Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Science

Darwin's Revenge In Kansas 125

Posted by Hemos from the return-of-darwin dept.
Moby-One GNUbie writes: "Kansas voters reject 2 of 3 anti-evolution state school board members, proving that my home state has more brains than many gave it credit for. Some good news on that front should be refreshing for everyone." Check out the initial war of words when I had posted this originally.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Darwin's Revenge in Kansas More

Darwin's Revenge in Kansas

Comments Filter:
  • this shouldn't even be an issue... Is it to late to kick kansas out of the union? Has this come up in other states? I was pretty sure evolution was an indisputable fact... guess I was wrong.

  • Here we go again (Score:3)

    by AbbyNormal ( 216235 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2000 @03:10AM (#886217) Homepage
    Where is Jon Erickson? We need a non-biased, non-judgemental view on this important situation!

    Seriously though this should not even be an issue in education. IMHO, Certainly people are entitled to their own opinions/thoughts and actions however when it comes to state sponsered eductation, religious views should be expressed but NOT solely expressed. If they are solely expressed then students (of whom my Federal taxes go towards their benefit) are left with only one piece of the puzzle, and this is basically no better than state sanctioned censoring. I have no problem with teaching Creationism but it should not be taught that IT is more true than evolution.
  • The debate is between people that belive in a literal interpretation of the Biblical story of creation. According to people who have studied the Bible much more then I have, the world is between 5000 and 7000 years old and God create all the living creatures pretty much as they are today. According to physical scientists, the world is much older and all living creatures evolved, or mutated over long periods of time, into the forms of life we know today. The problem is that evolution is still a theory, meaning that it isn't proven. And it can't be unless someone developes a time machine. And since there are people that belive that their religion supercedes everything else, we get conflicts over teaching evolution in school.

  • The Dinosaur bones were brought in from another dimension by minions of Satan to throw us off the scent of truth.

  • Just the fact that people like this survive, and reproduce, and not only that get voted into power.

    Humankind is poisoning it's future by letting them reproduce!

    Isn't it funny that anti-evolutionists are also usually anti-birth control and anti-abortion? It's the only way they can survive and propogate!
  • Out of curiosity though how would Biblical scholars explain Carbon dating/Rock layering as proof of a much older earth? Evolution evidence is not as nearly clearcut as this, but I would say that a difference betwee a few billion years and 5-7000 year old earth is pretty remarkable.
  • Only problem is, Creationism is the basis for a religion. Evolution is not.

    Besides, creation "Science" is so flawed in the first place that most rational science teachers would probably refuse to teach it in the first place...

    We must also remember that Science is about subjects which we have valid proof for. A scientist doesn't rely on faith to come to a conclusion; he uses facts.

    Vorro
    ---------------------------
    A wise man speaks because he has something to say.
    A foolish man speaks because he has to say something.
  • So what's worse: schools rejecting science or schools rejecting the separation of church and state [aclu.org]?

    --
  • Check out the initial war of words when I had posted this originally.

    The war of words is /. in it's entirety?

    WHOA.
    --

  • are they serious??? (Score:3)

    by ponxx ( 193567 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2000 @03:38AM (#886225)
    I do not live in the states and have only vaguely followed this debate, mainly because i didn't think anyone in their right mind could think the earth (and presumably the univserse???) is 6000 years old. Is there actually a serious following for this in the US?

    I can't even see where i would begine to name examples that makes this complete nonsense... geology, plate tectonics, starlight from millions of light years away...

    Do these people also believe that Noah put two of each animal in his Ark, and maybe the dinosaurs were extinct because they did not fit??? It would be interesting if someone actually managed to build a complete theory on this, and surely of similar amusement value as the "Discworld" series...
    Speaking of discs, have they accepted the world is not a disc?

  • Good point, but in playing devils advocate one could argue that there is no proof to evolution. Its a mode point however a fairly important one in the debate. I would say that teachers would not have to teach it to the students, however mentioning that other theories have been proposed, for purposes of furthering their awareness would not hurt either.

    A scientist doesn't rely on faith.
    I don't know if I necessarily agree with that one. Do you not need faith in your on theory that you have based on fact? When you defend a scientific theory you do so with the knowledge that you have observed/calculated and understood the idea with all of your resources. If someone counters your theory with other evidence that you see is flawed, you have faith that your evidence was correct in the first place. You are right though in saying that creation "science" is flawed, for it really has no other proof other than faith in one viewpoint.
  • From what I know, they simply believe that everything was put here by God. So rocks that seem to be 4 billion years old are that way because God wants it that way. Why? Who are we to question and try to understand God?

    It's kind of like they think they are talking to kids.

    me: why?
    them: Because we said so.
    repeat until I go away.



    -----
  • I agree creationsim should be taught in public schools...and subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny creationists apply to evolutionary theory. If radiocarbon dating and the relative ages of layers of sedimentary rock are open to challenge then why not have our public school teachers question the truth of the biblical account in Genesis. If a student claims it is the inerrant word of God then have them show some objective evidence of that claim. Apply Ockham's razor to the question of whether the bible is a compilation of oral history and folk tales of a group of nomadic desert people or the literal word of God. I think teaching creationsim in schools could serve a very useful purpose in getting young people to question their core beliefs.
  • > Just the fact that people like this survive,
    > and reproduce, and not only that get voted into power.

    Maybe they can use this to disprove evolution? If it actually worked, surely they wouldn't be around anymore :)

  • But, the proof of evolution is that there is no proof. That is their defense: if you can't explain it, it must be God's work. I remember watching on the news a while ago these Kansas students out on a scientific field trip. They were basically going around, picking stuff up and either saying how great it is that God put that there for them to find or how funny it is that a rock "seems" to be 4 billion years ago. Scary.

    -----
  • Good point, but in playing devils advocate one could argue that there is no proof to evolution.

    Yes, but there is more proof of evolution than there is of creationism.

    --

  • God gave us curiosity for a reason. He gave it us because "[He] wants it that way". IMO, you have missed the point. I do not believe that we can ever understand God, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about trying to understand our Earth.
  • I forget if it was 3 out of the 4; or 4 out of the 5 that were up for re-election got booted in favor of pro-darwinists. I payed close enough attention to catch that the one from my district got booted :).
  • discs tend to be round...

    anyway, i was referring to long outdated views of science that have long outlived its use, such as a flat earth and creation 6000 years ago, and not to the bible and christianity in particular.

