Evolution vs. Creationism

[Phatfish]

Just watched Scarborough Country rerun because I couldn't sleep. He had the creationism vs. evolution debate on in the middle. A Michigan State Senator was talking about how "Macroevolution has no empirical evidence in favor of it..." WHAT!?! Has this man even studied Darwinian theories, read a natural science textbook or gone to the chimpanzee exhibit at the zoo? I cannot believe people are so blinded by faith that they can't even consider the evidence right in front of their face. If any of you have doubts about evolution... read the book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life" by Daniel C. Dennet. It is an in depth read but will remove any doubts in your mind. Now I can look in awe on how ignorant some of these people are in favor of creationism.

[lazarus]

1. Typical

These people want all science gone, because science, and the accompanying reasoning and critical thought and logic that the scientific process foster, are all anathema to their goal of domination. They need people willing to believe anything fed to them, without question or doubt. And that means no skepticism, no rational thought, no independent thought can be allowed.

The Dark Ages was a great time for people like Our Great Leaders. They want another one. What do you think the voucher programme is all about? Eventually, they will introduce the concept of giving the voucher check back to a family that home schools.

Hmm. The government will pay me $6,000 to keep Johnny home from school. I'm about to lose the house. Yeah, I guess I'll try to teach him myself. After all, that public school is about to close from lack of funding, why should I send him there?

[Heddi]

120. you know what's amazing

I grew up in the South, and of course they *WANTED* to teach creationism, but they couldn't, so they didn't teach ANYTHING related to anything. We barely covered Mitosis and Meiosis---guess that would have caused some problems with the "virgin birth" crowd :eyes:

Right now I'm in pre-nursing classes. I've got my hands in dead kitties for several hours a day, and have been handling various brains, eyes, hearts, etc for the last few months.

Myself, being one who leans to the spiritual side, find more evidence of GOD in Science than God in the bible---seriously.

Now I'm not all preachy, and I use the term "god" as my word for higher powerS, but I think that the human body is beautiful and intracately complex and just astounding.

These people seriously fear what they don't know.

Teaching evolution does NOTHING to take away any greatness you may beleve came from creationism. In fact, I think the idea that we were put here and evolved and changed and grew and are still evolving and changing and growing as being a really beautiful story. In life we're born, we grow, we change, and we die. Why should nature be any different?

There are many people (who I think these fundies fear) who find no need for God in Science--which is fine and dandy. But there are plenty of people like me, and like 99% of the people in my classes who aren't swayed one way or another by our scientific knowledge. I mean, I've not yet seen anyone either burn the bible and scream "Ah! Ha! I've finally learned about the Sodium/Potassium Pump! I'm an Athiest at lastttt!!!" nor have I seen them drape their heads in veils and start saying prayers and having benedictions before dissection begins.

These people fear nothing. No-one's faith is going to be shaken because of science. If anything, it's going to reinforce whatever their beliefs are PRE-science classes.

I say this, of course, knowing that many of these people think the world is no more than 7,000 years old and think that dinosaurs are 'plants' by Satan to throw us off :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

gah. I hate that I have to share the planet with people who are unwilling to open their mind and see the beauty that is here. Science is wonderful----even though they're the most study-intensive classes I've ever taken :)

[Gore1FL]

2. i always point out

that evolution is a long term form of creation and that it is rather presumptuous of them to say what means and methods God can and cannot use.

They never expect that argument, and have great difficulty countering it.

[nemo137]

16. great!

"i always point out...that it is rather presumptuous of them to say what means and methods God can and cannot use."

wonderful statement.

[WoodrowFan]

19. Agreed

I use the same argument and it does work. Even William Jennings Bryan admitted in the Scopes Trial that the "6 days" could be much, much longer than (does quick math) 144 hours....

[Mal]

3. This thread is no fun

I want a creationist to post, so I can laugh at them.

[Dude_CalmDown]

13. It's sad but that's the only reason I even opened this thread. n/t

*

[Trad Bass]

144. How intolerant n/t

[activationproducts]

181. Go to Freerepublic to find a creationist.

You won't find many people who blindly follow relgion here. That is the domain of Freerepublic.

[Exultant Democracy]

4. Yeah well the earth is round, take that!

It's also 6000 years old.

[Hamlette]

5. did you see the poll at the end of the show?

viewers believe creationism should be taught in school 62 to 38%.

<shudder>

I guess maybe it is hopeful that some many of the nut cases who watch his show don't think it should be taught in school.

Another way to look at it is "if they really believe it is true, why only 62%? Why not 95% since that's what the polls tell us the percentage of Christians is in this country.

[opihimoimoi]

12. Polls don mean diddly. There was a time when the polls would show

95% think "Bleeding" is the correct medical procedure, We did lose President George Washington after 3 seperate "Bleeding" in a short time span.

[hotphlash]

65. WHOSE FRIGGIN CREATIONISM??????

The Christian Right would have a shit-fit, if their little Johnny or Alice had to learn about the Hindu creation of the universe.

[rocktivity]

188. DING DING DING DING DING! Hotphlash is our grand prize winner!

The Christian Right would have a shit-fit if their little Johnny or Alice had to learn about the Hindu creation of the universe.
That's the ticket! If we're going to teach creationism, why stop at Christianity--merely because it's the most popular in this country? Throw on the Hindu, Native American, Islamic, versions, those Greeks on Mount Olympus, and everything in between. Otherwise we'll be practing religious discrimination.


rocknation

[topdog08]

169. The scientific debate has moved on, to the details of evolution

This is what we get for a locally funded and run public school system.
Way too many people have very little understanding of basic science.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/reviews/GOUSTR_R.html

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould is probably the best book out there on evolution. To over-simplify greatly, it describes how the debate has moved well past creationism vs evolution.

In short, volumes of scientific research over the last twenty years have shown that:

1-Natural selection happens on many different levels, from the allele to the individual to the species. Not just "survival of the fittest."
In other words, group survival often trumps so-called selfish genes.

2-Punctuated equilibrium, with long periods of stability and short periods of rapid change after significant environmental changes may explain things better than gradual steady change. The most common example of this is the extinction of the dinosaurs.

3-Evolution proceeds by a variety of mechanisms, not just natural selection. Structural limitations of form, genetic drift, and random variation explain a great deal as well. Adaptation is not absolute. For instance, it might be adaptive to have brains ten times as large, but we are structurally limited by the need to be able to walk around.

He also makes the point that the complex life forms we have here on Earth are more a function of the great diversity and abundance of life, not a directional movement toward more complex organisms.

In fact, the data suggests no such advantage for complex beings. Bacteria are still 80% or more of the bio mass on Earth, with anything bigger than an insect under 1%, mammals less, and humans?
He compares it to piling sand against a wall. The barrier here is the barrier of basic cellular life. You can not have something less than a cell, so the more cells you have piled up against this wall, constantly mutating over billions of years (imagine jumping beans not sand) the further out on the complexity scale things get, purely by chance. We are basically all freaks of nature, not an inevitability.
I think if more people realized this, we could have a better world.

[quarbis]

6. I have degree in Geology

with a science background I must say that a 'theory' is just that until some can prove or disprove it. My own personal belief is -- no one knows how long a day is to God but I still believe Darwin is on the right track. I'm just crazy enough to believe humans were seeded by aliens. That's my theory which I nor anyone else can prove or disprove.

Creationism is merely someone who is trying to make science jive with the bible. They must prove it and not on faith.

[Friar]

28. Just a theory

Jeez, that kind of statement from an educated person drives me nuts. I studied "Music Theory" in college. Does that mean music is "just a theory" until someone proves it exists?

Evolutionary theory is this definition:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Not this definition:

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

If you have a degree in Geology you must be familiar with Lyle and the importance of his work re Darwin's theories. I don't have any degree and I know this.

[kixot]

136. Other popular 'theories'

Gravitational Theory
Electromagnetic Theory
Number Theory
Atomic Theory
String theory
Macroeconomic Theory
Nursing Theory
Game Theory
Graph Theory
Educational Theory
Linguistic Theory
etc...

[ibegurpard]

7. the two concepts are not mutually exclusive

in the minds of thinking religious people.

