Georgia May Shun "Evolution" in Schools

[kskiska]

Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution, and may never even hear the word uttered in class.

New middle and high school science standards proposed by state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox strike references to "evolution" and replace them with the term "biological changes over time," a revision critics say will further weaken learning in a critical subject.

Outraged teachers already have told the state it is undercutting the science education of young Georgians.

"Just like any major issue people need to deal with, you need to know the facts," said David Bechler, head of the biology department at Valdosta State University. A member of the committee that worked on the biology standards, Bechler said he was stunned to learn that evolution was not in the final proposal.

more…
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html

[Valjean]

1. Let it go!!!!

It's really not that important. Kids have the internet and TV documentaries (Discovery, TLC, etc...).

Evolution science isn't that hard anyway. It's controversial and really not super-important. You can teach biology without it.

The MAIN thing is keeping the "Creation Science" which is anti-science OUT of curriculum. Dropping evolution in standard curriculum is a good deal to keep neutralize the fundamentalists. High schools could still offer an evolution option in advanced level biology studies with parental consent.

I accept evolution as the most probable explanation for human origins. The patterns are just to glaring to ignore. But it is like putting together a 3 billion piece jigsaw puzzle when you only have 300,000 pieces. The known theories in evolution science tend to shift A LOT. It's not like physics where we've nailed most of it down. Besides, you don't TEACH experimental theories to high school students. You only teach the stuff that has been PROVEN.

So I'd suggest that folks on the left just LET IT GO. It's really not that important. Kids will find the explanation that suits them.

[wtmusic]

5. Oh come off it

Striking 'evolution' from the record is not just an innocent little accident. It's part of a concerted effort to introduce creationism as an equally-viable alternative to the origins of species.

Like any science there are unproven theories in evolution. That doesn't negate that the general principle has been proven in countless ways, and actually has been proven in realtime by replication of bacteria and selective breeding. You could equally well argue that there's no proof that the earth revolves around the sun.

Most of physics has been nailed down? Good, could you explain gravity to me? :eyes:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

35. "all other faiths are too violent"

Bigoted comments towards other religions aside...


"I don't think the evolution stuff needs doing in grade school."

We're talking about high school

"Besides, the odds of everything happening spontaneously at the same time through evolution is just too far fetched. creation is more plausible."

Given this statement shows a profound lack of understanding about how evolution works, I question whether you are any position to decide which is more plausible.

[PennyLane]

37. Bravo Doc!

Well stated!
Teach all sides of the issue. Let the individual decide. The truth
will set them free! Besides, those seeking a career in science will
fail miserably when they enroll in a university and lack a basic
understanding of the concept.

[DrWeird]

41. Mmm, there's only one side to evolution.

I don't think we should teach every crackpot pseudoscientific/conspiracy theory that is easily proved demonstratably false should be taught in school. And Creation science certainly falls into that category. That said, come up with a legitimate alternative to evolution and back it up with evidence I'd be happy to hear about it.

[bubblesby2002]

85. Thank you, that was well said.

There is no side to Creationism. It is from the Bible and has no business being taught in schools. Evolution has more scientific proof to it than does Creationism. If you need to teach the Bible to anyone then teach it to them in theology class not in science class. For Pete's sake use your brain cells: yeah Eve was created from Adam's rib; that must be fact, it's in the Bible, so it must be true.
Note the sarcasm.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

9. It's not the responsibility of PUBLICALLY FUNDED SCHOOLS to teach religion

The reason I said that is that's simply what fundamentalists want. They're not satisfied with the churches teaching creationism; they want the PUBLIC SCHOOLS to teach it as well. They won't just settle for dropping evolution.
Yes, it's THAT important, because if we capitulate on this one thing, then we open the door to a whole lot of CRAP they're gonna shove down our throats.
I don't want my tax dollars to pay for teaching the belief that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.
If we "let it go" on this one thing, then we lose the whole damn ballgame.

[Valjean]

11. You've got it wrong.

No in fact, it's just the opposite. The fundamentalists are using the presence of evolution science to justify inclusion of "creation science".

What you have to admit is that evolution isn't rock hard experimental science. Particular explanations are constantly changing. Too much "theory" is bandied about and it makes evolution science look bad.

Fundamentalists paint evolution as a "faith" issue. In a way they are right because you really can't "prove" evolution in the same way you can with a hard science. You are expressing a level of confidence or faith in evolution. Thats not the way a hard science works.

As an alternative, one can simply point to the individual pieces of evidence as proof of how animals have changed over the history of the world. It's up to the student to form their own conclusion as to whether god created completely formed animals DIRECTLY, or whether god created a natural mechanism that did the work knowing full well what the result would be.

So definitely hold the line against teaching "creation science" in schools. It's not science, it's the opposite of science. At the same time, most of the things taught in evolution are still just theories. Irregardless of how reasonable they are, you cant prove them.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. Evolution is both fact AND theory

he DOESN'T have it wrong, YOU DO.

Evolution is most certainly "Rock hard experimental science" Do your research.

BTW..."Irregardless" is not a proper word in the English language.
It is an overused colloquialism that is both redundant and pointless.

sorry to be so picky.

who the hell am i kidding? I'm not sorry in the least!

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

21. What about the Theory of Relativity?

We teach that one in schools, don't we? And it's just a theory.
According to you, we shouldn't be teaching such theories, because they might not be true.
Considering the overwhelming evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, and the underwhelming evidence for creationism, it's more than just a theory.
Hell, biologists have witnessed the evolution of species within the span of...twenty years?
The empirical evidence that supports evolution exists. There's massive amounts of evidence that supports it, and to insist that it's not "rock hard experimental science" is more than silly. It's foolish.

[Valjean]

24. Relativity is NOT theory

Relativity is PROVEN fact. Two experiments showed this.

1) The bending light observation.
2) The nuclear clocks in satellites observation.

Both show relativistic affects. Einstein's "bending space" model may turn out to be false or incomplete. But ultimately the equations hold and therefore it is FACT!!!!!

Beyond that, I don't recall Relativity being in conflict with the three monotheistic faiths that account for MOST of our population. It's not a political issue.

[WildClarySage]

53. No, relativity is a theory. One that stands in conflict

with Newton's theories.

[Zero Gravitas]

91. wrong

many aspects of relativity have been experimentally demonstrated.
The fact that it contradicts Newtonian physics only shows the brilliance of the scientific method. For most "real world" applications Newtonian physics is more than adequate, any deviation between predictions and observation is negligible. Its only when speeds and masses get very large does the Newtonian equations break down. This is where relativity comes in.

Even though for 100s o years Newtonian physics adequately explained the physical world it did not stop the formation of a deeper model for the universe. Thats a hell of a lot better than hiding your head in the sand and yelling "No! thats wrong because it says so in the Bible!"

[Zhade]

108. First off, they were cesium clocks. Not "nuclear".

Second off, the fact confirmed through the use of orbiting cesium clocks simply supports the theory. It does not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nor does the "bending light observation".

[einniv]

31. I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about.

What you have to admit is that evolution isn't rock hard experimental science

Evolution is as "rock hard" a theory as you'll find.

http://www.talkorigins.org

29 Evidences for Macro Evolution

[JackDragna]

34. Evolution IS hard science.

There's journals full of hard science done on every aspect of evolutionary biology. That evolution happens is no longer a matter of scientific debate. Even bringing up "God" and leaving to students whether said "God" created things is untenable in a science class. Evolution is "just" a theory because people don't understand what a theory is in science. A theory in science is an explanation for a broad range of natural phenomena. It is not the colloquial "theory" of people making educated guesses. I can damn well guarantee you students in other developed nations know what the theory of evolution is before they graduate high school.

[kskiska]

68. Bravo!

I was wondering when someone would give the scientific definition of "theory." It's not what people think. The word has become a buzzword for creationists.

[DrWeird]

36. Spoken like a degree mill creationist.

"What you have to admit is that evolution isn't rock hard experimental science."

There's literally tons of experimental data, in thousands of papers, across hundreds of journals, in dozens of language that prove evolution is true. It's in your very cells.


"Particular explanations are constantly changing. Too much "theory" is bandied about and it makes evolution science look bad."