  • Don't get me wrong on this subject. I believe in evolution (I still believe that some people have yet to get past the Ape stage...but thats another matter..hehe). For evolution however, there is only evidence. No proof. Proof is evidence that no other conclusion can be made (which is fairly rare). Yes, I like secular philosophy. So sue me.
  • Unfortunately, they are. I'm an atheist living in Kansas (gasp!), and this sort of Bible thumping mentality is all too prevalent, not just in the midwest, but throughout the US. Just look at the hotly debated abortion rights issue which seems to be one of the backbones of American politics these days. I do think that the fundamentalist, snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues stereotype of Americans in the midwest is a bit overblown by the press, however. My neighbors haven't been lynched me yet!
  • "starlight from millions of light years away"

    Actually, in the latest issue of Scientific American they theorize that it is possible that those stars are NOT millions of light-years away, but that the universe is folded, like a membrane.

    In that case, the stars are much closer than they appear, we don't notice because we can't travel ACROSS the folds, instead we end up traveling by its surface. Think of it as folded sheet of paper, to go from one end to the other we travel the length of the whole paper, when in reality both ends were touching each other!

    Take care,

    John

  • Good point, but in playing devils advocate one could argue that there is no proof to evolution. Its a mode point however a fairly important one in the debate. I would say that teachers would not have to teach it to the students, however mentioning that other theories have been proposed, for purposes of furthering their awareness would not hurt either.

    Science is not "proved". Science can only be disproved. However there comes a point when the weight of evidence for a theory becomes so great that it must be considered factual.

    One could also argue that there in no proof for the existance of sub-atomic particles because we can't directly observe them. So, should it be wrong to teach nuclear physics to students if someone has a religios belief that everything is fundamentally made of Stilton cheese?

    Creationism is not a science because it is not falsifiable. There are no observations which could be made that would disprove Creationism. Creationism specifically ignores certain observations that don't fit into the theory. It does an injustice to students to teach them this drek because it gives them a false view of Science.

    Evolution is a science. We can conceive of a set of observations which would disprove it. However, no one expects that those observations would ever be seen.

    Furthermore, Evolution has become a fundamental organizing principle of Biology in that it had touched and influenced every field of Biology. Cladistics, the classification of living things into genera, families, genus and species, is now usderstood as defining the evolutionary relationships between the organisms. Genetics is understood as the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Cellular strustures such as the centromeres and mitochondria are understood as symbiotes that joined with a primordial cell in the very first stages of life. If one attempts to teach Biology without evolution, one has suceeded in teaching something which is not Biology as it is done by Scientists.

    (personal disclaimer: I am a practicing Christian. However, I do not share the view of some that the Bible has anything to teach us about Science.)
  • surely that means that the light still travelled the same route across the surface, and therefore it is still looking millions of years into the past, and so still providing evidence against creationists?
  • Recently, there was a lot of discussion over a University of Kansas medical school researcher (with 21 years at the institute and a host of international accolades) who was dismissed without cause. Officially, his work "no longer fits with the University's mission". He is, however, a noted freethought writer and has organized a number of conferences and colloquia at the school dealing with religious pseudoscience and other such topics, in opposition to the many "Religion and Medicine" events the school has hosted. Here is one of many articles. [atheists.org]
  • See Isaiah 11:12, Revelations 7:1, and Revelations
    20:8, all of which refer to the four corners of
    the earth.
  • Out of curiosity though how would Biblical scholars explain Carbon dating/Rock layering as proof of a much older earth?

    One common copout is to interpret the "six days" as "six phases" of indeterminent length.

    In short, science has a habit of disproving core beliefs of most religions, islam and judeo-christianity in particular. The two common reactions are "denial" (the just unelected Kansas state school board's approach) and modification of belief ("days" now equal "phases of indeterminent length"), while still clinging to the defunct core belief.

    I mean, these people still cling to the absurd notion that there is an intelligent creator of the universe. More silly still, they insist on the notion that such a creator, were he to exist, would give one flying fuck about individual human beings who would be virtually indistinguishable from bacteria from such a being's vantage point.

    Such people truly will believe just about anything, which allows the Jim Jones and David Koreshes (not to mention the Reagans) of the earth to be so successful.
  • I have a problem with that as well. If mankind evolved from monkeys because of some adaptation, why then do monkeys still exist?
  • The Institute for Creationism Research [icr.org] is a nice bunch of kooks that has a grad school [icr.org] which puts out some great thesis along stuff like this. Unfortunately I can't find any direct links to stuff there now, but I recall seeing somebody's reanalysis of 20-year-old NASA data, shich supposedly confirmed that there is a loayer of water around the earth. Presumably heaven is on the other side. The "scientific" response to a question like carbon dating is something like, "Well, it's not proven to be accurate," and hope no one in the audience bothers to challenge them.

    Oh, here's [talkorigins.org] a link to lots of people who spend just as much time refuting ridiculous creationist claims. All these links are kind of interesting if it's raining out and you have NOTHING at all better to do. Actually, I'd recommend the last link for sheer information density.

  • I agree completely with your statements. I was merely trying to show what their perspective is. I believe that Jeffk67 comments are a little more along the lines of what I was trying to get at. You cannot just say that Creationism does not exist. It does. It is a theory, while having no scientific merit it is still a theory. Rather than be ignorant of other's views, it should be taught (as Jeffk67 suggested) to show why evolution is more credible (ie. the examples that you provided). I hate ignorance of facts, but in this situation we must be careful that it does not become a double-edged sword.

    You are a unique...just like everyone else.
  • Monkeys, apes, and humans are all descended from
    a common ancestor, not from each other.
  • Good point ;-)

    John

  • There are many people who are opposed to abortion who are not bible thumping fundamentalists, or even Christians.

  • Many Miss the Point (Score:3)

    by Ho-Lee-Cow! ( 173978 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2000 @07:06AM (#886249)

    While the Religion of Science continues to mask its tracks behind the rhetoric, the whole Kansas issue underscores something blatant and simple about the whole argument: That the Origins of the Universe are a philosophical, not scientific issue.

    I will have to disappoint many people by pointing this out to them, but the arguments in play in this confrontation -are- philosophical and religious, not the 'science' that many have been slinging the mud about.

    Does the State have the right to establish Religion? No. So in mandating a viewpoint which is widely unprovable, and pushing it off as fact, are they not doing just that? But then, if I were opting for the Public School approach, I would be suing to have the Gaia Hypothesis removed from all curriculum because I feel that the State has no right to use my religion in a classroom setting(Gaia being a Greek God and I being a Greek practitioner have issues on this--big ones).

    Mind you, I am against near-sighted thinking of all sorts, but I do understand why those of religious conscience would want the 'facts' of the Big Bang played down in reference to the philosophical issues at stake. However, there is no way to deny that Evolution is and does happen, but the issue should not be placed as 'fact' to support a position that undermines religious conscience, which it is clearly presented as in the classroom setting.

    Those who believe that God did it in 7 days, those who believe in an Intelligent Creator/Creatrix, and those who believe in the scientific point of view ALL have a place at the table. They all should be discussing how to approach the philosophical issues in a way that allows science to be taught as a mechanism for discovery of how our world works, not as a club to suppress the other camps.