[Phatfish]

8. they are to an extent

Creationists believe Order had to derive from Mind (a intelligent being i.e. God in this case) and that there is no way Order could construct itself. They use the the blind watchmaker idea. A watch cannot just be made from the components just lying there. But enough with that. Darwin's big idea was that first higher Order can derive itself from lower order through a series of painfully slow, yet powerful algorithmic processies (sp? I'm tired :) ) He (with many researchers and thinkers after his time) basically has all but disproven the fact that people and animals were put here on earth 6000 years ago (or whenever it says). Darwinian thinkers acknowledge that the scope of their research cannot go to certain extremes at this time with the technology of today. So where the origin of the universe is concerned, faith can still creep in. However, evolution and its subsequent ideas or the only ones in today's scientific world that have such a power stack of evidence supporting it in the area of the origin of life as we know it. Believe in what you will, but to say God creatied life is still a matter of FAITH and should be kept that way until you have empirical evidence to show in favor of it. Teach it to your kids if you want but keep it out of our science classes.

[ibegurpard]

11. All I'm saying is that many religious people don't have a problem

with the idea of there being a creator and reconciling that idea with scientific evidence that indicates an evolutionary process. I do agree that the only theories that should be taught in school are those that can be scientifically verified and/or tested.

[redeye]

17. You're right...

...but those religious people live in Europe. In the USA, upward of 50% of the people do not know that evolution is true, and about 10% know it's been happening without divine intervention.

[WoodrowFan]

21. Not All

A lot live here in the US. (ahem). They're usually in the mainstream churches and not attending Four-Square Fundemental Bible-Believing Independent Free-Will Baptist Assemby of God USA.

[Cheswick2.0]

95. excuse me?

are you so desperate to be rude to Christians that you make up statistics?

Do you always make a habit of telling people that agree with you that they are wrong...or not cool enough, or whatever your tude is about?

[Blue_Chill]

127. LoL! Nice made up stats

Whatever it takes to preach your beliefs eh?

[Gore1FL]

18. The crux of it

is did creation end?

If creation has ended, evolution theories are conflicting. If Creation is an ongoing process, then evolution is a tool of creation.

Really, it depends on how "creation" is defined.

[Sapphocrat]

29. Gore1FL - LOVE that!

I'm only sorry I didn't think of it myself. :)

Definitely filing that one away for the next creationism v. evolution argument I encounter. Thanks!

[Friar]

33. ooh, the watchmaker hypothesis

I know the answer to this false conundrum.

If you take all the components of a watch, gears, springs etc, put them in a bag and shake them up, you will never in a million years make a watch. That's the idea right? Well, what if every time a component touched a corresponding component it stuck? Pretty soon, all the proper parts would be put together in all the right places. This is how evolution works on a genetic level. You don't start from scratch every generation. It's not random in the sense that nothing works together. I read too much, I know...

[HawkerHurricane]

140. Taking apart the watchmaker

Follow the watchmaker hypothosis to its logical conclusion:
Watch's don't just happen. They require a watchmaker.
Watchmakers (Humans) are more complex than a watch, and therefore couldn't 'just happen'. They also need a maker. We call that maker 'God'.
God is more complex than a human, and therefore couldn't 'just happen'. So he, too, needs a maker. What shall we call the maker of God?
But wait! The 'God Maker' is more comples than God, and therefore couldn't 'just happen'; he needs a maker also...
(continue forever; makers without end, amen)

[devarsi]

183. Science Fairy Tales

Once Upon A Time...

IT Happens

At some point in the past, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Then, for some reason, "IT" happened, whatever "IT" was, and afterwards there was matter, energy, time, and space. Maybe some other interesting bits.

No one knows how "IT" happened, why "IT" happened, what caused "IT" to happen, whether "IT" has happened more than once, and whether "IT" will ever happen again. "IT" just is, or was, or will be. Maybe.

Or this:

STUFF, Everlasting

There has always been "STUFF" (matter, energy, time, space, and maybe some other interesting bits), quite a lot of it, in fact. "STUFF" has no beginning, and no end. For some reason, "STUFF" expands and contracts in a never-ending cycle, again and again, without beginning or end, ad infinitum, to infinity and beyond. Should I repeat that?

Despite certain cause and effect rules which we (a tiny subset of "STUFF" called humanity) have observed regarding the way "STUFF" operates, those rules do not apply to the question of where all this "STUFF" came from to begin with. "STUFF" is eternal.

The End

These are the basic scientific explanations for how we all got here.
Of course, I've reduced them to absurdity, as non-believers often do regarding questions of God. But as I hope I have illustrated, Science requires its own leaps of faith, perhaps even the very same leaps of faith as taken by those who accept the existence of God.

If I left something out, let me know, I'll be happy to reduce it to an absurd level for you as well.

Hmmm...and you thought the idea God was a fairy tale?

[HawkerHurricane]

184. Rather than rely on 'Dues Ex Machina'

I'll just admit that I don't know.

And saying 'God did it' just begs the question: Where did God come from? If something as complex as God can exist without an outside creator, why not something as simple as matter?

[Code_Name_D]

190. Oh joy, the -leap of faith- ploy.

But as I hope I have illustrated, Science requires its own leaps of faith, perhaps even the very same leaps of faith as taken by those who accept the existence of God.

Any one who makes that claim, had absolutly no idea of what science is.

Science is a methed of exploring the natrual univers. Much like how a moutain climer might explore a moutain that he has never climed before. But dosue he take it on faith that the moutain is before him, even though he has never climed it? Of course not. That moutain is part of the unkown. How in the world can you take the unkown on faith? Why would you even need to have faith, in regards to the unkown?

No one knows how "IT" happened, why "IT" happened, what caused "IT" to happen, whether "IT" has happened more than once, and whether "IT" will ever happen again. "IT" just is, or was, or will be. Maybe.

Oh, this is even more clasic. Ridicule science becase it can not answer such exsitenchal questions is "why it happend." Indeed, the vary question precipitates a need to have a resone for it to hapen in the first place. This is little more than trying to see patterns in the clouds.

[devarsi]

192. Good For The Goose, Good For The Gander

this is the same type of thing that believers in God deal with from followers of science.

Frustating, aint it?

[Code_Name_D]

193. Yes, and no.

Okay, If I wore a scientist, I see before me two mechanical arms. Arm A picks up a sample of a plant/specimen, and conveys it over to arm B, where arm B then lifts the plant/specimen to an olfactory sensor to annualize the chemical composition of particulate mater and stray molecules from the plants fluids and tissues. The device that controls arm B also scans the plant specimen, noting the frequency of electromagnetic radiation being reflected by the pigmentation of the plant. Unit B then conveys information to unit A.

But if I were human, I would see a man giving a woman a rose so that she could smell and admire its beauty. She would of course thank the man for his kind gesture.

Two vary different views of exactly the same event. Both view points are totally correct. Where science is only concerned with exploring the imperial, even such a simple concept as romance will escape its reach, because there is nothing imperial about Romance for science to grab on to. What science observes, while technically correct and specifically accurate, simply can not draw even simple meaning from something like an emotion.

Science and religion are two ends of a spectrum of view points. Sciences are about facts and exploration, while religion is about meaning and emotions. A scientist for example may study the stars through a telescope, but the human in that scientist may prompt him or her to step outside and just look up at the stars, or even go take in a Star Trek movie. Things that mostly likely drive him or her into astrology in the first place. But it’s the curiosity that drive him or her into research, to truly explore what is truly there, only his or her discipline as a scientist will allow them to separate fact from assumptions that can be centuries old.

This is one reason why I think the creation/evolution debate is such a sad one for Christianity. Creationists are jealous of the scientists because of the degree of mechanical certainty it presents. Certainty without meaning, and meaning that doesn’t require independent thought. So they literally try to paint God as a cold machine, without meaning or prepuce outside of "creation" for creation's sake.

Its like the human being actively rejecting the romance of the rose between a man an a woman, seeing only tow machines passing along a botanical specimen. God did not make us so that we may experience the miracle of life and freedom to wonder. He just made us, so get over it, or else you burn in hell.

[Friar]

142. I think we should teach creationism

in school and evolution in bible classes. No?

[Friar]

31. thinking religious people

I've always thought they invented the term oxymoron to describe those. :silly:

[Wonder]

9. what you say?

hmmmm!

