Britons Unconvinced on Evolution 2035
pryonic writes "The BBC is reporting that more than half of Britons do not believe in evolution, with a further 40% advocating that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science classes. I'm a Brit myself, and I thought most people over here thought these views were outdated and lacked substance. None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected. Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country?"
Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, I'm happy to see that rampant idiocy isn't a uniquely American trait.
On the other hand, however, I'm seriously troubled by this. I guess I was kinda counting on the rest of the world to bitchslap America back to sanity sooner or later, but now it appears that we can't count on the global community saving the day for rationality.
Of particular concern is the statistics quoted:
In other words, 39% chose creationism, as there is no discernable difference between creationism and ID. Score another victory for ID, for once again successfully obfuscating the issue.
Even worse were the statistics regarding what to teach in schools:
Again, nice and confusing, especially when you consider that these statistics don't add up to 100%. I understand that some people would like to see more than one 'theory' taught (the old 'teach the controversy' BS), but displaying the results in this manner is misleading in the extreme. Equally confusing is the fact that the percentage of people who 'did not know' in the previous set of statistics isn't enumerated. One would assume it to be 13%, but in the light of the second set of statistics, who knows?
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Grab 2000 of any random population off the streets of any city, and ask them to define "Intelligent Design" and I bet less than 17% will give you anything approaching what the proponents of this idoicy are spouting.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, although the main
Close Friends (Score:5, Funny)
None of my close friends like eating pork, but we're all well educated jewish rabbis so I guess that's to be expected.
Re:Close Friends (Score:4, Insightful)
Then perhaps you might use your obviously superior logical skills to show us less fortunate individuals how you came to this conclusion ? I, for one, fail to see the connection. And while you're at it, you might also explain how conformance to your worldview shows critical thinking, and how lack of such conformance shows a lack of such thought.
Or were you just karma whoring ?
Re:Close Friends (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, when I was younger and full of anger, I believed this as well. Then a little real world education woke me up. After meeting and working with some incredibly intelligent people in college and the engineering world that believe in religion, but are still logical, critical thinkers, I've settled down on my "if you believe in God you're a moron" hypothesis. I still have my atheist beliefs, they have their religious ones. But, being well educated, they understand how I came upon my beliefs. I am starting to understand why they believe theirs. Almost ALL of them that I've asked believe evolution should be taught in school, religion should be taught in church/at home.
Re:Close Friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth Albert Einstein (again): "God does not play dice".
Disclaimer: I do not partake in any religion, and I'm not fond of how ID is being tried shoehorned into the school system. But neither am I an atheist; I'm agnostic. The concept of ID itself is, at best, a philosophical mindtwister. The problem as I see it is that the way ID is presented by the proponents is one-sided, and it appears as just another means to push the belief that "The One True God, Thy Lord" created this hole mess a few thousand years ago.
What about people believing that our souls are parts of the universe learning about itself? Or that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is here with his all-encompassing Noodly Appendage? Karma?
Or if I seriously believed that a giant rubber ducky created the universe by way of a purposeful squeak? And that we're all guided by His Quacks, they're just so loud we don't hear them? It's all valid ID beliefs, but they're just that - beliefs.
A good scientist will not let his beliefs get in the way of finding Truth. Should the newfound Truth disagree with what he believed, a true scientist would adjust those beliefs. Just as the religious majority was in time forced to acknowledge that the earth revolves around the sun.
Re:Close Friends (Score:5, Informative)
Every fucking time there's a discussion about religion, somebody trots out the "God does not play dice" quote...
I don't mind if you want to argue that religious conviction has no clear connection with intelligence or lack thereof, but leave Einstein and his quote about gambling gods out of it. Einstein did not believe in the Christian God.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
still less in total than evolution though.
one important thing (in my experience) the UK doesn't have so much of is militant fundamentalism. people might say they believe in creationism, but then lots of people still claim to believe in god. they don't do anything about it though. even if they agree it should be taught in schools they aren't taking over schoold boards for it.
basically I think the difference is that in America you have the very dangerous combination of
1. Churches are big businesses (much more so than elsewhere)
2. businesses can easily buy into politics
the ID movement is 99.9% a PR campaign.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds to me just as respectible as believing that eating 20 Twkinkies a day will likely kill your kids quickly, and ignoring that fact because you don't want to make a fuss.
