! Let's go!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just a little advice, sir. Resorting to insults is hardly a way to win an argument. In fact, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the subject you are arguing. Breaking down the methods of evolution to simply changes in a species diet is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. Besides, a change in diet would constitute microevolution -- a phenomenon that even creation "scientists" recognize. Next, just a point of clarification: evolutionists do not believe that humans evolved from, as you put it, "chimps." They believe that humans and modern primates, such as the ape and orangutan, share a common ancestor -- the so-called "missing link." You are correct in saying that science is based on empirical evidence. That is precisely why creationism is not science. It can neither be tested nor proved. If ever there is an argument that creationists cannot answer, they resort to their all-purpose retort: "God made it that way." On the other hand, evolution can be tested. Experiments can be performed to prove or disprove its various hypotheses. Now, I don't claim to be a professor of biology, but I will try to explain the eye (Darwinists, feel free to back me up). Almost every species of animal has eyes. Some, like the human eye, are complex, while others are comparatively simple. For instance, such as the shark, rely on other senses due to the fact that their eyes are less precise than their sense of smell (or hearing, etc). This alone demonstrates the evolution of the eye. We see eyes with varying degrees of complexity across the entire animal kingdom. As for why we have them, I'm not sure if this is correct, but my best guess would be that we have them to see (please forgive the sarcasm, I just couldn't resist). And finally, your last statement. I have to tell you, when I read that last line, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. It seems to me that Christianity preaches tolerance (and if it doesn't, it should). And yet, here in plain type is the sentence "The only people that support evolution are people who are too stubborn to listen to the other side's arguements." That is one of the broadest generalizations I have ever seen. I'm sorry if I've insulted you (after all, I wouldn't want to be a hyprocrit) but I merely speak the truth. All evolutionists are stubborn? No evolutionists listen to the other sides arguments? I take great offense in these statements. I have patiently read you arguments, as well as the arguments of many other creationists. I reject creationism, not because I am stubborn, but for the same reason I reject Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Sure, it makes for a nice story, but when you get right down to it, that's all it is -- a story. I would offer evidence to back this up, but I fear I've already rambled long enough. And besides, I couldn't present any new evidence that you wouldn't answer with my most favorite of arguments: "Uh... uh... God made it that way!" Dave -- Atheist
Re:Alright! Let's go!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Darwinists have to be the most stupid people there are. Just because a species diet changed over time, does not mean changes in the species is evolution. How can anyone say humans evolved from chimps if they haven't found the missing link? Is science not based on empirical evidence? I'd like to see how Darwinists can explain the eye. A very complicated organ, useless if it was designed otherwise, so why do we have them? The only people that support evolution are people who are too stubborn to listen to the other side's arguements.
there is NO evolution in kansas
by
boog3r
·
· Score: 1
this goes to show what happens when the human species doesn't evolve.
next they'll ban lunch at school because 2 people choked once.
-- signatures are for fools with hands
deep blue
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I read Russ' post, I visualize blue. Deep, deep blue.
I have no idea why, but it probably has something to do with soul possession.
well then, I guess all that genetically altered(mutated) corn grown in the fields has to be plowed under.
What will this mean to the teaching of biology in public schools in Kansas.
the Christian Coalition said that they wanted to take control of all the school boards, looks like they succeeded in Kansas. they said that they wanted to control the school boards, then the state governments, with the ultimate goal of Washington.
"We will control the agenda in Washington." Ralph Reed speaking at a Christian Coalition gathering.
Speciation occures to any population in isolation. There have been quite a few cases of this happening. A few that stick out in my mind are almost every species on the hawayan islands..
Under some definitions of 'species' I could be considered another species, since I carry a chromasomal translocation, and I cannot have children with 'normal' humans. I require another human with the same translocation.
Of course, that definition is only one in a long list.
So, "We haven't actually seen speciation, because we can't decide what speciation is." Fine, we observe variation, and it seems to be consistent with an evolutionary model.
If Kansas acts fast, maybe they can start teaching Pi as being equal to 3. Perhaps that will make the math on the size of Noah's Ark come out right...
--
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
so if kansas doesnt believe in evolution then they probably wont care about mutation. so then it should be real easy to dump all sorts of nasty things into kansas.
maybe its natural selection of the states. kansas stays stupid and the rest of the states can exploit it so that we become stronger.
-- -sig-
Re:mutation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The actual story is that they dropped the requirement that speciation be taught. Speciation has never been explained or ever observed. Evolution involving mutation within a species, such as a woolly mammoth to an elephant, and can be verified scientifically, is still required to be taught.
Re:mutation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bullshit! Speciation has been observed many, many times, particularly in plants. See talk.origins FAQ which has a specific list of observed speciations.
Re:mutation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The definition of a species is still being debated by biologists. Under some definitions of a species, somebody with Downs Syndrome wouldn't be human
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
mrex
·
· Score: 1
So? While I won't dispute that the scientific method has proven to be very useful in many areas, it's a long way from perfect and it's a long way from useful in every sphere. I've never claimed that the truthfulness of the Bible is or should be subject to verification via the scientific method.
Okay, one question then. Can you name me something OTHER than religion that isn't subject to verification or corroboration by the scientific method?
It's not as if evolutionists haven't done the same thing, either. They have always assumed a materialist view of the world, even though such a model cannot explain consciousness.
"Evolutionists" (in itself a title which tries to stress the "multiple opinion" viewpoint. Do we really refer to anyone as "geocentrists" anymore?)
Evolutionists != materialists.
Evolutionists are no less "guilty" (if one must use such a term) than Christians of holding to a raft of unchallenged presuppositions. As such, they are no less religionists than the most pious Puritan.
I'm sorry, its a wonderful accusation, but you haven't supplied me with even one example of "evolutionists" doing this sort of thing. Evolution is HARDLY an unchallenged presupposition, this whole article is ABOUT a challenge to it. Now if you mean scientific challenge to it, feel free to think one up.
This all strikes me as the tired old "it takes more faith to believe in evolution..." thing, attractively packaged. It takes NO faith to accept evolution as fact, because we have been around for many changes ourselves. How did HIV evolve into a human-inhabitable virus? If you claim that it didn't, then you admit that genetically humans and apes are extremely similar.
The question really is: Is it fair, in a science class, to refrain from teaching SCIENCE because it offends religionists?
Would any of you support rules to force sunday school teachers and ministers to mention that creationism is just a theory, and that there are many others which may be true?
What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
drudd
·
· Score: 1
by returning to the 11th....
As long as people refuse to at least consider the scientific evidence of the world about them rather than stubbornly cling to outdated and misguided dogma, the human race will continue to fight progress every step of the way.
Doug
-- Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
npavona
·
· Score: 1
Bah. This is chronological snobbery.
If the age of an idea invalidates it, you will discard evolution next since the Greeks believed it more than 2000 years ago -- an outmoded dogma indeed!
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Progress? Progress towards what? From what I understand, this universe will eventually experience what is know as the "Heat death". So just what are we progressing towards?
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sorry to burst your bubble and those of others, but evolution IS a proven scientific fact. It's been proven by observation and experimentation. There is a theory of evolution. (several actually) Like the theory of gravity, it does NOT concern itself with whether or not evolution exists (it does), but what CAUSES evolution. Also, there is NO "theory of creation". No such scientific theory has been put forth. Part of the problem is that too many people have no idea of what a "theory" is from a scientific basis or what the theory of evolution is all about. Too many thing 'theory' means 'guess'. It doesn't. See sites like talk.origins for more info on the evolution/creation debate.
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Script+Kiddie
·
· Score: 1
Hopefully, we'll eventually come up with a way to prevent that. Other than that, thinking of the heat death of the universe depresses me too much.
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
From what I understand, this universe will eventually experience what is know as the "Heat death". So just what are we progressing towards?
"Heat death" is a concept which applies to a closed, non-expanding system. In such a system, heat builds up and cannot dissipate, and all thermodynamic processes which depend on an entropy sink (like life on earth) grind to a halt. That's heat death.
"Heat death" does not apply to an expanding universe. As the universe expands, the radiated heat from all other objects is red-shifted to longer and longer wavelengths (colder and colder temperatures) over time. There is always a place to radiate waste heat, and thermodynamic processes continue to be useful indefinitely.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Compared to how hot the universe was in the first few seconds of its existance, it has already suffered heat death.
Because the universe created itself then the entire universe must be god and we must all be part of god. We are the universe contemplating its own navel. We are all in heaven already...
*rude noise*
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
PhonyToad
·
· Score: 1
"Did you know that a transitional annimal [sic] - i.e. one that is between stepps [sic], has never been found?"
What exactly do you mean by a "step"? If we find animals that don't look like anything we've seen before, we classify it and it becomes a "step".
"Did you know that of hundreds of experiments to try to do artifical evolution, not a single one worked?"
You don't have to do an experiment to see evolution at work. How do you suppose that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
"Do you even understand the psudo-science [sic] involved?"
Yes, better than you ever will. How can you criticize the less-than-rigourous proof of evolution when you sympathise with those who advocate ideas with NO proof to go on?
"And how impossible it is?"
Yup, a lot of things seem impossible when you are too stupid to understand them.
"(They pretty much say, yah, it's impossible, but ifyou [sic] wait long enough anything is possible.)"
Who would have thought it was possible for a moron like you to figure out how to use a computer?
-- void post {
post_random_comment("slashdot.org");
karma--;
}
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you think that the teory of gravity should be presented as fact?
Scientists still can't even properly explain what gravity is. We still rely mostly on observing nature, to explain the effects of gravity, while the search for a solid explanation of how it works continues.
Yet we teach a lot of properties of gravity as fact without being bothered by the fact that a lot of it is unexplained. Because we can observe the effects, and the theory fits with what we can observe.
The same is true for evolution. There are still unresolved issues, but it fits very well to the data we have. And it surely fits better with, and is better supported by, the data we have than creationism is.
The point is that it isn't possible to "prove" something 100%, because no matter what you do, there can still be an unknown factor outside our frame of reference. At some point you simply have to say "we have enough proof to accept this as fact, unless we discover something new".
Evolution passed that threshold a LONG time ago.
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
jflynn
·
· Score: 1
Yes. Along this vein, since all medical science is just theory, not proven, we will henceforth return to the time proven practice of letting barbers treat patients by bleeding them. After all - its MUCH cheaper and it can't be proven to be any less effective.
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
SumoRoach
·
· Score: 1
They are not banning the teaching of evolution, only the teaching of evolution as proven scientific fact. It's a theory, and that is what it has been mandated to be taught as. Instead of seeing it as "now we must start believing in creationism again", it should be seen as a continuing search for evidence. We haven't (and will not be able to) prove evolution, but at least we can still continue to try.
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I agree that such ideas should be considered; however I don't think they should be presented as fact. Everyone should explore the possibility that we evolved from something else, but at this point there is no proof. Try keeping an open mind.
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Thorgal
·
· Score: 1
That was really intelligent. In similar vein, the theory of gravity should not be taught as proven fact.
Learn what the scientific meaning of "theory" is, then post.
--
"Man in the Moon and other weird things" - wfmh.org.pl/thorgal/Moon/
Re:What a way to usher in the 21st century...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There is only one problem with the statement. There is no scientific evidence for evolution, nada, zip, none whatsoever.
All there is, is some theories and ideas of, hmm, how to make a world, well evolution seems to work, lets look for evidence. And what do you find? Not much, a few fossils here a few there - and nothing whatsoever connecting them except in someones head! i.e. they made the data fit the theory.
How many people here actually looked at the evidence for evolution, and how many trusted other people who says they have? Well I did - and there is none! Check you'll find the same thing.
And that's why they dropped it - it's not a scientific disipline - it's a philosophical one. It has nothing to do with religion. It's just that right now there are no viable theories on how the world got created, so people grasp at straws, at anything, and the only thing that even comes close, without being religious is evolution, so they try their best to fit some data to the theory.
For example, some fossils were found out of order, i.e. those that should have been newer were below those that should have been older. Well, we got a problem. Easy! We'll just fix it a bit, there must have been an earthquake that flipped over the land, whew, problem avoided. If that's not making the data fit the theory I don't know what is. (This is a true example of the kind of data being used, again I urge you to check for yourself.)
Did you know that a transitional annimal - i.e. one that is between stepps, has never been found?
Did you know that of hundreds of experiments to try to do artifical evolution, not a single one worked?
Do you even understand the psudo-science involved? And how impossible it is? (They pretty much say, yah, it's impossible, but if you wait long enough anything is possible.)
There have been some surveys of how many scientists who have looked at evolution actually think it's possible, and most of them said it's not. The only people who believe it evolution are those who never checked the data, or who desperately wanted something, anything to explain the world.
Even darwin himself didn't believe so strongly, he complained a lot that the eye was strong proof against his theories. And if you don't understand why that should be, you have no business expressing a scientific opinion on the matter.
You're missing the point
by
Graymalkin
·
· Score: 1
Whenever I was taught about evolution in my Biology class, it was always presented as a theory and explained and such. The only people that have ever tried to instill in me that it's fact were Christians trying to disprove the point. It's neigh the 21st century, and people still cannot look up the term "theory". I can't see how in a country of separation of church and state, a school board can make a rule declaring a non-religious explaination for the existance of life on the planet is a myth. I believe in evolution, I can see it everywhere, whether there is an all powerful god, I dont believe in it although it's probable. The problem with evolution is that it doesn't contradict God but it contradicts the Bible, one of the most entertaining pieces of literature I've ever read. What I see happening here is religion butting in where it doesn't belong, again. Children should be taught evolution as a means to explain the biology they are studying, whether they want Creationist beliefs or evolutionists beliefs is up to them, it matters little to me. It's basically the same argument as having prayer in school, if you're going to say evolution is a myth you also have to say Adam and Eve are also myths, along with Mohommad, Jesus and pals, ad infinitum. Evolution is the only way to explain biology without sounding like a complete idiot, let people decide on their own what they want to believe.
-- I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
If we Prove its not a theory?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What if we prove its not a theory.. how about we kill all the law makers in Kansas.. and then we will see how long this stoopid thought goes on. In this day and age its not a good joke to take a gun to school.. but maybe we just need to direct all the bomb making loonies to kansas and we kill 2 birds with one stone. So its in bad taste.. get over it.
Re:If we Prove its not a theory?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course you can never prove a theory... Do you think they will stopping teaching gravity? It's another theory that can't be proven.
Re:Several Things...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Moderately clueless guy writes: 2. Charles Darwin was a fool who hated science and thought that chopping off a bird's wing caused any offspring of that bird to also be missing a wing (take note: that's the TRUE Darwinian theory of evolution, ladies and gentlemen; make no mistake about it! That's what _I_ learned in school, and I bet none of you public-schooled people ever learned THAT!) ------- Is it possible that you went to school in Kansas?;)
That big-john catholic dude they call the pope has been spending the last few weeks trying to impress on his billion or so subjects that heaven and hell are states of the mind, not places. I don't like it. I had a religious upbringing, was bar mitzvahed five years ago, and saw the absurdity of theism have since ceased having anything to do with any organised religion.
Wake up and smell the coffee. (Even if you don't like it.)
I encountered a bunch of DLMoody worshippers at his grave site in the middle of campus last year, and me and a dozen atheist||satanist friends took them on. They took the bible at face value, because, as one of them said, "My momma believed it. And Ah believe it."
These people say that man was created in god's image but they were created in their parents image. But they don't see the (il)logic to their statement. If I am created in my parents image, I should look exactly (bitwise and?) like my parents. And they should in turn look like their parents, and we should all be perfectly identical. Evolution (selective breeding, anyone?) is demonstrated in our generations. Language evolves, _computers_ evolve. (Yeah, they've been around forever....)
At school we were required to sing god-fearing hymns and christian drivel at our weekly campus meetings. When I protested publicly, I was told to stuff it, or to suck it up, by the faculty.
To anyone whose interested, I've published a socialist-atheist rant in a publication at my school. It may (or may not) contribute to this discussion.
(a few notes about my article. 1) as an experiment, we GPLed the magazine.:) 2) Its written for the school. 3) East Hall is a dorm 4) Franklin is the county the school was in. 5) There's probably at least a couple of readers who can immediately identify my old school from this article and post.:) )
yeah, cdlu is a good nickname. I'm glad you think so.
It's amazing how people so young thing they know everything. I do not profess to know everything. I am merely stating my point of view, after contemplating it for most of my life to date. (Admittedly I have not lived long.) Ever since I had an argument with my grade 2 teacher over who the chosen people really, were, I've been thinking constantly about religion. There are many religions and faiths and belief systems I respect and agree with, but don't subscribe to. Namely Buddhism (sp?) and Paganism.
Ever thought of trying to keep an open mind to ALL beliefs? Yes. Indeed I do keep as open a mind as I can to "ALL beliefs". But the believe I tend to agree with is the one that is based on something tangible I can work with. I don't consider a misinterpreted 2000 year old text to be my life saviour, though I find the original Hebrew scriptures, (through recent translations) to be much more tolerable then the way people tell me I should read it.
On the first day there was the heaven and the earth. Makes sense doesn't it? Its an outdated philosophy, but one that still works. Each step in Genesis is an evolutionary step. (in the order of a billion years a day). Note how humans came in last, on the 6th day. Late arrivals.
What drives me crazy is people telling me what I should believe. I have turned on my family by dissociating myself from my mixed heritage of catholic brainwashing and jewish brainwashing, as so much of 'modern' religion is merely being the best at brainwashing.
Might make you a better person... Suggestion for you, go out and look at yourself from the outside. See what you are from someone else's perspective. You may learn a lot. Or you may be a typical ignoramus and not see anything beyond the tip of your nose.
Why are you posting anonymously, anyhow? Are you afraid to identify yourself? Glad to know we all live in an assortment of free countries.
"but until either one can be proven, I think both should be kept out of our schools. It's simply not science." I disagree. The process of attempting to prove a theory false is what science is all about.
Re:GOOD
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're obviously not among those of us who have evolved.
Re:GOOD
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yeah, cdlu is a good nickname. It's amazing how people so young thing they know everything. Ever thought of trying to keep an open mind to ALL beliefs? Might make you a better person...
Yes, it is a theory. And theories and models are scientific concepts. If someone would say "let's not teach Newton's laws anymore, Einstein has proven they are wrong", everyone would laugh. Science is NOT about *knowing* everything, it is about trying to *understand* things and make small steps *towards* knowing. Every serious scientist agrees that we are far from *knowing*, but concepts like evolution helped us to proceed. It is funny to read this and at the same time the US threatens Europe with a trade war if we keep *allowing* producers of organic food to state that their food products don't contain gene-food components. Maybe the next step will be that they try to force us to write on each package that god created it. Makes me throw up.
Ashamed former citizen of small town Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was hoping to read the article and flame all of you for gross misinterpretation, but I sit here digits over keyboard and jaw to the ground. I don't think teaching evolution has to take a significant priority over teaching religion/spirituality, but to call it "misleading" and drop it wholesale is damned foolish. I used to enjoy living there. I have family that still lives there. I moved to Cincinnati before my high school years which were spent at a Catholic school. They taught us evolution in addition to religious studies and left it up to us to determine what we thought was right. As such, I'm one who believes in evolution as a method for creation by a higher order. A creation supposes a creator. And people wonder why the Republican party is forking. There are reasonable, conservative people (like myself) who do not want to associate themselves with this kind of pretentious crap. VOTE LIBERTARIAN.
I think the central issue here is not whether is not whether evolution is "right" or "wrong", as some people tend to think. It is that it is a representative of a worldview that is at least potentially self-correcting, as opposed to one that relied on revealed truth.
Also see http://www.mrlizard.com/catgod.html for a refreshingly acidic view on this.
-- --
God is silent. Now if we can only get Man to shut up.
The name of the new Michael Moore show would be "The Awful Truth" which also airs on Bravo in the US. Hilarious stuff. Kudos to Bravo for picking it up. Just goes to show that anyone with opinions that offend the commercial sponsors will quickly get knocked off the major networks...
Hopefully human existence does have a goal. I don't know what exactly it is. In the absence of a well defined goal, I'd like to see us learn, explore, and achieve as much as possible. In order to move forward, we have to understand as much as possible about the universe we exist in, including our own history.
Why the teaching of evo theory needs fixing anyway
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, the only place that mentioned it was a theory when we were taught evolution (in 2nd grade) was in a footnote in the textbook... 5th grade... mentioned once in class (no textbook) 7th grade... in the back of the book 8th grade... footnote again 9th grade... never mentioned (it was mentioned in the book, but we never used the books) Here in Delaware, it is usually taught from the point of view that it is fact, which since it's merely a theory (and a difficult one to prove at that) is rather stupid. Myself, I believe that when God explained creation to Adam, he didnt want to bewilder Adam with things like "and from my perspective, it was created in a week, from your perspective, several billion years... and then I ran accelerated evolution on the most intelligent species I created, picked the best result, and cloned a female (since the offspring happened to be male)" So, in other words, I believe a mix of the two. I'm not trying to force anyone here to believe in what I do, (since it could be wrong any number of ways), but I can validate my own beliefs with either theory. (Yes, I treat creationism as a theory too. Just because I'm part of a certain religion doesn't necessarily mean I believe the exact same things that religion upholds.) --TheOrangeSquid "FOR SALE: Parachute. Used once. Never opened. Slightly Stained." -- fortune -o, what else?
Like many states, Kansas has statewide competency tests to determine whether you *really* learned anything in high school. Evolution will not be on those tests. It's still considered a violation of church/state separation to teach "Creationism" in public schools. This is from the story in the Chicago Tribune.
The reason I resorted to childish (but satisfying) insult was despair at ever reasoning with someone dumb enough to believe in creationism in 1999.
Evolution has been observed - you might try reading a book called "Darwin's Finches" about biologists tracking developments in the finch population in the Galapagos. As the environment changes so do the birds.
I've read Darwin himself, Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker and can only feel pity for someone so willfully stupid as not to appreciate the beauty, simplicity and truth of evolution.
Toby
Re:Actually, Christian moron
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One question: are the finches still finches? are the birds still birds? I have no argument that the fittest survive. In the wild, a breed of dogs may get bigger because the smallest dogs die. This is natural evolution in the gene pool. but THEY ARE STILL DOGS. evolution (defined as survival of the fittest) is not the topic of discussion here. rather, Evolution (many different species evolving from common ancestors) is what the original article talked about.
've read Darwin himself, Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker and can only feel pity for someone so willfully stupid as not to appreciate the beauty, simplicity and truth of evolution.
When talking about survival of the fittest, and evolution of the gene pool, I agree. One would be stupid not to see the beauty of God's design, and one would be stupid to even imagine it could have all happened by chance.
ahh poor dogsbody->resurrected.
by
earwicker
·
· Score: 1
Reminds me a little of the Nestor episode Ulysses... the 20th century one, at least. I'd quote some, but I'm toting Thomas Mann to work this week, not the old jolly hibernian. Mann's Goethe sounds like S.D. aged like fine parmesan though.
And well, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to escape." indeed-doo
of course, relating Goethe and science is pretty funny.
and to tie this into the subject a little: speciation does happen! polyploidy in plants leads to genetically different offspring that cannot interbreed with the original.
Dogs, dingoes, and wolves are often typed into different species, but they can interbreed and produce viable offspring.
i'm surprised that microevolution is accepted. easily explanation: they might have a little trouble refuting what happens with bacteria and antibiotics and insects and DDT. but why not macroevolution? speciation is hard to explain given kinda murky definitions of species but why not microevolution over extended peroids of time?
suppose now that over 500 years, super-duper-DDT became more and more widely used. the dominant persistant patterns (prototypes vs. instances) tend to exhibit more and more resistance. thus the standard cowdog 500 years later will be a little different from today's cowpig, which derive from the same stock (or ancestral (dammit whats the opposite of inheritance) object). It may develop a nose like a gas mask. The important thing is: the image of a cowpig/cowdog 500 years later is different from that of one today. someone who sees the change will call them different names. speciation.
what we call species is pretty much two discernable sets of organisms that, if they have sex, dont do it together. otherwise, its just classification. generally we group genetically or anatomically, sometimes behaviorally. it's a synthetic science.
science's objective is to explain our experiences and perhaps gain power over what we can "touch" science works because it uses our experiences and our "touching" of the world to gain understanding.
creationism hurts me because people do not look with their own eyes to evaluate something i value. i believe they close their eyes on one hand of god because they are too fixed on another perhaps.
the compromise (microev. not macro) suggests this is political. when the masses fight they are respectable but their opinions are not delectable.
its kinda like free software. i could care less if it dominated the world. but anyone learning to code and add their ideas to the free pool is quite groovy.
i'm speaking from the lower 25% of my high school class. flame away. i always have the sweet caress of ALP dream away to.
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
by your logic, it is a better idea to not think things through.
I see. So when I step through the reasons why the Bible doesn't contradict the value of Pi, I am not thinking things through? Instead, the other guy is the one who "thinks things through" when he ignorantly claims that the Bible contradicts the measured value of Pi? Great. Then I guess I can't win with you. If I prove that the evolutionist is wrong, I'm not thinking things through, but when the evolutionist makes ignorant claims, he IS thinking things through. Gotcha.
Could it be that the Bible is not entirely true?!
No.
You prefer to be occasionally smug that to be intelligent.
I prefer to mock that which deserves to be mocked. Someone arrogantly claiming that the Bible contradicts Pi doesn't merit sweetness and light.
You prefer to be a dog to than to be a human. In fact, by your logic, you become exactly what the Bible says we are not: equal to animals!
Now this is very close to being one of the weirdest things I've heard in awhile.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:science, materialism, and vestigial organs
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 2
As the author of the original post on this thread, I just want to leap in with acouple of quick points. Materialism has a strict philosophical meaning, which I rather unfortunately implied I was using because I used the word in conjunction with other technical philosophical terms. I did not mean materialism in the technical sense. I meant it in the more common sense of "a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things" (quote from the Websters on-line dictionary.
As for the post I am directly responding to, just as I used "materialism" is a lax way, you have used "exist" in a lax way. That we can in no way empirically measure divine intervention; that we cannot detect or quantify "soul" or "conciousness" does mean that they necessarily do not exist, nor that they are either "natural" or "unnatural."
The thrust of my argument is that every intelligent person whom I know who has communicated to me a belief in God has no empirical evidence to offer and yet they possess certainty on the point. They know the belief is not scientific, but they believe anyway. They do not do this because they are mentally defective, but because they are willing to accept a type personally experienced evidence that is non-empirical. No scientist should ever be persuaded that such evidence is good science, but that does not make it unreal or untrue. (Note that it may be, I'm not saying one way or another, but science draws a very specific set of rules for what is within the domain of science and what is without it. Internal unmeasurable awareness of deity is definitely outside of science and yet not irreconcilable with it. The two can co-exist in separate philosophical domains.)
Re:not oulawing, just not requiring it anymore
by
Bartmoss
·
· Score: 1
A decision like this basically means that evolution theory is not reuired teaching anymore. It means that students, who have problems with the evolution theory (most likely their parents..) will not be required to learn things they find offending, simply to able to pass statewide tests governing the quality of education.
Which is the whole problem. By defining some knowledge as "offending", they can just ignore it, or have it not being taught at school. Sticking one's head in the sand never did anybody any good.
If you allow decisions like this, you will become a nation of religious zealots and bigots. Schools are for scientific education. Churches (or mosques or WHATEVER) are for religion. You need to seperate the two. Religion is what everybody can decide for themselves, but science is universal. Science is the answer to "How?" and religion is the answer to "Why?".
When you mix the two, you get to end up in a place that's not much better than Afghanistan.
Re:Speed of light theories
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Short answer : Not possible. The Speed of light is tied into *way* too much stuff to start messing with it.
Long answer :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
Re:Yet Another Analogy(TM)
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
Wasn't it just yesterday that we had a link to a story about a company that uses "genetic algorithms" (aka "simulated evolution") to produce patentable results?
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You make me wanna womit
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Considering that Religion has probably been the number one cause for war and with that hardship in the world. Number two cause would most likely be ethnic purity but guess what, they go hand in hand... now consider... a couple of wonderful events our next door christian church has given us over the years.. Inquisition, "pay your way to heaven"(tm), going around the world promoting over population by forbidding contraceptives, going around the world missionarying people and killing those which wont budge. All a service of your friendly next door church...no charge to you...except your freedom...ohh yeah and before I forget...a tvevangelist calling for the assasination of world leaders? Where is the Christian moral he is preaching?
Re:You make me wanna womit
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Even a superficial study of the bible will show you that those are not christian churches, whatever they claim to be.
Re:Next on the chopping block: Huckleberry Finn
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 1
While I agree with the general thrust of your arguments, you lumped some baby in that bathwater, and I feel compelled to reply.
Re: chicano and black dialects of English: linguistically speaking, they ARE entirely authentic languages and no less sophisticated, expressive, or valid than Standard English. This isn't to say that Standard English shouldn't be the language of instruction - it is the language of commerce, media, and discourse for the U.S., and mastery of Standard English is obviously a basic goal of any good education. But don't confuse that necessity with the fallacy that one form of language is somehow "correct" or "right." It simply isn't so.
Also, I do think that Tesla was slighted - he should be taught and studied and credited.
Wacko religous fanatics in Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Giving democratic power religous wackos is not a good thing to do you see. Did you know religion have killed, murduer, tortured more people than all wars together in the history. Religion should be destroyed and all religous fanatics locked in with their hookeypookey shit, holy books and fairytales like the bible and koran. People with weak minds can allways be fooled to belive in unlogical things like, ghosts, angels, santaclaus , god and his angels.
On bigotry
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
An intellectual can legitimately be considerd an anti-religious bigot, in the same sense that a Jew can be considered an anti-Nazi bigot. Next?
Re:On bigotry
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I guess that sums it up. Believers in God are like Nazis, eh?
Isn't it ironic that the Nazis themselves also dismissed believers as zealots?
I am learning quite a bit about the level of bigotry among the readers of this site.
Science is a form philosophy that is characterized by logic, experiment, observation, empiricism, skepticism, and materialism.
If materialism is a true attribute of science then science is a religion. This is because materialism is a religious position. Materialism says there is nothing other than material things, i.e., there is no supernatural. But this is clearly a belief about the nature of supernatural things.
It is very easy to confuse scientific methodology with scientific materialism. It is scientific methodology that has brought about great technological progress, not scientific materialism. The founders of science (if I may speak so loosely) such as Newtown and Bacon practiced scientific methodologies but did not subscribe to scientific materialism.
In fact, scientific materialism has had some negative consequences for science. Since scientific materialism necessitated something like darwinism, and darwinism resulted in the belief in vestigial organs, and the belief in vestigial organs resulted in non-vestigial organs like the [organ on the end of your intestine that if it gets infected and ruptures, you die] being dismissed as unimportant for study, scientific materialism impaired research of the human body.
> Its too bad that they cant just decide to teach both sides of the coin and give everyone the best of all of the knowledge we have...
both? By that principle, shouldn't we also teach what the Hindi and Hopi have to say about it? If you want to set "revealed knowledge" alongside science and let people make up their own minds, why should you promote one culture's traditions above all the others?
No, let's teach science in biology class, and save mythology for the classes on literature, history, and anthropology.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why the teaching of evo theory needs fixing anyway
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, the only place that mentioned it was a theory when we were taught evolution (in 2nd grade) was in a footnote in the textbook... 5th grade... mentioned once in class (no textbook) 7th grade... in the back of the book 8th grade... footnote again 9th grade... never mentioned (it was mentioned in the book, but we never used the books)
Here in Delaware, it is usually taught from the point of view that it is fact, which since it's merely a theory (and a difficult one to prove at that) is rather stupid.
Myself, I believe that when God explained creation to Adam, he didnt want to bewilder Adam with things like "and from my perspective, it was created in a week, from your perspective, several billion years... and then I ran accelerated evolution on the most intelligent species I created, picked the best result, and cloned a female (since the offspring happened to be male)"
So, in other words, I believe a mix of the two. I'm not trying to force anyone here to believe in what I do, (since it could be wrong any number of ways), but I can validate my own beliefs with either theory. (Yes, I treat creationism as a theory too. Just because I'm part of a certain religion doesn't necessarily mean I believe the exact same things that religion upholds.)
--TheOrangeSquid "FOR SALE: Parachute. Used once. Never opened. Slightly Stained." -- fortune -o, what else?
You mean, "The Dark Ages are returning!"
by
leonbrooks
·
· Score: 1
And you would be right.
The kind of prejudice that abounded in the Dark Ages and got the world declared flat by those in power is exactly the same manner of prejudice that you yourself show in your post.
You are exemplifying the Dark Ages - and fulfilling prophecy: you have been foretold. Thousands of years ago, no crystal ball involved, you were foretold. You are one drop in a rainstorm that will flood the world. Think about it.
Life from Evolution? No way.....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here is an extremely simple math equation that has been exaggerated to toward the evolutionary view. However, it seems as if, even when being generous to the theory of evolution (i.e. 30 billion years instead of 16), evolution still *seems* hard to believe.
-----
Given: An organism with 100 parts Given: 30 billion years to form or begin to form Given: Calculate 1 billion billion billion billion combinations per second (1 x 10^(36) per second) Note: 1 x 10^(36) is the equivalent to a 1 with 36 zeros after it, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
First, how many combinations possible are there in 100 parts? (remember, this is all chance. There are NO instructions and NO information!) - 100! = The number of possible combination. 100! = One Hundred Factorial 100! = 100 x 99 x 98 x 97... 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1.
Let me illustrate. If you have two wooden blocks, how many ways can you arrange them in a straight line? The answer is 2!, or 2 x 1 = 2. If you had three blocks, it would be 3! or 3 x 2 x 1 = 6 combinations. If you had 4 it would be 4! or 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 combinations. The higher the number of parts the higher the possible combinations. Get it? Okay, so what is the answer to 100! - 100! = 9.332621 x 10^(157)
Second, how many seconds are there in 30 billion years? - The equation is simple. 30 billion years equals 3 x 10^(10) years. So the number of seconds in 30 billion years can be calculated by... 3 x 10^(10) (years) x 365 (days) x 24 (hours) x 60 (minutes) x 60 seconds. - The number of seconds in 30 billion years = 9.4608 x 10^(17)
Third, how many calculations per second will we test for this example? - This is given: 1 x 10^(36)
Finally, how many combinations can be tested in 30 billion years at the rate of testing 10^(36) combinations per second? - The equation would be: Number of seconds times the number of calculations per second. - So, 9.332621 x 10^(17) (number of seconds) times 1 x 10^(36) (number of calculations/second) = 9.4608 x 10^(53)
OBSERVATIONS - Number of calculations that can be done is only about a third of what needs to be done. - Must have the perfect combination to have life. Life doesn't just work from any combo. - Universe is said to be 15-16 billion years old. Earth is said to be 4.6 billion years old, and life supposedly started 3.5 million years ago. This complicates things further, since we gave life 30 billion years to form. - Simplest known organism has 600 proteins with an average of about 400 amino acids in each of the 600 proteins. This is 240,000 parts. We used only 100. - Simplest organism theoretically can live with only 124 parts. - Number of atoms, that are estimated to be in the entire universe is 1 x 10^(79). We tested 1 x 10^(36) per second. Testing a number this great is equivalent to testing almost half the number of atoms in the entire universe. - (this observation I have little knowledge, but have heard it discussed many times. so take it as you wish) Adding on to the life having the perfect combination, there are such things as left and right amino acids. And from my understanding, they must be arrange either all left or all right, I cannot remember. But even with my lack of understand here, the *concept* still remains... there is some combination that must take place. And if there is one error anywhere along the path, life ceases to exist.
Now I know that nobody will like this post. But before you go flaming me, let me ask you a question or two. Why do you not like this post? Does it in some way offend or insult you? Does it in some way "mess" with your personal agenda? If so, I would take a much closer look as to what you believe and *WHY* you believe it.
-- "Some things are true, whether you believe it or not.... and whether you like it or not" -- unknown
Re:Life from Evolution? No way.....
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
It does offend and insult, because 1) it's absurd, and 2) it demonstrates that you've never bothered to even learn the theory. It's extremely insulting to see someone making arguments about something they know nothing about.
Learn the theory before you make these patently stupid arguments. Start with _The Blind Watchmaker_ by Dawkins, which specifically addresses your tortured math.
Re:Life from Evolution? No way.....
by
anatoli
·
· Score: 1
Yes I am offended. I am offended by the fact that a seemingly intelligent lifeform, like you, is unable to perform simple logical reasoning.
Take a bowl. Put some sand in it. On top of sand, put some lead shot. Shake well.
You will see that sand floats on top while lead shot sinks to bottom. Gee, that could not happen by chance! Indeed, having about 10^6 particles of sand and about 10^3 pieces of lead, the probability of the configuration we got can be estimated roughly as
Almost 600 comments in just under 4 hours. This topic is for me the quintessential controversy of our modern day. People just don't get tired of arguing heatedly about it. For me, it comes down to this: If God can make a man out of mud, why can't He make a man out of a monkey? Notice how God figures prominently in there, but there is room for evolution as well.
Macro and micro evolution are NOT the same. Micro evolution deals with adaptation within a species, macro evolution deals with the creation of species. Now tell me, how do multiple species arise from a *SINGLE* population? It can't happen. According to the theory of evolution, how can there be a half dozen species of monkeys in a single area? *ANY* interbreeding, and the species don't seperate. Furthermore, in the fossile record, there isn't a clear progression of species. There are *explosions* in the numbers of species within a very short timespan, then for millions of years nothing. That ain't evolution at work. Adaption is true and readily observable; I concede that. But, while evolution may even be possible, it ain't what's going on here. In addition to all this evidence that I just showed you, recently some mathematicians prove that it would have taken 40-50 billion years to get to the present stage.
Re:Why the teaching of evo theory needs fixing any
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm really sorry about the double post... Apologies to all (-- curses his ISP under his breath)
Payback's a bitch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In metropolitan America, leftists have been in control of the public school systems, and have been relentlessly pushing a quasi-religious agenda of politically-correct multiculturalism, radical environmentalism and moral relativism.
Now, a group on the other end of the spectrum gets wise, and starts playing the same game, and everyone gets all bent out of shape.
These people are wrong, but so are the other people. The leftists have brought this on themselves through their intolerance of anyone who doesn't think as they do.
It's a bad situation, regardless. It would be nice if people could just mind their own business and respect everyone's views, even those who hold contrary views to their own.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
Re:Payback's a bitch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What you say is most definately true. I am a HS student in Seattle, Washington, and once brought up the theory of Creation when the teacher was talking about the theory of Evolution. Though they are both THEORIES (I will not get into which I believe is right at the moment) the teacher flipped out. She spouted nonsense about Evolution being scientific fact (hmmm... has it ever been observed? let's think... NO.) I was sternly told that I was never to mention anything about creation in her classroom again until I knew what I was talking about. I believe she would have kicked me out of class except for the fact she knew I wouldn't have left.
This is all occurring in schools where "everyone is supposed to accept each other for who they are, and there are to be no degrading comments, etc. etc. etc. to such an extreme it makes me wanna puke. If a guy touches a girl, they can get expelled in a second. But if a gay touches a guy, there's almost nothing the guy can do. "it's not their fault, they were born that way." (that should be good for a flame or two...)
Anyway, in this same school where everyone and everything is supposed to be accepted and listened to, the Christian point of view and Christian theories (such as "God created everything") are the only views looked down on. This is a long way from how the US was founded, when Christianity was supported, instead of being told to go hide in the closet so the sin could come out into the open.
Note: I don't expect everyone to agree with this, but I hope no one gets too upset. It's just my opinion, stated as it is.
Re:Payback's a bitch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"It would be nice if people could just mind their own business and respect everyone's views, even those who hold contrary views to their own." A very morally relativistic and multicultural view don't you think?
Re:Payback's a bitch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"It would be nice if people could just mind their own business and respect everyone's views, even those who hold contrary views to their own." A very morally relativistic and multicultural view, don't you think?
Re:Payback's a bitch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please read this and THINK about it for a second. Creation is not a theory. A theory involves rationality, logic, accountability, and the possibility of disproof. It also in some way or other involves facts. None of these are true for the unsupported christian belief in creation. This isn't to say it's not true. But the fact that it is merely a belief held by a small minority of the worlds people (You are aware that christianity is not even close to a majority aren't you?) is the reason it has no place being discussed in a school whose purpose is supposed to be to teach you to think, analyze, and function in the world. Religion teaches you blind acceptance of beliefs often completely contradictory to ALL evidence. That is why she told you not to bring it up in a place of learning.
Re:Payback's a bitch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
.. leftists have been.. pushing a quasi-religious agenda of politically-correct multiculturalism..
yes.. we certainly wouldn't want to teach our children that it's wrong to butcher niggers and faggots
down with leftist intolerance!
Re:Payback's a bitch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I agree. Fundementalism is a GOOD thing if it keeps Americans together. I say "Family First". I may believe in evolution, but we have to keep the country together. If that means apeasing the fundamentalists, that's fine by me. Remember the commies tried to kill off all the christians too. And look, they realized it failed, and now they're following our methods!
If we do observe tommorrow that objects accelerate towards the earth at 29 ft/s^2, then we have either redefined the scale for the english measurement system (who really knows what kind of scale it is anyway?) or the earth has lost mass (asteroid collision?). If neither one of these is the case, then it would seem that we have a much larger problem then right-wing religious people not believing in Evolution. In general, science would be debunked.
Let's make the BOR "optional" as well!
by
coyote-san
·
· Score: 2
Several people have downplayed the significance of the Kansas Board of "Education" dropping the mandate for teaching evolutionary biology.
Let's try mapping that same logic to other areas, shall we.
TOPEKA, KANSAS The Kansas Board of Education has decided to drop the mandate for teaching the Bill of Rights in public schools. Districts are still free to teach basic Constitutional rights to students, but they are not required to do so if the local population finds them disagreeable. (Goodbye Second Amendment! Goodbye Free Exercise of "Weird" Religions! Goodbye Freedom of the Student Press!)
Or how about
TOPEKA, KANSAS. The Kansas Board of Education has decided to make references to the Theory of Relativity optional in all high school physics classes. Said the chairman, "If God wants to go a zillion miles per second, God can go a zillion miles per second. Who is this Einstein fellow to say that God *can't* do something?!"
Or finally
AUSTIN, TEXAS. The Texas Board of Education removed mandates that "home economics" classes cover vegetarian and "poor-man's beef" (fish, chicken, and pork) meals. The chairman explained that Texas is Cattle Country and there's nothing wrong with a juicy steak for breakfast, lunch *and* dinner!
The bottom line is that a biology class without evolutionary theory isn't a biology class in the view of 99% of all college biology departments. This means that the board of education is negligent in its duty to prepare its students for their adult roles and it deserves all of the condemnation it is getting.
-- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Here's what evolution has been observed
by
tgd
·
· Score: 2
There are numerous examples of evolution within species within the short span of time (hundred years or so) that its been watched for. Going back further using DNA sequencing can show a genetic progression among species going back tens and hundreds of centuries.
Anyone who denies the evidence exists is ignorant of the truth. Amazingly, I saw a science teacher on TV that supported the decision stating that there is no proof that evolution is a more valid theory than creationism. My guess is she was trying to seem more openminded than she was, and was probably a science teacher by assignment rather than training.
The simplest example of biological evolution is the progression in diseases like tuberculosis to strains that are antibiotic resistant.
The major valid criticism of evolution from a scientific standpoint stems from two problems. First is the fact that the majority of people who are taught evolution in highschool and many colleges are being taught evolution as it was understood half a century ago when there wasn't good scientific proof of evolution, and it was generally taught that evolution was a continuous smooth process from one species to another. Those earlier techings typically didn't cover the idea of the branching of species (more in this in a bit) and also don't discuss the problem that has plagued evolutionary theory since it began -- the tendancy towards over-speciation, or the naming of new species based on physical traits that are assumed to be important, but genetically are of no significance. Taught the way its typically taught, there are pleanty of holes in evolutionary theory, but the fault of that lies in the instructors and the writers of the textbooks being used.
A prime example of the problem with evolution typically leaving out the idea of branching species is in the realm of human evolution, where the public at large has been taught the textbook "ape to man" which doesn't match current findings or genetic research. Its now known that homo sapiens did not descend from Neandertal as is often taught. Its also generally accepted that the homo genus left africa on several occasions, only the most recent consisting of the direct predecessors of homo sapiens, a sub-species (our sub-species) that co-existed for millenia with species in our genus other than our own. That's been known and understood for twenty years, but the former explanation is still the one taught in schools.
The variation in races is just like the variation in looks among domesticated cats and dogs. Once environmental pressures relax and a species becomes "domesticated" where it is either controlling its environment or living in an environment where it doesn't directly experience evolutionary pressure, there is greater ability for the variation in the genetics of the species to express itself. Just as domesticating the dog resulted in one species that comes in many shapes, colors and sizes, the same is true of the self-domesticated homo sapiens. (Here's a bit of trivia, anyone know the other species that has been believed to have self-domesticated? There's one and its extinct now...)
Also consider that there are in fact *two* non-domesticated canine variants, the wolf and the dingo. The wolf is generally accepted to be the original genetic stock of the modern dog, which was domesticated and produced the wide varieties of breeds today. When a domesticated breed was introduced into Australia (where there were no examples of the original species) they reverted from their domestication, and resulted in a new physical form of a wild dog... that's why wolves generally all look alike, and dingos all generally look alike, but you go to the pet store and they all look different.
Too bad no one in Kansas will ever know that.
Re:Here's what evolution has been observed
by
jwilloug
·
· Score: 1
why aren't the overwhelming majority of large species hermaphrodites?
Because a male requires less energy investment and will likely have more offspring than a hermaphrodite. It's the same as the difference between a spider with hundreds of young who are on their own, and a mammal with handful of well-protected offspring. Sometimes it's better to protect a single investment, sometimes it's better to cover as many bases as possible.
Just as all of an artist's works share some similarities, couldn't this "genetic progression" you refer to be that the species were created by the same intelligence?
Certainly, but that's immaterial. Whether the pattern is random or by design, the pattern is still there, and worth investigating.
As far as I understand it, the belief that a "big bang" created the universe is similar to shaking a puzzle in it's box, throwing the pieces on the table, and having them all fall perfectly into place. From an mathematical standpoint, this is impossible.
Not impossible, just improbable. And if the physicists are right and there an infinite number of universes, then how improbable doesn't matter. Life will happen somewhere, it has too.
Re:Here's what evolution has been observed
by
tgd
·
· Score: 2
I haven't read the other three replies to your comment yet, so some of this may be covered by them. Slashdot is misbehaving this morning...
The idea that evolution can only be proven my mangling the scientific method is an idea that is pushed by many people who talk the talk without walking the walk. They've either not reserached or don't understand research into evolutionary theory. But arguing that point could be the content of an entire thesis, and is largely wasted on people who have decided their interpretation of other people's observations are better than the interpretation of the people making the observations. In a court of law, hearsay isn't allowed, but its generally practiced extensively by people arguing science.
A genetic progression could be mocked up by a greater intelligence. There are pleanty of schools of thought in philosophy that consider that point, and a few fringe "scientific" christian sects that believe that the Bible told the literal truth, and the fossil record is a progression back through time from the point of creation six thousand years ago. There is no way of proving or disproving that, however. If you consider that it could be in fact how things happen, however, and it is completely untestable, then the affect of it as a truth is irrelevant to those of us living within that "creation". Since science would then ALSO match reality, and would be a form of study and intepretation of the results of that form of creation, then the point that the fundamentalists miss is that such study would be the most sacred of studies. Plus the world is just really boring if you choose to believe that it was created this way. There's nothing to learn, and there's no amazement left.
Your understanding of cosmology matches your understanding of evolutionary theory. There's a lot of wishy-washyness where cosmology is concerned because its a lot of conjecture, much like religion. The difference is that that in cosmology, a scientist dreams up a possible solution and actually attempts to prove it or disprove it. In religion, someone dreams up a possible answer, and some people will believe him or her on blind faith and others just won't. There is no critical thinking involved.
Generally, however, the argument that a greater intelligence "had" to create the parameters of the universe and guide it to its current point is really a poor argument, because we're looking at the possibility of that happening from within the occurance itself. Sticking to forms of life as we know it, we can easily point to thousands of bodies within our solar system where it *didn't* work. We're not living in the middle ages here, we know those lights in the sky are stars and planets because we've been to some of them! (in the case of the planets, that is) Why would a higher intelligence create us here on a single planet in a universe so hostile to our form of life, where a misplaced asteroid could end all that work? Its just silly to even contemplate that!
If you want to stand firm in your belief that there is a higher external intelligence or non-random force guiding the development of things in our Univserse, isn't it better to do that within the boundaries of intelligent, critical thinking? Tell you what, get a book on quantum theory. There's a lot of holes in there that you can plug up with a "holier than thou" explanation.
Make believe there is a higher force manipulating things... from a scientific standpoint, you'd probably see that in inbalanced in quantum probabilities. Things happening a bit too often one way than another...
But if you consider that our intelligence has arisen from the interaction of billions of neurons in the brain, then that leaves another possibility for a "higher intelligence" -- as I said in the last paragraph, the *proven* effects of quantum mechanics is a place to look. Did you know that two particles, once they've been in contact with each other can manipulate their own probabilities over any distance instantaneously? You fire off two photons in opposite directions, wait a second, and polarize one of them, the other one will change as well, at the exact instant, even though they're then two seconds away by the speed of light. If the changing of states in billions of neurons in the human brain can give rise to our intelligence, do you suppose it could happen with a number of particles interacting in the universe so large there aren't numbers to match it? Maybe that's where your God lives. It would certainly give credance to the Christian belief that "god is everywhere".
There is an entire state of reality that we can't and wont ever be able to witness caused by the very laws of physics
Re:Here's what evolution has been observed
by
Disco+Stu
·
· Score: 1
"Anyone who denies the evidence exists is ignorant of the truth. Amazingly, I saw a science teacher on TV that supported the decision stating that there is no proof that evolution is a more valid theory than creationism. My guess is she was trying to seem more openminded than she was, and was probably a science teacher by assignment rather than training."
Can you say "straw man"?
Try it: "S-T-R-A-W M-A-N"
There! I knew you could!
wait a minute
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Before we tackle the insanity that is evolution, we have to stop teaching our kids that the world is round. We all know it is flat, why must continue the lie? A round Earth is not a fact! In fact if you sail far enough you will fall off the Earth
Re:spurt that mad,mad jizz all over jesus' face.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In my opinion it is the ethical and moral foundations in the judeo-christian faiths that have made western civilization so successful. Every society is going to have horrible atrocities.. christian societies are no different.
Re:Folger's Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM)
by
Mike+A.
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the way I heard this was:
They came out recently with a low-fat substitute for Communion wafers. They're marketing it under the brand name "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus".
--
-- Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Re:Some truth amidst the BS about Evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is difficult to believe in a meaningful afterlife if macro-evolution is true. Many people think it is inappopriate for schools to require teaching a theory with no objectivity that pries at the very heart of many religions. I am not a creationist, but I do feel that this sort of education should be optional and not mandatory.
Re:Interesting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am a professional bioinformaticist (ie I use datahandling and analysis techniques in biology). My background is as an experimental biologist. Evolution is best characterised as a convenient myth. By myth I do not mean that it is untrue, but that it is not knowable whether it can be true or not. Modern biology, with the techniques at its disposal, uses evolution as a convenient framework for analysing relationships between organisms or parts thereof, and for comparing different pathways and mechanisms. These analyses do not prove evolution. They merely use evolution as a construct in which to assemble ones thoughts. Natural selection: basically a biological example of le chataliers principle on equilibria. The finches on galapagos clearly show natural selection. They do not however show evolution in its strictest sense as the observations do not show new material coming into the gene pool. Mutation: I have personally witnessed analyses that observed a founder effect. Mutations happen. What is not shown experimentally (and has not been seen) is the ability of a species to split into two or to migrate genetically through mutation. We can infer (ie guess) that this happens if we first assume that evolution occurs and that things have evolved from common ancestors. We cannot then use this data to prove evolution as that is a circular argument. Fossils: Interesting pictures of how things looked at some point in the past. Linking them together into an evolutionary tree is firstly an act of faith and secondly assumes evolution to begin with. So these are interesting but circumstantial. Stepwise evolution: a slow gradual drift of one species by gradual mutation has been shown to be extremely unlikely both experimentally with reference to the actual changes needing to be made and mathematically. A more plausible hypothesis is for punctuated evolution where evolution occurs in dramatic bursts resulting in rapid change. There have been some experiments targetting certain mechanisms that would be required for such a hypothesis to be true. Timescales: The data regarding the age of the earth is nowhere near as sound as one might be led to believe. Typically measured using radioactive decay methods, there are a large number of problems with the models used. Go and find out just how these conclusions are reached and from what data if you are interested.
With regard to Kansas: As a scientist I have no problem with a law banning the teaching of evolution as scientific fact. It at leasty will make people somewhat more intellectually honest than they currently are. If they insist on teching creation as scientific fact then they are being intellectually dishonest. With regard to creationism: Looking at biomolecules (as I do on a daily basis) one can take two views. One is that if two things have a similar function then one would expect them to look somewhat similar (generally true but not always.. the evolutionary explaination is that there has been convergent evolution, an interesting concept). The second is that anything could have been created that way. The evolutionary counterpoint is that related (by function and similarity) things came from a common ancestor via evolution. One can be a creationist in modern biology, it just requires a readjustment of the terminology one applies to the relationships between molecules. Evolutionary biology though (ie trying to put together a coherent hypothesis of evolution (something that has not yet been achieved) does require some faith in evolution to begin with (and an a priori assumption). So Kansas may be doing their kids a favour by making them think, rather than feeding them dumbed down opinion based on circumstantial evidence as proven fact.
..d
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One must keep in mind that theories on the origin of life are still rather weak theories. Basically it is a jumble of "maybes" --maybe early cell constituents came from meteors --maybe early replicants formed in a sort of soup, forming pseudo-membranes that eventually split because of size, and these eventually grew in complexity --maybe the first pre-cells were formed on the side of various clay deposits basically since only tiny glimpses of this complex process have been repoduced in labs, we can come close to knowing, like we can't know the very early workings on the universe. we may not have a very solid theory for a very long time, although you can believe what you want based on the evidence for each theory
more random thoughts
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Even though the computer memory may be random, the computers themselves are not.
Computers follow a universal set of instructions reliably - if they didn't, they would cease to be useful for our purposes.
Even though the contents of the universe sometimes appear to be random, the universe itself is not.
Physical reality follows preset principles such as gravity and conservation of energy - if it didn't, the universe would cease to be useful for God's purposes. The fact that principles of physics and logic are consistent and highly structured indicates that the universe was created by an intelligence vastly greater than our own.
food for thought: what would the world be much different if God had decided to make 12 a prime number? Things like "half an hour" wouldn't come out even...
One indication of God's superiority is that he can create living things with eternal souls, whereas we only program inanimate objects. Another is what he does with his creations, versus what we do with ours. We create things to make our lives easier. We write spreadsheets to save us from the chore of doing long division. Since the software has no consciousness of its own, it doesn't object to such a boring task, and our quality of life is improved (a great benefit to everyone).
God, however, gives his creations (us) a soul and the ability to make moral choices, either good or evil. Sometimes we choose good, sometimes evil. (Its a natural side effect of free choice that we sometimes choose evil, usually by being selfish.) We all deserve punishment for the mistakes we make, but God created a way out for us if we choose to accept it. He sent Jesus Christ to earth in order to live a perfect life, and then allow him to take the punishment for our actions upon himself through his death. God brought him to life again three days later (he designed the universe, so he can suspend whatever rules he wants). Thus, we can ask God for forgiveness, and God can grant it while still maintaining his sense of justice (our blame was passed on to someone who was willing to accept the punishment for us). We can have the opportunity to be reconciled to God and live with him for eternity.
I suspect that a billion networked computers would generate a much more interesting result if they were set up to produce genetic algorithms, although I'm not an expert on the subject.
jim http://cs.georgefox.edu/~jsnow
We Really Need To Outlaw Christianity
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
this stuff is just getting out of hand screw this freedom of religion crap
Re:A state without guns is a police state
by
robcoles
·
· Score: 1
Example: UK. Owning guns is pretty illegal, with some exceptions. Many cities have surveilance cameras capable of viewing large areas. This isn't the case in the US. Perhaps it's because shooting these cameras is a pastime. Or perhaps it's because a citizenry with guns is more likely to be more vocal and active in pushing for personal freedoms, with less fear of governmental or police relatiation, and in addition, less likely to accept such 1984-ish measures. And corrupt governments and police forces may think twice before enacting draconian measures under the premise of fighting crime.
What utter rubbish, As a UK citizen, I find that the idea that Britian is a police state offensive, cameras are deployed in public areas at the request of bodies that are actually voted for by the majority of the local poeple, unlike the US where the extremely low turn-out at election-time means that the government does not represent most poeples views.
The UK is not a police state, a camera in a public place is just a logical extention of having a policeman patrolling a public place, which I presume they do in the states?
Its the US that has a problem with Guns not the UK
Its also in the US that Darwinism, a theory so universily accepted can be rejected in favour of teaching children fairy tales as truth.
The Media stinks ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hate the media today. I'm not a big fan of the Christian Coalition, but the media truely hates them. Almost every article I have read on this is focused around this being the latest plot of the evil religious radicals. I picture the Kansas state education board as a room full of carbon-copy religious radicals working out their agenda. I don't care about the political explanations these reporters have. I care about looking at this new ruling by itself, for what it stands for, and whether it is a good ruling. I personally agree with it.
Re: you don't understand science, then.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here's the point. A staggering number of observations of the natural world have been made that offer clues to the origin of life and the human species. Evolution is the leading scientific theory because the majority of relevant observations support it. Creationism is not the leading scientific theory because hardly any observations support it.
If you are going to try arguing against evolution on a scientific basis, then you should be prepared to argue in favor of your theory on a scientific basis. If you choose to believe a theory that isn't supported by scientific evidence, then you don't believe in science. It's a simple as that. If you choose your beliefs because of your faith, just have the guts to admit it. Don't try to poke holes in a scientific theory when you obviously don't believe in the scientific method.
If God greated a rock that nobody can lift, could he lift it?
I remember this one from waaay back - only it was slightly rephrased. It went "If Zeus can do anything, can he create a rock that's so heavy even he can't lift it"?
Weird thing is - it DOES have a perfectly logical answer. The answer is YES, because of the first part of the statement (Zeus can do anything). But if he does create this rock, he will then no longer be able to do "anything". More than creating a rock, he creates a limit to his own power. Which he can do, of course (Zeus can do anything). If he wants, he can create a tiny pebble so heavy that even he can't lift it. That would merely mean placing even greater limits on his own power.
All of this stuff is properly addressed in some sort of philosophy class, NOT in a science class.
Re:God and Logic
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Okay, valid. But then the statement "God can do anything" becomes "God could once do anything".:-) Not exactly what bible-thumpers want to hear.
Classic questions like these *have* no easy answers.
Re:I concur, but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Most educated people, like yourself, assume evolution is fact. This is because evolution has been taught as fact in our schools for a while now, despite considerable controversy, even among biochemists and geneticists.
In my research I have found it a common understanding that speciation has never been observed, despite numerous experiments involving thousands of generations of bacteria and mutated species. What is this wallaby you speak of? I have tried numerous searches for it, but can find nothing on it.
As for macro-evolution, take the given scenario:
Two parents of a particular species had an offspring with a different number of genes than themselves. This offspring then continued to mate with other offsprings with this extrordinairy mutation.
This event would have to happen thousands of times in order for macro-evolution to be true. It is an event that is very difficult for most geneticists to swallow.
I am generally an opponent of the Christian Coalition and certainly do not subscribe to Creationism. However, I do find it inappropriate for our schools to educate our children that evolution is an authoritative science.
"I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson
Newtonian mechanics
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Newtonian mechanics are incorrect, but they're "close enough" for most of us in our day to day lives. Someday most of our technologies (e.g. nano-scale technologies) may depend on exploiting quantum effects, but until that day, Newtons laws of motion are good enough for me and most other folks.
Ah, you're probably right, I am getting flamey. I'm sorry.
But I "offer no facts"? Existance of lung fish is a fact. Do you not find it a bit offensive for misfit to have come to this discussion with a pedantic argument ("Whoops, drowned fish"), saying something couldn't exist that exists today? Any even rudimentary investigation of evolution would turn up lung fish.
And isn't it a bit much to have a zillion posts, all on new threads, saying that evolution hasn't been "proven"? never mind that no other theory has been proven in this sense, either?
Sorry again for the flames.
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
Bartmoss
·
· Score: 1
You are welcome to propose a better theory, and put forth adequate evidence to support it. You might even win a nobel prize that way.
But if your only evidence consists of that Old Testament, you just might find that your theories will not be taken very serious.
Evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Life is an ever evolving process. Applies to all forms of creature.
This is one of the conclusion made after studying genetic algorithm.
Show me proof that gravity exists everywhere in the Universe.
Show me proof that the universe exists at all, and that your senses can be trusted. Yes, I've read "Meditations", and no, I don't buy into the ontological argument.
Show me proof that yesterday happened, and that it's not all a grand joke by a higher power.
No lie, seeing the outlash of people here on Slashdot proves your point better than anything else.
Evolution is a good try, but it isn't any better (and mostly worse) at explaining the genisis of species as many other theories that have been discarded and forgoten. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
Take an isolated island. Bring 1000 fruit flies in. Let simmer for 300 years (not much, eh?)
At the end you will find that a new species of fruit flies emerge. They will not be able to breed with whatever species you've taken the initial sample from, which is pretty much the criterion of what constitutes "different species".
I'll probably even be able to dig up the reference on this little experiment. Yes, this did happen in Real Life (as opposed to creationist's dream world). --
Wrong. Evolution is a fact substantiated by overwhelming evidence from the fossil record, field studies (Darwin etc) and laboritory observation. Scientists disagree on the exact mechanism governing evolution, but no credible scientist disagrees that evolution has and does occur. Also a fact, Creationism or so called Creation Science is a pseudo science based on Christian dogma. Yes I have researched their arguments. They are all flawed, I have considered writing a book debunking creationist claims (some are pretty amusingly wrong headed - especially the ones pertaining to determining the age of the earth) but those who choose to believe in creationism are not open to rational debate and the rest don't need to be persuaded, so why waste my time.
-- --
Back to the shadows again...
Re:The Scientific Agesuspect you will find that th
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 2
I leapt in on an earlier response to try to clarify my original position, and I'd like to do so here as well. When I said we are no better off now than in the sixteenth and seventeenth century I was not referring to quality of life or material wealth. Clearly we are healthier, wealthier, better informed, more comfortable, and more powerful than in any previous epoch. No, what I was referring to specifically was the proportion of the population in possession of a deep understanding of and appreciation for the methods of science. Everybody thinks they know science because they learned about DNA and di-hybrid crosses, they tittrated (sp?) in chemistry, and they use nifty electronic gadgets all over the place. They confuse the knowledge or the technology with science. Science is the process, not the information. The process, not the technologies. My statement was meant to refer ONLY to the fact that percentage of people who know and fully appreciate the implications of scientific methods is not much higher today than in the years of science's infancy.
For the second point of clarification, note that I specifically said that science and religion cannot co-exist in the classroom or the laboratory. I kept it in that narrow domain because I'm specifically trying to argue that the kind of evidence posessed by those who have had religious experience is rarely (if ever) the kind of evidence that science is allowed by the rules that define what science is to use.
I am also trying to argue that a fundamentalist Christian is fully capable of performing perfectly good science, as long as he keeps his types of evidence properly compartmentalized.
Any epistemological system can become dogma, even science. Consider Wegener (sp?) and the reaction of geologists to his continental drift theory -- sometimes the entrenched science becomes dogma and requires overwhelming evidence to make the process work again. This is not because the scientific method is deficient, but rather because (as I am trying to point out) science is not the normal way people adopt "The Truth." Our world view is the union of our prejudices, even when those prejudices are rationally derived. No human being happily and easily surrenders a belief. I would imagine that practicing researchers must often struggle with this.
Re:The Scientific Agesuspect you will find that th
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 2
Oooh! Oooh! One more. Of course I knew full well that acceleration due to gravity falls off as you move the masses apart. I do know my Newton. Here what I was getting at is that if, suddenly one day the acceleration due to gravity at sea level were to change without a change in mass or a change in distance, we would have to re-evaluate what we have taken for centuries to be an immutable "Law of Nature." I was pointing out that scientific "facts" are always implicitly followed by "As Far As We Know (tm)."
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
Bartmoss
·
· Score: 1
Evolution is a fact... Just look at the bacteria resistant to antibiotica... Don't tell me it was god's will.;-)
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They where called Neanderthals, us Homo Sapians pushed them out of Africa and the rest of Europe into Ibera. The last signs of Neanderthal presence where found at the Rock of Gebralta. Basically we wiped them out.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Where did you learn science? It makes no difference to the scientific method whether the "experiment" is conducted in real time or in the past. Make a hypothesis. Then test your hypothesis against available data. If there is no data already available, then conduct an experiment to gather it. But if the data is already available, it is no less valid than what you can gather from a new experiment. Repeatability comes from multiple observations of the same evidence; it doesn't matter whether it's from conducting multiple experiments or from multiple historical events. "Creatability" of data means absolutely nothing in science.
Alrighty guys, here we go again. Instead of letting the media (you remember them, right?) dictate to us what's happening, let's use our brains, okay? All we know for sure, as a fact, is that teachers in Kansas are no longer required to test students on the Theory of Evolution. Despite what that very opinionated and badly-informed MSNBC article said, there is no rule disallowing the mention of evolution in Kansas schools, nor is there any requirement that Creationism or any other religious doctrine be taught. Simply put, this is not a Big Deal(tm).
It should also be pointed out that it is perfectly normal for a school board to choose not to teach a particular theory to students. Note the word 'theory'...the idea that lower life-forms evolved into more advanced and on-the-whole different species is still very much classified as theory. As such, I don't believe there should be any requirement that it be taught in schools. It's optional, yes, but because it's only a theory, it should not by any means be required learning. On the other hand, gene mutation and other such forms of "intra-species" evolution (for lack of a better term) have been proven by scientific means, and therefore should most definitely be taught; unsurprisingly, you'll notice that this type of evolution will still be taught in Kansas schools.
I'm not one to say that there weren't hidden agendas behind this whole thing, and yeah, I'm sure there were. Creationists will always try to gain a stronger hold on schools -- thus is the nature of religion and politics. But in spite of the reasons behind the new curriculum, you have to admit that the media is going way overboard in their representation of the event. It's not nearly as much of a Big Deal(tm) as it's being made out to be.
(On a sidenote, one could argue that, for the same reasons non-religious parents have gained a victory in disallowing prayer in school due to a conflict of beliefs, religious parents should be given the same treatment in selecting what teachings their children are subjected to.)
-- Wonko the Sane
Re:It's the Extremists, stupid!
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
The problem isn't Republicans per se; the problem is the special interest groups that have pretty much controled the Republican party for the past 20 years.
Including the most loud-mouthed, right-wing, anti-intellictual subset of that otherwise decent group known as Christians.
Republicans and Christians both could improve their image by disassociating themselves from these louts.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:A theory is not a fact!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> I'm sorry for being a bit nit-picky here, but anyone who accepts evolution as a FACT, while perhaps not an idiot, is > definitely ignorant about the scientific method and the definitions of a FACT and a THEORY. A FACT is something that is > directly observable and is true.
If that were the definition of fact, there would be precious few facts left in science. So much of science deals with the things that cannot be directly observed - because they are either too far back in the past, too far away or too small. No one has seen a neutrino or a quark, no one has seen a black hole or a pulsar. Yet all of these things are being taught as fact and the Kansas board of education does not seem to care that they are.
There is no way one can be 100 percent sure of anything in science. When a scientist tries to explain some phenomenon, he starts with a hypothesis - which is nothing more than an educated guess to explain the phenomenon. If the hypothesis fits all the available facts, is shown to have predictive ability and is shown to be falsifiable then it is called a theory. Any theory that has stood the test of time and challenges to it, that has a large amount of evidence backing it and for which there are no viable alternatives is called a fact. It does not mean that we are 100 percent certain about something. There's no way we can be 100 percent certain about anything. I cannot even be 100 percent certain that a statement like "I am 30 years old" is true. It is certainly possible that God (or aliens) created the world 15 minutes ago with an appearence of great antiquity and placed the memories of the past 30 years in my mind. The creationists who are behind the evolution ban in Kansas used a similar argument to "prove" that it is possible that world is just 6000 years old.
All a scientist means when he says theory X is also a fact is that since theory X has so much supporting evidence, has withstood so many challenges and has no viable rivals, it is highly unlikely to be completely overturned. We may add footnotes to it in the future but we are not going to tear up the book and start afresh.
That, by the way, is precisely what happened to Newtonian mechanics. After Einstein came along, we had to add the footnote that Newtonian mechanics worked only when the speeds involved were significantly slower than the speed of light and the objects involved weren't too large or too small. After relativity was accepted, most people didn't stop using Newtonian mechanics - they just became aware of some limitations it had. Will something of this sort happen to the theory of evolution - maybe, maybe not. However, I do think that the chances that someone will cause it to be torn up and thrown out of the window are very small indeed. That is enough to make it a fact in my book and the vast majority of biologists in the world would agree with me.
Evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Life is an ever evolving process. Applies to all forms of creature.
This is one of the conclusions made after studying genetic algorithm.
Re:about God's existence
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Amen, Brother.
Besides, if there wasn't a God, who would punish Bill Gates?
.. So if Darwin has stated in 1971 that the theory..
The man was dead for a few years by 1971, you probably mean 1871 ... Another *very* intelligent person (according to society's terms), George Wald (winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science and Harvard Professor) has said this (and I'll paraphrase), that (1) only creation and evolution are the possibilities for the origin of life, no third option; (2) Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, and that leads us on Creation; and (3) "We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." ...
(1) show me the proof (2) show me the proof (3) as long as you make clear that there's no proof whatsoever its fine with me.
I'm especially interested in the 'proof' for (2). I no doubt would be able to identify its weak spot in minutes.
BTW. I think schools should teach both evolution and creationism. The discussion is relevant (at least from a point of view sociology, accepting creationism now would defy more than a century of scientific research). If you take away evolution or creationism you are limiting the freedom of choice. Children should decided for themselves what they want to believe in and evolution is definately a relevant topic to consider when making that choice.
... does everyone know that Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes, Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, Lord Kelvin, and James Maxwell were all devoted Christians ...
Does it matter what they thought about religion? They weren't theologists were they? After all most of these people lived in an age where the church ruled over life and death. Scientists with different beliefs ususally kept their mouths wide shut on religious issues and if they didn't they often met with their tragic fate.
... if someone accepted creation ...
This is the key issue here. Nobody denies anyone the right to accept creation (and its consequences). Personally I refuse to belief in something so rediculously stupid but hey, I don't care what others CHOOSE to believe. What does piss me of is that there are people who are trying to limit the choice of others (because they belief in creationism). This is not about religion it is about lack of choice.
OK, enough talk about this. I already know I'm not going to convince anybody. Christian (or any) fundamentalists are not receptive to logic.
uh, well no. Nothing in the creation story is supported by evidence. Instead CRI and other creationist groups spend their time making tortured interpretations of Genesis to weasle their way out of the glaring disparities with reality ("Well it didn't _literally_ mean 7 days", etc.), carbon dating arrow heads to determine the age of man, and other such bone-headed exercises.
There's also no flood evidence, no evidence the earth stood still, or evidence for any of the other supernatural wackiness of the Bible.
Every prediction of creationism has failed, while evolution has made more valid predictions than I could begin to list. Much of you know as common knowledge about genetics was once not so common, but was predicted by evolution.
NOTHING can be proved
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Try proving that you exist. That you aren't just something in a big AI simulation or VR world. You can't. We don't *know* anything, so this religious argument that "evolution can't be proved" is *stupid*. We can't utterly disprove Christianity either (despite the fact that it would be utterly illogical for it to exist, and has so many conflicts that if you treat things fairly (give all hypotheses fair unbiased treatment)), you would have to dispose of it as a real possibility.
It comes down to this: stupid/overwhelmed in propoganda people believe in Christianity and disbelieve in evolution. Intelligent people do the opposite.
Neither is religion
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Christianity is a lot less plausible than evolution. Lots of facts in favor of evolution. TONS against Christianity.
Sort of sad how people will believe any sort of BS rather than accept a few truths they aren't accustomed to in life.
Christianity is a socialogical symbiote (no, not a parasite...if you think you're going to hell for murder, you won't kill people) that's starting to hold us back and *become* a parasite.
Re:ITS ABOUT TIME
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>biology, thermodynamics, and flat-out common sense.
Wrong on every count.
*NOTHING* can be proven. We don't *know* anything. We can only assume and deduce. And given that, religion looks pretty sorry and unlikely, and evolution pretty solid and plausible.
Wrong, stupid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Communion *is* ritualized cannibalism. Yes, it *is* true. Little old ladies in white hats at churches don't like to hear it, but that's simply what it is. Whether you think your "sins are washed away" isn't up to question -- it is simply ritual cannibalism. If a bunch of natives on a desert island were doing this, anthropologists would call it ritual cannibalism. We just don't like the phrase so it isn't used much regarding communion.
Re:Folger's Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It tastes like chicken!
Re:Fuck you cretin
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'll take your lack of ability to form a coherent response or rebuttal to mean that your ability to reason has been stunted by blind acceptance.
Re:Folger's Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Really? Will they be producing a kosher version of that?
How can you say it can't be reproduced in the lab?
Like this: "It can't be reproduced in the lab."
All kidding aside, how can you say that it CAN be reproduced in the lab? How are they going to do it? They can't. It is therefore non-scientific. They've made a claim that cannot be empirically demonstrated. It's not subject to being reproduced in the lab. How can it be "scientific"?
Fine, how are you going to prove that the Bible is infallible, God-boy?
I don't have to. It is. How are you going to prove evolution? Why do you think that I have to prove the Bible's infallible? Isn't enough that God says it is? Why not?
If not, you'd better come up with some reason for use to believe your book over all the other ones out there.
What makes you think that the truth of the Bible is contingent upon whether or not YOU have a good enough "reason" to believe it?
People who so vigorously deny reality have an obvious mental defect and should not be allowed to infect the rest of the gene pool.
Again, Thank You. If you'd had the courage to even minimally identify yourself, I'd keep this very kind comment in mind when talking with you in the future.
Please, since I'm mentally defective, explain for me exactly how it is that evolution and the materialist worldview can explain self-awareness. Bottom line: everything that happens in your big brain or my small and defective one is just a bunch of electro-chemical reactions, right? So how does that translate into self-awareness? How does an electro-chemical reaction make a truth statement? When water boils or wood burns, is it possible for it to make a truth statement? Now, your so-called "self-consciousness" is really nothing more than a bunch of electro-chemical reactions, right?
So how can you say that ANYTHING is true or false? Please enlighten my defective brain.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:Evolution is just Recursion across Millions of
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It'll never work. The AP Bio teachers will tell them to piss off and go ahead and teach. What are they gonna do, fire the teachers and lose what little cred they have left?
Boy, if there's one place I *don't* want to live...
Re:The Engineering Age
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 2
I appreciate your compliment, but I must say that I disagree with you that people tend to believe what is true. My experience has been that people want to go on believing what they presently believe, no matter what that is. Furthermore, this is true of everybody: scientists, engineers, priests, parishoners, and the honey wagon driver. This means that whole human race has a blind spot for new ideas that fundmentally reposition world views. All belief systems resist new beliefs, including science. This is, I think, part of the human psychological makeup. We like constancy, even though life tells us again and again that the universe is inconstant.
I personally consider the scientific evidence for species differentiation by natural selection overwhelming. The lack of a complete theory of genetic drift tells us that we have much more to learn, but does not tell us that Wallace and Darwin's theory is fatally flawed. You must find evidence that contradicts the theory, not that shows it be incomplete. The theory explains all the presently known facts.
Now, I do think that it is a theory, a sound one, but a theory. I think the missing elements can be pointed out in science class, but I do not for a minute believe that there is any reason to remove teaching it as a requirement of the biology syllabus. It is one of the most important theories in modern biology and I think it is ridiculous to remove it to please a religious sensibility.
I think that creationism can be taught in public schools, but not as science. I think evolution can be taught in public schools, but not in math or gym.
As for your point about constructing scientific experiments to find what you expect to find, I would ask you to suggest to me what kind of experiemnt to run with absolutely no preconceptions about what will be found? It is impossible to look at the world without preconception. I think it is unreasonable to expect a telescope to give you useful data on the human genome. You must have some preconception. You must, however, try to keep yourself aware of how your observation affects the observed. As I said in my original post, science is really actually hard!
Re:Evolution is just Recursion across Millions of
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Uh, yeah. Except for the fact that we aren't talking about a single thread. The simulation system is massive. Earth-wide at the molecular level. Let's see, something like 2 billion humans on the earth today, I think. Roughly comprable to 2 billion generations of humans in a single thread. The system is massively parallel. Bacteria probably evolved through lots of stages in a snap.
And sexual reproduction makes it even faster.
Where do you bible-thumping types *come* from?
Re:Evidence againt evolution.
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
> I did not write these, just found them via Altavista
You know how the saying goes: Believe half of what you see, none of what you hear, and the opposite of what you find on the Internet.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Defining "evolution" and "natural selection"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Um....stupid people will all move to Kansas, become inbred and die off. Natural selection. Ironic that they should prove it themselves.
But the Decleration of Independance is still what our country was founded on. Ever study history?
Re:Evolution is a myth everywhere (not just Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>The support for evolution is not dogmatic, it comes from many, many years of collected >evidence, all of which point to the same conclusion.
Maybe you can point me to some of the evidence. I've looked for it and been unable to find it. Most of observations that are quoted as evidence only indicate evolution when they are interpreted based on the assumption that evolution occured. This shows poor thinking and certainly very bad science.
Take a look at the fossil record. Where are all the transitional forms? There should be millions (if not billions) of them. Are they hiding? By the way, I don't accept punctuated equilibria as a good scientific explanation of the missing transitional forms.
>Evolution has stood up to decades of scrutiny.
It has stood up to decades of "scrutiny" by people who want it to be true. However, many scientists are not satisfied with it due to the lack of evidence and the poor thinking used to defend it.
>Currently there are no other theories about speciation which come remotely close to making the >number of correct predictions that are made by evolution.
What predictions are you talking about? Joel Mawhorter
Re:AAAAAHHHHH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
God would be an idiot if he didn't his creations the ability to adapt. Natural disasters can teach people a good lesson on being careful, but what would be the point if there's no chance they could survive it?
And creation IS a theory. Sure, it pisses the hell all over dozens of other theories, but then again, so does evolution.
--TheOrangeSquid
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
mulley
·
· Score: 1
True, sorry (my Southern US history ain't too good). I was speaking not about party divisions, but rather about political divisions. Right now, in general the Republicans are right-wing and the Democrats are left wing. If you look at that one through world history, then you could probably call the Democrats center-right, but just keep to the two wings.
I'm pretty sure that my history is good on this one, though: traditionally left-wing issues, like civil rights and gun control, have not been among the most popular there.
Re:A theory is not a fact!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thank you for stating so concisely my problem with the way evolution is currently taught... Although I am a fundamentalist Christian, I have NO problem with the theory of evolution being taught in school. I do have a problem with this pseudo-Law of Evolution that seems to be making the rounds.
The fact is we do not KNOW for sure what happened.. but we can postulate reasonable theories based on the scientific evidence.
We homeschool, and I will definitely be teaching my children the theory of evolution. Not because I particulary believe it to be factual, but because it is an important part of the scientific literature, and I am attempting to raise adults, not goons.
It is silly to remove the theory of evolution from the classroom... just make sure to state "this is a theory based upon what many scientists feel to be the best available evidence. There are others who disagree." If the child then desires to find out who disagrees or why, they can research that information at any library.
Godel did not prove anything of the sort. All facts of mathematics are just as true and just as valid as they were before Godel published his incompleteness theory. What Godel said was that not all true facts are provable.
Very well said. This is what I meant (that any symbolic system must contain unprovable assertions). My sloppy sentence was merely meant to call attention to this point. Thanks for stating it more precisely.
Wolfgang! Of course! (You know whay I didn't put his first name in? Because "Linus" as in "Linus Pauling" was the name my brain kept coming up with. I knew that wasn't right so I didn't want to embarass myself!;-)
Thanks again for a good clarification.
Re:Response to the two posts above this one
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
Again: it's in Dawkins. Look it up. The short story is the algorithm you're describing mathematically is not evolution, in particular because it lacks selection.
Seperation of Species and Species
by
dadams
·
· Score: 1
The article says that they've gotten rid of evolution as a way of open species becomming another, but not evolution within a species. That's ridiculous. The lines between species are fuzzy, they're not something you can just slap down a ruler and say "here's the division." A species becomes another species by evolution with in the latter. It's not like primates said, "Well, if we evolve anymore we'd be a different species. Better stop before that thumb becomes too opposible."
-- --"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
Re:Evolution is just Recursion across Millions of
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Unfortunately for your nice theory, biological systems are not computer systems so the same principles that apply to programming don't apply to life. Macro-evolution is a hugh step from micro-evolution. In many cases, macro-evolution requires thousands of years for a feature to develop before it becomes a selecting factor. This makes it a near impossibility that complex selecting features such as sight, hearing, etc. would ever develop and lead to new species.The comment that evolution hasn't been proven is true whether you like it or not. Evolution is a philisophical dogma as much as any religion. It is good to see a school board removing a major hurdle to developing students who think for themselves rather than beleive any dogma that they are fed. Joel Mawhorter
You're wrong. Abortion IS murder.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just admit it. Abortion is a sin. If properly carried out, it involves the death of an innocent human being.
Abortion is far, FAR worse than rape. I believe women impregnated by rapists should keep the child. The child is a gift from God even if the father is a rapist.
Re:You're wrong. Abortion IS murder.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>maybe you'd like to receive a transfer of the >baby?
Most definitely! Given the opportunity, I would gladly take a child destined for death. Sadly, many people would rather have the youngest and most helpless members of our species executed rather than give them to people that desperately want them.
Re:You're wrong. Abortion IS murder.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is irrelevant. Here's another irrelevant point: "gift" means poison in German. I think people should do whatever they want to themselves; maybe you'd like to receive a transfer of the baby?
Re: you don't understand science, then.
by
Lurker
·
· Score: 1
What you're saying is that I'm a moron beause I don't believe as you do? Because natural seletion has been observed to happen in populations of animals? Because species can change within a human lifetime? Well, have you ever SEEN natural selection taking place?
Have you ever SEEN an atom split? No, well then, it must bullshit right? In that case, you won't mind if I detonate a fission package near you. Just a small one.
No, we don't think you are a moron because you don't believe as we do, we think you are a moron because you seem unable or unwilling to process information. If you can look at the body of scientific work that evolution evolution is built on and come to the conclusion that some mystical transglorious overbeing created everything out of nothing, then don't be suprised if other people suggest that you might be missing something.
Also, I'm wondering if you could tell me 1) from where did this transglorious overbeing come from? and 2) how do you know there is only one transglorious overbeing?
Programming languages
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4) All people programming in [insert despicable obsolete language here] who didn't evolve either
You mean C and C++ ? They've evolved maybe 1-2 steps from assembler, whereas the ones that are based on a evolved theory like predicate logic and lambda calculus aren't as popular in the real world. Maybe this is evidence against the evolution of programming languages.
If that despicable obsolete language means languages that aren't currently hyped in the industry (such as lisp, which I mostly use) then I'm gladly a neanderthal, but then evolution got it wrong and went for lesser productivity.
Re:Teaching Evolution as fact
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
Good lord! Does anyone read the thread before posting? This has come up a dozen times already, and the basic thing you are missing is you don't know what "theory" and "fact" are. No theory is ever proven. You can only disprove theories. They are informally accepted as fact when they make very many predictions accurately. Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory, and the evidence for evolution is no more shakey that the evidence for gravity.
Creationism is *not* a theory, because it has made few predictions, and the predictions it made were wrong. There has hardly even been any creation theory proposed. Creationists world-wide have yet to get a grip on the methods of science, and understand that they must explain data (e.g. the fossil record, the fact that all organisms use the same genetic code, etc., etc., etc., etc.), which evolution *does*, and creationism does not.
-- proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Re:Theory vs. Law
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Last semester I had a chem class, a calc class, and a psych class. All three of them had different definitions for hypothesis, theory, and law. Totally incompatible. The psych one said that theory *did* become law, BTW.:-)
Re:erm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Um, it is. I drop something, it goes down. An observed phenomenon is a law.
BS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Complete and utter BS. There *are* transitional animals all over. Heck, even with humans, what do you think the gorilla, the chimpanzee, etc. are? There's even alternate branches (Neanderthal) we know of. You bible-thumpers are unbelievably head-in-the-sand.
Right, for another reason.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I believe the governor of the state that thought this was all a bunch of BS and threatened to disolve the Kansas Board of Ed if they pushed through this creationist BS was Republican. There *is* hope for Republicans.
Whis is it politics in the US come down to a choice between stupid religionism and tax cuts for big biz buddies or massive spending on bloated programs like welfare and garbage like that?
What happened to balancing the budget?
No, abortion is *not* murder
by
Superfreak
·
· Score: 1
At least in the United States.
Shooting a doctor who performs abortions, however, is.
Those are the laws in the U.S. - don't know where you're from, but thats the way it is here. Work to change the laws if you disagree, but it currently is not defined as murder.
Re:No, abortion is *not* murder
by
crayz
·
· Score: 1
I really don't give a damn what the laws say. I agree that abortion early in a pregnancy isn't murder, and at some point we're not able to determine quite yet, it is murder. At 38 weeks, it's murder, is it at 21? 22? 23? I don't know, but we should find out what we think of as human, and find out when the baby becomes human.
But back to US laws. If US laws said that shooting doctors that perform abortions wasn't murder, does that make it true? Not in my opinion. I driving at 56 wrong at 55 right? My opinion is that there is a right and wrong that is above the letter of the law, and no matter what the law says, murder is murder and wrong is wrong.
Just another point, you say an abortion isn't a murder now, so say back in 1972(or whenever Roe v. Wade took place), the week before abortion was made legal, a woman had one. You would say that's murder. But if she waiting a week and had it after the case was over, would it then not be murder? It's silly when you think about it like that.
Could someone please explain to me what the evolutionary argument is for mulit-cell organisms? There are uni-cellular organisms that are native to every part (as far as I know, if you know different then you have answered my question) of the biosphere. Uni-cellular organisms can survive in areas that multi-cellular organism can't, is the opposite true anywhere on Earth? If not then the survival of the fittest rule should rule out multicellular organisms. Uni-cellular organisms are more prolific, faster to adapt, more efficient , and longer lived in some cases. Any reasonable response would be appreciated.
--
Insert pithy comment here.
Re:Evolution is a theory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Evolution takes alot more faith to believe in than creation anyhow if you think about it.
By no stretch of the imagination.
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Assuming the Bible is true, huh? Okay. I...okay, I was going to give 50 thousand examples of *stupid* blatently false stuff and contradictions in the Bible (that your popes and bishops are quite aware of), but it's not worth the effort. I don't care. People like you are going to believe stupid stuff no matter what I say.
Re:Only a fool closes off all possibilities
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Very well said. Don't close off possibilities just because they aren't fashionable. My thoughts exactly.
Yes, I do believe in the continuum of matter and no, I do not believe in all that atomic theory crap. But no matter what you believe in, let's not forget that no matter what anyone says, atomic theory is -- listen carefully now -- STILL A THEORY. THEORY.... The Mystic's Guide to the Continuum says that the continuum of matter is for real, but if you don't believe in The Mystic's Guide to the Continuum, then I guess there's just no proof. I guess it takes a bit of faith, just like atomic theory does. You still haven't found your "irreducible particle".
Actually, I shouldn't make fun. I was pumped full of all that bogus fundamentalist crap when I was a kid too. I got over it when I heard a preacher ranting about the dangers of an open mind, and warning me that I should not only close it, but also lock the door and throw away the keys when you leave. That when you leave part was just a wee bit over the top for my world view.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Cubits
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hope this is a joke, because there are literally thousands of known contradictions and impossibilities in the Bible known to Biblical scholars.
the good ol' days of fishin' by the crick are gone
by
zonker
·
· Score: 0
jeepers wally! i wonder if i can get a conversation going that is big and long like them lists of gripes up there!?! Gosh! I remember the good old days when we would go to school and get rapped on the fingers when we talked out of turn. I remember when a teacher could spank you for acting up. what happened to those days? golly!
Thirdly, evolution as the engine behind the appearance of the human race is categorically unscientific. In order for it to be scientific, such "evolutionary processes" (so-called) must be reproducible. ----
Actually, these opinions remind me of once discussing science with a Taliban supporter. Generally, it's pointless to talk about science with people who dispute it on the basis of religion - they hug it firmly and close their eyes, no matter how strong the evidence.
Not every scientific fact is reproducible. For instance, we do not reproduce the fact that the sun is mostly composed of hydrogen+helium - there is no way to make a little sun in a lab. A lot of science is based on well established theories and observation. Religion is based on blind faith - obviously you're fairly articulate, but still somewhat stupid when it comes to understanding science.
I would say you are an outstanding example of what might happen if someone were schooled in the proposed Kansas system. Ironically, you prove more of a point than you think.:)
L.
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Um...in that case, you'd have been perfect. And I really doubt that things would go counter natural selection and allowed things to go downhill. You mean stupid people like these Bible-thumpers are products of perfect humans?
Let's slashdot the Kansas Bd of Ed
by
Vengeance
·
· Score: 1
The e-mail addresses for the board members are available at:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/commiss/bdaddr.html
If you're displeased with them, let them know what kind of neanderthals they are. Don't threaten them, for heaven's sake, but let them know that an enlightened populace won't stand for this.
If someone else has already posted this, I'm sorry... It's taking MINUTES for pages to load, and there are hundreds of replies here:-/
-- It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Re:Sadly, you don't know what you're talking about
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How do I know this? Because you approach the Bible as though it were yesterday's newspaper. You ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the Bible is a book written over a span of about 1400 years (give or take), that even its most recent portions are almost 2000 years old, and that it was written in a culture that is vastly different from our own. Yet somehow, for some arrogant or ignorant or cockamamie reason, you still seem to think that you can just walk right up to it, point your finger at something you don't understand, and conclude that the whole thing is hogwash. Teriffic. You're quite the "enlightened soul" there, friend.
Translation: The BS that sounded so good 2000 years ago doesn't stand up to today's knowledge base. You must brainwash yourself by becoming a good little Christian before you start contradicting these things. Such utter BS. By this sort of logic, I'd have to study and become a Scientologist before I contradicted it. Heck, have you studied Buddhisim enough to say that "Christianity is right" (and therefore Buddhisim is wrong).
Remember, Christianity *should* sound plausible. It itself is a product of evolution. Christianity is a socialogical virus that has evolved over the years. It's destroyed many other religions and ideas over the years, wiping out most of its enemies. But we're building up our defenses, and purging it from our society.
Sounds nasty, doesn't it? I deliberately phrased it to shock. It's also true -- try reading the paragraph again from an objective standpoint.
>The world is about 4.55 billion years old. This >date is probably when the moon was created by a >large impact with the earth.
Huh? World != Earth?
-- void post {
post_random_comment("slashdot.org");
karma--;
}
Re:spurt that mad,mad jizz all over jesus' face.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
well i read this far And btw.. religion MUST BE STOPED... rembember.. Spanish inqusition, Crusades,... STOP THEM BEFEORE IS TOO LATE. We have more powerful weapon now than any time in history to destroy ourselves... it's not an atomic bomb, it's not super-booper virus that will kill the world population... only human stupidity and ignorance can do that...
Keep them ignorant, keep you power -- Fucked Up College Kids That's what they want. DON'T LET THEM
Dictator for Life, you're full of BS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So now you want to throw off the scientific method to embrace Christianity as well? Whoah. How did you ever manage to suppress your religious urges enough to learn to use a computer?
I feel like I'm in Alpha Centauri (the video game) talking to that religious nut or something. I always thought that that person was a parody, a hideous exaggeration of someone that couldn't exist. I was *very* wrong.
Natural Selection is only a theory?
by
upper
·
· Score: 1
Natural selection could still be considered "theory." There are several variations on the theme. There is not, as yet, a single theory of natural selection that has achieved massive concensus. This is a topic of much ongoing research.
I don't understand how anyone could say that natural selection is in any doubt. Yes, there are varying ideas about the patterns of change in evolution caused by natural selection, notably punctuated equilibrium vs. uniformitarianism. But natural selection itself is simple. The necessary assumptions can be observed in everyday experience; that it can produce signifigant change can be seen in a human lifetime and demonstrated in a laboratory to produce appreciable changes (e.g. DDT resistant mosquitos and antibiotic resistant bacteria) and demonstrated in a laboratory (varieties of broccoli which produce mature seeds in 18 days). It is awfully hard to deny. In fact, the creationists who make the decision in Kansas specifically included "micro-evolution", which is just natural selection.
Here's what you need to have natural selection
individuals aren't all the same
some of these differences are hereditary
some of the hereditary differences affect fitness (defined in terms of offspring produced)
Can anyone deny that real populations have these properties? Given these properties, an anyone deny that natural selection doesn't happen?
Most creationists have had to admit that natural selection happens. What they won't accept is that they, and all the species they see around them, descended from a common ancestor.
there are many places in the bible which use parables, poetry, etc.
And they are identifiable as such from the text -- whereas Genesis 1 is identifiable from the text as narrative discourse.
Since there are three creation stories int he bible, and they are not all identical, which is correct?
Well, you have actually stumped me. I can guess two of your three "creation accounts" but the third escapes my memory.
However, with respect to the first two: Genesis 1 presents a history of what happened: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc. Genesis 2, in contrast, does NOT present a precise history. It presents a summary. This particular structure is common in Genesis as an introduction to a new section of the book. You'll see in 2:4 the words "These are the generations..." (some translations have it as "this is the history..." but the actual Hebrew word is "generations"). The same appears in 5:1, "This is the book of the generations of Adam..."; in 6:9, "These are the generations of Noah..."; in 10:1, "These are the generations of the sons of Noah..."; in 11:10, "These are the generations of Shem..."; etc. You will notice that in a majority of these cases, the intro of "these are the generations..." is followed by a summary of some sort. In most cases it is very short -- maybe just a few words. In the case of Genesis 2, it is a longer summary. It's not intended to be chronological; it's a summary.
As to your likely challenge about the animals being created after Adam -- there were animals all over the earth after God created them on the fifth and sixth days. Adam was to name them. There are three possibilities: either Adam must visit them all, in a massive global tour, so that he can name them, or else God must bring them to Adam so that he can name them, or else God must create an example of each animal (already created on the 5th & 6th days) for Adam to see and name. I honestly fail to see the problem. If I want to show my son an ashtray, I can either take him to see one, or bring one to him, or make one. Ashtrays already exist. What's the big deal?
however, you leave yourself open to certain arguments disproving the validity of the entire bible.
No I don't. What makes you think that the validity of the Bible hinges upon anything you or I say or think?
I personally need logical ways to believe in God
Then you have made "logic" superior to God. You have made his existence contingent upon your brain. Whether God exists is not an issue. He does. By claiming the "right" to have logical reasons for believing in God, you are claiming the "right" to judge God. This is not a right you have. You have made reason one of your idols to the extent that you attempt to judge God by it.
It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many Christians, that the Bible should be believed as a statement of faith, not a history book. If you spend hours arguing about the type of fish that swallowed Jonah, you miss the entire point of the story: one can never hide from God. The entire message of the story, for me, seems to be this.
You fail to understand that Christianity is a historical religion. It depends completely and utterly upon the certainty that particular events actually happened. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead (but he did), then Christianity is a charade. But if we can't believe the Bible about even ONE historical detail, then we can't be sure about ANY. And that throws the resurrection into doubt and Christianity out the window. So you see, it really does matter that Jonah was swallowed by a fish -- whatever the major point is. It really does matter that the sun stood still (so to speak) at Joshua's command. It really does matter that the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea. These things happened. Period. The Bible doesn't lie or get it wrong.
Either way, the religion is NOT dependent on the science, and vice versa.
In this you are mistaken for the reasons I've given above.
If any littel point in the bible is ever disproven, then the entire bible is incorrect. Seems to me to be a pretty fragile foundation for a religion!
That only depends upon whether you believe it's the Word of God or not. It is. Therefore it CANNOT be disproven in ANY particular. Therefore it is a rock-solid foundation for a religion. As to the Vatican: they're wrong if they deny that Genesis one is historical. Period. They're just men. God is not a man, and he doesn't make mistakes.
BTW, I was not trying to be a troll. I was trying to make people laugh! Oh well.
I laughed. Then I got a chuckle out of the replies. Then I pondered over the likelyhood of someone taking your post seriously... and agreeing.
Thought-provoking humor. Good stuff.
They're looking for a few good men...
by
fourtrackmind
·
· Score: 1
I would suggest that everyone who believes that the Kansas Board of Education made the right decision pack up and move there. Hell, they might even pay your way... Just imagine it. Sunflowers. Bob Dole. Miles of flat earth created by an old (white) man with a long beard. And none of that silly "education" mixed in with your schooling. Who needs to have an open mind when you've got all that. Might even give you time to help Pat Robertson kill some people he doesn't like. I can see the new license plates already: KANSAS...where ignorance is bliss ________________________________
Theories
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Everything that you mentioned is theory and yet you present it as fact. The facts are that there are certain amounts of radioactive particles in the rocks or in the organic matter. The assumption comes when you say that the amount of radioactivity has remained constant and that the ratio in living tissue is a constant as well. These assumptions as well as the assumption that the decay rate has remained constant are the underlying basis for most of the theories that you state. Let's look at those assumptions one at a time.
1) The amount of radioactive particles in the atmosphere is constant.
This has been shown not to be true. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of radioactive particles and the amount of radioactive particles in the atmosphere is in constant fluctuation. All of the cataclysmic events that you list would cause tremendous changes in the amounts and ratios radioactive particles and non-radioactive particles.
2) The ratio of radioactive to non-radioactive particles in living material is a constant.
This can easily be shown to be untrue by sampling currently living organisms. A living mollusk was tested by the C-14 method and found, according to the formulas, to have been dead for over 10,000 years.
3) The rate of decay of radioactive particles is a constant.
The rate of decay, from the evidence we have, fits an equation that includes the speed of light. Independent scientists have discovered evidence that the speed of light is much slower than it used to be. There is conflicting evidence regarding this, however, if it is true, the decay rate would have been much faster in the past, causing all of our current dating methods to predict dates much older than they really were. This is still in debate and so I will leave it as a question.
To show that the theory is only that and not fact, one only has to disprove one of the assumptions. two of the three assumotions are false and the third is in question.
Also, to the age of the moon, with the original trips to the moon, NASA was concerned that the spacecraft would sink into the dust that has been collecting on the surface of the moon since it has been there. They estimated up to 40+ feet of dust based on theories of the age of the earth and moon. They were concerned about Neil Armstrong being ready to catch the ladder with his hands and go down the stairs slowly in case he started to sink, he could catch himself. It turns out that there was about 1/8" of dust allowing an age of the moon of about 4000-40,000 years. A relatively short amount of time compared to current evolutionary theories. This of course is if the rate of dust falling is approximately what it is now. If the solar system came out of collisions and explosions, there would have been more dust in the past than currently.
Our Mr. AC here seems to have taken the ICR's lies as gospel.
Everything that you mentioned is theory and yet you present it as fact. The facts are that there are certain amounts of radioactive particles in the rocks or in the organic matter. The assumption comes when you say that the amount of radioactivity has remained constant and that the ratio in living tissue is a constant as well. These assumptions as well as the assumption that the decay rate has remained constant are the underlying basis for most of the theories that you state. Let's look at those assumptions one at a time.
And I'll refute your assertions, one at a time.
1) The amount of radioactive particles in the atmosphere is constant. This has been shown not to be true. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of radioactive particles and the amount of radioactive particles in the atmosphere is in constant fluctuation. All of the cataclysmic events that you list would cause tremendous changes in the amounts and ratios radioactive particles and non-radioactive particles.
Sorry, but you're wrong. First, that only applies to carbon-14, not other radioisotopes. Second, that is NOT an assumption used in radiocarbon dating, because it is known that the concentration of C-14 varies with the cosmic-ray bombardment of the Earth (which varies in turn with the solar cycle and other factors).
The radiocarbon scale has been calibrated using tree growth-ring data, which is completely independent of any radioisotope production or decay rate. Tree rings depend on there being 1 growth season and 1 winter per year, which is pretty easy to check on.;-)
2) The ratio of radioactive to non-radioactive particles in living material is a constant.
This can easily be shown to be untrue by sampling currently living organisms. A living mollusk was tested by the C-14 method and found, according to the formulas, to have been dead for over 10,000 years.
Horribly over-simplified; a straw-man argument. The assumption is that plants which draw their carbon from the atmosphere will all have pretty close to the same proportion of C-14. If a mollusc is feeding on bacteria which are growing on an oil seep (in which all the C-14 has long since decayed), of course it will register older than it is. The thing being dated is the carbon source, the plant which first fixed the atmospheric carbon. If the carbon source is a lot older than the organism, you get an incorrect date. Easy solution: don't carbon-date oil-consuming bacteria or the things that live on them. Date them by other means; in this case, a cross-check with the carbon date can yield information on the creature's diet.
3) The rate of decay of radioactive particles is a constant.
The rate of decay, from the evidence we have, fits an equation that includes the speed of light. Independent scientists have discovered evidence that the speed of light is much slower than it used to be.
This is another ICR lie. There is no scientific evidence that the speed of light has changed, and the fact that radioactive decay and atomic energy levels would be radically affected by such wild variations in mu-nought or epsilon-nought proves that this did not occur. The fact is that we are seeing light from billions of light-years away, and a universe which is less than 10,000 years old could not have such a thing, therefore, there is a lot of creationist handwaving associated with the attempt to paper over the contradiction. This is the only reason that anyone invokes a decreasing speed of light.
To show that the theory is only that and not fact, one only has to disprove one of the assumptions. two of the three assumotions are false and the third is in question.
Only in your own mind.
Also, to the age of the moon, with the original trips to the moon, NASA was concerned that the spacecraft would sink into the dust that has been collecting on the surface of the moon since it has been there. They estimated up to 40+ feet of dust based on theories of the age of the earth and moon. They were concerned about Neil Armstrong being ready to catch the ladder with his hands and go down the stairs slowly in case he started to sink, he could catch himself. It turns out that there was about 1/8" of dust allowing an age of the moon of about 4000-40,000 years. A relatively short amount of time compared to current evolutionary theories. This of course is if the rate of dust falling is approximately what it is now. If the solar system came out of collisions and explosions, there would have been more dust in the past than currently.
You're wrong several times over in just this one paragraph.
The Surveyor probe soft-landed on the moon and dug at it with a robotic arm before the first Apollo landing. There was no mystery about the properties of the Lunar surface by the time Neil Armstrong set foot on it; they had been tested.
The lack of 40 feet of loose dust is not proof for a young moon. Far from it; the moon has no atmosphere, and in a vacuum materials vacuum-weld themselves together. It is bonded together with a strength somewhere between soil and dried mud.
I do wish you ICR-types would come up with some new arguments.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
(1) Radioactivity is not the only procedure by which we may date rocks. Anomalous periods of high radioactivity will stand out in a fossil record drill core and can be corrected for. Also, a volcanic eruption will present a very thin layer of airborne sediment.(2) Error of +/-10000 is not a big deal when referring to 1e6+/-10000. (3) The speed of light is not an issue here. And FYI, it's a constant, and has not been in dispute since Michelson-Morley. I never made any claims about the depth of dust on the moon, but errors of science are quickly caught, if this is what you were trying to say. Finally, you say
If the solar system came out of collisions and explosions, there would have been more dust in the past than currently.
Your free ride is now over. Please quantify and explain your contention. Are you even aware of modern planetary theory?
ObAdvice:
Just because you believe in god doesn't mean you have to take all that biblical stuff literally. If you eat pork, you are breaking those literal rules. I always thought Christianity was robust enough to get along with science, but your attitude suggests the opposite.
Re:Do you REALLY believe evolution?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For the past couple of weeks I've read a few stories where Christians were slammed in a small or large way. I never see budhists, wiccans, hindu, muslim, athiests, satanists, jews, etc. ridiculed. Ever wonder why that is? Are you afraid of something? The truth maybe?
The Buddists, Wiccians, etc. aren't attempting to convert me against my will to their beliefs. The Christians ARE. If you want to stop being slammed, shut up and leave us alone. If we want to know about your beliefs, we'll ask. Stop trying to get into the schools and brainwash all the kids to believe in your god. Worry about your own kids, only.
If you don't, don't be surprised when your churchs keep burning.
You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
Here's the facts, sir. Perhaps you would have discovered this had you been less interested in vindicating your foolish and reckless disregard for the Bible and more interested in the truth:
The passage in question (which you failed to mention) is 1 Kings 7:23-26. You seem to have only verse 23 in mind; this is a careless -- and, for your 'argument', fatal -- error known as "ripping out of context".
Yes, the basin was 10 cubits across. Yes, the circumference was 30 cubits.
You ignored the WIDTH of the thing.
Look in verse 26. It was a handbreadth thick. Now, my hand is approx. 4.25" across. Let's use 4" as a convenient measure for a handbreadth, and 18 inches for one cubit (both are pretty close).
That would give us the following:
C = 30 cubits * 18in/cubit = 540in.
diameter = C/PI (since C = PI * d)
diameter = 540 / 3.14159 = 171.887in.
(This is where it gets embarrassing for you)
Now, the difference between the stated diameter and the calculated diameter is 180 - 171.887, which is 8.113. This is almost exactly TWO of our handbreadths of 4 inches each!! Hmmm!!!
The conclusion is frighteningly simple:The diameter was measured to the outside edge of the basin, but the circumference was the INSIDE circumference, where the diameter is actually approximately EIGHT INCHES less than the outside diameter (one handbreadth per side = 4in. per side = 8in.).Thus, wonder of wonders, the Bible is actually accurate in this case, and you are hopelessly wrong (and so was the legislature of whatever state did this, if you're correct about that).
Of course, my numbers are mildly rough, but I think they're well within tolerance considering the technology available at the time of the construction of the temple. And if the man who measured the basin's thickness had a handbreadth of 4.0565 (8.113/2) inches -- just 5 hundredths of an inch larger than what we used as a convention -- then there is almost no error whatsoever.
Next time, try assuming that the Bible is true rather than false. You won't look so foolish.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
ronfar
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, but he isn't the one who made the law in Tennessee making Pi=3 (if there was such a law, I have trouble believing it but on the other hand it could be.)
This is an example of why making laws about scientific inquiry based on the Bible is a horrible idea. Supposing the Bible were interpreted incorrectly? I mean, heck, I read recently that imaging experiments on the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovering new text. Nothing Earth-shattering yet, but even adding one book to the Bible would be quite a shake up for all old testament based religions, eh?
Of course, many people don't believe the Bible is literally true, but if it is, the scientific method, applied correctly will provide irrefutable evidence of that fact in time. It will never get that chance if we go on saying "There are things Man was not meant to study."
-- All the creatures will die,
And all the things will be broken.
That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
Okay, one question then. Can you name me something OTHER than religion that isn't subject to verification or corroboration by the scientific method?
Ethics. Human self-consciousness. Epistemology. Cosmology. There's four for you.
You didn't understand my point; perhaps I wasn't clear. It is an illegitimate use of the scientific method to make the Bible's truthfulness subject to it. Why? Because God is absolutely sovereign and absolutely true. No one has the right to pass judgment on this. It's not anything that we have any standing to question.
But getting back to your question -- the scientific method cannot "verify" ethics. It can't "verify" human self-consciousness -- especially on the evolutionist's terms. It can't say anything whatsoever about the origins of the universe because it's not reproducible.
Evolutionists != materialists.So-called "theistic evolutionists" are so helplessly trapped in contradictions that they aren't worthy of either name.
Evolutionists cannot explain how it is that they are able to say anything is "true" or "false." By their own assumptions, they evolved from primordial goo. They are nothing more than a bag of chemicals with some lightning thrown in. How does a bag of chemicals say "true"? How does lightning striking a tree say "false"? It doesn't and can't. Truth and falsehood aren't even topics of discussion because there's no discussion. "Self-consciousness" doesn' just not exist; it's not even a mirage! There's no thing that could be self-conscious -- only sparks and fizzing. So you see why I scoff at your "religion".
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
I was going to give 50 thousand examples of *stupid* blatently false stuff and contradictions in the Bible (that your popes and bishops are quite aware of)
I'm not Catholic. They're not my popes or bishops.
I'm guessing that you're engaging in a little humorous hyperbole when you say you were going to offer "50 thousand" examples of "blatently [sic] false stuff and contradictions" in the Bible. I certainly wouldn't want to overwhelm Slashdot with such a list. Why not try -- ohh, how about THREE? I'm man enough to take it. Go ahead.
Better make them good, though.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re: Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
cicatrix
·
· Score: 1
While I generally agree with these thoughts, I'm also pleased to see someone actually make something of an empirical argument for something out of the christian bible, rather than simply dogmatically refusing any notions that seem to contradict it. Admittedly, the objective pro-bible view breaks down there at the end, but it is a start--now if everyone can actually take things a few steps further in this direction, it might be possible to have an actual discussion on religion, as opposed to a bitter fight...
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just one thing about inbred, the problem is a result of mutations in all humans, where fammilies all have the same mutation. Put them together and the child has the mutation in both chromosones causing problems (a mutation in just one is "repaired"). If you don't have any mutations in the first place the entire problem of inbred doesn't even exist.
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
mrex
·
· Score: 1
Next time, try assuming that the Bible is true rather than false.
I just felt like pointing out that this thinking is exactly the opposite of the scientific method. In science, you assume your hypothesis is WRONG, and you think up as many ways as you can to prove that its wrong, which is exactly what experimentation is -- trying to find things that either break or demonstrate your hypothesis.
When you start out by assuming your hypothesis is correct and looking at the evidence that way, then you put yourself in great danger of making the evidence fit your model, rather than making your model fit the evidence. This is most clearly the case with christianity. Creationists are the only group I can think of that continually tries to assault evolution. They say that "competing viewpoints" should be respected as well. My question is, "What competing viewpoints?!". Scientifically speaking, creationism is bunk. Not one shred of evidence supports creationism (at least that I have seen), and not one practical theory of creationism has been put forth. The best that creationists can do is say "goddidit". Perhaps thats valid for a sunday school brainwashing session, but remember that evolution is being taught in science and biology classes, and saying "goddidit", regardless of its factuality (or lack thereof), is neither appropriate nor relevent to such a class.
To all you creationists out there: instead of spending your time trying to disprove a competing theory, make your own coherent one. If you can make a scientifically valid theory of creationism, that stands up as well as evolution, I will personally help you to get it taught in schools. To claim the current "creationism" is a scientific equal to evolution and therefor belongs in classrooms equally, however, is what I find positively laughable. (That is to say, it would be laughable if it wasn't happening in MY country, a place that already lags behind much of the world in science education, on the eve of the 21st century.)
Why should one assume the bible is true, anyway? Why not assume its false? If I assume that the theory of gravity is false, and attempt to set about demonstrating it, I'm still going to end up concluding that there is a force quantifiable as "gravity". Why is the bible a special case?
Re:You turn out to be completely WRONG
by
Damien+Ivan
·
· Score: 1
"Next time, try assuming that the Bible is true rather than false. You won't look so foolish."
By your logic, then all of humanity comes from one gigantic inbred family. And also, by your logic, it is a better idea to not think things through. Could it be that the Bible is not entirely true?! You prefer to be occasionally smug that to be intelligent. You prefer to be a dog to than to be a human. In fact, by your logic, you become exactly what the Bible says we are not: equal to animals!
Think about that for a moment.
-Damien Ivan
Evolution is a Hypothesis
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Evolution, on the other hand, is perhaps the strongest theory there is based on mountains of evidence What mountains of evidence? A hypothesis is just an educated guess. For something to become a theory it has to have a tremendous amount of scientific evidence backing it up. That means is has to be OBSERVABLE, MEASURABLE and REPEATABLE. Evolution fits none of these criteria, thus it could hardly be "the strongest theory". If you want a strong theorem, check out the Pythagorean Theorem.
Re:A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
PhonyToad
·
· Score: 1
Your definition of "life" is far too narrow. If there existed, say, intellgent selenium-based life forms who drank molten sulfur, might they not wonder what the odds were of an environment so conducive to life, rather than a bunch of amino acid crap on a planet which would be obviously much to cold to dring sulfur on?
We have already demonstrated that silicon-based intelligence is feasible. Why do we feel our particular circumstances are necessary for life?
-- void post {
post_random_comment("slashdot.org");
karma--;
}
Re:Maybe we shouldn't teach evolution in school...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I would be happy if north america spent more time teaching things like math and grammer. Me thinks me english ain't none too good. Who cares if they teach evolution or not.
wow *top* scientists really? and they *claim* to?!
by
delmoi
·
· Score: 1
conicedentaly, Some top scientists claim that I, Chad Okere am the true god! Submit to my awsome power! Weeeeeeee "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes and the uprising of Killer Bees in the America's. That's proven undisputable natural selection.
Dogma. Not only in Religeon
by
PenguinII
·
· Score: 1
One of the most hated things about 'christianity' and religeons of all types is the dogma associated with it. Do As I Tell You Or You Will Go To Hell. The catholic church has been a big example of this, burning many people at the stake and stuff like that. As religeous dogma began to lose popularity people started to think more freely and science advanced very quickly. Many people then assosiated all religeon with dogma and became athiests etc etc. When Charles Darwin came up with his Theory many people liked this as they didn't have any creater or anything. People started to come up with all sorts of support for evolution. evolution with a lower case e certainly does happen and is known as micro-evolution. Evolution however which is the idea of one common ascestor to everything is mainly based on a concept which sounds very attractive but has VERY FEW FACTS to support it. It has become accepted throughout education and stuff. Evolution is the dogma of science IMO.
Re:Dogma. Not only in Religeon
by
tburke
·
· Score: 1
The funny thing is, Catholic dogma now holds that evolution is "more than just a theory". Re: the Pope's letter to Scientists, 1996. Couldn't find the original text on vatican.va, but here is a reputable reference: USNews: pope supports evolution
Re:Dogma. Not only in Religeon
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
"you don't know what a theory is" blah blah blah. I'm getting so tired of posting this. It is not diminishing to call evolution a "theory". Gravity is a theory. Evolution is no less supported by evidence than gravity. Read the posts you skipped for more on this.
There are not "very few facts". There are so many facts supporting evolution, and facts that were predicted by evolution, that it would takes weeks to describe all of them. Learn the theory before you spout off. And learn something about scientific method, e.g. what is a "theory".
Consider the "33000" year old wood (not fossils) has been found embedded in "millions of years old" Hawkesbury sandstone in Sydney. Which date is right?
Can you provide a reference? I looked around the net and couldn't find ANYTHING regarding this, although I suspect that it probably has something to do with your next question:
Consider the many, many polystrate fossils in the world. Intrusion's ridiculous, unless you have a religious attachment to the dating of the rock layers that are crossed.
First, the type of fossils you're talking about are, invariably, fossils of trees found in sedimentary rock. What has happened is that a tree (or a stump of a tree) has been covered up by different layers, causing the tree to have become fossilized through several different layers. Go to http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polys trate/trees.html for a discussion of this.
Consider many thousands of square miles of "upside down" strata (in one chunk; yes, even in the US) with negligible signs of movement at the interface. How did they get there? Did the whole lot flip over, extending hundreds of miles into space, and likewise into the magma?
I assume you're talking about places where older rock is found above younger rock. When two masses of earth run into each other, a few different things can happen: They both crumple upwards, they both crumple downwards, or one goes on top of the other (overthrusting). If the one that ends up on top is geologically older, then the situation that you have described occurs
Consider the sudden end of life-signs at the pre-Cambrian level.
The organisms in the precambrian were soft-shelled, and while there are plenty of fossils from that time, you would expect fewer to be found from soft animals. The cambrian period marks the advent of hard-shelled organisms that leave remains (shells) that fossilize much more easily. Hence, the great increase of observable fossils. Not to mention the fact that the "sudden" event happened over millions of years... http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html #5.4
Consider the observation that the gremlins in the lowest levels of strata are generally the kind of gremlins that would be there anyway: bottoom dwellers.
bottom dwellers? how is a jellyfish (found in the oldest fossils) a bottom dweller, considering that it floats?
Consider the skeletons of modern man that Leakey found much further down than "Lucy."
Leakey found no such thing.
Consider the many thousands of fossil sites at which "local flooding" events are blamed - and the "global flood" on dry Mars - and yet nobody wants to know about a global flood here. Why?
First of all, the existence of local floods in no way implies the existence of a large, world-encompassing global flood.
Speaking of global floods, you have a shifting definition here. Using the example of Mars, where the amount of liquid water on a global scale may have changed, then yes, the earth has experienced periods where the sea levels have gone up and down by huge amounts, when water has become locked up in large ice sheets. Using the definition of a biblical-style "global flood", many problems arise, not the least of which is, "where did the water go?":). I recommend looking at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ faq-noahs-ark.html for a discussion of some of the problems with a biblical style global flood.
The problems that science has with young earth creationism are not because scientists refuse to look at the evidence, but instead because they have.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you haven't bothered to read the thread. You don't know what a theory is, and you don't know what "links" are "missing" in evolution. The answers to all of the above are earlier in the comments for this article. Learn something about science before you spout off.
Re:The end times are coming!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ya. The Roman Catholic Trinity : The Father, the Holy Spirit, and Mary.
Can you see the fistfights at that new world religion thing?
Re:Interesting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I never got that before. It's how people run around screaming their own opinion without proving it. I like it.
Re:Interesting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The good Lord doesn't need any stinking irrational numbers!
Re:Darwin is my idol
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Look! A stupid person! He never said Darwin taught evolution! Try reading the post next time!
"The only other alternative is to believe in a created universe"? You do realize, don't you, that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life? One could still have a created universe with evolution (though the creator might not necesarily fit into what the Xians have concocted). As for being accountable for our actions if there was a creator . . .
why would anybody or anything capable of creating galaxies give a rat's ass about a race whose combined mass would not even be equal to 1e-10000 of that of a star? Its interesting that we humans are so self centered. Why do you think that a creator, if there was one, would care about us? How do you know that the whales are not the true children of the creator and that we are merely some excess scum that was created as a by product (kind of like that old Star Trek episode where they go in to the past to fetch to whales . ..)
Anyway, I see that this is dissolving into an old fashioned flame fest. There are internet newsgroups more suited to this kind of thing.:)
Would it be better...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow...and I thought you were open minded. Seems it's okay to fight anything, just don't fight the religion of evolution.
The fact is that the facts are sketchy. In science you use a model as long as it is useful. Evolution has a lot of uses, but there are also cases where it fails us, completely, over and over and over again (Vision and the Eve Gene for example). How then should it be taught as state religion?
And if you don't think it is evolution is not being taught as religion you just try and shake your fist at it. You thought the inquisition was bad?
I am not qualified to even make a statement I guess. But heck what's so bad about not making evolution mandetory. I could see if they removed teaching the law of gravity, i mean we may not be able to prove it but good luck ignoring it.
And if you don't think it is evolution is not being taught as religion you just try and shake your fist at it. You thought the inquisition was bad?
To paraphrase one of Asimov's observations, it's popular to oppose the scientific establishment because it gives you rebellion chic without the sort of nasty side effects (burning at the stake, incarceration a concentration camp, impoverishment, ostracism) that a real Establishment can inflict on its foes. Heroism without risking so much as a hangnail has an obvious appeal. /.
-- /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:Bass Ackwards
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>You bible belt folks never cease to amaze the rest of the civilized world...:)
As far as I understand it, the belief that a "big bang" created the universe is similar to shaking a puzzle in it's box, throwing the pieces on the table, and having them all fall perfectly into place. From an mathematical standpoint, this is impossible.
No... not impossible, imPROBABLE. It could happen, just probably wouldn't.
Before you declare things to be impossible, think.
fjord.
-- We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us.
- Douglas Coupland
Re:I am agog.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wish I lived in Kansas so I could vote for the governor.
I found just a very minor point in a very well-written and thought-out article.
> The only facts in science are logic and > mathematics (and even these are only marginally > facts as Godel proved centuries later)
Godel did not prove anything of the sort. All facts of mathematics are just as true and just as valid as they were before Godel published his incompleteness theory. What Godel said was that not all true facts are provable. This has some very important implications about the plilosophical limits of mathematics and logic, but it does not change in any way all those facts that _are_ provable. And that provable category includes just about any mathematical statement that has relevance to anything. Godel had to go through many contortions just to create one mathematical statment that wasn't provable.
However, this still supports your original point that science is much less absolute than mathematics and logic and is based solely on induction (which is a shakey ground if you want to claim something as absolute).
]Many non-religious scientists are questioning the tenets of evolution.
Propoganda. Show me one.
Re:Heh.. Bass-Ackward Public Schools..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're right about the creationist BS.
Fish *can* drown, though not from "too much water" or something like that. Try not putting a bubbler in your fish tank with big fish and watch what happens.
They have to keep moving through the water to suck oxygen from the water. If they can't move forward, they die.
A flood would likely aeriate the water...and increase the oxygen. The fish would love it.
The really icky part would be collecting all those fruit flies and other insects, as well as poisonous spiders and very large snakes. Noah must have spent an awful lot of time in the African and South American jungles collecting worms and stuff. And let's not forget about every single species of E.Coli there is... But then again, those can live in the rotten wood or something. Must have been a pretty nasty job:)
-- -S
Kind of like 'The Handmaid's Tale'
by
gelfling
·
· Score: 1
..by Margaret Atwood.
In the future when everyone is obedient, ignorant, docile. When only the righteous can read. When we just stopping making up kind names for fascism. Who will be left who still knows how the make all of the Viagra they're going to need to make God's New Army?
I feel like I'm in a Sci-Fi movie where after all the shit falls apart and everyone is left picking over the rubble of some long forgotten technology and worshipping trash and broken TV sets. The light at the end of the tunnel has been permanently turned off.
Re:First, God created idiots. That was for practic
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not their fault. Self-defense mechanism for a sociological virus. If *you* were being attacked, like Christianity was, *you* would want to fight back too. Remember, evolution *does* exist, which is how an organism like Christianity came to be.
Fundamentalists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It looks like the US is becoming more and more like Iran. Full of crazy fundamenalists.
Re:Way to go kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But of course. Necessary to rapidly repopulate the earth (similar to after the flood).
Ironic, really.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What I really hate is "selective anti-scientists."
The language of the resolution allows for "micro- evolution," i.e. they concede that species change, but don't change into different species.
Any die-hard Creationist cringes at such a concession, because once you admit that species can evolve, it doesn't take a lick of imaginiation to see how divergent evolution might lead to genetically incompatible ancestors (i.e. different species).
Of course, most Creationists are more pragmatic, they want their cake and to eat it too. They accept mutations, but not micro evolution or gentic drift. Or, they'll accept those but not Evolution as a whole.
Did I mention how go left fossils in the ground to test our faith? Obviously you can't believe radiological methods of dating fossils, but why do they trust scientists then to explain how nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs work? If they think that is bunk too, I would love to hear the anti-scientists explain those.
Then again, the ability of Creationists et al. to defy conventional reason is rather inherent.
Just a flippant comment pointing out that the strength of wood limits the length of ships (too much length and it will crack in the middle due to its own weight; that's why steel ships were such a breakthrough, they are MUCH stronger per pound). So the "math" says that to fit at least a pair of ALL of earth's land animals (plus many birds that aren't oceangoing, plus provisions and, Oh, fresh water fish, except with all that rain, maybe the oceans turned fresh for a while until it all evaporated and went... where?) the wooden ship would be far too big (multiple Arks would be required). Not that I've done the math, nor does it consider alternate ship designs such as a giant raft, plus God's "mighty hand" could have held the ship together, etc...
In other words, 'twas mostly a joke, although the image of the almighty Ark armada, crusing the high seas with Aardvarks to Zebras, gives me a warm fuzzy.
--
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Idiot winds are blowing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here are the idiots who did this... Kansas State Board of Education Members: Steve Abrams - sabrams@hit.net Val DeFever - vdefever@ksbe.st.ks.us Mary Douglass Brown - qekc86a@prodigy.com Scott Hill - scotth@access-one.com I.B. "Sonny" Rundell - ibvrrun@pld.com Harold L. Voth - hlv@ourtownusa.net William Wagnon - zzwagn@acc.wuacc.edu Janet Waugh - JWaugh1052@aol.com
required reading
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
anyone who claims to be an evolutionist really must consider all evidence - positive and negative - to that end, i recommend two *very* high-quality books - "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe, and "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" by Denton. For the record, neither of the two writers are christians, but both are highly accomplished biologists cheers
Re:Did anyone actually read the article?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Great that you mentioned the theory of US History which has been proven wrong yet is still taught:)
Surprised? Can anyone show me absolute proof and/or a documented case of true evolution? I thought so... another theory bites the dust.
-- --
Ted
tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
Re:Except that . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Except that religious schools DON'T teach both sides of the argument.
Maybe not all of them, but the one that I attended, which used courses that a good majority of them use, did in fact teach both points of view.
Ignorance is not bliss, this is a subject where both points of view should be taught in public schools, or neither. As both Creationism and evolution are a matter of faith, both are Religions.
Zane
Re:TRUTH
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
well about the "show me proof" comments, all I can say is that: I didn't go do the research, but he obviously did sometime in his lifetime; hence, the reason you quote people.
So you think it does not matter what these people (Kelvin, Morse, Newton, etc) believed? I said for people like you who like to make comments like, "Christian (or any) fundamentalists are not receptive to logic". This also *may* go to prove that maybe you are not being logical, but a little emotional. It seems as if you are stating what you *want* to believe, and not using the brain that God (inserted purposefully) gave to you.
Lastly, there has not been any limiting of choice! There has actually been an INCREASE in choice. Because, now it is not required (lack of choice) to teach that theory but it is optional (increase in choice).
Also, before you start saying how religious people are pushing thier hidden agendas into the educational system, think about the hidden agendas of non-religious people. For example, prohibiting praying public schools (im talking about silent individual prayer, not directed prayer). Dont you think that this was someone's agenda being pushed onto Christians (and other religions). Note: I took some of this content from an earlier post
I encourage you to read my other post a few posts later regarding a simple math equation. I believe the title is "Life from Evolution? No way..." Goes to show that evolution is a little more (in your words) "rediculously stupid" than Creation (aka: Truth) is.
I know, I slipped some of my personal agenda into this post, and I was trying to avoid it too... oops
We still have a lot to learn
by
R2-D2
·
· Score: 1
"God is dead" -- Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead" -- God
There is a lot we don't know. Most people in western culture believe in science with as much faith as Christians follow God. Modern science is still mostly theories. Newton thought he had a pretty accurate theory for how the world worked. Einstein came along and showed that newtonian physics was not the whole story. Einstein only had a small part of it figured out. To say evolution is the full story of how we were created is naive, we don't know that yet.
If you do...
Given: The Universe.
Insert your proof here
QED
Re:We still have a lot to learn
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Right. However if you discredit evolution and every other "theory" that isn't fully proven, you might as well throw away EVERYTHING. What it comes down to is that evolution quesitons the fundamental beleif system of the Christian majority in the USA. Just as debates over the "center of the universe" and whether the earth was flat or round, we very well COULD go on teaching our children those things, just because there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF that the earth is round or that the earth is not the center of the solar system and universe. However by doing so you throw away the foundation by which all scientific progress is made. You might as well simply give up all scientific inquiry. The only problem here is the rigid beleif system of the Christian right. If Christians truly were as good and understanding as they claim to be, this kind of thing would not be such a problem. Galieleo would not have been put in jail till his death only to be "forgiven" by the Pope four hundred years later. Beleif in a god and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive truths. Who is to say that "god" didn't create evolution to create us? Faith in the unprovable can go only so far.
Umm...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> if you don't belive that, you are a fool
I agree with you on the other parts, but really...
They are not banning the teaching of evolution, only the teaching of evolution as proven scientific fact.
They are banning the teaching of evolution as an origin of a species, scientific fact or not, read the article. They are still going to allow teaching evolution within a species. For example if humans evolved to where they didn't have an appendix anymore, they could teach that as evolution, but they can't teach that humans evolved from apes or that amphibians evolved from fish.
It's a theory, and that is what it has been mandated to be taught as.
There is an all too common misconception about what it means to be a theory and what it means to be a law. People think that something that isn't proven is a theory and when it is proven it is a law. THIS IS FALSE.
A theory is a system of ideas or a sphere of abstract knowledge which attempts to explain why certain phenomena occur.
Examples: Theory of Evolution, Theory of Relativity, etc. These are not theories because they are "unproven". They are theories because they explain why things are the way they are.
A law is a statement of specific conditions or relationships that exist in nature.
Examples: Law of Gravity, Laws of Motion, etc. These are not laws because they have been "proven". It is arguable that NOTHING can ever be "proven". They are laws because they describe the Universe and the relationships therein.
If I say "Force equals mass times acceleration." This is a law because it is a statement of a relationship regardless of whether or not it is accurate. If I say "Kansas banned evolution because people in Kansas are ignorant." This is a theory because it tries to explain why something occured or why something occurs, regardless of whether or not it is accurate.
I got my definitions here. It's a page about heat and temperature, but it still gives the definitions. You just have to scroll down about a screen.
it should be seen as a continuing search for evidence.
Science is always a continuing search for evidence. Not teaching well-founded, though controvertial, scientific theories isn't. If they really wanted a "search for evidence" in Kansas, they would increase their evolution curriculum and go into more detail about exactly what the evidence is for and against evolution, rather than erase it entirely. This is nothing but an exercise in ignorance.
We haven't (and will not be able to) prove evolution, but at least we can still continue to try.
Nothing can be proven. Scientific principles can only be disproven. A scientific principle is accepted when there is sufficient evidence for it and there is nothing to contradict it. Evolution is accepted: there is evidence, and nothing contradicts it. Why should it be treated differently than any other scientific principle because there are people too ignorant to accept it. The funny thing is that if they weren't so closeminded, they would understand that evolution doesn't even disprove God, it simply changes one's understanding.
-
--
- It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Probably one of the most popular parts of biology is the study of dinosaurs. So popular that movies like Jurassic Park and the like made millions of dollars Will kids in Kansas schools still be taught about dinosaurs (which are not mentioned in the Bible) or will they, too, be dropped from the curriculum? What do Bible literalists believe about Tyrranosaurus Rx and the like? Just some questions that came to mind last night.
-- All the creatures will die,
And all the things will be broken.
That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Dino's ARE in the Bible. Ever read the book of Job? Of course not. You're busy talking about things that you don't know about on the 'net...
Just had to comment...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Although I rather not linger on pointing out evidence in each case to disprove you; how do you react towards the mapping of the genetic makeup between two supposedly evolutionarily linked species such as, men and chimps? Do the nearly identical patterns in the strands of DNA indicate anything? Or is that just being 'misinterprated' also? Come to think of it, nearly anything can be interprated as one pleases, it's probably the only explanation as how a religion based on the compilation of works by zealous and understandably ignorant individuals can survive as long as it has. But moving on from petty jabs...
There is no rock or fossil that all by itself says "Hi! Evolution is true!" To the contrary, human beings have interpreted certain things to mean that evolution is "true." They are wrong.
Might I ask what differs between a evolutionist's interpration of evidence supporting his beliefs and yours? Do you consider yourself in some manner infallable of being perhaps gullible to a possibility that suits your tastes, and from then on being quite close-minded of any opposition? What authority do you, merely you, have in claiming anyone is in an objective sense right or wrong? Seems quite pompous to me.
In order for it to be scientific, such "evolutionary processes" (so-called) must be reproducible. They are not. No one has ever evolved a new species from an old one, and even if they had done so that would not ipso facto prove that humans came into being the same way. It's pure unadulterated rubbish that you have been sold...
For someone believing in a god and creationism (I would assume), I am rather suprised you would have the nerve to bring up the possibility of reproducable evidence. The utter lack of any indication of a divine being outside of completely theoretical speculation, and the sheer absurdity of creationalist ideas (planets being created in mere days; a species derived from mud, and then propagating through extensive inbreeding, etc.) hardly fits the category of sound, reproducable fact. But, before you utter the words, I noticed your safety net of claiming of the neccessity of evolution being "scientific" not religion. I would, however, wonder where my trust would rather be placed. In a scientific theory that, under the neccessity of evidence, may very well have misgivings and perhaps be entirely disproven; or a mere speculative set of beliefs refusing to even acknowledge needing logical evidence, for the very reason, in my humble opinion, that it would flat on its face.
Toodles.
Re:Just had to comment...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you forget that your 'infallible' Bible was written by humans? The Bible is merely a 'vague' human interpretation of a series of events. What makes these human accounts any more valid than any other? BTW, my God said your God has no idea what he is talking about... screw you I'm going home.
Re:Just had to comment...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You misunderstand me. It is evolutionists who claim that their fable is "scientific." But the scientific method is founded irrevocably upon reproducible results. This is not my claim; this is their claim. And their evolutionistic fable falls flat on its face, as you put it, precisely because it doesn't even measure up to the claims made for it. Evolution of the human race cannot be reproduced in the lab; therefore claims that we evolved are non-scientific.
How can you say it can't be reproduced in the lab? Look at the time period over which evolution is operating...millions of years. I know the Bible-toting brainwashed God people don't like to think in terms of anything over 3000 years, but I haven't seen any of their ilk come up with any evidence to counter the scientifically established age of the earth (in the billions of years.)
For my part, I never claimed that creation is or must be scientifically reproducible in order to be true. I claim that it is true because it it what the Bible teaches. Period. And, for what it is worth, it is self-evident that evolutionism is a religion.
Fine, how are you going to prove that the Bible is infallible, God-boy? And I have books that talk about other mythical creatures too...like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny...you gonna believe in those too? If not, you'd better come up with some reason for use to believe your book over all the other ones out there.
You know, I would have no problem with these fscking church people if they would all just renounce any and all material goods and services that resulted from scientific advances. I mean, if they claim science is wrong then dammit, let them put their money where their mouth is. We should stick them all on a island somewhere where they could sit around and pray to their hearts content. People who so vigorously deny reality have an obvious mental defect and should not be allowed to infect the rest of the gene pool.
how do you react towards the mapping of the genetic makeup between two supposedly evolutionarily linked species such as, men and chimps? Do the nearly identical patterns in the strands of DNA indicate anything? Or is that just being 'misinterprated' also? Come to think of it, nearly anything can be interprated as one pleases, it's probably the only explanation as how a religion based on the compilation of works by zealous and understandably ignorant individuals can survive as long as it has. But moving on from petty jabs...
So the DNA is similar. So what? This proves nothing. I can just as easily (and more accurately) say that it's because chimps and humans have the same creator. If evolutionists think otherwise, then yes they have misinterpreted the data.
Really everything is interpreted. There are no "brute facts." Our obligation is to interpret things the way that God does. We are not free to interpret things the way that we want.
Might I ask what differs between a evolutionist's interpration of evidence supporting his beliefs and yours? Do you consider yourself in some manner infallable of being perhaps gullible to a possibility that suits your tastes, and from then on being quite close-minded of any opposition? What authority do you, merely you, have in claiming anyone is in an objective sense right or wrong? Seems quite pompous to me.
Read my post carefully. I don't claim to be objective. NO one is. The difference is that my interpretation is based upon an infallible standard -- the Bible -- whereas the fables of the evolutionist are based solely upon the vagaries of human reason. I don't consider myself infallible; the Bible is, however, and upon that basis I can confidently declare that the evolutionists are hopelessly wrong.
I am rather suprised you would have the nerve to bring up the possibility of reproducable evidence.
You misunderstand me. It is evolutionists who claim that their fable is "scientific." But the scientific method is founded irrevocably upon reproducible results. This is not my claim; this is their claim. And their evolutionistic fable falls flat on its face, as you put it, precisely because it doesn't even measure up to the claims made for it. Evolution of the human race cannot be reproduced in the lab; therefore claims that we evolved are non-scientific.
For my part, I never claimed that creation is or must be scientifically reproducible in order to be true. I claim that it is true because it it what the Bible teaches. Period. And, for what it is worth, it is self-evident that evolutionism is a religion.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:Noah's Ark...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And penguins. How did he pull that off? They'd be a bit toasty. And mayflies. Males only live for a day. You'd be seeing multiple generations of inbred mayflies...If there were exactly 2 of each type of animal, what did the carniverous ones eat? What about freshwater animals? What about the plants...did they all get killed?
This is not holding up to common sense questions. Evolution does. Yes, I *have* questioned it until I'm blue in the face. Evolution holds up without requiring "blind faith". Pretty simple.
If you argue that blind faith is required, then we simply can't discuss this. Blind faith means believing something with no grounds to do so. "Jump off that cliff and you'll land safely with one million dollars".
Scientologists v. Christians
by
penguinicide
·
· Score: 1
I wish the Scientologists and Christians would duke it out. That would be some entertainment.
Christians will never let non-believers alone. Don't kid yourselves.
What blows my mind, is that the Creationists just don't get it. If there was noone there to witness the first days, who's to say how long a day was? (especially before there was the sun, considering that a day was recognized as a light/dark cycle)
Evolution and Creationism can coexist. Think about the order of events in the book of Genesis. Formation of masses in the universe, critical mass of a star, basic organisms followed by more advanced organisms (from the sea to the land too!) the man...
Ok, what part of that doesn't follow evolution? The only thing that doesn't match is the time period, and as I stated above, who's to say how long a day was. Consider this. When the book of Genesis was written, what was the largest number they peoples were aware of? What sounds better 6 days or 60,000 years (I doubt they were aware of a number that high, and definitely not able to comprehend a number that high, much less a few million/billion) remember this was pre roman numeral. The arabic system we use didn't even exist then. (The 6 days were probably originally designated as 6 cycles/seasons/events etc...)
Well that's my two bits. I still want to see the Scientologists v. Christians fight. That would be historic.
--
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
incorrect definitions
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, I don't agree. Otherwise, the term species would only refer to organisms that reproduce sexually. The notion of the species is a haphazzard and messy one that does nothing to enhance the theory whatsoever. "species" is a way of measuring similarity vs. difference, and depending on the situation, evolutionary logic creates different outcomes, many of the dynamics of which have a lot to do with the level of genetic similarity or difference among organisms.
Also, the notion of species leads people to falsely conclude that species evolve. As is probably obvious to most people reading this, individual organisms reproduce, and the process of evolution is generally measured relative to some group of individuals. However, the force of natural selection operates only on individuals, leading to the emergence of a group dynamic that "looks like" the evolution of a species over time.
evolution, micro and macro, consists of a few mechanisms:
selection
mutation
variation
substrate neutrality
Adaptation, imho, is not really an important part of the true evolutionary logic. A trait is said to be "adaptive" if it helps an organism survive. In fact, a trait can enter the gene pool if and only if it is not highly harmful. It is even possible that two traits could be selected for at once, the first trait being harmful and the second being helpful. If the second is helpful enough to outweigh the "cost" of the harmful one, then both may be selected. Thus, adaptation is really more of a metaphor for the "result" of selection, however misleading it is.
All organisms that are often grouped together as a 'species' have some common ancestor and some degree of genetic similarity with one another. Mutation could, theoretically, allow dogs and lizzards to evolve into a genetically identical species several million years from now. This is, needless to say, highly unlikely.
Also, the idea of "species" is unhelpful to understanding the aforementioned evolutionary mechansims. It stems mostly from the taxanomic roots of biology, and tends to confuse the issue more than it clarifies it. Two organisms with a common ancestor, if mutation and selection operates differently on their decendents -- i.e., they are in different environments, different mutations occur -- can end up with decendents that are very genetically different... much different than the orginial two organisms. Over time, this can result in the process which has ignorantly been named "speciation"...
Interbreeding is relevant to evolution, but not to the definition of a "species" (take one-celled organisms that reproduce asexually, for example).
i'm not a coward -- mmmurf@umich.edu -matt
stop complaining and make money
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't understand why so many people get frustrated about ignorant people. These people are happy to reject science and evolution and you can contribute to their happiness and make money at the same time by writing and selling them trashy books critisizing evolution.
You don't need any scientific credibility, any specialized knowledge, or any background in real science (practically all the books that contain 'evidence' against evolution are written by people who confess they are only amateur science enthusiasts - that doesn't matter to their audience). All you need to do is go to a web site like talk origins, get a list of all the bogus arguments that have been used against evolution (carefully ignoring their gross errors), put them into a book, and watch the money roll in.
Who cares if there is an ignorant sub-class living in Kansas? They are not going to influence the minds of normal educated people. More people believe in astrology than 'Creation Science' - and who cares? The only difference that makes to smart people is that they should concentrate their efforts on writing astrology books than creation books if they want to make the most money out of stupid people. Roderick Murgatroid r_murgatroid@hotmail.com
To address your point about reading the bible, my senior year of high school, part of my reading for my English class was to read the King James Bible, in particular Genesis. And there were actually two versions of creation, one of which was the popular Adam and Eve story (creationist viewpoint), and then there was another version of it (although this led into Adam and Eve) describing something that could almost be interpreted as evolution. I cannot remember line numbers or sections, but I remember my English teacher pointing that out to us. Quite amusing, actually...
Now, as to the why this is dangerous part. No, it won't cause school shootings, although I think that argument is silly and simply put, extraneous. The reason it is dangerous is that if a valid scientific theory, which is, at present, the best theory we have to describe the development of life on earth (according to most international scientific bodies) is dropped from the science curriculum in grades k-12, these children will be missing a rather important section of science. Much of biology (or at least the way change occurs in such) is based upon this theory, and thus will harm the children when they enter college. They'll be lacking an understanding of a theory that most colleges in this country will assume they've already been exposed to it. That is the danger...a loss of knowledge due to a group, which without consultation or expert knowledge, decided that the child did not need this theory. That is my problem with it.
Evolution is only a theory, and I agree it should be taught as such. But I think it's a bit excessive to say that evolution was sold to us by people who hate God. IIRC, Darwin was a fairly religious guy, and he created it. And to call a idea that you disagree with a lie is almost the same as someone calling your theory a lie. If you want to think that, go ahead. I won't agree with you, but I would expect you to at least respect my right to have this opinion.
-- "Evil will always triumph, because good....is dumb!"
Dark Helmet
this and that
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apparently the third creation account is located at the end of one of the gospels (no, I not personally familiar with it), perhaps Luke?
As for the animal thing, I think you may have my argument confused with another. Understandable, my head is quite full after reading so many comments!
I agree that Christianity is indeed dependent upon historical events. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Christianity's core beliefs summed up in the creeds? My understanding of them is as follows: Several hundred years after the death of Christ, many people were diluting Christianity with local religious traditions and additional gods or this and that. So representatives of the entire church met three times to form the Apostles', the Nicene and the Anastatian (sp?) Creeds. They provide a description of Christianity to anyone who should ask. One must necessarialy believe these core things to be considered an actual Christian, in my understanding. These I see to be the historical events upon which Christianity is based. Everything else is open to interpretation. And there are many of them. Everyone must apply their best judgement as to how to interpet much of the bible and the events. My best judgement is through logic. This does not make God's existance dependent upon my logic, merely my belief if God. This is what I need to balance the dictates of my concsience with scriptures. However I don't buy that every historical account in the bible (which one?) is exactly historically correct. While Christianity is indeed based upon certain historical events, it is also based in principles. Ten Commandments, etc.
"What makes you think that the validity of the Bible hinges upon anything you or I say or think?" I don't BELIEVE that the validity of Christianity depends upon anything you or I say or think. My belief system is not provable: will anyone ever disprove that the person Jesus existed? I think probably not. There's even strong evidence to suggest a similar person existed. However, the bible is not perfect, and many things in the bible are disprovable (historical accounts, for example, are vulnerable to being disproved. Apparently there are 500 years of difference in the descriptions of the decendency of Abraham in the NT and the OT). There is not even one bible! Which bible do you use? RC or Protestant? The majority of the bible was collected/written long after the death of Christ. And it was PEOPLE who wrote the bible, not God. Yes, inspired by God, but written by man. God's Word, by definition of God, cannot be flawed. But mankind's interpretation (of the bible) is. And this should not infringe upon the acceptance of the principles of Christianity. As for the Vatican being wrong, it can't be because the Pope is infallable..... =8^)
Apparently the third creation account is located at the end of one of the gospels (no, I not personally familiar with it), perhaps Luke?
Negative. It's not at the end of any of the gospels. Again, I'm not denying it, but absent anyone presenting it to us why don't we just ignore it.
As for the animal thing, I think you may have my argument confused with another.
Again, negative; but I may have guessed badly at your point in raising the "different creation accounts" myth. Too many evolutionists think that Genesis 2 says that the animals were created after Adam; it says nothing of the sort. My apologies for thinking the worst of you in this respect:-)
My understanding of them is as follows: Several hundred years after the death of Christ, many people were diluting Christianity with local religious traditions and additional gods or this and that. So representatives of the entire church met three times to form the Apostles', the Nicene and the Anastatian (sp?) Creeds.
Actually there were many such councils -- such as at Chalcedon and Constantinople. You are essentially correct about what led to the creeds here.
They provide a description of Christianity to anyone who should ask. One must necessarialy believe these core things to be considered an actual Christian, in my understanding.
Very close to correct. The creeds weren't intended to be comprehensive. They were intended to deal with the issues of the day. You will note, for instance, that the Apostles' Creed (misnamed, since the apostles didn't write it -- though I think they would have approved) does not mention God's omniscience -- yet anyone at the council who denied that doctrine would have been burned at the stake. The creeds dealt with critical issues, and most of those in the church's early centuries were Christological/Trinitarian. They were indeed intended to detail what one must believe about those doctrines (namely, of Christ and the Trinity) in order to be a Christian, however.
Everything else is open to interpretation. And there are many of them.
Well, yes and no. First, we interpret literally everything. So there is nothing in the Bible that isn't interpreted. Our task is to interpret correctly -- and that means we must ask (and then answer) the question, "What does God mean in this passage?" We are NOT free to interpret the Bible however we wish outside of a few "essentials." We have to interpret the whole thing correctly. We don't do this perfectly, of course, but this MUST be our aim.
Everyone must apply their best judgement as to how to interpet much of the bible and the events. My best judgement is through logic. This does not make God's existance dependent upon my logic, merely my belief if God.
To the contrary: you are making yourself greater than God: you are effectively saying to him, "God, if you don't satisfy MY criteria, I'm not going to believe in you!" You are wrong to believe that you have a right to do this, and it is a sin.
Interpreting the Bible is not so "up for grabs" as you make it. It is, after all, God's Word written by and through men in a definite historical-cultural context. It is language. Thus, it is a task that is within our reach. We have to cross the cultural gulf that lies between us and it, along with the language barriers, but this only requires study, not mind-altering drugs or anything.
However I don't buy that every historical account in the bible (which one?) is exactly historically correct.
Then you have no reasonable basis for believing any of it. The same God speaks in the whole book. If he's "wrong" in anything, he's not reliable for anything else either. He presents himself as omniscient and truthful. One or the other is false if there's an error in the Bible. That makes the whole thing useless if you are correct. You are not correct.
many things in the bible are disprovable (historical accounts, for example, are vulnerable to being disproved.
This turns out not to be the case. The Bible has never been demonstrated to be in error about any historical event it records, and in fact there are many cases where it has been proven correct after decades or more of "scholarly" doubt. Example 1: for decades at least "scientists" said that the Bible was wrong about the existence of the Hittite kingdoms because no one had ever found evidence of Hittite kingdoms. Well, they finally found the Hittites. Score: Bible 1, "scholars" 0. Example 2: They used to dispute the story of Jericho -- namely, that the walls fell down flat. Archaeology has since demonstrated that this is EXACTLY what happened. Bible 2, "scholars" 0. I could go on, of course.
The majority of the bible was collected/written long after the death of Christ.
False. The entire Old Testament predates Christ. That's 39 of the 66 books. The New Testament was completed within 35 years of the Crucifixion, and certainly before 70 AD, by the apostles themselves.
Absolutely not, and that was the point that he was getting at.
The "fact" that gravity operates at 32 f/s^2 would be debunked, but Science would remain strong and intact.
After all, Science-with-a-capital-S is the process of replacing old, debunked facts with new ones as new evidence debunks them.
In fact if neither of those two possible causes were the case, that would be the affirmation of Science, in and of itself. -- - Sean
-- It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
American centric view again, a few facts!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The roman catholic church has pretty much accepted evolution. I read somewhere there was a summit in Vatican on evolution where catholic scientists discussed it with top academic figures. Teilhard de Chardin was considered almost an heretic at a time but he's a respected figure in catholicism now. The official view, as I see it, of the catholic church on darwinism is that it's just a scientific explanation of the process of Creation. If you are to read the bible litterally, as I remember Asimov demonstrated it, the earth is flat and the stars are planted on big dome on top of it. Hm, sorry, not possible!!! Then I can't thing any such thing as a creationist exists, or at least has AS MUCH visibility as those in the USA anywhere in Europe. People would just laugh. Note: I am hard core atheist. nico@echange.fr
I highly reccommend that everyone who is concerned with this issue go out and obtain a copy of "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. He is a "traditional" biologist who is offended by the very unscientific nature of current Darwinian theories. His book is insightful and chock full of facts. Go grab it.
-- I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Re:are you f@cking kidding?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good question? A better question is "What does seperation of church and state have to do with this issue?" All the board is doing is removing the requirement that the religious/philisophical ideas of many scientists be taught as dogma. If you wanted to teach that all the pyramids were created by aliens and that this was undisputed fact, I would hope that a thinking school board would remove that too. Now we can get a bit closer to teaching kids to think, rather than to blindly beleive! Joel Mawhorter
Re:A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because then individuals would be accountable. Most people alive today will believe anything in order to convince themselves that they are free to be immoral.
Re:Many top scientists might see this a good thing
by
Darth
·
· Score: 1
I haven't studied recent (living) scientists, but at least Isaac Newton and Einstein would agree with me in getting rid of evolution theory having been Christians. that's some very seriously flawed logic. this assumes that all Christians oppose evolution. Since there are plenty of Christians who dont oppose evolution, being Christian is not enough to assume they oppose evolution.
Being a Christian myself, I see physics and all other real laws something that God considered a Good Thing(TM). I've met plenty of christians who would disagree with that. there's an entire sect of christianity that disagrees with this. why are these sciences still taught in schools when there are groups of christians who believe these elements of science go against god?
I have full faith in physics, mathematics, computer science and all such stuff, but if a theory is contradictory with the Bible, according to the logic (which is something that cannot be wrong by definition) either the Bible must be interpreted wrong, or the theory is wrong (that ok, if two things are directly contradictory they cannot both be correct. that's fine. however, logic works by proving a positive, not a negative. the goal isnt to prove something is wrong. the goal is to either, prove something directly contradictory is right, or to prove there is a flaw in the argument being used to prove something is right.
is, I can't say there wasn't a big bang, because the Bible doesn't say anything contradictory; it might have been the way God did it). In this case, I see it impossible to interprete the Bible so that humans are apes gone through evolution, and as such it must be false. the logical problem here is that you are assuming the bible is always right. this is not an assumption that the vast majority of the people who disagree with you will share. therefore, for you to use this as a foundation for your conclusion, you have to prove this to be the case. since your argument hinges on something you feel to be true but cannot prove to be true your argument doesnt stand. just out of curiosity, what in the bible directly contradicts the theory of evolution?
Note that many scientists, even those who don't believe in God, find every now and then new false predictions in evolution theory. Eg. that long 'tail' in our spine when we're still in the mother's womb is no longer considered a vestige of a tail, but rather something which is necessary for our skeletal development (or something; the point wasn't in the details). this doesnt invalidate evolution as a theory. it just means that one idea for why that tail is there turned out to not be the case and another idea took it's place. this is the scientific method in action. the fact that science is readily able and willing to drop hypotheses and theories that dont hold up against the physical evidence only demonstrates that the physical evidence supports (or at least doesnt contradict) evolution theory.
-- Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Only a fool closes off all possibilities
by
ordord00
·
· Score: 1
Let me first start this off with stating my personal bias so that you can take this with how much ever salt you deem appropriate. I am a Christian and I belong to a Southern Baptist Church in East-Central Texas (In other words I live in the middle of the Bible belt). My personal belief is that I don't think the common descent theory of evolution is true. I am a creationist in the strictest terms.
With that stated I am willing to concede that I may be wrong and that everyone deserves to at least learn the non-Christian theories. Only a fool closes off all of the available avenues of travel. I have considered that it is possible that God created the first basic elements of life and from there it evolved, either guided or unguided by God, into it's present form. I firmly believe it is not the schools job of teaching my children about Christianity (and thus creationism); it is MY job. It is the schools job to teach them reading, writing, math and science. One of the theories of science is that man evolved. If I have not given my children sufficient information to refute that then it is my fault that they do not believe how I would want them to. The article has a quote saying that evolution should not be taught because it cannot be proven. If we cut out everything that cannot be proven then we would not inspire children to research those areas (i.e. faster than light travel) when they get older. It seems to me that many so-called Christians want to pass the teaching of religion to the government because of their laziness. I say leave reading, writing, math, and science to the teachers and religion to the ministers.
To go off on a slight tangent look at how messed up the school system is now. Kids are being passed from grade to grade without being able to read. Would you want your kid to learn religion in that environment?
My main complaint about my fellow Christians, many of whom close off the other options without a second thought, is that the focus of Christianity is not about how life came about but how to be a better person by having communion with God. We putz around fighting the relatively meaningless argument of whether man evolved or was instantaneously created in his current form . We should be talking about how much better life is by having a personal relationship with God. Christianity is not about how God created us but how we can develop a relationship with God.
I know many of my fellow/.'s out there will disagree. But you know what? This argument about evolution and creation really doesn't matter one bit because it doesn't change how exist or even whether we exist or not.
Aaron
Re:Urm ok and this is a suprise how?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't think they are saying they can prove God. They are just saying you can prove evolution.
*/ Sigh! I wish schools would teach "creationism" as a theory, following scientific principles. Then teach the evolution and let the students make up their mind. /*
That cannot happen. There are several reasons. One of which is the fact that by teaching "creationism" they would be teaching the views of only ONE religion. This is unacceptable, especially in todays world. There are too many other religions out there with too many different view on how man came to be. There would be a need for a specific class discussing just the views of the major religions, like Hinduism, Buddism, Christianity, etc, etc.
My feeling about this is, if someone wants to learn about a religion then that is their decision, and they can have my "blessing" to do so. Until then the most rational course to tread is to teach the widely accepted non-religious scientific view.
-- Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Re:Urm ok and this is a suprise how?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They say evolution can't be proven. How the f*ck can they prove that god exists??? By a book that (no offense) could be the biggest fake in the history of the world?
Its nice to see even the editors of slashdot jumping to conclusions. *sigh*
Re:Interesting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>Most of modern biology is not founded on >Evolution
Silly. Evolution is the unifying principle of biology. It's the biological equivalent of the "theory of everything" which the physicists are looking for to unify their science (at the moment they have general relativity and quantum mechanics, but nothing to link the two).
Evoution *happens*. That is indisputible fact. We develop theories to model this, and the ones based on Darwin's Natural Selection theory are the best ones we've got. The really amazing thing about Natural Selection is that, when you think about it, there's so little to it, and it's such simple common sense that it's amazing it wasn't arrived at earlier.
Darwin didn't even have a mechanism for netural selection to operate on top of. It is testament to the strength of his theory that when people started looking for this mechanism, they found it (it's genetics).
The last intellectually honest creationists abandoned their position when it became untennable aroun 120 years ago. The current lot in the US (funny, many countries in Europe have established churches, but this silliness seems largely confined to the US) are just rehashing the arguments which were defeated before they were even born. It truly saddens me to see the number of supposedly technically literate people here believing this creationist rubbish when *every* argument that the creationists have has been refuted, *every* one.
I can only conclude that the state of science education in the US is in pretty poor shape - so few people in this forum seem to even have a clue what evolution is, what natural selection is and what a theory is. Many of you need to rush out and buy a copy of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel C Dennet right now, because the level of misconception and ignorance being displayed here is simply staggering. Someone else has already recommended, "Why People Believe Weird Things", which will also help.
Creationism is an intellectually bankrupt position. It relies on obfuscation and logical fallacies to sustain itself. Please stop it.
>I can produce numerous credible scientists, nobel prize winners and heads of biology departments at top schools who don't by it.
No, you can't. And Gould's modifications to Darwinism are not so great, and don't deviate from the core idea of speciation via a mutable genetic material (even if that mutability is facilitated by symbiosis, or whatever your favorite mechanism is).
Your analogy about Latin characters make no sense, and that you "know" it takes intelligence is entirely a matter of faith. Information does not require intelligence. Please learn some information theory.
Know one knows the mind of God. It is from this fundamental belief system that American democracy was born, not from Greek and Latin tomes that the American founding fathers used as sketchy guide maps. More importantly, they viewed the English Civil war and the German 30 Years war as a direct consequence of kings, bishops, and local governments waging campaigns against non-believers. Something liable to reoccur in colonial america. It seems the school board in Kansas is in a way stating that their schools, although inherently non-democratic, will adhere to that fundamental protestant position that "nobody knows the mind of God" well enough to determine essential truths to others. "Science" be damned if it encompasses a world view, it is not truth for many who cannot conceive it. Of course scientific inquiry has brought about the widening of the lens from the minutest to the largest perspectives imaginable, still it cannot claim to be democratic. It follows tenative theories, arguing, revision, testing-- still a fetching dog to human whims. How many revisions of evolution should be taught to children from an omniscient viewpoint, for even extending the "findings" from research on evolution to an encompassing theory takes "evolution" science into to the realm of "knowing the mind of God" and that with enough research it can be understood. This dogma makes me tired. Tell kids point blank there is this mountain or research and this mountain or research and your own to eyes. There will be no teacher since it will require them to answer questions that cannot be researched using scientific inquiry. We cannot go back that far in time. If a kid then sometime creates a reproducing life form starting from the elements and just using the limits of physics then we can start teaching evolution to everybody whole hog and explain it adequately. Otherwise, we will remain in the 17th century and not on the Galapagos islands. An American teacher.
A Twist to Believing both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Even Stephen Hawking (I always spell it wrong) said that he could trace the origins of the universe to a singularity, but he had no idea what caused this singularity to "explode". I don't usually like to think that God created the earth through evolution. What I usually think is that God created the earth in six days...but this earth showed signs of aging(evolution). Just like many people believe Adam was created a grown man, I believe the earth was created a "grown" earth. Furthur, this could mean interesting things like: although we've found fossils of dinosaurs they never "actually" existed. Just like Adam may have had a scar on his back from when he was a child (even though he was never a child, or perhaps he even had a bellybutton even though never birthed)... When your God *is* all powerful there isn't much that can't be true.
Re:Interesting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good point. These are schools, after all; we should be striving for students who think rather than students who blindly accept. To teach evolution as anything greater than a wild hypothesis is doing a great diservice to students and discouraging critical thinking. Joel Mawhorter
Re:Everyone just calm down.
by
Bouncings
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I think we all interpreted the reports correctly. This isn't news.
What I think you are ignoring is that this is really something that should be taught. Of all the things that are of little consequence that are regardless in high school (PE, health clas, etc) and are required, why drop this one?
The theory of evolution is possibly the most important theory ever. Of all the things to drop requirements on!!
-- --
Ken Kinder
ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com
http://kenkinder.com/
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
spodpit
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... but what if said tyrannical government declares itself "president for life" and refuses to hold any more elections... going to be rather hard to use your vote at this point...
Re:Oh *spare* my 'prehistoric' butt.
by
Daveykins
·
· Score: 1
What the flying frack does the books say now? (Rolls Eyes)
-- David Gonterman of FoxFire Studios
http://foxfire.twu.net
Re:Evolution *IS* a religion!
by
Hasdi+Hashim
·
· Score: 1
I believe it is the right of all students to be given evolutionary theory in the context of "our best guess right now"
You are missing my point. Everybody has their own 'theories' and 'their own best guesses' on how we came to be. Why should everybody be taught your belief? Why isn't creationist's theory be a mandatory subject as well?
Hasdi
Natural Selection != Species Evolution
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 1
Natural Selection is proven and will be taught (prove me wrong) as something that happens in species. But (prove me wrong instead of calling it silly, Mr Rabbit) Natural selection does not adequately explain new species, so it shouldn't be mandated.
I saw MSNBC still milking this this morning. "They [teachers in Kansas] will be free to teach creation in the schools." Where did they get that? Where did the school boards say that was okay? They can't even post the ten commandments in school. This is media hype, and you took it hook line and sinker, or there is something I haven't seen.
I'm just sitting back hoping to find somewhere an official statement from the Kansas School Board to be sure. This yellow journalism.
You seem to also think that everything that points out holes in evolution is creationist. I'd call it creationist arguments if it actualy supported creation. Something like "God showed me that he did it, and you'll be sorry if you don't believe it" would be arguing for creation.
In the mean time, leave the bad labeling job to polititions and radio talk shows. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
So god is not all knowing and all powerful?
by
just+someone
·
· Score: 1
So, in your personal world, God exists. He's a real bastard, who has decided that several times that something is fucked, and lets start again. He fucked the plantlife, fucked the dinosaurs, he wiped out the race of man, about 4900 years ago, according to CS theories (well it was less than 6000 years ago).
I've asked for a bible with a timeline on it. Never gotten one. But some people in the bible live quite a long time, and then there are gaps in time. It really is the worlds greatest work of fiction. Great observations, lousy interpretations.
Re:This turns my stomach
by
Wholeflaffer
·
· Score: 1
Maybe its time for the federal government to pass laws requiring a minimum standard education, since aparently some states seem to think its enough to just chuck the kids into a building for six or seven hours so their parents can work.
Oh, no! Don't even suggest this! Like any evolutionary trait, this Kansan episode will (hopefully) eventually die out. If we federalize educational requirements, we run the risk of someday having the teaching of evolution removed from federal educational standards. This would make the "repair of defective genes" (genes=policies in this case) far more difficult to effect.
Had the removal of the teaching of evolution occurred at the township, or perhaps county school board level, it is less likely that the impact (e.g. as these > 1000 responses from Slashdot readers) would be felt. The impact of such a policy at the federal level could be catastrophic.
-- Certified Microsoft Notworking Specialist
Violates Separation of Church and State? No.
by
smoser
·
· Score: 1
For those above who have cried that this is a violaiton of the Separation of Church and State, I would like to argue agains that.
The separation of Church and State as defined in the Bill of Rights had no intention of keeping Religion from influencing politics. Its sole purpose was to keep politics from influencing religion.
There is no problem at all with fundamentalist Christians voting for a particular candidate based soley upon their religious beliefs. Nor is there a problem when those same Christians run for office, and get voted in. This is a democracy, and when democracy works, the majority gets what they wanted.
What occurred in Kansas is a failure of democracy based completely upon the combination of uninformed voters and non-voters.
It is a sad case, and one that I'm certain will be overturned after the next election for those seats, but it is what the people (the informed voters) wanted. Democracy worked. We should all look at this as a call for us to take elections and our right to vote more seriously.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Look in the mirror:)
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
forii
·
· Score: 1
If you want to see what the first flowers looked like, then all you have to do is look into the fossil record, and see what plants existed. There are even quite a few plants that have managed to last even into the present day (ferns, gingko trees).
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While I have to agree that there is a link between right-wing and religion, saying that they're == is VERY much wrong. A lot of religious people are right wing, and a lot of them are left wing. At the same time, a lot of right wing people are religious, and a lot (such as myself) are not. I've known a lot of religious people who do the liberal missionary-type thing and are very into bringing all people to the same level through liberal doctorine, and I've know many right wing people who really didn't care about religion, just believe that tax and spend politics hurt everyone. As for denying evolution... Some people really do have their eyes closed, don't they...
Kansas Duh! logo available
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My definition of species is just fine, thanks.
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
Are horses and donkeys the same species?
Nope. You can't get viable offspring from them.
Just because one group cannot breed with another, does not mean it's a new species. Are horses and donkeys the same species?
Just because one group cannot breed with another, does not mean it's a new species. Take dogs for instance. Toy Poodles and Saint Bernards don't breed but they are still the same species, probably coming from the same wolf-like ancestor.
You can easily inseminate a St. Bernard with toy poodle sperm, and get viable (if mighty funny-looking) offspring. You can "mate" them via a succession of intermediate-sized breeds, which are all inter-fertile and create fertile offspring. Dogs are one species. Horses and donkeys are two different species.
Don't confuse microevolution with macroevolution. Each species has an incredible number of genes that can be selected among, leading to a large, yet finite, number of possibilities. The real question is, can new genes be created that fundamentally change the species?
There's no dividing line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"; there's only evolution, which goes in different directions in varying amounts depending on the selective pressures and available variation in the gene pool.
The only people with a need to deny "macroevolution" are Creationists. They cannot deny that evolution occurs, so they have to create a fiction that it only occurs within a "kind", which they equate to "species". I regret (not really) to tell you that the facts are in and they refute your dogma.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I highly reccommend that everyone who is concerned with this issue go out and obtain a copy of "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. He is a "traditional" biologist who is offended by the very unscientific nature of current Darwinian theories. His book is insightful and chock full of facts. Go grab it. Check it out at Amazon.
-- I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
*/ I guess. I really don't get why these creationists are so sure that the Bible says that evolution can't have taken place. /*
I remember in high school my biology teacher, who happens to be Catholic, showed me an interesting article. If I remember correctly the title was something like, Pope says the Evolution is more than just a Theory. I haven't read the bible, but there are several cases from which I have gathered that the bible says nothing denying evolution directly. Heck, the a Pope, I think it was the one who is alive today, gave Stephen Hawking a medal for his work with the Big Bang Theory, acknowledging it as fact.
-- Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!! - Who
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
The lousy debating tactics, shoddy logic and false statements are still amusing. Amusing enough to keep posting to this thread, even though Slashdot won't let anyone retrieve it for the moment (imagine, a write-only discussion!). Thank goodness for caches.
If you want to know who: 1) Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Leslie Orgel, Francis Crick (hopefully you know a few).. the theory is dubbed "panspermia" referring to life brought to Earth from elsewhere
2) Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated that by chance it was one in 10**40000 that all functional proteins necessary for life would form in one place.
A number of people did calculations which proved that no known source of energy could have powered the Sun for more than a few thousand years, therefore the Earth could be no older than that. But they didn't know about hydrogen fusion, so their numbers were worthless; garbage in, garbage out.
I'm sure you put great stock in the 10^40000 number because it fits with your prejudices. Problem is, the figure is highly sensitive to the assumptions behind it, and you've posted nothing to justify any of them. As just one for-instance, the implied assumption is that proteins are necessary for life. This ignores the possibility that the first self-replicator was an auto-catalytic molecule of RNA, to give just one other alternative.
If you like names, maybe you like quotes:
Life could not have originated here on Earth. Nor does it look as though biological evolution can be explained from within an earthbound theory of life. Genes from outside the Earth are needed to drive the evolutionary process. This much can be consolidated by strictly scientific means, by experiment, observation and calculation.
Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983), p. 242
Hoyle assumes that he has covered all the possibilities on Earth. Don't you think it's just a little bit presumptuous of him? I just gave one that he obviously missed.
As far as the reproducing organism, the cell has extremely complex parts to it, all necessary as the basic building block of life. So how did we go from nothing to something that not only had the capability to reproduce, but the energy drawing ability mitochondria, the membrane to filter out harmful materials, a nucleus with the ability to wrap long strands of DNA into a tiny compartment and safely keep it. Remember, all these things are needed for the most basic life to reproduce the first time.
You're quite wrong. Bacteria do not have mitochondria, nor do they have nuclei; yet they reproduce quite successfully. The trick of incorporating the DNA into a nucleus didn't have to come along until later. Mitochondria are an interesting case, and I'm glad you mentioned them. They are partially independent, and even have some of their own DNA. They reproduce inside cells, and the protein coding (translation from base triplets to amino acids) used in this DNA is different from the coding used by the rest of the cell! Oddly enough it is the same as the coding used by the archaebacteria, which includes many species of salt-loving beasties (halophytes) and photosynthetic bacteria. The best guess we have today is that some large cell once either ate an oxygen-loving archaebacterium and let it live instead of digesting it, or the archaebacterium invaded a large cell and made itself at home instead of killing it. The archaebacterium provided its special talent (processing of oxygen) to the larger cell, and the cell provided nutrients and defense and such to the archaebacterium. Thereafter they reproduced, and evolved, together.
Further, bacteria have over 100 times the DNA of a mammal, so 100 times the DNA somehow came together 3.8 billion years ago at the same time the Earth became habitable for life. So give or take half a billion years, there's still no chance. Even given your timeframe.
The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs. The genome of Methanococcus jannaschii is about 1.7 million base pairs long. Guess what? You're off by 5 orders of magnitude; bacteria have on the order of 1/1000 the DNA of a mammal.
For the sake of the people reading this, would you care to post the sources which wrote this malarkey? I'm sure they'd love to know who's trying to feed the public so many lies.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
If I remember correctly, the guy had something to do with foreign affairs. That just takes the cake. I also enjoyed the following (true) responses to Rick Mercer's fiction:
"Congratulations, Canada, on getting electricity!"
"Congratulations, Canada, on getting a railroad!"
For you Americans, Rick Mercer's work on that show is very similar to Michael Moore's "TV Nation" which, interestingly enough, was cancelled by both FOX and NBC because they were scared of it. He ended up basing the show out of Canada under a different name, for the Bravo! channel. I keep forgetting the new name, but I saw the hilarious segment where he conducted a "witchhunt" through Washington DC, complete with puritans, asking random politicians whether they "fornicated."
If God is omnipotent, then can he create a rock
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
that he can't lift. That is logical prove that God can't be omnipotent. And if God is not omnipotent then he can't be omniscient. However a Christian will just turn around and say that God doesn't follow logic. So in conclusion you can't argue with Christians, it just doesn't work. Christian don't think logical and therefore you can never use any rules or laws to prove your argument. So just leave the Christians to their self fooling believes. It easier that way, eventually there is so much evidence that Christians have no choice but to agree that it is just the way things are. Until then just ignore everything Christians have to say.
This is a long way from how the US was founded, when Christianity was supported... - Badly Misinformed Dolt on Slashdot
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man and that is why the clergy oppose me. - Thomas Jefferson, American Founder
Try reading some of those books before you burn them.
ignorant
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
First, let me tell you a little about myself. I was raised in traditional, loving Christian home. We regularly attended church and were greatly helped by the Bible, the teachings of the church, and the loving people around us. Now I attended a major research university, and cannot attend church as much as I would like. That fact has neither changed my beliefs nor convictions. To get back on topic though... First, to those posts that scream for a "separation of church and state," please think about it a little more. Religion is not just what you are told when you go to church on Sunday, but it is the way you live your life. Isn't how we view where we came from and where we are going as individuals and a species a religious view? How are 'God told me He created me' and 'Darwin told me I came from an ape' different (except that Darwin was only a man)? They are both religious views that one must choose between. Therefor, anyone who says that Creation should not be taught in school, but evolution should is being hypocritical.
Second, to all of those posts who say those who act on their religious convictions are ignorant, are themselves ignorant. I am an educated individual, both technically and scientifically, and I have seen no FACTS that prove the nonexistance of God. I have heard many THEORIES that do not involve God and try to prove He does not exist. Theories are called theories because they have not been proven. To call evolution a fact is ignorant. Saying 'I believe in evolution' is fine, but you cannot say 'Evolution is a fact' because it has not been proven.