[Dob Bole]

10. I believe that God created the Earth...

Let the flames begin.

[karlschneider]

88. No flame, just MY opinion: ancient goatherders created gods.

:eyes:

[devarsi]

90. God predates Goatherders

and probably even predates goats.

Unless you believe that God created goats, which is an unproven theory over which many great minds currently speculate.

Now, if you want to talk about cowherders...

That my friend, is a thread all to itself....

[devarsi]

14. Here we go again...

I do believe in creation, but not as presented in the Christian bible.

I am NOT a fundie Christian.

I do not think the earth is 6000 years (or anything similar) old, or that we are all decended from Adam and Eve.

I do not think evolution has been proven, because it has never been observed, but I do see the logic behind the theory.

I do not think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, just the opposite, in fact.

The reasons that I believe that life was created have nothing to do with my thoughts on evolution.

I am extremely tired of getting grouped together with fundie Christians, just because I believe in God.

In fact, fundie Christians would consider me just barely this side of satanic, or at least paganistic, and would probably not let their kids play with mine.

Too bad. F*ck them with a smile on :-)

Thus ends my mini-rant...

[BigMcLargehuge]

24. Isn't resistant bacteria an example of evolution in process?

Not flaming, just asking.

Following the classical model of natural selection, those organisms that survive an onslaught of say Amoxycillin need exposure to a lot more amoxycillin before they die, often many orders of mangnitude more than similar non-resistant bacteria. To the point in fact where the resistant strain becomes the dominant strain.

These bacteria pass this restitance trait along as they multiply.

This the bacteria with the resistance to Amoxycillin produces more offspring that in turn reach maturity and produce more offspring all with this same trait while similar non-resistant bacterial do not.

Keep in mind bacteria split and don't mingle genes via procreation, but I think the model is an effective demonstration of evolution and natural selection.

Darwin's Galopagos Finch observations support this model as well in a non-asexual environment.

Doesn't mean life didn't start with a dollop of bacteria-rich alien turd, or the hand of some creator, or by random chance... but evolution is observable if you look closely enough.

[devarsi]

27. No New Species

just variations on the old, just like the finches beak.

[Friar]

35. no new species?

Then what happened at the end of the Cretacious? Or the Permian boundary? Do you know what I'm talking about?

Precambrian! Precambrian! Stand up, sit down, fight fight fight!

[Code_Name_D]

51. Incorect, this IS an example of evolution.

Spisificly, of natral selection, one of the engenes of change that forces orgnisesm to evalve from one form, to another.

Your argument however that this dosn't produce a new spesies of orginisems is a straw man. Creatonists have created the consepts of "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution." This is not a bioligists term.

Speceation only takes place when a pannel of scientists decided that their are enugh difrences between two simuler orgnisems to warent their clasifation. In other words, it is an artifichal term.

If I can show you one active mutation, that seceation is nothing more than the acumulation of a number of simuler mutations. Nothing more.

So yes, resistant bactirea is an example of evolution.

Ironicly, it is an example that most creatonists have condeaded too. That is why the created the term "macro-evolution." As if to say "Okay, we give up on natral selection, but orgnisems do not evalve from one spicies to another." To which bioligists answer - "What is the difrence?"

[devarsi]

62. I don't normally knock spelling errors...

but you should REALLY invest in a spellcheck of some sort. It's hard to read your post.

Let's talk about this later, one you get your post straightened out, ok?

Sorry.

[Code_Name_D]

89. Compnay computer

They are too cheap for spelling tools.

[Forkboy]

99. "I don't normally knock spelling errors..."

just when my argument goes to crap lol.

[devarsi]

106. C'mon, gimmie a break!

Did you READ that post?

I tried, I really, REALLY tried!

OK, I copied it to MSWord, and ran my OWN spell check. Just for the record, out of the 165 words in the post, 35 were misspelled.

Thats a 21% error rate, and you want to tease me for not responding? Like, I have nothing better to do than to correct the grammar and spelling in the arguments of my supposedly scientific minded opponents, then turn around and defeat the argument?

And then, when I don't, it's ME with the crappy argument?

Are you insane in the membrane? :evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

108. yes I did

and it wasn't even that hard.

[gristy]

145. hey, it's ok

Code Name D's spelling errors put a smile on my face. At least he consistently mis-spells EVERYTHING! :)

[Code_Name_D]

155. Hay!

The word "everything" is one of the few words I can spell. :P

[devarsi]

115. And further more!

I didn't even take a cheapshot and insult the poster. You know what a cheap shot is, right?

Like... oh, lurking in the background, not contributing to the debate, then jumping in and throwing out an ad hominem attack, laughing about it, and quickly reverting back to lurk mode?

but who would do such a thing? :eyes:

[Forkboy]

119. Changing the topic to me

doesn't help your case much.I'm sure you can read his thread if you try.Then maybe you can respond to the points made instead of whining about me.

[devarsi]

157. Ok, Let Me Respond

But first let me sum up what I think you are saying, which I will break down into bulleted points.

• You believe that resistance in bacteria IS an example of evolution
  
• You believe my statement regarding new species is a strawman argument
  
• You believe the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" to be created by creationists.
  
• You also believe "speciation" is an artificial term
  
• You seem to believe that "natural selection" is no different than the process of one species evolving into another species.
  

I hope I am mostly correct, and will attempt to answer each point briefly.

1) Resistant Bacteria IS Evolution

Lets start by defining evolution. Will this work?

"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

So, if bacteria, by becomming resistant to amoxicillan (as given in the original example) became a new "species," then you are right, this is an example of evolution.

But do they? Humans become resistant to both anti-biotics and diseases. When a person becomes resistant to some disease, say...malaria...do you say that person has become part of a new species?

No, you do not.

They have only aquired a new trait, not a change of one species, regardless of how youmight define "species."

No species change, no evolution.

2) Strawman Argument?

A Strawman argument is where one party involved in a debate sets up a false point of contention, then defeats that false point, so as to avoid the true argument, which may be more difficult to defeat.

Obviously, in a conversation about whether evolution has been or can be observed, it is not a strawman argument to assert the fact that no one has ever seen a new species emerge from an established, different species. My argument is right on topic, not a strawman at all.

If you think I am wrong, that's a different issue. Still, this is not a strawman argument.

3) Bad Words: Macroevolution, Microevolution, and Speciation

I never used these words in previous posts, nor do I see a reason to in future posts. If other creationists have done so, I don't care. I'm here to talk about MY beliefs, not to act as an apologist for all creationists/creation stories. Re-read my first post, where I attempt to separate myself from the flock.

4) Natural Selection = Species Change

I don't argue against natural selection--the weak die, the strong survive and pass their traits on to the nest generation.

How is this different from species change, you rhetorically ask?

well...

Natural selection is a process.

Species change is one, theoretical outcome (of which you still haven't given me any observable examples) of that process.

But wait...am I supposed to accept that a process and its outcome are non-different?

Sounds like we're talking about Buddhism ;-) and I'm not a Buddhist.

Hope I got your message correct. Thanks for the chat :-)

[Birthmark]

116. This is false.

New species have indeed been observed. One was just discovered in the UK - a grass of kind. That is far from the only instance of observed speciation.

[northzax]

170. and I saw on the BBC last night

that an ornithologist in the UK is proposing a new gull species, the urban gull, which is a blending of two gull species, but has the size, agility and agressivness to survive in urban areas.

in other news. Darwim himself regretted the term 'natural selection' because it implies an active role for a higher power in the evolution of adaptations. and it is random chance, in his opinion that allows a certain adaptation to thrive in certain times and wither in others.

another example of assisted evolution (to accompany the bacteria) Oranges and Apples. it's taken a thousand or more years of careful breeding to produce apples and oranges that are edible. If you took a common Florida orange back 500 years, it would be a source of wonder, people literally would not recognize it. it has been bred. along with dogs, cats, cows (anyone seen a wild bovine lately?) sheep, and every other domesticated animal, vegetable or fruit. if we can selectively breed new varietals in a short period of time (most of which we had no knowledge of genetics) imagine what nature, in all the googolplexes of combinations, can do in a billion years.