I'm not religious, so don't bother slandering me for that reason. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in the Britons you describe.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:3, Insightful)
I find this to be true of most theists.
when I try to imagine what it would be like to believe in a benevolent god, I think it would be such an amazing thing I don't see how any part of my life would be unaffected. I think that if someone really believed in god it would be obvious without even asking.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Insightful)
For some people it is because they no longer feel safe letting it show. Many atheists are every bit as nasty as some fundamentalist. Instead of you declaring you an sinner and immoral they declare you an idiot, fool, and yes evil.
While it is okay in most work places to talk about getting drunk, going out and partying all night, or how much you lost playing poker. A discussion of how much fun you had at church teaching the kids in your Sunday school class makes people nervous and some will snub you.
Telling everyone how reading Men are Mars and Women are from Venus has improved you marriage is okay. Telling everyone how praying with your wife and kids everyday has improved your marriage is not.
You asked so I thought I would share my experiences with you.
A good example is my own mother. She noticed that of all her kids that my wife and I have the happiest marriage. I told her that a large part of that came from both of us following our faiths teachings. Her response was, "Well some people need that."
Oh well.
You are right and it is an amazing thing. Every once in a while a friend or co worker that isn't of my faith for some reason asks me for advice and help when things are really going wrong and I try and help with what I have learned through my faith. Even I try and keep it to myself. I often feel that I must only speak of it in hushed whispers. It is hard because I really don't want to make people feel uncomfortable but at the same time I have no idea why it should make anyone feel uncomfortable.
I do not believe in creationism. I do believe in ID but at the cosmic level I.E. the prime cause and designer of the universe. I believe in evolution because I see the evidence and believe that the universe was set up to allow it.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem, I think, is that while there are many people of faith, the quiet ones are, you perceive, not the ones whose voices rise above the crowd. The ones that get heard are the shrill idiots, and as a result other people tend to assume that everyone with faith central to their lives is a shrill idiot. Which, obviously, doesn't work out so well for those of you who aren't shrill idiots, don't think that faith gives you a license to dismiss science, and do have something constructive to say in this debate.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you have people on both extremes claiming one can dominate the other, when they are, in fact, not capable of influencing each other *by definition*. Faith that is observable is not faith. Science that is not observable is not science.
To answer your question, I don't really see a need to categorize yourself. Identifying your beliefs with a group leads to a mob mentality, and to a lot of needless problems when two people can't see past the groups they identify themselves with to realize that their beliefs are really very similar.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Funny)
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that Jesus wasn't "sharing" one peice of bread with many, nor was he demonstrating his power. The lesson has nothing to do with "good will towards your fellow man."
The people were all bitching and moaning that Jesus was a bit of a windbag and they were hungry, so Jesus grabs this kid who has a loaf of bread and (miraculously) gives everyone a peice. The people stick around to hear one more dissertation because there is now free food.
The lesson he was trying to teach was that if your going to demand everyone show up at your meeting, you sure as hell better bring donuts.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of the reasons Evolution has been rejected by a lot of people. Just as ultra-right wing Christians really turn people off, this kind of statement also turns people off.
Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. That doesn't make me an idiot. I simply disagree with the theory. That doesn't mean I don't understand it, I simply don't agree with it. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant either - I know more about Evolut
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously have attempted to learn on your own about this. That would normally be commendable, but you have made mistakes somewhere that you need to correct by learning from experts.
Plus, the fact that you use the term "macro-evolution" sort of gives the game away as to your preferred source of information. Please stop spending time at the
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Funny)
You're right there. Same with Plate Tectonics. I mean, sure, we've found the mid-Atlantic ridge and measured how it's spreading a tiny amount each year, I don't disagree with Micro-Continental-Drift. It's only Macro-Continental-Drift I disagree with. Pangaea? Rubbish. And all the magnetic reversal patterns and matching rock formations on separate continents that the scientists come up with are IMO really weak.
And don't get me started on Macro-Addition. I mean, we know 1+1=2, we can test that by counting things, but AFAIK nobody in the world has ever seen more than a few million of anything at one time. And yet these scientists tell us about billions of this and trillions of that, and then they even make up a new way of writing numbers that doesn't even use names! Exponential notation is only a theory, and IMO, a weak one at that.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but I can assist people IRL with their personal failings, however I can't make up for years of poor science teachers and countless hours of study in a couple of paragraphs. It's not as if the people will actually READ the links we could post to http://talkorigins.org/ [talkorigins.org] that counter every single creationist talking-point.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
They loose objectivity and scream "I AM A STUPID IDIOT" to the masses of people as they intimidate and stick their collective tounge out at the very people who are interested in really understanding it.