  • I assume this is just a troll but I feel compelled to respond anyway...

    There are more than 3 environments. Environment encompasses both the immediate nonliving (abiotic) surroundings, as well as biotic surroundings such as other species which are located close by. Species fill specific "vacancies" in the environment called niches, in a nutshell a niche is a "place in nature" where the species is well adapted and has less competition, and so can thrive. Species appear as a result of a) natural selection in the environment, and b) historical accident. I won't explain natural selection here, but historical accident is when random events (such as asteroid strikes or even a falling tree) quickly change the course of evolution in unpredictable ways.


  • While the Religion of Science continues to mask its tracks behind the rhetoric, the whole Kansas issue underscores something blatant and simple about the whole argument: That the Origins of the Universe are a philosophical, not scientific issue.
    Thank you for making a post that states this distinction. The first step in maintaining a discussion on this issue is the realization of this point being the basis of the conflict. I'm not saying that there should be a conflict - there is one already. And so the philosophical basis of the argument needs to be emphasized, rather then a factual 'Tag, you're it!' approach.

    Sarge

  • theres a difference.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    people who believe that God created everything in 7 days, or in the Intelligent Design theory have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up their claims, while people who believe that universe started with the big bang do (readings from telescopes such as redshifts).

    Until they have anything to explain their "theory", they do not belong in schools.

  • Thomas Huxley first presented the case for the long history of earth; the idea that all observable events today happened previously and at the same rate.

    However, we run into the problem of astronomical events such as the suspected meteor strike off the coast of the Yucatan penensula. This is being accepted as a plausible threory for the extinction of a complete period of biological history.

    According to scientists as late as 1972, the idea of contential drift seemed ludicrous. Now, this is an accepted fact. In fact, this is the under-pinning of current oil exploration in South American and off the coast of Africa linking the continents together.

    Before we foobar the ideas presented by creationists (which,admittedly, I am), I believe we need to get more facts. Just like other scientists, not all creationists believe the new-earth theory. We are allowed to accept or reject ideas in light of new information.

    We have yet to explore the oceans and the secrets yet to be unlocked there. Is this world not amazing enough that we have to have microbes flying in from Mars aboard buring rocks?

    To Steal from One is Plagiarism; To Steal from Many is Research.

  • If "Creation Science" is to be taught at all it should be taught as an example of pseudo-science. But that would probably put too many noses out of joint. To set it up as a reasonable alternative to Evolution gives it more respect than it deserves.
  • Evolution is not a plan; it is a case of nature generation a ton of mutations to see which ones survive. If several survive, they survive. As to the variation of land species, animals suited for one climate (alligators in Florida, for example) and not necessarily suited to live in places like Antartica or even Minnesota.
  • surely that means that the light still travelled the same route across the surface, and therefore it is still looking millions of years into the past, and so still providing evidence against creationists?

    [humor]
    Not fair. You used logic!

    Don't you know you're supposed to have FAITH?
    [/humor]

    These people are living in a state of complete denial despite mountains of physical evidence in front of them that the world is much older than their religion teaches them, that humans did indeed evolve from other (in light of such stupidity I cannot in good conscience say 'lower') life forms, and that the earth is, indeed, not the center of the universe.

    You cannot expect a shred of rationality from such people, much less logic and critical thinking.
  • I once saw a presentation by Dr. Donald Chittick about this very point. I don't remember the details, but his argument is that carbon dating as it is practiced today makes certain assumptions about the original isotopes that decay. Different, but equally valid, assumptions about what the original isotopes were leads to carbon dating results that agree with the 5,000-7,000 year universe lifespan espoused by new-earth creationists. The problem lies in the fact that there isn't a way to verify either set of assumptions.
  • The thing that is usually used to differentiate science from other fields of endevor is the stricture that science does not rely on the supernatural to explain things.
  • Please quote where in the US Constitution or in the Declaration of Independance where it is required to have a Separation of Church and State.
  • Actually, it is the theory of "Apparent Age".

    Adam was a full grown man on the day he was born, so why not a fully developed universe on the day it was created?

    Such finite thinking from otherwise brilliant minds... tsk.

  • Evolution at work (Score:3)

    by Rand Race ( 110288 ) on Wednesday August 02, 2000 @09:44AM (#886261) Homepage
    "Charles Darwin and his theory got revenge in Kansas on Tuesday..."

    I was hopping they had been clubbed to death by stronger, smarter, and faster school board members, but:

    "...as voters turned out two of three state education leaders who last year led an effort to downplay the theory of evolution in school science classes across the state"

    Damn

  • Last I heard the flat earth society was still around, and serious. Mostly creationist too. It's hard to find referents that are not jokes, or making fun.
  • Hey,

    You actually use either potassium or uranium to date rocks that are billions of years old. Radioactive carbon has a half-life of only a few thousand years. Plus, you don't date rocks with radiocarbon dating, you need organic material.

    I've heard creationists use Carbon dating as "proof" for a young Earth.
  • All it proves is that the ability to be brainwashed as a child into believing just about anything doesn't significantly affect one's ability to survive long enough to reproduce.

  • Let me preface this by first stating that I am a Christian, lest there be any confusion.

    I support the decision to teach scientific evolution in public schools, and to not teach the biblical creation whatsoever. If you are a christian, ask yourself how you would feel if I wanted them to teach that the world is actually carried on the back of four elephants who are standing on a giant turtle? I have as much proof of that as Creationism has of it's doctrine.

    So here's the middle ground, a scientific proposal that this *could* be how the earth and life was created. It's unbiased, its just theories.

    And if you don't believe it, well thats your ball of wax. But this is the public education system, which means that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists and Agnostics are going to have children that go there. The public education system doesn't need this kind of bias.

    If you TRULY don't want your children taught evolution as fact, then might I suggest private schooling where your dollar tells them what to teach, and not some legislator.

    I applaud the citizens of Kansas for making this decision. I imagine there were many enlightened "Christians" that voted in favor of Evolution being taught, as I would, if I lived in Kansas.
  • "However, there is no way to deny that Evolution is and does happen, but the issue should not be placed as 'fact' to support a position that undermines religious conscience, which it is clearly presented as in the classroom setting."

    Then the scientific method is being taught incorrectly. There are no facts in science, only theoroms. Theoroms can not be proven they can only be disproven. And science is perfectly willing (in most cases) to trash what had been thought before and start over from scratch when a theory is disproven.

    Evolution should be presented as a theory with more supporting evidence for it than any other theory on the origins of species. I do believe that creationism should be taught; it's a perfect example of a theory with no supporting evidence.