Darwin's basic theory of the evolution of all living things from common ancestors through natural selection remains unchanged since it was postulated one hundred and sixty some years ago. There have been small additions to the theory, yet it remains far less changed from Newton's theories which you are so quick to defend.

"The fundamentalists are using the presence of evolution science to justify inclusion of "creation science"."

No, creationists push creationism because they believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, despite internal contradictions and physical evidence showing that it is wrong.

[PennyLane]

39. Literal Interpretation of the bible........

.......ah! Therein lies the rub! Might I suggest a book called
The Crisscross Double Cross. After reading this, if you still feel
the literal meaning of the bible stands as stated, well, you need to
read the book again. Fascinating!

[DrWeird]

42. The literal interpretation of the Bible...

says that pi equals three and that the world is flat. Logically, given the self contradictions in the Bible, if you believe in the literal interpretation you apparently have never read the thing. But like any good religious nut, creationists conveniently reinterpret their literal interpretation when forced into a logical corner.


I guess it depends on what the literal definition of "literal" is.

[Teaser]

47. dude, the only thing you can "prove" are theorems...

in mathematics. Proof in an experimental context is impossible. In experimental science, you can disprove and you can support.

So far, evolution hasn't been disproved and it has tons of support. More than most theories.

So cut out the "only a theory" bs. It means nothing.

[WildClarySage]

52. "most of the things taught in evolution are still just theories."

This could also be said about Physics, Geology and Biology. There's a lot that we don't understand. Basic principles of evolution though have been proven (as much as anything in an existential world) and we're not teaching them doctorate level science here-just basic principles, which have been proven.

[ixion]

56. creation science is an oxymoron in this context (Scopes Monkey Trial)

IMO.

And here we are, back at the Scopes Monkey Trial. When you get down to the 'facts' of creationism, it emerges as nothing more than a simplistic fairy tale.

Mixing myth and science is a dangerous combination.

[hatrack]

71. Man, you really don't know much about science, do you? nt

.

[Zhade]

107. Could we stop saying "creation science"? Creationism is ANTI-SCIENCE.

It is a ridiculous, easily disproved pet theory. The world was not created 10,000 years ago, or whatever nonsense creationists claim.

There is no such thing as "creation science". The very term is contradictory.

[Birthmark]

10. You are grossly misinformed.

It is impossible to teach biology in a meaningful way without evolution. It is the organizing principle for *all* of biology. Reality is not decided by popular vote.

Evolution is "proven" (which really is a concept foreign to science since all knowledge is provisional.) One example is that instances of speciation have been observed. While we don't have the details on the complete history of any species - nor are we likely to ever accomplish such a feat - that does not detract from the factuality of evolution anymore than not knowing the history of internal combustion engines means that cars don't work. In a sense, it is trivia.

The state of Georgia is on the verge of doing their students a grave disservice.

[Valjean]

17. You don't get my message

This is NOT a scientific issue. It is a political issue.

I know that their are different standards of proof for different disciplines of science. I also know full well that the archaeological record will never be "complete" to the degree that a creationist would accept it as fact.

What I'm trying to impress upon you is that their is no way to go back in history and show with 100% certainty that events happened it a certain way. Creationists KNOW this. They use it to their advantage. When a scientific type steps up and pronounces "no your ignorant, you just don't understand" you have lost the battle.

When the other side has a point, you must acknowledge it in order to keep your integrity. You fail to acknowledge that you cannot complete the records or produce experiments to demonstrate evolutionary concepts. You fail to acknowledge the fundamental issue of faith in science. The issue of faith in science is that nature produces all results by a system of ordered (and sometimes chaotic laws).

This is not a bad thing since that faith is manifested in ALL science. Without it, you would never step on an airplane. You would not enter a high rise building. If the world is not governed by immutable natural law, there is no way to predict results. This fundamental assumption (faith) is present and non-destructive to the scientist's case.

When applying the assumption of natural law, evolution is the natural result. We can see it not only in fossils but in the creatures all around us. We can see it in bacteria and viruses that evolve (rapidly) to take on resistance to drugs and immune response.

However, the noticing an ever present pattern does not make scientific fact. You are creating a pseudo-fact based on consensus. Irregardless of how learned the individuals are who create that pseudo-fact, it doesn't make it a scientific fact.

The strength of the evolution case is in observing natural phenomenon. If you teach all the items that produced the original conclusion, people will reach it independently. That is the ultimate testament of science. So just teach biology without Darwin. Show students the similarity and differences between the animals over time. They're not dumb, most of them will reach the same conclusion. Let THEM be scientists and you may be surprised when they come to the same conclusion.

The evolution message is already "out there". Failure to teach evolution in southern classrooms will NOT result in a major ignorance of science. Kids have TONS of resources available to them. Fundamentalists forbid their kids to look at porn, but they still manage to find it ;-)

Finally, knowledge of evolution isn't a necessity in the education of a productive adult. They need their Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and hard science such as Physics and Chemistry to get them by. This will instill a sense of scientific discovery. They'll be FINE without direct evolution instruction.

[wickerwoman]

30. But when I was in school evolution was taught _as_ a theory.

I haven't taken a science class since high school but I remember the first thing they taught us is that _all_ knowledge is theoretical and therefore nothing we're studying is a proven, nailed-down, 100% fact. Maybe evolutionary theory changes every few years but not on the fairly bare-bones level that high school students are going to be introduced to it at.

The problem isn't liberals insisting that evolution is a proven fact- it's conservatives who play on general ignorance of how science works who insist that it must reach that standard or be censored from our textbooks to protect our poor children. And how many principals or superintendants in Georgia are going to make sure students are given the facts of evolution without using the word? Isn't this really just an excuse to ban all discussion of evolution related topics, including natural selection? Even with your good intentions can you guarantee that there won't be widespread abuse of this rule?

I have no problem with being honest about evolution being a theory and teaching students where it falls short. But banning the word "evolution" in classrooms is the illusion of education without the substance and that I do object to.

[Valjean]

111. Reasonable

I would object to a degree in Georgia banning the introduction of any evolution material in Georgia schools. They should have sense enough to allow individual communities the right to include or exclude this in their curriculum.

They could require parental consent as a reasonable measure to insure that fundamentalist parents aren't having their kids force fed material that they find offensive.

Look at it this way. We know a LOT about human sexuality. But it isn't appropriate to introduce this material to children without their parent's consent. This is especially relevant when schooling is REQUIRED by law. There are some topics that are taboo in some communities and fine in others. Communities should be allowed to choose their level of standards on these issues.

What I am 100% against is any introduction of "creation-science" in schools because it isn't science.

Please understand that I'm looking at this primarily from a political standpoint. Your not sympathizing with the viewpoint of a fundamentalist who have a deep and sincere faith. These folks poke some very reasonable holes in the nature of evolution theory. And the insistence that this is the "SAME" as an experimental science like physics or chemistry is discrediting. Ultimately it alienates your audience and makes you seem just as religious as the other side.

[treepig]

113. i have yet to see these folks poke any "reasonable holes"

in evolutionary theory.

if you could kindly cite some and lead me out of my ignorant state, i'd be much obliged!!

[Valjean]

119. It DOESN'T MATTER

They don't want their children taught this material ... PERIOD!!!! There may be nothing wrong with the theory of violin playing, but if the parent doesn't want their kid to learn it than you have to respect the parent's wishes.

That is, unless you can prove there will some profound life destroying lack of knowledge. Like if some fringe group doesn't believe in long division.

[treepig]

127. you know, if i wanted to take a "do anything to get elected, including

pandering to the ignorant fantasies of fundamentalist morons" approach, i'd simply become a republican

instead, i choose to take the more difficult road of standing on principle for what is true.

your point of view is exactly like those who support the iraq war despite all the evidence that it is a complete boondoogle. so should we just shut up and go along with the idiots who say "but isn't it a good thing that saddam isn't in power anymore?"

and you're being just a bit melodramatic about the "profound life destroying lack of knowledge" - of course georgia high graduates will still be well qualified to work at mcdonalds and wal-mart, but i suspect that many georgians have higher aspirations, why should they be held back due to the stupidity of the "moral majority" types?

and incidently, i don't quite grasp your point about long division - are you saying it's not important to learn anymore? i suspect it's of much less consequence than learning sound evolutionary principles.

