Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you protesting? Who gives a shit? As long as they keep their creationist crap out of our schools, that's all I care about.
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Insightful)
This museum represents a direct attack on science. I give a shit because I happen to think that science and scientific literacy are important. The stuff presented in this museum is blatantly wrong, and ridiculous, and is a menace to the public understanding and enlightenment even without government support (though, I would not be surprised if the museum has not benefited at least indirectly from the tax breaks our government is too happy to give religious institutions.) The only educational value it has to serve as a case-in-point as to how excessive religious faith can obliterate any trace of rationality in an otherwise intelligent individual.
Also, some schools (hopefully only private/religious schools) are undoubtedly planning field trips to this museum (an earlier article I read noted the parking lot which was designed to comfortably accommodate school buses). It's bad enough that parents and churches poison impressionable, helpless children's minds with this garbage, but now they'll have a multi-million dollar, Universal Studios caliber set of displays and presentations to even more thoroughly inculcate kids to this backwards, pre-medieval nonsense.
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Insightful)
The schools should be teaching what is supported by evidence (e.g., evolution), not what is proposed to prop up a theology (e.g. creationism).
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution isn't any more "non-science" than astro-physics is non-science. Sure, it's pretty hard to set up an experiment to test evolution. But the same can be said for most of what goes on in space. That hasn't kept science out. Unfortunately, it does mean that the scatter is a little larger and research takes longer. But research still does happen because predictions can be made and then you wait and see if the observations match up.
Evolution is falsifiable. If we actually wanted to run experiments we could. It might take a few hundred million years, but we could do it. Creation, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. But that won't stop those with blinders on from claiming they are similarly situated.
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution is a science. Why is it a science? Because it follows the scientific method. There is evidence and rules what can be treated as evidence. When the evidence no longer fits the model the model will be changed to fit the evidence. An this goes on and on until the evidence and the model fit together like a fine wine and cheese.
Creationism on the other hand cannot follow the scientific method. For one thing there is only one theory and that theory can never be modified. Where on the other hand the theory of evolution has changed in the last 150 years since is formulation. Creationism is just the opposite of science. Since you can't change the theory you have to change the evidence. You can't do that in science. You have to go by what the evidence says.
My friend as Penn & Teller say, "Creationsim is Bullshit!"
Parent
Re:On the other hand, they also make great Bourbon (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? This museum is doing us a tremendous favor. If anything, we should send them money.
The intelligent design movement managed to make creationism look vaguely scientific. Its proponents had academic degrees and wrote books; Behe is actually a biochemist. They didn't make patently absurd claims about world being 6000 years old, they didn't use the Bible as a primary source, and they didn't directly refer to God and Jesus in every third sentence. They didn't do science, but they did a decent job of pretending to, and made creationism look almost respectable.
But if you want to see creationism made to look ridiculously unsophisticated and ignorant again, nobody could do a better job than this museum. Apatosaurus living with Adam and Eve? Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? If you were trying to parody creationism, or create a strawman of all the worst creationist arguments, you couldn't do a better job. And the intelligent design guys- Behe and Dembski- will suddenly find that when they're arguing for creationism, people will be asking them if they believe that Jesus rode a Velociraptor.
So I say, put the Genesis account on display, in all its glory, and let people see it. I think most people will leave thinking exactly what they thought when they came in: evangelicals will leave still knowing that every word in the Bible is true, people looking for a laugh will emerge thinking that while science doesn't have all the answers, it's a lot better than a bunch of ancient myths, and kids- well, I say, let them see dinosaurs and men living alongside each other. Because while adults like to be told what they already know, kids like to ask questions, and I think those dioramas will get them asking a lot of questions.
Parent
All knowledge is uncertain (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people are very uncomfortable with uncertainty. They desperately crave a solid and unquestionable source for correct knowledge. So, in the absence of such a source, the mind will play games with itself to create one. Hence the popular religious trend of interpreting mythology as if it were history.
It is true that scientific knowledge is not rock-solid. It is vulnerable to inaccuracy and just as questionable as any other kind of knowledge. So, the religious believers are correct in pointing this out. However, there is a very important difference of methodology at work. The scientific process is one of perpetual questioning and re-examination of fact, and hence of perpetual refinement of accuracy. The religious process utterly lacks this element, and as such it has no demonstrable means of approaching any kind of practical validity. That, however, does not prevent people from convincing themselves that their religion of choice is correct and unquestionable, and that any and all evidence to the contrary must be in error.