[alarimer]

131. artifact of human lifespan

Scientist have not been able to view the development of "new" species because their lifespans are too short. Speciation generally occurs over thousands of years. We can, however, view natural selection and change in gene frequency over time. From that we are able to infer that evolution is occurring. We only view a "snapshot" at any given time but that doesn't negate the theory of evolution at all. We can also view the fossil record, where it exists and see intermediate forms of animals. Say, dinosaurs with wings. Also comparing the genomes of humas and chimpanzees indicates that they are 99% IDENTICAL. So somewhere back in time we shared a common ancestor.

[ForrestGump]

176. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep

What he (or she) said. It's all a matter of scale and our temporal scale is not compatible with the scale over which most speciation probbaly occurs. We have a lot more evidence of organic evoltuon than we do of the ideas of literal creationists. And if you wish to apply Occam's razor, well.....

[enki23]

171. salamanders refute your assertion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

[devarsi]

180. Not Refutes, Just Challenges

I quote from the article to which you link:

"They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii."

Apparently, the eastern and western breeds of this salamander don't like the looks of each other, and don't interbreed. The article is specific about this, and does not say they CAN'T interbreed, only that they DON'T do so. This, obviously, does not make them separate species, as even the article admits they belong to the same species - Ensatina escholtzii.

Illustrative example: A group of humans, separated by culture and skin color, over successive generations, may no longer identify each other as potential breeding partners. They refuse to mix genes. Does that mean they have become different species?

No. That isn't evolution.

That's racism.

[Friar]

30. Science cannot "prove" anything

and doesn't attempt to. Every statement a scientist makes has an unspoken "it appears that" in front of it. Science constantly refines, casts aside and reformulates ideas and theories as new data or constructs are discovered.

"I do not think evolution has been proven, because it has never been observed, but I do see the logic behind the theory.

No one has ever observed (or will ever observe) an electron or a muon or a photon or a boson or a quark. Sometimes math will out.

Is there a God? Science will probably never know. It doesn't even care. If a god is discovered scientifically, we'll accept it.

disclaimer: I'm not a scientist. I'm not even all that educated.

[devarsi]

83. Alright, let me tighten it up a bit

The scientific process, with which, I am sure, you are familar, begins with an observation. From that observation, a hypothesis is formed. In other words, you see something in nature, and try to explain it.

After forming your hypothesis, you must test it to determine its validity. Testing requires a series of experiments, using a control group and an experimental group. Any differences in the effect of the experiment between the two groups is attributed to the presence of, or lack of, the hypothetical cause for the original behavior as observed.

The results of the experiments will either support or contradict your hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported it is considered valid, until further evidence arises which adds new information to the equation. If the hypothesis is not supported, then the scientist revises the hypothesis and begins the process once again.

The problem with evolution as a hypothesis, is to devise an reliable and legitimate experiment for testing purposes. No one, to my knowledge, has ever done so. Therefore, evolution remains an untested, and perhaps untestable, hypothesis, and only one possible explanation for the original observed phenomenon.

Is that what you wanted?

[depakid]

94. Actually, evolution happens pretty fast in some species

and is quite observable. Unfortunately, people have a rather limited understanding of space/time (outside of their need to find the nearest parking spot) so arguing with these folks about minute effects that provide subtle, natural advantages on a broader scale over the course of many, many millenia is quite beyond their comprehension.

[devarsi]

Give examples, please...

of observable evolution, one species evolving into another.

[Birthmark]

118. Observed instances of speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[alarimer]

128. Beak of the Finch

Read this book. I can't remember the author's name, sorry. But it details the work over 20 years of scientists working on the finches of the Galapagos.

[devarsi]

186. So Size Really Does Matter?

Does that mean guys with bigger penises are more evolved, less evolved, or just a different species?

BTW - the book 's author is named Weiner (MR. Weiner to you and me).

Considering everything, aint that a hoot? :eyes:

[gristy]

146. proving a theory

disclaimer: I'm not a scientist. I'm not even all that educated.

Seems to me you've got things pretty much in hand.

I believe that to "prove" a theory you must show that all observations are consistent with said theory and you must also show that you can use the theory to correctly PREDICT the results of an experiment that hasn't yet been done. I think it was Richard Feynman (among others, I'm sure) who has said something along these lines.

"Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is a very entertaining book. Scientific and non-scientific DUers will enjoy it.

[tuck]

34. i like you

[Friar]

67. welcome

:toast:

[devarsi]

86. Hello Tuck, welcome to DU!

We like you too :-)

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Creationism is just soooo 50's

It's "Intelligent Design" now. That way you don't have to talk about God, just "something or someone" planning the universe.

The universe where galaxies collide and explode, where it seems all life depends upon the death and destruction of other life. That universe.

I've suggested that whatever intelligence was behind all this was a particular force for evil, considering all the pain and destruction going on. Perhaps it was an evil alien race, perhaps it was an evil force that defeated good at some point in the earliest times...

After all, how could a benign or benevolent entity have planned this mess?

Maybe it wasn't an intelligent entity after all. Maybe it was a really stupid one, but with awesome powers.

Or one with a very odd sense of humor. Or one who got bored early on and took off to do other things.

(Perhaps, though, "Venus on the Half Shell" had it right-- God took off for lunch on the sixth day, and no one's seen him since.)

[salmonhorse]

20. Evolution explains Creationism ~

They both contain numerous permutations of fact & allegory where without each other neither truly exists.

[Blue_Chill]

22. I believe in both

The problem with creationists is that they don't understand nature at all. Why would a all mighty being create creatures that cannot adapt and/or change to better fit their enviroment? His creations would stand a much higher chance of survival if they were designed in a way in which they could change with their world.

The way I see it is that God started the ball rolling and let nature do the rest.

[opihimoimoi]

25. That guys logic to implement creation classes in public schools

was equal time and fairness.

Should we argue for Satanism too

Flat Earthers need their classes

and the Bleeders, those who bleed their patients? they too?

And what of Reason, Logic, and Sanity?? They been waiting for centuries to make it into the bigtime. Sidelined by the more popular Fantasy/Delusion, they are regulated to minor leagues.

[Blue_Chill]

122. Did my post piss you off or something?

Why are you bitchin at me about satanism? I'm a Catholic, what the fuck you want me to tell you.....Satanist are people to?

[flyingfish]

26. The Bible refutes the fundie interpretation of Creationism

The Second Letter of St. Peter states that
a "thousand days is like a day to God, and a day like a thousand years." best paraphrasing without seeing the actual quote.
The passage talks about how time for God and time for man are different concepts. Literally, a thousand years is not actually one day. Probably much longer.
So, to say that the earth was created in six "man" days contradicts the whole idea of time for God and the Bible itself.
Other parts of the Bible also talk about how time is different for God and man.

The Catholic view of the creation of the world is that Catholics can believe in Evolution as long as they believe God is part of the process.
When I hear "Catholics", i.e. the Sean Hannitys of the world, talking about Creationism, it makes me cringe. They show themsleves as being ignorant of the Catholic teaching.

[Friar]

37. I think this is called "deism"

"The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."

Friar<--- addicted to dictionary.com :)

ps: this is what the rationalists who made our constitution believed.

[Cheswick2.0]

97. the founders with the exception of Franklin

all atended church on a regular basis.....despite all the quotes you can cut and paste from www.deism.com.

[greekspeak]

124. My dear Cheswick, with all due respect

what difference does the frequency with which they attended church make? I went to the Methodist church "regularly" for some time after I had begun to define myself as an athiest. In my case, I went to church because my father required it. I have been to church services many a time since then. Does that make me a Methodist? Maybe these folks went to church because that was what was expected of them. We know that many leaders spoke as deists. But how many of them spoke at Anglicans or what ever they were?

[Blue_Chill]

129. What exactly is your point?

Are you saying that we should not believe the evidence for what is most likely and instead ignore it and instead use anecdotal evidence to draw our own conclusions?

Great logic!

[Cheswick2.0]

138. Isn't there a theory taught in Science 101

that states that the simplest explanation is probably the best?

[devarsi]

159. Occams Razor?

Probably taught in Philosophy, but Occams Razor has been widely applied, even to trading on the stock market.

"Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred." (William of Occam)

[Cheswick2.0]

137. Please tell me which ones stated they were Deists

I think regular church attendance is a better indicator of what they believed than the imagination of a Deist movement 200 years later.