[Iris]

133. Conservatives would certainly not want students to know that theories

are not facts. It might cause kids to question ideas that the conservatives cling to and want to perpetuate. (Such as the "trickle down" economic theory.)

[DrWeird]

38. Paleontology.

Archaeology deals with human artefacts.

"the (paleontological) record will never be "complete" to the degree that a creationist would accept it as fact."

Creationists wouldn't believe it if you invented a time machine, went back, and filmed it. You're working under the idea that creationists consider evidence. The very nature of a creationist is one of ignorance, lies, and deceit.

Not teaching evolution, and therefore not teaching biology, is the epitome of ignorance.

It is akin to not teaching geography because some nuts think that the world is flat.

Or not teaching history because some assholes think the holocaust didn't happen.

[PsychoDad]

58. 6000 year old universe....

Creationism is based on faith, there is no science involved. A statement in an ancient manuscript is taken as emperical fact and every attempt is made to prove it. Any facts that contradict the literal statement are dismissed or ignored.

Creation science is an attempt to push and validate fundimentalist christanity, nothing else.

[treepig]

60. have you taken a look at projections for jobs in the future?

you know, to replace all those IT jobs going to india?

well, right now the usa is still the world leader in biotech (and there are projected to be hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the next decade or so). but that's not going to be the case if georgia-like education reforms sweep the nation because, contrary to your views, a knowledge of evolution is an absolute requirement for a proper biology education. plus, everyone should have a fundamental understanding of evolution to be able to evaluate new technologies such as genetically modified organism (heck, even here on DU a hysterical anti-science, anti-gmo thread arise that could be avoided with a proper understanding of evolution).

[rexcat]

77. Sorry but it is science but your are correct, it is also politices...

Without any discourse in evolution in science classes you can't teach biology, biochemistry or any other biosciences. Evolution is the string that holds all of the biological sciences together.

A far as the archaeological records go try reading the theory of punctuated equilibrium by the late Stephen Jay Gould. His theory ties in the supposed lack of consistency in the fossil records and enhances the facts and theories of evolution.

It will be a major disservice to our youth not to discuss evolutionary theory in the classroom and it will be a bigger disservice to them if we include religious teachings such as creation science or what they are now labeling it. If you water down the curriculum you diminish their education. It is about time we started to teach our children to think critically and the science class is as good a place to start

[alarimer]

96. they will not be "fine"

They will be appallingly ignorant (or even more so than they already are). The theory of evolution is the cornerstone of biological thought. How are these schools going to get around the fact that species are not immutable, they change through time. Some become extinct. How will they explain that evolution of drug-resistant bacteria? Students also have to know that humans have not always been here and may not always be here. What you are suggesting is completely ignorant.

[Valjean]

112. Within the scope of someone's life ...

Within the scope of someone's life, does it really matter much??? Seriously, do we need to force understanding down peoples throats when they don't want it???? The curious will seek out the answer and it is readily available.

Fundamentalism will die from it's astounding lack of reason. Kids aren't dumb. They drift from the faiths of their parents as it ceases to serve them.

Attacking a fundamentalist produces a defensive response among st the faithful. You are attacking the center of their existence. They curiosity will wane and they will recoil into strict defense of their faith.

Attacking fundamentalism only makes it stronger. It's better to adopt a live and let live attitude. They have their folk, and it's their right to teach their folk as they like. This is America after all.

We have profound issues in the educational institutions of this country. Evolution education is not foremost amongst them. Getting kids to read and write cohesive and thoughtfully is foremost amongst problems. Good mathematics skill is amongst the problems. Do people seriously suggest that you cannot understand the taxonomy and similarity in animals and plants without believing in evolution? It is what it is irregardless of how it was created.

[Piltdown13]

121. Well, you can certainly *learn* taxonomy divorced from evolutionary theory

Sure, it's possible to appreciate the similarities among related organisms and to learn Linnaean taxonomy without also understanding basic evolutionary theory. After all, Linnaeus himself did it over a century before Darwin published his theory of natural selection. However, I think it's misguided to deny that an understanding of natural selection greatly enriches one's understanding of and appreciation for the diversity of and relationships among living organisms (and their extinct predecessors as well, for that matter).

I would liken learning taxonomy and other biological "factoids" without the (evolutionary) theoretical underpinning to learning how to mechanistically solve calculus problems without obtaining concurrently an understanding of the theorems that are the basis of the techniques. Sure, you can learn how to get the answers without the theoretical background, but you won't be able to really use that knowledge or effectively build on it in the future unless you not only know *that* it works but also *why* it works. Similarly, an understanding of evolutionary theory provides the context for taxonomic and other observations of the biological world, and allows students to go beyond a rote memorization of the Linnaean taxonomy -- the interrelationships among living organisms and between them and their environments are much more meaningful to students if they are given a framework for understanding how things came to be the way they are, and a platform for making educated guesses as to how things might change.

Disclaimer: I do understand that mathematical theorems are quite different from evolutionary theory; my point is that students learn and retain information more effectively if they are taught the background/framework along with the techniques/"factoids."

[alarimer]

122. "Evolution education"

Or lack thereof is a tremendous problem-- ignorance of science is rampant. This country lags far behind any other so-called developed nation - Japan, Germany, France, in science education. It is practically third world. Education should not be about what the "community" wants but what is TRUE and FACTUAL. If the fundies want their own schools they can have them but they are NOT getting control of the public schools, not as long as there is breath in me or others like me. I am tired of this ignorant bullshit. It has to stop NOW. These kids will be ill-prepared for any college, even those in Georgia. They will be in for a very rude awakening. It is strange because I went to high school in Marietta, GA and, while there were fundies there, evolution was most definitely taught in my biology classes, without any mention of any other theory or creation "science" which is as it should. Schools should not need "permission" from the parents to teach science or human sexuality. You should not hide the truth. If the parents don't like they can homeschool their kids like other fundies. I have had it with these people; it is time to get them off school boards and out of local politics. Reasonable people need to take back the schools.

[fjc]

98. It's political, and its religious. Science is just in the way.

You have adequately demonstrated that this is really about theology, and therefore about politics, more than it is about science. If it were just about science, there would be no issue to discuss. Those who seek to undermine the teaching of evolution do so on theological grounds. They're method of advancing their agenda here is political, since they have learned that they cannot openly argue for this agenda on the basis of their theological commitments. Science, and free intellectual inquiry, are the victims here, and that makes it a very important matter. While it may be true, as you say, though some here dispute it, that the science can be taught in other terms, that is not at all relevant. What IS relevant and most important is the attack here on a body of ideas that undergird the biological sciences because they are regarded as antithetical to their version of Christian theology. All people who like Jefferson believed in the freedom of the mind should be appalled at this move, particularly as it is served up in terms of the very freedoms they actually oppose.

[Zhade]

109. "When the other side has a point, you must acknowledge it"

Yes, that would be acceptable - provided the other side's "point" isn't that a magical sky god decided to make the Earth in six days.

Creationism is junk science based on the human-written Bible, which is full of more glaring contradictions than the phrase "George Bush, Commander-in-Chief".

[Zhade]

110. Interesting that you compare evolution to pornography. Very telling.

NT!

[Ferretherder]

126. When the other side has a point?!

What point does the 'other side' have?...that evolution is not 100%, without question, rock-solid, no-stone-unturned, beyond a shadow of a doubt proven - so we should teach creationism 'FAIRY TALES', without a SINGLE PROVABLE SCIENTIFIC STUDY TO ITS CREDIT....just to 'balance things out for the fundies' with their panties in a wad??!!!

Gimme' a MAMMY-FRIGGIN' BREAK! Please!

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. Here here! well said...n/t

[hunter]

13. Physics is a lot less "nailed" down than evolution.

If the study of "evolution" is like watching the "Sound of Music" with your wife and kids, then modern physics is like a great gay cabaret with lap dancers, free drinks, brawls, and people ducking in and out of the back rooms.

Anyone who could say evolution isn't "...like physics where we've nailed most of it down... must be living in a mighty dark Newtonian closet.