So long as this thought process is confined to the realm of private institutions (museums, churches, clubs, and what have you), I am fine with it. Just don't go infecting public education with your myths.
Parent
An appeal (Score:5, Informative)
Here goes:
The word "theory" is not synonymous with the word "hypothesis" in science.
Please, please try to remember this when you instinctively want to cry "but it's only a theory!" when talking about evolutionary theory. As has doubtless been explained to you ad nauseum by the scientifically-inclined, Theory is a designator that must be earned and requires a reasonable body of supporting evidence. So while indeed the colloquial allows the use of "I have a theory" to mean a hypothesis, this is not correct in science.
Make whatever other arguments you will, but please stop making this elementary mistake. cheers.
Parent
Re:An appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
-jcr
Parent
ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) "Evolution is just a THEORY"
This is the most common (and the most disappointing) creationist argument I hear on a regular basis. While it's true that evolution is a theory, this statement is made in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution by implying that evolution is akin to a wild guess that scientists came up with after a night of heavy drinking. Newsflash: it's not going to work. Most educated people understand that you're confusing the word "theory" (which means an explanation or model that is capable of predicting future events) with the word "hypothesis" (which means an educated guess). Calling evolution a "theory" isn't an insult. For the millionth time, I will repeat this: gravity is also "just" a theory (for example, google the "General Theory of Relativity"). I might even add that most scientists would consider evolution to be a better-supported theory than gravity, because of the fact that gravity cannot (currently) be quantized, despite decades of attempts. If you want to debate evolution, fine- but don't play these childish word games.
(2) "But evolution has never been observed!"
Most creationists, faced with the mind-numbingly obvious fact that viruses and other creatures (like those famous moths) evolve right in front of our eyes, make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is "proven", they say, because it only represents a change in allele frequency within a species. Macro-evolution, defined as change from one species to another (aka "speciation"), is more of a problem for creationists. They often insist that speciation has never been observed outside of laboratory experiments. This is blatantly false. Many examples of speciation have been observed in the wild- for example check out this large list of peer-reviewed journal articles here [talkorigins.org] and also here [talkorigins.org].
The next step that creationists take in response to this rebuttal is to claim that speciation proves nothing- only a change from one kind of organism to another will prove evolution. What's a "kind", you might ask? No one knows. Creationists will give vague examples, such as saying that a dog is a different kind of animal than a whale, but a rigid definition has never (to my knowledge) been offered or universally accepted by the major creationist organizations. It's just a convenient goal post which keeps getting pushed back every time new evidence is found. The fact is, speciation is rather easy to observe in organisms which breed relatively quickly. Observing the creation of, say, a new phylum or order could take many millennia. Unfortunately, human civilization hasn't been around that long. Plus, standard biological nomenclature isn't based on evolutionary criteria, so it isn't clear to me that equating a "kind" with a phylum or order is meaningful in this context.
(3) "But Intelligent Design is different than Biblical Creationism! It's a purely scientific alternative theory."
Don't try to pretend that "Intelligent Design" is somehow different than creationism. Especially don't try to pretend that it's a scientific theory. Seriously. No one's buying it. "Intelligent Design" is a disguise- a secular-sounding term thrown over religious creationism to try to smuggle it into a state-funded science class
Parent
Re:ATTENTION CREATIONISTS!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Most scientists are accustomed to honest, civilized debate. Scientific conferences are full of disagreements and arguments, make no mistake about that. But (almost) all the participants are aiming to understand the universe better, to examine their assumptions and use experimental evidence and logic to figure out whether or not they need to change their assumptions or ideas. They might attack a speaker's ideas if they believe that a mistake is being made, but there's nothing very personal at stake. So once proven wrong, they admit it (usually politely if you're lucky). Most creationists, on the other hand, are defending the One True Religion. They already know The Truth, and simply pick and choose arguments from creationist websites to attempt to defend that Truth. This kind of backwards reasoning (arrive at conclusion first, find supporting facts later) is so alien to scientists that they simply can't handle it. I'm not sure I could, for that matter.