Third, how does the non belief in evolution set us back 1000 years? Am I missing a Commandment that says 'Thou shalt not explore space,' or 'Thou shalt not make really cool mp3 players that run linux and perl?' Perhaps those posts refer more to the biomedical and genetic fields. God never dictated how children were to be created, just how they should be raised and loved.
To conclude, think about this for a few minutes. Christianity and other organized religions look to their faith, teachings, religious books, and God for enlightenment and truth. Others look to their theories, many based in science, with the concious effort of excluding God. Each uses their sources of faith and teaching to explain the world around them. Therefor, isn't atheism as much of a religion as Christianity? And if school are to teach the beliefs of the atheist religion, shouldn't they also be required to teach the beliefs of other religions?
Thanks for reading this and I hope I don't get too much flame mail for it.
>Theories are called theories because they have not been proven.
No, that's completely wrong. If you'd bothered to read the thread, you would have known that. Theories are only disproven, they are never proven. Newton's laws have largely been disproven by Einstein's. There is nothing to say Einstein's won't be disproven -- that is, we can't prove it.
You don't understand what "fact" and "theory" is, and you're about the 100th creationist on this thread who didn't bother to read the thread & went on to display this same ignorance.
The theory of evolution is no more in doubt than the theory of gravity. The evidence is vast and overwhelming. The fact that you've never looked at it doesn't mean it's not there.
In contrast creationism has no supporting evidence.
Thank You. I'll try to refrain from name-calling myself, but I'll keep your excellent example in mind.
I really don't get why these creationists are so sure that the Bible says that evolution can't have taken place.
Have you read the Bible? If you haven't, then you have no basis for criticizing anyone else for concluding that the Bible denies that evolution took place. Nevertheless, it is explicitly clear that the Bible presents a history of creation that is fundamentally and utterly incompatible with the fables that are passed off as the "scientific" theory of evolution. Read Genesis 1.
Denying the validity of evolution, and furthermore denying the right to evaluate its validity to students, is ridiculous and dangerous.
Read the article. No school and no teacher is being forbidden from teaching evolution. What is no longer required is that a student demonstrate an understanding of evolution in order to graduate. This is hardly the scandal that so many here on Slashdot are pretending it is: what is gone is a requirement, not anyone's freedom to teach the subject.
Secondly, please share with us precisely how it is "dangerous" if Kansas schools are no longer required to teach evolution. Will it result in an increase in school shootings or something? -- Oh, wait -- no, that can't be right. We have those now, and evolution is still required. Please enlighten us as to these "risks" you see.
The evidence for evolution is even stronger than for other widely accepted theories
First, let me enter a general "balderdash". Second, there is no such thing as uninterpreted evidence. There is no rock or fossil that all by itself says "Hi! Evolution is true!" To the contrary, human beings have interpreted certain things to mean that evolution is "true." They are wrong.
Thirdly, evolution as the engine behind the appearance of the human race is categorically unscientific. In order for it to be scientific, such "evolutionary processes" (so-called) must be reproducible. They are not. No one has ever evolved a new species from an old one, and even if they had done so that would not ipso facto prove that humans came into being the same way. It's pure unadulterated rubbish that you have been sold, by purveyors who have a singular goal (whether they admit it to themselves or not): to escape the fact that they are accountable to God for their behavior. They hate him, and so in a desperate effort to escape accountability to him they pretend to themselves that he doesn't exist. And part of doing so means fabricating some means or other whereby man can be said to have appeared without any reference to God. And so they have fabricated evolution. It is a pathetic lie. It's that simple.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
God and Evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Simple logic in an attempt to silence ignorants. 1. God works in mysterious ways. 2. Evolution is mysterious, coz everything's mysterious to ignorants. 3. God works through evolution. 4. God created everything via evolution. Simple. Now everyone's happy.
I would expect no less from a dogma whose saviour was the product of a 'divine raping'. Really, think about what you're saying. Have you ever been raped? What about incestuous impregnations? And what in the name of the Great Green Goddess does this have to do with the teaching of evolution??!!
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The process: joke or serious?
by
Bouncings
·
· Score: 1
It strikes me as both erie and a little amusing that I honestly can't tell whether that comment was just a joke or a serious chirstian!! Given that this is slashdot, I'm going with joke. Anyone sure?
-- --
Ken Kinder
ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com
http://kenkinder.com/
A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
About the water: It comes from a book by Gerald Schroeder (Ph. D physics, MIT) who says at one point a palentologist named Elso Barghoorn found micro-fossils of bacteria 3.5 billion years old in 1970. Afterwards micro-fossils as old as 3.8 billion years were discovered. This is the same time liquid water first appeared on Earth.
What is needed to make life?
Many of you do not think about this when discusing evolution. The most common thought is enough carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. as well as some energy source like the sun. There are many more factors though.
In order for a solar system to support life, it must first have the right type of star to provide stable temperatures for billions of years. It cannot be a multiple star system, and must be large enough for a planet to orbit at a distance, but small enough so it doesn't burn itself out.
The star must have a protoplanetary disk for the formation of planets.
The system of planets must not have any large planets with very elliptical orbits which would destroy or eject smaller planets from the system.
Large planets *are* needed in near circular orbits to sweep away large global-killer asteroids that would hit the planet every 100,000 years vs. 100,000,000 yrs.
A small planet needs to orbit entirely within the "Goldilocks zone" and maintain it over a long period of time. If the Earth-Sun distance were 1% larger, our mean global temperature would be -50 degrees farenheight.
The planet needs to be large enough to hold an atmosphere, but small enough that it doesn't crush life within it.
The planet needs to be in a double planet system (a large moon is needed). This anchors the planet so that the tilt is not increased by the large sweeping planet too much and one half fries while the other freezes.
The parent star must heat up during the same time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is replaced by water. If it heats up too soon, we're like Venus, too late and we're like Mars. Our sun was 30% dimmer when the Earth was born.
There must also be a stable planet surface. Some sort of mechanism must be made for keeping this stability. Our crust is granatic on the continents, and basaltic in the oceans. The continuous recycling through tectonic activity keeps the Earth from being "Waterworld" or some volcanic nightmare.
That's just within a solar system. The universe at the big bang must have a very slight ripple--one that would be large enough to form stars and galaxies, but small enough so that it doesn't form all black holes.
Life needed more than a few protein molecules, and Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of all the protein molecules necessary for life to form in one place to be one chance in 10**40000. To give a little perspective, there are 10**80 subatomic particles in the visible universe.
dan1123@yahoo.com
Re:A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
PhonyToad
·
· Score: 1
Your definition of "life" is far too narrow. If there existed, say, intellgent selenium-based life forms who drank molten sulfur, might they not wonder what the odds were of an environment so conducive to life, rather than a bunch of amino acid crap on a planet which would be obviously much to cold to drink sulfur on?
We have already demonstrated that silicon-based intelligence is feasible. Why do we feel our particular circumstances are necessary for life?
-- void post {
post_random_comment("slashdot.org");
karma--;
}
Re:A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
Just as an example of the faulty reasoning you're using...
A small planet needs to orbit entirely within the "Goldilocks zone" and maintain it over a long period of time. If the Earth-Sun distance were 1% larger, our mean global temperature would be -50 degrees farenheight.
Studies of younger stars, IIRC, show that they shine up to 30% less brightly than our Sun for the same mass; this corresponds to about a 15% greater distance from the Sun to get the same reduction in energy. According to the reasoning you've bought into, Earth should have been a frozen waste for most of the last 4 billion years. The geologic record including the Carboniferous era shows that Earth has been quite a bit warmer in the past than it is now.
Obviously the premise, that climate is extremely sensitive to the solar energy supply, cannot be correct. The obvious connection is greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere by volcanoes, and removed by the weathering of rocks to form carbonates. When the carbonates are subducted, the CO2 winds up coming back through volcanoes again. If an ice age interferes with rainfall there will be a hiatus in the weathering of rocks, and the CO2 level of the atmosphere will build up as nothing acts to remove the volcanic output from the air. This regulatory mechanism goes on as long as the process of plate tectonics works to recycle the oceanic crust. When the planet cools to the point where plate tectonics stops (like Mars), CO2 is not replaced, the greenhouse regulation mechanism stops working, and an ice age ensues which lasts until the parent star heads into its red-giant phase.
On top of this, life does not require the world as a whole to be hospitable; isolated niches like volcanic vents deep under the seas are sufficient. If fossil (or existing) life is found on Mars, it will prove that life is robust and adaptable and probably exists anywhere that conditions permit; those conditions are far broader, in places far stranger, than you are even able to imagine.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
uzada
·
· Score: 1
"Anything is possible, but everything isn't probable" is what I recall from my quantum physics classes. This may point to "why here?" but in reality "here" is no different from "there."
We see it as "why us" and come up with a reasonable answer that "it was made so" rather than "why not?". Neither side is provable and your mound of statistics just helps my self-esteem raise a good.000001 point as today I feel special. I do see your point though -- it is amazing. Still...
If life sprang into existence on the earth, and we weren't here to see it, would it make a sound?
Re:A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But of course, the idea that some intelligent force designed this incredibly complex system and thought about how to make it work is beyond most people. Why does everyone insist on the idea that all of this happened by chance?
Re:A Response: Pulling out the whole Universe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Did the force come by chance?
Poorly supported theory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, evolution is a theory. It is unproven. However, most people except it as if it was scientific fact. It's not. There is very poor support for evolution at many stages. Evolution certainly happens to some extent. However, there is good evidence that it is not responsible for all of the diversity on earth. It's improbable that things like wings (which are useless drains in any partial state) could have evolved. Just because we have no better theory doesn't make something fact. Scientific theories fall quite often. People often believe them just because there is no other plausible explanation. People have a lot of blind faith.
Dinosaurs blow smoke and fire?
by
Timothy+Chu
·
· Score: 1
Ummm...that sounds more like a dragon than a dinosaur.
Canada was recently determined to be the best country to live. I think an important issue here is the fact that they have an universal social security system. I find very difficult to belive that you don't understand the importance of such a thing. As an example consider the situation of México. Here you have several options (a) you have the resources to afford a private hospital (I don't think more than 20 million people can do that) (b)You work for the goverment (c) your employer pays his taxes, and you have access to IMSS (mexican institute for social security) and (b) there are other hospitals that almost only take care of emergencies. The service is extremely poor. Out of these, you're alone. What about the *really* poor farmers?, what about domestic workers?, etc, etc. On the other hand, a social security system serves to the purposse of *redistributing* the wealth. I think health is a human right, and as such you shouldn't be worried about it. Juan Pablo
In my research I have found it a common understanding that speciation has never been observed, despite numerous experiments involving thousands of generations of bacteria and mutated species. What is this wallaby you speak of? I have tried numerous searches for it, but can find nothing on it.
See the talk.origins FAQ. There are two links off of it pointing to data on observed speciation events. I can't find references to Hawaiian wallabies there, but there are pointers to rock wallabies.
As for macro-evolution, take the given scenario...
You're just tossing around buzzwords.
Why would a difference in the number of genes be necessary?
What makes you think that it's unlikely? Entire chromosomes, containing thousands of genes, are often duplicated or deleted in organisms all the time.
Are you a geneticist? If not, how do you know that they would find such commonplace events difficult to believe?
Pardon me if I stop taking you seriously.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re: Wow.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
God is not subject to human verification. His existence and the truth of the Bible are not contingent upon whether you or I or anyone else can "prove" them to be. God is absolutely sovereign, and his sovereignty would be diminished fatally if it were true that it's contingent upon human approval or verification (and it's not).
You assume upon blind faith, or presumptions, if that suits you better, that this god of yours even exists. Why is it faith? I can safely say that you have never had an ounce of direct physical, tangible, perceptable proof of the existence of such a being. Everything you know of and about it has come from the rantings of others whose knowledge of the being has been acquired in the same manner. Thus you assume through faith that this thing exists and has sovereignty. This sovereignty as you call it is merely in the hands of the lead individuals of the religious herd for so as long as it believes in this being, and in turn follow the doctrines set forth by those lead individuals proclaiming them to be the will of that being. What happens if that entire herd was to stop believing? Same thing that happened to every single religion that ever failed: it, along with its god, its doctrines and its "sovereignty", disappears and is forgotten. Yours will prove to be no exception to that rule if such a fate befalls it. And to merely claim that this being is above human approval and verification is merely a safety blanket protecting the belief of that being from ever being questioned and perhaps dismissed as utter nonesense.
I asked someone else this question. I'll ask you, too. Can an electrochemical reaction make a truth statement?
Your entire belief system is based upon the concept of an objective truth and false; and along with it, a good and evil. That is where your gods and demons stem from. My question to you is, how absolutely certain are that any statement made is the truth, seeing everything and anything you percieve from the environment around you, is subject to the workings of your five physical senses and how your brain interprates what is sensed? Someone who is color blind to blue can all his life hear that the sky itself is blue, but as far as his senses tell him, that is not the case. Is that one person in his mind objectively wrong merely because everyone else percieves that they are subjectively right? My point is, an electrochemical reaction is merely an electrochemical reaction. Your trained mind to believe there is a truth and false in life, and a good and an evil, can interprate it as it pleases. It can, at no point, ever claim it is right or true, or vice versa; in the objective sense.
Teach both hypotheses/let students discern truth..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The hypothesis of evolution should be taught as such. Concrete evidence that suggests evolution as fact is lacking, as the evidence cited either does nothing to suggest evolution, or could just as easily be interpreted as evidence for creation. No student should be required to accept macroevolution as fact to be qualified as "educated" concerning the hypothesis of evlution, nor should the assumption of macroevolution form the basis for our understanding of biology. Biology can be understood thoroughly without believing macroevolution to be the cause of the speciation of life. Creation, the notion that life was created and speciated deliberately by an intelligent being, should be taught alongside Darwinism as an explanation of the origin of the various lifeforms on earth. Students should be tested on their understanding of each hypothesis, not on their acceptance of either. Neither hypothesis should be used as the foundation for teaching biology or related subjects, which can be understood apart from any particular hypothesis concerning "origins." Note: so-called "young earth theory" is not a necessary component of the creation view of biology, and should not be taught as part of that view. It is my opinion that "young earth theory" should not be taught at all, as it contradicts scientific findings. The issue here is evolution vs. creation, not science vs. "young earth" pseudo-science. Posted by: Joshua Thorpe (lacking an account for the moment)
this particular argument bugs the hell out of me. first of all, how does anyone know what is the shortest sequence of amino acids that will self-replicate (in a given environment)? furthermore, how does one even know that the MO by which life came about would have to involve such a thing? but, suppose even that this is indeed the MO, and cheritably suppose that all of the assumptions that this mathematician made were correct. you still have the equivalent of the following argument: consider the following two explanations for your own existence: 1. you were concieved by your mom and dad. 2. you were put here by aliens yesterday. now, the probability that your mom and dad would even have met in the first place is certainly something like 1,000,000 to 1 against, right? so you have someth,ing like a 1/1000,000 chance of being here under that hypothesis. therefore it is 1,000,000 times more likely that you were created yesterday by aliens.
-- Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
hey!
·
· Score: 1
>Hmm...by that logic we're half man half worm!:)
Well, I suppose that in the grand scheme of things we're a lot more similar to worms than we are to flowers, trees, blue-green algae or mushrooms. We are animals; on a cellular level we both have nuclei and the same organelles; similar cell walls etc. I doubt that at low power you could easily tell an earthworm cell from a human one with the same function. Our nerve cells both function the same way, even if the gross anotomy of the nervous system is very different.
We share a lot of similarities with yeast, bacteria and algae too. Our genetic machinery is similar: DNA, RNA, ribosomes etc.
I don't find it degrading to think of human beings as related by a very long tree to worms. Worms are extremely interesting and useful creatures. I enjoy watching them in my compost heap, and harvest them for transfer to my garden.
-- Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
orcrist
·
· Score: 1
...to be qualified as scientific "fact" it needs to be able to be "proven" (ie. reproducable) the very nature of the origin of life makes it impossible to prove any one theory scientifically.
1. Evolution is a theory, not a 'fact'. It just happens to be the best supported theory: All theories are not created equal.
2. To qualify as a scientific theory it must be disprovable, i.e. there must be hypothetical evidence which could disprove the thoery; this is the reason why Creationism doesn't qualify as science.
-- San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
You're first mistake was to trust a Phychology definition of a scientific term over a Chemistry definition. I first learned about the difference between theory and law in high school chemistry, but sinse this discussion I have verified my above definitions in three different sources. In addition to the web page I cited in my original article, you can go here, or to Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: theory Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein Date: 1592 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory) 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all) 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light) 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)
Main Entry: law Pronunciation: 'lo Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE Date: before 12th century 1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY 2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH -- see BIBLE table 3 : a rule of construction or procedure (the laws of poetry) 4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject 5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge 6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
-
--
- It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Re:Evolution *IS* a religion!
by
Nietzsche
·
· Score: 1
Alright, so you're equating Christianity with Darwinism? How nice. Well, since Christianity and the Constitution, and various other sets of laws all make dictates about how we can and can't live, well, I suppose teaching of those should be optional as well and viewed as a religion.
If making teaching the best scientific theory we have in this area optional is a "good move", I suppose it would be an ever better move make science all together optional. Or hell, why not just say fuck it and make eduction optional.
No one said that children were required by law (or even that they should be) to accept modern evolutionary theory (which at this time is slightly beyond Darwin). But I believe it is the right of all students to be given evolutionary theory in the context of "our best guess right now".
Bad tautology . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So you're going to establish, on your own, that if there is a God, He would not have had a good reason to let history play out the way it did (with the Flood and all)? How do you come to that conclusion on your own? Made-up rules concerning what God would and would not do/allow/etc. if He exists are no means of proving or disproving His existence. That is just self-serving rhetoric.
They really shouldn't stop teaching evolution. They should just start teaching it as theory and not fact. We have no real facts outside of what each us has seen for ourselves. Granted if your friend tells you about something that you did not witness, your likely to believe them. But if a manuscript from the 1500s says that dragons used to fly around skies, would you believe that? This is what separates theories and facts.
Science is really no different than any other religion. The people who believe in it are certainly self-righteous enough to belong to a religion. In the end, how do you really know that the rest of the world even exsists outside of your own brain. Believe in yourself. -- Steve --
But how do you know for certain that these predictions are true. You can't really. We really can't know anything outside of ourselves. How do we know that our brains aren't hooked up to a computer feeding us false information (ala The Matrix). How can I prove that the world I preceive is the same world you see? How do I know if you even exist? This is where spirituality comes in. I believe that I really am something more than a sack of chemicals. That there is outside of me that is still me. The other me. My brain is just a computer that I get to use in a universe that might not be real. I just wish people would stop passing off every little sciency thing of as fact and remember that in the scope of the universe, we really know so very little. In the scope of God, we know even less. -- Steve --
> Science is really no different than any other religion.
There are huge demonstrable differences. Scientific theories make unambiguous predictions which can then be tested. You start with, say, F=ma, and predict where a ball will land when you throw it. Religion does not make rigorous predictions like this.
The theory of evolution has correctly made an astonishing number of predictions, starting with the existance of a mutable genetic material. Most of what you take for granted about genetics was once not common knowledge & was predicted by evolution.
Religion has made no predictions about biology which have proven true.
I'll give you credit for at least venturing a try at this. The last few evolutionists who faced this question ended up muttering to themselves.
Your entire belief system is based upon the concept of an objective truth and false; and along with it, a good and evil. That is where your gods and demons stem from.
Err, you have this exactly backwards. My entire belief system is founded upon the twin premises that God not only exists but is absolutely sovereign over his creation, and secondly that he has spoken infallibly, truthfully (that's a bit redundant, but...), and completely in the Bible (i.e., the Bible is the sum total of God's communication with us). From this foundation comes my belief in truth and false: namely, that God is absolutely true in every respect, and anything which contradicts either his word, or his character, or what he knows to be the case, is irrevocably and unalterably false.
My question to you is, how absolutely certain are that any statement made is the truth, seeing everything and anything you percieve from the environment around you, is subject to the workings of your five physical senses and how your brain interprates what is sensed?
Because God made us and made the world for us to live in, our senses are reliable. Note that this is different from saying that there are no flaws in us. More importantly, because you deny the existence of God, you have no logical means for escaping the trap you have attempted to set for me. You destroy for yourself any means for arriving at the truth because on the one hand you throw empirical observation out the window (when you say that our senses aren't reliable), and on the other hand you destroy rationalism (see below). You are left without any logically consistent means for explaining to me that I'm "wrong" in believing in God, or for explaining to me why evolution is "right."
My point is, an electrochemical reaction is merely an electrochemical reaction. Your trained mind to believe there is a truth and false in life, and a good and an evil, can interprate it as it pleases. It can, at no point, ever claim it is right or true, or vice versa; in the objective sense.
And so therefore neither can you say that evolution is right or true. Nor can you say that it's bad or evil to kill, or lie, or...
This what you are left with when you reduce a human being to a bag of chemicals with a little electricity thrown in. You can say NOTHING about the world or even yourself. True and false -- even about your own nature as a bag of chemicals -- are not categories that electrochemical reactions can test or analyze (or even say anything about). You can't explain self-consciousness on this ground. Ever.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Enlightened Skepticism is better than Dogmatism
by
technoCon
·
· Score: 1
If i recall my philosophy of science and scientific method, science is based upon conclusions drawn from repeatable experiment within a conceptual framework to the end of disproving erroneous hypotheses.
Note the distinction between the words "law" and "theory": When i say "Newton's law of gravity" it means that i have repeatable experiment that proves "Newton's theory of gravity." Science never goes beyond "Darwin's theory of evolution" because no repeatable experiment can prove that things happened as Darwin theorized. I'm not talking religion, i'm talking scientific method.
Evolution is a well supported theoretical framework. Like any theoretical framework, it must overcome the reasonable (and non-obstreporous) objections of skeptics. A good example of that is _Darwin's Black Box_ by Michael Behe, which does *not* assert blind adherence to the 1st chapters of Genesis but nevertheless points out reasonable challenges that the theory of evolution must overcome.
Anyone who thinks the theory of evolution cannot be questioned by skeptics must realize his dogmatism is substantially equivalent to that of the most closed-minded Fundamentalist.
Dogmatism, be it creationist or evolutionist does not advance science. If the state of Kansas has passed this law to create an enlightened spirit of inquiry about origins, that's a Good Thing. If Kansas has done so to dogmatically assert a creationist credo, this Christian says that's a Bad Thing.
Let's have some sense in this mess.
by
kanaka
·
· Score: 1
I've been an avid reader of Slashdot for a while now (during the time when there were only a couple thousand readers.
Now I'm embarrased by all the childish remarks being posted about this issue.
So let's have some balance:
First of all a large majority of the world's population does not believe in Atheism (i.e. they believe in (a) supreme being(s) of some sort. Don't call them ignorant of science. If you feel like doing that then perhaps you need to look in a mirror and realize that you're ignorant of religion. Just because a person is convinced that evolution is false doesn't make it false AND just because YOU don't believe in a religious belief doesn't make it false either. About now you're going to say "..but the evidence!". Obviously you haven't talked to many people in foreign countries. I lived in Papua New Guinea for many years to them there is lots of personal evidence to support their religious beliefs. It really all boils down to your worldview/religious convictions. If you don't think God exists then you will see evidence for your view point, if you do think God exists you will interpret evidence in a different way.
Atheism is a religious conviction/belief. If you're an Atheist then you probably disagree. Well, the majority of Americans (and the World) would disagree with you. Again it boils down to your worldview. If you still don't agree with me then how about this argument: if you don't classify Atheism as a religious conviction then most of the First Ammendment protections don't apply to you (and that would be ludicrous).
American society was founded on the belief that you shouldn't condemn a person for having a certain worldview/culture/religion. This applies to schools also. When schools teach biological macro-evolution (the Kansas ruling didn't change the cirriculum status of micro-evolution) as the only valid scientific worldview the general teach it in a way the excludes or even denies the possibility of a deity. This is religious discrimination.
Biological macro-evolution is a theory. This is easily shown by the recent change from Darwin's gradual evolution to the "Punctuated Equilibrium" method of macro-evolution. The theory is not just prone to micro adjustments and fine tuning but to large changes in the excepted processes and method.
The Kansas ruling is probably not good in the short-term but a good thing in the long term. Unlike what most of you are assuming the ruling does not ban the teaching of evolution (that's an MSNBC mistake/bias). Check out CNN for a more accurate article. They are simply dropping evolution from the cirruculm. That is bad in the short term because kids should be taught evolution. It's a predominant theory and important for kids to learn. However, other view points should be presented and taught.
The "Big Bang" theory is a very creationistic theory. Einstein's theory of relativity strongly supported the "Big Bang" theory and since he realized this support a creation point for the universe he made his "biggest blunder" when for many years he attempted to put a fudge factor in his theory that would allow the Universe to be static and eternal.
Creationism's most outspoken proponents argue that the earth and universe are about 10,000 years old. The Big Bang argues for a CREATED universe that is about 13-16 billion years old. Steven Hawking can say that the universe just popped into existance 15 billion years ago but to me that takes just as much on pure faith as saying the God created us 5 minutes ago with memories and scars and such.
For those of you who say that banning evolution would set our elementary and high school educations back 100 years, maybe you should do some research into what education was like 100 years ago. It was a helava-lot more stringent and academic than it is now. Just because we have amazing technical advances in our day and age doesn't mean education is better, it just means that we are standing on the shoulders or some pretty brilliant people. And in addition, many other countries do not teach evolution in school and their eductional level is certainly not any worse than the US. In those countries that do have poor education it is definitely not because of what's in the science cirriculum, but for other factors like poverty and lack of good facilities and teachers.
Sorry about the rambling. Just a hot topic for me that I've done a lot of research on.
Oh ya, the reason that the ruling will be good in the long run is that it will cause people to thing about the issues and possibly recreate school cirriculums that are more balanced.
I seem to feel that either this is a troll, or the writer expected that a smiley would be inferred. Unfortunately, I can't figure out which. Tsk, tsk. The problems of missing evidence. I guess he must not exist.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Proof of Evolutionary / Big Bang Theory?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Has there ever been substantial proof of the big bang theory I have always agreed with micro evolution but what about macro evolution? check out http://www.creationscience.com for more info.
Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?
Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
How did sexual reproduction evolve from division type reproduction?
If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
Many of the reasons I don't see entire scientific validity in some of what is tought in bio classes.
---D
Re:Proof of Evolutionary / Big Bang Theory?
by
Steve+B
·
· Score: 1
Has there ever been substantial proof of the big bang theory I have always agreed with micro evolution but what about macro evolution?
The whole microevolution/macroevolution distinction is an intellectual three-card-monte shuffle used by creationists to dismiss the evidence. Anything which is established beyond sane doubt (e.g. Eophippus -> Equus in the fossil record, the evolution of poison resistance in bacteria and insects in current observation) is classified as "microevolution" so that "macroevolution" can be denied. Obviously, if all evidence is by definition placed into Box A, there will never be any in Box B. /.
-- /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
You need a lesson in careful reading, son.
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
So now you want to throw off the scientific method to embrace Christianity as well?
Read my post carefully. Where do I say that the scientific method is utterly useless for anything whatsoever?
The simple fact is that the scientific method is useful -- within limits. I have never disputed this. What I dispute is illegitimately claiming that evolution has been scientifically verified or proven, as far too many armchair evolutionists are fond of doing. What I dispute is illegitimate uses of the "scientific method" in ways that it simply cannot work.
The scientific method is utterly USELESS for "proving" that man arrived on earth via evolution, because man's evolution (as if it really happened - HA!) cannot be reproduced in the lab. The claim is bogus.
Secondly, no man or method has a right to sit in judgment over the question of whether God exists. He does, despite the pathetic squawkings of atheists.
You can't even adequately defend your own system on your own terms, and you have the gall to attack me?
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:The Scientific Agesuspect you will find that th
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That fact is that, despite widespread belief that we live in the "scientific age," we actually are little better off than we were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the formal techniques of modern science began to, if you will forgive the expression, evolve.
[snip]
[Galileo] made literally thousands of observations and derived the first universal "law" in the history of science: All objects accelerate towards the earth at 32 feet per second per second. Even this, which gets labelled "Galileo's Law" is not a "fact." Tomorrow we might observe that things accelerate towards the earth at 29 feet per second per second (it would make a lot of us who are a bit tubby like me rather happy). That we know of no possible cause for such a thing and that we know it has never happened between Galileo's time and ours doesn't mean that it won't happen tomorrow. All scientific "facts" are provisional. Scientists must be prepared to re-examine and possibly refine or reject theories when new evidence is found contrary to theory.
Let me respond to this rather large chunk of your logic. First, I feel that we are much better off than we were in the 1700s. One of the largest misunderstandings people hold about science is that it is baseless. They argue, much as you have, that scientists merely piece together observations and create theories and laws that accurately explain what they saw. These people continue to argue that religion does exactly the same thing and that religion is a philosophy. Then, they break logical rules of thought and declare that since science explains things, which is a property of a religion, then science is a religion. This is not logical. Science does more than explain the past. It also predicts the future. Accurately. If Science does not explain the future, it must change. This is a strength of Science, not a weakness as many people believe. This is why we are better off than in the 1700s. Our current models better predict the future than the old models did. We now know what gravity is. We know about relativity. We know about physics and know a lot more about biology than we ever did.
The proof of science is not only that it can explain the past but also that it can predict the future. A nature of this proof is that science cannot be declared 'proven.' The process is ongoing. Again, this is a strength. Religion batters people into believing. Christianity has made many atrocities while attempting to convert people.
Nitpick: Objects at sea level fall near at around 32 Ft/sec/sec. This rate varies with height and the density of the Earth below the location. So in fact, at some elevation, objects DO fall at 29 Ft/sec/sec.
Science is a form philosophy that is characterized by logic, experiment, observation, empiricism, skepticism, and materialism. Science and religion cannot co-exist in a classroom or a laboratory because religion (Judeo-Christian anyways, I'm certainly not an expert in world religions) has spiritualism in its philosophic base. Religion requires one to believe in non-empirical knowledge and science requires one to refuse any non-empirical evidence.[snip]
Science and religion can definitely coexist. It does for many, many scientists around the world. One argument put forth by some scientists, and believed by others, is that God made the world all right, but he made it follow certain rules, such as the law of gravity. Religion need not reject old views. One could argue that God is glorious for creating a world that could produce Human Beings given the relatively few rules of physics. That is truly great. No human could ever design a universe so simple that could ever product such complex beings and entities as our universe encompasses. To say that Religion rejects science and science rejects religion is to be narrow minded.
Religion has historically rejected science, but that was a mistake. As you learn in Philosophy, in order to control one's enemy, you must love him. In idealogical systems, this practice is call hegemony. In order for religion to conquer and control science, religion must accept and promote science. Only then will religion take the forefront and maintain itself.
I would like to leave one, final, parting thought: Neal Christiansan (sp?) made a wonderful argument in Snow Crash. He said that religion is a virus. It is self producing. It feeds of life. It spreads quickly. This virus also has a nasty side in that it messes with one's mind. It attacks other virus religions. I found this a very powerful, and sadly true, analogy.
You don't know what you're talking about.
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
The animals were brought _to_ the man, which means he existed before they were created, as they were brought straight to him. The bible says so. Hell, _your_ bible says so.
Here's your answer. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're going to embarrass yourself.
Secondly, all the action and linking verbs in this passage are past tense, so the 'had formed' part is perfectly natural. Hebrew's structure is a bit different from germanic languages like english, so you can expect to get some funny looking syntax after translation (especially when dealing with complex ideas).
Hebrew tenses are far more complex than you seem to know. There are two major "tenses," traditionally called "perfect" and "imperfect." Both are essentially "past tense" but contextual indicators demonstrate that either one may have present or even future tense meaning (though this is usually restricted to the "imperfect").
I'm a bit fuzzy here; it's been 7 years since I last read Hebrew seriously.
For all the joy you seem to get in talking about Hebrew tenses, it's a shame you don't look at other significant things related to interpretation of a text: like structure, or historical context, or literary context, to name a few. If you did, you might not have so foolishly claimed that there are "two disparate" creation accounts.
There aren't, and you're wrong.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
If you're curious about the "proof". . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Curious about the "proof" for evolution? Read 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson. Heck, just read some of Dawkins' statements in works such as 'The Blind Watchmaker.' He essentially admits that there is every good reason to interpret our observations of biology as evidence for the creation of life (as opposed to the evolution of it). He of course uses meaningless and wishful rhetoric to "debunk" the design conclusion.
Re:Logically, No Evolution == No Newtonian Mechani
by
Claudius
·
· Score: 1
> Yet, I can't imagine anyone saying Newton or > Einstein should not be taught in school.
I can, at least for Einstein's work. Suppose for a moment that the powers that be pass a resolution so that no mention may be made in schools of a universe that is older than 6000 years. Since this would require a notion of absolute time, special relativity would be invalidated. Also, the big bang hypothesis/theory would be at odds with many fundamentalists' sensibilities. Modern astronomy (which Newton helped institute with his work on celestial mechanics) would be at odds with the 6k yr. old universe premise as well.
We live in an age of revisionist history; it would appear that we are tending towards revisionist science as well.
Unfortunately, now I really have to start considering whether home schooling is the way to go. I have twins that'll be ``in the system'' in a year or so and I'm already worried about the quality of education they'll be getting. This decision makes me that much more fearsome of what they'll be ``learning''.
A lot of the coverage I've heard about the Kansas decision is predicting that it won't be long before a lot of states adopt this policy.
When I was in college, I spent part of one summer working for a crew of people doing general maintenance in a Catholic grade school. During lunch breaks I used to check out the textbooks in the classrooms to see what sort topics were being covered. The ``science'' textbooks were scary; it was as though they'd just recently bought into the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun. I can see the schools in many areas adopting this curriculum and the same bland, "let's not offend the religious fundamentalists" brand of textbooks and when that happens I fear for the level of science awareness.
-- CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
One question . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Are those "walking" fish well-suited for their environment? Of course they are. So what makes you think they were'nt designed that way? Wishful thinking, that's all.
wowzers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
hey maw, lookit all the slack-jawed yokels, postin stuff 'bout ev'looshun. shore is a dandy, ayup.
Drug resistant bacteria? . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's not a case of evolution. The bacteria are still the same species, for crying out loud! Variability within a species is a far cry from evolution into a new species.
In case you hadn't noticed . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...a lot was understood about biology and biological processes before evolutionary theory was concieved of, and a lot more became known before that theory was generally accepted. Heck, the theory is still being "tweaked" to fit the evidence (because it doesn't make very good predictions) and yet biological research churns along by itself, oblivious to the debate. One could be entirely ignorant of macroevolution ideas and still fully understand biology, and still be entirely capable of discovering new biological facts. There really is no scientific need to base one's understanding of biology on macroevolution hypothesis (and that's all it is--hypothesis).
Folger's Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Announcer: Today, we are at the Arbor Street Baptist Temple, where we are secretly replacing the regularly served blood of Christ with new Folger's Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM).
Announcer: Ma'am, how was your blood of Christ? Woman: Refreshing. It tasted rather good, AND my sins are washed away. Announcer: And the body of Christ? Did the blood complement the body? Woman: Yes, actually. I'm not exactly sure which part of his body I received, but it tasted like white meat. The body and blood were fantastic together! Announcer: What would you say if I told that we replaced your regular blood of Christ with Folger's new Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM)? Woman: Replaced?!? Are my sins still forgiven? Announcer: Of course they are, but without drinking all that hemoglobin. Woman: Fantastic! Announcer: There you have it, folks. Dyed-in-the-wool Baptists can't even tell the difference. Look for the new Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM) in a store near you!
(with apologies to Folger's, of course)
too lazy to log in -- toenail
i STILL have my hands in my pants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ok, this isn't funny anymore, haha guys, jokes over... guys?... HEY! I need assistance over here !!!.... help?... anybody???
That is a very valid question. What Christians don't get is that just because you can find a good question for Darwinism doesn't mean that there is the totally impossible is true: supernaturalism.
That's a good question. Why don't you actually ask a biologist? I'm sure there's good answer.
-- --
Ken Kinder
ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com
http://kenkinder.com/
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
hadron
·
· Score: 1
Ugh. Please don't call the Democrats left wing. They are not.
Here is a guide for you, as seen from a continent where political parties often have significant differences between them.
Republicans : extreme far right wing Democrats : far right wing
Evolutionary theory is a pretty idea
by
Junks+Jerzey
·
· Score: 1
Two issues are being confused here: evolution and evolutionary theory.
No one disputes that organisms evolve. Anyone who gardens realizes this (plants that have been bred for larger yield, for example). Similarly, mutation and natural selection are also well established.
The theory, that life started as single-celled organisms and eventually evolved into humans--so called "evolutionary theory"--is a beautiful conjecture and not much more. But please realize that if it *isn't* true, that's not an argument for creationism.
With some background reading, it's easy to see how little solid ground evolutionary theory is based on. It's like reading books about how the mind supposedly works, when all we really have are some vague clues and bits of information. We can say that Animal A evolved from Animal B, but we don't really know. For a long time textbooks and musems--even into the 1990s--featured a family tree of how horses evolved. It was visually impressive, with each animal looking more horselike than it's ancestor. Unfortunately, this has been shown be completely incorrect, as the animals in the the tree aren't in any kind of chronological order. There have been other similar errors in "evidence" for evolutionary theory presented in textbooks.
Edsger Dijkstra had a great example in one of his books of an algorithm that looked easy to guess by trial and error, but was actually much different than it appeared to be. With evolutionary theory, we're taking bits of fact and trying to generalize them into a grand theory that encapsulates The Way Things Are--much like Jon Katz:) I can understand not wanting to teach something so flimsy in public schools. Heck, publich schools don't teach objectivism and other philosphies that aren't well-founded in the minds of many.
Re:Evolutionary theory is a pretty idea
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
> "evolutionary theory"--is a beautiful conjecture and not much more.
It is much, much more than a beautiful conjecture. It is the only theory which predicted the same genetic basis for all life on earth. It is the only theory which predicted the vast correlations we find between related species. For example mammals are identified by a particular bone structure in their inner ear. Knowing you are a mammal, we can predict the orientation of the rods in your eye. These are not functional relationships. The correlations span the entire range of scale, from the hamming distance of the genetic code, to the gross features of the body.
Only the theory of common ancestry predicts this.
Re:Evolutionary theory is a pretty idea
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Similarity of organisms is far from proof of evolution (or even a suggestion of it). This is like saying that because a PIII is like a PII, the former must have evolved from the later. Of course, this is obviously weak thinking. The real reason that different Pentiums are similar is that they have the same designer. Therefore, similarity supports creation at least as well as evolution. Unfortunatly, when people view evidence with a strong bias, this sort of thing gets ignored. If any evidence supports multiple hypotheses, then it is useless in distinguishing between them. Joel Mawhorter
Re:Everyone just calm down
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 1
This may give rights to the principles, or to the school boards. It gives ZIP to the students. It means that if you go to school in Kansas you will probably need to take remedial science when you get to college. It means that Kansas will be written off by the BioTech industry. etc. The adults get what they asked for. The students get to grow up to serve hamburgers. (Well, there ARE other fields, but not all folk have talents adapted to all fields.)
p.s.: A bit of a paradox: I do know individual christians that I consider worthwhile people, as individuals. In groups they tend to espouse foul and pernicious doctrines leading to centralized social controls over the individual. And they remain decent as individuals. As I said, a bit of a paradox, but a veritudinous one.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:What about a state with guns?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean that criminals won't use them. However regular law-abiding people won't have guns for self defense and the criminals will know this and become bolder in their crimes because they know that their targets will be weaker. In addition the illegal importation of guns will become a bigger black market item and it will increase the size and power of organized crime (look at what happened when we tried prohibition). Guns are needed to level the playing field against criminals.
Re:Intro to Hebrew Literature 101
by
PigleT
·
· Score: 1
Thus speaks an arrogant literalist with his eyes closed. Sad, isn't it?
~Tim --
-- ~Tim
-- .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
hehe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1487th post!!:P
Misquote! (Re:They are more educated than you or I
by
jamesc
·
· Score: 1
Moving from the ICR to the CSF (Creation Science Foundation), eh? On a wild hunch, (8-) I searched the Talk.Origins archive for this quote, too. Surprise! It was taken out of context from a talk by Dr. Colin Patterson in 1981, and twists the meaning of his presentation to be the opposite of Patterson's "qualified" opinion.
First, far from being devoid of transitional fossils, Patterson's Evolution is full of them. Here's an example from page 131:
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal,
Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .."
That sounds to me like Dr. Patterson has not only heard about evolutionary transitions, but did include them in his book, Evolution.
The author of the Talk.Origins essay, Lionel Theunissen, corresponded with the principals in this matter. Dr. Patterson replied with details, apparently his talk on "Systematics Discussion Group" was secretly recorded by a creationist and quote-mined. (This taping and misattribution may not be legal in Australia.) The creationists were evasive and refused to back up their claims, or even reveal their primary sources for the quote, until pressed with information from Patterson's letter. See Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites' for the whole thing.
Now, I've got to ask you something, slvrsrfr. I hope that you have checked out the references I've entered, and gone further to read the primary sources to make sure that these are fair refutations to your case. Of the two quotes that you've posted, both have been shown to be scraps of text (or words) that have been taken out of context and twisted backwards to mean the exact opposite of their author's positions by a creationist. Indeed, let the record show that both the ICR and CSF have tried to steal their opponent's authority as "qualified people" and to use it to deceive anybody who didn't look up the facts. So, I ask you:
Is stealing other people's authority the way to find the truth?
Is this Xtian integrity or honesty?
What does this do for the cause of truth and justice?
Most importantly, surely even the most devout believer in Creation and Xtianity should cast out those who tell lies about others. Would not such a person want to keep their cause clean of the taint of the dirty dealings mentioned above? After all, who is "The Father of Lies," hmmmm?
Patterson, Colin, "Evolution" 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Re:Is Evolution fact?
by
JM_the_Great
·
· Score: 1
As your link defined Fact, it is absolute truth. Evolution isn't absolute truth, it is a theory. That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US JM Big Brother is watching, vote Libertarian!!
--
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
All faith systems must ultimately change and adapt to the world around them to survive. If they don't they will eventually go the way of the dodo. The world shapes the faith systems that exist within it, and conversely faith systems shape the world. Change, however necessary, is usually resisted.
It took a few centuries, for instance, for the early Christian church to accept metaphoric or non-literal interpretations of the Bible. It seems to me that the religious anti-evolution argument is based upon an unwillingness to do just that.
I believe in evolution to the extent that it is the best explanation I have found to explain the evidence I have been presented with regarding the processes and mechanisms of life. I do not believe in it to the extent, however, that I would hold on to it in the face of something more compelling, that explains the evidence we have better.
I do not consider myself a Christian, but I hold a high degree of respect for the Bible. To me it does speak truth, but only in that it can tell us a great deal about humanity and human nature. What could be called the Christian virtue of Charity, for instance, is something of high value to me, which is probably because our culture is built on fundamentally Christian foundations. We have much to learn from Christianity (and from other faiths), but we should not blind ourselves from posibility because of those faith systems.
I'd like to leave you all with an example of evolution in history. It doesn't match biological evolution exactly, but it works. The early Christian Church that I mentioned earlier, was, in its first 5 centuries, struggling to define its doctrine and the nature of the Christian universe. This discussion and eventually heated debate escallated into a controversy about the nature of the Holy Trinity. The two sides were split essentially east and west in the roman empire. After a series of meetings among the various leaders of the church at places like Nicea, everybody got so upset that they all excommunicated each other and thus split the church in two, one side eventually becomming the Catholic church and the other becomming Eastern Orthodox. Only recently, nearly 1500 years later, are the two on speaking terms again.
This story is an example of evolution and speciation in principle. Evolution, as a concept, cannot be denied, and Kansas doesn't propose to do deny it. It is ultimately unfortunate that they refused to be open minded about ideas both without and within their own belief.
(I appologise for any factual inaccuracies in the above accounts of the early Christian church, I am working from memory when I type this. My sources for this information are as follows:
History and Literature of Early Christianity, by Helmut Koester
The Early Church, by Henry Chadwick
The Rise of Christianity, by Rodney Stark (highly recommended)
All of this and more can be found in these books.)
Have a nice day.
Re:Teach both hypotheses/let students discern trut
by
Axe
·
· Score: 1
Concrete evidence that suggests evolution as fact is lacking
Your existence shows there is no evolution. You never evolved out of the ape stage...
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools.
There are no "simple answers". Evolution is not _a_ theory, but an intricatedly interlocked set of several theories (5 according to Ernst Mayr) that pertain to selection, common descent, multiplication of species, gradualism of change, etc. These theories are based on facts, observations, explanations that can explain the facts, and elimination of any other possible explanations. Creationism is not based on facts, but belief and faith in religious ideas and dogma. Creationists attempts to "debunk" evolution and "prove" creationism were exposed in the mid-'80's as misguided, mistaken interpretations of facts; deliberate exclusion of exculpatory facts and evidence supporting evolution and disproving creationism; and, in some cases, a misguided and uneducated understanding of what evolution actually is.
I must disagree with the statement that science is a religion. That is a "canned" response from the creationist movement, and is no more than an attempt to equate science and religion, thus validating their belief in creationism ("it is science"), and putting creationism and evolution on equal footing. This cannot be done, as creationism and evolution are come from different portions of human experience. It is sort of like the old hack of "comparing apples and oranges". Science is not a religion: science is based on the _proof_ of ideas about how the natural world operates. Religion has only to do with the spiritual world, and has nothing whatsoever to do with proving things. (One cannot "prove" that one belief system, or religion, is better than another. One _can_ objectively prove that fossils are the altered remains of once living things.) (I believe this was adequately handled in one of the posts above, so I won't go on...)
I am disappointed that something like what has happened in Kansas could, once again, actually make it to the point of being supported by the state government. I believe it is a reflection of the serious lack of good basic education in this country (particularly in the liberal arts, not necessarily science). Only a good, broad-based education can prevent this sort of thing from recurring; and I believe, unfortunately, that we are in for a long period of occurrences like this....
The resurgence of fundamentalism in the U.S. in the last few years should have been a wake-up call to the supporters of evolution, but, once again, we have been caught behind the 8-ball again.
Once more into fray, my friends.....
(p.s - I just reread DarkFire's post and I noticed that he advocates teaching only facts in school: however, please note that facts without a meaningful and coherent framework for context are meaningless and useless. (His example of math as a good example of teaching facts only is ludicrous, as it has more theories and hypotheses lending structure to mathematical thought than almost any other field of study.) That is part of the problem with education today: it is a mismash of facts and competing, conflicting theories of interpretation, with a severe lack of guidance from educators, parents, and anyone else of standing.)
Read the book, than talk. Very typical of evolution bashers - arrogant ignorance.
-- <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Evolution is NOT Fact!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Any more than creationism - both are possible explanations to how life came to be. People dig and find a human skeleton and dig more and find a rat skeleton and suddenly swear that our ancestors must have been rats. All "evolutionary paths" are just guesses - theories. You have a collection of skeletons with similar features and figure they must be related somehow. The closest thing we have seen is intra-species adaptation. But never have we found conclusive and irrefutable PROOF that one species mutated into another. Just because some stuffy scientists got together to say that this must be the explanation doesn't mean it is so. It just means they're to engrained in the system to question it and take some initiative to explore all possibilities. We've been through that situation time and time throughout history. It's a neat theory and conversation provoker as is creationism - but like most other theories in the past, someone will come up with a better one. If it is going to be taught, it should be taught as a thought process or a theory rather than as fact, because evolution is most certainly NOT fact...yet.
Re:Evolution is NOT Fact!
by
bobv_picus_com
·
· Score: 1
Evolution, at least as Darwin defined it (and I guess he's as authoritative as anybody) is the "gradual change in the species by the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest." The fossil records, if you care to believe them, do not show gradual change. There is the same exact species for millions (again, if you believe the dating methods) of years, and them WHAM! In a mere tick of the clock, geologically speaking, there is a whole new species. Or two. Or a dozen. Seems to me that somebody's shuffling the deck. And that somebody must be a whole lot smarter than we are; since we can't even make durable copies of what's been already made (sheep, for instance). Might as well call that somebody God; whoever it was is near enough so as to make no difference. Occam was right.
-- Robert August Vincent II
root@picus.com, hostmaster@pillars.net
What will YOU be doing on 1/1/3000?
Re:Evolution is NOT Fact!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're right about one thing, evolution isn't fact. It's a theory. However, don't ignore the fact that the theory of evolution is consistent with a huge number of observations. The theory may have some holes in it, but it at least has a lot of evidence supporting it. That's more than you can say for creationism.
Re:Evolution is NOT Fact!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
True. Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory, and most careful people describe it thusly: "the theory of evolution". Does that mean it ought not to be taught? No. Many theories are taught in schools: the Newtonian theory of gravity, Electromagnetic theory, etc.
Is creation a theory? Perhaps if you stretch the definition of theory a bit. It is not, however, a scientific theory.
This is not the place to go into detailed arguments, but briefly: there is no credible evidence for creationism, whereas there is a lot of good evidence for some form of evolutionary theory. Thus it is clear which ought to be taught in a science class.
If anyone is interested in serious, informed debate (ha!), the August Scientific American has a great book review of Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock. I have not read the book, but the review itself is a good two-page summary of the debate.
[Before anyone goes jumping on a book written up in Scientific American, please note that Pennock is a theist (opposite of atheist) himself!
Re: .... Oh so many ways to look at it
by
Axe
·
· Score: 1
Personally, i believe very strongly in Evolution
hmm.. fishy. Evolution is science. It is not a question of faith. It is a question of knowledge and logic. Common mistake is to treat science in the same style as common knowledge or faith. Science is quite different view of the world. And it does not contradict other views.
-- <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Re:Do you REALLY believe evolution?
by
argathin
·
· Score: 1
What I'll probably never understand (being a Christian myself - Roman Catholic, actually, though I don't think John Paul would like me very much...) is, why on earth are there so many self proclaimed Christians who have so little faith? You don't seem to have much trust in our God, do you? Because if you did, you wouldn't see His/Her position threatened by things like evolution - because there simply is no contradiction! Yes, I believe that the evolution theory got it (mostly) right - but does that mean there is no God? No! Not at all. There still is and there always will be room for God, even if Mankind progresses more and more in their quest to understand the world. I can see that myself - daily, as I'm an electronics engineer. Taking things apart to find out how they work is part of my job - but it hasn't killed my belief at all. Quite the contrary - the more I learn about how our world ticks, right down into the smallest details, the more I am amazed and fascinated - and convinced, that it is somehow God's work as well.
As for why Christians tend to get slagged more than others: Simple, really - among still existing religions with a horrible history, Christianity is probably the biggest one. Over the last centuries, Christians went out of their way to show how much Christians can violate the very base of their own faith. How many missionaries brought the sword instead of God's word? How many people died at the hands of some inquisitor, just because they happened to interpret Christianity differently from him? How often did the Churches suppress, threaten, kill and maim - even each other! And even nowadays, they still don't stop (ab)using their "faith" as an excuse for anything up to murder (Northern Ireland, anybody?). How many hypoctitical gouvernments are there, who swear an oath on the Bible - and then order the next shipload of weapons? Can't see many Christians speaking up against the last military budget or against pollution (a Sin against God's nature!)!? That dark history is hard to get rid off, very hard - even I find it difficult at times to justify the fact that I'm still a member of a Christian church. Too much hypocrism. Amazing, that I still keep faith and hope...
If you're a Christian, and you've read all of the nasty comments by Slashdot readers, most likely you're either angry or upset - I know I was. But then it occured to me - why should I be surprised by such a response?
America has become God-less society, that much is evident by turning on the T.V., picking up a newspaper, or just having a conversation with the average Joe. Once a country built upon religious principles, the United States has mutated into a sinful, litigious, self-serving group of fools overcome by their own excesses. And while it's difficult to keep your mouth shut when the masses are screaming "crucify Jesus!" at the top of their lungs, I think that's what He'd want us to do.
We know the truth, there's no reason to bang our heads against a wall trying to convince someone who chooses to turn his back on God. If these people want to call you names because of your beliefs - let them. Such persecution is completely irrelevant.
As for the actual topic of discussion, as many have pointed out, evolution is a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less. Once upon a time, the very best scientists thought the world was flat. And it wasn't too long ago that the very best believed the atom was the smallest "thing" in the universe. Science is imperfect - always has been, always will be. Does that mean we stop teaching that man evolved from goo zillions of years ago? Who cares?
True learning begins in the home. By the time a child goes to school, he or she should have been molded enough by their parents to know to what they should listen, and in what they should believe. I never took anything any teacher said as an absolute - no child should. If a parent is concerned that a teacher is warping their child, then they haven't given that child a strong enough foundation of truth from which to build.
The family unit is no longer a sacred institution in this country. If it were, evolution in schools would be a non-issue. But rather than examine the real problems facing our society, it's much easier to resort to name-calling and insults. Bigotry and stereotyping are the cornerstones of our weak society - and it's never been more obvious than in the responses to this article.
Have faith - those who believe. Be damned those who don't.
-- What if I gave you three dollars?
How much?
Thr-- four dollars?
Keep talking, I'm listening.
You are right, Science does not allow for any kind of faith. But this is a science class we are talking about. Only science should be taught in it. You say you beleive in the word of God and others "beleive" in carbon dating. Well Carbon-14 decay has been observed and tested. It is a fact not a beleif. I a a Christian but I do beleive in evolution as do MANY other Christians. they are not mutualy excusive.
-- See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:spurt that mad,mad jizz all over jesus' face.
by
QuoteMstr
·
· Score: 1
And what, specifically, about Judeo-Christian values make them inherently superior?
By the time I get this submitted, there will porobably be 1k posts. However, as a Physics student I had to say something, even if it's only a remote possibility that anyone will read it.
Attacking the educational system n this way is a very cold, calculated attempt to influence the next generation. It is a classic example of what to do in order to control and opress a population. (look at Afghanistan - women are denied access to education altogeather - therefore they're not a political "threat")
-- [Science] is one of the very few things that raises human life
a little above farce and gives it the grace of tragedy.
Next on the chopping block: Huckleberry Finn
by
root
·
· Score: 2
Now that we have modern precedent to get rid of controversial topics from the educational cirriculum, let's start taking care of business:
First up, Huckleberry Finn. "Nigger Jim"? While (*cough*cough*) "revised" (*cough*) versions of this classic piece of American literature exist (without any indication of their having been edited, mind you) I say just get rid of it all together.
The US Constitution? No way. Far too many controversial rights in those amendments. And Do we want to encourage kids to acquire firearms? Columbine anyone? Good God no. Nix it.
Next up, the (US) founding fathers. Washington? Jefferson? Hamilton? These men owned SLAVES for crying out loud! Praising these men sanctions their slave owning. Into the dustbin with them.
Christopher Columbus? Butcherer and enslaver of Native American peoples. Didn't discover crap. Banish the "holiday" too and rename it to "Native American People's day". Bye bye to this bastard!
Sir Issac Newton? Nasty, nasty man. Had people outright ruined if not killed to protect his own intrests (Leibniz anyone?). Also practised alchemy and tried to transmute base metals into gold (== withcery == devil worship). Forget teaching about this loon.
And of course all wars must be purged from the textbooks. We don't want to emotionally traumitize kids by teaching just how horrible war really is. Or to, in any way, imply that it's ok to resort to violence over such trivial issues as taxation, persoanl freedoms, and local soverignty.
Physics? This is outright DANGEROUS knowledge. Einstien and his ilk helped develop this tech into NUCLEAR WEAPONS that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese in horrible ways (effects still exist to this day). No. This knowledge should be locked away to all but a priveleged few who passed many and continue to pass regular background checks and psylogical profiles. High school kids, college kids, and regelar people have NO NEED TO KNOW about stuff like this. Same for most of chemistry (which can us used to MAKE BOMBS and EXPLOSIVES)
Ebonics? Chicano Lingo? These language dialects are as valid an any other. Treating it as "uneducated speak" is racially offensive. These should be embraced.
Alan Turing? He was a HOMOSEXUAL! Thus his contributions to CS are tainted with controversey and are therfore not worth sudying.
And Thomas Edison? He was a shameless self promoter and rabid capitalist (== materialistic PIG). He used monopolistic practices to try and crush Nikola Tesla (another example of Croations being historically discriminated against). Edison is best forgotten.
There. That ought to sanitize the school cirriculum a bit. With these changes kids will FEEL BETTER in school. (We've already got rid of A,B,C,D,F grading most everywhere). And isn't that what education is all about? Making sure that every child FEELS as good about him or herself and FEELS as good and as smart as everyone else and FEELS no need to improve or strive for anything? We are all equals after all.
-- Stop the planet, I want off.
Don't throw all Christians in the same category.
by
paranoid.android
·
· Score: 1
A distinction needs to be made here between Christians and Fundamentalists. I'm not even going to try to define the word Christian, but suffice it to say that Fundamentalism is a subset of Christianity where the word of the Bible is held to be the absolute, unerring word of God. This is where the problem lies with Evolution vs. Creation; not with Christianity as a whole, but with Fundamentalism.
Also, a distinction should be made between so-called Creation "Scientists" and scientists who are Christian. You can have strong faith in the Christian God and still be a credible scientist. Example: I attend a Catholic University, and my symposium class (a combination of reading, writing, discussion, and critical thinking) had as its subject revolutionary scientists, and as its instructor a venerable physics professor who is also a Catholic priest. I expected my professor to hand down some crazy lectures about the scientific validity of the Bible, when he did exactly the opposite. He totally separated the Bible from science, and much of our class was spent discussing the horrible treatment of Galileo and Darwin by the Catholic church. To quote him loosely: "The Bible teaches theological truth, not scientific truth." Not every Christian believes the same thing, and many are objective, logically-thinking creatures. Faith and science can coexist.
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools. One more thing: I do not believe that it is practical/possible to run a public school in a country as diversified in religion as the U.S. I believe home schooling, charter schools, & private schools are the wave of the future (I know...they have all been around a while...so don't look at me like I don't know what I am talking about). If you are a Catholic & want your child taught in the ways of Catholicism, send them to a private Catholic school. Let the government provide funding to the schools ($/child or something like that-since education is one of the things our taxes pay for). Back when we were trying to teach everyone the three Rs, public schools were great. Now, the inability for people to become educated in the U.S. has gone away (99%). I believe it is time for the public school system to get phased out--it is now obsolete & inadequate for our nation's educational needs. Well, my 2 cents.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 1
okay, here's the question I want answered. How many mutations does it take for a flower to begin to add color to its petals? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~ ^~
I used to be in a Christian school when I was much younger. Now I'm in my third year of university studying Life Sciences.
For a long time now, I've decided that Creation and Evolution do not conflict. In fact, the Pope understands this as well, since I found out a few years ago that he has accepted the theory of evolution.
Think of how the Bible was written. Obviously it could not have been written in such a detailed scientific way that the people of the time could't understand (if it is even possible to precisely explain the work of something that is not bound by the laws of our universe). It had to be written in a way that would make sense back then, and still make sense throughout time. The best way that I believe this could be done, is by using simple analogies that we can all understand. The purpose was to explain that God is behind all of this. And the scripture at the beginning of Genesis accomplishes this.
Also remember, just as chapters of a book have varying lengths, the usage of a "day" in The Book of Genesis may have simply represented many millions of years. In fact, was the word "day" used before the earth was mentioned to be created? Maybe the reference point was around something else revolving very slowly...Anyways, my point is that it was used as a division of time and not a fixed amount of time.
That is my opinion. I don't mind in being enlightening by someone if my logic is flawed.
Re:The two don't conflict.
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
There is no indication within the text of the Bible to indicate that the first chapters of Genesis were not intended to be taken completely literally. Whether the story of creation is true or not, the Bible intends it to be taken as true.
The word used for "day" is _only_ used to mean literal days; that word is never used to mean a vague period of time.
A lot of people try to reconcile creation and evolution, saying that the creation story is a metaphore for the evolutionary process over billions of years. First, that contradicts much of what scientists say about evolution as far as the order in which things occurred, etc. Second, it conflicts with the Bible too, because the Bible clearly says it took 6 days, and on the 7th day God rested - the original model of a standard work week.
One thing you are correct about: it was not written with a lot of scientific detail that most people wouldn't understand. Thus, certain things that would be very helpful in figuring out exactly what they meant have been omitted, which is somewhat unfortunate.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
"Inherit the Wind" being remade.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes the famous trial of evolution against creation. I think there was talk of Jack Lemmon playing the lawyer for the creation side (whoop). Oh yea I totally agree with the person who said that neither can be proved as fact. NO ONE WAS THERE AT THE BEGGINNING OF THE WORLD. Even if ther was, he/she's dead today, so its totally unprovable and any info the is found is interpret through "evolutionist" thinking and "creationist" thinking, different interpretations, same info. Ok i think this Kansas thing is good. Now go bash Iowa.
Re:"Inherit the Wind" being remade.
by
msphil
·
· Score: 1
Inherit the Wind is, of course, a play written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, apparently in 1951, and is a thinly fictionalized account of the Scopes Monkey Trial. It was turned into a movie in 1960 starring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March as Henry Drummond and Matthew Harrison Brady. For the record, Drummond argued the defense (allowing the teaching of evolution in public schools), and Brady argued for the prosecution (forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools).
The Internet Movie Database lists as well a 1988 remake TV movie (with Kirk Douglas as Brady and Jason Robards as Drummond) and a 1999 remake (with Jack Lemmon as Drummond and George C. Scott as Brady). Hmmm, that would have Lemmon arguing for evolution, and Scott arguing against.
I haven't seen either re-make, but I just checked the original movie out from the library (along with the play) over lunch, because it's time to re-watch it anyways. Great movie, worth the effort to see.
I'd love to hear whether or not the remakes are any good, and whether or not they are available anywhere.
Also, I'd like to know if anyone has a recommendation for a book or three about the Scopes Monkey Trial. I've turned up some rather interesting web pages, but they're not quite easy bed-side reading =)
I simply don't agree. I'm arguing in favor of evolution based on the evidence.. we have observed new species arising through evolutionary processes, we can see the evolutionary record in the genome of every living organism.
Bear in mind that nobody knew about DNA when Darwin developed his theory of evolution. DNA happens to have just the sort of characteristics (and the history of development recorded in the DNA has just the sort of characteristics) that would be required by the evolutionary theory, which came earlier.
DNA (or something closely like it) is required by evolution. Creation doesn't require anything, because it is in almost all cases explicitly supernatural. Given that it is, you can explain any detail by saying 'that's how God wanted it to be'. A theory that makes no predictions and can never be refuted is no theory.
I don't believe that it is best to believe in something that is wrong. Evolution is so firmly justified by all the evidence and it is such a provable mechanism that it very much appears to be right. My point was that if you are arguing against evolution you had better have a scenario which BETTER FITS THE EVIDENCE, which creationists have never had.
What ever became of this Seperation of Church and State deal? Religion has no place in Public schools, as public schools have to be impartial to all religions. If you want your children to be educated with Religious slant, one should go private, instead of changing the public schools. Geez, this really upsets me. I have a hard time believing in the United States sometimes. Just don't get me on the topic of why "In God We Trust" is on every United States coin, while we have this thing that talks about the SEPERATION of Church and State. The largest contridiction in the world that I know of. -Saxton
_________
-- My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
It's certainly a bad idea for publically funded institutions such as public schools to promote any particular religion over any other. It is, however, a good idea to educate students about a variety of religious beliefs, without promoting any of them over any others. Most high schools have a World Religions class or similar that does exactly that.
Evolution is not scientifically provable (or disprovable), by nature, and therefore a belief in evolution must be held on faith. Creation is also not scientifically provable (or disprovable), and therefore must also be held on faith. Both are religious beliefs, although one involves a supernatural Creator while the other does not. It is not appropriate to promote either belief exclusively in a public school.
Evolution is often taught as scientific fact. It's not. You can't prove it empirically. You can't prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, because there are too many unknown variables. You can make scientific observations, and form a model to explain the observations, and draw conclusions based on that model that are consistent with facts. However, since most of those facts also fit other models, and other facts conflict with your model, you can't say that your model is any more scientific that any other model which equally fits the available scientific facts. Whether Creation is a good model or not, Evolution isn't perfect and shouldn't be taught as if it were.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Church / State
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What ever became of this Seperation of Church and State deal?
The church is not making the decision; people are. Separation means that the Church has no control over the government. It does not mean people who believe in God are not allowed in government.
Religion has no place in Public schools, as public schools have to be impartial to all religions. If you want your children to be educated with Religious slant, one should go private, instead of changing the public schools.
No religion is being added to any school, so you do not have to worry about that specific concern.
I have a hard time believing in the United States sometimes.
As do I. Most of the postings I read earlier show a great deal of bigotry towards religion.
Just don't get me on the topic of why "In God We Trust" is on every United States coin, while we have this thing that talks about the SEPERATION of Church and State.
Read what I wrote above. SEPARATION does not mean people who believe in God cannot make the rules.
No sir, Christians are the bigots. Christians who are the ones who stand against homosexuals, even though it's none of their business. Christians are the ones who shove their cult down everyone else's throat. It's christinaity that strips people of their individuality for fear of "god". It's christinaity that has brought down more suffering on everyone other than christians.
Before you go accusing me of bigotry, take a LONG HARD LOOK at yourself. This is something I've done a lot of personal spiritual questioning on, and years of personal research to come to my conclusions.
Almost every christian I know is a hypocrite, and personal views on the "word of god" seem to vary pretty far from christian to christian. Want an example? Ask a christian PETA member and a christian deer hunter on their thought of "Thou shalt not kill" and what it means. Compare results.
For every hole you give on the evolutionary table, I will give you 10 bigger holes in creationism. Wake up, smell the coffee, and start living your life for you.
One final question for god himself. how can you let children get raped, wives get beat, people starve, animals get tortured, let humans rape "your" creation, and claim to be a god of love? email your answer to me.
-- -brain
Is evolution as taught better than creationism?
by
hey!
·
· Score: 1
Now before I get flamed, I'm not putting evolution on par with creationism as science. But at least when I went to school, it was taught as scientific dogma, not science, and in my opinion this is why it is open to criticism by creationists. Perhaps somebody younger can report that they're teaching creation better these days, but I bet the people making this decision are around my age (late 30's to 40's), and were taught the same way I was.
By way of analogy, every school child knows that the world is round, not flat. But how do they know? Their direct observation tells them the world is flat, or maybe a bit crinkly. Have they made observations that contradict this? For that matter, most people could readily live there lives believing the world is flat, leaving an elite few to handle tasks like navigation and launching satellites. Do we teach children the world is round just to produce an elite few who will go on to understand the implications of this?
The same applies to evolution. Of course, it is critical that everyone know that evolution is the standard biological model; but kids should be taught to make the observations that make this so, not just that it is true. I think most people's ideas of evolution come more from social and political theories than from the natural world. As a result, I find that people have a kind of "nature, red in tooth and claw" view of evolution. While natural selection through competition is a fact of life, evolution also produces symbiosis, as in lichens which are colonies of blue green algae and fungi, or certain flowers which are polinated by a single species of hummingbird.
I think the most wonderful aspect of evolution, specifically speciation through mutation, is how it explains things that just are. Often there is a reason, but there doesn't have to be. The shagbark hickory has a delicious nut and shaggy bark, but the pignut hickory has a nut that tastes like an acorn and smooth bark. Neither one is more fit than the other, they're just mutations.
Mushrooms are my favorite example. Sure, truffles smell like an estrous pig so wild hogs will eat them and shit spores all over the forest. There's another mushroom that is dangerous to cook because when heated to a high temperature it gives off monomethyl hydrazine -- a powerful and poisonous rocket fuel. As far as I know this doesn't confer any advantage on this mushroom over its its relatives that don't do this. It's just an infinite number of monkeys puttering around in the genome.
I once heard a mycologist tell about a call he got from a concerned citizen about a huge emergence of mushrooms carpeting the hill behind her house by the millions. She'd lived there for years and never seen them before: tiny green mushrooms shaped like a miniature human penis and smelling strongly of cat piss. Surely if there is intelligence behind such a phenomenon, that intelligence must be sublimely demented.
-- Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So tell me, then, what makes you a Christian, and what would I have to do to become one [snip]
If you really want to know the answer to your question, start reading the book of Acts. It reads like a story, and isn't dry or boring at all. Here's a link to an online version.
TedC
PS. I'm not sure why the closing anchor tag on my url isn't being parsed correctly; it must be a bug. Anyway, it makes it easier to hit the link.:-)
So...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think we should outlaw teaching Creationism in the Church because it is deceiving to my beliefs in Evolution. Going to church and listening to the theories of the Bible is destroying my faith in Science. (Oh wait, we can't do that - the Church is a seperate entity!) Whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?! Give them all the facts and let them sort it out. Don't deprive the children of all the facts that allow them to come to their own reasonable conclusion! (Otherwise, they will become mindless brain-washed drones). There are so many problems with this kind of decision that I can hardly begin to voice them all. (There have been many lines erased where this one now lies) I'm done for now.
The problem is people like you don't bother to read the thread, don't bother to learn the theory, and then spout some nonsense like this. This has been said dozens of times already, and it's still wrong.
Learn what "fact" and "theory" mean in science, e.g. gravity is a theory.
I'm really curious what information can be provided on "both sides". Creationism to date has yet to make a single correct prediction, while evolution has made dozens. Creationists haven't even composed a theory to provide an alternate explaination of all the data which supports evolution. So what "information" can be provided?
If all forms of life evolved from lesser forms, we should find examples of the resulting species alive today, the original species extinct, and the various steps in between in the fossil record.
If the earth and everything on it was created 6,000 years ago, a global catastrophic flood wiped out nearly everything 4,000 years ago, and the universe is in a constant state of decay, we would expect to find some simple species alive, some complex species alive, no weird hybrids between reptiles and birds, many extinct species in the fossil record that may not be closely related to anything alive today, and more species becoming extinct with time.
We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Exactly my point - don't deprive children of alternate origins models. Give them the facts, and let them choose the explanation that seems to make more sense. Don't teach them exclusively that Evolution is fact; give them a couple of different ideas and let them figure out what seems logical. If Evolution fits the facts better, so be it. But don't prevent students from being exposed to alternatives.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.
Why should we not have protozoa? It fills a niche that can't be filled by anything else without that something else also be something we could call protozoa.
Archaeopteryx is not a forgery; Hoyle et al were wrong.
A theory is a model. That's all. Some are better than others. NONE have any absolute truth. I'm not sure that any are absolutely false (i.e., have no value at all under any circumstances). Truth is an abstraction akin to a mathematical point. It has about as much (and as little) meaning as the position of an electron.
And that's the best case. There are usually lots of uncertainties like "How much do I trust the person who is reporting that he has been told this, and how much do I trust his source?"
If I understand correctly, the purpose of Zen is to cause one to become aware of this. (Ask someone else for more certainty.) But they say "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is." (Well, that may be from another context.) Anyway, the idea is that after one goes through the experience of becoming aware of uncertainty, one eventually comes to "enlightenment" and realizes that one must live in a world where theory is the best that one can do. "O, yes, there's a mountain." Calling is a montage of the tendency to percieve sensory blotches of color just isn't very convenient.
And that's why it the theory of evolution. There are no "FACTS", but there is the tendency to observe things that appear to occur in correlated patterns. So. For shorthand we say there are facts, but not FACTs.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I don't understand what the problem is
by
Achronos
·
· Score: 1
Okay, first of all, some people are really blowing this out of proportion. They just decided not to put it on the standardized state tests, not ban it.
Second, regarding the religion vs. science problem these people have, I really don't understand why there is a problem. Science deals with the physical world. It attempts to determine the nature of our universe through observation and experimentation. It is constantly updating the world view as new observations and data become available.
Religion, on the other hand, attempts to explain with the more philosophical and non-empirical issues. Things such as the purpose of creation, the who and why of it, how it is going to end, and what does it all mean. Religion shouldn't describe how things happen that science can explain, except in instances when what happened are above our current level of understanding.
Take for example the big bang theory of the creation of this universe. Some idiot fundamentalist Christians would have you believe that everything was created in 6 days, simply because the Bible said so. They need to be reminded of the context of the Genesis story. That story was passed down by voice, not by writing for several thousand years before it was written down, and has since been translated, retold, and translated again for several more thousand years. Also, they forget that this story was initially intended for simple farmers and hunters, not scientists. The Genesis story was meant to inform the reader that God created everything from nothing, and did it over a period of time, and that what he created was good. HOW he did that is not an issue. Whether he made homo sapiens by evolving us or whatever else doesn't matter to teach the religion of the matter.
As you can see, these are not opposing philosophies. They just are attempting to answer different questions. Science wants to know what is going on, and how it happens. Religion wants to know who did it and why. The problem occurs when they go out of their realm of expertise. Then everything essentially goes to hell.
Re:I don't understand what the problem is
by
PigleT
·
· Score: 1
Oh, well said that chap!!
ISTM that there are plenty of geeks out there who *need* to think this supposed "Creatisnism versus Science" thing through, especially before posting here (that answers the folks who've asked why "religion" is on slashdot). It also occurs to me that Creation-*ism* is a fundamentally wrong idea - being stuck on Creation for being-stuck's sake (the bandwagon effect) is plain idiotic, but some people do it. And Biblical literalism (again, an "-ism" for its own sake) to the extent that the fact a lot of it is *poetry* is also daft.
Quite right, neither has the answers. Neither is the answer, nor has either all the facts to its disposal. *Both* Creation and Evolution are *theories*, subject (if done properly) to continual reform. Thus to adhere ("religiously"!) to one *or* the other is backward.
There, that's my $0.003s' worth (as a Christian:)
~Tim --
-- ~Tim
-- .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Re:I don't understand what the problem is
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
I don't think this is being blown out of proportion. The school board has removed the last 100 years of biology from the curriculum. It's now optional. Would you respect a graduate of a school that ignored the last 100 years of physics? Or the last 100 years of history?
No school can claim to be providing an education while ignoring evolution -- the theory that led to nearly all of modern biology.
Re:I don't understand what the problem is
by
Achronos
·
· Score: 1
** The Bible says that God created the universe in 6 days. That's religion. That has no place in a biology classroom. **
Ah, but you make an assumption there. You assume a day means 24 hours as we define it by the definition of the second. That is a rather odd thing to say, given that the definition of a day couldn't possibly exist until the Earth was created to give the effect of day and night. The Earth wasn't "created" until the 3 or 4th day. So, a "day" could be the millions of years necessary to form the solar system... etc.
I agree that such discussions should be taking place, but in Kansas, they decided to remove the testing of the macro evolution theory from the biology curriculm. As someone earlier in this thread pointed out, evolution is hard to test as a high school student can't exactly experiment with it within the confines of a classroom semester. They were being lazy, and the media called them on it. It is that simple.
At any rate, you missed the point of the story if you think the Bible says that God created the universe in 6 days. The story is meant to teach even the most uneducated person that God created everything, he didn't do it instantly (it took time), and in the end, for better or for worse, he saw that it was good. Don't listen to the crap the fundamentalist Christians put out.
In the end, each person must come to know the truth themselves, and cannot have it spoon fed to them without question. You were given the capacity to know the truth and the free will to act upon it. Not doing so is a waste of material.
Re:I don't understand what the problem is
by
Stonehand
·
· Score: 1
* It's not forced removal from the classrooms; it's removal from an exam. If they use the time to focus on something else, like basic cellular biology, biochemistry, genetics or what not -- that's still productive and does not necessarily require acceptance of evolution theory. Gel electrophoresis, dissection, details of the metabolism, and so forth will not suddenly collapse because students might not be taught about macro-evolution -- and they're certainly worthy of the label "biology". There is a LOT they can cover and test *very* objectively with questions and answers that are far more difficult to dispute.
Specific questions about, say, Mendelian genetics and the H-W (Hardy-Weinberg? It's been quite a few years...) rules about dominance/recessive proportions in ideal populations lend themselves easily to the difficult-to-dispute due to their very nature as abstract approximations and mathematical constructs; asking, say, about the ancestral relationships between assorted dinos (e.g. therapods) and birds is more difficult in that respect.
* Evolution theory is unlike high school physics, in that the latter tends to be highly mathematical -- and a lot of it (mostly mechanics and E&M, most likely) can be tested in controlled experiments. Evolution theory, by nature of its scale, is far more difficult to test.
History is a closer example, in that its telling varies (often dramatically) with the teller, and that there is far more than can be taught. So interesting, valid stuff like the US Marine presence in Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution, or the role of CIA assets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, tends to get minimized or omitted -- and in many cases, the rest of history does not collapse, either.
Sure, it's religiously motivated, and it's discouraging (as a show of force), but that doesn't mean it's going to lead to rabidly Creationist students who reject all of modern bio.
-- Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:I don't understand what the problem is
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
The Bible says that God created the universe in 6 days. That's religion. That has no place in a biology classroom.
Many Creationists believe that the earth is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, and there was a global catastrophic flood a few thousand years after that, which happens to be consistent with the Bible. The Creation model offers an explanation for a lot of scientific facts just as the Evolution model does, although neither model fits all the facts perfectly. This has nothing to do with religion, and should be discussed openly in public schools.
A firm belief in either model as truth requires faith, as neither can be proven. That's starting to get into religion again.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Here is my problem with current people who reject evolution out of hand as impossible (and some of these people are my friends); it is the fact that when your arguing something on the basis of faith, it cannot be disproved. Here is the faith based proof of the Eden story and other creation stories:
1. There is a being, called God, who can do whatever He likes. He can create matter out of nothing, He can cause time to reverse itself, and He can cause any scientific law to be suspended whenever He feels like it.
2. Just because something in God's Book (there are a few different versions, the Koran, the Bible, etc.) seems to contradict something or seems to jibe with scientific proof doesn't mean it isn't true. God simply can create a contradictory reality, if He wants. If God's Book were to say that the world was created yesterday, and all the memories we have of existing previous to then were false, well, we know that God has the ability to do it, therefore how can we doubt it?
Science on the other hand is supposed to be based on a skeptical view of reality. If you see flaws in say, the Story of Noah and the Ark (like, to me, it seems unlikely tht God changed the laws of physics after the Great Flood so rainbows would appear to remind Noah of the Covenant. It seems more likely that this is a "just so" story along the lines of how the elephant got it's trunk, I think these were collected by Rudyard Kipling.) as a scientist you are supposed to question it. If as a scientist you just accept things on faith you aren't a scientist.
If you want Creationism taught in school science courses, you need to justify it according to science, not faith! Because faith is belief based on the idea of the supernatural and science is the study of the natural. Science cannot be expected to accept into its practices the idea that nature is all a creation of an outside force and that all the collected knowledge of scientists could suddenly be made false because God decides that Pi should be rounded off to 3 tommorrow or something similar.
-- All the creatures will die,
And all the things will be broken.
That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
If you want Creationism taught in school science courses, you need to justify it according to science, not faith! Because faith is belief based on the idea of the supernatural and science is the study of the natural. Science cannot be expected to accept into its practices the idea that nature is all a creation of an outside force and that all the collected knowledge of scientists could suddenly be made false because God decides that Pi should be rounded off to 3 tommorrow or something similar.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that, yes, creationism can to a large extent be scientifically explained. The cataclysm theory, or whatever they're calling it nowadays, is one such explanation, that is very plausible, and well-documented and logically explained based on currently known facts and observations. (facts, not faith).
Evolution also has a strong scientific foundation, also based on facts and observations, as we all know.
However, evolution *theory* have many holes in it, which cannot be explained. In fact, this may be the largest single shared trait between creationism and evolutionism. Both philosophies have many things that simply cannot be explained.
In an objective world, disregarding passion and emotion, both theories are equally valid and should be treated as such. Not so much focusing on Christian-centric creationism, because many different cultures record similar events.
Did God create the world? I think so. Do you disagree? Good! Life would suck if we all believed the same things. Are fossils an evil plot by Satan to encourage disbelief in God? Or did God create the dinosaurs, and then OOPS! no room on Noah's ark for them? Who knows? Does it really matter? Is it going to affect your paycheck next week? No? Move on, then, I say.
As far as education is concerned, these days it seems that the purpose of education is to expand a person's understanding of the world around him/her, in addition to the three "R"s. You cannot accomplish this purpose if you restrict educators from teaching the most prominent theories. And these days, the most prominent theories are evolution and creation. So present both dispassionately, with all available facts (as if that could ever happen!!)
When you get down to it, they are all based on faith. Evolution has the almighty adapting cell as it's God, and Darwin is the evolutionary messiah. Creation has an omniscient, omnipotent entity as God, and Jesus as the messiah in the Christian world, Muhammed (sp?), in the Muslim world, and Moses as the closest thing to a messiah in the Jewish world. Evolution, creation? They're both religions. The question is, which one do you want to believe in, and is it right to force someone to believe any of them? That's the important question.
To answer that last question is NO! And that's what Kansas has finally decided to stop doing. Teach them all, or don't teach any of them.
Just my 2 cents. Believe what you will, it won't change my life!;)
--
Matthew Vanecek
For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow
except me. I'm always getting i
The Bible says it hadn't rained prior to the Flood, therefore the first appearance of a rainbow would not require a change in the laws of physics. Refraction of light through droplets of water would still have occurred prior to the Flood, but nobody probably would have noticed the effect if it hadn't ever rained.
It is generally accepted that the earth changed drastically during the Flood. Not physical laws, but things like geography, atmospheric content, etc. I'm not familiar enough with these theories to explain them adequately here, but I have read about them.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Hmm, here's the problem though, I believe that this is a first step to teaching Creation as science. I don't think it is a good idea to try to teach Creation as science because God is not bound by scientific law. Therefore, the science suffers because Creationism is basically something along the lines that, "Reality is an idea in the mind of God." (Sorry, some religious philosophers have suggested this. I'm not sure if they were Christians or not.)
Humans are bound by scientific law, Jesus healing the sick is consistent with the idea of the supernatural, for example, but if I get sick I want my doctor to use scientific methods to heal me. I don't want to go to a faith healer for that. Peter was able to walk on water because Jesus said he could, correct? Try doing that sometime, I'll bet you'll be unable to do it.
Scientists ought not to be forced to accept miracles into their work. It reminds me of an old Far Side cartoon I read once, in which a researcher who was stuck trying to complete a formula writes on the board "then a miracle happens" and his professor is telling him, "I think you need to explain this step more thouroughly." Humans are bound by natural law, God is by definition not, what this debate is doing, actually is forbidding a scientific inquiry into human origins, because the scientist must not start with forgone conclusions if he is to be a truly non-biased researcher. Creationism starts from the idea, "God created the world X-number of years ago in X-number of days, anything which contradicts this must be false." If it were science the person believing in Creation has to start, "I believe that the world was created according to the Bible, now what supporting and contradicting evidence can I find for this theory."
If I believed that this was only to remove evolution from school, well, I'd still be disturbed, obviously, because I believe in it. It's because I believe it is intended to replace evolution with anti-science ("science" in which the conclusions are drawn before the evidence is gathered).
-- All the creatures will die,
And all the things will be broken.
That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Re:Defending your faith.
by
The_Jazzman
·
· Score: 1
OK then, how do you explain how black holes exist ? Physics certainly does not work at the best of times... just think the actualy process of conception in it's minutist detail is still not understood.
Think of philosophy. What is a human soul ? Is this world an elaborate conception a la The Matrix ? Who can tell. *IF* you exist you may ask yourself the same question... on the other hand you may not and this entire world is a lonely planet...
Re:Everyone just calm down.
by
lordsutch
·
· Score: 1
The fundamental problem here is that someone has to make the decision for every child in a school (or a class) how they're going to be taught about evolution and creationism, and the people who have to deal with the consequences of that decision (parents and their children) aren't the ones making it.
School choice (which is what John has the ability to provide, unlike many other parents) is the only fair solution to this problem. Parents who want their kids to be taught that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh can send their kids to Jerry Falwell's Tellytubby-Free Academy, and parents who want their kids to learn that Chuck Darwin came up with this idea of evolution while sunning himself off the coast of South America can send their kids to Bill Nye's School of Scientific Thought.
What? WHAT? hold on!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Look, son. It doesn't matter if the "creationists" say that evolution can't have taken place or vice-versa. The point is that NO ONE was present at the beginning of the earch. Were you? Both religions (yes i said religions) are totally unprovable. Ok this brings up the matter of faith. If evolution is NOT fact, CAN'T be proven, theeeeennnnn to believe in it you have to have FAITH! Ah! The basis of religion is the faith in the unseen and the improvable. Therefore evolution can't be a science, got no facts! So its religion. Mw two cents. Eat it.
Re:What? WHAT? hold on!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ok this brings up the matter of faith. If evolution is NOT fact, CAN'T be proven, theeeeennnnn to believe in it you have to have FAITH! Ah! The basis of religion is the faith in the unseen and the improvable. Therefore evolution can't be a science, got no facts! So its religion. Mw two cents. Eat it.
The only problem with your little theory is that evelution is built on a whole slew of scientific work. Some of the same pricipals and theories which support evolution govern the operation of the computer you used to post your note here on Slashdot. So, all you have to do to disprove evolution is prove that your computer doesn't work. Good luck, God-boy. Fume and thump your Bible all you want, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reason that science is what pulled humanity out of the morass of festering bullshit, like the Spanish Inquisition, that religion put us in. We sure aren't going to let you Neanderthals drag us back down into the disease-ridden mire that our forebearers, like Galileo, worked so hard and gave some much to extricate us from. I say your God is false, and he/she/it can tounge-bathe my buttcrack. If he/she/it wants to prove otherwise, he/she/it know where to find me.
As for the person who moderated that comment up: you should be ashamed. Everyone doesn't think in the Politically Correct way. Deal with it. There was nothing "insightful" about that post whatsoever. It was namecalling and flamebait.
It was nothing of the sort. It was meant to ridicule with impunity the notion that teaching kids multiculturalism is some sort of evil leftist plot.
Confusion re "theory", "fact", and "hypothesis"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
A lot of people don't seem to understand that a "theory" isn't just a wild guess, and that calling something a theory doesn't mean it's unfounded. A fact is data, something verifiable. A hypothesis is a guess about how facts might be explained. Hypotheses can be disproven or supported by subsequent observations. When most people say "theory", what they usually mean is "hypothesis". A theory is something that started out as a hypothesis and has been substantiated by observations ("facts"). Theories provide explanations for what is observed. An important aspect of an established theory (like evolution) is the prediction of new observations that hadn't been expected when the theory was formulated. For example, Darwin realized that chimpanzees are our closest relatives, although DNA was as yet unknown. With the advent of DNA sequencing, it was realized that human and chimpanzee DNA is 99% identical, and that resemblences between DNA of different species are roughly proportional to "relatedness" as established by older techniques. There are so many examples of data supporting evolution that no reasonable biologist considers the theory to be in question. Another important point is that when established theories are superceded by newer ones, it doesn't mean that the older theory is disproven. More commonly, special cases are found in which the older theory gives rise to wrong predictions. This just means that the older theory isn't as generalizable as once believed. The newer theory then includes the older one as a special case, but also explains things the older theory couldn't. A good example of this is Newtonian vs. Einsteinian mechanics. Except for certain extreme cases, Einstein makes the same predictions as Newton, but explains things at a deeper level. It doesn't mean that Newton was no more correct than Aristotle. In summary, the current understanding of evolution may not be the final word, but no honest and informed person can doubt that Darwin was far closer to the truth than the creationists.
Re:Confusion re "theory", "fact", and "hypothesis"
by
William+Aoki
·
· Score: 1
FINALLY someone uses 'theory' and 'hypothesis' correctly! You need to be moderated up.
I was tempted post a similar explaination myself, but you've done it much better than I would have.
why is this here?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why is this article even on/.? i THOUGHT this was a tech site, not a platform to push personal political/religeous/wacked-out ideas./wistfully remembering when it was possible to discuss TECH and not have to worry about left/right or any other stupid labels/
So the maxim goes... by the vast amounts of posts here you are obviously in a minority. Who cares whethere or not it's techy ? I and the 1000+ posters on this one topic don't appear to each other.
Stuff that matters. Does this topic not particullaly matter or are you to remain ignorant for the rest of your life ?
Re:Have a fact or two!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Satisfy my curiosity. What do _you_ believe? Overall, your post seems to indicate a belief in creationism. If so, why not find evidence to support your theory rather than trying to twist facts and poke holes in other people's theories. I certainly agree with your last couple paragraphs though. Also, I've heard from more creationists who won't address the observations that support evolution than I've heard evolutionists who won't address the observations that are inconsistent with evolution. I've also heard several creationists take observations such as the ones you mentioned and interpret them using unscientific methods to reach conclusions of their choosing. Which group do you think tends to be more dogmatic?
Wow, almost 1000 comments!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please don't ask the Feds to manage this. It's bad enough that this happens at the state level, it really should be local option, but whoever controls the purse strings, controls what the money is spent on (and usually takes a cut for their service in managing it). The basic fallacy behind large, remote organizations managing activities that occur in local areas is that there is a communications bottleneck.
Consider the benefits of encapsulation. Local things should be done locally, so that local corrections can be made to adapt to local conditions. This doesn't work well if all of you variables are global.
Anything that can be encapsulated should be. Any variable that can be made local, should be. Etc. Take these principles and apply them to government. Don't forget to make provisions for debugging!
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
the missing link isn't missing
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The missing link existed and we have fossil evidence that can be disproved by innacurate date measurements, but still the physical evidence is there and the difference in dna between chimp[s and humans was 1.4% as I recall making chimp DNA 98.6% homologous. Also it is quite possible that neanderthal which was more likely to have been more of an evolutionary brother which was derived from the same species as man could have evolved further therby differentiating the amount of similar DNA. Also as I recall they have not sequenced any DNA from a neanderthal man, then again I have been living without the discovery chanel for a while. As the missing link is a term loosely applied to some kind of vague ape thing that probably died off because it was an itermediate step, or series of steps, and could not compete with its offspring. all of the species in the genus homo are the missing link homo erectus astrolopithacus or something like that, whatever thing lucy is yadda yadda. God on the other hand is some thing that in its essence cannot be proven. it/he/she issomething that has to be taken on faith alone, and the only way he/it/she will ever truly exist is if everyone believes in himher/it and no one is there to discredit his existance, and conversely the only way he/it/she will cese to exist is everyon stops beleiving in him/her/it .
mind you all this god stuff is pure conjecture, but there is evidence of the "missing link" while god relies on blind faith except for "miracles such as the appearance of the virgin mary in some mexican's torilla. Mind you I don't believ darwin is a god, but he was a brave and smart man to go against "the" church like he did.
all this makes you wonder what the world would be like without religion, eh?
Re:Get YOUR facts straight, jf
by
John+Fulmer
·
· Score: 2
HuH? You have a reference for this?
1) It's not a 'law'. It's part of the recommended curriculum by the state school board.
2) It does not talk about 'not preventing' anyone from doing anything. It simply removes evolution from being a state tested subject.
3) For someone talking about fair play, you sure do get insulting pretty fast, don't you?
Please...
jf
Re:that's why you say you're an _agnostic_ athiest
by
Stonehand
·
· Score: 1
If you accept the premise that your senses may be faulty, then quite possibly yes -- it can be impossible to "prove" anything at all, beyond that you are a... "thing" which seems to be thinking.
Logically, there could be an incredibly malevolent, omnipotent/omniscient being manipulating your every thought. Unless you reject the possibility that something is omnipotence (and that rejection itself requires belief), it's probably impossible. Whether it is or not has been debated for (at least) centuries.
I think it's interesting how man personifies God. I personally believe that God is nothing more than the personification of nature, of science, created by humans who (for lack of a better explanation) believe in the existance of a superbeing.
I believe in the same God that all these religious fanatics do, I just understand it for what it is. I just wish they would stop the "God wants us to do this" crap and the whole blasphemy thing.
Either that, or Adam and Eve were aliens and the Garden of Eden was this really rad spaceship. Eve fucked a native and was kicked out. Ehh, yeah..
Re:The end times are coming!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're mixing religions. The people that killed the artists and scientists and burned heretics were Roman Catholics. Catholics mainly pay homage to Mary, not Jesus. Its the Bible-thumping southerner protestants who say things like 'Let's take this nation for Jesus' and stuff like that. Also, they simply are no longer requiring evolution to be taught, are you frightened that other theories be taught? Like maybe we are a lost colony from another planet? that one makes way more sense than evolution.
A bunch of monkeys DID make a PIII out of sand!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It didn't take a billion of them, though, because they use modern management practices a la Dilbert. Perhaps you should take a trip to San Jose to see for yourself.
I am glad I aint Amerikan.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
'nuff said. America seems to have a bunch of powerful special interest groups who determines its future. Christian Coalition, NRA, major corporations, etc etc etc.
Usual Slashdot all noise and no signal...
by
RawkettPenguiN
·
· Score: 1
Look at it a little more closely. Nowhere is it implied that Creationism will be taught explicitly, nor does it state that science will be abolished completely.
Simply put, people want to keep their religious beliefs strong because it's what gives them meaning in life. I'm a Christian, and sometimes I just can't see how many others can go on living. I have gone to Christian schools all my life (Also, I draw lots and have fooled with computers since I was a little kid--wow, I'm just like CmdrTaco;] ) and definitely wouldn't want to be forced to learn evolution in a public school.
IMO, mandatory evolution curriculum (and in the school format, in order not to fail many science classes, one must acknowledge it as perfect truth) is quite detrimental to religious freedom.
To change the topic a little, what exactly makes the evolution theory any more valid than any other?
1. An intelligent Being created the universe and set it into motion with order and design, and created beings with free will--man. But man disobeyed, and imperfection bred imperfection, setting the 2nd law of thermodynamics into effect...
or
2. Chaos became order, and shortly after everything materialized, the laws of the universe shifted radically--instead of things gradually becoming more orderly, they became subjected to entropy. Except for living beings, which, for some reason, defied this by evolving into better-adjusted beings.
No, I'm not in favor of shoving ANY system of beliefs down anyone's throat. It's just not the way a theory begins to take root into someone's mind to convince them. I think the curriculum should lay out several different worldviews (I'm not talking a course in theology--just a few simple examples).
Then maybe we could choose. After all, we're beings with free will.
-- Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
Re:Usual Slashdot all noise and no signal...
by
JimDabell
·
· Score: 1
I'm a Christian, and sometimes I just can't see how many others can go on living.
Maybe I should just kill myself now, huh?
IMO, mandatory evolution curriculum (and in the school format, in order not to fail many science classes, one must acknowledge it as perfect truth) is quite detrimental to religious freedom.
In that it contradicts many religions, yes. How does this make it any less a biological fact?
To change the topic a little, what exactly makes the evolution theory any more valid than any other?
The basic reason is that no other theory has been put forward that explains things as well as evolution. By far. And that includes Creationism, of course. If you have any ideas, go ahead, be the next Darwin, nobody's stopping you.
1. An intelligent Being created the universe and set it into motion with order and design, and created beings with free will--man. But man disobeyed, and imperfection bred imperfection, setting the 2nd law of thermodynamics into effect...
If God created Man, then how come we have such strong ties with other species? How come a hell of a lot of other "beings" were around before Man, if the Bible says that we were created around the same time? If the Bible knows what went on, then why doesn't it mention all of the species that became extinct before Man was around, huh? Do you think that it could possibly have been because Man wrote the Bible, and didn't have knowledge of the history of the world at that time?
2. Chaos became order,
Heh. I think you should check out the genetic programming story that was posted on/. not long ago. This is a perfect example of chaos becoming order:).
...and shortly after everything materialized, the laws of the universe shifted radically--
How did the laws change? Do you mean the laws of physics? Those are the only laws that would seem to apply at this time.
...instead of things gradually becoming more orderly, they became subjected to entropy. Except for living beings, which, for some reason, defied this by evolving into better-adjusted beings.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The random mutations and the chance of certain beings living and reproducing is a fundamental point that evolution relies on. Perhaps if people were taught it in school, then more people would understand it.
No, I'm not in favor of shoving ANY system of beliefs down anyone's throat.
Neither am I. However, the theory has been around for long enough to be considered fact. OK, so the Bible has been around for longer, but I have yet so see *any* evidence of it being fact. I have seen ample evidence that evolution is fact. Modern biology is based upon evolution. To deny evolution is to deny biology - how can you teach biology without teaching evolution?
Ahh, maybe I'm just bitter about having to recite stupid (in my view) prayers and sing religious songs at school when I was younger... Never did anyone give me a reason to believe in anything like that.
Re:Usual Slashdot all noise and no signal...
by
grappler
·
· Score: 2
Look at it a little more closely. Nowhere is it implied that Creationism will be taught explicitly, nor does it state that science will be abolished completely. True. What the people that really passed this would like to do is ban evolution and instate mandatory creationism. They are not for a completely open, unitarian several religion approach. But they know that mandatory creation in schools isn't going to happen so they passed this instead. Simply put, people want to keep their religious beliefs strong because it's what gives them meaning in life. I'm a Christian, and sometimes I just can't see how many others can go on living. I find that very sad indeed. Basically you are saying that if someone managed to convince you beyond any doubt that we share common ancestry with other primates on this planet (and I have the feeling that would take a lot of convincing) that life would lose all meaning, because we as humans would not be quite so Special anymore. Consider this: There are middle grounds between Atheistic evolution and young earth creationism. Many people, for instance, believe that evolution did take place the way the fossil record shows, but was guided by an omnipresence (god if you like) rather than cold probabilities. If this were the case, would life still be devoid of meaning? IMO, mandatory evolution curriculum (and in the school format, in order not to fail many science classes, one must acknowledge it as perfect truth) is quite detrimental to religious freedom. This is like saying hundreds of years ago that the earth-orbits-the-sun theory is detrimental to religious freedom. Many religions simply did not want to accept that we are not smack dab in the middle. The difference is that it has been proven beyond even the faintest shadow of a doubt that the earth does indeed orbit the sun. It has only been proven beyond a shred of doubt that species on this planet have, in fact, evolved and diverged. To change the topic a little, what exactly makes the evolution theory any more valid than any other? Evolution is a theory that has been written and tested with the scientific method using evidence, experiments in petri dishes, observations of different populations, and a huge supply of buried fossils. Every other explaination of the origins of humanity that I can think of is a story, passed down from generation to generation. 1. An intelligent Being created the universe and set it into motion with order and design, and created beings with free will--man. But man disobeyed, and imperfection bred imperfection, setting the 2nd law of thermodynamics into effect... Thermodynamics??????? Huh? Thermodynamics is a physics term, and I don't think it can be applied to 'imperfections' in somebody's character. 2. Chaos became order, and shortly after everything materialized, the laws of the universe shifted radically--instead of things gradually becoming more orderly, they became subjected to entropy. Except for living beings, which, for some reason, defied this by evolving into better-adjusted beings. Simple: You are implying that evolution is proposterous in the same way that it would be proposerous to leave a pile of dirt on the table and watch it turn into an apple (instead of the other way around). There is an apparent paradox in that the environment on earth has gotten much more complex with all these forms of life instead of more simple. Well, this only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system - it has the nearby sun constantly adding energy to it. If you look at the whole galaxy as a closed system, it would work, because the burning in a star is an increase in entropy and the earth represents a small section of the system with decreasing entropy. No, I'm not in favor of shoving ANY system of beliefs down anyone's throat. It's just not the way a theory begins to take root into someone's mind to convince them. I think the curriculum should lay out several different worldviews (I'm not talking a course in theology--just a few simple examples). Evolution is not about beliefs - it is about reasoning and deduction.
-- Vidi, Vici, Veni
Re:Usual Slashdot all noise and no signal...
by
npavona
·
· Score: 1
There is an apparent paradox in that the environment on earth has gotten much more complex with all these forms of life instead of more simple. Well, this only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system - it has the nearby sun constantly adding energy to it. If you look at the whole galaxy as a closed system, it would work, because the burning in a star is an increase in entropy and the earth represents a small section of the system with decreasing entropy.
Thanks for you thoughtful comments -- the signal-noise ratio is increasing already!
I would like to point out that I don't think your explanation explains; it just pushes the problem further out. How does the universe as a whole increase in complexity and useable energy (decreasing entropy)?
POTA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ahh, this is good. Now if only we can get Cornellius to stop doing his research on humans!
Re:the BIBLE can't be proven either..
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
Can you prove scientifically - by hypothesizing, observing, drawing conclusions and making predictions - that fruit bats evolved from... anything at all?
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
zuvembi
·
· Score: 1
I an addition, to add a couple more nails to the coffin, it has been determined that at no time in history could the breeding population have been less than 1000 individuals. This was determined by studying the amount of variation in the immune system, especially the kind of variation in the kind of responses you have in transplant surgery. i.e. tissue type matching (how the body distinguishes itself from foreign tissue).
How much variation you find can tell you the minimum size of the population at a point in the past (basically the founder effect). Because of these we know that.
a)Adam & Eve (as such) never existed. b)The biblical flood was at most a relatively small incident (i.e. didn't cover the whole frigging planet)
I'm pretty sure I read about this is Scientific American, if someone really wants I'll see if I can dig up a link to it.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
jedidiah
·
· Score: 1
Go take a fishing trip off of Madagascar.
-- A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Teaching as Theory Not Fact
by
Ponder
·
· Score: 1
Wrong
A theorem is a theorem until proven then it is an axiom
Creation is not a thoery, it is religious belief that steps on the toes of other religious beliefs. This more than anything else is reason enough to look questionably at the school board.
I do not know the laws of gravity to be true, but I do know that something (gravity) exists. I cannot see evolution happen, but I know that it does. Life does not make any sense if it doesn't.
-Sloth503
Re:You can believe both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is very true. How could you explain the idea of the universe and billions of years to early (~2000 years ago, or even a 150 years ago) humans. Simple, put it in terms that they can understand, seven days, and when the do discover these they can adapt it to fit with what they discovered. To bad some people are still living like 2000 years ago
I remember reading something about how the big bang parallels that part of genisis.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What do you mean? If you mean hybrid as in "result of human and an ape breeding", the answer is the same as for why there aren't any half-dog/half-cat creatures etc. around: They are too biological dissimilar to be able to bread. Hybrids between species can exist (others mentioned mules, which are half horse, half donkey), but they are usually sterile.
If you mean as in "something that is between human and ape in development", then you must consider that humans didn't evolve from modern apes, but from a common ancestor with the modern apes.
There's a fairly extensive set of extinct species backwards that show how that common ancestor evolved in one direction into humans. Cro Magnon, and side branches like the Neanderthals (who died out in competition with Cro Magnon, over a period of thousands of years).
If you wonder why these species doesn't live today, then natural selection is the answer:
A species survive if it finds a niche where one ore more of it's features are good enough that it can successfully compete with other species in that niche at least to the extent where enough individuals to replenish the population with new individuals.
Thus, any of our ancestors that were to different to be able to breed with their successors, or that were similar enough to breed but simply not successful enough to be interesting as mates for a large enough part of their successors, died out. Or rather: The features that made them different were gradually eradicated from the gene pool.
An example of a very similar, but not successful enough, side branch was the Neanderthals, who died out in competition with Cro Magnon. That doesn't mean that interbreeding between Neanderthals and Cro Magnon didn't take place, but simply that those with Cro Magnon features were more likely to survive than those with Neanderthal features, and thus offspring between Cro Magnon and Neanderthal were less likely to survive than Cro Magnon (but perhaps more likely to survive than Neanderthal, and thus even hybrids would diminish the Neanderthal influence, since every hybrid would probably mean one less "pure" Neanderthal child being born).
Hmm, I don't see why one should conclude that it's ok to kill people from that it's ok to kill cows.
Good for you. Unfortunately, not everyone here in the US has your logical abilities.
-- Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Evolution can not be proven? What about religion?
by
knarf
·
· Score: 1
So evolution can not be taught at schools because it is ony a theory, one which can not be proven.
"It's deception," Willis said prior to the vote. "You can't go into the laboratory or the field and make the first fish. When you tell students that science has determined (evolution to be true), you're deceiving them."
But exactly the same things can be said about religion. More than that, there is more `factual' evidence to `prove' the evolution theory than there is evidence of the existence of God (or Jaweh or Allah or Mithras or Iupiter). So why do we not hear these board members plan the banishment of religion (no matter what denomination) from classrooms?
Well, That evolution happens is a fact. Biological evolution refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution, to include the fossil record, genetic evidence, anatomical evidence (look at whales skeleton sometime, what do you think those unused limbs were for?) and so on is so overwhelming evolution is considered to be a scientific fact. There is no debate about whether it occurs. The evidence is overwhelming.
The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution.
The fact that evolution occurs is not in dispute by the scientific community!. We are simply refining the theory to explain what causes it. That it occurs is not, and has not been in dispute for a VERY long time. Evolution is a fact.
There is no scientific debate about this. The only fringe element claiming otherwise is the fundamentalist creationists - and even then its not *all of them*. The theistic creationists at least acknowledge that evolution is a fact. Whats even more pathetic is when you ask the creationists to explain the world, and then watch them argue amongst themselves about new earth versus old earth, intelligent design vs. theistic evolution, as they call each other agents of satan for daring to challenge dogma. These people wouldn't know what real science was if it jumped on their slopping foreheads and started to evolve.
"the last contributing author to the Bible died almost 2000 years ago."
Yes, an excellent point. Exactly the reason I don't look to a bible for how to run my life today. However, a creationist will usually tell you that the Bible is the "word of God" handed down from on high, correct in all details. Except for dinosaurs anyway...
To Shoeboy...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Where did you come up with Dr. Papshigali? I noticed you used him in another post you made. I wonder if he is real?
All name used in my posts are current or former coworkers. Papshigali is not the Rajeev's (a DBA) real last name, but I never could pronounce or spell his last name, Papshigali seems like a reasonable mutilation. --Shoeboy
Anyone know a good, humane Christian control method?
Russia will sell you some nukes... Good stuff..
-- <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
They wont teach creation, make 'em as stupid as us
by
mulley
·
· Score: 1
According to the article (I love it when Slashdot gets its news from MSNBC!) teaching of creationism is not being mandated, all that's happenning is teaching of evolution is being removed. However, contrary to what some posts said, they're not simply saying that evolution should be taught as theory and not fact (it IS taught as theory in most public schools, but hell most of science is theory) but "banning evolution from the classroom".
In other words, they're not pushing creationism, church and state are still very separate. Instead, they've just decided to make students dumber. The religious freakos realized that their efforts to make creationism weren't going to working, so they did the next best thing: don't teach them anything, so that when the emerge stupidly from school they might actually believe creationism.
I agree with the posts that say that Darwinian evolution is a flawed theory. Flawed or not, though, it's certainly closer to the truth than creationism. Creationism has zero scientific merit; unlike a true theory, it grew from trying to make the evidence fit a specific theory, and still failed miserably. My favorite piece of creation "science" was when a "scientist" explained why progressively more developed and recent fossils were found in higher strata: because during the Flood, the smarter animals ran to high ground (presumably the middlingly smart ones ran only halfway up the mountain) and so when they died anyway they were higher up.
Much of current textbook science is flawed, though; science is in a perpetual state of being flawed. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. Which is better: teach students a plausible theory that may be wrong on a couple of points, or teach them "You evolved from your mommy and daddy." There is no past, the past is the present... this story and that "Education" topic gif (2+2=5) have way too many 1984 parallells for my liking.
This thing is what really scares me about religious zealots: the feeling that if they won't teach what we want them too, we better not teach them at all. Hell, science contradicts the Bible in so many places, why not just get rid of it? Science is hard, kind of like math. We should just replace them both with communal family events, where people eat large amounts of fatty foods, shoot people, and lynch people of different religion/race/sexuality. Hmm... this sounds oddly familiar.
Sometimes, I'm proud not to be American.
Evidence of 6000 year old earth? Show us!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm honestly curious as to what evidence you can quote or direct us to regarding your statement that the earth could be 6000 years old.
Re:Evidence of 6000 year old earth? Show us!
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
I don't have much that I can point you to, and I'm not a scientist myself, but a quick search on the Web yielded these:
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:We're not all like that
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why don't you export them to some fundamentalist Muslim country? That way we could get a nice little religious war going, and hopefully reduce the amount of both Christians and Muslims:-) (Yeah, I dislike religion, and - for the humour-impaired - I don't really advocate starting religious wars to get rid of anyone... Not even fundamentalists:-)
Only in a land were Mikkkrosoft reduces people to quivering wrecks is this possible. The school board is probably spending all their time rebuilding their Windows systems to understand what's HAPPENING!
THIS IS THE HIDDEN COST!
Re:...and NT ruled the world
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What the fuck does NT have to do with this? Windows hasn't made these people into morons, overzealous faith has. Microsoft isn't the source of all the world's problems. You're just a bitter Linux Zealot.
Unfortunetly I don't remember exactly (it's been something like 8 years or so...), but I seem to remember the official explanation being one of two possibilities (they couldn't decide which one they liked better):
1 - There are refrences to 'great animals' in the middle of the old testiment (around joshua, I believe). They were the dinosaurs. Unfortunetly, they don't explain how they became extinct.
2 - The bones are fake. They never existed. god simply put them there when the world was created. (why? to mess with us?)
Anyway, it was something like that. (this was from a Missouri Synod Luthren pastor)
Secondly re-read Behe, he agrees with the scientific orthodoxy on the last 200 million years of evolution, which is something that the average creationist does not want to remember.
Sincerely, Ben Tilly
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Ribo99
·
· Score: 1
I theorize that all automobiles are blue. But I just saw one that isn't blue, so it must be a true theory (by your "logic") that all automobiles are the complimentary color orange Um....I think he meant that in your example that it must be a true theory that not all automobiles are blue. - Riboflavin
--
I wear pants.
ignoramus
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
thats right! fight to protect your ignorance! it's the american way! evolution as a process is a perfectly sound idea.. but to attempt to apply it to the development of life on earth is absurd. Its so easy to shut your eyes and not think about it and just believe what they teach you in school, rather than actually have to think about it and realize how fundamentally retarded it is. It is not within the scope of this simple little posting on slashdot to describe the myriad of obvious flaws in the darwinian mindset, but kudos to kansas for taking one small step back from the brainwashing of our childen. maybe one or two will slip through the cracks and grow up to have no interest in jerry springer or southpark. maybe even have a thought or two in his/her life. imagine that... the end of life as we know it. we better start kicking and screaming now! our stupidity is at stake! btw, sorry about the AC -- good old slashdot seems to have lost my account and I refuse to make a new one. ps: this whole posting is just further proof of what we all knew: Hemos Sux
Seriously, I see a lot of people who say, "We don't have much evidence" but I do not see that from people who are intellectually honest and have actually investigated the subject. A good starting place if you want to look online would be the FAQS for talk.origins.
Sincerely, Ben Tilly
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Re:And have you investigated?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What do you mean intellectually honest? I've noticed that most people who term themselves 'skeptical' haven't a 'skeptical' molecule in their bodies concerning their own belief. Is this any different? When I read your post, I see calmer shades of the author of the article. It's against science simply because it doesn't support his belief. To the believer, no evidence is needed--to the unbeliever, no evidence will suffice. This goes for both sides. Even if there was a way of proving that it could happen, you'll not prove that it did. Fossiles are just piles of rocks and there's a large amount of 'artist conception' thrown in.
Re:And have you investigated?
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 1
"To the believer, no evidence is needed--to the unbeliever, no evidence will suffice" This may be so, but few doubt that gravity pulls one down, or that staring at the sun too long is bad for your eyes. Of course, if you want to investigate... There are "beliefs" and "beliefs". Some of them have significant evidence behind them. Others don't. Please don't ask me to believe that what some folk wrote before the roman empire fell counts as significant basis for a belief in anything, except, perhaps their history. I don't. I won't. You need evidence that I can check, or at least that folk that I trust can check.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The logic of this decision..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.. is flawed;
They banned evolution on the grounds that it damaged children's Christian beliefs, but not on the grounds that it was incorrect. In this way they're sort of legitimizing it and since Christanity and Evolution disprove each other, they're shooting themselves in the foot and admitting or revealing that Christianity is nothing but a lot of hot air used as an excuse for oppression, as rational-minded people know! (Running and ducking)
Actually a lot of things in the bible are proven
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Bible does very well when looking at separate archeological, and historical evidence.
simply...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
fuck government, fuck kansas. Which brings me to everyone's favorite song, "Murder the Government" by NOFX
- an angered Siggraph `99 attendee
Uh, no
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The full quote is, "Dead are all Gods. Now we will that Superman live." Either ol' Fred was an evolutionist, or a cartoonist.
Re:God is Big
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then why da hell do we need one and why? There is no need for god and there was none, ever. Religion is just used as a way to manipulate poor minded people (... many of them unfortunately live in Kansas) Keep them ignorant, keep your power -- Fucked Up College Kids
Flood seems to be a good explanation for the lack of dinousaurs. They did not make it to the Arc.
Russian ford for ancient animals - "dopotopnyye", which literary means "pre-flood".
I have heard people arguing for (NOT against) "Big Bang" and expanding Universe on the Bible basis. It is actually amazing how many physicists are religious..
Also known as the "lots and lots of time + nothing = everything." A very plausible theory, indeed. A question for the atheist fanatics: where exactly did the very first piece of something come from? Oh, and any answers referring to "a former piece of something" are automatically disqualified.
Re:Science will still march on.
by
jflynn
·
· Score: 1
Please read something about science, in particular the scientific method. Proof is a technique of mathematics, NOT science. Even there you find true statements that cannot be proven, so reliance on proof not the best thing to hold your breath for.
Hello, this is GOOD!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Um, state-level control over the curriculum is bad. Removing educational mandates is good.
yeesh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"if evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve!" -jello
'least, we'll be one-up on residents of kansas.
Re:2+2=5
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Doesn't the Bible say PI equals 3?
The bible describes a circular object in measurements rounded to the whole number. The context is of a description, not of giving information about mathematics.
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
coreybrenner
·
· Score: 1
Excuse me, but you're simply not thinking. At all.
Right-wing has nothing to do with anything. Fundamentalist Christian ethics (if the terms can be used together non-oxymoronically) have little or nothing to do with conservatism or the "Right Wing".
Conservatism, by its very nature, means to promote and enforce the status quo (the root "conserve" in "conservatism" is your first clue there, guy...). The status quo is this: "evolution is not hard science, but a theory; it has not been proven (the fact that it cannot be proven yet notwithstanding - maybe in a hundred years or so...), and therefore must not be taught as law". Seen this way, that viewpoint makes more sense than: "evolution is hard science; it has been proven beyond doubt to be the One True Way that nature works, and must be taught as such".
I'm no fundamentalist, not by a long stretch of the imagination. I do, however, think that the jury's still out on evolution (not that I believe what's taught in Genesis, either). If evolution is the way things happened, then when it is proven, I will accept it with open arms. It seems a plausible theory to me. Creationism seems a bit far-fetched, but hey... who's to say there isn't a God that created everything? You can't prove his non-existence, and the most ardent and well-studied fundie can't prove his existence. That's why there's a thing called "faith".
Hell, who's to say God didn't use evolution to create this mess?
But back to my point...
"Right Wing single issue (okay maybe three) assh0l$e" - geez, you're really 'l33t there, bud. Try thinking just a little bit before posting.
Remember: think, THEN post.
I could say the same thing for all the tax-and-$p3nd L1b3r4Lz (whom I despise - I pay just about what my mom makes in taxes EVERY YEAR - just let me KEEP MY OWN FRIGGIN' MONEY and I WILL DECIDE how best to distribute MY OWN wealth!).
"We have to cut the space program so we can feed all the starving wood owls in the old growth rain forests..."
Bullshit.
--Corey
-- Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
First, God created idiots. That was for practice.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then He created school boards. -S. L. Clemens The idea that one would not require evolution be taught is like teaching that the earth is flat. Kansas has just got to re-consider this, or thousands of folks at Boeing Wichita will move.
Maybe the computers in Kansas reset themselves back to 1900 a few months early and the school board decided to get those outdated laws back on the books to celebrate!
-jon
--
Remember Amalek.
Defining "evolution" and "natural selection"
by
jdawson
·
· Score: 3
Please distinguish between these two phenomena:
Natural selection
Evolution
Natural selection could still be considered "theory." There are several variations on the theme. There is not, as yet, a single theory of natural selection that has achieved massive concensus. This is a topic of much ongoing research.
Evolution, on the other hand, could only be labeled "fact." There is a large body of fossil records that have been studied, and indicate clearly that the Earth is billions of years old and that new species have come and gone over this time. (If you disagree with this, then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, and this discussion is over.) The next thing is to consider that all known forms of life come from previous life forms. For example, you came from your parents; you didn't just appear one day. This has been observed time and again, and indeed is common sense. There are no observed exceptions to this rule. If you accept both of these premises, then the conclusion is that evolution occurs: new species appear over time, and they descended from previous ones. If one witholds the label of "fact" from evolution, then nearly no observed phenomenon would qualify.
Natural selection theories are one way of explaining the observed fact of evolution. There is much to recommend them, but they are not so well established that no dissenting opinions is possible. As has been mentioned, natural selection is somewhat difficult to observe in action.
Another theory of explaining how evolution occurs would be divine intervention. It's not a theory I favor, because of the scarcity of any physical evidence to back it up. But many hold it to be true.
In any case, please be more precise when discussing evolution and natural selection. There are few that would truly dispute evolution, except when they mistakenly confuse it with natural selection.
John Dawson
Re:Defining "evolution" and "natural selection"
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
The fossil record does not indicate age at all, it is impossible for organic material to be dated to further back than a few thousand years using Carbon-14 methods.
You're making some extremely sloppy assumptions:
That it is necessary to date the carbon from the original organism to date the fossil;
That the material laid down with the fossil, or the fossil's position in strata which cannot be anything other than consecutive from bottom to top, carries no information about the age of the fossil.
You probably want to think more carefully in the future.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:Defining "evolution" and "natural selection"
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
Oh, how did I miss this gem?!
There have been no new species in human history...
Sorry, you're completely wrong. New species of both invertebrates and vertebrates (including one marsupial) have been observed to evolve naturally in the last CENTURY. Look up "Hawaiian wallaby" if you are interested in some of the details that are really difficult for Creationism to deal with. Of course, fruit flies have been observed to speciate quite rapidly also (with generation times so short, they obviate many of the problems with things taking far longer than human lifetimes).
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:Defining "evolution" and "natural selection"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Defining "evolution" and "natural selection" is certainly a good idea, but you seem a bit confused: "natural selection" is the _fact_ that given two animals the one better adapted to it's environment is more likely to survive; "evolution" is the theory that the better adapted animal will eventually replace the other and animals will continually improve. The fossil record does not indicate age at all, it is impossible for organic material to be dated to further back than a few thousand years using Carbon-14 methods. Any date greater than that is mineral; there is no method of dating in the billions of years. Certainly a minor point, but you must admit that there was at some point a creature without an ancestor; evolution is just as wild as creation in that at some point both theories require life to come from something without life. While divine intervention certainly is not a very well founded theory evolution is equally lacking. There have been no new species in human history, while every species has a huge amount of variation there is no deny that all dogs are dogs and nothing is close to being a dog. All species currently known to man fit fairly neatly into their classification. Whatever your views please understand them yourself before sharing them with the world.
Re:Defining "evolution" and "natural selection"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> There have been no new species in human history,
Well, there have been no sudden arrival of purple spotted tigers - the theory of evolution would not predict such a sudden and dramatic change. However, species of bacteria that are immune to wide ranges of drugs that killed their progenitors not 20 years ago have certainly evolved by a process of natural selection.
> while every species has a huge amount of variation there is no deny that all > dogs are dogs and nothing is close to being a dog.
Except for a wolf. Dogs have evolved (also within human memory) in order to better fit their surroundings. It happens that in order to do this, they have evolved to be cuter lap-dogs, more suited to Disney movies, less prone to biting children and so on.
In England, Pitt Bull terriers failed to evolve to not bite children and are now virtually extinct. Their ecological niche has been filled by Dalmatians who are better fitted to the modern environment. Dogs in England are evolving exactly as you would expect them to according to conventional evolutionary theory.
Dingo's in Australia were once domesticated dogs who have evolved over just a few human generations into a unique sub-species.
Admittedly these are not LARGE changes - but large changes can't happen with human memory - it just takes evolution too much time to cover that much genetic distance.
Re:Defining "evolution" and "natural selection"
by
ramparte
·
· Score: 1
Nicely put distinction, but...
As has been mentioned, natural selection is somewhat difficult to observe in action.
This isn't really true. Selective systems are very easy to observe and experiment with. There just happens to be one particular selective system, the biosphere, that's hard to observe over relevant time periods.
I think this is an important distinction that often gets lost - there is some really rigorous math behind the theory of selective systems.
-- "Oh, Senator, you're so gullible!" - Buckaroo Banzaii
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Octopus
·
· Score: 1
For further reading, check out Terence McKenna's Food of the Gods, in which he theorizes that humans are apes that had to adapt to grasslands as the Sahara receded, and they began introducing psychedelic mushrooms into their diets that were growing on cow sh*t in those grasslands. Monkeys that had better cognitive abilities, robust egos, and imaginations could deal with it, others could not. Natural selection for more finely tuned brains. Also, I highly suggest reading Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. Telepathic gorilla tells man why he's so f*cked up. And The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond, gives a great understanding of how human language evolved. -- octo
Re:Hopefully not banned, but...
by
fliptout
·
· Score: 1
You do not sound like someone amply qualified to talk about science. But, in your defense, most of the people on Slapdash talk out of their ass.
-- A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Evolution vs Creation (for nerds)...
by
slew
·
· Score: 3
I can imagine in a very distant future world (10,000 years), that there will be a great debate about the origins of Linux. What will be taught in computer science history classes? Did Linux evolve from Unix or was it created?
The creationist will point to crufty old documents that prove that Linus created Linux for his own PC in his spare time. The evolutionists will point out that this is highly unlikly and point to the similarities between Unix and Linux and postulate a missing-link/release that will prove their point, but not find one.
Look how BSD and S5R4 have a clear evolutionary tree from Unix, they will cry. Why should be believe Linux didn't do the same, they will question. Why believe in creation when evolution is much more plausible.
The creationist will stand firm, these FAQ documents tell all the fact. No-one should question them.
Strange how these arguments can always be used in the same way. You may laugh about it now, but this is exactly how all these kind of debates get started...
btw, I believe in evolution;-)
Re:Way to go kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't forget to legalize incest and lower the age of consent to 3.
Um ... what's wrong with this?
by
Bad+Mojo
·
· Score: 1
All things being equal (which I know they are not), who cares if we teach evolution as fact or not? Does anyone KNOW how things ended up the way they are today? Sure, I beleive in natural selection, but evolution? I'm not totally convinced yet. It's got a lot of credability, but is it fact? Who knows?
-- Bad Mojo "If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Re:Heh.. Bass-Ackward Public Schools..
by
Farce+Pest
·
· Score: 1
Well, actually, salt-water and brackish fish would die in fresh water. But there are much, much bigger problems for cretinists, er, creationists.
The Bible says that every living substance not on the Ark (I wish I had a dollar for each time they said they found that friggin' thing) was destroyed. So, there are several conclusions which must be drawn:
1) Someone on the ark had AIDS, influenza, bubonic plague, ebola, hemmoragic E. coli, and a host of other nasty diseases for that year, unless you want to believe in a second, undocumented Creation. Plus they managed to stock all fresh and salt water fish, mollusks, and other invertibrates.
2) The only people on the Ark were Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their three wives. The sons all got their genes from their parents, so the five of them only count as two individual from a genetic diversity standpoint. This is a stupifyingly-low amount of genetic diversity. Not to mention the stupidity of two of every "kind" of animal (a few more, in some cases). One fact we know today is that some animal species which have been pushed to the edge of extinction are very hard to save (some species of tigers, for example) because there is not enough genetic diversity, and there are way more than two of them.
3) According to the literal interpretation of the chronology in the Bible, the world is 6000 years old, and the flood occurs some 1800 or so years after creation. This leaves only some 4200 years for four couples (assuming Noah could still get it up, and he was way old; if you believe the Bible, people back then lived nearly a thousand years) to repopulate the entire Earth. Worse yet: It's pretty well established that all the various races we see today already existed 4000 years ago. The Chinese and the Eqyptians were around, Eurpoeans and Africans certainly were too. How do you account for that, when there's not that much genetic diversity to start with? You'd need an amazingly high mutation rate. Essentially you'd have to assume some super-rapid evolution...
-- This message has been scanned for memes and
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is
believed to be unclean.
Re:are you f@cking kidding?
by
Betelgeuse
·
· Score: 1
No no no. . . you seem to have forgotten. The seperation of church and state ended after Columbine when the government voted to post the 10 Commandments in schools. . .
-- I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
Re:Did anyone actually read the article?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The only problem with your little post is that the fundies in Kansas sure are mighty selective about which "theories" they want optional. I don't see anyone trying to make the "theory of gravity" or the "theory of electromagnetism" or the "theory of US history" optional, even though all these things are just as much, if not more, theoretical than evolution.
A theory is not a fact. It can't be proved, it can only be shown false. Most of science is made up of theories. Why aren't the Kansan fundies clamping down on science in general? Think about it, and don't be so quick to defend them. This has nothing to do with an abstract desire to 'challenge children to think'. It is all about getting material unfavorable to the bible out of schools.
On the other hand, suppose some freak catastrophe eliminated all canine species except for the chihuahua and the Great Dane. Could we really say that they were the same species? They certainly can't interbreed directly...
And furthermore, consider the fossil record that would result. Considering how rare fossilization is, what you'd have is you'd have a lot of wolf-skeletons, maybe a few intermediates if you're lucky, and then a bunch of chihuahua and Great Dane skeletons. It would look as if the wolf species split into two species.
On top of all that, the transition will appear to be almost instant. That's what punctuated equilibrium is all about - that significant changes in species can happen faster than the fossil record can record them.
Who, of those who've posted so many flaming comments, has actually *studied* evolutionary biology? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Who has *studied* "creationism"? What does it mean? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Use your brains....most of what I've seen is a bunch of jerking knees. Get the facts before posting!
"It is an error to imagine that evolution signifies a constant tendency to increased perfection." -- Thomas Henry Huxley (Yet another quote taken out of context)
--- I take some issue with teaching that mankind evolved from apes. ---
As do I. That's not even a part of evolutionary theory, and your repeating of it shows your ignorance on the subject (take no offense, please, but it's the truth). The theory generally states that men and current apes evolved from a common ancestor, which is fairly well established in the fossil record.
--- On the other hand, what happens when you tell a kid that everyone is just an animal? That human life is worth no more than the life of that cow that died to make that hamburger? ---
Not my problem. We shouldn't change scientific fact just because it serves our needs. Just because nuclear warfare killed tens of thousands in WWII doesn't mean that fission isn't a valid scientific process, does it? You don't just go and change the results because it doesn't paint a nice picture - killing cows for meat is no different than doing the same to a human, except that we're human, not cows, so we don't like to think about that.
The way I see it, if a Christian NEEDS either the threat of eternal damnation in the firey pits of hell or religious teaching to know that killing fellow humans is not a cool thing to do, he/she has serious mental problems already. I guess that's just my take on it, as one of the millions of peaceful agnostics out there.
Re:about God's existence
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Man I thought that guy was just throwing in a little humor. People get so touchy when religion gets involved.
I believe in God, not Christianity (although I believe that Christ very well did walk this planet long ago). For all we know, BOTH creation and evolution could co-exist. The Bible is hard to deny, but so is the scientific process. Is it unreasonable to think that an almighty creator could have PLANNED evolution as part of his world? He wouldn't want his creations to suffer, so perhaps He gave them the ability to adapt.
I believe the Bible is a remarkable text (obviously, since it is still a best seller). But I feel that many people take it far too literally, especially in light of how old it is.
To paraphrase another poster - give people some leeway. Present different theories and let them make up their own minds. One of the reasons I can't stand organized religion is that they believe it is their job to tell people how to think.
I believe in God, not brainwashing.
Hope I didn't offend the entire universe with this post.
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
scheme
·
· Score: 1
f we can't keep guns, how are we to overthrow our government if it becomes too bloated and corrupt to function? That is part of what the US was founded on.
I don't believe that reasoning is used anywhere in the constitution. The second amendment seems to say that the right to bear arms is predicated on the necessity for the state to have an armed milita not on the citizenery's need to possibly overthrow the government.
-- "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
flyingV
·
· Score: 1
Hrmmmm.... perhaps I should read that book, "Darwin's Black Box." I usually don't like to poke around with theology because I don't like being offended (and I get offended easily!), but perhaps it's worth a read.
I am also a Christian, and I believe God was responsible for at least part of the creation of the universe. I believe He "ignited" the Big Bang. I also believe in macroevolution, but not "Godless" evolution; I think He tweaked things to His liking. My beliefs sound strange (and I admit that I'm young and have a lot to learn), but I don't think that the world is only 6,000 years old and was literally created in 7 twenty-four hour days. I just keep in mind that the Bible was not written by God, but was written by God-inspired humans; back about 2000 years ago, the number "1 million" hadn't even been invented yet, so of course the Bible won't ever say that the world could be 4.5 billion years old!
Anyway, that's just my two cents. Perhaps you're right about schools not being forced to teach Darwinian evolution anymore, but I still believe it should be taught, if only to give the students a different perspective. I do not agree that it should be taught as proven fact, though.
Everyone just calm down.
by
John+Fulmer
·
· Score: 3
I live in Kansas, about 30 miles from the capitol, where all this happened.
I live in Lawrence, Kansas, which is about as liberal as you can get in the Midwest.
I was also raised on a farm, in the 'boonies'.
I am not a Repubican (nor a Democrat, for that matter). I believe that the 'Religious Right' is wrong most of the time. I am not currenly affiliated with any religious group.
It appears that once again, 'crap' journalism has arisen to take a pretty tame fact and blow it WAAAAAAAYYY out of proportion.
Here's the deal: In the passed proposal, it does not ban, decry, condemn, or pass any type of judgement on evolution. It simply does not make it a subject that the state school board recommends that students *have* to be tested on. That's it. Nothing more. Here's more information, a few paragraphs down.
Are there religious undertones for this vote? Sure! Are there private agendas here? Sure, on both sides of the fence. But this is NOT a ban on evolution or a proposal of creationism teachings. It simply does not require evolution to be a state assessment test subject. Schools are NOT required to follow this and may teach the subject any way they wish.
What really offends me, are the several articles I found (MSNBC, CNN, etc) that basically mention the vote, and then spend the rest of the article talking about other states efforts to pass creationist laws. They mostly ignore the nature of the proposal and immediatly start yelling about the "Scopes Monkey Trial" and separation of church and state. I find it interesting that they mostly interview scientific "experts", who talk about evolution as a fact-theory, and then real 'christian' cretins who are about as reasonable as Fred Phelps. What about just plain old normal people who don't have any axes to grind? This is really CRAP journalism.
I'm a Kansan, and for the most part, this decision doesn't really hold much interest for me, one way or the other. I'm home schooling my daughter, and this doesn't really affect me. (And yes, when she is old enough she will learn about the "Theory of Evolution", but not about the "Fact of Evolution").
Check your facts before you start make REALLY offensive remarks, okay?
jf
Re:Everyone just calm down.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm a Kansan, and for the most part, this decision doesn't really hold much interest for me, one way or the other. I'm home schooling my daughter, and this doesn't really affect me. (And yes, when she is old enough she will learn about the "Theory of Evolution", but not about the "Fact of Evolution").
Er, ahm, evolution is both "Fact" & "Theory". See this link for details before you teach your daughter misinformation;
In sum, evolution is a fact, since it's oberservable and does happen.
Theory, since we don't know how, exactly, it works though what we don't know is getting very thin. Theory does not mean "best guess" to the science community, it means that there's a good tool that is consistant with the facts, but not dogmatically so.
> Macroevolution thus cannot be subjected to the scientific method.
Well, no. It can, and has been. A theory like macroevolution make predictions, e.g. life on earth shares a common genetic heritage, which we can then test. We find all life on earth uses the same genetic code. This is not predicted by microevolution or creationism -- only by macroevolution. There are many, many more examples. The process is propose a theory, test the predictions. At this point the number of predictions of macroevolution which have proven true is staggering.
Creation, in contrast, has made no correct predictions about biology.
Thanks, John. I was hoping someone else had noticed that this was getting blown way out of proportion.
Oh, and Lawrence is cool. Passed out there many times.;)
Re:Everyone just calm down.
by
Robin+Hood
·
· Score: 2
The problem with the evolution debate is that there are generally two different things people mean by the term "evolution". One is the process by which gene frequencies shift among a given population (e.g., the oft-cited example of the light and dark moths in industrial London) -- I'm going to call this microevolution. The other is the process by which new species are formed, over extended periods of time, eventually developing characteristics completely distinct from the characteristics of their ancestors. I'm going to call this process macroevolution.
Since microevolution happens over such a short period of time (usually several generations), it is easily observable and reproduceable and can thus be subjected to the scientific method. Macroevolution, however, is generally accepted to take place on a geological timescale and thus cannot be observed or reproduced. Macroevolution thus cannot be subjected to the scientific method. It, like the Big Bang and other theories of origins, can be argued for from other types of evidence, but can also be argued against from other types of evidence. Funny thing -- some specific pieces of evidence (specifically, the fossil record) have been used in arguments both for and against macroevolution. I maintain that macroevolution and other theories of origins (including the Big Bang theory, creationism and any others that I missed) hold more to the realm of philosophy than science.
Now I, personally, have no trouble accepting microevolution as proven scientific theory. ("Fact" if you like, but I've found the word "fact" to be a loaded word in the evolution debate, so I'm avoiding it). I also have no problem with speciation (sp?), as demonstrated for example by Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands. (For those who don't know this example, Darwin apparently observed several species of finch in the Galapagos Islands, which were almost identical in appearance but would not interbreed. Their main difference was in beak shape and in diet, and their beak shapes seemed to correspond to their diet: for example, those that ate tough, strong seeds tended to have correspondingly tough beaks to crack the seeds, while those that ate lighter, easier-to-crack seeds tended to have thinner, lighter beaks.) I can accept the theory that these various species of finch descended from a common ancestor, an undifferentiated type of finch, and that the various beak shapes developed in response to the various types of seeds available to eat on the different islands. But I don't accept the theory of macroevolution. Hang with me, and I'll explain why.
A necessary component of macroevolution is the increasing of genetic diversity. Say you have a lot of different species of fish, all of which have gills and thus can only live in water. One species or subspecies (or maybe even just one individual) develops a lunglike organ and can thus live on land for a short time. This proves beneficial to survival and reproduction for some reason (say, lack of competition for food on land), and so natural selection favors those with this lunglike organism, because they tend to produce a lot of offspring. Genetic diversity has increased -- before, there were no lungs, nothing but gills, and now, some fish have lunglike organs as well as gills. Genetic diversity increased, in fact, as soon as that one species (or subspecies or individual) developed the genes for that lunglike organ. If all the individuals with the genes for said organ had died out without reproducing, genetic diversity would have decreased again. The problem I have with this theory (which all sounds pretty good up until this point) is this: where did that increase in genetic diversity come from in the first place? Since microevolution and speciation tend to maintain genetic diversity at a constant at best, or even decrease the amount of genetic diversity at worst (see next paragraph for my argument on that score), it can't be the source of that increase in genetic diversity. Which only leaves natural, randomly-occurring mutations as the source of the increase in genetic diversity, and I can't accept that either for reasons given even further below.
NOTE: Up until the last section of the preceding paragraph, I've been confining myself to stating the "facts" of the case: statements about what the various theories say, and so on, and any personal opinions have been clearly labeled as such. From now on, however, I'm going to delve into those nagging questions like "Is this theory correct?" which the two sides of the debate don't seem to be able to agree upon. The rest of this article, therefore, is entirely personal opinion.
Right. Why do I believe that microevolution and speciation reduce genetic diversity or, at most, maintain it at its previous level? First of all, microevolution as per my definition above does nothing but reshuffle the distribution of genes already present in the population. In the case of the light and dark moths in industrial London, for example, both the genes for lightness and the genes for darkness were already present in the population at large. (To simplify matters a little, I'm going to assume that there are just two genes, L and D, involved, and that their combinations form a spectrum from light to dark -- for example, LLLL produces a very light moth, DDDD produces a very dark moth, LDLL produces a somewhat light moth, and so on. This may be a little bit of an over-simplification, but it works for the purposes of understanding my argument, and a more complex genetic method of determining lightness and darkness would still be subject to the same rules of natural selection, etc.) Now when conditions favored light coloring, the DDDD and DDLD moths would be seen and eaten by birds very easily and would tend to leave fewer offspring, thus reducing the frequency of the D gene. The LLDL moths would still produce offspring in sufficient quantities to preserve the D gene, however. Thus when conditions shifted and darkness became a better protective coloring than lightness, the LLLL and LLDL moths were at a disadvantage and the DDDD and DDDL moths tended to produce more offspring, thus decreasing the frequency of the L gene and increasing the frequency of the D gene. But no new genes have been introduced! If, by some unlucky chance, enough DDDD, DDDL, DDLL and DLLL moths had been eaten without leaving offspring so that almost all moths left were LLLL with only a few LDLL (or DLLL, or LLLD, or LLDL) moths left, that would be a highly skewed gene ratio -- but the D gene could still come back if conditions should happen to shift, and there could be more dark moths again. But if through some chance event (a forest fire, a particularly dry year with very little food for the moths, a sudden increase in predation), a lot more moths started dying without offspring, including, as chance might have it, all the remaining LLDL moths, the D gene would have completely died out. That's it folks. No more dark moths -- ever. In this scenario, through an unlikely (but possible) combination of events, genetic diversity has been reduced. And speciation makes this even more likely -- if, for some reason (maybe similar to whatever caused the Darwin's finches to speciate) the L and D genes became linked to genes that determine reproduction, light and dark moths would be either unable to reproduce together or else likely to leave fewer viable offspring. This would tend to produce two different species: one with mostly LLLL and a few LLDL moths, and one with mostly DDDD and a few DDLD moths. And those few with one "opposite" gene would probably have less capability to reproduce, leaving fewer offspring and thus driving the frequency of the "opposite" gene down. Again, an accident of some kind of another could exterminate the "opposite" gene in one or both of these populations, leaving two separate species with only one color gene each, rather than one species with two color genes. This leaves one gene or the other more prone to extermination should conditions shift to favor the other one -- should light color become a detriment (say, because all the trees are darkened by pollution and the birds can see light moths better), the LLLL population would be quickly decimated and might even become extinct before conditions shifted again. Again, genetic diversity has not been increased and the possibility for reduction of genetic diversity (by the complete extinction of one gene or the other) is there.
Finally, my opinion on mutations is less firm than on these other subjects. I believe the evidence shows that mutations are generally harmful (this, I think, most people will not dispute) and thus would tend to be culled from the gene pool since they introduce disadvantages rather than advantages. Those mutations that would kill an individual before it reproduced would, of course, be culled instantly -- at least if they were dominant. And I know of no evidence for generally favorable mutations -- all the ones I can think of that aren't harmful are, at best neutral. But if you know of any mutations that are favorable to an individual, whatever species they might occur in, please let me know.
Should you want to continue this debate, I suggest taking it to email rather than continuing on Slashdot, since this article is about to disappear from the main Slashdot page and is heavily overloaded with comments anyway, and I at least won't have time to come back and check it constantly for responses. You can email me at the address listed in my User Info, or (preferably) at rmunn@pobox.com. The pobox.com address is the preferred one, since it won't change after I finish college -- but both addresses will work for the next two years or so. And if you've actually read this far, thanks for taking the time to do so and I'd appreciate carrying on this debate with you if you disagree with my position. -----
--
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Re:Everyone just calm down.
by
Python
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, its nothing important, its just evolution. Only the single most important thing necessary to understand biology. Why would anyone want to test that? Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Good luck sending your daughter off to college with a scant understanding of biology. -- Python
--
Python
Re:Everyone just calm down.
by
Mapultoid
·
· Score: 1
You idiot, he said he would teach the Theory of Evolution. Read carefully.
--
Ben Garrison, a mindless idiot who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
> It simply does not require evolution to be > a state assessment test subject. > Schools are NOT required to follow this and > may teach the subject any way they wish.
Schools are on budget cuts 99% of the time. They are usually pretty quick to drop any and all subjects they can to try to increase their "output" (students score reasonable on the finals) or reduce their costs.
Roger.
Commissioner's email address
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If anyone wants to let the Kansas B. of E. know that you disagree with the decision, you can send email to the commissioner: Dr. Andy Tompkins mailto:atompkins@smtpgw.ksbe.state.ks.us http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/commiss/commiss.html
It is easy to say that they should not be presented as fact when you do not know the mass of evidence.
Did you know that the process of evolution is itself observed, proven, fact? That is right folks, we have observed it happen in real life. For but one example the spread of the killer bees throughout South America, Central America, and now their continuing spread through North America is literally evolution in action!
As for the further evidence, well I don't want to write a book. Get yourself to a library and begin to look some of it up for yourself...
Sincerely, Ben Tilly
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Re:Have you investigated?
by
kabrakan
·
· Score: 1
Another something i have been thinking about, and do not call me a racist or anything for these beliefs, is evolution of modern man. I am not entirely knowledgable on this information, but didn't man evolve in different parts of the world, which is why we have different colored pigments? I mean native americans are a different color from us and are somewhat intolerable to alcohol(I read that native americans that drink automatically become alcoholics), thats because they have evolved in a different area and adapted to a different environment than other humans. So, in retrospect, every race is a little bit of a different kind of animal, like the different kind of cats(although not nearly as different, for our main differences are skin color). If so, wouldn't inter-racial relationships be also known as beastiality?
Just a strange un-scientifical based observation.
-- Slartibartfast:"Is that your robot?"
Marvin:"No, I'm mine."
Re:Science will still march on.
by
jamesc
·
· Score: 1
Cthulhu! Where to start?....
OK, the easy stuff first: When evolution is proved,.... and eventually prove it, right? You must have been sleeping in class when they mentioned the Scientific Method. Save for pure Mathematics, you can't prove any hypothesis true. But, you can demonstrate that one is false. So, your first condition falls flat from day one. When science legitimately disproves creation, I'll be done with faith. Again you demonstrate an ignorance of scientific method. Creation by a diety, as it is usually expressed in the USA, is an unfalsifiable hyphothesis (it requires gods and other omnipotentient beings who can do anything and can never be pinned down). So, science will never "disprove" it. Your faith is safe.
I've got no problem believing in microevolution. There ain't no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution, save in the minds of Creationists. There is only varying degrees of evolution. Let's nail down the definition of evolution:
Evolution: A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time.
Allele: An instance of a gene. Say the green seeds vs. yellow seeds in G. Mendel's classic experiment. Green seeds are an allele for the seed color gene. Same for smooth vs. wrinkled seeds and the seed texture gene, or blossom colors, etc.
That's it. That's what you're rebelling against.
Anyone who has ever bred dogs or canaries or whatever has seen this happen, all the time, whether you want it to do so, or not. Every new strain of staph that is more resistant to antibiotics is evolving. Each and every strain of penicillin resistant bacteria evolved to become resistant. Same for the finches on the Galapagos Islands as the average beak size changes in response to long term weather patterns.
Given all of the evidence there is no doubt that biological evolution is effectively a fact, as much of a fact as gravity. It simply is how living things work. However, this is likely what led to the "microevolution" concept -- it was a way for Creationists to try to accept the basic facts of life, yet not accept their unavoidable conclusion. In other words, it was a way for them to admit that it was possible to walk down the street, yet deny that it is possible to walk from L.A. to New York City.
Other postings have dealt with the facts of evolution vs. the different theories of evolution. See What is Evolution? for a better description that I can write.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Re:Dinos
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Perhaps you're thinking of the old testament. The new testament isn't quite 2,000 years old, and I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) revelations is actually less than 1,000 years old. Just playing devils advocate, someone figured out how to make fire with rocks. Probably a very long time ago. Fact is, it still works. Counter-fact is, fire and philosophy are two different things.
I'm rather appalled at some of the opinions I have been seeing here. I would encourage all of you to take some critical looks at Evolution. While it seems plausible, is that because of what you know, or what you were taught.
I would recommend reading books on both sides of the issue so that way you can decide for yourself. I'm fairly sure I'm in the minority of slashdot readers as one who believes in creationism, but I wasn't always like that. In fact it was even christianity that convinced me of creationism, christianity was not a part of my life at that point in time.
As for the person who made the comment about the dogs interbreeding, umm hate to break it you einstein, but all dogs are the same species, just different breeds. Sorta like humans in that respect.
-- My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
Re:Watch What You Say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please don't generalize. Many of us are (or in my case, WERE) christians who accept evolution as a much more realistic explanation for biodiversity than creationism.
Re:We don't have enough fear of god for our own go
by
AlienSquid
·
· Score: 1
--you said-- We must shift our focus back to something which is never used in an evil fashion: religion. --I reply-- Ummm... so you are saying that the Crusades were good? people died for the "holy wars" and right now I can't think of anything good that came from them except for the spreading around of the culture from both worlds.
can you prove that this "theory" of God exists? please, don't say to me "it is all around us, everything you see is the handiwork of God" because I can easily reply with: "No, it's the handiwork of evolution, each species doing what is neccessary for it's own survival and genetic transferrence"
Religion was invented to explain to simple man in simple terms what he could not understand. we have since proven that the earth is flat. we cannot stop there.
flame retardent suite : engaged
Name: Jevon MacDonald - No account :(
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Umm, Don't jumble us all into one category. I have no clue exactly what kind of man created. I fully beleive that whatever creature what created as "man" has more than likely evolved. Look at the different continents of the world. People are very different. Very few things make us simmilar. Many Creationist would disagree with me. I would say however that whatever you beleive, creation of straight evolution, many would agree (not all) that most religion is just the observation of a god who reveals himself to us in the small ways only our feelble minds would conceive. That is a religion no matter what else you beleive.
Re:Teaching as Theory Not Fact
by
JimDabell
·
· Score: 1
...it isn't proven (it's extremely hard to give a biological proof). Theory is theory until proven, and shouldn't be represented as anything else until then.
You cannot prove a theory at all. You can only prove that it is a "reasonable" theory that makes more sense than anything else. Has anybody proven without a shadow of a doubt that the theory of gravity is true? Of course not. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are on level ground when it comes to provability. I will accept that evolution is not taught as fact when gravity is not taught as fact.
I think this is actually not as bad as a lot of people seem to think it is -- it'll certainly open up more discussions about our origins, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
Yes, but this move is being pushed by the people who blindly believe in a book. A BOOK. No offense meant, and I know that the Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally, but it's taking the piss when people who believe a woman can be made out of a man's rib can actually block people from teaching a basic biological theory in school.
In my humble opinion, too many people take too many theories for granted (religion and science both).
If we didn't take a few theories for granted, then we would not get anywhere. How could we possibly advance in science if we were forced to, for example, prove that the Earth was round every time we wanted to advance a theory on planetary motion? May I remind you that the Earth hasn't actually been proven to be round (for the anally retentive among us,) only that you can keep moving away from a certain point, only to end up back where you started. OK, so it seems that the Earth is round, but it hasn't been proven. It just seems like the best explanation. I'll stop being sarcastic now, but you get my point.
I'll admit that the theory of evolution may not be 100% perfect, but it's the best we have, and it makes sense. Which is more than I can say about Creationism, even if I was being generous. This is taking PC far too far. Stop being so silly.
Just remember this DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am sure that the Republican nut-cases that read Slashdot think that Creationism is just great.
Re:Just remember this DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why do you believe all Republicans are fundamentalist Christians. In fact I'd say most belive in evolution whole-heaetadly, it is called the free-enterprise system.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 1
we don't even have the same number of Chromosomes.... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~ ~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Kansas not forcing kids to be spoonfed idiocy!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sadly, this post is far more intelligent than its parent. (I read comments bottom-up, btw)
This -- even in its non-hyped up reality -- really turns my stomach. The fact that they could choose to remove evolution even from the recommended standardized testing or other requirements for teaching on account of the fact that the extremist Christian factions in the state have turned their attention from the evils of the Internet and the teletubbies to the easily demonstrable proofs that their fundamentalist teachings are plain wrong.
This is a really dangerous change to make in the schools curriculums. The intelligent students who are able to critically evaluate what they're being taught won't be affected. Most students aren't stupid enough to deny the validity of the scientific process -- even if they question the results. The real risk is to the bottom-of-the-rung students who are being raised by their television by parents who are poorly educated to say the least. These are the students who are going to grow up as equally ignorant and just continue repeating the process.
There are few enough parents doing a decent job raising their kids today, without the states stepping in to make the process of turning out mindless masses who's only care is where they're going to get their next beer and who's on the next WWF that much easier.
Maybe its time for the federal government to pass laws requiring a minimum standard education, since aparently some states seem to think its enough to just chuck the kids into a building for six or seven hours so their parents can work.
We take a useless state, like one of the Dakota's, or Kansas, and fence it off. We put them all in there and put metal underwear on them. When they get close to the fence, they get a nice little electrical shock.
Darwinian evolution revolves around the principal that those most fit to reproduce will take over through a larger population. Moronic conservatives who beLIEve that "god" created them so that they can go forth and multiply seem to breed far faster than more intelligent folks. They may eat dirt, but as long as they keep spawning off more future pro wrestling fans, they shall outnumber the rest of us.
Good thing we can laugh at them when we pull our foreign cars into Valvoline to have them change the oil so that we do not have to get dirty...
In the long run there is only one good option. All x-tians must die.
Open your eyes. Maybe Kansas has the right idea.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Never was it suggested that their reasons for removing the requirement of the teaching of evolution in public schools had anything to do with religious considerations. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the theory of evolution, as applied to the creation of life and mankind on Earth is rediculous hogwash. I've noticed a lot of people scream and shout and get all outraged about "ignorant religious zealots" but read your own postings, people. Who are the ignorant zealots here? Jumping to conclusions and blindly shouting what you were taught in school. Kansas is taking a step away from that brainwashing of children -- the very same brainwashing that has apparently infected the vast majority of you.
Re:are you f@cking kidding?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because Religious Zealots think they're doing us a favor by teaching us the ways of Lord, and making us accept Jesus Christ as our personal saviour so we all dont burn in hell. To them, Its like telling a friend not to drink draino. However, I feel they've gone too far this time. I remember a friend of mine once did the audio for a Christian Collition Meeting in Kansas once... Man, to this day he doesnt like christianity at all.
Background: Mother teaches high school bio, wife teaches high school bio. Religion=none.
If they had gone about half way and said that Evolution is only a theory, and not to be treated as fact I would actually agree with it. The biggest problems scientists have today is that they feel that once they have a theory that fits the bill, it is the only way that works. In fact there is pretty good evidence that when a new scientific idea comes out that shatters old theories, old scientists don't adopt it, they just die off (nuclear atomic theory, being one of the prime examples). If they KS had said that it should be emphasized as only a theory and not treated as a fact (which many scientists do), that would have been cool by me, the problem is they said it wasn't a theory of modern biology which is patently false.
------------------------------------ Microwho? Oh yeah, don't they make game software or something like that.
-- Ok, I give up, why you?
Re:We don't have enough fear of god for our own go
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I reached for my news-paper on monday and saw that they are teaching 'evolution' without having pieced together the fossil record from the first genetic material to Polly Shore. (Hey, I can be reasonable)
And they are teaching 'creationism' in many places without having seen the second coming, armageddon, or anything else that could make creationism seem any more valid than evolution.
Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot at the center of the universe. And now they would have us force feed this, their evil-ution, to our kids.
I'll take an educated view and a sense of respect and wonder for the immense complex universe around us over self-centred ignorance any day.
We must shift our focus back to something which is never used in an evil fashion: religion
Religion hasn't been used in an evil fashion? That's a good one! How many native societies have been destroyed by religious crusades and missions to convert them to one form of religion or another? Not only are the religious entitled to their own opinion, but they appear to be entitled to force it upon others, through violence if necessary, even if others had opinions and beliefs of their own with which they were perfectly happy. But I guess it's okay because they were wrong and you were "right", no?
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
TheSync
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that science is a mechanism to seek an understanding of natural processes by seeking to categorize laws of nature.
Miracles are not laws of nature. Scientifically, Slashdot happened because Rob's happened to start a cool web site. Theologically, maybe God had a hand in it, maybe it wasn't chance.
We do not need a God-centric theory of atomic physics. We do not need a God-centric theory of how the lungs work. We do not need a God-centric theory of how airplanes fly. And we do not need a God-centric theory on how life began.
Beware anyone who talks about "impossibly large odds". The reality is that no matter how large the odds are, if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to speculate upon it.
Also despite the incredible complexity of modern bio-molecules, there is no reason to presuppose that DNA or RNA came out of nowhere randomly. There are plenty of possibilities of simple reproducing bio-molecules using clays as a catalysis agent. There isn't even a reason why the first reproducing molecules had to be any bio-molecule that we use today.
The truth is we don't yet have a good clue on how life began. But if we just say "God did it," we will definately never know!
On the other hand, speciation has been observed, so evolution is a fact.
Ok, since Evolution is a theory and NOT a fact, nor has it EVER been proven... let's forget our little school days 'follow the crowd' crap and be realistic. IF (and that's a big if) evolution is a fact this is just another case where the schools of this country are f-ing with our kids. If it's not fact... why is it even listed here? Is it geek news? Are computers related? (Ok, I guess I can see the science relation but come-on)
I live in Kansas, and as a member of a freethought group on my campus, I have been following this very carefully.
First, I would like to give some background on how the Christian Fundamenatists have been operating. They used to try to get Creation taught along side evolution under some kind of equal time idea. That was struck down numerous time by courts, including the Supreme Court. So now they are settling for not teaching evolution in school. In Alabama they mandated that all biology used in the state school system include a warning label that says evolution is "a controversial theory... No one was present when life appeared. Therefore any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory and not a fact." Texas almost got it's biology books replaced by ones published by fundamentalist institutions that contain no reference to evolution.
"Evolution is only a theory" has become their party line. They come up will all kinds of BS about how it is controversial, cite fundamentalist science text that question evolution's validity, and "since no one has seen macro-evolution occur" we can not consider it fact (they don't consider micro-evolution to be such a threat). They also cite defeciencies in the fossil and such.
They take the whole idea of what a scientific theory is and twist it. Last year the National Academy of Sciences stated evolution must be taught in public schools if biology is to understood at all. They also stated that "There is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution has occured, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occured."
Last year the Kansas Board of Education voted to adopt a new statewide science curriculum based on standards from the National Academy of Science. Which lists evolution as one of the "five concepts uniting all scientific disciplines." A 27 member state committee of science teachers and professors wrote the original standards based on this.
Conservatives however did not like the prominent display of evolution and so they took it upon themselves to write a revised draft that removes most references to evolution, changes its definition, and adds a definition for "intelligent design." It leaves most of the micro-evolution reference intact though. It also restructures the main concepts that students need to learn from a more theoretical, and how-it-works method, to an applied science type of deal. The person responsible is board member Steve Abram from Arkansas City. It was written by a local creation-science organization earlier this year.
It would not ban teaching of macro-evolution, but would leave it up to local school districts to decide what to teach. It would also remove questions on macro-evolution off of the state science examinitions. Which will favor teaching something that is in standard to macro-evolution. Unfortunately college entrance exams will contain them, thus screwing Kansas students.
Recently a letter was sent to the Board from the presidents of 6 universities in Kansas. It basically states that they have a responsibility to teach evolution and that it would be better to leave the previous standards in place then to replace them with Abram's draft.
The Kansas Board of Education Members are split 5-5 along Moderate-Conservative lines. This is caused numerous deadlocks in the past. The board vowed not to deadlock on this issue, and because of the religious conservatives stuborness, their version might pass. A "compromise" was recently presented, but it doesn't sound like much of a compromise. However it seems to have gained a moderate board memeber's support.
So it sounds like students in Kansas will be getting the short end of the stick until we get some competent (non-fundamentalist) board memebers.
Re:Bull!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's not fact, it's theory. We have no conclusive evidence. Perhaps it is beyond current science and because of that they don't question it but they can't prove much of jack in the way of evolution. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest it's a true theory but there is some serious disconnect.
When did science die? Doesn't anyone know what the scientific method is anymore? With evolution we simply have a set of observations, not all of which can be verified, that suggest that something is occurring, that's far cry from fact. It's the best theory we've got but that's about it.
The practice of teaching evolution theory doesn't need to be banned - just put in its proper place. Students should be taught that it is only an theory, and allowed to accept it or to hold their own opinions. Students should also be taught that evolution is an unscientific theory, because it violates the second law of thermodynamics (note: when a theory violates a scientific law, the theory is unscientific).
--
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
Re:Tidbits
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Your ignorance of the second law of thermodynamics and how it applies to evolution is exactly the kind of thing slashdotters are complaining about. Please do some research into the issue and come back with some intelligent arguments. Thanks.
Re:right wing = retards that can't spell.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yep.
It's fine as long as...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Evolution is actually a good theory... but it's important that schools teach it as "theory". I also think it's a good thing if people would realize the difference between micro & macro evolution, two different things. So I think that's what the folks in kansas should have taught.
What's crazy is when you say you can't teach what the "christians" think. Darwin was a Christian, you're teaching what he thought. The bible doesn't say there's nothing like evolution "explicitly", but with interpretation another Christian says there's nothing like it.
Now it's important to realize that Darwin never meant macroevolution, he meant micro. So the two christians might not be in total harmony, but they agree perhaps on the fundamentals.
You see a little more background isn't religious preaching, it's education. If you ban religion, you have the "athiest" religion in school. So that's rather hipocritical.
So seriously guys, though those people in Kansas perhaps didn't make the law perfect, it's perhaps a step to increasing the education in the schools. That's not a bad thing...
Freaking out, and going to either extreme is a bad thing. I hope you guys keep this in mind because it's when we remove thinking from our society that we damn outselves to some governmental religion rule. When we present more than one point of view, and perhaps with some laws facilitate more views (not replace views) that we encourage the next generation to actually use their brain.
And the beer's better. Far better. But in California, Moosehead considered a beer. In Canada, it's considered a sex crime...
Re:Urm ok and this is a suprise how?
by
Matt-69
·
· Score: 1
"And all God's people said amen..."
:-) Couldn't have said it better my friend, well put. This whole issue has me really steamed.
(I'm from Alabama btw, I see this kind of shit first-hand every day)
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>However, I have a real problem with anybody being forced to teach something which might or might not be true. Do you wanna scrap all "knowledge" then? All our scientific laws might not be true, people just accept them on FAITH! So, science is another religion, which may or may not be true, so maybe we shouldn't learn anything. I would rather learn all different viewpoints, so, I think it would be good if they took some opposing theories and lay out the differences.
Its too bad that they cant just decide to teach both sides of the coin and give everyone the best of all of the knowledge we have...
On the comments about Darwinism, a good book that too me brings to light some good questions is Darwins Black Box...at the moment I cant remember the authors name but it was a good read... Check it out for those interested...
The nothing corollary: From nothing can come nothing, therefore there must have always been something...
Re:Kansas State Board of Education
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wacky little side note: If I recall, Charles Darwin was a very devout Presbyterian, but did his best not to involve religion in his science work. It's always fun to the compare reactions of self described pro-science non-fundamentalist types vs. the reactions of people who call themselves fundamentalists when they hear this. Can you guess which ones didn't handle it graciously? : ) I wonder how the State Board would react....
Myth \Myth\, n. 1. A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.
Theory \The"o*ry\, n. 1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which minates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.
Evolultion is not a myth - it's a theory. inasmuch as evolution is a theory, so is creationism. that's why i think it's absurd to make teaching evolution mandatory in schools while teaching about creation is not mandatory.
Creationism is not a theory in the same sense that evolution is. It has produced no predictions -- at least, none that have panned out. Evolution has correctly predicted many things. One was the existance of a mutable genetic material, which is one reason why Darwin is considered the father of modern biology. Creationists have no theory, and make no predictions. They merely sit around trying to poke holes in evolution without the benefit of even a basic understanding of science. No institution can fail to teach evolution and call itself a school. You can't simply choose to ignore the last hundred years of biology and claim to be providing an education. Nor can you ignore the amazingly vast amount of evidence that supports it -- evidence that comes from nearly every major scientific discipline.
Agreed -- The Wrong Hill to Die On Anyway
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm a Christian too, and frankly, I don't feel evolution threatens my beliefs. If you look at a lot of the debate, much of the creationist side is not well grounded in their science, and a lot of it's half-baked regurgitation of what someone else said. There's some good points, but they don't address a lot of what's being pointed out on the evolution side. I'm not saying I agree or disagree--just saying I don't know when it comes to the issue. I don't know why a lot of Christians obsess about this. I think it's the wrong hill to die on. I also think a lot of Christians do this sort of stuff because 'Pat Robertson said to' -- I wouldn't be surprised if they let him dictate who they vote for. (An interesting note is that politics for a lot of Christians in America lean toward the right, while politics for Christians in Australia lean toward the left.) The Bible is very clear on a number of things, 'love thy neighbor as thyself', etc...If I'm not doing those things the whole creation/evolution debate is irrelevant. I'm sure some of the people who are rabid about this sort of thing are the same ones that hold pickets 'God Hates Fags'.
I didn't know that such a viewpoint could be summed up in such a short comment! I agree with you completely. I am Christian, but I do realize that no one knows exactly how God works or on what level He chooses to work. I've heard that God works in natural ways, and I don't believe he just "poofed" the world and all of its life into existence about 6,000 years ago. He could have, but then again, He very well may have decided to be a little more "sneaky". We humans will never truly know how God works, but we do need to acknowledge the fact that He doesn't always just go around "shoving and poofing".
Re:Bravo!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My views certainly do not fit into the definition of any particular organized religion, but I have to agree with what you are saying...
I figure it this way... If there is a quote unquote God (and I'll leave that open for other people to debate) who's to say that His plan for us doesn't include studying and eventually understanding the extremely deep, complex, and interesting world He has constructed around us?
Who is to say that fossil records with gaps, dinosaurs, billions of years of earth history, and a nearly-ageless and nearly-endless universe, aren't all part of His creation. No wonder he took a day to rest.:-)
Faith is a funny thing though... Ask a non-religious person if they'd buy into what I just described, and they'd probably say "Yeah, that would make sense." Ask a religious person what they think of the idea and they usually freak out. It works. I've tried it.
Here's what usually shuts them up though if you'd like to test this theory yourself...:-)
Describe the view I presented above to an average Christian or two... Ask them what they think of the idea. When they freak out (and they usually do), remind them that judgement is reserved for Him alone, and that they have no right to cast judgement on His magical and mystereous ways. They usually get quiet real fast.
It's just sad though... The kind of Christians that get freaked out by that concept are really missing out on a much deeper and more profound view of the world and universe around them. They resign themselves to a simple shallow view of the world around them when they could possess a much deeper respect and understanding of their surroundings without losing their faith. Heck, it might make their faith even stronger!
> Faith is a funny thing though... Ask a non-religious person if they'd buy into what I just described, and > they'd probably say "Yeah, that would make sense." Ask a religious person what they think of the > idea and they usually freak out. It works. I've tried it.
Well, it's not really faith that's funny... it's just human nature. Humans have a natural "uncomfortability" with ideas that are different, and it saddens me to see Christians who think that any idea that conflicts with theirs is an idea from the "dark side."
> It's just sad though... The kind of Christians that get freaked out by that concept are really missing > out on a much deeper and more profound view of the world and universe around them.
It is kinda sad, isn't it? Well, as I grow in my faith, I hope that I will continue to be open-minded and keep an eye out for how God works in the world. And hopefully my faith will become even stronger when I observe!
The DNA clock...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think one of the more compelling recent developments is the analysis of DNA to find when two species diverged. You assume a fairly constant rate of mutation (observable on the time scale of a few generations) in the DNA and can use the mutation rate and the amount of difference between the DNA between two species to determine the approximate time the species diverged. Usually the results match up with the geological record pretty well. This work appears to provide a direct link between mutations and evolution.
I'm not a molecular biologist, I'm a chemist, so I'm probably screwing up the facts a bit, here.
First: I don't care about evolution... Whether or not it is true has no relevance for my beliefs... I will not reply to arguments concerning that...
Second: I do agree that evolution should be teached in shools... Not because I think it is true but because I think we shouldn't hide information like that from our children...
But: This outrage against people who have different beliefs bother me far more! There is no such thing as scientific truth! Science is, by defenition, not the truth... When science becomes the truth it is no longer useful since it is not open for discussion... Everything has to be open for discussion...
Well, I don't want to get too involved in any debate and I think I've made my main point so that'll just have to do for now...
/Daniel
A man with faith can indulge in the luxury of skepticism. - X-Files
-- -- No, no -- Not that one!
Dude, you didn't read his post.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're quite the smartass...but you didn't read the whole post or you would have seen that he is indeed going to teach his daughter evolution. You're a prick!
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
cdlu
·
· Score: 1
Missing link as fabulous example of evolution...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here's the point. You can't find "The missing link" because it LOST the contest.
It couldn't adapt, mutate, whatever (mechanism-wise) to compete for territory, food, whatever with its competitors in order to survive.
Why we haven't found 'it' in the fossil record yet is an interesting question, but certainly not one that disproves evolution.
Finding 'it' also wouldn't prove evolution either, by the way, as I'm sure many other Slashdotters could explain far better than I, so you might as well find some other 'issue' with evolution to cling to.:-)
Re:You can believe both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because ChunkStyle left substantial evidence for evolution. So either evolution happened or ChunkStyle is a liar.
Since the word "Bible" generally refers to the Christian Bible, you're off by a couple hundred years. More importantly, you might have missed the point. I think the poster was trying to convey the stupidity in taking the bible literally. I don't think he did a good job, and hope that is what he means.... A good portion of respected modern bible scholars believe that the Bible was compiled from stories and lore. It should be read as a symbolic attempt to bring meaning to the world the writers lived in.
Hey, gravity is a theory to. Why don't you do us all a favor and disprove it by walking off the end of a cliff. As long as you don't look down you should be fine:)
Okay, dont flame me or anything if I'm wrong but the last time I checked, Websters dictionary defines a law along the lines of any "well observable scientific phenomenon" and a theory as a "general principle formulated to account for a certain observable phenomena". Now I think many of you guys are missing the point that a theory attempts to explain a law (something that happens) like gravity. AFAIK there are no strong theories that attempt to explain why gravity happens. But gravity is in no way a theory... there are theories about gravity.
Yeah, I know. I just felt like belittling his intelligence and that was the first thing that popped into my head. Thanks for the heads up, though.
Re:Even though this soothes one...
by
McFarlane
·
· Score: 1
Apparently (once again) it seems a fairly nastily large chunk of them actually are. Makes you feel good to not have to put up with that sort of stuff, no? I extend an offer of sympathy to the poor clue-having Americans who must endure in such circumstances. If creation "science" is a legitimate science why is it confined essentially to one country? Silly American fundamentalists who somehow have been allowed to accumulate power do something ignorant and shame their nation in front of the world *again*. Always good to keep the rest of us amused. Thanks!
-- [We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM) and BodyPart
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Given: (1)the belief that properties of the bodyparts eaten are taken over by the consumer and (2) fanatic christians turn into dickheads, it's not difficult to guess what part they eat;-D
Contacting the Kansas Board of Education
by
D-Fly
·
· Score: 1
Though we all seem to have strong feelings on this matter, I rather doubt that the estimable members of the Kansas board of Ed read slashdot. Instead of mouthing off to each other, let the people who matter know what you think:
If you have any comments about Board action, send your email to Penny Plamann, Board secretary, at pplamann@ksbe.state.ks.us. She will forward your comments to the Kansas State Board of Education.
Go read Eldridge and Gould (FYI the people whose paper started the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium) and read what they had to say about it.
The only people who think that it is NOT a form of Darwinian evolution are liars out to make it look like there is a debate within science about whether evolution is true (there is not), and those who have been fooled by the liars but who never bothered to go so far as to read the people whose positions were being caricatured by the liars.
*sigh* Ben Tilly
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>What kind of god is it that goes around and lays >false evidence everywhere. "All those dinosaur >bones are just their for yucks!". Laugh it up >funny boy. You paint the picture of god as seven >year old. One who says "Believe in me or be >damned!" and then goes way out of his way >to help people come up with all sorts of >explanations of alternate ways things could >happen. A god who trys to make us not believe in >him so we'll go to hell. Is that nice? Is that >right? Doesn't sound like someone I'd invite over >for dinner. -- A-friggin-men to that. Religion has come up with the last ditch effort to keep people subdued. Essentially, by telling people that logical methods are wrong, religion cannot be disproved, and thus it carves a niche for itself in an environment of true enlightenment... the understanding of nature and science. In fact, it seems somewhat amusing to hear the 'logical' arguments of the various christian followers. Logic, coming from a foundation that says: "NO! Do NOT use logic to determine the truth of our words!".
Re:MULE
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!
Encore! Encore! I think that our initial poster didn't take Biology 101 before saying that nice little comment that spurred so many threads. c'mon guys, do we really take people of this intellectual level *seriously*???
Health Care is better in the US if and only if you are rich; If you are poor its better in Canada.
Ship them Home, to Rome.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey, Not the Dakota's, all my True American brethern live there on the reservation. I'd rather Nuke Kansas (after moving my parents out of state) than make them suffer more arrogant white men.
EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years.
Secondly, it has been discovered that the first single-celled life came an instant after the waters in the ocean stopped boiling.
Thirdly, in another instant (in geologic time) the Cambrian Explosion brought every body form in existance and no significant changes have been made since.
Fourthly, the DNA molecule is so complex, had it been transmitted in radio form to SETI, it would qualify as evidence for intelligent life.
To go to the title of my post, many people say that life came into existance for many reasons and are acted upon with different purposes. Evolution leaves its believers either deceived or to trust by faith in its Random Chance. Belief by faith in something that created life and continues to act on it is a religion.
Please respond intelligently.
dan1123@yahoo.com
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
respond intelligently? your question is pure flame bait. However: 1) how do you know that life started with protein? It might have started with other molecule types that encouraged development of proteins. 2) you blindly accept this as a fact while questioning everything else? Get real - this is just another theory too... and an unlikely one at that. 3) so? are you trying to say that this is evidence that evolution doesn't exist and some other being or existence caused the cambrian explosion? quite a stretch. 4) Yet Another Irrelevant Point. SETI's criteria has nothing to do with Evolution. Believing by "faith" makes you completely ignorant and unwilling to learn the truth - you will grasp at any straw to prevent people from learning and understanding because it is a threat to your comfortable fantasy-land.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You state that:
2. To qualify as a scientific theory it must be disprovable, i.e. there must be hypothetical evidence which could disprove the thoery; this is the reason why Creationism doesn't qualify as science.
This is also the reason evolution does not qualify as science. Evolution as the origin of life cannot be disproved.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence out there, that is true. Here are a few samples that most people don't know.
1) The amount of dust on the surface of the moon is only enough to account for an age of the moon of 4,000 - 40,000 years based on current rates of collection of space dust.
2) The magnetic field of the earth is decaying. If the rate of decay is extrapolated backwards, approx. 10,000 years ago lifeforms as we know them would have been impossible and 40,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as a magnetic star. If things remained relatively the same that long (which I don't believe).
3) Population studies of humans on the earth show that over time the population has grown at a steady rate of approx. 1.5-2%/year with something occuring approx. every 80-100 years that kills off 50% of the population. If you take the smaller numbers and extrapolate backwards, you come to somewhere around 3600 years. With room for variation you still get a very short time since there were only a couple humans. (If things in the past few thousand years have been fairly similar)
4) Microevolution has been observed many times, but macroevolution never.
5) Life begets life. Many "Spontaneous generation" theories were disproved centuries ago and Darwin developed a new one and it became accepted. It has yet to be demonstrated that you can create life out of non-living atoms in the laboratory.
If you are serious about looking at all the facts to determine what theory fits the best, or develop your own based on the facts, let me know, I am interested in looking at all the facts as well. There is a lot of suppressed information and faked information by some supporters of both sides. All that does is discredit the theory that they support.
randy@nospam.hesscomputers.com
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
respond intelligently? your question is pure flame bait. However:
1) how do you know that life started with protein? It might have started with other molecule types that encouraged development of proteins.