I'm pretty certain about evolution, I'd say it's as close to "PROVEN" as one can get.

But so far as I can tell, time, space, and physics itself, are an illusion -- just a very clever artifact of my highly evolved nervous system that somehow increases the odds that certain gene pools will continue to exist under some very local and peculiar circumstances.

[Valjean]

22. Newton is STILL right

Anyone who could say evolution isn't "...like physics where we've nailed most of it down... must be living in a mighty dark Newtonian closet.

I'm sorry, but Physics doesn't change every 10 years. Einstein produced the theory of relativity that seems to overthrow Einstein on the surface. However, Newtonian laws are still 100% effective in the same frame of reference. If you eliminate the second frame of reference, Einstein's equations dissolve into Newton. It's absolutely beautiful and 100% fact.

New physics will come along to explain new phenomenon. A grand unification theory (perhaps super-string theory) may be forthcoming. Explanations for "faster than light light" will be developed. But ALL of those will have to obey ALL of the existing known facts about physics.

I personally have ZERO doubt about the correctness of evolution. The pattern is there. The means are there. There's even a back-door in god's matrix that allows omnipotent tampering that CANNOT be measured (Uncertainty Principle).

I am convinced, but PROVING it is an entirely different matter. Teaching this in school gains you very little because kids will come to the most likely conclusion if you teach them the facts. The bible thumping kids won't believe you anyway, so why bother????

At the end, you end up with material that is pretty useless at a high school level. But you end up with a political situation that is a net deficit. People end up talking about EVOLUTION too much. More relevant issues are neglected like discipline, physical fitness, core math skills, core reading skills, etc... You've got people so hung up on one issue that it's difficult to get anything else done.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself who is being more "religious". Your stubbornness to admit that Evolution isn't fact is the same as the fundamentalists argument that their book is 100% fact (even though they can't read the un-translated text in Greek and Aramaic).

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. Another good post. Well said. N/T

[DrWeird]

43. LOL.

"However, Newtonian laws are still 100% effective in the same frame of reference. If you eliminate the second frame of reference, Einstein's equations dissolve into Newton. It's absolutely beautiful and 100% fact."

Well yes, if you ignore every situation where Newton is wrong, then yes, Newton was correct.

"Your stubbornness to admit that Evolution isn't fact is the same as the fundamentalists argument that their book is 100% fact (even though they can't read the un-translated text in Greek and Aramaic)."

You left out one small but rather significant detail. The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of incontravertible scientific evidence. Creationism has exactly zero evidence.

[0rganism]

49. Physics doesn't change every 10 years? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You done any reading on the history of physics, Valjean? Cos your notion of the rate of progress seems to be stuck in the 1800s.

Shit. There are thousands of jobs for theoretical physicists precisely because the science of physics changes every goddam day.

But what do you know? Even your assertions about Newton's version of gravity are incorrect.

Newton thought gravity was a constant force, back in 1687. He himself was building on the previous work of Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus and Aristotle.

In 1797, Cavendish came along and proved gravitational force between objects is a function of the inverse square of the distance. That's right, the force of gravity pulling you toward the center of the earth at the top of a mountain is less than it is at the bottom of the ocean. Newton didn't know this -- or at least he didn't publish anything about it if he did.

By the mid 1800s, physicists were just starting to comprehend exactly how magnetism and electricity are coupled.

In 1900, Lorentz publishes on a crucial topic, theorizing that gravitational effects propagate at lightspeed. Poincare' and others build on this for the next several years, preceding Einstein's 1905 publication regarding special relativity. In 1915, Einstein comprehends general relativity, and tries to explain it to others. He says of himself, "That fellow Einstein suits his convenience. Every year he retracts what he wrote the year before."

By the mid 1900s, physicists were figuring out how to understand and control the behavior of particles so small that existence itself is indeterminite.

About 20 years ago, physicists were toying with the idea that there was a potentially underlying theory capable of explaining the known natural forces. 10 years ago, "string theory" started to gain acceptance. And who the hell knows the entire scope of what's going on now? Physics doesn't just change every decade, it changes every day!

On the other hand, I can quite easily explain a very simple experiment to you, suitable for any undergraduate biology student (and probably many high schoolers), which will demonstrate the two major components of the theory of evolution. Take a bacteria culture, separate it into two petri dishes, and expose one of them to ultraviolet light for an hour or so. Then dose both dishes with antibiotics, and let them sit overnight. The next day, sample the concentrations of bacteria in both dishes, observing which has a higher survival rate. The theory of evolution predicts that the dish with a higher mutation rate (UV light being a common mutagen) will also have a greater survival rate when exposed to selective pressure (such as antibiotics). Carry out this experiment yourself, if you need "proof".

Theories really are the BEST science has to offer. They explain observed facts and predict outcomes. The theory of evolution has both explanative and predictive value. Its particulars have changed, and gradualism has been augmented with punctuated equilibrium, but this is certainly of no greater scope than Cavendish's revision of Newton's gravity, and has occurred over a similar period of time. Darwin, too, was revising a theory, that of Lamarck; his work occurred in parallel with the genetic research of Mendel. Together, the two of them created a foundation for modern biology every bit as solid as Newton and Liebniz's foundation for physics.

[Sialia]

59. Newton was first to publish inverse-square law

It is absolutely incorrect that Newton thought gravity was constant--he was the first to work out the inverse-square law and its consequences mathematically. This was all published in his Principia. Newton not only derived the correct form of the inverse-square law (GMm/r^2) but he also showed how Kepler's three laws of planetary motion follow from this force law.

What Newton couldn't do, and Cavendish did, was get the value of the gravitational constant G. It cannot be derived from theory (yet) and must be measured. It's an extraordinarily difficult measurement to do to high precision and even today G is known to fewer digits than are other fundamental constants.

General relativity is the generalization of Newton's law of universal gravitation, while special relativity can be regarded as a generalization of Newton's laws of mechanics. In both cases the "generalization" is to arbitrary velocities (up to the speed of light) and frames of reference. Both theories reduce to Newtonian mechanics (including gravity) in the limit of velocities small relative to the speed of light and weak gravitational fields.

However, it is true that general relativity cannot be "correct" because it is impossible to use it to fit gravity into the same framework as the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak interaction, and strong interaction). Thus there must be some as-yet-unknown theory that generalizes GR.

And it is also completely correct that there is a lot of evidence for evolution, including macroevolution (evolution of species from predecessors). Also a lot of the supposed controversies are actually whipped up by popular-science journalists who emphasize some aspects of some scientists' theories. In the actual scientific community, there's really not a lot of controversy about even the mechanisms.

Here's an interesting example: recently some experimentalists demonstrated that you can take an arthropod with one pair of legs per segment (centipede type things) and by changing one gene, get an arthropod with six legs, which of course is the defining characteristic of insects. Voila, evolution of insects from crustaceans, which is what actually happened. Done in the laboratory. The single gene that was changed was a homobox gene, a category of gene that is active during embryonic development.

[Teaser]

69. Newton's laws are 100% effective in the same reference frame?

You sure o'that?

I'm a physicist and I don't believe that.

[hunter]

95. Again, Newton's closet is very small

I myself like to stand stark naked on the bow of the ship and feel the neutrino wind flowing through my body.

You said, "At the end, you end up with material that is pretty useless at a high school level.

Evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Simply put, if you are not teaching evolution, you are not teaching biology. Evolution is what life is.

[truthspeaker]

48. physics is no more "nailed down" than evolution

In both disciplines, the generalities are pretty well understood, but the specifics are damned difficult and the scientific consensus changes as new discoveries and breakthroughs are made.

For example, we know gravity works, we have very accurate equations to describe its effects - but no one has successfully detected a graviton.

[Gman]

57. You need to recognize this for what it is

part of the RW's plan for mass indoctrination of the young into their twisted way of thinking.

[Kenneth]

103. Wrong Valjean...

You stated of evolution, "You can teach biology without it."

The truth...

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)-

[Valjean]

114. A thing is what it is!!!!

A plant or organism is WHAT IT IS. This is the tangible result of reality. Do you believe it is not possible to study a creature without knowing what it evolved from???

This is the kind of bullshit that gets academics a reputation for being aloof and snotty. Your failure to reach out and understand a foreign point of view is just as poor as a fundamentalist's failure to reach out and understand yours.