(2) Creationists often make statements like "Evolution can't produce new information in a genome" or "We don't know how old the earth is because carbon dating isn't useful on large timescales and we don't know the initial amounts of isotopes and polonium halos disprove old ages anyway". Answering each one of these statements would require hours of boring, dry lecturing- something that simply isn't going to happen. And the problem is that creationists don't just make one of these statements, they make DOZENS of them. Answering this kind of deluge of mis-information in such a way that it can be intelligible to the average person would take an unbelievably long amount of time. As such, even answering questions from the crowd can be a tricky business. How do you explain isochronology and radioactive dating methods in 2 minutes to a young earth creationist? I can barely explain it to a fellow scientist in less than 15 minutes. Now imagine someone standing up and asking two or three of these questions in rapid fire mode, and ridiculing you for not having a snappy answer. This kind of public failure would not look good.
(3) Creationists are usually much better at the fine art of crowd manipulation, whether they're participating in a debate or simply asking an "impromptu" question from the audience. I'm finishing up my PhD now, and I've taught some pretty big classes, but never had to worry about anything like this. I'd probably be slaughtered if I tried...
I'm not completely knocking the idea, it's just that I can easily see it becoming ugly.
Parent
The museum was built in 6 days (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The museum was built in 6 days (Score:5, Funny)
You ever noticed how people who believe in evolution look a little bit less evolved?
"I b'lieve Gawd created me in 6 days!"
"Yeah, it looks like he might've rushed it..."
Parent
Re:The museum was built in 6 days (Score:5, Funny)
You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.
"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
Here's a video [youtube.com]
Parent
Re:The museum was built in 6 days (Score:5, Interesting)
What's more likely is that tales of dragons grew out of another animal--namely pre-existing reptiles, snakes and crocodilians. All primates have an innate, instinctual fear of snakes--in fact it's been argued that primate eyes evolved the way they did because of snakes. (Do a google search on "primate evolution snakes"--there's some interesting stuff to be read) As for fear of the crocodilians, that's a no-brainer--they're big, hungry, and can tear off your leg. While I don't know about western dragons, I read an article several years ago that argued quite well that stories of Chinese dragons grew out of crocodiles.
But it makes sense--you want to think up a scary animal, make a big honking version of an animal that people are already instinctually afraid of--snakes. And make 'em fly too for good measure.
Parent
Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Funny)
That's it, I'm starting the Homosexual Creationism Museum which honors homosexual Neanderthals and dinosaurs.
I think that's a fair compromise.
Parent
Re:It's not a compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a salvation to be had, here is the secret: Be kind to each other.
What else could possibly matter?
Any God that cares if you worshipped him doesn't deserve the position.
Parent
Re:It's not a compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's not a compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and perhaps there are some other reasons for going to church that you just haven't thought of. One of the neat things about postulating an omniscient being is that it is smarter than you are.
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you just consider Christianity the idea that we should be nice to each other? Because I don't think Jesus invented that concept.
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think God framed the humans. And such a God I should worship? I'd rather say, he wanted to kick the nudists out and needed some reason. But then I wonder, what reason would God need to do what he pleases? Who does he have to report to?
Somehow, it doesn't add up.
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Men (and women) were made in God's image. Mankind was created with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. And a free will, even as God Himself. All creation was good, as God had said. Mankind was also perfectly good. So, God presented the choice, which was not a malicious one. One tree, the "Knowledge of Good and Evil", was where Adam and Eve could (as the tree is self-described) know about evil as well as good. They had perfectly good trees throughout that garden to eat from, and thus the choice was not difficult really. Should they listen to the God they walked with every day? Or trust someone or something else...
So, why would God, who knows all, allow this possibility? Because He wanted mankind to freely serve Him. Robots can be trained, people or animals can be "beaten into submission", but that is not the willing and free service of the Creator by the creature. And Luke's geneology refers to Adam as God's son, as he was created in God's image. So, as a parent, would you force your kid to always listen and totally protect them from every having any possibility of disobedience? Wouldn't that make you a tyrant?
But why would God allow this, especially as a Father who knew His children would rebel in such a way? Because He had a plan for this that would bring even more glory to Himself (no matter if His children remained in their sin or returned to His loving arms), as well as bringing greater glory to the creatures who repent and return to Him than even if they never fell.
God has chosen to have creatures made in His image (mankind) serve Him freely and willingly and perfectly. It was done before the fall, and can be done only in heaven for those who return to His loving arms and embrace His son Jesus Christ.
I can't say that people naturally will like this concept of God much, who designs mankind in His image in order to serve Him freely and joyfully. People also hate the concept that those who do not do so but rebel against His fatherly care realize the miserable consequences here (to some degree) and in the afterlife.