Truth is that the founders were a group of mostly Christians of varying and fluctuating belief (just like most thinking Christians)who created a secular nation, for the purposes of protecting one religion from another and from the state. They also did it to protect the government from the mistake of choosing one religion over another and creating the inevitable civil strife.

[Friar]

139. I think we should let Adams speak for himself

From the Treaty of Tripoli:

"ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

"The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching."

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."


Oh, yeah. He was a christian for sure.

Here's another thing:

"Wilson: Early Presidents Not Religious

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831,; first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15"





So there!

[HawkerHurricane]

141. Going to church doesn't make one a Christian

anymore than going into a garage makes one a car.

(I wish I could remember who said that)

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Blue_Chill]

123. See I stop short of Deism

I believe in miracles. Many events have occured without explanation and since they cannot be duplicated in a way for us to prepare to study it, they are written off as freak accidents.

I think God has to walk a fine line to ensure free will, thus I don't believe in praying for everday things. However I think that every now and then something incredible happens.

[Cheswick2.0]

126. Good point

I like that. I have never had a problem believing in both God and evolution. I think science is the process of trying to understand the work of God.

BTW, has anyone accused you of wanting to teach creationism in school? All of us Christians are the same I guess. :shrug:

[Az]

23. The problem the creationists have is

Science doesn't stand still. Creationism on the other hand is fixed. The advantages of this are only relavant to its adherants. The creationist stance favors one of defined absolutes. Conclusive answers. God did it.

Science by its very nature is ever changing. It continuously corrects itself as it gains a better understanding of the world around it. Creationists love to crow that science has not been able to prove evolution is true. They are right. Science doesn't do proof. Proofs are for math and whiskey. Science works in evidence and testing. Falsification is the key to working in science. Like sculpting it chips away that which is false leaving behind an increasingly accurate view of the truth laying beneath.

I have been debating religion and science for years now and I have to say that the creationists I have debated exemplify this notion of needing to stayed fixed. They repeatedly introduce arguments that are quickly refuted by knowledgable individuals but then bring them up again as soon as the audience changes. They are not interested in finding the truth as they believe they have already found it. To paraphrase Andre Gide I would much rather trust science's pursuit of truth than the creationists proclomation of truth.

It is this difference that is the reason creationism should never be taught as science. Simply put it is not science. I will even grant the possibility that god created the universe exactly as they claim he did. But their methodology is not science. It is rationalization of a religious doctrine. If you are teaching science stick to science. It is a method. It has specific rules. Creationism does not follow these rules and is not science.

[devarsi]

93. I'm a (non-christian/bible) creationist, and I agree with you

Spirituality is not science. Not that they cannot coexist, but they are not of the same ilk.

[Sapphocrat]

32. Ignorance? Not exactly...

I mean, every single creationist I've ever known (and, unfortunately, there are many among my extended family) have certainly been exposed to Darwinism. They just choose to believe it's false. Heresy. Blasphemy, even.

Case in point: My cousin accompanied her son, an otherwise bright 12-year-old, on a field trip to a natural history museum, with the boy's class from an over-the-top, ultra-born-again, Christian school. When the museum tourguide had finished talking about some display (I think it was a diorama of dinosaurs), the teacher turned to the class and said, "Of course, everything you just heard about Dinosaurus Whateverus living 60 million years ago is completely wrong. We know that man and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at the same time, and that was no more than 3,000 years ago, when God created them."

No, I don't know the exact words the teacher used, but this is more or less how my cousin related the incident to me.

Her son, incidentally, was the same bright lad who -- after listening to a protracted discussion among the adults regarding the value of Iraqi lives (and the morality of bombing brown people out of existence for the purported "security" of white people) -- finally piped up with:

"Well, we're all created equal, you know. After all, we all come from the same man and the same woman!"

He was, of course, referring to Adam and Eve.

At my stunned silence, he asked me directly -- and incredulously, "Don't you believe that??"

I paused for two seconds to consider the wisdom of contradicting everything he'd been taught, and decided on preserving harmony at a family Christmas dinner. "It doesn't matter what I believe," I replied. "As you get older, you'll meet plenty of people who don't believe as you do."

And I left it at that.

But I can't wait until this kid grows up and gets out into the real world.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

36. I do believe that outside forces were involved with "human" development

Humans are too intelligent of creatures to just evolve that way IMO. There would be other animals just as intelligent if this were the case.

[wuushew]

38. Great apes and other higher animals

are extremely intelligent and have the ability to use non-vocal human language.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

39. Can they write poetry or build rockets?

They are still animals.

[wuushew]

41. Could Homo Habilius or Australopithecus africanus do either?

Scientists still consider them human ancestors. The notion that we are so similar to "lesser" forms of life is what is abhorant to fundies. Hence the need to seperate man from animal. Yes we are different in many respects from other animals, but those differences seem to be biologically determined.

[Friar]

59. what animal is NOT different from other animals?

We are highly intelligent, yes. Our brains are our tooth and claws. Doesn't make us special or anything, really.

[Abaques]

151. Whales sing....

The great whales sing to each other in a complex language. They just don't have thumbs to build anything (nor do they need to build anything).

The gorilla Koko who was taught sign-language from a young age painted her own pictures.

Sea otters use stones to break apart muscles they hunt (using tools).


Claiming that non-human animals don't have the capacity for artistic expression or creativity is just incorrect.

[Friar]

40. there were other animals as intelligent as we (us?)

They are known as Homo Neanderthalensis. Homo Erectus. Cro-Magnon.

Ps: I know my shit, don't I?

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

42. How did homo sapien come about then?

[Friar]

46. they didn't

All the different forms of humans (and apes, if you want to go back far enough) came from some direct ancestor but Neanderthals were contemporaries of Homo Sapiens, not direct ancestors. Homo Habilis was a dead end variety, as were all the others but they weren't ancestral to us. Evolution is not a straight line deal. It's a tree with branches. Lemurs still exist and they are representative of that ancient ape ancestor.

Just get some books and read about it. It's fun and good for you.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

50. Why did we survive and no one else did?

Just wondering.

[Friar]

72. I think we killed them all

but that's debatable.

Sometimes I think we were the apes no one liked and so the rest of them kicked us out of the trees. We had to go out onto the plains and just went from there. If you look at the known lifestyles of the great apes they are far more peaceful than we. I know they can be pretty brutal at times but mostly they just eat fruit and fuck. Hmmm, sounds pretty good to me.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

74. You think so, huh?

Thanks for clearing it all up for me.

[Friar]

78. you're welcome

:silly:

[greekspeak]

132. All it would take is a tiny tweek in biological makeup

to give homo sapiens sapiens a biological leg up-a resistance to a certain virus or viruses. The ability to adapt to the environment in a way that allowed human life to flourish while other life died out. Why did so many pachyderm species die out, but others survive? Why don't we have to watch for giant sloths in the forests? The world changes and life is forced to adapt (evolve) or die out.

[depakid]

187. While there is still some debate over whether certain groups interbred

(the multiregional hyposthesis), currently prevailing thought is that newer invaders out of Africa some $100-150 thousand years ago, were more advanced (perhaps oossessing higher cultural and language skils) and simply outcompete everyone else.

A classic example of this occurred in England in the 1940's, when American's introduced grey squirrels- who were more agressive and easily outcompeted the othewise well adapted red squirrels- who would have gone extinct in rather short order with

[wuushew]

43. How ironic

700th post?

[Friar]

49. what's the deal with 700 posts?

I don't understand. I've heard it mentioned before. Is someone counting, or something?

[Desperadoe]

44. Maybe you do

But if they were as intelligent as humans..............why didn't they survive and we did? I think that the evidence that I've seen points out that they were not as intelligent and that's the reason for their extinction.

Of course, there are times when I do think that some of them did actually survive.............

[Terwilliger]

45. why?

If humans are intelligent, why wouldn't they be able to come up with solutions to their own problems?

The idea that "outside forces" helped humanity along is just nonsense. Moreover, there's absolutely no evidence for that.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

47. I don't think they were "intelligent" until The Lord blessed them.

FLAME AWAY

[wuushew]

53. Faith is not requirement for intelligence

to assume otherwise is an insult to all atheists on this board

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

57. To spew your drivel is an insult to me

True, I do believe that evelolution occurs and is occuring, but I do not believe that human beings became what they are currently just by nature.