They're just two pig-headed egotists butting heads with each other senselessly. Until you start to understand this, you will continue to lose these political issues. The fact is that it's the perfect right of the state of Alabama to set it's curriculum standards and EXCLUDE evolution. It's the right of a local school board to EXCLUDE evolution. As long as you keep looking down your nose at these folks they will reject you and elect ass holes like GW Bush.

[DrWeird]

116. It's impossible to study biology without studying evolution.

It's like studying geography without bringing up the fact that the earth is spherical.

Yes, you can look at a plant, without bringing up evolution. But if you actual study the plant and start to ask questions like how did it get here, why does it look like that, what is this part for, etc. then you have to bring in evoluton.

To ignore it because you might offend some freetards is the very epitome of ignorance.

[Kenneth]

123. Wrong again Valjean,

(1) Yes "it is not possible to study a creature without knowing what it evolved from" at least not at a scientific level.

(2) Understanding a "foreign point of view" has nothing to do with the scientific fact of evolution. As for understanding the fundamentalist's point of view, if they want to believe Pi=3 (and not 3.14...) or for that matter if they belive 2+2=5 because their bible says so, should I try to understand that point of view?

(3) You said, "...you will continue to lose these political issues."
I guess thats the problem, making religious issues "political" not to mention making the teaching of science political.

(4) You said, "The fact is that it's the perfect right of the state of Alabama to set it's curriculum standards and EXCLUDE evolution."
I guess (as long as their not doing for religious reasons) thats true, as I guess its true that its the right of Alabama to "EXCLUDE" math and reading, and I guess their willingness to do so is what makes Alabama, Alabama.

(5) You said, "...they will reject you and elect ass holes like GW Bush." I say, "they" just might render the south irrelevant in presidental elections. In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 1/2 million votes, and only lost the electoral vote 271/266, (And that was only with the help of the Scalia 5.) without the help of one southern state.


(6) You said, "As long as you keep looking down your nose at these folks..." Even as a blue collar bum from Milwaukee its difficult not to scoff at somebody that will disbelieve scientific fact just because they believe their bible tells them so.

[The Backlash Cometh]

131. Striking Evolution from the books would be a major win for Creationist.

Creationist reinforce their position in the churches. You strike Evolution from the public schools and it's a win for Creationist.

Here's another link to the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/education/30GEOR.html

[PartyPooper]

2. That is so stupid!

Things "evolve"...they don't "biologically change over time"!

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid!

:dunce:

[BayCityProgressive]

3. ugh

I really really cannot stand religious nuts. Everytime I read somethign liek this it makes me more hostile towards religion. I know most religious people don't behave like these morons but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I wish our country wasn't always held back by these red necks.

[Valjean]

117. Alternatives

Now mind you I don't believe this but I'm going to present it anyways to demonstrate the area we are dealing with.

So I have an Uncle who believes that the Catholic church is too liberal. He is the ABSOLUTE BIGGEST traditional conservative that I've ever encountered. He's also a sweet and compassionate human being (he GETS Jesus unlike a lot of fundamentalists).

But his take on this is God created new animals whenever god wanted to. He didn't need evolution. If god wanted to change a creature, he did. The evolutionists don't have all the necessary transitional forms.

I know the holes in this argument so please spare me. But who is to say that God could not simply poof things in and out of existence when he wanted??? What makes this theory any more or less valid than Darwin??? The archaeological record could reasonably support both.

What distinguishes the two is the scientists "faith" in the constancy and order of the universe. The universe is governed by measurable rules. Got doesn't change the rules midstream. God is not capricious and unpredictable. Since the rules have NEVER changed we can follow a trail of breadcrumbs back into time to reveal the past form of our Earth.

The god of a scientist isn't capricious. He is the god of the Masons. He is the "great architect" who laid down plans that created the ultimate solution. Either that or existence is just random happenstance ;-)

Evolution is the generation of an explanation for origins that assumes nature generated life in a chaotic application of rules. Creationism is the generation of life through the structured application of divine intelligence. Both rely on a fundamental faith in the nature of the universe.

Failure to acknowledge the fundamental nature of a scientists faith undermines your position. You appear as a hypocrite. You appear aloof and godless in the eyes of fundamentalists. You piss them off.

To me the minor faith of a scientists is far better. Without that faith, our world would be completely unpredictable. Any planning would fail. A building could spontaneously collapse do to nothing at all besides the capriciousness of existence. But it is a faith nonetheless.

[DrWeird]

118. Still waiting for your replies to any one of my posts.

"What makes this theory any more or less valid than Darwin???"

The argument that evolution may have been divinely inspired isn't a problem. The problem is the creationist belief that God created man in his image six thousand years ago along with everything else. Which is patently false by both the paleotonological and archaeological record.

"The god of a scientist isn't capricious. He is the god of the Masons. He is the "great architect" who laid down plans that created the ultimate solution."

Actually, most scientitsts are either atheists of agnostics. Not deists.


"What distinguishes the two is the scientists "faith" in the constancy and order of the universe. The universe is governed by measurable rules.

Evolution is the generation of an explanation for origins that assumes nature generated life in a chaotic application of rules."

Square those two statements please.

"I know the holes in this argument so please spare me."

So why use them if you know they're wrong? Thou shall not give false witness.

[hunter]

120. Ahhhhh. You suffered, you died...

And it turns out God is this small intense brown eyed lady, standing about four and a half feet tall , Who, with a sly smile and a Yiddish accent, winks and tells you, "So now you got yourself dead, and with one good story to tell your friends."

"Oh right," I cry. "Like I wanted to be tortured to death in a Nazi concentration camp, or to suffocate after some volcanic lake in Africa turned over, or to catch the flu from my pigs, or a virus from my lover, or that stray bullet from that Yankee soldier, or that one u.v. photon from the sun, or the clot from my leg that destroyed my brain..."

"There are many ways to suffer and die," says God.

Okay Valjean, how can you possibly claim that "God is not capricious and unpredictable"?????? I've seen sweet innocent children die, and I hear the news each day, and I know that He can be very capricious, but only from a human point of view, and never within my faith as a Christian, or my faith as a scientist.

It is by our own free will that we create this world that we live in.

"This people's wits are dulled, their ears deafened, and their eyes blinded, so that they cannot see with their eyes nor listen with their ears, nor understand with their wits, so that they may be turned and be healed."

That's a quote from Isaiah.

My first obligation as a Christian, and as a scientist, is to the TRUTH. I shall proclaim it everywhere, and I will not be afraid.

[madrchsod]

4. it was called the "dark ages"

that`s where these knuckle draggers want to live. have the pope to tell them to be in slaved to their masters because that`s god`s will. fucking morans

[flaminbats]

6. My best friend chose not to teach because of something like this...

In the state my friend would have taught in, you must first submit lesson plans on what you plan to teach your students. She submitted a lesson plan on the early humans...homo habilis, homo erectus, the neanderthals, and cro-magnon man. She even practiced her lessons in front of me, and had them completely memorized.

Imagine my surprise the following day when she came to me in tears, and cried that she "would rather not work than be forced to teach religion!"

When we went out for dinner the truth finally came out...the Principle saw her plan and told her very bluntly to either "forget this new-age stuff or forget about a career in teaching."

Both public and private schools are extremely brutal about this in the south, but one saving grace in the private schools' favor is that they are not taxpayer funded! It made me sick to see a state in such desperate need of teachers..who are willing to do so much for so little, just throw away this talent for the sake of continued insanity.

[davidinalameda]

7. can we get these fools to succeed from the union again?

what's it going to take for these theocrats to go away?

let them have Mississippi and be done with it! Throw in Alabama for good measure

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. Unbelievable. No, scratch that. VERY believable in this day and age.....

Kansas went through this a few years ago and if memory serves, ALL the members of the school board that wanted creationism in were voted out in the next election. Seems that in some conservative states, most folks don't want to go backward scientifically.