  • Re:evolution (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is a clear demonstration that the teaching of science in schools is not being done properly. A proper understanding of evolution would tell you the fact that we did NOT evolve from monkeys. The monkeys AND us both evolved from a now extinct COMMON ANCESTOR. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens lived concurrently for many thousands of years, until Neanderthals went extinct about 100,000 years ago. They were a close branch from the same tree. Neanderthals and Homo sapien shared a common ancestor much closer back in time than you and I share with chimps, for instance. The chimp and pre-human common ancestor went out about 5 million years ago). You go back a few more million years to reach the common ancestors between between pre-chimp/pre-human and gorillas (about 7 million years ago). Those common ancestors are no longer with us. In any case, there is no reason to a priori assume that an ancestral species has to go extinct for decendants to make it. As long as the ancestor and the decendants do not compete for the same resources in the same location, there is no problem.

    In addition, the common ancestor isn't static. The population that makes up that ancestor is always changing too, in addition to the changing/isolation that leads to a totally new speciation event.

    YOU share 98% of your DNA with chimps. You share about 90% of your DNA with gorillas, and so forth down the line. The ONLY difference between your DNA and a chimps is generally one of gene regulation and/or gene duplication, not type of genes, form of genes, etc. Gene duplication is an ongoing process. Small genetic mutations occur all the time as well. Recombination occurs all the time. All these simple, REAL, visable activities are ALL that is required to make evolution not only likely, but a REQUIREMENT. You cannot argue for microevolution vs macroevolution either since the SAME activities of mutation that drive microevolution are NO different than those that drive macroevolution. In other words, there is NO difference between microevolution and macroevolution except by means of extent. One implies the other, one REQUIRES the other.

    Modern medicine and biotechnology would not be possible or even exist if there wasn't evolution. We see evolution all the time in these fields without thinking about it much. People in general, who know nothing of these fields, are presented with the facts/evidence all the time in stories, articles, etc, but never see it for what it is...EVOLUTION in action before your eyes. The engines of evolution are always running and always visable to those with open eyes and a clear, thinking mind.

  • Not being familiar with someone's opinions isn't the same as being uninformed on the subject. Possibly with a title I could speak to the opinion that these people are authors of worth. I did find a reference to Behe on amazon and read the blurb, I find that I cannot respect someone who uses the phrase "irreducibly complex" without support.
  • I must point out that the Bible doesn't have any indication that the world is only somewhere b/t 5000 and 7000 years old. If you've read the bible you should note that Genesis 1:2(I could be a verse or two off) says "The earth became a dark and desolate place..." this seems to me that the earth had already existed before what we read in Genesis. In fact it doesn't even rule out that dinasours existed Millions of years ago. There is nothing to indicate how much time passed b/t the initial creation of the earth and what happened in Genesis.

  • Out of curiosity though how would Biblical scholars explain Carbon dating/Rock layering as proof of a much older earth?

    One common copout is to interpret the "six days" as "six phases" of indeterminent length.

    This is a gross oversimplification of a very broad range of opinions ranging from "It's just God's will that things look that way" to "The entire creation story is a metaphor and can't be interpreted literally."

    In short, science has a habit of disproving core beliefs of most religions, islam and judeo-christianity in particular. The two common reactions are "denial" (the just unelected Kansas state school board's approach) and modification of belief ("days" now equal "phases of indeterminent length"), while still clinging to the defunct core belief.

    Again, things are nowhere near that simple. There is a whole range of beliefs out there, many of which do not require you to mindlessly accept dogmas.

    Stories like Genesis are not a core beliefs in and of themselves. For many people, they are more important as metaphors for the way we should live our lives. (The need to weigh our desires and wishes against the consequences of our actions as in the story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit is a good example.)

    By the way, I don't think that science can ever prove or disprove the idea that an all-powerful infinitely old being that is not bound by physical exists. This is the core belief of most religions, not the Genesis story.

    I mean, these people still cling to the absurd notion that there is an intelligent creator of the universe.

    This doesn't seem absurd to many, many people. YMMV.

    More silly still, they insist on the notion that such a creator, were he to exist, would give one flying fuck about individual human beings who would be virtually indistinguishable from bacteria from such a being's vantage point.

    It's a matter of perspective. We humans are finite creatures and can't see anything below a certain size. We also have trouble comprehending something as large as the universe. An infintely powerful god on the other hand, should be aware of even the smallest part of his creation or he's not worthy being called a god.

    Such people truly will believe just about anything, which allows the Jim Jones and David Koreshes (not to mention the Reagans) of the earth to be so successful.

    I won't argue this point because it's true. :-) But I will point out that not many religious people simply do not fit this stereotype.

  • It's only a model... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...to quote Terry Gilliam.

    Most scientfic theories are a model of how we think things work. We observe, hypothesise and test. If the test results match the hypothesis then the model can be considered as adequate.
    Take Newton's laws of motion: they were long considered to be correct because they could be successfully used to predict planetary motions etc. Under the circumstances of the observation the model was adequate.
    Then Einstein came along and produced a new model that not only fit the previous observations but also observations taken at more extremes. It successfully predicted the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury.
    My point is that no one is saying that evolution is the be all and end all, but the model matches our observations. Indeed recent research suggests that Darwin's theory may need further refinement because it appears that evolution occurs in spurts rather than continuously.
    Unfortunately the Creationism brigade can only ever explain observations that are contradictory to their model with the answer "God did it".
  • Evolution is just a theory. Natural Selection is a documented fact.

    You feel that the only way to account for the genetic similarities between humans and certain other primates is evolution. What if I have a theory that God is just a brilliant bio-programmer who likes to re-use his code? I can no more prove that right than you can prove the theory of evolution to be correct.

    Evolution should be taught at a theory, because at this point that's all it is. It may be the best, or most plausible theory to date, but it is still just that. Creation "Science" is just a joke. They can teach that in sunday schools if they want to, but it should NOT be in public education.

    LK
  • Darwin's "Theory" of evolution violates the basic laws of Physics, Biology and Statistics (it is now a concept, not a theory). It is even discredited by the fossile record. It is however accepted by many people in a desperate attempt to leave God out of their World View.

    Note, I am not interested in a war of words, I am simply speaking as an Engineer who's degree is in Physics with graduate work in both Physics and Biology (almost 50/50). All of the above can easily be verified.

    It is unfortunate that in this enlightened era of scientific discovery the myth of Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which is very racist, by the way) is still accepted.

    --deMarshall

  • First of all, science is not, nor has it ever been a religion. A lot of the "science is a religion" business is a result of some poor assumptions made by Karl Popper in his explorations of the philosophy of science, which I believe is the root of a lot of these kinds of misconceptions. I think Carl Sagan described science best by stating that "Science is a way of thinking that helps you not to fool yourself." Period. End of story. How you can ascribe this simple concept to a religion, I have no idea, but it sounds as if you are reading a lot more into the scientific method than you should be.