[wuushew]

63. When did we become human then?

If we shared common ancestors with early hominids, then one would have to arbitrarily choose some point in time where we obtained mental and physical characteristics that are sufficiently modern to be considered human.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

66. I've already told you what I believe

[Friar]

76. and your evidence for this is?

well, I'm waiting...

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

79. The same question can be asked of you.

I am not denying evolution entirely, btw. How can you prove, through Darwin's theories, that humans became as intelligent as they are--so much more intelligent than ANYTHING on this planet?

[Friar]

92. what's with this "prove" thing

I can't prove anything (except the DesCartian cogito ergo sum). I can't even prove the earth goes around the sun. For all I know some unknown force holds the earth stationary and somehow forces the entire universe to move around our unmoving little planet.

What I can say is that the evidence seems to indicate that the earth revolves around the sun and obeys the laws of gravity and appears to negate the notion that the earth is motionless.

So all I can say is that species seem to speciate (if I may be so humorous) over time and that Homo Sapiens and it's relatives are part of the ape family, or genus, or whatever. I'm not very well educated on clades. I''m really more interested in figuring out how to make a Bbm7b5 chord without breaking my fingers.

[Friar]

85. you can't spew drivel

spew is ejected, drivel is drooled. Sheesh. :silly:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[DrWeird]

60. Me too. I also believe pi is three.

Because the other pi isn't a real number, and three is a lot more convenient IMO, and because it says so in the Bible.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

64. How can you prove that human development is based soley on nature?

[DrWeird]

69. I can't prove that the Great San Fransisco earthquake

wasn't an act of God.

But if you've got any reason for me to believe so let me know.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

71. That isn't what I asked

[DrWeird]

77. Chuah

Can you offer any evidence at all that human evolution was anything but natural?

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

80. Neither of us can answer the question scientifically IMO

I know what I believe, and you know what you believe.

[wuushew]

81. The scientific model does not differ between physics and biology

Obviously you don't believe that your car runs on faith or that scientific principles behind quantum mechanics did not give us modern eletronics. Why should the disipline of biology differ from the other branches of science?

[DrWeird]

84. Oh, you want the scientific answer?

That's easy. Logically, since God has never been observed performing an action either direct or indirectly, it can be ruled out, assuming no new evidence to the contrary, that God didn't do anything to create man, contrary to the Bibles claim that He created us in His image 6,000 years ago. So how did we get here? One interesting hypothesis is that humans evolved from other primates in Africa, starting around 3 million years ago. Can you test that? Sure can. Gather fossil evidence in Africa over that time period and any honest, God fearing person has to admit that it can clearly be seen an orderly progression from ape-like knucle-dragging creatures, to half ape/ half human creatures, to what are pretty much human.

Of course that's just what those crazy scienticians say. They also say the world's round, and of course it's flat. Says right there in the Bible.

[Friar]

96. science is not a belief

I assume you mean a matter of faith, as in belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Science is not a matter of believing. Philosophically or semantically you can say I "believe" in science but i think that is beside the point. I don't really believe anything. I accept that certain empirical data that has undergone peer review has a certain amount of validity. It's all very cautious and tentative. I do not base my world view on speculation without evidentiary correlation.

[ForrestGump]

177. And there we have the whole problem with creationism vs evolution

(never mind that the two can be reconciled, if you choose to do so).....faith will always win over logic; faith can not be 'wrong,' by definition. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's right, either.....

[wuushew]

70. Well, using what we can observe is a good model

One entry found for uniformitarianism.


Main Entry: uni·for·mi·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: -E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1865
: a geological doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner as at present are sufficient to account for all geological changes -- compare CATASTROPHISM

[Friar]

82. I thought we were clear on this

Science doesn't "prove" anything. It only gathers data and creates theories and hypotheses based on that data. As data and observations or mathemetical theorem become more refined, the theories and hypotheses are then modified or rejected to reflect the empirical evidence. There is no such thing as truth in science.

[Terwilliger]

109. you prove otherwise, and then get back to us

Evolution is arrived at through meticulous study and observation. What are the methods used in your conclusions? Are there any methods? Besides reading the bible, I mean.

[Abaques]

153. The burden of proof is on you my friend....

No one here is going to type or cut and paste the scientific evidence required to prove your point, but then, no one needs to.

You have agreed that evolution does occur, so you have put yourself in a bind. You agree with the general theory that nature does control the form and function of species, but you amend that with a "but...".

The burden of proving that "but...." lies with you.


So why is it that homo sapiens are special and got an extra "boost" from something else? And what exactly is that something else?

[Exultant Democracy]

113. What about dolphins?

They are just about as smart as us. In fact they most defiantly smarter then the dumber humans. Did outside forces help them too?

[greekspeak]

130. Relativity, my friend

Human intellegence, to humans, is a magnificent accomplishment. However, it is absurd-vain even-to extrapolate the idea that our intellegence could not have just happended or evolved. Its all relative. In the grand scheme of things, human intellect may be closer to that of slugs than to the intellect of some higher beings.

[PaPaJohn]

48. Answers

My main quarrel with Creationists is in their science. I don't mind if Creation is taught at private schools, but even then it should be taught in religion class, not in a scientific setting. Creationism is just not based in any valid set of scientific facts. The Creationists only real thesis is to point out problems they see in Evolution. There logic seems "if their view might be wrong then ours has to be right."

If Creationists can make a valid Scientific case for their view, without mentioning Evolution, then maybe it could be taught as a valid theory. But, they simply cannot and will not submit their theory (beliefs) to the kind of peer review and scrutiny any theory must endure in order to be even considered for further institutional inquiry much less any scientific curriculum. The reason for this is obvious: You cannot have any science without following the rules of science. And since the Creationist's methods start out by knowing all the answers and then working backwards to try to prove them, all scientific merit is nullified.

Creationism is being taught as science in more public schools than I even want to think about. How this is happening is through the propoganda of the right wing fundamentalist Christians, who prey upon the weak minded. Their goal is not to explore alternatives, but to abolish the teaching of any non-Godly views in all Schools in America. The horror of this is that they seem to be succeeding and progressing to their goal at an alarming rate. The potential consequences of their success are too numerous and too dreadful to speculate about here.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

52. Yes, dreadful indeed. Our schools have been improving since the 50's

when prayer was outlawed in school. Oh wait, they haven't.

[karlschneider]

91. Another fundy strawman. Prayer was NEVER "outlawed" in schools.

But teachers or other authoritarian figures are not allowed to coerce students into praying. I do realize there are some people too fucking stupid to see the difference.
:grr:

[Friar]

102. The only thing wrong with schools

is that the right wing have been defunding them for decades. I'm public school educated and graduated HS only. My college is restricted to a few years as a music major in community college. I think they did ok by me. My kids too.

[greekspeak]

135. Let me give you a quote from my CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FATHER

As long as there are tests in school, there will damn sure be prayer in school. Saying that prayer in school has been completely banned is a half truth. Students cannot be coerced into prayer. They can pray to themselves. They can have clubs and activities before/after school. Some believe that any student led prayer is okey-dokey. But to reiterate that tired argument that "prayer is banned in school" is of no value.

[depakid]

191. Out of the mouths of fathers

sometimes wisdom flows-

I bet he has other pearls like this. Sort of reminds me of another conservative father that I know.....

[rman]

195. schools have been declining since the 60's

70% decline in quality of education from 1960 to 1994.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education.htm#contents

[Friar]

55. In my home town, Vista, CA

The fundies took the stealth route and got elected to the school board. They tried to force creationism and abstinence on us and were recalled and removed. Don't give up hope.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

58. Yeah, abstinence. Man how could they???

:eyes:

[Friar]

61. because they're idiots?

well, d'oh!

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

68. You don't think abstinence should be emphasized in high school?

[wuushew]

73. According to most studies

Comprehensive sexual education is more effective than abstinence only education. This is one of the main problems with the Bush AIDS relief plan for Africa.


The point after all is the obtaining the highest level of public health correct?

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

75. huh?