This idea defines the term "Canard". Suggesting that "Poof, something magically happened" is a valid scientific dictum is preposterous on its face and at its best is disingenuous and at its worst, deceitful.
It is pure, Christian, right wing ideology at its most insidious. The real objective is to promote the "Worldview" in which all the biology one needs to rely on is laid out in the first few chapters of Genesis and it CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED! It is the idea that "Here is the conclusion, now find facts to support it" It is a school of thought that any competent scientist would recognize as ANTI science and therefore something to be rejected out of hand. You can count on one hand the number of articles defending creationism that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the last 50 years. There is a reason for this. It is junk science, pure and simple.

One has to ask the question "WHY?" Why would they do this? The answer is quite simple. Raise a generation of scientifically illiterate, bible believing children and you can mold society in the way you desire. Tell the public that which you wish them to believe and they will believe it in the absence of information to the contrary.

Christian Fundamentalism in this country has become so powerful a force that it can control how an entire group of people perceives the universe and their place in it by merely changing curriculum and browbeating textbook publishers.

Believe anything you want. If it makes you a better person to hold the conviction that a super Deity created the entire universe and all the life forms in it in 6 days, 10,000 years ago, GO FOR IT! But please don't pass it off as fact since there is NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support this viewpoint.

Fundies make me ill

[Occulus]

12. One angle on this I've never, ever seen mentioned

is that, very probably, evolution is a tool of God.

Think about it. You're a divine, omnipotent, immortal being ruling the entire Universe. What better posible tool could you weild regarding the improvement over time of the life you've created than the ability for that life to improve itself based upon its environment?

That's really all that evolution is, in the end- the ability of living systems to change over time as their external environments change. Some survive, some don't. The ones that survive are the ones that are the 'best' at the time. It's really quite simple.

By saying that evolution goes against God, these people are actually speaking blasphemy in a purely religious sense. Who the HELL are they to limit God?

I see evolution as the single best tool of the divine being to guarantee the survival of the life It created. Anyone who speaks against evolution, in my opinion, is speaking against God.

[Wapsie B]

20. Yes,

but to a konservative fundy God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, not millions of years. Also if one were to teach creation theory as a science that would mean that to be held up as a valid scientific theory it would have to be challenged in the classroom. The wingnuts would never allow anything but blind acceptance.

[DBoon]

86. To the RW, the universe must be unchanging

If you allow that biological species can change to better adapt to their environment, then it suggests human beings and human societies can do likewise.

Which means that current political and social arrangements are subject to criticism, and that attempting to change these arrangements is good.

In an unchanging universe, those with power and money will always have power and money, as this is mandated by God. Change is evil.

In a universe that evolves, those with power and money must justify this. If they fail to do so, and if they fail to act in the interests of humanity, they will "become extinct".

This is not just about biblical fundamentalism, this is about attacking a major premise of post-enlightenment political practice.

[Thor_MN]

23. But if a God had to create evolution, would that mean that the early work

was flawed, not perfect, therefore making the God imperfect?

What I have issues with is religion in politics. Xtian religions (and most others) exclude non-believers making them biased and hypocritical by definition. I want my representives to be open minded and objective, not to try and stuff their "faith" (ie, beliefs despite evidence to the contrary) down my throat.

[Valjean]

25. Who are we to lecture ...

Who are we to lecture god as to what is perfect or imperfect. If everything god DOES is divine, than God's process is divine as well. We mortals are unfit to judge the perfection of God. We must assume that nature is the way that an omnipotent being INTENDED it to be. Nature is the ultimate form of revelation.

[Thor_MN]

28. Null statement

Who are we to assume that there is a god, that it is divine, and that we can fathom what he/she/it wants done?

[Malva Zebrina]

45. Sounds good

but no facts. :-) You mean of course, a predator world--and that direction of thought opens the door to justifying attacking another country, killing off enemies and their children? That is why the Chrisitian religion and all of it's mysticism was and is embraced by despicable, fascist leaders. It is easily adaptable to spread vengeance and other shameful mind sets.

History demonstrates that over thousands of years, the {"peace" of Jesus, as a poster upthread mentioned, has done little to make the world a better place.

One does not necessarily need Jesus in order to promote peace and positive progress and to live in harmony with the rest of humanity.

Nature is not a divine decree, invented by an omnipotent god. It is flawed in many respects--we, as humans are flawed physically also. Are those of us who are "flawed" and suffer because of it being punished by the omnipotent god if her process is, additionally, divine?

Nature is not a divine anything, it just is.

Over a period of more than 150 years, Millions of peer review papers have been written concerning Darwin's theory. This is science. Some things may have been worked out to be more understandable due to that process, but certainly the theory has stood the test of time and scientists from all over the world who would challenge. No one, except perhaps for a few who do have religious convictions re creations, has declared evolution to be wrong. Testing goes on, but mostlu all those who do test, believe in the basic theory now and are working on details. That some backwoods redneck in the hills of Georgia who disdains education wants to keep his/her children equally as backwards and seeks to deprive all the children in Georgia of this information, while substituting the Christian version of a god as the creator of all life, is pathetic. Then, as myth has it, that same god destroyed her entire creation , babies, pregnant women, old men because he got mad at them so he drowned them all except a few and started all over with animals that all fit on a boat he built. Does not sound feasible to me at all.

[Valjean]

115. No....

No I mean that an omnipotent being by definition can do whatever it fucking wants to do. It's goofy to say that that an omnipotent creator didn't get it's way.

[PennyLane]

40. God

If you look at God as a catalyst, evolution is perfect!

[hatrack]

72. And if God=perfect, ergo evolution=perfect . . .

Why do extinctions take place?

[glitch]

93. extinctions = perfect

extinctions open niches for new life, they are a part of evolution.

[0007]

70. I have the same issues with religion in politics -

Why does the media almost always depict a candidate or president exiting from a church?

I'll wait for your answer or pm me.

[Bridget Burke]

44. Most Christians have no problem with evolution...

The much maligned Roman Catholic Church had some problems with science back in the Renaissance, but eventually came around. All the sciences are taught in Catholic schools; Catholic colleges actually offer degrees that are as good as any.

Most Protestant denominations also believe in a God large enough to co-exist with evolution & other modern "theories".

But a few believers in a second-rate deity, creator of a tinker-toy universe, want to foist their inferior beliefs upon everybody else. It makes them look bad, it makes their god look silly and, with laws like this, they are making all the children of their state suffer an inferior education.

[Occulus]

82. the church is very long

in coming around.

"The much maligned Roman Catholic Church had some problems with science back in the Renaissance, but eventually came around."

Wasn't Galileo pardoned by the church, oh, in the 1970s? Seems I remember reading that somewhere.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

80. I went to Catholic school...

and I had religion class and science class. In religion class, I was taught creation from a religious standpoint, in science class, it was nothing but evolution and science.

During one science class a student asked Sr. Beniga how a Catholic could reconcile the bible and evolution. Her answer was you were free to believe in evolution, so long as you believed God created the Big Bang.

An elegent solution for the religious.

[glitch]

92. that is what I believe

I find it incredibly beautiful.

[The White Tree]

104. Actually Darwin credited all to God

From the Origin of Species - To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.

Ironic isn't it.

Interestingly, Evolution has been recognized by the pope and the Catholic church as a real scientific phenomenon that in no way conflicts with the Catholic faith.

Sadly, the denial of Evolution from what I've read is overwhelmingly an American phenomenon which to me speaks more to the denier's lack of faith in God than anything else.

[Dover]

14. Georgia shunned evolution long ago. God told them they could

Create but couldn't EVOLVE. End of story.

[La_Serpiente]

16. Crazy

Georgia is not no small state. It has a major metropolitan area and has numerous academic institutions as well.

The result? Ivy League schools and institutions of higher learning may not accept students from Georgia because they lowered their standards in the field of science.

This only hurts the students in Georiga. Period.

[Thor_MN]

26. The true outcome of dumbing down your education

Good luck to the Georgia graduates of say 2015 and beyond in trying to do anything out of the state of Georgia.

"What's that? You would like a job with my company? You sound like you are from the south... Let's see, Macon High, class of 2018? Just your luck, we do have an immediate opening - here's your broom, you can start in the hallway and make your way to the warehouse."

[demconfive]

19. Now, now people.

Those Georgians have a point. I've met people from the South and I must admit that, as far as I can tell, evolution has not occurred there. So can you blame them for not wanting it in the books? I think we should compromise and state in textbooks that evolution has never occurred in regards to the people of the South. That should make 'em happy.