2) you blindly accept this as a fact while questioning everything else? Get real - this is just another theory too... and an unlikely one at that.
3) so? are you trying to say that this is evidence that evolution doesn't exist and some other being or existence caused the cambrian explosion? quite a stretch.
4) Yet Another Irrelevant Point. SETI's criteria has nothing to do with Evolution.
Believing by "faith" makes you completely ignorant and unwilling to learn the truth - you will grasp at any straw to prevent people from learning and understanding because it is a threat to your comfortable fantasy-land.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
bbecker
·
· Score: 1
"Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years." I believe that the theory states that simple organic molecules, such as amino acids, may have come to earth from meteors... not that full-fledged life came from outer space. In any event, that 'billion-billion' years (if true) happened somewhere, and the location of the (or one of many) events isn't all that integral to speciation by evolution. It still occured here, on earth. There are two large problems I've got with this 'billion-billion years' theory. The first is what I believe is called the 'anthropic principle' in cosmology, which states that the physical attributes of this universe seem arbitrary, but that since they're the only ones that allow the matter that we're made of, those attributes are the only ones that we're capable of observing. There could be a 'quadrillion quadrillion' possible universes out there, but since we're a result of a certain set of conditions, they're the only ones that we can observe. (I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but this is the general idea). My point is this: since we're the result of life arising, saying 'it's rare' doesn't give us a reason to reject the theory, because we are a part of the system. Sorry if I can't explain it better than that. The second problem I've got with this 'billion-billion' years thing may have been taken into account with your statistics - but it still concerns me. I believe the current theory says that life arose from simple replicons - macromolecules of RNA that could assemble copies of themselves. Once there is even one, it could make copies of itself and kick off evolution - I simply have a hard time believing that the chances of this occuring are as low as you say, and it only takes one event (theoretically) to get things going. "Secondly, it has been discovered that the first single-celled life came an instant after the waters in the ocean stopped boiling." I hadn't heard this - I doubt we can pin any event that occured billions of years in the past to 'an instant' - I'd be willing to believe '100 million years' or even less, and am willing to believe life could have arisen in that time. "Thirdly, in another instant (in geologic time) the Cambrian Explosion brought every body form in existance and no significant changes have been made since." This also seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Bacteria, which are still the most numerous form of life on earth, existed long before this, as did the blue-green algae, and possibly lichens, etc. See http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendianlife.h tml for some information on this. Even if invertebrate life arose here, this doesn't disprove speciation by evolution. The theory of punctuated equilibrium states that evolution tends to occur in 'spurts', where a new combination of genetic traits allows a population to take advantage of new niches. Not to mention that you yourself, as a mammal, are a member of a species that did not evolve until much later than the cambrian. "Fourthly, the DNA molecule is so complex, had it been transmitted in radio form to SETI, it would qualify as evidence for intelligent life." Huh? Perhaps it is complex enough that a radio signal describing a DNA molecule would be strong evidence that the signal originated from an intelligent life form, but this fact says absolutely nothing about evolution. I don't see why you even included this in your post. "Evolution leaves its believers either deceived or to trust by faith in its Random Chance. Belief by faith in something that created life and continues to act on it is a religion." Random chance is at the base of evolutionary theory - but that's not all there is. It's not a matter of faith as much as it is a matter of all evidence being consistent with a theory that says life arose by chance and changes by the accumulation of mutations and selecting for the populations that can reproduce successfully by taking advantage of specific ecological niches. Evolutionary theory is simply the best and most logical explanation that we have for the evidence. It doesn't make it 'right' - it's just the best (and a very, very good) explanation. I'm sure there are people who have faith in evolution, but the theory is perfectly sound without relying on faith. It's not a religion.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it.
"They" are? Who? Name some names. If "they" are as prominent as you claim you should have no difficulty, should you?
Statements like this only prove your ignorance; anyone can see that the origin of life, and the subsequent development of life, are two completely different issues. Whether life originated on Earth or was seeded from somewhere else has no bearing on the observed fact of evolution since that time.
Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years.
This is the same "they" you cited above, no? On the other hand, repeated experiments done with mixtures of ammonia, methane, CO2 and water subjected to electric sparks and ultraviolet life showed the creation of amino acids in just a few days.
You probably bought into the fallacy that because one particular protein molecule would have taken 10^18 years to create by random chance, that it is therefore impossible. The person who fed you this lie didn't bother telling you that different species and even different genes found within the same species make different proteins for doing the same job (proving that one particular protein sequence is not important). Second, molecular evolution experiments done in the laboratory have proven that molecules which are selected for their ability to perform a given task evolve very quickly. This comes up to my last point: once the first self-reproducing agent exists, no matter how small or how simple, the rules of the game are dominated by reproductive success under the selective pressures of the environment: in other words, evolution.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Fluffy+the+Cat
·
· Score: 1
The main problem here is that you're confusing the theory of evolution with one of its logical applications. Evolution itself says nothing about whether or not we evolved from apes. The suggestion that we did is one that comes from the theory. It's a logical extension. But even if we didn't evolve from lower life forms, that doesn't invalidate evolution.
Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years.
The suggestion that life here was triggered by an extra-terrestrial source of protein/DNA isn't a new one. It's a fairly obvious hypothesis that would be somewhat hard to disprove, and it does make rather a lot of questions easier to answer. But the simple problem here is that we still don't know precisely what happened on this planet for several billion years of its existence. Extra-terrestrial DNA is one possibility. Spontaneous generation is another. Whatever it was that kick-started life on Earth is fairly irrelevant when it comes to evolution. The general starting point (a planet with self-replicating material on it) is the same.
Secondly, it has been discovered that the first single-celled life came an instant after the waters in the ocean stopped boiling.
Interesting. I haven't heard that one before. I don't suppose you could point me at some references?
Thirdly, in another instant (in geologic time) the Cambrian Explosion brought every body form in existance and no significant changes have been made since.
An instant in geological time is not necessarily an instant in genetic. Evolution can be demonstrated in much less than 1000 years.
Fourthly, the DNA molecule is so complex, had it been transmitted in radio form to SETI, it would qualify as evidence for intelligent life.
A 4 tone sequence several million bases long? I'd hope it would. I'm not sure what your point is here?
To go to the title of my post, many people say that life came into existance for many reasons and are acted upon with different purposes. Evolution leaves its believers either deceived or to trust by faith in its Random Chance. Belief by faith in something that created life and continues to act on it is a religion.
I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it as a good (currently the best) explanation of observed evidence. If something else comes along that explains the evidence in a better fashion, then I'll probably accept that instead. This is how science works - the formation of hypothoses, the testing of them, the replacement of them with better hypothoses. Science is not a medium of blind faith, which is what distinguishes it from religion.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. > Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a > billion-billion years.
Evolution is a theory of how living beings descended from other (often vastly different) living beings. It does not concern itself with how the first life was produced - that field is called abiogenesis. As far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter where the first living organisms came from - they could have evolved from primitive self-replicating molecules, the could have been brought here by a meteor or have been created out of nothing by God.
> Secondly, it has been discovered that the first single-celled life came an instant after the waters in the ocean stopped > boiling.
First time I am hearing this one. Mind telling me where you found this tidbit?
> Thirdly, in another instant (in geologic time) the Cambrian Explosion brought every body form in existance and no > significant changes have been made since.
First of all, some precambrian fossils have been found - so the cambrian creatures did not come from nowhere. The cambrian was not "instantaneous" - it was something like 50 million years. Not every major type of living being can trace its ancestry back to the cambrian - there are no vertebrates in the cambrian and the cambrian plants bear little resemblance modern plants. It is not true that there have been no significant changes since the cambrian - the changes have been huge. It is true that there have been no new animal body plans discovered since the cambrian - but that does not conflict with evolutionary theory in any way. The cambrian was the period where life spread to all parts of the planet. For a new body plan to evolve, there has to be a niche in which it can survive - there were probably no such niches left.
> Fourthly, the DNA molecule is so complex, had it been transmitted in radio form to SETI, it would qualify as evidence for > intelligent life.
I would agree. However, evolution does nor concern itself with the formation of DNA. That is a subject for research in abiogenesis. There are several hypotheses put forward to explain how DNA might have been formed (none of them involve random chance) but that is no concern of evolution.
> To go to the title of my post, many people say that life came into existance for many reasons and are acted upon with > different purposes. Evolution leaves its believers either deceived or to trust by faith in its Random Chance. Belief by faith in > something that created life and continues to act on it is a religion.
Regardless of whether you ultimately believe in evolution or not, you could at least show some respect for the scientists who formulated the theory and those who accept it today as fact. These people are not idiots. None of them believe or want people to believe that life arose by random chance. Anybody with half a brain knows that it is impossible for something as complex as living beings to arise by random chance. Evolution has two components - variation and natural selection. Variation is random, selection is not. This principle has found uses in areas far removed from biology. Genetic algorithms which are based on the evolutionary principle have been used to produce good approximate solutions to several NP-hard problems. Chip design is one area where they have been used - there are genetic algorithms for placement and routing.
As far as I am concerned, evolution is not a religion. I believe in evolution because it provides a satisfactory explanation for the facts as known today and has a mountain of evidence to back it up. The day someone finds evidence to refute it or finds a theory that better explains the facts, I will stop believing in evolution. That's the way science works.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
HERE HERE!!! Glad to see some sense, to be qualified as scientific "fact" it needs to be able to be "proven" (ie. reproducable) the very nature of the origin of life makes it impossible to prove any one theory scientifically.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!!
by
jonabbey
·
· Score: 2
Please respond intelligently.. hm.
The central flaw in your post (aside from a lot of unsubstantiated facts and irrelevant points) is that you seem to think that everyone who believes evolution is believing in it in the same way that a Christian might believe in Christianity.
I believe that evolution is very well supported by mountains of evidence, and that evolutionary theory and evolutionary thinking is the best way to analyze the fascinating problems of life's arisal on earth. This is not in violation of any of the points you made.
If very good evidence is presented that there were some supernatural mechanism that facilitated it all happening then great, I'll take that evidence into account. If the evidence is strong enough and convincing enough, then I'll adopt a different understanding of biology and a different set of assumptions about how the bits that we don't yet understand thoroughly did happen.
I'm not deceived by anything unless the evidence itself is somehow being misrepresented to me. In all my reading on this subject, I've found anti-evolutionists' work to be *much* more filled with errors, misrepresentations, and even out-right lies than in any scientific exposition.
I don't trust by faith in evolution's Random Chance, because a) evolution is partly but not entirely Random.. that's what the whole natural selection thing is about, and b) because all the biological evidence is that mutations occur in a fashion that does include what we would call randomness. I was born from one of millions of sperm cells that set out to fertilize the egg cell.. the one that made it had a random assortment of genes from my father, and it made it to the egg instead of another due to randomness. Errors in transcription during fertilization and thereafter seem also to involve randomness.
This is all from the evidence. I do assume that given that all of the processes observable in the world today seem to be orderly and naturalistic in accordance with consistent laws of physics that this is true going into the past.
That's really the simplest and most reliable assumption to make.. if I start going away from the evidence and say that anything supernatural could have happened (because of course we don't have the evidence for it), then I have to admit that a huge green frog made of plasma started life on earth. Or the god of middle eastern monotheism. Can't really say, now, can I?
I can only vouch for the writing of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, and must warn you that there is "young-earth snake oil" to be avoided, but probably not at these sites.
Re:A big win for Science!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Cosmology has holes. Big ones. Should we stop beleiving that other planets exist? Should we go back to thinking that stars are "pinholes in god's creation" as well? The only thing full of holes around here are the weak arguments made by creationists trying to defend their irrational beleif in supernatural powers.
Violent overthrow of USA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hello? Try the Declaration of Independence We are OBLIGATED to overthrow ANY tyrannical Goverment. Why then is the State so upset about my Howitzer in the backyard? Hmmm.... Actually, my idea was to issue a Saturday night special and a Bran Muffin to eveyone when they turn 18. " a REGULAR, well ordered Militia" indeed. The Second Amend ment is not about hunter's rights, unless you consider it hunting season on goverment employees - foreign and domestic. And a fond hello to my friends in Domestic surveilance, the ECHELON home team. And a special howdy to the civil forfeiture crowd "Trial? trial? we don't need no steenkin trial"
Re:Violent overthrow of USA
by
Stonehand
·
· Score: 1
Go study history. Examine, in particular, the Bolshevik/Communist revolutions in the former USSR, China and 'Nam. Consider the Finland vs. USSR conflict in WWII. Consider the Warsaw ghetto. Study the mujahedin vs. the Soviet Red Army. Heck, the US colonists versus England, etc, or the siege of Leningrad -- all situations in which a seriously out-armed group held off a superior enemy force for longer than expected, and sometimes even defeated them outright. He who has the biggest weapons does *not* instantly win, particularly if you're trying not to spread radioactive dust over your own state.
Then, think about whether you'd be willing to drive a tank through a known armed hostile population in an urban environment, where you can't visually identify whether somebody is for or against you, and for all you know the locals might have prepared a barricade of scrapped vehicles to pen you in, or rigged explosives to bury you in rubble.
You sure aren't going to be opening that hatch.
-- Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Violent overthrow of USA
by
Jonavin
·
· Score: 1
OK, so how many guns do you need to fend off the tanks, and nukes?
Please...
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
coreybrenner
·
· Score: 1
What does that have to do with anything?
The coelecanth (I assume that's what you're blathering about) was assumed extinct. It was proven that it was not. But, there were no direct lines of descent from that fish to another line of fishes. Nothing that you could point to to say, "ah, here we see natural selection at work - the coelecanth was superceded by this other fish, because this other fish was better suited to this environment, blah blah blah". Now that I think a bit more about it, you've just detracted from the evolutionists position.
--Corey
-- Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Supossed God used evolution to create life? it would explain alot and make both sides pretty pissed off:)
Oh well, back to riding the fence
-- Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
The Evolution Theory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Natural Selection is observable and should and is still taught in these schools. The Theory of Evolution (minus natural selection) is just that: a theory. It is however, not scientific. Why? Because it can not (and never can be) proved by the scientific method. For example, you could not scientifically prove to me that you ate a pizza for lunch yesterday. You could bring substantial historical evidence (how courts of law operate) to prove it but that is all. Science has always had stiffer prerequisites in order to prove something...first it must be repeatable. There must also be controls. Also, say we were able to see a forming universe trillions of miles away. Also, assume we were able to visit this universe and over time see creatures "evolve" from ape like creatues into human-like creatures. This still wouldn't prove evolution. Why? Repeatabliity. No controls. It would merely be one observation, and any scientist will tell you that a single observation aint worth squat. My point is that evolution is not, nor never will be a "scientific" theory. It is merely one man's "idea" of how we came to be. Furthurmore, it is based on observations of natural selection. Since his observations we have gained many new technologies...high powered microscopes for example. Evolution just doesn't hold up at the molecular level. The most well known example of what I am talking about is the human blood-clotting system. Known as a cascade system, it is very complex and involves many factors. Many amino acids and proteins must operate in concert inorder for the system to work properly. If you take one of them away your blood would never clot. If you take a different one away your blood may never be unclotted. If any single piece is missing you would die. This can not evolve. Even natural selection is based on the simple idea of survival of the fittest. This means that every step in the "evolving" process must be beneficial. However we got our current blood clotting system we must have obtained pretty much in tact and as it is today...no evolutionary process can explain this...scientists are currently trying to devise *new* theories that make sense and take care of these unexplainable cases. In fact, there are many more examples just like this one. Do a search for "irreducibly complex systems"....this should turn up many more pages discussing the pros-and-cons of these systems. Its not about the Christians being wrong and the Evolutionists being right or vice-versa. Its about Truth. If you're a scientist please make this your focus not these petty arguements. And *please* don't be one of those scientists that are always on the defensive. A Realist.
Re:The Evolution Theory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All your so called "arguments" against evolution have been proven false again and again and again. Please see www.talkorigins.org and come back when you have something new to say.
Despite Stephen J Gould's grandstanding, punctuated equilibrium is just an incremental change to Darwinism. He reminds me of Katz sometimes: "I've got an idea. It must be revolutionary!" As for other ideas, most of them fall under the same category. Other than Lamarkism and other things like that that have been proven to be false, that is.
Brant
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Farce+Pest
·
· Score: 1
In that case, you have a fact (a non-blue automobile exists), not a theory.
-- This message has been scanned for memes and
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is
believed to be unclean.
Kansas Gov. Bill Graves, a Republican, warned board members not to adopt the anti-evolution curriculum, and has said he would support an effort to abolish the Board of Education.
[Insert you own comment about having no faith in humainty.]
ABOLISH THE BOARD OF EDUCATION?!?!?
Just wondering... what are the qualifications for becoming a Governor in the US? Is an addicion to crack required?
There is a small problem. The Board of Education is set up in the Kansas Constitution. The memebers can not be hired or fired by anybody but the voters of the state.
In short they can do any thing they please except raise taxes. The Governor can't do anything but say that the BOE is being foolish. He has done that.
A state without guns is a police state
by
Barbarian
·
· Score: 1
Take a look at the countries which have outlawed/have severe restriction on owning guns. With the exception of a few anarchistic countries, those that outlaw or severely restrict guns seem to be less likely to consider the implications of laws that inhibit freedoms.
Example: UK. Owning guns is pretty illegal, with some exceptions. Many cities have surveilance cameras capable of viewing large areas. This isn't the case in the US. Perhaps it's because shooting these cameras is a pastime. Or perhaps it's because a citizenry with guns is more likely to be more vocal and active in pushing for personal freedoms, with less fear of governmental or police relatiation, and in addition, less likely to accept such 1984-ish measures. And corrupt governments and police forces may think twice before enacting draconian measures under the premise of fighting crime.
Re:A state without guns is a police state
by
Lord+Kano
·
· Score: 1
By your reasoning one can conclude that there is no causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. After all, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer and not every person who gets lung cancer is a smoker.
In Nazi occupied Europe the jews who had no guns got the worst of the deal. In the Warsaw ghetto the jews there had 10 cheap pistols and they kept the Nazis at bay for nearly two weeks.
The Nazis had to burn that place to the ground to get them out.
A deaf man with a hearing aid, is less deaf than a deaf man without one.
LK
-- "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:A state without guns is a police state
by
Steve+B
·
· Score: 1
How about Japan? People usually don't have guns,its not a police state.
-- "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:A state without guns is a police state
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Correlation does not equal cause. Example: Direct correlated relation between bananas consumed per person and murder rate. Does that mean we should ban bananas? So the fact that guns were banned in Germany is not provably the cause of Hitler's rise to power. He a populous unused to Democracy and took over. Guns would have made little difference. A blind man with a gun is none the less still blind.
Re:A state without guns is a police state
by
scheme
·
· Score: 1
Example: UK. Owning guns is pretty illegal, with some exceptions. Many cities have surveilance cameras capable of viewing large areas.
Counterexamples: How about Japan? People usually don't have guns,its not a police state. Or how about Germany, France, Canada?
-- "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Oh *spare* my 'prehistoric' butt.
by
Daveykins
·
· Score: 1
Don't tell me that, being highly educated people in an age of scientific englightenment, that you still believe in this fairy tale that we evolved from monkeys? This theory has been weighed in by X years of research and not only has it found woefully wanting, but it was almost non-esistant in it's proofs. In fact, 75% of the people who prop up this Theory as their so-called 'Fact,' (Only because that *say* that it is) use five times as much religious faith than every Religious figure you can think of put together. If I couldn't see that they *have* College Degrees, I'd call them mindless ignoramouses who checked out their minds at a school's playground.
I simply cannot believe that any of you could perform intelectual harikiri and sill hold to the Theory of Evolusion like Billy Graham would hold to the Gospel.
(I'll tell you what I think on Creation, but that's for another matter. I'd like to duck to make sure that all those peons stop acting like their ancestors and stop their Flame Wave. I'll be sitting here proven right.)
-- David Gonterman of FoxFire Studios
http://foxfire.twu.net
I would say that most rational Christians are going to have an open mind about topics such as the evolution of life on the Earth and the universe at large. There is enough evidence to point to the age of the universe, 12-14 billion years [12 to 14 thousand million], and the age of the Earth, ~3.5 billion years [3.5 thousand million]. Evolution is an elegant, compelling explanation as to how life started on this planet. More and more evidence is being collected to show how the species could have evolved over time. My time at Barnes & Noble reading Sic Am and Astronomy magazine is paying off.
It's important to realize that the evolution of the universe and life on Earth are still theories. They may never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Our job as rational beings is to test and question every theory we arrive at to check its validity. Is this not the Scientific Method? To dismiss an idea outright violates everything the Scientific Method stands for.
While in school we were taught just about every form of creation myth and theory, and strangely enough, our opinions didn't change much from when we first started our studies. We were simply exposed to new ways of thinking. We were given a choice, and allowed to choose.
So the question I would ask is this: Is it right to criticize and bury any idea that you don't find to your liking? Both sides should think long and hard on that one.
Whether a god or a series of physical laws created this universe, it still is a magic place.
-- The party's over... the drink... and the luck... ran out
Re:end public schools now!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Publicly-run military is a ridiculous concept... We don't trust the government to do much else, why make an exception for national defense? Just give us guns and let/us/ choose our security.
Re:end public highway system now!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Publicly-run interstate highway system is a ridiculous concept... We don't trust the government to do much else, why make an exception for road construction? Just give us asphalt and let/us/ choose our roadways.
tens of thousands of years is enough to show a gradual change in animals. This gradual change happens. Where were humans 10,000 years ago, how different did they look? How old is Kenowick(sp) man?
Many changes are missing, and are therefore leaps of logic. Stop gaps. Especially between species. Mutations happen, all the time, but the quantum jumps between species happens, and there seem to be missing links all over the place.
Thats all I'm saying. Not that Evolution is bad, but it is strangely one of the most *protected* theories to me since the Aristotolian theory of the Universe. Most people like you and me can meet in the middle and say... "It makes sence to say that it is full of holes and just theory." It should still be taught, and I even agree that creation should be taught in Sunday school, not in school. But not mandated. Why does it deserve such protection?
But reasonably, too much reaction to anyone that steps up and says "Hey lets have a look at this scientificaly, does it really say what we keep thinking it says?"
When was the first chiuaua? What was its most closest ancestor? Why do we need to even say it has an ancestor, wouldn't the changes be even more gradual than that? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Re:Nobody's loss but Kansas ..
by
pel
·
· Score: 1
It's a shame this response was actually moderated up to a score of 3, as it is full of the typical anti-religious braying, cites very little "real" truth and is really uninformative in regards to the news item it is in response to. Unfortunately, since it somehow got moderated up, I have to read it and subsequently respond.
> If you state that such changes are "only a theory", you are lying through the skin of your teeth.
This is an utter falsehood. The entire "theory" of evolution is based on evidentialist findings and cannot be proven solely by deductive or logical methods. It might be actually correct, but until it is proven logically, it is not "fact". At the very best, it is "plausible" or a "strong possibility" that evolution is in fact the means by which creatures have become they way they are. But because Darwin has some good ideas, and there is a fossil record, that does not make evolution a universal truth, and it should not be considered one.
Secondly, citing those few people's highly debated arguments was in poor form. cje admitted that "a few creationists" believe this and that, and then proceeded to pass some sort of judgement on the entirety of creationists. I might as well use the same tactic on those naturalists who have extremely controversial beliefs.
The remark of cje is typical of the naturalist objection to creationism. The typical naturalist will use "science" to say that evolution is the only "proveable" method by which all of use has gotten here today. The truth of the matter is, science (the gathering and analyzation of empirical data) has shown nothing decisive on the matter, but at most "a possibility" or "plausibility". Challenging creationists to state a common theory and saying they haven't done so by showing some differences that a few of them have is just plain silly. There are common beliefs held among all of those who believe in creationism, and because cje has not bothered to do his homework and discover those beliefs, his arguments and challenges appear weak at best.
And, to prove that I'm not just braying and citing unfounded opinion, I now leave a reference to a highly respected creationist philosopher's views on Darwinian naturalism : Darwin, Mind, and Meaning by Alvin Plantina.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>What kind of god is it that goes around and lays >false evidence everywhere. "All those dinosaur >bones are just their for yucks!". Laugh it up >funny boy. You paint the picture of god as seven >year old. One who says "Believe in me or be >damned!" and then goes way out of his way >to help people come up with all sorts of >explanations of alternate ways things could >happen. A god who trys to make us not believe in >him so we'll go to hell. Is that nice? Is that >right? Doesn't sound like someone I'd invite over >for dinner.
-- A-friggin-men to that. Religion has come up with the last ditch effort to keep people subdued. Essentially, by telling people that logical methods are wrong, religion cannot be disproved, and thus it carves a niche for itself in an environment of true enlightenment... the understanding of nature and science. In fact, it seems somewhat amusing to hear the 'logical' arguments of the various christian followers. Logic, coming from a foundation that says: "NO! Do NOT use logic to determine the truth of our words!". By the arguments of religion, you can't prove god, because he's all-powerful and you will only know what he wants you to. With the same argument, I can say: "yesterday, you were a pine tree, but you don't remember, because god made you forget." Why are people less apt to believe this second argument? It's absolutely as valid as the first, given the whole god argument. And don't forget.. you aren't allowed to say "because that doesn't make sense, I wasn't a pine tree". Logic is not one of your tools, remember? Think about it. Entertain the possibility for a moment, that religion was invented a long, long time ago, by someone who needed explanations and had none. I guess in the end.. believe what you want, but don't push it to the point of ignorance. i.e.-Kansas.
umm This is true: extream right wing == fundamental christian This is not nessesarily true: fundamental christian == extream right wing
you got this backwards, most fundamental christians are on the extream right, but they only make up a small part of it.
Biology 101
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
May I recommend Pinker's _How_the_Mind_Works_?
You seemed to be so confused on so many topics I don't know WHERE to begin.
I'll take a few random potshots.
1) Man is not evolved from apes. NOBODY has EVER suggested this seriously, except, it seems, creationists. Man and ape has a (possibly recent) common ancestor. We share much of the same genetic information. This is fact.
2) You can't disprove or prove ANYTHING about God. If I have to explain this to you, I'm assuming you are totally unreachable, but I will give it a shot. In general anything that requires faith can never be falsified. Any critical inspection of a "faith" based tenet can be met with a simple "because I said so." Example: you can't prove it wasnt 47 green electric shavers that created the universe if I claim they are omnesceint and omnipotent, and my only arguement is "well you just have to believe it".
3) Animal vs. Human. Murder is not unique to man. All animals do it. However, murder is much less common than killing things of different species. This is also something shared between all living things on the planet. Assuming a good understanding evolution and the concept of the "selfish gene" it is easy to see why this is true. A "well adapted", sucessful gene is be one that makes sure that it is replicated widely. Whether it is THIS particular gene, or others like it is irrelevant. Implicit in this is the gene's tendency to express this in a particularly intersting physical trait. It turns out that animals (and many other less complex organisms) are very good at discerning which other organisms are similar (ie. have similar genes). Most likely this will be expressed in the tendancy for an organism to value "similar" life over "non-similar" life. Humans have come up with a neat way of rationalizing this behavior, since we have very large brains we are quite adept at self-delusion. Typically, it boils down to religion, or the things similar to the simple aphorism "blood is thicker than water".
Finally, I'm going to plug this again. Most likely it will do no good, but c'est la vie.
"I have heard people arguing for (NOT against) "Big Bang" and expanding Universe on the Bible basis. It is actually amazing how many physicists are religious.. "
Yeah, I remember a Papal circular(?) that approved the Big Bang theory (gee -- thanks?). I don't think it strange at all that many physicists are religious. Anybody who has really looked around realizes the universe is an awesome place. If you think you know how it works, please think again, the one thing that science teaches over and over again is that there are no final answers. Physicists, more than most, are aware of this.
I get along very well with religious and spirtual people and even have mild leanings in that direction myself. Only those who want to mess with what other people's kids are taught draw my ire. I have no problems with discussing the problems with speciation and its unproved nature, but its the best theory we have to date. It deserves study, if only so one of those kids can successfully refute it later.
Jim
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
crumley
·
· Score: 1
I'm no fundamentalist, not by a long stretch of the imagination. I do, however, think that the jury's still out on evolution (not that I believe what's taught in Genesis, either). If evolution is the way things happened, then when it is proven, I will accept it with open arms. It seems a plausible theory to me. Creationism seems a bit far-fetched, but hey... who's to say there isn't a God that created everything? You can't prove his non-existence, and the most ardent and well-studied fundie can't prove his existence. That's why there's a thing called "faith".
`
Evolution's not proven in about the same sense that Newton's Theory of Gravitation was not proven 100 years ago. Its fits the data pretty damn well. Better theories might come along and extend it (like Einstein's General Theory of Relativity did for gravity), but its basically scientific fact.
Sure my analogy may be a little bit over-extended, but its Biology for Crissakes. Evolution is rock solid, and I think that anyone who says otherwise is really kidding themselves.
-- Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Even Richard Dawkins, by titling one of his books, "Climbing Mt. Improbable" tacitly acknowledges that evolutionary theory is in trouble.
Didja read the book, Gomer?
--
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Re:This != mandated creationism
by
richieb
·
· Score: 1
IMHO, evolution *is* just a theory, and shouldn't be taught as fact. Many non-religious scientists are questioning the tenets of evolution.
Have you heard of the Theory of Electricity? Ever seen electricity? If not, why are paying the electric bills...
Open your mind.
Yes, but not so widely that it falls out and you are left with a void between your ears.
...richie
-- ...richie - It is a good day to code.
I hear ya. I guess I just suck at HTML
by
grappler
·
· Score: 2
I suck at html guys. On my other post in this thread, I forgot my
tags, and unfotunately now it's just a mass of text that nobody will read. Perhaps I should repost it formatted correctly.
And now, judging from the replies to this post, I guess I should have used the tag, because people evedently need to see that. Come to think of it, I probably would have needed to forgoe the tag completely and used SARCASM instead;-)
BTW, I was not trying to be a troll. I was trying to make people laugh! Oh well.
I need to work on my HTML I guess.
-- Vidi, Vici, Veni
Where do you get your statistics?
by
Software+Cowboy
·
· Score: 1
I find that your 50% number is completely unbelievable. Where did it come from? As a guy married to a mathematician, I have learned to be extremely wary of unsubstantiated statistics (because every one that she sees she destroys with terribly efficient logic, even if she agrees with the point that it supposed to support)! Better to support your arguments with citations so they're more believable.
Which leads right to the question of how do you know god (or God is some like to put it) is a male? Is this just traditional (e.g., Mankind) or did you actually get a gander at some shlonage?
-kabloie
The Theory of Creationism
by
Ken+Broadfoot
·
· Score: 1
I could go with this. We could have both and debate from purely scientific observations. Basically the bible would not count in the debate.
I love the idea BUT you know how the fundies like to attack the word theory.
The Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics. Without ( indirectly ) you would never have had Linux.
However with Evolution, it is 'just a theory'.
Lets just be friends... ( sound familiar? )
I really doubt they ( the fundies ) would allow a a horrible word like 'theory' attached to a Fundamentalcase TRUTH like Creation.
Re:Age of the world
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The horse wasn't only building a hoof for 50M years, it was doing other things, too.
Evolution multi-tasks.
(f'instance, you'll note that we have 3 and 2 hooved animals, which are remnants of the journey. Also, the horse used to be 2ft tall)
Re:Cubits
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Silly man, the thing about solomon isn't even in the bible, it's in the Talmud where they are trying to calculate the circumference of a round object and use the pond as a way to figure out Pi. (It's in the tractate of Succah if you want to look, talking about how big a round succah needs to be.)
Can't we all just get along?
by
sidesh0w
·
· Score: 1
\begin{plea for sanity}
Christianity teaches that we are to love our neighbors, even our enemies---that we must not judge others, only gently correct their mistakes. One of the principles that makes Scientific Inquiry so valuable is that scientists must not jump to conclusions without solid evidence (it takes them longer to get from theory to fact than it takes an OSS project to get from beta to 1.0---it's the only sensible way to do things). But both groups of people (which are NOT mutually exclusive) have small, vocal groups of people breaking these rules.
Creation scientists should not be so harsh on scientists (e.g. disparaging the value of the theory of natural selection) because science is NOT a threat to Christianity. Conversely, geeks should not waste time flaming them or because Christianity is NOT a threat to science. Stories like the Creation of Genesis are about WHY we exist. Scientific theories (facts/whatever---I am not going to quible over semantics) like macro-evolution are about HOW we came to exist. There is no conflict because they work in _different_ fields.
I am asking you to please stop this senseless argument. Science and Christianity can work so well together! Remember that Darwin (the natural selection guy) planned to become a clergyman before visiting Galapagos, and Mendel (the heredity guy) grew his pea plants in a monastery. And there are plenty of other well-respected people in both fields who also don't see any conflict here.
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldrige of the American Museum of Natural History both anicreationists concluded that the Archaeopteryx cannot be viewed as a transitional form. To quote,"At the higher level of evolutionart transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between bauplane [basically different types of creatures] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record".
And no folssil evidence exists for pro-avis either.
Re:So...now what?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So, they can't teach evolution. They can't teach creationism. Read the article tough guy. It says that evolution is no longer required to be taught as it will no longer be included on the Kansas Standardized Tests.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
William+Aoki
·
· Score: 1
To find the last common ancestor (NOT hybrid) of mice and elephants, you would have to go far back in time, to early mammals. Elephants with thick fur (mammoths) have been extinct for a while, and AFAIK there have never been mice with trunks, because they diverged before elephant ancestors evolved anything resembling a trunk, and random mutations and natural selection have not resulted in a trunked rodent. You cannot pick two random distantly related species of dissimilar food, behavior, or habitat and expect to find individuals of one species with distinctive traits of another - it's pretty basic biology.
(You can, however, expect certain structures or other traits depending on how closely related certain species are, or what common foods or habitats they share. You can expect a four-chambered heart, closed circulatory system, placenta, and some hair/fur in elephants and mice because they are both placental mammals. You can also expect some similarities between animals that eat similar food in similar habitats in diffirent regions, but are only very distantly related.)
Evolution is not the single most important thing necessary to understand biology any more than it is the single most important thing necessary to understand computers. Understanding living organisms comes from understanding their building blocks.
"The trouble with biology is that it is full of facts. An unimaginable number of factual statements could be made about the few million species of organisms on earth. Someone once published an example of a college zoology exam from the pre-Darwinian era that required only the recitation of endless anatomical facts; the Darwinian paradigm changed that, and for a long time, biology was taught primarily as a collection of these facts organized around the principle of natural selection and the fact of evolution. Of course, students of biology must still learn many facts about the natural world, often fascinating facts that motivate them to continue their personal explorations. But as the science of biology matures, it should increasingly subsume facts under general principles and develop coherent general concepts. As our knowledge of molecular, cellular, and physiological processes has grown, that foundation emerges from the genetic conception of an organism: a structure that operates on the basis of information in its genome."
Burton Guttman, author of the College textbook Biology
-- "For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."
-From the Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits, by Lewis Carroll
Placing a story in a historical location != truth
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Parts of True Lies take place in the Florida Keys, but that fact makes True Lies no less fictional.
President Clinton is mentioned in episodes of numerous TV shows, but that makes them no more factual.
Anchoring a story in location and/or time does not make it true.
Yeah.. And Russians wear winter hats all the summer:)).. And Americans also invented first light bulb, life on the earth, first man in space was American and North America has only two countries...
(^ sarcasm:)
Re:American ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
American, are they stupid or what? Yup - we American's are so stupid, we went and invented the Internet and quite probably the web browser you used to tell us just how stupid we are. *sigh* If you think for a second that something like this is going to be allowed to persist then you need to re-examine whatever it is you think you know about this country.
Not all of us are nutcases =-]
by
Tony+Hammitt
·
· Score: 1
As a Kansas Republican, I take a little exception to your post.
Actually, I'm more of a libertarian. I think that for the most part, Christians are idiots. Maybe make that ignoramuses.
I just think that it is sad that the only political party that has a sound fiscal policy (i.e. 'butt the hell out') is one that has the totally ridiculous right-wing, bible oriented, pro-life policies.
Creationists are mostly uninformed about that which they are arguing. Most of those morons know what stock breeding is, they just refuse to see it as evolution (which it obviously is). Artificial selection it may be, but it _is_ evolution.
Evolution is 'changing the gene patterns of a population over time'. Period. That is all it claims to be. You can believe in natural selection (if you have a functioning brain) or you can believe in Lamarckian heritability of acquired traits, or even something as stupid as divine intervention. I personally don't care what a moron believes.
It bothers me when I talk to otherwise intelligent people who have said things like: 'I accept all of the evidence, I just don't believe in evolution.' Other than that, he's a normally functioning human. Weird, huh?
I've lost my point, but it's in there somewhere...
Re:Not all of us are nutcases =-]
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I believe in stock breeding, natural selection, unnatural selection, etc. I also know that evolution can't explain everything about how life on earth has reached the state is currently at. Anyone who has recently gone through a univerity program for biology or chemistry knows that.
Why are we argueing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why do "scientists" get so defensive about this topic? The whole point of the scientific method is that when used appropriatly you gain a LAW that cannot be doubted (ie. the law of gravity). The "Theory of Evolution" is not a theory that can ever be proven. This is not science. At best its technical supposition, but no more. Science deals with the domain of problems that can possibly be repeated and observed. Unless you're up to performing an experiment where you create life identical to human life, with controls, and repeat it *many* times...when you do let me know. Fossil records make great historical evidence (possibly enough to convict someone in court) but in the world of science it aint worth squat. In my opinion too many good scientists have wasted a lot of money trying to defend/refute evolution. Why, so they can hold on to their beliefs(Christian, atheist, etc)? What a waste. No amount of historical proof will ever change anyone's mind. On the other hand, If you'd like to know how evolution breaks down at the cellular level do a search on irreducibly complex systems.
The USA is apparently capible of all kinds of bullshit that I would have thought it incapible of by reading it's declaration of indpendance and constitution.
This is just one more stupid law, and not one of the worst ones
-- -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Re:Teaching as Theory Not Fact
by
Waldo
·
· Score: 1
"Theory is theory until proven, and shouldn't be represented as anything else until then."
A theory cannot be proven to be true. Theories can only be proven to be NOT true, like creationism.
SIC EM!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/commiss/bdaddr.html this anonymous kansan wants them to feel the slashdot effect. i give you the kansASS BORED of education.
I'm not very religious, but I am a Christian. There's a big difference between these two concepts. The former indicates an adherence to a set of ideals, whatever they may be -- there many to chose from. The later is something that I am, not something that I do.
Regardless of a humorous argument against the existence of god. Douglas Adams is a self described "rabid atheist". Check out this interview in American Atheist magazine.
I feel safer without guns
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sorry, but your story is pure nonsense. I live in the Netherlands, guns are outlawed here and i'm glad they are. At least I know i'm not likely to be shot when someone gets pissed off one way or another. Organised crime is not more present here as it is anywhere else, and why should i want to buy a gun when noone else has one? Besides, it's more likely you get shot when you DO have a gun, because the other one fears to be shot first (seems to be proven). Criminals do use guns, okay, but that is no argument for me to buy one ore make them 'freely' available for everybody. >>tried to get a login, but still waiting The Terrible One
No - it's lack of education
by
HunterD
·
· Score: 1
well if atheists are getting their arguments from the hitchhiker's guide, no wonder why there are so few of them left
I think it's more like: No wonder there are so few atheists left if school systems like Kansas keep having issues with rectal cranial inversion disorder. Of course you'll have less atheists if school systems teach kids not to think, but instead just allow for 'faith'.
Teach kids reason, and eventually you will have a society that is based on an ever increasing understanding of the world. Teach kids faith, and you will end up with a theocracy that outlaws thought.
Keep your religion to yourself, and let the rest of us continue to function in reality.
This sort of thing has long been observed in a-life experiments. Ever heard of Danny Hillis's 'ramps'? What happens is this- populations will appear to stagnate in extended plateaus of development. A great deal of change is going on at lower levels, but none of it 'sticks'. For instance, obGiraffeNeck, this is not one gene but an entire complex involving neck length, bone structure, a stronger heart, the amazing system of valves that keep the animal from immediately fainting when rapidly moving its head from high to low positions or vice versa... and all of this was churning around in the genetic populations, until some of the animals lucked out with all the right features to be effective giraffes- not as _extremely_ developed as current giraffes, but with all the primary characteristics. At this point the new giraffes basically outcompeted all the previous ones in that niche, and the seemingly new species was off and running (on long spindly legs, but not as long as the future giraffes would have). The genes are present in populations, but only when they come together in the right populations does the world change. It's not an abrupt jump or rapid evolving, it's the coming together of lots of little evolvings and mutations into a cohesive whole that's abruptly more effective than the previous populations. I, personally, subscribe to the view that there's some force that could just as well be called God as called anything else. I can't say as I understand it all that well- I doubt I ever will. However, my image of it, applied to the 'punctuated equilibrium' evolution, is of a Gardener God, caring for growing things, perhaps helping them along, understanding them deeply and trying to create beauty despite infestations of aphids;) It's extremely tiresome to be confronted with people who insist on a Puppetmaster God- effectively a much cruder sort of God who never works with anything, but only lays down orders and makes or breaks stuff and won't admit to the slightest interplay with His creations. Artists and creators who are any good are willing to sense what a creation is trying to become, like a sculptor trying to feel what shapes a rock wants to have- in many ways, the harmony of this is a lot more beautiful than just picking a big rock and laser-carving it into a prearranged shape with no interplay at all. In effect, this total rejection of evolution is the insistence on a total Luser God- and I reject it, preferring the idea of a Gardener God or Michaelangelo God that is creatively interested in all the raw materials, in which every sparrow that falls isn't some meaningless decree but a thing observed, accepted, perhaps even worked into the continuing act of creation. Having now professed to a belief in God, I will cheerfully allow myself to be mocked by a bunch of clever unbeliever Slashdotter kids;) but not, I think, by all Slashdotters, because there are all sorts out there, and I think some of them will appreciate what I'm trying to convey.
Whose fault is this really?
by
ThePolack
·
· Score: 1
I don't agree with the Kansas School Board's decision (being of sound mind), but I hardly see this as something get upset about. I've always believed that education should be controlled (and funded entirely) by states, and not federal govt. If the people in Kansas (the ones who voted at least) want to eliminate evolution from their schools, that is their right.
They're foolish for doing so, but being foolish is their right too. If you don't live in Kansas, get over it. If you do live in Kansas and you don't like this decision, maybe you should vote the next time school board elections come around. The only reason this happened is because those 'backward', 'primitive', 'radical conservatives' were smart enough to take advantage of everyone else's political apathy. If the 'enlightened' people in Kansas had enough sense to vote, this wouldn't have happened. If you neglect your duty to participate in the system, you give up your right to bitch about it. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that one out.
Darwin said nothing new, his contribution was to write books about that which had often been said before by others. He did, however, point out several serious flaws in the arguments for evolution, practically none of which have been satisfactorily answered. Not a safe form of idolatry.
The Grand Canyon is a flood feature created by a nearby giant lake that no longer exists. It wasn't cut by the Colorado. See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/hydropla te/refs/33.html for details.
They are more educated than you or I
by
slvrsrfr
·
· Score: 1
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Nat. Hist. (larges fossil collection of all) says,"If I knew of any evolutionary transitions, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book Evolution." Others include David Raup who is curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,...
There are many qualified people on BOTH sides of this debate. And these people are qualified to debate. No one here is that qualified, I certainly am not. But arrogant and childish positions on either side display ignorance.
I understand what you're going through right now.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You probably feel really stupid right about now for the post you just made, but let me gently take you through it and we can disect it together.
You probably feel doubly stupid, seeing that this isn't even really a troll the way it's worded. It's a joke, like the editorials in the Onion.
Note the use of "news-paper" giving it an old fashioned sound, and the use of single quotes around words, meant to make them sound completely alien to the writer.
Observe how he wrote wistfully of lost innocence. I lauged pretty hard reading that. How about the contraction ape-brutes, which effectively makes the author sound like an idiot prude?
And if none of that tipped you off, how about evil-lution? Come on! And then there's the talk about a man who just wants to get himself into heaven, as if that is the most noble thing in the world. And I really like the talk about the "fancy words" of the intellectual class - I have actually heard that phrase uttered, in that context, by bigots.
And the opening about the 10 commandments and the closing about how religion is *never* used for evil did a great job of opening and closing the post. The last sentance was just plain laughable.
Personally I think that this post should be moderated up - it is one of the best attacks on bigotry I've read in a while. It covers all the main things I have against bigots. Could be a little more lively in tone, but very good.
Just my 2 cents
The Flood
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apperently a great flood did happen, although it didn't hit the entire world.
The last ice age was comeing to a close. People had (re)settled most of the world and most importantly the water levels were low. Well the ice caps began to melt. This caused theoceans and some seas to rise. Most important to this post is the mediteranian and the black seas. The mediteranian, with a gateway to the atlantic rose. The Black sea didn't, the two seas wern't attached for the first little while. But then the dam burst, (well over flowed). This sent millions of gallons of water into the black sea basin. Which by this time had been well populated. The water level rose quite quickley.
I think this was in the National Geo. Right place a little earlyer, but then again they found a very similar story from some time earlier in an Indian religion.
Don't be so quick to judge
by
Adam+Knapp
·
· Score: 1
If you actually read the article, the Republican Govenor of Kansas instructed the school board not to do that. Note: I'm not a Republican.
Open, unconvinced of anything, and proud of it
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
I feel fairly convinced that mankind's evolution on Earth from primordial chemicals within the reality that we perceive is "proven" (as much as it could ever be) by Darwin's theory. But my mind is still totally open on the question of the origins of the universe. There's even the disturbing possibility, raised by many religions but especially Hinduism/Buddhism, that somehow this isn't a solid reality, but rather a dream state or illusion of sorts (which, as an argument, makes an unarguable end run around science completely, because science and "reality" themselves are subsumed as part of the dream).
Anyway, how this all got here, and more importantly *why*, seems to be one hell of a mystery (to us). So I can't say there's no universe-creating-being with surety, *but* it seems quite remote to me that Christianity (or any other earth based religion) is literally correct. Seems to me we're all just guessing. Even Science is really just guessing that Objective Reality (what human beings can perceive) is all there is. What's more, it makes no attempt (nor should it, necessarily) to understand the 'why' of the universe's existence. In light of all this logical and reasonable doubt, Fundamentalist Christianity seems crazy to me. I guess that's why it's a Faith. But given that God (the Fundamentalist Christian one, anyway) really only exists through man's faith, isn't He rather like an imaginary friend for adults?
Yep... if evolution was decisively proven (and it's not by a long shot), I could believe God used evolution to create... no problem. It would just mean parts of the Bible are a little more interpretive than we currently think.
Theistic evolution is a rather common explanation actually.
As for myself, I'll stick with 6 day creationism until it's TOTALLY disproven... God said it, and I see no reason to not believe it.
haha i payed something like 46% of my income to taxes and i live in Alberta where provincal taxes are low
We also pay a healthcare primium, which while not as high is private healthcare, is still vary high. We also have huge waiting lists for such things as CRTs and CAT scans, unless you pay the $1000 and have it done privatly.
Re:Dinos
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While many of the "nutty religious folk" might disagree with me, you might want to take another look at the animals described in the last few chapters of Job. For instance:
His snorting throws out flashes of light, his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
Out of his mouth flames go, sparks of fire shoot forth! Smoke streams from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over burning rushes. His breath sets coals ablaze and a flame darts from his mouth.
Actually, no, the book of Revelation is almost 2000 years old. Believed to be written by the Apostle John while in imprisonment on the isle of Patmos I believe. Likely written in the last two decades of the first century. So over 1900 years old.
The whore of Babylon, who sitteth on the 7 hills?
by
leonbrooks
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, right.
That's something that Rome is working very hard for, and Jesuit-educated Bill Clinton is helping them out lots. If you really want the Dark Ages back, you can do one of two things:
1. Make laws against religion.
...or...
2. Make laws to aid religion.
Laws forcing the unproven theory of evolution to be taught in public schools fall into class 1.
Laws forcing the possibly unprovable theory of special creation by divine fiat to be taught in public schools fall into category 2.
What Kansas has done is the right thing, but probably for the wrong reasons. It will be sad if they desert category 1 only to rush over into category 2.
But history, which we stubbornly refuse to learn from, says that they will try.
"And how accurate were those cubit-based measurements?"
God wrote the bible. The bible is Gods words. Those measurements were as accurate as God could measure them and as accurate as God could describe them. You can not go around saying one portion of the bible is not accurate without calling the accuracy of the entire thing into question. God is omnipotent he know what he was doing when he wrote that.
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But if you DID have guns, you STILL wouldn't be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Because THEY would ALSO have guns. Besides, everyone over 18 gets a weapon with which they can overthrow a tyrannical gov't. It's called a vote. And EVRYBODY uses THOSE, don't they? (sic) I don't think there's a single gunshop in the city where I live(500,000 ppl), and I'm HAPPY about that. Of course, those are 500,000 Canadian ppl... so with the exchange rate, that's 333,000 American ppl. Torgen
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.--Arthur C. Clarke
Here's my second try at good HTML ;-)
by
grappler
·
· Score: 2
Look at it a little more closely. Nowhere is it implied that Creationism will be taught explicitly, nor does it state that science will be abolished completely.
True. What the people that really passed this would like to do is ban evolution and instate mandatory creationism. They are not for a completely open, unitarian several religion approach. But they know that mandatory creation in schools isn't going to happen so they passed this instead.
Simply put, people want to keep their religious beliefs strong because it's what gives them meaning in life. I'm a Christian, and sometimes I just can't see how many others can go on living.
I find that very sad indeed. Basically you are saying that if someone managed to convince you beyond any doubt that we share common ancestry with other primates on this planet (and I have the feeling that would take a lot of convincing) that life would lose all meaning, because we as humans would not be quite so Special anymore.
Consider this: There are middle grounds between Atheistic evolution and young earth creationism. Many people, for instance, believe that evolution did take place the way the fossil record shows, but was guided by an omnipresence (god if you like) rather than cold probabilities. If this were the case, would life still be devoid of meaning?
IMO, mandatory evolution curriculum (and in the school format, in order not to fail many science classes, one must acknowledge it as perfect truth) is quite detrimental to religious freedom.
This is like saying hundreds of years ago that the earth-orbits-the-sun theory is detrimental to religious freedom. Many religions simply did not want to accept that we are not smack dab in the middle. The difference is that it has been proven beyond even the faintest shadow of a doubt that the earth does indeed orbit the sun. It has only been proven beyond a shred of doubt that species on this planet have, in fact, evolved and diverged.
To change the topic a little, what exactly makes the evolution theory any more valid than any other?
Evolution is a theory that has been written and tested with the scientific method using evidence, experiments in petri dishes, observations of different populations, and a huge supply of buried fossils.
Every other explaination of the origins of humanity that I can think of is a story, passed down from generation to generation.
1. An intelligent Being created the universe and set it into motion with order and design, and created beings with free will--man. But man disobeyed, and imperfection bred imperfection, setting the 2nd law of thermodynamics into effect...
Thermodynamics??????? Huh? Thermodynamics is a physics term, and I don't think it can be applied to 'imperfections' in somebody's character.
2. Chaos became order, and shortly after everything materialized, the laws of the universe shifted radically--instead of things gradually becoming more orderly, they became subjected to entropy. Except for living beings, which, for some reason, defied this by evolving into better-adjusted beings.
Simple: You are implying that evolution is proposterous in the same way that it would be proposerous to leave a pile of dirt on the table and watch it turn into an apple (instead of the other way around). There is an apparent paradox in that the environment on earth has gotten much more complex with all these forms of life instead of more simple. Well, this only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system - it has the nearby sun constantly adding energy to it. If you look at the whole galaxy as a closed system, it would work, because the burning in a star is an increase in entropy and the earth represents a small section of the system with decreasing entropy.
No, I'm not in favor of shoving ANY system of beliefs down anyone's throat. It's just not the way a theory begins to take root into someone's mind to convince them. I think the curriculum should lay out several different worldviews (I'm not talking a course in theology--just a few simple examples).
Evolution is not about beliefs - it is about reasoning and deduction.
-- Vidi, Vici, Veni
Life is towards entropy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I remember reading this in A Brief History of Time, it said that just by living you increase the entropy of the universe. How? Sure, you are an organized being, but how much food did you break down, (towards disorder) how much heat do you release, (even more disorder) to exist. The creation of a small organized thing (you) required the creation of much more disorder. Hawking used this to argue why we perceive time forward (towards disorder and maximum expansion of the universe - highest disorder.) So, evolution is towards more order (from single cells to complex lifeforms) and all this created more disorder (ultimately released as heat).
THIS IS NOT SCIENCE
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why do "scientists" get so defensive about this topic? The whole point of the scientific method is that when used appropriatly you gain a LAW that cannot be doubted (ie. the law of gravity). The "Theory of Evolution" is not a theory that can ever be proven. This is not science. At best its technical supposition, but no more. Science deals with the domain of problems that can possibly be repeated and observed. Unless you're up to performing an experiment where you create life identical to human life, with controls, and repeat it *many* times...when you do let me know. Fossil records make great historical evidence (possibly enough to convict someone in court) but in the world of science it aint worth squat. In my opinion too many good scientists have wasted a lot of money trying to defend/refute evolution. Why, so they can hold on to their beliefs(Christian, atheist, etc)? What a waste. No amount of historical proof will ever change anyone's mind. On the other hand, If you'd like to know how evolution breaks down at the cellular level do a search on irreducibly complex systems.
When you a search on irreducibly complex systems, I certainly hope you'll find this refutation of the primary proponent of the concept, Michael Behe.
Arguing against the reliability of evolution without proposing any (extremely detailed) alternative scenario is like arguing against the existence of DNA.
DNA IS JUST A THEORY.. GOD MIGHT BE MAKING ALL THOSE SCIENTISTS SEE DNA WHEN IT'S NOT REALLY THERE!!
Silly, right? Unfortunately, the DNA theory is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolutionary theory.
Re:THIS IS NOT SCIENCE
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>Arguing against the reliability of evolution >without proposing any (extremely detailed) >alternative scenario is like >arguing against the existence of DNA. Really?! So if something is wrong, it is best to accept it until something better comes along. You seem to have a fear of not being able to explain exactly how something happened. Better to not beleive anything than to beleive something that is obviously incorrect. >Unfortunately, the DNA theory is one of the >strongest pieces of evidence for evolutionary >theory. Wrong. Our idea of how DNA works fits equally well into the hypotheses of creation and evolution. Therefore, it can not be used to support either over the other. Joel Mawhorter
The foremost biologist says evo is INEVITABLE!!!
by
Analogue+Kid
·
· Score: 1
Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years.
I'm afraid that you are sorely misinformed. The formost biologist in the world is Christian DeLuve, nobel lauriate. He wrote a book called Vital Dust that explains how the emergence of life and evolution not only could have happened, but that it is inevitable on any planet with similar conditions. Modern science does not hold that the first cell appeared in 'the instant the oceans stopped boiling'. It is a long chemical process, but a downhill one(as far as enthalpy is concerned) at every step. Oh, and by the way, there have significant changes since the 'Cambrian explosion'. Mammals are one such change...
Actually, species is pretty well defined. Two creatures are of different species if they cannot interbreed. Although, I am not sure how this is defined for asexual reproducing creatures.
So , while an artificial distinction, it is pretty easy to say whether a new species is seen to evolve and should be possible to observe in the laboratory with some short lived insects by taking two populations and applying a stress to those populations that will cause selection to take place as better adapted individuals survive over less adapted ones. It might take a couple of years, but after a lot of generations we should have two populations cannot interbreed.
Actually, the problem of defining species has occupied quite a bit of research. The best they have been able to come up with (as far as I can see, I'm not a scientist of any sort) is to define it differently for a ton of different specialties.
For a ton of information about this stuff go to: http://wbar.uta.edu/resources/!resourc.htm
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Imagine that god did indeed intervene in everyday life, imagine further that you would be punished and rewarded immediately if you did something wrong/right - does that sound like an opressive way to live? Further, god gave people free choice. If god acted as I wrote above there would be no free choice.
If you take this to the logical conclusion, if god acted this way, man could never grow as a whole. So instead god allowed people to decide if to believe or not. Now it's your choice, no one is forcing you. (This is why the crusades were so horrible (and missionaries too), the entire point of religion is that it's something you choose, not something forced on you.
Further, to get back to the point, suppose you found proof of creation. Wouldn't that go against the entire conscept here? The only logical conclusion is that we will never find proof of creation, because to do so would be to rob humans of free will - something god doesn't want.
This is also why the argument is pointless. God designed the world so that there will always be some way for people to not need to believe in him. I admit I wonder at evolution since it's such a bad theory, I wouldn't believe in it even if I had never heard of god. Scientifically it just doesn't work.
Re:2+2=5
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm really sick and tired of hateful atheists.
Don't get me wrong, I think if you don't want to believe in God, that's fine, but there are those like this Stitchley fellow who all preach the same mantra: Everyone who believes in God is an idiot, we're all freaking morons who are Nazis that want to brainwash America.
I will admit that there are religious people who are like that. And I don't like them any more than you do, but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in a higher being is a fool.
What is ironic is that Stitchley has become that which he hates. He is just as fanatical and vengeful as religious zealots, yet because he doesn't believe in God, his opinion is superior.
As I said, I am open to opinions, but not to blatant prejudice.
My 2 cents
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My view on the big debate between science and religion is that there doesn't need to be a debate. Science and religion can coexist, but so far each seems bent on destroying the other.
To the hardline fundamentalists out there, get a grip. Evolution does not disprove the Bible, it merely demonstrates that you can't take Genesis literally. Considering that a new species of mosquito has occurred from having been trapped in the London subways, denying evolution is getting to be like denying the round Earth. If I had to tell an imature, inexperienced human race where it came from, saying that humans were "molded out of clay" is about how I'd put it too.
I have an even bigger problem with the atheist jack*sses that insist that evolution disproves the existence of God. Take one look at the human hand, with all its moving parts, complex wiring and piping systems: In spite of it's flaws it's a pretty well-designed "accident." Deal with it people: There exist advanced robots with AI that evolves behavior its creators can't explain, but even with evolution working in AI, it needed the push of a higher intelligence to get started. The universe has much chaos, but overall is just too well organized to be one great big accident.
I condemn the religious leaders who demand we reject science before accepting God, and I equally condemn the scientists bent on trying to "kill" religion with scientific theory.
--WH Seattle, WA
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Did you go to school in Kansas also? Where do people get the misconception that evolution says humans evolved from monkeys? Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys tens of millions of years ago.
Why are there still monkeys? Well, why are there still fish? Doesn't it seem reasonable that monkeys are more fit to live in the jungles of the Congo and the mountains of Japan than Humans?
I think you'll agree that we Humans have pushed monkeys and apes into very small habitats.
DS
Re:God is Big
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why should god need to have a sex? Just because you do? God isn't male or female - the entire consept is nuts if applied to god. We just say he because gramatically if you don't know if it's male or female you use male.
Your precious FAQ is full of the same demonstrably wrong assumptions as most of the argument herein.
If somebody dies for something, it doesn't prove that thing to be true. Same goes for feeling smug about something. Neither heroism nor agreement are a substitute for real thought and presonal accountability.
Re:This is church/state separation at work
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
>the evidence for evolution is very shakey
It is not shakey, and it's breadth is staggering. Evolution has correctly predicted many, many observations about life on earth. The bits that can be argued are *not* the central thesis of Darwin -- that speciation occurred via a mutable genetic material, from a common ancestor. The evidence for this is vast.
> An eye that almost works, like code that almost works, is useless.
No, also wrong. See "The Blind Watchmaker" for an overview of eyes that "almost work", and are being used by organisms alive today.
Firstly- people have generated amino acids in test tubes without _too_ much trouble. Secondly- huh? (admittedly not the most intelligent reaction.) By who? Did they get any data on it, like take a photo or something? Thirdly- uh. Actually there have been lots of changes... Fourthly- sure! I'd buy that:) To sum it up- I'm honestly very puzzled that on the one hand you postulate a something that created life and continues to act on it, and then on the other hand you insist that it actually _isn't_ acting on life and hasn't been for years, and presumably is finished. I'd beg to disagree- this is effectively stating that God is Dead and no longer has any input to add into the world. I consider that a shocking belief, and think that it's much more plausible that God (whatever God is) came up with evolution, in much the way that programmers came up with compilers and makefiles rather than typing in each binary bit one at a time. If you ever heard of quantum mechanics, you'd realize that on some levels everything and nothing is random- and so evolution isn't really random chance, but the workings of a world-sized mechanism incomprehensibly too complex for any human to grasp. Adding evolution to the mechanism, so that it is self-maintaining and modifies itself, clearly makes it that much more complicated and difficult. It appears that you believe God cannot cope with such a complexity, so you limit your view of God to something that can manage complexities _you_ can understand. I consider this sad but understandable- it's disconcerting to contemplate the idea of a God that not only knows better than us, but is on such a higher level as to be almost incomprehensible him, her or itself. However, limiting your God to be an entity that we humans can understand is an injustice.... (weirding out slashdotters for fun and profit:) )
I guess I didn't make myself clear, and I apologize.
I have no problem with the thought that evolution may be wrong.. However, it should be taught that it is one of the best theories we have to explain our observations. To not teach it because it is not proven is a disservice to our youth.
I also have no problem teaching creationism, however, what basis do we teach it on? In its truist form, it does not fit observation well. If we teach it as something that is believed as true by many (though not as many as evolution, if the 1994 statistic is still true), then what 'magic number' do we cut off teaching 'believed' theories at? if 10,000,000 people believe it, we teach it, but if only 9,999,999 do, we do not?
I truly do think this matter deserves more thought, and while I am for separation of church and state, we can not clothe our youth in ignorance of the beliefs of religions any more than the beliefs of scientists. However, stopping the teaching of our 'best bet' theory of how humans came to be is not the answer we need.
Our science progresses by teaching our best bet to those who would extend it, disprove it, or revamp it. Not teaching it means it will most likely never be disproven or improved upon... only 'rediscovered' to have the battle start again.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> and then goes way out of his way to help people come up with all sorts of explanations of alternate ways things could happen.
Yup, that exactly right - if people had no choice in the matter, how exactly are you going to reward them for doing the right thing? Not to mention that it prevent humans from having free choice.
> A god who trys to make us not believe in him so we'll go to hell.
Only problem with that is it's not true. You won't go to hell, you'll be recycled to try again. (PS. A lot of the difficulty people have with religion is due to the christians, they made a number of mistakes when creating their religion which result in a large number of areas where problems occur. Just to start, the entire consept that people are created "bad" is bunk, and so is the devil. God runs hell, not the devil, he uses it to clean souls that are going to be recycled. (Man am I simplifying.))
Re:Intro to Hebrew Literature 101
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"it is nevertheless true that the Bible is infallible when it addresses any issue"
Interesting position to take. From a logic standpoint, however, you leave yourself open to certain arguments disproving the validity of the entire bible. Since there are three creation stories int he bible, and they are not all identical, which is correct?
While there may not be actual indications in the Hebrew that the creation stories are to be taken in any manner other than literal, there are many places in the bible which use parables, poetry, etc. to demonstrate God's intentions. also remember that all bibles are not alike. Not only to Roman Catholics and protestants have different bibles, but translation differ. That being said, I personally need logical ways to believe in God, since I believe what Pascal said: you cannot prove ther is a God, but you can prove you should believe in God (or thereabouts). It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many Christians, that the Bible should be believed as a statement of faith, not a history book. If you spend hours arguing about the type of fish that swallowed Jonah, you miss the entire point of the story: one can never hide from God. The entire message of the story, for me, seems to be this. The creation stories are the same. If you argue about how God created the earth, and when it happened, you miss the entire point: God created everything. As far as I'm concerned, God created the Big Bang, then earth, and then started evolution. Or didn't start evolution and just allowed it to happen. Either way, the religion is NOT dependent on the science, and vice versa. I have heard of many ministers (Lutheran, not some new age denomination) which have students MAKE UP a creation story for the bible. The point being that the creation stories provide a tangible story in which God created the world, not a play-by-play historical account.
Requiring the bible to be literally true in every sense forces any argument about it into a true/false argument. If any littel point in the bible is ever disproven, then the entire bible is incorrect. Seems to me to be a pretty fragile foundation for a religion! The bible mentions nothing of evolution, yet even the VATICAN has expressed acceptance of evolution (it doesn't recognize Man as a part of this evolution though). I tried looking for a vatican reference, but had difficulty translating all the Latin in the search results.....
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Trepidity
·
· Score: 2
Ahh, so God did all the stuff the Bible describes, but then planted evidence to try to trick us into thinking otherwise?
Re:Violent overthrow of USA.... How many guns?
by
Sun+Tzu
·
· Score: 2
You don't shoot tanks with handguns and hunting rifles -- but that doesn't mean they don't exert a restraining force on government. Government leaders and military leaders' families and friends live throughout the countryside.
I'm sure that the leaders of China would have thought much longer and harder before bringing in the army and tanks against their own protesting citizens if guns were distributed throughout the civilian population of China. And, no, it wouldn't be because they were worried about the soldiers and tanks getting shot.;)
I just need to comment from a Christian perspective.
First, I disagree with removing evolution from the curriculum. I do not see where evolution and God are diametrically opposed. To me Genesis chapters 1 and 2:1-3 have always been an allegory for actions God took,(creation), that are beyond my understanding. The same way infinity, eternity, omniscience, and omnipresence are bigger than my mind's ability to wrap itself around. In short, I can reconcile my faith and science. (I struggle, but my solution is not "Bury your head in the sand.")
What bugs me is the type of arguments that I'm seeing made in this discussion. Emotional attacks (I was scarred for life by my Christian parents!), stereotypes (All Christians agree with this action!), and insults (All Christians believe in strict Creationism, and therefore must be stupid!).
Belive it or not, there are many intelligent Christians out there, and some (gasp!!) might be more intelligent than you (there are plenty smarter than me). Before attacking their beliefs, character, intelligence, etc., you might want to read what they have to say. I'd suggest starting with Reasons to Believe.
You might find some provocative arguments to research further.
I have to agree with jeff concerning this. Though I'm certainly not a Christian, I still think it's a shame that the most visible Christians tend to be those that feel the need to shove their religion in your face. It casts a poor light on the intelligent and respectable Christians who really do respect the beliefs of others. Those that would generalize all Christians based on the behaviour of the fanatics are not only viewing the issue with blinders on, but are really doing exactly the same thing as the fanatics: stepping all over someone else's beliefs and placing theirs right on top.
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
mulley
·
· Score: 2
Right-wing has nothing to do with anything. Fundamentalist Christian ethics (if the terms can be used together non-oxymoronically) have little or nothing to do with conservatism or the "Right Wing".
Please... you're serious? Historically, right-wing and religious (particularly Protestant) fundamentalism have been very close. Look at voting patterns for, say, people from the Bible Belt who consider themselves very religious. Think they're all voting Democrat? I think not. If I remember correctly, the Christian Coalition - basically fundamental Protestantism incorporated - had troubles with its charitable-organisation status because it was distributing "voting guides" that essentially said "vote Republican". Not in those words - instead it gave a list of issues, and gee whiz! guess which party was campaigning on those issues?
Also, while conservatism maybe literally mean "preserving the status quo", words change meaning. In today's world, it is the name for right-wing political beliefs, which often mean changing things. In some cases the status quo is preserved (watching kids shoot each other and saying "What? Safety locks on guns? That's horrible! Read the Consitution! It'll be the end of our nation!") and in others it is not (you mean conservatives have been known to advocate cutting taxes? You must be joking!).
I could also start rebut your comments about what you do with your money, but it's a debate that has happenned oh-so-many times before. You are of course exxagerating things - I particularly like the bit about the starving wood owls, consdering America's environmental record - but again, I won't argue it. You are right wing, I (and the original poster) am not. But to deny that a severe case of Protestantism is linked with right-wing politics is closing your eyes to the obvious - kind of like not teaching evolution in schools.
Re:not oulawing, just not requiring it anymore
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You don't want education to offend?
But, surely the whole point to education is to offend. A person who can't read is offended that everybody else can. A person who can't add is offended by people who can do Calculus. A person who knows nothing but country music is offended by Beethoven (Just try it on your country music friends).
It is a great big mysterious world out there, outside of Kansas. Don't be offended when you encounter people and ideas that are completely (gasp) un American.
Re:Evolution is the most useful model
by
Micah
·
· Score: 1
>>If creation is also a good model, we should see some biological/scientific use for it. Does it help predict behaviors? Does it help explain similarities in plant and animal species? Does it yield a method of classification?
Good question actually.
Actually creationism probably can't be DIRECTLY applied to science since God is not bound by the laws of physics and therefore not predictable (in that sense).
But he did tell everything to reproduce "after its own kind". Perhaps that accurately predicts the behavior that we're not seeing new species evolve.:-)
The theory of evolution has been proven a thousand times. Not in a mathematical sense (life doesn't easily come down to an equation), but in every other possible sense it is beyond reasonable doubt. God, on the other hand, is a human invention (most modern religions were created in historical times, for which tons of historical documentation exists). To treat science (a serious inquiry into the nature of the world we live in) and religion (a collection of ignorant superstitions) as equals is insane. This is just another sign of the general cultural decline we're living through right now.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
akharon
·
· Score: 1
> well, the gorilla is genetically closer to human > then to orangutan
Someone above said that oragutans are the closest primate to humans. If gorillas are closer to us that to oragutans, then what are gorillas? Which is closer?
Please find me a knowledgable biologist who believes that the differences between races and species is not a difference of degree, and not of kind. That is, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution except in the minds of people who don't know better.
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Re:Nobody's loss but Kansas ..
by
Chandon+Seldon
·
· Score: 1
Hey, it's still the Theory of Evolution, reguardless of how obvious it is until it can be unquestionably proven scientifically. I mean, the sun OBVIOUSLY revolves around the earth, right? The earth is OBVIOUSLY a flat disk, I can see the edges!
Even the the principals of physics developed by Newton, Einstien, etc are still theories... and might possibly be incorrect.
Always remember - Almost anything can be disproven, almost nothing can be proven.
-- -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
kabloie
·
· Score: 1
Help the lowly./ reader with some evidence that all these cool things that god hath wrought actually happened.
The flood was supernatural. Great. Which one? The one that all those geologists and hydrologists are studying and presenting results about? Hmm, haven't seen anything about the sea level rising 4000 meters in any of the science journals going across my desk recently!
Oh, I forgot, 99% of them are closed minded! Whoopsie! The good ones, those with open minds, are at the University of Kansas. I'm sure they know all about that flood 3000 years ago. Go ask 'em!
There is a story about some American Legislature having considered a bill to legislate, for religious reasons, the biblical value of pi=3. I have found no confirmation of this story; very probably it grew out of an episode that actually took place in the State Legislature of Indiana in 1897.
Apparently what really happened is that someone decided that he had solved the old and impossible problem of squaring the circle. He then offered his discovery to Indiana royalty-free in exchange for them recognizing his mathematical truth. The legislation seems to imply that pi=16/sqrt(3)=9.2376... among other values. A Purdue professor finally noticed the legislation and that was the end of that. What a pity Kansas ignores its professors...
I highly recommend Beckmann's book to anyone interested in the subject. It's a great read and often hillarious.
Re: But what you say is not TRUE.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Any more than creationism - both are possible explanations to how life came to be. People dig and find a human skeleton and dig more and find a rat skeleton and suddenly swear that our ancestors must have been rats. All evolutionary paths are just guesses - theories." Wrong. "creationism" is based on myth and dogma, and there is no evidence WHATSOEVER to back it up. Evolution, on the other hand, is perhaps the strongest theory there is based on mountains of evidence. For a whole new species to emerge, though, it will take time... thousands or millions of years. But it is unlikely not to happen.
Except....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ants can see man, god chooses to show up in obscure places where only a handfull of people notice. Like between two pieces of glass in a building, inside a burrito in mexico, or in a strangely colored stain on the floor of a subway.
New Proverb
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Religious fundamentalism is one of the defense mechanisms of ignorance.
that's why you say you're an _agnostic_ athiest
by
abamfici
·
· Score: 1
Alright, agnostic athiest breaks down like this:
You don't believe in god/higher being unless you see (or otherwise experience) *proof* of existance. Like I don't believe in Santa Claus. But if I see a fat man flying thru the sky in a sled being pulled by some deer, I will.
So basically an open non-believer. Much better than a closed believer if you ask me.
~Kevin :)
Re:that's why you say you're an _agnostic_ athiest
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
You make it sounds like I'm waiting expectantly for God or something. To add to my healthy list of skeptical thoughts...
- The Universe might have no beginning - I may have no inherent existence - Reality may not exist the way we think it does - I might be trapped in Samsara or a Dream World - I don't necessarily think I'll find out one way or the other - It may not be possible for *anyone* to know how the Universe was created - Knowing how the Universe came into being doesn't explain *why* it's here
I don't think I fully believe or disbelieve any of these things. There's just not enough evidence. Worse, it may be logically impossible to have enough evidence!
Re:that's why you say you're an _agnostic_ athiest
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
Well, yes. But I'm not that concerned about omnipotent beings manipulating my thoughts (although I admit that to be a possibility). What I'm suggesting more subtle, more simple and perhaps impossible to disprove. Suppose that everything is exactly the way we perceive it, and yet our Reality turns out not to be the extent of things at all. Rather it's just a dream state. A bit like the problem of the pushing and popping potions in Godel Escher Bach... it's confusing, and once you become aware of the possibility of systemic containment, nobody can ever be sure what's *outside* the system. Not even a god (should He or they exist) can know for sure that they are the extent of things, as they would be subject to the same kind of problem. Is there any "outside"? Are we just flatlanders who can't see some extra dimension? Is there only one Universe or are there an uncountably infinite number of them? One thing for sure about life... it's both beautiful and horrible... from a human perspective, anyway.
I wrote another comment a little further down entitled "Theory vs. Law" that defines the difference between theory and law better than I'm going to do here. Basically, a law is NOT a theory that has more evidence. A theory is a series of ideas that attempt to explain why certain phenomena occur. A law is a statement about certain relationships that exist in nature.
In essence something can BOTH be a theory AND a fact since a fact is just something that is considered to be undenyable truth. So if a theory has so much support that it is undenyable it is NOT considered a law, it is considered a fact AND a theory.
-
--
- It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
We have Freedom of Religion. What we need is Freedom FROM Religion.
Contracting universe not thermodynamic paradox!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nope. The universe cannot experience "heat death" so long as it is expanding. Expansion keeps "diluting" the existing stock of entropy. If the universe were static or contracting, then the problem would exist, but an expanding universe amounts to an infinite heat sink.
Hawking has postulated that wheather the universe is expanding or contraction; neither violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Picture it this way:
(1) Two objects far apary have more energy the the same objects close together because it took energy to overcome their mutual gravity and sepatate them. (2) The universe is expanding, moving apart, thus gaining (gravitationally) energy. However as it expands, it cools, thus losing energy. (3) A contracting universe loses energy (gravitationally) by means of matter moving closer together. However as the universe contracts it heats up, thus gaining energy.
Hawking postulates that these two complimentary energy measurements exactly cancel each other out. The TOTAL ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE is therefore EXACTLY ZERO.
w00p
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Recycled to try again?? That sounds like eternal life. I'm definately up for living my life over and over again, not making mistakes. Like buying stock in IBM and Xerox in the 70's, and Yahoo in the 90's.
What about a state with guns?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Waaaait a second here. By stating "a country without guns is a police state" you're implicitly saying that "a country with guns is not (or at least less likely to be) a police state."
What about countries with LOTS of guns? Like oh say, Afghanistan? Rwanda? Israel? Yeah, yeah! No police states there!
I mean, okay, Switzerland is pretty keen and all, but I don't think the theory holds. I really don't see them whining about the high tax rates and threatening to shoot people.
Okay, so you might not think of Japan and Britain as the "most free" nations in the world. But come on, they're certainly "more free" than the majority of the world's population. The social contract entails giving up some freedoms, that's the way society works.
The question is whether the Swiss model would work here. Would Americans be responsible gun owners? Hard to say, especially considering most pro-gun folks say they want the guns so they can shoot people*. Depending on one's reading of the complications to game theory, it's impossible to say whether uzis for all would be good or bad in the long run. But in the short run, I think it's pretty safe to say a lot of people would get shot.
I admit, my being pro-gun control is a totally selfish act. I like my ass intact. I would much rather have no guns, period, than have a gun and be worrying about shooting someone before they shoot me. I concede, this attitude abridges your right to shoot at me. But you're not supposed to be shooting at me anyway!
I'm not for an all out banning of guns, obviously that wouldn't be effective. But that upping the fee and checking into gun dealers, that WAS effective. Thus, supportable in my book.
I'll stand against what God calls sin. It's very sad that some misguided folks out there think this means you have to hate people to take this stand. They need to remember that Jesus loved everyone, unconditionally. That's what I try to do, because of his example, and because of his love for me, myself a sinner.
I'll also keep sharing the Good News of what the Messiah has done for me. If you don't want to listen, I can respect that. You have free will, after all. Again, it's very sad that some misguided folks out there think that sharing Good News means shouting in others' faces when they don't agree.
I don't understand what you mean by stripping individuality away. I love ska; my mom hates it. I'm a computer geek; my girlfriend is glad she can figure out email. My buddy Adam has a tattoo and multiple piercings; I wouldn't consider it. One thing we have in common is that we all love our Creator. Sometimes that's the only thing we have in common. Christianity has enormous diversity.
People have brought more suffering on others than anything else. It's people who make the choices they do.
I'm one of the least bigoted people I know. I do my best to follow the example set by the Messiah, Jesus: to love God and love others. Unconditional love does not mean I throw out my moral convictions. Some things are right and others are wrong. Does it offend you that I refuse to see the world on a sliding scale? But anyone can be redeemed from past sin.
Alot of people wear the title "Christian" pretty casually. Do they do their best to live it? Probably not, hence your designation of hypocrite may be justified. I fail, too, but there's always remorse and repentance. I keep on trying.
There's alot of room for variation within certain boundaries. It's what allows Christians to remain individuals. I find that the fundamentals as outlined by the Assemblies of God denomination sum up fairly well what Christians need to believe in. But there's alot of variation when it comes to areas beyond those, or even levels within those.
People do evil, not God. Would you really want to live a life run by a dictator who really did have the power to make you do/say/think everything he wanted you to? Because only the suspension of free will can eliminate evil. Without the capacity to do evil, there can't be the capacity to do good. It's a choice we make every moment of every day.
CT
Re:I concur, but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You are a Christian, but you do not adhere to a set of ideals? How do you distinguish yourself from an atheist? It is infuriating, this Pauliannish acceptance of FAITH and FEELING over rigor and consistency. You really think it's adequate to proclaim evolution as a universal myth with a grin and without further justification - your approach seems sadly typical of the rejoicing responses to the devastating report from Kansas.
It's the Republicans, stupid!
by
zaks
·
· Score: 1
I think more than anything, this story shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Repuiblican Party in this country. They're never afraid of kids having access to guns, but what ARE they afraid of - science!
Re:It's the Republicans, stupid!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Many of the members of the board are conservative Republicans. But in a good note, Gov. Bill Graves, a moderate Republican, is looking at possibly disbanding the board and replacing it with a simlar body that would allow for less deadlock. People must realize that this has been an issue before the board since at least late May.
Re:It's the Republicans, stupid!
by
Waldo
·
· Score: 1
I had a look at the BOE website. They ain't all republicans.
Re:It's the Republicans, stupid!
by
Orion2o6
·
· Score: 1
Evolution is not science.. it is merely a religion based on physical change.
So while evolution and natural selection still can be taught, the door is open for any teaching of them to be challenged by opponents of evolution. Well said. That's what I took this news to mean so I don't see what all the freaking out is about. Also, I recently heard in a social science class, at DeVry in Phoenix, an instructor state that much of the scientific community has begun to believe that there were no transitional species between primates and homosapiens indicating one evolved from the other. He said that the skeletal remains that had previously caused scientists to believe this have since been identified as homosapien skeletons with ostiopathic disorders. He wasn't saying this to discredit evolution as a scientific principal, and he wasn't advocating creationism. I think he was just illustrating the changing nature of scientifically held principles. I'm not stating an opinion either, just throwing this out as food for thought. Not that it will matter with this being comment #1500 or whatever because I'm sure no one will ever see it, let alone reply to it. That's what I get for not checking slashdot all day. Anyway, I digress.
Re:Dinos
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually the bible does mention dinos. I forget which day they were created on, but they are mentioned - probably the bad transalations of the bible didn't write it down correctly. Get an accurate transalation of the hebrew original and they are mentioned.
My 2 cents
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My view on the big debate between science and religion is that there doesn't need to be a debate. Science and religion can coexist, but so far each seems bent on destroying the other.
To the hardline fundamentalists out there, get a grip. Evolution does not disprove the Bible, it merely demonstrates that you can't take Genesis literally. Considering that a new species of mosquito has occurred from having been trapped in the London subways, denying evolution is getting to be like denying the round Earth. If I had to tell an imature, inexperienced human race where it came from, saying that humans were "molded out of clay" is about how I'd put it too.
I have an even bigger problem with the atheist jack*sses that insist that evolution disproves the existence of God. Take one look at the human hand, with all its moving parts, complex wiring and piping systems: In spite of it's flaws it's a pretty well-designed "accident." Deal with it people: There exist advanced robots with AI that evolves behavior its creators can't explain, but even with evolution working in AI, it needed the push of a higher intelligence to get started. The universe has much chaos, but overall is just too well organized to be one great big accident.
I condemn the religious leaders who demand we reject science before accepting God, and I equally condemn the scientists bent on trying to "kill" religion with scientific theory.
One other note: Is one's stance on creation vs. evolution REALLY something that people would get sent to hell over? --WH Seattle, WA
Re:Any idiot knows we came from Adam and Eve.
by
simm_s
·
· Score: 1
I guess men like f*cking there sisters (or brothers in some cases)! These creationist probably believe incest is a sin. But wait, humanity started from adam and eve and their grandchildren did not just spawn out of no where!!!! I'm confused??????
Scientists are out travelling the real world to prove and create theories using logic, while these creationists derive all there facts from a book. Uhmm I think I will put my money in the people that derive there information from reality. Faith doesn't cure disease or feed the hungry. --------------------------- ^_^ smile death approaches.
Re:Evolution is a theory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
OK, look. You don't prove a theory. You can only disprove a theory, by testing it. Once a theory has been rigorously tested, it can be accepted as a fact. A theory is logical framework to explain a series of facts (such as "these bones found in the ground at this place" * 10^6). The validity of a theory is measured by its usefulness in predicting other outcomes or explaining other phenomenon. By that measure, Evolution is well tested and generally acccepted. You can't prove Creationism either. But you can test it, and use it to predict. It deosn't hold up. If you believe in Creationism (that everything that is here is because God willed it here), then you would have to also believe (it seems to me) that animal extinction is also a false theory. Animals can not disappear, because because God has willed them to be here. Still doesn't hold up.
After wading through almost four hundred comments, yours is the most well-reasoned I have encountered so far. I was beginning to wonder whether anybody had actually read the article before shifting into flame mode at 6000 RPM.
That being said, my observations on the subject are as follows: 1. Science has in the past been wrong on numerous occasions. Science, in the future, will certainly be wrong on numerous occasions. 2. Religion has often opposed what has been shown to be scientific fact on a number of occasions as well.
Thus, the best reaction to science and/or religion is to not discard something because it is contrary to your current belief system, but to examine it and determine its truthfulness. On the other hand, one should not always believe what they are taught, whether scientific or religious.
In the end, (IMHO), one should question what one is told in the interest of determining what is truth.
--
/* "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind." */
Re:Might I remind you...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You and you entropy people!
You do not seem to understand the nature of what you are talking about, chaos. The chaotic nature of the universe explains evolution. From order to disorder. Natural selection does not break the law of entropy it molds it. Lets say you have an animal that is perfect for warm climate, no fur, not much need for water, etc. Every once in a while there is a genetic change (mutation) which causes an a furry version of that animal. It does'nt survive very long because the warm climate does not allow it (natural selection). If there is a tilt in the earth's axis which causes very cold climate, those furry animals will flurish while the bare animals will die or migrate elseware. I don't understand how this is not logical. Bacteria does this all the time, hence drug resistant bacteria. What is unscientific about evolution?
Separation of state and church
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In France it has been maid a century ago (except in two states, that's a long story...). You can't teach or learn any religion in public schools , and if you want your childs to learn a religion you can send them in a private school. We don't have (and i hope that we will never have) such problems.
The one-god religions are patriarchal constructs designed to oppress and manipulate the population, specifically women, through fatalism and a male-oriented viewpoint. Evolution is a very valid scientific theory, and just because some bible-bashers are incapable of understanding it does not invalidate it. The whole of America should be ashamed of this recent decision. I am thankful that I live in Australia, where the only stupidity of this sort relates to meaningless Internet censorship laws (and the odd one-nation twit being roasted by the media).
Interesting mission for the Board of Ed
by
kuperman
·
· Score: 1
Anyone else think it is ironic that the Kansas State Board of Education's mission (from their homepage http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/) is:
Our mission is to prepare each person with the living, learning, and working skills and values necessary for caring, productive, and fulfilling participation in our
evolving, global society.
Hey, don't get mad!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't insult this guy! They teach SHAKESPEARE in schools. I beleive a famous quote, and something he beleived wholeheartedly in, was "Kill all the lawyers". Betcha didn't hear that in english class!:-) Not that I condone such a thing, but hey, like I do say, some english teachers put him on a pedastal (sp?).
Re:Yeah, and many Kansans are just pissed off..
by
Rational
·
· Score: 1
Frankly, I don't think the media is giving this anywhere near enough importance...
This is, quite simply, a catastrophe, and not just for Kansas.
-- "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
As usual, I swoop in and go waaaayyyy off topic (why stop now?). To me this little debacle (which is being blown out of all proportion because vague stories in the press are substantially inflating the scope and impact of this decision) illustrates a fact about life in the whole of these United States (and by no means just in Kansas).
That fact is that, despite widespread belief that we live in the "scientific age," we actually are little better off than we were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the formal techniques of modern science began to, if you will forgive the expression, evolve. Back then, a handful of very scholarly men began to apply the rigors of Aristotle's logic to direct observation of the physical world (with the first result being the complete desruction of Aristotle's own ideas about natural systems!). These handfuls of men began to develop rigorous methods for forming hypotheses, constructing experiments, carrying them out, collecting data, and analyzing results. They also made a clear distinction between hypothesis, theory, and fact. The only facts in science are logic and mathematics (and even these are only marginally facts as Godel proved centuries later) and that the data gathered in an experiment were the data gathered in the experiment. Take Galileo's little experiments rolling balls of differing weights down slopes of differing angles and measuring the time it takes the ball to go from one end of the slope to the other. He made literally thousands of observations and derived the first universal "law" in the history of science: All objects accelerate towards the earth at 32 feet per second per second. Even this, which gets labelled "Galileo's Law" is not a "fact." Tomorrow we might observe that things accelerate towards the earth at 29 feet per second per second (it would make a lot of us who are a bit tubby like me rather happy). That we know of no possible cause for such a thing and that we know it has never happened between Galileo's time and ours doesn't mean that it won't happen tomorrow. All scientific "facts" are provisional. Scientists must be prepared to re-examine and possibly refine or reject theories when new evidence is found contrary to theory.
Science is a form philosophy that is characterized by logic, experiment, observation, empiricism, skepticism, and materialism. Science and religion cannot co-exist in a classroom or a laboratory because religion (Judeo-Christian anyways, I'm certainly not an expert in world religions) has spiritualism in its philosophic base. Religion requires one to believe in non-empirical knowledge and science requires one to refuse any non-empirical evidence. Note that this does not mean that person cannot believe in both religion and science. If a religious person merely accepts that his knowledge of, say, Christ's death and Resurrection is non-empirical (but no less true) and therefore non-scientific and accepts that evolution by natual selection is empirical and therefore non-spiritual they can co-exist. This isn't mere semantic argybargy. I think that it is perfectly okay for a profoundly religious person to practice science through the very real fact (there's that word again!) that science inhernetly excludes from consideration an entire source of evidence, an entire way of experiencing the world called "Faith" or "spirit." That means, from this point of view that Science has a blind spot. A person can regard science as the more limited view and view it as a tool for getting behind the nature of life, while keeping their faith at the fore for exploring the meaning of life. If you ask any person of deep faith, I suspect you will find that they consider their non-measurable experience of faith to be more compelling and "real" (whatever that may mean) than any measurable empirical experience they have had. Who are you or I to say they are "wrong?"
Now, this is a problem for the handful of people today versed in the sciences. Most of us are very unscientific and know precious little about science. Even NPR's "Talk of the Nation Science Friday" program continually mistakes technology for science and they could not be more different.
The vast majority of people on the plane with you the next time you fly will have no idea whatsoever what makes the plane fly. Most people do not know how a battery works. Most do not know a proton from a neutron. More to the point, most do not know why science regards things as true. The evidence for evolution is every bit as strong as that for Galileo's Law, and yet many perfectly sensible people reject it utterly. That's because most of us (even scientists) are creatures of habit and predjudice. The reason we are not all scientists is that science is hard and demanding and completely foreign to the way humans make descisions about what is true and false. We use technology and we think "Boy, the wonders of science," but very few of us has even an inkling about the fact that electronics (a technology) required discovering quantum meachnics to come into being. Most people know who John F. Kennedy was, but very few know who Max Planck, Paul Dirac, Enrico Fermi, and Pauli (forgot first name; see?) were.
We accept the products of science in the form of technology in much the same way we accept the eucharist, as a blessings from the priests of science, but with much less appreciation for the mystery. We do not live in a scientific age, but in an age of scientists. An age where the power of the knowledge discovered by science is valued by all, but the value of the knowledge itself and more importantly, how it was obtained is as mysterious as holy communion.
Seen in this light, very few of us should feel as free as we do to make fun of the "hicks" from Kansas. Believe me that average intelligence is Kansas is not significantly different from that in any other state in the union. Ignorance is bliss and America is a very happy country. All of it, not just Kansas.
Do you believe that if you stand on one side of your living room and take tiny steps, you will eventually end up on the other side? That established, do you believe that if you stand at the outskirts of Los Angeles and head east using those same tiny steps, you will eventually end up in New York, even if it takes you millions (if not billions) of steps?
"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are really non-existent concepts. They both refer to the effects of the same processes.. the only difference is the amount of time they are given in which to act.
Maby, maby not, staying with the canine example, while we have streched the species in many ways concevable we have yet to cross the species border. Any one varient of domesticated dog, can still mate and produce a fetile ofspring with any other varient. True evolution requires a split to the point that their cannot be a fertile offspring (this isn't the true line exactly but generally a good measure for differenciating between seperate species). I am still not contending that evolution is incorrect, I just content that we do not have enough prof to consider it a fact. And even if evolution is possible, who is to say that the evolution chain as we teach it today is entirly accurate. Maby, apes decended from a outcast group of retarded homo sapiens, driven into the wild who adapted and evolved to live in the jungle. There is very little to go on but theory in evolution and it should be taught as one of many theories (though should be pointed as as the most scientifically based) not absolute concrete fact.
I'm way late on this one, but I must say... a very excellent post. If I were moderating, you'd have a '5.'
This is evidence of an open mind, if ever there was any. The so called "free thinkers" and the like should take note...
It's so easy for us to take sides, and few of us realize the importance of the other side in our culture; at least in reference to science and religion.
I will not argue with this post because I agree with it entirely. Yes, Science does have a "blind-spot" per-se, but this blind-spot is unavoidable. Science, formulae, theorems, are an approximation of an absolute reality. As an approximation they are off somewhat. Galileo couldn't have accounted for the miniscule effects of mutual gravitation and relativity simply because of his tools of measurement. I accept this, and accept the fact that science should never be accepted blindly as truth - to extend this, NOTHING should blindly be accepted as truth.
But, when you say:
"Seen in this light, very few of us should feel as free as we do to make fun of the "hicks" from Kansas. Believe me that average intelligence is Kansas is not significantly different from that in any other state in the union. Ignorance is bliss and America is a very happy country. All of it, not just Kansas."
You are missing an important point. These "hicks" and religious conservatives, do not come to their acceptance of religion through the process of thought you describe. In most cases I see these people just arbitrarily accept it because ma or paw or the priest told 'em too, and if they do they get Christmas, and everybody loves Christmas right? That they do NOT go through the above thought process to come to their conclusion is indicated in there strenous actions to FORCE others to accept their doctrine. If they had come to their conclusions in the above method, they would naturally have to accept that OTHERS could come to their own conclusions in a similar way, and that they have no right to FORCE their opinion on others. Since they do attempt this my only conclusion is that they accept their religion arbitrarily and because of the popularity it gains them and have not actually THOUGHT about it.
I respect deeply any person who comes to their religion or philosophy through the acceptence that science is not an absolute truth and that there is plenty of room for imagination and faith. In fact, you will find many scientist, chemists, physicists, philosophical and spiritual. To force an arbitrary opinion on others though is entirely different and reprehensible. These types of people can live in blissfull ignorance as long as it is on a sinking iceberg far away from me.
This happens every day. Theorems are always being revised. And all this without one required intervention from God, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus or any others. Amazing how humans can live in such a magical, inconsistent world such as ours;)
While there is no right to force an opinion on another, Americans have the right to express these opinions. Sometimes force (legal, political, etc.) must be applied to ensure an opinion can be expressed. Be careful you don't confuse this with forcing people to act according to a set of beliefs.
The evidence for evolution is every bit as strong as that for Galileo's Law, and yet many perfectly sensible people reject it utterly There is great evidence for microevolution. Which is mainly what darwin spoke of. If you read Origins of the Species (spelling?) you will see that most of it concerns changes within a species to make that species stronger and more fit to survive. The many varieties of the Canine is an excellent example of microevolution. But I have yet to see a single bit of definitive proof of MacroEvolution needed to fill in the total evolutionary theory of existance. Such facts are very weak and are based upon theory, much like the bigbang. I am not saying the theories are wrong, but too many people are so absolutly sure that these theories are fact that they are offended when considered a to only be a theory or myth.
Rather let's put it this way: all religions (including the religion of the evolutionist, which is a materialist one) have presuppositions which remain unchallenged by practitioners. I certainly acknowledge that I have them. Evolutionists are typically reluctant to admit theirs. This is not universally the case; Lewontin (a Harvard zoologist and atheist) freely admits that evolution is a religious faith. In this he is more honest.
The typical evolutionist never questions the assumption that he has a right to logically verify everything. He barely even recognizes that he holds this. It is an untested assumption, and it is a false one. God is not subject to human verification. His existence and the truth of the Bible are not contingent upon whether you or I or anyone else can "prove" them to be. God is absolutely sovereign, and his sovereignty would be diminished fatally if it were true that it's contingent upon human approval or verification (and it's not).
I asked someone else this question. I'll ask you, too. Can an electrochemical reaction make a truth statement?
I agree completely, but you're not entirely clear at the beginning of your post. Once again, for the residents of Kansas among us: Humans did not evolve from gorillas or chimpanzees. At one point, we have a common ancestor, but we are NOT directly decended from them.
Re:First thing: You don't know what a Hybrid is.
by
Chameleon
·
· Score: 1
Hello? A myth is something, such as crazy religious ideas, believed by idiots with no proof whatsoever. I think the words you are looking for are "scientifically proven theory".
-- void post {
post_random_comment("slashdot.org");
karma--;
}
Observe Evolution?????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Uhm, would you clarify that? Anyone here over a million years old or so? Have you observed one species mutating into a completely different and better species? ie - fish to lizard, lizard to mouse, mouse to monkey, monkey to man... Is this something you can verify without a question? Do you have access to a complete lineage of the metamorphasis? Sorry to sound sarcastic, but scientists have nothing more than various shards of bone and guesses with infinitely more questions than answers. They see two completely different species that have some similarities and make a guess that one specie evolved into the other specie - but they have no lineage of mutation/metamorphasis to substantiate their guess yet. That's not to say they will never get it, but currently, evolution is ONLY an idea or guess. It is by no means proven to be a solid and concrete fact. Also, knowledge of fact does not precede theory - we see something and guess at what it's about then test to see if our guess was accurate - the jury's still out on evolution, no matter how convinced pro-evolution activists are. If we knew evolution to be fact, then there would be no need of a theory as to its factualness, and only theories of it's mechanics would exist. I don't think a scientist is going to formulate a large theory that leaves actually appear green - that fact is known. But evolution is not known, it is only guessed at.
ie: I saw a stupid comment being made and theorized that the commenter was stupid (I assume you're rather smart, right?) In my observation, my beliefs intruded into my perceptions and defined the way I saw the "fact". This resulted in a theory that I would be hard put to prove (since you are really smart and not stupid). However, since you are a little more substantial than a few shards of bone and some rocks, my theory could easily be proved or disproved with no doubt or question. (the previous remarks were written with a smile -:)
With evolution, given the poor preservation of a complete lineage of life over a given period of time, it may never be solidly and adaquately proven and will always remain a guess. That is until we die, and have God tell us whether evolution was right.:)
Also, gravity is not a theory. It is something that can be verified without a doubt time and time again. How gravity works has numerous theories. Evolution is just an unproven idea which makes it a theory to make sense of a pile of bones and rocks. The key here is a pile of bones and rocks. No one is disputing the existance of these bones and rocks any more than they are making an argument against the existance of gravity. They are disputing the conjectures about how they came to be. I can be wrong about a pile of bones and rocks. It's entirely a guess based on personal observation (actually most of us haven't actually seen a collection of fossils so we're just taking a bunch of unknown people who are supposed to be scientists at their word). But I can jump up again and again, and I always come down - that's hard to be wrong about...
The old testiment is the oral traditions of a tribe of people. It was written hundreds of years after it was created, with the distortions what naterally occur with verbal traditions.
It it, the creation story these people's idea on how their god created the earth. Given that the Jews had no idea of evolution, they got it preaty damn close.
Point: Plants came before animals and animals before humans. Change Days to epochs, and we have evolution from the mindset of a pre-industrial person.
Days could have been used both as a propaganda tool "Hey, our God created everything in 6 days!" or to make the story relevent to its intended audience (Try to explain million of years to people who have trouble with counting above 10).
So, the bible is actually right, for a pre-industrial nomad in an arid enviroment. For 20th century America........
Honestly, I did. My apologies. I am very upset with people using quasy-scientific arguments to discuss issues they have no in-depth knowledge about. Creationism, in particular, is on my black list - so I overreacted. No, I do not advocate elitism in science. Just honesty.
And I think this discussion has nothing to do with religion and theology anyway. I am not familiar at all with theology, but once I helped my friend to translate his presentation at some theology conference on relationship between theological and astronomical Universe. I was surprised at the level of his work. Obviously, in any area of study there can be serious and competent scholars, and morons, like this Kansas school board. That's the morons I dislike, not some particular theory... :)
-- <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I suggest you all step away from your keyboards for a little while and read a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It is written by a self-proclaimed agnostic, and it essentially demolishes what is commonly called the "Theory of Evolution," by which I mean the theory that we got here by purely naturalistic means with no supernatural intervention. And yes, I have read Dawkins and other evolutionists, and they can't even shine Denton's shoes.
I have no problem with the theory of evolution being taught in schools, as long as the serious problems with it are also pointed out. And to say it has serious problems is an understatement. Do the research yourself, and quit bashing opposing views when you have no idea what your are talking about.
80 years ago religious people were ridiculed for believing that the universe had a beginning. Now the big bang theory is the scientific consensus. Think for yourself, and quit parroting bullshit.
Russ
Re:Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
What "opposing views" are those? Creationists have yet to formulate a theory, or make any biological predictions that have proven true -- unlike evolution, which predicted much of what we take as common knowledge about genetics today.
Some other views, then? Let's hear the alternate explaination of all the data which supports evolution.
And, btw, big bang does not imply begining in the sense you mean. Read Hawkings. In any case, origin of the universe is a different discussion.
Re:Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
by
Mike+A.
·
· Score: 1
You will, of course, allow those of us who think otherwise to have our own, and reversed, opinions of Denton and Dawkins.
I thought your quote sounded familiar and found it in the archives at talkorigins.org. You've dredged up the old out-of-context quote from Eldredge and Gould (1977), as written by that master of elision, Dr. Duane Gish, probably from his 1985 book Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. As often happens in Gish's writings, he somehow "mistakes" the meaning of the original authors and instead ascribes to them the exact opposite of their true positions. (Yes, I meant to put scare quotes around "mistakes" -- despite multiple corrections, Gish still misrepresents the positions of numerous biologists. Gish published an updated edition called Evolution: The fossils still say NO! in 1995, yet he has not set the record straight by retracting the incorrect quotes, to say nothing of adding an apology. That's pretty low IMNSHO.)
What's the misquoted part here? Nothing much, just twisting E. and G.'s statement that smooth intermediate fossil sequences are almost impossible to construct, into "Gould and Eldredge specifically exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form..." Neither Eldredge nor Gould hold the latter view and they've taken pains in later publications to make that clear.
In particular: (Gould 1983, p. 260) "... since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." Moreover, Gould (1991, p. 144-145): "Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find."
Gish, D. T. 1985. "Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record." Creation-Life, San Diego. 278 pp.
Gish, D. T. 1995. "Evolution: the fossils still say NO!" Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California. 391 pp.
Gould, S. J. 1983. "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes." Norton & Co, New York. 413 pp.
Gould, S. J. 1991. "Bully for Brontosaurus." Penguin, London. 540 pp.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
...one headlong leap into the trashheap of history
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good-bye, America. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
By 1999, the U.S.A. has sunk to a disgusting, deteriorating fascist empire. From the outside: the nation whose Wall Street imperialism bullies and robs the whole world, backed up by the terror of the Blitzkrieg. From the inside: dispirited stagnation enlivened only by repeated spasms of chaotic violence, where TV advertising revenues surge with each new instance of an assault rifle attack upon schoolchildren. So viewed as history from the future, America won't be missed.
Those unique virtues which made twentieth century America so powerful are being systematically destroyed for only short-term gain, one after the other, by America's vicious and greed-crazed ruling class. To squeeze a handful more votes out of a pack of illiterate rubes, fans of TV preachers, the rich people who rule Kansas are deliberately destroying science education in its public schools. How do you suppose the U.S.A. will fare in the next century after we reduce science education to the level of Afghanistan? They say the twentieth century was "the American century." The twenty-first century will not be.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
unconstitutional != "not in the constitution"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I was 15 I had a lot of fun saying "right to privacy? it's not in there! seperation of church and state? it's not in there! equal rights for women? it's not in there!"
But then I realized I was just being beligerant and petty. Constitutionalism includes court rulings, and we all know this. Some arn't fond of this harsh reality, but I don't want the state of California telling me what I can't read, so hey.
The relevant passage in the constitution is, of course, the establishment clause. It's common sense. Just about anything a state could regulate in regards to religion would serve to "establish" one religion over another.
This is why creationism can NOT be required teaching (Edwards v Aguillard 1987).
Good.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
See, what people don't see is that there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the creation theory. In my opinion, I think people should actually gather facts before assuming that religion and science cannot co-exist. Religion and science co-exist just fine. Nearly every geologic/atmospheric event recorded in the Bible has been proven to have happened by science one way or another. I'm not here to preach -- but if you do a little independent research on your own, you might be surprised at what you find. my $.02
Sorry, I was the anonymous coward that posted the original here. Sorry, I was too lazy to log in.:>
Anyways, this might be straying a tad off of the subject,but this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about:
a) the New Testament of the Bible was written within a period of 47 years. Even scientists cannot deny that. Every book was written within that 47 year period about 1850 years ago.
b) Now, since 47 years is well within the lifespan of a human being, it would seem that if the content of the New Testament did not hold some truth, thre would have been some sort of effort to disprove it at the time, considering that if it were not true, someone would have at least attempted to discount it. Nobody of that time period has.
c) Christians in that time period were a repressed people. If someone wished to make it known that their religious doctrines contained false information. Take the Romans, for instance. True, they oppressed Christians, but only because they were viewed as religious heretics. They never produced any evidence from any personal expereinces saying that what the Christians were ferring to never happened.
Just something to think about when people start to say "Religion isn't true" without actually backing up why they think that. That's just absentmindedness.
-- Dave Brooks (db@amorphous.org) http://www.amorphous.org
An enormous number of mutations must occur to produce a comlicated structure (such as an eye) where nothing of the sort previously existed, and none of those mutations are likely to have any inherent value on their own.
Wrong. Being able to move toward and away from light is a useful ability. Light is energy, and where there is energy there is often food. All that is required is a simple cell or two that can distinguish light and dark. From there natural selection would favor variations of these cells that could make out intensity of light (bright light = more food) and then shapes and especially movement and color. If you had thought about it, you'd have seen that there are a lot of useful steps along the way from simple light detecting cells to more complex eyes.
But AFAIK nothing has ever been seen to suggest that something as complex as a cockroach could have evolved from a single-celled organism. As far as I'm concerned, evolutionism has joined religion as something that must be accepted on faith until more convincing evidence comes to light.
The only act of faith is the belief that processes observed today are the same processes that acted in the past (Uniformitarianism, I think). Calling this a belief is a misnomer since it has a lot of evidence behind it, though. If you think that speciation has been observed in the only 100 or so years we've been looking, why don't you think speciation could have created the diversity we see today in the billions of years life has existed?
If anybody would care to comment on any of the following articles with rational intelligent conversation, I would enjoy a levelheaded discussion of the *facts*.
(I did not write these, just found them via Altavista)
"Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar."
that's some solid logic... maybe i should redesign my whole belief system.
What is 'truth', for a creationist?
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
> Next time, try assuming that the Bible is true rather than false. You won't look so foolish.
Is that 'true' like in Genesis 1, where Adam is created after the animals, or 'true' like in Genesis 2, where Adam is created before the animals?
Is it a principle of creationist theology that you can reorder the events in the story and maintain their truth? If so, does this apply throughout, or only where it absolutely needs to be invoked to save face?
Or have any creationists actually read the damn thing so far as the second chapter? No, no need to, I suppose -- they'll tell you everything you need to know about it in the public schools.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:What is 'truth', for a creationist?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is that 'true' like in Genesis 1, where Adam is created after the animals, or 'true' like in Genesis 2, where Adam is created before the animals?
"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."Gen 2:19 (Emphasis mine)
I don't know what you have been reading, but the bible I have in front of me does not have any chronological inconsistency as far as the creation order.
Re:What is 'truth', for a creationist?
by
netwiz
·
· Score: 1
??? What are you smoking?
The animals were brought _to_ the man, which means he existed before they were created, as they were brought straight to him. The bible says so. Hell, _your_ bible says so.
Secondly, all the action and linking verbs in this passage are past tense, so the 'had formed' part is perfectly natural. Hebrew's structure is a bit different from germanic languages like english, so you can expect to get some funny looking syntax after translation (especially when dealing with complex ideas).
I'm sorry, _you_ are mistaken. There are two disparate accounts of the creation of the world. There are many other glaring technical errors as well, too numerous to list. It pretty much invalidates the whole book, because, hey, if those are copyist errors, what isn't?
"Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death." -- The sacred scrolls (of the apes)
"Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape." -- George Taylor, astronaut
"G***damn you all to hell!!!!" --- George Taylor, astronaut
"Glory be to the bomb and to the holy fallout." --- human mutants' prayer
Evolution IS as valid as Special Relativity
by
Ixpath
·
· Score: 1
Many post have depicted Darwinian evolution as conjecture, that is at based on a few debatable fossil records. This cannot be further from the truth.
Although the fossil record can be debated, genetics can not. The fact of the matter is, with the discovery of DNA and its consequences in relation to heredity, evolution enters the same level of validity as Einstein's theory of special relativity. Whether you believe it or not your genome was determined at birth. And it makes sense that you will pass on this genome if you survive to have children. That is evolution by natural selection. People breed dogs, cats, etc all the time to get a specific attribute. That is EVOLUTION by artificial selection. Evolution by natural selection is occurring as we speak, it is well documented. From salamanders in California to Peppered Moths in London to Trees in the Pacific Islands. It can then be inferred that evolution by natural selection was occurring before we were here.
Now this does not mean natural selection is the only force behind evolution. Many biologists have suggested alternative forces at play as the answer to many of the errant predictions made by the model. The lack of total consistency in predictions does not indicate evolution via natural selection is an incorrect assumption, all it means is that not all forces are accounted for. The mathematics behind the theory of relativity break down in a black hole, but this does not mean the theory is incorrect, merely that is does not account for all forces.
But does anyone debate the validity of the theory of special relativity? No, because it doesn't interfere with peoples deeply held beliefs (be they true or not). Obviously people need more science education not less.
Re:Evolution IS as valid as Special Relativity
by
Kazuo
·
· Score: 1
>Obviously people need more science education not >less.
Unfortunately, those who decide on what must be taught seem to lack a mindset that is required to understand what scientific theories are really all about.
Perhaps the National Science Foundation or some leading science/engineering organization should be more vigilant if they are truly concerned for what scientific content (or the lack of it) is being taught in American schools. We can't afford another Dark Age.
> Hey, we at the Neanderthal Defence League are tired of you "oh so evolved" people making us out to be idiots.
Our ancestors ate most of your ancestors, nya, nya, nya!
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Let's postpone the 21st century
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...until everyone has caught up. This is the New Millenium, people. We are all supposed to be making bold strides in understanding, realizing the promise of technology and scientific advances. How sickening it is that so many of us are stuck with a medieval mindset. All of you who look to heaven for answers, remember this: We are living longer, healthier lives thanks to technology. God did not eliminate polio or smallpox, man did. And we never could have prayed our way to the moon. Compared to where we were 1000 years ago, we ARE gods!
Darwin disproved his own theories.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Darwin disproved his own theories and called them jibberish himself. He proceeded in calling himself "a crazy old man" and saying that his theories could never work. I, for one, find it hard to follow the teachings of one who has no confidence in his own theories.
Re:Darwin disproved his own theories.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They didn't work. As I remeber it Darwin's theories didn't have acceptance during his own lifetime. The key to his theories working would come later from a monk by the name of Gregor Mendal.
Re:Darwin disproved his own theories.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sigh.
Call for references.
Re:Darwin disproved his own theories.
by
sicrik
·
· Score: 1
Darwin experienced doubts regarding his conclusions. This is true, but these doubts were a result of the dogmatic world he lived in and the treament he received (uh, heretic). True innovations do take awhile to be accepted...quantum mechanics, for a recent example. And the scientific community has been guilty of this as well, but it is willing to take account of itself, and success in the scientific community is generally based more on competance than on charisma and telling people what they want to hear. Rick Rezinas
-- --
An image is worth about 2.5E4 characters.
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you don't understand basic logical constructs then I'd realy hate to read any code you write. Logic (boolean algebra) is one of the most fundamental concepts that all programmer should have down pat.
By the way I am a Christian, and I no i cannot prove God exists, it is just the most rational conclusion I can come to. Futhermore there are many Christians in the world that would rather die than attempt to force their beliefs on others but still desire to share their faith with others.
Thank you for mentioning that. As an athiest, I am often frustrated by the actions of fundamentalist fanatics. It took me a long time to accept that they do not represent the mainstream of Christian faith. You are incorrect, though, in your understanding of the meaning of "experimentation". When it comes to such things as the examination of the fossil record (as is necessary when it comes to understanding evolution), the analysis itself should be considered a valid "experiment". If the analysis of past events cannot be factually valid, then we should have to throw out the study of history, archeology, cosmology, paleontology, geology...
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
Fizgig
·
· Score: 2
Speaking as a Mississippian liberal, I have to correct one thing. In the South Democrat does not necessarily equal liberal. You will quite often see both parties supporting school prayer, right-to-life, less gun control, etc. Sometimes I honestly can't tell the difference. But conservative Southern Democrats are known as "Boll Weevils", or at least they used to be--don't know about now. So what you said is basically correct if you replace any party lines with conservative-liberal lines.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, where are the missing link mouse/elephant hybrids? I think mice and elephant share 99% of their DNA, but there are no mice with trunks or elephants with fur. If it is not mice and elephants it is elephants and some random rodent... It is pretty basic biology.
Re:2+2=5
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not like I want to tear my religion apart, but hey, I've been told often by religious educators, "The Bible is perfect in all ways". Hmmmm, maybe more perfect in some ways than others now, huh?:-)
What evolution has been observed?
by
Shewmaker
·
· Score: 1
I only looked quickly at the faq at www.talkorigins.org, so maybe I missed it, but does it give any example of any observed evolution?
I mean, according to the faq, "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time." What viable organisms can we point to and say for certain that their actual genome changed? What if the external changes we observe are simply caused by inherent genetic variation? As I understand it, the theory of genetic variation states that an organism carries a multidude of genes that are only sometimes switched on. This would explain several interesting puzzles concerning the races of humankind without resorting to evolution.
I just think it is an interesting alternative to ponder.
-- "For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."
-From the Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits, by Lewis Carroll
STUPID BIBLE THUMPERS!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I guess you can't accept evolution when you havn't evolved YOURSELF!
Re:Dinos
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Bible is a book written specifically concerning the problem of man's seperation from a relationship with God. It is not designed to contain an exhaustive list of scientific truths. However, in the book of Job, one of the oldest books of the Bible, a description of several beasts (translated 'behemoth' and 'leviathan') are given. These descriptions fit well with dinosaurs.
Neanderthals and Cromagnons fully human
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I believe the latest evidence has shown that both Neanderthals and Cromagnons were fully human, they were just diseased and vitamin-deficient.
something that should be thought about
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hello just wanted to add something things that people should know before this discussion continues. Umm...evolution does not say humans evolved from monkeys. And there is nothing in evolution that says we did. We are a seperate species that evolved seperate from the monkeys but had a common ancestor. And for all those who are kind of overreacting. Kansas did not ban the teaching of evolution. It simply stopped requiring it. So please stop screaming about the banning of evolution. And for the few people on slashdot or read stuff on it who are actually on the other side. Instead of arguing about how evulotion is only a theory think about how much religion is only a theory. And note Evolution=theory. It is getting constantly refined and redefined. It's good to teach students that evolution is not straight fact, but I would worry about know well our students are learning about evolution before I worry about that. bye bye:)
Defining Christianity
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The thing is, what defines Christianity? Christians or God?
God does, obviously. Through the bible.
Actually, the word "Christian(s)" only occurs in the bible three times. The term used in the bible is "disciple" (meaning follower, or student, of Christ Mark 1:16-18).
Being a disciple is not easy (Luke 9:23, Luke 14:25-33), and many who claim to be Christians are not (1John 2:3-6).
All scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2Tim 3:16-17
Denominations that are not following the entire bible, or that are following doctrines in books other than the bible, are not disciples, and therefore are not Christians.
What each follower of Christ is supposed to do is instill the teachings of Christ into others(Matt 28:18-20, 2Tim 2:2). Acts 2:42-47 talks about how disciples are supposed to act: Giving to the poor, helping the sick, being devoted to each other. Heb 12:14 commands us to "make every effort to live in peace with all men"
When people say religeon has caused wars, they are not talking about true discipleship, true Christianity.
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something, but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
James 4:1-3
What causes wars is greed, pride, envy, etc. Not God!
Re:Yea right, we are in 1999, one school got smart
by
Mike+A.
·
· Score: 1
But it's as true as the theory of general relativity. American science education is often guilty of teaching science as The Truth (tm)... but that's the case across the board. To single out evolution implies there's something uniquely uncertain about it... and there isn't.
--
-- Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Re:I concur, but... we can't change the subject.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Go ahead, moderate me down. Most Christians will say this:
A christian is a person is (spiritually) dead to sin, and made alive in Christ. We (Yes, me too) that Jesus Christ was born perfect and remained perfect throughout his life on earth. He suffered and died, paying the price for our sin. He entered Ghenna (Roughly translated Hell) and defeated Lucifer. He released those bound by the old convenant and was raised from the dead by God the Father (Same God, different person). He now sits in heaven to reign at the right hand of the Father. He will intercede for Christians at the judgement.
There you go. Praise God for the opportunity to explain this.
you need to change your definition of species
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Are horses and donkeys the same species?
Just because one group cannot breed with another, does not mean it's a new species. Take dogs for instance. Toy Poodles and Saint Bernards don't breed but they are still the same species, probably coming from the same wolf-like ancestor.
Don't confuse microevolution with macroevolution. Each species has an incredible number of genes that can be selected among, leading to a large, yet finite, number of possibilities. The real question is, can new genes be created that fundamentally change the species?
Re:Evidence againt religion.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you want to argue the pros and cons of creationism, thats fine.
But shouldn't we extend this practice to all religious teachings and beliefs. All teaching of that "one true religion" must be followed by equal teaching of all those religious beliefs that consider that "one true religion" to be heresy!
In plain words, the only religion that should be taught is comparitive religion.
Re:Wow!... this is rough, but what's your point?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't be silly. The world han't existed long enough to have collected all those fossils.
Modern Evolution.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Whilst historical evolution may be a hard pill for the religious nuts in Kansas to swallow, I really think that teaching contemporary evolution is a must.
Bacterial infections in hospitals dropped to an all time low with the introduction of Pennicillin and other antibiotics...yet now, more and more diseases are resistant to them. Worfarine is less effective against rats. There are signs that AIDS is changing to circumvent the anti-AIDS drugs that are used against it. Tuberculosis is all but untreatable because it has "changed" to become resistant to nearly all the treatments we have.
If you must deny evolution, you must not only find good explanations for the Dinosaur footprints in Dinosaur State Park here in Texas - but you also have to explain how come God is changing the TB virus to make it impossible for doctors to cure their patients.
Simple creatures like bacteria and viruses will evolve over a matter of a couple of years. You can quite easily demonstrate it in action in the laboratory.
If evolution is bunkum - I don't want to believe in a God who would be so nasty as to inflict such terrible suffering - then repeatedly patch the viral DNA in a kind of arms race to sidestep all mans efforts to defend himself.
Sheesh! I want God's root password.
Re:Maybe we shouldn't teach evolution in school...
by
PrinceOfChaos
·
· Score: 1
This may be true for American high-school system but this is definitely not true for Russian HS system - evolution isn't an advanced subject compared to some areas of physics and mathematics taught in last grades of school (btw.. we graduate at age of 16 or 17). Oh.. and to all the people that say 'you can't prove evolution' - prove the existence of God!.
Re:Wow!... this is rough, but what's your point?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The "world" is a hoax. It has only existed for, like, 70 years, and is fed to you all through a wire in your REAL head. lalalalaalalalalalaaaa
Re:This is church/state separation at work
by
ChrisWong
·
· Score: 1
Alas, it is hard to rebut an argument so vague in details. To say that "the evidence for this is vast" or that "its breadth is staggering" without actually presenting the evidence (or even the argument) is not very convincing. It is proof by gesticulation (hand-waving).
The difficulty of arguing natural selection producing the human eye comes from its very complexity. Sure, we have optical organs in other animal species of varying effectiveness, but they are vastly different in structure from a human one. I have yet to see a path of mutation from something primitive to a human eye that is useful every step of the way.
I don't try to push my beliefs on other people, but I do have to shake my head when someone is so misinformed about a subject(not limited to Christianity)...
Not tested --> Not taught
by
geophile
·
· Score: 1
What are these tests used for? If test results are used to determine teacher raises, or funding for schools, then you can bet curricula will focus on subjects that are tested, at the expense of subjects that are not tested.
Axe, please adjust the trigger on your flame thrower. Did you think I was defending creationism? I was stating common creationist arguments, and then I said they were proven wrong. I don't have any more respect for "creation science" than you do.
Thanks for the t.o. link. The two creationist arguments I discussed are conventially debunked here and here. On the paucity of fossil evidence for missing links I offer Darwin:
...Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory... (
On the Origin of Species, 1859, p310)
He was right, this is indeed one of the arguments creationists use. Was I wrong to offer an explanation of why gaps are not really that big of a deal? How gaps will always exist? How gaps are a silly non-proof for creationism? For examples of the "two gaps from one gap" creationist argument, please see page 149 of Why people believe weird things.
I can only conclude that we have nothing to argue with each other about. Time to get back to bashing microsoft.
Re:Evolution is NOT Fact! (NOTHING is a FACT!)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Very little things that they teach in science are absolute facts. Physics, Chemistry, etc - they are all THEORIES. So do you promise we stop teaching science at all? Oh, and by the way - there is a whole LOT more evidence to collaborate the evolution theory than there is for the "god" theory.
Re:AAAAAHHHHH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As many others showed... evolution is as proven as special relativity, as proven as the things can be proven outside of mathematics. Absolute proof is possible only in mathematics.... Oh by the way.. imagine god created a universe a second ago... How will you say... exactly the same as he created universe in any other creativistic theoriy... So how comes you have memories...well you HAVE them because that's just the state of the atoms in your head and he set them like that. Oh... by the way.. have you ever thought the idea that we are ALL living in a BIG SIMULATOR... Yea.. some more advanced species is simulating us just to find out how they evolved... WHY NOT? It's fucking possbile just the same as creativism. But these AREN'T THEORIES, because they don't give ANY predictions and are therefore useless in this universe, therefore god is usless. It is just the word used to manipulate poor minded, stupid and ignorant people that allow religion to say them what to do. STOP THE RELIGION! FREE UP YOUR MIND. If you can come up with better theory than evolution, BE OUR GUEST. But please... keep it SCIENFISTIC!
Keep them ignorant, keep your power -- Fucked Up College Kids...That's what they want... will you let them.. ? MY ANSWER IS NO
Re:AAAAAHHHHH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As many others showed... evolution is as proven as special relativity, as proven as the things can be proven outside of mathematics. Absolute proof is possible only in mathematics.... Oh by the way.. imagine god created a universe a second ago... How will you say... exactly the same as he created universe in any other creativistic theoriy... So how comes you have memories...well you HAVE them because that's just the state of the atoms in your head and he set them like that. Oh... by the way.. have you ever thought the idea that we are ALL living in a BIG SIMULATOR... Yea.. some more advanced species is simulating us just to find out how they evolved... WHY NOT? It's fucking possbile just the same as creativism. But these AREN'T THEORIES, because they don't give ANY predictions and are therefore useless in this universe, therefore god is usless. It is just the word used to manipulate poor minded, stupid and ignorant people that allow religion to say them what to do. STOP THE RELIGION! FREE UP YOUR MIND. If you can come up with better theory than evolution, BE OUR GUEST. But please... keep it SCIENTIFIC!
Keep them ignorant, keep your power -- Fucked Up College Kids...That's what they want... will you let them.. ? MY ANSWER IS NO
Is evolution too weak? Does it need to be protected by law? Do we need a law to root out creationism? Evolution=freedom? Freedom that needs to be protected by prohibiting the rest?
The article indicated that evolution was what was being rooted out. I have not read anything against creationism, but I haven't went through all 1K+ posts.
All freedom is equal. But some freedom is more equal then others. So: just calm down:-)
What's that suppose to mean?
And, what's with this Slashdot load, nothing seems to be loading... This is too often now, and the comment limit is annoying.
FUD
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is just more FUD from crazy Theists >>Did you know that a transitional annimal - i.e. one that is between stepps, has never been found? LIE #1! Fossels have been found of dinasaurs with bird like features (feathers, similar bone structures) and birds later on with dinasaur like features (similar bone structures and anatomy etc). That is for just ONE line of creatures! You can read stuff on this subject in science magazines, see it on PBS or the discovery channel, this information is not hard to get. >>Did you know that of hundreds of experiments to try to do artifical evolution, not a single one worked? Evolution occurs over millions of years, what are you hoping to prove with even a 10 year experiment? Mutation can be proven to occur, and mutation is a foundation of evolution. ??Do you even understand the psudo-science involved? And how impossible it is? (They pretty much say, yah, it's impossible, but if you wait long enough anything is possible.) I find psudo-science to be used most commonly in religious explanations of the universe around us. I went to a christian highschool with christian science classes, so I know very well what kind of science christians employ to back up their theories... Lets just say none of it was solid enough to make me for a minute beleive their claims. This guy is just another one of those crazy christians that go around making claims against science using arguments which better describe them then their intended targets.
Re:FUD
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
gah, slashdot ate my formating..
Re:A theory is not a fact!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>Regardless of whether you ultimately believe in >evolution or not, you could at least show some >respect for the scientists who formulated the >theory and those who accept it today as fact. >These people are not idiots. I'm sorry for being a bit nit-picky here, but anyone who accepts evolution as a FACT, while perhaps not an idiot, is definitely ignorant about the scientific method and the definitions of a FACT and a THEORY. A FACT is something that is directly observable and is true. A THEORY on the other hand is a proposed explanation of the facts. It may or may not be true and is generally not directly observable. The theory of evolution may be correct, but it is not a fact because it hasn't (and probably cannot) be proven true. In the past, parts of this theory have been refined and modified to agree with new discoveries. In the future this theory may be further modified as new evidence becomes available. This is the beauty of a theory. It can be modified to explain new evidence. It is extremely important to distinguish between THEORY and FACT because when theories are assumed to to be facts, even scientists are tempted to draw the wrong conclusions from experimental observations. Perhaps the most glaring example of scientists being misled by assuming a theory to be a fact was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when a strong belief in Newton's theories of motion caused many scientist's to reject Maxwell's equations, Einstein's theory of relativity, and Quantum mechanics.
.... Oh so many ways to look at it
by
YuiLkari
·
· Score: 1
First of all, im not saying evolution is wrong. Personally, i believe very strongly in Evolution. I think its rather ignorant not to at least understand it and allow that side to be taught. But then i also think its ignorant the way everyone here is disrespecting the way others think/feel. I think the people who passed this law took a totally wrong approach. Instead of banning the teaching of evolution, they should have tried to at enter 'their way' and i don't mean teach it. Gosh, what is there to teach? God created it. The end. Im saying, at least mention it. Mention the other ways other religions explain this. Banning it isn't going to make it go away, and isn't going to teach the children any better. Its just going to piss off children because their school screwed them over and didn't teach them squat about life.... Anyway, thats my opinion.
Yui
-- Teach understanding, tolerance, and respect for everyone for a better world, not to benefit your side of the argument.. and then drop it.
Re:Nobody's loss but Kansas ..
by
cje
·
· Score: 2
This is an utter falsehood. The entire "theory" of evolution is based on evidentialist findings and cannot be proven solely by deductive or logical methods.
An utter falsehood? All right, then how about this: If you state that such changes "do not happen", you are lying through the skin of your teeth. Of course the theory of "evolution" [sic] is based on evidence. Theories generally are. What is this "proof" you speak of? Natural sciences are not in the business of "proving" anything. If it's proof that you want, turn to mathematics, or perhaps the legal profession. Proof is a meaningless concept with regards to natural science. If I throw a ball up into the air, a scientist is not going to say "I shall prove that this ball will come back down." He or she will say "Based on theories and observations, I predict that this ball will come back down."
Hey! There's that word again.. predict, and we've come full-circle; creationism is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination because it fails to predict anything.
The remark of cje is typical of the naturalist objection to creationism.
I don't object to creationism. As far as I'm concerned, it is nobody's business what you believe. If you want to believe that the Earth was formed by a gigantic space ogre named "Phil" who carries around a sack of rocks and dirt, then by all means, do. What I object to is the methods of the vociferous proponents who have an agenda to get a clearly religious myth taught in America's public schools. With that in mind, I will call "creation scientists" liars without hesitation (I note that you did not contest this portrayal.) And I will point out the inconsistencies in the stories that they want to force on my children. Which brings us to the next point..
There are common beliefs held among all of those who believe in creationism, and because cje has not bothered to do his homework and discover those beliefs, his arguments and challenges appear weak at best.
Oh, come on. Creationists do not agree on when the Earth and the universe were created. They do not agree on how long it took to create them. They don't agree on whether or not the original inhabitants of Earth were two people named Adam and Eve (most do, but some don't.) They haven't been able to decide if dinosaurs actually walked beside man, or if their fossils were buried by God to "test our faith", or if they are a mirage manufactured by Satan. They don't agree on how some sort of super-duper "hyperevolution" must have occurred to suddenly change carnivores into herbivores and then back to carnivores after Noah's Flood. They don't agree on an explanation as to how we can see the light of galaxies billions of light years distant (is the speed of light slowing down? did God create all that light in transit? is it a Satanic mirage?) And then there's the whole geocentrism thing.. and I think you may be underestimating the number of adherents that geocentrism actually has.
Stop me, please.:-) It's time to go home!
About all they do agree on is that at some point in the past, using some sort of procedure that took some unspecified amount of time, God created the universe. If you're suggesting that this is some sort of "unified creationist front".. well, you forgot the smiley.
-- We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Evolution is a fact - it has been observed
by
Maciej+Stachowiak
·
· Score: 1
Evolution has been seen to happen in action. Animal populations change from generation to generation, both through natural selection and artificial selection. Look at dogs. Look at those moths which changed from black to white during the industrial revolution. Look at bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics.
What most people _mean_ when they say "evolution is a theory" is that it is only a hypothesis that all of the species that are around today arose through evolution from common ancestors. That is true - no one has personally observed this happening. However, it is the theory that bests fits the observed evidence. It is also a theory that makes some predictions that continue to be validated regularly. In the scientific world, theories are never declared absolutely finally true or false - they are declared to be the best fit for the currenlty known evidence.
So yes, evolution is a theory, much like the theories that the earth is an oblate sheroid, that strange quarks exist, that the stars are much like our sun but further away, and many other things that no one human can directly perceive at one shot, but that best explain the evidence at hand.
Note that evolution is not even incompatible with certain varieties of creationism. You could claim that god put a few single cells in the water and then let things go. But there are other explanations for how life may have begun which are more convincing from a scientific standpoint.
"Believing" in evolution thus requires _no_ faith, because the belief is scientific - those who hold it are ready to reject or revise it if contrary evidence is found. On the other hand "believing" in creationism _does_ require faith, because it is a belief held without, and often in direct contradiction to the evidence. This is the key difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief.
Sigh, we're talking about evolution here please.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
where exactly did the very first piece of something come from?
As a so called atheist fanatic, a professional evolutionary biologist AND as someone who has taken a course in formal logic (caution, those statements could be taken as a warning signs of an appeal to authority argument, something creationist types should learn to recognize) I'd like to point out that we are talking about evolution. More specifically, in the context of the Kansas decision, we're talking about macroevolution & speciation. This is not the same thing as either the origin of life problem (which current biologists do recognize as something we don't have much of a handle on). Nor is it in related to the origin of the universe problem, as you have implied above.
As a bit of added irony, when I went through the MSNBC site to get to the listed article on this Kansas mess, I got a banner ad from John Handcock which presented the question: "Why don't they teach this stuff in school?"
x = x is not true by definition. It's true by the reflexive property of equality.
Seperation (sic) of Church and State
by
jacoby
·
· Score: 1
And could you show me where, in the Constitution, the principle of separation of Church and State is? I have a copy on my desk, as well as the URL of the one on the Library of Congress website.
A law in science is a theory or that has an overwhelming amount of support, few or no opposing theories, and is accepted as fact.
Well, there are always opposing theories, even if you have to scrape the bottom of the crackpot barrel to find them. How about "a law has overwhelming support and very few, or none, contradicting bits of evidence, and is provisionally accepted as fact." (And when investigated, those bits turn out to be experimental error, which also is always with us.)
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Hmmm... tolerance... what a novel idea!
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
I more or less agree with the general direction of your argument and I really like the idea of encouraging tolerance. However, I think you either misunderstand or misrepresent what you understand about evolution somewhat. It's not the 'accidents' that survive. So the human hand's trial and error design over vast numbers of generations of evolution is no 'accident'. It's the result of all the 'accidents' getting filtered out due to their inappropriateness to survival. What remains is the most *ideal* set of "solutions" resulting from all accidental genetic mutations over time.
Also, I would personally back up one more step from literalism with religion in general and think of it as more metaphorical and ethical in nature. Spirituality addresses all these 'hard' problems that Science can't even pose properly, let alone answer. Given this, I find that many of the Eastern religions speak to me more, especially in terms of ethics, than Christianity. But as far as Christianity goes, do I think God literally created humans? Seems pretty far fetched given what we know about stellar, planetary, geological, chemical and biological evolution. Did the universe start with a Big Bang? Maybe. Did some God-like superbeing create the universe and its laws? Who knows!? Maybe! I think the absolute question of origins is totally open and probably always will be. Hey, maybe the Hindus/Buddhists are right and the whole creationism vs. science debate is totally pointless because everything we experience here in the universe is a dream (and thus Reality and Mysticism can be true at the same time). Hard to logically argue with that huh?
Close, but not quite ( was Re:AAAAAHHHHH! )
by
jacoby
·
· Score: 1
Thomas Jefferson's writings make it explicitly clear that the intention was to erect a wall of seperation. Just becase the constitution doesn't explicitly state it doesn't mean it's not the way it is.
Yes, but the wall was meant to keep the government from meddling in the affairs of the church. It was never meant to keep religious people from political action.
These guys are on crack. (page rotation, anyone?)
by
Evil+Poot+Cat
·
· Score: 1
So now they're authorizing a whole generation of head-up-the-ass holy rolling spam crusaders. That is to say, if they actually have the needed electricity, and if Internet access isn't censored out there.
Basically, It looks like this BOE ruling removes from the "home-school" movement a responsibility to teach, and replaces it with a license to create as many falsely-pious crusaders as the state can spit out. I love the idea of home-schooling, but if the children aren't required to learn the fundamentals of scientific theory, there's no point to it.
Actions like this will serve to promote two forces (A) fundamentalist expansion to other states, and (B)motions to reject home-schooling altogether, as a violation of SoCS.
For an irresponsible action like this, the offending members need to be replaced, and prevented from holding further public office. I hope the governor out there fires every one of those bible-thumping fiefholders.
No, you can't
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
After exhaustive reading in high school on this subject, I have the beginnings of a response: one cannot believe in Creationism and Evolution simultaneously without avoiding a dichotomy (sp?). Why? Simply because the theory of evolution relies on extremely huge probabilities of chance - the possibility that (say) a lightning bolt hit an amoeba in the ocean, thereby causing massive genetic alterations, which again caused a fish to form, which through some circumstance grew legs and lungs and walked on the ground to humans. On the other hand, belief in fiat creation (creation solely by the spoken word of God) leaves no room for chance, and this is what is spoken of in Genesis (by a more or less literal reading of course). Can you believe in some form of creationism and in evolution? Yes, but that's not Christianity proper, that's getting into sects like Deism (and theories commonly referred to as "leaky Deism"). For another opinion on Darwinism and its weaknesses, I would suggest reading a book by the British skeptic Roger Penrose (I believe that's his name, it's at least Roger something), in which he tackles some of the inconsistencies in Darwinism, but interestingly he doesn't like Creationism either. Anyway, something to chew on.
They have a right to their own destiny
by
waylander
·
· Score: 1
So Kansas has voted to not require Evolution to be taught/tested/mentioned in their schools. I am assuming it is still up to the local school districts to make that final decision.
Believe it or not, this is a part of what this country was founded on. Kansas is saying, "we believe our children should be taught this," and they're leaving it up to the local governments to decide. If the people in Kansas want to live in their bubble, let them. If you live there and don't like that, move somewhere that values your values. Or do what you can to educate the people you know. Speak. Be heard. Teach your kids what you believe.
Government can't be everything to all people. I wish some people would just get that through their skulls. -- John Kramer
--
John Kramer
God may be my co-pilot, but the devil is my backseat driver.
Does God not exist?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Does god exist, and does he have any power? Certainly. God exists at the very least as an idea, and as you can clearly see, that idea has ridiculous power (look at cathedrals, wars, nuns and such) Now nobody actually thinks that god exists as a physical "thing" floating around in space or whatever, so what are all these religious people talking about? If a crazy man says god spoke to him or somehting, we tend to say he was hulucinating (or however you spell that) or something, and his experience was not real. Now this is a problem. People like to say "god is real" or "god is not real" very bluntly, believing that they know what real means, but what does real actually mean? i would amazed if anyone in the world could actually give me a good definition, and i think this is why these "does god exist" arguments are so stupid... a better argument to have would be "what does exist mean?" If you could resolve that then maybe people could start to understand the world a little better....
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I can't believe you pulled this out. This is a religious flamewar, not a gun owning one!
vi is better than Emacs. So are ed and teco.
Abortion is better than abstinence.
The BSD-style license is better than the GPL.
Only losers drive SUVs.
Intel processors suck. All but the i960 suck a lot.
Re:Getting something off my chest
by
Mike+A.
·
· Score: 1
Then what theory were you proposing we teach instead? Last Tuesdayism? (All hail Queen Maeve!)
Seriously, what theory besides evolution is there that comes anywhere near explaining so many different phenomena? Name ONE.
--
-- Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Then Teach all orgins theories, not just CS
by
just+someone
·
· Score: 1
There are lots of origins myths, but on the christans think that theirs should be taught as creation science (CS).
Write the books to teach origin theories of many religons and CULTURES, and I will agree with it.
Problem is Creation science is CHRISTAIN SCIENCE.
Re:Then Teach all orgins theories, not just CS
by
flesh99
·
· Score: 1
THAT IS WHAT I SAID, I just didn't have the time to list all of them and since the debate is about C vs E I chose those two use
--
Another viewpoint - science's double standards
by
throx
·
· Score: 1
Think about the following situations:
Kansas school board marks quantum chromodynamics as manditory for school curriculum
or
Kansas school board marks Newtonian mechanics as banned because it is provably false.
They are two different issues along similar lines that would cause the scientific community to react in a much stronger way than this evolution thing.
Think about it - most of us know that Newtonian mechanics is false because it disagrees with relativistic mechanics which are more consistent with measurements. How many of us know that General Relativity is incorrect because it doesn't take into account Quantum theory. Should we therefore teach no physics in schools because we don't know what is the absolute truth?
Similarly, how deep into our 'best guesses' should be be teaching primary and secondary school students. Remember these are kids who will take their teacher's word as gospel and not as a best approximation which fits observed facts. Kids (generally), and even quite a few adults haven't developed their reasoning skills that far to recognise the difference between a fact and a theory.
Evolution is *not* a fact, though not provably fiction either. Newtonian mechanics is *fiction* - provably incorrect. Relativity is *fiction* - doesn't take into account QM. Quantum Mechanics is *fiction* - doesn't take into account Relativity.
So, what should we be teaching schoolkids? If this decision was made in the context of "We won't teach the theory of evolution because we believe kids don't have the reasoning powers to come to grips with either the concept of theory vs fact, or the concept of millions of years of gradual genetic changes and survival" then I would probably agree. However it seems to be more a religous argument which is bad.
Just a few thoughts...
John Wiltshire
--
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Evolution is a myth everywhere (not just Kansas)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is interesting that there is so much oposition to a school board not requiring evolution to be taught as fact. We certainly don't want students to be questioning any scientific hypotheses (grin). After all, what would happen if these students started to think for themselves and no longer accepted something so foundational to many peoples' view of life. Is the dogmatic support of evolution really about scientific evidence, or is the alternative just not philosophically acceptable? It seems that critical thinking is no longer highly valued in parts of the scientific community and much of our society. It is good to see that it still is in some school boards! When an issue is as scientifically debatable as this, present the options to the students along with the evidence and let the students think for themselves. Are people scared that their pet hypothesis can't stand up to that kind of scrunity? Joel Mawhorter
What do you mean, Socialized healthcare doesn't work in Canada? I understand that in the states, citizens don't even have the RIGHT to sue an "HMO" health care provider for poor service! And that the HMO providers challenge every medical expense, to the point that people die before they can get healthcare! The hell with socialism, that sounds like a facist state to me! Maybe Canada doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world, but then again, I hear lots about Americans dying from a lack of healthcare and how out of control the few providers American healthcare providers are in terms of quality, price and beaurocracy.
Christianity is about you, not about others
by
Timothy+Chu
·
· Score: 1
Considering that Religion has probably been the number one cause for war and with that hardship in the world. Number two cause would most likely be ethnic purity but guess what, they go hand in hand...
The thing is, what defines Christianity? Christians or God? I know, it's easy to find all the "bad apples" but really, those people aren't the best examples of Christians. It's like me saying that all white people are evil because they almost extinguished the native populations of North America. And no, this wasn't just because of the missionary people...greed *was* involved.
<tim><
Re:Christianity is about you, not about others
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"The thing is, what defines Christianity? Christians or God? I know, it's easy to find all the "bad apples" but really, those people aren't the best examples of Christians. It's like me saying that all white people are evil because they almost extinguished the native populations of North America. And no, this wasn't just because of the missionary people...greed *was* involved. "
-------
the Church is not 'bad' although the people found in its administration may choose to do bad things from time to time (inquisition, etc.)
the Catholic Church has issued a proclamation in the early 1500s (1521 I think) stating that it is not proper to kill and defraud American Indians and take advantage of them. This idea was not popular with greedy monarchs and many others that came after them, including the Great White Fathers in Washington and their slaughtering lieutenants. It was the policy of these states, not the policy of the Church that hurt the Indians.
wow, you are shockingly stupid (no offence)
by
delmoi
·
· Score: 1
That's not a great explanation. If the halfway-man-halfway-apes were starved to death, skeletons should probably have been left behind. If they were eaten, then of course bone evidence might be more lacking, since the after-meal bones would probably get strewn about. Still, there should be something left behind. Ah, questions, questions . . .
There *are* bones remaining for 'half ape, half human' astrolopiticine, homo erectus, neaderthals. Plese get a clue before posting. "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
I think that you do have quite a few good things to say and even though I am pretty fully convinced that evolution is the best theory out there, you have made me more seriously think about it (thanks:-) ) . . . I am a Catholic scientist, so I have my own problems;-) but I think that what they are doing in Kansas (taking evolution out of the curriculum, as I understand it) is pretty crazy.
The only problem that I have with your argument is when you say that evolution has given way to the Big Bang. What do you mean by that? The Big Bang and Evolution concern totally different things. The Big Bang is on a much larger time scale and concerns many different things. Admittedly, evolution couldn't have happened without the Big Bang (nothing could have, really) but I do not think that the Big Bang and evolution are mutually exclusive. It is possible that both happened (and I happen to think that they both did:-)
-- I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
Wow.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hemos seems to have touched a nerve here. The downside, of course, is: Katz will now publish about 7 articles on this subject. Within the next 48 hours.
Re:Wow.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I stole a peak at Katz's desktop, and tomorrow we can all expect to see "How the religous right are using creation to oppress evolution and geek children internet technology" (Yes, internet, technology, and geek are all thrown in just to be published on/. ) As for the article itself, 100% pure Katz bullshit.
Evidence of evolution aside (People can make as much evidence proving their point of view as they need to rationalize it in their own minds) You bring up a good point. Why does everyone take the Bible so literally? Whether you are religious or not, the bible is an important historical reference. It also tells some great stories. Sometimes the line between history and fiction in the bible is very hard to see, yet there's a group of people out there who take it as verbatim. You have to wonder if these people have ever played the game where you sit in a circle and say one thing to a person on one side and wait to here how different it is when it gets back to you.
-Rich
Re:Wow.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Your agrument for why it SHOULD be taught as a THEORY is the same as that of the Crhistians with respect to why Creation should be taught as THEORY. Oh my how the secular world is outraged when the shoe is on the other foot. The fact is, most schools teach creation as FACT not THEORY and it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So either present all current existing theories, teach NO theories (bad idea), or SHUT UP and SIT DOWN!!!! ~Christian Computer Geek~
And there were actually two versions of creation, one of which was the popular Adam and Eve story (creationist viewpoint), and then there was another version of it (although this led into Adam and Eve) describing something that could almost be interpreted as evolution.
There is just enough here that is partially accurate to make it dangerous. What is found in Genesis 1 is a record of creation. What is found in Genesis 2 is a *second* record -- but it doesn't contradict the first. The second one is presented by way of summary. It is not intended to be "the whole story". It is a summary. And neither one describes anything that could be interpreted as evolution by even an LSD addict.
Your agrument for why it SHOULD be taught as a THEORY is the same as that of the Crhistians with respect to why Creation should be taught as THEORY. Oh my how the secular world is outraged when the shoe is on the other foot. The fact is, most schools teach creation as FACT not THEORY and it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So either present all current existing theories, teach NO theories (bad idea), or SHUT UP and SIT DOWN!!!!
Sigh! I wish schools would teach "creationism" as a theory, following scientific principles. Then teach the evolution and let the students make up their mind.
Where is the evidence for creationism? The Bible? Anything else?
...richie
P.S. If you really believe that evolution is false, why are you not afraid to ride elevators? After all falsity of evolution would imply that elevators cannot possibly work!
The "fossil record" is not much of a record. We get a few dozen (large) fossils for each million years that passes. In very successful and long-lived species, we do indeed see a slow, gradual evolution: look at trilobites, for example (and various other small sea creatures that were commonly buried in water-bottom silt). You can see how they slowly developed eyes and other advantages over millions of years. Evolution was slow because they were wide-spread and it takes a long time for changes to occur in large populations.
These slow evolving species are very suggestive of a process of evolution. It's a huge stretch to imagine that some species evolved by natural selection and others were created. Having found one good mechanism that can work in obvious/well-documented ways (i.e. slow evolution of the trilobite) or non-obvious/poorly-documented ways ("sudden" appearance of a new species in the fossil record), there is no reason to complicate it with extra ad hoc mechanisms. Occam's Razor should be applied whenever possible.
This kind of evidence is what formed Darwin's view of evolution. I don't know whether he thought all evolution was a slow gradual thing or not, but the mechanism of his theory of natural selection applies just as well to rapid evolution in small, isolated groups.
Naturally, there are many more preserved bodies that are relatively new. So we luckily have hundreds, of preserved specimens of apes between knuckle-walkers and humans. Hundreds, not hundreds of thousands, and most of those hundreds are members of the very recent and successful (and apparently divergent) species of neanderthals and cro-magnon man. It is a huge deal to find a new proto-human fossil, every find makes for articles in the journals. A find earlier than neanderthals (but not knuckle-walkers) makes the popular magazines and news reports as well. When each new pre-neanderthal find often defines a new species, how are we to find definitive links between species?
When this all started, creationists complained of a "missing link" between man and ape. When man's apeish probable ancestors were found, they complained of "missing links" from this creature to man and back from this creature to the apes. This process can continue indefinitely. Unless you watch, with your own eyes, a child being born, you don't know for sure who the child's mother is and you never, under any circumstances, really know who a child's father is; but evidence is usually strongly suggestive. We do not know the world exists, we have only the evidence of our senses.
People who believe, without any empirical evidence, in the existence of an omnipotent being who is apparently going to great lengths to hide his own existence, are hardly in any position to demand infinitely convincing evidence.
Most of modern biology is built around the theory of natural selection. If you don't teach the theory of natural selection, you don't teach biology. In short, there are no seriously competing theories. Not mandating that natural selection be taught in any biology course is like not mandating that addition be taught in any math course; the very thought is ridiculous.
The argument from animal breeders is in fact self-refuting. For one thing, it is ironic to say that mutation caused by intelligent, deliberate design proves evolution: mutation by unintelligent, random accidents. It works better as an argument for intelligent, deliberate special creation. For another, animal breeders' experience is an argument against evolution.
Evolution assumes unlimited plasticity of mutation. What animal breeders discovered is that mutation is elastic. Oh, you can still breed dogs with all sorts of fur color or size, but they are still dogs. When they try to go too far, the offspring turn out either sterile or revert to the norm. Animal breeders have not been able to turn dogs, cats etc to another species.
Evolution by natural selection tends to be exaggerated. What is the point of arguing selection among existing variants? All this means is that we are looking at a form of selective extinction. No new species result from the observed selection. Without significant plasticity of mutation, macroevolution is not possible.
Your post betrays a problem that I mentioned in a separate post: evolution is supported more by antecedant bias than by empirical evidence. Where are the positive arguments for evolution? Don't just say "DNA" and omit the argument that explains why it proves evolution. It is as if you assumed evolution true in the absence of contrary evidence. Evolution benefits from a lack of scientific skepticism, and an ideology that pushes for its acceptance without question.
This is the fallacy of assuming something true, then finding evidence in harmony with it. Classification of animals long predate Darwin. All you have said is that whales, like all mammals, have something in common with all mammals. Well, duh. If not, why would we classify them as mammals? All you have proven is good taxonomy: similar animals are classified together. They are bound to have similarities. Why not?
It is no point arguing that "there is no theory besides macroevolution" etc. There are NO theories besides macroevolution for this purpose. The sheer dominance of evolution means that nothing else is even considered. You assume that there has to be a materialistic explanation for your problem, and grab the only one on the shelf. You may need to consider whether there is a problem to begin with.
Once again, I am reminded of how antecedant bias can cloud reasoning, particularly with Darwin. I remember his repeatedly reasoning in Origin of the Species (paraphrased): "gee, everything is too darn orderly to be the result of special creation... this has to be evolution." Well, gee: I guess the only alternative to random, unintelligent accidents is a Creator making random, unintelligent acts of creation.
What he is saying is that there are features, such as the structure of the inner ear, that are the same in all mammals, and not shared in any other creatures, and that have nothing whatsoever to do with any of the other things that mammals have in common (the chief of these being the milk-producing organs, mammary glands, from which the name of the group derives).
Apart from saying "X did it, and X moves in mysterious ways," for some (powerful, but not necessarily divine) value of X, there is no reasonable explanation for the earbones to have the same structure in all mammals except that they have a common ancestor.
Here's one, which I've posted before: if you look at species which are related as Darwin supposed they were (common ancestry), you find common elements which span every scale you care to look at. E.g. whales, as all mammals, have mammary glands, give live birth, breath with lungs, have a specific bone structure in their inner ear, etc. etc. etc. etc. Look at DNA hamming distance. Look at gross body structure. Look at the orientation of the rods in your eye. Look wherever you want.
There is no theory besides macroevolution which predicts that a cow and whale should have the same inner ear bone structure. These are not functional differences, and the number of preserved features are vast and profound. Only common ancestry explains it.
Re:Where are the open, scientific minds
by
Jeremy+Erwin
·
· Score: 1
Now, personally, I would consider that any science teacher that _didn't_ familiarize his/her students with evolution would be doing them a great dis-service, as they would be both ill-prepared for college (where it is universally taught), and ill-prepared for living life in a country where it is the prevailing view.
Actually, evolution isn't the prevailing view. Most Americans would agree with some form of creationism. Most Scientists would sy that evolution is among the most rigorous ly proved scientif theories today. Most of Biology is based on neo-Darwinism (Natural Selection + Genetics + Molecular Biology).
Lots of scientific theories contradict religious doctrine. The Bible defines PI as being equal to three. To define exclusionary zones where science must not penetrate would reduce science pretty quickly.
Science depends on education. Science is not some strange priesthood, willing to offer all it's secrets to a student who has not heard of DNA until college. The basics should be taght early.
Look at Math: Calculus may be tagught in High School or College, but will remain impenetrable to someone who has not learned his/her arithmatic.
Any Course in Biology should include coverage of evolution, because to omit would not be teaching Biology. Most of Molecular Biology is pretty damned difficult tounderstand from the perspective of "intelligent-design" because of the many inneficiencies (from an engineering perspective) in cellular metabolism.
wrong ted
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ted Holden, is that you?
Sorry, wrong Ted.
Who's Immanuel Velikovsky?
TedC
Re:Evolution is just Recursion across Millions of
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Could you then explain WHY a biological system is different that a computer system?!? So much so that the rules don't apply at all?
The way I view it, is you've got a HIGHLY parallelized message passing environment. Now granted, computer systems have not come close to this level of integration or parallelism. But the building blocks are there.
A gene is essentially an AND gate (in the presence of a protein(s), make this other protein) As with transistors, once you throw a couple billion of this parts together, you get something really incredible.
You were talking about a couple thousand years. In terms of millions of years - a millenium is nothing. Besides, I think its more on the order of a hundred years.
Tom
Re:Nobody's loss but Kansas ..
by
Chandon+Seldon
·
· Score: 1
Well, it's true, but I know of nothing that can be "Absolutely proven scientifically", and I don't see any way that ANY theory can be so proven. But, I'll accept that "1=1" is a fact.
-- -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Re:Wow!-The bible is wrong.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure there may be a God, and maybe there isn't. But either way, the bible is wrong. Nothing more than a political tool and a justification for genocide. No one can disprove the existace of god, but it cant be proven. At least the evolutionists are open to theories and possibilities.
Actually, it goes something like this: (Only "something like," because the details of what exactly the Scientific Method is and how it works are still a matter of much philosophical debate. But rest assured, nobody thinks it's what they tought you in 5th grade anymore.)
A hypothesis is an educated guess about the results of an experiment to be preformed. The experiment should be designed to, as much as is possible, either confirm or refute the hypothesis (and only the hypothesis).
A theory is something rather different. A theory is an explanation for a group of related phenomena--for a subset of reality, if you will. A theory is judged to be successful if it is a compelling explanation: generally, if it makes sense logically, explains the way reality is--both from normal observation and from the observation of controlled experiments--better than any previous theory, is not contradicted by any observations of reality, and is the simplest it can possibly be and still accomplish the above.
Contrary to what you probably learned in school, real scientists don't go around doing lots and lots of experiments, or even worse, just making lots and lots of uncontrolled observations, and then coming up with a theory. They come up with a theory because they think the existing one isn't compelling enough--sometimes, because new evidence contradicts it, but most times because they find its explanation unsatisfactory. (Well, most times it's a combination of the two--the old theory is usually stretched to try to accomodate the new evidence, to the point where its explanatory powers are no longer any good.)
And no, it's not true that "the more times an experiment verifies a theory, the more likely it's true." I can drop an apple on my head a million times, and it won't make Newtonian gravity any more likely to be true. Furthermore, if you have no explanation for why the apple keeps hitting you on the head, it doesn't make it any more likely that the same thing will happen the million-and-first time you drop the apple.
That's why if you just think of a science as a sort of compliation of observations, and not as an attempt at a coherent explanation of reality--like, incidentally, the creationist "scientists" often tend to--then the fact that no one's ever witnessed, say, a fish evolving into a frog becomes a big argument against evolution. Luckily, that's not how science works. Remember, the big deal about Newton wasn't that he noticed that apples hit the ground when they detach from trees (safe guess that most people notice that), nor that they accelerate at a constant rate on the way down(that was Galileo)...but that the reason it falls is the same reason that the planets go around the sun. Similarly, when the church tried Galileo for saying, well, that the planets went around the sun, they didn't dispute that his observations fit such a theory. Instead, they told him, why can't you just say that the planets actually go around the earth, but that God made them go around the earth all funny so that it looked *just like* they were actually going around the sun. He, of course, said nope, because science isn't about observations, it's about...compelling explanations.
Phew.
Ok, so finally (this is long enough without going into the math stuff), a law isn't just a theory which gets supported over and over. In fact, just about every law we have, we now know to be just approximations--none, that I can think of, are still thought to be strictly correct. Nope, a law is a theory which explains a relatively broad subset of reality, and most importantly, does it very tersely--generally in a sentence or two. Thus, F=MA or every action produces an equal and opposite reaction, those are laws. Quantum theory, despite being arguably as important, will never be a law, cause you can't sum it up like that.
Re:A big win for Science!
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
> That is not the case, this is a victory for Science and Religion has little to do with it.
That doesn't go far toward explaining why scientists are dismayed by it and religionists (of one particular stripe) are defending it.
> Even Scientific American recently addressed the problems of Evolution.
Unlike creationists, scientists make it their business to be aware of problems with their theories. Science isn't about "knowing the answer", it's about "finding the answer". It's kind of like Linux: we don't expect the next release of our favorite distro to be perfect; we merely expect it to suck less than the previous one.
> I wish I could remember the month, it was a really good article.
I wish you could too: citing sources is one of the very foundations of the propagation of science.
BTW, they did a take on "creation science" a while back -- maybe you're remembering the quotes of some of the "scientists" that got their mail-order degrees from a religious foundation?
> Quantum Evolution deals with the *fact* that there is no evidence of small adapting steps between species
All you prove here is that you are not familiar with the fossil record.
> But honestly, Evolution has holes, serious ones.
Nothing nearly so serious as the holes in the biblical account. And that's the real issue, howevermuch the creationists disavow it. (They should, IMO, spend less time thinking about what their book says about biology, and more time thinking about what it says about deceit.)
But that's just my opinion, and I don't have nearly enough clout to get a school board or state legislature to enforce my viewpoint on the world.
I was going to post a long list of "fact" that dis-prove evolution, but I have decided against it. I instead will only this, our Constitution does not stop the state from teaching religion, it only stops the state from banning religion. All mean of describing they way life came to be on this planet are theories, as none of them can be proven. If any of the idiots out there had looked a little deeper into this issue you would have found that it (evoloutionary theory) is no longer REQUIRED to be taught. This allows a broader base of things to be shown to the students, so why is this a bad thing ? Teach all theories, evolution, big bang, creation, etc.. Every single one requires faith as none of them have ANY verifiable proof.
I have seen a lot of people claim that creationists cannot prove their theory, neither can anyone else. For every piece of evidernce anyone provides someone else can disprove it. We are all here, and that is what matters. You can flame me all you want, but I cannot see how this is a bad thing at all. I will not say what my beliefs are but I want my children to learn about all of the theories on how life on this planet began, as all of them are equally preposterous, and let them decide for themsleves what they believe. It is wrong to force the theory of evolution, which is not the most accpted theory any longer, having given way to the big bang, down a students throat and tell them it is true and force tham to answer questions on a test. Tecah your children well, give them the choice of what to believe. If you deny your children access to evolution (if you are a creationist) or creation (if you are an evolutionist) then you have done them a horrible disservice. To all of you who see this as a victory or defeat get your head out of your asses, this is simply progress and needs to happen to make way for our children to be taught all theories with equal importance. I can't believe the amount of FUD (emphasis on FEAR) that I have seen in this thread, it appalls me that thinking people cannot accept that other theories may be right, and should be taught. I am horrified at the anti-religion side of/. that i have seen today, for a group that screams about persoanl freedoms to be reduced to telling someone they are an idiot because of their beliefs is sick. Every one of you is a hypocrite, evoluntionists and creationists alike. I will not state my beliefs in this post because I would be sickened to be associated with either side of this debate right now. This is worse than distro-wars.
>I have seen a lot of people claim that creationists cannot prove their theory,
Funny, I've been following this thread for awhile, and I've seen no one say this. The only people talking about "proving" theories are creationists who apparently don't understand that theories are disproven, not proven.
The differences between creation and evolution are 1) evolution makes many predictions which have proven true, and 2) creation has made none.
It is not true that "For every piece of evidence anyone provides someone else can disprove it." If you believe that, you haven't looked at the evidence.
I think most people here understand that what has changed is the REQUIREMENT, i.e. the state curriculum. It is absurd to to propose teaching creation along side evolution, because creationists have formulated no theory to explain what we know about biology, and their ideas have made no correct predictions about what we observe.
It's also absurd to say a school can provide an education while ignoring modern biology.
It is not true that "For every piece of evidence anyone provides someone else can disprove it." If you believe that, you haven't looked at the evidence.
I have looked at the evidince and it is just as ridiculous as the means that would have to be used to disprove it.
It is absurd to to propose teaching creation along side evolution, because creationists have formulated no theory to explain what we know about biology
You are wrong about this. It is not absurd, it is absurd not to. It also absurd not to teach the big bag theory. As I stated before I can disprove as much as anyone of these groups can prove, I was not trying to single out evolution.
--
Re:talk.origins FAQ
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The talk.origins FAQ is an incredible resource. It is essential reading for any discussion on creation versus evolution. The rebutals of several myths, misconceptions and out-right fraud from creation "scientists" are great. If any creation "scientist" comes to a school or university, use the FAQ as ammo. I tried finding some information on Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man (spelling might be wrong). I read on CNN that Neanderthal man is not related to man according to DNA evidence. Cro-Magnon man apparently wiped them out. This is direct evidence of transitional species.
Re:High School's Not The Place To Teach Evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's impossible to teach biology without evolution. Period. It's the single unifying thread. It's like trying to teach physics without math.
Re: it's because of the time factor
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it must take thousands of generations to evolve into a new species... an experiment even on those one-day fruit flies will take many lifetimes to perform.
Biologiests don't define the age of the world, geologests do. Biologest's match there theorys to other sciantific truths. evolution could still be plausable if the world were only a few million years old. but it isn't. The world is a few billion years old. if you don't belive that, you are a fool "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:Age of the world
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
naaah, they need those billions, it allegedly took the horse 50 mil only to evolve a hoof If we're talking about the probability of a single cell evolving from the so-called primal soup, it would seem the universe is not old enough. And yes, there is cross-discipline feedback b/n geology and biology, strata being classified according to fossils and vice-versa, and discrepant data being discarded in the frocess of course:)
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
forii
·
· Score: 1
That's because somewhere along the line two chromosomes condensed into a single chromosomes for humans (or some split for the chimps, I can't remember which way it went at the moment). But you can match up the extra chimp chromosomes with the matching genes on a human chromosome, showing that while the DNA is in a different place it still is the same, in the same relative order, and so on. Incidentally, chromosomes are a remarkably bad way of determining heredity, mainly because of how flexible the number of chromosomes is. Adding a whole extra chromosome to a human genome doesn't alwys make an embryo die (although the resulting person isn't "normal"), and in flowers chromosome sets can be doubled and tripled and still generate viable plants. Chromosomes are just the packages for the information. As long as the information is there, it doesn't really matter how many packages it takes up.
That was interesting. Of course, I'm not totally convinced.:-)
The article did a great job of saying how bad Setterfield screwed up documenting his original hypothesis. But it had little explanation of why this phenominum couldn't happen.
Ironically, the creationist page linked to from your page has a LOT more useful information on the subject! Check out http://ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html Interesting stuff (although I admit I understand somewhat less than 25% of it...)
However, I do have one more theory. Even if we can't nail down the c-decay to an exponential curve, so what? Setterfield picked arbitrary begins and ends to the decay. So what?
God could have increased and decreased the seed of light (and other constants) as much as He jolly well wanted! He didn't have to abide by some stinking asymptotic curve.
Call me a cop-out if you want (and I'm sure you will) but I think it's a very real possibility.
A myth is something, such as crazy religious ideas, believed by idiots with no proof whatsoever. I think the words you are looking for are "scientifically proven theory".
You're confusing "myth" with "faith". I think the definition you're looking for is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".:-)
TedC
unstudied...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Obviously you have not taken the time to study any theistic (or theologic) evolution. I think an indepth study of either would show you how right the Bible may be. Now Im not stating this from either the Creationist or Evolutionist viewpoint, im just stating that the so-called obvious is usually only obvious because one has blinded themselves to the other possibilities. I would argue though that there are still several discrepensies in the theories surrounding evolution by process of natural selection. The mere fact that we have yet to observe animal speciation is alone hard-to-counter evidence, but moreover the holes in the fossil record as well as continued discrepensies evolution-lines lead to further skepticism. While I dont advocate teaching Creationism in the classroom, the process of natural selection is often taught as fact and not theory (while i realize that evolution - change in allelic frequencies within a species population over time - is fact), which is in and of itself wrong in that science, which seeks to teach fact, is now teaching hypotheses as such.
Who says we can't work with theory?
by
Timothy+Chu
·
· Score: 1
Yes. Along this vein, since all medical science is just theory, not proven, we will henceforth return to the time proven practice of letting barbers treat patients by bleeding them. After all - its MUCH cheaper and it can't be proven to be any less effective. I mean, if I have a theory that my mom puts out the milk at 5'oclock every day, should I have to ask her each and every time? If statistically, it is pretty close to fact, then I'm willing to work with that.
<tim><
Re:Evolution IS a myth in Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmm... you may have something there... I mean, last I heard Kansas is flat. hitchhiker
Prove god exists. I mean without GOD, creation science is nothing.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Prove me wrong.
Problems with GOD: God is all knowing and all powerful. If god is all knowing and all powerful, then why was flood required? I mean he really screwed up.
Technically, we are all 'completely "animal" monkeys'. There are two possible reasons that we humans are the only ones left from our ascent up the evolutionary ladder, that we killed all of them, or that we just interbred. When you have sexual reproduction, lest desirable traits can be removed very quickly. In other words, we just fucked our way to the top:)
Also, none of the other great Apes are geneticaly compatable with us, but we don't compete for the same niches, so there is no problem (although some fo the great apes are in danger of extintion now) "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Adam, Eve and inbreeding.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What i cannot understand (well one of many things), is we all agree that inbreeding is a very bad thing. Even God frowns on inbreeding. How then could we all have come about from adam and eve? I have to admit it has been a while since I have read my bible, but from what I can remember I do not thing this issue was resolved.
Only a fool supposes the impossible to be possible
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
I'm a Christian too. Don't take this as an indictment of anything other than your willingness to consider evolution as a "possibility."
First: we must take it as a given that evolution played absolutely no part whatsoever in human origins -- or in the origins of anything else. There is no way to reconcile the scientific cosmology with Genesis 1. Genesis 1 says the earth existed before the sun, that plants existed before the sun, that birds existed before land animals, etc. Genesis 2 says that God made man from dust (not gorillas). These declarations are utterly incompatible with evolution. The only way that anyone can hope to "reconcile" them is by claiming that Genesis 1 is figurative. The problem with this is that there is no indication either in the text of Genesis 1 itself or anywhere else in the Bible that it's to be taken figuratively. The entire Bible assumes it's literal.
That being the case, we have a dilemma: either the Bible's right about our origins or Darwin is. If the Bible is wrong about this, then it cannot be trusted about anything. God himself has declared that he is not a liar, and that he is omniscient. One or both of these declarations would be false if Darwin were right (which he is NOT). You would therefore have no basis for any confidence in anything the Bible says whatsoever -- about any subject. It's that simple.
The question of whether Darwin or the Bible is right matters. Don't let them deceive you.
Lastly, please note that the article didn't say that evolution could not be taught in Kansas. It says that it is no longer required. There is a big difference, and frankly the Board didn't go far enough. It is not enough to no longer require that lies be taught to our children. It is now still an option for teachers to lie to the children of Kansas. This is completely unacceptable, and Christian parents there still need to get their kids out of those crime-infested, godless government schools.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
MICROevolution is not MACROevolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There is a very large difference between microevolution and macroevolution. When (most) people use the term "evolution" they are talking about macroevolution. Macroevolution can be defined as a theorized, naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increased and inheritable complexity. An increase in complexity would be shown would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. Microevolution, or "natural selection", does not involve increasing complexity. It only involves changes in size, shape, color, or minor chemical alterations. Microevolution can be thought of as "horizontal" change whereas macroevolution can be thought of as a "vertical" change. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since the beginning of history. It is macroevolution, which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, that is highly speculative and at the center of the creation/evolution controversy. I have found that many people will give evidence of microevolution as arguments to support macroevolution. While microevolution is a proven fact, there is no evidence for macroevolution. Over 80 years of fruit fly experiments, involving more than 3000 consecutive generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed despite many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. Just something to think about. Anthony P.S. Where are all of the two celled organisms?
Some truth amidst the BS about Evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
1. is a fact, 2. is also a number of theories, 3. is Science, 4. is also scientific, 5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic, 6. is falsifiable, 7. is testable, 8. is predictive, 9. has been observed; 9a. in the field 9b. in the laboratory, 10. has occurred in the past, 11. is still occurring, 12. will continue to occur in the future.
Further, we can also note that evolution:
13. is not atheistic (nor Communistic, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, etc.), 14. is not evil, 15. is not mandated by law to be taught in US public schools, 16. is not a cosmological theory (i.e., "it don't do origins"), 17. is not a religion nor Religion, 18. is not determined by popular opinion (as can be said of any science), 19. is not a socio-political program or paradigm, 20. is not dependent on the supernatural, 21. does not claim that "Man came from apes", 22. is not progress, 23. has not, will not and cannot be proven (as can be said of any science), 24. Is not random nor relies on 'blind chance', 25. does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, 26. Does not deny (a) God(s), and finally, 27. Falsifying evolution does not prove Creation.
Whay are so people so myopic when it comes to their beliefs? Don't people want to investigate, and find out things for themselves, or are they content to be sheep?
I think this sums it up.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Groin cabbage, yaps a lot! Rump tea feels good. Spew that bozo.
You are a Christian, but you do not adhere to a set of ideals?
I do adhere to a set of ideals, it's just that I'm not very good at it sometimes, so I don't like to emphasis that aspect of it. Even though I skip church, drink beer (in moderation (usually)), and cuss out idiots on the freeway, I still have the same right standing before God as Billy Graham and the Pope. Pretty cool, eh?:-)
TedC
Re:AAAAAHHHHH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
America was founded on the idea that nobody knows the mind of God. They had bloody European religious wars to tell them that individuals must define their own reality and government. The whole thing is about tax payers getting what they pay for. Fine, there is plenty of research about Evolution as a theory. Once schools take it upon themselves to tell people that they "know the mind of God" (i.e. omniscience) they have to give scat answers to every kid's question about how the world came into being, how it became populated,where life came from, ad naseum. Shouldn't taxpayers teach this to kids instead of the government. If anything, presenting it to kids is a straw man, who cares about evolution, it's just better to jump into biology without the dogma (better yet don't teach science until the sixth grade when kids have to take such water downed world views. Basically, science and capitalism are corrupting not enlightening look at WWI.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
At one point, Neanderthals and early Humans lived simultaneously in Europe. The Neanderthals were very advanced, the evidence shows that they probably practiced religion, were capable of complicated thought, etc. Unfortunately, they, for whatever reason were unable to compete with humans, and were wiped out. And, contrary to what you claim, there is a very large fossil record of this.
Getting something off my chest
by
Extremist
·
· Score: 1
I've often felt that the current systems needs an overhaul. Teaching one theory, while blatantly ignoring any others, is just wrong! Think you don't agree? Need proof? Look at how so many people here are reacting just at the thought that what they hold to be true may not be the theory that is taught as fact. Don't you think that might go both (or many other) ways? There are other views than yours and mine, and if they have any valid basis, those views are just as valuable in a classroom than the ones that fit into any groups personal findings/truths. Ya can't just have it the way YOU want it.
I was actually lucky enough to have one teacher that was more than willing to debate such things in class. In fact, it was the teacher that brought it up. Anatomy/physiology, in case anyone is curious. I very much appreciated the open, honest approach to the subject of theoretical biological history, and if such things become standard in Kansas, it can only be good. If for no other reason, such an approach DEMANDS the student think for themselves. We can ALL agree that is good, I think.
Re:Getting something off my chest
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
A theory must make predictions, and those predictions must prove to be correct. This is why evolution is a theory, while creationism is not. Creationism has produced no predictions -- or rather none which have proven true.
Evolution has produced hundreds of predictions which have proven true. The first was the existance of a mutable genetic material. Another was that this material would have common structure, since it all derived from the same original self-replicating system. Today the predictions of evolution which have proven true are vast and incredible, and range in scale from molecular structures to bone structures, to the orientation of the rods in your eye, etc., etc., etc.
Creationism, meanwhile, has still produced squat. It has explained nothing. In the cases where it has made predictions (e.g. age of the earth), it has been wrong. This is not a theory, and cannot legitimately be taught as one.
Re:Getting something off my chest
by
Extremist
·
· Score: 1
Nowhere did I mention the word "creation." Like I DID say, it goes both (and many) ways: all sides of this debate (there are more than two... did you even READ my post?) have agendas. Including your view (which may be my view... I never said different.)
Now, with THAT aside, there seems to be enough holes in every theory that I've heard proposed, that this definately requires more study. And for scientists to study requires all plausible theories to be exhaustively researched. Which logically brings us to the conclusion that more that one theory should be presented to young, growing minds, so more collection and examination of evidence takes place. Teaching more than one theory was my only point.
Burying your head in the sand because you can't/don't want to comprehend someone elses ideas is no answer.