Science is not about you. It's not about your feelings, or about what you want to believe, or about being sensitive to what you think. It's an all-out battleground, a free market of ideas, and if scientists talk to you that way, its because they talk to each other that way. It's not personal. Science is all about evidence and sound reasoning that works with that evidence, and the people who practice it care so much about this that they get very pissed off when somebody ignores the evidence and spouts nonsense.
So, to all those people who are greatly offended by the brusque tone of scientists, get over yourselves. There are more important things in this world than your tender little ego. And really, that's what this whole debate is about; people don't want to believe that they are descended from monkeys, and ultimately, from worms, because it offends their pride. And if these people really were interested in learning, they would overcome their pride and learn.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, modern DNA studies have confirmed the prediction that macro-evolution is simply microevolution on a large scale. The prediction of evolutionary theory is that all differences among species will turn out to be due varying quantities of the sort of "micro" genetic changes that have been shown to occur by mutation. Many genomes have now been sequenced, and so far that prediction has held up perfectly.
His theory was that God created a few, or one, initial organisms, and that everything else evolved from them by the mechanisms he described. By what we know now, that seems naive, but it was a coherant theory. But now, in the interest of making it a purely naturalistic theory, "scientists" actually try to explain the origins of the first cells in terms of molecules "evolving" into them. As this kind of evolution pre-supposes the ability to reproduce and pass along genetic coding to its offspring, ability that by definition, a pre-organism does not have. This "scientific theory" can therefore only be believed by the delusional.
Darwin understood that you cannot make a scientific theory about God. His theory did not address whether or not God created the initial organisms--it only addressed how organisms have changed over time. Nor did Darwin's theory include anything about a particular kind of genetic material--indeed, Darwin had never heard of genetics. Darwin did predict that there had to be some sort of mechanism for passing down changes undiluted from generation to generation, and the discovery of DNA-based inheritance is perhaps one of the most dramatic confirmations of a theory's predictions in the history of science. But all that evolution requires is some mechanism of inheritance. All models of the origin of life take this into account. There are several such models, and none has yet reached the level of near-universal scientific acceptance that evolution has attained, but all of them include a mechanism (not necessarily DNA-based) for proto-organisms to pass down traits from generation to generation.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Informative)
In science, all knowledge is provisional, so it is belaboring the obvious to say, "The earth orbits around the sun maybe", or "F = MA maybe." This was one of the most telling points that the judge made in the Dover trial. Because all science is provisional, attaching a disclaimer to evolution, and not to other statements of scientific knowledge, gives the false impression that evolution is somehow more subject to doubt than other scientific knowledge.
Look how science is taught, with the assumption that everything written in the textbooks are true.
Every science course I ever took began with an explanation of the scientific method.
Look how people will base their scientific careers and life-work on things that may or may not be correct.
Every scientist does that. So what? It is the only workable way of doing science that anybody has ever found. The people who go into science are the ones who find that fundamental uncertainty exciting and inspiring. It is not what is known that attracts people to science; it is what is not known. Those who are uncomfortable with living among the shifting sands of scientific knowledge should go into fields such as mathematics, where true proof exists, or into religion, where faith does not require evidence.
I have the Old Testement/New Testement/Koran/"insert any religous text", which is a set of recorded assumptions. I base theories from these assumptions. From observation of human interactions and from human history I think that the validity of these assumptions remain true. Am I a scientist performing science?
No because you are leaving out the part about continually seeking ways to test and challenge these assumptions. For a scientist, nothing is more exciting that finding a way to challenge and test something that he or she has always previously been forced to take as an assumption.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it does. Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in medicine? Electricity? Mobile phones? Radio? Nuclear physics? Biology? Geology? Maths?
Why is it that evolution gets special treatment in the world of science? It's as scientifically valid as all these other things, and yet somehow ill-educated pseudo-itellectuals like yourself think that you get to pick and choose what is valid and what isn't. Science is not a democracy, it's fact based. Don't "believe" in evolution, show us something better.
Yes it does.
Really? You pass yourself off as being some sort of expert. What exactly are the problems you see with the theory of gravity? Why not write them down, present some evidence, I'm sure your views will be published in some learned journal and then we can all see how wise you are. Then you can tell us what's wrong with evolution as well.