    Second, you seem to think that it is somehow possible to extricate the science the philosophical/religious issues. I don't see how you can possibly do that. After all, science has it's roots in philosophy (natural philosophy as it used to be called). And while science may not have all the answers we can ask with regards to the origin of the universe, and the origin of life you're kidding yourself if you think that science has absolutely nothing to say about it either. The facts of science should not be down played at the expense of philosophical or religious issues, but should be incorporated into them. In that way, both fields can blossom and grow, instead of the current situation where science has left philosophy and religion in the proverbial dust.

  • My, my...nice argument from authority, but you're going to have to do better than that. I could throw around my degrees too, but I won't. Instead, I will ask you how evolution violates the "basic laws" of physics, biology, and statistics. And if your arguments have anything to do with entropy, or the improbability of "random" molecules coming together, then I will tell you in advance that you're barking up the wrong tree.

    And I'd love to hear how evolution is "racist."

    PS. From my experience, only the most closed minded people see evolution as an attempt to actively remove God from our world. The existence of God has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of evolutionary theory.

  • The post you replied to never once mentioned anything about abortion.

    Why did you bring it up?

    There oughta be a Godwin's Avenger for people who bring up abortion issues when they aren't involved in the discussion.

    Absimiliard
  • Just look at the hotly debated abortion rights issue which seems to be one of the backbones of American politics these days.

    What's that word in between "debated" and "rights"?

  • From George Carlin, I believe...

    Q: Do you believe in God?
    A: No.
    BLAM!

    Q: Do you believe in God?
    A: Yes.
    Q: Do you belive in my God?
    A: No.
    BLAM!

  • Um... evolution *is* taught as a theory, and the fact that you used the phrase "Evolution is just a theory" demonstrates that you do not know what a scientific theory is. I'd explain further, but this site talk.origins [talkorigins.org] (specifically here [talkorigins.org]) does it *much* better. If you don't go and immediately read a good portion of that site (start from the top) then I'm sorry, but you have no place saying that evolution is "just a theory" as if that's supposed to be meaninful. Evolution is a theory the same way fluid mechanics, gravitation, and thermodynamics are all just "theories".
  • > Adam was a full grown man on the day he was born, so why not a fully developed universe on the day it was created?

    Yeah. If Bog hadn't cleverly hidden all the evidence of His Hand in creation, everyone would see the truth and believe in Him, and then He would have trouble meeting his quota of damned souls. So he created the universe to be already old, just to trip up the evil souls of scientists and make sure they end up in hell where they belong.

    --
  • > when it comes to state sponsered eductation, religious views should be expressed but NOT solely expressed.

    Does that apply to all religious views, or just to those views that are held by a politically influential group?

    Should the ridiculous ancient Greek and old Norse cosmologies also be presented as legitimate hypotheses, so the student can be well informed and chose the one that rings true in his heart?

    I'm perfectly happy to let state-funded schools teach Greek, Norse, Hebrew, Egyptian, Indian, Polynesian, Aztec, etc.etc.etc. cosmologies in courses on literature or mythology. But presenting them as Truth is absurd. Even if they happen to be backed by a pack of outspoken and well-heeled voters.

    Attempts to teach creation and ban the teaching of evolution in public schools is nothing more than a strong-arm attempt by a religion desperate to maintain its market share.

    --
  • > Is there actually a serious following for this in the US?

    Yes. Almost exclusively among fundamentalist christians.

    > Do these people also believe that Noah put two of each animal in his Ark, and maybe the dinosaurs were extinct because they did not fit???

    Yep. Two horses, two peacocks, two dung beetles (or 14, if they happen to be considered a "clean" species), two Neanderthals, two Homos Habilii, two Australopitheci Africanii, ....

    Though you would think the dinosaurs would a problem, because the sacred writings says that Noah did put two (or 14) of each kind on the ark. No loophole for forgotten dinosaurs, Neanderthals, or unicorns.

    Of course, there's a certain problem with what the lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) ate for 40 days plus however long it took the waters to subside. I keep expecting to hear a theory claiming that two of each kind of dinosaur would provide exactly enough meat to feed the surviving carnivores for the necessary amount of time.

    > It would be interesting if someone actually managed to build a complete theory on this, and surely of similar amusement value as the "Discworld" series...

    That has already been done. It's called Fundamentalist Christianity.

    --
  • > something blatant and simple about the whole argument: That the Origins of the Universe are a philosophical, not scientific issue.

    That's a pretty lame attempt to worm out of being held to the observable evidence. You are simply claiming by fiat that science has no jurisdiction in the field.

    But that's not how the game works. If something is, then it is fair game for investigation by the scientific method. Even if gods exist, they are fair game for scientific enquiry, because science is just a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing the best possible conclusions from it.

    The huge irony about the whole creationism debate is that the party that wants to show that revelation trumps science ultimately goes through the motions of doing science in hopes of creating an aura of credibility for its claims. To the detached observer, that alone should show who has the winning hand.

    > here is no way to deny that Evolution is and does happen, but the issue should not be placed as 'fact' to support a position that undermines religious conscience, which it is clearly presented as in the classroom setting.

    Is it? Most science teachers (and other scientists) whom I have ever met are interested in evolution merely as a study of what happened. Sure, the collision with the claims of various religions is unfortunate for the practicioners of those religions. But are we to water down the facts on that account? I suppose people have an inalienable right to hide their heads in the sand, but why should the rest of us avoid stating the truth to avoid ruffling their sensibilities?

    > not as a club to suppress the other camps.

    More lame rhetoric. You are professing to be persecuted in order to claim the moral high ground in the debate. Beyond the fact that you are not being persecuted, there is also the annoying fact that the holder of the moral high ground does not inherit with it the power to change the factual aspects of the universe.

    Joe Scientist is not particularly interested in suppressing religion, philosophy, etc. What gets our hackles up is when religious groups try to outlaw the teaching of fact because it conflicts with their precious myths, and when they try to have public institutions teach those precious myths under the name of science.

    I repeat: refusing to accomodate lunacy is not an act of persecution.

    --
  • The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not exist in the Constitution. It is the generally accepted paraphrase of the 1st Amendment article that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    In other words, Congress is prohibited from declaring any religion as the official religion of the U.S., nor can it prohibit the exercise of any religion.

    There does not exist any clause in the Constitution that would explicitly prohibit actions such as prayer in school or engraving the phrase "In God We Trust" on our currency. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that these actions have the implicit effect of violating the 1st Amendment. That is why we have a Judiciary branch; They serve to mediate the issues that land in the grey zone.
  • > Different, but equally valid, assumptions about what the original isotopes were leads to carbon dating results that agree with the 5,000-7,000 year universe lifespan espoused by new-earth creationists. The problem lies in the fact that there isn't a way to verify either set of assumptions.