I think this is the main problem with most educational curriculums. Evolution like creation, solid state, dropped-here-by-aliens, any what have you are ALL theories. Ideas. Speculation. Hypothesis. So far no community has been able to _prove_ their theory, yet in most educational curriculums evolution is the only such theory being taught, and it's being taught as if it's proven fact. Lying to children like this is pathetic. It's taking a completely unscientific approach. The correct thing to do would be either a) address the 3-4 most popular theories or b) don't teach it at all. Most kids don't give a crap where they came from, in 5-6 years all they'll be worrying about is how to afford rent and food and pay taxes. Making it non-compulsory to teach evolution is a step forward in actually addressing the issue with a proper scientific approach.
-- Matt
Read Slashdot
???
Profit
Re:Teaching Evolution as fact
by
TypoDaemon
·
· Score: 1
evolution == theory
theory =! extreme amounts of uncertainty
therefore,
evolution =! extreme amounts of uncertainty
You obviously know nothing of evolution and all the proof for it. For instance, where exactly do vestigal organs come from, hm? Why do humans have a tailbone if they don't need one? Why ostriches have wings if they were destined to never fly?
Don't be an idiot... they got these from evolution
The Daemon
take your chances...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"c.s." is proven one way or another... It happens right after you die. Personally, if I were to make a bet that either I would receive fire and brimstone if I did not belive in God, and nothing if I belived either way with atheism, I'll take God.
Re:take your chances...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Pascal's wager. Unfortunately, IIRC professing faith due to a reward-expectation calculation reeks of sinful greed and cynicism...
Re:take your chances...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sorry, (Buddha|Allah|Kali|J.R. "Bob" Dobbs) was the correct answer. Sorry, you lose, but thank you for playing! Tell him what he gets as a consolation prize!
You've won an eternity of torment and suffering at the hands of our benevolent and loving $DIETY, plus a box of Rice-a-Roni and a copy of the home game!
Just because they decree something...
by
NumberCruncher
·
· Score: 1
...it isn't any more true.
By denying the basis for current biological thought, and replacing it with religious mysticism, these folks are simply damaging their children. These children will believe as they are taught, regardless of the soundness or lack of soundness of the principles. Moreover this "educational" body has ignored the advice of others wiser than they, and blindly taken a step 100 years backwards.
To think that those who pay for their sins will be the very children they purport to help. These children will grow up, go to college, and have the rather stark reality of the world impressed upon them. I can tell you from direct experience that it is quite sad when a student stands up at the back of the introductory physics class you are teaching to correct you about things like the age of the universe (after all that light couldn't have been traveling for more than 6000 years), the big bang, etc. I felt rather bad for these folks, but as I have always said, you can drag a student towards knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
Colleges will look upon Kansas educated applicants with disfavor. After all, their preliminary biological education is incorrect, regardless of what the board tries to mandate. Businesses will be correctly suspicious of graduates from Kansas secondary institutions, as if the board mandated this, what other damage could they have done? Pi = 3? Pharmaceuticals, and related organizations will likely not wish to remain in a state that denys the very basis for the science that these organizations use to produce their products.
All of this because the board saw fit to put its own petty desires over the true educational needs of the students, ignoring the experts. By going purely political (and religious) on this, they have caused inestimable damage to the state. I wonder how many years and millions of tax dollars it will take to fix the problems that are caused by this?
Folks, I personally try to chose political candidates for office only after reading about their views and asking them questions. Democracy is hard folks, you have to fight to learn the relevant information. Voting a party line is a disaster waiting to happen, as has been demonstrated here. If you don't know or like any of the candidates, then dont vote for them. Straight party line tickets are an insult to the democratic ideal of the country, where each person in public office is there because they have the best interests of the public at heart, and will act accordingly. Straight party tickets mean you get ugly personal agendas from any crackpot group that is sneaky enough to get on the ticket.
Here you have a crackpot minority who has just leveraged a change that they should not have been able to do. Next will come prayer in schools. I do not want my daughter praying to Allah or Jesus in her school, as school is for education, and not religion. I control her access to that, and I do not want someone elses religion forced down hers or my throat. Nor should the people of Kansas allow this.
If some people wish to remain ignoramuses for life, you cannot necessarily coerce them into learning the error of their ways. There is no cure for stupidity and stubbornness. However, there is no reason that said idiots should ever have the opportunity to impose their own particular idiosyncratic belief systems upon others. That is the very heart of the democratic ideal, that crackpotism will largely be contained by exposing the ideas of the candidate to valid scrutiny. Voting a straight party ticket deprives you of that scrutiny, and allows the crackpotism to go unchecked. Folks, get out there and grill your candidates before voting. The damage they do may be to your own family.
Hmmm... tolerance... what a novel idea!
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
I more or less agree with the general direction of your argument and I really like the idea of encouraging tolerance. However, I think you either misunderstand or misrepresent what you understand about evolution somewhat. It's not the 'accidents' that survive. So the human hand's trial and error design over vast numbers of generations of evolution is no 'accident'. It's the result of all the 'accidents' getting filtered out due to their inappropriateness to survival. What remains is the most *ideal* set of "solutions" resulting from all accidental genetic mutations over time.
Also, I would personally back up one more step from literalism with religion in general and think of it as more metaphorical and ethical in nature. Spirituality addresses all these 'hard' problems that Science can't even pose properly, let alone answer. Given this, I find that many of the Eastern religions speak to me more, especially in terms of ethics, than Christianity. But as far as Christianity goes, do I think God literally created humans? Seems pretty far fetched given what we know about stellar, planetary, geological, chemical and biological evolution. Did the universe start with a Big Bang? Maybe. Did some God-like superbeing create the universe and its laws? Who knows!? Maybe! I think the absolute question of origins is totally open and probably always will be. Hey, maybe the Hindus/Buddhists are right and the whole creationism vs. science debate is totally pointless because everything we experience here in the universe is a dream (and thus Reality and Mysticism can be true at the same time). Hard to logically argue with that huh?
I've never understood the whole Christian Hell thing. It doesn't make logical sense to me in a myriad of ways.
I still think you're right about the possibility of Science and Religion co-existing. I certainly am willing to respect your beliefs if you'll respect mine. Via con Dios! May you be happy, well and peaceful.
Kansas Schoolboard decision.
by
Tsujigiri
·
· Score: 1
I would just like to make one small comment on part of the article in MSNBC, regarding the letter(s) sent by Kansas public universities eg:
""The argument that teaching evolution will destroy a student's faith in God is no more true today than it was during the Scopes trial in 1925," the letter said."
Assuming that faith in God was one of the main engines in the move to remove Evolution based studies from the official curriculum, I would like to postulate:
Which is more indicative of a supreme, omnipotent and infinitely knowing God:
To appear from the heavens and pop a world of living creatures and sentient, self-aware creatures onto a brand new planet
OR
To create a sea of amino acids, minerals and a single celled organism that over billions of years evolves into same said world of infinite complexity with sentient, self-aware creatures.
I think the theory of evolution denying faith is the wrong way round.
Thank you for allowing me to get that off my chest.
--
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh" - Monty Python meets the Matrix
Isn't Kansas one of those states devoid of humans? Nex
Re:MULE
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
On the contrary, humans and chimps are closer genetically than donkeys and horses. Makes you think, doesn't it. Projects to study such breeding are, not surprisingly, underfunded in this country. However, since the offspring of any such human/chimp pairing would be sterile, who knows what has happened deep in the jungle, when lonliness and/or yellow fever have been incentive enough for some "experiments"
Now hang on a sec.....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In your second para, you said that God wanted ppl to have a choice? If that is the case, what the religous Nuts! are doing in Kansas goes against his very teachings! If God wants ppl to have a choice why are they taking that choice away from there children? I thought that it was always a good idea to give all of the information possible to ppl _before_ they made a desicion.
Roe V. Wade did nothing to it's legality.
by
rhinoX
·
· Score: 1
AFAIK there were no laws regarding abortion prior to the trial, and they performed on a regular basis by midwives.
-- The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
I agree
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am an agnostic myself, however I agree with much of what Aaron said. The schools should teach children their basic subjects and all that is known in those subjects. The theory of evolution, whether it can be proven true or not, is the best theory supported by scientific evidence and should not be ignored. It's up to the individuals to choose what they truly believe and this theory just gives them more options to explore. It's like if you educated yourself about all the different religions that exist. Even though you know and understand what different people believe, it doesn't mean you can't choose the religion you are most comfortable with. The issue here is not whether creation or evolution is right. The issue is whether or not kids should be taught a basic theory in the field of science, a theory that would only expand their minds. Americans are considered dumb compared to the rest of the world now. If this trend continues I can't see the situation getting any better. Matt
I would so like to be in the mind of a christian for a day just to see what it's like.
It isn't about thinking, so being in the mind of a Christian for a day wouldn't be that informative.
I'm all for education and learning (I spend a lot of time on it myself), but the human mind can only evaluate and process information gained from the physical world -- what we can see, hear, and feel. You will never be able to understand God with your mind, no matter how hard to try. The human mind, although a wonderful thing, is limited, and if you rely only on your intellect, then you will always have more questions than answers.
TedC at VISI dot com
Well, that's if for me -- I've done my part contributing to this 1300+ post wad on Rob's hard drive.:-)
fighting will get us nowhere
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well the fact is that as a creationist I beleave in a new earth and a divine power, just as well because we believe differantly we will dash each others arguments, not that our ideas do not have merit but we can take anything said and find large falt in ones argument,for ex. I could argue that darkness is the absence of light , no its the absence of reflection of light.
we are not enemies but brothers with a purpose and such petty ideals should no ditract us from remaking the world in a better light .
you have every right to not beleave in God, but in america you do not have the right to disallow a devine power to be taught as a possibility science is fallable believers in a devine power are just as fallible
flame me at Micheal@lightspeed.net
God bless
Newton and my random theological thoughts
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've heard that Isaac Newton was a Christian, who wrote as much about interpretation of Biblical prophesy as he did about gravity and physics. Good luck trying to find someone to debate you on the presence of gravity.
I personally believe that God created humans and that we didn't evolve from anything else, but I have no Biblical reason to believe that evolution hasn't been occuring ever since the earth was created (which wouldn't have been long ago enough for much interesting evolution to take place, if you interpret Genesis literally). I don't base my faith upon a possibly erroneous interpretation of scripture. God knows exactly what happened, I don't.
I like science. I like to study God's creation. Despite popular opinion among the (unscientific) media, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. However, science has its limitations. It doesn't answer questions like why we're here (to love each other selflessly and to love God). One of my (agnostic, I think) high school teachers used to say "science answers not 'why?'".
as a side note: I've never understood people who can use their operating system and software with a full understanding of the mental effort that someone else put into designing and programming the system, and then say that the universe (something infinitely more complex and structured) just happened. I see the universe as being like a great big analog multi-user computer, with God as the main architect and root user, and us as normal users, trying to figure out how to use the system.
If you are an atheist, the fact that life is present on earth proves evolution. (How else could we have gotten here?) Science can't explain how the universe, and the original life form from which everything else supposedly evolved, got here, though.
If you are a creationist, the fact that life is present on earth proves creation.
Gravity is an observable fact. Natural selection is an observable fact. The ability of single-celled organisms to evolve into humans is not observable and whether or not it has already happened is open for debate.
-jim
Re:Newton and my random theological thoughts
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The components in a computer are probably too simple to be self-organizing, and all the entropy has been carefully designed out anyway. I suspect if you network together a billion big computers, initialize their memories randomly, and let them run, something interesting would happen though I have no idea what.
"Our mission is to prepare each person with the living, learning, and working skills and values necessary for caring, productive, and fulfilling participation in our evolving, global society."
Note that they use the word EVOLVING!!!! What a herd of complete ignoramusii!!
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why would tyrants pay any attention to the outcome of a vote? Why would they even bother to hold one? If a government works to prevent its populace from rising together and abolishing it, then clearly it's out of control and *must* be overthrown by any means necessary.
Re:Wow!-The bible is wrong.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just because something was an ancient tradition doesn't make it "factual". The bible is a story - there are many stories like it, many dating from centuries earlier. Just because you happen to be born to ancestors who were converted centuries ago to the religion you now support doesn't make the bible factual. Think about it for a moment.
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
cduffy
·
· Score: 1
No, if the government's truly tyrannical it won't listen to the vote. And if you think we'd go directly against the soldiers with guns, you're crazy. There are, as another poster pointed out, other ways of going about such things.
Though even the army may be not that much of a problem. How many soldiers will fight their own people? If the government's truly tyrannical, and the segment of the public serving in the armed forces as well as the populace in general recognizes it as such, it'll most definetely not remain in power.
Large number of uneduacted slashdot readers..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I realize that there is little chance of this getting read now since we are at 700+ comments, but I have been amazed at the low intelegence of a later number of slashdot readers.. It's really scarry how many of you supported this dicission.. Do you know nothing about the scientific method. Allow me to explain: 1) EVERYTHING is a theory. 2) Evolution is not just some theory.. it's the only theory period.. Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not falsafiable period. 3) Creationist don't know jack shit about evolution.. they go and read Darwin's book and find flaws in it which have been corrected ages ago.. Get it through you thick skulls.. The origin of the species is not our bible.. it's just observations and initial ideas.. Attacking evolution based on what Darwin said is a stupid as attacking air travel based on the problems with the first air plane. The biggest single problem people have with understanding evolution is that they think mutation and survival of the fitest are a dumb phenomina. They are not.. If you look at the fossle record it takes much less time for things to happen now then it used to.. the reason for this is that the species biologically learn how to adapt better. 1) dominant and recessive genes allow traits to be surpressed and return later if needed after a while a nice little system of dissapearing and reapearing traits is up and running, i.e. through evolution the life learns how to evolve better. (It is even possible that some of the animal to animal chemical communication influences offspring) 2) Traits work in groups since the survival value of a bunch of traits which receded or appear at once may be higher then the individual ones. In short evolution abstracts it's self.. think about how you think and you will start to see how though it's self it a highly abstracted aspect of evolution.
Re:Evolution is a myth everywhere (not just Kansas
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
The support for evolution is not dogmatic, it comes from many, many years of collected evidence, all of which point to the same conclusion. The breadth of evidence now spans nearly every major scientific discipline. Evolution has stood up to decades of scrutiny. It is a theory, like gravity, which is extremely well supported by evidence. Currently there are no other theories about speciation which come remotely close to making the number of correct predictions that are made by evolution.
No school can claim to provide an education while ignoring the last century of biology. Nearly all of modern biology followed from evolution, starting with the idea of a mutable genetic material.
UK Perspective
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am a Christian, and I BELIEVE in the theroy that God create the universe. If you are a scientist then you BELIEVE in the theory that we evolved.
If I am correct, you are not required to teach biblical creation, then why force another belief just because it is considered to be a scientific theory (which has not been proved). The link that was posted said that it was no longer required. Surley this is good thing, that it is no longer required to teach a belief that has not been proved.
PS. I posted anonymously to avoid being flamed, which I am sure will just happen in replys anyway - sigh - at least my mailbox won't get filled up.
AC -- No theory is ever proved. This has been pointed out to creationists here at least a couple dozen times, now. It's getting really, really old. Please learn something about scientific method, and please read before posting (though at 700+ it is getting difficult). If we eliminate theories which have not been proven, we eliminate all theories. Theories are only disproven. Like the 7-day creation story. It has been disproven by a variety of means of dating -- dating the earth, and dating the process of speciation.
A theory is widely accepted when the probability of disproving all of the independent supports of the theory becomes so astronomically small that it's fairly pointless to discuss it. This is the case with evolution. If you wanted to disprove it, it would take decades to revisit all the evidence which supports it, to offer alternative explainations.
In contrast creationists have produced no supporting evidence.
I would be happy to see creationists spend the time to actually create a theory of creationism which explains all of the data which supports evolution. But so far none of them have even gotten to the point of understanding that this is what they must do. The buffoons at the Creation Research Institute, and other such places, prefer to waste their time carbon dating arrow heads to "prove" people lived during the age of dinosaurs.
No theory comes remotely close to explaining the record of speciation as well as evolution does. It is the only reasonable theory we have, much as gravity is the only reasonable theory we have of why things hit the ground when we drop them.
If I am correct, you are not required to teach biblical creation, then why force another belief just because it is considered to be a scientific theory (which has not been proved). [...] Surley this is good thing, that it is no longer required to teach a belief that has not been proved
I hope you're aware of the danger that lies in this statement. If you have any experience in science at all, you will undoubtedly be aware that basically nothing can be proven in the field of sciences - only disproven (as was pointed out by another comment in this thread). Now, if I take your statement and this fact about sciences, the obvious conclusion would be that no science should be taught at our schools, wouldn't it? I doubt that that was your intention - or was it?
Argathin
Re:UK Perspective
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thank you for providing real constructive criticism. You must have read the article on flaming:) As for reading before I posted, as you said, there are a LOT of posts after looking at the first 6 pages that were presented I did not see my point mentioned and so decided to make it. I did not have time to read all 800+.
As for no theory being proved, well, I wasn't about to write a long technical essay about why I believe in creation, or about what my specific beliefs are. I would just like to make the point that I am NOT a raving creationist. I simply stated that I believed that God created the earth. I am educated to University standard, and having taken 2 sciences at A-Level would consider myself familiar with scientific methods.
As for there being so much supporting evidence for evolution, there are major problems with the theory. Probably the most well known is the fact that nobody has managed to find the "missing link" between humans and apes, despite huge amounts of funding and time spent.
But this was NOT the point of my submission. My point was that evolution is not necessarily the only answer, and that forcing it to be taught in schools when no general debate is allowed is not a good idea. People should be allowed to discuss and debate ideas, and not be penalised for having their own opinions.
What ever happened to freedom of religion? One of the points listed is that "evolution isn't in any of the biblical teachings". So what?
I am not Christian, as are many others. I myself am Pagan. There are also buddhists, atheists, you name it, they're out there. The Bible does _not_ rule our lives. It should not be a factor whatsoever in this.
It's a joke. We need people in our education system that can teach these kids without such arrogant bias. They should be given the right and the ability to make their own decision, from an educated stand point, not have it thrust upon them because some fanaticals believe there is only one true way, and that it's their way.
One of the points listed is that "evolution isn't in any of the biblical teachings". So what?
Hrmm, I guess not mainstream, er, fundamentalist religions.
I know I will get "the eternal flames of hell" for this, but here goes...
I broached this subject (evo. not tested (and therefore not taught) in Kansas) with my brother last night. My brother teaches Biology in high school in a small Utah town. My brother is Mormon (as am I by baptism although not in practice, nor would I claim to be one now, but that's another paper). He happily teaches evolution as a biological fact and it is completely compatible with the Mormon religion, even being referenced to in particular verses of the Book of Mormon (he knew them by heart, I don't, something to the effect of "small changes over long time, piece by piece, bit by bit, all is remade").
So before you tell me all the other crazy things Mormons believe (and I've heard plenty, most patently false and all misunderstood) they have some things right. Of course any religion that believes we can all and, eventually, will all becomes Gods, has to give credence to theories like evolution.
Oh, come on! Try and come up with something that isn't out of an ICR tract, will you? But, I'm not going to let this pass unchallenged.... {Grumble!} I'll assume that by "special links" you mean transitional species. (Try and learn some biology in between your Morris or Gish, ICR "Lying for Jeezus" books.)
No "special links" eh? Then, what is an Archeopteryx? Is it a dinosaur with feathers, wishbone (for attachment of flight muscles) or a bird with teeth, and a reptilian skull, pelvis, claws, and tail? What about the recently discovered Chinese fossil Sinornis santensis? Is it a bird or a dinosaur? It has claws on its toes, bird-shaped shoulders, teeth, saurian ribs, and a reptilian pelvis.
I'm not going to go through the entire (long) list, which includes whales, dolphins, horses, rhinos, rabbits, pigs, giraffes, cows, etc, etc, etc. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Religious right wing votes to deny school funding
by
Thagg
·
· Score: 1
Also note that there are several school boards in California, most notably one in sububan San Diego, that has become dominated by religious right wing nuts. They have been voting to deny all federal funds for local education, apparently trying to destroy the public schools in favor of private (read parochial) schools. It's really quite amazing. School board elections might be followed a little more closely in the future.
-- I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Re:Atheist and proud of it
by
Orion2o6
·
· Score: 1
Hmm.. I swear that Hitler had the same outlook on people of different faiths. Certainly the Holocaust was caused by someone filled with Hate and closed mind. Why stop something that isn't harming you, that is building up communities?
Re:I concur, but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't consider myself a religious person, either (but I have neither a clue nor a life). As such, I don't have a religion, either (and I didn't have strong Christian influences in my upbringing, only that which permeates American society). So tell me, then, what makes you a Christian, and what would I have to do to become one (besides getting circumcised and put in a dunk tank or whatever)?
Closing in on 1500...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
oh yeah baby...
Closing in on 1500...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
woo hoo...
Re:Think!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You are right, Science does not allow for any kind of faith. But this is a science class we are talking about. Only science should be taught in it. Both Evolution and Creation are based on faith. Frankly, it takes more faith to believe that everything originated with a ball of slime and evolved over billions of years to what it is now than it does to believe that an all-powerful being (AKA God) created everything as the Bible says.
You say you beleive in the word of God and others "beleive" in carbon dating. Well Carbon-14 decay has been observed and tested. It is a fact not a beleif. This is true, to a point. Carbon-14 decay/dating methods have been proved, but only to a point. Accuracy can only be close to guaranteed for about 6,000 years back. Beyond that, it's all guesswork. This is partly because we do not have records of the amount of C-14 present in things back in this time, and we also have no way of knowing if the decay rate was the same.
I a[m] a Christian but I do beleive in evolution as do MANY other Christians. they are not mutualy excusive. I beg to differ. The definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ. As a follower of Christ, a Christian must trust Him, and believe in the infallibility of His Word. (The Bible). If a person believes what Jesus and the Bible say, then they must believe all of it. This includes the book of Genesis.
The entire reason that Evolution has been pushed so heavily is that it gives people an answer as to how they got here, without making them feel as though they are responsible to a superior being. (God). Many people want to feel that they are in control of themselves, and the idea that someone created them for a specific purpose would mean that they were accountable to that person for what they do with their life.
No one may ever read this comment, I suppose it won't really matter if they do. But as I sit here typing, I am perplexed at the outrage that the geek community has against religion.
I believe that God created the earth, all of the animals on the earth, and that God created humans. You may call me a "Neanderthal" if you wish, but the fact remains that those are my beliefs. I can view the world, in all it's glory, and see the works of God on the earth. I can not fathom how this world could be created without the help of God.
Having said that, I feel people ought to be able to make these choices about their lives without ridicule from their peers. Saying these people are stuck in the Dark Ages because they don't believe something as absurd as Humans evolving from Primordal Goo is silly.
Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a belief. If you choose not to teach a theory in school that has not been proven, that's up to you. If you choose to teach a belief, that too is up to you. Intolerance seems to be on the side of the so called "enlightened" group on this issue.
DONT VOTE DEMPUBLICAN OR REPUBLICRAT! :)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Theyre both the same... authoritarian parties that use the same arguments to promote different socialist agenda. I'm sure you would happily vote for Al Gore, the man who was a big wig behind CDA I and II, the clipper chip, along with his wife. Or perhaps you dont like him too much, but rather the Clintons, who also support these things and want to censor unpopular speech and be able to screen information that goes into peoples computers.... reminds me of chinese policy... both parties are full of shit and want to control how you think and act to an almost orwellian degree Btw, I'm an atheist, former republican but as of last year a libertarian.
It's a blast reading all this and none of you seem to know what is really happening on the Kansas Board of Ed. thing. Evolution is NOT being taken from any school. Creationism is NOT being taught. Students here will still learn exactly the same things that students all across the US learn. The only difference is that students of faith will not have to choose between what they consider a lie and the best grade on the state mandated tests. They will not have to go against a personal belief system to get a scholarship or to get into a good college anywhere in the US. It's called tolerance. Liberals talk about it, but just watch what happens when they don't get their way. Tolerance is the first thing out the window. If you don't believe me, just read all these 1500+ postings. The liberals have gone balistic! And they don't even know (or acknowlege) the truth. Liberals are a real blast!
Re:Actually a lot of things in the bible are prove
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
True, the people who wrote it were there. Leaving out the explanations for ununderstood phenomena it is a somewhat accurate history.
Upon reading this article, (and hearing about it from several other sources) the following things came to mind:
1. It's about time someone did this! Teaching a single scientific _theory_ as undeniable fact is a horribly unscientific thing to do, and it's always bothered me deeply. Although the current implementation of the theory of evolution (specifically the idea of "man from apes") contradicts my Christian belief in Creation, I am (as a college student enormously interested in the various sciences) actually bothered more by the idea that some group of people would totally break out of the Scientific Method and push ONE, SINGLE _THEORY_ as the One Scientific Truth. Not only do public school curriculi brush under the rug the idea that evolution is merely a THEORY, but they also offer no alternative theories so that they can avoid producing future scientists that can think objectively about theories which contradict evolution. Scientists (if it is them and not Athiest political activists) should be ashamed of themselves for displaying such a lack of objectivity and disregard for the Scientific Method (gather data, formulate a theory, gather more data, refine the theory, gather more data, refine the theory, etc., but NEVER consider nor teach any theories based on empirical evidence to be TRUTH)
2. Charles Darwin was a fool who hated science and thought that chopping off a bird's wing caused any offspring of that bird to also be missing a wing (take note: that's the TRUE Darwinian theory of evolution, ladies and gentlemen; make no mistake about it! That's what _I_ learned in school, and I bet none of you public-schooled people ever learned THAT!) I consider it equally foolish that so many people these days (perhaps in a pitiful, hypocritical attempt to spite Christians) practically worship Darwin as their Athiest God and Saviour. The sheer irony of the scientific community's decision to take under its wing someone who considered himself one of its bitterest enemies makes it extremely hard for me to turn a blind eye to the disappointing thought that today's prominent scientists have lost all objectivity in their work in order to engage in petty, underhanded attacks on the religious community in order to further their Athiest belifs (yes, BELIEFS! Just do me a favor here and apply your critical thinking abilities for a moment so that I can avoid yet another rant;)
3. It burns me REALLY BAD to continuously look at the hypocracy of these liberal activists who accuse us "religious extremists" of being unobjective and unwilling to teach multiple ideas, while they immediately step forward and do exactly that. "Don't teach just abstinence! We want to teach just homosexuality!" "Don't teach Creation! We want to teach just evolution!" "Don't teach Christianity! We want to teach everything but!" "Don't teach children history, science, mathmatics, reading, writing, or anything else! We want to teach just liberal politics and Athiesm!" (and you people wonder why academic performance in public schools is so low - SHAME ON YOU!)
Wow, what a rant! Got a lot off my chest though =)
-- Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
HunterZ -- You, as the dozens of folk who have posted before you saying the same thing, are overlooking what the word "theory" means, and with it the entire process of scientific discovery. Evolution is taught as theory, as gravity is taught as theory. There have been many, many posts on this subject, and it might have been prudent to read them before posting.
Darwin did not propose choping off a wing would make decendents wingless. In fact, his theory predicted the opposite. His theory predicted the existance of a mutable genetic material, which has proven to be true. Since chopping off a wing does not affect the genetic material, it has no effect on offspring.
Whoever taught you otherwise didn't know the theory of evolution.
The reason no alternate theories are taught is none have been proposed. As it stands, creationism is not a theory because it has made no correct predictions, and is supported by no evidence. Evolution has made dozens or hundreds of accurate predictions, the first being the existance of a mutable genetic material.
Re:EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!!! - Who
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you want to know who: 1) Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Leslie Orgel, Francis Crick (hopefully you know a few).. the theory is dubbed "panspermia" referring to life brought to Earth from elsewhere 2) Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated that by chance it was one in 10**40000 that all functional proteins necessary for life would form in one place.
If you like names, maybe you like quotes:
Life could not have originated here on Earth. Nor does it look as though biological evolution can be explained from within an earthbound theory of life. Genes from outside the Earth are needed to drive the evolutionary process. This much can be consolidated by strictly scientific means, by experiment, observation and calculation.
Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983), p. 242
As far as the reproducing organism, the cell has extremely complex parts to it, all necessary as the basic building block of life. So how did we go from nothing to something that not only had the capability to reproduce, but the energy drawing ability mitochondria, the membrane to filter out harmful materials, a nucleus with the ability to wrap long strands of DNA into a tiny compartment and safely keep it. Remember, all these things are needed for the most basic life to reproduce the first time.
Further, bacteria have over 100 times the DNA of a mammal, so 100 times the DNA somehow came together 3.8 billion years ago at the same time the Earth became habitable for life. So give or take half a billion years, there's still no chance. Even given your timeframe.
dan1123@yahoo.com
Re:First, God created idiots. That was for practic
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But kansas is flat.
People like these fine people in kansas are the extact reason why I find it dificult to place faith in their god. After all he did make them in his own image. Now what does that say about him?
But then again eductated christians might not be the best thing either. Look at what happened when they learned about fire, they developed a nasty habit of burning people at the stake.
Prove God does not exist.
by
fireproof
·
· Score: 1
Sigh. I can't believe I'm adding to this thread a full 16 hours after it was started.
Anyway: GOD DOES EXIST. Prove me wrong.
I'm not saying this will change your argument that much. However, if the God can be proven to not exist, as you said, creation science can be tossed aside easily. However, proving the non-existence of God is as much a difficult undertaking as proving his existence.
In the same way that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, one cannot prove the truthfulness of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. For that matter, nothing that has occurred in the past can be shown to have definately happened. The best we can do is look at the evidence and say that with all probability something did or did not occur. It's the same way with evolution.
In the end, the public school system, as a government institution, has a Constitutional responsibility to not pick a single religion and teach it as fact. Thus, this decision does not violate this, as it does not replace evolution with creation science.
Personally, as a Christian who generally holds to creation science (and I'm sure to get flamed for this if anybody other than me is reading this), I feel that the most appropriate way to approach the subject is to note that a large portion of the scientific community promotes evolution as a plausible explanation for the origin of life. However, many religious groups have explanations for the origin of life that are quite different from evolution. Problems with both evolutionary theory as well as other explanations should be pointed out.
Before I cease my sensless ramblings, I will point out that (IMHO), the fact that God (as described by the Bible, which is apparently what you are referring to) does not behave in a manner that suits you is in no way, shape, or form a problem with God. God may be (in the Christian view) all knowing and all powerful doesn't mean he has to be fair (although it would be nice if he were, if he indeed exists). I daresay if God were portrayed to have created humanity and given them no choice in how they behaved, that would peeve you much more.
With the flood, God created humanity, and let them choose whether to behave or not. He gave them some general instructions that provided boundaries for their behavior (and most people will admit that some boundaries are necessary whether they like all the established boundaries or not). However, he didn't force them to abide by his instructions. When they got to the point where they were blatently violating them and causing trouble, he put a stop to it (albeit in a very violent way).
If this is a problem with God, it is as well a problem with the U.S. governement, which also establishes boundaries, chooses to allow the citizens decide whether to abide by them or not, and punishes those who get too out of line.
In the interest of being fair, I do recognize that pretty much any problem with the existence of God that can be produced can be explained away by my argument that God has the right to behave in any manner that he wants to. And, I recognize that there are bigger problems with the existence of God than have been presented.
Now that I've probably managed to peeve people on both sides of the issue (which was not my intention), I'll quit rambling.
--
/* "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind." */
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
cduffy
·
· Score: 1
Disagree on 1 and 3. Agree on 4 and 5. Insufficient information on 2.
Emacz r00lz, d00d! (Don't let the 1337 d00d spelling get you down... I really mean that. I've got more RAM than time, and sometimes NEED the e-lisp shrink. Hey, what's with the snickering?)
Hey, if we're gonna' flame...:)
Re:Only a fool supposes the impossible to be possi
by
PigleT
·
· Score: 1
I'm a Christian too. Don't take this as an indictment of anything other than your willingness to consider evolution as a "possibility."
First: we must take it as a given that evolution played absolutely no part whatsoever in human origins -- or in the origins of anything else. There is no way to reconcile the scientific cosmology with Genesis 1. Genesis 1 says the earth existed before the sun, that plants existed before the sun, that birds existed before land animals, etc. Genesis 2 says that God made man from dust (not gorillas). These declarations are utterly incompatible with evolution.
For goodness' sake, wake up and smell the coffee! There is no incompatibility between scientific cosmology (is there any other kind?) and Gen.1: - the two are describing totally different aspects of the same thing: cosmology deals with how, and the Bible with "why". The bible presents it in a *poetic* fashion, so if you take it literally that things happened quite that way, you're mad. IMHO, at least:)
That said, I'm not fond of having gorillas as ancestors, but I do wish you literalists would stop confusing what-you-call-cosmology with what-you-call-evolution with something-you-don't-read-as-poetry!
~Tim --
-- ~Tim
-- .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Close but not quite
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In mathematics and no other field, absolute truth exists. Axioms are the framework within which you construct your "universe". They are not generally accepted as truth, they are Defined to be true. Once you have your absolutes you can make new definitions and prove theorems. Transitivity is a property. It is not an Axiom. Some "spaces" (The Real numbers) under certain "relations" (=) are transitive. Who said a math degree isn't good for anything? At least I can get farther off topic on/.;-)
Me, Sagan and this bull****.
by
quux26
·
· Score: 1
This is an absurdity! No, we don't have to give creationism equal footing with evolution! I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't advocate giving equal merit to a flat-earth theory. Why? Because while it's possible that the earth is flat, so many things speak against it.
Creationism is saying "we know what the truth is, let's find facts that support it". Science doesn't work this way, in fact it's the other way around. If I may quote Sagan to the best of my memory, he said,
"Scientists will often discuss issues with other scientists and when presented with evidence to the contrary, scientists will say, 'you're right' and you'll never hear that theory from them again. It doesn't happen as much as it should because scientists are human and sometimes hard-pressed to change their minds, but if often occurs. This just simply doesn't occur in politics or religion."
Find me a single creationist who will vow to give up their faith if given overwhelming contradictory evidence. Won't happen. This isn't about teaching the children the truth - this is about breaching the line between church and state inch by inch.
[incidentally, some interesting quotes by the forefathers on religion can be found at http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/a_founders.shtml]
And as to the argument that we haven't seen it occur...! To the best of my knowledge, we've never seen a neutrino! But we sure as hell have seen the marks left by one! Has anyone observed an extinct mammal give birth? No, but we're pretty sure it occured...!
Crimmeny, I just don't get the moronic, backwards, hypocritical logic of these people.
my really irate.02 quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/ Jay's Agnostic, Atheist and Humanist Website
>>why aren't the overwhelming majority of large >>species hermaphrodites?
Well finding a mate is not that much of a problem for most animals, so why bother? The male/female dichotomy extends all the way back from mammals to at least insects , so it is a basic pattern.
I don't understand the parallel between a puzzle and the big bang.
>>It seems that it's easier to not even consider >>the possibility that a far greater intelligence >> created us
On the contrary, it is easier to consider a Creator: it means you can attribute everything you don't understand to a Creator.
Even more important to the "why aren't most large species hemaphodites" is the problem of self-fertilization.
In evolutionary niches where species are prone to having problems finding mates (which is extremely rare), there is usually an evolved trait to compensate for it, such as the ability of some animals to change genders, from a fertile male to female. The risk to the gene pool is enormous for animals that are hermaphoroditic and fertile (which doesn't happen with most genetic flukes that produce hermaphrodites, which is why its not more common)
You're also limited in evolution to what changes happen naturally over time -- a species can't magically evolve to become hermaphroditic if the genes present in the species don't support a combination that results in a safe hermaphrodite where self-fertilization can't happen.
Please show respect for trashmen.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While never having done it I would say that a veteran trashman can do his job much better than a rookie. Hence thay do have the ability to process data and learn from it. I think your analogy was unfair
HEMOS=IDIOT??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey, please read your evolution textbook... it's a THEORY!!! it has not been proven in any concrete form you dolt! Any decent scientist knows this. Sheesh, Hemos- the trench coat wearing, darwin lovin', textbook thumpin, evolution evanglist! Sheesh... I prefer to believe in God placed existiance, and I also put more salt in alien seeding of the planet before I will say that I am related to a plant/fish/bird.... Hemos, PLEASE for once in your life check your information before you open your mouth again... no wonder your journalism is published here instead on a real publication.
Well, the problem with your argument is the fact that a species is a human construct created so we can classify a group of particular animals. It simply depends on what you would decide is a distinguishable trait, think of it as a measurement of evolution, the same as a measurement of distance. If I can prove that a certain amount of explosive can propel an object a certain number of feet, than with enough expieriments of varying amounts of explosive will allow me to theorize, with a reasonable degree of certainty, how far an object can be propelled with amounts of explosive that I cannot obtain. Likewise, I can reasonalbly state that if over small amounts of time, changes happen in an organisim due to a certain amount of mutation, that do not kill the organisim, and sometimes make it a very different organisim of the same species, then I could theorize that a VERY different organisim would be likely to occur if given an amount of time that I cannot obtain (4.5 billion years for example). As for mutiple species arising from the same species, most organisims are not confined to a given area, they move about, so the half a dozen speicies of monkeys in a given area did not have to all originate there, they may have migrated. Now, for your argument of the mathematicians' findings, I think you probalbly mean that they had proven that it COULD have taken 40-50 billion years, as they are working with mathematical models of evolution, and not actual evolution. Since they were not here for that period of time, they do not know the original state of their model, but the final one, and they are working, therefore, in probability. Taking this number as a fact would be like saying that the odds against buying only one lottery ticket and winning make it impossible to win by buying only one ticket. But it does happen. And the odds of it happening fall within the range of not only the possibe outcomes, but also within the probable ones.
(please be kind pointing out any innaccuracies, I am neither a biologist, physicist, or mathematician)
-- _this is not a signature_
I'm a gay christian.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I fuck Jesus up the ASS. Anyway, if Evolution were true, survival of the fittest and such, we would'nt have those NEGATIVE-IQed CREATIONISTS AROUND!!!!
Finally!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I personally am against any religeous preaching in school, whether it be Christian etc or Evolutionists preaching as if the Theory of Evolution is fact.
I'm starting to think these posts are being submitted just to keep me busy. Are there really this many people who don't know what the words "theory" and "fact" mean? Are creationists incapable of *reading* before posting? Or perhaps incapable of reading at all?
If you don't know what you're talking about, first read the thread, then think, then post if you have something relevant -- rather than repeating the same stupid error that nearly every other creationist in this discussion has made. If you know nothing about scientific method, how can you comment on science?
Some Progress!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All of you who look to heaven for answers, remember this: We are living longer, healthier lives thanks to technology. God did not eliminate polio or smallpox, man did. And we never could have prayed our way to the moon. Compared to where we were 1000 years ago, we ARE gods! People would have been living longer, healthier lives if they had been living according to the cleanliness laws found in the scriptures. People would not be being maimed by landmines, killed in gangland scuffles, wars, etc, if they decided to "beat their swords into plowshares" and to "turn the other cheek". If people loved people instead of money. Yes, we have at our disposal the power to order food, to be entertained at the click of a button. But we also have the power to kill a dozen people in a fit of rage. We have the power to pollute our minds with porn. We have the power to dump tons of toxic waste into the ecosystem. We have the power to pollute our bodies with all sorts of drugs, hallucenogens (Not sure if I spelled that one correctly). Are we improving through technology? Are we becoming less greedy? Are we becoming more joyfull? Are people's level of compassion rising? Are we taking care of our elderly with respect? Managing our resources with foresight? Providing our kids with nururing homes? Folks, the bible is not a science text. It is a manual for living life, a life filled with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.
Re:Some Progress!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think you are right. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree. Oh well. Those are the same people who will worship the antichrist and say "Hey the bible was right!!! I'm going to heaven!!!!!!"
Yes, I do believe in creation and no, I do not believe in all that evolution crap. But no matter what you believe in, let's not forget that no matter what anyone says, evolution is -- listen carefully now -- STILL A THEORY. THEORY. Just like creation is a theory, since there's nobody here that was around then (except maybe Bob Dole). The Bible says that creation happenned, but if you don't believe in the Bible, then I guess there's just no proof. I guess it just takes a bit of faith, just like evolution does. You still haven't found your "missing link."
Davey Bee is correct
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There are numerous valid reasons for questioning Darwinism as it is taught in our public schools. I know that the state of Kansas has made a lot of people upset, but I think they have realized a key point of this whole debate. It's not as much scientific as it is philosophical. I've read comments about this being the '90's and such. I must agree, these are the '90's, these are not the days of Huxley and Mayer. Their hubristic attempts to force feed their philosophy under the guise of science is quickly passing and I think good thinkers are waking up to that fact. The think that Kansas has realized is that we must pursue good science, not base science on unvalidated philosophies. Davey Bee made the point that not much fossil evidence exists. He's correct. Now I know, all the old school Darwinists will say, "Yes it does." But the fact remains that two of the most credible paleontoligists in the world (Niles Eldridge and Steven Jay Gould) know that the fossil record for traditional Darwinism doesn't exist. Darwin admited in Origins that if millions of transitional forms were not found his theory would fall apart. And it has, at the seams. That's why we've bounced about between Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and punctuated-equalibrium. Darwin wasn't completely wrong. It's obvious that species do evolve. Living organisms are designed with the ability to maintain their existence through adaptation. This is basic. However, pure Darwinism in its traditional form doesn't fly. There's not enough time, there is no fossil corroboration, and there appears to be irreducible complexity to even the "simple" (if it can be called simple) cell. However, the biggest problem with propegating evolution as a blind, random process is the fact that information requires intelligence. DNA is a digital code, not a random mix of chemicals. The fact that amino acids can be produced in a jar is a long way from proving random evolution. Its like saying that you can create latin characters in a jar and thus the English language must have designed itself. DNA "knows" how to build proteins necessary to the organism it enhabits as well as how to replicate itself. Contrary to both Hume and Dawkins, Paley was right. I know digital messages take intelligence. I had to use all the intelligence I could muster to pass computer engineering 450 in college. I write code and if I could build machines that could even approach living organisms in self-diagnosis, self-repair and replication then Bill Gates would be working for me. As a student of AI, I can say this. We are designed by a designer. The faulty premise that good science is based on ignorace to that designer must be re-evaluated. Naturalism and materialism just to not explain our existance as they shatter the rules of logic along the way. The naturalistic hubris needs to stop. Yes I know that "so-and-so" says this and he's brilliant. I can produce numerous credible scientists, nobel prize winners and heads of biology departments at top schools who don't by it. So why should we force 16 year olds to buy it?
Re:Davey Bee is correct
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh, you guys kill me. Such superbity. No I can't? Let me name a few off the top of my head... Nobel Prize winner Fredrick Hoyle, Discoverer of DNA Francis Crick, and biologist Michael Behe. I have a much lengthier list of less popular, but well educated experts in the fields of microbiology and paleontology. Yes, the first two believe in evolution, as do I, they are not, however darwinists. They do not preclude intelligent design and neither do I.
Now I really want to be as crass and hand waving as you have been, but I will refrain myself. I know information theory, message passing and language, its my job. I have advanced degrees in the subject. Do you believe for a second that creating amino acids in a tube is the same as proving that information can develop itself? You're the one that needs to learn a thing or two.
Languages need pre-agreed upon syntax and symantics. They require an intelligent source and an intelligent receiver. They must first agree upon the language and then use the language. Information is derived from intelligence, not randomness.
That's why Francis Crick thinks that aliens planted life here on earth. He know we are designed because of the way our genes are coded. Such codes don't produce themseleves. Your darwinian hubris is confounding. You are living in 1925, join the 21st century.
Now I don't believe aliens planted life here, but I agree with Crick, at least it wasn't random.
As far as my latin character analogy making no sense. I would like you to explain how a digital code can build itself. Please don't refer to Dawkins weak computer analysis in The Blind Watchmaker all he did was supervise a random process in an attemp to get a desired result. How stupid a thing to do for such an intelligent man. All he did was support the teleological argument. If you can explain to me how randomness accounts for intelligence then I would be very grateful.
This may be off topic, but is there a lack of moderator points floating around? 700 posts in this topic and the max score is 3? What's going on? Could I possibly ask another question? Who knows?
spoons
Was that too silly?
One small step for a School Board...
by
Bartmoss
·
· Score: 1
...but a giant leap backwards for the entire USA.
Welcome to the 21st century - where the USA will join Iran and Afghanistan in the ranks of Religious Dictatorships.
Afterall, what do we need the quest for truth and scientifc knowledge for if we can substitute religion instead?
What next - Abolish the "theory of gravity" (Afterall no-one can prove how it works) and substitute the "divine will for things to stay attached to the earth" instead, or how about abolishing the idea that the earth is NOT center of the universe (can't be proven either, right?).
When we've done that, we'll start teaching kids again that babies are brought by the stork, that the world IS flat (all those astronauts are just part of the scientific conspiracy), and that it's hollow, too.
And once we've accomplished that, we'll start teaching them that all men are NOT equal afterall. It's just a silly theory someone some day thought of. It's never been proven, right?
And while we're at it, why don't we just start burning everybody at the stake who believes otherwise? I mean, it's good tradition, and besides, if God disagreed with us, he'd let us know.
EXACTLY!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
today, evolution is more a religion than a scientific theory.. any evolutionist thinks that they are scientific inclined... try to argue that evolution is a theory and they get unglued... they wig out start screaming that my christian opression is making his bisexual/beastiality lifestyle difficult and that I should die in a gas chamber with the others that dont agree with him... then they stand at attention screaming "SIEK HIEL! SIEK HIEL!" ok they dont do the natzi chant... it's still a religion... all of you that argue otherwise... you're just christaphobic... you have those feelings inside you already...
1) Nobody is saying "teach only homosexuality" -- instead, "teach that homosexuality exists". 2) Nobody is saying "You can teach anything but Christianity"; rather, "You can not teach any one religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, you-name-it as being the only 'true' religion." 3) I am offended that you associate bisexuality (and, I presume, homosexuality) with bestiality. Apparently, the fact that sexual acts between consenting adults is not equivalent to non-consensual sex between a human and an animal has been lost on you. 4) And yes, I am very definitely "christophobic." As a Jew, I have experienced some forty years of so-called loving christians telling me that my deeply held beliefs are wrong and that I must abandon them. This sort of thing makes one leery of the good intentions of such "christians."
Re:A theory is not a fact!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A very well written response. Excellent. One of the best I've seen so far. What do you do, btw?
The argument really does not work. Dawkins pointed out examples of eyes in the animal kingdom, but they are entirely unrelated: none of them are thought to evolve from another. They are entirely different structures, not similar structures growing in complexity. The sheer complexity of the eye precludes this: half a lens is not better than none. There is no evidence that any evolution of the eye ever happened.
If evolution of the eye is possible, why do the many primitive eye forms in existence never evolve into more complex ones? Even Dawkins is baffled by (for example) the nautilus which in its hundreds of years of existence never evolved a lens despite having a retina that is "practically crying out for (this) particular simple change".
Your eye is still useful because it is a human eye -- defective, yes, but still a human eye in all its complexity. You can demonstrate, perhaps, evolution going backwards from fully to less functional. But going forwards, from an inferior to a superior and more complex eye, is yet to be demonstrated.
Natural Selection that begins w/ Random Chance
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Natural Selection that begins w/ Random Chance is still random chance. You can't remove something by covering it with something more complex.
Re:Everyone just calm down
by
Reinout
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for this reply, it puts things within normal perspective again!
With this added info that there ain't no *ban* on on teaching the evolution theory and that there ain't no *obligation* to teach creationism, I seriously wonder what this clamour is all about.
Hackers & many slashdot readers apperently love their freedom and freedom in general. So restrictive laws are bad. Isn't it a good thing then that you aren't being tied to one single theory? If the official theory had been creationism, the lifting of the only-creationism-is-correct-law would have been greeted with much enthousiasm. Do we not grant other people their freedom? Heck, their are a lot of scientists who think the evolution theory doesn't scale well from the smaller, proven, scale to the bigger, the-origen-of-all-live scale. Do you want to *make* them teach evolution? That is not freedom...
Is evolution too weak? Does it need to be protected by law? Do we need a law to root out creationism? Evolution=freedom? Freedom that needs to be protected by prohibiting the rest?
All freedom is equal. But some freedom is more equal then others. So: just calm down:-)
Reinout
p.s.: Since I am a christian I was quite *scared* by what I saw in many reactions on slashdot regarding this post. I found it the digital equivalent of a raging, bloud-thirsty mob crying out for the dimise of all christians. Calm down, there are christians out there you might actually like.
You're right, creation is not a theory, by definition. That's because science is blind to anything that cannot be reproduced, and no scientists I am aware of have the ability to say "Let there be lots of animals," and have animals appear from nowhere. However, that does not mean that no one anywhere has that ability.
Science does not allow for any kind of faith or spirituality, which is why so many things remain unexplained by science. It is limited by what man can reproduce, or at least observe. No one yet has created any kind of portal into time, to be able to directly observe what happened 10 thousand or 10 billion years ago. And while there is observable, reproducible proof that strong things live and weak things die, we have not been able to observe any kind of significant changes like those evolutionists say occured. They usually excuse this by stating the changes occured over millions or billions of years, or that there must have been some kind of catalyst that sped up the process that is no longer here. They try to 'prove' their claims by digging up imprints of dead animals in rock, which they try to date by methods whose accuracy leaves something to be desired.
I believe in the truth of God's Word, whereas they believe in the accuracy of Carbon-14 dating. Who is to say who is right? I have made my choice, unpopular though it may be, and many others have made theirs. It all comes down to what and whom you believe.
-- Raptor
Where did the ET's come from?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
'nuff said
Re:Everyone just calm down
by
Reinout
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for this reply, it puts things within normal perspective again!
With this added info that there ain't no *ban* on on teaching the evolution theory and that there ain't no *obligation* to teach creationism, I seriously wonder what this clamour is all about.
Hackers & many slashdot readers apperently love their freedom and freedom in general. So restrictive laws are bad. Isn't it a good thing then that you aren't being tied to one single theory? If the official theory had been creationism, the lifting of the only-creationism-is-correct-law would have been greeted with much enthousiasm. Do we not grant other people their freedom? Heck, their are a lot of scientists who think the evolution theory doesn't scale well from the smaller, proven, scale to the bigger, the-origen-of-all-live scale. Do you want to *make* them teach evolution? That is not freedom...
Is evolution too weak? Does it need to be protected by law? Do we need a law to root out creationism? Evolution=freedom? Freedom that needs to be protected by prohibiting the rest?
All freedom is equal. But some freedom is more equal then others. So: just calm down:-)
Reinout
p.s.: Since I am a christian I was quite *scared* by what I saw in many reactions on slashdot regarding this post. I found it the digital equivalent of a raging, bloud-thirsty mob crying out for the dimise of all christians. Calm down, there are christians out there you might actually like.
Easy one.... do you believe that 10 billion dollars of US currency exists? the mint makes more than that. yet noone has ever seen it, you will never see it, touch it,smell it.. etc... but you believe that it exists. and how about the stars in the sky? they're billions of miles away right? prove it. Give me solid scientific proof that alpha centauri is really a star that is billions of miles away. and not a rock or just a pinhole in the cover of the large atrium we live in. How about quarks? and other sub-atomic particles? some scientist's detector picked it up... Oh I trust that... show me a quark.... show me proof of the oort cloud, show me proof of global warming, global cooling, realitivity.... you opened this can of worms buddy.... I say prove these things to me and prove to me that God dont exist...
-- Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
s/evolution/creation/ && s/theory/belief/
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and you will see why religion should not be taught to children. Of course all the creationists I have ever talked to are immune to logic, but not doublethink, so I don't expect you to fall prey to your own argument.
If you don't teach the children that there are alternatives, chances are they will believe the one theory they have as fact.
This is the primary tactic of organized religion.
Re:I'm changing my voter registration
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't see how a Missouri vote would influence Kansas. You could try bombarding the relevant Kansas authorities with your view. Or maybe the politicians. They don't like ridicule - you could threaten that.
An unobservable God requires maximal faith
by
David+Jao
·
· Score: 1
You claim that believing evolution or the big bang is more of a leap of faith than believing in God. I beg to differ. We have observational evidence of evolution and the big bang. We have no observational evidence of God, and indeed even Christians will admit that belief in God requires religious faith which can never be direcly substantiated in our lifetimes.
The observational evidence supporting the big bang is overwhelming. The microwave background radiation, the abundance of helium in our universe, and the observed Doppler redshift in distant galaxies all provide compelling evidence that the universe expanded from a hot, small, dense universe to what we observe today.
Evidence of evolution is equally strong. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics, displacement of white moths by black moths in industrial London, and the fossil record are all tangible evidence that biological evolution happened in the past and is happening as we speak today.
The evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction are very well understood. Recombination hides deleterious recessive genes, while at the same time increasing the genetic variation of the population in a reasonably safe way. You can experimentally observe the utility of sexual reproduction firsthand yourself: simply take two different pure breed dogs or cats, mate them, and observe how dramatically more vigorous the hybrid offspring is than either parent.
I have provided nearly a dozen pieces of concrete, repeatable, observational evidence in support of the various scientific theories that you so disparage. Unless and until you provide similar repeatedly observable and tangible evidence of God, I shall have to remain agnostic.
Re:The end times are coming!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure you were. Otherwise you'd have written god with a capital G.:-)
[Note: I am originally from Massachusetts, but am in.au now.]
About two years ago, an aunt of mine came down with cancer and died. All of her career she was a Nurse, and most of the time she was working for the American Red Cross. She had health insurance.
Treating cancer (and the associated expenses like hospital beds and whatnot) is very expensive.
Her HMO actually was threatening to cut off her coverage!
Fortunately (really it was, although it sounds pretty macabre), she died before that happened.
I've told people in.au about this, but I'm honestly not sure that they believe me. It's really incredible.
--
You're a suburbanite.
They did not ban it. Only creationism is banned.
by
ChrisWong
·
· Score: 1
Creationism is still banned from public schools.
Evolution, however, is not. The only thing that has changed is that they have merely stopped *requiring* that evolution be taught. That's all.
end public schools now!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Publicly-run education is a ridiculous concept... We don't trust the government to do much else, why make an exception for education? Just give us vouchers and let/us/ choose our education.
mandated == must be taught
by
TheDullBlade
·
· Score: 1
You don't seem to understand exactly what this is all about. The Kansas school board decision means that natural selection does not need to be taught. It will be left out of all standardized tests because it is not required material.
All this talk about "mandating" is actually about mandating that it be taught in the schools, not that it be treated as the "gospel truth." If it is not mandated it will be cut in many schools.
This is, in effect, a statement from the Kansas school board that their schools don't need to teach evolution, not that teachers are free to call it "just a theory" (which they've always been free to do).
If you think you've been agreeing with me (and you're still making silly creationist arguments), you misunderstood what they've done.
Re:Prove god exists -- EASY
by
fireproof
·
· Score: 1
Alas, though I agree with you that God does indeed exist, you have failed to prove his existence. This is where the faith factor comes into play . . .
--
/* "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind." */
Evolution *IS* a religion!
by
Hasdi+Hashim
·
· Score: 1
Think about this for a second. Darwinism and Christianity has different stories on how we came to be; why should the children be required by *law* to accept Darwin's version? Kansas made a good move by making it optional.
Many top scientists might see this a good thing
by
Cantor
·
· Score: 1
I haven't studied recent (living) scientists, but at least Isaac Newton and Einstein would agree with me in getting rid of evolution theory having been Christians.
Being a Christian myself, I see physics and all other real laws something that God considered a Good Thing(TM). I have full faith in physics, mathematics, computer science and all such stuff, but if a theory is contradictory with the Bible, according to the logic (which is something that cannot be wrong by definition) either the Bible must be interpreted wrong, or the theory is wrong (that is, I can't say there wasn't a big bang, because the Bible doesn't say anything contradictory; it might have been the way God did it). In this case, I see it impossible to interprete the Bible so that humans are apes gone through evolution, and as such it must be false.
Note that many scientists, even those who don't believe in God, find every now and then new false predictions in evolution theory. Eg. that long 'tail' in our spine when we're still in the mother's womb is no longer considered a vestige of a tail, but rather something which is necessary for our skeletal development (or something; the point wasn't in the details).
you must have alot of faith to believe in evolutionary theory, which is supported by very flimsy evidence.:) Study the aftermath of Mt St Helens and then re-think your ideas on the age of the earth. --Joseph
I agree with you on the foolishness of "Young Earth" studies. (Young Earthers believe all geology was a result of a biblical flood and the world is as old as the bible seems to say, and look for "science" that supports this view). But just calling the "Young-earth" crowd foolish doesn't necessarily convince anyone. You need proof. Here is a brief history of the universe that must all be argued away by the young-earthers.
A brief history of the world:
The universe itself is about 14 billion years old, give or take a billion.
The world is about 4.55 billion years old. This date is probably when the moon was created by a large impact with the earth. The oldest rocks we can find are about 3.8 billion years ago. Primitive lifeforms exist from this era. Until 2 billion years ago the earth was an inhospitable place, basically devoid of oxygen. During the paleozoic era, from 540 million years ago, to 250 million years ago, complex life evolved in the sea and plants formed on land. The first reptiles evolved. A number of mass extinctions occur in this time, but 250 million years ago, a really big mass extinction happens. Was it volcanism? More than 90% of existing species become extinct.
The Mesozoic era, from 250 million years ago, to 65 million years ago, is the age of reptiles. Dinosaurs appear. 65 Million years ago, something big hit the earth and caused a huge round of mass extinctions known as the kt event. The dinosaurs disappeared. This is the "big break" for the mammals that became eventually our species. Between 65 million years ago and 4-5 million years ago, really ugly mammal forms evolved into things that look like people. 4-5 million years ago, we have evidence of some of our first recognizable forerunners. A. Afarensis ("Lucy") is between 3 and 4 million years old. 400,000 years ago we find Homo Sapiens. 200,000 years ago we find evidence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens -- modern man.
By contrast, civilization with recorded history only begins 10,000 years ago between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in modern-day Iraq.
True rapists (violent and all) should have their nuts cut off.
If you feel like asking me who decides which rape deserves this or that punishment, I'll cut off your nuts.
-- Corndog
All Colleges -- Ban Kansans!
by
dschuetz
·
· Score: 1
Here's a quick-n-dirty (quite dirty, I admit) way to help show kansas how stupid this is:
Effective Immediately, all higher-educational institutions in the US automatically REJECT all applicants from Kansas State Public Schools, on the grounds that they obviously don't know basic science.
See how long Kansas keeps their stupid rules in effect that way!
I don't see any need for this to be a religious debate. I am a Christian (Episcopal) and I have no trouble with evolution being taught in a biology class. I hact I see no why to teach biology with out teaching evolution. I see no reason to teach Creationism in a biology calss except as a historical footnote. Sort of like teaching that people used to beleive that the world was flat. Don't paint all Christians with the same brush, even the Pope has come out pro Evolution.
>For one thing, it is ironic to say that mutation caused by intelligent, deliberate design proves evolution: mutation by >unintelligent, random accidents.
Natural selection operates with the environment of a species defining the course of evolution. Are you saying that we live in an entirely random environment? There is chemistry and physics to content with. This argument is really quite insane.
> Animal breeders have not been able to turn dogs, cats etc to another species.
This is very ironic that you mention dogs, as different breeds of dogs are actually so dissimilar as they do not combine to form fertile offspring. This is how taxonomists differentiate species is it not? Don't believe me? Ask a veterinarian.
>Evolution by natural selection tends to be exaggerated. What is the point of arguing selection among existing >variants? All this means is that we are looking at a form of selective extinction. No new species result from the >observed selection.
Species is really just an organizational unit nothing more. At what point are two subspecies considered different species? Biologists have run into countless examples naturally where two different sub-species can interbreed with another sub-species but not each other. As you must already know the ability to interbreed is what defines a species. Should these be considered separate species?
It should be added that although evolution is the most commonly accepted theory among experts in biology. It is not the most commonly accepted theory by those who are not. Infer what you will from that.
>Evolution benefits from a lack of scientific skepticism, and an ideology that pushes for its acceptance without >question.
I just love it. Every year, it seems, some boneheaded knuckle-dragger of a "Fundamentalist Christian" demands that their favorite myths be taught right along side of the theory of evolution. Too bad they don't have the guts that the captain of the Beagle had, or thay might cut their throats too, and save us all having to listen to their moronic diatribes again.
Look, Reverend Jim, the bible is a book, written by human beings. No holy-ghostwriter involved. You want to fill your kids head with this crap, go ahead, have a fuckin' nut, but don't expect me to take seriously the myths of a bunch of ignorant goat-herders who didn't understand the mechanics of rainfall, but somehow got the straight poop on the creation of the universe.
"But, it's GOD'S WORD!"
Yeah, right, and I've got some beachfront property in Florida for ya...
-- "...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Wrong. Archaeopteryx doesn't have a wishbone. That's one of the bird features it lacked, which led some to conjecture that it could only glide, and not actively fly. Its feathers, however, seem to suggest that it did actually flap its wings, since the shaft is positioned asymmetrically. Quite a mistery, IMHO
There is no incompatibility between scientific cosmology (is there any other kind?) and Gen.1: - the two are describing totally different aspects of the same thing: cosmology deals with how, and the Bible with "why". The bible presents it in a *poetic* fashion, so if you take it literally that things happened quite that way, you're mad. IMHO, at least:)
I hate coffee, so I'll skip your suggestion.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You need a course in introductory Hebrew. Since a) I sincerely doubt you care, since you are evidently very willing to do whatever violence you wish to the text, and b) I have a background in the Hebrew language, I'll give you the short course. Please take notes so that I never have to repeat myself to you again:
There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever in the text of Genesis 1 that it is poetry. It is narrative discourse. There is likewise no indication whatsoever in the Hebrew text that the word "day" is meant to be anything other than a literal 24-hour day.
Furthermore, while I won't dispute the fact that the Bible is not principally intended as a book on cosmology, it is nevertheless true that the Bible is infallible when it addresses any issue. It actually does address the issue of cosmology: Genesis 1. It therefore speaks infallibly on the issue.
Lastly, I can tell the difference between evolution and cosmology, thanks. The simple fact is that if evolution were true (which it is NOT) it would require a certain cosmology. It is a (false and stupid) attempt at a materialist explanation of human origins. Inevitably this presupposes a materialist cosmology as well (and this is equally wrong).
Your punishment is to write on the chalkboard the following:
"I will not make pronouncements about the nature of the Hebrew text of the Bible when I don't know anything about it at all."
Repeat this until you get it, or ad infinitum -- whichever comes first.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re:Intro to Hebrew Literature 101
by
DrMaurer
·
· Score: 1
"There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever in the text of Genesis 1 that it is poetry. It is narrative discourse."
Fine, your punishment is writing on the chalkboard till the world blows up:
"Prose can be poetry. Prose can be fiction. Prose can be opinion. Prose can be narrative discourse. Prose can be anything anyone pleases."
Just in case you haven't read a good book in a while (not The Good Book, please).
I've wrote a book on the beginning of the world. I wonder if in 8000 years it'll be accepted as fact . . .
later
-- Dan
The wise shall be made fools.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just out of curiousity... What arguing is going on? I've seen very little (if any) written in suport of Kansas or Creationism. Instead, I've seen jokes like, "Haw-haw, guess evolution ended in Kansasa a long time ago" about 2 dozen times. I guess it was sort of funny the first time. Primarily, I've witnessed a bunch of proud people expounding on how smart they are and how stupid and close-minded the other side is. These "open-minded" people have precious little tolerance for any views that differ from their own. I guess it's easy to be open-minded if it only applies to beliefs that agree with your own.
They need a National Park
by
Ektanoor
·
· Score: 1
Well why anyone goes so negative about this? It's great! I think it's the best chance to preserve some of the old, crappy culture that has been dying for the last 4 centuries and was almost delivered to extinction.
Kansas National Park. To protect the wildlife of reactionary minds, schlerotic theories and religious fanatics.
At least they will be protected from outside evolutionary processes. But I would not make guesses where they will go to in a 200 years from now. Anyway humans and its communities cannot avoid Evolution. Maybe they will become something like Australia marsupials in social terms...
Obviously your education is sadly lacking,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
but please don't force your brand of ignorance on our future generations. I bet if you have/do have any kids you will force your religious beliefs down their throats before they are old enough to realize that you don't know everything.
Get YOUR facts straight, jf
by
the+red+pen
·
· Score: 1
Here's the deal: In the passed proposal, it does not ban, decry, condemn, or pass any type of judgement on evolution.
Actually, it does. What this law actually does (and I've read it and understood it), is say that you can't teach any science as "dogma" and you cannot prevent anyone from promoting their belief solely because it contradicts widely agreed upon science. This places evolution, a deeply researched theory supported by mountains of evidence, on the same level as crackpot "theories" cobbled together to fit a religious agenda.
Earth is round? Sure looks flat to me... try to stop me teaching that theory to kids in Kansas. Aliens built Stonhenge! Hey, you got your theory, I got mine. Nazi Holocost? All fake!
Americans have a sense of fair play, albeit inconsistantly applied. It's considered a birthright to have the opportunity to voice an opposing view. Recently, fringe elements have been exploiting this culture artifact to gain legitimacy for their dubious opinions. It's time that people stop falling for this and realize that not all opposing viewpoints deserve "equal airtime." The Holocost did happen, the Earth is not flat and human beings were not willed into existance fully-formed by a ghost in the sky.
I was arrested in Kansas once. I was charged with trying to bring a book into the state. Luckily, I got off on a technicality. No one could prove it was a book.
Re:Get YOUR facts straight, jf
by
the+red+pen
·
· Score: 1
HuH? You have a reference for this?
Yes, duh. You can download the full text of the standards for the Kansas State Board of "Education" Website. It seems to be connected to the 'net with a 1200 baud modem (I think that adative modem technology must be seen as a dangerous flirtation with moral relativism), so I'll just post the quote here:
Some scientific concepts and theories (e.g. blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system role in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may conflict with a student's religious or cultural beliefs. The goal is to enhance understanding, and a science teacher has a responsibility to enhance students' understanding of scientific concepts and theories. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education. Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically.
A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect and civility, and teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. In doing this, teachers display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all students.
So...
It's not a 'law'. It's part of the recommended curriculum by the state school board.
It does not talk about 'not preventing' anyone from doing anything. It simply removes evolution from being a state tested subject.
For someone talking about fair play, you sure do get insulting pretty fast, don't you?
If you want to split hairs, it's part of the ratified curriculum. Nyah.
Re-read the paragraphs above. Basically they make it against policy to hurt the students' feelings by telling them that Santa doesn't exist or something like that. Being nice to idiots is laudable (not something I do, but laudable), but if someone is plain ignorant, you may not be able to avoid upsetting them no matter how nicely you tell them the Earth isn't flat or Jews are human and other generally agreed upon facts that have been in dispute in Kansas for some time.
As far as being a state tested subject, this is also in the standards:
As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms.
So, you can't tell anyone in a Kansas school that evolution is definitely true, but you are supposed to test them on it... unless it hurts their feelings or something.
Whatever. Your state. Your problem. Not mine. Good.
You're right on this. I was talking about other people's fair-mindedness. Me, I'm an elitist. Now bow before me.
Be fruitful and multiply...
by
Vengeance
·
· Score: 1
But your children had better turn out looking EXACTLY like you do.
Apparently, they've decided to make the wrong choice in the ongoing battle between evolution and inbreeding. It sickens me... Just sickens me.
Why does this board want to doom children to know LESS than they possibly can?
I propose that we teach the truth about the Universe: It's turtles all the way down.
-- It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Re: you don't understand science, then.
by
lamz
·
· Score: 1
"Also, I'm wondering if you could tell me 1) from where did this transglorious overbeing come from? and 2) how do you know there is only one transglorious overbeing?"
Of course there is only one, and she's black!
--
Mike van Lammeren It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Re:Prove god exists -- EASY
by
Graymalkin
·
· Score: 1
Well the fact that the Pioneer and Voyager space probes have left our solar system and can still be heard (they havent crashed into a crystal sphere encompassing our rock and star) I think that means there is plenty of open space in the universe, billions of miles of it. If you wanna prove Alpha Centuri is a star all you need to do is take two pictures of it at two different times of the year and figure out the doppler shift, it will come to about 4 light years if you can add. What I find funniest is you compare God to 10 billion dollars. There's an existencial difference between an all knowing diety and 10 billion dollars.
-- I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Re:Yet Another Analogy(TM)
by
dr+bacardi
·
· Score: 1
lets run this for about 4 billion years and see what happens:)
I'm **SO** opening myself up for flames here...but..
I can't stand them Christians!!! They annoy me! How can you NOT know that things evolve? There's too much proof! Do you REALLY think we were just "dropped" here? HELLO? DUH? How can you ban Darwinism in schools in the year 1999????? I'm going to puke. Man, just when you think we're getting ahead...
My fellow atheists may join me at http://www.provide.net/~downey. Yea, it's a lame-o plug for my band but you can at least download the sound clips and be happy.
If you are defending those nuts in Kansas then... well... you ARE a religous zealot, and an ignorant one at that
Reading my last post, I can't see anything that would qualify me as being ignorant.
Perhaps you use this word to describe anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you?
TedC
Science and Religious Fanatics
by
Rotten
·
· Score: 1
Well, when I was a child I attended to a christian school. My parents were both geologists. I grew up collecting fossils with my mom. She took me to the field since I was 6 months old. When I reached 2nd grade I told my teacher that the man evolved from apes, and fishes from older fishes...well, I was 6 years old:) It was a REALLY religious school, and my teacher was a true believer. But instead of getting mad with me, she called my father and he went down to the school and gave a class about evolution to us. Then, the teacher told us that the men is seeking ways to explain god's work and maybe god created animals and then started to change them because maybe he wanted them to be more suitable for mankind. That was OK for me then, and one of those childrens now is a priest. I was 6 and I didn't loose my faith, it took another 4 years for me to loose my faith, and It was when I realized that religion is as human as politics and there was nothing divine about it. When I understood that the bible is a good book, as good as any book that tries to help people, and it was written by people.
Science is not responsable to make childrens loose it's faith in god, religious people is.
They are just contributing to make kids hate them and became nonbelievers, just like me. Because, when you fell the authorithy is cheating on you, you just react.
Why is it that anything that goes slightly against your own ingrained notion of the world is automatically labelled "a bad thing" done by "stupid, ignorant morons"? And why do you think Christians are in this camp all the time?
Look, all the board has said is that the theory of evolution cannot be taught as if it were the only available line of reasoning. That's a good thing. Aren't all you guys all for exploring new possibilities? Being open-minded? Looking for truth? Seems to me that you've got your preconceived notions (and are unwilling to give them up) just as much as the "Christians" (your term, never mind that it was never said what religious views the people actually have) you deride.
There are tons of holes in the evolutionary record. They can't be explained. There is plenty of room for alternative theories as to how life came to be by interpreting the data differently. Saying "we'll find the data to fill in the holes someday" is equivalent to saying "God will reveal himself someday." Either viewpoint takes faith, and alot of it.
It all comes down to the worldview you take into your analysis. You either have the opinion that there is a supreme being, or that there is no supreme being. Either possibility may be correct! By choosing to ignore that possibility you are limiting yourself. So be open-minded for a change. The existence/nonexistence of a supreme being is unprovable. It's a variable in science. To be truly scientific, one ought to consider the scenario from both points of view.
This is precisely what's done when calculating the size of the universe using an unknown Hubble's constant. Find both values; it's gotta be in there somewhere. When you determine it more precisely later, then you'll know for sure, or at least better than you did. Until we can know for sure if there is a God or not (which by definition we can't) then we need to teach students that there is more than one possibility. Again, open minds are better than closed ones. They ask better questions.
So, all you so-called "open minded" slashdot readers, what's it gonna be? Are you willing to take the challenge to be truly open minded? Or are you going to cling to the safety of your preconceived notions, screaming and kicking that you've got the only handle on "the truth"? (Hmm, that sounds like something a "religious fanatic" would do, doesn't it? All the more proof that humanism is itself a religion.)
CT
Another good book
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Moral Animal. I don't remember who it was by. But a great book on evolution.
And "Curious George meets the man in the Yellow Hat" is always enjoyable... Definately Kansas-level reading.
When I hear about a biologist sequencing an organisms genome i come not to the conclusion of obvious evolution but of intelligent design ( hey its pretty much a program for life ).
I have to disagree there. If you look at the talk.origins web site, you'll see a nice FAQ filled with plenty of evidence of bad design in nature. If there was an intelligent designer behind life, he did a really BAD job of it. This is NOT evidence for a perfect god. Or even evidence for a highly intelligent god. What kind of intelligent thing would create humans having the blood vessels in FRONT of their retina where it can reduce sight instead of behind it like other animals?
At some point most everything comes down to at least a small part of faith. You take it on faith that evolution is not just as much a myth as the belief of scientists years ago that the sun revolved around the earth.
There is no "faith" required to believe evolution. There's enough evidence that it's by far the best explanation available for where life came from. We know that the Darwinian Process works (from experiements in other areas), and there's evidence that it happened there also, so why not?
Faith involves belief without evidence. Faith is believing a 2000-year old book is completely true in every word just because it says it is.
Just because you call belief in evolution faith doesn't mean it's anything like a religious faith. ---
-- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
counter
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is interesting that there is so much oposition to a school board not requiring round earth theory to be taught as fact. We certainly don't want students to be questioning any scientific hypotheses (grin). After all, what would happen if these students started to think for themselves and no longer accepted something so foundational to many peoples' view of life. Is the dogmatic support of round earth theory really about scientific evidence, or is the alternative just not philosophically acceptable? It seems that critical thinking is no longer highly valued in parts of the scientific community and much of our society. It is good to see that it still is in some school boards! When an issue is as scientifically debatable as this, present the options to the students along with the evidence and let the students think for themselves. Are people scared that their pet hypothesis can't stand up to that kind of scrunity?
Do you REALLY believe evolution?
by
Misfit
·
· Score: 1
Evolution is a theory. There's no proof for it. Things do change, animals adapt, and some minor changes do occur, but the complete rewriting of an animals genetics is so highly unlikely, it would be akin to all linux geeks suddenly thinking that Bill Gates is the a 'way cool guy'.
Let's say that evolution is fact and some microbe changed into, through evolution, a fish. What happens if the fish evolves lungs? Whoops, drowned fish. what if the fish develops legs? whoops, really slow fish.
Can you really look around at the world, the universe and not see God's fingerprints all over? We geeks say how openminded we are and that free speach is for everyone, but when it comes to religion (usually only Christianity) we close our minds. Ridiculing people for not believing the same thing we do. Just look at the flames for Microsoft from geeks.
For the past couple of weeks I've read a few stories where Christians were slammed in a small or large way. I never see budhists, wiccans, hindu, muslim, athiests, satanists, jews, etc. ridiculed. Ever wonder why that is? Are you afraid of something? The truth maybe?
"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." - Matthew 5:10-11
We've done or said nothing against you, and we are mocked and ridiculed. I'm sure this post will be moved to a -1 or deleted. More geek openmindedness
I want nothing more to do with Slashdot. Delete me from the database. Remove any reference that I was here. I wash my hands of this.
Misfit
Re:Do you REALLY believe evolution?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well said,
But please don't delete your user / stop visiting slashdot. Judging from all the previous posts slashdot needs people that can make level headed, non-agressive, non-bigoted posts.
Afterall I think that your post is more thought through, and more "scientific" than most of the pro evolution posts:)
Re:Do you REALLY believe evolution?
by
bcboy
·
· Score: 1
Misfit -- You really REALLY have no idea what you're talking about. When a fish evolves a lung, you get a lung fish, some species of which ARE STILL LIVING ON OUR PLANET. Visit any good aquarium and you will find one. I'll leave it to you to ponder why it's not drowning.
You're talking out your ass about something you've never investigated AT ALL. This is what all of the creationsist on this thread have done. What's more YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE THREAD. You begin like every other creationist on this thread by saying "it's just a theory", which has been addressed at least a dozen times already! Half a dozen times by me. You don't know what a "theory" is, and you don't understand the process of scientific discovery.
Read the thread. Learn the theory. Stop spouting off when you don't have a ghost of a clue.
Thank you for illustrating my point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You have precisely illustrated my point, showing the utter intolerance leftists have for any opinions which differ from their own; such people are labeled as racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.
I'm not sure it was intentional, though.
As for the person who moderated that comment up: you should be ashamed. Everyone doesn't think in the Politically Correct way. Deal with it. There was nothing "insightful" about that post whatsoever. It was namecalling and flamebait.
The genetics of populations of organisms have changed over time. That is the fact of evolution. It has been observed. There is no disputing that, without getting into some serious semantics about the meaning of "observation". This is what Creationists want to label as "just a theory".
The theory of evolution states that these changes take place and are perpetuated by mutation and environmental selection. This is a theory, and always will be.
To make an analogy to gravity, it is an observed fact that things fall to earth when you drop them from a height. The theory of universal gravitation is an explanation for why that particular event happens.
-- pooptruck
Evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's about time we stopped teaching a rediculous theory like Evolution! Evolution has been the biggest rip-off of scientific minds since the scientific method was discovered. Evolution is dead...the amount of evidence for evolution might fill a coffen....get it? It's dead!
Remember how the ebonics thing was killed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Remember when some school board in california approved the ebonics thing, and then everyone in the country wrote to them calling them idiots, and then they recinded the whole thing?
Everybody write the kansas school board. Kill it the same way.
-Tony jamesensor@mindless.com
Remember how the ebonics thing was killed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Remember when some school board in california approved the ebonics thing, and then everyone in the country wrote to them calling them idiots, and then they recinded the whole thing?
Everybody write the kansas board of education. Kill it the same way.
-Tony jamesensor@mindless.com
Well, 'cept for one small thang...
by
Langdon
·
· Score: 1
It was only Adam in that ship. When he got bored with playin' with himself, he got the autodoc to take out a rib and scrape some marrow so he could grow a clone (with the Y chromosome changed to X) - Eve.
I believe school does more than just fill children with knowledge. They also learn to interact with other people there. They learn that there are not-so-nice-people around. And people that are less intelligent, other, different, weird etc. In my opinion the most important thing one learns in school is social skills. You cannot learn such basic knowledge when you're kept in a save environment without having to deal with the "real world".
-- 0x or or snor perron?!
Be fruitful and multiply...
by
Vengeance
·
· Score: 1
But your children had better turn out looking EXACTLY like you do.
Apparently, they've decided to make the wrong choice in the ongoing battle between evolution and inbreeding. It sickens me... Just sickens me.
Why does this board want to doom children to know LESS than they possibly can?
I propose that we teach the truth about the Universe: It's turtles all the way down. And the lightning is an angry god. And we have winter because a goddess' daughter was kidnapped by the lord of the Underworld.
-- It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
And we had better be worried about being strung up on a cross of gold.
Someone should look into child laboor, too.
After all, it's almost 1900!
-awc
Dumb All Over
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...we can't really be dumb, if we're just following GOD'S ORDERS. After all, he wrote this book here. And in the book, he said he made us all to be just like HIM. So if we're dumb, them GOD is dumb; and maybe even a little bit ugly on the side! --Frank Zappa, Dumb All Over
God is an underachiever?
by
the+red+pen
·
· Score: 1
It seems that it's easier to not even consider the possibility that a far greater intelligence created us.
Really?
Why did this "far greater intelligence" place the arteries which supply the retina in front of it where they block the vision process. I mean, there's no physical reason why they can't be behind the retina where they'd be out of the way.
And what's the deal with the appendix? I have an organ which does nothing, but possibly get infected and kill me. This is a feature?
Why do I have to sleep? I sit around at a computer all day -- I'd kind of like to do more in my spare time than spend 8 hours in a coma! While I'm on the subject of pep, it would be really nice if my paracrine system didn't freak out because I eat too many complex carbohydrates (gee, it's almost as if my metabolism was developed in a time before grain was cultivated... how did that happen?)
Finally, I would be a lot more popular with the ladies if my penis was on my chin. As it stands now, I have to buy a sports car.
I think this "far greater intelligence" should open-source His little project -- I'd do a much better job.
Please tell me where in the Constitution you find the so-called separation doctrine.
Here's a hint: you won't find it in there. You'll find it in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson's writings make it explicitly clear that the intention was to erect a wall of seperation. Just becase the constitution doesn't explicitly state it doesn't mean it's not the way it is.
I, for one, wish that they had expressly stated it there. Not like it would help prevent the countless incidents that show gross ignorance of the constitution... ---
-- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Evolution Propaganda!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The new education curriculum is intedned to put the tools into pupils hands to enable them to judge for themselves about biological origins. That is a very different twist from the evolution propaganda in the report!
Uh, have you checked the reference page at that trueorigin.org site? It's brim full of ICR references, including books by Duane Gish and Henry Morris. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't an ICR site. Or, maybe not. Possibly the author was fed a bunch of ICR tracts and built the site without knowing just how unreliable ICR sources are.
The ICR (Institution for Creation Research) is a religous organization intended to turn "creation science" from an oxymoron into an agenda politically rammed into the USA education system. But, don't believe me, check out The Creation Research Society's Creed and Visits to the ICR Museum and decide for yourself.
I've read a couple of Gish's and Morris' books and lost count of the number of half-truths, misleading or out of context quotes, and outright lies in the first chapters. See Creationist Whoppers to see how they were revealed to be "liars for Jeezus" that they are.
Anyway, I glanced through trueorigin.org's Thermo rebuttals and found the same old bogus 2nd Law of Thermo crap, with the buzz-words changed so maybe their target audience won't notice. They're still using the outdated "disorder" metaphor for entropy, probably because it plays so well in the Bible Belt. By all means, read this site, but take everything they say with an entire shaker of salt. 8-)
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Re:Evolution non-existent in Kansa
by
Hard_Code
·
· Score: 1
What's wrong with teaching creation? That's just a theory too isn't it? The problem with teaching evolution in schools is that it often (almost always) gets taught as if it is fact.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Stitchley
·
· Score: 1
That's funny, as I have similar questions for the creationists. For example, with the exception of the great flood and a realtively small (compared to the number of years in recorded history) other concrete events, none of which were accurately recorded or can be backed up with any evidence other than anecdotal, it seems that God really hasn't done much since He started resting on the seventh day. How do creationists resolve this issue of the existence of God when His actions can be adequately explained without the assumption of the existence of a giant invisible dragon that pushes the stars around(Reference to Nightfall, by Asimov and Silverberg)?
Re:Polarization
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They no longer compete for strictly the same resources. In the areas where monkeys and humans still coexist, the monkeys are vegetarians, and the humans are hunters.
Re:And you wonder why people make fun of Kansas.
by
TypoDaemon
·
· Score: 1
The western 2/3 of kansas are idiots, thank you.
But of course, they're republicans, farmers, and don't know none of these "city thoughts".
They always vote for the republican ticket, always elect the damned republicans to the state legislature.
Maybe I'll start tellin people i live in mo, i live close enough...
Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Evolution theory is a theory (or should I say, theories). We know that evolution happens, we're just not always certain how it happens.
Unfortunately, they're still down on evolution, and not just the theories. I think I'll keep away from Kansas.
True enough; I realized this after I posted. Evolution is a fact (observed in numerous cases); natural selection is the theory of how evolution occurs, nowadays taken with a healthy side-helping of genetics, which was not known to Darwin.
-- This message has been scanned for memes and
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is
believed to be unclean.
Re:Are we sure MSNBC isn't channeling The Onion?
by
eyeball
·
· Score: 1
Elections for replacements for the vacated posts will be held during the upcoming general elections in November.
That's if they don't rule elections illegal first and institute some form of appointment-to-office-by-devine-intervention.
--
_______ 2B1ASK1
Evolution is a theory
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The headline didn't say that Kansas was mandating Creationism, it just said it was no longer mandating Evolution as a teaching. Evolution is a theory. Evolution takes alot more faith to believe in than creation anyhow if you think about it. -We'll make great pets
And if you think about it a little more, you'll understand that evolution has evidence for it, whereas creation doesn't have any evidence for it. Creation only has evidence against evolution, and that doesn't hold up under serious scrutiny.
While the local schools do not HAVE to teach creationism and they CAN teach evolution if they choose to do so, the statewide assessment test questions that each student will have to take are compiled by the SCHOOL BOARD.
Kansas discovers Fire and the Wheel! More at 11!
-- octo
Re:Evolution is a theory
by
Betelgeuse
·
· Score: 1
Yes. Very true. Evolution is a theory. But when we say "theory" we mean the scientific definition of theory. There are thousands of "theories" out there that everyone accepts as true. All theory means is that it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. But, the simple fact is, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. . . more scientific evidence then any other theory. So, shouldn't we teach something that we beleive to be true and that we have a huge amount of evidence for?
-- I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
Creation science == oxymoron
by
fliptout
·
· Score: 1
time for another religion vs science vs common sense flame war to break out on Slapdash, with all the zealots preaching and the impugned lashing out... wheee, open the floodgates
I was watching a "Doctor" of Creation "Science" on the local podunk religion station. He was attempting to exploit perceived holes in the fossil records. He went on to explain that dinosaurs and man coexisted at one time in history, but man eventually hunted dinosaurs out of existence (survival of the fittest...heheheh). He illogically proved this argument by saying that there are legends of man encountering "dragons" all over the globe-- so those mythical dragons were actually dinosaurs...
Needless to say, I laughed my ass off until I felt the sinking feeling that this guy took himself seriously. Then it dawned on me that other people might be watching and actually swallowing this tripe.
About a year or so earlier, on the same channel, the resident conservative talk show hosts interviewed some creation "scientist" who was trying to prove that the dinosaur foot prints in Glen Rose, Texas, were made only a few thousand years ago.
I don't know what mail order company these people got there "degrees" from. Calling these people scientists is like calling a trashman a "waste disposal engineer."
Disclaimer: In America, every body has the right to express their backasswards opinion. If you don't like mine, shove it. Have a nice day.
-- A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Evolution non-existent in Kansa
by
Shoeboy
·
· Score: 3
Scientists discover that evolution has stopped in Kansas. TOPEKAIn a discovery that has shocked biologists around the globe, a team of anthropologists and geneticists discovered today that evolution does not function in Kansas. "It was a shock, but when we examined the facts, all evidence suggested that Kansans are in the exact same evolutionary state as they were 4 billion years ago." Exclaimed Dr. Rajeev Papshigali, professor of anthropology at UC Berkeley, "The evidence was undeniable, low sloping simian foreheads, the inability to make and use simple tools - everything suggested that these people, if we may even call them that, appear to be genetically identical to Neandertall man. This challenges everything we've believed about evolution." Scientist first began investigating Kansans after noticing that a majority of them believed the existence of a gaseous vertebrate of infinite heft to be more probable than the accumulation of favorable mutations over geologic time. "It was amazing," explained Dr. Greg Hay, "we found that Kansans did not have sufficient mental capacity to understand the concept of evolution. That's not all, we found that they engaged in a primitive ritual where they would twitch on the ground uttering complete gibberish and then claim that they were speaking in tounges. We recorded the noises made, and found that they were identical with those of the spider monkey." Scientists had previously believed that humans and spider monkey had diverged in the evolutionary tree some 11 million years ago. "We may have found a species of primate that has existed unchanged for all that time, against all probability." Some scientists have criticized the findings of Doctors Papshigali and Hay, saying instead that the explanation lies in the fact that Kansans still use lead based paint on cribs, and that the infant Kansans tend to knaw on the bars of their cribs while teething. As pediatrician Dr. Ray Middleton argues "All the mental deficiencies of Kansans can be explained by brain damage due to lead poisoning. The idea tha evolution has stopped is ridiculous." Middleton, who is not a native Kansan is leading a drive to have lead based paint banned statewide.
--Shoeboy
Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clubs?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sharpshooting (with real bullets), archery, High school ROTC and Junior ROTC where kids were issued guns. And no shooting sprees like the Columbine CO scenario. Imagine that. Must not be the guns that lead to violence. To the knee-jerk liberals who want more secirity measures and less freedoms: Keep looking...
What this is is a bunch of geeks taking sensationalistic journalism hook line and sinker. The media loves to cover wars, not stories. So this is portrayed as a war between religios right (yay a victory for the religious right!) and Science. That is not the case, this is a victory for Science and Religion has little to do with it.
Even Scientific American recently addressed the problems of Evolution. Quantum Evolution (where species evolve into other wholy disting species) is something that is not understood and very difficultly explained with current natural models. Some reputable scientists even dismiss it whole heartedly sighting that it is only believed because we can't explain it any other way. I wish I could remember the month, it was a really good article.
Quantum Evolution deals with the *fact* that there is no evidence of small adapting steps between species (something Darwinian Evolution requires). instead you have species develop and remain unchanged for many years. If Darwinian evolution was the case, you would see more gradual changes. Right now, honestly the only support for the belief that one species evolves into another is mearly that they show the same traits. (Ooh that knuckle looks like one from the hand of a person!)
Now, I'm not playing God's advocate here. There have been many scientific beliefs (Aristotle's theory of the Universe for one) that had evidence and was taught in the schools. Why? Becuase there was no other way of explaining it? Isn't that what we are doing now in mandating Evolution as a fact? Talk about knowing better since 1799, I wouldn't want to see us revert back to before 1599.
No one is saying that Genisis will ever be opened in a classroom. Or especially required on a test. But honestly, Evolution has holes, serious ones. It should be tought that way, or stripped down to what we can say is happening (micro-evolution happens).
Why has Slashdot come to such stupid arguments. How about numerology? Maybe we should eliminate Math becuase Numerology has holes? Wait, Astrology is based on the zodiac, you can see the zodiac every night, Astrology should be mandated!
Please, punk. Get a clue. Astronomy is a science, it has pretty good evidence of planets (I've seen Saturn, and Jupiter and Mars with my own eyes.) Maybe you were refering to Cosmetology? Need a manacure? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
Open Minded Creationist
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I love the theory of evolution. It explains the progress of species and even provides possible roots as to their origins. Of course, I like science and enjoy scientific theory (especially physics). I believe in the adaptation of species and natural selection. I also believe that we have to no further look at flying animals or the complexity of our own bodies to see God's hand. Many Christians do not want Darwin's origin of species taught as fact. I don't blame them, it is only a theory Many Christians aren't open-minded enough to look at Darwin's origin of species from a pure fascination point of view. Christians soemtimes let their tunnel vision block them from having fun. Most Christians I know assume "evolution" = "Origin of Species" which is not the case.
You can believe both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Creation story says that god created the world, but it doesn't say how. Maybe he created it using evolution. A "day" to god could be billions of years to us.
Prove to me that God said it. Forget the whole creation myth. Just prove God said anything to anybody. Without that Bible. Try it.
If that new version of a translation of a revision of a copy of a king's decree is your 'evidence', you are not convincing anybody of anything except for the easily influenced and brainwashed.
If you see no reason not to believe a 3000 year old tome's explanation for where we came from, disregarding all obvious evidence that the Earth is more than 4000 years old and that life is as well, then you sure don't belong in a teaching position.
If english was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!
Evolution is an interesting theory. But it is just that: a theory. Teaching it has been debated for years. It is good to teach children about theories. It is not good as presenting only one theory (a controversial one at that), and far too often, not representing it as a theory. In most public schools it is the only theory taught about where we came from. If you don't teach the children that there are alternatives, chances are they will believe the one theory they have as fact.
Many people grow up never hearing that there is any other possibility. They believe that all other theories on the matter of the origins of life are backward, and based entirely on the superstitious religious beliefs of those who would never even consider evolution because it would undermine there faith. And there are those like that out there.
Whether or not Evolution is to be taught in schools is the right of an individual state to determine, as whether or not to teach Creation. If the state is fair, the will either allow both or neither.
But before complaining about this and being shocked that a state would choose not teach the theory of evolution in their schools, spend some time researching the matter. See for yourself whether or not Creationism is backward and illogical. Check out books, or sites that present both arguments. To look at the propaganda of only one side (either side) would be silly. Seriously consider this, before dismissing it. You will probably learn some things that surprise you.
The inner workings of our world our incredibly complex. Decide for yourself if they were divinely orchestrated, or miraculously evolved.
Maybe that's their plan: drive out all the rational thinkers!
--
_______ 2B1ASK1
right wing != fundimental christianism
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nowadays the term right wing gernerally means fiscal conservitism. Even using the origianal left and right, the right is the side that wants to maintain the status quo. Just because fundimentalist cristians are usually on the right wing, this does not mean that the right wing made up of fundimentalist cristians. Also, just because the Christian coalition ran its candiates as republicans, does not mean that this is a republican idea, it just as easily could have happened with democrates if they were in the majority. Republicans, do not want to set us back, they just don't want us to end up like Canada 50%+ taxes and sociallized health care that doesn't work.
Health care is 100 fold better in Canada than it is in the States. Even with health care I am very afraid of falling ill or being injured while living here. The taxes are NOT 50%. They're about the same as they are in California. And of course, when I lived in Canada I didn't have to worry about being shot + killed when walking down the street or driving my car. And the beer's better. Far better.:)
My point in no way was to say that there is anything wrong with the republican party. However I do seriously question the way which Kansas citizens seem to vote republican without first finding out the first thing about the candidates. This only happened because nobody really campaigned for those seats on the board of education. The christian coalition candidates easily got the republican nomination and boom they were elected pretty much without anyone knowing what their views are. Many Kansans are quite ashamed about the PR that this generates for the state, but there's nothing that they can do about it now.
Please don't take my post as an attack on fiscal conservatism or "right wing" politics. Where I'm from when you say extreme right wing you mean the christian coalition and republican simply means the person who is going to win the election.
Didn't mean to offend anyone, I'm a mathematician, not a political science student.
WTF? I am a Canadian, and since when did Canada have 50% taxes and socialised health care that doesn't work. Our health care works very well, it's one of the best systems in the world, much much better then that of the United States. As for taxes, ours are about the same as yours (income tax) and while sales tax sucks, we have a much less personal debt, bankruptcy filings, and much better cost of living in general. Thinks before you type...
Hi there, I'm a Canadian, speaking to you live from igloo, along with the 5 other people in my country (we all live in two igloos, side by side) as we work to pay our takes.
Canada's taxes are much higher than the United States (hardly 50%, unless you're in the absolute highest tax bracket, in which case you've got tax lawyers to bring you down a couple of brackets), but the money is used to do something. The health care system certainly does work, I have never had any problems whatsoever accessing health care, and I've never paid for it directly. If you're stinking rich, then of course you can get better health care in the US, but if you're poor you're essentially ignored and left to die without medical care.
I could very easily give reasons why Canada's politics are far superiour to those in the States. Let me see... welfare and employment insurance that actually works (for now...). Reduced access to guns which - get this! - leads to lower violent crime rates and an odd lack of kids shooting each other on a regular basis. A nationwide pension plan which, while it doesn't give you a fortune, gives you real money.
A popular Canadian comedy TV show has a feature called "Talking to Americans" in which they basically laugh at the various American opinions of Canada. In one episode, they had a quick talk with the Republican governor of Arkansas. If I remember correctly, the story they gave was that due to global warming, Canada's national Parliament - an igloo - was slowly melting, and they were embarking on a restoration project, and he fully believed it, of course, and gave the requisite "Good luck refreezing your parliament, Canada!" speech.
Have those nutty religious folk explained the lack of dinosaurs in their bible? Don't think I've heard the official explanation of that one yet...I expect it to be something along the lines of "whoops!".
:P
-- --
www.bteg.com | bleh.n3.net | hac47.dhs.org
Re:Dinos
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This was an insanely stupid post, the last contributing author to the Bible died almost 2000 years ago. To say 'their' Bible is ignorant, and no one asked them about dinosaurs...you expect them to anticipate every question that you have now? Be realistic.
the last contributing author to the Bible died almost 2000 years ago.
Actually closer to 1850 years ago. Parts of the bible (new testament) weren't written until almost A.D. 150.
you expect them to anticipate every question that you have now?
I don't of course. But the point is SOME people do. They believe the answer to everything they need to know from cradle to grave is contained in the bible. You & I find this ludicrous, but these are the same people who want us to teach creationism. Sigh. If someone can show me half the evidence for creationism that there is for evolution/darwinism I would be willing to consider it. But none of these people look for anything to validate their own 'theories'. They just try to tear down the ones they don't like (evolution).
Bahh, remind me never to go to Kansas again, they must have some mighty funny chemicals there to scrub those brains right out of your head.
There was a drought (before or after) IIRC.. Check the bible - I am no specialist;)
And who said they dissappeared. Deep in the waters...:)
-- <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you're curious about all these so called "problems" with darwinism, read books by Richard Dawkins (e.g. the extended phenotype), he makes a good effort to explain them.
I don't intend to be mean, but you seem to be missing something important.
A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is a hypothesis that has a lot of evidence to support it, and is accepted as fact. A theorem is a mathematical proof, and is hardly ever possible in science, due to the fact that science deals in evidence and experiment, not in axioms.
-- Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Re:Science will still march on.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ONE small problem. Nearly 50% of americans beleive evolution is false and creationism is true. This "small" victory in Kansas is going to spark more and more religious fanatics taking their school boards to court to get the same result. Unless pro-evolution forces get working, the next generation of children will be mostly creationists.
Re:Science will still march on.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All of science is Theory. Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity. No one PROVES anything in science 100%. The only way progess can be made is by keeping an open mind- open to the possibility that we're wrong. Evolution will never be proven, per se. However, it is backed by an enourmous amount of evidence. If we're not teaching theories anymore, we're going to have to eliminate ALL science classes forever. This would, effectively, reduce the human race to a bunch of pathetic morons, squatting in the Kansas dirt and reading their bibles instead of thinking. My contempt for those who accept what they READ as truth instead of THINKING is boundless, and some creationists fall into this category.
Re:They've got to be kidding...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm relieved to see someone who doesn't assume that their view is right. I'm on a page very close to you, if not the same page. (Christian, Bible, [micro-]evolution) I stumbled along something interesting. It describes some of the typical comments that are just pro-evolution for the sake of being pro-evolution. -Pete- "That which is unchallenged and exercised as habit rapidly becomes ritual. When this occurs, dissent becomes an object of surprise, if not resentment." -- B. Carmon Hardy
Evolution DID stop in 1799 in Kansas
by
rhadc
·
· Score: 1
Ok, look. I think Kansas has a serious point here. See, what scientists haven't been able to figure out is _why_ evolution stopped in Kansas in 1799. But why really doesn't matter. What matters is that the kids understand their immediate surroundings. Until they figure out how to jump-start evolution again, they shouldn't teach that evolution is something that occurs in Kansas. Evidence that evolution doesn't occur: 1. The gene pool hasn't changed in 200 years. The inbreeding has been happening over and over again. For proof, look who's running the board of edumacation! 2. The only people with cars in Kansas are people driving through. And the tourist attractions are 5-legged cows(and I'm serious here). 3. In Kansas, they go with 1799 puritan logic - black and white. Good and evil. Evolution and creation. The production team of "The Wizard of Oz" was on to something. As soon as Dorothy wasn't in Kansas anymore, Everything went color. And when she got back, everything was black and white again. 4. The state still excels in agriculture. Most of the land is devoted to it. Quantity, not quality. In more civilized states, they use science and evolution-based discoveries to create things like bigger, better, seedless fruits and vegetables, so they can devote more land to things that are good... like oil refineries!
So there it is. Proof that evolution in Kansas stopped in 1799. And because of that, I support the Kansas board of Education in NOT teaching evolution to children who will never experience it.
rhadc
If they can't teach opposing points of view...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think the move on the Kansas board is GREAT! Without even touching on whether evolution is Fantasy or Fact, let's consider this. The schools are not allowed to teach opposing points of view such as Creationism. Only teaching one side is wrong, and it is indoctrinating the children in what one faction believes to be true! If Christian Schools will present both sides, why not public schools?
As for everyone crying separation of Church and State, consider this, Evolutionism IS a religion!
Zane
Re:If they can't teach opposing points of view...
by
DuaneGriffin
·
· Score: 1
I think the move on the Kansas board is GREAT! Without even touching on whether evolution is Fantasy or Fact, let's consider this. The schools are not allowed to teach opposing points of view such as Creationism. Only teaching one side is wrong, and it is indoctrinating the children in what one faction believes to be true! If Christian Schools will present both sides, why not public schools?
I think the move to teach practical methods of mass killing is GREAT! Without even touching on whether "killing people is bad" is Fantasy or Fact, lets consider this. The schools are not allowed to teach opposing points of view such as "it's good to kill". Only teaching one side is wrong, and it is indoctrinating the children in what one faction believes to be true! If murderers will present both sides, why not public schools?
-- -
"I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine"
- Bob Dylan (Tight Connection to my Heart)
Evolution has actual problems in its theory.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You may continue to be speechless longer than you expected if you look at evolution more closely. Some of its "science" has real problems like a contradictory fossil record, and trying to explain how life came from nonlife with explanations that a lot of scientists find fault with. In fact some evolutionists think life started on another planet and was brought to earth. Example: Sir Fred Hoyle a well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist. Ph.D. His articles have appeared in Nature and other respected journals. Sir Hoyle is co-author of the book, Evolution from Space he helped write because he can't reasonably explain how life could have originated on Earth. Sometimes a theory is just a theory.
Re:Evolution has actual problems in its theory.
by
MetallicBurgundy
·
· Score: 1
An interesting point. I have noticed that more and more recently: Evolutionists seeing the improbability of the Origin of life, and looking for new alternatives... But that still begs the question: Where did it all start?
-- MetallicBurgundy
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Farce+Pest
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm.
I theorize that all automobiles are blue. But I just saw one that isn't blue, so it must be a true theory (by your "logic") that all automobiles are the complimentary color orange.
Sorry, doesn't work, except maybe in Kansas. Take your own advice.
(Another example for the slow-witted: If you proved evolution to be false, this would not somehow prove creationism to be true.)
-- This message has been scanned for memes and
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is
believed to be unclean.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think that 97% of our DNA is identical to that of Chimps... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You can believe in evolution (as in macroevolution or Speciation), or you can believe in creation (as in god created stuff) but until either one can be proven, I think both should be kept out of our schools. It's simply not science.
I'm just concerned what the board who decided this will do next. This is a move towards neutrality, I'd hate to see them carry it too far.
"God" bless our public schools.
by
berniecase
·
· Score: 1
Seems like private school's looking more and more promising for our youth.
Here in Washington [State], we never were taught creation in public schools. Evolution was the primary curriculum. That's the way it should be. Leave creationism to the church, where it belongs.
I always thought of science being the search for truth. Funny how creationists call their beliefs "science" when they're simply relying on a book that's not been truthfully proven, while the real scientists rely on scientific methods that more than prove their theories.
Well, I always knew I never wanted to go to Kansas, this just proves it.
--Bernie
Re:"God" bless our public schools.
by
Darchmare
·
· Score: 1
--- Here in Washington [State], we never were taught creation in public schools. Evolution was the primary curriculum. ---
Sadly, this is somewhat mistaken. I assume you're from the west side of the mountaints, right? Here in the south-eastern desert areas (specifically, the Tri-Cities) things are a little different. We have far too many right-wing, gun-toting rednecks per capita. Tons of bible-thumpers call the area home, and evolution merely shares time with creationism - as if it has ANY basis in science whatsoever.
This was how it was when I was in 8th grade science about 6 years ago - and that was with a relatively progressive teacher (I don't think it was his choice). I assume community pressure from all around as well as the Baptist church literally next door to the school didn't help any.
My suggestion: Let's let these certain individuals have their very own state or two in the midwest, locked away from the rest of the world. Then, in a few hundred thousand years, let's return and see if they've evolved any more. Given their recessed little gene pool, it's no wonder they believe in creationism over evolution.
Evolution is the most useful model
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Science will never prove evolution, like in some mathematical proof. It's just the best model so far, it is the most useful one.
True, I'm saying it's a theory, but not just a theory. As stated above, it is the central theory that all of modern biology is based on. The whole classification system of biology is based on evolution.
The fact that electrons are the basis of electricity has not been proved either, electron interactions are just a bunch of funky math, but it is the best model we have, the most consistent with observed phenomena.
If creation is also a good model, we should see some biological/scientific use for it. Does it help predict behaviors? Does it help explain similarities in plant and animal species? Does it yield a method of classification?
Indeed. The very next sentence of the Hitchhiker's Guide quote goes something like this:
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, who then goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
--
-- Do I look like I speak for my employer?
There is an upside
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I used to worry about job competition in the sciences when I got older and slower. Not anymore.
Here is a more reasonable take on the story
by
diagnosis
·
· Score: 1
Go to this story for a less reactionary take on the article than the one with MSNBC spin. It's still bad, but this article says that they are _not_ banning the teaching of evolution, but neither are they promoting it.
Show me the missing link!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Show me the missing link and I might beleive in evolution as a scientific fact. I think it is slightly stupid and very ignorant to think that the human species(or any species) could make such a huge leap away from our closest relative. I mean, sure, some animals are very similar and seem to have evolved from looking and acting one way to another. It just seems silly to think that a dinosaur became tweetybird and that a doglike creature in South america became a freshwater dolphin. Come on. I dont see the missing link in any of it.
Re:I don't like living here... in Omaha
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
To be fair (speaking as one of the godless hordes) most Christians, or at least most Christian churches, do not have a problem with evolution. The Catholics in particular fully support it, apart from some mutterings about God inserting a soul at some point in the process. Creationism is largely peculiar to the fundamentalist species of American (although some Native Americans have their own charming variety.) Sometimes I really wish I was European.
Re:Heh.. Bass-Ackward Public Schools..
by
Citizen_Kang
·
· Score: 1
One point:
1. How is living in a place where a tornado may hit your town once every twenty years any different than living in Japan or Califoria, where Earthquakes do millions of dollars of damage regularly? Or living in Georgia, Florida, or the Gulf Coast, with the incredible carnage of the yearly hurricanes? How about living on a volcanic island, or trying to live through the annual monsoons in the philippines and south-east asia, or... I'll stop now.
Sorry to pick nits, but as Kansan I felt the need to defend myself against this endless hick^H^H^H^H Kansan bashing.
USA never ceases to amaze..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, let's pass a law that makes Pi == 3 , cause that'd be sooo much easier on the junior high school kids who have enough to deal with (memorizing baseball stats ). I *still* remember Pi to 10 digits when we had to memorize it in grade 5 or 6 (in Europe of course).
Re:I don't like living here... in Omaha
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Gravitation is a Law. Creationism is not.
Re:Science will still march on.
by
MetallicBurgundy
·
· Score: 1
I will agree with you, that some Creationists fall into this category, but I would also say that there are also some Evolutionists that fall into this category as well.
-- MetallicBurgundy
the key word is "predict"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about quantum theory? There are many that think it is plain wrong, that it is incomplete, and that it will soon be replaced. However, they know that it is a GOOD theory and should be taught. Why? because it does a better job of predicting observations than the previous theories.
Yes, this is true. It also highlights a difference between the theory of evolution and quantum theory. Quantum theory may not be the last word, but it does allow us to make better predictions than ever before. On the other hand, what predictions has the theory of evolution allowed us to make that we couldn't before?
Before you jump on me, note that the Board still endorses the concept of "micro-evolution" (rightly, in my opinion). This covers change within a population, like bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, or moths turning color to match pollution-stained trees. There is sound scientific evidence for this phenomenon, and good predictions have been based on it.
HOWEVER, the theory of evolution as a whole is much less well supported by currently known facts. Have we predicted, and then observed, the birth of a new species? NO! Granted, the time spans involved make it difficult. But, sources such as the fossil record fall far short of setting this theory on solid ground.
I do think that the Board has gone too far, by completely banning it from the schools. However, I think that most school systems present it as "fact" (on the same level as quantum theory), and fail to emphasize that it is not stongly supported enough by the evidence to warrant such certainty. There must be a happy medium between the two.
Josh from Work
Sick
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is so fscking sick that I don't know if I should laugh of cry. I'm just soooooo damned happy that I don't live in America, "The land of the free"! I think I'll cry a bit right now and start to laugh tomorrow and do that the rest of my life. America - it's a big joke!
Yeah, who wants to live in a place where the government doesn't even have enough control to tell you what to think.
Re:Sick
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What the hell do you mean? This shows what's GOOD in America. This passed because people decided to push it because they believed in it. It will be overturned when other people (most likely the majority in this case) decide to change it. It all relies on the people. It is indeed a governmental system by the people, of the people and for the people.
Idiot! Hybrid is extinct! Only divergants around!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
"People evolved from monkeys" is the biggest misconception that the clueless seem to want to prepetuate. And the anti-evolutionists love to beat the evolutionists over the head with this. This is false and misleading.
People and other primates (monkeys, chimps, etc.) evolved from a long extinct creature that was neither human nor chimp nor monkey... There is no reason that this creature "must be around today". Only believing the statement at the top of this comment would lead one to think this.
I wish people would get a clue.
Neatherthal Defence League
by
coyote-san
·
· Score: 3
Hey, we at the Neanderthal Defence League are tired of you "oh so evolved" people making us out to be idiots.
No Neanderthal ever made, or supported, a law that flew in the face of established science.
No Neanderthal ever made, or supported, a law to restrict the peaceful use of strong cryptology.
No Neanderthal ever made a claim that the sun stopped in the sky for a day. (What's a day when the sun has stopped, anyway?)
But us Neanderthals are damn tired of you comparing us to the dredges of your own gene pool. It's YOUR people who are bunch of drooling idiots. It's YOUR people who fight the teaching of evolution in biology classes. It's YOUR people who keep buying Microsoft products. (This is slashdot, after all!)
Get over it.
-- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Re:Science will still march on.
by
rudedog
·
· Score: 1
Actually, science never proves anything. Proof belongs in the realm of mathematics. All science can do is continue to gather evidence that supports a theory. Some theories have so much supporting evidence that many people just call them facts, but scientists are always careful to refer to them as theories.
It's a fact that things fall. The theory of gravity tries to explains why. It's a fact that populations evolve (i.e. change over time). Theories of evolution try to explain the mechanics.
As for the theory of creation, they can't really be called theories, because none of them seem to have any predictive value, which is one of the most important uses of a theory. If you can't use the theory to predict things, you can't set up an experiment to try to falsify the prediction.
On the other hand, if the theory makes predictions, and the experiments don't ever falsify the predictions, then the theory continues to gain supporting evidence. After a while, people just start to say "fact".
Re:Interesting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
God is Dead -Nietzche
Nietzche is dead -God
Re:The end times are coming!
by
zuvembi
·
· Score: 1
It is time to return to that old tyme religion!
Absolutely! Time to break out the Maypole, dance around the bonfire naked while drinking and carousing, Burn offerings of food and wine to the gods... Oh wait, we're we talking about that young upstart Christianity:). Damn, oh well, most of the holidays are heavily influenced by the pagan ones anyway (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, etc..)
Well, looks like somebody on the other side of the issue ought to speak up.
I admit that it is pretty tough to draw the line between what should/shouldn't be taught at schools. What do you do when x% of the people in your school district believe in God and Creation, and get offended when Evolution is taught at school, y% don't care, and z% demand that it be taught? The question is not whether morals/religious beliefs are taught at school, but WHOSE morals are taught--the athiest's morals or the believer's morals. When a theory is not accepted by everyone, should it be taught?
I believe in Evolution. There is far too much evidence to deny it. However, I do not believe that man evolved from the apes. (They evolved from dolphins. Just kidding.) There is plenty of evidence that species change over time, diversify, etc. Humans, too. But the evidence that man evolved from apes is fairly sparse, and a lot of it depends on unconfirmed assumptions (that the fossilized skull came from the same person as the hip bone found nearby, etc.). And nobody can prove that God didn't create man, who then spread over the earth and killed a bunch of ugly hairless apes. In other words, there is a point at which the argument is not complete. It depends on whether you believe in God.
I have no problem with schools teaching evolution, to tell you the truth. Evolution, as a theory for the origin of the species, is fine and I think it is true.
I take some issue with teaching that mankind evolved from apes. It isn't outlandish to teach about it, in my opinion. Every teacher needs a certain amount of leeway in teaching their own opinions. But to present it as absolute truth, to not allow dissenting opinions, and, as sometimes happens, to ridicule those who don't believe it, is wrong.
The last thing I want to mention is something about the place for morals in our society. There is a small trend (my prediction is that it is short-term) to put religion back into school. I don't think it will work. What needs to be taught is not religion but morals: absolute truths that everyone can agree on. They are the things I learned in Sunday School, like "don't steal," "be good," "you are responsible for your own actions," "you are loved," and "your personal integrity is worth more than all the money in the world." Teaching this in school as much as possible hopefully won't offend anyone.
On the other hand, what happens when you tell a kid that everyone is just an animal? That human life is worth no more than the life of that cow that died to make that hamburger? There will be a little bit of confusion, and for most people it will be resolved ok, but some might just come to the conclusion that "if it is ok to kill the cow and take meat from it when I wanted to, what is wrong with killing/stealing from another person?"
Anyway, FWIW my 2c. Hope it made sense.
-- Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Re:So?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
On the other hand, what happens when you tell a kid that everyone is just an animal? That human life is worth no more than the life of that cow that died to make that hamburger?
More people will become vegetarians! (which is a good thing IMO).
There will be a little bit of confusion, and for most people it will be resolved ok, but some might just come to the conclusion that "if it is ok to kill the cow and take meat from it when I wanted to, what is wrong with killing/stealing from another person?"
Hmm, I don't see why one should conclude that it's ok to kill people from that it's ok to kill cows. My logic tells me that since it's wrong to kill people (a fact for many of us) -> (evolution theory) -> it's equally wrong to kill cows.
However I don't live in America (puh) so I probably don't know much about killing and making it easy to obtain weapons etc.
Re:So?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Every teacher needs a certain amount of leeway in teaching their own opinions.
Noone should teach opinions. Stick to providing information which allows students to form opinions. Personally, though I know it will be hard, even I will be trying to let my children form their own opinions instead of pushing mine on them.
What needs to be taught is not religion but morals: absolute truths that everyone can agree on. They are the things I learned in Sunday School, like "don't steal," "be good," "you are responsible for your own actions," "you are loved," and "your personal integrity is worth more than all the money in the world." Teaching this in school as much as possible hopefully won't offend anyone.
You learned these in Sunday school? I learned these from my parents.
On the other hand, what happens when you tell a kid that everyone is just an animal? That human life is worth no more than the life of that cow that died to make that hamburger?
I'm sorry, but I missed the part of evolutionary theory that teaches values. Perhaps if our children could understand that we're all just an animal, as you argue against, they might have second thoughts about some of the things they do.
Perhaps more people should teach children values themselves instead of relying on school (Sunday or otherwise).
Hmmm... Public school for opinions, Sunday school for values... No wonder society is so screwed up these days.
> but some might just come to the conclusion that "if it is ok to kill the cow and take meat from it when I wanted to, what is wrong with killing/stealing from another person?"
When did faith in creationism ever slow down the rate of murder or theft in a society?
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Seperation of Church and State is week
by
Falrick
·
· Score: 1
The argument that I have seen popping up heavily here is the age old last resort of seperation of church and state. While our constitution does state that there should be a seperation of church and state, this simply does not apply. Since when was NOT teaching a subject considered to be infringing upon anyone's religious freedoms?
The seperation of church and state concept goes back to the government not requiring you to attend religious functions if you do not want to. This includes things like mandatory mass, or *requiring* students to attend bacheloriet before graduation. However, the banning the teaching of evolution does not fall into those categories.
The source of the political pressure to ban the teaching of evolution in this case was brought about by a religous group. However, that religous group also voted to elect those representatives. If you do not like who they voted for, then you will get a chance to vote against them in the future. Stating that they were unfairly elected because ignorant people just punch the catch all republican side of the ballot is not an excuse. If these people did not agree with the issues and possitions of the candidates on the republican platform, they should have payed more attention and voted for the people that they felt *did* represent them.
-- something clever
kansas school board
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
at least someone has the courage to can the farce that is evolution! it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in any world religion. if you do any research at all on the topic, you'll see that there is exactly zero evidence for evolution that crosses species boundaries. In other words: a bird may change some, a monkey may change some, but there is exactly zero evidence that a bird, fish, monkey or anything else has evolved into a different species. why should this evidenceless theory be taught as science???
Um, wrong . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Evolution, as a mechanism, pretty much adequately explains all of your points . . . You're forgetting statistical probability. Folks arguing against evolution keep saying "well, this XYZ is so complicated that it could never develop by evolution, and even Step X of XYZ is too improbable". Nothing is "too improbable," when taken over the span of BILLIONS of years. It seems to me that few creationists have ANY idea how long that is. Furthermore, complexity arises from simpler structures. Ever hear of the word "epiphenomenon"? The Krebs cycle is simply an example of that.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
steffl
·
· Score: 1
> there aren't any hybrids (half man/half > ape) around
well, the gorilla is genetically closer to human then to orangutan.
while the coverage of the monkey-ape-human specie-space is not continuous we have it pretty much covered. you can say that ape is half monkey/half human:-) you can say that gorilla is half orangutan half human:-) but: nothing you can say that can't... all you need...:-) I digress, but I hope you got my point anyway
As fully defined evolution, there are two types, micro and macro. Micro: minute change at the molecular level which induces change due to mutation or other. But the species remains the initial species. Ex: London species of moth that went from beige to dark coal black (similar to smog like colour of stacks nearby). This is accepted by the Church. Macro is not. Evolving from one species to another as in the case of ape to man. No available scientific evidence anywhere. And second, strictly against doctrine. As a strong Catholic and a Genetic Engineer, I say kudos to Kansas from a Canadian guy!
FYI, children are required to go to school. If the curriculum reflects a Christian ideology, then the children are required to go to a state-run religious event every day.
This ruling in Kansas doesn't, however, ban the teaching of evolution. It simply repeals the requirement to teach it. Nothing wrong with this legally, but I can't see a competant educator failing to expose children to Darwin's theory.
Re:We don't have enough fear of god for our own go
by
for(;;);
·
· Score: 1
> Ummm... so you are saying that the Crusades were > good?
sarcasm \Sar"casm\, n. [F. sarcasme, L. sarcasmus, Gr. sarkasmo`s, from sarka`zein to tear flesh like dogs, to bite the lips in rage, to speak bitterly, to sneer, fr. sa`rx, sa`rkos, flesh.] A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered with some degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a cutting jest.
Syn: Satire; irony; ridicule; taunt; gibe.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
--
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Re:Creation "science" is an oxymoron
by
lil_billy
·
· Score: 1
Forgive me if I don't find any evidence for the premise that: "the subject is outside the realm of empirical science"
Regardless, the '82 case centered around the fact that religion could not be taught in school due to the seperation of church and state (and Creationism was decided to be religious).
Make sense? Good.
Re: Canadian Health Care?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Socialized Health Care doesn't work in Canada? I lived there for 17 years and never had a problem getting decent health care. What doesn't work about? Has something changed in the past few years?
Because humans don't find chips very attractive and vice-versa.
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
Ted+Nitz
·
· Score: 1
If we can't keep guns, how are we to overthrow our government if it becomes too bloated and corrupt to function? That is part of what the US was founded on. Part of being a responsable citizen means that you keep the government in check. I for one believe that our government no longer functions properly, but as one individual with that belief there's not a lot I can do except leave the country, which I've considered. -Ted
Religion and anything that can be interpreted as in opposition to most common religions have always been very difficult subjects to teach because so many parents have objections to whatever might be said. It is on these grounds that religion has been eliminated from public schools. It sounds as if Kansas is removing evolution from the curriculum on the very same grounds--not based on whether evolution is correct or not. If this is their platform, they should be able to defeat the Americans United for Separation of Church and State... that is if they actually go to court.
Obviously they do not intend to teach religion either. Thus they are leaving the teaching of our origins entirely to the parents. In places where evolution vs. Christianity is a hot topic, this may be a good solution.
A big enough river running fast enough probably could have. Go read up on catastrophism.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Heh.. Bass-Ackward Public Schools..
by
Alex+Zepeda
·
· Score: 1
Since I live in California, I'd like to just point out, that there's a big difference. Earthquakes are inherrently more survivable. Japan for instance probably has some amazingly earthquake tolerant buildings, mainly they just have to sway. Secondly, it's rather obvious where an earthquake is likely to hit. That's not to say that there arne't pleny of hospitals built on fault lines, but rather it's easy to choose a safe location. For instance, I live in Marin, in an area which happens to be solid rock (bedrock, granite, something like that) and away from a fault line. The 89 quake caused no damage, in fact a family member slept thru it.
The real problem lies when you build on land fill (like a huge portion of San Francisco, namely the Marina district), or build on a fault line. WRT tornadoes and such, from what I can tell they can pretty much hit any part of Kansas. WRT volcanoes, there are volcanoes that are either dormant or have lava that flows slowly enough to cause minimal if any loss of property and life.
But think on the bright side, with all the politicians dragging their knuckles, they won't have to worry about shaving them anymore.
It refers to the way that most people who profess a belief in the Christian don't practice it very well. Unless you believe hatred, intolerance, bigotry, racism, and stupidity are the proper way to bring glory to god...
Oh like thisis a surprise. We all know that Evolution was simply though up so idiots could sell those posters of the ape morphing into a man. And so that Darwin guy could sell a fanciful little tale of Galapagos. And of course for those delightful FarSide cartoons.
"Ca-ooooooooookie Crisp!"
We don't have enough fear of god for our own good!
by
grappler
·
· Score: 4
Still reeling from the absence of the Ten Commandments in public schools, I reached for my news-paper on monday and saw that they are teaching 'evolution' without having pieced together the fossil record from the first genetic material to Polly Shore. (Hey, I can be reasonable)
I demand the right to a solid platform upon which I can support my dignity. How can I feel good about myself if I am reminded that I share common ancestry with ape-brutes? I've been to the zoo, and I decline to write of the horrid, disgusting things I have seen the creatures do.
With our sense of self-worth at stake, supporters of science will talk of 'emprical evidence', 'facts', and 'logic'. Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot at the center of the universe. And now they would have us force feed this, their evil-ution, to our kids.
Does a man who is doing his utmost to get into heaven benefit from filling his head with theories? Do we want our teachers questioning all that is good and decent, twisting things around with their fancy words? We must shift our focus back to something which is never used in an evil fashion: religion.
-- Vidi, Vici, Veni
Re:Is it just Darwinism...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No one is abandoning Darwinism for punctuated equilibrium. At most punc. eq. would be a modification of our ideas of how speciation occurs. Stephen Jay Gould, co-author of punc. eq. is a Darwinist. He's not the type of neo-Darwinist Dawkins is. (He's also not well respected by other biologists, I've read.) But he is a Darwinist.
What was that about zealots?
by
davey_bee
·
· Score: 1
What a violent reaction from our beloved Geek community! You'd think we were talking about Kevin M. If I didn't know better, I'd that yall's just a group 'o religious evolution zealots. sheesh.
Re:Kansas Educational Policy
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you; I support teaching Evolution as one possible explanation, NOT as proven fact, which is how it's usually taught.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:All I have to say....
by
Alex+Zepeda
·
· Score: 1
OK, this might be a troll, but... Ary you damn crazy, Americans? Banning the evolution theory and letting the religious right in to the school will decrease the number of well-educated students, suited for Univerdity study, that comes out of it. Oh, well, just continue and we'l not have to bother about you here in Europe anymore:) Or stop NOW.
-- --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Ribo99
·
· Score: 1
Whatever. All I know is that I don't have to come up with scienctific theories to write code...:)
--
I wear pants.
Re:Kansas Educational Policy
by
jflynn
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you were taught that science is about provable facts, not amassing the best guesses based on the evidence so far, you were greatly misinformed. Anyone teaching science in this fashion needs re-education just as much as the rabid creationists.
All science is theory. There is a convention to call stuff that hasn't been doubted in centuries "Law", but it just means a theory that is very hard to doubt, and requires lots of decimal points to disprove.
PI = 3, because the bible says so
by
Barbarian
·
· Score: 1
I believe it was Tennessee where at one time in the early 20th century the State government enacted a law wherein PI was declared to be 3.
In the bible, Solomon in his temple builds a round basin, 10 "cubits" across and 30 around. Therefore,
PI = circum/2r = 30/10 = 3
If it's the law, that's too bad if you disagree.
Why do Xtians hate evolution so much?
by
pandaba
·
· Score: 1
I'm not a bible-thumper myself (despite a rigidly fundie upbringing) but I was wondering why Xtians would have such a rabid difficulty with the whole idea of evolution?
Wouldn't it make more sense for an infinitely creative and logical god to create a self-sustaining, self-cleaning system which is flexible enough to recode itself on the fly in response to changing conditions? Even with a belief in the soul being unique to mankind, one could assume that the soul (along with moral responsibility and all the other fun baggage religion would like to give you) would be placed in man at the point his species reached a certain level (like maybe the scene in 2001 when tools are first used by the proto-humans; God could be in the monolith at the edge of eden which would make God an alien but I digress). There is nothing in this plot which would directly contradict Genesis if the book was viewed in a metaphoric way. Even the creation of the species in Genesis seems to agree with the generally accepted flow of evolution: plants first, then aquatic animals and birds (in a stretch: dinosaurs?), then mammals and finally mankind.
So why not evolution? Xtians could always claim the big bang and / or the mysterious first spark of life was provided by God. Xtians could even claim divine guidence in evolution from their beloved Creator who, following the silly shepherd metaphor they seem to like, nutured the chosen line until the first humans emerged.
Re:Why do Xtians hate evolution so much?
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
Biblical enthusiasts have never had any trouble stretching the text to make it fit their own beliefs. Why should evolution be any different?
IMO, what they are upset about isn't any conflict between evolution and the Bible per se, but rather it's the conflict with what Grandma believed.
Take the prototypical case: Church vs. Copernicism. Was the Church defending the divinely revealed Faith? No, they were definding the cosmology of a pagan Greek astronomer. But that cosmology had been accepted by society at large, and therefore it became 'heresey' whenever someone threatened it. (Oh, the irony! -- that they were defending an earlier pagan scientific theory against the views of their co-religionists!)
Christians should (IMO) take a little thought before they decide where to draw the line in the sand. Or rather, more of them should: it's the ignoramuses that gives the rest a bad name.
But unfortunately, as others have pointed out, the whole point of the board's decision was to increase the number of said ignoramuses. Can't teach creationism, well, we'll make sure they don't hear anything else.
Those of you who want to defend the faith should ditch the creationism and tout the positive and truly radical social ideals, rather than bleeding overmuch in defence of a neolithic view of the natural world.
I'm backing TedC on this issue. Before you call him ignorant you might take a closer look at the article. The story states that the school will still teach about microevolution -- something that is 100% observable fact. We can see how species change over time. Kansas schools are simply dropping the blind-faith support of evolutionary THEORY about creation of new species. When it comes to the theory side of evolution you have to have just as much faith (or more!) to believe that we are the result of such a process than you do to believe that God created us. Next time either read the news closer or try to start an argument somewhere else.
And why not? The sum of many small changes can add up to a big change, just like the sum of many small numbers can be a big number.
Micro evolution deals with adaptation within a species, macro evolution deals with the creation of species.
If that's your criterion, you have to concede your point already. We have observed speciation events (in insects, true) both in the laboratory and in the field. We have also observed it in mammals, specifically the Hawaiian wallaby if memory serves.
Now tell me, how do multiple species arise from a *SINGLE* population? It can't happen. According to the theory of evolution, how can there be a half dozen species of monkeys in a single area? *ANY* interbreeding, and the species don't seperate.
That's pretty simple. Suppose you have two different food trees in an area. Due to a mutation, a monkey gets a variant of a digestive enzyme which is considerably better at digesting the leaves of one, and is worse at the other. This monkey spends most of his time on trees of type A, and avoids type B. As this gene spreads among the monkeys which stay around A trees, the other monkeys stay around B trees because there is less competition (and their stomachs work better on B leaves anyway). Breeding between the groups isn't good for the A-tree monkeys, and maybe not for the B-tree monkeys either, so they tend to form reproductively-isolated populations even if they occupy the same territory. Eventually you wind up with two species which do not or cannot interbreed.
But, while evolution may even be possible, it ain't what's going on here. In addition to all this evidence that I just showed you, recently some mathematicians prove that it would have taken 40-50 billion years to get to the present stage.
If you take that seriously, you'll love this:
There are 365 days in a year available for work.
You get 2 weeks of vacation each year, leaving 351 days for work.
You only work 8 hours of a 24 hour day, leaving 117 days for work.
You have 2 days off each of 50 weekends, leaving 17 days for work.
You have 10 sick days each year, leaving 7 days for work.
You have the holidays of Christmas, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving. That is 6 days, leaving 1 day for work.
AND YOU WANT A DAY OFF, YOU LAZY BUM?!
No, I'm not serious. I'm just showing you how easy it is to feed garbage into a calculation and get garbage out. (Those "mathematicians"... you wouldn't be able to name any, would you?)
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Re:I concur, but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You say that micro-evolution is a fact while macro-evolution is a theory. Well, let me tell you that they are *BOTH* scientific theories because they are *EXACTLY* the same. The only difference is the ammont of time you have. Evolution (micro or macro) is based on the same set or premises, that mutations and crossover (if applicable) produce variety while selection chooses the best to repeat the reproduction cycle. This is so damn simple that only a moron is able to reject this.
Okay, so I'm not a good speller, like that would knock me down anything closer to a monkey.
'the Theory of Evolusion like Billy ' should be 'the Theory of Evolution like Billy '
Too bad you can Edit your comments after you post them.
-- David Gonterman of FoxFire Studios
http://foxfire.twu.net
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
be-fan
·
· Score: 1
ROTC students are probably not messed up enough to commit school shootings. No matter what, in todays society, the "freedom" of keeping a gun does not outway the advantages of getting rid of them. People don't need anything more than basic small arms to protect them selves (if that) and hunters should all use bows and arrows.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Are we sure MSNBC isn't channeling The Onion?
by
Brian+Kendig
·
· Score: 1
Except that . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Except that religious schools DON'T teach both sides of the argument.
God is Big
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This explanation will sound totally lame and stupid, or will make total sense, depending on your prejudices, but keep an open mind here. Assume for a moment that there is a eternal God, and that He created man, and everything else on earth. To begin with, this would make Him way more powerful and way more intelligent than any of us. Why should He have to explain Himself to us? Do we have any comprehension of who He is? f He tried to explain, would we really understand? Does a sculpture really understand the man who made it? Or even what its true nature is? The notion of us questioning God, or His existence is like ants questioning Man, and His existence, except that would make more sense.
The bible teaches us that PI(R)^2, but that is a fallacy.
PI(R) ROUND!
COBBLER(R)^2 !!!
--Corey
-- Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
J.+J.+Ramsey
·
· Score: 1
> There were probably were half man half apes, but > over time we ate all their food, or all of them > and they became extinct.
That's not a great explanation. If the halfway-man-halfway-apes were starved to death, skeletons should probably have been left behind. If they were eaten, then of course bone evidence might be more lacking, since the after-meal bones would probably get strewn about. Still, there should be something left behind. Ah, questions, questions . . .
This actually could make for a good science classroom discussion, looking at a problem from different angles, trying to see what does and does not fit. That's what science is about.
Evolution is a FACT!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Look, Dr. Darwin PROVED the validity of evolution over a century ago. Anyone hanging on to the concept that evolution might be 'wrong' or even a 'theory' really needs to be led into the 20th century - by force if necessary--
Wrong. There in NOT ONE special link in fossil collections. Evolution is FAR from a fact. Some top scientists claim it is harder to believe in evolution that creationism. STOP taking rumours as truth.
When you make statements to the effect that Darwin "proved the validity of evolution", keep in mind that he and his contemporaries knew very little about genetics and nothing of modern biochemistry. An enormous number of mutations must occur to produce a comlicated structure (such as an eye) where nothing of the sort previously existed, and none of those mutations are likely to have any inherent value on their own. The probability of actually getting an eye out of random mutations over only a few hundred million years is exceedingly small. Yes, life adapts to its environment, and species evolve into new species. This has been observed. But AFAIK nothing has ever been seen to suggest that something as complex as a cockroach could have evolved from a single-celled organism. As far as I'm concerned, evolutionism has joined religion as something that must be accepted on faith until more convincing evidence comes to light. Note: If you only intended to say that Darwin proved that species evolve into new,/slightly/ different species (an observable fact), I apologize for this post.
Darwin never said ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Darwin never extended his observations on animal species to say that humans "evolved". He was specific in saying that his theories applied only to the animal groups he studied on (Madagascar?). It wasn't until after Darwin's time that other scientists picked up his work, proclaimed themselves "Evolutionists" and decided to stir the pot and say that man evolved from ape. Also, I believe that Darwin was a bit of a Christian in that he openly professed a belief in God.
Yep. I believe Darwin wrote something along the lines of "praise God for His great intelligence in creating such a wonderful means for the survival of His creations."
-- Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Re:They've got to be kidding...
by
Python
·
· Score: 1
The truth is, there is evidence to both sides of the debate. How can we expect people to be able to understand the debate without presenting all the evidence for both sides of it? This standard amounts to nothing more than the Kansas school board dictating beliefs to students while ignoring facts.
Actually, there is no real evidence to support the creationist world view. The creationists know this, which explains why they play their hand in the world of politics and not in the world of science as with evolution. If there were any evidence to support their creationist hypothesis', it would be able to stand on its own in fully peer reviewed journals. The fact that it can't speaks volumes about how vapid creationist premises are, and how worthless it is to even spend time trying to repaint the Genesis myth by any other name as some sort of "science". The truly ironic thing about creationism is how much the creationist spin has evolved to try and make it fit in as some sort of science. Don't be fooled. Creationism is not a science, its a religion, pure and simple. There is no evidence to support it.
Further, in so far as creationism represents itself as the majority opinion held by most Christians, creationism is actually not representative of most christians beliefs. Its an extremely marginalized minority belief system not held by most Christians. Even the Catholic church has embraced evolution, and they were one of the last major hold outs of the major sects of Christianity. Many sects of Christianity have biblical proofs for evolution. In short, some Christians hold it as a matter of faith that evolution occured! So to even pretend that Creationism is the "Christian" idea is just not true. Creationism is part of the very fringe of fundamentalism, and is simply not representative of the whole of Christianity. Christians everwhere should be embarassed to even be associated with it. From wild tales of Noahs Ark being full of dinosaurs, to ridiculous assertions that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood, creationism is simply the worst example of pseudo-science out there and should be entertained as nothing more than flim flam at best, and a dangerous sham at worst attempting to indoctrinate one fringe religious belief system into the minds of students everywhere.
-- Python
--
Python
Re:Wow!... this is rough, but what's your point?
by
Sun+Tzu
·
· Score: 2
You call mwillis (the poster you are replying to) a moron, then go on to quote Bart Simpson saying that "secondary education in U.S.,... sucks and blows at the same time." Alas, I think you are way too critical of hasty details in the previous post and pay not enough attention to the central points. Yet, I must agree with your B.S. quotation.;)
First, note that the cow was dying in a field, not a desert. In any event, I think mwillis was not making the point that the dying cow doesn't leave a fossil but only that they are extremely rare -- which is surely true. [Ed note: the publisher takes no responsibility for the opinions in this comment or for assumptions about what a previous poster might have meant.]
Imagine for a moment that fossils of large animals were not rare. Suppose we had, lying around, fossils of 10% of the large animals that have died in the previous 1,000,000 generations... Ignoring a few exceptions and the buildup of fossils before that, we now have about 100,000 times as many large fossils as live large animals! Yep, fossils are rare alright -- and the "moron" is right about the cow. If you doubt it, check out some old farmland where many cows died of natural causes.
Of course, ancient fossils in good shape will be far rarer than recent ones.
So, do you actually disagree with mwillis or are you just giving him a hard time? Did you actually have a relevant point at all?
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
be-fan
·
· Score: 1
ROTC students are probably not messed up enough to commit school shootings. No matter what, in todays society, the "freedom" of keeping a gun does not outway the advantages of getting rid of them. People don't need anything more than basic small arms to protect them selves (if that) and hunters should all use bows and arrows if you hunt for sport (using the term sport loosely) or if you hunt for food then small arms are still probably enough.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Kansas State Board of Education
by
mistabobdobalina
·
· Score: 1
weird...i am atheist and i consider myself right wing;)
-- --
your knees hurt, don't they?
Re:Darwin is my idol
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes. You are certainly redefining ignorance. Darwin did not teach or believe evolution. He taught and believed in NATURAL SELECTION, which has been observed to occur within the same species -- where the before and after are still capable of mating and producing offspring. Darwin's theories are sound and proven, and they should be taught in school. But don't attribute this theory or evolution -- for which evidence should be all around but nobody can seem to prove -- to Darwin.
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
coreybrenner
·
· Score: 1
> All I know is that I don't have to come up with scienctific theories to write code...:)
But the fundamental logical constructs are the same!:-)
--Corey
-- Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Socrates: "Know Thyself"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
By and large, I don't think these people are usually qualified educationally to make judgements about what is good science and what is not. If you ask scientific Christians about such things, you get a surprising different response. Check out the American Scientific Affiliation, a group which I believe generally consists of professionals in science who are Christian. They seem practically heretical sometimes from the standpoint of American Christian culture...
He stumped you, huh?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He asked a legitimate question. Could you come down from your ivory tower and give a legitimate answer?
Asking this question betrays an ignorance of biology and genetics too profound for me to combat here ...the true geniuses I have met are always able to explain complicated ideas in simple terms.
> He asked a legitimate question. Could you come > down from your ivory tower and give a legitimate > answer? The question is *not* legitimate (I'll explain why at the end) but here's an answer. I don't know what the person meant by "half man and half ape" but I assume that he wanted something that was located halfway up the evolutionary ladder between ape and man. First of all man is not descended from apes - they are descended from a common ancestor. However, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that humans are indeed descended from apes. A large number of fossils of human ancestors have been found - which are in some sense "half man half ape". Why aren't any such creatures alive? They aren't alive for the simple reason that there are vastly more extinct species on the planet than surviving ones. All but maybe a handful of species on any evolutionary line of descent are going to be extinct. And it isn't the most "advanced" species that survive. Less advanced species can survive and more advanced ones die because the less advanced species was able to find an ecological niche where it did not have any competition. Finally, here's why the question is not a legitimate one. Suppose we found, in some remote wilderness, a creature (let us call it X) that was exactly halfway between ape and man. Would that make the question go away? No it would not because the original poster could simply turn around and ask for a creature halfway between X and man (or one halfway between ape and X). You could not make this question go away until you found every single species on the human evolutionary ladder. There are a lot of questions about evolution that we do not have answers for. However that is true of every science. If you stopped teaching a particular discipline because every question has not been answered, you'd have to stop teaching science completely. Another argument that I have heard a lot is that nobody has seen evolution. That is not true. A lot of evolutionary change has been seen and documented - including formation of new species. However, it is true that we have not seen apes evolve to humans. There is no way we could. We establish that by inference. This is not unique in science. No one has seen a quark or a black hole. Their existence has been inferred based on observation. Are all of these things to be deemed unscientific because they have not been directly observed? Why aren't school boards trying to ban astrophysics and quantum mechanics? The truth of the matter is that evolution - which is as legitimate as the above mentioned disciplines - is being targeted because it conflicts with certain people's interpretation of the Bible. That's the truth plain and simple. Religious people did the same thing to people like Galileo centuries ago - the only difference was that their methods were somewhat cruder than those of today's bigots.
There is no Evolution in Kansas.
by
betadog
·
· Score: 1
As it turns out, there is no evolution in Kansas. The entire state is populated and governed by single celled organisms. This is true.
Re:Creation "science" is an oxymoron
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
Creationism is no more scientific than Evolutionism - which isn't scientific, for exactly those reasons. You can't prove or disprove either theory, because the subject is outside the realm of empirical science.
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:I don't like living here... in Omaha
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either
Is that what they are saying? Becuase there is a difference between that and what the article refers to as removing the mandate to teach evolution. Why should that theory be *mandated*? Ahhh yes there was the point...
... when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem. Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
I learned the Law of gravity, where as the theory of gravity (or rather the mathmatics that describe how one body of mass acts around another) actually didn't hold up to scrutiny, hence the major relavance of the Theory of Relativity from Einstein.
Evolution doesn't explain the creation of species, it just gives a basis for catagorizing them. Oh well, Latin was never mandated but I still have to use it to describe parts of a body. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
No collection of miseducated, conservative, bible-thumping Southerners should have the right to deny children BOTH views (and others) on evolution. Denying children the facts (on any topic) should be a violation of human rights. See "How To Mutate and Take Over the World" by R.U. Sirius and St. Jude.
The same goes for denying sex education and other similar subjects. Misinformation and ignorance is the most damaging thing a school system or society can impose on young minds.
Whatever . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What is ironic is that Stitchley has become that which he hates. He is just as fanatical and vengeful as religious zealots, yet because he doesn't believe in God, his opinion is superior. The zealots we're discussing are in the habit of machine-gunning total strangers. When we see Stitchley follow suit, then I'll take you seriously. You're misjudging this guy as badly as you say he's misjuging you.
Relativity
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
AFAIK there are no strong theories that attempt to explain why gravity happens
Sure there is: General relativity.
Re:A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
Stonehand
·
· Score: 1
Bad example, in at least one aspect -- they're a deliberate hybridization of European honey bees and African honey bees, hence the occasional phrase Africanized killer bees. The reason? The more docile European honey bees produce less; the obvious hope was to get docile bees that produced more. Unfortunately, they also got the more aggressive behavior.
That wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't escaped from confinement, or if we had predators that would cheerfully start munching on 'em, or something else that would balance them out w/o decimating the rest of our Apis mellifera friends.
A better example of natural selection might be the classic case of moths in Industrial Revolution-era England, where the distribution between moths of the same species but with different color schemes varied in with pollution levels, in a sensible way (dark moths are harder to see on soot-covered trees, and get munched less, and vice-versa). It's not speciation, 'tho.
Last time I checked, a typical school environment doesn't reflect the 'real world' in any shape or form. It is an artificial environment whose rules are for the most part barbaric and neo-fascist. (Note that I'm not talking about the administrators and teachers. Those are other rules, and they really aren't in control, anyway).
There are many places and opportunities to learn about other people and social skills. In the real 'real world' for instance...
jf
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
forii
·
· Score: 1
Ummm... None? One?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking... The first flowers were (and are, in the case of grasses) just a specialized part of the plant, which means that the first flowers had all the same pigments as the rest of the plant. Of course, this means that they were green. Not an exciting color, but a color nonetheless. Of course, chlorophyll isn't the only pigment in a plant. Chlorophyll isn't even the only photosynthesizing pigment in a plant! (the other one, which I can't remember the name of, is purple). Not to mention a multitude of other pigments that are in a plant but are usually overwhelmed by the green.
Essentially, the answer is that flowers have always been colored, even before the advent of petals. While the colors may not be what we typically think of when we think of flowers, the fact remains that from the very start there have been a variety of pigments available to plants. Of course, once you have a pigment, mutations can occur that change the properties of the pigment, resulting in a change of color.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
TheRain
·
· Score: 1
This is a good question and I feel it is good to not be so arragant and just believe what is popularly accepted.
There are other arguments also that reveal flaws in the theory of evolution. For example, the sun continues to decrease in size at a steady rate. If we consider the amount of time that evolution was said to have begun, the sun would have been larger in diameter than the orbit of Earth today. This means that gravitational pull and many other physical factors such as heat would not have allowed for an even remotly simular environment to today's.
However there is so much we don't know, and that's kind of what I'm getting at. The sun may have been decreasing in size faster at one point or something, or anything for that matter. The truth is the Universe is far to extensive for us to know.
I believe it is impossible for us to understand where we came from scientifically. Science is the mere analysis of elements we gather and seperate from our senses.
Don't be so quick to call a religious person ignorant, because if you think about it, you believe a lot of things with little ground to.
Have you ever been to Antarctica? Do you believe it exists? How do you know? You don't, you just believe....
-- Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
First thing: You don't know what a Hybrid is.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A hybrid is any individual who carries disparate versions of the gene for a particular characteristic. What you're talking about, is "transitional form", (i.e. what the theocrats call the "missing link.") Well links abound, including such specimens as australopithecus, homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo sapiens neanderthalis. Evolution and natural selection are observable in some species within weeks or months (look at bacterial mutation in developing drug resistance, for an example.) Jesus H. Christ! (The "H" stands for "Haploid.") -jcr
The Reason behind teaching Evolution
by
Micah
·
· Score: 1
Let's face it: The *ONLY* reason today's "intellectuals" insist on beleiving and teaching evolution is because they don't want to believe in God. And apart from God, evolution is the only possible way we could exist, faulty as it might seem. That's it.
Re:Creation "science" is an oxymoron
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I completely disagree with you... I dont believe that the current set of Scientific theories are completely valid and never will be. They are used until a better explanation comes along. As for Evolutionism (if thats really a word whatever) it is one of the better theories for how and why populations change over time
1. It is guided by natural law; Yep someone looked at different dog breeds and wondered if perhaps a long time ago all birds were a lot more related than they are now, etc.
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law The strong survive, the weak die. If a certain breed is better than another it will survive. Thus the death of 286s everywhere.
3. It is testable against the empirical world; You can certainly test whether things evolve. Put a batch of bacteria in a highly toxic environment and a new breed of bacteria will be created that can live in that environment comfortably. Its even repeatable! Put a bunch of stupid board of education members in a room, have them make stupid decisions, watch the board of education get disbanded and the rules overturned due to the highly toxic environment of Kansas inhabitants not wanting to look back water.
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; Yep.. Evolution is just a place holder for some more complex theory that will probably be replaced some day. The theory of gravity isnt infallable either. If you are going at near light speed gravity wont make you go as much faster (without taking into account relativity) as the 9.8 m/s^2 would tell you.
5. It is falsifiable Yep... Just have to have god come down and turn me into a sex god. That would convince me that Creationism is the better model since theres no way in hell ill ever evolve into one;).
Are we sure MSNBC isn't channeling The Onion?
by
ewhac
·
· Score: 2
Open Note to Kansas State Board of Education:
Effective immediately, all board members are hereby terminated for gross incompetence. Please clean out your desks and vacate the premises by 17:00 local time. Remaining on Board of Education property after 17:00 will be treated as trespassing, and local law enforcement will be summoned.
Elections for replacements for the vacated posts will be held during the upcoming general elections in November.
Re:Are we sure MSNBC isn't channeling The Onion?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Elections for replacements? Look what happened at the last election. Maybe they should give the job to a million monkeys. If the monkeys can't type out a better curriculum, at least given a little time, we'd get a work of Shakespeare.
Uhhh, it is possible to live in Kansas and be too poor to move away or to send your kids to private school. Oh well, poor kids don't really need to learn everything they can about biology, anyway.
Evolutionism vs creationism.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is a really deep topic. To really dive right into the subject we must pull other references into sight to argue these precious ideas. Students must not strive to figure which one it is nor does it matter. Allow me to demonstrate from past modes of great and thrilling experiences. I subscribe to you these two questions... Less Filling or Tastes Great? That is all for you lesson. Homework is in the fridge I suggest you get started immediately. After consumation you will be more enlightened to throw the whole entire concept of evolutionism vs creationism right out the door.... Until next time..... Professor Miller
Kansas State Board of Education
by
sluke
·
· Score: 3
Hello,
I am from Kansas (I just go to school in Massachusetts) who has a little bit of insight into this situation. The board of education is a powerful governmental institution whose members are elected by statewide ballot in Kansas. Unfortunately, this is an election that noone pays any attention to. The Christian coalition noticed this and proceded to find very very right wing candidates to run as republicans for the open seats several years ago.
Kansas is predominantly Republican (that's an understatement) and on the ballot you can just pick a straight ticket as one of your options, so many people just picked the repulican candidates and WHAM! half of the state board of education has a very fundimentalist viewpoint.
I'm not surprised at all with this latest move by such an esteemed body, next they'll probably require creationism to be taught and physics to be banned. I'm glad I got the heck out of that state.
Re:Kansas State Board of Education
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Can't teach creationism. It gets shot down at the federal level as a violation of the 1st amendment. So... in Kansas, you know ignore the first 5B years of life and proceed to 4000BC.
Re:Kansas State Board of Education
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is interesting because I am a christian and consider myself left wing.
Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The one problem with Darwinism that perplexes me is the fact that there aren't any hybrids (half man/half ape) around. Okay, some may dispute this with examples such as Jesse Berst.:) Just wondering how the Darwinists resolve this issue.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
quiller
·
· Score: 1
For general information about how evolution works and the proofs for it, read the books of Stephen Jay Gould. Readily available, readable and technically accurate at the same time. (OK, I believe they are technically accurate, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and haven't verified every source he cites, but he does get into details that might have easily been glossed over or generalized by other authors, and he does cite his sources. Plus, if he made a lot of mistakes, there are plenty of scientists to call him out about it.) Excellent brain food.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Serk
·
· Score: 1
(Tongue in cheek, kinda)
That's easy... They're around, they tend to join Board's of Education.
-- Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
jjoyce
·
· Score: 1
I laughed out loud at this one. Very funny.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
drivers
·
· Score: 1
Half ape? We are about 98% chimp I think.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Dug
·
· Score: 1
Quite simple. There were probably were half man half apes, but over time we ate all their food, or all of them and they became extinct. You should of noticed that one of the things that Human beings are good at is the extinction of other species. Not forgetting the apes that can talk using sign language etc. that were in the news recently.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 1
that is exactly why I asked the question.
But let me explain. To me a pigment is a chemical that adds color for color's sake. Chlorophyl has a distinct color, but its purpose is not to attract bees for instance. How many mutations does it take to add the genetic trait of creating a color that is there to add visual distinction? How many mutations does it take before a flower learns the advantage of visual distinction to fuel such a genetic change? And this is about the tiniest evolution that I can think of. Once a flower's genetics involves color, then changing color is just adaptation.
AFAIK (bait for information) there is no support that flowers were ever *just* green or white, it is an assumption based on evolution rather than support for it. See where people get confused sometimes? See why it shouldn't be mandated or tought as fact? And this is a tiny evolution. It should be able to explain at least that.
Or maybe I'm supposed to believe that chemicals have emotions and feel attractions for each other and that is how reactions occur? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because the hybrids would be sterile.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I will preface this by saying that I do not believe that "God created everything in the universe in 6 days", but I do have a burning question.
If according to natural selection the fittest survive, and humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
LK
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Micah
·
· Score: 1
With regards to the flood and several other things in the Bible (for the discussion, especially the Old Testament), you've gotta remember something:
We're talking about GOD here. He can do anythink He jolly well wants! He is not bound by the laws of physics.
The creation and the flood were clearly supernatural events. God made ways for them to happen as recorded in the Bible. After they happened, God helped get things started [again].
Believe what you want, just have an open mind... that's all I ask... Believe me, I've thought about it a LOT. But the more I think about it the more sure I am that God exists!
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
jamesc
·
· Score: 2
Why aren't there any hybrids?
Just check the fossil record. Ancient hominids weren't exactly thick on the ground, but there were a few fossils left.
Why aren't they alive today? Because they'd be incredibly old. Thus, they were terminated by the US Social Security MiB before they could break the USA budget and become our owners.
There are plenty of hybrids around. Lots of dogs are, surprise, hybrids. If you mean inter-species breeding? Genetically too dissimilar. Do you mean 'missing link' hybrids? Previous versions will be replaced by newer versions because newer versions are more efficient/intelligent/effective. I don't know that I can 'prove' it, but I will say that 2 different species that occupy the same niche will either wipe the other out or evolve to occupy different niches. I don't think there is another option. So in this case either we *were* half ape men who evolved into full humans, or we co-existed with them until we finally wiped them out, or they evolved into something sufficiently different to survive in a different niche(great apes?) while we evolved into something else entirely so that competition between the two did not occur.
-AS
--
-AS
*Pikachu*
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
zuvembi
·
· Score: 1
The creation and the flood were clearly supernatural events. God made ways for them to happen as recorded in the Bible. After they happened, God helped get things started [again].
What kind of god is it that goes around and lays false evidence everywhere. "All those dinosaur bones are just their for yucks!". Laugh it up funny boy. You paint the picture of god as seven year old. One who says "Believe in me or be damned!" and then goes way out of his way to help people come up with all sorts of explanations of alternate ways things could happen. A god who trys to make us not believe in him so we'll go to hell. Is that nice? Is that right? Doesn't sound like someone I'd invite over for dinner.
But what most of these anti-evolutionists forget is that by disproving evolution/whatever (as if they could) it does not create support for creationism. If creationism is such a damned wonderful theory then give me some data to back it up!
I'm not an atheist, hell I'm even too laid back to be an agnostic. I'm a Reverend of The Church Of Nothing In Particular. Everyone needs to sit back, relax, and not try to involve politics and religion in science. Just leave the nice scientists alone so they can keep making cool toys for us. Can I have my 1 GHz Athlon Atiq? (I know he left, but I just can't think of asking the same of Sanders because, well, he's a git.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Asking this question betrays an ignorance of biology and genetics too profound for me to combat here. I suggest you try completing a basic high school biology course (Not in Kansas) or read SOME sort of book on the subject.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it's thought that chimpanzees and humans both extend the same superclass, rather than human extending chimp, or something like that. -jmatthew3
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
ryanr
·
· Score: 1
>Ahh, so God did all the stuff the Bible >describes, but then planted evidence to try to >trick us into thinking otherwise?
Yes, that's one possibility. It could be a form of test. Are you going to trust the syslogs on a box that has been r00ted?:)
Another possibility is that God used evolution as His development process. Either He speed up time to fit the process into 7 days, or the 7 days isn't literal.
Basically, you can't use science to argue against a concept of God if the concept includes the ability to modify science.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
quiller
·
· Score: 1
It is important to realize that we did not evolve from chimps, we just share a common ancestor with them. Humans evolved for a different habitat than others of the ape branch. Eventually, of course, we no longer needed to evolve for habitats, but could alter our circumstances to fit them. And the reason our direct ancestors aren't around is that we competed with them for the same territories (which is kind of what natural selection is about anyways.) and won. The other surviving species did the same things.
Re:Question for the Darwinists
by
Trepidity
·
· Score: 2
Well, most scientists don't use science to argue against the concept of God. They merely present the facts as they can see them, and let others decide how to fit (or not fit) God into them.
I am a Christian, however I believe that what happened in Kansas is sad.
I have legitimate questions with evolution. For example, how does a pool of proteins become a highly organized living cell, capable of absorbing nutrients, processing nutrients into useful energy, excreting wastes, reproducing, defending itself against hazardous materials, etc.? Or how does all this matter and energy come from nothing? That seems to be a direct contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics - that energy is not created or destroyed. (no, I didn't learn this a Bible study - reasoned it out from biology, physics, and chemistry at UC San Diego)
However, I believe that what happened in Kansas is sad.
Jesus did not come with a political agenda for the world. When Jesus came to the world, there were those who thought that He was going to overthrow the government and establish a kingdom on earth. Those people were sorely mistaken. They often asked Him questions having to do with the political situation in that time, and Jesus would always answer them by saying to yield to the government that exists.
These people in Kansas, like many other people today that call themselves Christians, have made it their mission to change the government that they live in and try to establish what they believe would be God's political agenda. However, Jesus' mission on earth was to save people from sin and not to establish any sort of political change. People that call themselves Christians (or followers of Jesus Christ) should also follow His teachings, and work for the salvation of others instead of their own political agendas.
This really amazes me. The inmates are running the asylum, I guess. I really don't get why these creationists are so sure that the Bible says that evolution can't have taken place. Denying the validity of evolution, and furthermore denying the right to evaluate its validity to students, is ridiculous and dangerous. The evidence for evolution is even stronger than for other widely accepted theories, but its imagined threatening quality makes it the target of people who can't tolerate the idea of humans and apes having a common ancestor. Give it up, guys! Take a trip to the Galapagos and look at the finches!
-- Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Evolutionism vs creationism.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is a really deep topic. To really dive right into the subject we must pull other references into sight to argue these precious ideas.
Students must not strive to figure which one it is nor does it matter.
Allow me to demonstrate from past modes of great and thrilling experiences. I subscribe to you these two questions...
Less Filling or Tastes Great?
That is all for you lesson. Homework is in the fridge I suggest you get started immediately. After consumation you will be more enlightened to throw the whole entire concept of evolutionism vs creationism right out the door....
Until next time.....
Professor Miller
banned?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Was it banned from being taught, or is it just no longer required? The story didn't seem to say... Maybe I missed it.
Re:banned?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, even though you were comment #1500, I did wind up reading you.:) I agree with you. I took the news to mean that evolution and natural selection can still be taught, but that could also possibly be challanged.
Re:banned?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Speciation (a specific form of evolution) is no longer required to be taught. More media spin.
Re:banned?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wouldn't it be nice if we could discuss the merits and flaws of the evolutionary theory on slashdot without being labeled a heretic or bible thumper? *sigh*
Good question. What I understood from the NPR story on the radio this afternoon was that the board has removed evolution from the required curriculum -- including instruction of natural selection.
So while evolution and natural selection still can be taught, the door is open for any teaching of them to be challenged by opponents of evolution.
-Alan
-- The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Re:Question for the Darwinists - some definitions!
by
Xofer+D
·
· Score: 1
The thing which makes one animal a different species from another is the fact that the two animals cannot interbreed. Two animals who occupy the same niche will compete, and their populations will reach a dynamic equilibrium or one will drive the other to extinction, out of the area, or into another niche. Equilibrium happens, though...
-- The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
The end times are coming!
by
agtofchaos
·
· Score: 2
Get these godless whores out of our schools! Save the children from eternal damnation! The bible is the word of god, and every line of it is from god!! Burn the books. Shoot the artists and scientists. Burn the heretics at the stake!!! It is time to return to that old tyme religion! Praise god and let's take back this nation for Jesus!! (for the few dimwits out there, I was being sarcastic)
-- ---Got Coffee?---
This brings to mind a couple of Mark Twain quips..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
(As I recall them)
"In the beginning, God created idiots. That was just for practice. Then he created school boards."
Mark Twain also had a simple explanation for the success of creationism over science (in the political arena)
"A lie will make it halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on."
It takes a creationist only about 15 seconds to misquote/misrepresent material from a scientific journal article. But it can take an evolutionist all afternoon to track down the article in a university library and explain to a lay audience just where the creationist went wrong.
Flames can be sent to rwm@abac.com -- (fundamentalist hate mail can be quite amusing to read.)
No state ever actually ratified such a law. IIRC, one chamber of one state passed a law which defined an official value of "pi," but it actually contained multiple, mutually contradictory definitions for the value of pi. No one is really sure, since the language was unusually florid. The article also suggested that the bill was treated about as seriously as the current "debates" over the official state dinosaur fossil.
Besides, even if a state does define PI=3 it only hurts itself as all wheels turn into hexagons and commerce bumps to a halt.:-)
-- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Hell you already export them, I'm in France and 3 days ago two American mormons rang on my door. We got McDonald's, reality shows and now THAT ! Keep your garbage in your country please;-)
This is church/state separation at work
by
ChrisWong
·
· Score: 1
Few people seem to have noticed that the going-ons in Kansas are entirely consistent with the country's current understanding of the separation between church and state. The understanding, it appears, is that religion has no place being "established" or promoted by the government. But that is exactly what happens when evolution is taught in schools.
As Johnson pointed out in Darwinism on Trial, the evidence for evolution is very shakey. It takes a tremendous amount of antecedant bias to regard evolutionary theories with the confidence that we do today. The popular platitudes have little substance. Survival of the fittest? On examination, the phrase is really a tautology, a way of saying the same thing twice. Something survives because it is fit. It is fit because it survives. Duh. Natural selection? Many biological structures do not lend themselves to gradual evolution in a way that enhances survival in intermediate forms. The human eye is a complex structure that is vastly different from more primitive eyes of other animals. An eye that almost works, like code that almost works, is useless. The bird feather is an intricate thing that offers no utility in intermediate forms (if any ever existed). Fossil evidence? Even Darwin did not think fossils could prove his theory. Tons of bones later, there is a poverty of evidence towards gradual macroevolution. So now we get punctuated equilibrium. First we are told that evolution happens so slow we cannot see it. Now we are told that it happens so fast we cannot see it. The constant: we cannot see it. It's deep magic.
Few theories have had so much effort thrown towards proving it true. Few theories have been so closed to question, or so little rigor. Ridicule and dogmatism suppress dissent. It is hard enough to make a strong argument for evolutionary theories. It is even harder to do so to school children. It should come to no surprise that teachers resort to teaching evolution as dogma, ignoring all nuances or problems. The problem is this: the situation reflects a bias towards secular humanism. When science is held hostage to an ideology, then a case can be made that the stuff taught at public schools is geared towards pushing a humanist religion and/or the suppression of other religions. This, according to the establishment clause, is unconstitutional.
I hope to see an improved debate arising out of this situation. Talking about creationist "science" or bashing religion or the religious only clouds the issue. Rather than to resort to dogmatism, ad hominen attacks, ridicule or caricaturing arguments against theories of evolution, perhaps we can see a debate based on the theories on their own merits.
Re:This is church/state separation at work
by
rarose
·
· Score: 1
Chris, Do yourself a favor and pick up "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It is a really well written book that attempts to show how the "modern eye" has evolved and still been useful at every step. A quick recap of the logic is: A random mutation leads to a nerve spot being sensitive to light/dark which could prove useful in finding food (since tracking towards the sun would ensure you don't loop around in water you've already sifted for food). Better sensitivity leads to more use on cloudy days or deeper in the water. Tracking light is also a primative "predator avoidance" since the predator casts a shadow. Developing a recess for the light sensitive area allows directionality... this is the beginning of the eye socket. And the case develops from there that better resolution (later focus) allows detecting food/predators from farther distances, etc.
As a personal note... I'm mostly blind in my left eye... I have no retina except on the edges so that I have peripheral vision, but total blackness straight ahead. Luckily it's enough that I have a full field of vision (albeit no depth perception). I can tell you that even a malformed eye is far more useful than nothing... if you happened to be passing my car on the left I think you'd agree too!:-) --Rob
Evolution itself is based upon completely unscientific principles. It is one of t he few facets of science that can only be proven by assuming the point you are trying to prove. The concept of evolution not only goes against the Bible, its also goes against biology, thermodynamics, and flat-out common sense. Its really sad that so many people here it associated with the word "science" and assume it must be true.
Re:ITS ABOUT TIME
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
First of all, you can't prove anything in science. Proof is for mathematicians. In science, we try to offer explanations for observations. Theories happen to be well developed explanations that are consistent with certain observations. Good theories are those that are consistent with a large percentage of the available observations.
Second, if you are going to make wild claims like evolution violates biology and thermodynamics you should explain why. The theory of evolution happens to have a lot of supporting evidence. The theory of creation happens to have nearly no supporting evidence. Evolution is not a perfect theory - it has some holes that require more evidence to fill in. But I don't understand how you could just reject all of the evidence that does supports evolution. If you choose to dismiss evolution, you'll have to reconcile all of its supporting evidence against whatever alternate theory you decide to support.
Re:ITS ABOUT TIME
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lemme see here... observation, deduction, postulation... No science here.
Do three things for me here: 1) never again confuse "deduction" for "induction" 2) look up the definition of "theory" 3) Read about the Galipegos turtles and finches and come back when you have a clue.
Can't recognize sarcasm when we see it can we? I've got a modest proposal for you....
Why not teach all the theories?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Back in high school my biology teacher spent equal time talking about all the different theories of our origin. Evolution, Creation, the "big-meteor-that-had-some-life-on-it" theory, even this garbage theory (you know when you close a garbage can for a few days and magically some flys appear when you open it back up.) It was great and there were no flaming discussion in the class. eh.. my 2 cents anyway:-)
Re:Why not teach all the theories?
by
TrentC
·
· Score: 1
even this garbage theory (you know when you close a garbage can for a few days and magically some flys appear when you open it back up.)
For the record, that's called abiogenesis.
Jay (= (Who picked that word for a "learn a new word" thing back in elementary school; ain't trivia great?)
I think we're a long way from Sanity, Toto!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Theocracy rears its ignorant head in Kansas. This is why we need to abolish public education. As long as there's a monopoly on schooling, people with evil intent will try to use it to indoctrinate children into all kinds of idiocy. -jcr
We're not all like that
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Well, most people where I live (Lawrence, KS) are outraged. Mr. Roth probably just had a heart attack, he's like 80 years old. If your state is in need for some Christians, we've got some unwanted ones here.
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!! SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!! SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!
Morons, all of them. OK, maybe they can argue that teaching Evolution might deter one's faith in God, but it is JUST A THEORY. It hasn't been proven any more then the existance of God has been proven. Next they're going to start trying to teach the Creation Story. Beh.
And my Mother wonders why I don't go to church any more....
Well, Evolution generally is not taught as a theory, but as a proven fact. A second problem is that there are, as I see it, two parts to the modern theory of evolution. One is speciation, or the origin of species, which is what Charles Darwin wrote on. This can be observed, tested, and accepted. The other is the origin of life, which Charles Darwin specifically wrote that he was _not_ speculating upon, but which modern evolutionists do. As far as I know, the best that has been accomplished in simulations is the production of some admittedly complex proteins, but nothing rising to the level of life. The logical fallacy many evolutionists fall into is that, since the evolutionary theory of speciation fits the observable facts, then the evoluitonary theory of the origins of life has been equally tested. To my view, the belief that single celled organisms spontaneously appeared is only a somewhat refined version of the medieval belief that maggots were spontaneously formed on rotting meat, but that's just me.
Please tell me where in the Constitution you find the so-called separation doctrine.
Here's a hint: you won't find it in there. You'll find it in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Re:AAAAAHHHHH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My friend, apparently you don't understand 'separation of church and state'. Read Jefferson's letter to his wife and to Adams. Don't blindly prattle about something that you obviously don't understand.
Re:AAAAAHHHHH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No-one says spontaneously and there is not just living and dead but even an in between where it is not quite clear where it belongs to.
I live in Kansas and know about these people
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I live in Kansas and go to Kansas State University, and I am not surprised about this. It is all about people not wanting to change and trying to hold everyone else back in the process. Some people will not accept the truth. 99.9% of the people in the state are absolutely normal,however the.1% that are very well organized can make the minority view heard and sometimes followed by the majority.
What is sad is that this will in the end will only hurt the children of these people. More than likely this ruling will be quickly overturned by the unorganized majority and a more modern circulum will be established, which in turn will force these missguided parents to have their children home school. When these children finally do go into the world on there own after they are 18 they will be surprise with a world they are not capable of being a contributing member of. They will only continue the cycle of ignorance(being missinformed) and teach their children the same missguided beliefs.
This is the fanaticism that can turn violent if society doesn't look out. Just look at this site to see fanatism by Fred Phelps.
I am posting anonymous because these fanatic can and WILL make life difficult for people.
They supposedly eliminated "evolution as an underlying principle of biology". Precisely how did they do that? Since most modern biology is indeed founded on the belief that evolution is a fact. Its things like this which impress upon me the unlimited stupidity of the human race. On one hand we have senators and a president who don't even have enough true leadership ability to run a McDonalds, let alone a country. On the other hand we have a small but vocal group of dipshits who are trying to force their cult upon everyone. Hmmm.
I'm not sure that they are fully ruling out evolution or removing it from the curriculum . ..since this article (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol2.htm) seems to merely imply that while evolution is not removed from the system, it is being given equall time with those wacky religous theories.
Hmmm. Anyway, the way religion is acting here makes Nietzche's Antichrist seem astonishingly accurate.
Now that we are on the subject of Nietzsche . . . he actually says god is dead multiple times (particularly in Zarathustra). I know that at least one of the times he says something like "God is dead, and we killed him" (he then goes on to speak about how god became sick of the human race).
More amusing, however, is his work The Antichrist . . . since this is a rather alternative view of how religion and society interact.
Re:Interesting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Unfortunately, biology is an incredibly complex science, with each organ being influenced by smaller cells, parts of cells, DNA strands, and other smaller molecules. Several noted mathematicians have worked out a rough approximation of random forces creating the "first cell", and so far the equations put the timetable even further beyond the billions and billions of years required. I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution being taught, so long as it is taught as a Theory, and not as undisputed fact.
Most of modern biology is not founded on Evolution, is is founded on older biology, which dates back to the great scientists of old disecting animals and dead people to learn the inner workings of living things.
Believe it or not, it is quite possible to have a debate over an issue without degenerating (or devolving if you wish) to cheap name-calling. Taking a stance that "everyone believes like I do" or "you're a dipshit in a cult... take that!", leads no nothing productive. If the theory of evolution is indeed valid, its proponants should be content to let it take attack, knowing that they will be vindicated by lab results. However, if the theory is NOT valid, the only defense is to misconstrue evidence and attack those who hold a different view.
I think the big issue here is accoutability, pure and simple. Evolution doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it MUST be believed. If not, the only other alternative is to believe in a created universe, and therefore a Creator. This cannot be allowed, because then we would have to be accountable for our actions... not quite the free-love/ anything-goes world that everyone wants. Hmmm.........
By law, PI is now equal to 3. This is because we (the legislators) could never quite understand fractional numbers, not to mention irrational numbers.
-- -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Maybe we shouldn't teach evolution in school...
by
Mike+A.
·
· Score: 1
No, seriously, hear me out. I'm not saying that evolution is wrong; it isn't. I'm saying that it's too high-level a topic for the American high school system.
Evolution is overwhelmingly the best theory we have for the origin of species. However, given that:
Reasonably well-educated people have a hard time understanding the evidence for evolution (read the posts on Slashdot if you're in any doubt).
Public schools have a poor record of teaching subjects as complex as evolution in an accurate or reasonable manner (some teachers undoubtedly do well; others don't).
It could be that evolution is just more than our public schools can reasonably handle right now.
Instead, focus on teaching critical thinking skills (another area in which our public school system has a spotty record), and provide enough of a factual background (DNA and such) that college intro to biology courses have a foundation on which to discuss evolution.
Which isn't to say that many of the specific evidence that supports evolution shouldn't be taught. For example, by all means discuss radioactive dating in geology; that area is not only absolutely solid science, but should be easily comprehended with a high school education.
If you think I'm wrong about this, by all means say so. I'd love to think that evolution is a high-school-level topic. But given that colleges these days are having to teach basic algebra, I'm not so confident.
--
-- Do I look like I speak for my employer?
sigh...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You thought wrong. The sheer number of ignorant religious zealots, everywhere, never ceases to amaze me. Religious zealots don't bother me. Ignorant religious zealots do. On second thought, anybody who's ignorant pretty much annoys me.
Re:sigh...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Has it occurred to you that you are an anti-religious bigot? No? Take a close look for a reasoned argument in your posted message. I sure can't find one. But I can find some vile insults. Keep up the great work!
Evolution IS a myth in Kansas
by
Farce+Pest
·
· Score: 2
Apparently they are only devolving there. Must be that flat countryside that does something to their perspective.
Next on the Kansas legislative agenda: Round Earth is a myth.
-- This message has been scanned for memes and
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is
believed to be unclean.
Re:Evolution IS a myth in Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I think Blazing Saddles said it best.
Jim: You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
You might be right!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The funny thing is, to beleive a creationist is to beleive that we actually may have been created in a lab somewhere by extremely advanced aliens.
I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What ever happened to separation of church and state? What are they going to teach now? I can see them banning teaching we were put here as some sort of grand alien experiment, but banning evolution? Where have these people been for the past 200 years. I can see including creation as another theory, but not excluding one. Its like trying to explain how the dinosaurs dissapeared(although everyone knows that BIll Gates had them killed). There are many theories on the topic, but nobody knows for sure. So, they teach many different explanations. How hard is that? Its all a mild form of trying to control the minds of America's youth. What ever happened to forming your own opinion? Present the facts and let people decide for themselves what is true and what's not. Don't dictate what we are allowed to know. Jesus, these people need to open their eyes a little bit.
-- --------------------------------------------
Don't hit a man with glasses, use your fist!