Throughout the entire history of science, when things "need to be understood better" it has generally been through an evolution of ideas -- Newtonian mechanics wasn't wrong, it just needed some extra bits bolting on, Einsteinian relativity isn't wrong, it just need some quantum stuff attaching. Each discovery builds on the last. Evolution is the same, there are holes and gaps and things we don't yet understand, but these will be filled and modified and adapted - the theory will get better.
There have been very few absolute reversals in science, why do you expect that evolution will be any different?
Water in the Tub? Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you fill a tub full of water and then reduce the water coming out of the faucet to a drip, you can easily get a scientist to give you the wrong answer by bringing him in at this point and asking how long it took for the tub to fill up.
It would be ridiculous to argue against the current rates of mutation and natural selection. However, it's also ridiculous to just assume it's happened that same way for all of history.
It's perfectly fine to say "IF it has always happened this way" then this is how things played out. The problem arises when you flatly refuse to listen to, and try to belittle anyone who says that the tub was filled beforehand.
Re:Water in the Tub? Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the second paper, we try to infer subtle effects of the constant-rate hypothesis (CR). We observe material deposited on the side of the bath at water level, and conclude that under CR, we should see these deposits uniformly continued at deeper levels. We start applying for grants to do a bath-dive expedition to observe them, but don't get funding.
In the third paper, different group calculates that, had the rate been much higher in the past, we should observe water droplets splashed on the wall. This being easily accessible, they have looked for them and found them.
The fourth through tenth papers are analyses of how fast the water flow needed to be to spash that high, how long it was high flow to explain the frequency, and how old the drops are. It takes a while before the theorists agree on the correct mathematical treatment. The question of whether the quantity of water added by dripping is significant is still within the margin of error.
Now there is sufficient interest, we finally get the grant to do the bath dive. We observe no deposits below the current level, and conclude the dripping phase has been at most a few days. The Fast Fill theory of the bath enters the textbooks.
10 years later, the principle authors of the first and third papers share the Nobel prize in Domestic Hydrology.
I am an evolutionary scientist. We don't follow your straw-man portrayal of how science works.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is interesting how intellectual snobs, such as yourself, fail to grasp this concept. Macro evolution is not proven by observation as you claim, it is an theory that tries to explain observation.
There have been very few absolute reversals in science, why do you expect that evolution will be any different?
What are you talking about? Science is always changing. A few thousand years ago, Science taught that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. A few hundred hears ago, science thought that illness meant you were possessed by a demon or troll. If you think that scientific though is not going to be drastically different centuries from now, you are ignoring history.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, which life clearly isn't. The sun constantly provides energy input to life on this planet.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic theory of evolution holds water, and models of it's behaviour (i.e. emergent systems) show a natural tendancy to improvement. Speciation events have been catalogued. Mutation and selection for fitness traits has been observed.
Evolution, as a theory is a very strong one. The further back in history one goes, the less survives from the time period, thus the harder it is to obtain the evidence and a clear audit trail (have you ever tried finding clothing from 2000 years ago, which is in a clearly recorded era of history?).
I'd actually be interested in hearing your dispute with the theory of Evolution. You've said it needs to be understood in a drastically different way, but can you explain why?
If you've got clear evidence of a flaw, then I'd be happy to listen. If you just say 'because it does', then that's not a debate.
Personally, I treat evolution as a good guideline (the best I know of), and leverage it while writing adaptive/learning systems.
If you've got a better method, I'll be happy to listen, as it'd make my life a lot easier.
I hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I thought that if you did know the difference, then you were being deliberately deceptive when you compared them, which would be worse.
Ignorance is easier to cure, and less destructive, than dishonesty.
In the end, I guess, I hope that you really do know the difference, but were just not thinking when you suggested that they work the same.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution: Shit happens. Sometimes it's good shit. Sometimes it's bad shit. We just have to live with it.
Creationism: God is all powerful and all knowing, and made everyting. He still does it wrong now and then because he's a sadist.
Intelligent Design: "God" didn't make the universe, but he enjoys meddling with it. Like a 12 year old with a chemistry set. (sure, that's not the way that the proponents really see it, but if they want to claim they're not creationists they need s
No, people, ID and Creationism are not the same. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism. And, sometimes, Old Earth Creationism, which has an old Earth but says that God made life directly.