I never said kids shouldnt have sex-ed, they should. But abstinence should also be emphsized IMO. Imagine this, they got sex-ed AND abstinence-ed!!!! Shocking I know.

[PaPaJohn]

87. They all do.

Every sex ed curriculum I have ever been a part of or even heard about puts an emphasis on abstinence. There are no programs out there telling kids that having pre marital sex is good. The way most of the programs are noe is they day: Having sex is not good, you shouldn't be doing it. But, if despite this warning you do choose to have sex, than here are the facts that can make you safer. The right doesn't want these facts presented at all. They don't want merely an emphasis on abstinence, they want an Abstinence only curriculum.

[Blue_Chill]

163. That's not true at all

I graduated from HS in 97 (not long ago) and my sex ed class covered the basic biology of it and that's it. No talk about emotional effects, AIDS rates in our area, nothing.

They need to hammer home the FACT that there is no such thing as 'safe sex' when it comes to AIDS.

[Terwilliger]

111. So, what does abstinence education do?

How does it influence kids? Are there studies? Anything? Or is this just a wish of yours?

And why should it be emphasized? Why should people not have sex?

[Blue_Chill]

164. No one is saying people shouldn't

kids however are a different story.

[Friar]

98. of course not but

Abstinence is a right wing fundie myth. I'm not saying we should promote sexual activity in teens but we should deal with it rationally. Abstinence as the fundies promote it is as sick an approach to human sexuality as you can get.

ps: I was 23 before I got laid and then I married her. Stop that! Who's that laughing? You, in the back! Get out of here!

[Terwilliger]

110. fucking should be advocated in high school

get these namby-pamby moralists finally the fuck out of the culture

[Blue_Chill]

162. Um no

Fucking as you put it comes with long term risks and emotional consequences that young kids are not prepared to fully appreciate. They should not be encouraged to enter into possibly life changing activities until they are mature and educated enough to handle the situation.

[Terwilliger]

166. oh yeah...but when they're 18 they get a magic transformation?

if sex wasn't such un untouchable subject, maybe kids could learn some of the things you want them to...telling them not to have sex flies in the face of their reason, and they reject the "abstinence" credo out of hand.

I say encouraging kids not to fuck creates more problems.

[Blue_Chill]

168. not 18 but once they leave highschool there is a transformation

it's called having a life free from the peer pressure of high school. Once you exit High School you are more able to make choices you are comfortable with.

I've yet to meet anyone that doesn't feel they changed big time as soon as the clicks and groups of High School were put behind them.

[Astarho]

117. Emphasize it all you want

but remember that teenagers WANT to have sex. Any sex-ed class should base itself around that.

(if I had found a girlfriend then, I would have had sex in HS)

[Blue_Chill]

165. Yes they WANT to

but the point is to tell them that the 'want' they are feeling is normal but not being carful is life threatening. Also remind them that it is ok not to have sex and that peer pressure is nothing more then HS garbage.

Too many girls I know had sex because of peer pressure and not because they wanted to. That is WRONG.

[ForrestGump]

178. It's a travesty if creationism is taught as science in schools....

It's based on interpretations of one book, and that's it (the Christian tradition, at least).

That's not science. And that only begins to describe the many ways in which creationism is not science. Creationism belongs in its religious context, or as a personal belief, not as part of a science curriculum.

[WillyT]

54. Oh My Darwin !!! --- THIS AGAIN ???

:evilgrin:

[Friar]

56. it's fun!

:silly:

[Terwilliger]

104. LOL

"Oh great god of atheism...smote the evilDUers who don't believe in you!"

[Bushknew]

100. Infinite number of monkeys would eventually recreate the works of William

It's long been said that an infinite number of monkeys, pounding away at an infinite number of typewriters, would eventually recreate the works of William Shakespeare.
~Brandzburg v. Hayes~

This is about as likely as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747.


If you believe that monkeys could recreate the works of William Shakespeare, you must also believe in Evolution.

[Friar]

107. ooh, another canard

If every time the monkey typed a word that fit in the right place (for a Shakespeare work) was "saved" and then the next right word was added etc., it wouldn't take the monkey much time at all to produce this. The evolutionary process is not what you apparently think it is. It doesn't work in a vacuum or in the anarchic random manner as you seem to suggest.

[Spentastic]

158. Well done

You've just demonstrated the limits to your thinking.

Now lets actually think about what infinity means shall we. It's really, really big. Bigger than America, bigger than the world! So big in fact that your mind can't properly comprehend it.

Infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters with some sorting system would PROBABLY create the works of Shakespeare almost instantaneously. The determinant being how long it actually takes a monkey to type. With infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters it is still PROBABLE that a monkey will get lucky.

"This is about as likely as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747."

What an idiotic analogy. A hurricane does not have the necessary physical properties to assemble a 747. So even with infinite junk yards and infinite hurricanes it is IMPROBABLE that a 747 will be assembled. Monkeys on the other hand are perfectly able to type.

Thank you for eloquently demonstrating why people that don't understand concepts shouldn't just be allowed to teach what they believe is the truth.

[Bushknew]

174. The magical hand of Father Time!!!!!

"This is about as likely as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747."

What an idiotic analogy. A hurricane does not have the necessary physical properties to assemble a 747.

Idiotic? You think an infinite number of monkeys could actually recreate the works of William Shakespeare, good grief.

<<So even with infinite junk yards and infinite hurricanes it is IMPROBABLE that a 747 will be assembled. Monkeys on the other hand are perfectly able to type.>>

To "assemble" the Earth is infinitely more complicated than the assembly of a 747, yet evolutionist believe the Earth was created through the magical hand of Father Time.

Evolution is not creation.

Time does not create anything.

There must be an ACTION BEFORE THERE IS A REACTION.

[Redleg]

101. If it is a science class, only scientific theories, such as evolution,

should be taught.

Evolution is reconcilable with Christian beliefs in a creator. My wife's boss is a biology department chair at a Catholic university and also a Catholic nun and she doesn't have any problem with evolution.

[Blue_Chill]

125. I agree

Also I would love it if they would add religious studies to highschools. Religions play a huge role in world events and I don't think it would hurt kids to learn about eachothers religions or lack of their of. Perhaps that can shield them from Falwell lies about others.

[Cheswick2.0]

134. comparative religion class

I think it would be a good idea. But I did have such a class taught by an atheist and it was a total waste of time. All he seemed to want to do was convert people to his thinking. He was insulting and not very honest IMO. If relgion is to be taught it should be by someone without an anti religious aggenda.

[Redleg]

149. Yes but it may be hard to find a person who does not show

their disregard for other religions. I'm sure most of us DUers could do a good, fair job but the wingers would cram fundamentalist christianity down the students' throats.

[greekspeak]

172. As an athiest in the field of religious studies

I find your comment off base: "If relgion is to be taught it should be by someone without an anti religious aggenda." One thing we are taught in religious studies is that EVERYONE has an agenda. The agenda's centrality to a person's presentation of material may vary, but that does not exclude the agenda. By your reckoning, I should be flailing my arms wildly screaming about professors with Christian agendas. I went to a public university, yet without fail, all my professors were Christian. Now, they all did a good job of being objective, but all of them had a Christian agenda to at least some extent. What agenda do you think professors should have? I am dying to hear, because all professors have one.

Another idea I have learned as a student of religion is that all viewpoints are valid. No matter how much you dislike them, you have to investigate all viewpoints to end up with a well-rounded study. I myself have been suprised on more than one occassion to find myself in the same camp with evangelicals and fundimentalists on an issue. Lest I get flamed, let me assure you that my studies are mostly textual and historical in nature, not theological and modern.

My point is, simply, that agendas-our "baggage"-is not just put down outside of a classroom.

[Suspicious]

105. I am fascinated with the Quantum Theory, myself,

as it relates to evolutionary matters, although I'm nowhere near intelligent enough to understand quantum physics at more than a rudimentary level (standard phsyics gave me enough headaches...). I remember spending hours reading about the subject a few years back and thinking to myself, "That's it! It's the answer to everything."

I was watching a program not long ago during which the Dalai Lama had given a teaching and had opened the floor for questions. One of the members of the audience asked where Buddhism stood on the Big Bang Theory. The answer was something to the effect of Buddhist belief likely being unable to support a theory which supposes "a" Big Bang, but being more consistent with a theory which posits numerous (incalcuable?) big bangs.