Holes you can drive a truck through
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ok, obviously the division here is between creationism vs. evolutionary theory, right? Wrong. The division is between the plain, ugly truth, and the polished up, watered down "fact" posturing that proponents of both evolution and creationism are guilty of. I hate to tell you this, but evolutionary theory, as it is taught up to the graguate level, has holes you could drive a truck through. So does creationism! What makes me think I've any right to say this? Well, I worked for it. Lots of studying of both side's arguments, logical deduction and strict scientific theory. That being said, I don't want to argue with anyone, because right now I cannot say with any sort of integrity that either side is right! If you really want to know the truth, you have to search it out for yourself. My belief: this is one area where we all just need to take a reality check and admit that WE DONT KNOW.
Re:Holes you can drive a truck through
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know. I know that while I don't fully understand evolutionary biology, I DO understand that creationism is defended simply to keep people in church on sunday.
Even though this soothes one...
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 1
Even though this is soothing news in that it proves that americans are stupid, it's really hard to think that americans are really ***THAT*** stupid... So, my question is: are americans ***REALLY THAT*** stupid???? -- ---------------------------------------------- Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
Before the flame rage begins below this one... To address the question more directly, if you ask the question of what happened to the little pieces in between evolutional steps, there are a lot of things to consider.
First of all, think about what a species eats. If there is an evolutional step in an animal that causes it to survive more succesfully, why havn't all of the steps before that one been extinct? There are many factors to this, like food, and habitat. The migration of a species evolving to another climate, while it predecessor survived somewhere else could be on argument. So who knows? No one, that's the point;)
-- Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
Re:extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
by
Quack1701
·
· Score: 1
Funny... ON the issues that bug me the most, mainly dealing with taxes and how much money to throw at whom, I generally think of the two parties as extreem far left wing and far left wing.
This is well thought out, and very informative. Kudos. This is much more what I like about Slashdot.
Its this background that good teachers teach as science. You are also one of the first to explain that religion does work off evidence also. To often, and I don't know exactly why, but religion is sumarily dismissed as people without a brain, much like Regan supporters in the 80's and Clinton followers in the 90's.
Truth is more along the lines that everyone believes what they want to believe. And for the most part most people want to believe whats true. Why do we spend this effort to know and find these laws that already exist? To predict and plan a succesful future. This is the engineering side of Science, and what pure research ultimately results in.
But to begin engineering, you need to have a goal. This is essentialy "something you want." I wish I could put it succinctly, but notice that circle? You want something, you apply laws that predict success in what you want? First you have to find out those laws.
Why is this important? Because Science not only has a blind spot, but it has blinders. Science can only see what it wants to see. if you do an experiment, you will only gather the information you are looking for. You are looking for it because you wanted to see it.
Evolution was based on this. Darwin went out to look for a more scientific (which to many means simply Godless, but not to me) way for creation. He took what he found and packaged it as a way of creation. Problem is it doens't explain it at all. We will some day find out the answer, but evolution isn't it. We know enough to say that.
Simply put, evolution doesn't explain the fact that mutations inside of species happen very slowly. Yet the mutations between so called species happen in the millions very quickly, or by whole Quantum, all at the same time. We don't have just a missing link. We have nothing but missing links!
Radical changes in the environment are used to explain such changes, yet it is a stretch. It is more a patch on evolution rather than a theory or law. Its a stop-gap. Other stop gaps have come and gone.
The bottom line is that the Kansas Scool Board has decided that there is enough "evidence" against evolution to warrant suspending the mandate teaching it. Its all scientific. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
Theorems are not all proven to be true. Witness Fermat's last theorem, to use a famous example. I think it is now proven, but for a long time it was not - people were trying to prove it, but hadn't yet. And they called it a theorem. Another example: the four color map theorem.
And the x=x example is true by definition, because we have defined the symbol of two parallel horizontal line segments (=) to mean equality. Other axioms work in a similiar way, being true by the very definition of the symbols they use.
One other thing I forgot to mention: a theory is not exactly a hypothesis - a hypothesis is an educated guess made before an experiment is performed. The purpose of the experiment is to prove/disprove the hypothesis. Therefore, hypotheses are written as very simple, provable or disprovable statements. Theories are general explanations to explain phenomena, and stand until replaced by a better one.
So you think it's no big deal that we evolved purely by chance?
Go to your Linux box and type this:
$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/runme bs=500M
The chance that all the conditions were perfect on their own for us to exist is about the same probability that this command just created an office suite executable that will beat the crap out of M$ Office!!!
I love it...
Re:Yet Another Analogy(TM)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please go read www.talkorigins.org and come back when you have a new, more original and less disproven "counterargument". Thanks.
Okay, the totally nutso religious version of me time.
First off, let me explain my views on religion, so nobody is totally offended by my words after this. I believe that each person has the right to their own beliefs and systems, no matter who they are. No person, system, agency, or entity has the right to so much as question any others beliefs. This is morally and ethically WRONG. I am NOT Christian, my religious views if explained in detail would draw MUCH flak. Let's leave it at the fact that it is against my religion to say the pledge of allegiance.
That said... Call the ACLU *NOW*!
The Kansas School Board is hereby on my 'I wish you worthless scumbags would CURL UP AND *DIE*' list. They are BELOW humans; below the species from which we evolved, though I doubt a single one of them knows what species that is.
This is a blatant violation of the right to freedom of religion. They are now forcing their religious views upon thousands of students. They have banned something that was determined to be a *federal* requirement decades ago. They are turning their children into ignorant fools who I couldn't ever hire with a clean conscience, knowing that their education is so greatly lacking in science.
As I understand it, they have banned all educational topics relating to evolution period. Now, I don't know about you, but learning about how the human species evolved from apes is a pretty damned humbling experience, and a necessary one as far as I'm concerned. And now teachers have lost the option of teaching it.
Kansas will now be churning out uneducated, unqualified, ignorant children that will grow into ignorant adults, who won't be fit for a good many jobs simply because they lack basic knowledge.
A blatant violation of the freedom of religion that the constitution and bill of rights gives us all.
May you hypocrite school board members in Kansas burn in hell, and were it not illegal, I would even consider helping you along your way there. You are hypocrites. Do you know what a hypocrite is? It's someone who preaches one thing, and does the exact opposite. And every last one of you is a hypocrite, members of the Kansas School Board who supported this absurd and blatantly illegal policy.
I can already see you getting your bibles and your best excorsists, headed out to my home, you worthless hypocritical scum. Go right ahead and try it. Sue to find my identity because you can't handle the truth. Do whatever you want, and know that no matter how much you do to hurt me, you've still hurt your children over a hundred times worse.
Thanks for attempting to insure the corruption, destruction, and failure of an entire generation, but no thanks.
Hopefully your voting public will take note of this idiocy next election, and be kind enough to show you all the door. Quite permanently, as well, I hope. May you all go back to your 2 room churches in the boonies preaching tales of brimstone and fire for not hating every person like me. And may you never be heard from publically again.
-RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH
Science will still march on.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When evolution is proved, Kansas will reconsider. Until then science will continue, and eventually prove it, right? I've got no problem believing in microevolution. And not to anger people, but I also happen to believe in creation. Faith is faith, science is science. When science proves evolution, it won't take faith to believe it. When science legitimately disproves creation, I'll be done with faith. (I can feel the flames coming now.)
Re:Science will still march on.
by
richieb
·
· Score: 1
All of science is Theory. Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity. [...]
An important property of s scientific theory is that in principle it can be falsified. That is we can imagine some evidence that will make the theory false. For evolution, imagine if we found a lifeform on Earth that wasn't based on DNA.
If "creationism" is a theory, what evidence (in principle) would make it false?
I'm NOT homeschooling my daughter for religious reasons. I personally don't like the US school system and feel that my family and I can do a better job than the school system did for me.
And yes, she will take achievement tests.....
jf
Logically, No Evolution == No Newtonian Mechanics
by
Dastardly
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that evolution occurs on some level is fact and is demonstrated by bacteria, viruses, insects, and probably a few other short lived life forms.
Evolutionary theory extends these observations to apply to living things with longer life spans where we cannot directly observe evolution. It also attempts to explain the mechanisms for evolution. Evolutionary theory is constantly being refined and adjusted because the current dataset is very small relative to the coverage of the theory. We have not unearthed all available fossils, or observed all the life currently on this planet by a long shot everytime something new is found it might not fit the current theory and it has to be adjusted.
Look at how Newtonian Mechanics gave way to Relativity which was extended by Quantum Mechanics. And Quantum Mechanics will eventually give way to an even more unified theory which combines Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Yet, we still teach Newtonian Mechanics in school. So, the argument that because Evolution has holes, it shouldn't be taught, should logically extend to Newton and Einstein. Yet, I can't imagine anyone saying Newton or Einstein should not be taught in school.
Dastardly
Darwin is my idol
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know of little science that is more likely to be true than what Darwin came up with. To me, he made the biggest contribution to science of all, and I'm not in any way a biologist or related topic person. The term "ignorance" is being redefined once more.
Actually, Darwin had stated that he highly doubted his earlier ideas, primarily due to the fossil record being oddly counter to his arguments. While there have been some minor advances in trying to find "transition" fossils, it is still a great hole in the theory. One fossil layer will include X # of species, and the next with include X+n species, but no transition fossils.
evolution is a fact, Evolution is a highly unsupported theory. Christians who argue evolution, make it very hard to argue Evolution.
If you have a good knowledge of Biology, (As my wife and a co-worker do), you should read "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" ISBN: 0-684-83493-6. Some extremely interesting information.
(BTW, I actually work for the company which issues ISBN's;^)
-- Keith Moore
-- This sig is the express property of someone.
Re:extreme right wing != fundamentalcase christian
by
sluke
·
· Score: 1
OK, perhaps I misworded my original post. Where I grew up, extreme right wing == christian coalition. I am not a political science student, just a lowly mathematician. I have no views about the republican party as a whole. However, I do question the voting masses of Kansas that check the republican box without learning a thing about the candidates involved.
Nobody campaigns for State Board of Education in Kansas, the christian coalition was able to find candidates to get the republican nomination because without anybody even asking much partly because nobody seeking those spots. (as little attention as is paid to these offices on the statewide election, less is paid at the primaries).
Then comes the thing that gets me every time. Nobody stopped to even check what these people's views were before they voted for them on election day. I have asked several of my friends if they voted for or against the poeple currently on the board and many of them simply responded that they voted republican.
I have no problems with your views or with the republican party as a whole. I did think before I posted my original comment, however I think like a mahematician, not a politician. I perhaps do not understand the definitions and terms of this political game, but I do know how these people got elected and few Kansans will tell you that they think they represent the majority viewpoint.
Once again, sorry to have offended, but I believe that obscured by my clumsiness with language was a worthwhile insight.
PS please do not resort to name calling when questioning my viewpoint, it significantly decreases the chance that a constructive discussion will result.
Problem is, most part of science fall into your category 1). The bible says that the universe is less than 10000 years old. Does that mean we have to remove all references to things before this period in teaching ? Does we have to remove images of earth where it appear round and not flat ? Or pictures of the solar system because the earth doesn't appear to be the center of the universe ? Science and religion don't mix, we have to choose one or the other, there's no safe in-between or compromises.
USA is going to be the next Iran, a country ruled by religious zealots.
Use of "facts" in science
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I object to the use of the term "fact". A "fact" is an irrefutable observation, such as the sun rose at 5:38AM EST on 8/12/99 at X lat, Y lon. I believe in the _theory_ of evolution. In science, there are only observations and theories. We make observations and then we devise theories that fit as many of the observations as possible. Occasionally, a good theory is found that fits an overwhelming majority of observations, and then we accept it to be valid. That doesn't mean it is irrefutable or that it explains every observation. Look at the Newtonian theory of gravity. For a long time people declared it was the leading theory since it fit all of the relevent observations. Then we got smarter and in the early 20th century we made observations that were inconsistent with it. General relativity is now the leading theory in the field, and recently we have started making observations that are inconsistent with it too. BTW, comparing evolution to the earth rotating about the sun is comparing apples and oranges. The earth rotating the sun is an observation. We use it and similar observations to support the theories of planetary motion, based on gravity and later on relativity. Gene mutation is also an observation. We use it to support the theory of evolution.
Thermodynaics applys to energy levels.
by
Chandon+Seldon
·
· Score: 1
Saying "Thermodynamics says that things progress from order to disorder. Ergo evolution is impossible." is like saying "Theories about magnitism say that opposites attract, therefore homosexuality is against nature!"
Obviously completely unrelated topics.
-- -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Trust me, I feel the same
by
Randy+Rathbun
·
· Score: 1
Last night was the last time I spend any time in Kansas. Had to go to the Ministry concert (Ha! Is that ironic or what? But hey, they did play Jesus Built My Hotrod and Psalm 69). I figured it was my duty to attend. Trust me though, it is the last time that idiotic state is getting any of my tax dollars.
Mister programmer I got my hammer Gonna smash my smash my radio
Question: What do you people think of the theory/hypothesis that says that the speed of light started out infinite at creation and has been decreasing exponentially ever since?
I know, I've been through physics classes and I know that c is supposed to be constant from all vantage points. But is it PROVEN? There's a lot of weird science out there we don't have any clue about yet.
Basically, if this were true, it would pretty much remove all barriers to belief in creationism. It would explain the light from stars billions of light years away and the billion+ year old rocks. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that 6 day creationism is true if and only if this is true. They're pretty much inseperable.
I've heard plenty of people try to knock it down, but not to my satisfaction. Is there conclusive proof that there's no way in the world it could be possible?
Some of the evidence for it (observations made over many years) was quite interesting. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read it.
Re:Urm ok and this is a suprise how?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So Galileo pled his case in Kansas? Wow:)
VOTE REPUBLICAN
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
hum yeah don't vote republican, is that the best platform the democrats could come up with, well i say lets raise taxes so that even canada will look good. The biggest difference between a democrat and a republican is that the rebublican has common sense.
Re:left wing = No ShIfT kEyS.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Notice they have arrows...... This is so you can notice them, and when required, use them.
Oh give me a clone Of my own flesh and bone With the Y chromosome changed to X And when she is grown My very own clone She will be of the opposite sex.
Clone, clone of my own With the Y chromosome changed to X And when we're alone 'Cause her mind is my own She'll be thinking of nothing but sex.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You skipped one thing. Hypothesis' are tested. Something is proven when through the reproducable results of experimentation. Therefore evolution cannot be proven neither can any historical event. Gravity and relativistic physics on the other hand can be proven(if they are ever replaced with a different theory it does not mean that you cannot prove something just that the methods used were flawed or incomplete).
By the way I am a Christian, and I no i cannot prove God exists, it is just the most rational conclusion I can come to. Futhermore there are many Christians in the world that would rather die than attempt to force their beliefs on others but still desire to share their faith with others.
-- "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
1) The idiots writing "FIRST POST!!" messages in/. - what is this, kindergarten? CmdrTaco should require a minimum age (say, 5) to join the site.
2) The Neanderthals making laws to stop science, or to stop cryptographic software, or to stop the Sun (who orbits the Earth, I suppose creationists believe this too 'cause it's in that old book) and anything else that cannot be stopped
3) 90% of television's content (to mention only one major offender)
4) All people programming in [insert despicable obsolete language here] who didn't evolve either
Re:Teaching as Theory Not Fact
by
jflynn
·
· Score: 1
Close but not quite. An axiom doesn't really have a truth value, its just something to base a theory on. A theory is just a set of consequences that follow from a given set of assumptions (axioms) by logic. Since the theories' consequences are useless unless all the axioms are true, using the theory implies belief in its axioms, for the particular case under consideration. Every mathematical theory has a shrink-wrap agreement that tells you not to apply it unless YOU believe the axioms in your particular case. The theory itself is truth-neutral.
Euclid's fifth postulate (parallel lines don't intersect) is true relative to planar geometry, but not spherical geometry. That's why you don't use Euclidean geometry to navigate unless you're a flat-earther, and most of them fell off the edge ages ago...
Jim
They've got to be kidding...
by
Disco+Stu
·
· Score: 1
When I saw the post, I thought that probably Kansas was requiring that evolution be taught as a theory that hasn't been proven (which it hasn't), rather than as the absolute facts.
Then I read the article. Yes, the creation vs. evolution debate does involove religion. However, that isn't the whole point of it. I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution (progressive Creationism). The truth is, there is evidence to both sides of the debate. How can we expect people to be able to understand the debate without presenting all the evidence for both sides of it? This standard amounts to nothing more than the Kansas school board dictating beliefs to students while ignoring facts.
When I was in sixth grade, my teacher spent a whole semester teaching us about the debate. Our grade for the semester was based on a paper we wrote, supporting one side, or the other (sadly, the idea that parts of boths theories could be true wasn't even presented). In the process, I learned a great deal about the scientific method, how to find info in scientific journals, and how to look for bias in research. While my teacher did teach some shaky ideas (such as the idea that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution), a great deal was learned by all. More important than learning the facts about the debate, we learned a lot about how to think for ourselves, and not trust every view presented just because it's "in a book."
I shudder to think about how many (or few, I should say) people coming out of the Kansas school system will have any idea about how to think for themselves.
Urm ok and this is a suprise how?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So now you tell me states like Kansas are churning out morons. Excuse me, but this comes as no suprise to anybody. Any job that requires half a brain will most likely NOT be filled by somebody with little to no deductive capabilities, let alone educated by Kansas' educational department. Don't forget this is coming from the same kind of rocket scientists who claimed that there was no way to prove that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system and excommunicated Galileo for heresey. To them, even simple things like the lightbulb are mysterious, the inner workings of which can ONLY be described to them with the simple, patronizing phrase "trust me, it works because God says so, have faith". That answer satisfies all of their curiosities. They have no interest in other explanations. Their credibility? Zero. Best case.
this is not good
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Comming from someone who believes in god, and from a (somewhat) social conservivitive, this is not good.
Another interesting case is in saskatawan, where the courts decided that saying the lords prayer was illagal, it shocked me that a school board would even try make its students pray.
What happened to seperation of church and state, i would rather have my freedom of religion than to try and force people to believe in god, oh well, i don't even like the idea of catholic school boards.
High School's Not The Place To Teach Evolution
by
peeping_Thomist
·
· Score: 1
Undergraduates don't really study science, at least not at first. They learn a just-so version of science, to prepare for the real thing. (For example, they learn a fanciful version of "the" scientific method, the limitations of which they will recognize only much later.)
High schoolers get a just-so version of this just-so version of science.
Given the subtlety of the issues raised by evolution, it makes sense to put it off until college -- just as we don't expect high schools to seriously discuss quantum physics.
You can be a good citizen (which seems to be the goal of high school education) without knowing much about either evolution or physics. On the other hand, you can't fashion a responsible, comprehensive view of the world (the goal of high-quality undergraduate education) without this kind of general knowledge.
I doubt Kansas college freshmen will be at a real disadvantage in relation to others who've been indoctrinated into a "just-so" version of evolution.
Where are the open, scientific minds
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I'm quite dissappointed in Slashdot's science moderator today. As one who is very interested in Science, as one who considers himself a hacker, I find it very disturbing that Hemos would spread FUD. One of the classic FUD tactics is to twist a fact until it is no longer true. Kansas isn't saying that teachers CAN'T teach evolution. From Cnn.com:
"The Kansas education board's vote means individual schools can continue to teach evolution in science classes, but it removed evolution from the required curriculum. Knowledge of evolution will not be needed to pass state-sanctioned tests."
Now, personally, I would consider that any science teacher that _didn't_ familiarize his/her students with evolution would be doing them a great dis-service, as they would be both ill-prepared for college (where it is universally taught), and ill-prepared for living life in a country where it is the prevailing view. That said, I will also comment that if you don't believe in God (or some other supernatural belief about the origins of life, i.e Islamic, animistic, hindu, buddhist, etc), evolution is the most plausible current belief (yes, it is a belief for many people, as witnessed by the many flames in this forum), but it should not be taught as absolute fact. Consider this, maybe there is some other completely plausible, natural explanation of the origins of life that will be taught in two hundred years that is completely different from evolution. The simple fact is, while evolution seems to make some sense, we really can't teach that it _IS_ the explanation for the origins of life (separation of church and state people take heed: by cramming your theory down students' throats you are doing essentially the same thing that you accuse those who would teach creationism of doing -- you are pushing YOUR world-view. I don't happen to share it; however, I'm happy enough for you to teach it as long as you view it objectively as plausible _speculation_. Many curriculae don't even hint that it might be wrong.)
A voice from the loyal opposition.
by
Amphigory
·
· Score: 1
Look... The special case of evolution known as "Darwinian Natural Selection" is far from proven. In fact, there is not even much evidence for it. What is the difference between "Darwinian Natural Selection" and basic evolutionary theory? Simply put, Darwinian Evolution asserts that all this happened and could happen by chance alone. Other evolutionary theories allow for the possibility of divine intervention.
This theory is scathingly reduxed from a scientific perspective in a book called "Darwin's Black Box". It is by a well known biologist and he pretty much proves (IMNSHO) that darwinian evolution is highly improbable from a scientific perspective.
The problem is that there has been a knee jerk reaction on both sides of this debate. The religionists (notice I do not say Christians) have come up with the absurd concept of Biblical literal innerancy to defend their position and the scientists continue to defend Darwinian evolution.
In both cases there is a knee-jerk reaction that extremists capitalize on. And in both cases there is a silent conspiracy among professionals in the field to keep from confusing the laity. That is, very few Preachers, even very conservative ones, really accept scriptural literal inerrancy in the way a laymen would understand it and very few biologists really, in their heart of hearts, believe in Darwinian selection.
In any case, I think the bottom line is this: God created the world, directly or indirectly. Whether he did it by rolling the dice or waving his magic wand is irrelevant. And I follow him because he is good. (Spare me counter-arguments to God's goodness based on shallow readings of the Old Testament -- I've studied this, deeply, for years and you're wasting your time).
However, I have a real problem with anybody being forced to teach something which might or might not be true. So, I am grateful that the Kansas school board is removing this requirement. Note that these requirements often extend even to parochial and home schoolers!!!
Of course, all this is even more irrelevant in the face of Christ, dead and resurrected to save me from the power that sin has held over my life. But that's another comment:)
I don't like living here... in Omaha
by
Rift
·
· Score: 1
Here in Omaha, there has been a continuing debate in the papers and the board of education meetings over evolution. Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either, say the christians. (other religious sects have stayed out of it, or joined the evolution side)
The problem is, the board is buying it. Why? the creationists are saying 'evolution is not a fact. It even says so right in the name! "Theory of Evolution"... If we can't teach the theory of creationism, then that's out too!'. These people actually think that they are right, and the morons on the board are starting to see it that way.
We all expect this of the religious masses... they are simply trying to make sure that everyone believes what they believe. No big deal... but when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem.
Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
Or perhaps a better example, since they say that the theory of evolution can not be experimentally proven (because they have no idea what constitutes an experiment)... How about quantum theory? There are many that think it is plain wrong, that it is incomplete, and that it will soon be replaced. However, they know that it is a GOOD theory and should be taught. Why? because it does a better job of predicting observations than the previous theories. The laser, microwave ovens, genetic sequencing, all would currently be impossible without this theory.. should we stop teaching it because it teaches that there is no-one choosing interactions, that they are chance and statistics? Sure.. why not.
I could go on... these people write in and say "Science has not given us happyness", and then try to argue against teaching "Science" (note how they capitalize it always).. well, I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty miserable if I didn't have/.
Re:I don't like living here... in Omaha
by
Dastardly
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the other poster should have qualified Gravitational theory, with either Newtonian or General Relativity both of which are not completely accurate, and therefore, according to the argument of creationists, should not be taught in school.
Let them grow wheat
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Will the last intelligent person left in Kansas please turn out the lights before you go? The rest of the Kansas natives must be Christian® brain-washed so well as to be completely in the dark. So let's conserve some energy. Ok?
Brain, what are we going to do tonight??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's an underlying plot to take over the world. We're making stupidity into an airborne virus and plan to conquer the world with it. Kansas is a test site.:) rashad ---------------- DeGualle = the French at their best Chirac = wannabe DeGaulle, sucks big fat toe
Re:Bull!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Proofs exist only in mathematics. You can test hypotheses by making observations, and you can accept theories until you have observations that contradict them, but you can never prove them.
I have seen a lot of creationist arguments. Not a single one held up for more than a short time against someone who knows evolution well. Many turn out to be simply wrong. (eg The Earth is an open system, exit balderdash about thermodynamics.) Others are bald-faced lies. (It is more amusing to track down quotes from those misquoted about how Creationists misquote scientists than it is to read the Creationist misquotes. Although reading the originals and comparing them with the misquotes is also fun.) Many sound reasonable until you actually know something. (eg How can you really know...scientists don't have any evidence. Um, really? But what about...)
In short, apply your brain and you may be a little less impressed with Creationist tracts.
Sincerely, Ben Tilly
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Re:Logically, No Evolution == No Newtonian Mechani
by
goodmike
·
· Score: 1
"Now children, this isn't covered in the curriculum, but I wanted to spend a few minutes going over this theory that some scientists have about the reason things fall to the ground. They call this gravity."
"Now, no one can prove gravity exists, since no one's actually seen it. Ever since the state board took gravity out of our science curriculum, there's been a lot of pressure for us teachers to teach the commonly accepted view that objects are attracted to each other in consistent and predictable ways because of magic pixies that live inside everything."
"I just wanted you to know about it, because there are parts of the world where people take this Theory of Gravity to be truth. Now we'll go back to explaining how the Earth is only five thousand years old and how the devil put all those 4-billion-year-old rocks all over the place..."
Why can't /. ers read the original articles?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I saw the headlines on/. my first reaction was 'WTF... hahahahahhahahahaha" But, obviously somebody has their head screwed on right. "Kansas Gov. Bill Graves, a Republican, warned board members not to adopt the anti-evolution curriculum, and has said he would support an effort to abolish the Board of Education." Anyway, reading the article will clear up quite a few things people are blabbing about right now. I swear, you guys feed off of teensy little headlines like sharks.
...i try to be agnostic, and consider myself an upwinger...:)
nmarshall #include "standard_disclaimer.h" R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
-- nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.. --Colonel Burr 1783
not oulawing, just not requiring it anymore
by
hbruijn
·
· Score: 1
A decision like this basically means that evolution theory is not reuired teaching anymore. It means that students, who have problems with the evolution theory (most likely their parents..) will not be required to learn things they find offending, simply to able to pass statewide tests governing the quality of education.
But there is more at stake here, then simply biology, astronomy is at stake to, the light of stars in galaxies far away (millions of light years) is also millions of years old, rather in conflict with the creation of the universe five to then thousand years ago (depending on who you ask) by a Supreme being.
Geology, which finds that the earth is not a mere 10'000 years old, but shows that with the scientific evidence found today (the gps measurements that have determined the velocities at which the continents move, the dating of minerals, by radiogenic decay etc.) can reconstruct the earth as it looked > 500 Million years ago. Oil and gas is found in places which with their current climate, never could have sustained the amounts of vegetation necessary to create those fossil fuels, fi northern Alaska and Canada and in the Antarctic. Rocks have been determined to hav eages up to 4 Billion years. So now we need to go and censor the geography school books to?
Which others theories should be included, since apparently that is the criterium in this reasoning, evolution theory, the theory of creation. The wide spread belief that aliens exist and were the ones to fertilize the earth? The scientific method is to formulate a theory that agrees with your obeservations. As long as you do not make any observations which contradict with the theory it remains valid. One very scientifically sound method would be: * read the Bible ==> your theory * look yourself indoors do not look around ==> no conflicting observations * theory holds !! But others have kept their eyes open, and made progress in our understanding of how the world works. That leads to putting a man on the moon, vacination against polio, and other diseases, finding the (ages old) oil to drive your car and that's what shaped the world to what it looks like now. (And all problems associated with that) I agree that evolution is hard to prove, but it is the theory most consistent with observations of the world around us.
What I think these people (the ones who want creationism incorporated in the curriculum) fear is that the whole Bible is untrue, because it does not completely agree with scientific progress. The thing is, it's not about what the Bible literally says, it is about the ideas contained in it, and the guiding it offers. It should be a positive influence about how to treat other people, with respect and how to lead your spiritual life.
--
If a trainstation is the place where trains stop,
what is a workstation?
Re:not oulawing, just not requiring it anymore
by
SnatMandu
·
· Score: 1
It means that students, who have problems with the evolution theory (most likely their parents..) will not be required to learn things they find offending, simply to able to pass statewide tests governing the quality of education.
I am offended by the idea of the holocaust, or most any war. I could be offended by ideas of racial equality (were I a supremacist). I could be offended by the fact that there is more than one infinity (how absurd!).
Just because something might offend somebody, doesn't mean it isn't important and worthwhile to learn.
I think there is something wrong with being offended by an idea (or theory). Taking offense at a fact is even worse (not claiming evolution to be factual... but it is possible!).
Educators have a responsibility to expose their students to any viable theory, and one might go as far as to say they ought to expose their students to any popular theory, if only for the sake of worldliness....
New Kansas State Motto
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The legislature just approved a new state motto here in Kansas: Kansas, the only state where the Earth is still flat.
Yes... I agree (almost) completely.
by
flyingV
·
· Score: 1
It also saddens me to see Christians who want to turn America into a theocracy. I don't believe that is our purpose as Christians; I believe our main purpose as Christians is to be helpful and to be a friend to all... to be "selfless", in other words. It would be very sad if America became a theocracy and forced out Atheists and Jews and homosexuals and whatnot... Did you ever learn about 13th and 14th century Spain? If I remember correctly, Isabella and Ferdinand cast out all of the Jews and Muslims in the country. The result: the Spanish economy collapsed! The Jews were the merchants and artisans and comprised the middle class.
What I'm trying to get at is that America does have problems due to its diversity... but diversity (of culture and of opinion) is why America thrives. We need that kind of diversity to keep America running.
As for evolution, I don't think that believing in evolution means that one has to give up God. Now I'm young and I have a lot to learn, but I believe it is possible that God "ignited" the big bang (that removes the issue of the first law of thermodynamics) and then God guided macroevolution which resulted in today's lifeforms. Each of his seven days represented different portions of geological time.
Well anyway, those are my beliefs at the moment, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who would call me crazy (Christians and non-Christians alike)!. Oh well... Thanks for your post, and if you want to email me, just remove the "nopidgeons." from my email address.
If I lived in Kansas, I would promptly leave. I certainly do not want to raise my children in such an environment. I had no idea that any secular education board in the US was so backward as to actually pass something like this.
And this information is being banned at the *university* level? This is truly unbelievable.
no, the universities are not governed by the state board of education at all. Plus, what stupid university professor would actually stop teaching evolution and promptly lose all his/her federal funding?
PS I know, my father is an administrator at the University of Kansas
Does this mean the conservatives AND the intelligent will start home-schooling?
In other news:
Science is now determined by popularity. Film at 11.
Re:I am agog.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, BoE only can mandate for K-12. However, the Universities are seriously pissed at this, as it completely undermines them. Good news is, the governor is also seriously pissed and is seriously considering dissolving the BoE and reversing the decision himself.
Re:Tidbits - bad use of 2nd law of thermodynamics
by
MobiusKlein
·
· Score: 1
Please note - the Second law of thermodynamics requires a CLOSED system, which the earth is not. That bright light in the sky sends energy our way 24 hours a day. |... because it violates the second law of |thermodynamics (note: when a theory violates a |scientific law, the theory is unscientific)
Plus, the 2nd law also states that ENTROPY increases in the closed system. Evolution of species does dictate a change in the Entropy of that system. They operate on VASTLY different scales.
so don't go to kansas for your education. Or go to a private school. And it works both ways. If you don't want evolution don't get the govt public schools involved-just go to a private school that doesn't teach evolution.
-- ---
Darwin
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is Darwin in action. Successful mutations have the advantage. Unsuccessful ones, by definition, become extinct. These jackasses are doing us all a favor and will weaken their gene pool to the benefit of the rest of us...
Please read the WHOLE story!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They are only dropping the requirement that speciation be taught. Speciation is a bunch of crap that has never been explained. Evolution involving mutations within a species (the kind of evolution that can be verified as fact) is still required to be taught.
Any idiot knows we came from Adam and Eve.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Any idiot knows we came from Adam and Eve.:wq!
Did anyone actually read the article?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's startling to see the number of pseudointellectuals at slashdot.
First off, it's eliminated from the cirriculum, that doesn't mean it's outlawed, that doesn't mean it won't be taught (plenty of extra cirricular teaching goes on in most schools) it's simply not required teaching. For a theory, that's not so bad, and hopefully this one will lead to some rationality on both sides of the issue. Your better schools are going to teach it still, as theory, as it is and they should already do. (I'm almost more startled to see how many people are so willing to accept theory as fact, didn't any of you ever study science? The title of fact requires the highest of standards.)
Second, separation of church and state is a two edged sword. Initially the amendment was intended to keep the state out of your church, it wasn't until nearly the 20th century that it was also interpreted to keep the church out of state activities. This is good law if that amendment is taken literally. What I think most of us would expect is some easing up on the whole literal interpretation of it, I think it is perfectly fair for school to challenge religion and for religion to challenge school. If we want to continue to progress as a society some kind of religion awareness or comparitive study class is eventually going to need to make it into the cirriculum. It seems totally fair to me for a kid to be required to take a certain amount of math, bio, english, history, and then know a certain amount about the world's religions. People are discriminated against for more reasons than their color (ie holocaust) and we'll never overcome that so long as religion is a "taboo."
The Kansas jokes are also don't do anything to demonstrate your intelligence. They really just show that you're as dumb if not more so than the people you accuse in Kansas. It's just a huge generalization. You don't support your cause by simply demeaning others, calling them names, vulgarities, being close minded or a general asshole. They are as guilty as anyone who proclaims evolution to be a "fact."
One thing is for damn sure, we won't continue to evolve if people aren't challenged in ways. Accepting thoery as fact is to forget about the challenge of proving theory. This law is a challenge, we should support them for providing it and then rise to the occasion and provide a good solution to it.
More
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They're also trying to teach that the Grand Canyon may have been made from a volcano because the bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old, and a river couldn't have made it in that little of time.
And you know this how? The Scablands of Washington, IIRC, were cut by the catastrophic draining of a lake (the lake was created the the melting of part of a glacier during an ice age). Notice that the terrain of Washington does not resemble the Grand Canyon, and it is obvious that the Grand Canyon was not formed by a single catastrophic event.
If you actually believe "Creation Science" stuff, you'll believe anything.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Keep 'em.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We've got too many of the little buggers running around here, as is. They breed faster than rabbits. Anyone know a good, humane Christian control method? We tried trapping them but they just keep coming back.
There is evidence
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
From my perils in AP biology sophomore year in high school, I remember that the first few development phases after conception are identical in many species, including humans and frogs. Now why would this be. And about religion, if you look at the development of religions themselves, you'll see that they attempted to explain things than science explains now, such as the old Hebrew view of the world w/ floodgates opening in the great dome of the sky and waters from heaven coming down as rain is now explained by meteorogists in their studies of chaotic weather systems. Question why you believe what you believe, I mean, really question it (concerning anything, including race, gender, religion, science, etc). You'll learn a whole lot. Oh yeah, science is just another religion, it differs in that it enpowers humans w/ ideas of some sort of control.
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
kovacsp
·
· Score: 1
And what do you do if you have to lead a revolution against a tyrannical government? Or did we all forget why the 2nd amendment exists?
Polarization
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The problem is that lifeforms tend to exterminate other lifeforms which compete for the same resources and are even just a *little* bit less intelligent, strong, fast, whathaveyou.
Not to mention, thanks to sexual selection, advantageous traits spread through a population MUCH faster than would be possible through mutation and asexual reproduction. This is why even simple sexual organisms are much more complex than the most sophisticated asexual organisms.
Re:Polarization
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If that is the case, why do completely "animal" monkeys still exist? Shouldn't they have been stomped on our assension (sp?) up the evolutionary ladder, the same as all the "intermediates? Joelinux....Too lazy to log in at work
I suck at html guys. On my other post in this thread, I forgot my P tags, and unfotunately now it's just a mass of text that nobody will read. Perhaps I should repost it formatted correctly.
And now, judging from the replies to this post, I guess I should have used the SARCASM tag, because people evedently need to see that. Come to think of it, I probably would have needed to forgoe the SARCASM tag completely and used BLINK SARCASM/BLINK instead;-)
BTW, I was not trying to be a troll. I was trying to make people laugh! Oh well.
I need to work on my HTML I guess.
-- Vidi, Vici, Veni
And another lie bites the dust
by
tilly
·
· Score: 1
The second law of thermodynamics is a statement about closed systems. Indeed if the Earth was a closed system (eg did not get light from the Sun) then evolution would have a problem. The problems would start with everything starving to death and wouldn't improve much from that.
But lo and behold! We do have a Sun, the Earth is NOT a closed system, and so the Creationist lines about the second law of thermodynamics are complete and utter BS.
Now please get a clue before spouting off again...
Ben
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I'm afraid that's entirely too simplistic and convenient an exposition of the issues here. By your logic, we can't ever prove that there was gravity 5,000 years ago because we weren't there to see it. It's a question of a historical event, right? No way to prove anything, right?
Well, that's true. That's actually true. The problem is that it doesn't help us much. We could say that all of the evidence we see today and all the calculations about the past trajectory of planets, etc., are subject to falsification by God or The Devil, but while that's a lot of fun in a sophomore epistemology class, scientists generally accept the notion that the universe isn't actively out to trick us.
Evolution is supported by such an embarrasment of evidentiary riches that it is almost hard to talk about it being tested, in the same way that it's hard to talk about my having been born..
But I'll give it a go. Evolutionary theory is supported experimentally every time any biologist does any DNA sequencing of any organism's genome, it is supported experimentally by the notable fact that babies come from two parents but are not precisely like either of their parents, it is supported by the way in which fast-evolving pathogens (bacteria and viruses) react to the introduction of new antibiotics and genetic resistancies. It is supported by mathematical models that take the known facts of life (a DNA code that is transmitted with imperfections to the next generation) and run simulations on them.
There is so much evidence for the evolutionary theory that it requires a rather awesomely grand amount of evidence to the contrary to be at all convincing. If God comes down and lays it on the line to all and sunder that he's been playing with the dice every time a baby is born, or that he has been deliberately fudging the evidence that we see all around us as an intelligence test, then sure, I'll grant you the point.
And as far as forcing beliefs on others, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone.. I'm just trying to share the evidence. I'm certainly not asking you or anyone else to take anything on faith.
The Internet = 21t Century's Library of Alexandria
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I want off this shithole planet before the nuts burn the whole thing to the ground in a self-fulfilling doomsday scenario. It is tragic and unbearable, cowards, but G O D D O E S N OT E X I S T
The theory of evolution is also unscientific, because it breaks a natural law (the second law of thermodynamics).
--
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
Re:Heh.. Bass-Ackward Public Schools..
by
simm_s
·
· Score: 1
"..About 4,000 years ago, a catastrophic flood wiped out many forms of life on Earth -- The fish were the first to die, follow by the....."
Thats a good point!
If you're a God who wants to wipe out the earth why would you create a flood. Most marine life would survive. That can't be, because that would mean God made a mistake in his logic. Oh and I am damn sure that noah spent only a couple of weeks grabbing two of all the animals in the world to put into a boat. That has to be a hellova large boat. The engineering genious to create that boat would have to be awesome. The logistical genious that went into organising this would have to be stupendous.
It brings me back to the rock argument. If God greated a rock that nobody can lift, could he lift it? Many people would tell you yes, since God can do anything. But then you asked did he fail and they would say no, since he cannot fail! This highlights a critical point, when people talk about God logic does not apply.
Do you want these people running you school district? --------------------------- ^_^ smile death approaches.
science, materialism, and vestigial organs
by
TheDullBlade
·
· Score: 1
First of all, the vermiform appendix is most certainly a vestigial organ. The word "vestigial" means "degenerate from an older form" generally implying that it no longer serves a useful purpose. This appendix does nothing but get infected, and is the uselessly degenerate form of an older organ which was used to digest tougher plants than we eat today. There is nothing in the term "vestigial" that implies that such things are harmless or safe to ignore.
Anyone who told you that medical progress was slowed by lack of interest in the appendix is feeding you a steaming crock of misinformation. Surgeons began removing the appendix within a few years of being able to safely open the abdominal cavity (due to proper antiseptic practices and liquids). Before that, piercing the abdominal wall was considered a death sentence, so surgical treatment of appendicitis was unthinkable. The practice of appendectomy took a few years to become common because initially it was tried as a last resort (there were other, less effective, treatments which were tried first, and doctors tend to be very conservative) and so was done too late and the appendix would rupture and kill its owner.
Secondly, the existence of supernatural forces is ridiculed by definition in science. All forces which exist are natural by definition.
Finally, the scientific method can be applied to the question of materialism vs. spirituality. It obviously can't answer it, so a truly scientific mind must have an agnostic attitude towards religion (as he would towards what the smallest particles really are and whether there are other universes). The mere fact that many famous scientists were and are deeply religious and utterly faithful merely shows that they do not apply their scientific method to that area of thought, either because their childhood conditioning was too strong or because they fear becoming an outcast (or heretic) in their community.
Creationists don't give God enough credit.
by
Waldo
·
· Score: 1
My God is way more subtle and powerful than they can imagine. He created the Universe in a way that permitted stars to form and molecules to eventually self-organize. He don't need no stinkin' props! He created a Universe that doesn't require much maintenance, but if you need a bugfix, and you ask him nicely, he usually comes up with a solution.
Agreed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As the poster of the parent comment, I thank you. I also wonder whether people actually read the article, and also whether they checked more than one source (MSNBC tends to be very "sensational" in their coverage of news) before commenting. I agree with you about your comments, and your view that all theories should be examined; Absolutely. I have just seen biology, anthropology, and many other disciplines' books base all their arguments on the _assumption_ that (macro)evolution is true, and the origin of both "Life" and humanity. I don't care about the rest of the species, whether they evolved or not, but I can't believe, from the evidence that I've been presented with by the mainstream, that humanity is a by-product of that. I happen to believe that man (and woman) was a special act of creation by God. I find it very offensive that the very people who call me ignorant for believing in God/Creation, aren't willing to admit their own pre-assumptions and biases.
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The negation of "all automobiles are blue" would be "not all automobiles are blue", not "all automobiles are orange".. sheesh, where the hell did you come up with that?
Is it just Darwinism...
by
Visuchangavu
·
· Score: 1
...that they are taking out? Or all evolutionary theories? I mean, even staunchly atheistic biologists these days are abandoning Darwinism in favor of other evolutionary theories (Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.). Maybe that's why the schmeal passed... -Visuchangavu
This is a fundy infested area.
by
bbcat
·
· Score: 1
It should no surprise for anyone considering the high number of fundies in that area of the country. Didn't Pat Robertson do very well in his bid for the presidency in Kansas?
Sad....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It seems to me (WARNING: agnostic college biology major bias here), that if your faith in God is shaken because of 1 scientific principle with really shows more of the truth and beauty in life, and because it contradicts text written 2000 years ago (or more considering the Old Testament) by men, than you have some problems with your level of faith to begin with.
I find it amusing when creationists decry Evolution (signified with a capital 'E'!) as falsehood, yet they don't seem to have too much problem with physics and engineering! They also LOVE to misuse the Second Law of Thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution, and point at the fossil record with little or no understanding of geology/paleontology. Ah well, I see plenty of scientists whose religious faith (Christian or otherwise) is unshaken due to science, and take strength from the idea that they are exploring a puzzle set out before them by a Higher Power and revelaing its truth to man.
Biological evolution is change, over time, in the gene pool of a population.
That's it.
If you state that such changes are "only a theory", you are lying through the skin of your teeth.
When most people speak of "evolution", they are typically talking about "common descent", which is the application of evolutionary biology to explain the biodiversity of life on Earth through slowly-developing twin-nested hierarchies descending from common ancestors.
This is what chaps the asses of fundies. It is in direct conflict with their literalist interpretation of the Bible. And since they learned long ago that they're not going to get creationism taught in public school, they shifted their focus to attacking the scientific bases for evolution, even though their attacks are ridiculous. They shout nonsense like "Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!" And it plays pretty well to the pew because, by golly, it sure sounds "purty scientifical!" After all, what do Mr. and Mrs. Johnson in the third row know about thermodynamics?
See, here's the thing: "Creation scientists" are full of shit, and I'm willing to bet that almost all of them are fully aware that they're full of shit. But most of the masses that phone in large cash contributions to the Trinity Broadcasting Network don't know this. It doesn't mean that they're stupid, or that they're not good people, it just means that they are uneducated with regards to the issues at hands. "Creation science" is a despicable, deceptive field which relies on repeated lies and misrepresentation of science. It does fairly well today because its adherents either aren't aware that it's lies, or they don't care.
I certainly understand why fundamentalists don't like evolution and common descent. But that doesn't matter. Scientific theories and facts do not stand and fall on the basis of whether everybody likes them or not. There are lots of things that science teaches us that I don't particularly find comforting. I don't like the notion that the Earth could be, at any moment, struck by a large asteroid which would wreak global devastation. I don't lose any sleep over it, but it's not a comforting notion. However, it does me no good to stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming "IS NOT!! IS NOT!!"
So evolution is no longer part of the standard curriculum in Kansas. Big deal. It doesn't mean that it can't still be taught. All it means is that children who graduate from a Kansas high school that decided to forego evolution education are going to be less well-rounded than those children that graduated from schools that have no qualms about teaching things that have been discovered since the Bronze Age.
Finally, to those who would like to see fundamentalist Christian creationism taught in public schools "as a theory", you might want to consider that creationism is a myth.. not a theory. Theories make testable predictions. The creation yarn of 1 Genesis does not. Depending on which creationist you listen to, the universe is anywhere from six thousand to fifteen billion years old. Some creationists insist that the Earth is not moving (after all, didn't Joshua command the sun to stand still?) However, these heretics are shunned by those creationists who believe that the Earth is flat. Creationists don't agree where all of the water for Noah's flood came from, nor do they agree upon how it disappeared in some unspecified manner. And it goes on and on. Creationists have come up with all sorts of ludicrous "scientific justifications" for events in Genesis, and.. here's the really funny part.. none of it is consistent with the rest.
If creationists would like to see creationism taught as a theory in our public schools, then they should present the Theory of Creationism. If they are unable to, then they have no right to teach my children that the universe, which looks as if it is billions of years old, was "poofed" into existence by God six thousand years ago.
-- We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Re:Nobody's loss but Kansas ..
by
nmarshall
·
· Score: 1
Some creationists insist... that the Earth is flat.
I happen to believe in creation but I still don't think evolution should not be taught. It just challenges your ideas and helps to reinforce your beliefs. I also don't think school is the place for religious theories to be taught.
And a theory can never be proven correct, only not proven wrong.
This != mandated creationism
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As far as I can tell from the article, they have not mandated that creationism be taught, just made teaching evolution non-mandatory.
IMHO, evolution *is* just a theory, and shouldn't be taught as fact. Many non-religious scientists are questioning the tenets of evolution.
Open your mind.
Kansas Educational Policy
by
bgarrett
·
· Score: 1
As a Christian, I fully support teaching evolution in schools. I don't personally believe that "macro-evolution" (the life-from-lifelessness, amoeba-to-man) is a viable explanation for human origins, but I'm also quite clued in on the fact that as yet, there is ABSOLUTELY NO substantive proof for any single theory of the origin of life.
Having said that, I restate: I support the teaching of evolution in schools, provided that it is taught as what it really is: a theory, no more, no less. I support the teaching of creationism with the same caveats.
The talk.origins FAQ (posted earlier) is an excellent take on this long-debated topic, and those who feel the larger ramifications of the Kansas decision merit further rehashing are encouraged to take their opinions to the talk.origins newsgroup.
-- Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
about God's existence
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
These religious radicals need to give it a rest. Let's not forget that great quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide...
The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist', says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But', says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that', and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
well if atheists are getting their arguments from the hitchhiker's guide, no wonder why there are so few of them left
-- ---
Re:Teaching as Theory Not Fact
by
HoserHead
·
· Score: 2
Wrong. A theorem is proven - just like the Pythagorean theorem. An axiom is something that's generally accepted as true, just because it is - like transitivity, if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
Heh.. Bass-Ackward Public Schools..
by
Bowie+J.+Poag
·
· Score: 1
..You were expecting something smart to come from a group of people who intentionally live in the path of tornadoes?:)
All I ever needed to know about "Creation Science" was from a video we were shown in Biology class back in high school. In order to be fair, we had the evolutionist viewpoint shown to us, followed by the creationist viewpoint on what happened during mass-extinction that occured on earth about 65 million years ago. I laughed so hard that I can remember the exact words of what was said in the video to this day:
"..About 4,000 years ago, a catastrophic flood wiped out many forms of life on Earth -- The fish were the first to die, follow by the....."
Somehow, I have a hard time buying the idea that fish are capable of drowning..:)
Kansas not forcing kids to be spoonfed idiocy!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This saddens me greatly.. it really makes me lose faith in my fellow man. Before you brainwashed monkey-junkies start bobbing your heads like trained otters, I'm talking about you. This disgusting militant support for enforced ignorance, and lack of tolerance of thought. You are all so maddeningly shortsighted and small-minded. Evolution, at best, can only be considered as a "temporary" notion to serve until SCIENTISTS (everybody ooh and ahh here, the name of thy god has been invoked) can come up with something less rediculous. Talk to any SCIENTIST (oooh aah) long enough and they'll tell you the same, only in much prettier words.
It is a sad fact about mankind that even in this day and age when knowledge is free and open to anyone, the General Public(TM) (this means you) is still ignorant and dim-witted.
Sorry bout the anonymous posting.. slashdot doesnt seem to be working right. Or my netscape has gone weird on me. Cookies shmookies.
Re:Kansas not forcing kids to be spoonfed idiocy!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
spurt that jizz all over his nigger face.
(like ANYONE is going to read this far!)
Re:Kansas not forcing kids to be spoonfed idiocy!?
by
m|sTaMoFo
·
· Score: 1
"...rediculous."
learn to spell before you go after science you fucking moron.
Have you observed one species mutating into a completely different and better species? ie - fish to lizard, lizard to mouse, mouse to monkey, monkey to man...
What do you mean, "completely different and better"? Better for what? You relate monkeys and men as if the latter are superior to the former; that is your value judgement, not any kind of scientific ranking.
The only evolutionary comparison you can make is to look at which is the best at surviving and reproducing, and that only between two species trying to occupy the same niche. Monkeys like to eat fruits and leaves and live in the tropics, I like to eat meat and grains and live in the temperate zone; there is no scientific comparison you can make between me and a monkey in terms of "which is better". We are not competitors.
Now on to observations. It has been observed, I am told, that the wallabies which escaped into the wild in Hawaii have developed a mutation which allows them to eat some plants which are poisonous to Australian wallabies. Apparently they are also no longer inter-fertile with the Australian species; they have formed a completely new species. You can't deny that the new wallabies are "better" at surviving in the environment of Hawaii; they are better adapted. This has occurred in the space of what, a century? Numerous speciation events have been observed, in the laboratory and in the wild, in insects (especially fruit flies, which have such short generation times that observing them in the act of diverging is vastly easier than any vertebrate). We've watched evolution turn many different kinds of organisms (from bacteria to marsupials) into superior survival machines. And that is all that the theory of evolution predicts.
Also, gravity is not a theory. It is something that can be verified without a doubt time and time again. How gravity works has numerous theories. Evolution is just an unproven idea which makes it a theory to make sense of a pile of bones and rocks.
And piles of DNA, and a growing list of species we see now that weren't there a hundred, or even twenty, years ago... It can't be denied, Mr. AC. It's fact, just like gravity; just like gravity, it cannot be honestly denied. The remaining work is to pry out the details of its mechanisms.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I suggest you all step away from your keyboards for a little while and read a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It is written by a self-proclaimed agnostic, and it essentially demolishes what is commonly called the "Theory of Evolution," by which I mean the theory that we got here by purely naturalistic means with no supernatural intervention. And yes, I have read Dawkins and other evolutionists, and they can't even shine Denton's shoes.
I have no problem with the theory of evolution being taught in schools, as long as the serious problems with it are also pointed out. And to say it has serious problems is an understatement. Do the research yourself, and quit bashing opposing views when you have no idea what your are talking about.
80 years ago religious people were ridiculed for believing that the universe had a beginning. Now the big bang theory is the scientific consensus. Think for yourself, and quit parroting bullshit.
Russ
Re: you don't understand science, then.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you find conflicts, then publish an alternate theory, and give the facts that lead you to that theory. Obviously, with the tiny fraction of fossils that are still studyable, we can't have an example of every generation in the step. If someone assumes that the current believed age of the earth cannot be wrong, they are a moron too just like you. But for you to make the leap that "the timeline seems a little funny" to "some mysterious divine being created life" is simply preposterous.
Re:Wow!-The bible is wrong.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ummm... I'd like to know what you meant by that, I would whole heartedly agree that the Bible has been used as an excuse to do some pretty rotten things, but that was not it's intent. If you actually read it (all of it, not cutting out what doesn't agree with your ideas). It does NOT justify genocide, and neither does it support political aims..
Let's give these idiots a reality test here. Christianity involves the rite of "communion", which if I recall correctly, involves the consumption of bread and wine which symbolically represent the body and blood of christ.
Eating the flesh and blood of another person???!!! This ritualized cannibalism!!! How can this be acceptable behavior when the teaching of science is not? Defend your actions you justified rightious cretins!
Flame away...
Re:US tax rate vs. Canadian tax rate
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, taxes aren't 50%. For my father, this year, they were 55% (I did his tax return, so I damn well know!). Sure he makes $115k, but mom doesn't work. So it evens out with the $62.5k in tax. Thank God I'm gettin' my ass down to the USA ASAP. I hear in Texas, taxes on this amount would be something like 30% to 40%. And good health care is about $5000 - $7000 a year in insurance. Still much cheaper if you make a lot of money!:-)
Canada is a nice country, but we suffer a major brain drain to the US. If you make just a little money here (ie. Statistically you are less educated) you do better in Canada. If you make mucho moola (Statistically better educated), you are better off financially in the US. This leaves us with this: University and College students go to the USA, high school grads and lower stay here. Ohoh, at least we gots the smart people here for now to fix them Y2K problems! But what about the Y2036 (or whatever the Unix date is) problems, with the sure to eventually be lower IQ here?
As far as health care goes, I'd agree, on average, Canada's is better. But, for the "high-paying" man, you get more treatment in the USA. Not more treatment for your dollar, just more is avaliable, if you want to pay for it.
Crime in Canada is still high, and many worry about being stabbed in the streets here. And in Toronto, shot. If you take away the hotspots of crime in the USA (ie. Detriot, Atlanta, LA, etc...), you end up with a lower crime rate. I wonder what the murder rate for Iowa, Virginia, Maine, Colorado etc... is? Lower than Ontario's I'd be willing to bet. And the murder rate would likely be comparable (I must still check!). Remember to divide all US totals by 10 to apply them to Canada (unless they are per capita!). People forget this, and news stations use this often to "boost" Canadian morale. Ie. In the US there were 10,000 crimes involving a handgun, while in Canada there were just 1,200 crimes involving a knife (not accurate, but guns to knives is how TV stations compare...).
Note to the best of my knowledge, California has the HIGHEST tax rate in all of the USA! So we compare well to the most highly taxes state in the US? Woah! Just great! Now how do we compare against ANY other US state (say our neighbour, New York)?
While I was in the USA on many driving trips to Florida, I only ever saw a gun in a Police car, and in a gun store. Same places here. I didn't feel less safe, even though there was that nut in Florida targeting Canadians at one time (although, I would have gotten the hell outta there if I was there when that happened.). Fact is, I felt just as safe on Daytona Beach at night as I did in Toronto, at night.
Easier to say what I don't mean by it...
by
tilly
·
· Score: 1
When I say "intellectually honest" I mean that the person approaches the subject with the knowledge of their own limitations, and therefore seeks to understand their own beliefs, the sources of those beliefs, the beliefs of the opponent, and the sources of those beliefs as well. This kind of person is not likely to accept caricatures of a position (like the ones put forth by Creationists about Punctuated Equilibrium), balderdash arguments (see misunderstandings of the laws of thermodynamics), or outright lies (see Creationist misquotes of prominent scientists).
This is also not the kind of person who is willing to accept simple pictures of science either. Just because Darwin wrote in the 1850's did not mean that everyone since should accept Evolution. Indeed serious scientific challenges to the theory persisted into this century. The last one having to do with agricultural breeding experiments (its resolution was the recognition of why genetic diversity matters).
The kind of person that I am talking about, after truly investigating evolution, can cheerfully point out that fossils are more than just piles of rocks. For instance insects trapped in amber and certain types of shale still contain organic material. But even if you don't want to believe in fossils, it is still easy to come up with a half-dozen lines of evidence towards evolution:
Cladistics
Predictions of animal behaviour (see E.O.Wilson and ant studies)
Observed evolution in current population
Observed speciation events
Current distribution of species in environments that would favor speciation (which is what tipped Darwin off)
The archeological record for the last few tens of thousands of years
And so I repeat my question. Have you investigated evolution? Do you have a clue what you are babbling about?
Sincerely, Ben Tilly
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Re:Easier to say what I don't mean by it...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
People that resort to name calling in fact show the weakness of their argument. There is no need for that and it only serves to promote a lack of understanding on both sides. Why is this so personal? It's because the evolutionists have sooo much at stake. They claim objectivity when in fact they dont believe in a God nor do they want to. That much is clear from their anger. A true objective person would allow for the existence of a God. That would at least make them an agnostic (not knowing whether their is a God or not). I've read the arguments for both sides just in this post and it seems that not everyone has. I'd be interested in seeing a disciplined if not moderated debate on here between c.s. and e.t. propnents which deal with real issues one at a time rather than rhetoric. Also, lets see some well reasoned responses to each other instead of "it says in this book that such and such is true." Actually address the other sides arguments respectfully. You're alot more likely to win an argument that way and convince the other side that way. I have noticed an unfortunate "intellectual snobbishness" from the academic community which combined with peer pressure and group think serve to stifle any true dialog. Also, there are those in the c.s. community (too many) that are to quick to use arguements which sometimes don't hold water. However, we shouldn'nt fault them since they are usually speaking about something whichisn't their main field of expertise anyway. So lets all try to work together to at least point out where we have room to agree to disagree. This issue is not solved because there is no proof either way and never will be. All we can do is to try to undrstand the others point of view and perhaps enrich our lives intelectually. Lets not become religous bigots.
It's the ETs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The ETs were the ones who brought life to Earth. That explains everything.
the problem
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Pleeeeze, Andover, buy Rob and Jeff a faster server... this is rediculous!
The only problem is the idea of "species". It is an artificial construct. An organism is a set of genes, and an organism with identical genes is a clone. Organisms with relatively similar genotypes are considered by humans to be of the same species. All organisms, whether they are from the same "species" or not, have some degree of genetic difference.
At the macro level, evolutionary change is the process by which organisms reproduce, anand via variation and mutation give rise to other organisms which may be more or less different than their predecessors. All along, selection picks which mutations and variations most influence the next generation.
Basically, organisms are bags of genes... some can reproduce sexually, and some cannot. All organisms are selfish and prefer their own survival to that of others.
So, they can't teach evolution. They can't teach creationism. Ummm...so what WILL they teach about the origins of man? And what will they do when someone asks "if this is microevolution, then what's regular evolution?"
And I hate to think about what's going to happen to any budding, say, archeologists once they reach college...
Read the article tough guy. It says that evolution is no longer required to be taught as it will no longer be included on the Kansas Standardized Tests.
"The board voted on a modified version of curriculum guidelines for grades kindergarten through high school that eliminates evolution as a way to describe the emergence of new species"
"Banning evolution from the classroom"
"But this spring, a school board member introduced a competing proposal to remove evolution theories from classrooms"
Dude, why don't you read the article? You must be a product of the Kansas public education system, hmmm?
Kansas is full of religious deviants..
by
AnalogBoy
·
· Score: 1
not to say all christians are deviants by any means.. but this state is just full of people who's brains arent making all the proper connections...
for instance, go to www.godhatesfags.com. or www.godhatesamerica.com. This man should not even own a computer. He's from Topeka, and a big proponent of this decision. I've seen homophobes be disgusted by this man.
In summary.. Lets move all the decent folk out of kansas, then blow it up..
Re:Kansas is full of religious deviants..
by
Bartmoss
·
· Score: 1
You could always lease Kansas to the French for nuclear weapons testing.
Yeah, and many Kansans are just pissed off..
by
John+Fulmer
·
· Score: 2
..At the media for completely blowing this out of proportion. I've got a rant farther down on this list, but in short, all this is just an approved proposal that evolution will not be covered on state assessment tests. That's about it.
I'm a student in KS, so this issue is a little bit more than moral to me. I've been following it for a few months... funny, I never thought it'd matter much to anyone out of KS...
Evolution is not being eliminated from the curriculum, it is simply being not required. Most teachers in the cities will continue to teach evolution as they've always done, whereas most teachers in the country(who are usually home-schoolers btw), the massive amounts of country we have, will teach either pure creationism or a combo.
This changes absolutely nothing except it tells the nation that the reps of Kansas are idiots.
The politics of kansas are screwy... we have like 3 big cities in kansas, all the rest is mainly country, and therefore republican... always screws the cities, who are in the minority, over horribly.
I wonder what would happen if my biology started to teach __his__ view of evolution to classes... he is a very devout jew... let's see them support letting teachers teach what they wish after that...
Well, there goes the flood of crack biologists that we were seeing coming out of Kansas!
Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nobody is evolving in Kansas anyway for god sake
Fuck Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If the parents allow this, then they deserve it. I, personally, would pack my bags and leave town if they pulled this kind of shit where I live. Can school board members be impeached? It looks like those are the only options -- live with this decision, in ignorance; CHANGE IT; or leave. School board elections are not the most closely followed so perhaps nobody realized what kind of incompetents they were choosing, and so can perhaps be forgiven for that. But it seems any community that would elect such right-wing imbeciles most likely deserves them -- and probably agrees with them. What a great day for science. This also makes us look very respectable in the eyes of other nations. Oh well, never wanted to go to Kansas anyway...
And you wonder why people make fun of Kansas.
by
Adam+Schumacher
·
· Score: 1
Well, I've got to say it.
The citizens of Kansas are idiots.
Not specifically, mind you. I'm sure that there are a lot of people living in Kansas that are bright, intelligent people, and I harbor no resentment towards those people. It just seems that they are not in the majority amongst the voting public.
I mean, seriously, what kind of electorate would elect Kansassholes like these to any kind of public office? I have no problem with faith. Blind faith is just stupid though. And to willfully impose your ignorance (yes, I stand by my statement that rejection of science is ignorance) upon your own children is morally revolting and inexcusable.
I certainly hope that someone has the cajones (I use the term figuratvely, with no prejudice intended against the female or neutral genders) to stand up to these people and get fact back into school where it belongs.
Keep in mind that these are my opinions. If this bothers you, look here.
Adam Schumacher cybershoe@mindless.com
Way to go kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is a step in the right direction. The next step (obviously) is to begin teaching creationism. Then the next step is to outlaw going to school past the age of 12. Otherwise independant though might arise in our children, which also might led them astray from the beliefs they have been preached since they were born. This would be an outrage. Just imagine children thinking for themselves, using their own power of logic to define themselves and their place in this world. This cannot happen, we must continue the practice of making our children believe blindly in their faith. Otherwise they might start to ask questions that are difficult to answer. Choose the correct route, nay the only route, call your state representative today and tell them to vote yes on the "No education after 12" law.
Re:We don't have enough fear of god for our own go
by
overshoot
·
· Score: 1
Don't you think you laid the parody on just a little too thick? A lighter touch would have made for a better troll.
-- Lacking <sarcasm> tags,/. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
Very good points. A recent Scientific American had a review for a book about debunking creationism. The basic point being that there are no arguments for creationism, the evidence for creationism are simply arguments against evolution. Which in no way proves creationism.
Another point is that creationism tends to sit on the fact that because life is so complex there is no way it could have developed without a divine hand. The problem with that argument is that if one of the things that is pointed at as proof of God is found to be completely natural and explainable, it casts doubt on the existence of God at all.
This is probably part of the reason the catholic church embraced evolution. They realized that trying to prove the existence of God via natural evidence was pointless and self defeating. Faith does not require proof, and it cannot be disproven. If proof is attempted it allows for disproof, which like is said before is self defeating for a religion.
Dastardly
Separation of Church & State is not in the const.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Separation of Church & State" is _not_ in the constitution, contrary to what some believe. In fact, the founding fathers has an affinity to at least mention "God" in many of their documents. And just because someone may not advocate evolution doesn't mean that they have a religious agenda. The theory of evolution has come under much heavier scrutiny from many atheistic scientists in recent years.
Wow, almost 1000 comments! and little moderation!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
only one comment has been moderated down. Are the moderators losing their touch?
It saddens me to see this kind of Debate on Slashdot. How all these people who only months ago complained about Geek Bashing and the like and were hoping for an accepting world. Are so quick to simply Turn on each other. Yes, I believe in God! Yes, I think The current Pope said it all when he said "If God wanted to do evolution then he could" (paraphrase). I think people espescially some of my fellow/. readers need to get their Heads away from the computer, and out of their @$$ and go look at the sky and Marvel at how this came to be. There can be NO explaining it all. Whether there is a God or not WE will never fully understand. I Hate aethists, agnostics and non-religious people who blatently speak out against religion 1)without thinking and 2)without knowing anything about it anyway. Maybe you should read the Bible and Darwin together and think through both without discrediting one from the get go. I did. And I think no matter what you decide afterward you'd be better for having done it.
how wonderful to see some of that glorious christian hatred shining like a golden heavenly light through the murky blackness of rationality.
you're completely entitled to abandon all desire to examine and discuss the nature of our existence, but there's absolutely no excuse for being so rude just because other people aren't as quick to give up. keep "we will never understand", "there can be no explaining it all", and your vague supernatural gesticulations to yourself and let the rest of us get down to some real thinking.
Re:Remember when JUNIOR high schools had rifle clu
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I can't believe you pulled this out. This is a religious flamewar, not a gun owning one!
Yea right, we are in 1999, one school got smart.
by
Intrinsic
·
· Score: 1
Its all about creationism anyway, cant believe people still believe that evolution should be taught as truth.
Response to the two posts above this one
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
To the first comment, what in the world did your little example prove? Lead always sinking beneath the sand? What does that mean.... anything?
Now to both the comments. I challenge you to *directly* refute my *little* math problem. I do NOT accept generalized comments, because they are meaningless. Gee let me think, dont they teach you that in High School?
Lastly, there has been evidence of scientists creating amino acids in lab experiments. This has been heralded as *many* (not all) evolutionists claim that it is one step closer to proving that life *could* have evolved. Well, my little math equation was meant simply to refute that possibility.
Just to put some of you cliche thumpin lefties in a tizzy, I'd just like to point out that the jezzuzfreaks do not represent those of us extreme right wingers that are of the traditional Goldwater variety.
By that premise *all* scientific thought is theory and hypothesis. How can we prove the gravitational constant or relativistic physics? All we can do is show that it occurs/works within a certain error, no more, no less.
At some point we will find an incontravertible error, and revise our science until they are more accurate--but even then, it is a theory and not a law.
This is the fun part of where I stand. One side with postmodernist philosophers and the other with scientific naturalists (yes a simplification i know:) ).
First of all I disagree with the idea that the difference of a child from either of it's parents is proof of evolution(at least in the way I define the word). It is a biological mechanism that does a darned good job of ensuring we dont have to deal with a bunch of duplicates running around. Sure God could have made us reproduce exact copies but how much fun would that be (and dont even get into the confusion that it would cause:) )
When I hear about a biologist sequencing an organisms genome i come not to the conclusion of obvious evolution but of intelligent design ( hey its pretty much a program for life ). About the mathematical simulations I have not seen the results thereoff and if i did I probably would not understand them well enough to judge the validity of them but I have also seen studies that attempt to compute probabilities related to evolution coupled with the age of the earth and come up with not nearly enough years (yeah they could be a bunch of BS as well but studies can be bias in many ways).
At some point most everything comes down to at least a small part of faith. You take it on faith that evolution is not just as much a myth as the belief of scientists years ago that the sun revolved around the earth.
Luckily I do not base my faith upon my vast knowledge of the subject of evolution (yeah right) but upon the death and resurection of Christ (the sound of a can of worms opening) this is the case for many Christians that I know. To tie this all in with the subject.... I do not believe evolution should be taught as absolute fact in schools but neither should religion be forced on people in schools (it should also not be such a taboo subject in our society but that is another story).
If you can find this message in this massive discussion flame agree dissagree, make fun etc also feel free to email me for further discussion ( i for one actually like this subject:) )
David Demmin Christian Electrical Engineering Major and Ultimate Frisbee player
-- "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
Horse + donkey. Almost always sterile, with one or two known exceptions.
You don't see half man/half ape hybrids for two reasons: 1) Man is an ape, in a technical sense. 2) The DNA is not compatible enough.
Orangutans are supposedly the closest to human in a genetic sense. If you would like to volunteer for an experiment, please specify your sex and a suitable orangutan of the opposite sex will be provided for you.
-- This message has been scanned for memes and
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is
believed to be unclean.
Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Theories cannot be proven true or false. If you have a theory that you have proved false, then just take that theory and negate it, giving you a new theory which is true.
Re:Morons shouldn't pretend they know logic
by
Farce+Pest
·
· Score: 1
"Not all automobiles are blue" is not a theory in this case anyway: It's an observation, i.e. a fact, and non-falsifiable. It also has no predictive value. If your theory is "All automobiles are blue", you can predict, "the next automobile that passes me will be blue"; if it's "not all automobiles are blue" == "some automobiles are not blue", you can't predict what color the next automobile will be.
Proving a theory false and negating it does not get you a new true theory. You simply have the fact that disproved your theory in the first place and nothing more.
-- This message has been scanned for memes and
dangerous content by MindScanner, and is
believed to be unclean.
Creation "science" is an oxymoron
by
lil_billy
·
· Score: 1
The article cites the 1982 trial of McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education -- it just so happens that I've been reading the judge's opinion (so that I can argue with the religious guys at work) and one of the fundamental tenets of Judge Overton's opinion is that the "essential characteristics of science" are:
1. It is guided by natural law; 2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and 5. It is falsifiable He goes on to basically state that for all of these reasons "Creation Science" is not really science. Pretty cool. I can't believe these lowbrow religious wackos are finding converts... goes to show that people will try really hard to find something bigger than themselves to believe in.
Who will be the next Scopes?
by
Skim123
·
· Score: 1
I wonder how long it will take before a brave teacher in Kansas teaches his students evolution, is arrested, and goes back to the Supreme Court. I'd really be interested to see that happen....
--
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Re:Who will be the next Scopes?
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
There won't be a Scopes as a result of this. What will happen is that all the little podunk school districts will no longer have their graduates tested on anything related to evolution of species during the state exams, so they can water down their science curricula and still remain accredited.
This, of course, is going to make the existing problems of a scientifically-illiterate public and ill-prepared college applicants even worse.
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Evolution as a Theory is Dead...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Folks, I will be blunt.
There is increasing evidence piling up in various scientific fields that shows that evolution as it is currenly taught... is bunk! Evolution has become a belief system.
A theory has to explain how things happen - yet the latest research on cell metabolism, the Krebs cycle, and chaos theory, DNA etc. cannot be adequately explained by evolutionary theory.
Worse, evolution didn't *anticipate* any of this stuff (which a really good theory would - like the periodic table of the elements is able to predict future element's properties).
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN:
Scientists should realize that evolution no longer works as a theory, and should say "we don't know, but we'll keep trying to find out!"
Even Richard Dawkins, by titling one of his books, "Climbing Mt. Improbable" tacitly acknowledges that evolutionary theory is in trouble.
Flame on, my prettys!
Patrick p17501@yahoo.com
Yet another backwards state...
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
TN actually had a law (which/must/ have been unconsitutional) banning the teaching of evolution. This law was not repealed until *1967*.
Let me say i am a devoted atheist, and do not respect christianity in most ways. I find it was a great invention to give plague sufferers and other people with no reason to live, well, a reason to live. Although they arent the greatest rules to live by, I also respect the ten commandments... just following those rules than the thousands established by the government would probably make life a lot easier. There a few religions where the rules and ethics are more respectable(I love buddhism although i think it is on a equal bullshxt level as christianity), but overall i find religion a bad thing, and incredibly illogical and dishonest, especially in this day and age. And don't say i am stating this without a platform; I have read more on religion and philosophy than most people. I just find life would be a lot better for everyone if we relied not on religion, but on caring, and doing real things for each other besides praying.
I don't know if I am stating this due to the fact that i was raised by a religiously lax family(father a non-practicing protestant, a mother that doesnt care, and an atheist sister), or if i'm well read, but i cant understand how someone can base a life on religion. It is so illogical.. i mean i can't comprehend it! I would so like to be in the mind of a christian for a day just to see what it's like. Don't get me wrong, i am open to new beliefs(which in some ways makes me an agnostic), but until a religion is proven, atheism is the only logical belief. Plus, with recent advances in astrophysics and other sciences, we can explain our existence through research.
But another thing i can't understand is all the different sects in christianity. I mean if there is a christianity, wouldn't there only be one way? I mean, isn't the original good book the only way to follow christianity; wouldn't protestantism and lutheranism and every other subset of christianity be false? And if god cared for every human, what about people in third world countries that follow some polytheistic religion and had never heard of christianity? Does that mean they are to be banished to a world of fire and brimstone and torment for eternity? I could go on and on.
People, it was good for us in the beginning, but open your minds now!
-- Slartibartfast:"Is that your robot?"
Marvin:"No, I'm mine."
Re:Wow, almost 1000 comments! and little moderatio
by
Mike+A.
·
· Score: 1
If you had moderator points, and saw a 1000-comment board, would you bother?
Plus which, just as the comments seem to be astonishingly even on both sides of the issue, so the moderator points are probably similarly distributed. I'm guessing that there's more than a few moderator wars on this board.
--
-- Do I look like I speak for my employer?
this is dog vs cat chase, and *that* is rediculous
by
On+Lawn
·
· Score: 1
Natural selection is a law. This is true. Is this a law of evolution? No one knows. Some believe it is, some believe it isn't.
Should it be taught as a law of evolution? Sure! Should it be mandated? No.
These are my points. I don't know who and what you are arguing with.
As far as developing features and changes, for example a domesticated pig, if intorduced to the wild grows tusks and hair just like its, what do you call them, ancestors? Simularly horses decrease in size, and develop heightened sences. Yet in hundreds of documented years and generations of horse breeding and human selection, we do not have a new species of throuroghbred, nor a faster one.
At what point did they go from non-seeing to seeing Trilobytes? Many plants and animals can detect the presence of light. And many of them develop mechanisms to detect it better (enhancing of specific abilities). Did Trilobytes ever evolve a lense to move from detecting light to focusing it to pictures?
Throughout history, and Darwin was just one of many, there is a believed progression to the present day that happens in stages. Archeologists use it to explain things as much as evlutionists.
The problem comes when assumptions like "In the natural progression of the development of steel it went from the Roman Empire who developed it to the rest of the world." For years steel artifacts were dated by guessing how long the technology of steel would travel from Rome to Europe.
Now we find the Europe, and even the mideast had steel before the Roman Empire. These assumptions are dangerous to teach as fact, and even more dangerous to mandate.
that is my point. You can feel free to find that other person you must be arguing with.
(Besides, those "missing links" have very interesting features that do not neccisarily show up on humans. They have teeth that all of a sudden are all molars, then change suddenly (not gradualy) back to incisors, etc... no hybrid intermediaries like you'd expect if they were co-existing mutations.)
I wonder if you are arguing that evolution doesn't have holes? Maybe I need to get out the Scientific American article that I am remembering. It was a good article, and the way I'd like evolution to be taught.
After all, my anthropology teacher told the story...
"one morning I went to take a shower only to find that there was no water. Sure enough we went through the house to find that no water was coming out of anywhere.
I asked my wife, 'did we pay the phone bill?' She went and looked, and sure enough we were late in paying. So I took the morning off of work to run some money down to the Woter Department.
When I asked 'when can you have the water turned back on?' the lady behind the desk replied 'We never shut it off."
It turns out that that very day, the water main broke and the water was shut off. Evidence A and B (past due bill, and water being off) naturaly predicted C. However, there was something completely outside the system we were taking into account that was the truth."
That is what I think about evolution, and why I think Kansas made the right decision. (Now, if you argue that you must quote the decision to prove you actually understand what they did before continuing, okay?) ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Kansas & UCITA: Common Ground
by
Randym
·
· Score: 1
Curiously, the bass-ackwards stance of the Kansas Board of Education points up a good feature of the United States of America. Each State is different. Yes, it's true they are remarkably similar in many ways, but each state has its own personality. People can always vote with their feet and move somewhere else.
Now, how does UCITA figure into this? Each state has to ratify UCITA within its own borders and that's not a given at all. Do now: set up a bookmark to your local legislature and check often to see when UCITA comes up. While waiting, set up a listserv at ListBot or ONElist (or on your own machine if you're running listserv or majordomo) about UCITA and get all the user groups and third parties in your state to sign onto it. When UCITA shows up, hit the panic button and have everyone start writing your legislators every day -- either snail or Email. (Encourage writers to use their own words rather than a form letter.) When you have defeated UCITA in your state, change the name of the list to Internet Issues. Voila! You have just created an inspired and dedicated Internet-aware polity! Those legislators will now *always* be looking over their shoulder for you -- and that's the way we want it...
-- DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Re:Logically, No Evolution == No Newtonian Mechani
by
Dastardly
·
· Score: 1
That isn't exactly what I was referring to, but it is a good example. A better one is that. Newtonian mechanics has holes in it. So, we have to teach Relativity only. Wait Relativity doesn't explain everything so we have to teach quantum mechanics. Ooops quantum mechanics doesn't apply to times before 1e-42s after the big bang. We can't teach anything.
This is the creationist argument. Evolution doesn't explain everything therefore it can't be taught. Basically the argument is that no science can be taught ever. Which basically makes these people the biggest hypocrites in the world, because they don't want any science taught, but are perfectly happy reaping the benefits of said science.
This isn't ignorance either. This is pure stupidity. Ignorance is not knowing anything. Stupidity is not being able to think. Obviously these people can't even apply there own arguments to themselves which to me says they cannot think, therefore they are stupid. QED.
Dastardly
Oh fuck it - Corey the moron
by
tobyp
·
· Score: 1
I was going to post a reasonable, argued comment.
Then I re-read Corey-the-asshole's post and thoutht better of it. What a stupid wanker! What a cretin! Read some Steven J Gould, or Dawkins, or Dennet and marvel how evolution explains so many facts with beauty and precision.
Or wallow in your ignorace like Corey-the-turd.
Whatever.
not just evolution
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This Kansas thing goes a lot deeper than evolution...it goes to the heart of our educational system. It denies teachers the right to teach what they feel is important for their students.
The teaching of evolution is generally presented as a possible course of events, which exposes students to a fascintating if not disturbing view of the past. It also applies the Scientific Method and shows students that it is possible to have more than one view on a subject.
By disallowing the teaching of evolution, the "Board" has removed power from teachers. This is not good for their morale, which leads to poorer teaching. Teachers have a rough rap as it is, and the schools should spend less time controlling and more time improving. But to do this boards like this in Kansas, the TPSC in Oregon, and all the others need to realize what they are doing there, and voters and parents need to think about what they are doing.
Thanks for the link. The talk.origins site is quite interesting, and is going to take quite awhile to read. It is all quite slanted toward macro-evolution as an indisputable fact.
But macro-evolution is disputed. Check out the other side of the debate at trueorigin.org. This site has rebuttals to many of the talk.origins FAQs, and seems no less interesting or worth reading.
I recommend that both sites be checked out. For the record, I am a Christian who believes that God created everything, including life. I don't know literally how He did it, but I'm not afraid of investigating the evidence and ideas put forth by both creationists and evolutionists. I doubt that anyone is 100% correct.
round != circular
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not necessarily, anyway. Also, all measurements given are always assumed to be approximate. It's a fairly basic truism that there is no such thing as an exact measurement.
Consider the "33000" year old wood (not fossils) has been found embedded in "millions of years old" Hawkesbury sandstone in Sydney. Which date is right?
Consider the many, many polystrate fossils in the world. Intrusion's ridiculous, unless you have a religious attachment to the dating of the rock layers that are crossed.
Consider many thousands of square miles of "upside down" strata (in one chunk; yes, even in the US) with negligible signs of movement at the interface. How did they get there? Did the whole lot flip over, extending hundreds of miles into space, and likewise into the magma?
Consider the sudden end of life-signs at the pre-Cambrian level.
Consider the observation that the gremlins in the lowest levels of strata are generally the kind of gremlins that would be there anyway: bottoom dwellers.
Consider the skeletons of modern man that Leakey found much further down than "Lucy."
Consider the many thousands of fossil sites at which "local flooding" events are blamed - and the "global flood" on dry Mars - and yet nobody wants to know about a global flood here. Why?
Have you ever read "Starlight and Time?" The same author made several accurate predictions, working from the same base priciples outlined in that book, about the planets in our solar system. The "standard" predictions were several orders of magnitude off - but who will you believe knows more about what's going on?
The same author, working from the same principles, wrote modelling and simulation software which is used worldwide and daily by people who think he's a nutcase because he believes in the same principles which make the modellers more useful to those people than any other modeller. Where will you stand?
Yes, as long as people "refuse to at least consider the scientific evidence of the world about them rather than stubbornly cling to outdated and misguided dogma," the human race will continue to bark up the wrong tree.
The same attitude got the Church of the Dark Ages burning heretics at the stake, and declaring (in defiance of the Bible, which was ruthlessly suppressed except for a few copies in a strange language chained to the walls at monasteries) that the earth was flat and all sorts of other stupidities.
The same attitude is universally WRONG no matter who uses it: you, the pope, a flat-earther, Charles Darwin, an MSCE, a creationist, a linux kernel developer... it matters not, in the face of that same attitude of "knowing" holier-than-thou contempt.
A lot of that which you know is fact, is opinion - myth. Once you understand that, your life will make more sense.
A theory is a hypothesis that has a lot of support.
A law in science is a theory or that has an overwhelming amount of support, few or no opposing theories, and is accepted as fact.
A theorem is a mathematical hypothesis that has not yet been proven or disproven but is thought to be true.
An axiom is a building block of mathematics - something that is true by definition (like x=x). Axioms are used to prove theorems.
A law in mathematics is a theorem that has been proven through a logically sound reasoning process that can be broken down into axioms so that because the axioms are true by definition, the law must be true. It can then be used like an axiom to prove other theorems.
And I agree that a law in science can hardly ever be proven, for the reasons you said above.
-- Vidi, Vici, Veni
You might be more credible...
by
tilly
·
· Score: 1
Your credibility would be better if you got some facts right. Like the spelling of Neanderthal. Like the spelling of "Chimps". Like the fact that chimpanzees are 98.6% homologous to us.
I also, like the previous poster, do not believe that Neanderthal man has ever been sequenced. As for "Stone Age" man, well that covers a lot of ground. The only "Stone Age" men that I know have been sequenced turned out to be modern humans. Strangely enough they tended to be people who are living places like New Guinea...
Oh, and your description of the difference between micro and macro evolution is ludicrous. You may want to learn something before babbling more.
Sincerely, Ben Tilly
-- My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I'm changing my voter registration
by
dwikle
·
· Score: 1
I am from Kansas and am registered to vote there, although I've been in St. Louis for three years for school. I'm going to change my voter registration as soon as possible. As much as I'd like to vote against the BOE members who passed this crap, there are so many conservative and/or religious right voters in Kansas that my vote doesn't count for much.
So I'm saying "screw it" and changing my voter registration to Missouri where I can hopefully have more of an influence.
Has anyone thought about it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What if Mr. Darwin was wrong? It is, after all a theory, not a fact. Maybe Douglas Adams is the only one who got it right, after all... Seriously tho. Although evidnece may prove preponderously that the theory is valid, there's no definitve proof that Darwin was right. After all, his theories on natural selection turned out to be partially incorrect.
"If marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws."
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
the BIBLE can't be proven either..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
" Religious groups have argued that evolution cannot be proven, and some feel that evolution is not in accordance with Biblical teachings regarding the origins of life. "... MSNBC article... There is more evidence of evolution... than there is evidence in the bible. I say thats pretty stupid... You can't prove anything in the bible.. you can prove evolution with science.. what a bunch of bull i think the people in kansas that decided this should go back to school... When i was in school all i learned about evolution was up to a certain point. I learned that much was still theory.. and did not learn that we came from goop was fact. just theory.. which science is trying to prove today.. which is a hella of alot closer to the truth than the bible will ever be.
Hopefully not banned, but...
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
I would hope that teaching evolution not be banned, but as long as they're not exclusively promoting other models, I'm glad to see this.
The origins of the universe are beyond the realm of empirical science. The scientific method requires that you be able to observe and reproduce things, and you can't observe or reproduce the beginning of the universe. I'm not saying that the evolution model is completely wrong, but I think most people give it far too much credit. There are other scientific models out there that fit just as many facts as evolution.
Is there evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years? Yes, but there's also evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 6,000 years (no, I'm not kidding). Some of the evidence that people assume proves evolution fits the creation model as well. Some of the dating methods used to prove the age of the earth have been proven to be highly inaccurate, but are used anyway whenever it's convenient.
I am opposed to teaching religion in public schools. I don't want the government teaching children about God. However, Creationism, if taught in a secular way alongside of evolution can only encourage people to examine the scientific evidence.
Just as Linux and other operating systems should be made available to anyone who wants to use them instead of the dominant OS, Creation should be made available as an alternative to the dominant origins model for anyone who wants to believe it, and who is looking for a way to deal with the facts that don't fit the Evolution model.
Let the flaming begin...
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Teaching as Theory Not Fact
by
alexalexis
·
· Score: 1
From my understanding, they're not banning teaching evolution, they're just saying you can't say it's a fact. Sure, that'll freak out a lot of people, but hey.. it isn't proven (it's extremely hard to give a biological proof). Theory is theory until proven, and shouldn't be represented as anything else until then.
I think this is actually not as bad as a lot of people seem to think it is -- it'll certainly open up more discussions about our origins, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've certainly gained a great deal of knowledge about the world and people around me through discussion of topics that not everyone can agree on.
In my humble opinion, too many people take too many theories for granted (religion and science both). On the same note, too many people take too many things way too seriously. People need to lighten up and realize that not everybody can agree on everything, and what's right for one community may be a heinous mistake in another.
In no way am I trying to stir up sympathy for nutcases in the ultra-religious ultra-right, but I do think people are over reacting to this.
It's nearly the same in Iowa
by
Cedric
·
· Score: 1
This sort of thing is not new in the midwest. I came from a high school that just left the issue alone; we discussed neither evolution nor creationism. I guess that's better than teaching creationism alone, but it's a shame that the foundation of modern biology is not taught to high school students. I ended up taking AP Biology independent study, and I can almost be certain that I was the first person in many, many years to study evolution at my high school (evolution is a large part of the AP Bio curriculum). The really frightening thing is the rise of political forces such as this. The fact that they have the power to direct intstruction in the entire state scares me out of my wits.
One of the main problems here, I believe, is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. When will people stop selectively applying the scientific method? What we have is the best explanation of the how life arose. Yes, it is a theory, but it is the best theory that we have and it has many more facts supporting it than explanations from the Bible or whatever other holy book you believe in. How people believe that evolution cannot be reconciled with an all-powerful god is beyond me. Isn't the beauty of evolution itself enough proof to those who believe in a supreme being?
Nick Knouf
Been to Kansas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As much inbreeding as goes on there, you'd think they'd accept data genetical without much question. Maybe it's wishful thinking on their part. God (doesn't exist, figure of speech) knows the people there are not normal folk...
Sorta off topic...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Let's ask some aborigines about the origins of the earth, ok? It seems that many christian groups are makeing the big stink about it all... Whatever floats your boat, huh?
Maybe there is a missing link after all...
by
GoblinWizard
·
· Score: 1
Check out my web page. You just may find the missing link after all...
Re:Bzzt, wrong - check your biol 101 buddy
by
Dr.Jay
·
· Score: 1
Macro and micro, two different classes, one is a small scale deviation of the assumed planned outcome and the other is a grand scale near immdiate change resulting from effects similar to, or exactly those that cause micro evolution. Show me the man/ape? Prove it to me? CAn you? you can not, for all accounts of "Stone Age or Neandrethal" Man have had less sequence homology to man compared with Chips who are >99.1% homologous to our DNA. So then, did we jump from chimps and not from the prehistoric man/beast evolutionary biologists believe in? No sir, and since this science is based on entire assumptions with little or no evidence for macro evolution in man, I think it not only naive of anyone to state that Darwin is a "god" in biology, but that these people also lack what is needed in science today. More fact and less fiction. God is easier to prove than the assumed missing link...
[The talk.origins FAQ, reproduced in its entirety from talk.origins. Given the repeated reproduction of the t.o FAQ by many parties in the t.o community, I must assume that its reproduction outside of t.o constitutes acceptable use. As always -- if you think otherwise -- I can be contacted at schoandr@isu.edu and convinced to retract my post]
The following is a list of questions that appear frequently in the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins. Brief answers are given for each question along with a pointer to one or more relevant files.
What is the purpose of talk.origins?
The purpose of talk.origins is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. See the talk.origins Welcome FAQ, the Archive welcome file and the Talk.Origins Archive's Must-Read FAQs.
I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
Isn't evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?
No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. See the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ.
If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ and the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.
No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true?
Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?
Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ listing some more observed speciation events.
Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation?
No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal characteristics. See the FAQ on Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature.
According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable?
Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?
The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ.
Where can I learn more about evolution?
You might start with the talk.origins FAQs. If, however, you want a thorough understanding of evolution, a library would be a more appropriate place to look. The following FAQs provide some good references: the Creation/Evolution Reading List, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ, the "What is Evolution?" FAQ, and the Talk.Origins Archive's Evolution FAQs.
How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young.
According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.
But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non-contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions are wrong?
Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of the Earth FAQ.
I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?
Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago. See the C-Decay FAQ.
If Earth is so old, doesn't that mean Earth's decaying magnetic field would have been unacceptably high at one time?
No. The Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planet's history. See the FAQ on the Earth's Magnetic Field.
Isn't the fossil record a result of the global flood described in the Book of Genesis?
No. A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the geological record. This was recognized even prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global Flood FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Flood Geology FAQs.
What about those fossils that cut through multiple layers?
They have natural explanations: tree-roots that grew into soft, underlying layers of clay, and fossils found in inclined strata. They can also be observed forming in modern environments. See the "Polystrate" Fossils FAQ.
What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur footprints?
The "man-tracks" of the Paluxy Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas were not man tracks at all. Some were eroded dinosaur tracks, and others were human carvings. See the FAQ on the Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy.
Didn't they find Noah's Ark? I saw something on TV about this.
The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. See the FAQ on Sun Pictures and the Noah's Ark Hoax.
The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.
And irrelevant. Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors. See the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ.
Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong?
The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs.
What about Immanuel Velikovsky? Didn't he show that Earth has experienced a lot of major catastrophes?
No, he simply claimed that certain written legends must have described real events. See the Talk.Origins Archive's Catastrophism FAQs and the Velikovsky FAQ.
Where can I find more material on the Creation/Evolution debate?
Contact the National Center for Science Education, or see the Talk.Origins Archive and its "Other links" page. Also see the talk.origins Book Recommendations FAQ and the Creation/Evolution Organizations and Periodicals FAQ.
Evolution IS fact. It is ALSO theory, in a sense.
by
Tau+Zero
·
· Score: 1
Proof of the subject:
We observe evolution.
We theorize about the mechanisms and results of evolution.
Therefore, evolution is both fact and theory, QED.
You can say exactly the same about gravity: we observe the fact of gravity, we have theories about the mechanism of gravity, therefore gravity is both theory and fact (if you are only being as consistent and rigorous with the terms as most people are).
-- Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
bcboy - grow up.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
bcboy - What the hell is your problem? Why are you compeletely scared of anybody posting anything that disagrees with your point of view?
Of all the posts I have read (and I admit that I haven't read all of them) all of yours seem to offer no facts, no proof that you have ANY idea of what YOU are talking about either. You are providing nothing of use to this discussion except the growing opinion that you are a Bigot who get childish kicks out of stomping on anybody that doesn't agree with your point of view.
What was the point in flaming that guy? Was this e-mail nasty to YOU personaly - no. I suggest you go and read the slashdot essay on flaming, grown up, and come back and comment when you have something usefull to say.
And before you say it, I know this is just as bad as all your posts, but, after all the flames you've sent, I figured this was the only thing your pathetic little mind would understand.
Anyone seen the mpeg?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...of Jerry Falwell having sex with a chimp? How much did they pay that chimp anyway?
Seriously, there's nothing good old religion to brainwash the ignorant. Find any point of division, and you can find a way to make scripture support any number of points of view.
In this case, we're seeing a backlash against "The Stupid Liberal". The centrists have lost power to the two wings, both of which are rather ill. For example, lax punishment and giveaway programs of the left have sickened centrists to the point where they've turned to the right, even if it means overlooking their religious tendencies.
Who wants to vote a lefty onto the school board? So they can teach masturbation to children? Really, the situation reflects the movie "South Park" in some ways. My friend's kids were nice, quiet, hardworking all summer, but within a week of being back in the public school, they were coming home and cursing when they had to do their chores, and chanting rap lyrics about "The Hood", "Fucking This Bitch and That Bitch" and "White Bitches". Wow, that California Jr. High really teaches those kids well.
They're twelve years old! If it takes a right wing frenzy to get the ultra left agenda and permissiveness out of the public schools, it might not be as bad as many of you think. Don't forget the ultra liberal left has a lot of power in the schools.
"Oh, so that's how He did it?"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Everyone accepts that a sculptor works from the outside in and a builder works from the ground up. I like to think that somewhere out there is a religious person who, upon reading about evolution for the first time, had the immediate reaction of "Oh, so THAT'S how He did it!" and then never troubled himself or anyone else about it ever again. (Disclaimer: I myself have no talent for religion, however I have no particular distaste for it either.)
Most of the Slashdot comments I have seen have portrayed Evolution as fact. When, in fact, Evolution is a theory, just as any other scientifically established theory. There are facts supporting Evolution, but there are also facts discrediting Evoultion. Maybe this has brought up the question "Is Evolution a 'de facto' standard?" It is fact just beacuse that is what everybody thinks. In our search for the truth, we have lost it instead. Should we all use Windows just beacuse everybody else uses it, beacuse it is the de facto standard? Should we teach Evolution just beacuse everybody else teaches it, beacuse it is the standard? It is ignorant to think Evolution is fact, that we should teach it as fact, or that we should accept it as fact. Ignorance is the enemy, truth is the answer.
JM That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US JM Big Brother is watching, vote Libertarian!!
--
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
A different point of view...
by
Deus+Ex+Machina
·
· Score: 1
Alright, it is obvious that the feebs in Kansas have no idea what the heck they are talking about in making it no longer mandated to learn about Evolution in the state. That is stupid. However (flamegate, open) I also believe that the complete and utter removal of all right to religious beliefs in this day and age is also incorrect. I have seen many people writing in on this topic and basically saying "we are right, you are wrong" to those of us who believe in a Higher Power. Well, frankly this is just as bad as us saying that we religious people are right and you are wrong! I mean, this is common sense people... It is one thing to have an opinion on this issue - in fact I hope everyone does. But it is another thing to call the opposing force "stupid and ignorant and incompetant" for it. I am a Coptic Gnostic, which basically means I believe there is a God but that He isn't limited to our beliefs in Him. Which means that in my view, Evolution is okay! Not everyone believes the Bible you know! *chuckle* Okay, my rant is done. Feel free to call me ignorant now. But be careful where you throw your stones, because you might be standing in a glass house.
-- Know ye not that ye are Gods???
Atheist and proud of it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Religion is one of the most destructive forces on this planet. And for what, arguing over whose mythical deity is mightier? When we can all get over this childlike fascination for clinging onto the faith of some fictional supreme being to fill the void in our insignificant lives, maybe we can all start getting along instead of arguing so much.
Even as a child, the thought of some "god" creating the world made me laugh; just like Greek mythology is interesting, but we know that it is just a nice story, the figment of a people's imagination. Leave the science fiction to the movies and saturday morning cartoons and try to put your faith into human beings, not blindly into religion. Reality ain't so bad, you ought to try it.
We have had the same thing in Holland where christian groups tried to remove evolution as a topic from the school exams (which means that no teacher will bother to waste precious time on it). Luckily they failed.
Christian fundamentalism to me is as big a worry as muslim fundamentalism. I was watching CNN a few days ago (at the time of the Atlanta shooting) and saw the major mumble something 'let us all pray for the victims now'. It was by far the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen, I sort of felt sick about it. Also US presidents semm to make such Christian references all the time. Now, I believe in religious freedom and I claim the right not to believe in any god. I'm sure that right wing christian America won't deny me this right (for the moment) but I think it's a very bad sign that they have the power to get one of the most fundamental laws in Biology out of a school for religious reasons. I think the children in those schools have a right to be protected from the religious fundamentalism of their parents and teachers. Christians are probably right that evolution makes one wonder whether the Adam and Eve crap is fantasy (I'm convinced at least) and that doubting that story makes you wonder how much truth there is in all the other stories. Well maybe it is time for them to step back in reality and reevaluate the bible from that perspective.
I don't want to get in a theological discussion here, though. It is my firm elief that logical arguments never convice a fundamentalist, which is why they choose to ignore evolution rather than face its consequences for christinaity (i.e. the fact that the bible is not consistent with reality). I'm just saying that understanding Evolution theory, whether you agree or not, is important to understand anything that is going on in biology and genetics right now. No school can seriously talk about biology and skip evolution.
First of all, every individual has mutations; some members of my family grow one of their milkteeth twisted together with the adult tooth, a champion cross-country skier was found to have a mutation that resulted in double the hemoglobin on each red blood cell; most mutations are less obvious. Second, you have to look at the conditions for rapid evolution: generally a small, isolated group with most individuals under tremendous survival pressure (which may come from other individuals of the same species). This generally results high death (selection) rates and inbreeding (which reinforces recessive genes). Third, when people talk about "sudden" evolutionary changes, they mean "only a few tens of thousands of years" as opposed to the old model of slow, gradual evolution over millions of years. By no means is evolution sudden on any human scale.
Consider the artificial selection of animal breeding. Look at the vast variety of dogs: all created from a single, uniform species in a few thousand years (a blink of the eye, in evolutionary timescales), from chihuahuas to st.bernards. There is more variety in the single species of dog than in many genuses or even families. Humans didn't introduce the mutations, they merely selected them (and made them stand out more through such tactics as inbreeding). Nature is not this carefully selective, but can you not allow that it should be common that nature manages one-hundredth the result in ten times as long?
Darwinian evolution is the best-supported scientific explanation of the origins of species. Currently, only certain refinements (selfish-gene, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) are held in similar esteem. While it is wrong to present it as simple fact, it is pathetically more wrong to leave it out entirely.
Science doesn't have "blinders." The testing of a theory naturally limits the experiments done, but new theories are being created all the time. The only limits to the creation of new theories is the human imagination (a limit shared by all philosophy and religion) and allowance for known experimental data (not necessarily the old interpretations of such data).
Don't make the mistake of defining the actions of "scientists" as science. Many current scientists do not attempt to disprove their own theories, and seek "facts" processed through the lens of these theories instead (a worthwhile enterprise, but not one I'd call science). Science is the creation of and attempt to disprove theories through the examination of the natural world (preferably through controlled experiments).
Ooooooooh nooooooo Toto, WE'RE IN KANSAS!
by
MuppetBoy
·
· Score: 1
Pretty hillarious news! And here comes the big dumb religious debate and the bogged down server! Oh well, it's entertaining at least.
Actually, this whole flash of idiocy reminds me of the urban legend that someone in the South once tried to legislate the value of our favorite transcendental real number, PI, to be just the integer value 3. According to the legend, some wise-ass mathematician then pointed out that the legislation works just fine and is absolutely true... for very small approximations of PI or very large approximations of the number 3.
Can't prove a theory, you can only disprove it
by
just+someone
·
· Score: 1
I agree. You cannot prove evolution.
The scientists job is to find know the holes in the theory, and to look for evidence that might disprove the theory. If you keep on finding evidence that supports it, then your job is not finished. You can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be correct.
More importantly, you can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be wrong. In which case, you need to come up with a better theory that can be tested.
Now, to prove faith, you do things like drink tainted jello.
While they are at it, they should stop teaching The Theories of Relativity, The Church-Turing Thesis, etc. And isn't Newtonian Physics all but an approximation, anyway? And according to Heisenburg, can we be certain of *anything*? I propose we abolish the Education system until they figure out for sure exactly what they are teaching. Me
Re:Wow!-The bible is wrong.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think the statement "But either way, the bible is wrong." is just absurd. If you really want to be technical with the issue, it can NEVER be wrong because it speaks almost entirely in symbolism. Take this evolution issue for example. When the bible says that god created the world in 1 day, that doesn't necessarily mean one of our days-24 hours. I am a Roman Catholic and I believein evolution... The church does not teach that evolution is wrong, it just basically says that you have to believe that god, at some point or another, stepped in and gave humans a soul. Also, saying that evolutionists are at least open isn't very true. What you are basically saying is that since that group of people believe in what you believe, they are smarter than everyone else. That is a bit egotistical.
Sadly, you don't know what you're talking about.
by
Dictator+For+Life
·
· Score: 1
I started to explain why you don't know what you're talking about, but then I realized that I'd be wasting my breath. You aren't really interested in the truth. That much is obvious.
How do I know this? Because you approach the Bible as though it were yesterday's newspaper. You ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the Bible is a book written over a span of about 1400 years (give or take), that even its most recent portions are almost 2000 years old, and that it was written in a culture that is vastly different from our own. Yet somehow, for some arrogant or ignorant or cockamamie reason, you still seem to think that you can just walk right up to it, point your finger at something you don't understand, and conclude that the whole thing is hogwash. Teriffic. You're quite the "enlightened soul" there, friend.
So the Bible is true like this: it's true in the sense that it's true but some people, pretending to know something, presume to deny its truthfulness without even a passing familiarity with its contents.
As to your irrational fears about what they'll be teaching in the government schools -- try reading the actual story. They didn't mandate the teaching of ANYTHING. They simply removed the mandate from evolution. Evolution can still be taught (and no doubt will). It's just not required.
--
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Evolution is just Recursion across Millions of yrs
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The article mentioned they made special provisions for 'micro-evolution' (or evolution within the species). As someone who's done alot of computer intelligence coding for boardgames - recursion is a VERY powerful thing and can yield decidely unexpected results. I dunno, once you've accepted microevolution as a possibility. Taking the next step is believing in evolution. How do you distinguish one species from the other? How many mutations does it take to get a new species? What they are saying is you'll *never* get a new species. Frankly, i'd *hate* to see AP Biology in Kansas now! Tom (btw, I loved the comment that Science hasn't proven evolution, so it shouldn't be taught. Did I miss something, have they proven conclusively that God exists yet?)
Thank you!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is exactly how I feel. I cannot beleive how people on this board are saying that its only a theory. I would say its pretty close to plain fact when you can see the clear effects with the bacteria, virii, insects and many other forms of life on earth.
Re: you don't understand science, then.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So what you're saying is that you have some evidence that the defining scientific paradigm of the twentieth century might be true, and even though others make objections, or propose alternate ideas, your belief cannot be shaken because there is not enough proof otherwise? If God came to you in a burning bush, and told you that Natural Selection as a result of evolution is false doctrine, would you be able to change you mind? How is one man's faith in modern science and secular learning different from another man's faith in God and creation? What you're saying is that I'm a moron beause I don't believe as you do? Because natural seletion has been observed to happen in populations of animals? Because species can change within a human lifetime? Well, have you ever SEEN natural selection taking place? Ever been present when an organinsm evolves? Maybe not, but smart people whom you trust have seen these things, and chronicled them, and many people have built upon their work. So what you have, my friend, is faith. Could it possibly be wrong? Could there be an aspect of geological processes, genetic processes, radioactive decay processes, or animal behavior that we, as a body of rational humans don't understand? I think yes. Why can't you think so? Do we know everything about science? If so, why bother doing any more research? Now, if a person you knew well had a spiritual experience, or beheld a miracle, and decided to believe in God, would they automatically become a moron in your eyes? Have you ever tried looking for God? Does the thought offend you? Offend your intelligence? What I'm trying to say is that a person is not a moron if they believe in God, or in creation. Evolution is a fact of nature. I never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is that the origins of species through natural selection, from single-celled organisms to human beings, is an imperfect theory that doesn't bear intense scrutiny past the point of people saying "Yeah, but even though we don't have ALL the fossils, look at what we DO have, and look, doesn't it work nice if we put this one here, and this other one over here, and look, a family tree! And I know it's hard to explain how all these organisms evolved so rapidly back then, but don't evolve as rapidly now, or at least we can't prove it. It MUST be true, it just MUST, because we're smart and believers in God are dumb. And even though there's big ole holes in our beloved theory, it MUST be true, cause otherwise there's a God who created nature and man, and by golly then I wold not be an animal so I'd have to act like a child of God instead!" I believe that God created all of nature, set forth the laws of physics, set the whole thing in motion, and let's it largely govern itself. People, well, we're different because we're created in God's image, and we have PURPOSE, and our lives should have MEANING. Besides, it's not nice to call people names. Didn't your parents teach you that?
TRUTH
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ok, well I'll try to be intelligent about this (unlike most young, immature, foulmouth slashdot commenters) and I expect any responses to be the same.
Let me first start off by quoting Darwin himself, "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory--is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
So if Darwin has stated in 1971 that the theory of evolution can not be proven, then why is a lot of peopl here saying that it is the only way? I only bring this up to address the issue of irrationality of *some* (not all) slashdot commenters.
Another *very* intelligent person (according to society's terms), George Wald (winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science and Harvard Professor) has said this (and I'll paraphrase), that (1) only creation and evolution are the possibilities for the origin of life, no third option; (2) Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, and that leads us on Creation; and (3) "We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
Now I have not actually stated anything yet, simply quoted some people. But, it seems to me that (and please be honest with yourself, and gentle on the flaming) some people cannot accept creation, not because of science, but rather it does not fit into their personal agenda. And I mean this truthfully and humbly. Take it to its logical conclusion: if someone accepted creation, he/she might have to accept that there is a God. And if there is a God who created us and the universe, then we *could* be accountable to Him for something (notice that I have not *pushed* any Christian doctrine on anyone. I've been vague on purpose, because I do not want to offend anyone and encourage flaming).
Just something to think about.... you know.
Btw, does everyone know that Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes, Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, Lord Kelvin, and James Maxwell were all devoted Christians. I know that they are old, so dont rebut with they are ancient and we are modern argument. I *simply* put them here because they are very respected and INTELLIGENT human beings, who were creationists.
roidman
Not ethically wrong, factually wrong.
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 1
Re-read his statement more carefully. He mentioned that the bible has been used as an an excuse to do bad things, but he did not make the claim that this is what causes the bible to be false. The bible is false on facts alone. Bad morality is just a side-effect of that.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Slashdot Mirror
See what I mean?
I've seen this point before. I still think of it as a desparate method to reconcile two groups of which one exists simply to conflict with the other.
God could have invented evolution. Why? This universe is so full of holes at the quantum level that it might just as well not be here. Maybe it isn't.
I see life as having a goal and we're spending too much time looking back to reach it. God would have wasted a lot of energy creating evolution and we're definitely wasting our efforts on it.
"Improve the machine and you may profit tenfold--improve Man and you will profit ten thousand fold." --Kahn Noonian Sihn
-Admiral Coeyman
Like the media, teachers are often used as tools (often unwittingly, but sometimes coercively) for power (corporations, religions, governments, special interest groups, etc.) to disseminate propaganda. As a participant in the Evergreen educational experiment, I think that following the Evergreen model would alleviate a lot of the problems we see today. Rather than forcing students to eat a certain mental diet, we should open up and let them choose freely. In my opinion, the ideal educational instutions would have no requirements and no grades, just like Evergreen. However, Evergreen failed in some ways because it stopped just short of the real ideal. There really should be no degrees, and education should be viewed as an all-ages lifelong process. Already degrees mean very little in the workplace. Mostly they indicate that you're willing to stick with something for a while. But a list of courses and an interview process are *far* more effective in determining someone's education than a grade. That's why nobody really pays attention to grades and diplomas anymore. If you've got the skills, you're in. So getting rid of all this baggage makes perfect sense in a modern contect, because when you need to learn something, you just go back to school and learn it. The idea that 4 years and a degree makes you fit for another 40 or 50 years of living is crazy in a society experiencing as much change as we do. The nice thing about dropping all these requirements is that you suddenly get something you've never had before: MOTIVATED LEARNERS! Why? Because there's no other reason to be in school! It's hard and it costs money! If you're not learning something in a system that has no external socio-economic goals (grades/diploma etc) then you've got no reason to be in school. Instantly all the people that don't really want to be in school would leave. Or just take courses that they liked. Factoring education out of the power structure entirely and making it free and open would have a tremendous positive impact on our nation. The kids that want to learn X will learn it. The kids that don't want to won't learn it right away, but they might come back later when and if they're ready. No longer would people go to school for a "degree". They'd go for *an education*! What's more, it would greatly reduce the political problem of determining what gets taught in schools because students would pick and choose what they want to learn rather than having it rammed down their throats. We need a free marketplace of ideas and thinkers, not a political process for determining propaganda.
Perhaps you need to study evolutional theory before making statements about it which you are not qualified to make. Scientists do not assert that humans evolved from chimpanzees. They assert that all primates shared a common ancestor, and evolved along diverging paths into the separate primate species which exist today.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Sign.. I know..my English sucks... Can't find time to learn it better... But I will learn it, while Kansas kids still will grow up to be arrogant morons. Just like some people around here..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
When evolutionary theory is based on the theory of a geological column that could somehow represent the age of the earth, and the column itself is based on evolutionary theory, then you have a circular argument, and it should be acknowledged as such. I think it's great that the evo-theory isn't mandatory curriculem in that state anymore. I think it's great that some free thinking folks are questioning the established dogma and deciding that there may be other hypothesis worth teaching. Shoot, forty-nine other states still mandate this. What's the matter, can't we accept one being a little different? We're all such hypocrites. Why can't we be a little more forgiving and open minded toward one another? (I know why... Hurray for freedom, honesty and diversity!!! :-)
Nonsense. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. An enormous amount of energy flows through the terrestial ecosystem every day. (In in the sunshine, out during the night.)
Let me just say that you have single-handedly convinced me to go to a school other than Stanford.
Thanks!
^^^ read.
~Kevin
:)
"Hey, it's still the Theory of Evolution, reguardless of how obvious it is until it can be unquestionably proven scientifically."
This is not true at all. In science it theories are always theories. It is only in Religious Dogma that stuff becomes "fact".
Ken
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
"It is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected." [Quastler, Henry. The Emergence of Biological Organization, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7.]
"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." [R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.]
Sir Fred Hoyle, an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College Cardiff. He was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge. He is a well known and well respected scientist.
- "The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programs of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order."
- "...one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10(20)(2000) = 10(40,000), an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology from Harvard University, states, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
The authors of the book, Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, admit, "links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing"
Thomas Heinze, author of Creation vs.. Evolution states, "not a single fossil has been found that can be considered to be a transitional form between the major groups, or phyla."
George Wald, of Harvard University, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation of living organisms is impossible." Wald is an evolutionist and one of the leading biology professors of the world.
A professor at Cornell University, and a leading world expert on how evolution affects society states, "Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanical principles...the result is that there are no purposeful principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces. Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws."
George Wald of Harvard University states, "I choose to believe that which I know is impossible, rather than accept the unthinkable - which is special creation."
It's a basic truism that all measurements are only approximations.
A major problem with a lot of these discussion threads is the belief that humans evolved from apes/chimpanzees/gorillas,etc. This is incorrect. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. By repeating this nonsense that humans evolved from other primates only plays into the hands of some die-hard creationists who don't really understand what natural selection is about. The other primates are not "lesser" species; they are as evolved as humans are. With this Kansas legislation I am now convinced that we are in a Dark Age. I go to Walden Books and see that the science "section" is a 1.5 foot section of shelf space. "New Age" idiocy covers three shelves, and books on prophecy and Nostradamus covers another. Kwan
Ive been to Kansas. No signs of evolution there!
Will someone elaborate the differences between microevolution (adaptation) and macroevolution (the rise of new species)?
I, for one, am unaware of any scientifically documented and repeatable experiments which demonstrate that members of one species can become members of an entirely new species (which cannot interbreed).
But I spend my time on other things. Mmm, Perl.
--
QDMerge -- data + templates = documents.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Will it be back to teaching that the sun rotates around the earth in a perfect circle.
Or will it be that the earth is flat, held up on the back of a giant turtle?
Actually, I agree with you. I think that it is legitimate to attempt to discern God's methods.
However, I think blindly and dogmatically teaching a theory which makes little or no sense (i.e. speciation etc. purely through random mutations to useful traits) is pointless. My point is that natural selection is being defended not because most scientists think it's true (they don't) but because they are afraid of stepping back from this after they fought so hard against the creationists in the monkey trials.
Whether you like it or not, the numbers on natural selection just don't work out. Especially when you consider irreducibly complex systems like the mammalian eye or blood clotting. Seriosly, read that book. It's good.
-- Slashdot sucks.
While I don't necessarily believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, I also tend to question the ages assigned by scientists to the universe, the earth, or various artifacts. It seems to me that even scientific estimates of these ages often involve many assumptions, which may or may not be correct.
What is interesting is that many people and especially the media, often take for granted as fact, scientific ideas and theories. Even though the very scientists who created them would be more likely to describe them as probable, but not necessarily true.
Its BOTH. Its a theory just like the law of Gravity is a theory -- we can't prove that just because for as long as anyone can find that the Earth had a gravitational of 9.80665 m/(s**2) that tomorrow it will not be something else.
Since it cannot be proven to be false for all instances, it cannot be more than a theory. It is a fact based upon the definition of the word fact.
Ignorance is the enemy, truth is the answer.
Well, before you spout off what a fact is, please look up the definition (#4).
Good Fast Cheap. Pick any two.
The other point on this is that most if not all creationists I've had the opportunity to talk to that are scientists, firmly believe that since the time of creation we have evolved. (Oops.. did I hear that right.. Evolution) They fight the idea that we evolved and they can support alot of their theories just as valid (if you can view it unbiasedly) as any of the Evolutionists can.
True scientists accept the fact that they could be wrong and are willing to discuss these ideas openly and be proven wrong.
Well teletubbies ARE evil... Along with Barney, I bet they are the two biggest brain-cell-killers currently on TV. ;-)
Humans are better. Period. What do we not control? I see lots of apes in cages controlled by humans, but I have yet to see a human in a cage controlled by an ape, also in reagrds to observing evolution, you are making an error, I believe. I have not read the whole story of this wallabie thing, but that is evolution within species as I see it written, as compared to evolution from one species to the next, like a cat and a dog are different species, but a dog from africa is not a different species than a dog from russia, but they act different and have different tolerances, but they are still one species, if this has been misdirected, sorry but I don't know what this wallabie shit is...
God said it, and I see no reason to not believe it.
But God didn't say it. Someone wrote it down in the book, but as to where they got that idea I don't know. Ancient Hebrew myth, I suppose.
I'm glad I don't live in Kansas.
It's simply impossible to disprove Creationism because it goes along with the idea that God is omniscient. Carbon dating proves that the universe is much more than several thousand years old, as does the fact that we can see the light from objects billions of light years out, but all this evidence can be dismissed by someone who believes in an omniscient God. I've heard the argument that the reason we can see light from more than a few thousand light years away is that God created the light in transit. There is simply no way to disprove such things, so you must apply Occam's(sp?) Razor. It's much simpler to conclude that we can use carbon dating to show that things are millions of years old and we can see light from billions of light years away because the Universe is actually that old, rather than that is was created by some omniscient being with the objective of tricking us into believing it is that old.
I am dreaming the entire Universe. None of it is real. Prove to me that isn't true. There's no way you can. It's the same thing, but IMO far more likely than Creationism.
Besides which, Creationism explains nothing at all. If God created the Universe and life, where did God come from?
This space unintentionally left unblank.
I believe (hope) you meant that the rate of change of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That would be consistent with the rest of what you said. As the universe expands, it's potential energy increases and it's kinetic energy (heat) decreases. Energy is transferred, but the total amount in the universe has been fixed ever since the big bang.
For an interesting rebuttal to some of underpinnings of Gould's work, you may wish to read Daniel C. Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_...
Just my observation about wallabies. Your prove is kind of weak.
:-)
IFAIK you can develop resistance to some poisons and still be inter-fertile with the rest of the population.
'Apparently they are also no longer inter-fertile with the Australian species'. 'Apparently' is not a scientific term either.
Question is more like this: homo sapiens has 46 pairs of chromosoms, our believed closest relatives chimpanzees have 48: http://www.amnh.org/enews/headl/e1_h6.html
98% percent of genes are the same. But...
Could you describe a scenario how these species evolved from a common ancestor from point of view of macro-evolution? ( Not that I am against this relationship )
Even in case of very slim chance of mutation to livable creature with different number of chromosomes then its parents have, who it is going to mate with. ( AFAIK humans in this case have either Down's or Turner's Syndrome depending on direction of deviation from normal^H^H^H^H^H^H usual number). That means mutation which results in the change of number of chromosomes can not be just random event. Darwin did not explain it. I read the book about 20 years ago though, so I might forget.
Oh, well, I guess I have an idea. It could be some kind of virus or other kind of infection. Are we all some kind of sick apes or something?
I can see including creation as another theory...
You can? I can't. Theories can be disproven, if observations counter them. Most believers in the Biblical account of creation would not consider their "theory" disproved even if observed evidence contradicted it. They'd sooner discard their observations than their Holy Book. And science doesn't work that way. If the evidence indicates that your hypothesis (or theory) is flawed, you fix the flaws or discard the hypothesis. You don't discard the evidence. That's why Biblical creation should never be taught in science classes.
Not because it's wrong (who am I to say?)
But because it's unscientific.
I, personally, subscribe to the view that there's some force that could just as well be called God as called anything else.
It is an irony that the religious fanatics, in their blind faith, are basically insulting their god in this rejection of evolution.
I particularly like the above comment because that is basically the same way I feel, only I call the "force" Physics.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
>It is not absurd, it is absurd not to.
It is not absurd to teach a belief which has put forward no theory to explain what we know of biology? Which has made no correct predictions? It is not absurd to lower the bar to zero?
I am not wrong about this; I've followed the writings of creationists. I've had dinner with D. Gish. They flattly have no theory, and don't seem to understand what the word means.
The rarity of intermediate forms can be interpreted as evidence that evolution tends not to happen gradually and homogenously in large populations over large ranges (which you need for decent odds that any will get laid down as fossils). Convenient? Maybe, but this may just be the way things are.
It seems reasonable to me that a population filling a particular ecological niche could stay at the same "local maximium" on the fitness landscape for a long time, but then in response to a change in the niche (climate change, new predator, etc) the original population is rapidly replaced with something else that was already occupying the new niche nearby. Instead of a fossil record that reflects gradual evolution of direct lineages, you could get a fossil record that looks more like wholesale replacements of populations by their "cousins", as it were.
This is very handwavey, and no doubt misses much of the flavour of Punctuated Equilibrium, but I've run out of time - got a bus to catch (really!).
-Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
I think agnosticism seems to be growing more rapidly here in the States. I believe in part due to the large number of ignorant zealots. It's easier to avoid confrontation with a "Christian" when you tell them that you don't consider the question of whether or not God exists to be something that you as a mere mortal are fit to ponder, than when you tell them that you are certain the beliefs upon which they have based their identity are patently false.
Not an AC, just too lazy to log in at 1:22 AM.
Charles Egan
cegaNO_SPAM123@oklahoma.net
So? While I won't dispute that the scientific method has proven to be very useful in many areas, it's a long way from perfect and it's a long way from useful in every sphere. I've never claimed that the truthfulness of the Bible is or should be subject to verification via the scientific method.
It's not as if evolutionists haven't done the same thing, either. They have always assumed a materialist view of the world, even though such a model cannot explain consciousness. They claim that ethics can exist independent of at least some god of some sort, but this claim is pure balderdash.
Evolutionists are no less "guilty" (if one must use such a term) than Christians of holding to a raft of unchallenged presuppositions. As such, they are no less religionists than the most pious Puritan.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Why does one prevent the other??? Granted they do not mesh exactly but what does to our 'small' ape like brains ??? Evolution is merely a concept to explain the ability to learn and grow with/or without thought involved. Could it be that God is evolving ?? "A brain ache is a sign of mental exercise" archfeld@hotmail.com
Wish I could deny it, but alas I can't. Crazy as charged.
I'm rather shocked at the quantity of responses that imply removing evolution from the state required curriculum is a good move, I had thought slashdotters more rational.
If we extend this logically to removing all scientific theories, whats left? There are NO scientificly proven facts, just things we've measured to a given tolerance. Oh, we only throw out the ones that happen to disagree with some religous belief? Ah, now I get it!
Jim
It seems to me that these posts seem to fall into one of three categories, :
./ readers:
/should/ be about how one school system /could/ teach from that which is predominantly
keeping in mind that ppl that devote most of their time to religion don't
read slashdot
1) People are blowing this way out of proportion. They aren't requiring that
creationism be taught, they are merely NOT requiring that evolution
be taught as gospel (pardon the pun)
2) There is plenty of evidence for evolution, these the people in Kansas
are depriving their children of a large body of scientific study.
3) the "right wing" "funies" "religious whackos" are taking over.
Why is it that the most insane sounding posts on this board are the ones
demonizing others of being irrational, jerk-knee, and with absolutely no
grounding in rationality? (and name calling to boot)
An aside on
You are looking at, and conversing with, ppl who are generally in technical
fields. They are more likely to be atheists and agnostics that the avg
population. Even if they aren't one of those two, (like me) they are bound
to be more versed in the sciences than the average joe.
The debate that is going on here
managed to seperate itself from church and state (in the current sense) by
removing a restriction on what it
popular and believed
( one of the reasons for outlawing a state sponsored religion )
Does this open the path that kids in Kansas may be denied the evidence
for evolution? certainly.
What we should all hope this means is that _we_ will have more of a say
in what our children learn, without having to resort to home schooling.
(I dearly hope I don't have to homeschool my children, but I will if I have to)
sp-Red
ps, I only read the first 200 posts, so I don't expect you will have read this one either.
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
...there's no definitve proof that Darwin was right. After all, his theories on natural selection turned out to be partially incorrect.
:)
As did Newton's theories of motion. Partially, but not enough to make them useless. We can't just expect our legislators to understand relativity or evolution, though. After all, the only education they ever got was in school.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
People...this is a battle that has been fought already. I always considered it a victory over stupidity. But..here it is again! Is the battle against the darkness of ignorance going to be like Vietnam, where ground can be won..but not held? The world is being overrun by morons. When they overtake the positions of power, like they have done with this school board in Kansas, we are all doomed. Nuke Kansas!!!
Assuming evolution is fact (which, despite arguments to the contrary can only be "proven" by mangling the Scientific Method(and I'm not talking about "Survival of the Fittest" or evolution of very simple orginisims)) why aren't the overwhelming majority of large species hermaphrodites? I'm not a biologist, but it would seem to me that finding mates in order to reproduce would me much easier for such a species. Easier reproduction would lead to faster evolution, which would in turn lead to domination over other species.
Just as all of an artist's works share some similarities, couldn't this "genetic progression" you refer to be that the species were created by the same intelligence?
As far as I understand it, the belief that a "big bang" created the universe is similar to shaking a puzzle in it's box, throwing the pieces on the table, and having them all fall perfectly into place. From an mathematical standpoint, this is impossible.
It seems that it's easier to not even consider the possibility that a far greater intelligence created us. It's much easier to stick with a questionable theory which cannot be proven, and in my view seems highly implausible.
In order to believe evolution you have to have more faith than I do. You prefer to go out on a limb to explain the universe, rather then consider the possiblity that man is not the most intelligent being in the universe.
Come on guys. The Declaration of Independence is not law, the constitution and its admendments are.
You're not from the South, are you? _Historically_, ever since the end of the War Between the States, Southerners have voted Democratic. Hell, there usually weren't even Republicans on the ballots in most places. Lincoln was a Republican, and a Republican-strong North moved in on us, and this caused about a hundred years' worth of resentment down here. Back then, the Republicans were more of a liberal party and the Democrats were more conservative. They've since flip-flopped.
The South finally began to vote Republican when Nixon was campaigning in the late 60's. The civil rights movement, which was also not all that popular among a goodly number of Southerners (and very popular among others) had some strong ties to the Democrats. Nixon realized that Southern voters were being ignored, and engineered an amazing Republican turnout down here. So your 'history' only seems to go back about thirty years, IMHO.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And according to Heisenburg, can we be certain of *anything*?
Maybe a better reference would be Hodel?
Heisenberg principle is not about inability to be certain - it is just about some properties of some physical variables describing a system. Quantum mechanics is actually quite deterministic - but not in a "common" sense.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I always wonder why people who go on about the lack of transitional forms totally disregard the ambhibians. Aren't they transitional between fish and reptiles?
Talking about fossils is talking about gross morphology, but we see evidence of family relations everywhere when we look at the DNA.
Since DNA is passed down from parent to child down through the generations, the DNA resident in any particular organism is itself a record of that organism's ancestral past, particularly when compared to another organism.
The creationist insistence that evolutionary theory should mean that we find skeletons of half-fish half-water buffalo or the like is just silly. Really stretching it, if you ask me. Grasping at straws.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Started from just two people....
Adam and Eve.... Who were tragically stranded
on this planet when their inter-stellar drive
ceased functioning.
It took them 2 years to slowly motor their way into our system (the closest at the time) and find
that this planet was habitable (mostly).
The rest is history. Poorly documented of course...
but I'm sure it would be wonderful if someone
found their flight recorder... ya know?
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
You are 100% right
We need to educate strong minded, rational, self thinking people, NOT some religious maniacs. Religion is a strong force in today's society, BUT WE HAVE TO STOP IT. If you take a look at human history, you will see that in 99% of the cases religion just caused wars, murders, manipulations and in global has done nothing good for society at all.
Keep them ignorant, keep your power --Fucked Up College Kids
We shall NOT BE IGNORANT.
the concept of evolving over millions of years merely by killing those who are weaker and in your way
and
creating man as a resemblance to a loving god
don't go very well together
This is definitely progress.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Finally! It's been a while since /. had a good, rip-roarin' religious debate. Ready... fight! --Atheist.
this goes to show what happens when the human species doesn't evolve.
next they'll ban lunch at school because 2 people choked once.
signatures are for fools with hands
When I read Russ' post, I visualize blue. Deep, deep blue.
:-)
I have no idea why, but it probably has something to do with soul possession.
Gosh, I must have no life.
if one doesn't believe in evolution, does one believe in mutation?
-sig-
So? While I won't dispute that the scientific method has proven to be very useful in many areas, it's a long way from perfect and it's a long way from useful in every sphere. I've never claimed that the truthfulness of the Bible is or should be subject to verification via the scientific method.
Okay, one question then. Can you name me something OTHER than religion that isn't subject to verification or corroboration by the scientific method?
It's not as if evolutionists haven't done the same thing, either. They have always assumed a materialist view of the world, even though such a model cannot explain consciousness.
"Evolutionists" (in itself a title which tries to stress the "multiple opinion" viewpoint. Do we really refer to anyone as "geocentrists" anymore?)
Evolutionists != materialists.
Evolutionists are no less "guilty" (if one must use such a term) than Christians of holding to a raft of unchallenged presuppositions. As such, they are no less religionists than the most pious Puritan.
I'm sorry, its a wonderful accusation, but you haven't supplied me with even one example of "evolutionists" doing this sort of thing. Evolution is HARDLY an unchallenged presupposition, this whole article is ABOUT a challenge to it. Now if you mean scientific challenge to it, feel free to think one up.
This all strikes me as the tired old "it takes more faith to believe in evolution..." thing, attractively packaged. It takes NO faith to accept evolution as fact, because we have been around for many changes ourselves. How did HIV evolve into a human-inhabitable virus? If you claim that it didn't, then you admit that genetically humans and apes are extremely similar.
The question really is: Is it fair, in a science class, to refrain from teaching SCIENCE because it offends religionists?
Would any of you support rules to force sunday school teachers and ministers to mention that creationism is just a theory, and that there are many others which may be true?
by returning to the 11th....
As long as people refuse to at least consider the scientific evidence of the world about them rather than stubbornly cling to outdated and misguided dogma, the human race will continue to fight progress every step of the way.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Whenever I was taught about evolution in my Biology class, it was always presented as a theory and explained and such. The only people that have ever tried to instill in me that it's fact were Christians trying to disprove the point. It's neigh the 21st century, and people still cannot look up the term "theory". I can't see how in a country of separation of church and state, a school board can make a rule declaring a non-religious explaination for the existance of life on the planet is a myth. I believe in evolution, I can see it everywhere, whether there is an all powerful god, I dont believe in it although it's probable. The problem with evolution is that it doesn't contradict God but it contradicts the Bible, one of the most entertaining pieces of literature I've ever read. What I see happening here is religion butting in where it doesn't belong, again. Children should be taught evolution as a means to explain the biology they are studying, whether they want Creationist beliefs or evolutionists beliefs is up to them, it matters little to me. It's basically the same argument as having prayer in school, if you're going to say evolution is a myth you also have to say Adam and Eve are also myths, along with Mohommad, Jesus and pals, ad infinitum. Evolution is the only way to explain biology without sounding like a complete idiot, let people decide on their own what they want to believe.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
What if we prove its not a theory.. how about we kill all the law makers in Kansas.. and then we will see how long this stoopid thought goes on. In this day and age its not a good joke to take a gun to school.. but maybe we just need to direct all the bomb making loonies to kansas and we kill 2 birds with one stone. So its in bad taste.. get over it.
Moderately clueless guy writes: 2. Charles Darwin was a fool who hated science and thought that chopping off a bird's wing caused any offspring of that bird to also be missing a wing (take note: that's the TRUE Darwinian theory of evolution, ladies and gentlemen; make no mistake about it! That's what _I_ learned in school, and I bet none of you public-schooled people ever learned THAT!) ------- Is it possible that you went to school in Kansas? ;)
When teaching evolution in school is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.
And that's all I've got to say about that.....
Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
IT'S AMAZING WHAT A COMES OUT OF THE MINDS OF PEOPLE TRAINED UP IN A MODERN-DAY "EDUCATIONAL" SYSTEM....
You don't like it, go to hell. jason.salopek@usa.net
Yes, it is a theory. And theories and models are scientific concepts. If someone would say "let's not teach Newton's laws anymore, Einstein has proven they are wrong", everyone would laugh. Science is NOT about *knowing* everything, it is about trying to *understand* things and make small steps *towards* knowing. Every serious scientist agrees that we are far from *knowing*, but concepts like evolution helped us to proceed.
It is funny to read this and at the same time the US threatens Europe with a trade war if we keep *allowing* producers of organic food to state that their food products don't contain gene-food components. Maybe the next step will be that they try to force us to write on each package that god created it. Makes me throw up.
I was hoping to read the article and flame all of you for gross misinterpretation, but I sit here digits over keyboard and jaw to the ground. I don't think teaching evolution has to take a significant priority over teaching religion/spirituality, but to call it "misleading" and drop it wholesale is damned foolish. I used to enjoy living there. I have family that still lives there. I moved to Cincinnati before my high school years which were spent at a Catholic school. They taught us evolution in addition to religious studies and left it up to us to determine what we thought was right. As such, I'm one who believes in evolution as a method for creation by a higher order. A creation supposes a creator. And people wonder why the Republican party is forking. There are reasonable, conservative people (like myself) who do not want to associate themselves with this kind of pretentious crap. VOTE LIBERTARIAN.
I think the central issue here is not whether is not whether evolution is "right" or "wrong", as some people tend to think. It is that it is a representative of a worldview that is at least potentially self-correcting, as opposed to one that relied on revealed truth.
Also see http://www.mrlizard.com/catgod.html for a refreshingly acidic view on this.
-- God is silent. Now if we can only get Man to shut up.
The name of the new Michael Moore show would be "The Awful Truth" which also airs on Bravo in the US. Hilarious stuff. Kudos to Bravo for picking it up. Just goes to show that anyone with opinions that offend the commercial sponsors will quickly get knocked off the major networks...
Hopefully human existence does have a goal. I don't know what exactly it is. In the absence of a well defined goal, I'd like to see us learn, explore, and achieve as much as possible. In order to move forward, we have to understand as much as possible about the universe we exist in, including our own history.
Actually, the only place that mentioned it was a theory when we were taught evolution (in 2nd grade) was in a footnote in the textbook... 5th grade... mentioned once in class (no textbook) 7th grade... in the back of the book 8th grade... footnote again 9th grade... never mentioned (it was mentioned in the book, but we never used the books) Here in Delaware, it is usually taught from the point of view that it is fact, which since it's merely a theory (and a difficult one to prove at that) is rather stupid. Myself, I believe that when God explained creation to Adam, he didnt want to bewilder Adam with things like "and from my perspective, it was created in a week, from your perspective, several billion years... and then I ran accelerated evolution on the most intelligent species I created, picked the best result, and cloned a female (since the offspring happened to be male)" So, in other words, I believe a mix of the two. I'm not trying to force anyone here to believe in what I do, (since it could be wrong any number of ways), but I can validate my own beliefs with either theory. (Yes, I treat creationism as a theory too. Just because I'm part of a certain religion doesn't necessarily mean I believe the exact same things that religion upholds.) --TheOrangeSquid "FOR SALE: Parachute. Used once. Never opened. Slightly Stained." -- fortune -o, what else?
Like many states, Kansas has statewide competency tests to determine whether you *really* learned anything in high school. Evolution will not be on those tests. It's still considered a violation of church/state separation to teach "Creationism" in public schools. This is from the story in the Chicago Tribune.
The reason I resorted to childish (but satisfying)
insult was despair at ever reasoning with someone
dumb enough to believe in creationism in 1999.
Evolution has been observed - you might try
reading a book called "Darwin's Finches" about
biologists tracking developments in the finch
population in the Galapagos. As the environment
changes so do the birds.
I've read Darwin himself, Gould, Dawkins, Dennett,
Pinker and can only feel pity for someone so
willfully stupid as not to appreciate the beauty,
simplicity and truth of evolution.
Toby
Reminds me a little of the Nestor episode Ulysses... the 20th century one, at least. I'd quote some, but I'm toting Thomas Mann to work this week, not the old jolly hibernian. Mann's Goethe sounds like S.D. aged like fine parmesan though.
And well, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to escape." indeed-doo
of course, relating Goethe and science is pretty funny.
and to tie this into the subject a little: speciation does happen! polyploidy in plants leads to genetically different offspring that cannot interbreed with the original.
Dogs, dingoes, and wolves are often typed into different species, but they can interbreed and produce viable offspring.
i'm surprised that microevolution is accepted. easily explanation: they might have a little trouble refuting what happens with bacteria and antibiotics and insects and DDT. but why not macroevolution? speciation is hard to explain given kinda murky definitions of species but why not microevolution over extended peroids of time?
suppose now that over 500 years, super-duper-DDT became more and more widely used. the dominant persistant patterns (prototypes vs. instances) tend to exhibit more and more resistance. thus the standard cowdog 500 years later will be a little different from today's cowpig, which derive from the same stock (or ancestral (dammit whats the opposite of inheritance) object). It may develop a nose like a gas mask. The important thing is: the image of a cowpig/cowdog 500 years later is different from that of one today. someone who sees the change will call them different names. speciation.
what we call species is pretty much two discernable sets of organisms that, if they have sex, dont do it together. otherwise, its just classification. generally we group genetically or anatomically, sometimes behaviorally. it's a synthetic science.
science's objective is to explain our experiences and perhaps gain power over what we can "touch" science works because it uses our experiences and our "touching" of the world to gain understanding.
creationism hurts me because people do not look with their own eyes to evaluate something i value. i believe they close their eyes on one hand of god because they are too fixed on another perhaps.
the compromise (microev. not macro) suggests this is political. when the masses fight they are respectable but their opinions are not delectable.
its kinda like free software. i could care less if it dominated the world. but anyone learning to code and add their ideas to the free pool is quite groovy.
i'm speaking from the lower 25% of my high school class. flame away. i always have the sweet caress of ALP dream away to.
I see. So when I step through the reasons why the Bible doesn't contradict the value of Pi, I am not thinking things through? Instead, the other guy is the one who "thinks things through" when he ignorantly claims that the Bible contradicts the measured value of Pi? Great. Then I guess I can't win with you. If I prove that the evolutionist is wrong, I'm not thinking things through, but when the evolutionist makes ignorant claims, he IS thinking things through. Gotcha.
Could it be that the Bible is not entirely true?!
No.
You prefer to be occasionally smug that to be intelligent.
I prefer to mock that which deserves to be mocked. Someone arrogantly claiming that the Bible contradicts Pi doesn't merit sweetness and light.
You prefer to be a dog to than to be a human. In fact, by your logic, you become exactly what the Bible says we are not: equal to animals!
Now this is very close to being one of the weirdest things I've heard in awhile.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
As the author of the original post on this thread, I just want to leap in with acouple of quick points. Materialism has a strict philosophical meaning, which I rather unfortunately implied I was using because I used the word in conjunction with other technical philosophical terms. I did not mean materialism in the technical sense. I meant it in the more common sense of "a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things" (quote from the Websters on-line dictionary.
As for the post I am directly responding to, just as I used "materialism" is a lax way, you have used "exist" in a lax way. That we can in no way empirically measure divine intervention; that we cannot detect or quantify "soul" or "conciousness" does mean that they necessarily do not exist, nor that they are either "natural" or "unnatural."
The thrust of my argument is that every intelligent person whom I know who has communicated to me a belief in God has no empirical evidence to offer and yet they possess certainty on the point. They know the belief is not scientific, but they believe anyway. They do not do this because they are mentally defective, but because they are willing to accept a type personally experienced evidence that is non-empirical. No scientist should ever be persuaded that such evidence is good science, but that does not make it unreal or untrue. (Note that it may be, I'm not saying one way or another, but science draws a very specific set of rules for what is within the domain of science and what is without it. Internal unmeasurable awareness of deity is definitely outside of science and yet not irreconcilable with it. The two can co-exist in separate philosophical domains.)
Which is the whole problem. By defining some knowledge as "offending", they can just ignore it, or have it not being taught at school. Sticking one's head in the sand never did anybody any good.
If you allow decisions like this, you will become a nation of religious zealots and bigots. Schools are for scientific education. Churches (or mosques or WHATEVER) are for religion. You need to seperate the two. Religion is what everybody can decide for themselves, but science is universal. Science is the answer to "How?" and religion is the answer to "Why?".
When you mix the two, you get to end up in a place that's not much better than Afghanistan.
Short answer : Not possible. The Speed of light is tied into *way* too much stuff to start messing with it.
Long answer :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
Wasn't it just yesterday that we had a link to a story about a company that uses "genetic algorithms" (aka "simulated evolution") to produce patentable results?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Considering that Religion has probably been the number one cause for war and with that hardship in the world. Number two cause would most likely be ethnic purity but guess what, they go hand in hand...
now consider...
a couple of wonderful events our next door christian church has given us over the years..
Inquisition, "pay your way to heaven"(tm), going around the world promoting over population by forbidding contraceptives, going around the world missionarying people and killing those which wont budge.
All a service of your friendly next door church...no charge to you...except your freedom...ohh yeah and before I forget...a tvevangelist calling for the assasination of world leaders? Where is the Christian moral he is preaching?
While I agree with the general thrust of your arguments, you lumped some baby in that bathwater, and I feel compelled to reply.
Re: chicano and black dialects of English: linguistically speaking, they ARE entirely authentic languages and no less sophisticated, expressive, or valid than Standard English. This isn't to say that Standard English shouldn't be the language of instruction - it is the language of commerce, media, and discourse for the U.S., and mastery of Standard English is obviously a basic goal of any good education. But don't confuse that necessity with the fallacy that one form of language is somehow "correct" or "right." It simply isn't so.
Also, I do think that Tesla was slighted - he should be taught and studied and credited.
Giving democratic power religous wackos is not a good thing to do you see. Did you know religion have killed, murduer, tortured more people than all wars together in the history. Religion should be destroyed and all religous fanatics locked in with their hookeypookey shit, holy books and fairytales like the bible and koran. People with weak minds can allways be fooled to belive in unlogical things like, ghosts, angels, santaclaus , god and his angels.
An intellectual can legitimately be considerd an anti-religious bigot, in the same sense that a Jew can be considered an anti-Nazi bigot. Next?
Science is a form philosophy that is characterized by logic, experiment, observation, empiricism, skepticism, and materialism.
If materialism is a true attribute of science then science is a religion. This is because materialism is a religious position. Materialism says there is nothing other than material things, i.e., there is no supernatural. But this is clearly a belief about the nature of supernatural things.
It is very easy to confuse scientific methodology with scientific materialism. It is scientific methodology that has brought about great technological progress, not scientific materialism. The founders of science (if I may speak so loosely) such as Newtown and Bacon practiced scientific methodologies but did not subscribe to scientific materialism.
In fact, scientific materialism has had some negative consequences for science. Since scientific materialism necessitated something like darwinism, and darwinism resulted in the belief in vestigial organs, and the belief in vestigial organs resulted in non-vestigial organs like the [organ on the end of your intestine that if it gets infected and ruptures, you die] being dismissed as unimportant for study, scientific materialism impaired research of the human body.
> Its too bad that they cant just decide to teach both sides of the coin and give everyone the best of all of the knowledge we have...
both? By that principle, shouldn't we also teach what the Hindi and Hopi have to say about it? If you want to set "revealed knowledge" alongside science and let people make up their own minds, why should you promote one culture's traditions above all the others?
No, let's teach science in biology class, and save mythology for the classes on literature, history, and anthropology.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually, the only place that mentioned it was a theory when we were taught evolution (in 2nd grade) was in a footnote in the textbook...
5th grade... mentioned once in class (no textbook)
7th grade... in the back of the book
8th grade... footnote again
9th grade... never mentioned (it was mentioned in the book, but we never used the books)
Here in Delaware, it is usually taught from the point of view that it is fact, which since it's merely a theory (and a difficult one to prove at that) is rather stupid.
Myself, I believe that when God explained creation to Adam, he didnt want to bewilder Adam with things like "and from my perspective, it was created in a week, from your perspective, several billion years... and then I ran accelerated evolution on the most intelligent species I created, picked the best result, and cloned a female (since the offspring happened to be male)"
So, in other words, I believe a mix of the two.
I'm not trying to force anyone here to believe in what I do, (since it could be wrong any number of ways), but I can validate my own beliefs with either theory. (Yes, I treat creationism as a theory too. Just because I'm part of a certain religion doesn't necessarily mean I believe the exact same things that religion upholds.)
--TheOrangeSquid
"FOR SALE:
Parachute. Used once. Never opened. Slightly Stained." -- fortune -o, what else?
And you would be right.
The kind of prejudice that abounded in the Dark Ages and got the world declared flat by those in power is exactly the same manner of prejudice that you yourself show in your post.
You are exemplifying the Dark Ages - and fulfilling prophecy: you have been foretold. Thousands of years ago, no crystal ball involved, you were foretold. You are one drop in a rainstorm that will flood the world. Think about it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
-----
Given: An organism with 100 parts
Given: 30 billion years to form or begin to form
Given: Calculate 1 billion billion billion billion combinations per second (1 x 10^(36) per second)
Note: 1 x 10^(36) is the equivalent to a 1 with 36 zeros after it, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
First, how many combinations possible are there in 100 parts? (remember, this is all chance. There are NO instructions and NO information!)
- 100! = The number of possible combination. 100! = One Hundred Factorial
100! = 100 x 99 x 98 x 97... 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1.
Let me illustrate. If you have two wooden blocks, how many ways can you arrange them in a straight line? The answer is 2!, or 2 x 1 = 2. If you had three blocks, it would be 3! or 3 x 2 x 1 = 6 combinations. If you had 4 it would be 4! or 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 combinations. The higher the number of parts the higher the possible combinations. Get it? Okay, so what is the answer to 100!
- 100! = 9.332621 x 10^(157)
Second, how many seconds are there in 30 billion years?
- The equation is simple. 30 billion years equals 3 x 10^(10) years. So the number of seconds in 30 billion years can be calculated by... 3 x 10^(10) (years) x 365 (days) x 24 (hours) x 60 (minutes) x 60 seconds.
- The number of seconds in 30 billion years = 9.4608 x 10^(17)
Third, how many calculations per second will we test for this example?
- This is given: 1 x 10^(36)
Finally, how many combinations can be tested in 30 billion years at the rate of testing 10^(36) combinations per second?
- The equation would be: Number of seconds times the number of calculations per second.
- So, 9.332621 x 10^(17) (number of seconds) times 1 x 10^(36) (number of calculations/second) = 9.4608 x 10^(53)
OBSERVATIONS
- Number of calculations that can be done is only about a third of what needs to be done.
- Must have the perfect combination to have life. Life doesn't just work from any combo.
- Universe is said to be 15-16 billion years old. Earth is said to be 4.6 billion years old, and life supposedly started 3.5 million years ago. This complicates things further, since we gave life 30 billion years to form.
- Simplest known organism has 600 proteins with an average of about 400 amino acids in each of the 600 proteins. This is 240,000 parts. We used only 100.
- Simplest organism theoretically can live with only 124 parts.
- Number of atoms, that are estimated to be in the entire universe is 1 x 10^(79). We tested 1 x 10^(36) per second. Testing a number this great is equivalent to testing almost half the number of atoms in the entire universe.
- (this observation I have little knowledge, but have heard it discussed many times. so take it as you wish) Adding on to the life having the perfect combination, there are such things as left and right amino acids. And from my understanding, they must be arrange either all left or all right, I cannot remember. But even with my lack of understand here, the *concept* still remains... there is some combination that must take place. And if there is one error anywhere along the path, life ceases to exist.
Now I know that nobody will like this post. But before you go flaming me, let me ask you a question or two. Why do you not like this post? Does it in some way offend or insult you? Does it in some way "mess" with your personal agenda? If so, I would take a much closer look as to what you believe and *WHY* you believe it.
-- "Some things are true, whether you believe it or not.... and whether you like it or not" -- unknown
Almost 600 comments in just under 4 hours. This topic is for me the quintessential controversy of our modern day. People just don't get tired of arguing heatedly about it. For me, it comes down to this: If God can make a man out of mud, why can't He make a man out of a monkey? Notice how God figures prominently in there, but there is room for evolution as well.
--
Macro and micro evolution are NOT the same. Micro evolution deals with adaptation within a species, macro evolution deals with the creation of species. Now tell me, how do multiple species arise from a *SINGLE* population? It can't happen. According to the theory of evolution, how can there be a half dozen species of monkeys in a single area? *ANY* interbreeding, and the species don't seperate. Furthermore, in the fossile record, there isn't a clear progression of species. There are *explosions* in the numbers of species within a very short timespan, then for millions of years nothing. That ain't evolution at work. Adaption is true and readily observable; I concede that. But, while evolution may even be possible, it ain't what's going on here. In addition to all this evidence that I just showed you, recently some mathematicians prove that it would have taken 40-50 billion years to get to the present stage.
I'm really sorry about the double post... Apologies to all (-- curses his ISP under his breath)
Now, a group on the other end of the spectrum gets wise, and starts playing the same game, and everyone gets all bent out of shape.
These people are wrong, but so are the other people. The leftists have brought this on themselves through their intolerance of anyone who doesn't think as they do.
It's a bad situation, regardless. It would be nice if people could just mind their own business and respect everyone's views, even those who hold contrary views to their own.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
Wow, It worked! The only problem is that it wants libqt. :-(
If we do observe tommorrow that objects accelerate towards the earth at 29 ft/s^2, then we have either redefined the scale for the english measurement system (who really knows what kind of scale it is anyway?) or the earth has lost mass (asteroid collision?).
If neither one of these is the case, then it would seem that we have a much larger problem then right-wing religious people not believing in Evolution. In general, science would be debunked.
Several people have downplayed the significance of the Kansas Board of "Education" dropping the mandate for teaching evolutionary biology.
Let's try mapping that same logic to other areas, shall we.
TOPEKA, KANSAS The Kansas Board of Education has decided to drop the mandate for teaching the Bill of Rights in public schools. Districts are still free to teach basic Constitutional rights to students, but they are not required to do so if the local population finds them disagreeable. (Goodbye Second Amendment! Goodbye Free Exercise of "Weird" Religions! Goodbye Freedom of the Student Press!)
Or how about
TOPEKA, KANSAS. The Kansas Board of Education has decided to make references to the Theory of Relativity optional in all high school physics classes. Said the chairman, "If God wants to go a zillion miles per second, God can go a zillion miles per second. Who is this Einstein fellow to say that God *can't* do something?!"
Or finally
AUSTIN, TEXAS. The Texas Board of Education removed mandates that "home economics" classes cover vegetarian and "poor-man's beef" (fish, chicken, and pork) meals. The chairman explained that Texas is Cattle Country and there's nothing wrong with a juicy steak for breakfast, lunch *and* dinner!
The bottom line is that a biology class without evolutionary theory isn't a biology class in the view of 99% of all college biology departments. This means that the board of education is negligent in its duty to prepare its students for their adult roles and it deserves all of the condemnation it is getting.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
There are numerous examples of evolution within species within the short span of time (hundred years or so) that its been watched for. Going back further using DNA sequencing can show a genetic progression among species going back tens and hundreds of centuries.
Anyone who denies the evidence exists is ignorant of the truth. Amazingly, I saw a science teacher on TV that supported the decision stating that there is no proof that evolution is a more valid theory than creationism. My guess is she was trying to seem more openminded than she was, and was probably a science teacher by assignment rather than training.
The simplest example of biological evolution is the progression in diseases like tuberculosis to strains that are antibiotic resistant.
The major valid criticism of evolution from a scientific standpoint stems from two problems. First is the fact that the majority of people who are taught evolution in highschool and many colleges are being taught evolution as it was understood half a century ago when there wasn't good scientific proof of evolution, and it was generally taught that evolution was a continuous smooth process from one species to another. Those earlier techings typically didn't cover the idea of the branching of species (more in this in a bit) and also don't discuss the problem that has plagued evolutionary theory since it began -- the tendancy towards over-speciation, or the naming of new species based on physical traits that are assumed to be important, but genetically are of no significance. Taught the way its typically taught, there are pleanty of holes in evolutionary theory, but the fault of that lies in the instructors and the writers of the textbooks being used.
A prime example of the problem with evolution typically leaving out the idea of branching species is in the realm of human evolution, where the public at large has been taught the textbook "ape to man" which doesn't match current findings or genetic research. Its now known that homo sapiens did not descend from Neandertal as is often taught. Its also generally accepted that the homo genus left africa on several occasions, only the most recent consisting of the direct predecessors of homo sapiens, a sub-species (our sub-species) that co-existed for millenia with species in our genus other than our own. That's been known and understood for twenty years, but the former explanation is still the one taught in schools.
The variation in races is just like the variation in looks among domesticated cats and dogs. Once environmental pressures relax and a species becomes "domesticated" where it is either controlling its environment or living in an environment where it doesn't directly experience evolutionary pressure, there is greater ability for the variation in the genetics of the species to express itself. Just as domesticating the dog resulted in one species that comes in many shapes, colors and sizes, the same is true of the self-domesticated homo sapiens. (Here's a bit of trivia, anyone know the other species that has been believed to have self-domesticated? There's one and its extinct now...)
Also consider that there are in fact *two* non-domesticated canine variants, the wolf and the dingo. The wolf is generally accepted to be the original genetic stock of the modern dog, which was domesticated and produced the wide varieties of breeds today. When a domesticated breed was introduced into Australia (where there were no examples of the original species) they reverted from their domestication, and resulted in a new physical form of a wild dog... that's why wolves generally all look alike, and dingos all generally look alike, but you go to the pet store and they all look different.
Too bad no one in Kansas will ever know that.
Before we tackle the insanity that is evolution, we have to stop teaching our kids that the world is round. We all know it is flat, why must continue the lie? A round Earth is not a fact! In fact if you sail far enough you will fall off the Earth
In my opinion it is the ethical and moral foundations in the judeo-christian faiths that have made western civilization so successful. Every society is going to have horrible atrocities.. christian societies are no different.
Actually, the way I heard this was:
They came out recently with a low-fat substitute for Communion wafers. They're marketing it under the brand name "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus".
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
It is difficult to believe in a meaningful afterlife if macro-evolution is true. Many people think it is inappopriate for schools to require teaching a theory with no objectivity that pries at the very heart of many religions. I am not a creationist, but I do feel that this sort of education should be optional and not mandatory.
I am a professional bioinformaticist (ie I use datahandling and analysis techniques in biology). My background is as an experimental biologist.
.. the evolutionary explaination is that there has been convergent evolution, an interesting concept). The second is that anything could have been created that way. The evolutionary counterpoint is that related (by function and similarity) things came from a common ancestor via evolution. One can be a creationist in modern biology, it just requires a readjustment of the terminology one applies to the relationships between molecules. Evolutionary biology though (ie trying to put together a coherent hypothesis of evolution (something that has not yet been achieved) does require some faith in evolution to begin with (and an a priori assumption).
..d
Evolution is best characterised as a convenient myth. By myth I do not mean that it is untrue, but that it is not knowable whether it can be true or not.
Modern biology, with the techniques at its disposal, uses evolution as a convenient framework for analysing relationships between organisms or parts thereof, and for comparing different pathways and mechanisms.
These analyses do not prove evolution. They merely use evolution as a construct in which to assemble ones thoughts.
Natural selection: basically a biological example of le chataliers principle on equilibria. The finches on galapagos clearly show natural selection. They do not however show evolution in its strictest sense as the observations do not show new material coming into the gene pool.
Mutation: I have personally witnessed analyses that observed a founder effect. Mutations happen. What is not shown experimentally (and has not been seen) is the ability of a species to split into two or to migrate genetically through mutation. We can infer (ie guess) that this happens if we first assume that evolution occurs and that things have evolved from common ancestors. We cannot then use this data to prove evolution as that is a circular argument.
Fossils: Interesting pictures of how things looked at some point in the past. Linking them together into an evolutionary tree is firstly an act of faith and secondly assumes evolution to begin with. So these are interesting but circumstantial.
Stepwise evolution: a slow gradual drift of one species by gradual mutation has been shown to be extremely unlikely both experimentally with reference to the actual changes needing to be made and mathematically. A more plausible hypothesis is for punctuated evolution where evolution occurs in dramatic bursts resulting in rapid change. There have been some experiments targetting certain mechanisms that would be required for such a hypothesis to be true.
Timescales: The data regarding the age of the earth is nowhere near as sound as one might be led to believe. Typically measured using radioactive decay methods, there are a large number of problems with the models used. Go and find out just how these conclusions are reached and from what data if you are interested.
With regard to Kansas: As a scientist I have no problem with a law banning the teaching of evolution as scientific fact. It at leasty will make people somewhat more intellectually honest than they currently are. If they insist on teching creation as scientific fact then they are being intellectually dishonest.
With regard to creationism: Looking at biomolecules (as I do on a daily basis) one can take two views. One is that if two things have a similar function then one would expect them to look somewhat similar (generally true but not always
So Kansas may be doing their kids a favour by making them think, rather than feeding them dumbed down opinion based on circumstantial evidence as proven fact.
One must keep in mind that theories on the origin of life are still rather weak theories. Basically it is a jumble of "maybes" --maybe early cell constituents came from meteors --maybe early replicants formed in a sort of soup, forming pseudo-membranes that eventually split because of size, and these eventually grew in complexity --maybe the first pre-cells were formed on the side of various clay deposits basically since only tiny glimpses of this complex process have been repoduced in labs, we can come close to knowing, like we can't know the very early workings on the universe. we may not have a very solid theory for a very long time, although you can believe what you want based on the evidence for each theory
Even though the computer memory may be random, the computers themselves are not.
Computers follow a universal set of instructions reliably - if they didn't, they would cease to be useful for our purposes.
Even though the contents of the universe sometimes appear to be random, the universe itself is not.
Physical reality follows preset principles such as gravity and conservation of energy - if it didn't, the universe would cease to be useful for God's purposes. The fact that principles of physics and logic are consistent and highly structured indicates that the universe was created by an intelligence vastly greater than our own.
food for thought: what would the world be much different if God had decided to make 12 a prime number? Things like "half an hour" wouldn't come out even...
One indication of God's superiority is that he can create living things with eternal souls, whereas we only program inanimate objects. Another is what he does with his creations, versus what we do with ours. We create things to make our lives easier. We write spreadsheets to save us from the chore of doing long division. Since the software has no consciousness of its own, it doesn't object to such a boring task, and our quality of life is improved (a great benefit to everyone).
God, however, gives his creations (us) a soul and the ability to make moral choices, either good or evil. Sometimes we choose good, sometimes evil. (Its a natural side effect of free choice that we sometimes choose evil, usually by being selfish.) We all deserve punishment for the mistakes we make, but God created a way out for us if we choose to accept it. He sent Jesus Christ to earth in order to live a perfect life, and then allow him to take the punishment for our actions upon himself through his death. God brought him to life again three days later (he designed the universe, so he can suspend whatever rules he wants). Thus, we can ask God for forgiveness, and God can grant it while still maintaining his sense of justice (our blame was passed on to someone who was willing to accept the punishment for us). We can have the opportunity to be reconciled to God and live with him for eternity.
I suspect that a billion networked computers would generate a much more interesting result if they were set up to produce genetic algorithms, although I'm not an expert on the subject.
jim
http://cs.georgefox.edu/~jsnow
this stuff is just getting out of hand screw this freedom of religion crap
Example: UK. Owning guns is pretty illegal, with some exceptions. Many cities have surveilance cameras capable of viewing large areas. This isn't the case in the US. Perhaps it's because shooting these cameras is a pastime. Or perhaps it's because a citizenry with guns is more likely to be more vocal and active in pushing for personal freedoms, with less fear of governmental or police relatiation, and in addition, less likely to accept such 1984-ish measures. And corrupt governments and police forces
may think twice before enacting draconian measures under the premise of fighting crime.
What utter rubbish, As a UK citizen, I find that the idea that Britian is a police state offensive, cameras are deployed in public areas at the request of bodies that are actually voted for by the majority of the local poeple, unlike the US where the extremely low turn-out at election-time
means that the government does not represent most poeples views.
The UK is not a police state, a camera in a public place is just a logical extention of having a policeman patrolling a public place, which I presume they do in the states?
Its the US that has a problem with Guns not the UK
Its also in the US that Darwinism, a theory so
universily accepted can be rejected in favour of teaching children fairy tales as truth.
I hate the media today. I'm not a big fan of the Christian Coalition, but the media truely hates them. Almost every article I have read on this is focused around this being the latest plot of the evil religious radicals. I picture the Kansas state education board as a room full of carbon-copy religious radicals working out their agenda. I don't care about the political explanations these reporters have. I care about looking at this new ruling by itself, for what it stands for, and whether it is a good ruling. I personally agree with it.
Here's the point. A staggering number of observations of the natural world have been made that offer clues to the origin of life and the human species. Evolution is the leading scientific theory because the majority of relevant observations support it. Creationism is not the leading scientific theory because hardly any observations support it.
If you are going to try arguing against evolution on a scientific basis, then you should be prepared to argue in favor of your theory on a scientific basis. If you choose to believe a theory that isn't supported by scientific evidence, then you don't believe in science. It's a simple as that. If you choose your beliefs because of your faith, just have the guts to admit it. Don't try to poke holes in a scientific theory when you obviously don't believe in the scientific method.
If God greated a rock that nobody can lift, could he lift it?
I remember this one from waaay back - only it was slightly rephrased. It went "If Zeus can do anything, can he create a rock that's so heavy even he can't lift it"?
Weird thing is - it DOES have a perfectly logical answer. The answer is YES, because of the first part of the statement (Zeus can do anything). But if he does create this rock, he will then no longer be able to do "anything". More than creating a rock, he creates a limit to his own power. Which he can do, of course (Zeus can do anything). If he wants, he can create a tiny pebble so heavy that even he can't lift it. That would merely mean placing even greater limits on his own power.
All of this stuff is properly addressed in some sort of philosophy class, NOT in a science class.
Most educated people, like yourself, assume evolution is fact. This is because evolution has been taught as fact in our schools for a while now, despite considerable controversy, even among biochemists and geneticists.
In my research I have found it a common understanding that speciation has never been observed, despite numerous experiments involving thousands of generations of bacteria and mutated species. What is this wallaby you speak of? I have tried numerous searches for it, but can find nothing on it.
As for macro-evolution, take the given scenario:
Two parents of a particular species had an offspring with a different number of genes than themselves. This offspring then continued to mate with other offsprings with this extrordinairy mutation.
This event would have to happen thousands of times in order for macro-evolution to be true. It is an event that is very difficult for most geneticists to swallow.
I am generally an opponent of the Christian Coalition and certainly do not subscribe to Creationism. However, I do find it inappropriate for our schools to educate our children that evolution is an authoritative science.
"I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
--Thomas Jefferson
Newtonian mechanics are incorrect, but they're "close enough" for most of us in our day to day lives. Someday most of our technologies (e.g. nano-scale technologies) may depend on exploiting quantum effects, but until that day, Newtons laws of motion are good enough for me and most other folks.
Ah, you're probably right, I am getting flamey. I'm sorry.
But I "offer no facts"? Existance of lung fish is a fact. Do you not find it a bit offensive for misfit to have come to this discussion with a pedantic argument ("Whoops, drowned fish"), saying something couldn't exist that exists today? Any even rudimentary investigation of evolution would turn up lung fish.
And isn't it a bit much to have a zillion posts, all on new threads, saying that evolution hasn't been "proven"? never mind that no other theory has been proven in this sense, either?
Sorry again for the flames.
You are welcome to propose a better theory, and put forth adequate evidence to support it. You might even win a nobel prize that way.
But if your only evidence consists of that Old Testament, you just might find that your theories will not be taken very serious.
Life is an ever evolving process. Applies to all forms of creature.
This is one of the conclusion made after studying genetic algorithm.
I leapt in on an earlier response to try to clarify my original position, and I'd like to do so here as well. When I said we are no better off now than in the sixteenth and seventeenth century I was not referring to quality of life or material wealth. Clearly we are healthier, wealthier, better informed, more comfortable, and more powerful than in any previous epoch. No, what I was referring to specifically was the proportion of the population in possession of a deep understanding of and appreciation for the methods of science. Everybody thinks they know science because they learned about DNA and di-hybrid crosses, they tittrated (sp?) in chemistry, and they use nifty electronic gadgets all over the place. They confuse the knowledge or the technology with science. Science is the process, not the information. The process, not the technologies. My statement was meant to refer ONLY to the fact that percentage of people who know and fully appreciate the implications of scientific methods is not much higher today than in the years of science's infancy.
For the second point of clarification, note that I specifically said that science and religion cannot co-exist in the classroom or the laboratory. I kept it in that narrow domain because I'm specifically trying to argue that the kind of evidence posessed by those who have had religious experience is rarely (if ever) the kind of evidence that science is allowed by the rules that define what science is to use.
I am also trying to argue that a fundamentalist Christian is fully capable of performing perfectly good science, as long as he keeps his types of evidence properly compartmentalized.
Any epistemological system can become dogma, even science. Consider Wegener (sp?) and the reaction of geologists to his continental drift theory -- sometimes the entrenched science becomes dogma and requires overwhelming evidence to make the process work again. This is not because the scientific method is deficient, but rather because (as I am trying to point out) science is not the normal way people adopt "The Truth." Our world view is the union of our prejudices, even when those prejudices are rationally derived. No human being happily and easily surrenders a belief. I would imagine that practicing researchers must often struggle with this.
Oooh! Oooh! One more. Of course I knew full well that acceleration due to gravity falls off as you move the masses apart. I do know my Newton. Here what I was getting at is that if, suddenly one day the acceleration due to gravity at sea level were to change without a change in mass or a change in distance, we would have to re-evaluate what we have taken for centuries to be an immutable "Law of Nature." I was pointing out that scientific "facts" are always implicitly followed by "As Far As We Know (tm)."
Evolution is a fact... Just look at the bacteria resistant to antibiotica... Don't tell me it was god's will. ;-)
They where called Neanderthals, us Homo Sapians pushed them out of Africa and the rest of Europe into Ibera. The last signs of Neanderthal presence where found at the Rock of Gebralta. Basically we wiped them out.
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Where did you learn science? It makes no difference to the scientific method whether the "experiment" is conducted in real time or in the past. Make a hypothesis. Then test your hypothesis against available data. If there is no data already available, then conduct an experiment to gather it. But if the data is already available, it is no less valid than what you can gather from a new experiment. Repeatability comes from multiple observations of the same evidence; it doesn't matter whether it's from conducting multiple experiments or from multiple historical events. "Creatability" of data means absolutely nothing in science.
It should also be pointed out that it is perfectly normal for a school board to choose not to teach a particular theory to students. Note the word 'theory'...the idea that lower life-forms evolved into more advanced and on-the-whole different species is still very much classified as theory. As such, I don't believe there should be any requirement that it be taught in schools. It's optional, yes, but because it's only a theory, it should not by any means be required learning. On the other hand, gene mutation and other such forms of "intra-species" evolution (for lack of a better term) have been proven by scientific means, and therefore should most definitely be taught; unsurprisingly, you'll notice that this type of evolution will still be taught in Kansas schools.
I'm not one to say that there weren't hidden agendas behind this whole thing, and yeah, I'm sure there were. Creationists will always try to gain a stronger hold on schools -- thus is the nature of religion and politics. But in spite of the reasons behind the new curriculum, you have to admit that the media is going way overboard in their representation of the event. It's not nearly as much of a Big Deal(tm) as it's being made out to be.
(On a sidenote, one could argue that, for the same reasons non-religious parents have gained a victory in disallowing prayer in school due to a conflict of beliefs, religious parents should be given the same treatment in selecting what teachings their children are subjected to.)
--
Wonko the Sane
The problem isn't Republicans per se; the problem is the special interest groups that have pretty much controled the Republican party for the past 20 years.
Including the most loud-mouthed, right-wing, anti-intellictual subset of that otherwise decent group known as Christians.
Republicans and Christians both could improve their image by disassociating themselves from these louts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> I'm sorry for being a bit nit-picky here, but anyone who accepts evolution as a FACT, while perhaps not an idiot, is
> definitely ignorant about the scientific method and the definitions of a FACT and a THEORY. A FACT is something that is
> directly observable and is true.
If that were the definition of fact, there would be precious few facts left in science. So much of science deals with the things that cannot be directly observed - because they are either too far back in the past, too far away or too small. No one has seen a neutrino or a quark, no one has seen a black hole or a pulsar. Yet all of these things are being taught as fact and the Kansas board of education does not seem to care that they are.
There is no way one can be 100 percent sure of anything in science. When a scientist tries to explain some phenomenon, he starts with a hypothesis - which is nothing more than an educated guess to explain the phenomenon. If the hypothesis fits all the available facts, is shown to have predictive ability and is shown to be falsifiable then it is called a theory. Any theory that has stood the test of time and challenges to it, that has a large amount of evidence backing it and for which there are no viable alternatives is called a fact. It does not mean that we are 100 percent certain about something. There's no way we can be 100 percent certain about anything. I cannot even be 100 percent certain that a statement like "I am 30 years old" is true. It is certainly possible that God (or aliens) created the world 15 minutes ago with an appearence of great antiquity and placed the memories of the past 30 years in my mind. The creationists who are behind the evolution ban in Kansas used a similar argument to "prove" that it is possible that world is just 6000 years old.
All a scientist means when he says theory X is also a fact is that since theory X has so much supporting evidence, has withstood so many challenges and has no viable rivals, it is highly unlikely to be completely overturned. We may add footnotes to it in the future but we are not going to tear up the book and start afresh.
That, by the way, is precisely what happened to Newtonian mechanics. After Einstein came along, we had to add the footnote that Newtonian mechanics worked only when the speeds involved were significantly slower than the speed of light and the objects involved weren't too large or too small. After relativity was accepted, most people didn't stop using Newtonian mechanics - they just became aware of some limitations it had. Will something of this sort happen to the theory of evolution - maybe, maybe not. However, I do think that the chances that someone will cause it to be torn up and thrown out of the window are very small indeed. That is enough to make it a fact in my book and the vast majority of biologists in the world would agree with me.
Life is an ever evolving process. Applies to all forms of creature.
This is one of the conclusions made after studying genetic algorithm.
Amen, Brother.
Besides, if there wasn't a God, who would punish Bill Gates?
--TheOrangeSquid
.. So if Darwin has stated in 1971 that the theory ..
The man was dead for a few years by 1971, you probably mean 1871
...
Another *very* intelligent person (according to society's terms), George Wald (winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science and Harvard Professor) has said this (and I'll paraphrase), that (1) only creation and evolution are the possibilities for the origin of life, no third option; (2) Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, and that leads us on Creation; and (3) "We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
...
(1) show me the proof
(2) show me the proof
(3) as long as you make clear that there's no proof whatsoever its fine with me.
I'm especially interested in the 'proof' for (2). I no doubt would be able to identify its weak spot in minutes.
BTW. I think schools should teach both evolution and creationism. The discussion is relevant (at least from a point of view sociology, accepting creationism now would defy more than a century of scientific research). If you take away evolution or creationism you are limiting the freedom of choice. Children should decided for themselves what they want to believe in and evolution is definately a relevant topic to consider when making that choice.
...
does everyone know that Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes, Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, Lord Kelvin, and James Maxwell were all devoted Christians
...
Does it matter what they thought about religion? They weren't theologists were they? After all most of these people lived in an age where the church ruled over life and death. Scientists with different beliefs ususally kept their mouths wide shut on religious issues and if they didn't they often met with their tragic fate.
...
if someone accepted creation
...
This is the key issue here. Nobody denies anyone the right to accept creation (and its consequences). Personally I refuse to belief in something so rediculously stupid but hey, I don't care what others CHOOSE to believe. What does piss me of is that there are people who are trying to limit the choice of others (because they belief in creationism). This is not about religion it is about lack of choice.
OK, enough talk about this. I already know I'm not going to convince anybody. Christian (or any) fundamentalists are not receptive to logic.
Jilles
uh, well no. Nothing in the creation story is supported by evidence. Instead CRI and other creationist groups spend their time making tortured interpretations of Genesis to weasle their way out of the glaring disparities with reality ("Well it didn't _literally_ mean 7 days", etc.), carbon dating arrow heads to determine the age of man, and other such bone-headed exercises.
There's also no flood evidence, no evidence the earth stood still, or evidence for any of the other supernatural wackiness of the Bible.
Every prediction of creationism has failed, while evolution has made more valid predictions than I could begin to list. Much of you know as common knowledge about genetics was once not so common, but was predicted by evolution.
Try proving that you exist. That you aren't just something in a big AI simulation or VR world. You can't. We don't *know* anything, so this religious argument that "evolution can't be proved" is *stupid*. We can't utterly disprove Christianity either (despite the fact that it would be utterly illogical for it to exist, and has so many conflicts that if you treat things fairly (give all hypotheses fair unbiased treatment)), you would have to dispose of it as a real possibility.
It comes down to this: stupid/overwhelmed in propoganda people believe in Christianity and disbelieve in evolution. Intelligent people do the opposite.
Christianity is a lot less plausible than evolution. Lots of facts in favor of evolution. TONS against Christianity.