ID is about saying that there are features of the life we see that point to design, generally by saying that the features are too complex. This can include Theistic Evolutionists, if they believe that God stepped in to tweak the evolutionary process in key places. ID says nothing about common ancestry or the ages of the earth & universe.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:3, Insightful)
# 17% opted for intelligent design
I am willing to bet that those who picked ID didn't look farther than their noses. Not to mention the pollers don't have a clue about ID.
ID *IS* creationism. If someone removes the theological binders, it's obvious to see why ID is creationism.
Let's suppose ID is right. Let's suppose our existance is due to some designer (aliens, Q, little green men, whatnot). We must ask immediately: Well
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:3)
I think that poll itself has a false dichotomy between evolution and I.D., and should not have forced respondants to make a mutually exclusive choice.
From a religious perspective, I see two versions of evoluation theory. Both versions say that evolution happens through the whacking of unsuitable species.
Here's the difference between the two theories: athiests and naturalists will hold that the gener
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand this mentality in this particular case, simply because from all my research and my reading on the topic, the answer is simple: within the scientific community there simply is no "controversy."
People seem to confuse the debate here, we are talking about science class, science class is teaching what the scientific community presents as its best theories on a certain subject. Now the word "theory" doesn't mean an indisputable fact, but it doesn't mean, as people in layterms think of it a hypothesis or an idea. Theories are founded upon and are used to unite empirical facts observed by the community and are the subject of intense scrutiny. To put it in more eloquent words, "in science, facts change more often than theories."
I think there is a great danger in presenting this as a serious controversy to students. The theory of evolution is not under serious debate within the scientific community, it is generally accepted. It is what the scientific community tells us that really should be the subject of a science class, isn't that about right?
If we are going to teach the controversy about evolution, then we should teach students about the people opposing other generally accepted scientific theories with little or no evidence as well. We should present every yahoo with an argument against anything if we want to be fair. (I realize that we don't have the time for that, but that's precisely the point. We don't have the time to be teaching this "controversy" either.) I don't understand why evolution needs to be singled out.
Christianity or being pious has really nothing to do with the debate either. A lot of scientists that work in the field of biology are churchgoing Christians. If they see the ability for duality here, why should we let the extremists run the debate?
We are dealing here with a serious issue that has to do with public ignorance. Most people simply do not understand what science is at a philosophical level or how it operates.
The power in reacting seriously (Score:3, Informative)
The real success of the ID campaign is its rousin gup of the audience, inciting people into a fury of various emotions, and making the subject altogether taboo.
I tire of all these emotional responses, for that's what ID wants. When we seriously react to it as if it were serious, we give it power. A better reponse is to shirk it off, giggle a bit, and equate it to an urban legend... why not add it to Snopes?
Re:The power in reacting seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you have managed to get to that point, why its a short hop to restupidifying the youth of your community with this crap.
I thik it is far wiser to address idiocy when it springs up with withering facts and dessicating satire. if you ridicule an idiot long enough, they usually shut their moronic piehole.
Ulfaen
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Intelligent Design is falsifiable, thus is science, and thus should be taught in the classroom.
Care to explain how? Care to give just one example of an experiment that can be performed to falsify the 'theory' of Intelligent Design?
We're all waiting...
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Informative)
Your post illustrates that you do not understand what a "theory" is in the context of science.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Hope this helps.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there are. If astronomers observed that every astrological body they could see was a mere 4000 light years away from us, then that would be some pretty damning evidence against evolution. If geologists radiologically dated every rock on earth to 4000 years old, that would be evidence against evolution. If there was no common DNA molecule, and every animal used their own unique system for blueprinting cellular growth, then that would be evidence against evolution. If the tectonic plates of the Earth spelt out "Made by God", then that would be pretty damning evidence.
I could go on for a very long time like this. Needless to say that there are millions of possible observations that could disprove evolution; that no-one's ever observed such things in nearly 150 years, tends to suggest that evolution might be a pretty strong theory. It's been around longer than relativity or quantum theory, and I'd wager it'll be around far longer still.
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:5, Informative)
One idea posited by Intelligent Design is that the strong and weak nuclear forces...
The fact that the Weak Anthropic Principle is true (and it can't help being true...it's a tautology) does not mean that the Strong Anthropic Principle is true. You'll need to do better than that.
Another idea posed by Intelligent design is that there is a certain minimum amount of information needed to have life--things like ribosomes and transcriptase...