    Never heard of tree rings, ice cores, and spring flood deposits, I suppose?

    It's trivially easy to rule out the "5,000-7,000 year universe lifespan espoused by new-earth creationists", unless you want to posit a creator god that fakes the evidence to make his/her creation look older than it is. (One wonders whether a god that would fake the physical evidence might not just as well fake the revelations as well!)

    Rather than rehash all the jaded old arguments here, I direct the interested reader to the talk.origins FAQ archive [talkorigins.org].

    --
  • Huh?

    How is the strong survive wrong? the gene pool changes as certain mutations give some creatures an edge...

    Nothing you said makes sense... where is your verification?
  • Tree rings, ice cores, spring flood deposits... none of these can do anything to validate or invalidate a set of assumptions about the initial isotopes involved in carbon dating. Even if these techniques verify the results of carbon dating, they can't validate the assumptions without a causal link.

    Just because we assume A = 3 and thus A + 4 = 7 and we know that 2 + 5 = 7 doesn't mean that A is necessarily 3. If for some reason A is actually 6, then our hypothesis that A + 4 = 7 is invalid. 2 + 5 = 7 does nothing to prove or disprove that A = 3.

    But don't think I'm saying it's disproved, either. We just don't know. Tools like this aren't really meant to be used singly, anyway. Other techniques/tools should be used to confirm or contradict the results of any technique/tool.
  • These guys need to realize just what the effects are of putting Christian Creationsim on the same level as evolution and natural selection. Students who spend 12 years in school being taught that it's possible the earth is only 6k years old (and all the associated ideas) are in for a rude awakening when they hit the Real World(TM), especially if they go to college for a degree in biology or archaeology or geology or anything involving the past. Fundamentalists need to understand that they are not doing students any favors by teaching outdated dogmas.

    It remains true that religious doctrines constitute a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability. Sidney Hook

    --

  • You are referring to the chemist [answersingenesis.org] who resigned from science in 1980 and now serves as the "adjunct professor of chemistry at the Institute for Creation Research [icr.org]"?

    Chittick uses science to attack science, a curious position. Let's examine his credentials. Chittick got his PhD at a tier 3 school [usnews.com]. He taught a two private colleges, the University of Puget Sound (a tier 3 school [usnews.com])and George Fox College [georgefox.edu] (a highly rated private religious school with 1700 students).

    Chittick also championed the Coso Artifact as a kind of Geode that was proof against evolution. Later the artifact was revealed to be a 1920s era Champion Spark plug [talkorigins.org]. Chittick is not a brilliant scientist who is challenging the scientific norm. He is a buffoon with a little bit of knowledge and a whole lot of willingness to overlook inconvenient facts in favor of his faith.

    All this, and more, can be learned by starting at the talk.origins [talkorigins.org] site.
  • The problem is that evolution is still a theory, meaning that it isn't proven

    This has probably been said elsewhere in this story, but it's worth saying here. Scientific theories can never be proven. They can only either be disproven, or stand the test of time for long enough to be accepted. Yet still, scientists keep on trying to disprove old theories, even in small ways, like Einstein's extensions to Newton's laws. Another way of putting the problem is that science cannot answer any question that contains the word "is". Saying "Evolution is just another theory" is like saying "Gravity is just another theory". It isn't going to get disproven any time soon, and if it does, I won't be worried about floating away. They'll just replace it with another explanation of why I'm stuck down here.

  • And does ANYONE else know that just before his death, Darwin said he had been very wrong about evolution?

    So? IMO, he was wrong about being wrong. he was wrong in a number of ways. He believed in acquired feature inheritance, which is to say "If I spend my life picking strawberries, and my brother spends his life picking cherries, my children will be shorter than my brother's children". This is mostly discredited nowadays.

    Then again, maybe he was just hedging his bets and trying to make sure he got a place in Heaven.

  • Only if you percieve it such.

    Or is it that a 0 day old newborn thrust into the wilderness will surely die quickly, whereas a full grown man has a chance.

    Certainly you can't mean that a 0 day old universe could possibly be thought to support life of any kind?

    The theory of many Christian Scientists who support 6 day creationism is that God created everything with age because otherwise it would not survive. The Bible even explains dinosaurs and the ilk, prehistoric record, etc.

    I don't know which sounds more absurd, the idea that there is a supreme being that created everything, or the idea that everything that has ever happened is the product of a string of unlikely random occurances.

    Of course, that has little to do with the original thread, as I said in another post, I do agree with the decision to teach Evolution in public schools.

  • Its been a while since I last did any science, but I was taught that there's quite difference between a conjecture and a theory. Before you say that evolution is only a theory, check your definitions:

    hpothesis: A tentative theory or supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently called a working hypothesis.

    theory: Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

    Law: A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met

    As you would expect the bar for an idea becoming a scientific law is very high. By comparison we still refer to Newton's work as his "Theory of Gravity", even after hundreds of thousands of high school experiments checking Newton's work--in just our century. Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution is less than two hundred years old. Yet, going with the definitions above, saying that the idea of Evolution is a theory, means that scientists are pretty darn sure this is the way the world works. What keeps Evolution from being a scientific law is the whole invariable clause of the definition of sicentific law. Same reason why neither Newton or Einstien's works are scientific laws--actually, I think relativity has achieved that status now. We probably won't be able to establish the invariance of Evolution until we get out to another planet with life and compare it to our own.

  • G'rtqdnx Planet Construction Group, LLC
    Shouldn't that be called Magrathea [demon.co.uk]? :)

    --
  • Science is based on the idea that you can test a hypothesis. Anything that can't really be tested one way or another falls under the concept of philosophy.

    Now, natural selection is real. It has been tested and shown to work. Steller evolution is real--we can look at stars in various stages of development, and are pretty confidant that we know the various stages of stars.

    The big bang has much evidence to support it. So it is probably real. (Even though we really can't directly test it, there is a lot of evidence in support of it.)

    However, evolution of species remains a philosophy. Never have the missing links been discovered. Never has one species been shown to evolve to another (though plenty have gone extinct). There are some jumps which are highly improbable (the eye?).

    Scientists tend to disagree with the methodology of creationists ("we already know the answer, now lets find proof. Anything contrary can be explained away."), and have observed that religion has gotten in the way of science. However, that does not make creation any more or less valid that evolution of the species. (btw, many creationists believe that God created all life on earth, but started with a pre-existing earth and stars.) By ignoring all other options, the evolution "scientists" (perhaps more appropriately "philosophers") are doing the same thing they accuse religion of. They tend to obscure the fact that evolution of the species doesn't really have any scientific proof by pointing to natural selection, which does.