Sort of sad how people will believe any sort of BS rather than accept a few truths they aren't accustomed to in life.
Christianity is a socialogical symbiote (no, not a parasite...if you think you're going to hell for murder, you won't kill people) that's starting to hold us back and *become* a parasite.
>biology, thermodynamics, and flat-out common sense.
Wrong on every count.
*NOTHING* can be proven. We don't *know* anything. We can only assume and deduce. And given that, religion looks pretty sorry and unlikely, and evolution pretty solid and plausible.
Communion *is* ritualized cannibalism. Yes, it *is* true. Little old ladies in white hats at churches don't like to hear it, but that's simply what it is. Whether you think your "sins are washed away" isn't up to question -- it is simply ritual cannibalism. If a bunch of natives on a desert island were doing this, anthropologists would call it ritual cannibalism. We just don't like the phrase so it isn't used much regarding communion.
It tastes like chicken!
I'll take your lack of ability to form a coherent response or rebuttal to mean that your ability to reason has been stunted by blind acceptance.
Really? Will they be producing a kosher version of that?
Like this: "It can't be reproduced in the lab."
All kidding aside, how can you say that it CAN be reproduced in the lab? How are they going to do it? They can't. It is therefore non-scientific. They've made a claim that cannot be empirically demonstrated. It's not subject to being reproduced in the lab. How can it be "scientific"?
Fine, how are you going to prove that the Bible is infallible, God-boy?
I don't have to. It is. How are you going to prove evolution? Why do you think that I have to prove the Bible's infallible? Isn't enough that God says it is? Why not?
If not, you'd better come up with some reason for use to believe your book over all the other ones out there.
What makes you think that the truth of the Bible is contingent upon whether or not YOU have a good enough "reason" to believe it?
People who so vigorously deny reality have an obvious mental defect and should not be allowed to infect the rest of the gene pool.
Again, Thank You. If you'd had the courage to even minimally identify yourself, I'd keep this very kind comment in mind when talking with you in the future.
Please, since I'm mentally defective, explain for me exactly how it is that evolution and the materialist worldview can explain self-awareness. Bottom line: everything that happens in your big brain or my small and defective one is just a bunch of electro-chemical reactions, right? So how does that translate into self-awareness? How does an electro-chemical reaction make a truth statement? When water boils or wood burns, is it possible for it to make a truth statement? Now, your so-called "self-consciousness" is really nothing more than a bunch of electro-chemical reactions, right?
So how can you say that ANYTHING is true or false? Please enlighten my defective brain.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
It'll never work. The AP Bio teachers will tell them to piss off and go ahead and teach. What are they gonna do, fire the teachers and lose what little cred they have left?
Boy, if there's one place I *don't* want to live...
I appreciate your compliment, but I must say that I disagree with you that people tend to believe what is true. My experience has been that people want to go on believing what they presently believe, no matter what that is. Furthermore, this is true of everybody: scientists, engineers, priests, parishoners, and the honey wagon driver. This means that whole human race has a blind spot for new ideas that fundmentally reposition world views. All belief systems resist new beliefs, including science. This is, I think, part of the human psychological makeup. We like constancy, even though life tells us again and again that the universe is inconstant.
I personally consider the scientific evidence for species differentiation by natural selection overwhelming. The lack of a complete theory of genetic drift tells us that we have much more to learn, but does not tell us that Wallace and Darwin's theory is fatally flawed. You must find evidence that contradicts the theory, not that shows it be incomplete. The theory explains all the presently known facts.
Now, I do think that it is a theory, a sound one, but a theory. I think the missing elements can be pointed out in science class, but I do not for a minute believe that there is any reason to remove teaching it as a requirement of the biology syllabus. It is one of the most important theories in modern biology and I think it is ridiculous to remove it to please a religious sensibility.
I think that creationism can be taught in public schools, but not as science. I think evolution can be taught in public schools, but not in math or gym.
As for your point about constructing scientific experiments to find what you expect to find, I would ask you to suggest to me what kind of experiemnt to run with absolutely no preconceptions about what will be found? It is impossible to look at the world without preconception. I think it is unreasonable to expect a telescope to give you useful data on the human genome. You must have some preconception. You must, however, try to keep yourself aware of how your observation affects the observed. As I said in my original post, science is really actually hard!
Uh, yeah. Except for the fact that we aren't talking about a single thread. The simulation system is massive. Earth-wide at the molecular level. Let's see, something like 2 billion humans on the earth today, I think. Roughly comprable to 2 billion generations of humans in a single thread. The system is massively parallel. Bacteria probably evolved through lots of stages in a snap.
And sexual reproduction makes it even faster.
Where do you bible-thumping types *come* from?
> I did not write these, just found them via Altavista
You know how the saying goes: Believe half of what you see, none of what you hear, and the opposite of what you find on the Internet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Um....stupid people will all move to Kansas, become inbred and die off. Natural selection. Ironic that they should prove it themselves.
But the Decleration of Independance is still what our country was founded on. Ever study history?
>The support for evolution is not dogmatic, it comes from many, many years of collected
>evidence, all of which point to the same conclusion.
Maybe you can point me to some of the evidence. I've looked for it and been unable to find it. Most of observations that are quoted as evidence only indicate evolution when they are interpreted based on the assumption that evolution occured. This shows poor thinking and certainly very bad science.
Take a look at the fossil record. Where are all the transitional forms? There should be millions (if not billions) of them. Are they hiding? By the way, I don't accept punctuated equilibria as a good scientific explanation of the missing transitional forms.
>Evolution has stood up to decades of scrutiny.
It has stood up to decades of "scrutiny" by people who want it to be true. However, many scientists are not satisfied with it due to the lack of evidence and the poor thinking used to defend it.
>Currently there are no other theories about speciation which come remotely close to making the
>number of correct predictions that are made by evolution.
What predictions are you talking about? Joel Mawhorter
God would be an idiot if he didn't his creations the ability to adapt. Natural disasters can teach people a good lesson on being careful, but what would be the point if there's no chance they could survive it?
And creation IS a theory. Sure, it pisses the hell all over dozens of other theories, but then again, so does evolution.
--TheOrangeSquid
True, sorry (my Southern US history ain't too good). I was speaking not about party divisions, but rather about political divisions. Right now, in general the Republicans are right-wing and the Democrats are left wing. If you look at that one through world history, then you could probably call the Democrats center-right, but just keep to the two wings.
I'm pretty sure that my history is good on this one, though: traditionally left-wing issues, like civil rights and gun control, have not been among the most popular there.
Thank you for stating so concisely my problem with the way evolution is currently taught... Although I am a fundamentalist Christian, I have NO problem with the theory of evolution being taught in school. I do have a problem with this pseudo-Law of Evolution that seems to be making the rounds.
The fact is we do not KNOW for sure what happened.. but we can postulate reasonable theories based on the scientific evidence.
We homeschool, and I will definitely be teaching my children the theory of evolution. Not because I particulary believe it to be factual, but because it is an important part of the scientific literature, and I am attempting to raise adults, not goons.
It is silly to remove the theory of evolution from the classroom... just make sure to state "this is a theory based upon what many scientists feel to be the best available evidence. There are others who disagree." If the child then desires to find out who disagrees or why, they can research that information at any library.
Very well said. This is what I meant (that any symbolic system must contain unprovable assertions). My sloppy sentence was merely meant to call attention to this point. Thanks for stating it more precisely.
Wolfgang! Of course! (You know whay I didn't put his first name in? Because "Linus" as in "Linus Pauling" was the name my brain kept coming up with. I knew that wasn't right so I didn't want to embarass myself!
Thanks again for a good clarification.
Again: it's in Dawkins. Look it up. The short story is the algorithm you're describing mathematically is not evolution, in particular because it lacks selection.
The article says that they've gotten rid of evolution as a way of open species becomming another, but not evolution within a species. That's ridiculous. The lines between species are fuzzy, they're not something you can just slap down a ruler and say "here's the division." A species becomes another species by evolution with in the latter. It's not like primates said, "Well, if we evolve anymore we'd be a different species. Better stop before that thumb becomes too opposible."
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
Unfortunately for your nice theory, biological systems are not computer systems so the same principles that apply to programming don't apply to life. Macro-evolution is a hugh step from micro-evolution. In many cases, macro-evolution requires thousands of years for a feature to develop before it becomes a selecting factor. This makes it a near impossibility that complex selecting features such as sight, hearing, etc. would ever develop and lead to new species.The comment that evolution hasn't been proven is true whether you like it or not. Evolution is a philisophical dogma as much as any religion. It is good to see a school board removing a major hurdle to developing students who think for themselves rather than beleive any dogma that they are fed. Joel Mawhorter
Just admit it. Abortion is a sin. If properly carried out, it involves the death of an innocent human being.
Abortion is far, FAR worse than rape. I believe women impregnated by rapists should keep the child. The child is a gift from God even if the father is a rapist.
What you're saying is that I'm a moron beause I don't believe as you do? Because natural seletion has been observed to happen in populations of animals? Because species can change within a human lifetime? Well, have you ever SEEN natural selection taking place?
Have you ever SEEN an atom split? No, well then, it must bullshit right? In that case, you won't mind if I detonate a fission package near you. Just a small one.
No, we don't think you are a moron because you don't believe as we do, we think you are a moron because you seem unable or unwilling to process information. If you can look at the body of scientific work that evolution evolution is built on and come to the conclusion that some mystical transglorious overbeing created everything out of nothing, then don't be suprised if other people suggest that you might be missing something.
Also, I'm wondering if you could tell me 1) from where did this transglorious overbeing come from? and 2) how do you know there is only one transglorious overbeing?
4) All people programming in [insert despicable obsolete language here] who didn't evolve either
You mean C and C++ ? They've evolved maybe 1-2 steps from assembler, whereas the ones that are based on a evolved theory like predicate logic and lambda calculus aren't as popular in the real world. Maybe this is evidence against the evolution of programming languages.
If that despicable obsolete language means languages that aren't currently hyped in the industry (such as lisp, which I mostly use) then I'm gladly a neanderthal, but then evolution got it wrong and went for lesser productivity.
AC
The fossil record does not indicate age at all, it is impossible for organic material to be dated to further back than a few thousand years using
So you another isotope,
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Good lord! Does anyone read the thread before posting? This has come up a dozen times already, and the basic thing you are missing is you don't know what "theory" and "fact" are. No theory is ever proven. You can only disprove theories. They are informally accepted as fact when they make very many predictions accurately. Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory, and the evidence for evolution is no more shakey that the evidence for gravity.
Creationism is *not* a theory, because it has made few predictions, and the predictions it made were wrong. There has hardly even been any creation theory proposed. Creationists world-wide have yet to get a grip on the methods of science, and understand that they must explain data (e.g. the fossil record, the fact that all organisms use the same genetic code, etc., etc., etc., etc.), which evolution *does*, and creationism does not.
The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare, or "Monkey Claims Copyright on Hamlet: Film at 11."
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Last semester I had a chem class, a calc class, and a psych class. All three of them had different definitions for hypothesis, theory, and law. Totally incompatible. The psych one said that theory *did* become law, BTW. :-)
Um, it is. I drop something, it goes down. An observed phenomenon is a law.
Complete and utter BS. There *are* transitional animals all over. Heck, even with humans, what do you think the gorilla, the chimpanzee, etc. are?
There's even alternate branches (Neanderthal) we know of. You bible-thumpers are unbelievably head-in-the-sand.
I believe the governor of the state that thought this was all a bunch of BS and threatened to disolve the Kansas Board of Ed if they pushed through this creationist BS was Republican. There *is* hope for Republicans.
Whis is it politics in the US come down to a choice between stupid religionism and tax cuts for big biz buddies or massive spending on bloated programs like welfare and garbage like that?
What happened to balancing the budget?
At least in the United States.
Shooting a doctor who performs abortions, however, is.
Those are the laws in the U.S. - don't know where you're from, but thats the way it is here. Work to change the laws if you disagree, but it currently is not defined as murder.
Could someone please explain to me what the evolutionary argument is for mulit-cell organisms? There are uni-cellular organisms that are native to every part (as far as I know, if you know different then you have answered my question) of the biosphere. Uni-cellular organisms can survive in areas that multi-cellular organism can't, is the opposite true anywhere on Earth? If not then the survival of the fittest rule should rule out multicellular organisms. Uni-cellular organisms are more prolific, faster to adapt, more efficient , and longer lived in some cases. Any reasonable response would be appreciated.
Insert pithy comment here.
> Evolution takes alot more faith to believe in than creation anyhow if you think about it.
By no stretch of the imagination.
Assuming the Bible is true, huh? Okay. I...okay, I was going to give 50 thousand examples of *stupid* blatently false stuff and contradictions in the Bible (that your popes and bishops are quite aware of), but it's not worth the effort. I don't care. People like you are going to believe stupid stuff no matter what I say.
Very well said. Don't close off possibilities just because they aren't fashionable. My thoughts exactly.
CT
Yes, I do believe in the continuum of matter and no, I do not believe in all that atomic theory crap. But no matter what you believe in, let's not forget that no matter what anyone says, atomic theory is -- listen carefully now -- STILL A THEORY. THEORY. ... The Mystic's Guide to the Continuum says that the continuum of matter is for real, but if you don't believe in The Mystic's Guide to the Continuum, then I guess there's just no proof. I guess it takes a bit of faith, just like atomic theory does. You still haven't found your "irreducible particle".
Actually, I shouldn't make fun. I was pumped full of all that bogus fundamentalist crap when I was a kid too. I got over it when I heard a preacher ranting about the dangers of an open mind, and warning me that I should not only close it, but also lock the door and throw away the keys when you leave. That when you leave part was just a wee bit over the top for my world view.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I hope this is a joke, because there are literally thousands of known contradictions and impossibilities in the Bible known to Biblical scholars.
jeepers wally! i wonder if i can get a conversation going that is big and long like them lists of gripes up there!?! Gosh! I remember the good old days when we would go to school and get rapped on the fingers when we talked out of turn. I remember when a teacher could spank you for acting up. what happened to those days? golly!
(disclaimer: i'm actually 21...)
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Thirdly, evolution as the engine behind the appearance of the human race is categorically unscientific. In order for it to be scientific, such "evolutionary processes" (so-called) must be reproducible.
:)
----
Actually, these opinions remind me of once discussing science with a Taliban supporter. Generally, it's pointless to talk about science with people who dispute it on the basis of religion - they hug it firmly and close their eyes, no matter how strong the evidence.
Not every scientific fact is reproducible. For instance, we do not reproduce the fact that the sun is mostly composed of hydrogen+helium - there is no way to make a little sun in a lab. A lot of science is based on well established theories and observation. Religion is based on blind faith - obviously you're fairly articulate, but still somewhat stupid when it comes to understanding science.
I would say you are an outstanding example of what might happen if someone were schooled in the proposed Kansas system. Ironically, you prove more of a point than you think.
L.
Um...in that case, you'd have been perfect. And I really doubt that things would go counter natural selection and allowed things to go downhill. You mean stupid people like these Bible-thumpers are products of perfect humans?
The e-mail addresses for the board members are available at:
:-/
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/commiss/bdaddr.html
If you're displeased with them, let them know what kind of neanderthals they are. Don't threaten them, for heaven's sake, but let them know that an enlightened populace won't stand for this.
If someone else has already posted this, I'm sorry... It's taking MINUTES for pages to load, and there are hundreds of replies here
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
How do I know this? Because you approach the Bible as though it were yesterday's newspaper. You ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the Bible is a book written over a span of about 1400 years (give or take), that even its most recent portions are almost 2000 years old, and that it was written in a culture that is vastly different from our own. Yet somehow, for some arrogant or ignorant or cockamamie reason, you still seem to think that you can just walk right up to it, point your finger at something you don't understand, and conclude that the whole thing is hogwash. Teriffic. You're quite the "enlightened soul" there, friend.
Translation: The BS that sounded so good 2000 years ago doesn't stand up to today's knowledge base. You must brainwash yourself by becoming a good little Christian before you start contradicting these things. Such utter BS. By this sort of logic, I'd have to study and become a Scientologist before I contradicted it. Heck, have you studied Buddhisim enough to say that "Christianity is right" (and therefore Buddhisim is wrong).
Remember, Christianity *should* sound plausible. It itself is a product of evolution. Christianity is a socialogical virus that has evolved over the years. It's destroyed many other religions and ideas over the years, wiping out most of its enemies. But we're building up our defenses, and purging it from our society.
Sounds nasty, doesn't it? I deliberately phrased it to shock. It's also true -- try reading the paragraph again from an objective standpoint.
>The world is about 4.55 billion years old. This >date is probably when the moon was created by a >large impact with the earth.
Huh? World != Earth?
void post { post_random_comment("slashdot.org"); karma--; }
well i read this far ... STOP THEM BEFEORE IS TOO LATE. We have more powerful weapon now than any time in history to destroy ourselves... it's not an atomic bomb, it's not super-booper virus that will kill the world population... only human stupidity and ignorance can do that...
And btw.. religion MUST BE STOPED... rembember.. Spanish inqusition, Crusades,
Keep them ignorant, keep you power -- Fucked Up College Kids That's what they want. DON'T LET THEM
So now you want to throw off the scientific method to embrace Christianity as well? Whoah. How did you ever manage to suppress your religious urges enough to learn to use a computer?
I feel like I'm in Alpha Centauri (the video game) talking to that religious nut or something. I always thought that that person was a parody, a hideous exaggeration of someone that couldn't exist. I was *very* wrong.
I don't understand how anyone could say that natural selection is in any doubt. Yes, there are varying ideas about the patterns of change in evolution caused by natural selection, notably punctuated equilibrium vs. uniformitarianism. But natural selection itself is simple. The necessary assumptions can be observed in everyday experience; that it can produce signifigant change can be seen in a human lifetime and demonstrated in a laboratory to produce appreciable changes (e.g. DDT resistant mosquitos and antibiotic resistant bacteria) and demonstrated in a laboratory (varieties of broccoli which produce mature seeds in 18 days). It is awfully hard to deny. In fact, the creationists who make the decision in Kansas specifically included "micro-evolution", which is just natural selection.
Here's what you need to have natural selection
- individuals aren't all the same
- some of these differences are hereditary
- some of the hereditary differences affect fitness (defined in terms of offspring produced)
Can anyone deny that real populations have these properties? Given these properties, an anyone deny that natural selection doesn't happen?Most creationists have had to admit that natural selection happens. What they won't accept is that they, and all the species they see around them, descended from a common ancestor.
...which is true because we define "=" to represent equality and equality to be a congruence relation (and hence reflexive).
Stephan
excuse me sir...but evolution does not say that we evolved from monkeys..please go read up on evolution before making a comment like that...
When computers and robots take over, do you suppose they'll have their own creation myths?
Think about it...
And they are identifiable as such from the text -- whereas Genesis 1 is identifiable from the text as narrative discourse.
Since there are three creation stories int he bible, and they are not all identical, which is correct?
Well, you have actually stumped me. I can guess two of your three "creation accounts" but the third escapes my memory.
However, with respect to the first two: Genesis 1 presents a history of what happened: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc. Genesis 2, in contrast, does NOT present a precise history. It presents a summary. This particular structure is common in Genesis as an introduction to a new section of the book. You'll see in 2:4 the words "These are the generations..." (some translations have it as "this is the history..." but the actual Hebrew word is "generations"). The same appears in 5:1, "This is the book of the generations of Adam..."; in 6:9, "These are the generations of Noah..."; in 10:1, "These are the generations of the sons of Noah..."; in 11:10, "These are the generations of Shem..."; etc. You will notice that in a majority of these cases, the intro of "these are the generations..." is followed by a summary of some sort. In most cases it is very short -- maybe just a few words. In the case of Genesis 2, it is a longer summary. It's not intended to be chronological; it's a summary.
As to your likely challenge about the animals being created after Adam -- there were animals all over the earth after God created them on the fifth and sixth days. Adam was to name them. There are three possibilities: either Adam must visit them all, in a massive global tour, so that he can name them, or else God must bring them to Adam so that he can name them, or else God must create an example of each animal (already created on the 5th & 6th days) for Adam to see and name. I honestly fail to see the problem. If I want to show my son an ashtray, I can either take him to see one, or bring one to him, or make one. Ashtrays already exist. What's the big deal?
however, you leave yourself open to certain arguments disproving the validity of the entire bible.
No I don't. What makes you think that the validity of the Bible hinges upon anything you or I say or think?
I personally need logical ways to believe in God
Then you have made "logic" superior to God. You have made his existence contingent upon your brain. Whether God exists is not an issue. He does. By claiming the "right" to have logical reasons for believing in God, you are claiming the "right" to judge God. This is not a right you have. You have made reason one of your idols to the extent that you attempt to judge God by it.
It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many Christians, that the Bible should be believed as a statement of faith, not a history book. If you spend hours arguing about the type of fish that swallowed Jonah, you miss the entire point of the story: one can never hide from God. The entire message of the story, for me, seems to be this.
You fail to understand that Christianity is a historical religion. It depends completely and utterly upon the certainty that particular events actually happened. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead (but he did), then Christianity is a charade. But if we can't believe the Bible about even ONE historical detail, then we can't be sure about ANY. And that throws the resurrection into doubt and Christianity out the window. So you see, it really does matter that Jonah was swallowed by a fish -- whatever the major point is. It really does matter that the sun stood still (so to speak) at Joshua's command. It really does matter that the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea. These things happened. Period. The Bible doesn't lie or get it wrong.
Either way, the religion is NOT dependent on the science, and vice versa.
In this you are mistaken for the reasons I've given above.
If any littel point in the bible is ever disproven, then the entire bible is incorrect. Seems to me to be a pretty fragile foundation for a religion!
That only depends upon whether you believe it's the Word of God or not. It is. Therefore it CANNOT be disproven in ANY particular. Therefore it is a rock-solid foundation for a religion. As to the Vatican: they're wrong if they deny that Genesis one is historical. Period. They're just men. God is not a man, and he doesn't make mistakes.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I laughed. Then I got a chuckle out of the replies. Then I pondered over the likelyhood of someone taking your post seriously... and agreeing.
Thought-provoking humor. Good stuff.
I would suggest that everyone who believes that the Kansas Board of Education made the right decision pack up and move there. Hell, they might even pay your way... Just imagine it. Sunflowers. Bob Dole. Miles of flat earth created by an old (white) man with a long beard. And none of that silly "education" mixed in with your schooling. Who needs to have an open mind when you've got all that. Might even give you time to help Pat Robertson kill some people he doesn't like. I can see the new license plates already: KANSAS...where ignorance is bliss ________________________________
Everything that you mentioned is theory and yet you present it as fact. The facts are that there are certain amounts of radioactive particles in the rocks or in the organic matter. The assumption comes when you say that the amount of radioactivity has remained constant and that the ratio in living tissue is a constant as well. These assumptions as well as the assumption that the decay rate has remained constant are the underlying basis for most of the theories that you state. Let's look at those assumptions one at a time.
1) The amount of radioactive particles in the atmosphere is constant.
This has been shown not to be true. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of radioactive particles and the amount of radioactive particles in the atmosphere is in constant fluctuation. All of the cataclysmic events that you list would cause tremendous changes in the amounts and ratios radioactive particles and non-radioactive particles.
2) The ratio of radioactive to non-radioactive particles in living material is a constant.
This can easily be shown to be untrue by sampling currently living organisms. A living mollusk was tested by the C-14 method and found, according to the formulas, to have been dead for over 10,000 years.
3) The rate of decay of radioactive particles is a constant.
The rate of decay, from the evidence we have, fits an equation that includes the speed of light. Independent scientists have discovered evidence that the speed of light is much slower than it used to be. There is conflicting evidence regarding this, however, if it is true, the decay rate would have been much faster in the past, causing all of our current dating methods to predict dates much older than they really were. This is still in debate and so I will leave it as a question.
To show that the theory is only that and not fact, one only has to disprove one of the assumptions. two of the three assumotions are false and the third is in question.
Also, to the age of the moon, with the original trips to the moon, NASA was concerned that the spacecraft would sink into the dust that has been collecting on the surface of the moon since it has been there. They estimated up to 40+ feet of dust based on theories of the age of the earth and moon. They were concerned about Neil Armstrong being ready to catch the ladder with his hands and go down the stairs slowly in case he started to sink, he could catch himself. It turns out that there was about 1/8" of dust allowing an age of the moon of about 4000-40,000 years. A relatively short amount of time compared to current evolutionary theories. This of course is if the rate of dust falling is approximately what it is now. If the solar system came out of collisions and explosions, there would have been more dust in the past than currently.
For the past couple of weeks I've read a few stories where Christians were slammed in a small or large way. I never see budhists, wiccans, hindu, muslim, athiests, satanists, jews, etc. ridiculed. Ever wonder why that is? Are you afraid of something? The truth maybe?
The Buddists, Wiccians, etc. aren't attempting to convert me against my will to their beliefs. The Christians ARE. If you want to stop being slammed, shut up and leave us alone. If we want to know about your beliefs, we'll ask. Stop trying to get into the schools and brainwash all the kids to believe in your god. Worry about your own kids, only.
If you don't, don't be surprised when your churchs keep burning.
The passage in question (which you failed to mention) is 1 Kings 7:23-26. You seem to have only verse 23 in mind; this is a careless -- and, for your 'argument', fatal -- error known as "ripping out of context".
Yes, the basin was 10 cubits across. Yes, the circumference was 30 cubits.
You ignored the WIDTH of the thing.
Look in verse 26. It was a handbreadth thick. Now, my hand is approx. 4.25" across. Let's use 4" as a convenient measure for a handbreadth, and 18 inches for one cubit (both are pretty close).
That would give us the following:
C = 30 cubits * 18in/cubit = 540in.
diameter = C/PI (since C = PI * d)
diameter = 540 / 3.14159 = 171.887in.
(This is where it gets embarrassing for you)
Now, the difference between the stated diameter and the calculated diameter is 180 - 171.887, which is 8.113. This is almost exactly TWO of our handbreadths of 4 inches each!! Hmmm!!!
The conclusion is frighteningly simple:The diameter was measured to the outside edge of the basin, but the circumference was the INSIDE circumference, where the diameter is actually approximately EIGHT INCHES less than the outside diameter (one handbreadth per side = 4in. per side = 8in.).Thus, wonder of wonders, the Bible is actually accurate in this case, and you are hopelessly wrong (and so was the legislature of whatever state did this, if you're correct about that).
Of course, my numbers are mildly rough, but I think they're well within tolerance considering the technology available at the time of the construction of the temple. And if the man who measured the basin's thickness had a handbreadth of 4.0565 (8.113/2) inches -- just 5 hundredths of an inch larger than what we used as a convention -- then there is almost no error whatsoever.
Next time, try assuming that the Bible is true rather than false. You won't look so foolish.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
> Evolution, on the other hand, is perhaps the strongest theory there is based on mountains of evidence What mountains of evidence? A hypothesis is just an educated guess. For something to become a theory it has to have a tremendous amount of scientific evidence backing it up. That means is has to be OBSERVABLE, MEASURABLE and REPEATABLE. Evolution fits none of these criteria, thus it could hardly be "the strongest theory". If you want a strong theorem, check out the Pythagorean Theorem.
Your definition of "life" is far too narrow. If there existed, say, intellgent selenium-based life forms who drank molten sulfur, might they not wonder what the odds were of an environment so conducive to life, rather than a bunch of amino acid crap on a planet which would be obviously much to cold to dring sulfur on?
We have already demonstrated that silicon-based intelligence is feasible. Why do we feel our particular circumstances are necessary for life?
void post { post_random_comment("slashdot.org"); karma--; }
I would be happy if north america spent more time teaching things like math and grammer. Me thinks me english ain't none too good. Who cares if they teach evolution or not.
conicedentaly, Some top scientists claim that I, Chad Okere am the true god! Submit to my awsome power! Weeeeeeee
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Yes and the uprising of Killer Bees in the America's. That's proven undisputable natural selection.
One of the most hated things about 'christianity' and religeons of all types is the dogma associated with it. Do As I Tell You Or You Will Go To Hell. The catholic church has been a big example of this, burning many people at the stake and stuff like that. As religeous dogma began to lose popularity people started to think more freely and science advanced very quickly. Many people then assosiated all religeon with dogma and became athiests etc etc. When Charles Darwin came up with his Theory many people liked this as they didn't have any creater or anything. People started to come up with all sorts of support for evolution. evolution with a lower case e certainly does happen and is known as micro-evolution. Evolution however which is the idea of one common ascestor to everything is mainly based on a concept which sounds very attractive but has VERY FEW FACTS to support it. It has become accepted throughout education and stuff. Evolution is the dogma of science IMO.
Hawkesbury sandstone in Sydney. Which date is right?
Can you provide a reference? I looked around the net and couldn't find ANYTHING regarding this, although I suspect that it probably has something to do with your next question:
Consider the many, many polystrate fossils in the world. Intrusion's ridiculous, unless you have a religious
attachment to the dating of the rock layers that are crossed.
First, the type of fossils you're talking about are, invariably, fossils of trees found in sedimentary rock. What has happened is that a tree (or a stump of a tree) has been covered up by different layers, causing the tree to have become fossilized through several different layers. Go to http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polys trate/trees.html for a discussion of this.
Consider many thousands of square miles of "upside down" strata (in one chunk; yes, even in the US) with
negligible signs of movement at the interface. How did they get there? Did the whole lot flip over, extending
hundreds of miles into space, and likewise into the magma?
I assume you're talking about places where older rock is found above younger rock. When two masses of earth run into each other, a few different things can happen: They both crumple upwards, they both crumple downwards, or one goes on top of the other (overthrusting). If the one that ends up on top is geologically older, then the situation that you have described occurs
Consider the sudden end of life-signs at the pre-Cambrian level.
The organisms in the precambrian were soft-shelled, and while there are plenty of fossils from that time, you would expect fewer to be found from soft animals. The cambrian period marks the advent of hard-shelled organisms that leave remains (shells) that fossilize much more easily. Hence, the great increase of observable fossils. Not to mention the fact that the "sudden" event happened over millions of years... http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html #5.4
Consider the observation that the gremlins in the lowest levels of strata are generally the kind of gremlins
that would be there anyway: bottoom dwellers.
bottom dwellers? how is a jellyfish (found in the oldest fossils) a bottom dweller, considering that it floats?
Consider the skeletons of modern man that Leakey found much further down than "Lucy."
Leakey found no such thing.
Consider the many thousands of fossil sites at which "local flooding" events are blamed - and the "global
flood" on dry Mars - and yet nobody wants to know about a global flood here. Why?
First of all, the existence of local floods in no way implies the existence of a large, world-encompassing global flood.
Speaking of global floods, you have a shifting definition here. Using the example of Mars, where the amount of liquid water on a global scale may have changed, then yes, the earth has experienced periods where the sea levels have gone up and down by huge amounts, when water has become locked up in large ice sheets. Using the definition of a biblical-style "global flood", many problems arise, not the least of which is, "where did the water go?"
The problems that science has with young earth creationism are not because scientists refuse to look at the evidence, but instead because they have.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you haven't bothered to read the thread. You don't know what a theory is, and you don't know what "links" are "missing" in evolution. The answers to all of the above are earlier in the comments for this article. Learn something about science before you spout off.
Ya. The Roman Catholic Trinity : The Father, the Holy Spirit, and Mary.
Can you see the fistfights at that new world religion thing?
I never got that before. It's how people run around screaming their own opinion without proving it. I like it.
The good Lord doesn't need any stinking irrational numbers!
Look! A stupid person! He never said Darwin taught evolution! Try reading the post next time!
And Darwin kicked butt.
why would anybody or anything capable of creating galaxies give a rat's ass about a race whose combined mass would not even be equal to 1e-10000 of that of a star? Its interesting that we humans are so self centered. Why do you think that a creator, if there was one, would care about us? How do you know that the whales are not the true children of the creator and that we are merely some excess scum that was created as a by product (kind of like that old Star Trek episode where they go in to the past to fetch to whales . . .)
Anyway, I see that this is dissolving into an old fashioned flame fest. There are internet newsgroups more suited to this kind of thing. :)
Wow...and I thought you were open minded. Seems it's okay to fight anything, just don't fight the religion of evolution.
The fact is that the facts are sketchy. In science you use a model as long as it is useful. Evolution has a lot of uses, but there are also cases where it fails us, completely, over and over and over again (Vision and the Eve Gene for example). How then should it be taught as state religion?
And if you don't think it is evolution is not being taught as religion you just try and shake your fist at it. You thought the inquisition was bad?
I am not qualified to even make a statement I guess. But heck what's so bad about not making evolution mandetory. I could see if they removed teaching the law of gravity, i mean we may not be able to prove it but good luck ignoring it.
>You bible belt folks never cease to amaze the rest of the civilized world... :)
um...
sed "s/rest of the//" on that.
As far as I understand it, the belief that a "big bang" created the universe is similar to shaking a puzzle in it's box, throwing the pieces on the table, and having them all fall perfectly into place. From an mathematical standpoint, this is impossible.
... not impossible, imPROBABLE. It could happen, just probably wouldn't.
No
Before you declare things to be impossible, think.
fjord.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
Wish I lived in Kansas so I could vote for the governor.
I found just a very minor point in a very well-written and thought-out article.
> The only facts in science are logic and
> mathematics (and even these are only marginally
> facts as Godel proved centuries later)
Godel did not prove anything of the sort. All facts of mathematics are just as true and just as valid as they were before Godel published his incompleteness theory. What Godel said was that not all true facts are provable. This has some very important implications about the plilosophical limits of mathematics and logic, but it does not change in any way all those facts that _are_ provable. And that provable category includes just about any mathematical statement that has relevance to anything. Godel had to go through many contortions just to create one mathematical statment that wasn't provable.
However, this still supports your original point that science is much less absolute than mathematics and logic and is based solely on induction (which is a shakey ground if you want to claim something as absolute).
BTW, Pauli's first name was Wolfgang.
]Many non-religious scientists are questioning the tenets of evolution.
Propoganda. Show me one.
You're right about the creationist BS.
Fish *can* drown, though not from "too much water" or something like that. Try not putting a bubbler in your fish tank with big fish and watch what happens.
They have to keep moving through the water to suck oxygen from the water. If they can't move forward, they die.
A flood would likely aeriate the water...and increase the oxygen. The fish would love it.
The really icky part would be collecting all those fruit flies and other insects, as well as poisonous spiders and very large snakes. Noah must have spent an awful lot of time in the African and South American jungles collecting worms and stuff. And let's not forget about every single species of E.Coli there is... But then again, those can live in the rotten wood or something. Must have been a pretty nasty job :)
-S
..by Margaret Atwood.
In the future when everyone is obedient, ignorant, docile. When only the righteous can read. When we just stopping making up kind names for fascism. Who will be left who still knows how the make all of the Viagra they're going to need to make God's New Army?
I feel like I'm in a Sci-Fi movie where after all the shit falls apart and everyone is left picking over the rubble of some long forgotten technology and worshipping trash and broken TV sets. The light at the end of the tunnel has been permanently turned off.
Not their fault. Self-defense mechanism for a sociological virus. If *you* were being attacked, like Christianity was, *you* would want to fight back too. Remember, evolution *does* exist, which is how an organism like Christianity came to be.
It looks like the US is becoming more and more like Iran. Full of crazy fundamenalists.
But of course. Necessary to rapidly repopulate the earth (similar to after the flood).
What I really hate is "selective anti-scientists."
The language of the resolution allows for "micro- evolution," i.e. they concede that species change, but don't change into different species.
Any die-hard Creationist cringes at such a concession, because once you admit that species can evolve, it doesn't take a lick of imaginiation to see how divergent evolution might lead to genetically incompatible ancestors (i.e. different species).
Of course, most Creationists are more pragmatic, they want their cake and to eat it too. They accept mutations, but not micro evolution or gentic drift. Or, they'll accept those but not Evolution as a whole.
Did I mention how go left fossils in the ground to test our faith? Obviously you can't believe radiological methods of dating fossils, but why do they trust scientists then to explain how nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs work? If they think that is bunk too, I would love to hear the anti-scientists explain those.
Then again, the ability of Creationists et al. to defy conventional reason is rather inherent.
Just a flippant comment pointing out that the strength of wood limits the length of ships (too much length and it will crack in the middle due to its own weight; that's why steel ships were such a breakthrough, they are MUCH stronger per pound). So the "math" says that to fit at least a pair of ALL of earth's land animals (plus many birds that aren't oceangoing, plus provisions and, Oh, fresh water fish, except with all that rain, maybe the oceans turned fresh for a while until it all evaporated and went... where?) the wooden ship would be far too big (multiple Arks would be required). Not that I've done the math, nor does it consider alternate ship designs such as a giant raft, plus God's "mighty hand" could have held the ship together, etc...
In other words, 'twas mostly a joke, although the image of the almighty Ark armada, crusing the high seas with Aardvarks to Zebras, gives me a warm fuzzy.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Here are the idiots who did this... Kansas State Board of Education Members: Steve Abrams - sabrams@hit.net Val DeFever - vdefever@ksbe.st.ks.us Mary Douglass Brown - qekc86a@prodigy.com Scott Hill - scotth@access-one.com I.B. "Sonny" Rundell - ibvrrun@pld.com Harold L. Voth - hlv@ourtownusa.net William Wagnon - zzwagn@acc.wuacc.edu Janet Waugh - JWaugh1052@aol.com
anyone who claims to be an evolutionist really must consider all evidence - positive and negative - to that end, i recommend two *very* high-quality books - "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe, and "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" by Denton. For the record, neither of the two writers are christians, but both are highly accomplished biologists cheers
Great that you mentioned the theory of US History which has been proven wrong yet is still taught :)
Surprised? Can anyone show me absolute proof and/or a documented case of true evolution? I thought so... another theory bites the dust.
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
Maybe not all of them, but the one that I attended, which used courses that a good majority of them use, did in fact teach both points of view.
Ignorance is not bliss, this is a subject where both points of view should be taught in public schools, or neither. As both Creationism and evolution are a matter of faith, both are Religions.
Zane
So you think it does not matter what these people (Kelvin, Morse, Newton, etc) believed? I said for people like you who like to make comments like, "Christian (or any) fundamentalists are not receptive to logic". This also *may* go to prove that maybe you are not being logical, but a little emotional. It seems as if you are stating what you *want* to believe, and not using the brain that God (inserted purposefully) gave to you.
Lastly, there has not been any limiting of choice! There has actually been an INCREASE in choice. Because, now it is not required (lack of choice) to teach that theory but it is optional (increase in choice).
Also, before you start saying how religious people are pushing thier hidden agendas into the educational system, think about the hidden agendas of non-religious people. For example, prohibiting praying public schools (im talking about silent individual prayer, not directed prayer). Dont you think that this was someone's agenda being pushed onto Christians (and other religions). Note: I took some of this content from an earlier post
I encourage you to read my other post a few posts later regarding a simple math equation. I believe the title is "Life from Evolution? No way..." Goes to show that evolution is a little more (in your words) "rediculously stupid" than Creation (aka: Truth) is.
I know, I slipped some of my personal agenda into this post, and I was trying to avoid it too... oops
"Nietzsche is dead" -- God
There is a lot we don't know. Most people in western culture believe in science with as much faith as Christians follow God. Modern science is still mostly theories. Newton thought he had a pretty accurate theory for how the world worked. Einstein came along and showed that newtonian physics was not the whole story. Einstein only had a small part of it figured out. To say evolution is the full story of how we were created is naive, we don't know that yet.
If you do...
> if you don't belive that, you are a fool
I agree with you on the other parts, but really...
They are not banning the teaching of evolution, only the teaching of evolution as proven scientific fact.
They are banning the teaching of evolution as an origin of a species, scientific fact or not, read the article. They are still going to allow teaching evolution within a species. For example if humans evolved to where they didn't have an appendix anymore, they could teach that as evolution, but they can't teach that humans evolved from apes or that amphibians evolved from fish.
It's a theory, and that is what it has been mandated to be taught as.
There is an all too common misconception about what it means to be a theory and what it means to be a law. People think that something that isn't proven is a theory and when it is proven it is a law. THIS IS FALSE.
A theory is a system of ideas or a sphere of abstract knowledge which attempts to explain why certain phenomena occur.
Examples: Theory of Evolution, Theory of Relativity, etc. These are not theories because they are "unproven". They are theories because they explain why things are the way they are.
A law is a statement of specific conditions or relationships that exist in nature.
Examples: Law of Gravity, Laws of Motion, etc. These are not laws because they have been "proven". It is arguable that NOTHING can ever be "proven". They are laws because they describe the Universe and the relationships therein.
If I say "Force equals mass times acceleration." This is a law because it is a statement of a relationship regardless of whether or not it is accurate. If I say "Kansas banned evolution because people in Kansas are ignorant." This is a theory because it tries to explain why something occured or why something occurs, regardless of whether or not it is accurate.
I got my definitions here. It's a page about heat and temperature, but it still gives the definitions. You just have to scroll down about a screen.
it should be seen as a continuing search for evidence.
Science is always a continuing search for evidence. Not teaching well-founded, though controvertial, scientific theories isn't. If they really wanted a "search for evidence" in Kansas, they would increase their evolution curriculum and go into more detail about exactly what the evidence is for and against evolution, rather than erase it entirely. This is nothing but an exercise in ignorance.
We haven't (and will not be able to) prove evolution, but at least we can still continue to try.
Nothing can be proven. Scientific principles can only be disproven. A scientific principle is accepted when there is sufficient evidence for it and there is nothing to contradict it. Evolution is accepted: there is evidence, and nothing contradicts it. Why should it be treated differently than any other scientific principle because there are people too ignorant to accept it. The funny thing is that if they weren't so closeminded, they would understand that evolution doesn't even disprove God, it simply changes one's understanding.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
That's Kansas for you.
Translation: "I'm losing, so I'll change the subject to an area where Christianity has a pat answer"
Probably one of the most popular parts of biology is the study of dinosaurs. So popular that movies like Jurassic Park and the like made millions of dollars
Will kids in Kansas schools still be taught about dinosaurs (which are not mentioned in the Bible) or will they, too, be dropped from the curriculum?
What do Bible literalists believe about Tyrranosaurus Rx and the like?
Just some questions that came to mind last night.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Although I rather not linger on pointing out evidence in each case to disprove you; how do you react towards the mapping of the genetic makeup between two supposedly evolutionarily linked species such as, men and chimps? Do the nearly identical patterns in the strands of DNA indicate anything? Or is that just being 'misinterprated' also? Come to think of it, nearly anything can be interprated as one pleases, it's probably the only explanation as how a religion based on the compilation of works by zealous and understandably ignorant individuals can survive as long as it has. But moving on from petty jabs...
There is no rock or fossil that all by itself says "Hi! Evolution is true!" To the contrary, human beings have interpreted certain things to mean that evolution is "true." They are wrong.
Might I ask what differs between a evolutionist's interpration of evidence supporting his beliefs and yours? Do you consider yourself in some manner infallable of being perhaps gullible to a possibility that suits your tastes, and from then on being quite close-minded of any opposition? What authority do you, merely you, have in claiming anyone is in an objective sense right or wrong? Seems quite pompous to me.
In order for it to be scientific, such "evolutionary processes" (so-called) must be reproducible. They are not. No one has ever evolved a new species from an old one, and even if they had done so that would not ipso facto prove that humans came into being the same way. It's pure unadulterated rubbish that you have been sold...
For someone believing in a god and creationism (I would assume), I am rather suprised you would have the nerve to bring up the possibility of reproducable evidence. The utter lack of any indication of a divine being outside of completely theoretical speculation, and the sheer absurdity of creationalist ideas (planets being created in mere days; a species derived from mud, and then propagating through extensive inbreeding, etc.) hardly fits the category of sound, reproducable fact. But, before you utter the words, I noticed your safety net of claiming of the neccessity of evolution being "scientific" not religion. I would, however, wonder where my trust would rather be placed. In a scientific theory that, under the neccessity of evidence, may very well have misgivings and perhaps be entirely disproven; or a mere speculative set of beliefs refusing to even acknowledge needing logical evidence, for the very reason, in my humble opinion, that it would flat on its face.
Toodles.
And penguins. How did he pull that off? They'd be a bit toasty. And mayflies. Males only live for a day. You'd be seeing multiple generations of inbred mayflies...If there were exactly 2 of each type of animal, what did the carniverous ones eat? What about freshwater animals? What about the plants...did they all get killed?
This is not holding up to common sense questions. Evolution does. Yes, I *have* questioned it until I'm blue in the face. Evolution holds up without requiring "blind faith". Pretty simple.
If you argue that blind faith is required, then we simply can't discuss this. Blind faith means believing something with no grounds to do so. "Jump off that cliff and you'll land safely with one million dollars".
Christians will never let non-believers alone. Don't kid yourselves.
What blows my mind, is that the Creationists just don't get it. If there was noone there to witness the first days, who's to say how long a day was? (especially before there was the sun, considering that a day was recognized as a light/dark cycle)
Evolution and Creationism can coexist. Think about the order of events in the book of Genesis. Formation of masses in the universe, critical mass of a star, basic organisms followed by more advanced organisms (from the sea to the land too!) the man...
Ok, what part of that doesn't follow evolution? The only thing that doesn't match is the time period, and as I stated above, who's to say how long a day was. Consider this. When the book of Genesis was written, what was the largest number they peoples were aware of? What sounds better 6 days or 60,000 years (I doubt they were aware of a number that high, and definitely not able to comprehend a number that high, much less a few million/billion) remember this was pre roman numeral. The arabic system we use didn't even exist then. (The 6 days were probably originally designated as 6 cycles/seasons/events etc...)
Well that's my two bits. I still want to see the Scientologists v. Christians fight. That would be historic.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
No, I don't agree. Otherwise, the term species would only refer to organisms that reproduce sexually. The notion of the species is a haphazzard and messy one that does nothing to enhance the theory whatsoever. "species" is a way of measuring similarity vs. difference, and depending on the situation, evolutionary logic creates different outcomes, many of the dynamics of which have a lot to do with the level of genetic similarity or difference among organisms.
Also, the notion of species leads people to falsely conclude that species evolve. As is probably obvious to most people reading this, individual organisms reproduce, and the process of evolution is generally measured relative to some group of individuals. However, the force of natural selection operates only on individuals, leading to the emergence of a group dynamic that "looks like" the evolution of a species over time.
selection
mutation
variation
substrate neutrality
Adaptation, imho, is not really an important part of the true evolutionary logic. A trait is said to be "adaptive" if it helps an organism survive. In fact, a trait can enter the gene pool if and only if it is not highly harmful. It is even possible that two traits could be selected for at once, the first trait being harmful and the second being helpful. If the second is helpful enough to outweigh the "cost" of the harmful one, then both may be selected. Thus, adaptation is really more of a metaphor for the "result" of selection, however misleading it is.
All organisms that are often grouped together as a 'species' have some common ancestor and some degree of genetic similarity with one another. Mutation could, theoretically, allow dogs and lizzards to evolve into a genetically identical species several million years from now. This is, needless to say, highly unlikely.
Also, the idea of "species" is unhelpful to understanding the aforementioned evolutionary mechansims. It stems mostly from the taxanomic roots of biology, and tends to confuse the issue more than it clarifies it. Two organisms with a common ancestor, if mutation and selection operates differently on their decendents -- i.e., they are in different environments, different mutations occur -- can end up with decendents that are very genetically different... much different than the orginial two organisms. Over time, this can result in the process which has ignorantly been named "speciation"...
Interbreeding is relevant to evolution, but not to the definition of a "species" (take one-celled organisms that reproduce asexually, for example).
i'm not a coward -- mmmurf@umich.edu -matt
You don't need any scientific credibility, any specialized knowledge, or any background in real science (practically all the books that contain 'evidence' against evolution are written by people who confess they are only amateur science enthusiasts - that doesn't matter to their audience). All you need to do is go to a web site like talk origins, get a list of all the bogus arguments that have been used against evolution (carefully ignoring their gross errors), put them into a book, and watch the money roll in.
Who cares if there is an ignorant sub-class living in Kansas? They are not going to influence the minds of normal educated people. More people believe in astrology than 'Creation Science' - and who cares? The only difference that makes to smart people is that they should concentrate their efforts on writing astrology books than creation books if they want to make the most money out of stupid people. Roderick Murgatroid r_murgatroid@hotmail.com
Now, as to the why this is dangerous part. No, it won't cause school shootings, although I think that argument is silly and simply put, extraneous. The reason it is dangerous is that if a valid scientific theory, which is, at present, the best theory we have to describe the development of life on earth (according to most international scientific bodies) is dropped from the science curriculum in grades k-12, these children will be missing a rather important section of science. Much of biology (or at least the way change occurs in such) is based upon this theory, and thus will harm the children when they enter college. They'll be lacking an understanding of a theory that most colleges in this country will assume they've already been exposed to it. That is the danger...a loss of knowledge due to a group, which without consultation or expert knowledge, decided that the child did not need this theory. That is my problem with it.
Evolution is only a theory, and I agree it should be taught as such. But I think it's a bit excessive to say that evolution was sold to us by people who hate God. IIRC, Darwin was a fairly religious guy, and he created it. And to call a idea that you disagree with a lie is almost the same as someone calling your theory a lie. If you want to think that, go ahead. I won't agree with you, but I would expect you to at least respect my right to have this opinion.
"Evil will always triumph, because good....is dumb!" Dark Helmet
Apparently the third creation account is located at the end of one of the gospels (no, I not personally familiar with it), perhaps Luke?
As for the animal thing, I think you may have my argument confused with another. Understandable, my head is quite full after reading so many comments!
I agree that Christianity is indeed dependent upon historical events. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Christianity's core beliefs summed up in the creeds? My understanding of them is as follows: Several hundred years after the death of Christ, many people were diluting Christianity with local religious traditions and additional gods or this and that. So representatives of the entire church met three times to form the Apostles', the Nicene and the Anastatian (sp?) Creeds. They provide a description of Christianity to anyone who should ask. One must necessarialy believe these core things to be considered an actual Christian, in my understanding. These I see to be the historical events upon which Christianity is based. Everything else is open to interpretation. And there are many of them.
Everyone must apply their best judgement as to how to interpet much of the bible and the events. My best judgement is through logic. This does not make God's existance dependent upon my logic, merely my belief if God. This is what I need to balance the dictates of my concsience with scriptures.
However I don't buy that every historical account in the bible (which one?) is exactly historically correct. While Christianity is indeed based upon certain historical events, it is also based in principles. Ten Commandments, etc.
"What makes you think that the validity of the Bible hinges upon anything you or I say or think?"
I don't BELIEVE that the validity of Christianity depends upon anything you or I say or think. My belief system is not provable: will anyone ever disprove that the person Jesus existed? I think probably not. There's even strong evidence to suggest a similar person existed. However, the bible is not perfect, and many things in the bible are disprovable (historical accounts, for example, are vulnerable to being disproved. Apparently there are 500 years of difference in the descriptions of the decendency of Abraham in the NT and the OT). There is not even one bible! Which bible do you use? RC or Protestant? The majority of the bible was collected/written long after the death of Christ. And it was PEOPLE who wrote the bible, not God. Yes, inspired by God, but written by man. God's Word, by definition of God, cannot be flawed. But mankind's interpretation (of the bible) is. And this should not infringe upon the acceptance of the principles of Christianity.
As for the Vatican being wrong, it can't be because the Pope is infallable..... =8^)
> In general, science would be debunked.
Absolutely not, and that was the point that he was getting at.
The "fact" that gravity operates at 32 f/s^2 would be debunked, but Science would remain strong and intact.
After all, Science-with-a-capital-S is the process of replacing old, debunked facts with new ones as new evidence debunks them.
In fact if neither of those two possible causes were the case, that would be the affirmation of Science, in and of itself.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
The roman catholic church has pretty much accepted evolution. I read somewhere there was a summit in Vatican on evolution where catholic scientists discussed it with top academic figures. Teilhard de Chardin was considered almost an heretic at a time but he's a respected figure in catholicism now. The official view, as I see it, of the catholic church on darwinism is that it's just a scientific explanation of the process of Creation. If you are to read the bible litterally, as I remember Asimov demonstrated it, the earth is flat and the stars are planted on big dome on top of it. Hm, sorry, not possible!!! Then I can't thing any such thing as a creationist exists, or at least has AS MUCH visibility as those in the USA anywhere in Europe. People would just laugh. Note: I am hard core atheist. nico@echange.fr
I highly reccommend that everyone who is concerned with this issue go out and obtain a copy of "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. He is a "traditional" biologist who is offended by the very unscientific nature of current Darwinian theories. His book is insightful and chock full of facts. Go grab it.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Good question? A better question is "What does seperation of church and state have to do with this issue?" All the board is doing is removing the requirement that the religious/philisophical ideas of many scientists be taught as dogma. If you wanted to teach that all the pyramids were created by aliens and that this was undisputed fact, I would hope that a thinking school board would remove that too. Now we can get a bit closer to teaching kids to think, rather than to blindly beleive! Joel Mawhorter
Because then individuals would be accountable. Most people alive today will believe anything in order to convince themselves that they are free to be immoral.
that's some very seriously flawed logic. this assumes that all Christians oppose evolution. Since there are plenty of Christians who dont oppose evolution, being Christian is not enough to assume they oppose evolution.
Being a Christian myself, I see physics and all other real laws something that God considered a Good Thing(TM).
I've met plenty of christians who would disagree with that. there's an entire sect of christianity that disagrees with this. why are these sciences still taught in schools when there are groups of christians who believe these elements of science go against god?
I have full faith in physics, mathematics, computer science and all such stuff, but if a theory is contradictory with the Bible, according to the logic (which is something that cannot be wrong by definition) either the Bible must be interpreted wrong, or the theory is wrong (that
ok, if two things are directly contradictory they cannot both be correct. that's fine. however, logic works by proving a positive, not a negative. the goal isnt to prove something is wrong. the goal is to either, prove something directly contradictory is right, or to prove there is a flaw in the argument being used to prove something is right.
is, I can't say there wasn't a big bang, because the Bible doesn't say anything contradictory; it might have been the way God did it). In this case, I see it impossible to interprete the Bible so that humans are apes gone through evolution, and as such it must be false.
the logical problem here is that you are assuming the bible is always right. this is not an assumption that the vast majority of the people who disagree with you will share. therefore, for you to use this as a foundation for your conclusion, you have to prove this to be the case. since your argument hinges on something you feel to be true but cannot prove to be true your argument doesnt stand.
just out of curiosity, what in the bible directly contradicts the theory of evolution?
Note that many scientists, even those who don't believe in God, find every now and then new false predictions in evolution theory. Eg. that long 'tail' in our spine when we're still in the mother's womb is no longer considered a vestige of a tail, but rather something which is necessary for our skeletal development (or something; the point wasn't in the details).
this doesnt invalidate evolution as a theory. it just means that one idea for why that tail is there turned out to not be the case and another idea took it's place. this is the scientific method in action. the fact that science is readily able and willing to drop hypotheses and theories that dont hold up against the physical evidence only demonstrates that the physical evidence supports (or at least doesnt contradict) evolution theory.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Let me first start this off with stating my personal bias so that you can take this with how much ever salt you deem appropriate. I am a Christian and I belong to a Southern Baptist Church in East-Central Texas (In other words I live in the middle of the Bible belt). My personal belief is that I don't think the common descent theory of evolution is true. I am a creationist in the strictest terms.
/.'s out there will disagree. But you know what? This argument about evolution and creation really doesn't matter one bit because it doesn't change how exist or even whether we exist or not.
With that stated I am willing to concede that I may be wrong and that everyone deserves to at least learn the non-Christian theories. Only a fool closes off all of the available avenues of travel. I have considered that it is possible that God created the first basic elements of life and from there it evolved, either guided or unguided by God, into it's present form. I firmly believe it is not the schools job of teaching my children about Christianity (and thus creationism); it is MY job. It is the schools job to teach them reading, writing, math and science. One of the theories of science is that man evolved. If I have not given my children sufficient information to refute that then it is my fault that they do not believe how I would want them to. The article has a quote saying that evolution should not be taught because it cannot be proven. If we cut out everything that cannot be proven then we would not inspire children to research those areas (i.e. faster than light travel) when they get older. It seems to me that many so-called Christians want to pass the teaching of religion to the government because of their laziness. I say leave reading, writing, math, and science to the teachers and religion to the ministers.
To go off on a slight tangent look at how messed up the school system is now. Kids are being passed from grade to grade without being able to read. Would you want your kid to learn religion in that environment?
My main complaint about my fellow Christians, many of whom close off the other options without a second thought, is that the focus of Christianity is not about how life came about but how to be a better person by having communion with God. We putz around fighting the relatively meaningless argument of whether man evolved or was instantaneously created in his current form . We should be talking about how much better life is by having a personal relationship with God. Christianity is not about how God created us but how we can develop a relationship with God.
I know many of my fellow
Aaron
I don't think they are saying they can prove God. They are just saying you can prove evolution.
*/
Sigh! I wish schools would teach "creationism" as a theory, following scientific principles. Then teach the evolution and let the students make up their mind.
/*
That cannot happen. There are several reasons. One of which is the fact that by teaching "creationism" they would be teaching the views of only ONE religion. This is unacceptable, especially in todays world. There are too many other religions out there with too many different view on how man came to be. There would be a need for a specific class discussing just the views of the major religions, like Hinduism, Buddism, Christianity, etc, etc.
My feeling about this is, if someone wants to learn about a religion then that is their decision, and they can have my "blessing" to do so. Until then the most rational course to tread is to teach the widely accepted non-religious scientific view.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
They say evolution can't be proven. How the f*ck can they prove that god exists??? By a book that (no offense) could be the biggest fake in the history of the world?
Its nice to see even the editors of slashdot jumping to conclusions. *sigh*
>Most of modern biology is not founded on
>Evolution
Silly. Evolution is the unifying principle of biology. It's the biological equivalent of the "theory of everything" which the physicists are looking for to unify their science (at the moment they have general relativity and quantum mechanics, but nothing to link the two).
Evoution *happens*. That is indisputible fact. We develop theories to model this, and the ones based on Darwin's Natural Selection theory are the best ones we've got. The really amazing thing about Natural Selection is that, when you think about it, there's so little to it, and it's such simple common sense that it's amazing it wasn't arrived at earlier.
Darwin didn't even have a mechanism for netural selection to operate on top of. It is testament to the strength of his theory that when people started looking for this mechanism, they found it (it's genetics).
The last intellectually honest creationists abandoned their position when it became untennable aroun 120 years ago. The current lot in the US (funny, many countries in Europe have established churches, but this silliness seems largely confined to the US) are just rehashing the arguments which were defeated before they were even born. It truly saddens me to see the number of supposedly technically literate people here believing this creationist rubbish when *every* argument that the creationists have has been refuted, *every* one.
I can only conclude that the state of science education in the US is in pretty poor shape - so few people in this forum seem to even have a clue what evolution is, what natural selection is and what a theory is. Many of you need to rush out and buy a copy of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel C Dennet right now, because the level of misconception and ignorance being displayed here is simply staggering. Someone else has already recommended, "Why People Believe Weird Things", which will also help.
Creationism is an intellectually bankrupt position. It relies on obfuscation and logical fallacies to sustain itself. Please stop it.
>I can produce numerous credible scientists, nobel prize winners and heads of biology departments at top schools who don't by it.
No, you can't. And Gould's modifications to Darwinism are not so great, and don't deviate from the core idea of speciation via a mutable genetic material (even if that mutability is facilitated by symbiosis, or whatever your favorite mechanism is).
Your analogy about Latin characters make no sense, and that you "know" it takes intelligence is entirely a matter of faith. Information does not require intelligence. Please learn some information theory.
Know one knows the mind of God. It is from this fundamental belief system that American democracy was born, not from Greek and Latin tomes that the American founding fathers used as sketchy guide maps. More importantly, they viewed the English Civil war and the German 30 Years war as a direct consequence of kings, bishops, and local governments waging campaigns against non-believers. Something liable to reoccur in colonial america. It seems the school board in Kansas is in a way stating that their schools, although inherently non-democratic, will adhere to that fundamental protestant position that "nobody knows the mind of God" well enough to determine essential truths to others. "Science" be damned if it encompasses a world view, it is not truth for many who cannot conceive it. Of course scientific inquiry has brought about the widening of the lens from the minutest to the largest perspectives imaginable, still it cannot claim to be democratic. It follows tenative theories, arguing, revision, testing-- still a fetching dog to human whims. How many revisions of evolution should be taught to children from an omniscient viewpoint, for even extending the "findings" from research on evolution to an encompassing theory takes "evolution" science into to the realm of "knowing the mind of God" and that with enough research it can be understood. This dogma makes me tired. Tell kids point blank there is this mountain or research and this mountain or research and your own to eyes. There will be no teacher since it will require them to answer questions that cannot be researched using scientific inquiry. We cannot go back that far in time. If a kid then sometime creates a reproducing life form starting from the elements and just using the limits of physics then we can start teaching evolution to everybody whole hog and explain it adequately. Otherwise, we will remain in the 17th century and not on the Galapagos islands. An American teacher.
Even Stephen Hawking (I always spell it wrong) said that he could trace the origins of the universe to a singularity, but he had no idea what caused this singularity to "explode".
I don't usually like to think that God created the earth through evolution. What I usually think is that God created the earth in six days...but this earth showed signs of aging(evolution). Just like many people believe Adam was created a grown man, I believe the earth was created a "grown" earth. Furthur, this could mean interesting things like: although we've found fossils of dinosaurs they never "actually" existed. Just like Adam may have had a scar on his back from when he was a child (even though he was never a child, or perhaps he even had a bellybutton even though never birthed)...
When your God *is* all powerful there isn't much that can't be true.
Good point. These are schools, after all; we should be striving for students who think rather than students who blindly accept. To teach evolution as anything greater than a wild hypothesis is doing a great diservice to students and discouraging critical thinking. Joel Mawhorter
What I think you are ignoring is that this is really something that should be taught. Of all the things that are of little consequence that are regardless in high school (PE, health clas, etc) and are required, why drop this one?
The theory of evolution is possibly the most important theory ever. Of all the things to drop requirements on!!
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Hmmm ... but what if said tyrannical government declares itself "president for life" and refuses to hold any more elections ... going to be rather hard to use your vote at this point ...
What the flying frack does the books say now? (Rolls Eyes)
David Gonterman of FoxFire Studios http://foxfire.twu.net
I believe it is the right of all students to be given evolutionary theory in the context of "our best guess right now"
You are missing my point. Everybody has their own 'theories' and 'their own best guesses' on how we came to be. Why should everybody be taught your belief? Why isn't creationist's theory be a mandatory subject as well?
Hasdi
Natural Selection is proven and will be taught (prove me wrong) as something that happens in species. But (prove me wrong instead of calling it silly, Mr Rabbit) Natural selection does not adequately explain new species, so it shouldn't be mandated.
^ ~
I saw MSNBC still milking this this morning. "They [teachers in Kansas] will be free to teach creation in the schools." Where did they get that? Where did the school boards say that was okay? They can't even post the ten commandments in school. This is media hype, and you took it hook line and sinker, or there is something I haven't seen.
I'm just sitting back hoping to find somewhere an official statement from the Kansas School Board to be sure. This yellow journalism.
You seem to also think that everything that points out holes in evolution is creationist. I'd call it creationist arguments if it actualy supported creation. Something like "God showed me that he did it, and you'll be sorry if you don't believe it" would be arguing for creation.
In the mean time, leave the bad labeling job to polititions and radio talk shows.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
So, in your personal world, God exists. He's a real bastard, who has decided that several times that something is fucked, and lets start again. He fucked the plantlife, fucked the dinosaurs, he wiped out the race of man, about 4900 years ago, according to CS theories (well it was less than 6000 years ago).
I've asked for a bible with a timeline on it. Never gotten one. But some people in the bible live quite a long time, and then there are gaps in time. It really is the worlds greatest work of fiction. Great observations, lousy interpretations.
Maybe its time for the federal government to pass laws requiring a minimum standard education, since aparently some states seem to think its enough to just chuck the kids into a building for six or seven hours so their parents can work.
Oh, no! Don't even suggest this! Like any evolutionary trait, this Kansan episode will (hopefully) eventually die out. If we federalize educational requirements, we run the risk of someday having the teaching of evolution removed from federal educational standards. This would make the "repair of defective genes" (genes=policies in this case) far more difficult to effect.
Had the removal of the teaching of evolution occurred at the township, or perhaps county school board level, it is less likely that the impact (e.g. as these > 1000 responses from Slashdot readers) would be felt. The impact of such a policy at the federal level could be catastrophic.
Certified Microsoft Notworking Specialist
The separation of Church and State as defined in the Bill of Rights had no intention of keeping Religion from influencing politics. Its sole purpose was to keep politics from influencing religion.
There is no problem at all with fundamentalist Christians voting for a particular candidate based soley upon their religious beliefs. Nor is there a problem when those same Christians run for office, and get voted in. This is a democracy, and when democracy works, the majority gets what they wanted.
What occurred in Kansas is a failure of democracy based completely upon the combination of uninformed voters and non-voters.
It is a sad case, and one that I'm certain will be overturned after the next election for those seats, but it is what the people (the informed voters) wanted. Democracy worked. We should all look at this as a call for us to take elections and our right to vote more seriously.
Look in the mirror :)
If you want to see what the first flowers looked like, then all you have to do is look into the fossil record, and see what plants existed. There are even quite a few plants that have managed to last even into the present day (ferns, gingko trees).
While I have to agree that there is a link between right-wing and religion, saying that they're == is VERY much wrong. A lot of religious people are right wing, and a lot of them are left wing. At the same time, a lot of right wing people are religious, and a lot (such as myself) are not. I've known a lot of religious people who do the liberal missionary-type thing and are very into bringing all people to the same level through liberal doctorine, and I've know many right wing people who really didn't care about religion, just believe that tax and spend politics hurt everyone. As for denying evolution... Some people really do have their eyes closed, don't they...
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~parsec/kansas_duh.h tml
The only people with a need to deny "macroevolution" are Creationists. They cannot deny that evolution occurs, so they have to create a fiction that it only occurs within a "kind", which they equate to "species". I regret (not really) to tell you that the facts are in and they refute your dogma.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I highly reccommend that everyone who is concerned with this issue go out and obtain a copy of "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. He is a "traditional" biologist who is offended by the very unscientific nature of current Darwinian theories. His book is insightful and chock full of facts. Go grab it. Check it out at Amazon.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
>2 - The bones are fake. They never existed. god simply put them there when the world was created.
>(why? to mess with us?)
It would be interesting, then, to see the religious reaction to a Jurrasic Park-style experiment.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
*/
I guess. I really don't get why these creationists are so sure that the Bible says that evolution can't have taken place.
/*
I remember in high school my biology teacher, who happens to be Catholic, showed me an interesting article. If I remember correctly the title was something like, Pope says the Evolution is more than just a Theory.
I haven't read the bible, but there are several cases from which I have gathered that the bible says nothing denying evolution directly. Heck, the a Pope, I think it was the one who is alive today, gave Stephen Hawking a medal for his work with the Big Bang Theory, acknowledging it as fact.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
I'm sure you put great stock in the 10^40000 number because it fits with your prejudices. Problem is, the figure is highly sensitive to the assumptions behind it, and you've posted nothing to justify any of them. As just one for-instance, the implied assumption is that proteins are necessary for life. This ignores the possibility that the first self-replicator was an auto-catalytic molecule of RNA, to give just one other alternative.
Hoyle assumes that he has covered all the possibilities on Earth. Don't you think it's just a little bit presumptuous of him? I just gave one that he obviously missed. You're quite wrong. Bacteria do not have mitochondria, nor do they have nuclei; yet they reproduce quite successfully. The trick of incorporating the DNA into a nucleus didn't have to come along until later. Mitochondria are an interesting case, and I'm glad you mentioned them. They are partially independent, and even have some of their own DNA. They reproduce inside cells, and the protein coding (translation from base triplets to amino acids) used in this DNA is different from the coding used by the rest of the cell! Oddly enough it is the same as the coding used by the archaebacteria, which includes many species of salt-loving beasties (halophytes) and photosynthetic bacteria. The best guess we have today is that some large cell once either ate an oxygen-loving archaebacterium and let it live instead of digesting it, or the archaebacterium invaded a large cell and made itself at home instead of killing it. The archaebacterium provided its special talent (processing of oxygen) to the larger cell, and the cell provided nutrients and defense and such to the archaebacterium. Thereafter they reproduced, and evolved, together. The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs. The genome of Methanococcus jannaschii is about 1.7 million base pairs long. Guess what? You're off by 5 orders of magnitude; bacteria have on the order of 1/1000 the DNA of a mammal.For the sake of the people reading this, would you care to post the sources which wrote this malarkey? I'm sure they'd love to know who's trying to feed the public so many lies.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Sure it does, if you go by the OT...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If I remember correctly, the guy had something to do with foreign affairs. That just takes the cake. I also enjoyed the following (true) responses to Rick Mercer's fiction:
"Congratulations, Canada, on getting electricity!"
"Congratulations, Canada, on getting a railroad!"
For you Americans, Rick Mercer's work on that show is very similar to Michael Moore's "TV Nation" which, interestingly enough, was cancelled by both FOX and NBC because they were scared of it. He ended up basing the show out of Canada under a different name, for the Bravo! channel. I keep forgetting the new name, but I saw the hilarious segment where he conducted a "witchhunt" through Washington DC, complete with puritans, asking random politicians whether they "fornicated."
that he can't lift. That is logical prove that God can't be omnipotent. And if God is not omnipotent then he can't be omniscient. However a Christian will just turn around and say that God doesn't follow logic. So in conclusion you can't argue with Christians, it just doesn't work. Christian don't think logical and therefore you can never use any rules or laws to prove your argument. So just leave the Christians to their self fooling believes. It easier that way, eventually there is so much evidence that Christians have no choice but to agree that it is just the way things are. Until then just ignore everything Christians have to say.
- Badly Misinformed Dolt on Slashdot
- I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man and that is why the clergy oppose me.
Try reading some of those books before you burn them.- Thomas Jefferson, American Founder
First, let me tell you a little about myself. I was raised in traditional, loving Christian home. We regularly attended church and were greatly helped by the Bible, the teachings of the church, and the loving people around us. Now I attended a major research university, and cannot attend church as much as I would like. That fact has neither changed my beliefs nor convictions. To get back on topic though...
First, to those posts that scream for a "separation of church and state," please think about it a little more. Religion is not just what you are told when you go to church on Sunday, but it is the way you live your life. Isn't how we view where we came from and where we are going as individuals and a species a religious view? How are 'God told me He created me' and 'Darwin told me I came from an ape' different (except that Darwin was only a man)? They are both religious views that one must choose between. Therefor, anyone who says that Creation should not be taught in school, but evolution should is being hypocritical.
Second, to all of those posts who say those who act on their religious convictions are ignorant, are themselves ignorant. I am an educated individual, both technically and scientifically, and I have seen no FACTS that prove the nonexistance of God. I have heard many THEORIES that do not involve God and try to prove He does not exist. Theories are called theories because they have not been proven. To call evolution a fact is ignorant. Saying 'I believe in evolution' is fine, but you cannot say 'Evolution is a fact' because it has not been proven.
Third, how does the non belief in evolution set us back 1000 years? Am I missing a Commandment that says 'Thou shalt not explore space,' or 'Thou shalt not make really cool mp3 players that run linux and perl?' Perhaps those posts refer more to the biomedical and genetic fields. God never dictated how children were to be created, just how they should be raised and loved.
To conclude, think about this for a few minutes. Christianity and other organized religions look to their faith, teachings, religious books, and God for enlightenment and truth. Others look to their theories, many based in science, with the concious effort of excluding God. Each uses their sources of faith and teaching to explain the world around them. Therefor, isn't atheism as much of a religion as Christianity? And if school are to teach the beliefs of the atheist religion, shouldn't they also be required to teach the beliefs of other religions?
Thanks for reading this and I hope I don't get too much flame mail for it.
Thank You. I'll try to refrain from name-calling myself, but I'll keep your excellent example in mind.
I really don't get why these creationists are so sure that the Bible says that evolution can't have taken place.
Have you read the Bible? If you haven't, then you have no basis for criticizing anyone else for concluding that the Bible denies that evolution took place. Nevertheless, it is explicitly clear that the Bible presents a history of creation that is fundamentally and utterly incompatible with the fables that are passed off as the "scientific" theory of evolution. Read Genesis 1.
Denying the validity of evolution, and furthermore denying the right to evaluate its validity to students, is ridiculous and dangerous.
Read the article. No school and no teacher is being forbidden from teaching evolution. What is no longer required is that a student demonstrate an understanding of evolution in order to graduate. This is hardly the scandal that so many here on Slashdot are pretending it is: what is gone is a requirement, not anyone's freedom to teach the subject.
Secondly, please share with us precisely how it is "dangerous" if Kansas schools are no longer required to teach evolution. Will it result in an increase in school shootings or something? -- Oh, wait -- no, that can't be right. We have those now, and evolution is still required. Please enlighten us as to these "risks" you see.
The evidence for evolution is even stronger than for other widely accepted theories
First, let me enter a general "balderdash". Second, there is no such thing as uninterpreted evidence. There is no rock or fossil that all by itself says "Hi! Evolution is true!" To the contrary, human beings have interpreted certain things to mean that evolution is "true." They are wrong.
Thirdly, evolution as the engine behind the appearance of the human race is categorically unscientific. In order for it to be scientific, such "evolutionary processes" (so-called) must be reproducible. They are not. No one has ever evolved a new species from an old one, and even if they had done so that would not ipso facto prove that humans came into being the same way. It's pure unadulterated rubbish that you have been sold, by purveyors who have a singular goal (whether they admit it to themselves or not): to escape the fact that they are accountable to God for their behavior. They hate him, and so in a desperate effort to escape accountability to him they pretend to themselves that he doesn't exist. And part of doing so means fabricating some means or other whereby man can be said to have appeared without any reference to God. And so they have fabricated evolution. It is a pathetic lie. It's that simple.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Simple logic in an attempt to silence ignorants. 1. God works in mysterious ways. 2. Evolution is mysterious, coz everything's mysterious to ignorants. 3. God works through evolution. 4. God created everything via evolution. Simple. Now everyone's happy.
I would expect no less from a dogma whose saviour was the product of a 'divine raping'.
Really, think about what you're saying. Have you ever been raped? What about incestuous impregnations? And what in the name of the Great Green Goddess does this have to do with the teaching of evolution??!!
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
It strikes me as both erie and a little amusing that I honestly can't tell whether that comment was just a joke or a serious chirstian!! Given that this is slashdot, I'm going with joke. Anyone sure?
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
About the water: It comes from a book by Gerald Schroeder (Ph. D physics, MIT) who says at one point a palentologist named Elso Barghoorn found micro-fossils of bacteria 3.5 billion years old in 1970. Afterwards micro-fossils as old as 3.8 billion years were discovered. This is the same time liquid water first appeared on Earth.
What is needed to make life?
Many of you do not think about this when discusing evolution. The most common thought is enough carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. as well as some energy source like the sun. There are many more factors though.
In order for a solar system to support life, it must first have the right type of star to provide stable temperatures for billions of years. It cannot be a multiple star system, and must be large enough for a planet to orbit at a distance, but small enough so it doesn't burn itself out.
The star must have a protoplanetary disk for the formation of planets.
The system of planets must not have any large planets with very elliptical orbits which would destroy or eject smaller planets from the system.
Large planets *are* needed in near circular orbits to sweep away large global-killer asteroids that would hit the planet every 100,000 years vs. 100,000,000 yrs.
A small planet needs to orbit entirely within the "Goldilocks zone" and maintain it over a long period of time. If the Earth-Sun distance were 1% larger, our mean global temperature would be -50 degrees farenheight.
The planet needs to be large enough to hold an atmosphere, but small enough that it doesn't crush life within it.
The planet needs to be in a double planet system (a large moon is needed). This anchors the planet so that the tilt is not increased by the large sweeping planet too much and one half fries while the other freezes.
The parent star must heat up during the same time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is replaced by water. If it heats up too soon, we're like Venus, too late and we're like Mars. Our sun was 30% dimmer when the Earth was born.
There must also be a stable planet surface. Some sort of mechanism must be made for keeping this stability. Our crust is granatic on the continents, and basaltic in the oceans. The continuous recycling through tectonic activity keeps the Earth from being "Waterworld" or some volcanic nightmare.
That's just within a solar system. The universe at the big bang must have a very slight ripple--one that would be large enough to form stars and galaxies, but small enough so that it doesn't form all black holes.
Life needed more than a few protein molecules, and Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of all the protein molecules necessary for life to form in one place to be one chance in 10**40000. To give a little perspective, there are 10**80 subatomic particles in the visible universe.
dan1123@yahoo.com
Yes, evolution is a theory. It is unproven. However, most people except it as if it was scientific fact. It's not. There is very poor support for evolution at many stages. Evolution certainly happens to some extent. However, there is good evidence that it is not responsible for all of the diversity on earth. It's improbable that things like wings (which are useless drains in any partial state) could have evolved. Just because we have no better theory doesn't make something fact. Scientific theories fall quite often. People often believe them just because there is no other plausible explanation. People have a lot of blind faith.
Ummm...that sounds more like a dragon than a dinosaur.
<tim><
Canada was recently determined to be the best country to live. I think an important issue here is the fact that they have an universal social security system. I find very difficult to belive that you don't understand the importance of such a thing. As an example consider the situation of México. Here you have several options (a) you have the resources to afford a private hospital (I don't think more than 20 million people can do that) (b)You work for the goverment (c) your employer pays his taxes, and you have access to IMSS (mexican institute for social security) and (b) there are other hospitals that almost only take care of emergencies. The service is extremely poor. Out of these, you're alone. What about the *really* poor farmers?, what about domestic workers?, etc, etc. On the other hand, a social security system serves to the purposse of *redistributing* the wealth. I think health is a human right, and as such you shouldn't be worried about it. Juan Pablo
- Why would a difference in the number of genes be necessary?
- What makes you think that it's unlikely? Entire chromosomes, containing thousands of genes, are often duplicated or deleted in organisms all the time.
Are you a geneticist? If not, how do you know that they would find such commonplace events difficult to believe?Pardon me if I stop taking you seriously.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
God is not subject to human verification. His existence and the truth of the Bible are not contingent upon whether you or I or anyone else can "prove" them to be. God is absolutely sovereign, and his sovereignty would be diminished fatally if it were true that it's contingent upon human approval or verification (and it's not).
You assume upon blind faith, or presumptions, if that suits you better, that this god of yours even exists. Why is it faith? I can safely say that you have never had an ounce of direct physical, tangible, perceptable proof of the existence of such a being. Everything you know of and about it has come from the rantings of others whose knowledge of the being has been acquired in the same manner. Thus you assume through faith that this thing exists and has sovereignty. This sovereignty as you call it is merely in the hands of the lead individuals of the religious herd for so as long as it believes in this being, and in turn follow the doctrines set forth by those lead individuals proclaiming them to be the will of that being. What happens if that entire herd was to stop believing? Same thing that happened to every single religion that ever failed: it, along with its god, its doctrines and its "sovereignty", disappears and is forgotten. Yours will prove to be no exception to that rule if such a fate befalls it. And to merely claim that this being is above human approval and verification is merely a safety blanket protecting the belief of that being from ever being questioned and perhaps dismissed as utter nonesense.
I asked someone else this question. I'll ask you, too. Can an electrochemical reaction make a truth statement?
Your entire belief system is based upon the concept of an objective truth and false; and along with it, a good and evil. That is where your gods and demons stem from. My question to you is, how absolutely certain are that any statement made is the truth, seeing everything and anything you percieve from the environment around you, is subject to the workings of your five physical senses and how your brain interprates what is sensed? Someone who is color blind to blue can all his life hear that the sky itself is blue, but as far as his senses tell him, that is not the case. Is that one person in his mind objectively wrong merely because everyone else percieves that they are subjectively right? My point is, an electrochemical reaction is merely an electrochemical reaction. Your trained mind to believe there is a truth and false in life, and a good and an evil, can interprate it as it pleases. It can, at no point, ever claim it is right or true, or vice versa; in the objective sense.
The hypothesis of evolution should be taught as such. Concrete evidence that suggests evolution as fact is lacking, as the evidence cited either does nothing to suggest evolution, or could just as easily be interpreted as evidence for creation. No student should be required to accept macroevolution as fact to be qualified as "educated" concerning the hypothesis of evlution, nor should the assumption of macroevolution form the basis for our understanding of biology. Biology can be understood thoroughly without believing macroevolution to be the cause of the speciation of life. Creation, the notion that life was created and speciated deliberately by an intelligent being, should be taught alongside Darwinism as an explanation of the origin of the various lifeforms on earth. Students should be tested on their understanding of each hypothesis, not on their acceptance of either. Neither hypothesis should be used as the foundation for teaching biology or related subjects, which can be understood apart from any particular hypothesis concerning "origins." Note: so-called "young earth theory" is not a necessary component of the creation view of biology, and should not be taught as part of that view. It is my opinion that "young earth theory" should not be taught at all, as it contradicts scientific findings. The issue here is evolution vs. creation, not science vs. "young earth" pseudo-science. Posted by: Joshua Thorpe (lacking an account for the moment)
this particular argument bugs the hell out of me. first of all, how does anyone know what is the shortest sequence of amino acids that will self-replicate (in a given environment)? furthermore, how does one even know that the MO by which life came about would have to involve such a thing? but, suppose even that this is indeed the MO, and cheritably suppose that all of the assumptions that this mathematician made were correct. you still have the equivalent of the following argument: consider the following two explanations for your own existence: 1. you were concieved by your mom and dad. 2. you were put here by aliens yesterday. now, the probability that your mom and dad would even have met in the first place is certainly something like 1,000,000 to 1 against, right? so you have someth,ing like a 1/1000,000 chance of being here under that hypothesis. therefore it is 1,000,000 times more likely that you were created yesterday by aliens.
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
>Hmm...by that logic we're half man half worm! :)
Well, I suppose that in the grand scheme of things we're a lot more similar to worms than we are to flowers, trees, blue-green algae or mushrooms. We are animals; on a cellular level we both have nuclei and the same organelles; similar cell walls etc. I doubt that at low power you could easily tell an earthworm cell from a human one with the same function. Our nerve cells both function the same way, even if the gross anotomy of the nervous system is very different.
We share a lot of similarities with yeast, bacteria and algae too. Our genetic machinery is similar: DNA, RNA, ribosomes etc.
I don't find it degrading to think of human beings as related by a very long tree to worms. Worms are extremely interesting and useful creatures. I enjoy watching them in my compost heap, and harvest them for transfer to my garden.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...to be qualified as scientific "fact" it needs to be able to be "proven" (ie. reproducable) the very nature of the origin of life makes it impossible to prove any one theory scientifically.
1. Evolution is a theory, not a 'fact'. It just happens to be the best supported theory: All theories are not created equal.
2. To qualify as a scientific theory it must be disprovable, i.e. there must be hypothetical evidence which could disprove the thoery; this is the reason why Creationism doesn't qualify as science.
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
You're first mistake was to trust a Phychology definition of a scientific term over a Chemistry definition. I first learned about the difference between theory and law in high school chemistry, but sinse this discussion I have verified my above definitions in three different sources. In addition to the web page I cited in my original article, you can go here, or to Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: theory
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory)
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light)
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)
Main Entry: law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY
2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH
-- see BIBLE table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure (the laws of poetry)
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge
6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Alright, so you're equating Christianity with Darwinism? How nice. Well, since Christianity and the Constitution, and various other sets of laws all make dictates about how we can and can't live, well, I suppose teaching of those should be optional as well and viewed as a religion.
If making teaching the best scientific theory we have in this area optional is a "good move", I suppose it would be an ever better move make science all together optional. Or hell, why not just say fuck it and make eduction optional.
No one said that children were required by law (or even that they should be) to accept modern evolutionary theory (which at this time is slightly beyond Darwin). But I believe it is the right of all students to be given evolutionary theory in the context of "our best guess right now".
So you're going to establish, on your own, that if there is a God, He would not have had a good reason to let history play out the way it did (with the Flood and all)? How do you come to that conclusion on your own? Made-up rules concerning what God would and would not do/allow/etc. if He exists are no means of proving or disproving His existence. That is just self-serving rhetoric.
They really shouldn't stop teaching evolution. They should just start teaching it as theory and not fact. We have no real facts outside of what each us has seen for ourselves. Granted if your friend tells you about something that you did not witness, your likely to believe them. But if a manuscript from the 1500s says that dragons used to fly around skies, would you believe that? This is what separates theories and facts.
Science is really no different than any other religion. The people who believe in it are certainly self-righteous enough to belong to a religion. In the end, how do you really know that the rest of the world even exsists outside of your own brain. Believe in yourself.
--
Steve
--
InstantCool
$ vi mississippi.jokes :%s/mississippi/kansas/g :wq $ mv mississippi.jokes kansas.jokes
I think that should say it all.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Your entire belief system is based upon the concept of an objective truth and false; and along with it, a good and evil. That is where your gods and demons stem from.
Err, you have this exactly backwards. My entire belief system is founded upon the twin premises that God not only exists but is absolutely sovereign over his creation, and secondly that he has spoken infallibly, truthfully (that's a bit redundant, but...), and completely in the Bible (i.e., the Bible is the sum total of God's communication with us). From this foundation comes my belief in truth and false: namely, that God is absolutely true in every respect, and anything which contradicts either his word, or his character, or what he knows to be the case, is irrevocably and unalterably false.
My question to you is, how absolutely certain are that any statement made is the truth, seeing everything and anything you percieve from the environment around you, is subject to the workings of your five physical senses and how your brain interprates what is sensed?
Because God made us and made the world for us to live in, our senses are reliable. Note that this is different from saying that there are no flaws in us. More importantly, because you deny the existence of God, you have no logical means for escaping the trap you have attempted to set for me. You destroy for yourself any means for arriving at the truth because on the one hand you throw empirical observation out the window (when you say that our senses aren't reliable), and on the other hand you destroy rationalism (see below). You are left without any logically consistent means for explaining to me that I'm "wrong" in believing in God, or for explaining to me why evolution is "right."
My point is, an electrochemical reaction is merely an electrochemical reaction. Your trained mind to believe there is a truth and false in life, and a good and an evil, can interprate it as it pleases. It can, at no point, ever claim it is right or true, or vice versa; in the objective sense.
And so therefore neither can you say that evolution is right or true. Nor can you say that it's bad or evil to kill, or lie, or...
This what you are left with when you reduce a human being to a bag of chemicals with a little electricity thrown in. You can say NOTHING about the world or even yourself. True and false -- even about your own nature as a bag of chemicals -- are not categories that electrochemical reactions can test or analyze (or even say anything about). You can't explain self-consciousness on this ground. Ever.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
If i recall my philosophy of science and scientific method, science is based upon conclusions drawn from repeatable experiment within a conceptual framework to the end of disproving erroneous hypotheses.
Note the distinction between the words "law" and "theory": When i say "Newton's law of gravity" it means that i have repeatable experiment that proves "Newton's theory of gravity." Science never goes beyond "Darwin's theory of evolution" because no repeatable experiment can prove that things happened as Darwin theorized. I'm not talking religion, i'm talking scientific method.
Evolution is a well supported theoretical framework. Like any theoretical framework, it must overcome the reasonable (and non-obstreporous) objections of skeptics. A good example of that is _Darwin's Black Box_ by Michael Behe, which does *not* assert blind adherence to the 1st chapters of Genesis but nevertheless points out reasonable challenges that the theory of evolution must overcome.
Anyone who thinks the theory of evolution cannot be questioned by skeptics must realize his dogmatism is substantially equivalent to that of the most closed-minded Fundamentalist.
Dogmatism, be it creationist or evolutionist does not advance science. If the state of Kansas has passed this law to create an enlightened spirit of inquiry about origins, that's a Good Thing. If Kansas has done so to dogmatically assert a creationist credo, this Christian says that's a Bad Thing.
I've been an avid reader of Slashdot for a while now (during the time when there were only a couple thousand readers.
Now I'm embarrased by all the childish remarks being posted about this issue.
So let's have some balance:
First of all a large majority of the world's population does not believe in Atheism (i.e. they believe in (a) supreme being(s) of some sort. Don't call them ignorant of science. If you feel like doing that then perhaps you need to look in a mirror and realize that you're ignorant of religion. Just because a person is convinced that evolution is false doesn't make it false AND just because YOU don't believe in a religious belief doesn't make it false either. About now you're going to say "..but the evidence!". Obviously you haven't talked to many people in foreign countries. I lived in Papua New Guinea for many years to them there is lots of personal evidence to support their religious beliefs. It really all boils down to your worldview/religious convictions. If you don't think God exists then you will see evidence for your view point, if you do think God exists you will interpret evidence in a different way.
Atheism is a religious conviction/belief. If you're an Atheist then you probably disagree. Well, the majority of Americans (and the World) would disagree with you. Again it boils down to your worldview. If you still don't agree with me then how about this argument: if you don't classify Atheism as a religious conviction then most of the First Ammendment protections don't apply to you (and that would be ludicrous).
American society was founded on the belief that you shouldn't condemn a person for having a certain worldview/culture/religion. This applies to schools also. When schools teach biological macro-evolution (the Kansas ruling didn't change the cirriculum status of micro-evolution) as the only valid scientific worldview the general teach it in a way the excludes or even denies the possibility of a deity. This is religious discrimination.
Biological macro-evolution is a theory. This is easily shown by the recent change from Darwin's gradual evolution to the "Punctuated Equilibrium" method of macro-evolution. The theory is not just prone to micro adjustments and fine tuning but to large changes in the excepted processes and method.
The Kansas ruling is probably not good in the short-term but a good thing in the long term. Unlike what most of you are assuming the ruling does not ban the teaching of evolution (that's an MSNBC mistake/bias). Check out CNN for a more accurate article. They are simply dropping evolution from the cirruculm. That is bad in the short term because kids should be taught evolution. It's a predominant theory and important for kids to learn. However, other view points should be presented and taught.
The "Big Bang" theory is a very creationistic theory. Einstein's theory of relativity strongly supported the "Big Bang" theory and since he realized this support a creation point for the universe he made his "biggest blunder" when for many years he attempted to put a fudge factor in his theory that would allow the Universe to be static and eternal.
Creationism's most outspoken proponents argue that the earth and universe are about 10,000 years old. The Big Bang argues for a CREATED universe that is about 13-16 billion years old. Steven Hawking can say that the universe just popped into existance 15 billion years ago but to me that takes just as much on pure faith as saying the God created us 5 minutes ago with memories and scars and such.
For those of you who say that banning evolution would set our elementary and high school educations back 100 years, maybe you should do some research into what education was like 100 years ago. It was a helava-lot more stringent and academic than it is now. Just because we have amazing technical advances in our day and age doesn't mean education is better, it just means that we are standing on the shoulders or some pretty brilliant people. And in addition, many other countries do not teach evolution in school and their eductional level is certainly not any worse than the US. In those countries that do have poor education it is definitely not because of what's in the science cirriculum, but for other factors like poverty and lack of good facilities and teachers.
Sorry about the rambling. Just a hot topic for me that I've done a lot of research on.
Oh ya, the reason that the ruling will be good in the long run is that it will cause people to thing about the issues and possibly recreate school cirriculums that are more balanced.
I seem to feel that either this is a troll, or the writer expected that a smiley would be inferred. Unfortunately, I can't figure out which. Tsk, tsk. The problems of missing evidence. I guess he must not exist.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Has there ever been substantial proof of the big bang theory I have always agreed with micro evolution but what about macro evolution? check out http://www.creationscience.com for more info.
Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity
such as new vital organs?
Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
How did sexual reproduction evolve from division type reproduction?
If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an
explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
Many of the reasons I don't see entire scientific validity in some of what is tought in bio classes.
---D
Read my post carefully. Where do I say that the scientific method is utterly useless for anything whatsoever?
The simple fact is that the scientific method is useful -- within limits. I have never disputed this. What I dispute is illegitimately claiming that evolution has been scientifically verified or proven, as far too many armchair evolutionists are fond of doing. What I dispute is illegitimate uses of the "scientific method" in ways that it simply cannot work.
The scientific method is utterly USELESS for "proving" that man arrived on earth via evolution, because man's evolution (as if it really happened - HA!) cannot be reproduced in the lab. The claim is bogus.
Secondly, no man or method has a right to sit in judgment over the question of whether God exists. He does, despite the pathetic squawkings of atheists.
You can't even adequately defend your own system on your own terms, and you have the gall to attack me?
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
The proof of science is not only that it can explain the past but also that it can predict the future. A nature of this proof is that science cannot be declared 'proven.' The process is ongoing. Again, this is a strength. Religion batters people into believing. Christianity has made many atrocities while attempting to convert people.
Nitpick: Objects at sea level fall near at around 32 Ft/sec/sec. This rate varies with height and the density of the Earth below the location. So in fact, at some elevation, objects DO fall at 29 Ft/sec/sec.
Science and religion can definitely coexist. It does for many, many scientists around the world. One argument put forth by some scientists, and believed by others, is that God made the world all right, but he made it follow certain rules, such as the law of gravity. Religion need not reject old views. One could argue that God is glorious for creating a world that could produce Human Beings given the relatively few rules of physics. That is truly great. No human could ever design a universe so simple that could ever product such complex beings and entities as our universe encompasses. To say that Religion rejects science and science rejects religion is to be narrow minded.Religion has historically rejected science, but that was a mistake. As you learn in Philosophy, in order to control one's enemy, you must love him. In idealogical systems, this practice is call hegemony. In order for religion to conquer and control science, religion must accept and promote science. Only then will religion take the forefront and maintain itself.
I would like to leave one, final, parting thought: Neal Christiansan (sp?) made a wonderful argument in Snow Crash. He said that religion is a virus. It is self producing. It feeds of life. It spreads quickly. This virus also has a nasty side in that it messes with one's mind. It attacks other virus religions. I found this a very powerful, and sadly true, analogy.
Here's your answer. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're going to embarrass yourself.
Secondly, all the action and linking verbs in this passage are past tense, so the 'had formed' part is perfectly natural. Hebrew's structure is a bit different from germanic languages like english, so you can expect to get some funny looking syntax after translation (especially when dealing with complex ideas).
Hebrew tenses are far more complex than you seem to know. There are two major "tenses," traditionally called "perfect" and "imperfect." Both are essentially "past tense" but contextual indicators demonstrate that either one may have present or even future tense meaning (though this is usually restricted to the "imperfect").
I'm a bit fuzzy here; it's been 7 years since I last read Hebrew seriously.
For all the joy you seem to get in talking about Hebrew tenses, it's a shame you don't look at other significant things related to interpretation of a text: like structure, or historical context, or literary context, to name a few. If you did, you might not have so foolishly claimed that there are "two disparate" creation accounts.
There aren't, and you're wrong.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Curious about the "proof" for evolution? Read 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson. Heck, just read some of Dawkins' statements in works such as 'The Blind Watchmaker.' He essentially admits that there is every good reason to interpret our observations of biology as evidence for the creation of life (as opposed to the evolution of it). He of course uses meaningless and wishful rhetoric to "debunk" the design conclusion.
> Yet, I can't imagine anyone saying Newton or
> Einstein should not be taught in school.
I can, at least for Einstein's work. Suppose for a moment that the powers that be pass a resolution so that no mention may be made in schools of a universe that is older than 6000 years. Since this would require a notion of absolute time, special relativity would be invalidated. Also, the big bang hypothesis/theory would be at odds with many fundamentalists' sensibilities. Modern astronomy (which Newton helped institute with his work on celestial mechanics) would be at odds with the 6k yr. old universe premise as well.
We live in an age of revisionist history; it would appear that we are tending towards revisionist science as well.
...to be out of the U.S. educational system.
Unfortunately, now I really have to start considering whether home schooling is the way to go. I have twins that'll be ``in the system'' in a year or so and I'm already worried about the quality of education they'll be getting. This decision makes me that much more fearsome of what they'll be ``learning''.
A lot of the coverage I've heard about the Kansas decision is predicting that it won't be long before a lot of states adopt this policy.
When I was in college, I spent part of one summer working for a crew of people doing general maintenance in a Catholic grade school. During lunch breaks I used to check out the textbooks in the classrooms to see what sort topics were being covered. The ``science'' textbooks were scary; it was as though they'd just recently bought into the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun. I can see the schools in many areas adopting this curriculum and the same bland, "let's not offend the religious fundamentalists" brand of textbooks and when that happens I fear for the level of science awareness.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Are those "walking" fish well-suited for their environment? Of course they are. So what makes you think they were'nt designed that way? Wishful thinking, that's all.
hey maw, lookit all the slack-jawed yokels, postin stuff 'bout ev'looshun. shore is a dandy, ayup.
That's not a case of evolution. The bacteria are still the same species, for crying out loud! Variability within a species is a far cry from evolution into a new species.
...a lot was understood about biology and biological processes before evolutionary theory was concieved of, and a lot more became known before that theory was generally accepted. Heck, the theory is still being "tweaked" to fit the evidence (because it doesn't make very good predictions) and yet biological research churns along by itself, oblivious to the debate. One could be entirely ignorant of macroevolution ideas and still fully understand biology, and still be entirely capable of discovering new biological facts. There really is no scientific need to base one's understanding of biology on macroevolution hypothesis (and that's all it is--hypothesis).
Announcer: Today, we are at the Arbor Street Baptist Temple, where we are secretly replacing the regularly served blood of Christ with new Folger's Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM).
Announcer: Ma'am, how was your blood of Christ?
Woman: Refreshing. It tasted rather good, AND my sins are washed away.
Announcer: And the body of Christ? Did the blood complement the body?
Woman: Yes, actually. I'm not exactly sure which part of his body I received, but it tasted like white meat. The body and blood were fantastic together!
Announcer: What would you say if I told that we replaced your regular blood of Christ with Folger's new Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM)?
Woman: Replaced?!? Are my sins still forgiven?
Announcer: Of course they are, but without drinking all that hemoglobin.
Woman: Fantastic!
Announcer: There you have it, folks. Dyed-in-the-wool Baptists can't even tell the difference. Look for the new Hemoglobin-Free Blood of Christ (TM) in a store near you!
(with apologies to Folger's, of course)
too lazy to log in -- toenail
ok, this isn't funny anymore, haha guys, jokes over... guys? ... HEY! I need assistance over here !!! .... help? ... anybody???
That's a good question. Why don't you actually ask a biologist? I'm sure there's good answer.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Here is a guide for you, as seen from a continent where political parties often have significant differences between them.
Republicans : extreme far right wing
Democrats : far right wing
Two issues are being confused here: evolution and evolutionary theory.
:) I can understand not wanting to teach something so flimsy in public schools. Heck, publich schools don't teach objectivism and other philosphies that aren't well-founded in the minds of many.
No one disputes that organisms evolve. Anyone who gardens realizes this (plants that have been bred for larger yield, for example). Similarly, mutation and natural selection are also well established.
The theory, that life started as single-celled organisms and eventually evolved into humans--so called "evolutionary theory"--is a beautiful conjecture and not much more. But please realize that if it *isn't* true, that's not an argument for creationism.
With some background reading, it's easy to see how little solid ground evolutionary theory is based on. It's like reading books about how the mind supposedly works, when all we really have are some vague clues and bits of information. We can say that Animal A evolved from Animal B, but we don't really know. For a long time textbooks and musems--even into the 1990s--featured a family tree of how horses evolved. It was visually impressive, with each animal looking more horselike than it's ancestor. Unfortunately, this has been shown be completely incorrect, as the animals in the the tree aren't in any kind of chronological order. There have been other similar errors in "evidence" for evolutionary theory presented in textbooks.
Edsger Dijkstra had a great example in one of his books of an algorithm that looked easy to guess by trial and error, but was actually much different than it appeared to be. With evolutionary theory, we're taking bits of fact and trying to generalize them into a grand theory that encapsulates The Way Things Are--much like Jon Katz
This may give rights to the principles, or to the school boards. It gives ZIP to the students. It means that if you go to school in Kansas you will probably need to take remedial science when you get to college. It means that Kansas will be written off by the BioTech industry. etc. The adults get what they asked for. The students get to grow up to serve hamburgers. (Well, there ARE other fields, but not all folk have talents adapted to all fields.)
p.s.: A bit of a paradox: I do know individual christians that I consider worthwhile people, as individuals. In groups they tend to espouse foul and pernicious doctrines leading to centralized social controls over the individual. And they remain decent as individuals. As I said, a bit of a paradox, but a veritudinous one.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean that criminals won't use them. However regular law-abiding people won't have guns for self defense and the criminals will know this and become bolder in their crimes because they know that their targets will be weaker. In addition the illegal importation of guns will become a bigger black market item and it will increase the size and power of organized crime (look at what happened when we tried prohibition). Guns are needed to level the playing field against criminals.
Thus speaks an arrogant literalist with his eyes closed. Sad, isn't it?
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
1487th post!! :P
First, far from being devoid of transitional fossils, Patterson's Evolution is full of them. Here's an example from page 131:
That sounds to me like Dr. Patterson has not only heard about evolutionary transitions, but did include them in his book, Evolution.The author of the Talk.Origins essay, Lionel Theunissen, corresponded with the principals in this matter. Dr. Patterson replied with details, apparently his talk on "Systematics Discussion Group" was secretly recorded by a creationist and quote-mined. (This taping and misattribution may not be legal in Australia.) The creationists were evasive and refused to back up their claims, or even reveal their primary sources for the quote, until pressed with information from Patterson's letter. See Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites' for the whole thing.
Now, I've got to ask you something, slvrsrfr. I hope that you have checked out the references I've entered, and gone further to read the primary sources to make sure that these are fair refutations to your case. Of the two quotes that you've posted, both have been shown to be scraps of text (or words) that have been taken out of context and twisted backwards to mean the exact opposite of their author's positions by a creationist. Indeed, let the record show that both the ICR and CSF have tried to steal their opponent's authority as "qualified people" and to use it to deceive anybody who didn't look up the facts. So, I ask you:
- Is stealing other people's authority the way to find the truth?
- Is this Xtian integrity or honesty?
- What does this do for the cause of truth and justice?
- Most importantly, surely even the most devout believer in Creation and Xtianity should cast out those who tell lies about others. Would not such a person want to keep their cause clean of the taint of the dirty dealings mentioned above? After all, who is "The Father of Lies," hmmmm?
Patterson, Colin, "Evolution" 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd."You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
As your link defined Fact, it is absolute truth.
Evolution isn't absolute truth, it is a theory.
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
Big Brother is watching, vote Libertarian!!
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
All faith systems must ultimately change and adapt to the world around them to survive. If they don't they will eventually go the way of the dodo. The world shapes the faith systems that exist within it, and conversely faith systems shape the world. Change, however necessary, is usually resisted.
It took a few centuries, for instance, for the early Christian church to accept metaphoric or non-literal interpretations of the Bible. It seems to me that the religious anti-evolution argument is based upon an unwillingness to do just that.
I believe in evolution to the extent that it is the best explanation I have found to explain the evidence I have been presented with regarding the processes and mechanisms of life. I do not believe in it to the extent, however, that I would hold on to it in the face of something more compelling, that explains the evidence we have better.
I do not consider myself a Christian, but I hold a high degree of respect for the Bible. To me it does speak truth, but only in that it can tell us a great deal about humanity and human nature. What could be called the Christian virtue of Charity, for instance, is something of high value to me, which is probably because our culture is built on fundamentally Christian foundations. We have much to learn from Christianity (and from other faiths), but we should not blind ourselves from posibility because of those faith systems.
I'd like to leave you all with an example of evolution in history. It doesn't match biological evolution exactly, but it works. The early Christian Church that I mentioned earlier, was, in its first 5 centuries, struggling to define its doctrine and the nature of the Christian universe. This discussion and eventually heated debate escallated into a controversy about the nature of the Holy Trinity. The two sides were split essentially east and west in the roman empire. After a series of meetings among the various leaders of the church at places like Nicea, everybody got so upset that they all excommunicated each other and thus split the church in two, one side eventually becomming the Catholic church and the other becomming Eastern Orthodox. Only recently, nearly 1500 years later, are the two on speaking terms again.
This story is an example of evolution and speciation in principle. Evolution, as a concept, cannot be denied, and Kansas doesn't propose to do deny it. It is ultimately unfortunate that they refused to be open minded about ideas both without and within their own belief.
(I appologise for any factual inaccuracies in the above accounts of the early Christian church, I am working from memory when I type this. My sources for this information are as follows:
History and Literature of Early Christianity, by Helmut Koester
The Early Church, by Henry Chadwick
The Rise of Christianity, by Rodney Stark (highly recommended)
All of this and more can be found in these books.)
Have a nice day.
Concrete evidence that suggests evolution as fact is lacking
Your existence shows there is no evolution. You never evolved out of the ape stage...
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools.
Read the book, than talk.
Very typical of evolution bashers - arrogant ignorance.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Any more than creationism - both are possible explanations to how life came to be. People dig and find a human skeleton and dig more and find a rat skeleton and suddenly swear that our ancestors must have been rats. All "evolutionary paths" are just guesses - theories. You have a collection of skeletons with similar features and figure they must be related somehow. The closest thing we have seen is intra-species adaptation. But never have we found conclusive and irrefutable PROOF that one species mutated into another. Just because some stuffy scientists got together to say that this must be the explanation doesn't mean it is so. It just means they're to engrained in the system to question it and take some initiative to explore all possibilities. We've been through that situation time and time throughout history. It's a neat theory and conversation provoker as is creationism - but like most other theories in the past, someone will come up with a better one. If it is going to be taught, it should be taught as a thought process or a theory rather than as fact, because evolution is most certainly NOT fact...yet.
Personally, i believe very strongly in Evolution
hmm.. fishy. Evolution is science. It is not a question of faith. It is a question of knowledge and logic.
Common mistake is to treat science in the same style as common knowledge or faith. Science is quite different view of the world. And it does not contradict other views.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
What I'll probably never understand (being a Christian myself - Roman Catholic, actually, though I don't think John Paul would like me very much...) is, why on earth are there so many self proclaimed Christians who have so little faith? You don't seem to have much trust in our God, do you? Because if you did, you wouldn't see His/Her position threatened by things like evolution - because there simply is no contradiction! Yes, I believe that the evolution theory got it (mostly) right - but does that mean there is no God? No! Not at all. There still is and there always will be room for God, even if Mankind progresses more and more in their quest to understand the world.
I can see that myself - daily, as I'm an electronics engineer. Taking things apart to find out how they work is part of my job - but it hasn't killed my belief at all. Quite the contrary - the more I learn about how our world ticks, right down into the smallest details, the more I am amazed and fascinated - and convinced, that it is somehow God's work as well.
As for why Christians tend to get slagged more than others: Simple, really - among still existing religions with a horrible history, Christianity is probably the biggest one. Over the last centuries, Christians went out of their way to show how much Christians can violate the very base of their own faith. How many missionaries brought the sword instead of God's word? How many people died at the hands of some inquisitor, just because they happened to interpret Christianity differently from him? How often did the Churches suppress, threaten, kill and maim - even each other! And even nowadays, they still don't stop (ab)using their "faith" as an excuse for anything up to murder (Northern Ireland, anybody?). How many hypoctitical gouvernments are there, who swear an oath on the Bible - and then order the next shipload of weapons? Can't see many Christians speaking up against the last military budget or against pollution (a Sin against God's nature!)!?
That dark history is hard to get rid off, very hard - even I find it difficult at times to justify the fact that I'm still a member of a Christian church. Too much hypocrism.
Amazing, that I still keep faith and hope...
Argathin
If you're a Christian, and you've read all of the nasty comments by Slashdot readers, most likely you're either angry or upset - I know I was. But then it occured to me - why should I be surprised by such a response?
America has become God-less society, that much is evident by turning on the T.V., picking up a newspaper, or just having a conversation with the average Joe. Once a country built upon religious principles, the United States has mutated into a sinful, litigious, self-serving group of fools overcome by their own excesses. And while it's difficult to keep your mouth shut when the masses are screaming "crucify Jesus!" at the top of their lungs, I think that's what He'd want us to do.
We know the truth, there's no reason to bang our heads against a wall trying to convince someone who chooses to turn his back on God. If these people want to call you names because of your beliefs - let them. Such persecution is completely irrelevant.
As for the actual topic of discussion, as many have pointed out, evolution is a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less. Once upon a time, the very best scientists thought the world was flat. And it wasn't too long ago that the very best believed the atom was the smallest "thing" in the universe. Science is imperfect - always has been, always will be. Does that mean we stop teaching that man evolved from goo zillions of years ago? Who cares?
True learning begins in the home. By the time a child goes to school, he or she should have been molded enough by their parents to know to what they should listen, and in what they should believe. I never took anything any teacher said as an absolute - no child should. If a parent is concerned that a teacher is warping their child, then they haven't given that child a strong enough foundation of truth from which to build.
The family unit is no longer a sacred institution in this country. If it were, evolution in schools would be a non-issue. But rather than examine the real problems facing our society, it's much easier to resort to name-calling and insults. Bigotry and stereotyping are the cornerstones of our weak society - and it's never been more obvious than in the responses to this article.
Have faith - those who believe. Be damned those who don't.
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
You are right, Science does not allow for any kind of faith. But this is a science class we are talking about. Only science should be taught in it.
You say you beleive in the word of God and others "beleive" in carbon dating. Well Carbon-14 decay has been observed and tested. It is a fact not a beleif.
I a a Christian but I do beleive in evolution as do MANY other Christians. they are not mutualy excusive.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
And what, specifically, about Judeo-Christian values make them inherently superior?
By the time I get this submitted, there will porobably be 1k posts. However, as a Physics student I had to say something, even if it's only a remote possibility that anyone will read it.
Attacking the educational system n this way is a very cold, calculated attempt to influence the next generation. It is a classic example of what to do in order to control and opress a population. (look at Afghanistan - women are denied access to education altogeather - therefore they're not a political "threat")
[Science] is one of the very few things that raises human life a little above farce and gives it the grace of tragedy.
First up, Huckleberry Finn. "Nigger Jim"? While (*cough*cough*) "revised" (*cough*) versions of this classic piece of American literature exist (without any indication of their having been edited, mind you) I say just get rid of it all together.
The US Constitution? No way. Far too many controversial rights in those amendments. And Do we want to encourage kids to acquire firearms? Columbine anyone? Good God no. Nix it.
Next up, the (US) founding fathers. Washington? Jefferson? Hamilton? These men owned SLAVES for crying out loud! Praising these men sanctions their slave owning. Into the dustbin with them.
Christopher Columbus? Butcherer and enslaver of Native American peoples. Didn't discover crap. Banish the "holiday" too and rename it to "Native American People's day". Bye bye to this bastard!
Sir Issac Newton? Nasty, nasty man. Had people outright ruined if not killed to protect his own intrests (Leibniz anyone?). Also practised alchemy and tried to transmute base metals into gold (== withcery == devil worship). Forget teaching about this loon.
And of course all wars must be purged from the textbooks. We don't want to emotionally traumitize kids by teaching just how horrible war really is. Or to, in any way, imply that it's ok to resort to violence over such trivial issues as taxation, persoanl freedoms, and local soverignty.
Physics? This is outright DANGEROUS knowledge. Einstien and his ilk helped develop this tech into NUCLEAR WEAPONS that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese in horrible ways (effects still exist to this day). No. This knowledge should be locked away to all but a priveleged few who passed many and continue to pass regular background checks and psylogical profiles. High school kids, college kids, and regelar people have NO NEED TO KNOW about stuff like this. Same for most of chemistry (which can us used to MAKE BOMBS and EXPLOSIVES)
Ebonics? Chicano Lingo? These language dialects are as valid an any other. Treating it as "uneducated speak" is racially offensive. These should be embraced.
Alan Turing? He was a HOMOSEXUAL! Thus his contributions to CS are tainted with controversey and are therfore not worth sudying.
And Thomas Edison? He was a shameless self promoter and rabid capitalist (== materialistic PIG). He used monopolistic practices to try and crush Nikola Tesla (another example of Croations being historically discriminated against). Edison is best forgotten.
There. That ought to sanitize the school cirriculum a bit. With these changes kids will FEEL BETTER in school. (We've already got rid of A,B,C,D,F grading most everywhere). And isn't that what education is all about? Making sure that every child FEELS as good about him or herself and FEELS as good and as smart as everyone else and FEELS no need to improve or strive for anything? We are all equals after all.
--
Stop the planet, I want off.
A distinction needs to be made here between Christians and Fundamentalists. I'm not even going to try to define the word Christian, but suffice it to say that Fundamentalism is a subset of Christianity where the word of the Bible is held to be the absolute, unerring word of God. This is where the problem lies with Evolution vs. Creation; not with Christianity as a whole, but with Fundamentalism.
Also, a distinction should be made between so-called Creation "Scientists" and scientists who are Christian. You can have strong faith in the Christian God and still be a credible scientist. Example: I attend a Catholic University, and my symposium class (a combination of reading, writing, discussion, and critical thinking) had as its subject revolutionary scientists, and as its instructor a venerable physics professor who is also a Catholic priest. I expected my professor to hand down some crazy lectures about the scientific validity of the Bible, when he did exactly the opposite. He totally separated the Bible from science, and much of our class was spent discussing the horrible treatment of Galileo and Darwin by the Catholic church. To quote him loosely: "The Bible teaches theological truth, not scientific truth." Not every Christian believes the same thing, and many are objective, logically-thinking creatures. Faith and science can coexist.
paranoid.android
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools. One more thing: I do not believe that it is practical/possible to run a public school in a country as diversified in religion as the U.S. I believe home schooling, charter schools, & private schools are the wave of the future (I know...they have all been around a while...so don't look at me like I don't know what I am talking about). If you are a Catholic & want your child taught in the ways of Catholicism, send them to a private Catholic school. Let the government provide funding to the schools ($/child or something like that-since education is one of the things our taxes pay for). Back when we were trying to teach everyone the three Rs, public schools were great. Now, the inability for people to become educated in the U.S. has gone away (99%). I believe it is time for the public school system to get phased out--it is now obsolete & inadequate for our nation's educational needs. Well, my 2 cents.
okay, here's the question I want answered. How many mutations does it take for a flower to begin to add color to its petals?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
I used to be in a Christian school when I was much younger. Now I'm in my third year of university studying Life Sciences.
For a long time now, I've decided that Creation and Evolution do not conflict. In fact, the Pope understands this as well, since I found out a few years ago that he has accepted the theory of evolution.
Think of how the Bible was written. Obviously it could not have been written in such a detailed scientific way that the people of the time could't understand (if it is even possible to precisely explain the work of something that is not bound by the laws of our universe). It had to be written in a way that would make sense back then, and still make sense throughout time. The best way that I believe this could be done, is by using simple analogies that we can all understand. The purpose was to explain that God is behind all of this. And the scripture at the beginning of Genesis accomplishes this.
Also remember, just as chapters of a book have varying lengths, the usage of a "day" in The Book of Genesis may have simply represented many millions of years. In fact, was the word "day" used before the earth was mentioned to be created? Maybe the reference point was around something else revolving very slowly...Anyways, my point is that it was used as a division of time and not a fixed amount of time.
That is my opinion. I don't mind in being enlightening by someone if my logic is flawed.
Yes the famous trial of evolution against creation. I think there was talk of Jack Lemmon playing the lawyer for the creation side (whoop). Oh yea I totally agree with the person who said that neither can be proved as fact. NO ONE WAS THERE AT THE BEGGINNING OF THE WORLD. Even if ther was, he/she's dead today, so its totally unprovable and any info the is found is interpret through "evolutionist" thinking and "creationist" thinking, different interpretations, same info. Ok i think this Kansas thing is good. Now go bash Iowa.
I simply don't agree. I'm arguing in favor of evolution based on the evidence.. we have observed new species arising through evolutionary processes, we can see the evolutionary record in the genome of every living organism.
Bear in mind that nobody knew about DNA when Darwin developed his theory of evolution. DNA happens to have just the sort of characteristics (and the history of development recorded in the DNA has just the sort of characteristics) that would be required by the evolutionary theory, which came earlier.
DNA (or something closely like it) is required by evolution. Creation doesn't require anything, because it is in almost all cases explicitly supernatural. Given that it is, you can explain any detail by saying 'that's how God wanted it to be'. A theory that makes no predictions and can never be refuted is no theory.
I don't believe that it is best to believe in something that is wrong. Evolution is so firmly justified by all the evidence and it is such a provable mechanism that it very much appears to be right. My point was that if you are arguing against evolution you had better have a scenario which BETTER FITS THE EVIDENCE, which creationists have never had.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
What ever became of this Seperation of Church and State deal?
Religion has no place in Public schools, as public schools have to be impartial to all religions. If you want your children to be educated with Religious slant, one should go private, instead of changing the public schools.
Geez, this really upsets me.
I have a hard time believing in the United States sometimes.
Just don't get me on the topic of why "In God We Trust" is on every United States coin, while we have this thing that talks about the SEPERATION of Church and State. The largest contridiction in the world that I know of.
-Saxton
_________
My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
No sir, Christians are the bigots. Christians who are the ones who stand against homosexuals, even though it's none of their business. Christians are the ones who shove their cult down everyone else's throat. It's christinaity that strips people of their individuality for fear of "god". It's christinaity that has brought down more suffering on everyone other than christians.
Before you go accusing me of bigotry, take a LONG HARD LOOK at yourself. This is something I've done a lot of personal spiritual questioning on, and years of personal research to come to my conclusions.
Almost every christian I know is a hypocrite, and personal views on the "word of god" seem to vary pretty far from christian to christian. Want an example? Ask a christian PETA member and a christian deer hunter on their thought of "Thou shalt not kill" and what it means. Compare results.
For every hole you give on the evolutionary table, I will give you 10 bigger holes in creationism. Wake up, smell the coffee, and start living your life for you.
One final question for god himself. how can you let children get raped, wives get beat, people starve, animals get tortured, let humans rape "your" creation, and claim to be a god of love? email your answer to me.
-brain
Now before I get flamed, I'm not putting evolution on par with creationism as science. But at least when I went to school, it was taught as scientific dogma, not science, and in my opinion this is why it is open to criticism by creationists. Perhaps somebody younger can report that they're teaching creation better these days, but I bet the people making this decision are around my age (late 30's to 40's), and were taught the same way I was.
By way of analogy, every school child knows that the world is round, not flat. But how do they know? Their direct observation tells them the world is flat, or maybe a bit crinkly. Have they made observations that contradict this? For that matter, most people could readily live there lives believing the world is flat, leaving an elite few to handle tasks like navigation and launching satellites. Do we teach children the world is round just to produce an elite few who will go on to understand the implications of this?
The same applies to evolution. Of course, it is critical that everyone know that evolution is the standard biological model; but kids should be taught to make the observations that make this so, not just that it is true. I think most people's ideas of evolution come more from social and political theories than from the natural world. As a result, I find that people have a kind of "nature, red in tooth and claw" view of evolution. While natural selection through competition is a fact of life, evolution also produces symbiosis, as in lichens which are colonies of blue green algae and fungi, or certain flowers which are polinated by a single species of hummingbird.
I think the most wonderful aspect of evolution, specifically speciation through mutation, is how it explains things that just are. Often there is a reason, but there doesn't have to be. The shagbark hickory has a delicious nut and shaggy bark, but the pignut hickory has a nut that tastes like an acorn and smooth bark. Neither one is more fit than the other, they're just mutations.
Mushrooms are my favorite example. Sure, truffles smell like an estrous pig so wild hogs will eat them and shit spores all over the forest. There's another mushroom that is dangerous to cook because when heated to a high temperature it gives off monomethyl hydrazine -- a powerful and poisonous rocket fuel. As far as I know this doesn't confer any advantage on this mushroom over its its relatives that don't do this. It's just an infinite number of monkeys puttering around in the genome.
I once heard a mycologist tell about a call he got from a concerned citizen about a huge emergence of mushrooms carpeting the hill behind her house by the millions. She'd lived there for years and never seen them before: tiny green mushrooms shaped like a miniature human penis and smelling strongly of cat piss. Surely if there is intelligence behind such a phenomenon, that intelligence must be sublimely demented.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you really want to know the answer to your question, start reading the book of Acts. It reads like a story, and isn't dry or boring at all. Here's a link to an online version.
TedC
PS. I'm not sure why the closing anchor tag on my url isn't being parsed correctly; it must be a bug. Anyway, it makes it easier to hit the link. :-)
I think we should outlaw teaching Creationism in the Church because it is deceiving to my beliefs in Evolution. Going to church and listening to the theories of the Bible is destroying my faith in Science. (Oh wait, we can't do that - the Church is a seperate entity!) Whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?! Give them all the facts and let them sort it out. Don't deprive the children of all the facts that allow them to come to their own reasonable conclusion! (Otherwise, they will become mindless brain-washed drones). There are so many problems with this kind of decision that I can hardly begin to voice them all. (There have been many lines erased where this one now lies) I'm done for now.
A theory is a model. That's all. Some are better than others. NONE have any absolute truth. I'm not sure that any are absolutely false (i.e., have no value at all under any circumstances). Truth is an abstraction akin to a mathematical point. It has about as much (and as little) meaning as the position of an electron.
And that's the best case. There are usually lots of uncertainties like "How much do I trust the person who is reporting that he has been told this, and how much do I trust his source?"
If I understand correctly, the purpose of Zen is to cause one to become aware of this. (Ask someone else for more certainty.) But they say "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is." (Well, that may be from another context.) Anyway, the idea is that after one goes through the experience of becoming aware of uncertainty, one eventually comes to "enlightenment" and realizes that one must live in a world where theory is the best that one can do. "O, yes, there's a mountain." Calling is a montage of the tendency to percieve sensory blotches of color just isn't very convenient.
And that's why it the theory of evolution. There are no "FACTS", but there is the tendency to observe things that appear to occur in correlated patterns. So. For shorthand we say there are facts, but not FACT s.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Okay, first of all, some people are really blowing this out of proportion. They just decided not to put it on the standardized state tests, not ban it.
Second, regarding the religion vs. science problem these people have, I really don't understand why there is a problem. Science deals with the physical world. It attempts to determine the nature of our universe through observation and experimentation. It is constantly updating the world view as new observations and data become available.
Religion, on the other hand, attempts to explain with the more philosophical and non-empirical issues. Things such as the purpose of creation, the who and why of it, how it is going to end, and what does it all mean. Religion shouldn't describe how things happen that science can explain, except in instances when what happened are above our current level of understanding.
Take for example the big bang theory of the creation of this universe. Some idiot fundamentalist Christians would have you believe that everything was created in 6 days, simply because the Bible said so. They need to be reminded of the context of the Genesis story. That story was passed down by voice, not by writing for several thousand years before it was written down, and has since been translated, retold, and translated again for several more thousand years. Also, they forget that this story was initially intended for simple farmers and hunters, not scientists. The Genesis story was meant to inform the reader that God created everything from nothing, and did it over a period of time, and that what he created was good. HOW he did that is not an issue. Whether he made homo sapiens by evolving us or whatever else doesn't matter to teach the religion of the matter.
As you can see, these are not opposing philosophies. They just are attempting to answer different questions. Science wants to know what is going on, and how it happens. Religion wants to know who did it and why. The problem occurs when they go out of their realm of expertise. Then everything essentially goes to hell.
1. There is a being, called God, who can do whatever He likes. He can create matter out of nothing, He can cause time to reverse itself, and He can cause any scientific law to be suspended whenever He feels like it.
2. Just because something in God's Book (there are a few different versions, the Koran, the Bible, etc.) seems to contradict something or seems to jibe with scientific proof doesn't mean it isn't true. God simply can create a contradictory reality, if He wants. If God's Book were to say that the world was created yesterday, and all the memories we have of existing previous to then were false, well, we know that God has the ability to do it, therefore how can we doubt it?
Science on the other hand is supposed to be based on a skeptical view of reality. If you see flaws in say, the Story of Noah and the Ark (like, to me, it seems unlikely tht God changed the laws of physics after the Great Flood so rainbows would appear to remind Noah of the Covenant. It seems more likely that this is a "just so" story along the lines of how the elephant got it's trunk, I think these were collected by Rudyard Kipling.) as a scientist you are supposed to question it. If as a scientist you just accept things on faith you aren't a scientist.
If you want Creationism taught in school science courses, you need to justify it according to science, not faith! Because faith is belief based on the idea of the supernatural and science is the study of the natural. Science cannot be expected to accept into its practices the idea that nature is all a creation of an outside force and that all the collected knowledge of scientists could suddenly be made false because God decides that Pi should be rounded off to 3 tommorrow or something similar.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
The fundamental problem here is that someone has to make the decision for every child in a school (or a class) how they're going to be taught about evolution and creationism, and the people who have to deal with the consequences of that decision (parents and their children) aren't the ones making it.
School choice (which is what John has the ability to provide, unlike many other parents) is the only fair solution to this problem. Parents who want their kids to be taught that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh can send their kids to Jerry Falwell's Tellytubby-Free Academy, and parents who want their kids to learn that Chuck Darwin came up with this idea of evolution while sunning himself off the coast of South America can send their kids to Bill Nye's School of Scientific Thought.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
Look, son. It doesn't matter if the "creationists" say that evolution can't have taken place or vice-versa. The point is that NO ONE was present at the beginning of the earch. Were you? Both religions (yes i said religions) are totally unprovable. Ok this brings up the matter of faith. If evolution is NOT fact, CAN'T be proven, theeeeennnnn to believe in it you have to have FAITH! Ah! The basis of religion is the faith in the unseen and the improvable. Therefore evolution can't be a science, got no facts! So its religion. Mw two cents. Eat it.
It's kinda hard to tell.
It is?
Wow. Carry on. There's nothing to see here.
**>>BELCH
As for the person who moderated that comment up: you should be ashamed. Everyone doesn't think in the Politically Correct way. Deal with it. There was nothing "insightful" about that post whatsoever. It was namecalling and flamebait.
It was nothing of the sort. It was meant to ridicule with impunity the notion that teaching kids multiculturalism is some sort of evil leftist plot.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that a "theory" isn't just a wild guess, and that calling something a theory doesn't mean it's unfounded. A fact is data, something verifiable. A hypothesis is a guess about how facts might be explained. Hypotheses can be disproven or supported by subsequent observations. When most people say "theory", what they usually mean is "hypothesis". A theory is something that started out as a hypothesis and has been substantiated by observations ("facts"). Theories provide explanations for what is observed. An important aspect of an established theory (like evolution) is the prediction of new observations that hadn't been expected when the theory was formulated. For example, Darwin realized that chimpanzees are our closest relatives, although DNA was as yet unknown. With the advent of DNA sequencing, it was realized that human and chimpanzee DNA is 99% identical, and that resemblences between DNA of different species are roughly proportional to "relatedness" as established by older techniques. There are so many examples of data supporting evolution that no reasonable biologist considers the theory to be in question. Another important point is that when established theories are superceded by newer ones, it doesn't mean that the older theory is disproven. More commonly, special cases are found in which the older theory gives rise to wrong predictions. This just means that the older theory isn't as generalizable as once believed. The newer theory then includes the older one as a special case, but also explains things the older theory couldn't. A good example of this is Newtonian vs. Einsteinian mechanics. Except for certain extreme cases, Einstein makes the same predictions as Newton, but explains things at a deeper level. It doesn't mean that Newton was no more correct than Aristotle. In summary, the current understanding of evolution may not be the final word, but no honest and informed person can doubt that Darwin was far closer to the truth than the creationists.
Why is this article even on /.? i THOUGHT this was a tech site, not a platform to push personal political/religeous/wacked-out ideas. /wistfully remembering when it was possible to discuss TECH and not have to worry about left/right or any other stupid labels/
Satisfy my curiosity. What do _you_ believe? Overall, your post seems to indicate a belief in creationism. If so, why not find evidence to support your theory rather than trying to twist facts and poke holes in other people's theories. I certainly agree with your last couple paragraphs though. Also, I've heard from more creationists who won't address the observations that support evolution than I've heard evolutionists who won't address the observations that are inconsistent with evolution. I've also heard several creationists take observations such as the ones you mentioned and interpret them using unscientific methods to reach conclusions of their choosing. Which group do you think tends to be more dogmatic?
Is that a record?
Please don't ask the Feds to manage this. It's bad enough that this happens at the state level, it really should be local option, but whoever controls the purse strings, controls what the money is spent on (and usually takes a cut for their service in managing it).
The basic fallacy behind large, remote organizations managing activities that occur in local areas is that there is a communications bottleneck.
Consider the benefits of encapsulation. Local things should be done locally, so that local corrections can be made to adapt to local conditions. This doesn't work well if all of you variables are global.
Anything that can be encapsulated should be. Any variable that can be made local, should be. Etc. Take these principles and apply them to government. Don't forget to make provisions for debugging!
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
mind you all this god stuff is pure conjecture, but there is evidence of the "missing link" while god relies on blind faith except for "miracles such as the appearance of the virgin mary in some mexican's torilla. Mind you I don't believ darwin is a god, but he was a brave and smart man to go against "the" church like he did.
all this makes you wonder what the world would be like without religion, eh?
HuH? You have a reference for this?
1) It's not a 'law'. It's part of the recommended curriculum by the state school board.
2) It does not talk about 'not preventing' anyone from doing anything. It simply removes evolution from being a state tested subject.
3) For someone talking about fair play, you sure do get insulting pretty fast, don't you?
Please...
jf
If you accept the premise that your senses may be faulty, then quite possibly yes -- it can be impossible to "prove" anything at all, beyond that you are a... "thing" which seems to be thinking.
Logically, there could be an incredibly malevolent, omnipotent/omniscient being manipulating your every thought. Unless you reject the possibility that something is omnipotence (and that rejection itself requires belief), it's probably impossible. Whether it is or not has been debated for (at least) centuries.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I think it's interesting how man personifies God. I personally believe that God is nothing more than the personification of nature, of science, created by humans who (for lack of a better explanation) believe in the existance of a superbeing.
I believe in the same God that all these religious fanatics do, I just understand it for what it is. I just wish they would stop the "God wants us to do this" crap and the whole blasphemy thing.
Either that, or Adam and Eve were aliens and the Garden of Eden was this really rad spaceship. Eve fucked a native and was kicked out. Ehh, yeah..
You're mixing religions. The people that killed the artists and scientists and burned heretics were Roman Catholics. Catholics mainly pay homage to Mary, not Jesus. Its the Bible-thumping southerner protestants who say things like 'Let's take this nation for Jesus' and stuff like that. Also, they simply are no longer requiring evolution to be taught, are you frightened that other theories be taught? Like maybe we are a lost colony from another planet? that one makes way more sense than evolution.
It didn't take a billion of them, though, because they use modern management practices a la Dilbert. Perhaps you should take a trip to San Jose to see for yourself.
'nuff said. America seems to have a bunch of powerful special interest groups who determines its future. Christian Coalition, NRA, major corporations, etc etc etc.
Look at it a little more closely. Nowhere is it implied that Creationism will be taught explicitly, nor does it state that science will be abolished completely.
;] ) and definitely wouldn't want to be forced to learn evolution in a public school.
Simply put, people want to keep their religious beliefs strong because it's what gives them meaning in life. I'm a Christian, and sometimes I just can't see how many others can go on living. I have gone to Christian schools all my life (Also, I draw lots and have fooled with computers since I was a little kid--wow, I'm just like CmdrTaco
IMO, mandatory evolution curriculum (and in the school format, in order not to fail many science classes, one must acknowledge it as perfect truth) is quite detrimental to religious freedom.
To change the topic a little, what exactly makes the evolution theory any more valid than any other?
1. An intelligent Being created the universe and set it into motion with order and design, and created beings with free will--man. But man disobeyed, and imperfection bred imperfection, setting the 2nd law of thermodynamics into effect...
or
2. Chaos became order, and shortly after everything materialized, the laws of the universe shifted radically--instead of things gradually becoming more orderly, they became subjected to entropy. Except for living beings, which, for some reason, defied this by evolving into better-adjusted beings.
No, I'm not in favor of shoving ANY system of beliefs down anyone's throat. It's just not the way a theory begins to take root into someone's mind to convince them. I think the curriculum should lay out several different worldviews (I'm not talking a course in theology--just a few simple examples).
Then maybe we could choose.
After all, we're beings with free will.
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
Ahh, this is good. Now if only we can get Cornellius to stop doing his research on humans!
Can you prove scientifically - by hypothesizing, observing, drawing conclusions and making predictions - that fruit bats evolved from... anything at all?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I an addition, to add a couple more nails to the coffin, it has been determined that at no time in history could the breeding population have been less than 1000 individuals. This was determined by studying the amount of variation in the immune system, especially the kind of variation in the kind of responses you have in transplant surgery. i.e. tissue type matching (how the body distinguishes itself from foreign tissue).
How much variation you find can tell you the minimum size of the population at a point in the past (basically the founder effect). Because of these we know that.
a)Adam & Eve (as such) never existed.
b)The biblical flood was at most a relatively small incident (i.e. didn't cover the whole frigging planet)
I'm pretty sure I read about this is Scientific American, if someone really wants I'll see if I can dig up a link to it.
Go take a fishing trip off of Madagascar.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Wrong
A theorem is a theorem until proven then it is an axiom
A theory is true until disproven.
An important distiction.
-- Back to the shadows again...
Creation is not a thoery, it is religious belief that steps on the toes of other religious beliefs. This more than anything else is reason enough to look questionably at the school board.
I do not know the laws of gravity to be true, but I do know that something (gravity) exists. I cannot see evolution happen, but I know that it does. Life does not make any sense if it doesn't.
-Sloth503
This is very true. How could you explain the idea of the universe and billions of years to early (~2000 years ago, or even a 150 years ago) humans. Simple, put it in terms that they can understand, seven days, and when the do discover these they can adapt it to fit with what they discovered. To bad some people are still living like 2000 years ago
I remember reading something about how the big bang parallels that part of genisis.
If you mean as in "something that is between human and ape in development", then you must consider that humans didn't evolve from modern apes, but from a common ancestor with the modern apes.
There's a fairly extensive set of extinct species backwards that show how that common ancestor evolved in one direction into humans. Cro Magnon, and side branches like the Neanderthals (who died out in competition with Cro Magnon, over a period of thousands of years).
If you wonder why these species doesn't live today, then natural selection is the answer:
A species survive if it finds a niche where one ore more of it's features are good enough that it can successfully compete with other species in that niche at least to the extent where enough individuals to replenish the population with new individuals.
Thus, any of our ancestors that were to different to be able to breed with their successors, or that were similar enough to breed but simply not successful enough to be interesting as mates for a large enough part of their successors, died out. Or rather: The features that made them different were gradually eradicated from the gene pool.
An example of a very similar, but not successful enough, side branch was the Neanderthals, who died out in competition with Cro Magnon. That doesn't mean that interbreeding between Neanderthals and Cro Magnon didn't take place, but simply that those with Cro Magnon features were more likely to survive than those with Neanderthal features, and thus offspring between Cro Magnon and Neanderthal were less likely to survive than Cro Magnon (but perhaps more likely to survive than Neanderthal, and thus even hybrids would diminish the Neanderthal influence, since every hybrid would probably mean one less "pure" Neanderthal child being born).
Hmm, I don't see why one should conclude that it's ok to kill people from that it's ok to kill cows.
Good for you. Unfortunately, not everyone here in the US has your logical abilities.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
"It's deception," Willis said prior to the vote. "You can't go into the laboratory or the field and make the first fish. When you tell students that science has determined (evolution to be true), you're deceiving them."
But exactly the same things can be said about religion. More than that, there is more `factual' evidence to `prove' the evolution theory than there is evidence of the existence of God (or Jaweh or Allah or Mithras or Iupiter). So why do we not hear these board members plan the banishment of religion (no matter what denomination) from classrooms?
Frank
--frank[at]unternet.org
The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution.
The fact that evolution occurs is not in dispute by the scientific community!. We are simply refining the theory to explain what causes it. That it occurs is not, and has not been in dispute for a VERY long time. Evolution is a fact.
There is no scientific debate about this. The only fringe element claiming otherwise is the fundamentalist creationists - and even then its not *all of them*. The theistic creationists at least acknowledge that evolution is a fact. Whats even more pathetic is when you ask the creationists to explain the world, and then watch them argue amongst themselves about new earth versus old earth, intelligent design vs. theistic evolution, as they call each other agents of satan for daring to challenge dogma. These people wouldn't know what real science was if it jumped on their slopping foreheads and started to evolve.
--
Python
Python
"the last contributing author to the Bible died almost 2000 years ago."
Yes, an excellent point. Exactly the reason I don't look to a bible for how to run my life today. However, a creationist will usually tell you that the Bible is the "word of God" handed down from on high, correct in all details. Except for dinosaurs anyway...
Where did you come up with Dr. Papshigali? I noticed you used him in another post you made. I wonder if he is real?
Anyone know a good, humane Christian control method?
Russia will sell you some nukes... Good stuff..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
According to the article (I love it when Slashdot gets its news from MSNBC!) teaching of creationism is not being mandated, all that's happenning is teaching of evolution is being removed. However, contrary to what some posts said, they're not simply saying that evolution should be taught as theory and not fact (it IS taught as theory in most public schools, but hell most of science is theory) but "banning evolution from the classroom".
In other words, they're not pushing creationism, church and state are still very separate. Instead, they've just decided to make students dumber. The religious freakos realized that their efforts to make creationism weren't going to working, so they did the next best thing: don't teach them anything, so that when the emerge stupidly from school they might actually believe creationism.
I agree with the posts that say that Darwinian evolution is a flawed theory. Flawed or not, though, it's certainly closer to the truth than creationism. Creationism has zero scientific merit; unlike a true theory, it grew from trying to make the evidence fit a specific theory, and still failed miserably. My favorite piece of creation "science" was when a "scientist" explained why progressively more developed and recent fossils were found in higher strata: because during the Flood, the smarter animals ran to high ground (presumably the middlingly smart ones ran only halfway up the mountain) and so when they died anyway they were higher up.
Much of current textbook science is flawed, though; science is in a perpetual state of being flawed. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. Which is better: teach students a plausible theory that may be wrong on a couple of points, or teach them "You evolved from your mommy and daddy." There is no past, the past is the present... this story and that "Education" topic gif (2+2=5) have way too many 1984 parallells for my liking.
This thing is what really scares me about religious zealots: the feeling that if they won't teach what we want them too, we better not teach them at all. Hell, science contradicts the Bible in so many places, why not just get rid of it? Science is hard, kind of like math. We should just replace them both with communal family events, where people eat large amounts of fatty foods, shoot people, and lynch people of different religion/race/sexuality. Hmm... this sounds oddly familiar.
Sometimes, I'm proud not to be American.
I'm honestly curious as to what evidence you can quote or direct us to regarding your statement that the earth could be 6000 years old.
Why don't you export them to some fundamentalist Muslim country? That way we could get a nice little religious war going, and hopefully reduce the amount of both Christians and Muslims :-) (Yeah, I dislike religion, and - for the humour-impaired - I don't really advocate starting religious wars to get rid of anyone... Not even fundamentalists :-)
Only in a land were Mikkkrosoft reduces people to quivering wrecks is this possible. The school board is probably spending all their time rebuilding their Windows systems to understand what's HAPPENING!
THIS IS THE HIDDEN COST!
Unfortunetly I don't remember exactly (it's been something like 8 years or so...), but I seem to remember the official explanation being one of two possibilities (they couldn't decide which one they liked better):
1 - There are refrences to 'great animals' in the middle of the old testiment (around joshua, I believe). They were the dinosaurs. Unfortunetly, they don't explain how they became extinct.
2 - The bones are fake. They never existed. god simply put them there when the world was created. (why? to mess with us?)
Anyway, it was something like that. (this was from a Missouri Synod Luthren pastor)
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
For every biased POS you can find a rebuttal.
Secondly re-read Behe, he agrees with the scientific orthodoxy on the last 200 million years of evolution, which is something that the average creationist does not want to remember.
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I theorize that all automobiles are blue. But I just saw one that isn't blue, so it must be a true theory (by your "logic") that all automobiles are the complimentary color orange Um....I think he meant that in your example that it must be a true theory that not all automobiles are blue. - Riboflavin
I wear pants.
thats right! fight to protect your ignorance! it's the american way! evolution as a process is a perfectly sound idea.. but to attempt to apply it to the development of life on earth is absurd. Its so easy to shut your eyes and not think about it and just believe what they teach you in school, rather than actually have to think about it and realize how fundamentally retarded it is. It is not within the scope of this simple little posting on slashdot to describe the myriad of obvious flaws in the darwinian mindset, but kudos to kansas for taking one small step back from the brainwashing of our childen. maybe one or two will slip through the cracks and grow up to have no interest in jerry springer or southpark. maybe even have a thought or two in his/her life. imagine that... the end of life as we know it. we better start kicking and screaming now! our stupidity is at stake! btw, sorry about the AC -- good old slashdot seems to have lost my account and I refuse to make a new one. ps: this whole posting is just further proof of what we all knew: Hemos Sux
at least to my satisfaction - I see the
flu virus evolve every year
Ehh? So few of us left? Maybe in the US.. In the rest of the world, atheism is growing rapidly.
Seriously, I see a lot of people who say, "We don't have much evidence" but I do not see that from people who are intellectually honest and have actually investigated the subject. A good starting place if you want to look online would be the FAQS for talk.origins.
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
.. is flawed;
They banned evolution on the grounds that it damaged children's Christian beliefs, but not on the grounds that it was incorrect. In this way they're sort of legitimizing it and since Christanity and Evolution disprove each other, they're shooting themselves in the foot and admitting or revealing that Christianity is nothing but a lot of hot air used as an excuse for oppression, as rational-minded people know! (Running and ducking)
The Bible does very well when looking at separate archeological, and historical evidence.
fuck government, fuck kansas.
Which brings me to everyone's favorite song, "Murder the Government" by NOFX
The full quote is, "Dead are all Gods. Now we will that Superman live." Either ol' Fred was an evolutionist, or a cartoonist.
Then why da hell do we need one and why? There is no need for god and there was none, ever. Religion is just used as a way to manipulate poor minded people (... many of them unfortunately live in Kansas)
Keep them ignorant, keep your power -- Fucked Up College Kids
God is not real, not even integer... god is void.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Flood seems to be a good explanation for the lack of dinousaurs. They did not make it to the Arc.
Russian ford for ancient animals - "dopotopnyye",
which literary means "pre-flood".
I have heard people arguing for (NOT against) "Big Bang" and expanding Universe on the Bible basis. It is actually amazing how many physicists are religious..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Also known as the "lots and lots of time + nothing = everything." A very plausible theory, indeed. A question for the atheist fanatics: where exactly did the very first piece of something come from? Oh, and any answers referring to "a former piece of something" are automatically disqualified.
Please read something about science, in particular the scientific method. Proof is a technique of mathematics, NOT science. Even there you find true statements that cannot be proven, so reliance on proof not the best thing to hold your breath for.
Um, state-level control over the curriculum is bad. Removing educational mandates is good.
"if evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve!" -jello
'least, we'll be one-up on residents of kansas.
The bible describes a circular object in measurements rounded to the whole number. The context is of a description, not of giving information about mathematics.
Excuse me, but you're simply not thinking. At all.
Right-wing has nothing to do with anything. Fundamentalist Christian ethics (if the terms can be used together non-oxymoronically) have little or nothing to do with conservatism or the "Right Wing".
Conservatism, by its very nature, means to promote and enforce the status quo (the root "conserve" in "conservatism" is your first clue there, guy...). The status quo is this: "evolution is not hard science, but a theory; it has not been proven (the fact that it cannot be proven yet notwithstanding - maybe in a hundred years or so...), and therefore must not be taught as law". Seen this way, that viewpoint makes more sense than: "evolution is hard science; it has been proven beyond doubt to be the One True Way that nature works, and must be taught as such".
I'm no fundamentalist, not by a long stretch of the imagination. I do, however, think that the jury's still out on evolution (not that I believe what's taught in Genesis, either). If evolution is the way things happened, then when it is proven, I will accept it with open arms. It seems a plausible theory to me. Creationism seems a bit far-fetched, but hey... who's to say there isn't a God that created everything? You can't prove his non-existence, and the most ardent and well-studied fundie can't prove his existence. That's why there's a thing called "faith".
Hell, who's to say God didn't use evolution to create this mess?
But back to my point...
"Right Wing single issue (okay maybe three) assh0l$e" - geez, you're really 'l33t there, bud. Try thinking just a little bit before posting.
Remember: think, THEN post.
I could say the same thing for all the tax-and-$p3nd L1b3r4Lz (whom I despise - I pay just about what my mom makes in taxes EVERY YEAR - just let me KEEP MY OWN FRIGGIN' MONEY and I WILL DECIDE how best to distribute MY OWN wealth!).
"We have to cut the space program so we can feed all the starving wood owls in the old growth rain forests..."
Bullshit.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Then He created school boards. -S. L. Clemens The idea that one would not require evolution be taught is like teaching that the earth is flat. Kansas has just got to re-consider this, or thousands of folks at Boeing Wichita will move.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Please distinguish between these two phenomena:
Natural selection could still be considered "theory." There are several variations on the theme. There is not, as yet, a single theory of natural selection that has achieved massive concensus. This is a topic of much ongoing research.
Evolution, on the other hand, could only be labeled "fact." There is a large body of fossil records that have been studied, and indicate clearly that the Earth is billions of years old and that new species have come and gone over this time. (If you disagree with this, then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, and this discussion is over.) The next thing is to consider that all known forms of life come from previous life forms. For example, you came from your parents; you didn't just appear one day. This has been observed time and again, and indeed is common sense. There are no observed exceptions to this rule. If you accept both of these premises, then the conclusion is that evolution occurs: new species appear over time, and they descended from previous ones. If one witholds the label of "fact" from evolution, then nearly no observed phenomenon would qualify.
Natural selection theories are one way of explaining the observed fact of evolution. There is much to recommend them, but they are not so well established that no dissenting opinions is possible. As has been mentioned, natural selection is somewhat difficult to observe in action.
Another theory of explaining how evolution occurs would be divine intervention. It's not a theory I favor, because of the scarcity of any physical evidence to back it up. But many hold it to be true.
In any case, please be more precise when discussing evolution and natural selection. There are few that would truly dispute evolution, except when they mistakenly confuse it with natural selection.
John Dawson
For further reading, check out Terence McKenna's Food of the Gods, in which he theorizes that humans are apes that had to adapt to grasslands as the Sahara receded, and they began introducing psychedelic mushrooms into their diets that were growing on cow sh*t in those grasslands. Monkeys that had better cognitive abilities, robust egos, and imaginations could deal with it, others could not. Natural selection for more finely tuned brains. Also, I highly suggest reading Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. Telepathic gorilla tells man why he's so f*cked up. And The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond, gives a great understanding of how human language evolved. -- octo
You do not sound like someone amply qualified to talk about science. But, in your defense, most of the people on Slapdash talk out of their ass.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
I can imagine in a very distant future world (10,000 years), that there will be a great debate
;-)
about the origins of Linux. What will be taught in computer science history classes? Did Linux
evolve from Unix or was it created?
The creationist will point to crufty old documents that prove that Linus created Linux for his own
PC in his spare time. The evolutionists will point out that this is highly unlikly and point to
the similarities between Unix and Linux and postulate a missing-link/release that will prove
their point, but not find one.
Look how BSD and S5R4 have a clear evolutionary tree from Unix, they will cry. Why should be
believe Linux didn't do the same, they will question. Why believe in creation when evolution
is much more plausible.
The creationist will stand firm, these FAQ documents tell all the fact. No-one should question them.
Strange how these arguments can always be used in the same way. You may laugh about it now,
but this is exactly how all these kind of debates get started...
btw, I believe in evolution
Don't forget to legalize incest and lower the age of consent to 3.
All things being equal (which I know they are not), who cares if we teach evolution as fact or not? Does anyone KNOW how things ended up the way they are today? Sure, I beleive in natural selection, but evolution? I'm not totally convinced yet. It's got a lot of credability, but is it fact? Who knows?
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Well, actually, salt-water and brackish fish would die in fresh water. But there are much, much bigger problems for cretinists, er, creationists.
The Bible says that every living substance not on the Ark (I wish I had a dollar for each time they said they found that friggin' thing) was destroyed. So, there are several conclusions which must be drawn:
1) Someone on the ark had AIDS, influenza, bubonic plague, ebola, hemmoragic E. coli, and a host of other nasty diseases for that year, unless you want to believe in a second, undocumented Creation. Plus they managed to stock all fresh and salt water fish, mollusks, and other invertibrates.
2) The only people on the Ark were Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their three wives. The sons all got their genes from their parents, so the five of them only count as two individual from a genetic diversity standpoint. This is a stupifyingly-low amount of genetic diversity. Not to mention the stupidity of two of every "kind" of animal (a few more, in some cases). One fact we know today is that some animal species which have been pushed to the edge of extinction are very hard to save (some species of tigers, for example) because there is not enough genetic diversity, and there are way more than two of them.
3) According to the literal interpretation of the chronology in the Bible, the world is 6000 years old, and the flood occurs some 1800 or so years after creation. This leaves only some 4200 years for four couples (assuming Noah could still get it up, and he was way old; if you believe the Bible, people back then lived nearly a thousand years) to repopulate the entire Earth. Worse yet: It's pretty well established that all the various races we see today already existed 4000 years ago. The Chinese and the Eqyptians were around, Eurpoeans and Africans certainly were too. How do you account for that, when there's not that much genetic diversity to start with? You'd need an amazingly high mutation rate. Essentially you'd have to assume some super-rapid evolution...
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
No no no. . . you seem to have forgotten. The seperation of church and state ended after Columbine when the government voted to post the 10 Commandments in schools. . .
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
The only problem with your little post is that the fundies in Kansas sure are mighty selective about which "theories" they want optional. I don't see anyone trying to make the "theory of gravity" or the "theory of electromagnetism" or the "theory of US history" optional, even though all these things are just as much, if not more, theoretical than evolution.
A theory is not a fact. It can't be proved, it can only be shown false. Most of science is made up of theories. Why aren't the Kansan fundies clamping down on science in general? Think about it, and don't be so quick to defend them. This has nothing to do with an abstract desire to 'challenge children to think'. It is all about getting material unfavorable to the bible out of schools.
And furthermore, consider the fossil record that would result. Considering how rare fossilization is, what you'd have is you'd have a lot of wolf-skeletons, maybe a few intermediates if you're lucky, and then a bunch of chihuahua and Great Dane skeletons. It would look as if the wolf species split into two species.
On top of all that, the transition will appear to be almost instant. That's what punctuated equilibrium is all about - that significant changes in species can happen faster than the fossil record can record them.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Who, of those who've posted so many flaming comments, has actually *studied* evolutionary biology? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Who has *studied* "creationism"? What does it mean? How many different versions of it are there? Who is qualified to say whether it's correct or not?
Use your brains....most of what I've seen is a bunch of jerking knees. Get the facts before posting!
"It is an error to imagine that evolution signifies a constant tendency to increased perfection." -- Thomas Henry Huxley
(Yet another quote taken out of context)
---
I take some issue with teaching that mankind evolved from apes.
---
As do I. That's not even a part of evolutionary theory, and your repeating of it shows your ignorance on the subject (take no offense, please, but it's the truth). The theory generally states that men and current apes evolved from a common ancestor, which is fairly well established in the fossil record.
---
On the other hand, what happens when you tell a kid that everyone is just an animal? That human life is worth no more than the life of that cow that died to make that hamburger?
---
Not my problem. We shouldn't change scientific fact just because it serves our needs. Just because nuclear warfare killed tens of thousands in WWII doesn't mean that fission isn't a valid scientific process, does it? You don't just go and change the results because it doesn't paint a nice picture - killing cows for meat is no different than doing the same to a human, except that we're human, not cows, so we don't like to think about that.
The way I see it, if a Christian NEEDS either the threat of eternal damnation in the firey pits of hell or religious teaching to know that killing fellow humans is not a cool thing to do, he/she has serious mental problems already. I guess that's just my take on it, as one of the millions of peaceful agnostics out there.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
Man I thought that guy was just throwing in a little humor. People get so touchy when religion gets involved.
I believe in God, not Christianity (although I believe that Christ very well did walk this planet long ago). For all we know, BOTH creation and evolution could co-exist. The Bible is hard to deny, but so is the scientific process. Is it unreasonable to think that an almighty creator could have PLANNED evolution as part of his world? He wouldn't want his creations to suffer, so perhaps He gave them the ability to adapt.
I believe the Bible is a remarkable text (obviously, since it is still a best seller). But I feel that many people take it far too literally, especially in light of how old it is.
To paraphrase another poster - give people some leeway. Present different theories and let them make up their own minds. One of the reasons I can't stand organized religion is that they believe it is their job to tell people how to think.
I believe in God, not brainwashing.
Hope I didn't offend the entire universe with this post.
f we can't keep guns, how are we to overthrow our government if it becomes too bloated and corrupt to function? That is part of what the US was founded on.
I don't believe that reasoning is used anywhere in the constitution. The second amendment seems to say that the right to bear arms is predicated on the necessity for the state to have an armed milita not on the citizenery's need to possibly overthrow the government.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Hrmmmm.... perhaps I should read that book, "Darwin's Black Box." I usually don't like to poke around with theology because I don't like being offended (and I get offended easily!), but perhaps it's worth a read.
I am also a Christian, and I believe God was responsible for at least part of the creation of the universe. I believe He "ignited" the Big Bang. I also believe in macroevolution, but not "Godless" evolution; I think He tweaked things to His liking. My beliefs sound strange (and I admit that I'm young and have a lot to learn), but I don't think that the world is only 6,000 years old and was literally created in 7 twenty-four hour days. I just keep in mind that the Bible was not written by God, but was written by God-inspired humans; back about 2000 years ago, the number "1 million" hadn't even been invented yet, so of course the Bible won't ever say that the world could be 4.5 billion years old!
Anyway, that's just my two cents. Perhaps you're right about schools not being forced to teach Darwinian evolution anymore, but I still believe it should be taught, if only to give the students a different perspective. I do not agree that it should be taught as proven fact, though.
I live in Kansas, about 30 miles from the capitol, where all this happened.
I live in Lawrence, Kansas, which is about as liberal as you can get in the Midwest.
I was also raised on a farm, in the 'boonies'.
I am not a Repubican (nor a Democrat, for that matter). I believe that the 'Religious Right' is wrong most of the time. I am not currenly affiliated with any religious group.
It appears that once again, 'crap' journalism has arisen to take a pretty tame fact and blow it WAAAAAAAYYY out of proportion.
Here's the deal: In the passed proposal, it does not ban, decry, condemn, or pass any type of judgement on evolution. It simply does not make it a subject that the state school board recommends that students *have* to be tested on. That's it. Nothing more. Here's more information, a few paragraphs down.
Are there religious undertones for this vote? Sure! Are there private agendas here? Sure, on both sides of the fence. But this is NOT a ban on evolution or a proposal of creationism teachings. It simply does not require evolution to be a state assessment test subject. Schools are NOT required to follow this and may teach the subject any way they wish.
What really offends me, are the several articles I found (MSNBC, CNN, etc) that basically mention the vote, and then spend the rest of the article talking about other states efforts to pass creationist laws. They mostly ignore the nature of the proposal and immediatly start yelling about the "Scopes Monkey Trial" and separation of church and state. I find it interesting that they mostly interview scientific "experts", who talk about evolution as a fact-theory, and then real 'christian' cretins who are about as reasonable as Fred Phelps. What about just plain old normal people who don't have any axes to grind? This is really CRAP journalism.
I'm a Kansan, and for the most part, this decision doesn't really hold much interest for me, one way or the other. I'm home schooling my daughter, and this doesn't really affect me. (And yes, when she is old enough she will learn about the "Theory of Evolution", but not about the "Fact of Evolution").
Check your facts before you start make REALLY offensive remarks, okay?
jf
If anyone wants to let the Kansas B. of E. know that you disagree with the decision, you can send email to the commissioner: Dr. Andy Tompkins mailto:atompkins@smtpgw.ksbe.state.ks.us http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/commiss/commiss.html
It is easy to say that they should not be presented as fact when you do not know the mass of evidence.
Did you know that the process of evolution is itself observed, proven, fact? That is right folks, we have observed it happen in real life. For but one example the spread of the killer bees throughout South America, Central America, and now their continuing spread through North America is literally evolution in action!
As for the further evidence, well I don't want to write a book. Get yourself to a library and begin to look some of it up for yourself...
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
OK, the easy stuff first: When evolution is proved, .... and eventually prove it, right? You must have been sleeping in class when they mentioned the Scientific Method. Save for pure Mathematics, you can't prove any hypothesis true. But, you can demonstrate that one is false. So, your first condition falls flat from day one. When science legitimately disproves creation, I'll be done with faith. Again you demonstrate an ignorance of scientific method. Creation by a diety, as it is usually expressed in the USA, is an unfalsifiable hyphothesis (it requires gods and other omnipotentient beings who can do anything and can never be pinned down). So, science will never "disprove" it. Your faith is safe.
I've got no problem believing in microevolution. There ain't no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution, save in the minds of Creationists. There is only varying degrees of evolution. Let's nail down the definition of evolution:
That's it. That's what you're rebelling against.Anyone who has ever bred dogs or canaries or whatever has seen this happen, all the time, whether you want it to do so, or not. Every new strain of staph that is more resistant to antibiotics is evolving. Each and every strain of penicillin resistant bacteria evolved to become resistant. Same for the finches on the Galapagos Islands as the average beak size changes in response to long term weather patterns.
Given all of the evidence there is no doubt that biological evolution is effectively a fact, as much of a fact as gravity. It simply is how living things work. However, this is likely what led to the "microevolution" concept -- it was a way for Creationists to try to accept the basic facts of life, yet not accept their unavoidable conclusion. In other words, it was a way for them to admit that it was possible to walk down the street, yet deny that it is possible to walk from L.A. to New York City.
Other postings have dealt with the facts of evolution vs. the different theories of evolution. See What is Evolution? for a better description that I can write.
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Perhaps you're thinking of the old testament. The new testament isn't quite 2,000 years old, and I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) revelations is actually less than 1,000 years old. Just playing devils advocate, someone figured out how to make fire with rocks. Probably a very long time ago. Fact is, it still works. Counter-fact is, fire and philosophy are two different things.
I'm rather appalled at some of the opinions I have been seeing here. I would encourage all of you to take some critical looks at Evolution. While it seems plausible, is that because of what you know, or what you were taught.
I would recommend reading books on both sides of the issue so that way you can decide for yourself. I'm fairly sure I'm in the minority of slashdot readers as one who believes in creationism, but I wasn't always like that. In fact it was even christianity that convinced me of creationism, christianity was not a part of my life at that point in time.
As for the person who made the comment about the dogs interbreeding, umm hate to break it you einstein, but all dogs are the same species, just different breeds. Sorta like humans in that respect.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
--you said--
We must shift our focus back to something which is never used in an evil fashion: religion.
--I reply--
Ummm... so you are saying that the Crusades were good? people died for the "holy wars" and right now I can't think of anything good that came from them except for the spreading around of the culture from both worlds.
can you prove that this "theory" of God exists? please, don't say to me "it is all around us, everything you see is the handiwork of God" because I can easily reply with: "No, it's the handiwork of evolution, each species doing what is neccessary for it's own survival and genetic transferrence"
Religion was invented to explain to simple man in simple terms what he could not understand. we have since proven that the earth is flat. we cannot stop there.
flame retardent suite : engaged
Umm, Don't jumble us all into one category. I have no clue exactly what kind of man created. I fully beleive that whatever creature what created as "man" has more than likely evolved. Look at the different continents of the world. People are very different. Very few things make us simmilar. Many Creationist would disagree with me. I would say however that whatever you beleive, creation of straight evolution, many would agree (not all) that most religion is just the observation of a god who reveals himself to us in the small ways only our feelble minds would conceive. That is a religion no matter what else you beleive.
You cannot prove a theory at all. You can only prove that it is a "reasonable" theory that makes more sense than anything else. Has anybody proven without a shadow of a doubt that the theory of gravity is true? Of course not. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are on level ground when it comes to provability. I will accept that evolution is not taught as fact when gravity is not taught as fact.
I think this is actually not as bad as a lot of people seem to think it is -- it'll certainly open up more discussions about our origins, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
Yes, but this move is being pushed by the people who blindly believe in a book. A BOOK. No offense meant, and I know that the Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally, but it's taking the piss when people who believe a woman can be made out of a man's rib can actually block people from teaching a basic biological theory in school.
In my humble opinion, too many people take too many theories for granted (religion and science both).
If we didn't take a few theories for granted, then we would not get anywhere. How could we possibly advance in science if we were forced to, for example, prove that the Earth was round every time we wanted to advance a theory on planetary motion? May I remind you that the Earth hasn't actually been proven to be round (for the anally retentive among us,) only that you can keep moving away from a certain point, only to end up back where you started. OK, so it seems that the Earth is round, but it hasn't been proven. It just seems like the best explanation. I'll stop being sarcastic now, but you get my point.
I'll admit that the theory of evolution may not be 100% perfect, but it's the best we have, and it makes sense. Which is more than I can say about Creationism, even if I was being generous. This is taking PC far too far. Stop being so silly.
I am sure that the Republican nut-cases that read Slashdot think that Creationism is just great.
we don't even have the same number of Chromosomes....~ ~^~~~^~~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^
Sadly, this post is far more intelligent than its parent. (I read comments bottom-up, btw)
If you're religous, you need to get two things:
1) A clue
2) A life
Save your tithe money for something else, like a '666' tattoo on your forehead.
This -- even in its non-hyped up reality -- really turns my stomach. The fact that they could choose to remove evolution even from the recommended standardized testing or other requirements for teaching on account of the fact that the extremist Christian factions in the state have turned their attention from the evils of the Internet and the teletubbies to the easily demonstrable proofs that their fundamentalist teachings are plain wrong.
This is a really dangerous change to make in the schools curriculums. The intelligent students who are able to critically evaluate what they're being taught won't be affected. Most students aren't stupid enough to deny the validity of the scientific process -- even if they question the results. The real risk is to the bottom-of-the-rung students who are being raised by their television by parents who are poorly educated to say the least. These are the students who are going to grow up as equally ignorant and just continue repeating the process.
There are few enough parents doing a decent job raising their kids today, without the states stepping in to make the process of turning out mindless masses who's only care is where they're going to get their next beer and who's on the next WWF that much easier.
Maybe its time for the federal government to pass laws requiring a minimum standard education, since aparently some states seem to think its enough to just chuck the kids into a building for six or seven hours so their parents can work.
We take a useless state, like one of the Dakota's, or Kansas, and fence it off. We put them all in there and put metal underwear on them. When they get close to the fence, they get a nice little electrical shock.
Darwinian evolution revolves around the principal that those most fit to reproduce will take over through a larger population. Moronic conservatives who beLIEve that "god" created them so that they can go forth and multiply seem to breed far faster than more intelligent folks. They may eat dirt, but as long as they keep spawning off more future pro wrestling fans, they shall outnumber the rest of us.
Good thing we can laugh at them when we pull our foreign cars into Valvoline to have them change the oil so that we do not have to get dirty...
In the long run there is only one good option. All x-tians must die.
Never was it suggested that their reasons for removing the requirement of the teaching of evolution in public schools had anything to do with religious considerations. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the theory of evolution, as applied to the creation of life and mankind on Earth is rediculous hogwash. I've noticed a lot of people scream and shout and get all outraged about "ignorant religious zealots" but read your own postings, people. Who are the ignorant zealots here? Jumping to conclusions and blindly shouting what you were taught in school. Kansas is taking a step away from that brainwashing of children -- the very same brainwashing that has apparently infected the vast majority of you.
Because Religious Zealots think they're doing us a favor by teaching us the ways of Lord, and making us accept Jesus Christ as our personal saviour so we all dont burn in hell. To them, Its like telling a friend not to drink draino. However, I feel they've gone too far this time. I remember a friend of mine once did the audio for a Christian Collition Meeting in Kansas once... Man, to this day he doesnt like christianity at all.
Oooh! Sign me up!!!
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Background: Mother teaches high school bio, wife teaches high school bio. Religion=none.
If they had gone about half way and said that Evolution is only a theory, and not to be treated as fact I would actually agree with it. The biggest problems scientists have today is that they feel that once they have a theory that fits the bill, it is the only way that works. In fact there is pretty good evidence that when a new scientific idea comes out that shatters old theories, old scientists don't adopt it, they just die off (nuclear atomic theory, being one of the prime examples). If they KS had said that it should be emphasized as only a theory and not treated as a fact (which many scientists do), that would have been cool by me, the problem is they said it wasn't a theory of modern biology which is patently false.
------------------------------------
Microwho? Oh yeah, don't they make game software or something like that.
Ok, I give up, why you?
And they are teaching 'creationism' in many places without having seen the second coming, armageddon, or anything else that could make creationism seem any more valid than evolution.
Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot at the center of the universe. And now they would have us force feed this, their evil-ution, to our kids.
I'll take an educated view and a sense of respect and wonder for the immense complex universe around us over self-centred ignorance any day.
We must shift our focus back to something which is never used in an evil fashion: religion
Religion hasn't been used in an evil fashion? That's a good one! How many native societies have been destroyed by religious crusades and missions to convert them to one form of religion or another? Not only are the religious entitled to their own opinion, but they appear to be entitled to force it upon others, through violence if necessary, even if others had opinions and beliefs of their own with which they were perfectly happy. But I guess it's okay because they were wrong and you were "right", no?
The problem is that science is a mechanism to seek an understanding of natural processes by seeking to categorize laws of nature.
Miracles are not laws of nature. Scientifically, Slashdot happened because Rob's happened to start a cool web site. Theologically, maybe God had a hand in it, maybe it wasn't chance.
We do not need a God-centric theory of atomic physics. We do not need a God-centric theory of how the lungs work. We do not need a God-centric theory of how airplanes fly. And we do not need a God-centric theory on how life began.
Beware anyone who talks about "impossibly large odds". The reality is that no matter how large the odds are, if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to speculate upon it.
Also despite the incredible complexity of modern bio-molecules, there is no reason to presuppose that DNA or RNA came out of nowhere randomly. There are plenty of possibilities of simple reproducing bio-molecules using clays as a catalysis agent. There isn't even a reason why the first reproducing molecules had to be any bio-molecule that we use today.
The truth is we don't yet have a good clue on how life began. But if we just say "God did it," we will definately never know!
On the other hand, speciation has been observed, so evolution is a fact.
Ok, since Evolution is a theory and NOT a fact, nor has it EVER been proven... let's forget our little school days 'follow the crowd' crap and be realistic. IF (and that's a big if) evolution is a fact this is just another case where the schools of this country are f-ing with our kids. If it's not fact... why is it even listed here? Is it geek news? Are computers related? (Ok, I guess I can see the science relation but come-on)
I live in Kansas, and as a member of a freethought group on my campus, I have been following this very carefully.
First, I would like to give some background on how the Christian Fundamenatists have been operating. They used to try to get Creation taught along side evolution under some kind of equal time idea. That was struck down numerous time by courts, including the Supreme Court. So now they are settling for not teaching evolution in school. In Alabama they mandated that all biology used in the state school system include a warning label that says evolution is "a controversial theory... No one was present when life appeared. Therefore any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory and not a fact." Texas almost got it's biology books replaced by ones published by fundamentalist institutions that contain no reference to evolution.
"Evolution is only a theory" has become their party line. They come up will all kinds of BS about how it is controversial, cite fundamentalist science text that question evolution's validity, and "since no one has seen macro-evolution occur" we can not consider it fact (they don't consider micro-evolution to be such a threat). They also cite defeciencies in the fossil and such.
They take the whole idea of what a scientific theory is and twist it. Last year the National Academy of Sciences stated evolution must be taught in public schools if biology is to understood at all. They also stated that "There is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution has occured, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occured."
Last year the Kansas Board of Education voted to adopt a new statewide science curriculum based on standards from the National Academy of Science. Which lists evolution as one of the "five concepts uniting all scientific disciplines." A 27 member state committee of science teachers and professors wrote the original standards based on this.
Conservatives however did not like the prominent display of evolution and so they took it upon themselves to write a revised draft that removes most references to evolution, changes its definition, and adds a definition for "intelligent design." It leaves most of the micro-evolution reference intact though. It also restructures the main concepts that students need to learn from a more theoretical, and how-it-works method, to an applied science type of deal. The person responsible is board member Steve Abram from Arkansas City. It was written by a local creation-science organization earlier this year.
It would not ban teaching of macro-evolution, but would leave it up to local school districts to decide what to teach. It would also remove questions on macro-evolution off of the state science examinitions. Which will favor teaching something that is in standard to macro-evolution. Unfortunately college entrance exams will contain them, thus screwing Kansas students.
Recently a letter was sent to the Board from the presidents of 6 universities in Kansas. It basically states that they have a responsibility to teach evolution and that it would be better to leave the previous standards in place then to replace them with Abram's draft.
The Kansas Board of Education Members are split 5-5 along Moderate-Conservative lines. This is caused numerous deadlocks in the past. The board vowed not to deadlock on this issue, and because of the religious conservatives stuborness, their version might pass. A "compromise" was recently presented, but it doesn't sound like much of a compromise. However it seems to have gained a moderate board memeber's support.
So it sounds like students in Kansas will be getting the short end of the stick until we get some competent (non-fundamentalist) board memebers.
When did science die? Doesn't anyone know what the scientific method is anymore? With evolution we simply have a set of observations, not all of which can be verified, that suggest that something is occurring, that's far cry from fact. It's the best theory we've got but that's about it.
The practice of teaching evolution theory doesn't need to be banned - just put in its proper place. Students should be taught that it is only an theory, and allowed to accept it or to hold their own opinions. Students should also be taught that evolution is an unscientific theory, because it violates the second law of thermodynamics (note: when a theory violates a scientific law, the theory is unscientific).
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
yep.
Evolution is actually a good theory... but it's important that schools teach it as "theory". I also think it's a good thing if people would realize the difference between micro & macro evolution, two different things. So I think that's what the folks in kansas should have taught.
What's crazy is when you say you can't teach what the "christians" think. Darwin was a Christian, you're teaching what he thought. The bible doesn't say there's nothing like evolution "explicitly", but with interpretation another Christian says there's nothing like it.
Now it's important to realize that Darwin never meant macroevolution, he meant micro. So the two christians might not be in total harmony, but they agree perhaps on the fundamentals.
You see a little more background isn't religious preaching, it's education. If you ban religion, you have the "athiest" religion in school. So that's rather hipocritical.
So seriously guys, though those people in Kansas perhaps didn't make the law perfect, it's perhaps a step to increasing the education in the schools. That's not a bad thing...
Freaking out, and going to either extreme is a bad thing. I hope you guys keep this in mind because it's when we remove thinking from our society that we damn outselves to some governmental religion rule. When we present more than one point of view, and perhaps with some laws facilitate more views (not replace views) that we encourage the next generation to actually use their brain.
And the beer's better. Far better. But in California, Moosehead considered a beer. In Canada, it's considered a sex crime...
"And all God's people said amen..."
:-) Couldn't have said it better my friend, well put. This whole issue has me really steamed.
(I'm from Alabama btw, I see this kind of shit first-hand every day)
>However, I have a real problem with anybody being forced to teach something which might or might not be true. Do you wanna scrap all "knowledge" then? All our scientific laws might not be true, people just accept them on FAITH! So, science is another religion, which may or may not be true, so maybe we shouldn't learn anything. I would rather learn all different viewpoints, so, I think it would be good if they took some opposing theories and lay out the differences.
Its too bad that they cant just decide to teach both sides of the coin and give everyone the best of all of the knowledge we have...
On the comments about Darwinism, a good book that too me brings to light some good questions is Darwins Black Box...at the moment I cant remember the authors name but it was a good read... Check it out for those interested...
The nothing corollary: From nothing can come nothing, therefore there must have always been something...