This argument is equal parts misdirection and bunk. Self-replicating molecules can work with only a strand of six DNA nucleotides. Such a self-replicating molecule could have easily formed via pre-biotic chemistry. As life developed, such self-replicating molecules would have been outcompeted and extinguished by other, more complex groups of molecules.
Did it happen in this way? Frankly, I don't know. But saying "I don't know how it could have happened....so God did it" is a classic argument from incredulity. Besides which, evolution has never purported to explain abiogenesis anyway so the entire argument is beside the point.
Intelligent Design posits that life began within one hundred million years after life became possible (shortly after cooling to the point of liquid water.) This is a short time in geological terms. However, life has not begun once since. Therefore something either actively created life once it became possible or something actively keeps new forms of life from springing up.
It should be fairly obvious that, given the fact that life has occupied every conceiveable niche on this planet, that any 'new life' will be effectively prevented from developing. In short, that 'something' that actively keeps new forms of life from springing up is the already established life.
Intelligent Design posits that life changed very slowly immediately after life began, then a profusion of new life forms came into existence during the cambrian period, and life has changed very slowly since.
Ah yes...the Cambrian Explosion argument...again, bunk. The only reason the Cambrian Explosion looks like an explosion at all is because this particular time period is when animals started to evolve hard structures such as teeth and shells....structures that fossilize easily and are easily identifible. There are plenty of Precambrian fossils, however, that developed in the same way and that argue against a sudden Cambrian explosion. Simply put, the "Cambrian Explosion" wasn't an explosion at all.
By the way, the general tone of your post is sarcastic and demeaning, and makes an excellent example the close mindedness of some proponents of Evolution.
I'm sorry you percieve my demand for a rational argument to support your "theory" as demeaning. I'm also sorry you percieve those who do not abandon rationality in favor of 'God did it' at the slightest pretext as 'close minded'.
I would like to say something about your use of scare quotes around the word "theory." I think you'll find, if you look, that a theory is defined as a set of statements having two subsets--the set of statements that are acceptable (s.k.a True,) and those that aren't (s.k.a False.) Thus Intelligent Design easily meets the definition of theory, and your use of scare quotes is unwarranted.
Your definition of the word theory is disingenuous in the extreme...and sadly, par for the course for ID proponents.
Here is the actual definition of theory, from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary [reference.com]:
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Funny)
OK, then; falsify it for us, so we can all forget about it and move on.
Dan Aris
Re:Et tu, Britannia? (Score:4, Insightful)
You might want to take a look at your horoscope for the past month, and try to prove that it was false, before making this claim again. Even politicians could learn a thing or two from astrologers about the not-so-noble art of vagueness ;).
Sure it has. It's just called "astronomy" nowadays, and is used for estimating solar storms (to be prepared for communications and power grid disturbances) and tides (altought that's trivial, of course) instead of your romantic chances or whatever.
See, the basic premise of astrology - that celestial bodies can affect things here on Earth - was completely correct; only the exact causal relationships were unknown. They have been worked out during the millenias, and now we can make pretty good predictions.
Of course there's also the bullshit brigade that still calls themselves "astrologers", but snake-oil salesmen don't make penicillin any less efficient medicine, now do they ?
The Economist (Score:5, Funny)
"Intelligent Design is something Britons read about with a smirk before they turn to the Horoscope section"
(from memory, but very close)
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
I love stories like this (Score:3, Insightful)
*Humanity* is a pack of low grade morons, folks. No one country or society has any lock on the Stupid Prize.
Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in a creator. Sure. But should creation be taught in a science class? No. Why?
Because I know that somehow my religious beliefs that I want to teach to my children will not be taught according to how I believe. Worse off would be if they were completely opposed, like someone teaching creation by that damn spaghetti monster.
Keep science to science. Start teaching classes that encourage people to look at other viewpoints and learn to see the downsides of their own arguments. Only then will a generation gain the wisdom to not think this is such a great idea.
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not surprised (Score:3, Funny)
May you be touched by His noodley appendage.
Re:Not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm still waiting to for the return of the dinosaurs as WE turn the whole world back into a sauna!
Re:Not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Athiest (Score:3, Insightful)
Well-educated? Sure.
Re:Athiest (Score:3, Funny)
Proudly secular? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Proudly secular? (Score:5, Informative)
It's true that we have a state religion. It's also true that it receives no government funding and is followed by a minority of people.
It's true that our head of state is the Queen. It's also true that the monarchy lacks any real power and is kept around out of tradition.