I guess if you've ever been a parent, and believe you should have some authority in molding your child in a moral and right way, you will understand a little what God the Father is like. If you have been a parent, and see the seeds of rebellion being sown and your good counsel being openly flaunted, you will realize in a very small way what it felt like to God. Some may wish their children to turn into little robots who always say "Yes sir" and "No sir" to their demands, and are never given the freedom to choose any wrong thing, and never are harmed or experience any negative consequences for anything. But then, to expect a spontaneous and free declaration of love from those children is impossible...
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Interesting)
So God wants us to choose. Him or not him. Freely. There is no force involved, he wants us to choose his path, of course, but he would rather see us choose the wrong path than force us on the right one.
Could someone please tell the fundamentalists?
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Parental responsibility, and much more (Score:5, Insightful)
If God created Adam and Eve, then they were His children and His responsibility. It was His duty to teach them, to guide them, to nurture them, to comfort them, to correct them when they made mistakes, and to keep them safe from their own ignorance. Creating beings with free will, whether by divine powers or natural conception, makes you responsible for those who are created. If they screw up their lives because you left them in an environment with dangerous elements that your children have no experience in dealing with, then it is your fault. Heck, from the perspective of Adam and Eve, the snake was probably a perfectly legitimate source of guidance; nobody had told them it wasn't!
In any case, if Adam and Eve existed, then they had pretty much the worst growing up experience possible. They were given curiosity but were kept ignorant, provided with dangerous temptations, and given no guides save for malicious entities that they had never even been warned against. When the urge to satisfy that curiosity (at the urging of a creature made by their same creator and dwelling in their own safe garden) became too great, they were irrevocably changed, cast out from paradise, and defamed as the originators of sin for the rest of eternity. At THIS point, their all-powerful 'parent' offers no comfort or assistance, but decides that NOW He would put protection on the one thing that might, possibly, have reversed the change done to them.
You are arguing that this deity loves us, and that we should worship Him? The average everyday, non-omniceint, flawed-in-various-ways father and mother that most of us had growing up is far more worthy, in my opinion (not that I worship anybody, but maybe I'm just a bit too cynical).
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Informative)
What sin? She ate a fruit when it was offered to her, by a being that God _allowed_ into the Garden. Yes, she was told not to eat the fruit, but was never told why or what the consequences were, despite God being omniscient enough to know he had created man with curiosity.
Leaving completely ignorant and unsophisticated children alone with the greatest predator in the universe does not seem like a wise parenting decision.
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Insightful)
In its broadest sense, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that unvarying principles must apply to all people or every situation, in this case, the Bible as absolute truth. So, if someone believes every word of the Bible is absolute truth and nothing is metaphorical, simplified in terms that the people of the time would understand, and was completely accurate in its translation from language to language, then that would qualify them as a fundamentalist in my mind. In general, there is nothing wrong with that. I see no problem with believing what you believe. It's when you force that belief on other people that causes problems. Open discussion of beliefs on the other hand, is good for everyone involved.
Now, what do I believe? I am a Christian, but I believe there is one problem with the Bible: it was physically written be humans. This means two primary things to me:
- It could only be written in terms that the person writing it could understand. This could lead to simplification of concepts. For example, in the story of creation, seven days may not necessarily equate to seven 24-hour periods. It could just mean seven stages, where each stage could take years, centuries, millenniums, etc.
- Because humans are flawed, some of those who physically wrote the Bible may have injected their views of the world into it. It then becomes a problem to decipher what may have been written by a human voice and not God's. This can only be done through self reflection which will be different for each person.
This is just what I believe and I have no expectations of other people to accept or adhere to this belief. This is where I depart from fundamentalists.Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Heading off at the pass (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the main problem is that if you are a fundamentalist, then that neccesitates that you either try to force those beliefs onto others, or kill all nonbelievers. If you are absolutely certain that your belief system is correct, and inherent in your belief system is that all other belief systems are evil, then it follows that you want everyone to have your belief system. At that point things like secular government and religious tolerance just dissapear. How can you state that the Bible is the direct infallible word of God, and in the same breath say that we aren't going to use this in government, and we are OK with the fact others don't believe what God is saying?
Parent
Your knowledge of catholicism is clearly deep (Score:5, Informative)
The only one I'll address is "their teachings are not Christian and aren't considered so by anyone other than themselves".
Everyone in the world, except for a few Protestant sects, considers the Roman Catholic Church to be Christian. By that I mean literally about 97% of the world.