Wacky little side note: If I recall, Charles Darwin was a very devout Presbyterian, but did his best not to involve religion in his science work. It's always fun to the compare reactions of self described pro-science non-fundamentalist types vs. the reactions of people who call themselves fundamentalists when they hear this. Can you guess which ones didn't handle it graciously? : ) I wonder how the State Board would react....
Myth \Myth\, n.
1. A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.
Theory \The"o*ry\, n.
1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which minates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.
Evolultion is not a myth - it's a theory. inasmuch as evolution is a theory, so is creationism. that's why i think it's absurd to make teaching evolution mandatory in schools while teaching about creation is not mandatory.
I'm a Christian too, and frankly, I don't feel evolution threatens my beliefs. If you look at a lot of the debate, much of the creationist side is not well grounded in their science, and a lot of it's half-baked regurgitation of what someone else said. There's some good points, but they don't address a lot of what's being pointed out on the evolution side. I'm not saying I agree or disagree--just saying I don't know when it comes to the issue. I don't know why a lot of Christians obsess about this. I think it's the wrong hill to die on. I also think a lot of Christians do this sort of stuff because 'Pat Robertson said to' -- I wouldn't be surprised if they let him dictate who they vote for. (An interesting note is that politics for a lot of Christians in America lean toward the right, while politics for Christians in Australia lean toward the left.) The Bible is very clear on a number of things, 'love thy neighbor as thyself', etc...If I'm not doing those things the whole creation/evolution debate is irrelevant. I'm sure some of the people who are rabid about this sort of thing are the same ones that hold pickets 'God Hates Fags'.
I didn't know that such a viewpoint could be summed up in such a short comment! I agree with you completely. I am Christian, but I do realize that no one knows exactly how God works or on what level He chooses to work. I've heard that God works in natural ways, and I don't believe he just "poofed" the world and all of its life into existence about 6,000 years ago. He could have, but then again, He very well may have decided to be a little more "sneaky". We humans will never truly know how God works, but we do need to acknowledge the fact that He doesn't always just go around "shoving and poofing".
I think one of the more compelling recent developments is the analysis of DNA to find when two species diverged. You assume a fairly constant rate of mutation (observable on the time scale of a few generations) in the DNA and can use the mutation rate and the amount of difference between the DNA between two species to determine the approximate time the species diverged. Usually the results match up with the geological record pretty well. This work appears to provide a direct link between mutations and evolution.
I'm not a molecular biologist, I'm a chemist, so I'm probably screwing up the facts a bit, here.
First:
I don't care about evolution...
Whether or not it is true has no relevance for my beliefs...
I will not reply to arguments concerning that...
Second:
I do agree that evolution should be teached in shools... Not because I think it is true but because I think we shouldn't hide information like that from our children...
But:
This outrage against people who have different beliefs bother me far more! There is no such thing as scientific truth! Science is, by defenition, not the truth... When science becomes the truth it is no longer useful since it is not open for discussion... Everything has to be open for discussion...
Well, I don't want to get too involved in any debate and I think I've made my main point so that'll just have to do for now...
/Daniel
A man with faith can indulge in the luxury of skepticism. - X-Files
-- No, no -- Not that one!
You're quite the smartass...but you didn't read the whole post or you would have seen that he is indeed going to teach his daughter evolution. You're a prick!
Hmm...by that logic we're half man half worm! :)
Humans have 40% identical dna to earthworms.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
It couldn't adapt, mutate, whatever (mechanism-wise) to compete for territory, food, whatever with its competitors in order to survive.
Why we haven't found 'it' in the fossil record yet is an interesting question, but certainly not one that disproves evolution.
Finding 'it' also wouldn't prove evolution either, by the way, as I'm sure many other Slashdotters could explain far better than I, so you might as well find some other 'issue' with evolution to cling to. :-)
Oh wait, you said pronoun.
Since the word "Bible" generally refers to the Christian Bible, you're off by a couple hundred years. More importantly, you might have missed the point. I think the poster was trying to convey the stupidity in taking the bible literally. I don't think he did a good job, and hope that is what he means.... A good portion of respected modern bible scholars believe that the Bible was compiled from stories and lore. It should be read as a symbolic attempt to bring meaning to the world the writers lived in.
Hey, gravity is a theory to. Why don't you do us all a favor and disprove it by walking off the end of a cliff. As long as you don't look down you should be fine :)
Apparently (once again) it seems a fairly nastily large chunk of them actually are. Makes you feel good to not have to put up with that sort of stuff, no?
I extend an offer of sympathy to the poor clue-having Americans who must endure in such circumstances. If creation "science" is a legitimate science why is it confined essentially to one country?
Silly American fundamentalists who somehow have been allowed to accumulate power do something ignorant and shame their nation in front of the world *again*. Always good to keep the rest of us amused. Thanks!
[We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
Given: (1)the belief that properties of the bodyparts eaten are taken over by the consumer and (2) fanatic christians turn into dickheads, it's not difficult to guess what part they eat ;-D
If you have any comments about Board action, send your email to Penny Plamann, Board secretary, at pplamann@ksbe.state.ks.us. She will forward your comments to the Kansas State Board of Education.
You can also phone comments to 785-296-7933
Their home page is at: http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/
-Jack
ps-be polite; they may be a little slow in the head, but even simple folk like these appreciate a rational argument.
\
... weird a 'nut' removeing nuts... look ma' it's recurseive. :)
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
Go read Eldridge and Gould (FYI the people whose paper started the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium) and read what they had to say about it.
The only people who think that it is NOT a form of Darwinian evolution are liars out to make it look like there is a debate within science about whether evolution is true (there is not), and those who have been fooled by the liars but who never bothered to go so far as to read the people whose positions were being caricatured by the liars.
*sigh*
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
>What kind of god is it that goes around and lays >false evidence everywhere. "All those dinosaur >bones are just their for yucks!". Laugh it up >funny boy. You paint the picture of god as seven >year old. One who says "Believe in me or be >damned!" and then goes way out of his way >to help people come up with all sorts of >explanations of alternate ways things could >happen. A god who trys to make us not believe in >him so we'll go to hell. Is that nice? Is that >right? Doesn't sound like someone I'd invite over >for dinner. -- A-friggin-men to that. Religion has come up with the last ditch effort to keep people subdued. Essentially, by telling people that logical methods are wrong, religion cannot be disproved, and thus it carves a niche for itself in an environment of true enlightenment... the understanding of nature and science. In fact, it seems somewhat amusing to hear the 'logical' arguments of the various christian followers. Logic, coming from a foundation that says: "NO! Do NOT use logic to determine the truth of our words!".
HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!
Encore! Encore! I think that our initial poster didn't take Biology 101 before saying that nice little comment that spurred so many threads. c'mon guys, do we really take people of this intellectual level *seriously*???
Health Care is better in the US if and only if you are rich; If you are poor its better in Canada.
Hey, Not the Dakota's, all my True American brethern live there on the reservation. I'd rather Nuke Kansas (after moving my parents out of state) than make them suffer more arrogant white men.
Even the foremost scientists in evolution are now pointing to a meteor that came down to Earth and brought life with it. Why? because they concluded the Earth is too small to possibly have enough reactions to create a protein molecule in a billion-billion years.
Secondly, it has been discovered that the first single-celled life came an instant after the waters in the ocean stopped boiling.
Thirdly, in another instant (in geologic time) the Cambrian Explosion brought every body form in existance and no significant changes have been made since.
Fourthly, the DNA molecule is so complex, had it been transmitted in radio form to SETI, it would qualify as evidence for intelligent life.
To go to the title of my post, many people say that life came into existance for many reasons and are acted upon with different purposes. Evolution leaves its believers either deceived or to trust by faith in its Random Chance. Belief by faith in something that created life and continues to act on it is a religion.
Please respond intelligently.
dan1123@yahoo.com
In the spirit of open-mindedness, may I present
Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity,
Philip Johnson, and
Access Research Network.
I can only vouch for the writing of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, and must warn you that there is "young-earth snake oil" to be avoided, but probably not at these sites.
Cosmology has holes. Big ones. Should we stop beleiving that other planets exist? Should we go back to thinking that stars are "pinholes in god's creation" as well? The only thing full of holes around here are the weak arguments made by creationists trying to defend their irrational beleif in supernatural powers.
Hello? Try the Declaration of Independence We are OBLIGATED to overthrow ANY tyrannical Goverment. Why then is the State so upset about my Howitzer in the backyard? Hmmm.... Actually, my idea was to issue a Saturday night special and a Bran Muffin to eveyone when they turn 18. " a REGULAR, well ordered Militia" indeed. The Second Amend ment is not about hunter's rights, unless you consider it hunting season on goverment employees - foreign and domestic. And a fond hello to my friends in Domestic surveilance, the ECHELON home team. And a special howdy to the civil forfeiture crowd "Trial? trial? we don't need no steenkin trial"
What does that have to do with anything?
The coelecanth (I assume that's what you're blathering about) was assumed extinct. It was proven that it was not. But, there were no direct lines of descent from that fish to another line of fishes. Nothing that you could point to to say, "ah, here we see natural selection at work - the coelecanth was superceded by this other fish, because this other fish was better suited to this environment, blah blah blah". Now that I think a bit more about it, you've just detracted from the evolutionists position.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Very good point!
:)
Supossed God used evolution to create life? it would explain alot and make both sides pretty pissed off
Oh well, back to riding the fence
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
Natural Selection is observable and should and is still taught in these schools. The Theory of Evolution (minus natural selection) is just that: a theory. It is however, not scientific. Why? Because it can not (and never can be) proved by the scientific method. For example, you could not scientifically prove to me that you ate a pizza for lunch yesterday. You could bring substantial historical evidence (how courts of law operate) to prove it but that is all. Science has always had stiffer prerequisites in order to prove something...first it must be repeatable. There must also be controls. Also, say we were able to see a forming universe trillions of miles away. Also, assume we were able to visit this universe and over time see creatures "evolve" from ape like creatues into human-like creatures. This still wouldn't prove evolution. Why? Repeatabliity. No controls. It would merely be one observation, and any scientist will tell you that a single observation aint worth squat. My point is that evolution is not, nor never will be a "scientific" theory. It is merely one man's "idea" of how we came to be. Furthurmore, it is based on observations of natural selection. Since his observations we have gained many new technologies...high powered microscopes for example. Evolution just doesn't hold up at the molecular level. The most well known example of what I am talking about is the human blood-clotting system. Known as a cascade system, it is very complex and involves many factors. Many amino acids and proteins must operate in concert inorder for the system to work properly. If you take one of them away your blood would never clot. If you take a different one away your blood may never be unclotted. If any single piece is missing you would die. This can not evolve. Even natural selection is based on the simple idea of survival of the fittest. This means that every step in the "evolving" process must be beneficial. However we got our current blood clotting system we must have obtained pretty much in tact and as it is today...no evolutionary process can explain this...scientists are currently trying to devise *new* theories that make sense and take care of these unexplainable cases. In fact, there are many more examples just like this one. Do a search for "irreducibly complex systems"....this should turn up many more pages discussing the pros-and-cons of these systems. Its not about the Christians being wrong and the Evolutionists being right or vice-versa. Its about Truth. If you're a scientist please make this your focus not these petty arguements. And *please* don't be one of those scientists that are always on the defensive. A Realist.
Despite Stephen J Gould's grandstanding, punctuated equilibrium is just an incremental change to Darwinism. He reminds me of Katz sometimes: "I've got an idea. It must be revolutionary!" As for other ideas, most of them fall under the same category. Other than Lamarkism and other things like that that have been proven to be false, that is.
Brant
In that case, you have a fact (a non-blue automobile exists), not a theory.
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
From the article:
Kansas Gov. Bill Graves, a Republican, warned board members not to adopt the anti-evolution curriculum, and has said he would support an effort to abolish the Board of Education.
[Insert you own comment about having no faith in humainty.]
ABOLISH THE BOARD OF EDUCATION?!?!?
Just wondering... what are the qualifications for becoming a Governor in the US? Is an addicion to crack required?
Jeff Higgins
www.hal9000.cc
- el jefe -
www.hal9000.cc
Take a look at the countries which have outlawed/have severe restriction on owning guns. With the exception of a few anarchistic countries, those that outlaw or severely restrict guns seem to be less likely to consider the implications of laws that inhibit freedoms.
Example: UK. Owning guns is pretty illegal, with some exceptions. Many cities have surveilance cameras capable of viewing large areas. This isn't the case in the US. Perhaps it's because shooting these cameras is a pastime. Or perhaps it's because a citizenry with guns is more likely to be more vocal and active in pushing for personal freedoms, with less fear of governmental or police relatiation, and in addition, less likely to accept such 1984-ish measures. And corrupt governments and police forces may think twice before enacting draconian measures under the premise of fighting crime.
Don't tell me that, being highly educated people in an age of scientific englightenment, that you still believe in this fairy tale that we evolved from monkeys? This theory has been weighed in by X years of research and not only has it found woefully wanting, but it was almost non-esistant in it's proofs. In fact, 75% of the people who prop up this Theory as their so-called 'Fact,' (Only because that *say* that it is) use five times as much religious faith than every Religious figure you can think of put together. If I couldn't see that they *have* College Degrees, I'd call them mindless ignoramouses who checked out their minds at a school's playground.
I simply cannot believe that any of you could perform intelectual harikiri and sill hold to the Theory of Evolusion like Billy Graham would hold to the Gospel.
(I'll tell you what I think on Creation, but that's for another matter. I'd like to duck to make sure that all those peons stop acting like their ancestors and stop their Flame Wave. I'll be sitting here proven right.)
David Gonterman of FoxFire Studios http://foxfire.twu.net
I would say that most rational Christians are going to have an open mind about topics such as the evolution of life on the Earth and the universe at large. There is enough evidence to point to the age of the universe, 12-14 billion years [12 to 14 thousand million], and the age of the Earth, ~3.5 billion years [3.5 thousand million]. Evolution is an elegant, compelling explanation as to how life started on this planet. More and more evidence is being collected to show how the species could have evolved over time. My time at Barnes & Noble reading Sic Am and Astronomy magazine is paying off.
It's important to realize that the evolution of the universe and life on Earth are still theories. They may never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Our job as rational beings is to test and question every theory we arrive at to check its validity. Is this not the Scientific Method? To dismiss an idea outright violates everything the Scientific Method stands for.
While in school we were taught just about every form of creation myth and theory, and strangely enough, our opinions didn't change much from when we first started our studies. We were simply exposed to new ways of thinking. We were given a choice, and allowed to choose.
So the question I would ask is this: Is it right to criticize and bury any idea that you don't find to your liking? Both sides should think long and hard on that one.
Whether a god or a series of physical laws created this universe, it still is a magic place.
The party's over
Publicly-run military is a ridiculous concept... We don't trust the government to do much else, why make an exception for national defense? Just give us guns and let /us/ choose our security.
Publicly-run interstate highway system is a ridiculous concept... We don't trust the government to do much else, why make an exception for road construction? Just give us asphalt and let /us/ choose our roadways.
tens of thousands of years is enough to show a gradual change in animals. This gradual change happens. Where were humans 10,000 years ago, how different did they look? How old is Kenowick(sp) man?
~
Many changes are missing, and are therefore leaps of logic. Stop gaps. Especially between species. Mutations happen, all the time, but the quantum jumps between species happens, and there seem to be missing links all over the place.
Thats all I'm saying. Not that Evolution is bad, but it is strangely one of the most *protected* theories to me since the Aristotolian theory of the Universe. Most people like you and me can meet in the middle and say... "It makes sence to say that it is full of holes and just theory." It should still be taught, and I even agree that creation should be taught in Sunday school, not in school. But not mandated. Why does it deserve such protection?
But reasonably, too much reaction to anyone that steps up and says "Hey lets have a look at this scientificaly, does it really say what we keep thinking it says?"
When was the first chiuaua? What was its most closest ancestor? Why do we need to even say it has an ancestor, wouldn't the changes be even more gradual than that?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
> If you state that such changes are "only a theory", you are lying through the skin of your teeth.
This is an utter falsehood. The entire "theory" of evolution is based on evidentialist findings and cannot be proven solely by deductive or logical methods. It might be actually correct, but until it is proven logically, it is not "fact". At the very best, it is "plausible" or a "strong possibility" that evolution is in fact the means by which creatures have become they way they are. But because Darwin has some good ideas, and there is a fossil record, that does not make evolution a universal truth, and it should not be considered one.
Secondly, citing those few people's highly debated arguments was in poor form. cje admitted that "a few creationists" believe this and that, and then proceeded to pass some sort of judgement on the entirety of creationists. I might as well use the same tactic on those naturalists who have extremely controversial beliefs.
The remark of cje is typical of the naturalist objection to creationism. The typical naturalist will use "science" to say that evolution is the only "proveable" method by which all of use has gotten here today. The truth of the matter is, science (the gathering and analyzation of empirical data) has shown nothing decisive on the matter, but at most "a possibility" or "plausibility". Challenging creationists to state a common theory and saying they haven't done so by showing some differences that a few of them have is just plain silly. There are common beliefs held among all of those who believe in creationism, and because cje has not bothered to do his homework and discover those beliefs, his arguments and challenges appear weak at best.
And, to prove that I'm not just braying and citing unfounded opinion, I now leave a reference to a highly respected creationist philosopher's views on Darwinian naturalism : Darwin, Mind, and Meaning by Alvin Plantina.
>What kind of god is it that goes around and lays
>false evidence everywhere. "All those dinosaur >bones are just their for yucks!". Laugh it up
>funny boy. You paint the picture of god as seven
>year old. One who says "Believe in me or be >damned!" and then goes way out of his way
>to help people come up with all sorts of
>explanations of alternate ways things could
>happen. A god who trys to make us not believe in >him so we'll go to hell. Is that nice? Is that
>right? Doesn't sound like someone I'd invite over
>for dinner.
-- A-friggin-men to that. Religion has come up with the last ditch effort to keep people subdued.
Essentially, by telling people that logical methods are wrong, religion cannot be disproved, and thus it carves a niche for itself in an environment of true enlightenment... the understanding of nature and science.
In fact, it seems somewhat amusing to hear the 'logical' arguments of the various christian followers. Logic, coming from a foundation that says: "NO! Do NOT use logic to determine the truth of our words!".
By the arguments of religion, you can't prove god, because he's all-powerful and you will only know what he wants you to. With the same argument, I can say: "yesterday, you were a pine tree, but you don't remember, because god made you forget."
Why are people less apt to believe this second argument? It's absolutely as valid as the first, given the whole god argument. And don't forget.. you aren't allowed to say "because that doesn't make sense, I wasn't a pine tree". Logic is not one of your tools, remember?
Think about it. Entertain the possibility for a moment, that religion was invented a long, long time ago, by someone who needed explanations and had none.
I guess in the end.. believe what you want, but don't push it to the point of ignorance. i.e.-Kansas.
This is true:
extreem right wing == fundamentalcase christian
This is not nessesarily true:
fundamentalcase christian == extreem right wing
However I stand by my words.
The Xian Fundamentalists make me sick to my stomach.
Ken Broadfoot
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
You seemed to be so confused on so many topics I don't know WHERE to begin.
I'll take a few random potshots.
1) Man is not evolved from apes. NOBODY has EVER suggested this seriously, except, it seems, creationists. Man and ape has a (possibly recent) common ancestor. We share much of the same genetic information. This is fact.
2) You can't disprove or prove ANYTHING about God. If I have to explain this to you, I'm assuming you are totally unreachable, but I will give it a shot. In general anything that requires faith can never be falsified. Any critical inspection of a "faith" based tenet can be met with a simple "because I said so." Example: you can't prove it wasnt 47 green electric shavers that created the universe if I claim they are omnesceint and omnipotent, and my only arguement is "well you just have to believe it".
3) Animal vs. Human. Murder is not unique to man. All animals do it. However, murder is much less common than killing things of different species. This is also something shared between all living things on the planet. Assuming a good understanding evolution and the concept of the "selfish gene" it is easy to see why this is true. A "well adapted", sucessful gene is be one that makes sure that it is replicated widely. Whether it is THIS particular gene, or others like it is irrelevant. Implicit in this is the gene's tendency to express this in a particularly intersting physical trait. It turns out that animals (and many other less complex organisms) are very good at discerning which other organisms are similar (ie. have similar genes). Most likely this will be expressed in the tendancy for an organism to value "similar" life over "non-similar" life. Humans have come up with a neat way of rationalizing this behavior, since we have very large brains we are quite adept at self-delusion. Typically, it boils down to religion, or the things similar to the simple aphorism "blood is thicker than water".
Finally, I'm going to plug this again. Most likely it will do no good, but c'est la vie.
"I have heard people arguing for (NOT against) "Big Bang" and expanding Universe on the Bible basis. It is actually amazing how many physicists are religious.. "
Yeah, I remember a Papal circular(?) that approved the Big Bang theory (gee -- thanks?). I don't think it strange at all that many physicists are religious. Anybody who has really looked around realizes the universe is an awesome place. If you think you know how it works, please think again, the one thing that science teaches over and over again is that there are no final answers. Physicists, more than most, are aware of this.
I get along very well with religious and spirtual people and even have mild leanings in that direction myself. Only those who want to mess with what other people's kids are taught draw my ire. I have no problems with discussing the problems with speciation and its unproved nature, but its the best theory we have to date. It deserves study, if only so one of those kids can successfully refute it later.
Jim
Evolution's not proven in about the same sense that Newton's Theory of Gravitation was not proven 100 years ago. Its fits the data pretty damn well. Better theories might come along and extend it (like Einstein's General Theory of Relativity did for gravity), but its basically scientific fact.
Sure my analogy may be a little bit over-extended, but its Biology for Crissakes. Evolution is rock solid, and I think that anyone who says otherwise is really kidding themselves.
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Didja read the book, Gomer?
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Have you heard of the Theory of Electricity? Ever seen electricity? If not, why are paying the electric bills...
Open your mind.
Yes, but not so widely that it falls out and you are left with a void between your ears.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
tags, and unfotunately now it's just a mass of text that nobody will read. Perhaps I should repost it formatted correctly.
;-)
And now, judging from the replies to this post, I guess I should have used the tag, because people evedently need to see that. Come to think of it, I probably would have needed to forgoe the tag completely and used SARCASM instead
BTW, I was not trying to be a troll. I was trying to make people laugh! Oh well.
I need to work on my HTML I guess.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I find that your 50% number is completely unbelievable. Where did it come from? As a guy married to a mathematician, I have learned to be extremely wary of unsubstantiated statistics (because every one that she sees she destroys with terribly efficient logic, even if she agrees with the point that it supposed to support)! Better to support your arguments with citations so they're more believable.
Which leads right to the question of how do you know god (or God is some like to put it) is a male? Is this just traditional (e.g., Mankind) or did you actually get a gander at some shlonage?
-kabloie
I could go with this. We could have both and debate from purely scientific observations. Basically the bible would not count in the debate.
I love the idea BUT you know how the fundies like to attack the word theory.
The Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics.
Without ( indirectly ) you would never have had Linux.
However with Evolution, it is 'just a theory'.
Lets just be friends... ( sound familiar? )
I really doubt they ( the fundies ) would allow a a horrible word like 'theory' attached to a Fundamentalcase TRUTH like Creation.
Ken Broadfoot
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
The horse wasn't only building a hoof for 50M years, it was doing other things, too.
Evolution multi-tasks.
(f'instance, you'll note that we have 3 and 2 hooved animals, which are remnants of the journey. Also, the horse used to be 2ft tall)
Silly man, the thing about solomon isn't even in the bible, it's in the Talmud where they are trying to calculate the circumference of a round object and use the pond as a way to figure out Pi. (It's in the tractate of Succah if you want to look, talking about how big a round succah needs to be.)
\begin{plea for sanity}
Christianity teaches that we are to love our neighbors, even our enemies---that we must not judge others, only gently correct their mistakes. One of the principles that makes Scientific Inquiry so valuable is that scientists must not jump to conclusions without solid evidence (it takes them longer to get from theory to fact than it takes an OSS project to get from beta to 1.0---it's the only sensible way to do things). But both groups of people (which are NOT mutually exclusive) have small, vocal groups of people breaking these rules.
Creation scientists should not be so harsh on scientists (e.g. disparaging the value of the theory of natural selection) because science is NOT a threat to Christianity. Conversely, geeks should not waste time flaming them or because Christianity is NOT a threat to science. Stories like the Creation of Genesis are about WHY we exist. Scientific theories (facts/whatever---I am not going to quible over semantics) like macro-evolution are about HOW we came to exist. There is no conflict because they work in _different_ fields.
I am asking you to please stop this senseless argument. Science and Christianity can work so well together! Remember that Darwin (the natural selection guy) planned to become a clergyman before visiting Galapagos, and Mendel (the heredity guy) grew his pea plants in a monastery. And there are plenty of other well-respected people in both fields who also don't see any conflict here.
---Luke
\end{personal agenda}
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldrige of the American Museum of Natural History both anicreationists concluded that the Archaeopteryx cannot be viewed as a transitional form. To quote,"At the higher level of evolutionart transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between bauplane [basically different types of creatures] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record".
And no folssil evidence exists for pro-avis either.
So, they can't teach evolution. They can't teach creationism.
Read the article tough guy. It says that evolution is no longer required to be taught as it will no longer be included on the Kansas Standardized Tests.
To find the last common ancestor (NOT hybrid) of mice and elephants, you would have to go far back in time, to early mammals. Elephants with thick fur (mammoths) have been extinct for a while, and AFAIK there have never been mice with trunks, because they diverged before elephant ancestors evolved anything resembling a trunk, and random mutations and natural selection have not resulted in a trunked rodent. You cannot pick two random distantly related species of dissimilar food, behavior, or habitat and expect to find individuals of one species with distinctive traits of another - it's pretty basic biology.
(You can, however, expect certain structures or other traits depending on how closely related certain species are, or what common foods or habitats they share. You can expect a four-chambered heart, closed circulatory system, placenta, and some hair/fur in elephants and mice because they are both placental mammals. You can also expect some similarities between animals that eat similar food in similar habitats in diffirent regions, but are only very distantly related.)
"The trouble with biology is that it is full of facts. An unimaginable number of factual statements could be made about the few million species of organisms on earth. Someone once published an example of a college zoology exam from the pre-Darwinian era that required only the recitation of endless anatomical facts; the Darwinian paradigm changed that, and for a long time, biology was taught primarily as a collection of these facts organized around the principle of natural selection and the fact of evolution. Of course, students of biology must still learn many facts about the natural world, often fascinating facts that motivate them to continue their personal explorations. But as the science of biology matures, it should increasingly subsume facts under general principles and develop coherent general concepts. As our knowledge of molecular, cellular, and physiological processes has grown, that foundation emerges from the genetic conception of an organism: a structure that operates on the basis of information in its genome."
Burton Guttman, author of the College textbook Biology
"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see." -From the Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits, by Lewis Carroll
President Clinton is mentioned in episodes of numerous TV shows, but that makes them no more factual.
Anchoring a story in location and/or time does not make it true.
American, are they stupid or what?
As a Kansas Republican, I take a little exception to your post.
Actually, I'm more of a libertarian. I think that for the most part, Christians are idiots. Maybe make that ignoramuses.
I just think that it is sad that the only political party that has a sound fiscal policy (i.e. 'butt the hell out') is one that has the totally ridiculous right-wing, bible oriented, pro-life policies.
Creationists are mostly uninformed about that which they are arguing. Most of those morons know what stock breeding is, they just refuse to see it as evolution (which it obviously is). Artificial selection it may be, but it _is_ evolution.
Evolution is 'changing the gene patterns of a population over time'. Period. That is all it claims to be. You can believe in natural selection (if you have a functioning brain) or you can believe in Lamarckian heritability of acquired traits, or even something as stupid as divine intervention. I personally don't care what a moron believes.
It bothers me when I talk to otherwise intelligent people who have said things like: 'I accept all of the evidence, I just don't believe in evolution.' Other than that, he's a normally functioning human. Weird, huh?
I've lost my point, but it's in there somewhere...
Why do "scientists" get so defensive about this topic? The whole point of the scientific method is that when used appropriatly you gain a LAW that cannot be doubted (ie. the law of gravity). The "Theory of Evolution" is not a theory that can ever be proven. This is not science. At best its technical supposition, but no more. Science deals with the domain of problems that can possibly be repeated and observed. Unless you're up to performing an experiment where you create life identical to human life, with controls, and repeat it *many* times...when you do let me know. Fossil records make great historical evidence (possibly enough to convict someone in court) but in the world of science it aint worth squat. In my opinion too many good scientists have wasted a lot of money trying to defend/refute evolution. Why, so they can hold on to their beliefs(Christian, atheist, etc)? What a waste. No amount of historical proof will ever change anyone's mind. On the other hand, If you'd like to know how evolution breaks down at the cellular level do a search on irreducibly complex systems.
The USA is apparently capible of all kinds of bullshit that I would have thought it incapible of by reading it's declaration of indpendance and constitution.
This is just one more stupid law, and not one of the worst ones
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
"Theory is theory until proven, and shouldn't be
represented as anything else until then."
A theory cannot be proven to be true. Theories can only be proven to be NOT true, like creationism.
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/commiss/bdaddr.html this anonymous kansan wants them to feel the slashdot effect. i give you the kansASS BORED of education.
I'm not very religious, but I am a Christian. There's a big difference between these two concepts. The former indicates an adherence to a set of ideals, whatever they may be -- there many to chose from. The later is something that I am, not something that I do.
And I already have both a clue and a life. :-)
TedC
Regardless of a humorous argument against the existence of god. Douglas Adams is a self described "rabid atheist". Check out this interview in American Atheist magazine.
Sorry, but your story is pure nonsense. I live in the Netherlands, guns are outlawed here and i'm glad they are. At least I know i'm not likely to be shot when someone gets pissed off one way or another. Organised crime is not more present here as it is anywhere else, and why should i want to buy a gun when noone else has one? Besides, it's more likely you get shot when you DO have a gun, because the other one fears to be shot first (seems to be proven). Criminals do use guns, okay, but that is no argument for me to buy one ore make them 'freely' available for everybody. >>tried to get a login, but still waiting The Terrible One
I think it's more like: No wonder there are so few atheists left if school systems like Kansas keep having issues with rectal cranial inversion disorder. Of course you'll have less atheists if school systems teach kids not to think, but instead just allow for 'faith'.
Teach kids reason, and eventually you will have a society that is based on an ever increasing understanding of the world. Teach kids faith, and you will end up with a theocracy that outlaws thought.
Keep your religion to yourself, and let the rest of us continue to function in reality.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
This sort of thing has long been observed in a-life experiments. Ever heard of Danny Hillis's 'ramps'? What happens is this- populations will appear to stagnate in extended plateaus of development. A great deal of change is going on at lower levels, but none of it 'sticks'. For instance, obGiraffeNeck, this is not one gene but an entire complex involving neck length, bone structure, a stronger heart, the amazing system of valves that keep the animal from immediately fainting when rapidly moving its head from high to low positions or vice versa... and all of this was churning around in the genetic populations, until some of the animals lucked out with all the right features to be effective giraffes- not as _extremely_ developed as current giraffes, but with all the primary characteristics. At this point the new giraffes basically outcompeted all the previous ones in that niche, and the seemingly new species was off and running (on long spindly legs, but not as long as the future giraffes would have). ;) ;) but not, I think, by all Slashdotters, because there are all sorts out there, and I think some of them will appreciate what I'm trying to convey.
The genes are present in populations, but only when they come together in the right populations does the world change. It's not an abrupt jump or rapid evolving, it's the coming together of lots of little evolvings and mutations into a cohesive whole that's abruptly more effective than the previous populations.
I, personally, subscribe to the view that there's some force that could just as well be called God as called anything else. I can't say as I understand it all that well- I doubt I ever will. However, my image of it, applied to the 'punctuated equilibrium' evolution, is of a Gardener God, caring for growing things, perhaps helping them along, understanding them deeply and trying to create beauty despite infestations of aphids
It's extremely tiresome to be confronted with people who insist on a Puppetmaster God- effectively a much cruder sort of God who never works with anything, but only lays down orders and makes or breaks stuff and won't admit to the slightest interplay with His creations. Artists and creators who are any good are willing to sense what a creation is trying to become, like a sculptor trying to feel what shapes a rock wants to have- in many ways, the harmony of this is a lot more beautiful than just picking a big rock and laser-carving it into a prearranged shape with no interplay at all.
In effect, this total rejection of evolution is the insistence on a total Luser God- and I reject it, preferring the idea of a Gardener God or Michaelangelo God that is creatively interested in all the raw materials, in which every sparrow that falls isn't some meaningless decree but a thing observed, accepted, perhaps even worked into the continuing act of creation.
Having now professed to a belief in God, I will cheerfully allow myself to be mocked by a bunch of clever unbeliever Slashdotter kids
I don't agree with the Kansas School Board's decision (being of sound mind), but I hardly see this as something get upset about. I've always believed that education should be controlled (and funded entirely) by states, and not federal govt. If the people in Kansas (the ones who voted at least) want to eliminate evolution from their schools, that is their right.
They're foolish for doing so, but being foolish is their right too. If you don't live in Kansas, get over it. If you do live in Kansas and you don't like this decision, maybe you should vote the next time school board elections come around. The only reason this happened is because those 'backward', 'primitive', 'radical conservatives' were smart enough to take advantage of everyone else's political apathy. If the 'enlightened' people in Kansas had enough sense to vote, this wouldn't have happened. If you neglect your duty to participate in the system, you give up your right to bitch about it. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that one out.
Darwin said nothing new, his contribution was to write books about that which had often been said before by others. He did, however, point out several serious flaws in the arguments for evolution, practically none of which have been satisfactorily answered. Not a safe form of idolatry.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The Grand Canyon is a flood feature created by a nearby giant lake that no longer exists. It wasn't cut by the Colorado. See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/hydropla te/refs/33.html for details.
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Nat. Hist. (larges fossil collection of all) says,"If I knew of any evolutionary transitions, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book Evolution."
Others include David Raup who is curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,...
There are many qualified people on BOTH sides of this debate. And these people are qualified to debate. No one here is that qualified, I certainly am not. But arrogant and childish positions on either side display ignorance.
You probably feel really stupid right about now for the post you just made, but let me gently take you through it and we can disect it together.
You probably feel doubly stupid, seeing that this isn't even really a troll the way it's worded. It's a joke, like the editorials in the Onion.
Note the use of "news-paper" giving it an old fashioned sound, and the use of single quotes around words, meant to make them sound completely alien to the writer.
Observe how he wrote wistfully of lost innocence. I lauged pretty hard reading that. How about the contraction ape-brutes, which effectively makes the author sound like an idiot prude?
And if none of that tipped you off, how about evil-lution? Come on! And then there's the talk about a man who just wants to get himself into heaven, as if that is the most noble thing in the world. And I really like the talk about the "fancy words" of the intellectual class - I have actually heard that phrase uttered, in that context, by bigots.
And the opening about the 10 commandments and the closing about how religion is *never* used for evil did a great job of opening and closing the post. The last sentance was just plain laughable.
Personally I think that this post should be moderated up - it is one of the best attacks on bigotry I've read in a while. It covers all the main things I have against bigots. Could be a little more lively in tone, but very good.
Just my 2 cents
Apperently a great flood did happen, although it didn't hit the entire world.
The last ice age was comeing to a close. People had (re)settled most of the world and most importantly the water levels were low. Well the ice caps began to melt. This caused theoceans and some seas to rise. Most important to this post is the mediteranian and the black seas. The mediteranian, with a gateway to the atlantic rose. The Black sea didn't, the two seas wern't attached for the first little while. But then the dam burst, (well over flowed). This sent millions of gallons of water into the black sea basin. Which by this time had been well populated. The water level rose quite quickley.
I think this was in the National Geo. Right place a little earlyer, but then again they found a very similar story from some time earlier in an Indian religion.
If you actually read the article, the Republican Govenor of Kansas instructed the school board not to do that. Note: I'm not a Republican.
(BA-DUMP BUMP!)
I feel fairly convinced that mankind's evolution on Earth from primordial chemicals within the reality that we perceive is "proven" (as much as it could ever be) by Darwin's theory. But my mind is still totally open on the question of the origins of the universe. There's even the disturbing possibility, raised by many religions but especially Hinduism/Buddhism, that somehow this isn't a solid reality, but rather a dream state or illusion of sorts (which, as an argument, makes an unarguable end run around science completely, because science and "reality" themselves are subsumed as part of the dream).
Anyway, how this all got here, and more importantly *why*, seems to be one hell of a mystery (to us). So I can't say there's no universe-creating-being with surety, *but* it seems quite remote to me that Christianity (or any other earth based religion) is literally correct. Seems to me we're all just guessing. Even Science is really just guessing that Objective Reality (what human beings can perceive) is all there is. What's more, it makes no attempt (nor should it, necessarily) to understand the 'why' of the universe's existence. In light of all this logical and reasonable doubt, Fundamentalist Christianity seems crazy to me. I guess that's why it's a Faith. But given that God (the Fundamentalist Christian one, anyway) really only exists through man's faith, isn't He rather like an imaginary friend for adults?
Yep... if evolution was decisively proven (and it's not by a long shot), I could believe God used evolution to create... no problem. It would just mean parts of the Bible are a little more interpretive than we currently think.
Theistic evolution is a rather common explanation actually.
As for myself, I'll stick with 6 day creationism until it's TOTALLY disproven... God said it, and I see no reason to not believe it.
...and how does the math come out wrong? Just curious...
haha
i payed something like 46% of my income to taxes
and i live in Alberta where provincal taxes are low
We also pay a healthcare primium, which while not as high is private healthcare, is still vary high. We also have huge waiting lists for such things as CRTs and CAT scans, unless you pay the $1000 and have it done privatly.
"Possibly the crocodile"? None that I've met, anyway.
Cheers,
sklein
--
sklein@mint.net
http://members.mint.net/sklein/
Actually, no, the book of Revelation is almost 2000 years old. Believed to be written by the Apostle John while in imprisonment on the isle of Patmos I believe. Likely written in the last two decades of the first century. So over 1900 years old.
Yeah, right.
That's something that Rome is working very hard for, and Jesuit-educated Bill Clinton is helping them out lots. If you really want the Dark Ages back, you can do one of two things:
1. Make laws against religion.
...or...
2. Make laws to aid religion.
Laws forcing the unproven theory of evolution to be taught in public schools fall into class 1.
Laws forcing the possibly unprovable theory of special creation by divine fiat to be taught in public schools fall into category 2.
What Kansas has done is the right thing, but probably for the wrong reasons. It will be sad if they desert category 1 only to rush over into category 2.
But history, which we stubbornly refuse to learn from, says that they will try.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you are defending those nuts in Kansas then... well... you ARE a religous zealot, and an ignorant one at that.
And how accurate were those cubit-based measurements?
-rozzin.
Besides, everyone over 18 gets a weapon with which they can overthrow a tyrannical gov't. It's called a vote. And EVRYBODY uses THOSE, don't they? (sic)
I don't think there's a single gunshop in the city where I live(500,000 ppl), and I'm HAPPY about that.
Of course, those are 500,000 Canadian ppl... so with the exchange rate, that's 333,000 American ppl.
Torgen
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.--Arthur C. Clarke
True. What the people that really passed this would like to do is ban evolution and instate mandatory creationism. They are not for a completely open, unitarian several religion approach. But they know that mandatory creation in schools isn't going to happen so they passed this instead.
Simply put, people want to keep their religious beliefs strong because it's what gives them meaning in life. I'm a Christian, and sometimes I just can't see how many others can go on living.
I find that very sad indeed. Basically you are saying that if someone managed to convince you beyond any doubt that we share common ancestry with other primates on this planet (and I have the feeling that would take a lot of convincing) that life would lose all meaning, because we as humans would not be quite so Special anymore.
Consider this: There are middle grounds between Atheistic evolution and young earth creationism. Many people, for instance, believe that evolution did take place the way the fossil record shows, but was guided by an omnipresence (god if you like) rather than cold probabilities. If this were the case, would life still be devoid of meaning?
IMO, mandatory evolution curriculum (and in the school format, in order not to fail many science classes, one must acknowledge it as perfect truth) is quite detrimental to religious freedom.
This is like saying hundreds of years ago that the earth-orbits-the-sun theory is detrimental to religious freedom. Many religions simply did not want to accept that we are not smack dab in the middle. The difference is that it has been proven beyond even the faintest shadow of a doubt that the earth does indeed orbit the sun. It has only been proven beyond a shred of doubt that species on this planet have, in fact, evolved and diverged.
To change the topic a little, what exactly makes the evolution theory any more valid than any other?
Evolution is a theory that has been written and tested with the scientific method using evidence, experiments in petri dishes, observations of different populations, and a huge supply of buried fossils.
Every other explaination of the origins of humanity that I can think of is a story, passed down from generation to generation.
1. An intelligent Being created the universe and set it into motion with order and design, and created beings with free will--man. But man disobeyed, and imperfection bred imperfection, setting the 2nd law of thermodynamics into effect...
Thermodynamics??????? Huh? Thermodynamics is a physics term, and I don't think it can be applied to 'imperfections' in somebody's character.
2. Chaos became order, and shortly after everything materialized, the laws of the universe shifted radically--instead of things gradually becoming more orderly, they became subjected to entropy. Except for living beings, which, for some reason, defied this by evolving into better-adjusted beings.
Simple: You are implying that evolution is proposterous in the same way that it would be proposerous to leave a pile of dirt on the table and watch it turn into an apple (instead of the other way around). There is an apparent paradox in that the environment on earth has gotten much more complex with all these forms of life instead of more simple. Well, this only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system - it has the nearby sun constantly adding energy to it. If you look at the whole galaxy as a closed system, it would work, because the burning in a star is an increase in entropy and the earth represents a small section of the system with decreasing entropy.
No, I'm not in favor of shoving ANY system of beliefs down anyone's throat. It's just not the way a theory begins to take root into someone's mind to convince them. I think the curriculum should lay out several different worldviews (I'm not talking a course in theology--just a few simple examples).
Evolution is not about beliefs - it is about reasoning and deduction.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I remember reading this in A Brief History of Time, it said that just by living you increase the entropy of the universe. How? Sure, you are an organized being, but how much food did you break down, (towards disorder) how much heat do you release, (even more disorder) to exist. The creation of a small organized thing (you) required the creation of much more disorder. Hawking used this to argue why we perceive time forward (towards disorder and maximum expansion of the universe - highest disorder.) So, evolution is towards more order (from single cells to complex lifeforms) and all this created more disorder (ultimately released as heat).
Why do "scientists" get so defensive about this topic? The whole point of the scientific method is that when used appropriatly you gain a LAW that cannot be doubted (ie. the law of gravity). The "Theory of Evolution" is not a theory that can ever be proven. This is not science. At best its technical supposition, but no more. Science deals with the domain of problems that can possibly be repeated and observed. Unless you're up to performing an experiment where you create life identical to human life, with controls, and repeat it *many* times...when you do let me know. Fossil records make great historical evidence (possibly enough to convict someone in court) but in the world of science it aint worth squat. In my opinion too many good scientists have wasted a lot of money trying to defend/refute evolution. Why, so they can hold on to their beliefs(Christian, atheist, etc)? What a waste. No amount of historical proof will ever change anyone's mind. On the other hand, If you'd like to know how evolution breaks down at the cellular level do a search on irreducibly complex systems.
I'm afraid that you are sorely misinformed. The formost biologist in the world is Christian DeLuve, nobel lauriate. He wrote a book called Vital Dust that explains how the emergence of life and evolution not only could have happened, but that it is inevitable on any planet with similar conditions. Modern science does not hold that the first cell appeared in 'the instant the oceans stopped boiling'. It is a long chemical process, but a downhill one(as far as enthalpy is concerned) at every step. Oh, and by the way, there have significant changes since the 'Cambrian explosion'. Mammals are one such change...
I'm a gnu world man.
Actually, species is pretty well defined. Two creatures are of different species if they cannot interbreed. Although, I am not sure how this is defined for asexual reproducing creatures.
So , while an artificial distinction, it is pretty easy to say whether a new species is seen to evolve and should be possible to observe in the laboratory with some short lived insects by taking two populations and applying a stress to those populations that will cause selection to take place as better adapted individuals survive over less adapted ones. It might take a couple of years, but after a lot of generations we should have two populations cannot interbreed.
Dastardly
If you take this to the logical conclusion, if god acted this way, man could never grow as a whole. So instead god allowed people to decide if to believe or not. Now it's your choice, no one is forcing you. (This is why the crusades were so horrible (and missionaries too), the entire point of religion is that it's something you choose, not something forced on you.
Further, to get back to the point, suppose you found proof of creation. Wouldn't that go against the entire conscept here? The only logical conclusion is that we will never find proof of creation, because to do so would be to rob humans of free will - something god doesn't want.
This is also why the argument is pointless. God designed the world so that there will always be some way for people to not need to believe in him. I admit I wonder at evolution since it's such a bad theory, I wouldn't believe in it even if I had never heard of god. Scientifically it just doesn't work.
Don't get me wrong, I think if you don't want to believe in God, that's fine, but there are those like this Stitchley fellow who all preach the same mantra: Everyone who believes in God is an idiot, we're all freaking morons who are Nazis that want to brainwash America.
I will admit that there are religious people who are like that. And I don't like them any more than you do, but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in a higher being is a fool.
What is ironic is that Stitchley has become that which he hates. He is just as fanatical and vengeful as religious zealots, yet because he doesn't believe in God, his opinion is superior.
As I said, I am open to opinions, but not to blatant prejudice.
My view on the big debate between science and religion is that there doesn't need to be a debate. Science and religion can coexist, but so far each seems bent on destroying the other.
To the hardline fundamentalists out there, get a grip. Evolution does not disprove the Bible, it merely demonstrates that you can't take Genesis literally. Considering that a new species of mosquito has occurred from having been trapped in the London subways, denying evolution is getting to be like denying the round Earth. If I had to tell an imature, inexperienced human race where it came from, saying that humans were "molded out of clay" is about how I'd put it too.
I have an even bigger problem with the atheist jack*sses that insist that evolution disproves the existence of God. Take one look at the human hand, with all its moving parts, complex wiring and piping systems: In spite of it's flaws it's a pretty well-designed "accident." Deal with it people: There exist advanced robots with AI that evolves behavior its creators can't explain, but even with evolution working in AI, it needed the push of a higher intelligence to get started. The universe has much chaos, but overall is just too well organized to be one great big accident.
I condemn the religious leaders who demand we reject science before accepting God, and I equally condemn the scientists bent on trying to "kill" religion with scientific theory.
--WH
Seattle, WA
Did you go to school in Kansas also? Where do people get the misconception that evolution says humans evolved from monkeys? Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys tens of millions of years ago.
Why are there still monkeys? Well, why are there still fish? Doesn't it seem reasonable that monkeys are more fit to live in the jungles of the Congo and the mountains of Japan than Humans?
I think you'll agree that we Humans have pushed monkeys and apes into very small habitats.
DS
Why should god need to have a sex? Just because you do? God isn't male or female - the entire consept is nuts if applied to god. We just say he because gramatically if you don't know if it's male or female you use male.
Your precious FAQ is full of the same demonstrably wrong assumptions as most of the argument herein.
If somebody dies for something, it doesn't prove that thing to be true. Same goes for feeling smug about something. Neither heroism nor agreement are a substitute for real thought and presonal accountability.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
>the evidence for evolution is very shakey
It is not shakey, and it's breadth is staggering. Evolution has correctly predicted many, many observations about life on earth. The bits that can be argued are *not* the central thesis of Darwin -- that speciation occurred via a mutable genetic material, from a common ancestor. The evidence for this is vast.
> An eye that almost works, like code that almost works, is useless.
No, also wrong. See "The Blind Watchmaker" for an overview of eyes that "almost work", and are being used by organisms alive today.
Firstly- people have generated amino acids in test tubes without _too_ much trouble. :) :) )
Secondly- huh? (admittedly not the most intelligent reaction.) By who? Did they get any data on it, like take a photo or something?
Thirdly- uh. Actually there have been lots of changes...
Fourthly- sure! I'd buy that
To sum it up- I'm honestly very puzzled that on the one hand you postulate a something that created life and continues to act on it, and then on the other hand you insist that it actually _isn't_ acting on life and hasn't been for years, and presumably is finished. I'd beg to disagree- this is effectively stating that God is Dead and no longer has any input to add into the world. I consider that a shocking belief, and think that it's much more plausible that God (whatever God is) came up with evolution, in much the way that programmers came up with compilers and makefiles rather than typing in each binary bit one at a time.
If you ever heard of quantum mechanics, you'd realize that on some levels everything and nothing is random- and so evolution isn't really random chance, but the workings of a world-sized mechanism incomprehensibly too complex for any human to grasp. Adding evolution to the mechanism, so that it is self-maintaining and modifies itself, clearly makes it that much more complicated and difficult. It appears that you believe God cannot cope with such a complexity, so you limit your view of God to something that can manage complexities _you_ can understand. I consider this sad but understandable- it's disconcerting to contemplate the idea of a God that not only knows better than us, but is on such a higher level as to be almost incomprehensible him, her or itself. However, limiting your God to be an entity that we humans can understand is an injustice....
(weirding out slashdotters for fun and profit
I guess I didn't make myself clear, and I apologize.
I have no problem with the thought that evolution may be wrong.. However, it should be taught that it is one of the best theories we have to explain our observations. To not teach it because it is not proven is a disservice to our youth.
I also have no problem teaching creationism, however, what basis do we teach it on? In its truist form, it does not fit observation well. If we teach it as something that is believed as true by many (though not as many as evolution, if the 1994 statistic is still true), then what 'magic number' do we cut off teaching 'believed' theories at? if 10,000,000 people believe it, we teach it, but if only 9,999,999 do, we do not?
I truly do think this matter deserves more thought, and while I am for separation of church and state, we can not clothe our youth in ignorance of the beliefs of religions any more than the beliefs of scientists. However, stopping the teaching of our 'best bet' theory of how humans came to be is not the answer we need.
Our science progresses by teaching our best bet to those who would extend it, disprove it, or revamp it. Not teaching it means it will most likely never be disproven or improved upon... only 'rediscovered' to have the battle start again.
Yup, that exactly right - if people had no choice in the matter, how exactly are you going to reward them for doing the right thing? Not to mention that it prevent humans from having free choice.
> A god who trys to make us not believe in him so we'll go to hell.
Only problem with that is it's not true. You won't go to hell, you'll be recycled to try again. (PS. A lot of the difficulty people have with religion is due to the christians, they made a number of mistakes when creating their religion which result in a large number of areas where problems occur. Just to start, the entire consept that people are created "bad" is bunk, and so is the devil. God runs hell, not the devil, he uses it to clean souls that are going to be recycled. (Man am I simplifying.))
"it is nevertheless true that the Bible is infallible when it addresses any issue"
Interesting position to take. From a logic standpoint, however, you leave yourself open to certain arguments disproving the validity of the entire bible. Since there are three creation stories int he bible, and they are not all identical, which is correct?
While there may not be actual indications in the Hebrew that the creation stories are to be taken in any manner other than literal, there are many places in the bible which use parables, poetry, etc. to demonstrate God's intentions. also remember that all bibles are not alike. Not only to Roman Catholics and protestants have different bibles, but translation differ.
That being said, I personally need logical ways to believe in God, since I believe what Pascal said: you cannot prove ther is a God, but you can prove you should believe in God (or thereabouts). It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many Christians, that the Bible should be believed as a statement of faith, not a history book. If you spend hours arguing about the type of fish that swallowed Jonah, you miss the entire point of the story: one can never hide from God. The entire message of the story, for me, seems to be this. The creation stories are the same. If you argue about how God created the earth, and when it happened, you miss the entire point: God created everything. As far as I'm concerned, God created the Big Bang, then earth, and then started evolution. Or didn't start evolution and just allowed it to happen. Either way, the religion is NOT dependent on the science, and vice versa. I have heard of many ministers (Lutheran, not some new age denomination) which have students MAKE UP a creation story for the bible. The point being that the creation stories provide a tangible story in which God created the world, not a play-by-play historical account.
Requiring the bible to be literally true in every sense forces any argument about it into a true/false argument. If any littel point in the bible is ever disproven, then the entire bible is incorrect. Seems to me to be a pretty fragile foundation for a religion! The bible mentions nothing of evolution, yet even the VATICAN has expressed acceptance of evolution (it doesn't recognize Man as a part of this evolution though). I tried looking for a vatican reference, but had difficulty translating all the Latin in the search results.....
Ahh, so God did all the stuff the Bible describes, but then planted evidence to try to trick us into thinking otherwise?
It seems Occam's Razor would apply here.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You don't shoot tanks with handguns and hunting rifles -- but that doesn't mean they don't exert a restraining force on government. Government leaders and military leaders' families and friends live throughout the countryside.
;)
I'm sure that the leaders of China would have thought much longer and harder before bringing in the army and tanks against their own protesting citizens if guns were distributed throughout the civilian population of China. And, no, it wouldn't be because they were worried about the soldiers and tanks getting shot.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
First, I disagree with removing evolution from the curriculum. I do not see where evolution and God are diametrically opposed. To me Genesis chapters 1 and 2:1-3 have always been an allegory for actions God took,(creation), that are beyond my understanding. The same way infinity, eternity, omniscience, and omnipresence are bigger than my mind's ability to wrap itself around. In short, I can reconcile my faith and science. (I struggle, but my solution is not "Bury your head in the sand.")
What bugs me is the type of arguments that I'm seeing made in this discussion. Emotional attacks (I was scarred for life by my Christian parents!), stereotypes (All Christians agree with this action!), and insults (All Christians believe in strict Creationism, and therefore must be stupid!).
Belive it or not, there are many intelligent Christians out there, and some (gasp!!) might be more intelligent than you (there are plenty smarter than me). Before attacking their beliefs, character, intelligence, etc., you might want to read what they have to say. I'd suggest starting with Reasons to Believe.
You might find some provocative arguments to research further.
Putting on my asbestos underwear,
jeff_C
Please... you're serious? Historically, right-wing and religious (particularly Protestant) fundamentalism have been very close. Look at voting patterns for, say, people from the Bible Belt who consider themselves very religious. Think they're all voting Democrat? I think not. If I remember correctly, the Christian Coalition - basically fundamental Protestantism incorporated - had troubles with its charitable-organisation status because it was distributing "voting guides" that essentially said "vote Republican". Not in those words - instead it gave a list of issues, and gee whiz! guess which party was campaigning on those issues?
Also, while conservatism maybe literally mean "preserving the status quo", words change meaning. In today's world, it is the name for right-wing political beliefs, which often mean changing things. In some cases the status quo is preserved (watching kids shoot each other and saying "What? Safety locks on guns? That's horrible! Read the Consitution! It'll be the end of our nation!") and in others it is not (you mean conservatives have been known to advocate cutting taxes? You must be joking!).
I could also start rebut your comments about what you do with your money, but it's a debate that has happenned oh-so-many times before. You are of course exxagerating things - I particularly like the bit about the starving wood owls, consdering America's environmental record - but again, I won't argue it. You are right wing, I (and the original poster) am not. But to deny that a severe case of Protestantism is linked with right-wing politics is closing your eyes to the obvious - kind of like not teaching evolution in schools.
But, surely the whole point to education is to offend. A person who can't read is offended that everybody else can. A person who can't add is offended by people who can do Calculus. A person who knows nothing but country music is offended by Beethoven (Just try it on your country music friends).
It is a great big mysterious world out there, outside of Kansas. Don't be offended when you encounter people and ideas that are completely (gasp) un American.
>>If creation is also a good model, we should see some biological/scientific use for it. Does it help predict behaviors?
:-)
Does it help explain similarities in plant and animal species? Does it yield a method of classification?
Good question actually.
Actually creationism probably can't be DIRECTLY applied to science since God is not bound by the laws of physics and therefore not predictable (in that sense).
But he did tell everything to reproduce "after its own kind". Perhaps that accurately predicts the behavior that we're not seeing new species evolve.
The theory of evolution has been proven a thousand times. Not in a mathematical sense (life doesn't easily come down to an equation), but in every other possible sense it is beyond reasonable doubt. God, on the other hand, is a human invention (most modern religions were created in historical times, for which tons of historical documentation exists). To treat science (a serious inquiry into the nature of the world we live in) and religion (a collection of ignorant superstitions) as equals is insane. This is just another sign of the general cultural decline we're living through right now.
> well, the gorilla is genetically closer to human
> then to orangutan
Someone above said that oragutans are the closest primate to humans. If gorillas are closer to us that to oragutans, then what are gorillas? Which is closer?
Please find me a knowledgable biologist who believes that the differences between races and species is not a difference of degree, and not of kind. That is, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution except in the minds of people who don't know better.
Oh, BTW, you may want to also glance at this...
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Hey, it's still the Theory of Evolution, reguardless of how obvious it is until it can be unquestionably proven scientifically. I mean, the sun OBVIOUSLY revolves around the earth, right? The earth is OBVIOUSLY a flat disk, I can see the edges!
Even the the principals of physics developed by Newton, Einstien, etc are still theories... and might possibly be incorrect.
Always remember - Almost anything can be disproven, almost nothing can be proven.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Help the lowly ./ reader with some evidence that all these cool things that god hath wrought actually happened.
The flood was supernatural. Great. Which one? The one that all those geologists and hydrologists are studying and presenting results about? Hmm, haven't seen anything about the sea level rising 4000 meters in any of the science journals going across my desk recently!
Oh, I forgot, 99% of them are closed minded! Whoopsie! The good ones, those with open minds, are at the University of Kansas. I'm sure they know all about that flood 3000 years ago. Go ask 'em!
-kabloie
Apparently what really happened is that someone decided that he had solved the old and impossible problem of squaring the circle. He then offered his discovery to Indiana royalty-free in exchange for them recognizing his mathematical truth. The legislation seems to imply that pi=16/sqrt(3)=9.2376... among other values. A Purdue professor finally noticed the legislation and that was the end of that. What a pity Kansas ignores its professors...
I highly recommend Beckmann's book to anyone interested in the subject. It's a great read and often hillarious.
"Any more than creationism - both are possible explanations to how life came to be. People dig and find a human skeleton and dig more and find a rat skeleton and suddenly swear that our ancestors must have been rats. All evolutionary paths are just guesses - theories." Wrong. "creationism" is based on myth and dogma, and there is no evidence WHATSOEVER to back it up. Evolution, on the other hand, is perhaps the strongest theory there is based on mountains of evidence. For a whole new species to emerge, though, it will take time... thousands or millions of years. But it is unlikely not to happen.
Ants can see man, god chooses to show up in obscure places where only a handfull of people notice. Like between two pieces of glass in a building, inside a burrito in mexico, or in a strangely colored stain on the floor of a subway.
Religious fundamentalism is one of the defense mechanisms of ignorance.
Alright, agnostic athiest breaks down like this:
You don't believe in god/higher being unless you see (or otherwise experience) *proof* of existance. Like I don't believe in Santa Claus. But if I see a fat man flying thru the sky in a sled being pulled by some deer, I will.
So basically an open non-believer. Much better than a closed believer if you ask me.
~Kevin
:)
I wrote another comment a little further down entitled "Theory vs. Law" that defines the difference between theory and law better than I'm going to do here. Basically, a law is NOT a theory that has more evidence. A theory is a series of ideas that attempt to explain why certain phenomena occur. A law is a statement about certain relationships that exist in nature.
In essence something can BOTH be a theory AND a fact since a fact is just something that is considered to be undenyable truth. So if a theory has so much support that it is undenyable it is NOT considered a law, it is considered a fact AND a theory.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
We have Freedom of Religion. What we need is Freedom FROM Religion.
Hawking has postulated that wheather the universe is expanding or contraction; neither violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Picture it this way:
(1) Two objects far apary have more energy the the same objects close together because it took energy to overcome their mutual gravity and sepatate them.
(2) The universe is expanding, moving apart, thus gaining (gravitationally) energy. However as it expands, it cools, thus losing energy.
(3) A contracting universe loses energy (gravitationally) by means of matter moving closer together. However as the universe contracts it heats up, thus gaining energy.
Hawking postulates that these two complimentary energy measurements exactly cancel each other out. The TOTAL ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE is therefore EXACTLY ZERO.
Recycled to try again?? That sounds like eternal life. I'm definately up for living my life over and over again, not making mistakes. Like buying stock in IBM and Xerox in the 70's, and Yahoo in the 90's.
What about countries with LOTS of guns? Like oh say, Afghanistan? Rwanda? Israel? Yeah, yeah! No police states there!
I mean, okay, Switzerland is pretty keen and all, but I don't think the theory holds. I really don't see them whining about the high tax rates and threatening to shoot people.
Okay, so you might not think of Japan and Britain as the "most free" nations in the world. But come on, they're certainly "more free" than the majority of the world's population. The social contract entails giving up some freedoms, that's the way society works.
The question is whether the Swiss model would work here. Would Americans be responsible gun owners? Hard to say, especially considering most pro-gun folks say they want the guns so they can shoot people*. Depending on one's reading of the complications to game theory, it's impossible to say whether uzis for all would be good or bad in the long run. But in the short run, I think it's pretty safe to say a lot of people would get shot.
I admit, my being pro-gun control is a totally selfish act. I like my ass intact. I would much rather have no guns, period, than have a gun and be worrying about shooting someone before they shoot me. I concede, this attitude abridges your right to shoot at me. But you're not supposed to be shooting at me anyway!
I'm not for an all out banning of guns, obviously that wouldn't be effective. But that upping the fee and checking into gun dealers, that WAS effective. Thus, supportable in my book.
Okay, back to creation science.
* in self defence, of course.
I'll stand against what God calls sin. It's very sad that some misguided folks out there think this means you have to hate people to take this stand. They need to remember that Jesus loved everyone, unconditionally. That's what I try to do, because of his example, and because of his love for me, myself a sinner.
I'll also keep sharing the Good News of what the Messiah has done for me. If you don't want to listen, I can respect that. You have free will, after all. Again, it's very sad that some misguided folks out there think that sharing Good News means shouting in others' faces when they don't agree.
I don't understand what you mean by stripping individuality away. I love ska; my mom hates it. I'm a computer geek; my girlfriend is glad she can figure out email. My buddy Adam has a tattoo and multiple piercings; I wouldn't consider it. One thing we have in common is that we all love our Creator. Sometimes that's the only thing we have in common. Christianity has enormous diversity.
People have brought more suffering on others than anything else. It's people who make the choices they do.
I'm one of the least bigoted people I know. I do my best to follow the example set by the Messiah, Jesus: to love God and love others. Unconditional love does not mean I throw out my moral convictions. Some things are right and others are wrong. Does it offend you that I refuse to see the world on a sliding scale? But anyone can be redeemed from past sin.
Alot of people wear the title "Christian" pretty casually. Do they do their best to live it? Probably not, hence your designation of hypocrite may be justified. I fail, too, but there's always remorse and repentance. I keep on trying.
There's alot of room for variation within certain boundaries. It's what allows Christians to remain individuals. I find that the fundamentals as outlined by the Assemblies of God denomination sum up fairly well what Christians need to believe in. But there's alot of variation when it comes to areas beyond those, or even levels within those.
People do evil, not God. Would you really want to live a life run by a dictator who really did have the power to make you do/say/think everything he wanted you to? Because only the suspension of free will can eliminate evil. Without the capacity to do evil, there can't be the capacity to do good. It's a choice we make every moment of every day.
CT
You are a Christian, but you do not adhere to a set of ideals? How do you distinguish yourself from an atheist? It is infuriating, this Pauliannish acceptance of FAITH and FEELING over rigor and consistency. You really think it's adequate to proclaim evolution as a universal myth with a grin and without further justification - your approach seems sadly typical of the rejoicing responses to the devastating report from Kansas.
I think more than anything, this story shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Repuiblican Party in this country. They're never afraid of kids having access to guns, but what ARE they afraid of - science!
So while evolution and natural selection still can be taught, the door is open for any teaching of them to be challenged by opponents of evolution.
Well said. That's what I took this news to mean so I don't see what all the freaking out is about.
Also, I recently heard in a social science class, at DeVry in Phoenix, an instructor state that much of the scientific community has begun to believe that there were no transitional species between primates and homosapiens indicating one evolved from the other. He said that the skeletal remains that had previously caused scientists to believe this have since been identified as homosapien skeletons with ostiopathic disorders. He wasn't saying this to discredit evolution as a scientific principal, and he wasn't advocating creationism. I think he was just illustrating the changing nature of scientifically held principles. I'm not stating an opinion either, just throwing this out as food for thought. Not that it will matter with this being comment #1500 or whatever because I'm sure no one will ever see it, let alone reply to it. That's what I get for not checking slashdot all day. Anyway, I digress.
Actually the bible does mention dinos. I forget which day they were created on, but they are mentioned - probably the bad transalations of the bible didn't write it down correctly. Get an accurate transalation of the hebrew original and they are mentioned.
My view on the big debate between science and religion is that there doesn't need to be a debate. Science and religion can coexist, but so far each seems bent on destroying the other.
To the hardline fundamentalists out there, get a grip. Evolution does not disprove the Bible, it merely demonstrates that you can't take Genesis literally. Considering that a new species of mosquito has occurred from having been trapped in the London subways, denying evolution is getting to be like denying the round Earth. If I had to tell an imature, inexperienced human race where it came from, saying that humans were "molded out of clay" is about how I'd put it too.
I have an even bigger problem with the atheist jack*sses that insist that evolution disproves the existence of God. Take one look at the human hand, with all its moving parts, complex wiring and piping systems: In spite of it's flaws it's a pretty well-designed "accident." Deal with it people: There exist advanced robots with AI that evolves behavior its creators can't explain, but even with evolution working in AI, it needed the push of a higher intelligence to get started. The universe has much chaos, but overall is just too well organized to be one great big accident.
I condemn the religious leaders who demand we reject science before accepting God, and I equally condemn the scientists bent on trying to "kill" religion with scientific theory.
One other note: Is one's stance on creation vs. evolution REALLY something that people would get sent to hell over?
--WH
Seattle, WA
I guess men like f*cking there sisters (or brothers in some cases)! These creationist probably believe incest is a sin. But wait, humanity started from adam and eve and their grandchildren did not just spawn out of no where!!!! I'm confused??????
Scientists are out travelling the real world to prove and create theories using logic, while these creationists derive all there facts from a book.
Uhmm I think I will put my money in the people that derive there information from reality. Faith doesn't cure disease or feed the hungry.
---------------------------
^_^ smile death approaches.
OK, look. You don't prove a theory. You can only disprove a theory, by testing it. Once a theory has been rigorously tested, it can be accepted as a fact. A theory is logical framework to explain a series of facts (such as "these bones found in the ground at this place" * 10^6). The validity of a theory is measured by its usefulness in predicting other outcomes or explaining other phenomenon. By that measure, Evolution is well tested and generally acccepted.
You can't prove Creationism either. But you can test it, and use it to predict. It deosn't hold up.
If you believe in Creationism (that everything that is here is because God willed it here), then you would have to also believe (it seems to me) that animal extinction is also a false theory. Animals can not disappear, because because God has willed them to be here.
Still doesn't hold up.
That being said, my observations on the subject are as follows:
1. Science has in the past been wrong on numerous occasions. Science, in the future, will certainly be wrong on numerous occasions.
2. Religion has often opposed what has been shown to be scientific fact on a number of occasions as well.
Thus, the best reaction to science and/or religion is to not discard something because it is contrary to your current belief system, but to examine it and determine its truthfulness. On the other hand, one should not always believe what they are taught, whether scientific or religious.
In the end, (IMHO), one should question what one is told in the interest of determining what is truth.
You and you entropy people!
You do not seem to understand the nature of what you are talking about, chaos. The chaotic nature of the universe explains evolution. From order to disorder. Natural selection does not break the law of entropy it molds it. Lets say you have an animal that is perfect for warm climate, no fur, not much need for water, etc. Every once in a while there is a genetic change (mutation) which causes an a furry version of that animal. It does'nt survive very long because the warm climate does not allow it (natural selection). If there is a tilt in the earth's axis which causes very cold climate, those furry animals will flurish while the bare animals will die or migrate elseware. I don't understand how this is not logical. Bacteria does this all the time, hence drug resistant bacteria.
What is unscientific about evolution?
In France it has been maid a century ago (except in two states, that's a long story...). You can't teach or learn any religion in public schools , and if you want your childs to learn a religion you can send them in a private school. We don't have (and i hope that we will never have) such problems.
The one-god religions are patriarchal constructs designed to oppress and manipulate the population, specifically women, through fatalism and a male-oriented viewpoint. Evolution is a very valid scientific theory, and just because some bible-bashers are incapable of understanding it does not invalidate it. The whole of America should be ashamed of this recent decision. I am thankful that I live in Australia, where the only stupidity of this sort relates to meaningless Internet censorship laws (and the odd one-nation twit being roasted by the media).
America : de-evolution in motion.
Kris.
Win a Rio (or join the SETI Club via same link)
Don't insult this guy! They teach SHAKESPEARE in schools. I beleive a famous quote, and something he beleived wholeheartedly in, was "Kill all the lawyers". Betcha didn't hear that in english class! :-) Not that I condone such a thing, but hey, like I do say, some english teachers put him on a pedastal (sp?).
Frankly, I don't think the media is giving this anywhere near enough importance...
This is, quite simply, a catastrophe, and not just for Kansas.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
As usual, I swoop in and go waaaayyyy off topic (why stop now?). To me this little debacle (which is being blown out of all proportion because vague stories in the press are substantially inflating the scope and impact of this decision) illustrates a fact about life in the whole of these United States (and by no means just in Kansas).
That fact is that, despite widespread belief that we live in the "scientific age," we actually are little better off than we were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the formal techniques of modern science began to, if you will forgive the expression, evolve. Back then, a handful of very scholarly men began to apply the rigors of Aristotle's logic to direct observation of the physical world (with the first result being the complete desruction of Aristotle's own ideas about natural systems!). These handfuls of men began to develop rigorous methods for forming hypotheses, constructing experiments, carrying them out, collecting data, and analyzing results. They also made a clear distinction between hypothesis, theory, and fact. The only facts in science are logic and mathematics (and even these are only marginally facts as Godel proved centuries later) and that the data gathered in an experiment were the data gathered in the experiment. Take Galileo's little experiments rolling balls of differing weights down slopes of differing angles and measuring the time it takes the ball to go from one end of the slope to the other. He made literally thousands of observations and derived the first universal "law" in the history of science: All objects accelerate towards the earth at 32 feet per second per second. Even this, which gets labelled "Galileo's Law" is not a "fact." Tomorrow we might observe that things accelerate towards the earth at 29 feet per second per second (it would make a lot of us who are a bit tubby like me rather happy). That we know of no possible cause for such a thing and that we know it has never happened between Galileo's time and ours doesn't mean that it won't happen tomorrow. All scientific "facts" are provisional. Scientists must be prepared to re-examine and possibly refine or reject theories when new evidence is found contrary to theory.
Science is a form philosophy that is characterized by logic, experiment, observation, empiricism, skepticism, and materialism. Science and religion cannot co-exist in a classroom or a laboratory because religion (Judeo-Christian anyways, I'm certainly not an expert in world religions) has spiritualism in its philosophic base. Religion requires one to believe in non-empirical knowledge and science requires one to refuse any non-empirical evidence. Note that this does not mean that person cannot believe in both religion and science. If a religious person merely accepts that his knowledge of, say, Christ's death and Resurrection is non-empirical (but no less true) and therefore non-scientific and accepts that evolution by natual selection is empirical and therefore non-spiritual they can co-exist. This isn't mere semantic argybargy. I think that it is perfectly okay for a profoundly religious person to practice science through the very real fact (there's that word again!) that science inhernetly excludes from consideration an entire source of evidence, an entire way of experiencing the world called "Faith" or "spirit." That means, from this point of view that Science has a blind spot. A person can regard science as the more limited view and view it as a tool for getting behind the nature of life, while keeping their faith at the fore for exploring the meaning of life. If you ask any person of deep faith, I suspect you will find that they consider their non-measurable experience of faith to be more compelling and "real" (whatever that may mean) than any measurable empirical experience they have had. Who are you or I to say they are "wrong?"
Now, this is a problem for the handful of people today versed in the sciences. Most of us are very unscientific and know precious little about science. Even NPR's "Talk of the Nation Science Friday" program continually mistakes technology for science and they could not be more different.
The vast majority of people on the plane with you the next time you fly will have no idea whatsoever what makes the plane fly. Most people do not know how a battery works. Most do not know a proton from a neutron. More to the point, most do not know why science regards things as true. The evidence for evolution is every bit as strong as that for Galileo's Law, and yet many perfectly sensible people reject it utterly. That's because most of us (even scientists) are creatures of habit and predjudice. The reason we are not all scientists is that science is hard and demanding and completely foreign to the way humans make descisions about what is true and false. We use technology and we think "Boy, the wonders of science," but very few of us has even an inkling about the fact that electronics (a technology) required discovering quantum meachnics to come into being. Most people know who John F. Kennedy was, but very few know who Max Planck, Paul Dirac, Enrico Fermi, and Pauli (forgot first name; see?) were.
We accept the products of science in the form of technology in much the same way we accept the eucharist, as a blessings from the priests of science, but with much less appreciation for the mystery. We do not live in a scientific age, but in an age of scientists. An age where the power of the knowledge discovered by science is valued by all, but the value of the knowledge itself and more importantly, how it was obtained is as mysterious as holy communion.
Seen in this light, very few of us should feel as free as we do to make fun of the "hicks" from Kansas. Believe me that average intelligence is Kansas is not significantly different from that in any other state in the union. Ignorance is bliss and America is a very happy country. All of it, not just Kansas.
A hick nerd from Minnesota...
Rather let's put it this way: all religions (including the religion of the evolutionist, which is a materialist one) have presuppositions which remain unchallenged by practitioners. I certainly acknowledge that I have them. Evolutionists are typically reluctant to admit theirs. This is not universally the case; Lewontin (a Harvard zoologist and atheist) freely admits that evolution is a religious faith. In this he is more honest.
The typical evolutionist never questions the assumption that he has a right to logically verify everything. He barely even recognizes that he holds this. It is an untested assumption, and it is a false one. God is not subject to human verification. His existence and the truth of the Bible are not contingent upon whether you or I or anyone else can "prove" them to be. God is absolutely sovereign, and his sovereignty would be diminished fatally if it were true that it's contingent upon human approval or verification (and it's not).
I asked someone else this question. I'll ask you, too. Can an electrochemical reaction make a truth statement?
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I agree completely, but you're not entirely clear at the beginning of your post.
Once again, for the residents of Kansas among us:
Humans did not evolve from gorillas or chimpanzees. At one point, we have a common ancestor, but we are NOT directly decended from them.
I wish you'd posted before the other guy. :-)
Hello? A myth is something, such as crazy religious ideas, believed by idiots with no proof whatsoever. I think the words you are looking for are "scientifically proven theory".
void post { post_random_comment("slashdot.org"); karma--; }
ie: I saw a stupid comment being made and theorized that the commenter was stupid (I assume you're rather smart, right?) In my observation, my beliefs intruded into my perceptions and defined the way I saw the "fact". This resulted in a theory that I would be hard put to prove (since you are really smart and not stupid). However, since you are a little more substantial than a few shards of bone and some rocks, my theory could easily be proved or disproved with no doubt or question. (the previous remarks were written with a smile - :)
With evolution, given the poor preservation of a complete lineage of life over a given period of time, it may never be solidly and adaquately proven and will always remain a guess. That is until we die, and have God tell us whether evolution was right. :)
Also, gravity is not a theory. It is something that can be verified without a doubt time and time again. How gravity works has numerous theories. Evolution is just an unproven idea which makes it a theory to make sense of a pile of bones and rocks. The key here is a pile of bones and rocks. No one is disputing the existance of these bones and rocks any more than they are making an argument against the existance of gravity. They are disputing the conjectures about how they came to be. I can be wrong about a pile of bones and rocks. It's entirely a guess based on personal observation (actually most of us haven't actually seen a collection of fossils so we're just taking a bunch of unknown people who are supposed to be scientists at their word). But I can jump up again and again, and I always come down - that's hard to be wrong about...
The bible is quite factual, for what it is.
The old testiment is the oral traditions of a tribe of people. It was written hundreds of years after it was created, with the distortions what naterally occur with verbal traditions.
It it, the creation story these people's idea on how their god created the earth. Given that the Jews had no idea of evolution, they got it preaty damn close.
Point: Plants came before animals and animals before humans. Change Days to epochs, and we have evolution from the mindset of a pre-industrial person.
Days could have been used both as a propaganda tool "Hey, our God created everything in 6 days!" or to make the story relevent to its intended audience (Try to explain million of years to people who have trouble with counting above 10).
So, the bible is actually right, for a pre-industrial nomad in an arid enviroment. For 20th century America........
>>>>>
Did you think I was defending creationism?
Honestly, I did. My apologies.
I am very upset with people using quasy-scientific arguments to discuss issues they have no in-depth knowledge about. Creationism, in particular, is on my black list - so I overreacted. No, I do not advocate elitism in science. Just honesty.
And I think this discussion has nothing to do with religion and theology anyway. I am not familiar at all with theology, but once I helped my friend to translate his presentation at some theology conference on relationship between theological and astronomical Universe. I was surprised at the level of his work. Obviously, in any area of study there can be serious and competent scholars, and morons, like this Kansas school board. That's the morons I dislike, not some particular theory...
:)
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I suggest you all step away from your keyboards for a little while and read a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It is written by a self-proclaimed agnostic, and it essentially demolishes what is commonly called the "Theory of Evolution," by which I mean the theory that we got here by purely naturalistic means with no supernatural intervention. And yes, I have read Dawkins and other evolutionists, and they can't even shine Denton's shoes.
I have no problem with the theory of evolution being taught in schools, as long as the serious problems with it are also pointed out. And to say it has serious problems is an understatement. Do the research yourself, and quit bashing opposing views when you have no idea what your are talking about.
80 years ago religious people were ridiculed for believing that the universe had a beginning. Now the big bang theory is the scientific consensus. Think for yourself, and quit parroting bullshit.
Russ
What's the misquoted part here? Nothing much, just twisting E. and G.'s statement that smooth intermediate fossil sequences are almost impossible to construct, into "Gould and Eldredge specifically exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form ..." Neither Eldredge nor Gould hold the latter view and they've taken pains in later publications to make that clear.
In particular: (Gould 1983, p. 260) "... since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." Moreover, Gould (1991, p. 144-145): "Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find."
See Archaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record for the whole sorry story. Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. 1977. "Punctuated equilibrium: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology, 3: 115-151
Gish, D. T. 1985. "Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record." Creation-Life, San Diego. 278 pp.
Gish, D. T. 1995. "Evolution: the fossils still say NO!" Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California. 391 pp.
Gould, S. J. 1983. "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes." Norton & Co, New York. 413 pp.
Gould, S. J. 1991. "Bully for Brontosaurus." Penguin, London. 540 pp.
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Good-bye, America. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
By 1999, the U.S.A. has sunk to a disgusting, deteriorating fascist empire. From the outside: the nation whose Wall Street imperialism bullies and robs the whole world, backed up by the terror of the Blitzkrieg. From the inside: dispirited stagnation enlivened only by repeated spasms of chaotic violence, where TV advertising revenues surge with each new instance of an assault rifle attack upon schoolchildren. So viewed as history from the future, America won't be missed.
Those unique virtues which made twentieth century America so powerful are being systematically destroyed for only short-term gain, one after the other, by America's vicious and greed-crazed ruling class. To squeeze a handful more votes out of a pack of illiterate rubes, fans of TV preachers, the rich people who rule Kansas are deliberately destroying science education in its public schools. How do you suppose the U.S.A. will fare in the next century after we reduce science education to the level of Afghanistan? They say the twentieth century was "the American century." The twenty-first century will not be.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
But then I realized I was just being beligerant and petty. Constitutionalism includes court rulings, and we all know this. Some arn't fond of this harsh reality, but I don't want the state of California telling me what I can't read, so hey.
The relevant passage in the constitution is, of course, the establishment clause. It's common sense. Just about anything a state could regulate in regards to religion would serve to "establish" one religion over another.
This is why creationism can NOT be required teaching (Edwards v Aguillard 1987).
See, what people don't see is that there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the creation theory. In my opinion, I think people should actually gather facts before assuming that religion and science cannot co-exist. Religion and science co-exist just fine. Nearly every geologic/atmospheric event recorded in the Bible has been proven to have happened by science one way or another. I'm not here to preach -- but if you do a little independent research on your own, you might be surprised at what you find. my $.02
Wrong. Being able to move toward and away from light is a useful ability. Light is energy, and where there is energy there is often food. All that is required is a simple cell or two that can distinguish light and dark. From there natural selection would favor variations of these cells that could make out intensity of light (bright light = more food) and then shapes and especially movement and color. If you had thought about it, you'd have seen that there are a lot of useful steps along the way from simple light detecting cells to more complex eyes.
The only act of faith is the belief that processes observed today are the same processes that acted in the past (Uniformitarianism, I think). Calling this a belief is a misnomer since it has a lot of evidence behind it, though. If you think that speciation has been observed in the only 100 or so years we've been looking, why don't you think speciation could have created the diversity we see today in the billions of years life has existed?
If anybody would care to comment on any of the following articles with rational intelligent conversation, I would enjoy a levelheaded discussion of the *facts*.
/dev/null
(I did not write these, just found them via Altavista)
1. Brainwashed
2. Are there problems with Carbon Dating?
3. What are the 17 evidences against Evolution?
Frank discussion welcome, flames & rants >
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
> Next time, try assuming that the Bible is true rather than false. You won't look so foolish.
Is that 'true' like in Genesis 1, where Adam is created after the animals, or 'true' like in Genesis 2, where Adam is created before the animals?
Is it a principle of creationist theology that you can reorder the events in the story and maintain their truth? If so, does this apply throughout, or only where it absolutely needs to be invoked to save face?
Or have any creationists actually read the damn thing so far as the second chapter? No, no need to, I suppose -- they'll tell you everything you need to know about it in the public schools.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death."
-- The sacred scrolls (of the apes)
"Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape."
-- George Taylor, astronaut
"G***damn you all to hell!!!!"
--- George Taylor, astronaut
"Glory be to the bomb and to the holy fallout."
--- human mutants' prayer
Many post have depicted Darwinian evolution as conjecture, that is at based on a few debatable fossil records. This cannot be further from the truth.
Although the fossil record can be debated, genetics can not. The fact of the matter is, with the discovery of DNA and its consequences in relation to heredity, evolution enters the same level of validity as Einstein's theory of special relativity. Whether you believe it or not your genome was determined at birth. And it makes sense that you will pass on this genome if you survive to have children. That is evolution by natural selection. People breed dogs, cats, etc all the time to get a specific attribute. That is EVOLUTION by artificial selection. Evolution by natural selection is occurring as we speak, it is well documented. From salamanders in California to Peppered Moths in London to Trees in the Pacific Islands. It can then be inferred that evolution by natural selection was occurring before we were here.
Now this does not mean natural selection is the only force behind evolution. Many biologists have suggested alternative forces at play as the answer to many of the errant predictions made by the model. The lack of total consistency in predictions does not indicate evolution via natural selection is an incorrect assumption, all it means is that not all forces are accounted for. The mathematics behind the theory of relativity break down in a black hole, but this does not mean the theory is incorrect, merely that is does not account for all forces.
But does anyone debate the validity of the theory of special relativity? No, because it doesn't interfere with peoples deeply held beliefs (be they true or not). Obviously people need more science education not less.
amen
> Hey, we at the Neanderthal Defence League are tired of you "oh so evolved" people making us out to be idiots.
Our ancestors ate most of your ancestors, nya, nya, nya!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...until everyone has caught up.
This is the New Millenium, people. We are all supposed to be making bold strides in understanding, realizing the promise of technology and scientific advances. How sickening it is that so many of us are stuck with a medieval mindset.
All of you who look to heaven for answers, remember this:
We are living longer, healthier lives thanks to technology.
God did not eliminate polio or smallpox, man did.
And we never could have prayed our way to the moon.
Compared to where we were 1000 years ago, we ARE gods!
Darwin disproved his own theories and called them jibberish himself. He proceeded in calling himself "a crazy old man" and saying that his theories could never work. I, for one, find it hard to follow the teachings of one who has no confidence in his own theories.
If you don't understand basic logical constructs then I'd realy hate to read any code you write. Logic (boolean algebra) is one of the most fundamental concepts that all programmer should have down pat.
Gravity is a law? You're funny.
Thank you for mentioning that. As an athiest, I am often frustrated by the actions of fundamentalist fanatics. It took me a long time to accept that they do not represent the mainstream of Christian faith. You are incorrect, though, in your understanding of the meaning of "experimentation". When it comes to such things as the examination of the fossil record (as is necessary when it comes to understanding evolution), the analysis itself should be considered a valid "experiment". If the analysis of past events cannot be factually valid, then we should have to throw out the study of history, archeology, cosmology, paleontology, geology...
Speaking as a Mississippian liberal, I have to correct one thing. In the South Democrat does not necessarily equal liberal. You will quite often see both parties supporting school prayer, right-to-life, less gun control, etc. Sometimes I honestly can't tell the difference. But conservative Southern Democrats are known as "Boll Weevils", or at least they used to be--don't know about now. So what you said is basically correct if you replace any party lines with conservative-liberal lines.
Well, where are the missing link mouse/elephant hybrids? I think mice and elephant share 99% of their DNA, but there are no mice with trunks or elephants with fur. If it is not mice and elephants it is elephants and some random rodent... It is pretty basic biology.
Not like I want to tear my religion apart, but hey, I've been told often by religious educators, "The Bible is perfect in all ways". Hmmmm, maybe more perfect in some ways than others now, huh? :-)
I mean, according to the faq, "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time." What viable organisms can we point to and say for certain that their actual genome changed? What if the external changes we observe are simply caused by inherent genetic variation? As I understand it, the theory of genetic variation states that an organism carries a multidude of genes that are only sometimes switched on. This would explain several interesting puzzles concerning the races of humankind without resorting to evolution.
I just think it is an interesting alternative to ponder.
"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see." -From the Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits, by Lewis Carroll
I guess you can't accept evolution when you havn't evolved YOURSELF!
The Bible is a book written specifically concerning the problem of man's seperation from a relationship with God. It is not designed to contain an exhaustive list of scientific truths. However, in the book of Job, one of the oldest books of the Bible, a description of several beasts (translated 'behemoth' and 'leviathan') are given. These descriptions fit well with dinosaurs.
I believe the latest evidence has shown that both Neanderthals and Cromagnons were fully human, they were just diseased and vitamin-deficient.
Hello just wanted to add something things that people should know before this discussion continues. Umm...evolution does not say humans evolved from monkeys. And there is nothing in evolution that says we did. We are a seperate species that evolved seperate from the monkeys but had a common ancestor. And for all those who are kind of overreacting. Kansas did not ban the teaching of evolution. It simply stopped requiring it. So please stop screaming about the banning of evolution. And for the few people on slashdot or read stuff on it who are actually on the other side. Instead of arguing about how evulotion is only a theory think about how much religion is only a theory. And note Evolution=theory. It is getting constantly refined and redefined. It's good to teach students that evolution is not straight fact, but I would worry about know well our students are learning about evolution before I worry about that. bye bye :)
God does, obviously. Through the bible.
Actually, the word "Christian(s)" only occurs in the bible three times. The term used in the bible is "disciple" (meaning follower, or student, of Christ Mark 1:16-18).
Being a disciple is not easy (Luke 9:23, Luke 14:25-33), and many who claim to be Christians are not (1John 2:3-6).
Denominations that are not following the entire bible, or that are following doctrines in books other than the bible, are not disciples, and therefore are not Christians.
What each follower of Christ is supposed to do is instill the teachings of Christ into others(Matt 28:18-20, 2Tim 2:2). Acts 2:42-47 talks about how disciples are supposed to act: Giving to the poor, helping the sick, being devoted to each other. Heb 12:14 commands us to "make every effort to live in peace with all men"
When people say religeon has caused wars, they are not talking about true discipleship, true Christianity.
What causes wars is greed, pride, envy, etc. Not God!
Mistakes aside, it still doesn't change the fact that Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of bird and reptile features.
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
What God?
But it's as true as the theory of general relativity. American science education is often guilty of teaching science as The Truth (tm)... but that's the case across the board. To single out evolution implies there's something uniquely uncertain about it... and there isn't.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Go ahead, moderate me down.
Most Christians will say this:
A christian is a person is (spiritually) dead to sin, and made alive in Christ. We (Yes, me too) that Jesus Christ was born perfect and remained perfect throughout his life on earth. He suffered and died, paying the price for our sin. He entered Ghenna (Roughly translated Hell) and defeated Lucifer. He released those bound by the old convenant and was raised from the dead by God the Father (Same God, different person). He now sits in heaven to reign at the right hand of the Father. He will intercede for Christians at the judgement.
There you go. Praise God for the opportunity to explain this.
Email me.
Sorry, no logon at this computer.
g2g
Are horses and donkeys the same species?
Just because one group cannot breed with another, does not mean it's a new species. Take dogs for instance. Toy Poodles and Saint Bernards don't breed but they are still the same species, probably coming from the same wolf-like ancestor.
Don't confuse microevolution with macroevolution. Each species has an incredible number of genes that can be selected among, leading to a large, yet finite, number of possibilities. The real question is, can new genes be created that fundamentally change the species?
But shouldn't we extend this practice to all religious teachings and beliefs. All teaching of that "one true religion" must be followed by equal teaching of all those religious beliefs that consider that "one true religion" to be heresy!
In plain words, the only religion that should be taught is comparitive religion.
Don't be silly. The world han't existed long enough to have collected all those fossils.
Bacterial infections in hospitals dropped to an all time low with the introduction of Pennicillin and other antibiotics...yet now, more and more diseases are resistant to them. Worfarine is less effective against rats. There are signs that AIDS is changing to circumvent the anti-AIDS drugs that are used against it. Tuberculosis is all but untreatable because it has "changed" to become resistant to nearly all the treatments we have.
If you must deny evolution, you must not only find good explanations for the Dinosaur footprints in Dinosaur State Park here in Texas - but you also have to explain how come God is changing the TB virus to make it impossible for doctors to cure their patients.
Simple creatures like bacteria and viruses will evolve over a matter of a couple of years. You can quite easily demonstrate it in action in the laboratory.
If evolution is bunkum - I don't want to believe in a God who would be so nasty as to inflict such terrible suffering - then repeatedly patch the viral DNA in a kind of arms race to sidestep all mans efforts to defend himself.
Sheesh! I want God's root password.
This may be true for American high-school system but this is definitely not true for Russian HS system - evolution isn't an advanced subject compared to some areas of physics and mathematics taught in last grades of school (btw.. we graduate at age of 16 or 17).
Oh.. and to all the people that say 'you can't prove evolution' - prove the existence of God!.
The "world" is a hoax. It has only existed for, like, 70 years, and is fed to you all through a wire in your REAL head. lalalalaalalalalalaaaa
Alas, it is hard to rebut an argument so vague in details. To say that "the evidence for this is vast" or that "its breadth is staggering" without actually presenting the evidence (or even the argument) is not very convincing. It is proof by gesticulation (hand-waving).
The difficulty of arguing natural selection producing the human eye comes from its very complexity. Sure, we have optical organs in other animal species of varying effectiveness, but they are vastly different in structure from a human one. I have yet to see a path of mutation from something primitive to a human eye that is useful every step of the way.
I don't try to push my beliefs on other people, but I do have to shake my head when someone is so misinformed about a subject(not limited to Christianity)...
What are these tests used for? If test results are used to determine teacher raises, or funding for schools, then you can bet curricula will focus on subjects that are tested, at the expense of subjects that are not tested.
Thanks for the t.o. link. The two creationist arguments I discussed are conventially debunked here and here. On the paucity of fossil evidence for missing links I offer Darwin:
He was right, this is indeed one of the arguments creationists use. Was I wrong to offer an explanation of why gaps are not really that big of a deal? How gaps will always exist? How gaps are a silly non-proof for creationism? For examples of the "two gaps from one gap" creationist argument, please see page 149 of Why people believe weird things.I can only conclude that we have nothing to argue with each other about. Time to get back to bashing microsoft.
Very little things that they teach in science are absolute facts. Physics, Chemistry, etc - they are all THEORIES. So do you promise we stop teaching science at all? Oh, and by the way - there is a whole LOT more evidence to collaborate the evolution theory than there is for the "god" theory.
As many others showed... evolution is as proven as special relativity, as proven as the things can be proven outside of mathematics. Absolute proof is possible only in mathematics. ...
...That's what they want... will you let them.. ? MY ANSWER IS NO
Oh by the way.. imagine god created a universe a second ago... How will you say... exactly the same as he created universe in any other creativistic theoriy... So how comes you have memories...well you HAVE them because that's just the state of the atoms in your head and he set them like that.
Oh... by the way.. have you ever thought the idea that we are ALL living in a BIG SIMULATOR... Yea.. some more advanced species is simulating us just to find out how they evolved... WHY NOT? It's fucking possbile just the same as creativism. But these AREN'T THEORIES, because they don't give ANY predictions and are therefore useless in this universe, therefore god is usless. It is just the word used to manipulate poor minded, stupid and ignorant people that allow religion to say them what to do. STOP THE RELIGION! FREE UP YOUR MIND. If you can come up with better theory than evolution, BE OUR GUEST. But please... keep it SCIENFISTIC!
Keep them ignorant, keep your power -- Fucked Up College Kids
As many others showed... evolution is as proven as special relativity, as proven as the things can be proven outside of mathematics. Absolute proof is possible only in mathematics. ...
...That's what they want... will you let them.. ? MY ANSWER IS NO
Oh by the way.. imagine god created a universe a second ago... How will you say... exactly the same as he created universe in any other creativistic theoriy... So how comes you have memories...well you HAVE them because that's just the state of the atoms in your head and he set them like that.
Oh... by the way.. have you ever thought the idea that we are ALL living in a BIG SIMULATOR... Yea.. some more advanced species is simulating us just to find out how they evolved... WHY NOT? It's fucking possbile just the same as creativism. But these AREN'T THEORIES, because they don't give ANY predictions and are therefore useless in this universe, therefore god is usless. It is just the word used to manipulate poor minded, stupid and ignorant people that allow religion to say them what to do. STOP THE RELIGION! FREE UP YOUR MIND. If you can come up with better theory than evolution, BE OUR GUEST. But please... keep it SCIENTIFIC!
Keep them ignorant, keep your power -- Fucked Up College Kids
Send your daughter off there! ;-)
The article indicated that evolution was what was being rooted out. I have not read anything against creationism, but I haven't went through all 1K+ posts.
What's that suppose to mean?
And, what's with this Slashdot load, nothing seems to be loading... This is too often now, and the comment limit is annoying.
This is just more FUD from crazy Theists >>Did you know that a transitional annimal - i.e. one that is between stepps, has never been found? LIE #1! Fossels have been found of dinasaurs with bird like features (feathers, similar bone structures) and birds later on with dinasaur like features (similar bone structures and anatomy etc). That is for just ONE line of creatures! You can read stuff on this subject in science magazines, see it on PBS or the discovery channel, this information is not hard to get. >>Did you know that of hundreds of experiments to try to do artifical evolution, not a single one worked? Evolution occurs over millions of years, what are you hoping to prove with even a 10 year experiment? Mutation can be proven to occur, and mutation is a foundation of evolution. ??Do you even understand the psudo-science involved? And how impossible it is? (They pretty much say, yah, it's impossible, but if you wait long enough anything is possible.) I find psudo-science to be used most commonly in religious explanations of the universe around us. I went to a christian highschool with christian science classes, so I know very well what kind of science christians employ to back up their theories... Lets just say none of it was solid enough to make me for a minute beleive their claims. This guy is just another one of those crazy christians that go around making claims against science using arguments which better describe them then their intended targets.
>Regardless of whether you ultimately believe in >evolution or not, you could at least show some >respect for the scientists who formulated the >theory and those who accept it today as fact. >These people are not idiots. I'm sorry for being a bit nit-picky here, but anyone who accepts evolution as a FACT, while perhaps not an idiot, is definitely ignorant about the scientific method and the definitions of a FACT and a THEORY. A FACT is something that is directly observable and is true. A THEORY on the other hand is a proposed explanation of the facts. It may or may not be true and is generally not directly observable. The theory of evolution may be correct, but it is not a fact because it hasn't (and probably cannot) be proven true. In the past, parts of this theory have been refined and modified to agree with new discoveries. In the future this theory may be further modified as new evidence becomes available. This is the beauty of a theory. It can be modified to explain new evidence. It is extremely important to distinguish between THEORY and FACT because when theories are assumed to to be facts, even scientists are tempted to draw the wrong conclusions from experimental observations. Perhaps the most glaring example of scientists being misled by assuming a theory to be a fact was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when a strong belief in Newton's theories of motion caused many scientist's to reject Maxwell's equations, Einstein's theory of relativity, and Quantum mechanics.
First of all, im not saying evolution is wrong. Personally, i believe very strongly in Evolution. I think its rather ignorant not to at least understand it and allow that side to be taught. But then i also think its ignorant the way everyone here is disrespecting the way others think/feel. I think the people who passed this law took a totally wrong approach. Instead of banning the teaching of evolution, they should have tried to at enter 'their way' and i don't mean teach it. Gosh, what is there to teach? God created it. The end. Im saying, at least mention it. Mention the other ways other religions explain this. Banning it isn't going to make it go away, and isn't going to teach the children any better. Its just going to piss off children because their school screwed them over and didn't teach them squat about life.... Anyway, thats my opinion.
Yui
-- Teach understanding, tolerance, and respect for everyone for a better world, not to benefit your side of the argument.. and then drop it.
This is an utter falsehood. The entire "theory" of evolution is based on evidentialist findings and cannot be proven solely by deductive or logical methods.
.. predict, and we've come full-circle; creationism is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination because it fails to predict anything.
..
.. and I think you may be underestimating the number of adherents that geocentrism actually has.
:-) It's time to go home!
.. well, you forgot the smiley.
An utter falsehood? All right, then how about this: If you state that such changes "do not happen", you are lying through the skin of your teeth. Of course the theory of "evolution" [sic] is based on evidence. Theories generally are. What is this "proof" you speak of? Natural sciences are not in the business of "proving" anything. If it's proof that you want, turn to mathematics, or perhaps the legal profession. Proof is a meaningless concept with regards to natural science. If I throw a ball up into the air, a scientist is not going to say "I shall prove that this ball will come back down." He or she will say "Based on theories and observations, I predict that this ball will come back down."
Hey! There's that word again
The remark of cje is typical of the naturalist objection to creationism.
I don't object to creationism. As far as I'm concerned, it is nobody's business what you believe. If you want to believe that the Earth was formed by a gigantic space ogre named "Phil" who carries around a sack of rocks and dirt, then by all means, do. What I object to is the methods of the vociferous proponents who have an agenda to get a clearly religious myth taught in America's public schools. With that in mind, I will call "creation scientists" liars without hesitation (I note that you did not contest this portrayal.) And I will point out the inconsistencies in the stories that they want to force on my children. Which brings us to the next point
There are common beliefs held among all of those who believe in creationism, and because cje has not bothered to do his homework and discover those beliefs, his arguments and challenges appear weak at best.
Oh, come on. Creationists do not agree on when the Earth and the universe were created. They do not agree on how long it took to create them. They don't agree on whether or not the original inhabitants of Earth were two people named Adam and Eve (most do, but some don't.) They haven't been able to decide if dinosaurs actually walked beside man, or if their fossils were buried by God to "test our faith", or if they are a mirage manufactured by Satan. They don't agree on how some sort of super-duper "hyperevolution" must have occurred to suddenly change carnivores into herbivores and then back to carnivores after Noah's Flood. They don't agree on an explanation as to how we can see the light of galaxies billions of light years distant (is the speed of light slowing down? did God create all that light in transit? is it a Satanic mirage?) And then there's the whole geocentrism thing
Stop me, please.
About all they do agree on is that at some point in the past, using some sort of procedure that took some unspecified amount of time, God created the universe. If you're suggesting that this is some sort of "unified creationist front"
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Evolution has been seen to happen in action. Animal populations change from generation to generation, both through natural selection and artificial selection. Look at dogs. Look at those moths which changed from black to white during the industrial revolution. Look at bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics.
What most people _mean_ when they say "evolution is a theory" is that it is only a hypothesis that all of the species that are around today arose through evolution from common ancestors. That is true - no one has personally observed this happening. However, it is the theory that bests fits the observed evidence. It is also a theory that makes some predictions that continue to be validated regularly. In the scientific world, theories are never declared absolutely finally true or false - they are declared to be the best fit for the currenlty known evidence.
So yes, evolution is a theory, much like the theories that the earth is an oblate sheroid, that strange quarks exist, that the stars are much like our sun but further away, and many other things that no one human can directly perceive at one shot, but that best explain the evidence at hand.
Note that evolution is not even incompatible with certain varieties of creationism. You could claim that god put a few single cells in the water and then let things go. But there are other explanations for how life may have begun which are more convincing from a scientific standpoint.
"Believing" in evolution thus requires _no_ faith, because the belief is scientific - those who hold it are ready to reject or revise it if contrary evidence is found. On the other hand "believing" in creationism _does_ require faith, because it is a belief held without, and often in direct contradiction to the evidence. This is the key difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief.
where exactly did the very first piece of something come from?
As a so called atheist fanatic, a professional evolutionary biologist AND as someone who has taken a course in formal logic (caution, those statements could be taken as a warning signs of an appeal to authority argument, something creationist types should learn to recognize) I'd like to point out that we are talking about evolution. More specifically, in the context of the Kansas decision, we're talking about macroevolution & speciation. This is not the same thing as either the origin of life problem (which current biologists do recognize as something we don't have much of a handle on). Nor is it in related to the origin of the universe problem, as you have implied above.
As a bit of added irony, when I went through the MSNBC site to get to the listed article on this Kansas mess, I got a banner ad from John Handcock which presented the question: "Why don't they teach this stuff in school?"
Theorems are all proven to be true.
x = x is not true by definition. It's true by the reflexive property of equality.
And could you show me where, in the Constitution,
the principle of separation of Church and State
is? I have a copy on my desk, as well as the URL
of the one on the Library of Congress website.
Well, there are always opposing theories, even if you have to scrape the bottom of the crackpot barrel to find them. How about "a law has overwhelming support and very few, or none, contradicting bits of evidence, and is provisionally accepted as fact." (And when investigated, those bits turn out to be experimental error, which also is always with us.)
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
I more or less agree with the general direction of your argument and I really like the idea of encouraging tolerance. However, I think you either misunderstand or misrepresent what you understand about evolution somewhat. It's not the 'accidents' that survive. So the human hand's trial and error design over vast numbers of generations of evolution is no 'accident'. It's the result of all the 'accidents' getting filtered out due to their inappropriateness to survival. What remains is the most *ideal* set of "solutions" resulting from all accidental genetic mutations over time.
Also, I would personally back up one more step from literalism with religion in general and think of it as more metaphorical and ethical in nature. Spirituality addresses all these 'hard' problems that Science can't even pose properly, let alone answer. Given this, I find that many of the Eastern religions speak to me more, especially in terms of ethics, than Christianity. But as far as Christianity goes, do I think God literally created humans? Seems pretty far fetched given what we know about stellar, planetary, geological, chemical and biological evolution. Did the universe start with a Big Bang? Maybe. Did some God-like superbeing create the universe and its laws? Who knows!? Maybe! I think the absolute question of origins is totally open and probably always will be. Hey, maybe the Hindus/Buddhists are right and the whole creationism vs. science debate is totally pointless because everything we experience here in the universe is a dream (and thus Reality and Mysticism can be true at the same time). Hard to logically argue with that huh?
Yes, but the wall was meant to keep the government from meddling in the affairs of the church. It was never meant to keep religious people from political action.
So now they're authorizing a whole generation of head-up-the-ass holy rolling spam crusaders. That is to say, if they actually have the needed electricity, and if Internet access isn't censored out there.
Basically, It looks like this BOE ruling removes from the "home-school" movement a responsibility to teach, and replaces it with a license to create as many falsely-pious crusaders as the state can spit out. I love the idea of home-schooling, but if the children aren't required to learn the fundamentals of scientific theory, there's no point to it.
Actions like this will serve to promote two forces (A) fundamentalist expansion to other states, and (B)motions to reject home-schooling altogether, as a violation of SoCS.
For an irresponsible action like this, the offending members need to be replaced, and prevented from holding further public office. I hope the governor out there fires every one of those bible-thumping fiefholders.
After exhaustive reading in high school on this subject, I have the beginnings of a response: one cannot believe in Creationism and Evolution simultaneously without avoiding a dichotomy (sp?). Why? Simply because the theory of evolution relies on extremely huge probabilities of chance - the possibility that (say) a lightning bolt hit an amoeba in the ocean, thereby causing massive genetic alterations, which again caused a fish to form, which through some circumstance grew legs and lungs and walked on the ground to humans. On the other hand, belief in fiat creation (creation solely by the spoken word of God) leaves no room for chance, and this is what is spoken of in Genesis (by a more or less literal reading of course). Can you believe in some form of creationism and in evolution? Yes, but that's not Christianity proper, that's getting into sects like Deism (and theories commonly referred to as "leaky Deism"). For another opinion on Darwinism and its weaknesses, I would suggest reading a book by the British skeptic Roger Penrose (I believe that's his name, it's at least Roger something), in which he tackles some of the inconsistencies in Darwinism, but interestingly he doesn't like Creationism either. Anyway, something to chew on.
So Kansas has voted to not require Evolution to be taught/tested/mentioned in their schools. I am assuming it is still up to the local school districts to make that final decision.
Believe it or not, this is a part of what this country was founded on. Kansas is saying, "we believe our children should be taught this," and they're leaving it up to the local governments to decide. If the people in Kansas want to live in their bubble, let them. If you live there and don't like that, move somewhere that values your values. Or do what you can to educate the people you know. Speak. Be heard. Teach your kids what you believe.
Government can't be everything to all people. I wish some people would just get that through their skulls.
--
John Kramer
John Kramer
God may be my co-pilot, but the devil is my backseat driver.
Does god exist, and does he have any power? Certainly. God exists at the very least as an idea, and as you can clearly see, that idea has ridiculous power (look at cathedrals, wars, nuns and such) Now nobody actually thinks that god exists as a physical "thing" floating around in space or whatever, so what are all these religious people talking about? If a crazy man says god spoke to him or somehting, we tend to say he was hulucinating (or however you spell that) or something, and his experience was not real. Now this is a problem. People like to say "god is real" or "god is not real" very bluntly, believing that they know what real means, but what does real actually mean? i would amazed if anyone in the world could actually give me a good definition, and i think this is why these "does god exist" arguments are so stupid... a better argument to have would be "what does exist mean?" If you could resolve that then maybe people could start to understand the world a little better....
vi is better than Emacs. So are ed and teco.
Abortion is better than abstinence.
The BSD-style license is better than the GPL.
Only losers drive SUVs.
Intel processors suck. All but the i960 suck a lot.
Then what theory were you proposing we teach instead? Last Tuesdayism? (All hail Queen Maeve!)
Seriously, what theory besides evolution is there that comes anywhere near explaining so many different phenomena? Name ONE.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
There are lots of origins myths, but on the christans think that theirs should be taught as creation science (CS).
Write the books to teach origin theories of many religons and CULTURES, and I will agree with it.
Problem is Creation science is CHRISTAIN SCIENCE.
Kansas school board marks quantum chromodynamics as manditory for school curriculum
or
Kansas school board marks Newtonian mechanics as banned because it is provably false.
They are two different issues along similar lines that would cause the scientific community to react in a much stronger way than this evolution thing.
Think about it - most of us know that Newtonian mechanics is false because it disagrees with relativistic mechanics which are more consistent with measurements. How many of us know that General Relativity is incorrect because it doesn't take into account Quantum theory. Should we therefore teach no physics in schools because we don't know what is the absolute truth?
Similarly, how deep into our 'best guesses' should be be teaching primary and secondary school students. Remember these are kids who will take their teacher's word as gospel and not as a best approximation which fits observed facts. Kids (generally), and even quite a few adults haven't developed their reasoning skills that far to recognise the difference between a fact and a theory.
Evolution is *not* a fact, though not provably fiction either.
Newtonian mechanics is *fiction* - provably incorrect.
Relativity is *fiction* - doesn't take into account QM.
Quantum Mechanics is *fiction* - doesn't take into account Relativity.
So, what should we be teaching schoolkids? If this decision was made in the context of "We won't teach the theory of evolution because we believe kids don't have the reasoning powers to come to grips with either the concept of theory vs fact, or the concept of millions of years of gradual genetic changes and survival" then I would probably agree. However it seems to be more a religous argument which is bad.
Just a few thoughts...
John Wiltshire
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
It is interesting that there is so much oposition to a school board not requiring evolution to be taught as fact. We certainly don't want students to be questioning any scientific hypotheses (grin). After all, what would happen if these students started to think for themselves and no longer accepted something so foundational to many peoples' view of life. Is the dogmatic support of evolution really about scientific evidence, or is the alternative just not philosophically acceptable? It seems that critical thinking is no longer highly valued in parts of the scientific community and much of our society. It is good to see that it still is in some school boards! When an issue is as scientifically debatable as this, present the options to the students along with the evidence and let the students think for themselves. Are people scared that their pet hypothesis can't stand up to that kind of scrunity? Joel Mawhorter
What do you mean, Socialized healthcare doesn't work in Canada? I understand that in the states, citizens don't even have the RIGHT to sue an "HMO" health care provider for poor service! And that the HMO providers challenge every medical expense, to the point that people die before they can get healthcare! The hell with socialism, that sounds like a facist state to me! Maybe Canada doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world, but then again, I hear lots about Americans dying from a lack of healthcare and how out of control the few providers American healthcare providers are in terms of quality, price and beaurocracy.
the world. Number two cause would most likely be ethnic purity but guess what, they go hand in
hand...
The thing is, what defines Christianity? Christians or God? I know, it's easy to find all the "bad apples" but really, those people aren't the best examples of Christians. It's like me saying that all white people are evil because they almost extinguished the native populations of North America. And no, this wasn't just because of the missionary people...greed *was* involved.
<tim><
That's not a great explanation. If the halfway-man-halfway-apes were starved to death, skeletons should probably have been left behind. If they were eaten, then of course bone evidence might be more lacking, since the after-meal bones would probably get strewn about. Still, there should be something left behind. Ah, questions, questions . . .
There *are* bones remaining for 'half ape, half human' astrolopiticine, homo erectus, neaderthals. Plese get a clue before posting.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
At least they understood that it's bad to dominate with one religion over another. Evolution is much of religion then sciense after all.
Team L4J
I think that you do have quite a few good things to say and even though I am pretty fully convinced that evolution is the best theory out there, you have made me more seriously think about it (thanks :-) ) . . . I am a Catholic scientist, so I have my own problems ;-) but I think that what they are doing in Kansas (taking evolution out of the curriculum, as I understand it) is pretty crazy.
:-)
The only problem that I have with your argument is when you say that evolution has given way to the Big Bang. What do you mean by that? The Big Bang and Evolution concern totally different things. The Big Bang is on a much larger time scale and concerns many different things. Admittedly, evolution couldn't have happened without the Big Bang (nothing could have, really) but I do not think that the Big Bang and evolution are mutually exclusive. It is possible that both happened (and I happen to think that they both did
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
Hemos seems to have touched a nerve here. The downside, of course, is: Katz will now publish about 7 articles on this subject. Within the next 48 hours.
With 1319 comments so far, this is now the most active story in slashdot.org history.... Rob hasn't updated the page yet (www.slashdot.org/hof.shtml).
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
The "fossil record" is not much of a record. We get a few dozen (large) fossils for each million years that passes. In very successful and long-lived species, we do indeed see a slow, gradual evolution: look at trilobites, for example (and various other small sea creatures that were commonly buried in water-bottom silt). You can see how they slowly developed eyes and other advantages over millions of years. Evolution was slow because they were wide-spread and it takes a long time for changes to occur in large populations.
These slow evolving species are very suggestive of a process of evolution. It's a huge stretch to imagine that some species evolved by natural selection and others were created. Having found one good mechanism that can work in obvious/well-documented ways (i.e. slow evolution of the trilobite) or non-obvious/poorly-documented ways ("sudden" appearance of a new species in the fossil record), there is no reason to complicate it with extra ad hoc mechanisms. Occam's Razor should be applied whenever possible.
This kind of evidence is what formed Darwin's view of evolution. I don't know whether he thought all evolution was a slow gradual thing or not, but the mechanism of his theory of natural selection applies just as well to rapid evolution in small, isolated groups.
Naturally, there are many more preserved bodies that are relatively new. So we luckily have hundreds, of preserved specimens of apes between knuckle-walkers and humans. Hundreds, not hundreds of thousands, and most of those hundreds are members of the very recent and successful (and apparently divergent) species of neanderthals and cro-magnon man. It is a huge deal to find a new proto-human fossil, every find makes for articles in the journals. A find earlier than neanderthals (but not knuckle-walkers) makes the popular magazines and news reports as well. When each new pre-neanderthal find often defines a new species, how are we to find definitive links between species?
When this all started, creationists complained of a "missing link" between man and ape. When man's apeish probable ancestors were found, they complained of "missing links" from this creature to man and back from this creature to the apes. This process can continue indefinitely. Unless you watch, with your own eyes, a child being born, you don't know for sure who the child's mother is and you never, under any circumstances, really know who a child's father is; but evidence is usually strongly suggestive. We do not know the world exists, we have only the evidence of our senses.
People who believe, without any empirical evidence, in the existence of an omnipotent being who is apparently going to great lengths to hide his own existence, are hardly in any position to demand infinitely convincing evidence.
Most of modern biology is built around the theory of natural selection. If you don't teach the theory of natural selection, you don't teach biology. In short, there are no seriously competing theories. Not mandating that natural selection be taught in any biology course is like not mandating that addition be taught in any math course; the very thought is ridiculous.
The argument from animal breeders is in fact self-refuting. For one thing, it is ironic to say that mutation caused by intelligent, deliberate design proves evolution: mutation by unintelligent, random accidents. It works better as an argument for intelligent, deliberate special creation. For another, animal breeders' experience is an argument against evolution.
Evolution assumes unlimited plasticity of mutation. What animal breeders discovered is that mutation is elastic. Oh, you can still breed dogs with all sorts of fur color or size, but they are still dogs. When they try to go too far, the offspring turn out either sterile or revert to the norm. Animal breeders have not been able to turn dogs, cats etc to another species.
Evolution by natural selection tends to be exaggerated. What is the point of arguing selection among existing variants? All this means is that we are looking at a form of selective extinction. No new species result from the observed selection. Without significant plasticity of mutation, macroevolution is not possible.
Your post betrays a problem that I mentioned in a separate post: evolution is supported more by antecedant bias than by empirical evidence. Where are the positive arguments for evolution? Don't just say "DNA" and omit the argument that explains why it proves evolution. It is as if you assumed evolution true in the absence of contrary evidence. Evolution benefits from a lack of scientific skepticism, and an ideology that pushes for its acceptance without question.
Actually, evolution isn't the prevailing view. Most Americans would agree with some form of creationism. Most Scientists would sy that evolution is among the most rigorous ly proved scientif theories today. Most of Biology is based on neo-Darwinism (Natural Selection + Genetics + Molecular Biology).
Lots of scientific theories contradict religious doctrine. The Bible defines PI as being equal to three. To define exclusionary zones where science must not penetrate would reduce science pretty quickly.
Science depends on education. Science is not some strange priesthood, willing to offer all it's secrets to a student who has not heard of DNA until college. The basics should be taght early.
Look at Math: Calculus may be tagught in High School or College, but will remain impenetrable to someone who has not learned his/her arithmatic.
Any Course in Biology should include coverage of evolution, because to omit would not be teaching Biology. Most of Molecular Biology is pretty damned difficult tounderstand from the perspective of "intelligent-design" because of the many inneficiencies (from an engineering perspective) in cellular metabolism.
Sorry, wrong Ted.
Who's Immanuel Velikovsky?
TedC
Could you then explain WHY a biological system is different that a computer system?!? So much so that the rules don't apply at all?
The way I view it, is you've got a HIGHLY parallelized message passing environment. Now granted, computer systems have not come close to this level of integration or parallelism. But the building blocks are there.
A gene is essentially an AND gate (in the presence of a protein(s), make this other protein) As with transistors, once you throw a couple billion of this parts together, you get something really incredible.
You were talking about a couple thousand years. In terms of millions of years - a millenium is nothing. Besides, I think its more on the order of a hundred years.
Tom
Well, it's true, but I know of nothing that can be "Absolutely proven scientifically", and I don't see any way that ANY theory can be so proven. But, I'll accept that "1=1" is a fact.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Sure there may be a God, and maybe there isn't. But either way, the bible is wrong. Nothing more than a political tool and a justification for genocide. No one can disprove the existace of god, but it cant be proven. At least the evolutionists are open to theories and possibilities.
You are redundant. Anthropolgy tells us that virtually all cannibalism is ritualized.
Actually, it goes something like this: (Only "something like," because the details of what exactly the Scientific Method is and how it works are still a matter of much philosophical debate. But rest assured, nobody thinks it's what they tought you in 5th grade anymore.)
A hypothesis is an educated guess about the results of an experiment to be preformed. The experiment should be designed to, as much as is possible, either confirm or refute the hypothesis (and only the hypothesis).
A theory is something rather different. A theory is an explanation for a group of related phenomena--for a subset of reality, if you will. A theory is judged to be successful if it is a compelling explanation: generally, if it makes sense logically, explains the way reality is--both from normal observation and from the observation of controlled experiments--better than any previous theory, is not contradicted by any observations of reality, and is the simplest it can possibly be and still accomplish the above.
Contrary to what you probably learned in school, real scientists don't go around doing lots and lots of experiments, or even worse, just making lots and lots of uncontrolled observations, and then coming up with a theory. They come up with a theory because they think the existing one isn't compelling enough--sometimes, because new evidence contradicts it, but most times because they find its explanation unsatisfactory. (Well, most times it's a combination of the two--the old theory is usually stretched to try to accomodate the new evidence, to the point where its explanatory powers are no longer any good.)
And no, it's not true that "the more times an experiment verifies a theory, the more likely it's true." I can drop an apple on my head a million times, and it won't make Newtonian gravity any more likely to be true. Furthermore, if you have no explanation for why the apple keeps hitting you on the head, it doesn't make it any more likely that the same thing will happen the million-and-first time you drop the apple.
That's why if you just think of a science as a sort of compliation of observations, and not as an attempt at a coherent explanation of reality--like, incidentally, the creationist "scientists" often tend to--then the fact that no one's ever witnessed, say, a fish evolving into a frog becomes a big argument against evolution. Luckily, that's not how science works. Remember, the big deal about Newton wasn't that he noticed that apples hit the ground when they detach from trees (safe guess that most people notice that), nor that they accelerate at a constant rate on the way down(that was Galileo)...but that the reason it falls is the same reason that the planets go around the sun. Similarly, when the church tried Galileo for saying, well, that the planets went around the sun, they didn't dispute that his observations fit such a theory. Instead, they told him, why can't you just say that the planets actually go around the earth, but that God made them go around the earth all funny so that it looked *just like* they were actually going around the sun. He, of course, said nope, because science isn't about observations, it's about...compelling explanations.
Phew.
Ok, so finally (this is long enough without going into the math stuff), a law isn't just a theory which gets supported over and over. In fact, just about every law we have, we now know to be just approximations--none, that I can think of, are still thought to be strictly correct. Nope, a law is a theory which explains a relatively broad subset of reality, and most importantly, does it very tersely--generally in a sentence or two. Thus, F=MA or every action produces an equal and opposite reaction, those are laws. Quantum theory, despite being arguably as important, will never be a law, cause you can't sum it up like that.
> That is not the case, this is a victory for Science and Religion has little to do with it.
That doesn't go far toward explaining why scientists are dismayed by it and religionists (of one particular stripe) are defending it.
> Even Scientific American recently addressed the problems of Evolution.
Unlike creationists, scientists make it their business to be aware of problems with their theories. Science isn't about "knowing the answer", it's about "finding the answer". It's kind of like Linux: we don't expect the next release of our favorite distro to be perfect; we merely expect it to suck less than the previous one.
> I wish I could remember the month, it was a really good article.
I wish you could too: citing sources is one of the very foundations of the propagation of science.
BTW, they did a take on "creation science" a while back -- maybe you're remembering the quotes of some of the "scientists" that got their mail-order degrees from a religious foundation?
> Quantum Evolution deals with the *fact* that there is no evidence of small adapting steps between species
All you prove here is that you are not familiar with the fossil record.
> But honestly, Evolution has holes, serious ones.
Nothing nearly so serious as the holes in the biblical account. And that's the real issue, howevermuch the creationists disavow it. (They should, IMO, spend less time thinking about what their book says about biology, and more time thinking about what it says about deceit.)
But that's just my opinion, and I don't have nearly enough clout to get a school board or state legislature to enforce my viewpoint on the world.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I was going to post a long list of "fact" that dis-prove evolution, but I have decided against it. I instead will only this, our Constitution does not stop the state from teaching religion, it only stops the state from banning religion. All mean of describing they way life came to be on this planet are theories, as none of them can be proven. If any of the idiots out there had looked a little deeper into this issue you would have found that it (evoloutionary theory) is no longer REQUIRED to be taught. This allows a broader base of things to be shown to the students, so why is this a bad thing ? Teach all theories, evolution, big bang, creation, etc..
/. that i have seen today, for a group that screams about persoanl freedoms to be reduced to telling someone they are an idiot because of their beliefs is sick. Every one of you is a hypocrite, evoluntionists and creationists alike. I will not state my beliefs in this post because I would be sickened to be associated with either side of this debate right now. This is worse than distro-wars.
Every single one requires faith as none of them have ANY verifiable proof.
I have seen a lot of people claim that creationists cannot prove their theory, neither can anyone else. For every piece of evidernce anyone provides someone else can disprove it. We are all here, and that is what matters. You can flame me all you want, but I cannot see how this is a bad thing at all. I will not say what my beliefs are but I want my children to learn about all of the theories on how life on this planet began, as all of them are equally preposterous, and let them decide for themsleves what they believe. It is wrong to force the theory of evolution, which is not the most accpted theory any longer, having given way to the big bang, down a students throat and tell them it is true and force tham to answer questions on a test. Tecah your children well, give them the choice of what to believe. If you deny your children access to evolution (if you are a creationist) or creation (if you are an evolutionist) then you have done them a horrible disservice. To all of you who see this as a victory or defeat get your head out of your asses, this is simply progress and needs to happen to make way for our children to be taught all theories with equal importance. I can't believe the amount of FUD (emphasis on FEAR) that I have seen in this thread, it appalls me that thinking people cannot accept that other theories may be right, and should be taught. I am horrified at the anti-religion side of
The talk.origins FAQ is an incredible resource. It is essential reading for any discussion on creation versus evolution. The rebutals of several myths, misconceptions and out-right fraud from creation "scientists" are great. If any creation "scientist" comes to a school or university, use the FAQ as ammo. I tried finding some information on Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man (spelling might be wrong). I read on CNN that Neanderthal man is not related to man according to DNA evidence. Cro-Magnon man apparently wiped them out. This is direct evidence of transitional species.
It's impossible to teach biology without evolution. Period. It's the single unifying thread. It's like trying to teach physics without math.
it must take thousands of generations to evolve
into a new species... an experiment even on those one-day fruit flies will take many lifetimes to perform.
Mark
Biologiests don't define the age of the world, geologests do. Biologest's match there theorys to other sciantific truths. evolution could still be plausable if the world were only a few million years old. but it isn't. The world is a few billion years old. if you don't belive that, you are a fool
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That's because somewhere along the line two chromosomes condensed into a single chromosomes for humans (or some split for the chimps, I can't remember which way it went at the moment). But you can match up the extra chimp chromosomes with the matching genes on a human chromosome, showing that while the DNA is in a different place it still is the same, in the same relative order, and so on. Incidentally, chromosomes are a remarkably bad way of determining heredity, mainly because of how flexible the number of chromosomes is. Adding a whole extra chromosome to a human genome doesn't alwys make an embryo die (although the resulting person isn't "normal"), and in flowers chromosome sets can be doubled and tripled and still generate viable plants. Chromosomes are just the packages for the information. As long as the information is there, it doesn't really matter how many packages it takes up.
That was interesting. Of course, I'm not totally convinced. :-)
The article did a great job of saying how bad Setterfield screwed up documenting his original hypothesis. But it had little explanation of why this phenominum couldn't happen.
Ironically, the creationist page linked to from your page has a LOT more useful information on the subject! Check out http://ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html
Interesting stuff (although I admit I understand somewhat less than 25% of it...)
However, I do have one more theory. Even if we can't nail down the c-decay to an exponential curve, so what? Setterfield picked arbitrary begins and ends to the decay. So what?
God could have increased and decreased the seed of light (and other constants) as much as He jolly well wanted! He didn't have to abide by some stinking asymptotic curve.
Call me a cop-out if you want (and I'm sure you will) but I think it's a very real possibility.
You're confusing "myth" with "faith". I think the definition you're looking for is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". :-)
TedC
Obviously you have not taken the time to study any theistic (or theologic) evolution. I think an indepth study of either would show you how right the Bible may be. Now Im not stating this from either the Creationist or Evolutionist viewpoint, im just stating that the so-called obvious is usually only obvious because one has blinded themselves to the other possibilities. I would argue though that there are still several discrepensies in the theories surrounding evolution by process of natural selection. The mere fact that we have yet to observe animal speciation is alone hard-to-counter evidence, but moreover the holes in the fossil record as well as continued discrepensies evolution-lines lead to further skepticism. While I dont advocate teaching Creationism in the classroom, the process of natural selection is often taught as fact and not theory (while i realize that evolution - change in allelic frequencies within a species population over time - is fact), which is in and of itself wrong in that science, which seeks to teach fact, is now teaching hypotheses as such.
Yes. Along this vein, since all medical science is just theory, not proven, we will henceforth return to
the time proven practice of letting barbers treat patients by bleeding them. After all - its MUCH
cheaper and it can't be proven to be any less effective.
I mean, if I have a theory that my mom puts out the milk at 5'oclock every day, should I have to ask her each and every time? If statistically, it is pretty close to fact, then I'm willing to work with that.
<tim><
Hmm... you may have something there... I mean, last I heard Kansas is flat. hitchhiker
Hey, lets take a different tack.
Prove god exists. I mean without GOD, creation science is nothing.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Prove me wrong.
Problems with GOD:
God is all knowing and all powerful.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, then why was flood required? I mean he really screwed up.
Technically, we are all 'completely "animal" monkeys'. There are two possible reasons that we humans are the only ones left from our ascent up the evolutionary ladder, that we killed all of them, or that we just interbred. When you have sexual reproduction, lest desirable traits can be removed very quickly. In other words, we just fucked our way to the top :)
Also, none of the other great Apes are geneticaly compatable with us, but we don't compete for the same niches, so there is no problem (although some fo the great apes are in danger of extintion now)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
What i cannot understand (well one of many things), is we all agree that inbreeding is a very bad thing. Even God frowns on inbreeding. How then could we all have come about from adam and eve? I have to admit it has been a while since I have read my bible, but from what I can remember I do not thing this issue was resolved.
First: we must take it as a given that evolution played absolutely no part whatsoever in human origins -- or in the origins of anything else. There is no way to reconcile the scientific cosmology with Genesis 1. Genesis 1 says the earth existed before the sun, that plants existed before the sun, that birds existed before land animals, etc. Genesis 2 says that God made man from dust (not gorillas). These declarations are utterly incompatible with evolution. The only way that anyone can hope to "reconcile" them is by claiming that Genesis 1 is figurative. The problem with this is that there is no indication either in the text of Genesis 1 itself or anywhere else in the Bible that it's to be taken figuratively. The entire Bible assumes it's literal.
That being the case, we have a dilemma: either the Bible's right about our origins or Darwin is. If the Bible is wrong about this, then it cannot be trusted about anything. God himself has declared that he is not a liar, and that he is omniscient. One or both of these declarations would be false if Darwin were right (which he is NOT). You would therefore have no basis for any confidence in anything the Bible says whatsoever -- about any subject. It's that simple.
The question of whether Darwin or the Bible is right matters. Don't let them deceive you.
Lastly, please note that the article didn't say that evolution could not be taught in Kansas. It says that it is no longer required. There is a big difference, and frankly the Board didn't go far enough. It is not enough to no longer require that lies be taught to our children. It is now still an option for teachers to lie to the children of Kansas. This is completely unacceptable, and Christian parents there still need to get their kids out of those crime-infested, godless government schools.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
There is a very large difference between microevolution and macroevolution. When (most) people use the term "evolution" they are talking about macroevolution. Macroevolution can be defined as a theorized, naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increased and inheritable complexity. An increase in complexity would be shown would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. Microevolution, or "natural selection", does not involve increasing complexity. It only involves changes in size, shape, color, or minor chemical alterations. Microevolution can be thought of as "horizontal" change whereas macroevolution can be thought of as a "vertical" change. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since the beginning of history. It is macroevolution, which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, that is highly speculative and at the center of the creation/evolution controversy. I have found that many people will give evidence of microevolution as arguments to support macroevolution. While microevolution is a proven fact, there is no evidence for macroevolution. Over 80 years of fruit fly experiments, involving more than 3000 consecutive generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed despite many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. Just something to think about. Anthony P.S. Where are all of the two celled organisms?
2. is also a number of theories,
3. is Science,
4. is also scientific,
5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic,
6. is falsifiable,
7. is testable,
8. is predictive,
9. has been observed;
9a. in the field
9b. in the laboratory,
10. has occurred in the past,
11. is still occurring,
12. will continue to occur in the future.
Further, we can also note that evolution:
13. is not atheistic (nor Communistic, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, etc.),
14. is not evil,
15. is not mandated by law to be taught in US public schools,
16. is not a cosmological theory (i.e., "it don't do origins"),
17. is not a religion nor Religion,
18. is not determined by popular opinion (as can be said of any science),
19. is not a socio-political program or paradigm,
20. is not dependent on the supernatural,
21. does not claim that "Man came from apes",
22. is not progress,
23. has not, will not and cannot be proven (as can be said of any science),
24. Is not random nor relies on 'blind chance',
25. does not violate the second law of thermodynamics,
26. Does not deny (a) God(s), and finally,
27. Falsifying evolution does not prove Creation.
Whay are so people so myopic when it comes to their beliefs? Don't people want to investigate, and find out things for themselves, or are they content to be sheep?
Groin cabbage, yaps a lot! Rump tea feels good. Spew that bozo.
I do adhere to a set of ideals, it's just that I'm not very good at it sometimes, so I don't like to emphasis that aspect of it. Even though I skip church, drink beer (in moderation (usually)), and cuss out idiots on the freeway, I still have the same right standing before God as Billy Graham and the Pope. Pretty cool, eh? :-)
TedC
America was founded on the idea that nobody knows the mind of God. They had bloody European religious wars to tell them that individuals must define their own reality and government. The whole thing is about tax payers getting what they pay for. Fine, there is plenty of research about Evolution as a theory. Once schools take it upon themselves to tell people that they "know the mind of God" (i.e. omniscience) they have to give scat answers to every kid's question about how the world came into being, how it became populated,where life came from, ad naseum. Shouldn't taxpayers teach this to kids instead of the government. If anything, presenting it to kids is a straw man, who cares about evolution, it's just better to jump into biology without the dogma (better yet don't teach science until the sixth grade when kids have to take such water downed world views. Basically, science and capitalism are corrupting not enlightening look at WWI.
At one point, Neanderthals and early Humans lived simultaneously in Europe. The Neanderthals were very advanced, the evidence shows that they probably practiced religion, were capable of complicated thought, etc. Unfortunately, they, for whatever reason were unable to compete with humans, and were wiped out. And, contrary to what you claim, there is a very large fossil record of this.
I've often felt that the current systems needs an overhaul. Teaching one theory, while blatantly ignoring any others, is just wrong! Think you don't agree? Need proof? Look at how so many people here are reacting just at the thought that what they hold to be true may not be the theory that is taught as fact. Don't you think that might go both (or many other) ways? There are other views than yours and mine, and if they have any valid basis, those views are just as valuable in a classroom than the ones that fit into any groups personal findings/truths. Ya can't just have it the way YOU want it.
I was actually lucky enough to have one teacher that was more than willing to debate such things in class. In fact, it was the teacher that brought it up. Anatomy/physiology, in case anyone is curious. I very much appreciated the open, honest approach to the subject of theoretical biological history, and if such things become standard in Kansas, it can only be good. If for no other reason, such an approach DEMANDS the student think for themselves. We can ALL agree that is good, I think.
I think this is the main problem with most educational curriculums. Evolution like creation, solid state, dropped-here-by-aliens, any what have you are ALL theories. Ideas. Speculation. Hypothesis. So far no community has been able to _prove_ their theory, yet in most educational curriculums evolution is the only such theory being taught, and it's being taught as if it's proven fact. Lying to children like this is pathetic. It's taking a completely unscientific approach. The correct thing to do would be either a) address the 3-4 most popular theories or b) don't teach it at all. Most kids don't give a crap where they came from, in 5-6 years all they'll be worrying about is how to afford rent and food and pay taxes.
Making it non-compulsory to teach evolution is a step forward in actually addressing the issue with a proper scientific approach.
Matt
"c.s." is proven one way or another... It happens right after you die. Personally, if I were to make a bet that either I would receive fire and brimstone if I did not belive in God, and nothing if I belived either way with atheism, I'll take God.
...it isn't any more true.
By denying the basis for current biological thought, and replacing it with religious mysticism, these folks are simply damaging their children. These children will believe as they are taught, regardless of the soundness or lack of soundness of the principles. Moreover this "educational" body has ignored the advice of others wiser than they, and blindly taken a step 100 years backwards.
To think that those who pay for their sins will be the very children they purport to help. These children will grow up, go to college, and have the rather stark reality of the world impressed upon them. I can tell you from direct experience that it is quite sad when a student stands up at the back of the introductory physics class you are teaching to correct you about things like the age of the universe (after all that light couldn't have been traveling for more than 6000 years), the big bang, etc. I felt rather bad for these folks, but as I have always said, you can drag a student towards knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
Colleges will look upon Kansas educated applicants with disfavor. After all, their preliminary biological education is incorrect, regardless of what the board tries to mandate. Businesses will be correctly suspicious of graduates from Kansas secondary institutions, as if the board mandated this, what other damage could they have done? Pi = 3? Pharmaceuticals, and related organizations will likely not wish to remain in a state that denys the very basis for the science that these organizations use to produce their products.
All of this because the board saw fit to put its own petty desires over the true educational needs of the students, ignoring the experts. By going purely political (and religious) on this, they have caused inestimable damage to the state. I wonder how many years and millions of tax dollars it will take to fix the problems that are caused by this?
Folks, I personally try to chose political candidates for office only after reading about their views and asking them questions. Democracy is hard folks, you have to fight to learn the relevant information. Voting a party line is a disaster waiting to happen, as has been demonstrated here. If you don't know or like any of the candidates, then dont vote for them. Straight party line tickets are an insult to the democratic ideal of the country, where each person in public office is there because they have the best interests of the public at heart, and will act accordingly. Straight party tickets mean you get ugly personal agendas from any crackpot group that is sneaky enough to get on the ticket.
Here you have a crackpot minority who has just leveraged a change that they should not have been able to do. Next will come prayer in schools. I do not want my daughter praying to Allah or Jesus in her school, as school is for education, and not religion. I control her access to that, and I do not want someone elses religion forced down hers or my throat. Nor should the people of Kansas allow this.
If some people wish to remain ignoramuses for life, you cannot necessarily coerce them into learning the error of their ways. There is no cure for stupidity and stubbornness. However, there is no reason that said idiots should ever have the opportunity to impose their own particular idiosyncratic belief systems upon others. That is the very heart of the democratic ideal, that crackpotism will largely be contained by exposing the ideas of the candidate to valid scrutiny. Voting a straight party ticket deprives you of that scrutiny, and allows the crackpotism to go unchecked. Folks, get out there and grill your candidates before voting. The damage they do may be to your own family.
I more or less agree with the general direction of your argument and I really like the idea of encouraging tolerance. However, I think you either misunderstand or misrepresent what you understand about evolution somewhat. It's not the 'accidents' that survive. So the human hand's trial and error design over vast numbers of generations of evolution is no 'accident'. It's the result of all the 'accidents' getting filtered out due to their inappropriateness to survival. What remains is the most *ideal* set of "solutions" resulting from all accidental genetic mutations over time.
Also, I would personally back up one more step from literalism with religion in general and think of it as more metaphorical and ethical in nature. Spirituality addresses all these 'hard' problems that Science can't even pose properly, let alone answer. Given this, I find that many of the Eastern religions speak to me more, especially in terms of ethics, than Christianity. But as far as Christianity goes, do I think God literally created humans? Seems pretty far fetched given what we know about stellar, planetary, geological, chemical and biological evolution. Did the universe start with a Big Bang? Maybe. Did some God-like superbeing create the universe and its laws? Who knows!? Maybe! I think the absolute question of origins is totally open and probably always will be. Hey, maybe the Hindus/Buddhists are right and the whole creationism vs. science debate is totally pointless because everything we experience here in the universe is a dream (and thus Reality and Mysticism can be true at the same time). Hard to logically argue with that huh?
I've never understood the whole Christian Hell thing. It doesn't make logical sense to me in a myriad of ways.
I still think you're right about the possibility of Science and Religion co-existing. I certainly am willing to respect your beliefs if you'll respect mine. Via con Dios! May you be happy, well and peaceful.
""The argument that teaching evolution will destroy a student's faith in God is no more true today than it was during the Scopes trial in 1925," the letter said."
Assuming that faith in God was one of the main engines in the move to remove Evolution based studies from the official curriculum, I would like to postulate:
Which is more indicative of a supreme, omnipotent and infinitely knowing God:
I think the theory of evolution denying faith is the wrong way round.
Thank you for allowing me to get that off my chest.
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
Isn't Kansas one of those states devoid of humans? Nex
On the contrary, humans and chimps are closer genetically than donkeys and horses. Makes you think, doesn't it. Projects to study such breeding are, not surprisingly, underfunded in this country. However, since the offspring of any such human/chimp pairing would be sterile, who knows what has happened deep in the jungle, when lonliness and/or yellow fever have been incentive enough for some "experiments"
In your second para, you said that God wanted ppl to have a choice? If that is the case, what the religous Nuts! are doing in Kansas goes against his very teachings! If God wants ppl to have a choice why are they taking that choice away from there children? I thought that it was always a good idea to give all of the information possible to ppl _before_ they made a desicion.
AFAIK there were no laws regarding abortion prior to the trial, and they performed on a regular basis by midwives.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
I am an agnostic myself, however I agree with much of what Aaron said. The schools should teach children their basic subjects and all that is known in those subjects. The theory of evolution, whether it can be proven true or not, is the best theory supported by scientific evidence and should not be ignored. It's up to the individuals to choose what they truly believe and this theory just gives them more options to explore. It's like if you educated yourself about all the different religions that exist. Even though you know and understand what different people believe, it doesn't mean you can't choose the religion you are most comfortable with. The issue here is not whether creation or evolution is right. The issue is whether or not kids should be taught a basic theory in the field of science, a theory that would only expand their minds. Americans are considered dumb compared to the rest of the world now. If this trend continues I can't see the situation getting any better. Matt
It isn't about thinking, so being in the mind of a Christian for a day wouldn't be that informative.
I'm all for education and learning (I spend a lot of time on it myself), but the human mind can only evaluate and process information gained from the physical world -- what we can see, hear, and feel. You will never be able to understand God with your mind, no matter how hard to try. The human mind, although a wonderful thing, is limited, and if you rely only on your intellect, then you will always have more questions than answers.
TedC at VISI dot com
Well, that's if for me -- I've done my part contributing to this 1300+ post wad on Rob's hard drive. :-)
Well the fact is that as a creationist I beleave ,for ex. I could argue that
in a new earth and a divine power,
just as well because we believe differantly
we will dash each others arguments,
not that our ideas do not have merit but
we can take anything said and find large falt in
ones argument
darkness is the absence of light , no its the absence of reflection of light.
we are not enemies but brothers with a purpose
and such petty ideals should no ditract us from
remaking the world in a better light .
you have every right to not beleave in God,
but in america you do not have the right
to disallow a devine power to be taught
as a possibility
science is fallable
believers in a devine power are just as fallible
flame me at Micheal@lightspeed.net
God bless
I've heard that Isaac Newton was a Christian, who wrote as much about interpretation of Biblical prophesy as he did about gravity and physics. Good luck trying to find someone to debate you on the presence of gravity.
I personally believe that God created humans and that we didn't evolve from anything else, but I have no Biblical reason to believe that evolution hasn't been occuring ever since the earth was created (which wouldn't have been long ago enough for much interesting evolution to take place, if you interpret Genesis literally). I don't base my faith upon a possibly erroneous interpretation of scripture. God knows exactly what happened, I don't.
I like science. I like to study God's creation. Despite popular opinion among the (unscientific) media, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. However, science has its limitations. It doesn't answer questions like why we're here (to love each other selflessly and to love God). One of my (agnostic, I think) high school teachers used to say "science answers not 'why?'".
as a side note:
I've never understood people who can use their operating system and software with a full understanding of the mental effort that someone else put into designing and programming the system, and then say that the universe (something infinitely more complex and structured) just happened. I see the universe as being like a great big analog multi-user computer, with God as the main architect and root user, and us as normal users, trying to figure out how to use the system.
If you are an atheist, the fact that life is present on earth proves evolution. (How else could we have gotten here?) Science can't explain how the universe, and the original life form from which everything else supposedly evolved, got here, though.
If you are a creationist, the fact that life is present on earth proves creation.
Gravity is an observable fact. Natural selection is an observable fact. The ability of single-celled organisms to evolve into humans is not observable and whether or not it has already happened is open for debate.
-jim
Well I assume according to you the very first piece of something is god. Now that your question is clarified, please answer it.
I've always liked the idea of aquired traits anyways.
I just cannot believe this shit! See the message I wrote to the Kansas Commissioner of the department of education.
The most ironic thing here is that if you go to the Kansas State Department of Education website, it says that their mission statement is:
"Our mission is to prepare each person with the living, learning, and working skills and values necessary for caring, productive, and fulfilling participation in our evolving, global society."
Note that they use the word EVOLVING!!!! What a herd of complete ignoramusii!!
Why would tyrants pay any attention to the outcome of a vote? Why would they even bother to hold one? If a government works to prevent its populace from rising together and abolishing it, then clearly it's out of control and *must* be overthrown by any means necessary.
Just because something was an ancient tradition doesn't make it "factual". The bible is a story - there are many stories like it, many dating from centuries earlier. Just because you happen to be born to ancestors who were converted centuries ago to the religion you now support doesn't make the bible factual. Think about it for a moment.
No, if the government's truly tyrannical it won't listen to the vote. And if you think we'd go directly against the soldiers with guns, you're crazy. There are, as another poster pointed out, other ways of going about such things.
Though even the army may be not that much of a problem. How many soldiers will fight their own people? If the government's truly tyrannical, and the segment of the public serving in the armed forces as well as the populace in general recognizes it as such, it'll most definetely not remain in power.
I realize that there is little chance of this getting read now since we are at 700+ comments, but I have been amazed at the low intelegence of a later number of slashdot readers.. It's really scarry how many of you supported this dicission.. Do you know nothing about the scientific method. Allow me to explain: 1) EVERYTHING is a theory. 2) Evolution is not just some theory.. it's the only theory period.. Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not falsafiable period. 3) Creationist don't know jack shit about evolution.. they go and read Darwin's book and find flaws in it which have been corrected ages ago.. Get it through you thick skulls.. The origin of the species is not our bible.. it's just observations and initial ideas.. Attacking evolution based on what Darwin said is a stupid as attacking air travel based on the problems with the first air plane. The biggest single problem people have with understanding evolution is that they think mutation and survival of the fitest are a dumb phenomina. They are not.. If you look at the fossle record it takes much less time for things to happen now then it used to.. the reason for this is that the species biologically learn how to adapt better. 1) dominant and recessive genes allow traits to be surpressed and return later if needed after a while a nice little system of dissapearing and reapearing traits is up and running, i.e. through evolution the life learns how to evolve better. (It is even possible that some of the animal to animal chemical communication influences offspring) 2) Traits work in groups since the survival value of a bunch of traits which receded or appear at once may be higher then the individual ones. In short evolution abstracts it's self.. think about how you think and you will start to see how though it's self it a highly abstracted aspect of evolution.
The support for evolution is not dogmatic, it comes from many, many years of collected evidence, all of which point to the same conclusion. The breadth of evidence now spans nearly every major scientific discipline. Evolution has stood up to decades of scrutiny. It is a theory, like gravity, which is extremely well supported by evidence. Currently there are no other theories about speciation which come remotely close to making the number of correct predictions that are made by evolution.
No school can claim to provide an education while ignoring the last century of biology. Nearly all of modern biology followed from evolution, starting with the idea of a mutable genetic material.
If I am correct, you are not required to teach biblical creation, then why force another belief just because it is considered to be a scientific theory (which has not been proved). The link that was posted said that it was no longer required. Surley this is good thing, that it is no longer required to teach a belief that has not been proved.
PS. I posted anonymously to avoid being flamed, which I am sure will just happen in replys anyway - sigh - at least my mailbox won't get filled up.
Posted by Synsthe:
What ever happened to freedom of religion? One of the points listed is that "evolution isn't in any of the biblical teachings". So what?
I am not Christian, as are many others. I myself am Pagan. There are also buddhists, atheists, you name it, they're out there. The Bible does _not_ rule our lives. It should not be a factor whatsoever in this.
It's a joke. We need people in our education system that can teach these kids without such arrogant bias. They should be given the right and the ability to make their own decision, from an educated stand point, not have it thrust upon them because some fanaticals believe there is only one true way, and that it's their way.
--
Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
No "special links" eh? Then, what is an Archeopteryx? Is it a dinosaur with feathers, wishbone (for attachment of flight muscles) or a bird with teeth, and a reptilian skull, pelvis, claws, and tail?
What about the recently discovered Chinese fossil Sinornis santensis? Is it a bird or a dinosaur? It has claws on its toes, bird-shaped shoulders, teeth, saurian ribs, and a reptilian pelvis.
I'm not going to go through the entire (long) list, which includes whales, dolphins, horses, rhinos, rabbits, pigs, giraffes, cows, etc, etc, etc. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Also note that there are several school boards in California, most notably one in sububan San Diego, that has become dominated by religious right wing nuts. They have been voting to deny all federal funds for local education, apparently trying to destroy the public schools in favor of private (read parochial) schools. It's really quite amazing. School board elections might be followed a little more closely in the future.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Hmm.. I swear that Hitler had the same outlook on people of different faiths. Certainly the Holocaust was caused by someone filled with Hate and closed mind. Why stop something that isn't harming you, that is building up communities?
I don't consider myself a religious person, either (but I have neither a clue nor a life). As such, I don't have a religion, either (and I didn't have strong Christian influences in my upbringing, only that which permeates American society). So tell me, then, what makes you a Christian, and what would I have to do to become one (besides getting circumcised and put in a dunk tank or whatever)?
oh yeah baby...
woo hoo...
You are right, Science does not allow for any kind of faith. But this is a science class we are talking about. Only science should be taught in it.
Both Evolution and Creation are based on faith. Frankly, it takes more faith to believe that everything originated with a ball of slime and evolved over billions of years to what it is now than it does to believe that an all-powerful being (AKA God) created everything as the Bible says.
You say you beleive in the word of God and others "beleive" in carbon dating. Well Carbon-14 decay has been observed and tested. It is a fact not a beleif.
This is true, to a point. Carbon-14 decay/dating methods have been proved, but only to a point. Accuracy can only be close to guaranteed for about 6,000 years back. Beyond that, it's all guesswork. This is partly because we do not have records of the amount of C-14 present in things back in this time, and we also have no way of knowing if the decay rate was the same.
I a[m] a Christian but I do beleive in evolution as do MANY other Christians. they are not mutualy excusive.
I beg to differ. The definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ. As a follower of Christ, a Christian must trust Him, and believe in the infallibility of His Word. (The Bible). If a person believes what Jesus and the Bible say, then they must believe all of it. This includes the book of Genesis.
The entire reason that Evolution has been pushed so heavily is that it gives people an answer as to how they got here, without making them feel as though they are responsible to a superior being. (God). Many people want to feel that they are in control of themselves, and the idea that someone created them for a specific purpose would mean that they were accountable to that person for what they do with their life.
No one may ever read this comment, I suppose it won't really matter if they do. But as I sit here typing, I am perplexed at the outrage that the geek community has against religion.
I believe that God created the earth, all of the animals on the earth, and that God created humans. You may call me a "Neanderthal" if you wish, but the fact remains that those are my beliefs. I can view the world, in all it's glory, and see the works of God on the earth. I can not fathom how this world could be created without the help of God.
Having said that, I feel people ought to be able to make these choices about their lives without ridicule from their peers. Saying these people are stuck in the Dark Ages because they don't believe something as absurd as Humans evolving from Primordal Goo is silly.
Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a belief. If you choose not to teach a theory in school that has not been proven, that's up to you. If you choose to teach a belief, that too is up to you. Intolerance seems to be on the side of the so called "enlightened" group on this issue.
Theyre both the same... authoritarian parties that use the same arguments to promote different socialist agenda. I'm sure you would happily vote for Al Gore, the man who was a big wig behind CDA I and II, the clipper chip, along with his wife. Or perhaps you dont like him too much, but rather the Clintons, who also support these things and want to censor unpopular speech and be able to screen information that goes into peoples computers.... reminds me of chinese policy... both parties are full of shit and want to control how you think and act to an almost orwellian degree Btw, I'm an atheist, former republican but as of last year a libertarian.
MSNBC has a good reply to the whole Kansas debacle:
Robert Pennock on Kansas
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/302429.asp).
Also, his book's a good read--good comparisons and use of evolutionary programming & design.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
It's a blast reading all this and none of you seem to know what is really happening on the Kansas Board of Ed. thing. Evolution is NOT being taken from any school. Creationism is NOT being taught. Students here will still learn exactly the same things that students all across the US learn. The only difference is that students of faith will not have to choose between what they consider a lie and the best grade on the state mandated tests. They will not have to go against a personal belief system to get a scholarship or to get into a good college anywhere in the US. It's called tolerance. Liberals talk about it, but just watch what happens when they don't get their way. Tolerance is the first thing out the window. If you don't believe me, just read all these 1500+ postings. The liberals have gone balistic! And they don't even know (or acknowlege) the truth. Liberals are a real blast!
True, the people who wrote it were there. Leaving out the explanations for ununderstood phenomena it is a somewhat accurate history.
Upon reading this article, (and hearing about it from several other sources) the following things came to mind:
;)
1. It's about time someone did this! Teaching a single scientific _theory_ as undeniable fact is a horribly unscientific thing to do, and it's always bothered me deeply. Although the current implementation of the theory of evolution (specifically the idea of "man from apes") contradicts my Christian belief in Creation, I am (as a college student enormously interested in the various sciences) actually bothered more by the idea that some group of people would totally break out of the Scientific Method and push ONE, SINGLE _THEORY_ as the One Scientific Truth. Not only do public school curriculi brush under the rug the idea that evolution is merely a THEORY, but they also offer no alternative theories so that they can avoid producing future scientists that can think objectively about theories which contradict evolution. Scientists (if it is them and not Athiest political activists) should be ashamed of themselves for displaying such a lack of objectivity and disregard for the Scientific Method (gather data, formulate a theory, gather more data, refine the theory, gather more data, refine the theory, etc., but NEVER consider nor teach any theories based on empirical evidence to be TRUTH)
2. Charles Darwin was a fool who hated science and thought that chopping off a bird's wing caused any offspring of that bird to also be missing a wing (take note: that's the TRUE Darwinian theory of evolution, ladies and gentlemen; make no mistake about it! That's what _I_ learned in school, and I bet none of you public-schooled people ever learned THAT!) I consider it equally foolish that so many people these days (perhaps in a pitiful, hypocritical attempt to spite Christians) practically worship Darwin as their Athiest God and Saviour. The sheer irony of the scientific community's decision to take under its wing someone who considered himself one of its bitterest enemies makes it extremely hard for me to turn a blind eye to the disappointing thought that today's prominent scientists have lost all objectivity in their work in order to engage in petty, underhanded attacks on the religious community in order to further their Athiest belifs (yes, BELIEFS! Just do me a favor here and apply your critical thinking abilities for a moment so that I can avoid yet another rant
3. It burns me REALLY BAD to continuously look at the hypocracy of these liberal activists who accuse us "religious extremists" of being unobjective and unwilling to teach multiple ideas, while they immediately step forward and do exactly that. "Don't teach just abstinence! We want to teach just homosexuality!" "Don't teach Creation! We want to teach just evolution!" "Don't teach Christianity! We want to teach everything but!" "Don't teach children history, science, mathmatics, reading, writing, or anything else! We want to teach just liberal politics and Athiesm!" (and you people wonder why academic performance in public schools is so low - SHAME ON YOU!)
Wow, what a rant! Got a lot off my chest though =)
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
2) Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated that by chance it was one in 10**40000 that all functional proteins necessary for life would form in one place.
If you like names, maybe you like quotes: Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983), p. 242
As far as the reproducing organism, the cell has extremely complex parts to it, all necessary as the basic building block of life. So how did we go from nothing to something that not only had the capability to reproduce, but the energy drawing ability mitochondria, the membrane to filter out harmful materials, a nucleus with the ability to wrap long strands of DNA into a tiny compartment and safely keep it. Remember, all these things are needed for the most basic life to reproduce the first time .
Further, bacteria have over 100 times the DNA of a mammal, so 100 times the DNA somehow came together 3.8 billion years ago at the same time the Earth became habitable for life. So give or take half a billion years, there's still no chance. Even given your timeframe.
dan1123@yahoo.com
But kansas is flat.
People like these fine people in kansas are the extact reason why I find it dificult to place faith in their god. After all he did make them in his own image. Now what does that say about him?
But then again eductated christians might not be the best thing either. Look at what happened when they learned about fire, they developed a nasty habit of burning people at the stake.
Anyway:
GOD DOES EXIST.
Prove me wrong.
I'm not saying this will change your argument that much. However, if the God can be proven to not exist, as you said, creation science can be tossed aside easily. However, proving the non-existence of God is as much a difficult undertaking as proving his existence.
In the same way that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, one cannot prove the truthfulness of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. For that matter, nothing that has occurred in the past can be shown to have definately happened. The best we can do is look at the evidence and say that with all probability something did or did not occur. It's the same way with evolution.
In the end, the public school system, as a government institution, has a Constitutional responsibility to not pick a single religion and teach it as fact. Thus, this decision does not violate this, as it does not replace evolution with creation science.
Personally, as a Christian who generally holds to creation science (and I'm sure to get flamed for this if anybody other than me is reading this), I feel that the most appropriate way to approach the subject is to note that a large portion of the scientific community promotes evolution as a plausible explanation for the origin of life. However, many religious groups have explanations for the origin of life that are quite different from evolution. Problems with both evolutionary theory as well as other explanations should be pointed out.
Before I cease my sensless ramblings, I will point out that (IMHO), the fact that God (as described by the Bible, which is apparently what you are referring to) does not behave in a manner that suits you is in no way, shape, or form a problem with God. God may be (in the Christian view) all knowing and all powerful doesn't mean he has to be fair (although it would be nice if he were, if he indeed exists). I daresay if God were portrayed to have created humanity and given them no choice in how they behaved, that would peeve you much more.
With the flood, God created humanity, and let them choose whether to behave or not. He gave them some general instructions that provided boundaries for their behavior (and most people will admit that some boundaries are necessary whether they like all the established boundaries or not). However, he didn't force them to abide by his instructions. When they got to the point where they were blatently violating them and causing trouble, he put a stop to it (albeit in a very violent way).
If this is a problem with God, it is as well a problem with the U.S. governement, which also establishes boundaries, chooses to allow the citizens decide whether to abide by them or not, and punishes those who get too out of line.
In the interest of being fair, I do recognize that pretty much any problem with the existence of God that can be produced can be explained away by my argument that God has the right to behave in any manner that he wants to. And, I recognize that there are bigger problems with the existence of God than have been presented.
Now that I've probably managed to peeve people on both sides of the issue (which was not my intention), I'll quit rambling.
Disagree on 1 and 3.
:)
Agree on 4 and 5.
Insufficient information on 2.
Emacz r00lz, d00d! (Don't let the 1337 d00d spelling get you down... I really mean that. I've got more RAM than time, and sometimes NEED the e-lisp shrink. Hey, what's with the snickering?)
Hey, if we're gonna' flame...
I'm a Christian too. Don't take this as an indictment of anything other than your willingness to
consider evolution as a "possibility."
First: we must take it as a given that evolution played absolutely no part whatsoever in human
origins -- or in the origins of anything else. There is no way to reconcile the scientific
cosmology with Genesis 1. Genesis 1 says the earth existed before the sun, that plants existed
before the sun, that birds existed before land animals, etc. Genesis 2 says that God made man
from dust (not gorillas). These declarations are utterly incompatible with evolution.
For goodness' sake, wake up and smell the coffee!
There is no incompatibility between scientific cosmology (is there any other kind?) and Gen.1: - the two are describing totally different aspects of the same thing: cosmology deals with how, and the Bible with "why". The bible presents it in a *poetic* fashion, so if you take it literally that things happened quite that way, you're mad. IMHO, at least
That said, I'm not fond of having gorillas as ancestors, but I do wish you literalists would stop confusing what-you-call-cosmology with what-you-call-evolution with something-you-don't-read-as-poetry!
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
In mathematics and no other field, absolute truth exists. Axioms are the framework within which you construct your "universe". They are not generally accepted as truth, they are Defined to be true. Once you have your absolutes you can make new definitions and prove theorems. Transitivity is a property. It is not an Axiom. Some "spaces" (The Real numbers) under certain "relations" (=) are transitive. Who said a math degree isn't good for anything? At least I can get farther off topic on /. ;-)
This is an absurdity! No, we don't have to give creationism equal footing with evolution! I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't advocate giving equal merit to a flat-earth theory. Why? Because while it's possible that the earth is flat, so many things speak against it.
.02
Creationism is saying "we know what the truth is, let's find facts that support it". Science doesn't work this way, in fact it's the other way around. If I may quote Sagan to the best of my memory, he said,
"Scientists will often discuss issues with other scientists and when presented with evidence to the contrary, scientists will say, 'you're right' and you'll never hear that theory from them again. It doesn't happen as much as it should because scientists are human and sometimes hard-pressed to change their minds, but if often occurs. This just simply doesn't occur in politics or religion."
Find me a single creationist who will vow to give up their faith if given overwhelming contradictory evidence. Won't happen. This isn't about teaching the children the truth - this is about breaching the line between church and state inch by inch.
[incidentally, some interesting quotes by the forefathers on religion can be found at http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/a_founders.shtml]
And as to the argument that we haven't seen it occur...! To the best of my knowledge, we've never seen a neutrino! But we sure as hell have seen the marks left by one! Has anyone observed an extinct mammal give birth? No, but we're pretty sure it occured...!
Crimmeny, I just don't get the moronic, backwards, hypocritical logic of these people.
my really irate
quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/
Jay's Agnostic, Atheist and Humanist Website
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
>>why aren't the overwhelming majority of large >>species hermaphrodites?
Well finding a mate is not that much of a problem for most animals, so why bother? The male/female dichotomy extends all the way back from mammals to at least insects , so it is a basic pattern.
I don't understand the parallel between a puzzle and the big bang.
>>It seems that it's easier to not even consider >>the possibility that a far greater intelligence >> created us
On the contrary, it is easier to consider a Creator: it means you can attribute everything you don't understand to a Creator.
While never having done it I would say that a veteran trashman can do his job much better than a rookie. Hence thay do have the ability to process data and learn from it. I think your analogy was unfair
Hey, please read your evolution textbook... it's a THEORY!!! it has not been proven in any concrete form you dolt! Any decent scientist knows this. Sheesh, Hemos- the trench coat wearing, darwin lovin', textbook thumpin, evolution evanglist! Sheesh... I prefer to believe in God placed existiance, and I also put more salt in alien seeding of the planet before I will say that I am related to a plant/fish/bird.... Hemos, PLEASE for once in your life check your information before you open your mouth again... no wonder your journalism is published here instead on a real publication.
Well, the problem with your argument is the fact that a species is a human construct created so we can classify a group of particular animals. It simply depends on what you would decide is a distinguishable trait, think of it as a measurement of evolution, the same as a measurement of distance. If I can prove that a certain amount of explosive can propel an object a certain number of feet, than with enough expieriments of varying amounts of explosive will allow me to theorize, with a reasonable degree of certainty, how far an object can be propelled with amounts of explosive that I cannot obtain. Likewise, I can reasonalbly state that if over small amounts of time, changes happen in an organisim due to a certain amount of mutation, that do not kill the organisim, and sometimes make it a very different organisim of the same species, then I could theorize that a VERY different organisim would be likely to occur if given an amount of time that I cannot obtain (4.5 billion years for example). As for mutiple species arising from the same species, most organisims are not confined to a given area, they move about, so the half a dozen speicies of monkeys in a given area did not have to all originate there, they may have migrated. Now, for your argument of the mathematicians' findings, I think you probalbly mean that they had proven that it COULD have taken 40-50 billion years, as they are working with mathematical models of evolution, and not actual evolution. Since they were not here for that period of time, they do not know the original state of their model, but the final one, and they are working, therefore, in probability. Taking this number as a fact would be like saying that the odds against buying only one lottery ticket and winning make it impossible to win by buying only one ticket. But it does happen. And the odds of it happening fall within the range of not only the possibe outcomes, but also within the probable ones.
(please be kind pointing out any innaccuracies, I am neither a biologist, physicist, or mathematician)
_this is not a signature_
I fuck Jesus up the ASS.
Anyway, if Evolution were true, survival of the fittest and such, we would'nt have those NEGATIVE-IQed CREATIONISTS AROUND!!!!
I personally am against any religeous preaching in school, whether it be Christian etc or Evolutionists preaching as if the Theory of Evolution is fact.
All of you who look to heaven for answers, remember this: We are living longer, healthier lives thanks to technology. God did not eliminate polio or smallpox, man did. And we never could have prayed our way to the moon. Compared to where we were 1000 years ago, we ARE gods! People would have been living longer, healthier lives if they had been living according to the cleanliness laws found in the scriptures. People would not be being maimed by landmines, killed in gangland scuffles, wars, etc, if they decided to "beat their swords into plowshares" and to "turn the other cheek". If people loved people instead of money. Yes, we have at our disposal the power to order food, to be entertained at the click of a button. But we also have the power to kill a dozen people in a fit of rage. We have the power to pollute our minds with porn. We have the power to dump tons of toxic waste into the ecosystem. We have the power to pollute our bodies with all sorts of drugs, hallucenogens (Not sure if I spelled that one correctly). Are we improving through technology? Are we becoming less greedy? Are we becoming more joyfull? Are people's level of compassion rising? Are we taking care of our elderly with respect? Managing our resources with foresight? Providing our kids with nururing homes? Folks, the bible is not a science text. It is a manual for living life, a life filled with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.
Like maybe we are a lost colony from another planet? that one makes way more sense than evolution.
Actually, it doesn't solve anything. It just changes the question from "how did life develop on Earth?" to "how did life develop on Planet X?".
That doesn't help much.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
We killed the neanderthals, and besides (IMNSHO): Man is just another ape
send + more == money?
Yes, I do believe in creation and no, I do not believe in all that evolution crap. But no matter what you believe in, let's not forget that no matter what anyone says, evolution is -- listen carefully now -- STILL A THEORY. THEORY. Just like creation is a theory, since there's nobody here that was around then (except maybe Bob Dole). The Bible says that creation happenned, but if you don't believe in the Bible, then I guess there's just no proof. I guess it just takes a bit of faith, just like evolution does. You still haven't found your "missing link."
There are numerous valid reasons for questioning Darwinism as it is taught in our public schools. I know that the state of Kansas has made a lot of people upset, but I think they have realized a key point of this whole debate. It's not as much scientific as it is philosophical. I've read comments about this being the '90's and such. I must agree, these are the '90's, these are not the days of Huxley and Mayer. Their hubristic attempts to force feed their philosophy under the guise of science is quickly passing and I think good thinkers are waking up to that fact. The think that Kansas has realized is that we must pursue good science, not base science on unvalidated philosophies. Davey Bee made the point that not much fossil evidence exists. He's correct. Now I know, all the old school Darwinists will say, "Yes it does." But the fact remains that two of the most credible paleontoligists in the world (Niles Eldridge and Steven Jay Gould) know that the fossil record for traditional Darwinism doesn't exist. Darwin admited in Origins that if millions of transitional forms were not found his theory would fall apart. And it has, at the seams. That's why we've bounced about between Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and punctuated-equalibrium. Darwin wasn't completely wrong. It's obvious that species do evolve. Living organisms are designed with the ability to maintain their existence through adaptation. This is basic. However, pure Darwinism in its traditional form doesn't fly. There's not enough time, there is no fossil corroboration, and there appears to be irreducible complexity to even the "simple" (if it can be called simple) cell. However, the biggest problem with propegating evolution as a blind, random process is the fact that information requires intelligence. DNA is a digital code, not a random mix of chemicals. The fact that amino acids can be produced in a jar is a long way from proving random evolution. Its like saying that you can create latin characters in a jar and thus the English language must have designed itself. DNA "knows" how to build proteins necessary to the organism it enhabits as well as how to replicate itself. Contrary to both Hume and Dawkins, Paley was right. I know digital messages take intelligence. I had to use all the intelligence I could muster to pass computer engineering 450 in college. I write code and if I could build machines that could even approach living organisms in self-diagnosis, self-repair and replication then Bill Gates would be working for me. As a student of AI, I can say this. We are designed by a designer. The faulty premise that good science is based on ignorace to that designer must be re-evaluated. Naturalism and materialism just to not explain our existance as they shatter the rules of logic along the way. The naturalistic hubris needs to stop. Yes I know that "so-and-so" says this and he's brilliant. I can produce numerous credible scientists, nobel prize winners and heads of biology departments at top schools who don't by it. So why should we force 16 year olds to buy it?
This may be off topic, but is there a lack of moderator points floating around? 700 posts in this topic and the max score is 3? What's going on? Could I possibly ask another question? Who knows?
spoons
Was that too silly?
...but a giant leap backwards for the entire USA.
Welcome to the 21st century - where the USA will join Iran and Afghanistan in the ranks of Religious Dictatorships.
Afterall, what do we need the quest for truth and scientifc knowledge for if we can substitute religion instead?
What next - Abolish the "theory of gravity" (Afterall no-one can prove how it works) and substitute the "divine will for things to stay attached to the earth" instead, or how about abolishing the idea that the earth is NOT center of the universe (can't be proven either, right?).
When we've done that, we'll start teaching kids again that babies are brought by the stork, that the world IS flat (all those astronauts are just part of the scientific conspiracy), and that it's hollow, too.
And once we've accomplished that, we'll start teaching them that all men are NOT equal afterall. It's just a silly theory someone some day thought of. It's never been proven, right?
And while we're at it, why don't we just start burning everybody at the stake who believes otherwise? I mean, it's good tradition, and besides, if God disagreed with us, he'd let us know.
today, evolution is more a religion than a scientific theory.. any evolutionist thinks that they are scientific inclined... try to argue that evolution is a theory and they get unglued... they wig out start screaming that my christian opression is making his bisexual/beastiality lifestyle difficult and that I should die in a gas chamber with the others that dont agree with him... then they stand at attention screaming "SIEK HIEL! SIEK HIEL!" ok they dont do the natzi chant... it's still a religion... all of you that argue otherwise... you're just christaphobic... you have those feelings inside you already...
A very well written response. Excellent. One of the best I've seen so far. What do you do, btw?
The argument really does not work. Dawkins pointed out examples of eyes in the animal kingdom, but they are entirely unrelated: none of them are thought to evolve from another. They are entirely different structures, not similar structures growing in complexity. The sheer complexity of the eye precludes this: half a lens is not better than none. There is no evidence that any evolution of the eye ever happened.
If evolution of the eye is possible, why do the many primitive eye forms in existence never evolve into more complex ones? Even Dawkins is baffled by (for example) the nautilus which in its hundreds of years of existence never evolved a lens despite having a retina that is "practically crying out for (this) particular simple change".
Your eye is still useful because it is a human eye -- defective, yes, but still a human eye in all its complexity. You can demonstrate, perhaps, evolution going backwards from fully to less functional. But going forwards, from an inferior to a superior and more complex eye, is yet to be demonstrated.
Natural Selection that begins w/ Random Chance is still random chance. You can't remove something by covering it with something more complex.
Thanks for this reply, it puts things within normal perspective again!
:-)
With this added info that there ain't no *ban* on on teaching the evolution theory and that there ain't no *obligation* to teach creationism, I seriously wonder what this clamour is all about.
Hackers & many slashdot readers apperently love their freedom and freedom in general. So restrictive laws are bad. Isn't it a good thing then that you aren't being tied to one single theory? If the official theory had been creationism, the lifting of the only-creationism-is-correct-law would have been greeted with much enthousiasm. Do we not grant other people their freedom? Heck, their are a lot of scientists who think the evolution theory doesn't scale well from the smaller, proven, scale to the bigger, the-origen-of-all-live scale. Do you want to *make* them teach evolution? That is not freedom...
Is evolution too weak? Does it need to be protected by law? Do we need a law to root out creationism? Evolution=freedom? Freedom that needs to be protected by prohibiting the rest?
All freedom is equal. But some freedom is more equal then others. So: just calm down
Reinout
p.s.: Since I am a christian I was quite *scared* by what I saw in many reactions on slashdot regarding this post. I found it the digital equivalent of a raging, bloud-thirsty mob crying out for the dimise of all christians. Calm down, there are christians out there you might actually like.
Reinout van Rees
You're right, creation is not a theory, by definition. That's because science is blind to anything that cannot be reproduced, and no scientists I am aware of have the ability to say "Let there be lots of animals," and have animals appear from nowhere. However, that does not mean that no one anywhere has that ability.
Science does not allow for any kind of faith or spirituality, which is why so many things remain unexplained by science. It is limited by what man can reproduce, or at least observe. No one yet has created any kind of portal into time, to be able to directly observe what happened 10 thousand or 10 billion years ago. And while there is observable, reproducible proof that strong things live and weak things die, we have not been able to observe any kind of significant changes like those evolutionists say occured. They usually excuse this by stating the changes occured over millions or billions of years, or that there must have been some kind of catalyst that sped up the process that is no longer here. They try to 'prove' their claims by digging up imprints of dead animals in rock, which they try to date by methods whose accuracy leaves something to be desired.
I believe in the truth of God's Word, whereas they believe in the accuracy of Carbon-14 dating. Who is to say who is right? I have made my choice, unpopular though it may be, and many others have made theirs. It all comes down to what and whom you believe.
--
Raptor
'nuff said
Thanks for this reply, it puts things within normal perspective again!
:-)
With this added info that there ain't no *ban* on on teaching the evolution theory and that there ain't no *obligation* to teach creationism, I seriously wonder what this clamour is all about.
Hackers & many slashdot readers apperently love their freedom and freedom in general. So restrictive laws are bad. Isn't it a good thing then that you aren't being tied to one single theory? If the official theory had been creationism, the lifting of the only-creationism-is-correct-law would have been greeted with much enthousiasm. Do we not grant other people their freedom? Heck, their are a lot of scientists who think the evolution theory doesn't scale well from the smaller, proven, scale to the bigger, the-origen-of-all-live scale. Do you want to *make* them teach evolution? That is not freedom...