    Oh, and how is the "Gaia hypothesis" scientific *at all*? That is more of a primitive "earth mother" religion than science...

  • From what I understand, carbon dating is not solid proof. Back in November of 99 there was an article here on /. [slashdot.org] where the topic of carbon dating came up. Look at post 120 by KatyDid.

  • The post you replied to never once mentioned anything about abortion.

    Umm... Try the 37th word
  • doesn't teaching evolution as fact (which many/most schools do) violate the very foundation which this country was founded on? If you have a christian child in your class, you have no right to teach evolution as fact, you have the right to present it as a theory/concept (depending on who you talk to) but certainly not as absilute fact.

    No, it does not. By your reasoning, science could not be taught in schools at all. We couldn't teach the big bang theory since Hindu's believe the universe has no beginning or end. We couldn't teach chemistry because other religions believe in only 4 elements. We couldn't teach geology because some American Indians hold the earth as a whole to be sacred and should not be tampered with...and so on. Hell, we probably couldn't teach anything at all in schools, because just about everything we teach is bound to offend someone's religious sensibilities. If you want to keep your children from learning about the world, it's your perogative to take them out of the public school system and teach them what you think is important.

    I will also tell you my theory is fact, until you can come up with one that has more predictive power. I don't want to hear your beliefs, I want to see your evidence, if you don't have any, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and God won't back you up either.

    Frankly, the kind of argument you give scares the hell out of me. It's precisely this kind of thinking (taken to extremes) that causes all kinds of barbaric acts, simply because what you believe about God is different from what someone else thinks, and you can't deal with it. It's time to grow up. God, if He exists at all, is much bigger and greater than your little religion has ever been able to conceive of, much bigger and greater than I can conceive of, so get a grip and start learning about just how really amazing the universe we live in really is!

  • He said that the cosmological constant, which provided a force that counteracted gravity in just the right way to create a static universe, was the biggest blunder of his life. Turns out, he may have been right about the presence of a cosmological constant. He was only wrong about the effect of such a constant... no one is trying to use it to create a static universe. They're just using it to describe the zero-point energy fluctuations that have been theorized.

    Eric
  • the Bible says the earth is round: isa 40:22 "It is He how sits above the circle of the earth ..." but before you continue to say that the Bible then has a contradiction, reread Revelations in the context of a prophecy and in the light of books of daniel and isaiah. also ask God to provide you with the gift of understanding when reading the Book. erick
  • This is a play on words. A metaphor. Do you really think that when G-d told Abraham (Abram at the time) his descendents would be as numerous as the sands on the beach, he actually meant that literally? Most scholars (Jewish scholars, I don't know if Christians have anything to say on this) say that this represents the four cardinal directions.

    Yes, I know they didn't have compasses back then. Forward, backwards, left, and right are near-universal ideas.
    --
  • And does ANYONE else know that just before his death, Darwin said he had been very wrong about evolution?

    This is a popular misconception, and was refuted within weeks of his death. An american woman claimed to have been at his side just before his death, Darwin's family said the person wasn't allowed anywhere near him, and was, in fact, in the United states when Darwin died (in England)
  • The same continuation of tired old arguments... How exactly is the eye a jump? There are many and diverse examples of light sensing organs IN CRITTERS ALIVE TODAY. Enough for me, at least, to see the outline of a progression.

    Science is really based on the idea of explaining the world around us without resorting to the supernatural.

    Evolution has been observed, speciation has not. (arguable) But anything bigger than a microbe is going to take longer to change form than people have been doing science. We HAVE seen things like an entire species (moth) change it's predominant color due to an environmental change (smog).
  • IIRC the pope said that evolution fix in with the whole Cathloic belief system. Hey, I'm Cathloic, it matters to me. No flames please.

    Kalrand

    -the voice of reason
  • Turns out, he may have been right about the presence of a cosmological constant. He was only wrong about the effect of such a constant...

    So doesn't that make it a different constant? Just because it could be described as "cosmological" doesn't mean that E was right to say that there was such a thing.

  • > This is a play on words. A metaphor. Do you really think that when G-d told Abraham (Abram at the time) his descendents would be as numerous as the sands on the beach, he actually meant that literally?

    Lots of fundamentalists accept this kind of reasoning when it helps them avoid an overt conflict within the text. Why won't they accept it to avoid an overt conflict with the known age of the earth?

    Actually, lots of other christians do. For the fundamentalists, a literal interpretation of the Genesis story has inexplicably become the litmus test that matters. I suspect the explanation for this curious fact lies more in politics or sociology than in the necessities of faith.

    --
  • > Actually, in the latest issue of Scientific American they theorize that it is possible that those stars are NOT millions of light-years away, but that the universe is folded, like a membrane.

    Actually actually, they present that as a "nifty neat-o what-if-it-happened scenario". Not fact. Not even a hypothesis.

    > In that case, the stars are much closer than they appear, we don't notice because we can't travel ACROSS the folds, instead we end up traveling by its surface.

    Except for the bothersome fact that starlight would have to make the same journey we do. The entire point of the exercise was to show how gravity would behave differently from all the other forces, including light, if the article's hypothesis about gravity having extra dimensions turns out to be true.

    --
  • > According to scientists as late as 1972, the idea of contential drift seemed ludicrous. Now, this is an accepted fact.

    That's the perfect illustration of the difference between science and creationism. Science changes its theories to accomodate new evidence that conflicts with prevailing ideas. Creationists ignore new evidence that conflicts with creationism, or use lame arguments to explain it away, or outright lie about the evidence. (Some of the lying may actually be innocent. Much of it occurs in the form of "quote mining", i.e. taking a famous scientist's words out of context and portraying them to mean other than what was intended. While this would be considered rank dishonesty among scientists, perhaps it passes muster among creationists, since that is the way fundamentalists do biblical exegesis as well.)

    At any rate, when you have some evidence that the world is only 6K years old, I will be eager to see it and ponder what it means for cosmology and evolution. But you aren't presenting any facts. You're merely using a weak rhetorical trick to wedge in a claim that "maybe there's a loophole that will let mythology win in the end".

    > I believe we need to get more facts.

    Do you have any idea how much evidence we have pointing to the fact that the earth is older than creationists want to admit? Do you have any idea how many time their standard arguments have been refuted?

    BTW, even if you could produce evidence that the world was only 6004 years old, it would do nothing to prove creationism. Lots of other mythologies mix facts among their myths, but for some reason that leavening does not make the whole true as well. Greek mythology refers to the historical existence of Troy, and people were astonished when Troy turned out to be real. But no one felt compelled to believe that Zeus and Hera also existed and took sides in the battle around Troy, nor that Ares and Aphrodite were actually wonded on the battlefield. Nor does anyone feel a dire need to explain away the contradictions in the story so people will still believe it.