[hyphenate]

75. Thanks for the laugh!

That one tells a lot, doesn't it? (However, as a disclaimer, I must announce that not all Georgians are thick headed, bible-thumping conservative religious wingnuts. Some of them actually have educations and represent the best in American society today--these are the folks who look at their fellow Georgians and laugh hysterically to themselves about how much inbreeding can damage the race of homo sapiens.)

[Voltaire99]

27. And here I thought that Zell Miller was the missing link.

"Class, evolution is real. It just bypassed Georgia politicians."

[DBoon]

87. Devolution is real!!!

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it’s all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!
We’re pinheads now
We are not whole
We’re pinheads all
Jocko homo
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
Monkey men all
In business suit
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot
Are we not men?
We are devo!
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
We’re all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
We must repeat
O.k. let’s go!


See http://fusionanomaly.net/devo.html

[DrWeird]

33. Just like I may shun georgian college applicants

if I were to sit on a college admittance board.

[R Hickey]

46. Why not throw out all textbooks in Georgia and use only the Bible?

Do these hill-billies really need books? Why not throw out all the text books that teach biology, physics, and history, and just read the students Bible stories?

Why bother even trying to teach them to read? Perhaps Georgia's public schools should teach the kids only to play the banjo, instead.

I think that closing down Georgia's public schools would save a their taxpayers a bundle. Its obvious to me that Georgia's educational funds have been squandered up til now. The fruits of their educational system look like vegetables to me.

The savings would also allow Georgia to fund new prisons, and devote their full efforts to winning the 'drug war,' and also to developing new chain-gang songs, and to deregulating those old, outmoded rules against slavery.

[dusty64]

50. Well, I guess this

is what happens when "voting" machines created by the American Taliban are allowed to take over. Hope the people of Georgia enjoy the Dark Ages. If the "poll" I saw yesterday is correct and a vast majority of the citizens of that state actually approve of these machines, we'll see ya!

[progressiverealist]

51. the American Taliban is making some real headway.

Before you know it we will all be required to carry a bible at all times.

[ixion]

54. Georgia: one step back towards the cave

Way to keep 'em stupid. :-(

[RebelOne]

64. Yes, I hate to admit that I live in this state with these Neanderthals.

[Lorien]

55. "Keep 'em fat, dumb, and happy"

That was poppy Bush's motto. First we subsidize suger and corn syrup, then we teach the young that science isn't fact, and that they should reley on "faith" instead, throw in some mindless television and stock car races, and you got yourself a nice, happy dictatorship!

One wonders how long America can maintain it's "superpower" status when we are a stones throw away from burning witches and throwing people into rivers to determine guilt or innocence.

[trumad]

62. Compare the players on the 1971 Miami Dolphin football team

to the 2003 Miami Dolphin Football team. If you don't think they're evolving then you're wearing blinders.

Oh but the fundies will come back and say that food, supplements, weight lifting etc is the cause of that... Well...ya I agree... Humans are responsible for those items evolving aren't they? I contend that the earliest Cave Man did the same thing by evolving the items that er...made them evolve...and so on and so forth and so on until this:


I gotta say...Me-Thinks Jason Taylor is much bigger than Adam

[mainer]

61. Yes, you do need to know evolution

Because knowledge of it is used every day by microbiologists, virologists, and DNA scientists. The development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is simply evolution sped up, as microorganisms acquire, through random mutations over multiple generations, advantageous traits.

Anyone who does DNA analysis can see the process of evolution recorded in the genes of every species. By comparing how similar the DNA is between species, you can map out the evolutionary tree.

Honestly, I don't know why people think evolution isn't accepted SCIENCE. If you don't believe in evolution, then you must not believe in the validity of DNA science or microbiology. If you think evolution is bunk, then you must think forensic DNA evidence is bunk, too. If you don't believe in evolution, then you must not believe in advanced antibiotics, because surely bacteria don't evolve and acquire resistance. Or DO THEY?

[reprobate]

63. Why are we argueing with disruptors?

Creationists are BY DEFINITION far right wingers. To argue with them is to justify them by granting that their idea of creation is at least close enough to the truth to be worth discussion.

They come here to do just what has happened here. Waste bandwidth and get us argueing among ourselves on the definition of 'definitions'.

Don't argue with them. Ignore them. Let them make their stupid statements, and let the thread they started quickly slide from the page.

If you want to do something about their posts, just hit 'alert'.

[RainDog]

65. ANYONE who argues against the teaching of evolution

is an idiot.

It's that simple.

those of you on this thread who pretend you have any valid argument are an embarrassment to yourselves and you don't even know it....which is another sad fact.

The argument against teaching evolution shows that there are so many stupid people in this nation, we do not deserve to be the world's superpower because we are too stupid to make rational decisions.

I am SO SICK of anyone thinking this an even an issue for debate.

Fundies who want to deny evolution need to withdraw to their caves with their Osamas and leave the rest of us free of their Talibornagain regressiveness.

If you do not know the truth about science, go get an education.

America is an embarrassment to any intelligent person around the world with this pseudo-scientific religious bullshit which is ALL about the anti-intellectual basis of fundamentalism, and you have more in common with Muslim fanatics than you do with our founders (who did not, btw, found this as a "christian nation" --another bullshit argument by fundies.

Fundamentalists in this country should also be aware that, historically, crusades, with which the current idiot-in-chief finds so much to admire, are NOT seen as issues of right vs. wrong or good vs evil...because the REALITY is that they are not.

Your theocratic totalitarianism has NO PLACE in American democracy, do you understand?

NO PLACE.

Go found some little petty empire where you can teach that the world is flat and the center of the universe and the earth is 5000 years old and humans sprang, full blown, from the head of Zeus.

Leave the rest of us alone because you have no right to impose religious beliefs on others' children.

And yes, evolution SHOULD be taught, and is, in decent schools, in elementary school because it is the basis for understanding biology, geology, a history of the evolution of western democracy, and intellectual history.

GET OVER IT, idiots.

You are wrong about the literal interpretation of the bible and you have NO RIGHT to impose your stupidity on any citizen of a democracy.

[Must_B_Free]

78. Yep, you got it.

evolution is a process of generations and time. It is unavoidable. Nothing stays the same for ever.

Evolution is in Biology, Culture, Learning, Technology... thought!

Everything changes.

[earthman dave]

66. Rocks fall to the ground because that is their natural place.

I demand equal time for this theory! We must replace all references to "gravity" with "positional changes over time". Gravity is, after all, only a theory.

[treepig]

73. yes, and a theory that is directly counterdicted by the bible

after all jesus walked on water and rose into heaven - careful reading of the context of these stories showed that

1) he did not have on any of those styrofoam oversized shoes to conteract the normal gavity-induced sinking into the sea that would occur if the "theory" of gravity were correct

2) when he rose into heaven, this process was not aided by any rocket propulsion device that modern physics would indicate as being necessary to overcome the forces postulated by the "theory" of gravity that keep objects on or close to the surface of the earth

[flaminbats]

106. The bible is "counterdicted" by the bible...

while natural selection isn't theory, it is the foundation of modern biology.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

67. creationists haven't evolved enough to understand Evolution.

Anytime you tell a chimp that they evolved from lemurs they
so Ape-Shit!!!

[callous taoboy]

74. I teach third grade

and I TEACH EVOLUTION. They can drag me off to jail before I'll stop.
Now, I don't go too far into it, but I state that there are generally two views on how things came to be. I try to be fair. The kids are fascinated by evolution, and some argue against it, even in third grade. Bravo for them. I don't argue back, but instead I repeat that there are two views on the issue of how things came to be.

[treepig]

76. and when you go to church

do you argue the devil's point of view, just to be fair?

somehow, bringing up a completely bogus point of view is hardly "fair" - teaching the kids actual science would be

[callous taoboy]

81. Excuse me,

do I know you? Keep shooting in the dark, pal.