Inter/dependent origination...Quantum Theory...it all just makes sense, even if I'm not entirely sure why.

:)

[Terwilliger]

112. if you don't know, just call it "god"

because...well, just because

[Suspicious]

114. Hmm.

Was that a swipe at me - or people who believe in "god"...or both? :shrug:

[Terwilliger]

121. such are the mysteries of life

;-)

Nothing against you, but I believe that when people have something they can't explain, they attribute that "noumena" to "god".

[Suspicious]

133. I can hardly take it personally, then,

since my experience dictates that in the end, my mind, too, is the unwitting victim of near-constant misapprehension. I have no problem admitting to that.

As an aside, I renounced the attribution of anything to "god" at a young age, the day the pastor informed me that no, he could not prove "his" existence (the fact that the man was insistent that my dog could not go to heaven did not help his case with me, either...).

I just do the best I can, struggling along with my limited intelligence, hoping for an epiphany. ;)

[Terwilliger]

167. oh, I hear that

but at the tender age of 35, I'm starting to realize that the epiphany may never come

The only conclusion I've reached since I was 13 (and rejected the notion of believing in something noone could prove) is that should there be some sort of "god", s/he/it's doing a GREAT job of creating further confusion

I still think think that believing in god ultimately comes down to believing in yourself.

[Suspicious]

173. I am just a year behind you...

I have considered the possibility – if my epiphany is a no-show – of devoting myself to after-hours, objective dogmatic theological study. If nothing else comes of it, I will die with a load of knowledge on a topic that I find endlessly fascinating.

I still think think that believing in god ultimately comes down to believing in yourself.

If I am understanding you correctly, it would appear that Jesus, himself, would have agreed with your sentiment:

"The Kingdom of God is inside/within you (and all about you), not in buildings/mansions of wood and stone. (When I am gone) Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift the/a stone and you will find me."

(It’s difficult to find the exact quote, but that's the gist of it)

Edited for grammar...and it's still bad.

[Terwilliger]

175. kinda

I think I am god...you're god...hell, even Blue_Chill is god

We have created "god" from our own image...confident that god looks and acts like us, but that s/he/it must have more power to control the universe. That's what we don't like about ourselves. We feel like the problem has to be fixed by a supreme being who has omnipotence. To think otherwise would call for humans to become masters of their own destiny. That's what it is.

[Abaques]

154. Read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene...

If you are really interested in high level physics, but can't hack the insane math (like me), read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It described the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics really well in my opinion. It also introduces you to string theory and m-theory, which are on the cutting edge of modern physics.

Its very well written and only a few parts (which are skippable) really are difficult to digest.

Find it on amazon here.

[Trad Bass]

143. There is a lot of evidence for Creationism actually

But I choose to ignore it. OTOH there is a lot of evidence for Evolution.

Trad

[kixot]

147. Oh?

Pray tell, where is this 'evidence' of creationism and why hasn't it been made public? After more than a hundred years of dominating the scientific community as the reason for the origin of species you'd think a find of this magnitude that refutes such a widely accepted theory would have no trouble making it's way into the empirically minded attention of common sense. So, this 'evidence', is it anything more than archaic printed words or is there some forensic proof that another theory, let's call is 'creation' theory, should be considered by biologists in their view of the world?

[Trad Bass]

152. Just look around you

Surely Gaia or some Earth God created the Earth or started a chain reaction evolution.

I don't care what happened. Not important.

Trad

[rman]

161. what reasoning..

leads to that conclusion (gaia/god did it), based on that obsevation (look around).
Apparently you do care enough to put some thought into it, and draw a conclusion.

"surely" just doesn't cut it in science.

[TomNickell]

150. Oh?

n/t

[gristy]

148. What a great thread!

I read the whole thing!

[yorgatron]

156. i am living proof in favor of evolution

6'2" 320 lbs. and a constant craving for bananas...

[rman]

160. the neocon - creationism connection

Origin of the Specious
Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?
By Ronald Bailey
Reason magazine - juli 1997
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

Darwinism is on the way out. At least, that's what Irving Kristol announced to a gathering at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington not long ago. Darwinian evolution, according to the godfather of neoconservatism, "is really no longer accepted so easily by biologists and scientists." Why? Because, Kristol explained, scientifically minded Darwin doubters are once again focusing on "the old-fashioned argument from design." That is to say, life in all its apparently ordered complexity cannot be understood in terms of chance mutation and the competition for survival. There must, after all, be a designer. So, exit Darwin; enter--or re-enter--God.

This may seem to some readers to be a personal quirk of Kristol's. Perhaps as he approaches Eternity (he's 77), he may want some grand company there. But Kristol's friend and colleague Robert Bork is claiming the same thing: Charles Darwin and his theories are finished. In his new work, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Bork pins his own anti-evolutionary attack on Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a recent book by biochemist Michael Behe. Bork declares that Behe "has shown that Darwinism cannot explain life as we know it." He adds approvingly that the book "may be read as the modern, scientific version of the argument from design to the existence of a designer." Bork triumphantly concludes: "Religion will no longer have to fight scientific atheism with unsupported faith. The presumption has shifted, and naturalist atheism and secular humanism are on the defensive."

Are these merely two isolated intellectual voices preaching that old-time design? Hardly. Last summer, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank devoted to studying the role of religion in public policy, and now headed by neoconservative Elliott Abrams, called together a group of conservative intellectuals, including Kristol, his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and Hoover Institution fellow Tom Bethell, to listen to anti-Darwin presentations by Behe and Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Himmelfarb has told at least one colleague that she, too, thinks the Behe book "excellent."

There's yet more. The neoconservative journal Commentary, of all periodicals, joined this attack last June with a cover essay, "The Deniable Darwin," written by mathematician David Berlinski.

more: http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

[sujan]

179. read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller

and shut the hell up.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060930497/102-8678741-1760928?vi=glance

OR

try this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Evolution occured - It's a scientific fact. Darwin's evolutionary theory tries to explain how it happened. In fact if you look at any theories in science, Darwin's theory might be the most time tested theory of all time.

[Sheet22]

185. No reason not to hear all sides of the matter.

I'm not really sure what I believe these days, but I don't personally see anything wrong with expanding education in any way. Why shouldn't all sides of how people believe the world and all that's in it came about? I'm trying to learn more and more everyday, and I definetly wouldn't have minded having more options when I was in school.

My mother, a recently retired teacher, taught a death lit class for years, which was considered very controversial in the beginning. She also expanded into sports lit, and both became extremely popular and in demand classes. My basic point in this is, the general expanse of the education system shouldn't be stifled because of anyone's beliefs. Let's expand minds in any way we can.

[ibegurpard]

189. Right but science should be limited to what can be empirically

tested and/or proved. Creation theory does not fit into that category...and I say this with the belief that there IS some sort of creative force or higher power behind the universe.

[rman]

194. creationism has no theory

so how would you teach that in science class?

Scientific theory is more then just an idea, opinion or belief.
A (scientific) theory is by definition an idea that is supported by evidence (and not falsified by evidence). Any idea bases solely on (supposed) 'logic' is not a theory.

[treepig]

197. you want to hear all sides?

sure, that's fine - but for heaven's sake go to a church if you want to hear the religious side (creationism, intelligent design . . .)!

as for science class in school, stick to teaching science, not fairy tales.

or are you advocating teaching creationism in literature class? perhaps that would be appropriate (since most literature is strictly fiction, right?)

[Phatfish]

196. Oh My Darwin!

What have I created here? I just wanted to rant about a stupid TV show and this had to spew up. Some good points in here (and some not-so-good points. you know who you are!) Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is a great book. Definately check it out. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the meaning of life is another great book. the author is Daniel Dennet I think. I think we should cool off on this debate and there should be no further discussion of my stupid topic. I think some feelings may have been hurt, inadvertently and intentionally. Lets all go back to the ABB and forget all this hogwash. I think we all need to open up and accept one another. That's right, look to your neighbor and give him or her a big hug. Wonderful.

One absolutely great thing about this post is that after 30 mins of reading the damn thing, it cured my insomnia. Its 8:22am and I think Im gonna go to bed. 'Night All!