Is evolution too weak? Does it need to be protected by law? Do we need a law to root out creationism? Evolution=freedom? Freedom that needs to be protected by prohibiting the rest?
All freedom is equal. But some freedom is more equal then others. So: just calm down
Reinout
p.s.: Since I am a christian I was quite *scared* by what I saw in many reactions on slashdot regarding this post. I found it the digital equivalent of a raging, bloud-thirsty mob crying out for the dimise of all christians. Calm down, there are christians out there you might actually like.
Reinout van Rees
Easy one.... do you believe that 10 billion dollars of US currency exists? the mint makes more than that. yet noone has ever seen it, you will never see it, touch it,smell it.. etc... but you believe that it exists. and how about the stars in the sky? they're billions of miles away right? prove it. Give me solid scientific proof that alpha centauri is really a star that is billions of miles away. and not a rock or just a pinhole in the cover of the large atrium we live in. How about quarks? and other sub-atomic particles? some scientist's detector picked it up... Oh I trust that... show me a quark.... show me proof of the oort cloud, show me proof of global warming, global cooling, realitivity.... you opened this can of worms buddy.... I say prove these things to me and prove to me that God dont exist...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is the primary tactic of organized religion.
I don't see how a Missouri vote would influence Kansas. You could try bombarding the relevant Kansas authorities with your view. Or maybe the politicians. They don't like ridicule - you could threaten that.
The observational evidence supporting the big bang is overwhelming. The microwave background radiation, the abundance of helium in our universe, and the observed Doppler redshift in distant galaxies all provide compelling evidence that the universe expanded from a hot, small, dense universe to what we observe today.
Evidence of evolution is equally strong. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics, displacement of white moths by black moths in industrial London, and the fossil record are all tangible evidence that biological evolution happened in the past and is happening as we speak today.
The evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction are very well understood. Recombination hides deleterious recessive genes, while at the same time increasing the genetic variation of the population in a reasonably safe way. You can experimentally observe the utility of sexual reproduction firsthand yourself: simply take two different pure breed dogs or cats, mate them, and observe how dramatically more vigorous the hybrid offspring is than either parent.
I have provided nearly a dozen pieces of concrete, repeatable, observational evidence in support of the various scientific theories that you so disparage. Unless and until you provide similar repeatedly observable and tangible evidence of God, I shall have to remain agnostic.
Sure you were. Otherwise you'd have written god with a capital G. :-)
About two years ago, an aunt of mine came down with cancer and died. All of her career she was a Nurse, and most of the time she was working for the American Red Cross. She had health insurance.
Treating cancer (and the associated expenses like hospital beds and whatnot) is very expensive.
Her HMO actually was threatening to cut off her coverage!
Fortunately (really it was, although it sounds pretty macabre), she died before that happened.
I've told people in .au about this, but I'm honestly not sure that they believe me. It's really incredible.
You're a suburbanite.
Creationism is still banned from public schools.
Evolution, however, is not. The only thing that has changed is that they have merely stopped *requiring* that evolution be taught. That's all.
Publicly-run education is a ridiculous concept... We don't trust the government to do much else, why make an exception for education? Just give us vouchers and let /us/ choose our education.
You don't seem to understand exactly what this is all about. The Kansas school board decision means that natural selection does not need to be taught. It will be left out of all standardized tests because it is not required material.
All this talk about "mandating" is actually about mandating that it be taught in the schools, not that it be treated as the "gospel truth." If it is not mandated it will be cut in many schools.
This is, in effect, a statement from the Kansas school board that their schools don't need to teach evolution, not that teachers are free to call it "just a theory" (which they've always been free to do).
If you think you've been agreeing with me (and you're still making silly creationist arguments), you misunderstood what they've done.
Alas, though I agree with you that God does indeed exist, you have failed to prove his existence. This is where the faith factor comes into play . . .
Think about this for a second. Darwinism and Christianity has different stories on how we came to be; why should the children be required by *law* to accept Darwin's version? Kansas made a good move by making it optional.
Being a Christian myself, I see physics and all other real laws something that God considered a Good Thing(TM). I have full faith in physics, mathematics, computer science and all such stuff, but if a theory is contradictory with the Bible, according to the logic (which is something that cannot be wrong by definition) either the Bible must be interpreted wrong, or the theory is wrong (that is, I can't say there wasn't a big bang, because the Bible doesn't say anything contradictory; it might have been the way God did it). In this case, I see it impossible to interprete the Bible so that humans are apes gone through evolution, and as such it must be false.
Note that many scientists, even those who don't believe in God, find every now and then new false predictions in evolution theory. Eg. that long 'tail' in our spine when we're still in the mother's womb is no longer considered a vestige of a tail, but rather something which is necessary for our skeletal development (or something; the point wasn't in the details).
# amo, ergo sum
you must have alot of faith to believe in evolutionary theory, which is supported by very flimsy evidence. :) Study the aftermath of Mt St Helens and then re-think your ideas on the age of the earth. --Joseph
I agree with you on the foolishness of "Young
Earth" studies. (Young Earthers believe all geology was a result
of a biblical flood and the world is as old as the bible seems to say,
and look for "science" that supports this view). But just calling the
"Young-earth" crowd foolish doesn't necessarily convince anyone. You
need proof. Here is a brief history of the universe that must all be
argued away by the young-earthers.
A brief history of the world:
The universe itself is about 14 billion years old, give or take a billion.
The world is about 4.55 billion years old. This date
is probably when the moon was created by a large impact with
the earth. The oldest rocks we can find are about 3.8 billion years
ago. Primitive lifeforms exist from this era. Until 2 billion years ago the
earth was an inhospitable place, basically devoid of oxygen.
During the paleozoic era, from 540 million years ago, to 250
million years ago, complex life evolved in the sea and plants formed on
land. The first reptiles evolved. A number of mass extinctions occur in
this time, but 250 million years ago, a really big mass extinction
happens. Was it volcanism? More than 90% of existing species become
extinct.
The Mesozoic era, from 250 million years ago, to 65 million years
ago, is the age of reptiles. Dinosaurs appear. 65 Million years ago,
something big hit the earth and caused a huge round of mass extinctions
known as the kt
event. The dinosaurs disappeared. This is the "big break" for the
mammals that became eventually our species. Between 65 million years
ago and 4-5 million years ago, really ugly mammal forms evolved into
things that look like people. 4-5 million years ago, we have evidence
of some of our first recognizable forerunners. A. Afarensis ("Lucy")
is between 3 and 4 million years old. 400,000 years ago we find Homo
Sapiens. 200,000 years ago we find evidence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens
-- modern man.
By contrast, civilization with recorded history only begins 10,000
years ago between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in modern-day
Iraq.
If there are people on this earth stupid enough to approve that evolution must not be happening.
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
You're a fucking nut.
True rapists (violent and all) should have their nuts cut off.
If you feel like asking me who decides which rape deserves this or that punishment, I'll cut off your nuts.
Corndog
See how long Kansas keeps their stupid rules in effect that way!
david.
I don't see any need for this to be a religious debate. I am a Christian (Episcopal) and I have no trouble with evolution being taught in a biology class. I hact I see no why to teach biology with out teaching evolution. I see no reason to teach Creationism in a biology calss except as a historical footnote. Sort of like teaching that people used to beleive that the world was flat. Don't paint all Christians with the same brush, even the Pope has come out pro Evolution.
>For one thing, it is ironic to say that mutation caused by intelligent, deliberate design proves evolution: mutation by >unintelligent, random accidents.
Natural selection operates with the environment of a species defining the course of evolution. Are you saying that we live in an entirely random environment? There is chemistry and physics to content with. This argument is really quite insane.
> Animal breeders have not been able to turn dogs, cats etc to another species.
This is very ironic that you mention dogs, as different breeds of dogs are actually so dissimilar as they do not combine to form fertile offspring. This is how taxonomists differentiate species is it not? Don't believe me? Ask a veterinarian.
>Evolution by natural selection tends to be exaggerated. What is the point of arguing selection among existing >variants? All this means is that we are looking at a form of selective extinction. No new species result from the >observed selection.
Species is really just an organizational unit nothing more. At what point are two subspecies considered different species? Biologists have run into countless examples naturally where two different sub-species can interbreed with another sub-species but not each other. As you must already know the ability to interbreed is what defines a species. Should these be considered separate species?
It should be added that although evolution is the most commonly accepted theory among experts in biology. It is not the most commonly accepted theory by those who are not. Infer what you will from that.
>Evolution benefits from a lack of scientific skepticism, and an ideology that pushes for its acceptance without >question.
I just love it. Every year, it seems, some boneheaded knuckle-dragger of a "Fundamentalist Christian" demands that their favorite myths be taught right along side of the theory of evolution. Too bad they don't have the guts that the captain of the Beagle had, or thay might cut their throats too, and save us all having to listen to their moronic diatribes again.
Look, Reverend Jim, the bible is a book, written by human beings. No holy-ghostwriter involved. You want to fill your kids head with this crap, go ahead, have a fuckin' nut, but don't expect me to take seriously the myths of a bunch of ignorant goat-herders who didn't understand the mechanics of rainfall, but somehow got the straight poop on the creation of the universe.
"But, it's GOD'S WORD!"
Yeah, right, and I've got some beachfront property in Florida for ya...
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Wrong.
Archaeopteryx doesn't have a wishbone.
That's one of the bird features it lacked, which led some to conjecture that it could only glide, and not actively fly. Its feathers, however, seem to suggest that it did actually flap its wings, since the shaft is positioned asymmetrically. Quite a mistery, IMHO
I hate coffee, so I'll skip your suggestion.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You need a course in introductory Hebrew. Since a) I sincerely doubt you care, since you are evidently very willing to do whatever violence you wish to the text, and b) I have a background in the Hebrew language, I'll give you the short course. Please take notes so that I never have to repeat myself to you again:
There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever in the text of Genesis 1 that it is poetry. It is narrative discourse. There is likewise no indication whatsoever in the Hebrew text that the word "day" is meant to be anything other than a literal 24-hour day.
Furthermore, while I won't dispute the fact that the Bible is not principally intended as a book on cosmology, it is nevertheless true that the Bible is infallible when it addresses any issue. It actually does address the issue of cosmology: Genesis 1. It therefore speaks infallibly on the issue.
Lastly, I can tell the difference between evolution and cosmology, thanks. The simple fact is that if evolution were true (which it is NOT) it would require a certain cosmology. It is a (false and stupid) attempt at a materialist explanation of human origins. Inevitably this presupposes a materialist cosmology as well (and this is equally wrong).
Your punishment is to write on the chalkboard the following:
"I will not make pronouncements about the nature of the Hebrew text of the Bible when I don't know anything about it at all."
Repeat this until you get it, or ad infinitum -- whichever comes first.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Just out of curiousity... What arguing is going on? I've seen very little (if any) written in suport of Kansas or Creationism. Instead, I've seen jokes like, "Haw-haw, guess evolution ended in Kansasa a long time ago" about 2 dozen times. I guess it was sort of funny the first time. Primarily, I've witnessed a bunch of proud people expounding on how smart they are and how stupid and close-minded the other side is. These "open-minded" people have precious little tolerance for any views that differ from their own. I guess it's easy to be open-minded if it only applies to beliefs that agree with your own.
Well why anyone goes so negative about this? It's great! I think it's the best chance to preserve some of the old, crappy culture that has been dying for the last 4 centuries and was almost delivered to extinction.
Kansas National Park. To protect the wildlife of reactionary minds, schlerotic theories and religious fanatics.
At least they will be protected from outside evolutionary processes. But I would not make guesses where they will go to in a 200 years from now. Anyway humans and its communities cannot avoid Evolution. Maybe they will become something like Australia marsupials in social terms...
but please don't force your brand of ignorance on our future generations. I bet if you have/do have any kids you will force your religious beliefs down their throats before they are old enough to realize that you don't know everything.
- Here's the deal: In the passed proposal, it does not ban, decry, condemn, or pass any type of judgement on evolution.
Actually, it does. What this law actually does (and I've read it and understood it), is say that you can't teach any science as "dogma" and you cannot prevent anyone from promoting their belief solely because it contradicts widely agreed upon science. This places evolution, a deeply researched theory supported by mountains of evidence, on the same level as crackpot "theories" cobbled together to fit a religious agenda.Earth is round? Sure looks flat to me... try to stop me teaching that theory to kids in Kansas. Aliens built Stonhenge! Hey, you got your theory, I got mine. Nazi Holocost? All fake!
Americans have a sense of fair play, albeit inconsistantly applied. It's considered a birthright to have the opportunity to voice an opposing view. Recently, fringe elements have been exploiting this culture artifact to gain legitimacy for their dubious opinions. It's time that people stop falling for this and realize that not all opposing viewpoints deserve "equal airtime." The Holocost did happen, the Earth is not flat and human beings were not willed into existance fully-formed by a ghost in the sky.
I was arrested in Kansas once. I was charged with trying to bring a book into the state. Luckily, I got off on a technicality. No one could prove it was a book.
But your children had better turn out looking EXACTLY like you do.
Apparently, they've decided to make the wrong choice in the ongoing battle between evolution and inbreeding. It sickens me... Just sickens me.
Why does this board want to doom children to know LESS than they possibly can?
I propose that we teach the truth about the Universe: It's turtles all the way down.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
"Also, I'm wondering if you could tell me 1) from where did this transglorious overbeing come from? and 2) how do you know there is only one transglorious overbeing?"
Of course there is only one, and she's black!
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Well the fact that the Pioneer and Voyager space probes have left our solar system and can still be heard (they havent crashed into a crystal sphere encompassing our rock and star) I think that means there is plenty of open space in the universe, billions of miles of it. If you wanna prove Alpha Centuri is a star all you need to do is take two pictures of it at two different times of the year and figure out the doppler shift, it will come to about 4 light years if you can add. What I find funniest is you compare God to 10 billion dollars. There's an existencial difference between an all knowing diety and 10 billion dollars.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
lets run this for about 4 billion years and see what happens :)
I'm **SO** opening myself up for flames here...but..
I can't stand them Christians!!! They annoy me! How can you NOT know that things evolve? There's too much proof! Do you REALLY think we were just "dropped" here? HELLO? DUH? How can you ban Darwinism in schools in the year 1999????? I'm going to puke. Man, just when you think we're getting ahead...
My fellow atheists may join me at http://www.provide.net/~downey. Yea, it's a lame-o plug for my band but you can at least download the sound clips and be happy.
-brain
Reading my last post, I can't see anything that would qualify me as being ignorant.
Perhaps you use this word to describe anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you?
TedC
Well, when I was a child I attended to a christian school. My parents were both geologists. I grew up collecting fossils with my mom. She took me to the field since I was 6 months old. :)
When I reached 2nd grade I told my teacher that the man evolved from apes, and fishes from older fishes...well, I was 6 years old
It was a REALLY religious school, and my teacher was a true believer. But instead of getting mad with me, she called my father and he went down to the school and gave a class about evolution to us.
Then, the teacher told us that the men is seeking ways to explain god's work and maybe god created animals and then started to change them because maybe he wanted them to be more suitable for mankind. That was OK for me then, and one of those childrens now is a priest.
I was 6 and I didn't loose my faith, it took another 4 years for me to loose my faith, and It was when I realized that religion is as human as politics and there was nothing divine about it. When I understood that the bible is a good book, as good as any book that tries to help people, and it was written by people.
Science is not responsable to make childrens loose it's faith in god, religious people is.
They are just contributing to make kids hate them and became nonbelievers, just like me. Because, when you fell the authorithy is cheating on you, you just react.
Anti-Christian bigot, that is.
Why is it that anything that goes slightly against your own ingrained notion of the world is automatically labelled "a bad thing" done by "stupid, ignorant morons"? And why do you think Christians are in this camp all the time?
Look, all the board has said is that the theory of evolution cannot be taught as if it were the only available line of reasoning. That's a good thing. Aren't all you guys all for exploring new possibilities? Being open-minded? Looking for truth? Seems to me that you've got your preconceived notions (and are unwilling to give them up) just as much as the "Christians" (your term, never mind that it was never said what religious views the people actually have) you deride.
There are tons of holes in the evolutionary record. They can't be explained. There is plenty of room for alternative theories as to how life came to be by interpreting the data differently. Saying "we'll find the data to fill in the holes someday" is equivalent to saying "God will reveal himself someday." Either viewpoint takes faith, and alot of it.
It all comes down to the worldview you take into your analysis. You either have the opinion that there is a supreme being, or that there is no supreme being. Either possibility may be correct! By choosing to ignore that possibility you are limiting yourself. So be open-minded for a change. The existence/nonexistence of a supreme being is unprovable. It's a variable in science. To be truly scientific, one ought to consider the scenario from both points of view.
This is precisely what's done when calculating the size of the universe using an unknown Hubble's constant. Find both values; it's gotta be in there somewhere. When you determine it more precisely later, then you'll know for sure, or at least better than you did. Until we can know for sure if there is a God or not (which by definition we can't) then we need to teach students that there is more than one possibility. Again, open minds are better than closed ones. They ask better questions.
So, all you so-called "open minded" slashdot readers, what's it gonna be? Are you willing to take the challenge to be truly open minded? Or are you going to cling to the safety of your preconceived notions, screaming and kicking that you've got the only handle on "the truth"? (Hmm, that sounds like something a "religious fanatic" would do, doesn't it? All the more proof that humanism is itself a religion.)
CT
And "Curious George meets the man in the Yellow Hat" is always enjoyable... Definately Kansas-level reading.
for life ).
I have to disagree there. If you look at the talk.origins web site, you'll see a nice FAQ filled with plenty of evidence of bad design in nature. If there was an intelligent designer behind life, he did a really BAD job of it. This is NOT evidence for a perfect god. Or even evidence for a highly intelligent god. What kind of intelligent thing would create humans having the blood vessels in FRONT of their retina where it can reduce sight instead of behind it like other animals?
At some point most everything comes down to at least a small part of faith. You take it on faith that evolution is not just as much a myth as the belief of scientists years
ago that the sun revolved around the earth.
There is no "faith" required to believe evolution. There's enough evidence that it's by far the best explanation available for where life came from. We know that the Darwinian Process works (from experiements in other areas), and there's evidence that it happened there also, so why not?
Faith involves belief without evidence. Faith is believing a 2000-year old book is completely true in every word just because it says it is.
Just because you call belief in evolution faith doesn't mean it's anything like a religious faith.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
It is interesting that there is so much oposition to a school board not requiring round earth theory to be taught as fact. We certainly don't want students to be questioning any scientific hypotheses (grin). After all, what would happen if these students started to think for themselves and no longer accepted something so foundational to many peoples' view of life. Is the dogmatic support of round earth theory really about scientific evidence, or is the alternative just not philosophically acceptable? It seems that critical thinking is no longer highly valued in parts of the scientific community and much of our society. It is good to see that it still is in some school boards! When an issue is as scientifically debatable as this, present the options to the students along with the evidence and let the students think for themselves. Are people scared that their pet hypothesis can't stand up to that kind of scrunity?
Evolution is a theory. There's no proof for it. Things do change, animals adapt, and some minor changes do occur, but the complete rewriting of an animals genetics is so highly unlikely, it would be akin to all linux geeks suddenly thinking that Bill Gates is the a 'way cool guy'.
Let's say that evolution is fact and some microbe changed into, through evolution, a fish. What happens if the fish evolves lungs? Whoops, drowned fish. what if the fish develops legs? whoops, really slow fish.
Can you really look around at the world, the universe and not see God's fingerprints all over? We geeks say how openminded we are and that free speach is for everyone, but when it comes to religion (usually only Christianity) we close our minds. Ridiculing people for not believing the same thing we do. Just look at the flames for Microsoft from geeks.
For the past couple of weeks I've read a few stories where Christians were slammed in a small or large way. I never see budhists, wiccans, hindu, muslim, athiests, satanists, jews, etc. ridiculed. Ever wonder why that is? Are you afraid of something? The truth maybe?
"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." - Matthew 5:10-11
We've done or said nothing against you, and we are mocked and ridiculed. I'm sure this post will be moved to a -1 or deleted. More geek openmindedness
I want nothing more to do with Slashdot. Delete me from the database. Remove any reference that I was here. I wash my hands of this.
Misfit
I'm not sure it was intentional, though.
As for the person who moderated that comment up: you should be ashamed. Everyone doesn't think in the Politically Correct way. Deal with it. There was nothing "insightful" about that post whatsoever. It was namecalling and flamebait.
The genetics of populations of organisms have changed over time. That is the fact of evolution. It has been observed. There is no disputing that, without getting into some serious semantics about the meaning of "observation". This is what Creationists want to label as "just a theory".
The theory of evolution states that these changes take place and are perpetuated by mutation and environmental selection. This is a theory, and always will be.
To make an analogy to gravity, it is an observed fact that things fall to earth when you drop them from a height. The theory of universal gravitation is an explanation for why that particular event happens.
pooptruck
It's about time we stopped teaching a rediculous theory like Evolution! Evolution has been the biggest rip-off of scientific minds since the scientific method was discovered. Evolution is dead...the amount of evidence for evolution might fill a coffen....get it? It's dead!
Remember when some school board in california approved the ebonics thing, and then everyone in the country wrote to them calling them idiots, and then they recinded the whole thing?
Everybody write the kansas school board. Kill it the same way.
-Tony
jamesensor@mindless.com
Remember when some school board in california approved the ebonics thing, and then everyone in the country wrote to them calling them idiots, and then they recinded the whole thing?
Everybody write the kansas board of education. Kill it the same way.
-Tony
jamesensor@mindless.com
It was only Adam in that ship. When he got bored with playin' with himself, he got the autodoc to take out a rib and scrape some marrow so he could grow a clone (with the Y chromosome changed to X) - Eve.
I believe school does more than just fill children with knowledge. They also learn to interact with other people there. They learn that there are not-so-nice-people around. And people that are less intelligent, other, different, weird etc. In my opinion the most important thing one learns in school is social skills. You cannot learn such basic knowledge when you're kept in a save environment without having to deal with the "real world".
0x or or snor perron?!
But your children had better turn out looking EXACTLY like you do.
Apparently, they've decided to make the wrong choice in the ongoing battle between evolution and inbreeding. It sickens me... Just sickens me.
Why does this board want to doom children to know LESS than they possibly can?
I propose that we teach the truth about the Universe: It's turtles all the way down. And the lightning is an angry god. And we have winter because a goddess' daughter was kidnapped by the lord of the Underworld.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
That's pretty impressive.
And we had better be worried about being strung up on a cross of gold.
Someone should look into child laboor, too.
After all, it's almost 1900!
-awc
...we can't really be dumb, if we're just following GOD'S ORDERS. After all, he wrote this book here. And in the book, he said he made us all to be just like HIM. So if we're dumb, them GOD is dumb; and maybe even a little bit ugly on the side! --Frank Zappa, Dumb All Over
- It seems that it's easier to not even consider the possibility that a far greater intelligence created us.
Really?Why did this "far greater intelligence" place the arteries which supply the retina in front of it where they block the vision process. I mean, there's no physical reason why they can't be behind the retina where they'd be out of the way.
And what's the deal with the appendix? I have an organ which does nothing, but possibly get infected and kill me. This is a feature?
Why do I have to sleep? I sit around at a computer all day -- I'd kind of like to do more in my spare time than spend 8 hours in a coma! While I'm on the subject of pep, it would be really nice if my paracrine system didn't freak out because I eat too many complex carbohydrates (gee, it's almost as if my metabolism was developed in a time before grain was cultivated... how did that happen?)
Finally, I would be a lot more popular with the ladies if my penis was on my chin. As it stands now, I have to buy a sports car.
I think this "far greater intelligence" should open-source His little project -- I'd do a much better job.
Please tell me where in the Constitution you find the so-called separation doctrine.
Here's a hint: you won't find it in there. You'll find it in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson's writings make it explicitly clear that the intention was to erect a wall of seperation. Just becase the constitution doesn't explicitly state it doesn't mean it's not the way it is.
I, for one, wish that they had expressly stated it there. Not like it would help prevent the countless incidents that show gross ignorance of the constitution...
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
The new education curriculum is intedned to put the tools into pupils hands to enable them to judge for themselves about biological origins. That is a very different twist from the evolution propaganda in the report!
The ICR (Institution for Creation Research) is a religous organization intended to turn "creation science" from an oxymoron into an agenda politically rammed into the USA education system. But, don't believe me, check out The Creation Research Society's Creed and Visits to the ICR Museum and decide for yourself.
I've read a couple of Gish's and Morris' books and lost count of the number of half-truths, misleading or out of context quotes, and outright lies in the first chapters. See Creationist Whoppers to see how they were revealed to be "liars for Jeezus" that they are.
Anyway, I glanced through trueorigin.org's Thermo rebuttals and found the same old bogus 2nd Law of Thermo crap, with the buzz-words changed so maybe their target audience won't notice. They're still using the outdated "disorder" metaphor for entropy, probably because it plays so well in the Bible Belt. By all means, read this site, but take everything they say with an entire shaker of salt. 8-)
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
"HA HA!"
-Nelson Muntz
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What's wrong with teaching creation? That's just a theory too isn't it? The problem with teaching evolution in schools is that it often (almost always) gets taught as if it is fact.
That's funny, as I have similar questions for the creationists. For example, with the exception of the great flood and a realtively small (compared to the number of years in recorded history) other concrete events, none of which were accurately recorded or can be backed up with any evidence other than anecdotal, it seems that God really hasn't done much since He started resting on the seventh day. How do creationists resolve this issue of the existence of God when His actions can be adequately explained without the assumption of the existence of a giant invisible dragon that pushes the stars around(Reference to Nightfall, by Asimov and Silverberg)?
They no longer compete for strictly the same resources. In the areas where monkeys and humans still coexist, the monkeys are vegetarians, and the humans are hunters.
But of course, they're republicans, farmers, and don't know none of these "city thoughts".
They always vote for the republican ticket, always elect the damned republicans to the state legislature.
Maybe I'll start tellin people i live in mo, i live close enough...
The Daemon
--
Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Evolution theory is a theory (or should I say, theories). We know that evolution happens, we're just not always certain how it happens.
Unfortunately, they're still down on evolution, and not just the theories. I think I'll keep away from Kansas.
Elections for replacements for the vacated posts will be held during the upcoming general elections in November.
That's if they don't rule elections illegal first and institute some form of appointment-to-office-by-devine-intervention.
_______
2B1ASK1
The headline didn't say that Kansas was mandating Creationism, it just said it was no longer mandating Evolution as a teaching. Evolution is a theory. Evolution takes alot more faith to believe in than creation anyhow if you think about it. -We'll make great pets
time for another religion vs science vs common sense flame war to break out on Slapdash, with all the zealots preaching and the impugned lashing out... wheee, open the floodgates
I was watching a "Doctor" of Creation "Science" on the local podunk religion station. He was attempting to exploit perceived holes in the fossil records. He went on to explain that dinosaurs and man coexisted at one time in history, but man eventually hunted dinosaurs out of existence (survival of the fittest...heheheh). He illogically proved this argument by saying that there are legends of man encountering "dragons" all over the globe-- so those mythical dragons were actually dinosaurs...
Needless to say, I laughed my ass off until I felt the sinking feeling that this guy took himself seriously. Then it dawned on me that other people might be watching and actually swallowing this tripe.
About a year or so earlier, on the same channel, the resident conservative talk show hosts interviewed some creation "scientist" who was trying to prove that the dinosaur foot prints in Glen Rose, Texas, were made only a few thousand years ago.
I don't know what mail order company these people got there "degrees" from. Calling these people scientists is like calling a trashman a "waste disposal engineer."
Disclaimer: In America, every body has the right to express their backasswards opinion. If you don't like mine, shove it. Have a nice day.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Scientists discover that evolution has stopped in Kansas.
TOPEKAIn a discovery that has shocked biologists around the globe, a team of anthropologists and geneticists discovered today that evolution does not function in Kansas.
"It was a shock, but when we examined the facts, all evidence suggested that Kansans are in the exact same evolutionary state as they were 4 billion years ago." Exclaimed Dr. Rajeev Papshigali, professor of anthropology at UC Berkeley, "The evidence was undeniable, low sloping simian foreheads, the inability to make and use simple tools - everything suggested that these people, if we may even call them that, appear to be genetically identical to Neandertall man. This challenges everything we've believed about evolution."
Scientist first began investigating Kansans after noticing that a majority of them believed the existence of a gaseous vertebrate of infinite heft to be more probable than the accumulation of favorable mutations over geologic time.
"It was amazing," explained Dr. Greg Hay, "we found that Kansans did not have sufficient mental capacity to understand the concept of evolution. That's not all, we found that they engaged in a primitive ritual where they would twitch on the ground uttering complete gibberish and then claim that they were speaking in tounges. We recorded the noises made, and found that they were identical with those of the spider monkey." Scientists had previously believed that humans and spider monkey had diverged in the evolutionary tree some 11 million years ago. "We may have found a species of primate that has existed unchanged for all that time, against all probability."
Some scientists have criticized the findings of Doctors Papshigali and Hay, saying instead that the explanation lies in the fact that Kansans still use lead based paint on cribs, and that the infant Kansans tend to knaw on the bars of their cribs while teething. As pediatrician Dr. Ray Middleton argues "All the mental deficiencies of Kansans can be explained by brain damage due to lead poisoning. The idea tha evolution has stopped is ridiculous." Middleton, who is not a native Kansan is leading a drive to have lead based paint banned statewide.
--Shoeboy
Sharpshooting (with real bullets), archery, High school ROTC and Junior ROTC where kids were issued guns. And no shooting sprees like the Columbine CO scenario. Imagine that. Must not be the guns that lead to violence. To the knee-jerk liberals who want more secirity measures and less freedoms: Keep looking...
What this is is a bunch of geeks taking sensationalistic journalism hook line and sinker. The media loves to cover wars, not stories. So this is portrayed as a war between religios right (yay a victory for the religious right!) and Science. That is not the case, this is a victory for Science and Religion has little to do with it.
Even Scientific American recently addressed the problems of Evolution. Quantum Evolution (where species evolve into other wholy disting species) is something that is not understood and very difficultly explained with current natural models. Some reputable scientists even dismiss it whole heartedly sighting that it is only believed because we can't explain it any other way. I wish I could remember the month, it was a really good article.
Quantum Evolution deals with the *fact* that there is no evidence of small adapting steps between species (something Darwinian Evolution requires). instead you have species develop and remain unchanged for many years. If Darwinian evolution was the case, you would see more gradual changes. Right now, honestly the only support for the belief that one species evolves into another is mearly that they show the same traits. (Ooh that knuckle looks like one from the hand of a person!)
Now, I'm not playing God's advocate here. There have been many scientific beliefs (Aristotle's theory of the Universe for one) that had evidence and was taught in the schools. Why? Becuase there was no other way of explaining it? Isn't that what we are doing now in mandating Evolution as a fact? Talk about knowing better since 1799, I wouldn't want to see us revert back to before 1599.
No one is saying that Genisis will ever be opened in a classroom. Or especially required on a test. But honestly, Evolution has holes, serious ones. It should be tought that way, or stripped down to what we can say is happening (micro-evolution happens).
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I love the theory of evolution. It explains the progress of species and even provides possible roots as to their origins. Of course, I like science and enjoy scientific theory (especially physics). I believe in the adaptation of species and natural selection. I also believe that we have to no further look at flying animals or the complexity of our own bodies to see God's hand. Many Christians do not want Darwin's origin of species taught as fact. I don't blame them, it is only a theory Many Christians aren't open-minded enough to look at Darwin's origin of species from a pure fascination point of view. Christians soemtimes let their tunnel vision block them from having fun. Most Christians I know assume "evolution" = "Origin of Species" which is not the case.
The Creation story says that god created the world, but it doesn't say how. Maybe he created it using evolution. A "day" to god could be billions of years to us.
Evolution is an interesting theory. But it is just that: a theory. Teaching it has been debated for years. It is good to teach children about theories. It is not good as presenting only one theory (a controversial one at that), and far too often, not representing it as a theory. In most public schools it is the only theory taught about where we came from. If you don't teach the children that there are alternatives, chances are they will believe the one theory they have as fact.
Many people grow up never hearing that there is any other possibility. They believe that all other theories on the matter of the origins of life are backward, and based entirely on the superstitious religious beliefs of those who would never even consider evolution because it would undermine there faith. And there are those like that out there.
Whether or not Evolution is to be taught in schools is the right of an individual state to determine, as whether or not to teach Creation. If the state is fair, the will either allow both or neither.
But before complaining about this and being shocked that a state would choose not teach the theory of evolution in their schools, spend some time researching the matter. See for yourself whether or not Creationism is backward and illogical. Check out books, or sites that present both arguments. To look at the propaganda of only one side (either side) would be silly. Seriously consider this, before dismissing it. You will probably learn some things that surprise you.
The inner workings of our world our incredibly complex. Decide for yourself if they were divinely orchestrated, or miraculously evolved.
MetallicBurgundy
If I lived in Kansas, I would promptly leave.
Maybe that's their plan: drive out all the rational thinkers!
_______
2B1ASK1
Nowadays the term right wing gernerally means fiscal conservitism. Even using the origianal left and right, the right is the side that wants to maintain the status quo. Just because fundimentalist cristians are usually on the right wing, this does not mean that the right wing made up of fundimentalist cristians. Also, just because the Christian coalition ran its candiates as republicans, does not mean that this is a republican idea, it just as easily could have happened with democrates if they were in the majority. Republicans, do not want to set us back, they just don't want us to end up like Canada 50%+ taxes and sociallized health care that doesn't work.
Have those nutty religious folk explained the lack of dinosaurs in their bible? Don't think I've heard the official explanation of that one yet...I expect it to be something along the lines of "whoops!".
:P
-- www.bteg.com | bleh.n3.net | hac47.dhs.org
If you're curious about all these so called "problems" with darwinism, read books by Richard Dawkins (e.g. the extended phenotype), he makes a good effort to explain them.
A hypothesis is an educated guess.
A theory is a hypothesis that has a lot of evidence to support it, and is accepted as fact.
A theorem is a mathematical proof, and is hardly ever possible in science, due to the fact that science deals in evidence and experiment, not in axioms.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
ONE small problem. Nearly 50% of americans beleive evolution is false and creationism is true. This "small" victory in Kansas is going to spark more and more religious fanatics taking their school boards to court to get the same result. Unless pro-evolution forces get working, the next generation of children will be mostly creationists.
All of science is Theory. Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity. No one PROVES anything in science 100%. The only way progess can be made is by keeping an open mind- open to the possibility that we're wrong. Evolution will never be proven, per se. However, it is backed by an enourmous amount of evidence. If we're not teaching theories anymore, we're going to have to eliminate ALL science classes forever. This would, effectively, reduce the human race to a bunch of pathetic morons, squatting in the Kansas dirt and reading their bibles instead of thinking. My contempt for those who accept what they READ as truth instead of THINKING is boundless, and some creationists fall into this category.
I'm relieved to see someone who doesn't assume that their view is right. I'm on a page very close to you, if not the same page. (Christian, Bible, [micro-]evolution) I stumbled along something interesting. It describes some of the typical comments that are just pro-evolution for the sake of being pro-evolution. -Pete- "That which is unchallenged and exercised as habit rapidly becomes ritual. When this occurs, dissent becomes an object of surprise, if not resentment." -- B. Carmon Hardy
Ok, look. I think Kansas has a serious point here. See, what scientists haven't been able to figure out is _why_ evolution stopped in Kansas in 1799. But why really doesn't matter. What matters is that the kids understand their immediate surroundings. Until they figure out how to jump-start evolution again, they shouldn't teach that evolution is something that occurs in Kansas.
Evidence that evolution doesn't occur:
1. The gene pool hasn't changed in 200 years. The inbreeding has been happening over and over again. For proof, look who's running the board of edumacation!
2. The only people with cars in Kansas are people driving through. And the tourist attractions are 5-legged cows(and I'm serious here).
3. In Kansas, they go with 1799 puritan logic - black and white. Good and evil. Evolution and creation. The production team of "The Wizard of Oz" was on to something. As soon as Dorothy wasn't in Kansas anymore, Everything went color. And when she got back, everything was black and white again.
4. The state still excels in agriculture. Most of the land is devoted to it. Quantity, not quality. In more civilized states, they use science and evolution-based discoveries to create things like bigger, better, seedless fruits and vegetables, so they can devote more land to things that are good... like oil refineries!
So there it is. Proof that evolution in Kansas stopped in 1799. And because of that, I support the Kansas board of Education in NOT teaching evolution to children who will never experience it.
rhadc
I think the move on the Kansas board is GREAT! Without even touching on whether evolution is Fantasy or Fact, let's consider this. The schools are not allowed to teach opposing points of view such as Creationism. Only teaching one side is wrong, and it is indoctrinating the children in what one faction believes to be true! If Christian Schools will present both sides, why not public schools?
As for everyone crying separation of Church and State, consider this, Evolutionism IS a religion!
Zane
You may continue to be speechless longer than you expected if you look at evolution more closely. Some of its "science" has real problems like a contradictory fossil record, and trying to explain how life came from nonlife with explanations that a lot of scientists find fault with. In fact some evolutionists think life started on another planet and was brought to earth. Example: Sir Fred Hoyle a well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist. Ph.D. His articles have appeared in Nature and other respected journals. Sir Hoyle is co-author of the book, Evolution from Space he helped write because he can't reasonably explain how life could have originated on Earth. Sometimes a theory is just a theory.
Hmmm.
I theorize that all automobiles are blue. But I just saw one that isn't blue, so it must be a true theory (by your "logic") that all automobiles are the complimentary color orange.
Sorry, doesn't work, except maybe in Kansas. Take your own advice.
(Another example for the slow-witted: If you proved evolution to be false, this would not somehow prove creationism to be true.)
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
I think that 97% of our DNA is identical to that of Chimps... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I'm just concerned what the board who decided this will do next. This is a move towards neutrality, I'd hate to see them carry it too far.
Seems like private school's looking more and more promising for our youth.
Here in Washington [State], we never were taught creation in public schools. Evolution was the primary curriculum. That's the way it should be. Leave creationism to the church, where it belongs.
I always thought of science being the search for truth. Funny how creationists call their beliefs "science" when they're simply relying on a book that's not been truthfully proven, while the real scientists rely on scientific methods that more than prove their theories.
Well, I always knew I never wanted to go to Kansas, this just proves it.
--Bernie
True, I'm saying it's a theory, but not just a theory. As stated above, it is the central theory that all of modern biology is based on. The whole classification system of biology is based on evolution.
The fact that electrons are the basis of electricity has not been proved either, electron interactions are just a bunch of funky math, but it is the best model we have, the most consistent with observed phenomena.
If creation is also a good model, we should see some biological/scientific use for it. Does it help predict behaviors? Does it help explain similarities in plant and animal species? Does it yield a method of classification?
Indeed. The very next sentence of the Hitchhiker's Guide quote goes something like this:
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, who then goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I used to worry about job competition in the sciences when I got older and slower. Not anymore.
Go to this story for a less reactionary take on the article than the one with MSNBC spin. It's still bad, but this article says that they are _not_ banning the teaching of evolution, but neither are they promoting it.
Show me the missing link and I might beleive in evolution as a scientific fact. I think it is slightly stupid and very ignorant to think that the human species(or any species) could make such a huge leap away from our closest relative. I mean, sure, some animals are very similar and seem to have evolved from looking and acting one way to another. It just seems silly to think that a dinosaur became tweetybird and that a doglike creature in South america became a freshwater dolphin. Come on. I dont see the missing link in any of it.
To be fair (speaking as one of the godless hordes) most Christians, or at least most Christian churches, do not have a problem with evolution. The Catholics in particular fully support it, apart from some mutterings about God inserting a soul at some point in the process. Creationism is largely peculiar to the fundamentalist species of American (although some Native Americans have their own charming variety.) Sometimes I really wish I was European.
One point:
1. How is living in a place where a tornado may hit your town once every twenty years any different than living in Japan or Califoria, where Earthquakes do millions of dollars of damage regularly? Or living in Georgia, Florida, or the Gulf Coast, with the incredible carnage of the yearly hurricanes? How about living on a volcanic island, or trying to live through the annual monsoons in the philippines and south-east asia, or... I'll stop now.
Sorry to pick nits, but as Kansan I felt the need to defend myself against this endless hick^H^H^H^H Kansan bashing.
Yes, let's pass a law that makes Pi == 3 , cause that'd be sooo much easier on the junior high school kids who have enough to deal with (memorizing baseball stats ). I *still* remember Pi to 10 digits when we had to memorize it in grade 5 or 6 (in Europe of course).
Gravitation is a Law. Creationism is not.
I will agree with you, that some Creationists fall into this category, but I would also say that there are also some Evolutionists that fall into this category as well.
MetallicBurgundy
Yes, this is true. It also highlights a difference between the theory of evolution and quantum theory. Quantum theory may not be the last word, but it does allow us to make better predictions than ever before. On the other hand, what predictions has the theory of evolution allowed us to make that we couldn't before?
Before you jump on me, note that the Board still endorses the concept of "micro-evolution" (rightly, in my opinion). This covers change within a population, like bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, or moths turning color to match pollution-stained trees. There is sound scientific evidence for this phenomenon, and good predictions have been based on it.
HOWEVER, the theory of evolution as a whole is much less well supported by currently known facts. Have we predicted, and then observed, the birth of a new species? NO! Granted, the time spans involved make it difficult. But, sources such as the fossil record fall far short of setting this theory on solid ground.
I do think that the Board has gone too far, by completely banning it from the schools. However, I think that most school systems present it as "fact" (on the same level as quantum theory), and fail to emphasize that it is not stongly supported enough by the evidence to warrant such certainty. There must be a happy medium between the two.
Josh from WorkThis is so fscking sick that I don't know if I should laugh of cry. I'm just soooooo damned happy that I don't live in America, "The land of the free"! I think I'll cry a bit right now and start to laugh tomorrow and do that the rest of my life. America - it's a big joke!
People and other primates (monkeys, chimps, etc.) evolved from a long extinct creature that was neither human nor chimp nor monkey... There is no reason that this creature "must be around today". Only believing the statement at the top of this comment would lead one to think this.
I wish people would get a clue.
Hey, we at the Neanderthal Defence League are tired of you "oh so evolved" people making us out to be idiots.
No Neanderthal ever made, or supported, a law that flew in the face of established science.
No Neanderthal ever made, or supported, a law to restrict the peaceful use of strong cryptology.
No Neanderthal ever made a claim that the sun stopped in the sky for a day. (What's a day when the sun has stopped, anyway?)
But us Neanderthals are damn tired of you comparing us to the dredges of your own gene pool. It's YOUR people who are bunch of drooling idiots. It's YOUR people who fight the teaching of evolution in biology classes. It's YOUR people who keep buying Microsoft products. (This is slashdot, after all!)
Get over it.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Actually, science never proves anything. Proof belongs in the realm of mathematics. All science can do is continue to gather evidence that supports a theory. Some theories have so much supporting evidence that many people just call them facts, but scientists are always careful to refer to them as theories.
It's a fact that things fall. The theory of gravity tries to explains why. It's a fact that populations evolve (i.e. change over time). Theories of evolution try to explain the mechanics.
As for the theory of creation, they can't really be called theories, because none of them seem to have any predictive value, which is one of the most important uses of a theory. If you can't use the theory to predict things, you can't set up an experiment to try to falsify the prediction.
On the other hand, if the theory makes predictions, and the experiments don't ever falsify the predictions, then the theory continues to gain supporting evidence. After a while, people just start to say "fact".
God is Dead
-Nietzche
Nietzche is dead
-God
It is time to return to that old tyme religion!
:). Damn, oh well, most of the holidays are heavily influenced by the pagan ones anyway (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, etc..)
Absolutely! Time to break out the Maypole, dance around the bonfire naked while drinking and carousing, Burn offerings of food and wine to the gods... Oh wait, we're we talking about that young upstart Christianity
Well, looks like somebody on the other side of the issue ought to speak up.
I admit that it is pretty tough to draw the line between what should/shouldn't be taught at schools. What do you do when x% of the people in your school district believe in God and Creation, and get offended when Evolution is taught at school, y% don't care, and z% demand that it be taught? The question is not whether morals/religious beliefs are taught at school, but WHOSE morals are taught--the athiest's morals or the believer's morals. When a theory is not accepted by everyone, should it be taught?
I believe in Evolution. There is far too much evidence to deny it. However, I do not believe that man evolved from the apes. (They evolved from dolphins. Just kidding.) There is plenty of evidence that species change over time, diversify, etc. Humans, too. But the evidence that man evolved from apes is fairly sparse, and a lot of it depends on unconfirmed assumptions (that the fossilized skull came from the same person as the hip bone found nearby, etc.). And nobody can prove that God didn't create man, who then spread over the earth and killed a bunch of ugly hairless apes. In other words, there is a point at which the argument is not complete. It depends on whether you believe in God.
I have no problem with schools teaching evolution, to tell you the truth. Evolution, as a theory for the origin of the species, is fine and I think it is true.
I take some issue with teaching that mankind evolved from apes. It isn't outlandish to teach about it, in my opinion. Every teacher needs a certain amount of leeway in teaching their own opinions. But to present it as absolute truth, to not allow dissenting opinions, and, as sometimes happens, to ridicule those who don't believe it, is wrong.
The last thing I want to mention is something about the place for morals in our society. There is a small trend (my prediction is that it is short-term) to put religion back into school. I don't think it will work. What needs to be taught is not religion but morals: absolute truths that everyone can agree on. They are the things I learned in Sunday School, like "don't steal," "be good," "you are responsible for your own actions," "you are loved," and "your personal integrity is worth more than all the money in the world." Teaching this in school as much as possible hopefully won't offend anyone.
On the other hand, what happens when you tell a kid that everyone is just an animal? That human life is worth no more than the life of that cow that died to make that hamburger? There will be a little bit of confusion, and for most people it will be resolved ok, but some might just come to the conclusion that "if it is ok to kill the cow and take meat from it when I wanted to, what is wrong with killing/stealing from another person?"
Anyway, FWIW my 2c. Hope it made sense.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
The argument that I have seen popping up heavily here is the age old last resort of seperation of church and state. While our constitution does state that there should be a seperation of church and state, this simply does not apply. Since when was NOT teaching a subject considered to be infringing upon anyone's religious freedoms?
The seperation of church and state concept goes back to the government not requiring you to attend religious functions if you do not want to. This includes things like mandatory mass, or *requiring* students to attend bacheloriet before graduation. However, the banning the teaching of evolution does not fall into those categories.
The source of the political pressure to ban the teaching of evolution in this case was brought about by a religous group. However, that religous group also voted to elect those representatives. If you do not like who they voted for, then you will get a chance to vote against them in the future. Stating that they were unfairly elected because ignorant people just punch the catch all republican side of the ballot is not an excuse. If these people did not agree with the issues and possitions of the candidates on the republican platform, they should have payed more attention and voted for the people that they felt *did* represent them.
something clever
at least someone has the courage to can the farce that is evolution! it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in any world religion. if you do any research at all on the topic, you'll see that there is exactly zero evidence for evolution that crosses species boundaries. In other words: a bird may change some, a monkey may change some, but there is exactly zero evidence that a bird, fish, monkey or anything else has evolved into a different species. why should this evidenceless theory be taught as science???
Evolution, as a mechanism, pretty much adequately explains all of your points . . . You're forgetting statistical probability. Folks arguing against evolution keep saying "well, this XYZ is so complicated that it could never develop by evolution, and even Step X of XYZ is too improbable". Nothing is "too improbable," when taken over the span of BILLIONS of years. It seems to me that few creationists have ANY idea how long that is. Furthermore, complexity arises from simpler structures. Ever hear of the word "epiphenomenon"? The Krebs cycle is simply an example of that.
Kansas is chucking this "humans evolved from apes" hogwash for a much more convincing theory...
Aliens from outer space, who call themselves the Anunnaki, genetically engineered humans from the ape-like creatures native to this planet.
Perhaps Kansas is not overrun by Creationists, but Art Bell freaks...
Actually this could not have happened with a 'bunch of democrats'. Only with a bunch of Right Wing single issue ( okay maybe three ) assh0l$e.
The Xian right has and will always make me sick to my stomach.
Ken Broadfoot ( not an anonymous Xian coward )
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
> there aren't any hybrids (half man/half
... all you need... :-) I digress, but I hope you got my point anyway
> ape) around
well, the gorilla is genetically closer to human then to orangutan.
while the coverage of the monkey-ape-human specie-space is not continuous we have it pretty much covered. you can say that ape is half monkey/half human:-) you can say that gorilla is half orangutan half human:-) but: nothing you can say that can't
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
As fully defined evolution, there are two types, micro and macro. Micro: minute change at the molecular level which induces change due to mutation or other. But the species remains the initial species. Ex: London species of moth that went from beige to dark coal black (similar to smog like colour of stacks nearby). This is accepted by the Church. Macro is not. Evolving from one species to another as in the case of ape to man. No available scientific evidence anywhere. And second, strictly against doctrine. As a strong Catholic and a Genetic Engineer, I say kudos to Kansas from a Canadian guy!
Is that post sarcastic, or just horribly misguided? It's kinda hard to tell.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
FYI, children are required to go to school. If the curriculum reflects a Christian ideology, then the children are required to go to a state-run religious event every day.
This ruling in Kansas doesn't, however, ban the teaching of evolution. It simply repeals the requirement to teach it. Nothing wrong with this legally, but I can't see a competant educator failing to expose children to Darwin's theory.
> Ummm... so you are saying that the Crusades were
> good?
sarcasm \Sar"casm\, n. [F. sarcasme,
L. sarcasmus, Gr. sarkasmo`s, from
sarka`zein to tear flesh like dogs, to
bite the lips in rage, to speak bitterly,
to sneer, fr. sa`rx, sa`rkos, flesh.] A
keen, reproachful expression; a
satirical remark uttered with some
degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt;
a gibe; a cutting jest.
Syn: Satire; irony; ridicule; taunt; gibe.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Forgive me if I don't find any evidence for the premise that:
"the subject is outside the realm of empirical science"
Regardless, the '82 case centered around the fact that religion could not be taught in school due to the seperation of church and state (and Creationism was decided to be religious).
Make sense? Good.
Socialized Health Care doesn't work in Canada? I lived there for 17 years and never had a problem getting decent health care. What doesn't work about? Has something changed in the past few years?
Because humans don't find chips very attractive and vice-versa.
If we can't keep guns, how are we to overthrow our government if it becomes too bloated and corrupt to function? That is part of what the US was founded on. Part of being a responsable citizen means that you keep the government in check. I for one believe that our government no longer functions properly, but as one individual with that belief there's not a lot I can do except leave the country, which I've considered.
-Ted
See The Kansas City Star for a better report.
Religion and anything that can be interpreted as in opposition to most common religions have always been very difficult subjects to teach because so many parents have objections to whatever might be said. It is on these grounds that religion has been eliminated from public schools. It sounds as if Kansas is removing evolution from the curriculum on the very same grounds--not based on whether evolution is correct or not. If this is their platform, they should be able to defeat the Americans United for Separation of Church and State... that is if they actually go to court.
Obviously they do not intend to teach religion either. Thus they are leaving the teaching of our origins entirely to the parents. In places where evolution vs. Christianity is a hot topic, this may be a good solution.
A big enough river running fast enough probably could have. Go read up on catastrophism.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Since I live in California, I'd like to just point out, that there's a big difference. Earthquakes are inherrently more survivable. Japan for instance probably has some amazingly earthquake tolerant buildings, mainly they just have to sway. Secondly, it's rather obvious where an earthquake is likely to hit. That's not to say that there arne't pleny of hospitals built on fault lines, but rather it's easy to choose a safe location. For instance, I live in Marin, in an area which happens to be solid rock (bedrock, granite, something like that) and away from a fault line. The 89 quake caused no damage, in fact a family member slept thru it.
The real problem lies when you build on land fill (like a huge portion of San Francisco, namely the Marina district), or build on a fault line. WRT tornadoes and such, from what I can tell they can pretty much hit any part of Kansas. WRT volcanoes, there are volcanoes that are either dormant or have lava that flows slowly enough to cause minimal if any loss of property and life.
But think on the bright side, with all the politicians dragging their knuckles, they won't have to worry about shaving them anymore.
The revolution will be mocked
Ah, ah, ah, The full quote is
"God is dead, and you killed him."
-Nietzche
It refers to the way that most people who profess a belief in the Christian don't practice it very well. Unless you believe hatred, intolerance, bigotry, racism, and stupidity are the proper way to bring glory to god...
Oh like thisis a surprise. We all know that Evolution was simply though up so idiots could sell those posters of the ape morphing into a man. And so that Darwin guy could sell a fanciful little tale of Galapagos.
And of course for those delightful FarSide cartoons.
"Ca-ooooooooookie Crisp!"
Still reeling from the absence of the Ten Commandments in public schools, I reached for my news-paper on monday and saw that they are teaching 'evolution' without having pieced together the fossil record from the first genetic material to Polly Shore. (Hey, I can be reasonable)
I demand the right to a solid platform upon which I can support my dignity. How can I feel good about myself if I am reminded that I share common ancestry with ape-brutes? I've been to the zoo, and I decline to write of the horrid, disgusting things I have seen the creatures do.
With our sense of self-worth at stake, supporters of science will talk of 'emprical evidence', 'facts', and 'logic'. Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot at the center of the universe. And now they would have us force feed this, their evil-ution, to our kids.
Does a man who is doing his utmost to get into heaven benefit from filling his head with theories? Do we want our teachers questioning all that is good and decent, twisting things around with their fancy words? We must shift our focus back to something which is never used in an evil fashion: religion.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
No one is abandoning Darwinism for punctuated equilibrium. At most punc. eq. would be a modification of our ideas of how speciation occurs. Stephen Jay Gould, co-author of punc. eq. is a Darwinist. He's not the type of neo-Darwinist Dawkins is. (He's also not well respected by other biologists, I've read.) But he is a Darwinist.
What a violent reaction from our beloved Geek community! You'd think we were talking about Kevin M. If I didn't know better, I'd that yall's just a group 'o religious evolution zealots. sheesh.
I agree with you; I support teaching Evolution as one possible explanation, NOT as proven fact, which is how it's usually taught.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Yes!!
The revolution will be mocked
OK, this might be a troll, but... Ary you damn crazy, Americans? Banning the evolution theory and letting the religious right in to the school will decrease the number of well-educated students, suited for Univerdity study, that comes out of it. Oh, well, just continue and we'l not have to bother about you here in Europe anymore :) Or stop NOW.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Whatever. :)
All I know is that I don't have to come up with scienctific theories to write code...
I wear pants.
Well, if you were taught that science is about provable facts, not amassing the best guesses based on the evidence so far, you were greatly misinformed. Anyone teaching science in this fashion needs re-education just as much as the rabid creationists.
All science is theory. There is a convention to call stuff that hasn't been doubted in centuries "Law", but it just means a theory that is very hard to doubt, and requires lots of decimal points to disprove.
I believe it was Tennessee where at one time in the early 20th century the State government enacted a law wherein PI was declared to be 3.
In the bible, Solomon in his temple builds a round basin, 10 "cubits" across and 30 around. Therefore,
PI = circum/2r = 30/10 = 3
If it's the law, that's too bad if you disagree.
I'm not a bible-thumper myself (despite a rigidly fundie upbringing) but I was wondering why Xtians would have such a rabid difficulty with the whole idea of evolution?
Wouldn't it make more sense for an infinitely creative and logical god to create a self-sustaining, self-cleaning system which is flexible enough to recode itself on the fly in response to changing conditions? Even with a belief in the soul being unique to mankind, one could assume that the soul (along with moral responsibility and all the other fun baggage religion would like to give you) would be placed in man at the point his species reached a certain level (like maybe the scene in 2001 when tools are first used by the proto-humans; God could be in the monolith at the edge of eden which would make God an alien but I digress). There is nothing in this plot which would directly contradict Genesis if the book was viewed in a metaphoric way. Even the creation of the species in Genesis seems to agree with the generally accepted flow of evolution: plants first, then aquatic animals and birds (in a stretch: dinosaurs?), then mammals and finally mankind.
So why not evolution? Xtians could always claim the big bang and / or the mysterious first spark of life was provided by God. Xtians could even claim divine guidence in evolution from their beloved Creator who, following the silly shepherd metaphor they seem to like, nutured the chosen line until the first humans emerged.
TedC
Okay, so I'm not a good speller, like that would knock me down anything closer to a monkey.
'the Theory of Evolusion like Billy ' should be 'the Theory of Evolution like Billy '
Too bad you can Edit your comments after you post them.
David Gonterman of FoxFire Studios http://foxfire.twu.net
ROTC students are probably not messed up enough to commit school shootings. No matter what, in todays society, the "freedom" of keeping a gun does not outway the advantages of getting rid of them. People don't need anything more than basic small arms to protect them selves (if that) and hunters should all use bows and arrows.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Except that religious schools DON'T teach both sides of the argument.
This explanation will sound totally lame and stupid, or will make total sense, depending on your prejudices, but keep an open mind here. Assume for a moment that there is a eternal God, and that He created man, and everything else on earth. To begin with, this would make Him way more powerful and way more intelligent than any of us. Why should He have to explain Himself to us? Do we have any comprehension of who He is? f He tried to explain, would we really understand? Does a sculpture really understand the man who made it? Or even what its true nature is? The notion of us questioning God, or His existence is like ants questioning Man, and His existence, except that would make more sense.
No.
The bible teaches us that PI(R)^2, but that is a fallacy.
PI(R) ROUND!
COBBLER(R)^2 !!!
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
> There were probably were half man half apes, but
> over time we ate all their food, or all of them
> and they became extinct.
That's not a great explanation. If the halfway-man-halfway-apes were starved to death, skeletons should probably have been left behind. If they were eaten, then of course bone evidence might be more lacking, since the after-meal bones would probably get strewn about. Still, there should be something left behind. Ah, questions, questions . . .
This actually could make for a good science classroom discussion, looking at a problem from different angles, trying to see what does and does not fit. That's what science is about.
Look, Dr. Darwin PROVED the validity of evolution over a century ago. Anyone hanging on to the concept that evolution might be 'wrong' or even a 'theory' really needs to be led into the 20th century - by force if necessary--
-Nietzche
Nietzche is dead
-God
Stop, you're both right!
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Darwin never extended his observations on animal species to say that humans "evolved". He was specific in saying that his theories applied only to the animal groups he studied on (Madagascar?). It wasn't until after Darwin's time that other scientists picked up his work, proclaimed themselves "Evolutionists" and decided to stir the pot and say that man evolved from ape. Also, I believe that Darwin was a bit of a Christian in that he openly professed a belief in God.
End transmission - Rev. Ishmael
Kansas isn't in the south.....
Actually, there is no real evidence to support the creationist world view. The creationists know this, which explains why they play their hand in the world of politics and not in the world of science as with evolution. If there were any evidence to support their creationist hypothesis', it would be able to stand on its own in fully peer reviewed journals. The fact that it can't speaks volumes about how vapid creationist premises are, and how worthless it is to even spend time trying to repaint the Genesis myth by any other name as some sort of "science". The truly ironic thing about creationism is how much the creationist spin has evolved to try and make it fit in as some sort of science. Don't be fooled. Creationism is not a science, its a religion, pure and simple. There is no evidence to support it.
Further, in so far as creationism represents itself as the majority opinion held by most Christians, creationism is actually not representative of most christians beliefs. Its an extremely marginalized minority belief system not held by most Christians. Even the Catholic church has embraced evolution, and they were one of the last major hold outs of the major sects of Christianity. Many sects of Christianity have biblical proofs for evolution. In short, some Christians hold it as a matter of faith that evolution occured! So to even pretend that Creationism is the "Christian" idea is just not true. Creationism is part of the very fringe of fundamentalism, and is simply not representative of the whole of Christianity. Christians everwhere should be embarassed to even be associated with it. From wild tales of Noahs Ark being full of dinosaurs, to ridiculous assertions that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood, creationism is simply the worst example of pseudo-science out there and should be entertained as nothing more than flim flam at best, and a dangerous sham at worst attempting to indoctrinate one fringe religious belief system into the minds of students everywhere.
--
Python
Python
You call mwillis (the poster you are replying to) a moron, then go on to quote Bart Simpson saying that "secondary education in U.S., ... sucks and blows at the same time." Alas, I think you are way too critical of hasty details in the previous post and pay not enough attention to the central points. Yet, I must agree with your B.S. quotation. ;)
First, note that the cow was dying in a field, not a desert. In any event, I think mwillis was not making the point that the dying cow doesn't leave a fossil but only that they are extremely rare -- which is surely true. [Ed note: the publisher takes no responsibility for the opinions in this comment or for assumptions about what a previous poster might have meant.]
Imagine for a moment that fossils of large animals were not rare. Suppose we had, lying around, fossils of 10% of the large animals that have died in the previous 1,000,000 generations... Ignoring a few exceptions and the buildup of fossils before that, we now have about 100,000 times as many large fossils as live large animals! Yep, fossils are rare alright -- and the "moron" is right about the cow. If you doubt it, check out some old farmland where many cows died of natural causes.
Of course, ancient fossils in good shape will be far rarer than recent ones.
So, do you actually disagree with mwillis or are you just giving him a hard time? Did you actually have a relevant point at all?
Geeky modern art T-shirts
ROTC students are probably not messed up enough to commit school shootings. No matter what, in todays society, the "freedom" of keeping a gun does not outway the advantages of getting rid of them. People don't need anything more than basic small arms to protect them selves (if that) and hunters should all use bows and arrows if you hunt for sport (using the term sport loosely) or if you hunt for food then small arms are still probably enough.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
weird...i am atheist and i consider myself right wing ;)
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Yes. You are certainly redefining ignorance. Darwin did not teach or believe evolution. He taught and believed in NATURAL SELECTION, which has been observed to occur within the same species -- where the before and after are still capable of mating and producing offspring. Darwin's theories are sound and proven, and they should be taught in school. But don't attribute this theory or evolution -- for which evidence should be all around but nobody can seem to prove -- to Darwin.
> All I know is that I don't have to come up with scienctific theories to write code... :)
:-)
But the fundamental logical constructs are the same!
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
By and large, I don't think these people are usually qualified educationally to make judgements about what is good science and what is not. If you ask scientific Christians about such things, you get a surprising different response. Check out the American Scientific Affiliation, a group which I believe generally consists of professionals in science who are Christian. They seem practically heretical sometimes from the standpoint of American Christian culture...
He asked a legitimate question. Could you come down from your ivory tower and give a legitimate answer?
...the true geniuses I have met are always able to explain complicated ideas in simple terms.
Asking this question betrays an ignorance of biology and genetics too profound for me to combat here
As it turns out, there is no evolution in Kansas. The entire state is populated and governed by single celled organisms. This is true.
Creationism is no more scientific than Evolutionism - which isn't scientific, for exactly those reasons. You can't prove or disprove either theory, because the subject is outside the realm of empirical science.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either
... when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem.
~
Is that what they are saying? Becuase there is a difference between that and what the article refers to as removing the mandate to teach evolution. Why should that theory be *mandated*? Ahhh yes there was the point...
Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
I learned the Law of gravity, where as the theory of gravity (or rather the mathmatics that describe how one body of mass acts around another) actually didn't hold up to scrutiny, hence the major relavance of the Theory of Relativity from Einstein.
Evolution doesn't explain the creation of species, it just gives a basis for catagorizing them. Oh well, Latin was never mandated but I still have to use it to describe parts of a body.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
No collection of miseducated, conservative, bible-thumping Southerners should have the right to deny children BOTH views (and others) on evolution. Denying children the facts (on any topic) should be a violation of human rights. See "How To Mutate and Take Over the World" by R.U. Sirius and St. Jude.
The same goes for denying sex education and other similar subjects. Misinformation and ignorance is the most damaging thing a school system or society can impose on young minds.
What is ironic is that Stitchley has become that which he hates. He is just as fanatical and vengeful as religious zealots, yet because he doesn't believe in God, his opinion is superior. The zealots we're discussing are in the habit of machine-gunning total strangers. When we see Stitchley follow suit, then I'll take you seriously. You're misjudging this guy as badly as you say he's misjuging you.
Sure there is: General relativity.
Bad example, in at least one aspect -- they're a deliberate hybridization of European honey bees and African honey bees, hence the occasional phrase Africanized killer bees. The reason? The more docile European honey bees produce less; the obvious hope was to get docile bees that produced more. Unfortunately, they also got the more aggressive behavior.
That wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't escaped from confinement, or if we had predators that would cheerfully start munching on 'em, or something else that would balance them out w/o decimating the rest of our Apis mellifera friends.
A better example of natural selection might be the classic case of moths in Industrial Revolution-era England, where the distribution between moths of the same species but with different color schemes varied in with pollution levels, in a sensible way (dark moths are harder to see on soot-covered trees, and get munched less, and vice-versa). It's not speciation, 'tho.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I used to be a Fnorg, but switched to Gog after college. Never looked back since.
**>>BELCH
Sigh....... What's next, religous right wing extremists shooting Jewish children to "wake America up?" Oh wait, what's this on the news? Sigh..
Trust me.
Last time I checked, a typical school environment doesn't reflect the 'real world' in any shape or form. It is an artificial environment whose rules are for the most part barbaric and neo-fascist. (Note that I'm not talking about the administrators and teachers. Those are other rules, and they really aren't in control, anyway).
There are many places and opportunities to learn about other people and social skills. In the real 'real world' for instance...
jf
Ummm... None? One?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking... The first flowers were (and are, in the case of grasses) just a specialized part of the plant, which means that the first flowers had all the same pigments as the rest of the plant. Of course, this means that they were green. Not an exciting color, but a color nonetheless. Of course, chlorophyll isn't the only pigment in a plant. Chlorophyll isn't even the only photosynthesizing pigment in a plant! (the other one, which I can't remember the name of, is purple). Not to mention a multitude of other pigments that are in a plant but are usually overwhelmed by the green.
Essentially, the answer is that flowers have always been colored, even before the advent of petals. While the colors may not be what we typically think of when we think of flowers, the fact remains that from the very start there have been a variety of pigments available to plants. Of course, once you have a pigment, mutations can occur that change the properties of the pigment, resulting in a change of color.
This is a good question and I feel it is good to not be so arragant and just believe what is popularly accepted.
There are other arguments also that reveal flaws in the theory of evolution. For example, the sun continues to decrease in size at a steady rate. If we consider the amount of time that evolution was said to have begun, the sun would have been larger in diameter than the orbit of Earth today. This means that gravitational pull and many other physical factors such as heat would not have allowed for an even remotly simular environment to today's.
However there is so much we don't know, and that's kind of what I'm getting at. The sun may have been decreasing in size faster at one point or something, or anything for that matter. The truth is the Universe is far to extensive for us to know.
I believe it is impossible for us to understand where we came from scientifically. Science is the mere analysis of elements we gather and seperate from our senses.
Don't be so quick to call a religious person ignorant, because if you think about it, you believe a lot of things with little ground to.
Have you ever been to Antarctica? Do you believe it exists? How do you know? You don't, you just believe....
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
A hybrid is any individual who carries disparate versions of the gene for a particular characteristic. What you're talking about, is "transitional form", (i.e. what the theocrats call the "missing link.") Well links abound, including such specimens as australopithecus, homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo sapiens neanderthalis. Evolution and natural selection are observable in some species within weeks or months (look at bacterial mutation in developing drug resistance, for an example.) Jesus H. Christ! (The "H" stands for "Haploid.") -jcr
Let's face it: The *ONLY* reason today's "intellectuals" insist on beleiving and teaching evolution is because they don't want to believe in God. And apart from God, evolution is the only possible way we could exist, faulty as it might seem. That's it.
There. I said it. Flame me.
that education logo has never been more appropriate. "Teacher, why does 2+2=5?" "Because God created it that way"
I completely disagree with you... I dont believe that the current set of Scientific theories are completely valid and never will be. They are used until a better explanation comes along. As for Evolutionism (if thats really a word whatever) it is one of the better theories for how and why populations change over time
;).
1. It is guided by natural law;
Yep someone looked at different dog breeds and wondered if perhaps a long time ago all birds were a lot more related than they are now, etc.
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law
The strong survive, the weak die. If a certain breed is better than another it will survive. Thus the death of 286s everywhere.
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
You can certainly test whether things evolve. Put a batch of bacteria in a highly toxic environment and a new breed of bacteria will be created that can live in that environment comfortably. Its even repeatable! Put a bunch of stupid board of education members in a room, have them make stupid decisions, watch the board of education get disbanded and the rules overturned due to the highly toxic environment of Kansas inhabitants not wanting to look back water.
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word;
Yep.. Evolution is just a place holder for some more complex theory that will probably be replaced some day. The theory of gravity isnt infallable either. If you are going at near light speed gravity wont make you go as much faster (without taking into account relativity) as the 9.8 m/s^2 would tell you.
5. It is falsifiable
Yep... Just have to have god come down and turn me into a sex god. That would convince me that Creationism is the better model since theres no way in hell ill ever evolve into one
Open Note to Kansas State Board of Education:
Effective immediately, all board members are hereby terminated for gross incompetence. Please clean out your desks and vacate the premises by 17:00 local time. Remaining on Board of Education property after 17:00 will be treated as trespassing, and local law enforcement will be summoned.
Elections for replacements for the vacated posts will be held during the upcoming general elections in November.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Uhhh, it is possible to live in Kansas and be too poor to move away or to send your kids to private school. Oh well, poor kids don't really need to learn everything they can about biology, anyway.
This is a really deep topic. To really dive right into the subject we must pull other references into sight to argue these precious ideas. Students must not strive to figure which one it is nor does it matter. Allow me to demonstrate from past modes of great and thrilling experiences. I subscribe to you these two questions... Less Filling or Tastes Great? That is all for you lesson. Homework is in the fridge I suggest you get started immediately. After consumation you will be more enlightened to throw the whole entire concept of evolutionism vs creationism right out the door.... Until next time..... Professor Miller
Hello,
I am from Kansas (I just go to school in Massachusetts) who has a little bit of insight into this situation. The board of education is a powerful governmental institution whose members are elected by statewide ballot in Kansas. Unfortunately, this is an election that noone pays any attention to. The Christian coalition noticed this and proceded to find very very right wing candidates to run as republicans for the open seats several years ago.
Kansas is predominantly Republican (that's an understatement) and on the ballot you can just pick a straight ticket as one of your options, so many people just picked the repulican candidates and WHAM! half of the state board of education has a very fundimentalist viewpoint.
I'm not surprised at all with this latest move by such an esteemed body, next they'll probably require creationism to be taught and physics to be banned. I'm glad I got the heck out of that state.
The one problem with Darwinism that perplexes me is the fact that there aren't any hybrids (half man/half ape) around. Okay, some may dispute this with examples such as Jesse Berst. :) Just wondering how the Darwinists resolve this issue.
I am a Christian, however I believe that what happened in Kansas is sad.
I have legitimate questions with evolution. For example, how does a pool of proteins become a highly organized living cell, capable of absorbing nutrients, processing nutrients into useful energy, excreting wastes, reproducing, defending itself against hazardous materials, etc.? Or how does all this matter and energy come from nothing? That seems to be a direct contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics - that energy is not created or destroyed. (no, I didn't learn this a Bible study - reasoned it out from biology, physics, and chemistry at UC San Diego)
However, I believe that what happened in Kansas is sad.
Jesus did not come with a political agenda for the world. When Jesus came to the world, there were those who thought that He was going to overthrow the government and establish a kingdom on earth. Those people were sorely mistaken. They often asked Him questions having to do with the political situation in that time, and Jesus would always answer them by saying to yield to the government that exists.
These people in Kansas, like many other people today that call themselves Christians, have made it their mission to change the government that they live in and try to establish what they believe would be God's political agenda. However, Jesus' mission on earth was to save people from sin and not to establish any sort of political change. People that call themselves Christians (or followers of Jesus Christ) should also follow His teachings, and work for the salvation of others instead of their own political agendas.
This really amazes me. The inmates are running the asylum, I guess. I really don't get why these creationists are so sure that the Bible says that evolution can't have taken place. Denying the validity of evolution, and furthermore denying the right to evaluate its validity to students, is ridiculous and dangerous. The evidence for evolution is even stronger than for other widely accepted theories, but its imagined threatening quality makes it the target of people who can't tolerate the idea of humans and apes having a common ancestor.
Give it up, guys! Take a trip to the Galapagos and look at the finches!
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
This is a really deep topic. To really dive right into the subject we must pull other references into sight to argue these precious ideas.
Students must not strive to figure which one it is nor does it matter.
Allow me to demonstrate from past modes of great and thrilling experiences. I subscribe to you these two questions...
Less Filling or Tastes Great?
That is all for you lesson. Homework is in the fridge I suggest you get started immediately. After consumation you will be more enlightened to throw the whole entire concept of evolutionism vs creationism right out the door....
Until next time.....
Professor Miller
Was it banned from being taught, or is it just no longer required? The story didn't seem to say... Maybe I missed it.
The thing which makes one animal a different species from another is the fact that the two animals cannot interbreed. Two animals who occupy the same niche will compete, and their populations will reach a dynamic equilibrium or one will drive the other to extinction, out of the area, or into another niche. Equilibrium happens, though...
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
Get these godless whores out of our schools! Save the children from eternal damnation! The bible is the word of god, and every line of it is from god!! Burn the books. Shoot the artists and scientists. Burn the heretics at the stake!!! It is time to return to that old tyme religion! Praise god and let's take back this nation for Jesus!!
(for the few dimwits out there, I was being sarcastic)
---Got Coffee?---
(As I recall them)
"In the beginning, God created idiots. That was just for practice. Then he created school boards."
Mark Twain also had a simple explanation for the success of creationism over science (in the political arena)
"A lie will make it halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on."
It takes a creationist only about 15 seconds to misquote/misrepresent material from a scientific journal article. But it can take an evolutionist all afternoon to track down the article in a university library and explain to a lay audience just where the creationist went wrong.
Flames can be sent to rwm@abac.com -- (fundamentalist hate mail can be quite amusing to read.)
No state ever actually ratified such a law. IIRC, one chamber of one state passed a law which defined an official value of "pi," but it actually contained multiple, mutually contradictory definitions for the value of pi. No one is really sure, since the language was unusually florid. The article also suggested that the bill was treated about as seriously as the current "debates" over the official state dinosaur fossil.
:-)
Besides, even if a state does define PI=3 it only hurts itself as all wheels turn into hexagons and commerce bumps to a halt.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I kinda doubt it's evolution, but something is amyth in Kansas.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Hell you already export them, I'm in France and 3 days ago two American mormons rang on my door. We got McDonald's, reality shows and now THAT ! Keep your garbage in your country please ;-)
4 words, no swears and MASSIVE FLAMAGE!
Brilliant.
**>>BELCH
yes, i hid the money in the old mine shaft...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Few people seem to have noticed that the going-ons in Kansas are
entirely consistent with the country's current understanding of the
separation between church and state. The understanding, it appears, is
that religion has no place being "established" or promoted by the
government. But that is exactly what happens when evolution is taught in
schools.
As Johnson pointed out in Darwinism on Trial, the evidence for evolution
is very shakey. It takes a tremendous amount of antecedant bias to
regard evolutionary theories with the confidence that we do today. The
popular platitudes have little substance. Survival of the fittest? On
examination, the phrase is really a tautology, a way of saying the same
thing twice. Something survives because it is fit. It is fit because it
survives. Duh. Natural selection? Many biological structures do not lend
themselves to gradual evolution in a way that enhances survival in
intermediate forms. The human eye is a complex structure that is vastly
different from more primitive eyes of other animals. An eye that almost
works, like code that almost works, is useless. The bird feather is an
intricate thing that offers no utility in intermediate forms (if any
ever existed). Fossil evidence? Even Darwin did not think fossils could
prove his theory. Tons of bones later, there is a poverty of evidence
towards gradual macroevolution. So now we get punctuated
equilibrium. First we are told that evolution happens so slow we cannot
see it. Now we are told that it happens so fast we cannot see it. The
constant: we cannot see it. It's deep magic.
Few theories have had so much effort thrown towards proving it true. Few
theories have been so closed to question, or so little rigor. Ridicule
and dogmatism suppress dissent. It is hard enough to make a strong
argument for evolutionary theories. It is even harder to do so to school
children. It should come to no surprise that teachers resort to teaching
evolution as dogma, ignoring all nuances or problems. The problem is
this: the situation reflects a bias towards secular humanism. When
science is held hostage to an ideology, then a case can be made that the
stuff taught at public schools is geared towards pushing a humanist
religion and/or the suppression of other religions. This, according to
the establishment clause, is unconstitutional.
I hope to see an improved debate arising out of this situation. Talking
about creationist "science" or bashing religion or the religious only
clouds the issue. Rather than to resort to dogmatism, ad hominen
attacks, ridicule or caricaturing arguments against theories of
evolution, perhaps we can see a debate based on the theories on their
own merits.
Evolution itself is based upon completely unscientific principles. It is one of t he few facets of science that can only be proven by assuming the point you are trying to prove. The concept of evolution not only goes against the Bible, its also goes against biology, thermodynamics, and flat-out common sense. Its really sad that so many people here it associated with the word "science" and assume it must be true.
Can't recognize sarcasm when we see it can we? I've got a modest proposal for you....
Back in high school my biology teacher spent equal time talking about all the different theories of our origin. Evolution, Creation, the "big-meteor-that-had-some-life-on-it" theory, even this garbage theory (you know when you close a garbage can for a few days and magically some flys appear when you open it back up.) It was great and there were no flaming discussion in the class. eh.. my 2 cents anyway :-)
Theocracy rears its ignorant head in Kansas. This is why we need to abolish public education. As long as there's a monopoly on schooling, people with evil intent will try to use it to indoctrinate children into all kinds of idiocy. -jcr
Well, most people where I live (Lawrence, KS) are outraged. Mr. Roth probably just had a heart attack, he's like 80 years old. If your state is in need for some Christians, we've got some unwanted ones here.
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!
Morons, all of them.
OK, maybe they can argue that teaching Evolution might deter one's faith in God, but it is JUST A THEORY. It hasn't been proven any more then the existance of God has been proven. Next they're going to start trying to teach the Creation Story.
Beh.
And my Mother wonders why I don't go to church any more....
- Riboflavin
I wear pants.
I live in Kansas and go to Kansas State University, and I am not surprised about this. It is all about people not wanting to change and trying to hold everyone else back in the process. Some people will not accept the truth. 99.9% of the people in the state are absolutely normal,however the .1% that are very well organized can make the minority view heard and sometimes followed by the majority.
What is sad is that this will in the end will only hurt the children of these people. More than likely this ruling will be quickly overturned by the unorganized majority and a more modern circulum will be established, which in turn will force these missguided parents to have their children home school. When these children finally do go into the world on there own after they are 18 they will be surprise with a world they are not capable of being a contributing member of. They will only continue the cycle of ignorance(being missinformed) and teach their children the same missguided beliefs.
This is the fanaticism that can turn violent if society doesn't look out. Just look at this site to see fanatism by Fred Phelps.
I am posting anonymous because these fanatic can and WILL make life difficult for people.
I'm not sure that they are fully ruling out evolution or removing it from the curriculum . . .since this article (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol2.htm) seems to merely imply that while evolution is not removed from the system, it is being given equall time with those wacky religous theories.
Hmmm. Anyway, the way religion is acting here makes Nietzche's Antichrist seem astonishingly accurate.
Evolution is overwhelmingly the best theory we have for the origin of species. However, given that:
It could be that evolution is just more than our public schools can reasonably handle right now.
Instead, focus on teaching critical thinking skills (another area in which our public school system has a spotty record), and provide enough of a factual background (DNA and such) that college intro to biology courses have a foundation on which to discuss evolution.
Which isn't to say that many of the specific evidence that supports evolution shouldn't be taught. For example, by all means discuss radioactive dating in geology; that area is not only absolutely solid science, but should be easily comprehended with a high school education.
If you think I'm wrong about this, by all means say so. I'd love to think that evolution is a high-school-level topic. But given that colleges these days are having to teach basic algebra, I'm not so confident.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
You thought wrong. The sheer number of ignorant religious zealots, everywhere, never ceases to amaze me. Religious zealots don't bother me. Ignorant religious zealots do. On second thought, anybody who's ignorant pretty much annoys me.
Apparently they are only devolving there. Must be that flat countryside that does something to their perspective.
Next on the Kansas legislative agenda: Round Earth is a myth.
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
The funny thing is, to beleive a creationist is to beleive that we actually may have been created in a lab somewhere by extremely advanced aliens.
No... now we are in the state of Denial!
What ever happened to separation of church and state? What are they going to teach now? I can see them banning teaching we were put here as some sort of grand alien experiment, but banning evolution? Where have these people been for the past 200 years. I can see including creation as another theory, but not excluding one. Its like trying to explain how the dinosaurs dissapeared(although everyone knows that BIll Gates had them killed). There are many theories on the topic, but nobody knows for sure. So, they teach many different explanations. How hard is that? Its all a mild form of trying to control the minds of America's youth. What ever happened to forming your own opinion? Present the facts and let people decide for themselves what is true and what's not. Don't dictate what we are allowed to know. Jesus, these people need to open their eyes a little bit.
-------------------------------------------- Don't hit a man with glasses, use your fist!
Ok, obviously the division here is between creationism vs. evolutionary theory, right? Wrong. The division is between the plain, ugly truth, and the polished up, watered down "fact" posturing that proponents of both evolution and creationism are guilty of. I hate to tell you this, but evolutionary theory, as it is taught up to the graguate level, has holes you could drive a truck through. So does creationism! What makes me think I've any right to say this? Well, I worked for it. Lots of studying of both side's arguments, logical deduction and strict scientific theory. That being said, I don't want to argue with anyone, because right now I cannot say with any sort of integrity that either side is right! If you really want to know the truth, you have to search it out for yourself. My belief: this is one area where we all just need to take a reality check and admit that WE DONT KNOW.
Even though this is soothing news in that it proves that americans are stupid, it's really hard to think that americans are really ***THAT*** stupid...
So, my question is: are americans ***REALLY THAT*** stupid????
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
Before the flame rage begins below this one... To address the question more directly, if you ask the question of what happened to the little pieces in between evolutional steps, there are a lot of things to consider.
;)
First of all, think about what a species eats. If there is an evolutional step in an animal that causes it to survive more succesfully, why havn't all of the steps before that one been extinct? There are many factors to this, like food, and habitat. The migration of a species evolving to another climate, while it predecessor survived somewhere else could be on argument. So who knows? No one, that's the point
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
Funny... ON the issues that bug me the most, mainly dealing with taxes and how much money to throw at whom, I generally think of the two parties as extreem far left wing and far left wing.
But what do I know?
Quack
This is well thought out, and very informative. Kudos. This is much more what I like about Slashdot.
~ ~^~~^~
Its this background that good teachers teach as science. You are also one of the first to explain that religion does work off evidence also. To often, and I don't know exactly why, but religion is sumarily dismissed as people without a brain, much like Regan supporters in the 80's and Clinton followers in the 90's.
Truth is more along the lines that everyone believes what they want to believe. And for the most part most people want to believe whats true. Why do we spend this effort to know and find these laws that already exist? To predict and plan a succesful future. This is the engineering side of Science, and what pure research ultimately results in.
But to begin engineering, you need to have a goal. This is essentialy "something you want." I wish I could put it succinctly, but notice that circle? You want something, you apply laws that predict success in what you want? First you have to find out those laws.
Why is this important? Because Science not only has a blind spot, but it has blinders. Science can only see what it wants to see. if you do an experiment, you will only gather the information you are looking for. You are looking for it because you wanted to see it.
Evolution was based on this. Darwin went out to look for a more scientific (which to many means simply Godless, but not to me) way for creation. He took what he found and packaged it as a way of creation. Problem is it doens't explain it at all. We will some day find out the answer, but evolution isn't it. We know enough to say that.
Simply put, evolution doesn't explain the fact that mutations inside of species happen very slowly. Yet the mutations between so called species happen in the millions very quickly, or by whole Quantum, all at the same time. We don't have just a missing link. We have nothing but missing links!
Radical changes in the environment are used to explain such changes, yet it is a stretch. It is more a patch on evolution rather than a theory or law. Its a stop-gap. Other stop gaps have come and gone.
The bottom line is that the Kansas Scool Board has decided that there is enough "evidence" against evolution to warrant suspending the mandate teaching it. Its all scientific.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
Theorems are not all proven to be true. Witness Fermat's last theorem, to use a famous example. I think it is now proven, but for a long time it was not - people were trying to prove it, but hadn't yet. And they called it a theorem.
Another example: the four color map theorem.
And the x=x example is true by definition, because we have defined the symbol of two parallel horizontal line segments (=) to mean equality. Other axioms work in a similiar way, being true by the very definition of the symbols they use.
One other thing I forgot to mention: a theory is not exactly a hypothesis - a hypothesis is an educated guess made before an experiment is performed. The purpose of the experiment is to prove/disprove the hypothesis. Therefore, hypotheses are written as very simple, provable or disprovable statements. Theories are general explanations to explain phenomena, and stand until replaced by a better one.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
So you think it's no big deal that we evolved purely by chance?
Go to your Linux box and type this:
$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/runme bs=500M
The chance that all the conditions were perfect on their own for us to exist is about the same probability that this command just created an office suite executable that will beat the crap out of M$ Office!!!
I love it...
Okay, the totally nutso religious version of me time.
First off, let me explain my views on religion, so nobody is totally offended by my words after this. I believe that each person has the right to their own beliefs and systems, no matter who they are. No person, system, agency, or entity has the right to so much as question any others beliefs. This is morally and ethically WRONG. I am NOT Christian, my religious views if explained in detail would draw MUCH flak. Let's leave it at the fact that it is against my religion to say the pledge of allegiance.
That said... Call the ACLU *NOW*!
The Kansas School Board is hereby on my 'I wish you worthless scumbags would CURL UP AND *DIE*' list. They are BELOW humans; below the species from which we evolved, though I doubt a single one of them knows what species that is.
This is a blatant violation of the right to freedom of religion. They are now forcing their religious views upon thousands of students. They have banned something that was determined to be a *federal* requirement decades ago. They are turning their children into ignorant fools who I couldn't ever hire with a clean conscience, knowing that their education is so greatly lacking in science.
As I understand it, they have banned all educational topics relating to evolution period. Now, I don't know about you, but learning about how the human species evolved from apes is a pretty damned humbling experience, and a necessary one as far as I'm concerned. And now teachers have lost the option of teaching it.
Kansas will now be churning out uneducated, unqualified, ignorant children that will grow into ignorant adults, who won't be fit for a good many jobs simply because they lack basic knowledge.
A blatant violation of the freedom of religion that the constitution and bill of rights gives us all.
May you hypocrite school board members in Kansas burn in hell, and were it not illegal, I would even consider helping you along your way there. You are hypocrites. Do you know what a hypocrite is? It's someone who preaches one thing, and does the exact opposite. And every last one of you is a hypocrite, members of the Kansas School Board who supported this absurd and blatantly illegal policy.
I can already see you getting your bibles and your best excorsists, headed out to my home, you worthless hypocritical scum. Go right ahead and try it. Sue to find my identity because you can't handle the truth. Do whatever you want, and know that no matter how much you do to hurt me, you've still hurt your children over a hundred times worse.
Thanks for attempting to insure the corruption, destruction, and failure of an entire generation, but no thanks.
Hopefully your voting public will take note of this idiocy next election, and be kind enough to show you all the door. Quite permanently, as well, I hope. May you all go back to your 2 room churches in the boonies preaching tales of brimstone and fire for not hating every person like me. And may you never be heard from publically again.
-RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH
your company here.
shelby != ford
When evolution is proved, Kansas will reconsider. Until then science will continue, and eventually prove it, right? I've got no problem believing in microevolution. And not to anger people, but I also happen to believe in creation. Faith is faith, science is science. When science proves evolution, it won't take faith to believe it. When science legitimately disproves creation, I'll be done with faith. (I can feel the flames coming now.)
And before anyone picks up on this:
I'm NOT homeschooling my daughter for religious reasons. I personally don't like the US school system and feel that my family and I can do a better job than the school system did for me.
And yes, she will take achievement tests.....
jf
Actually, that evolution occurs on some level is fact and is demonstrated by bacteria, viruses, insects, and probably a few other short lived life forms.
Evolutionary theory extends these observations to apply to living things with longer life spans where we cannot directly observe evolution. It also attempts to explain the mechanisms for evolution. Evolutionary theory is constantly being refined and adjusted because the current dataset is very small relative to the coverage of the theory. We have not unearthed all available fossils, or observed all the life currently on this planet by a long shot everytime something new is found it might not fit the current theory and it has to be adjusted.
Look at how Newtonian Mechanics gave way to Relativity which was extended by Quantum Mechanics. And Quantum Mechanics will eventually give way to an even more unified theory which combines Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Yet, we still teach Newtonian Mechanics in school. So, the argument that because Evolution has holes, it shouldn't be taught, should logically extend to Newton and Einstein. Yet, I can't imagine anyone saying Newton or Einstein should not be taught in school.
Dastardly
I know of little science that is more likely to be true than what Darwin came up with. To me, he made the biggest contribution to science of all, and I'm not in any way a biologist or related topic person. The term "ignorance" is being redefined once more.
OK,
perhaps I misworded my original post. Where I grew up, extreme right wing == christian coalition. I am not a political science student, just a lowly mathematician. I have no views about the republican party as a whole. However, I do question the voting masses of Kansas that check the republican box without learning a thing about the candidates involved.
Nobody campaigns for State Board of Education in Kansas, the christian coalition was able to find candidates to get the republican nomination because without anybody even asking much partly because nobody seeking those spots. (as little attention as is paid to these offices on the statewide election, less is paid at the primaries).
Then comes the thing that gets me every time. Nobody stopped to even check what these people's views were before they voted for them on election day. I have asked several of my friends if they voted for or against the poeple currently on the board and many of them simply responded that they voted republican.
I have no problems with your views or with the republican party as a whole. I did think before I posted my original comment, however I think like a mahematician, not a politician. I perhaps do not understand the definitions and terms of this political game, but I do know how these people got elected and few Kansans will tell you that they think they represent the majority viewpoint.
Once again, sorry to have offended, but I believe that obscured by my clumsiness with language was a worthwhile insight.
PS please do not resort to name calling when questioning my viewpoint, it significantly decreases the chance that a constructive discussion will result.
Before this turns into some big evolution debate, try reading the talk.origins
FAQ
Not that it will help. sigh.
Problem is, most part of science fall into your category 1). The bible says that the universe is less than 10000 years old. Does that mean we have to remove all references to things before this period in teaching ? Does we have to remove images of earth where it appear round and not flat ? Or pictures of the solar system because the earth doesn't appear to be the center of the universe ? Science and religion don't mix, we have to choose one or the other, there's no safe in-between or compromises.
USA is going to be the next Iran, a country ruled by religious zealots.
I object to the use of the term "fact". A "fact" is an irrefutable observation, such as the sun rose at 5:38AM EST on 8/12/99 at X lat, Y lon. I believe in the _theory_ of evolution. In science, there are only observations and theories. We make observations and then we devise theories that fit as many of the observations as possible. Occasionally, a good theory is found that fits an overwhelming majority of observations, and then we accept it to be valid. That doesn't mean it is irrefutable or that it explains every observation. Look at the Newtonian theory of gravity. For a long time people declared it was the leading theory since it fit all of the relevent observations. Then we got smarter and in the early 20th century we made observations that were inconsistent with it. General relativity is now the leading theory in the field, and recently we have started making observations that are inconsistent with it too. BTW, comparing evolution to the earth rotating about the sun is comparing apples and oranges. The earth rotating the sun is an observation. We use it and similar observations to support the theories of planetary motion, based on gravity and later on relativity. Gene mutation is also an observation. We use it to support the theory of evolution.
Saying "Thermodynamics says that things progress from order to disorder. Ergo evolution is impossible." is like saying "Theories about magnitism say that opposites attract, therefore homosexuality is against nature!"
Obviously completely unrelated topics.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Last night was the last time I spend any time in Kansas. Had to go to the Ministry concert (Ha! Is that ironic or what? But hey, they did play Jesus Built My Hotrod and Psalm 69). I figured it was my duty to attend. Trust me though, it is the last time that idiotic state is getting any of my tax dollars.
Mister programmer
I got my hammer
Gonna smash my smash my radio
Question: What do you people think of the theory/hypothesis that says that the speed of light started out infinite at creation and has been decreasing exponentially ever since?
I know, I've been through physics classes and I know that c is supposed to be constant from all vantage points. But is it PROVEN? There's a lot of weird science out there we don't have any clue about yet.
Basically, if this were true, it would pretty much remove all barriers to belief in creationism. It would explain the light from stars billions of light years away and the billion+ year old rocks. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that 6 day creationism is true if and only if this is true. They're pretty much inseperable.
I've heard plenty of people try to knock it down, but not to my satisfaction. Is there conclusive proof that there's no way in the world it could be possible?
Some of the evidence for it (observations made over many years) was quite interesting. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read it.
So Galileo pled his case in Kansas? Wow :)
hum yeah
don't vote republican, is that the best platform the democrats could come up with, well i say lets raise taxes so that even canada will look good. The biggest difference between a democrat and a republican is that the rebublican has common sense.
Notice they have arrows...... This is so you can notice them, and when required, use them.
Oh give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With the Y chromosome changed to X
And when she is grown
My very own clone
She will be of the opposite sex.
Clone, clone of my own
With the Y chromosome changed to X
And when we're alone
'Cause her mind is my own
She'll be thinking of nothing but sex.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You skipped one thing. Hypothesis' are tested. Something is proven when through the reproducable results of experimentation. Therefore evolution cannot be proven neither can any historical event. Gravity and relativistic physics on the other hand can be proven(if they are ever replaced with a different theory it does not mean that you cannot prove something just that the methods used were flawed or incomplete).
By the way I am a Christian, and I no i cannot prove God exists, it is just the most rational conclusion I can come to. Futhermore there are many Christians in the world that would rather die than attempt to force their beliefs on others but still desire to share their faith with others.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
Proofs:
/. - what is this, kindergarten? CmdrTaco should require a minimum age (say, 5) to join the site.
1) The idiots writing "FIRST POST!!" messages in
2) The Neanderthals making laws to stop science, or to stop cryptographic software, or to stop the Sun (who orbits the Earth, I suppose creationists believe this too 'cause it's in that old book) and anything else that cannot be stopped
3) 90% of television's content (to mention only one major offender)
4) All people programming in [insert despicable obsolete language here] who didn't evolve either
Close but not quite. An axiom doesn't really have a truth value, its just something to base a theory on. A theory is just a set of consequences that follow from a given set of assumptions (axioms) by logic. Since the theories' consequences are useless unless all the axioms are true, using the theory implies belief in its axioms, for the particular case under consideration. Every mathematical theory has a shrink-wrap agreement that tells you not to apply it unless YOU believe the axioms in your particular case. The theory itself is truth-neutral.
Euclid's fifth postulate (parallel lines don't intersect) is true relative to planar geometry, but not spherical geometry. That's why you don't use Euclidean geometry to navigate unless you're a flat-earther, and most of them fell off the edge ages ago...
Jim
When I saw the post, I thought that probably Kansas was requiring that evolution be taught as a theory that hasn't been proven (which it hasn't), rather than as the absolute facts.
Then I read the article.
Yes, the creation vs. evolution debate does involove religion. However, that isn't the whole point of it. I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution (progressive Creationism). The truth is, there is evidence to both sides of the debate. How can we expect people to be able to understand the debate without presenting all the evidence for both sides of it? This standard amounts to nothing more than the Kansas school board dictating beliefs to students while ignoring facts.
When I was in sixth grade, my teacher spent a whole semester teaching us about the debate. Our grade for the semester was based on a paper we wrote, supporting one side, or the other (sadly, the idea that parts of boths theories could be true wasn't even presented). In the process, I learned a great deal about the scientific method, how to find info in scientific journals, and how to look for bias in research. While my teacher did teach some shaky ideas (such as the idea that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution), a great deal was learned by all. More important than learning the facts about the debate, we learned a lot about how to think for ourselves, and not trust every view presented just because it's "in a book."
I shudder to think about how many (or few, I should say) people coming out of the Kansas school system will have any idea about how to think for themselves.
So now you tell me states like Kansas are churning out morons. Excuse me, but this comes as no suprise to anybody. Any job that requires half a brain will most likely NOT be filled by somebody with little to no deductive capabilities, let alone educated by Kansas' educational department. Don't forget this is coming from the same kind of rocket scientists who claimed that there was no way to prove that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system and excommunicated Galileo for heresey. To them, even simple things like the lightbulb are mysterious, the inner workings of which can ONLY be described to them with the simple, patronizing phrase "trust me, it works because God says so, have faith". That answer satisfies all of their curiosities. They have no interest in other explanations. Their credibility? Zero. Best case.
Comming from someone who believes in god, and from a (somewhat) social conservivitive, this is not good.
Another interesting case is in saskatawan, where the courts decided that saying the lords prayer was illagal, it shocked me that a school board would even try make its students pray.
What happened to seperation of church and state, i would rather have my freedom of religion than to try and force people to believe in god, oh well, i don't even like the idea of catholic school boards.
Undergraduates don't really study science, at least not at first. They learn a just-so version of science, to prepare for the real thing. (For example, they learn a fanciful version of "the" scientific method, the limitations of which they will recognize only much later.)
High schoolers get a just-so version of this just-so version of science.
Given the subtlety of the issues raised by evolution, it makes sense to put it off until college -- just as we don't expect high schools to seriously discuss quantum physics.
You can be a good citizen (which seems to be the goal of high school education) without knowing much about either evolution or physics. On the other hand, you can't fashion a responsible, comprehensive view of the world (the goal of high-quality undergraduate education) without this kind of general knowledge.
I doubt Kansas college freshmen will be at a real disadvantage in relation to others who've been indoctrinated into a "just-so" version of evolution.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
Repent now, sinners!
"Apes evolved from creationists."
oh yeah, and,
"The gene pool needs some chlorine."
okay, and,
"People who think human beings can't devolve would do well to remember that poodles came from wolves." -me
Guess that's it -
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
I'm quite dissappointed in Slashdot's science moderator today. As one who is very interested in Science, as one who considers himself a hacker, I find it very disturbing that Hemos would spread FUD. One of the classic FUD tactics is to twist a fact until it is no longer true. Kansas isn't saying that teachers CAN'T teach evolution. From Cnn.com:
"The Kansas education board's vote means individual schools can continue to teach evolution in science classes, but it removed evolution from the required curriculum. Knowledge of evolution will not be needed to pass state-sanctioned tests."
Now, personally, I would consider that any science teacher that _didn't_ familiarize his/her students with evolution would be doing them a great dis-service, as they would be both ill-prepared for college (where it is universally taught), and ill-prepared for living life in a country where it is the prevailing view. That said, I will also comment that if you don't believe in God (or some other supernatural belief about the origins of life, i.e Islamic, animistic, hindu, buddhist, etc), evolution is the most plausible current belief (yes, it is a belief for many people, as witnessed by the many flames in this forum), but it should not be taught as absolute fact. Consider this, maybe there is some other completely plausible, natural explanation of the origins of life that will be taught in two hundred years that is completely different from evolution. The simple fact is, while evolution seems to make some sense, we really can't teach that it _IS_ the explanation for the origins of life (separation of church and state people take heed: by cramming your theory down students' throats you are doing essentially the same thing that you accuse those who would teach creationism of doing -- you are pushing YOUR world-view. I don't happen to share it; however, I'm happy enough for you to teach it as long as you view it objectively as plausible _speculation_. Many curriculae don't even hint that it might be wrong.)
Look... The special case of evolution known as "Darwinian Natural Selection" is far from proven. In fact, there is not even much evidence for it. What is the difference between "Darwinian Natural Selection" and basic evolutionary theory? Simply put, Darwinian Evolution asserts that all this happened and could happen by chance alone. Other evolutionary theories allow for the possibility of divine intervention.
:)
This theory is scathingly reduxed from a scientific perspective in a book called "Darwin's Black Box". It is by a well known biologist and he pretty much proves (IMNSHO) that darwinian evolution is highly improbable from a scientific perspective.
The problem is that there has been a knee jerk reaction on both sides of this debate. The religionists (notice I do not say Christians) have come up with the absurd concept of Biblical literal innerancy to defend their position and the scientists continue to defend Darwinian evolution.
In both cases there is a knee-jerk reaction that extremists capitalize on. And in both cases there is a silent conspiracy among professionals in the field to keep from confusing the laity. That is, very few Preachers, even very conservative ones, really accept scriptural literal inerrancy in the way a laymen would understand it and very few biologists really, in their heart of hearts, believe in Darwinian selection.
In any case, I think the bottom line is this: God created the world, directly or indirectly. Whether he did it by rolling the dice or waving his magic wand is irrelevant. And I follow him because he is good. (Spare me counter-arguments to God's goodness based on shallow readings of the Old Testament -- I've studied this, deeply, for years and you're wasting your time).
However, I have a real problem with anybody being forced to teach something which might or might not be true. So, I am grateful that the Kansas school board is removing this requirement. Note that these requirements often extend even to parochial and home schoolers!!!
Of course, all this is even more irrelevant in the face of Christ, dead and resurrected to save me from the power that sin has held over my life. But that's another comment
-- Slashdot sucks.
And how about rounding off PI to a nice even three?
:-)
--Scott
-Scott scott@surrealistic.org
Here in Omaha, there has been a continuing debate in the papers and the board of education meetings over evolution. Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either, say the christians. (other religious sects have stayed out of it, or joined the evolution side)
/.
The problem is, the board is buying it. Why? the creationists are saying 'evolution is not a fact. It even says so right in the name! "Theory of Evolution"... If we can't teach the theory of creationism, then that's out too!'. These people actually think that they are right, and the morons on the board are starting to see it that way.
We all expect this of the religious masses... they are simply trying to make sure that everyone believes what they believe. No big deal... but when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem.
Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
Or perhaps a better example, since they say that the theory of evolution can not be experimentally proven (because they have no idea what constitutes an experiment)... How about quantum theory? There are many that think it is plain wrong, that it is incomplete, and that it will soon be replaced. However, they know that it is a GOOD theory and should be taught. Why? because it does a better job of predicting observations than the previous theories. The laser, microwave ovens, genetic sequencing, all would currently be impossible without this theory.. should we stop teaching it because it teaches that there is no-one choosing interactions, that they are chance and statistics? Sure.. why not.
I could go on... these people write in and say "Science has not given us happyness", and then try to argue against teaching "Science" (note how they capitalize it always).. well, I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty miserable if I didn't have
Will the last intelligent person left in Kansas please turn out the lights before you go? The rest of the Kansas natives must be Christian® brain-washed so well as to be completely in the dark. So let's conserve some energy. Ok?
It's an underlying plot to take over the world. We're making stupidity into an airborne virus and plan to conquer the world with it. Kansas is a test site. :) rashad ---------------- DeGualle = the French at their best Chirac = wannabe DeGaulle, sucks big fat toe
Proofs exist only in mathematics. You can test hypotheses by making observations, and you can accept theories until you have observations that contradict them, but you can never prove them.
Double-check the references also.
I have seen a lot of creationist arguments. Not a single one held up for more than a short time against someone who knows evolution well. Many turn out to be simply wrong. (eg The Earth is an open system, exit balderdash about thermodynamics.) Others are bald-faced lies. (It is more amusing to track down quotes from those misquoted about how Creationists misquote scientists than it is to read the Creationist misquotes. Although reading the originals and comparing them with the misquotes is also fun.) Many sound reasonable until you actually know something. (eg How can you really know...scientists don't have any evidence. Um, really? But what about...)
In short, apply your brain and you may be a little less impressed with Creationist tracts.
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
"Now children, this isn't covered in the curriculum, but I wanted to spend a few minutes going over this theory that some scientists have about the reason things fall to the ground. They call this gravity."
"Now, no one can prove gravity exists, since no one's actually seen it. Ever since the state board took gravity out of our science curriculum, there's been a lot of pressure for us teachers to teach the commonly accepted view that objects are attracted to each other in consistent and predictable ways because of magic pixies that live inside everything."
"I just wanted you to know about it, because there are parts of the world where people take this Theory of Gravity to be truth. Now we'll go back to explaining how the Earth is only five thousand years old and how the devil put all those 4-billion-year-old rocks all over the place..."
When I saw the headlines on /. my first reaction was 'WTF... hahahahahhahahahaha" But, obviously somebody has their head screwed on right. "Kansas Gov. Bill Graves, a Republican, warned board members not to adopt the anti-evolution curriculum, and has said he would support an effort to abolish the Board of Education." Anyway, reading the article will clear up quite a few things people are blabbing about right now. I swear, you guys feed off of teensy little headlines like sharks.
...i try to be agnostic, and consider myself an upwinger... :)
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
A decision like this basically means that evolution theory is not reuired teaching anymore. It means that students, who have problems with the evolution theory (most likely their parents..) will not be required to learn things they find offending, simply to able to pass statewide tests governing the quality of education.
But there is more at stake here, then simply biology, astronomy is at stake to, the light of stars in galaxies far away (millions of light years) is also millions of years old, rather in conflict with the creation of the universe five to then thousand years ago (depending on who you ask) by a Supreme being.
Geology, which finds that the earth is not a mere 10'000 years old, but shows that with the scientific evidence found today (the gps measurements that have determined the velocities at which the continents move, the dating of minerals, by radiogenic decay etc.) can reconstruct the earth as it looked > 500 Million years ago. Oil and gas is found in places which with their current climate, never could have sustained the amounts of vegetation necessary to create those fossil fuels, fi northern Alaska and Canada and in the Antarctic. Rocks have been determined to hav eages up to 4 Billion years. So now we need to go and censor the geography school books to?
Which others theories should be included, since apparently that is the criterium in this reasoning, evolution theory, the theory of creation. The wide spread belief that aliens exist and were the ones to fertilize the earth? The scientific method is to formulate a theory that agrees with your obeservations. As long as you do not make any observations which contradict with the theory it remains valid. One very scientifically sound method would be:
* read the Bible ==> your theory
* look yourself indoors do not look around ==> no conflicting observations
* theory holds !!
But others have kept their eyes open, and made progress in our understanding of how the world works. That leads to putting a man on the moon, vacination against polio, and other diseases, finding the (ages old) oil to drive your car and that's what shaped the world to what it looks like now. (And all problems associated with that)
I agree that evolution is hard to prove, but it is the theory most consistent with observations of the world around us.
What I think these people (the ones who want creationism incorporated in the curriculum) fear is that the whole Bible is untrue, because it does not completely agree with scientific progress. The thing is, it's not about what the Bible literally says, it is about the ideas contained in it, and the guiding it offers. It should be a positive influence about how to treat other people, with respect and how to lead your spiritual life.
If a trainstation is the place where trains stop, what is a workstation?
The legislature just approved a new state motto here in Kansas: Kansas, the only state where the Earth is still flat.
It also saddens me to see Christians who want to turn America into a theocracy. I don't believe that is our purpose as Christians; I believe our main purpose as Christians is to be helpful and to be a friend to all... to be "selfless", in other words. It would be very sad if America became a theocracy and forced out Atheists and Jews and homosexuals and whatnot... Did you ever learn about 13th and 14th century Spain? If I remember correctly, Isabella and Ferdinand cast out all of the Jews and Muslims in the country. The result: the Spanish economy collapsed! The Jews were the merchants and artisans and comprised the middle class.
What I'm trying to get at is that America does have problems due to its diversity... but diversity (of culture and of opinion) is why America thrives. We need that kind of diversity to keep America running.
As for evolution, I don't think that believing in evolution means that one has to give up God. Now I'm young and I have a lot to learn, but I believe it is possible that God "ignited" the big bang (that removes the issue of the first law of thermodynamics) and then God guided macroevolution which resulted in today's lifeforms. Each of his seven days represented different portions of geological time.
Well anyway, those are my beliefs at the moment, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who would call me crazy (Christians and non-Christians alike)!. Oh well... Thanks for your post, and if you want to email me, just remove the "nopidgeons." from my email address.
If I lived in Kansas, I would promptly leave. I certainly do not want to raise my children in such an environment. I had no idea that any secular education board in the US was so backward as to actually pass something like this.
And this information is being banned at the *university* level? This is truly unbelievable.
--Lenny
Please note - the Second law of thermodynamics requires a CLOSED system, which the earth is not. That bright light in the sky sends energy our way 24 hours a day.
|... because it violates the second law of
|thermodynamics (note: when a theory violates a
|scientific law, the theory is unscientific)
Plus, the 2nd law also states that ENTROPY increases in the closed system. Evolution of species does dictate a change in the Entropy
of that system. They operate on VASTLY different scales.
rbb
so don't go to kansas for your education. Or go to a private school. And it works both ways. If you don't want evolution don't get the govt public schools involved-just go to a private school that doesn't teach evolution.
---
This is Darwin in action. Successful mutations have the advantage. Unsuccessful ones, by definition, become extinct. These jackasses are doing us all a favor and will weaken their gene pool to the benefit of the rest of us...
They are only dropping the requirement that speciation be taught. Speciation is a bunch of crap that has never been explained. Evolution involving mutations within a species (the kind of evolution that can be verified as fact) is still required to be taught.
Any idiot knows we came from Adam and Eve. :wq!
First off, it's eliminated from the cirriculum, that doesn't mean it's outlawed, that doesn't mean it won't be taught (plenty of extra cirricular teaching goes on in most schools) it's simply not required teaching. For a theory, that's not so bad, and hopefully this one will lead to some rationality on both sides of the issue. Your better schools are going to teach it still, as theory, as it is and they should already do. (I'm almost more startled to see how many people are so willing to accept theory as fact, didn't any of you ever study science? The title of fact requires the highest of standards.)
Second, separation of church and state is a two edged sword. Initially the amendment was intended to keep the state out of your church, it wasn't until nearly the 20th century that it was also interpreted to keep the church out of state activities. This is good law if that amendment is taken literally. What I think most of us would expect is some easing up on the whole literal interpretation of it, I think it is perfectly fair for school to challenge religion and for religion to challenge school. If we want to continue to progress as a society some kind of religion awareness or comparitive study class is eventually going to need to make it into the cirriculum. It seems totally fair to me for a kid to be required to take a certain amount of math, bio, english, history, and then know a certain amount about the world's religions. People are discriminated against for more reasons than their color (ie holocaust) and we'll never overcome that so long as religion is a "taboo."
The Kansas jokes are also don't do anything to demonstrate your intelligence. They really just show that you're as dumb if not more so than the people you accuse in Kansas. It's just a huge generalization. You don't support your cause by simply demeaning others, calling them names, vulgarities, being close minded or a general asshole. They are as guilty as anyone who proclaims evolution to be a "fact."
One thing is for damn sure, we won't continue to evolve if people aren't challenged in ways. Accepting thoery as fact is to forget about the challenge of proving theory. This law is a challenge, we should support them for providing it and then rise to the occasion and provide a good solution to it.
They're also trying to teach that the Grand Canyon may have been made from a volcano because the bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old, and a river couldn't have made it in that little of time.
We've got too many of the little buggers running around here, as is. They breed faster than rabbits. Anyone know a good, humane Christian control method? We tried trapping them but they just keep coming back.
From my perils in AP biology sophomore year in high school, I remember that the first few development phases after conception are identical in many species, including humans and frogs. Now why would this be. And about religion, if you look at the development of religions themselves, you'll see that they attempted to explain things than science explains now, such as the old Hebrew view of the world w/ floodgates opening in the great dome of the sky and waters from heaven coming down as rain is now explained by meteorogists in their studies of chaotic weather systems. Question why you believe what you believe, I mean, really question it (concerning anything, including race, gender, religion, science, etc). You'll learn a whole lot. Oh yeah, science is just another religion, it differs in that it enpowers humans w/ ideas of some sort of control.
And what do you do if you have to lead a revolution against a tyrannical government? Or did we all forget why the 2nd amendment exists?
The problem is that lifeforms tend to exterminate other lifeforms which compete for the same resources and are even just a *little* bit less intelligent, strong, fast, whathaveyou.
Not to mention, thanks to sexual selection, advantageous traits spread through a population MUCH faster than would be possible through mutation and asexual reproduction. This is why even simple sexual organisms are much more complex than the most sophisticated asexual organisms.
I suck at html guys. On my other post in this thread, I forgot my P tags, and unfotunately now it's just a mass of text that nobody will read. Perhaps I should repost it formatted correctly.
;-)
And now, judging from the replies to this post, I guess I should have used the SARCASM tag, because people evedently need to see that. Come to think of it, I probably would have needed to forgoe the SARCASM tag completely and used BLINK SARCASM/BLINK instead
BTW, I was not trying to be a troll. I was trying to make people laugh! Oh well.
I need to work on my HTML I guess.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The second law of thermodynamics is a statement about closed systems. Indeed if the Earth was a closed system (eg did not get light from the Sun) then evolution would have a problem. The problems would start with everything starving to death and wouldn't improve much from that.
But lo and behold! We do have a Sun, the Earth is NOT a closed system, and so the Creationist lines about the second law of thermodynamics are complete and utter BS.
Now please get a clue before spouting off again...
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I'm afraid that's entirely too simplistic and convenient an exposition of the issues here. By your logic, we can't ever prove that there was gravity 5,000 years ago because we weren't there to see it. It's a question of a historical event, right? No way to prove anything, right?
Well, that's true. That's actually true. The problem is that it doesn't help us much. We could say that all of the evidence we see today and all the calculations about the past trajectory of planets, etc., are subject to falsification by God or The Devil, but while that's a lot of fun in a sophomore epistemology class, scientists generally accept the notion that the universe isn't actively out to trick us.
Evolution is supported by such an embarrasment of evidentiary riches that it is almost hard to talk about it being tested, in the same way that it's hard to talk about my having been born..
But I'll give it a go. Evolutionary theory is supported experimentally every time any biologist does any DNA sequencing of any organism's genome, it is supported experimentally by the notable fact that babies come from two parents but are not precisely like either of their parents, it is supported by the way in which fast-evolving pathogens (bacteria and viruses) react to the introduction of new antibiotics and genetic resistancies. It is supported by mathematical models that take the known facts of life (a DNA code that is transmitted with imperfections to the next generation) and run simulations on them.
There is so much evidence for the evolutionary theory that it requires a rather awesomely grand amount of evidence to the contrary to be at all convincing. If God comes down and lays it on the line to all and sunder that he's been playing with the dice every time a baby is born, or that he has been deliberately fudging the evidence that we see all around us as an intelligence test, then sure, I'll grant you the point.
And as far as forcing beliefs on others, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone.. I'm just trying to share the evidence. I'm certainly not asking you or anyone else to take anything on faith.
That would be illogical, after all.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I want off this shithole planet before the nuts burn the whole thing to the ground in a self-fulfilling doomsday scenario. It is tragic and unbearable, cowards, but G O D D O E S N OT E X I S T
The theory of evolution is also unscientific, because it breaks a natural law (the second law of thermodynamics).
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
"..About 4,000 years ago, a catastrophic flood wiped out many forms of life on Earth -- The fish were the first to die, follow by the....."
Thats a good point!
If you're a God who wants to wipe out the earth why would you create a flood. Most marine life would survive. That can't be, because that would mean God made a mistake in his logic. Oh and I am damn sure that noah spent only a couple of weeks grabbing two of all the animals in the world to put into a boat. That has to be a hellova large boat. The engineering genious to create that boat would have to be awesome. The logistical genious that went into organising this would have to be stupendous.
It brings me back to the rock argument. If God greated a rock that nobody can lift, could he lift it? Many people would tell you yes, since God can do anything. But then you asked did he fail and they would say no, since he cannot fail! This highlights a critical point, when people talk about God logic does not apply.
Do you want these people running you school district?
---------------------------
^_^ smile death approaches.
First of all, the vermiform appendix is most certainly a vestigial organ. The word "vestigial" means "degenerate from an older form" generally implying that it no longer serves a useful purpose. This appendix does nothing but get infected, and is the uselessly degenerate form of an older organ which was used to digest tougher plants than we eat today. There is nothing in the term "vestigial" that implies that such things are harmless or safe to ignore.
Anyone who told you that medical progress was slowed by lack of interest in the appendix is feeding you a steaming crock of misinformation. Surgeons began removing the appendix within a few years of being able to safely open the abdominal cavity (due to proper antiseptic practices and liquids). Before that, piercing the abdominal wall was considered a death sentence, so surgical treatment of appendicitis was unthinkable. The practice of appendectomy took a few years to become common because initially it was tried as a last resort (there were other, less effective, treatments which were tried first, and doctors tend to be very conservative) and so was done too late and the appendix would rupture and kill its owner.
Secondly, the existence of supernatural forces is ridiculed by definition in science. All forces which exist are natural by definition.
Finally, the scientific method can be applied to the question of materialism vs. spirituality. It obviously can't answer it, so a truly scientific mind must have an agnostic attitude towards religion (as he would towards what the smallest particles really are and whether there are other universes). The mere fact that many famous scientists were and are deeply religious and utterly faithful merely shows that they do not apply their scientific method to that area of thought, either because their childhood conditioning was too strong or because they fear becoming an outcast (or heretic) in their community.
My God is way more subtle and powerful than they can imagine. He created the Universe in a way that permitted stars to form and molecules to eventually self-organize. He don't need no stinkin' props! He created a Universe that doesn't require much maintenance, but if you need a bugfix, and you ask him nicely, he usually comes up with a solution.
As the poster of the parent comment, I thank you. I also wonder whether people actually read the article, and also whether they checked more than one source (MSNBC tends to be very "sensational" in their coverage of news) before commenting. I agree with you about your comments, and your view that all theories should be examined; Absolutely. I have just seen biology, anthropology, and many other disciplines' books base all their arguments on the _assumption_ that (macro)evolution is true, and the origin of both "Life" and humanity. I don't care about the rest of the species, whether they evolved or not, but I can't believe, from the evidence that I've been presented with by the mainstream, that humanity is a by-product of that. I happen to believe that man (and woman) was a special act of creation by God. I find it very offensive that the very people who call me ignorant for believing in God/Creation, aren't willing to admit their own pre-assumptions and biases.
The negation of "all automobiles are blue" would be "not all automobiles are blue", not "all automobiles are orange".. sheesh, where the hell did you come up with that?
...that they are taking out? Or all evolutionary theories? I mean, even staunchly atheistic biologists these days are abandoning Darwinism in favor of other evolutionary theories (Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.). Maybe that's why the schmeal passed...
-Visuchangavu
It should no surprise for anyone considering
the high number of fundies in that area of
the country. Didn't Pat Robertson do very
well in his bid for the presidency in Kansas?
It seems to me (WARNING: agnostic college biology major bias here), that if your faith in God is shaken because of 1 scientific principle with really shows more of the truth and beauty in life, and because it contradicts text written 2000 years ago (or more considering the Old Testament) by men, than you have some problems with your level of faith to begin with.
I find it amusing when creationists decry Evolution (signified with a capital 'E'!) as falsehood, yet they don't seem to have too much problem with physics and engineering! They also LOVE to misuse the Second Law of Thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution, and point at the fossil record with little or no understanding of geology/paleontology. Ah well, I see plenty of scientists whose religious faith (Christian or otherwise) is unshaken due to science, and take strength from the idea that they are exploring a puzzle set out before them by a Higher Power and revelaing its truth to man.
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@maila.wm.edu
Biological evolution is change, over time, in the gene pool of a population.
.. not a theory. Theories make testable predictions. The creation yarn of 1 Genesis does not. Depending on which creationist you listen to, the universe is anywhere from six thousand to fifteen billion years old. Some creationists insist that the Earth is not moving (after all, didn't Joshua command the sun to stand still?) However, these heretics are shunned by those creationists who believe that the Earth is flat. Creationists don't agree where all of the water for Noah's flood came from, nor do they agree upon how it disappeared in some unspecified manner. And it goes on and on. Creationists have come up with all sorts of ludicrous "scientific justifications" for events in Genesis, and .. here's the really funny part .. none of it is consistent with the rest.
That's it.
If you state that such changes are "only a theory", you are lying through the skin of your teeth.
When most people speak of "evolution", they are typically talking about "common descent", which is the application of evolutionary biology to explain the biodiversity of life on Earth through slowly-developing twin-nested hierarchies descending from common ancestors.
This is what chaps the asses of fundies. It is in direct conflict with their literalist interpretation of the Bible. And since they learned long ago that they're not going to get creationism taught in public school, they shifted their focus to attacking the scientific bases for evolution, even though their attacks are ridiculous. They shout nonsense like "Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!" And it plays pretty well to the pew because, by golly, it sure sounds "purty scientifical!" After all, what do Mr. and Mrs. Johnson in the third row know about thermodynamics?
See, here's the thing: "Creation scientists" are full of shit, and I'm willing to bet that almost all of them are fully aware that they're full of shit. But most of the masses that phone in large cash contributions to the Trinity Broadcasting Network don't know this. It doesn't mean that they're stupid, or that they're not good people, it just means that they are uneducated with regards to the issues at hands. "Creation science" is a despicable, deceptive field which relies on repeated lies and misrepresentation of science. It does fairly well today because its adherents either aren't aware that it's lies, or they don't care.
I certainly understand why fundamentalists don't like evolution and common descent. But that doesn't matter. Scientific theories and facts do not stand and fall on the basis of whether everybody likes them or not. There are lots of things that science teaches us that I don't particularly find comforting. I don't like the notion that the Earth could be, at any moment, struck by a large asteroid which would wreak global devastation. I don't lose any sleep over it, but it's not a comforting notion. However, it does me no good to stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming "IS NOT!! IS NOT!!"
So evolution is no longer part of the standard curriculum in Kansas. Big deal. It doesn't mean that it can't still be taught. All it means is that children who graduate from a Kansas high school that decided to forego evolution education are going to be less well-rounded than those children that graduated from schools that have no qualms about teaching things that have been discovered since the Bronze Age.
Finally, to those who would like to see fundamentalist Christian creationism taught in public schools "as a theory", you might want to consider that creationism is a myth
If creationists would like to see creationism taught as a theory in our public schools, then they should present the Theory of Creationism. If they are unable to, then they have no right to teach my children that the universe, which looks as if it is billions of years old, was "poofed" into existence by God six thousand years ago.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I happen to believe in creation but I still don't think evolution should not be taught. It just challenges your ideas and helps to reinforce your beliefs. I also don't think school is the place for religious theories to be taught.
And a theory can never be proven correct, only not proven wrong.
As far as I can tell from the article, they have not mandated that creationism be taught, just made teaching evolution non-mandatory.
IMHO, evolution *is* just a theory, and shouldn't be taught as fact. Many non-religious scientists are questioning the tenets of evolution.
Open your mind.
As a Christian, I fully support teaching evolution in schools. I don't personally believe that "macro-evolution" (the life-from-lifelessness, amoeba-to-man) is a viable explanation for human origins, but I'm also quite clued in on the fact that as yet, there is ABSOLUTELY NO substantive proof for any single theory of the origin of life.
Having said that, I restate: I support the teaching of evolution in schools, provided that it is taught as what it really is: a theory, no more, no less. I support the teaching of creationism with the same caveats.
The talk.origins FAQ (posted earlier) is an excellent take on this long-debated topic, and those who feel the larger ramifications of the Kansas decision merit further rehashing are encouraged to take their opinions to the talk.origins newsgroup.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist', says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But', says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that', and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Wrong. A theorem is proven - just like the Pythagorean theorem. An axiom is something that's generally accepted as true, just because it is - like transitivity, if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
..You were expecting something smart to come from a group of people who intentionally live in the path of tornadoes?
All I ever needed to know about "Creation Science" was from a video we were shown in Biology class back in high school. In order to be fair, we had the evolutionist viewpoint shown to us, followed by the creationist viewpoint on what happened during mass-extinction that occured on earth about 65 million years ago. I laughed so hard that I can remember the exact words of what was said in the video to this day:
"..About 4,000 years ago, a catastrophic flood wiped out many forms of life on Earth -- The fish were the first to die, follow by the....."
Somehow, I have a hard time buying the idea that fish are capable of drowning..
Bowie
PROPAGANDA
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
It is a sad fact about mankind that even in this day and age when knowledge is free and open to anyone, the General Public(TM) (this means you) is still ignorant and dim-witted.
Sorry bout the anonymous posting.. slashdot doesnt seem to be working right. Or my netscape has gone weird on me. Cookies shmookies.
The only evolutionary comparison you can make is to look at which is the best at surviving and reproducing, and that only between two species trying to occupy the same niche. Monkeys like to eat fruits and leaves and live in the tropics, I like to eat meat and grains and live in the temperate zone; there is no scientific comparison you can make between me and a monkey in terms of "which is better". We are not competitors.
Now on to observations. It has been observed, I am told, that the wallabies which escaped into the wild in Hawaii have developed a mutation which allows them to eat some plants which are poisonous to Australian wallabies. Apparently they are also no longer inter-fertile with the Australian species; they have formed a completely new species. You can't deny that the new wallabies are "better" at surviving in the environment of Hawaii; they are better adapted. This has occurred in the space of what, a century? Numerous speciation events have been observed, in the laboratory and in the wild, in insects (especially fruit flies, which have such short generation times that observing them in the act of diverging is vastly easier than any vertebrate). We've watched evolution turn many different kinds of organisms (from bacteria to marsupials) into superior survival machines. And that is all that the theory of evolution predicts.
And piles of DNA, and a growing list of species we see now that weren't there a hundred, or even twenty, years ago... It can't be denied, Mr. AC. It's fact, just like gravity; just like gravity, it cannot be honestly denied. The remaining work is to pry out the details of its mechanisms.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I suggest you all step away from your keyboards for a little while and read a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It is written by a self-proclaimed agnostic, and it essentially demolishes what is commonly called the "Theory of Evolution," by which I mean the theory that we got here by purely naturalistic means with no supernatural intervention. And yes, I have read Dawkins and other evolutionists, and they can't even shine Denton's shoes.
I have no problem with the theory of evolution being taught in schools, as long as the serious problems with it are also pointed out. And to say it has serious problems is an understatement. Do the research yourself, and quit bashing opposing views when you have no idea what your are talking about.
80 years ago religious people were ridiculed for believing that the universe had a beginning. Now the big bang theory is the scientific consensus. Think for yourself, and quit parroting bullshit.
Russ
If you find conflicts, then publish an alternate theory, and give the facts that lead you to that theory. Obviously, with the tiny fraction of fossils that are still studyable, we can't have an example of every generation in the step. If someone assumes that the current believed age of the earth cannot be wrong, they are a moron too just like you. But for you to make the leap that "the timeline seems a little funny" to "some mysterious divine being created life" is simply preposterous.
Ummm... I'd like to know what you meant by that, I would whole heartedly agree that the Bible has been used as an excuse to do some pretty rotten things, but that was not it's intent. If you actually read it (all of it, not cutting out what doesn't agree with your ideas). It does NOT justify genocide, and neither does it support political aims..
Let's give these idiots a reality test here. Christianity involves the rite of "communion", which if I recall correctly, involves the consumption of bread and wine which symbolically represent the body and blood of christ.
Eating the flesh and blood of another person???!!! This ritualized cannibalism!!! How can this be acceptable behavior when the teaching of science is not? Defend your actions you justified rightious cretins!
Flame away...
Yeah, taxes aren't 50%. For my father, this year, they were 55% (I did his tax return, so I damn well know!). Sure he makes $115k, but mom doesn't work. So it evens out with the $62.5k in tax. Thank God I'm gettin' my ass down to the USA ASAP. I hear in Texas, taxes on this amount would be something like 30% to 40%. And good health care is about $5000 - $7000 a year in insurance. Still much cheaper if you make a lot of money! :-)
Canada is a nice country, but we suffer a major brain drain to the US. If you make just a little money here (ie. Statistically you are less educated) you do better in Canada. If you make mucho moola (Statistically better educated), you are better off financially in the US. This leaves us with this: University and College students go to the USA, high school grads and lower stay here. Ohoh, at least we gots the smart people here for now to fix them Y2K problems! But what about the Y2036 (or whatever the Unix date is) problems, with the sure to eventually be lower IQ here?
As far as health care goes, I'd agree, on average, Canada's is better. But, for the "high-paying" man, you get more treatment in the USA. Not more treatment for your dollar, just more is avaliable, if you want to pay for it.
Crime in Canada is still high, and many worry about being stabbed in the streets here. And in Toronto, shot. If you take away the hotspots of crime in the USA (ie. Detriot, Atlanta, LA, etc...), you end up with a lower crime rate. I wonder what the murder rate for Iowa, Virginia, Maine, Colorado etc... is? Lower than Ontario's I'd be willing to bet. And the murder rate would likely be comparable (I must still check!). Remember to divide all US totals by 10 to apply them to Canada (unless they are per capita!). People forget this, and news stations use this often to "boost" Canadian morale. Ie. In the US there were 10,000 crimes involving a handgun, while in Canada there were just 1,200 crimes involving a knife (not accurate, but guns to knives is how TV stations compare...).
Note to the best of my knowledge, California has the HIGHEST tax rate in all of the USA! So we compare well to the most highly taxes state in the US? Woah! Just great! Now how do we compare against ANY other US state (say our neighbour, New York)?
While I was in the USA on many driving trips to Florida, I only ever saw a gun in a Police car, and in a gun store. Same places here. I didn't feel less safe, even though there was that nut in Florida targeting Canadians at one time (although, I would have gotten the hell outta there if I was there when that happened.). Fact is, I felt just as safe on Daytona Beach at night as I did in Toronto, at night.
This is also not the kind of person who is willing to accept simple pictures of science either. Just because Darwin wrote in the 1850's did not mean that everyone since should accept Evolution. Indeed serious scientific challenges to the theory persisted into this century. The last one having to do with agricultural breeding experiments (its resolution was the recognition of why genetic diversity matters).
The kind of person that I am talking about, after truly investigating evolution, can cheerfully point out that fossils are more than just piles of rocks. For instance insects trapped in amber and certain types of shale still contain organic material. But even if you don't want to believe in fossils, it is still easy to come up with a half-dozen lines of evidence towards evolution:
And so I repeat my question. Have you investigated evolution? Do you have a clue what you are babbling about?
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The ETs were the ones who brought life to Earth. That explains everything.
Pleeeeze, Andover, buy Rob and Jeff a faster server... this is rediculous!
The only problem is the idea of "species". It is an artificial construct. An organism is a set of genes, and an organism with identical genes is a clone. Organisms with relatively similar genotypes are considered by humans to be of the same species. All organisms, whether they are from the same "species" or not, have some degree of genetic difference.
At the macro level, evolutionary change is the process by which organisms reproduce, anand via variation and mutation give rise to other organisms which may be more or less different than their predecessors. All along, selection picks which mutations and variations most influence the next generation.
Basically, organisms are bags of genes... some can reproduce sexually, and some cannot. All organisms are selfish and prefer their own survival to that of others.
So, they can't teach evolution. They can't teach creationism. Ummm...so what WILL they teach about the origins of man? And what will they do when someone asks "if this is microevolution, then what's regular evolution?"
And I hate to think about what's going to happen to any budding, say, archeologists once they reach college...
-g.
Hey Hemos,
;-)
Seeing as this topic generated over 500 responses in the first couple of hours, apparently your the only one who was "speechless"!
"i dont think we're in Kansas anymore.."
not to say all christians are deviants by any means.. but this state is just full of people who's brains arent making all the proper connections...
for instance, go to www.godhatesfags.com. or www.godhatesamerica.com. This man should not even own a computer. He's from Topeka, and a big proponent of this decision. I've seen homophobes be disgusted by this man.
In summary.. Lets move all the decent folk out of kansas, then blow it up..
..At the media for completely blowing this out of proportion. I've got a rant farther down on this list, but in short, all this is just an approved proposal that evolution will not be covered on state assessment tests. That's about it.
Please..
jf
Evolution is not being eliminated from the curriculum, it is simply being not required. Most teachers in the cities will continue to teach evolution as they've always done, whereas most teachers in the country(who are usually home-schoolers btw), the massive amounts of country we have, will teach either pure creationism or a combo.
This changes absolutely nothing except it tells the nation that the reps of Kansas are idiots.
The politics of kansas are screwy... we have like 3 big cities in kansas, all the rest is mainly country, and therefore republican... always screws the cities, who are in the minority, over horribly.
I wonder what would happen if my biology started to teach __his__ view of evolution to classes... he is a very devout jew... let's see them support letting teachers teach what they wish after that...
The Daemon
--
Well, there goes the flood of crack biologists that we were seeing coming out of Kansas!
Nobody is evolving in Kansas anyway for god sake
If the parents allow this, then they deserve it. I, personally, would pack my bags and leave town if they pulled this kind of shit where I live. Can school board members be impeached? It looks like those are the only options -- live with this decision, in ignorance; CHANGE IT; or leave. School board elections are not the most closely followed so perhaps nobody realized what kind of incompetents they were choosing, and so can perhaps be forgiven for that. But it seems any community that would elect such right-wing imbeciles most likely deserves them -- and probably agrees with them. What a great day for science. This also makes us look very respectable in the eyes of other nations. Oh well, never wanted to go to Kansas anyway...
Well, I've got to say it.
The citizens of Kansas are idiots.
Not specifically, mind you. I'm sure that there are a lot of people living in Kansas that are bright, intelligent people, and I harbor no resentment towards those people. It just seems that they are not in the majority amongst the voting public.
I mean, seriously, what kind of electorate would elect Kansassholes like these to any kind of public office? I have no problem with faith. Blind faith is just stupid though. And to willfully impose your ignorance (yes, I stand by my statement that rejection of science is ignorance) upon your own children is morally revolting and inexcusable.
I certainly hope that someone has the cajones (I use the term figuratvely, with no prejudice intended against the female or neutral genders) to stand up to these people and get fact back into school where it belongs.
Keep in mind that these are my opinions. If this bothers you, look here.
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
This is a step in the right direction. The next step (obviously) is to begin teaching creationism. Then the next step is to outlaw going to school past the age of 12. Otherwise independant though might arise in our children, which also might led them astray from the beliefs they have been preached since they were born. This would be an outrage. Just imagine children thinking for themselves, using their own power of logic to define themselves and their place in this world. This cannot happen, we must continue the practice of making our children believe blindly in their faith. Otherwise they might start to ask questions that are difficult to answer. Choose the correct route, nay the only route, call your state representative today and tell them to vote yes on the "No education after 12" law.
Don't you think you laid the parody on just a little too thick? A lighter touch would have made for a better troll.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Very good points. A recent Scientific American had a review for a book about debunking creationism. The basic point being that there are no arguments for creationism, the evidence for creationism are simply arguments against evolution. Which in no way proves creationism.
Another point is that creationism tends to sit on the fact that because life is so complex there is no way it could have developed without a divine hand. The problem with that argument is that if one of the things that is pointed at as proof of God is found to be completely natural and explainable, it casts doubt on the existence of God at all.
This is probably part of the reason the catholic church embraced evolution. They realized that trying to prove the existence of God via natural evidence was pointless and self defeating. Faith does not require proof, and it cannot be disproven. If proof is attempted it allows for disproof, which like is said before is self defeating for a religion.
Dastardly
"Separation of Church & State" is _not_ in the constitution, contrary to what some believe. In fact, the founding fathers has an affinity to at least mention "God" in many of their documents. And just because someone may not advocate evolution doesn't mean that they have a religious agenda. The theory of evolution has come under much heavier scrutiny from many atheistic scientists in recent years.
only one comment has been moderated down. Are the moderators losing their touch?
It saddens me to see this kind of Debate on Slashdot. How all these people who only months ago complained about Geek Bashing and the like and were hoping for an accepting world. Are so quick to simply Turn on each other. /. readers need to get their Heads away from the computer, and out of their @$$ and go look at the sky and Marvel at how this came to be. There can be NO explaining it all. Whether there is a God or not WE will never fully understand. I Hate aethists, agnostics and non-religious people who blatently speak out against religion 1)without thinking and 2)without knowing anything about it anyway.
Yes, I believe in God! Yes, I think The current Pope said it all when he said "If God wanted to do evolution then he could" (paraphrase).
I think people espescially some of my fellow
Maybe you should read the Bible and Darwin together and think through both without discrediting one from the get go. I did. And I think no matter what you decide afterward you'd be better for having done it.
hmmmm...what? Oh, I left this stupid
I can't believe you pulled this out. This is a religious flamewar, not a gun owning one!
Its all about creationism anyway, cant believe people still believe that evolution should be taught as truth.
Now to both the comments. I challenge you to *directly* refute my *little* math problem. I do NOT accept generalized comments, because they are meaningless. Gee let me think, dont they teach you that in High School?
Lastly, there has been evidence of scientists creating amino acids in lab experiments. This has been heralded as *many* (not all) evolutionists claim that it is one step closer to proving that life *could* have evolved. Well, my little math equation was meant simply to refute that possibility.
Extreme and loving it!
By that premise *all* scientific thought is theory and hypothesis. How can we prove the gravitational constant or relativistic physics? All we can do is show that it occurs/works within a certain error, no more, no less.
At some point we will find an incontravertible error, and revise our science until they are more accurate--but even then, it is a theory and not a law.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Horse + donkey. Almost always sterile, with one or two known exceptions.
You don't see half man/half ape hybrids for two reasons: 1) Man is an ape, in a technical sense. 2) The DNA is not compatible enough.
Orangutans are supposedly the closest to human in a genetic sense. If you would like to volunteer for an experiment, please specify your sex and a suitable orangutan of the opposite sex will be provided for you.
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
Theories cannot be proven true or false. If you have a theory that you have proved false, then just take that theory and negate it, giving you a new theory which is true.
The article cites the 1982 trial of McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education -- it just so happens that I've been reading the judge's opinion (so that I can argue with the religious guys at work) and one of the fundamental tenets of Judge Overton's opinion is that the "essential characteristics of science" are:
1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable
He goes on to basically state that for all of these reasons "Creation Science" is not really science.
Pretty cool.
I can't believe these lowbrow religious wackos are finding converts... goes to show that people will try really hard to find something bigger than themselves to believe in.
I wonder how long it will take before a brave teacher in Kansas teaches his students evolution, is arrested, and goes back to the Supreme Court. I'd really be interested to see that happen....
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Folks, I will be blunt.
There is increasing evidence piling up in various scientific fields that shows that evolution as it is currenly taught... is bunk! Evolution has become a belief system.
A theory has to explain how things happen - yet the latest research on cell metabolism, the Krebs cycle, and chaos theory, DNA etc. cannot be adequately explained by evolutionary theory.
Worse, evolution didn't *anticipate* any of this stuff (which a really good theory would - like the periodic table of the elements is able to predict future element's properties).
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN:
Scientists should realize that evolution no longer works as a theory, and should say "we don't know, but we'll keep trying to find out!"
Even Richard Dawkins, by titling one of his books, "Climbing Mt. Improbable" tacitly acknowledges that evolutionary theory is in trouble.
Flame on, my prettys!
Patrick
p17501@yahoo.com
TN actually had a law (which
Let me say i am a devoted atheist, and do not respect christianity in most ways. I find it was a great invention to give plague sufferers and other people with no reason to live, well, a reason to live. Although they arent the greatest rules to live by, I also respect the ten commandments... just following those rules than the thousands established by the government would probably make life a lot easier. There a few religions where the rules and ethics are more respectable(I love buddhism although i think it is on a equal bullshxt level as christianity), but overall i find religion a bad thing, and incredibly illogical and dishonest, especially in this day and age. And don't say i am stating this without a platform; I have read more on religion and philosophy than most people. I just find life would be a lot better for everyone if we relied not on religion, but on caring, and doing real things for each other besides praying.
I don't know if I am stating this due to the fact that i was raised by a religiously lax family(father a non-practicing protestant, a mother that doesnt care, and an atheist sister), or if i'm well read, but i cant understand how someone can base a life on religion. It is so illogical.. i mean i can't comprehend it! I would so like to be in the mind of a christian for a day just to see what it's like. Don't get me wrong, i am open to new beliefs(which in some ways makes me an agnostic), but until a religion is proven, atheism is the only logical belief. Plus, with recent advances in astrophysics and other sciences, we can explain our existence through research.
But another thing i can't understand is all the different sects in christianity. I mean if there is a christianity, wouldn't there only be one way? I mean, isn't the original good book the only way to follow christianity; wouldn't protestantism and lutheranism and every other subset of christianity be false? And if god cared for every human, what about people in third world countries that follow some polytheistic religion and had never heard of christianity? Does that mean they are to be banished to a world of fire and brimstone and torment for eternity? I could go on and on.
People, it was good for us in the beginning, but open your minds now!
Slartibartfast:"Is that your robot?"
Marvin:"No, I'm mine."
If you had moderator points, and saw a 1000-comment board, would you bother?
Plus which, just as the comments seem to be astonishingly even on both sides of the issue, so the moderator points are probably similarly distributed. I'm guessing that there's more than a few moderator wars on this board.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Natural selection is a law. This is true. Is this a law of evolution? No one knows. Some believe it is, some believe it isn't.
Should it be taught as a law of evolution? Sure! Should it be mandated? No.
These are my points. I don't know who and what you are arguing with.
As far as developing features and changes, for example a domesticated pig, if intorduced to the wild grows tusks and hair just like its, what do you call them, ancestors? Simularly horses decrease in size, and develop heightened sences. Yet in hundreds of documented years and generations of horse breeding and human selection, we do not have a new species of throuroghbred, nor a faster one.
At what point did they go from non-seeing to seeing Trilobytes? Many plants and animals can detect the presence of light. And many of them develop mechanisms to detect it better (enhancing of specific abilities). Did Trilobytes ever evolve a lense to move from detecting light to focusing it to pictures?
Throughout history, and Darwin was just one of many, there is a believed progression to the present day that happens in stages. Archeologists use it to explain things as much as evlutionists.
The problem comes when assumptions like "In the natural progression of the development of steel it went from the Roman Empire who developed it to the rest of the world." For years steel artifacts were dated by guessing how long the technology of steel would travel from Rome to Europe.
Now we find the Europe, and even the mideast had steel before the Roman Empire. These assumptions are dangerous to teach as fact, and even more dangerous to mandate.
that is my point. You can feel free to find that other person you must be arguing with.
(Besides, those "missing links" have very interesting features that do not neccisarily show up on humans. They have teeth that all of a sudden are all molars, then change suddenly (not gradualy) back to incisors, etc... no hybrid intermediaries like you'd expect if they were co-existing mutations.)
I wonder if you are arguing that evolution doesn't have holes? Maybe I need to get out the Scientific American article that I am remembering. It was a good article, and the way I'd like evolution to be taught.
After all, my anthropology teacher told the story...
"one morning I went to take a shower only to find that there was no water. Sure enough we went through the house to find that no water was coming out of anywhere.
I asked my wife, 'did we pay the phone bill?' She went and looked, and sure enough we were late in paying. So I took the morning off of work to run some money down to the Woter Department.
When I asked 'when can you have the water turned back on?' the lady behind the desk replied 'We never shut it off."
It turns out that that very day, the water main broke and the water was shut off. Evidence A and B (past due bill, and water being off) naturaly predicted C. However, there was something completely outside the system we were taking into account that was the truth."
That is what I think about evolution, and why I think Kansas made the right decision. (Now, if you argue that you must quote the decision to prove you actually understand what they did before continuing, okay?)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Now, how does UCITA figure into this? Each state has to ratify UCITA within its own borders and that's not a given at all. Do now: set up a bookmark to your local legislature and check often to see when UCITA comes up. While waiting, set up a listserv at ListBot or ONElist (or on your own machine if you're running listserv or majordomo) about UCITA and get all the user groups and third parties in your state to sign onto it. When UCITA shows up, hit the panic button and have everyone start writing your legislators every day -- either snail or Email. (Encourage writers to use their own words rather than a form letter.) When you have defeated UCITA in your state, change the name of the list to Internet Issues. Voila! You have just created an inspired and dedicated Internet-aware polity! Those legislators will now *always* be looking over their shoulder for you -- and that's the way we want it...
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
That isn't exactly what I was referring to, but it is a good example. A better one is that. Newtonian mechanics has holes in it. So, we have to teach Relativity only. Wait Relativity doesn't explain everything so we have to teach quantum mechanics. Ooops quantum mechanics doesn't apply to times before 1e-42s after the big bang. We can't teach anything.
This is the creationist argument. Evolution doesn't explain everything therefore it can't be taught. Basically the argument is that no science can be taught ever. Which basically makes these people the biggest hypocrites in the world, because they don't want any science taught, but are perfectly happy reaping the benefits of said science.
This isn't ignorance either. This is pure stupidity. Ignorance is not knowing anything. Stupidity is not being able to think. Obviously these people can't even apply there own arguments to themselves which to me says they cannot think, therefore they are stupid. QED.
Dastardly
I was going to post a reasonable, argued comment.
Then I re-read Corey-the-asshole's post and thoutht better of it. What a stupid wanker! What a cretin! Read some Steven J Gould, or Dawkins, or Dennet and marvel how evolution explains so many facts with beauty and precision.
Or wallow in your ignorace like Corey-the-turd.
Whatever.
This Kansas thing goes a lot deeper than evolution...it goes to the heart of our educational system. It denies teachers the right to teach what they feel is important for their students.
The teaching of evolution is generally presented as a possible course of events, which exposes students to a fascintating if not disturbing view of the past. It also applies the Scientific Method and shows students that it is possible to have more than one view on a subject.
By disallowing the teaching of evolution, the "Board" has removed power from teachers. This is not good for their morale, which leads to poorer teaching. Teachers have a rough rap as it is, and the schools should spend less time controlling and more time improving. But to do this boards like this in Kansas, the TPSC in Oregon, and all the others need to realize what they are doing there, and voters and parents need to think about what they are doing.
Rick Rezina
rrezinas@reed.edu
Thanks for the link. The talk.origins site is quite interesting, and is going to take quite awhile to read. It is all quite slanted toward macro-evolution as an indisputable fact.
But macro-evolution is disputed. Check out the other side of the debate at trueorigin.org. This site has rebuttals to many of the talk.origins FAQs, and seems no less interesting or worth reading.
I recommend that both sites be checked out. For the record, I am a Christian who believes that God created everything, including life. I don't know literally how He did it, but I'm not afraid of investigating the evidence and ideas put forth by both creationists and evolutionists. I doubt that anyone is 100% correct.
Not necessarily, anyway. Also, all measurements given are always assumed to be approximate. It's a fairly basic truism that there is no such thing as an exact measurement.
Consider the "33000" year old wood (not fossils) has been found embedded in "millions of years old" Hawkesbury sandstone in Sydney. Which date is right?
Consider the many, many polystrate fossils in the world. Intrusion's ridiculous, unless you have a religious attachment to the dating of the rock layers that are crossed.
Consider many thousands of square miles of "upside down" strata (in one chunk; yes, even in the US) with negligible signs of movement at the interface. How did they get there? Did the whole lot flip over, extending hundreds of miles into space, and likewise into the magma?
Consider the sudden end of life-signs at the pre-Cambrian level.
Consider the observation that the gremlins in the lowest levels of strata are generally the kind of gremlins that would be there anyway: bottoom dwellers.
Consider the skeletons of modern man that Leakey found much further down than "Lucy."
Consider the many thousands of fossil sites at which "local flooding" events are blamed - and the "global flood" on dry Mars - and yet nobody wants to know about a global flood here. Why?
Have you ever read "Starlight and Time?" The same author made several accurate predictions, working from the same base priciples outlined in that book, about the planets in our solar system. The "standard" predictions were several orders of magnitude off - but who will you believe knows more about what's going on?
The same author, working from the same principles, wrote modelling and simulation software which is used worldwide and daily by people who think he's a nutcase because he believes in the same principles which make the modellers more useful to those people than any other modeller. Where will you stand?
Yes, as long as people "refuse to at least consider the scientific evidence of the world about them rather than stubbornly cling to outdated and misguided dogma," the human race will continue to bark up the wrong tree.
The same attitude got the Church of the Dark Ages burning heretics at the stake, and declaring (in defiance of the Bible, which was ruthlessly suppressed except for a few copies in a strange language chained to the walls at monasteries) that the earth was flat and all sorts of other stupidities.
The same attitude is universally WRONG no matter who uses it: you, the pope, a flat-earther, Charles Darwin, an MSCE, a creationist, a linux kernel developer... it matters not, in the face of that same attitude of "knowing" holier-than-thou contempt.
A lot of that which you know is fact, is opinion - myth. Once you understand that, your life will make more sense.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
A hypothesis is an educated guess.
A theory is a hypothesis that has a lot of support.
A law in science is a theory or that has an overwhelming amount of support, few or no opposing theories, and is accepted as fact.
A theorem is a mathematical hypothesis that has not yet been proven or disproven but is thought to be true.
An axiom is a building block of mathematics - something that is true by definition (like x=x). Axioms are used to prove theorems.
A law in mathematics is a theorem that has been proven through a logically sound reasoning process that can be broken down into axioms so that because the axioms are true by definition, the law must be true. It can then be used like an axiom to prove other theorems.
And I agree that a law in science can hardly ever be proven, for the reasons you said above.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Your credibility would be better if you got some facts right. Like the spelling of Neanderthal. Like the spelling of "Chimps". Like the fact that chimpanzees are 98.6% homologous to us.
I also, like the previous poster, do not believe that Neanderthal man has ever been sequenced. As for "Stone Age" man, well that covers a lot of ground. The only "Stone Age" men that I know have been sequenced turned out to be modern humans. Strangely enough they tended to be people who are living places like New Guinea...
Oh, and your description of the difference between micro and macro evolution is ludicrous. You may want to learn something before babbling more.
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I am from Kansas and am registered to vote there, although I've been in St. Louis for three years for school. I'm going to change my voter registration as soon as possible. As much as I'd like to vote against the BOE members who passed this crap, there are so many conservative and/or religious right voters in Kansas that my vote doesn't count for much.
So I'm saying "screw it" and changing my voter registration to Missouri where I can hopefully have more of an influence.
What if Mr. Darwin was wrong? It is, after all a theory, not a fact. Maybe Douglas Adams is the only one who got it right, after all... Seriously tho. Although evidnece may prove preponderously that the theory is valid, there's no definitve proof that Darwin was right. After all, his theories on natural selection turned out to be partially incorrect.
this calls for a quote:
"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve..." Jello Biafra
" Religious groups have argued that evolution cannot be proven, and some feel that evolution is not in accordance with Biblical teachings regarding the origins of life. " ... MSNBC article... There is more evidence of evolution ... than there is evidence in the bible. I say thats pretty stupid... You can't prove anything in the bible.. you can prove evolution with science.. what a bunch of bull i think the people in kansas that decided this should go back to school... When i was in school all i learned about evolution was up to a certain point. I learned that much was still theory.. and did not learn that we came from goop was fact. just theory.. which science is trying to prove today.. which is a hella of alot closer to the truth than the bible will ever be.
I would hope that teaching evolution not be banned, but as long as they're not exclusively promoting other models, I'm glad to see this.
The origins of the universe are beyond the realm of empirical science. The scientific method requires that you be able to observe and reproduce things, and you can't observe or reproduce the beginning of the universe. I'm not saying that the evolution model is completely wrong, but I think most people give it far too much credit. There are other scientific models out there that fit just as many facts as evolution.
Is there evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years? Yes, but there's also evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 6,000 years (no, I'm not kidding). Some of the evidence that people assume proves evolution fits the creation model as well. Some of the dating methods used to prove the age of the earth have been proven to be highly inaccurate, but are used anyway whenever it's convenient.
I am opposed to teaching religion in public schools. I don't want the government teaching children about God. However, Creationism, if taught in a secular way alongside of evolution can only encourage people to examine the scientific evidence.
Just as Linux and other operating systems should be made available to anyone who wants to use them instead of the dominant OS, Creation should be made available as an alternative to the dominant origins model for anyone who wants to believe it, and who is looking for a way to deal with the facts that don't fit the Evolution model.
Let the flaming begin...
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
From my understanding, they're not banning teaching evolution, they're just saying you can't say it's a fact. Sure, that'll freak out a lot of people, but hey .. it isn't proven (it's extremely hard to give a biological proof). Theory is theory until proven, and shouldn't be represented as anything else until then.
I think this is actually not as bad as a lot of people seem to think it is -- it'll certainly open up more discussions about our origins, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've certainly gained a great deal of knowledge about the world and people around me through discussion of topics that not everyone can agree on.
In my humble opinion, too many people take too many theories for granted (religion and science both). On the same note, too many people take too many things way too seriously. People need to lighten up and realize that not everybody can agree on everything, and what's right for one community may be a heinous mistake in another.
In no way am I trying to stir up sympathy for nutcases in the ultra-religious ultra-right, but I do think people are over reacting to this.
This sort of thing is not new in the midwest. I came from a high school that just left the issue alone; we discussed neither evolution nor creationism. I guess that's better than teaching creationism alone, but it's a shame that the foundation of modern biology is not taught to high school students. I ended up taking AP Biology independent study, and I can almost be certain that I was the first person in many, many years to study evolution at my high school (evolution is a large part of the AP Bio curriculum). The really frightening thing is the rise of political forces such as this. The fact that they have the power to direct intstruction in the entire state scares me out of my wits.
One of the main problems here, I believe, is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. When will people stop selectively applying the scientific method? What we have is the best explanation of the how life arose. Yes, it is a theory, but it is the best theory that we have and it has many more facts supporting it than explanations from the Bible or whatever other holy book you believe in. How people believe that evolution cannot be reconciled with an all-powerful god is beyond me. Isn't the beauty of evolution itself enough proof to those who believe in a supreme being?
Nick Knouf
As much inbreeding as goes on there, you'd think they'd accept data genetical without much question. Maybe it's wishful thinking on their part. God (doesn't exist, figure of speech) knows the people there are not normal folk...
Let's ask some aborigines about the origins of the earth, ok? It seems that many christian groups are makeing the big stink about it all... Whatever floats your boat, huh?
I can't believe I am reading shit like this.
Only in America.
Toby
Check out my web page. You just may find the missing link after all...
Macro and micro, two different classes, one is a small scale deviation of the assumed planned outcome and the other is a grand scale near immdiate change resulting from effects similar to, or exactly those that cause micro evolution.
Show me the man/ape? Prove it to me? CAn you?
you can not, for all accounts of "Stone Age or Neandrethal" Man have had less sequence homology to man compared with Chips who are >99.1% homologous to our DNA. So then, did we jump from chimps and not from the prehistoric man/beast evolutionary biologists believe in? No sir, and since this science is based on entire assumptions with little or no evidence for macro evolution in man, I think it not only naive of anyone to state that Darwin is a "god" in biology, but that these people also lack what is needed in science today. More fact and less fiction. God is easier to prove than the assumed missing link...
[The talk.origins FAQ, reproduced in its entirety from talk.origins. Given the repeated reproduction of the t.o FAQ by many parties in the t.o community, I must assume that its reproduction outside of t.o constitutes acceptable use. As always -- if you think otherwise -- I can be contacted at schoandr@isu.edu and convinced to retract my post]
The following is a list of questions that appear frequently in the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins. Brief answers are given for each question along with a pointer to one or more relevant files.
What is the purpose of talk.origins?
The purpose of talk.origins is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. See the talk.origins Welcome FAQ, the Archive welcome file and the Talk.Origins Archive's Must-Read FAQs.
I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
Isn't evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?
No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. See the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ.
If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ and the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.
No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true?
Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?
Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ listing some more observed speciation events.
Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation?
No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal characteristics. See the FAQ on Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature.
According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable?
Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?
The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ.
Where can I learn more about evolution?
You might start with the talk.origins FAQs. If, however, you want a thorough understanding of evolution, a library would be a more appropriate place to look. The following FAQs provide some good references: the Creation/Evolution Reading List, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ, the "What is Evolution?" FAQ, and the Talk.Origins Archive's Evolution FAQs.
How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young.
According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.
But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non-contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions are wrong?
Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of the Earth FAQ.
I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?
Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago. See the C-Decay FAQ.
If Earth is so old, doesn't that mean Earth's decaying magnetic field would have been unacceptably high at one time?
No. The Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planet's history. See the FAQ on the Earth's Magnetic Field.
Isn't the fossil record a result of the global flood described in the Book of Genesis?
No. A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the geological record. This was recognized even prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global Flood FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Flood Geology FAQs.
What about those fossils that cut through multiple layers?
They have natural explanations: tree-roots that grew into soft, underlying layers of clay, and fossils found in inclined strata. They can also be observed forming in modern environments. See the "Polystrate" Fossils FAQ.
What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur footprints?
The "man-tracks" of the Paluxy Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas were not man tracks at all. Some were eroded dinosaur tracks, and others were human carvings. See the FAQ on the Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy.
Didn't they find Noah's Ark? I saw something on TV about this.
The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. See the FAQ on Sun Pictures and the Noah's Ark Hoax.
The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.
And irrelevant. Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors. See the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ.
Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong?
The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs.
What about Immanuel Velikovsky? Didn't he show that Earth has experienced a lot of major catastrophes?
No, he simply claimed that certain written legends must have described real events. See the Talk.Origins Archive's Catastrophism FAQs and the Velikovsky FAQ.
Where can I find more material on the Creation/Evolution debate?
Contact the National Center for Science Education, or see the Talk.Origins Archive and its "Other links" page. Also see the talk.origins Book Recommendations FAQ and the Creation/Evolution Organizations and Periodicals FAQ.
We observe evolution.
We theorize about the mechanisms and results of evolution.
Therefore, evolution is both fact and theory, QED.
You can say exactly the same about gravity: we observe the fact of gravity, we have theories about the mechanism of gravity, therefore gravity is both theory and fact (if you are only being as consistent and rigorous with the terms as most people are).
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Of all the posts I have read (and I admit that I haven't read all of them) all of yours seem to offer no facts, no proof that you have ANY idea of what YOU are talking about either. You are providing nothing of use to this discussion except the growing opinion that you are a Bigot who get childish kicks out of stomping on anybody that doesn't agree with your point of view.
What was the point in flaming that guy? Was this e-mail nasty to YOU personaly - no. I suggest you go and read the slashdot essay on flaming, grown up, and come back and comment when you have something usefull to say.
And before you say it, I know this is just as bad as all your posts, but, after all the flames you've sent, I figured this was the only thing your pathetic little mind would understand.
...of Jerry Falwell having sex with a chimp? How much did they pay that chimp anyway?
Seriously, there's nothing good old religion to brainwash the ignorant. Find any point of division, and you can find a way to make scripture support any number of points of view.
In this case, we're seeing a backlash against "The Stupid Liberal". The centrists have lost power to the two wings, both of which are rather ill. For example, lax punishment and giveaway programs of the left have sickened centrists to the point where they've turned to the right, even if it means overlooking their religious tendencies.
Who wants to vote a lefty onto the school board? So they can teach masturbation to children? Really, the situation reflects the movie "South Park" in some ways. My friend's kids were nice, quiet, hardworking all summer, but within a week of being back in the public school, they were coming home and cursing when they had to do their chores, and chanting rap lyrics about "The Hood", "Fucking This Bitch and That Bitch" and "White Bitches". Wow, that California Jr. High really teaches those kids well.
They're twelve years old! If it takes a right wing frenzy to get the ultra left agenda and permissiveness out of the public schools, it might not be as bad as many of you think. Don't forget the ultra liberal left has a lot of power in the schools.
Everyone accepts that a sculptor works from the outside in and a builder works from the ground up. I like to think that somewhere out there is a religious person who, upon reading about evolution for the first time, had the immediate reaction of "Oh, so THAT'S how He did it!" and then never troubled himself or anyone else about it ever again. (Disclaimer: I myself have no talent for religion, however I have no particular distaste for it either.)
Most of the Slashdot comments I have seen have portrayed Evolution as fact. When, in fact, Evolution is a theory, just as any other scientifically established theory. There are facts supporting Evolution, but there are also facts discrediting Evoultion.
Maybe this has brought up the question "Is Evolution a 'de facto' standard?" It is fact just beacuse that is what everybody thinks. In our search for the truth, we have lost it instead.
Should we all use Windows just beacuse everybody else uses it, beacuse it is the de facto standard? Should we teach Evolution just beacuse everybody else teaches it, beacuse it is the standard?
It is ignorant to think Evolution is fact, that we should teach it as fact, or that we should accept it as fact.
Ignorance is the enemy, truth is the answer.
JM
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
Big Brother is watching, vote Libertarian!!
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
Alright, it is obvious that the feebs in Kansas have no idea what the heck they are talking about in making it no longer mandated to learn about Evolution in the state. That is stupid. However (flamegate, open) I also believe that the complete and utter removal of all right to religious beliefs in this day and age is also incorrect. I have seen many people writing in on this topic and basically saying "we are right, you are wrong" to those of us who believe in a Higher Power. Well, frankly this is just as bad as us saying that we religious people are right and you are wrong! I mean, this is common sense people... It is one thing to have an opinion on this issue - in fact I hope everyone does. But it is another thing to call the opposing force "stupid and ignorant and incompetant" for it. I am a Coptic Gnostic, which basically means I believe there is a God but that He isn't limited to our beliefs in Him. Which means that in my view, Evolution is okay! Not everyone believes the Bible you know! *chuckle* Okay, my rant is done. Feel free to call me ignorant now. But be careful where you throw your stones, because you might be standing in a glass house.
Know ye not that ye are Gods???
Even as a child, the thought of some "god" creating the world made me laugh; just like Greek mythology is interesting, but we know that it is just a nice story, the figment of a people's imagination. Leave the science fiction to the movies and saturday morning cartoons and try to put your faith into human beings, not blindly into religion. Reality ain't so bad, you ought to try it.
We have had the same thing in Holland where christian groups tried to remove evolution as a topic from the school exams (which means that no teacher will bother to waste precious time on it). Luckily they failed.
Christian fundamentalism to me is as big a worry as muslim fundamentalism. I was watching CNN a few days ago (at the time of the Atlanta shooting) and saw the major mumble something 'let us all pray for the victims now'. It was by far the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen, I sort of felt sick about it. Also US presidents semm to make such Christian references all the time. Now, I believe in religious freedom and I claim the right not to believe in any god. I'm sure that right wing christian America won't deny me this right (for the moment) but I think it's a very bad sign that they have the power to get one of the most fundamental laws in Biology out of a school for religious reasons. I think the children in those schools have a right to be protected from the religious fundamentalism of their parents and teachers.
Christians are probably right that evolution makes one wonder whether the Adam and Eve crap is fantasy (I'm convinced at least) and that doubting that story makes you wonder how much truth there is in all the other stories. Well maybe it is time for them to step back in reality and reevaluate the bible from that perspective.
I don't want to get in a theological discussion here, though. It is my firm elief that logical arguments never convice a fundamentalist, which is why they choose to ignore evolution rather than face its consequences for christinaity (i.e. the fact that the bible is not consistent with reality). I'm just saying that understanding Evolution theory, whether you agree or not, is important to understand anything that is going on in biology and genetics right now. No school can seriously talk about biology and skip evolution.
Jilles
for pointing that out. I'm glad that someone actually read the article instead of just jumping right into debate.
First of all, every individual has mutations; some members of my family grow one of their milkteeth twisted together with the adult tooth, a champion cross-country skier was found to have a mutation that resulted in double the hemoglobin on each red blood cell; most mutations are less obvious. Second, you have to look at the conditions for rapid evolution: generally a small, isolated group with most individuals under tremendous survival pressure (which may come from other individuals of the same species). This generally results high death (selection) rates and inbreeding (which reinforces recessive genes). Third, when people talk about "sudden" evolutionary changes, they mean "only a few tens of thousands of years" as opposed to the old model of slow, gradual evolution over millions of years. By no means is evolution sudden on any human scale.
Consider the artificial selection of animal breeding. Look at the vast variety of dogs: all created from a single, uniform species in a few thousand years (a blink of the eye, in evolutionary timescales), from chihuahuas to st.bernards. There is more variety in the single species of dog than in many genuses or even families. Humans didn't introduce the mutations, they merely selected them (and made them stand out more through such tactics as inbreeding). Nature is not this carefully selective, but can you not allow that it should be common that nature manages one-hundredth the result in ten times as long?
Darwinian evolution is the best-supported scientific explanation of the origins of species. Currently, only certain refinements (selfish-gene, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) are held in similar esteem. While it is wrong to present it as simple fact, it is pathetically more wrong to leave it out entirely.
Science doesn't have "blinders." The testing of a theory naturally limits the experiments done, but new theories are being created all the time. The only limits to the creation of new theories is the human imagination (a limit shared by all philosophy and religion) and allowance for known experimental data (not necessarily the old interpretations of such data).
Don't make the mistake of defining the actions of "scientists" as science. Many current scientists do not attempt to disprove their own theories, and seek "facts" processed through the lens of these theories instead (a worthwhile enterprise, but not one I'd call science). Science is the creation of and attempt to disprove theories through the examination of the natural world (preferably through controlled experiments).
Pretty hillarious news! And here comes the big dumb religious debate and the bogged down server! Oh well, it's entertaining at least.
Actually, this whole flash of idiocy reminds me of the urban legend that someone in the South once tried to legislate the value of our favorite transcendental real number, PI, to be just the integer value 3. According to the legend, some wise-ass mathematician then pointed out that the legislation works just fine and is absolutely true... for very small approximations of PI or very large approximations of the number 3.
I agree. You cannot prove evolution.
The scientists job is to find know the holes in the theory, and to look for evidence that might disprove the theory. If you keep on finding evidence that supports it, then your job is not finished. You can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be correct.
More importantly, you can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be wrong. In which case, you need to come up with a better theory that can be tested.
Now, to prove faith, you do things like drink tainted jello.
While they are at it, they should stop teaching The Theories of Relativity, The Church-Turing Thesis, etc. And isn't Newtonian Physics all but an approximation, anyway? And according to Heisenburg, can we be certain of *anything*? I propose we abolish the Education system until they figure out for sure exactly what they are teaching. Me
I think the statement "But either way, the bible is wrong." is just absurd. If you really want to be technical with the issue, it can NEVER be wrong because it speaks almost entirely in symbolism. Take this evolution issue for example. When the bible says that god created the world in 1 day, that doesn't necessarily mean one of our days-24 hours. I am a Roman Catholic and I believein evolution... The church does not teach that evolution is wrong, it just basically says that you have to believe that god, at some point or another, stepped in and gave humans a soul. Also, saying that evolutionists are at least open isn't very true. What you are basically saying is that since that group of people believe in what you believe, they are smarter than everyone else. That is a bit egotistical.
How do I know this? Because you approach the Bible as though it were yesterday's newspaper. You ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that the Bible is a book written over a span of about 1400 years (give or take), that even its most recent portions are almost 2000 years old, and that it was written in a culture that is vastly different from our own. Yet somehow, for some arrogant or ignorant or cockamamie reason, you still seem to think that you can just walk right up to it, point your finger at something you don't understand, and conclude that the whole thing is hogwash. Teriffic. You're quite the "enlightened soul" there, friend.
So the Bible is true like this: it's true in the sense that it's true but some people, pretending to know something, presume to deny its truthfulness without even a passing familiarity with its contents.
As to your irrational fears about what they'll be teaching in the government schools -- try reading the actual story. They didn't mandate the teaching of ANYTHING. They simply removed the mandate from evolution. Evolution can still be taught (and no doubt will). It's just not required.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
The article mentioned they made special provisions for 'micro-evolution' (or evolution within the species). As someone who's done alot of computer intelligence coding for boardgames - recursion is a VERY powerful thing and can yield decidely unexpected results. I dunno, once you've accepted microevolution as a possibility. Taking the next step is believing in evolution. How do you distinguish one species from the other? How many mutations does it take to get a new species? What they are saying is you'll *never* get a new species. Frankly, i'd *hate* to see AP Biology in Kansas now! Tom (btw, I loved the comment that Science hasn't proven evolution, so it shouldn't be taught. Did I miss something, have they proven conclusively that God exists yet?)
This is exactly how I feel. I cannot beleive how people on this board are saying that its only a theory. I would say its pretty close to plain fact when you can see the clear effects with the bacteria, virii, insects and many other forms of life on earth.
So what you're saying is that you have some evidence that the defining scientific paradigm of the twentieth century might be true, and even though others make objections, or propose alternate ideas, your belief cannot be shaken because there is not enough proof otherwise? If God came to you in a burning bush, and told you that Natural Selection as a result of evolution is false doctrine, would you be able to change you mind? How is one man's faith in modern science and secular learning different from another man's faith in God and creation? What you're saying is that I'm a moron beause I don't believe as you do? Because natural seletion has been observed to happen in populations of animals? Because species can change within a human lifetime? Well, have you ever SEEN natural selection taking place? Ever been present when an organinsm evolves? Maybe not, but smart people whom you trust have seen these things, and chronicled them, and many people have built upon their work. So what you have, my friend, is faith. Could it possibly be wrong? Could there be an aspect of geological processes, genetic processes, radioactive decay processes, or animal behavior that we, as a body of rational humans don't understand? I think yes. Why can't you think so? Do we know everything about science? If so, why bother doing any more research? Now, if a person you knew well had a spiritual experience, or beheld a miracle, and decided to believe in God, would they automatically become a moron in your eyes? Have you ever tried looking for God? Does the thought offend you? Offend your intelligence? What I'm trying to say is that a person is not a moron if they believe in God, or in creation. Evolution is a fact of nature. I never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is that the origins of species through natural selection, from single-celled organisms to human beings, is an imperfect theory that doesn't bear intense scrutiny past the point of people saying "Yeah, but even though we don't have ALL the fossils, look at what we DO have, and look, doesn't it work nice if we put this one here, and this other one over here, and look, a family tree! And I know it's hard to explain how all these organisms evolved so rapidly back then, but don't evolve as rapidly now, or at least we can't prove it. It MUST be true, it just MUST, because we're smart and believers in God are dumb. And even though there's big ole holes in our beloved theory, it MUST be true, cause otherwise there's a God who created nature and man, and by golly then I wold not be an animal so I'd have to act like a child of God instead!" I believe that God created all of nature, set forth the laws of physics, set the whole thing in motion, and let's it largely govern itself. People, well, we're different because we're created in God's image, and we have PURPOSE, and our lives should have MEANING. Besides, it's not nice to call people names. Didn't your parents teach you that?
Let me first start off by quoting Darwin himself, "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory--is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
So if Darwin has stated in 1971 that the theory of evolution can not be proven, then why is a lot of peopl here saying that it is the only way? I only bring this up to address the issue of irrationality of *some* (not all) slashdot commenters.
Another *very* intelligent person (according to society's terms), George Wald (winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science and Harvard Professor) has said this (and I'll paraphrase), that (1) only creation and evolution are the possibilities for the origin of life, no third option; (2) Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, and that leads us on Creation; and (3) "We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
Now I have not actually stated anything yet, simply quoted some people. But, it seems to me that (and please be honest with yourself, and gentle on the flaming) some people cannot accept creation, not because of science, but rather it does not fit into their personal agenda. And I mean this truthfully and humbly. Take it to its logical conclusion: if someone accepted creation, he/she might have to accept that there is a God. And if there is a God who created us and the universe, then we *could* be accountable to Him for something (notice that I have not *pushed* any Christian doctrine on anyone. I've been vague on purpose, because I do not want to offend anyone and encourage flaming).
Just something to think about.... you know.
Btw, does everyone know that Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes, Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, Lord Kelvin, and James Maxwell were all devoted Christians. I know that they are old, so dont rebut with they are ancient and we are modern argument. I *simply* put them here because they are very respected and INTELLIGENT human beings, who were creationists.
roidman
Re-read his statement more carefully. He mentioned that the bible has been used as an an excuse to do bad things, but he did not make the claim that this is what causes the bible to be false. The bible is false on facts alone. Bad morality is just a side-effect of that.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.