Parent
So where are the cave drawings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So where are the cave drawings? (Score:5, Funny)
Satan.
See, isn't this easier than thinking?
Parent
Re:So where are the cave drawings? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
My favourite quote (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's a great place for children who are in public school and haven't really decided what to believe yet."
Who ya gonna believe! GOD or some hairy liberal professor! [scienceblogs.com]
Welcome to the 21st Century, America!
Almost funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Intelligent Design" groups have been running tours through legitimate museums, providing their own narrative in order to dispute the information provided by the museum displays. Maybe after this museum opens some atheist tour group so do the same thing...take tours through Ken's "museum" and provide scientific narrative to dispute his biblical nonsense.
Creationism Explained, by Gary Larson (Score:5, Funny)
That just about covers it, I think.
Best Protest (Score:5, Interesting)
The best way to protest this is to get a couple thousand people to show up there and laugh for 5 minutes on queue. I recall a similar protest was done in India some years ago and it is brilliant.
Just laugh as hard as you can at them for 5 minutes. Rinse. Repeat.
not a museum (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps "theme park", or "house of ill repute" instead?
natural selection (Score:5, Insightful)
That means the Biblical hero's were all girly-men (Score:5, Funny)
The God Delusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Richard Dawkins on why religion sticks: "There is no such thing as a Muslim Child. There is a child of Muslim Parents. There is no such thing as a Christian Child. There is a child of Christian Parents.
My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous
generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.
Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses.
Sociologists studying British children have found that only about one in twelve break away from their parents' religious beliefs."
Remember the old consistency thing. People are loathe to change their mind:
"It would be a severe disadvantage, for example, when hunting or making tools, to keep changing one's mind, so under some circumstances, it is better to persist in an irrational belief than to vacillate, even if new evidence or ratiocination favors a change."
Douglas Adams: "Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.
Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe .
much of a furore Richard creates when he does it!
Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."
Andrew Mueller: "Pledging yourself to any particular religion 'is no more or less weird than choosing to believe that the world is rhombus-shaped, and borne through the cosmos in the pincers of two enormous green lobsters called Esmerelda and Keith'."
Sam Harris: "We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or 'delusional' . . . Clearly there is sanity in numbers."
Richard Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodth
Re:One question about this story: (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Not going there (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the great thing about science: neither do scientists! They don't know what they have right, either. Isn't that a fucking hoot?
What they know is what *makes sense* based on observed facts. The epistemology of science is simple: if your explanation is contradicted by observation, it is not true. Otherwise, it *might* be true.
That's it. Nothing is ever "proven." It's just that some things only have one current explanation, and so we use those as our working assumptions. If another explanation comes around that isn't contradicted by the *observable facts*, that explanation is also considered.
Human nature makes us sure of ourselves-- sometimes *too* sure. But, for the most part, the scientific method, and the knowledge gained from that method, are self-correcting.
And that is why this museum can never win any converts from those who understand science. Their explanations do not cover the observable facts.
Parent
And so we go through this AGAIN. (Score:5, Interesting)
#1.
No, DNA mutations have been observed. Most of these mutations have NO adaptation value AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THEY OCCURRED. Changes to the environment AFTER those mutations caused them to become advantageous.
#2.
Yes, it has. The easiest example is a colony of fruit flies. Split them into two sub-colonies and within a dozen generations they will no longer be able to inter-breed between the colonies. They have become two different species.
Your fish/frog example is flawed because there is no reason to believe that one those different animals could achieve gestation within each other. Modern fish came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern fish. Modern frogs came from animals that were ALMOST identical to modern frogs.
#3.
And yet the evidence seems to support that theory.
And not only that, but the theory of evolution is the basis of our entire medical science now. And that seems to work, also.
Parent
Re:So, what exactly is wrong with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you decide to ignore all the evidence out there that supports evolution (including its laboratory use, and as a basis for creating new technology [technologyreview.com]), that's your choice, but realize you lose credibility with everyone else that decides not to ignore the evidence.
Also, Catholicism supports theistic evolution [catholic.net]. Even Pope Benedict's more recent comments on the situation [msn.com] weren't actually against evolution in spite of what many have said, but rather the use of evolution to push atheism.
Peacefully co-exist? Sure, but you and everyone else that says evolution isn't science should just be honest and say that you don't really believe in science, instead of hiding behind some pseudo-science like ID.
Parent