[truthspeaker]

97. two views, but only one based in science

Sounds like you're handling it OK, though. These kids are probably brainwashed at home so you have to ease the truth in.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

79. Tactic: practice 'social Darwinism' but teach that it doesn't exist. argh.

[GermanDJ]

83. One of the most striking examples for the process of evolution

always was for me the case of the Samurai crabs in Japan.
I heard about this in Carl Sagan's extraordinary TV series 'Cosmos'.
I think it's in the second episode, when Carl Sagan shows the carapace of a crab, which has a striking similarity to the face of a Samurai warrior.
He goes on to explain how these faces are an example for artificial selection, one of the many scientific aspects of the evolutionary process.

You can read about this in Carl Sagan's book 'Cosmos' or here:

http://www.scs.kyushu-u.ac.jp/F1/test/00syuki/eigo-a12.html

[htuttle]

84. I'll have to make sure never to go to a Doctor from Georgia...

I'd fear they might want to drill a hole in my skull, or put leeches on me...

[myrna minx]

105. Don't forget your weekly bleedings.

Must clean out the 'ol humors of their bile. Sheesh, how happy would these folks be if I went to their church to teach evolution? Hmmmm.

[Zero Gravitas]

88. Its very simple

Teach science in school (and that includes evolution, but not "intelligent design" or whatever other pseudo-scientific name they come up with.) Teach religion in church. Its then up to the individual to reconcile the two ideas.

[tom_paine]

89. Sounds like the Empire is falling apace

The Imperial Will trumps any scientific veracity anyway.

How can you believe a bunch of lib'rul scientists over our Divinely Apppointed Emperor and his Stooges?

[donsu]

90. Georgia has always been a backward state

yrs and yrs ago before Rt.95 was built anyone driving down to Fl. knew not to stop in the state of Ga. they were dangerously nutty.

when men started growing their hair long in the 60's, 70's they had to hide their hair under a cap while driving through Georgia.

some joke there must be something in the water but I think it's something in the religion.

[yellowcanine]

94. Zell Miller is hard evidence that evolution doesn't occur in Georgia.

Not to mention old Lester Maddox.

[Ganja Ninja]

99. Maybe someday medical colleges in Georgia...

will offer degrees in shaman-ism or voodoo. After all when superstition is treated as if its hard science how unlikely is it.

[jokerman93]

100. This isn't about science

This isn't about science. The issue here is that once again, the politically powerful Christian right is (very effectively) employing the strategy of co-opting the discourse and winning through re-framing the arguments.

The war chant: "Evolution is just a theory," as demonstrated above, is a typical way of doing this. It obfuscates the rules of forensic discourse by "vulgarizing" terms that in fact have a highly specific and technical meaning. Once there is a general confusion on what certain terms actually mean (Repubs do this constantly as well), they've managed to create a divide between the diminishing number of informed critical thinkers in this country, and those whose cause is strengthened by obscurantism like this. They couldn't get this far if we hadn't already been failed by the system at least a generation ago.

The less information is given; the more subjective the terms of the debate are allowed to be, the less empowering is the education of the child. This is a great way to further dumb down our education system to even lower levels that we presently find it.

Uniformed populations are easy to manipulate. It is politically desirable to the Christian Right, whose advocates are lusting after eventual complete control of this nation's polity.

The greatest lie propagated here is that there is an unsolvable conflict between the methods of hard science and an individual's private religious beliefs. This is also a re-framing of the debate and is patently false except for those who prefer to live in what Carl Sagan called the "demon haunted world" of a medieval Minachean theocracy. Think it couldn't happen here? Think again.

Check out this website for details on how the "Christian" right has taken over the Republican party...

http://www.theocracywatch.org

[Tims]

101. Evolution is not a Theory

Evolution is as much a fact as is possible in science. Evolutionary theories, on the other hand, are the explanations of how the fact of evolution takes place. Evolution was accepted as scientific fact among most learned people long before Darwin's "Origin of Species", in fact Darwin's grandfather Erasmus had proposed his own theories on the subject. Darwin attempted to explain how evolution worked through a theory of natural selection - he didn't suggest or invent the idea of evolution. The evidence for evolution itself was clear to anyone who cared to look. The only valid scientific arguments ever leveled against Darwin was against his theory, not against evolution itself.

One may propose a theory of light propagation. No one doubts that light propagates, but how it works it is open to discussion (is it a wave or is it a particle or is it both?).

Evolution is an observed fact but science will argue over and refine the theories which explain it as long as we have curious and educated people. That is what science is.

[frogfromthenorth2]

102. Can't spell CREaTIoNist without CRETIN....

n/t

[kodi]

124. ever notice? were evolution is challenged the state votes repub.

igronance, plain and simple(minded).

[JohnOneillsMemory]

125. If Georgians don't want to evolve, make it voluntary...sarcasm off. n/t

[RT Atlanta]

128. My rant

This is so fucking ass-backwards I don't know where to start!! This affects me personally as I have two young girls that my wife and I were planning on sending to public schools. However, with this act, the public school system, to me, is taking another step in the wrong direction on the a slippery slope to creationism (read: conservative whacko Christian-right wing fanatics). Our personal alternative will likely be private school (although I sure as hell do not relish the idea of paying college-like tuition for a 5 year old to go to school!) - however, I am not going to tolerate my kids' minds being polluted with this kind of shit from the "neutral" state board.

Oh yeah, the Georgia state senate is also taking steps to ban gay adoptions and to enact a "defense of marriage act." What century are we living in?!? The 21st or the 19th?

End of rant.

[Bridget Burke]

129. What does your local board have to say?

What about the particular school that your girls would be attending? Have you made your voice heard? What about other parents in your area? What do they think?

This is certainly a dreadful decision on the state board's part, but you should at least try.

[RT Atlanta]

130. don't know

BB - that's a great point that I haven't looked into yet. My girls are still a few years out and I have been reacting somewhat impulsively/emotionally, rather than thinking it through and looking into the matter in some more detail like you suggest.

[MisterC2003]

135. In defense of Kathy Cox ...

Her job requires her to hang around the state capitol while the General Assembly is in session. After a couple of weeks of that, the notion that life on earth ever evolved beyond slimy things crawling through the ooze and sucking mud starts to seem like a distant dream.

[nolabels]

132. THE ETERNAL MARCH OF EVOLUTION

http://www.lightparty.com/Visionary/MarchEvolution.htm

THE ETERNAL MARCH OF EVOLUTION
by Dr. Rashmi Mayur

Once I dreamt that I would live in a paradise, where everyone experienced Nirvana -- ultimate liberation and salvation. At that time I was only a child and day-dreaming was my preoccupation.

Then, as I grew up, I discovered a different world-a world of cruelty, diseases, ignorance, exploitation, and death. As I traveled around the world and saw more and more of humanity, my dream became a nightmare. I became sad, pessimistic, and hopeless. I felt no future existed for us or for our sacred Earth which was being plundered, that one day it would devolve into a mass graveyard, its future dead the byproduct of human carnage.

Then, one day as I was passing through the Amazon forests, suddenly at dawn I had a vision. All life around me had just awakened. The sweet music of birds and animals filled the fresh air, the rays of the sun peeped through the trees and everywhere life seemed to dance and sing in joy. A truth and hope also became apparent to me. I discovered that even though the world has many ills, humans need not be enemies of truth, and that truth is expressed in the laws of nature that govern earth, life, and the future. Humanity is not an exception. But I also experienced that within the larger design of the universe, we have a special purpose -- a responsibility to preserve all that has evolved through eons of complex evolution.

Since that day, life has been a perpetual challenge to me. True, the state of the world remains tragic and insanities are ubiquitous. After 16 tortuous days a 14-year-old girl dies of hunger, millions of hectares of trees are cut to clear land for highways, cities, construction, and cooking, resulting in the extinctions of some of the most beautiful species of plants, birds, and other animals. The list of tragedies seems endless.

But life need not be tragic. We can hope that what we do will make a difference, that we can build an earth from our fondest dreams and visions. Now I've stopped searching for a utopia --a final destination. That does not exist. Our purpose is to dedicate our lives to regenerating the earth and building a new human order. If we devote our common energies to our common future, then we cannot fail to realize our hopes
(snip)

[Iris]

134. Check out this on the new history curriculum

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0104/25history.html

[davidinalameda]

136. kick

so people (like me) can find this