    --
  • > doesn't teaching evolution as fact (which many/most schools do) violate the very foundation which this country was founded on?

    You are making the bogus assumption that anything that your religion does not approve of is also a religion, and therefore should not be taught.

    > And does ANYONE else know that just before his death, Darwin said he had been very wrong about evolution?

    And I happen to be privy to Jesus's secret confessions at the time of his death. But for some reason no one believes me when I tell them what he said.

    --
  • > However, evolution of species remains a philosophy. Never have the missing links been discovered.

    The world's museums are full of "missing" links. Nineteenth Century creationists wanted to see the species "intermediate between man and monkey". We've got a whole pile of them, and we keep finding more.

    > There are some jumps which are highly improbable (the eye?).

    Science does not work by assigning an intuitive probability to an event and then rolling a d20 to see whether that event should be accepted as fact. Either the eye evolved or it didn't; our task is to find out.

    How would you respond if someone critiqued your religion on the grounds of what he thought the probability of your various claims were?

    > Oh, and how is the "Gaia hypothesis" scientific *at all*? That is more of a primitive "earth mother" religion than science...

    How many scientists do you know of who believe in the Gaia hypothesis? (There are a damn site fewer than the number who believe in various religions, I'm willing to bet.)

    Whatever else might be said about Gaia, there's a huge problem with the fact that Gaia essentially commited suicide when she(?) generated an oxygen-based atmosphere. I suppose that might be spinnable as a "she died that we might live" mythology, but this is far beyond the realm of science.

    --
  • > What if I have a theory that God is just a brilliant bio-programmer who likes to re-use his code?

    Then s/he must use Visual Basic, because most of the human genome is "junk DNA" that is not actually used by the end product. Just as people find when they disassemble VB programs.

    Truly, why would anyone worship an all-powerful being that used VB?

    > I can no more prove that right than you can prove the theory of evolution to be correct.

    Except that we can point out to evidence for the theory of evolution, whereas you cannot point out the first bit of evidence for a divine bioprogrammer.

    > Creation "Science" is just a joke. They can teach that in sunday schools if they want to, but it should NOT be in public education.

    You got that right.

    --
  • > So, if Darwin believed in God, then why is it such an "intellectual" sin?

    Why should I care what Darwin believed? His theory of evolution rests on empirical evidence; his religion rests on the dogma prevalent in his society.

    > Science practices dogma in the manner of the church

    Yes, scientists are humans, and some are rather dogmatic about the theories they learned when they were kids. Some apparently even let their economic interests interfere with clear thinking.

    > if you don't believe this, then take a generally accepted theory (like GR) and then come up with some kind of new theory (must be or sound reasonable) that contradicts it, publish that theory and watch the sparks fly!

    Actually, "flying sparks" is exactly how science works. If someone actually has evidence that a generally accepted theory is incorrect, sparks will fly indeed until the evidence is examined by others and the implications are worked out.

    The difference between this and religion is that the side with the evidence ultimately wins. Or at least that is our hope.

    > 3)

    This is hard to respond to. Learn how science actually works, and then we'll talk about it.

    If you can't find an "official" explantion of science, you can try my home-grown explanation, here [slashdot.org].

    > but in a Democracy, the majority rules

    Not so. The prohibition against establishing a religion is an explicit limitation on the majority's right to rule. (So are a number of other things in the US Constitution and its amendments.)

    Perhaps christians in democracies should worry less about what the courts say and more about what their own avatar said: "don't pray to be seen by men". Few athiests, Hindi, Moslems, pagans, etc. would complain about students praying silently at football games. Though some might tartly observe that the frequency of football prayers seems to be distracting the gods from dealing with the world's serious problems.

    --
  • Except that we can point out to evidence for the theory of evolution, whereas you cannot point out the first bit of evidence for a divine bioprogrammer.

    What can you point out as evidence of evolution's correctness that I can't use to point out the correctness of my God as a programmer theory?

    The fact that we share common DNA with other primates? God is just reusing modular code.

    Natural selection? Beta testing.

    "Junk DNA"? Bloat.

    LK
  • Many people forget that almost every religion (except perhaps Buddhism) has a colorful story about the origin of the universe.

    This brings up the question - why should only Christian theology be taught as an "alternative" to evolution? There is no particular reason why it should be the default creationism among the scores of religious theories.

    Islam considers that the universe arose out of vapor, Hinduism posits an infinite recursive loop of creation and destruction, and a cherokee religion proposes that the universe was created by a water beetle.

    I have no idea what the creation theories are in Zoroastrianism, shintoism, taoism, confucianism, animism, but I'm pretty sure they're wild and wonderful. [unc.edu]

    Of course, you might say that the majority of Kansas/american students are christian; but then, does the origin of the universe depend on the population % of your local area? that would be quite a theory indeed.

    Since proponents of creationism say that kids should be taught both theories and allowed to decide for themselves, we could agree to teach creationism (of all religions). Let's give them the choice, dammit! So....a typical biology book would now have 30+ chapters to discuss creationism theories, and 1 to discuss evolution.(Many countries do this, but they teach them in a class on "World Religions" instead of "Science"; but nevermind, it's the same content, who cares what the class is called?).

    Anyway, this brings up another question - why offer "alternatives to science" only on evolution? Since so many people believe creationism should be taught in schools in *science* class, why not teach the biblical concept of oceans and the earth as an alternative to geology (noah's boat and the parting of the red sea are guaranteed to be crowd pleasers in comparison with boring cross section charts of the earth)? Is there any reason why only evolution should be presented with an alternative? After all, nobody has gone to the center of the earth or the sun and REALLY proved what's there; they are merely theories speculated upon by scientists, and they often turn out to be wrong.

    Can some proponent of creationism answer these questions? Thank you.

    w/m
  • Evolution has a very solid backing in scientic fact, and is accepted much like the theory of the sun being fueled by nuclear reaction. In both cases, nobody can recreate the experiment in a lab, but based on scientific studies and extrapolation, it's accepted as fact. In the latest scientific american, a german professor makes the remark that all educated people today accept evolution as a fact. (No offense, but are you a product of the American educational system? In most countries this is not even an issue, except among the functionally illiterate .)

    After a theory undergoes considerable scrutiny, it becomes accepted fact, and scientists work on its finer points. This is the path taken by theories on the earth revolving around the sun, cardiovascular circulation, germs causing disease, etc. Proponents of these, incidentally, were furiously opposed by religious scholars and occasionally put to death.

    You also need to understand a basic difference b/w evolution and creationism. Creationism has exactly as much evidence as my theory that the universe was created by drunken dung beetles. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Evolution has tons of evidence. If you don't know that, your education is to blame, not the theory.

    w/m

Slashdot Top Deals

"You'll pay to know what you really think." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Close