It's true that our schools are legally bound to provide collective daily worship of a Christian nature. It's also true that more than three-quarters of schools ignore this law, and that parents have the legal right to have their kids opt out anyway.
I think you are mixing up England and the UK too. While it's true that there's a Church of England and a Church of Scotland, other areas of the UK got rid of their official faiths.
So technically we are under the rule of a religious monarchy, but in practice we are a modern democratic secular country.
Re:Proudly secular? (Score:5, Informative)
More importantly, they can get voted in without being Christian. I believe that if somebody wanted to make it an issue, they could overturn the requirements that various USA states have on constitutional grounds. However, even if they did that, not being a Christian would be a severe impediment to their election campaign.
Take a look at the Education Reform Act 1988 [opsi.gov.uk]:
You'll be pleased to know that 76% of schools break this law [bbc.co.uk].
Ambiguity (Score:5, Insightful)
Genius (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. Fantastic deduction.
Re:Genius (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone else sick of this kind of attitude in the "scientific" community? Referring specifically to matters of the origin of life and the idea of intraspecies evolution, neither theory is even close to establishing scientific proof of their ideas, yet the intellectually "elite" have no problem ridiculing those who don't believe in evolution wholesale.
The dogmatic way these people insult those who challenge their beliefs is reminiscent, frankly, of the religious fundamentalists that they des
Re:Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sick of such mischaracterization of science in the act of making terrible arguments that appeal to how much you dislike attitudes rather than actual observations.
Re:Genius (Score:4, Insightful)
Hold your praise, because I don't particularly agree with that. Evolution is as close to established fact as any "theory" can be. Additionally, ID/Creationism isn't a "theory," rather "dogma," because it seeks to mold facts around its ideas rather than the other way around. Evolution has been shown very solidly to explain transitions between specific species. The fact that not every fossil of every creature has been found is not a weakness.
How else do you explain the venom that they spew at those who question what they consider sacred?
Because the religious nuts are trying to screw with public schools where the rest of us have to send our kids? No one cares if they miseducate their own kids in parochial schools. I agree that tolerance is called for - of the people. However, ID simply IS NOT SCIENCE, nor should be treated as such. It is not testable or disprovable. I will not even consider it until it yields a testable hypothesis. As Pauli would say, "That's not right. That's not even wrong!" The meaning there is that a theory isn't a theory unless it could potentially be tested and found to be flawed. Same with ID. You can't prove the existence of God, it's not worth the effort.
If their theory has so much evidence behind it, you'd think they'd welcome the chance to convince the rest of us further...
It's kind of like teaching a pig to sing...wastes your time and annoys the pig. If someone has chosen to generally reject the scientific method and accept religion, that's fine. But they're not doing it based on available evidence, and as such there's no real reason to believe that more evidence will convince them. I've realized the futility of this long ago. So I don't try to convince creationists. I just want them out of public office.
To summarize, ID is religion in sheep's clothing. The one thing I do agree with you about is this: science isn't religion, and shouldn't be treated as such - and vice versa.
Species Evolve (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not understand how anyone can deny the truth of this. We see it in action time and time again. There are species that were introduced to Hawaii in modern times that have since evolved into new species. I saw one of the best arguments for evolution here on /. as a sig. It said "If you do not believe in evolution, why are you worried about the bird flu?"
Re:Species Evolve (Score:4, Insightful)
The paradigm change took us about 1000 years - no big span for evolution and we're still at it. The one important thing is that evolution itself does not really care about what we think or how we feel life the universe and everything should be. It just moves on. This of course also means that in order to survive, a human being more than ever needs to be rational, sharp thinking and not obfuscating anything - IN THE LONG RUN. So in the end, you are better off if you stop clinging to your cherished believes just because it's easier to accept. That's why brains evolved in the end - it is evolutionary more favorably to be able to THINK. Some of us are better - they stay in the gene pool, some of us less so. And in the end this also means we become educated enough to abandon believes that are just comfortable because they do not trouble us. Evolution is still at work and will be until the end.
Think about how many people believed in evolution 100 years ago. It's a rapid change and I can understand people who refuse to believe that some millions of years ago, we started to leave our beloved trees. In terms of evolution, this is yet a smaller amount of time than the flat earth - ball shaped earth within a galaxy amongst galaxies shift.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see the questions they asked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see the questions they asked (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to see the questions they asked (Score:5, Funny)
Q. Do you feel that one-way systems often impede easy traffic flow?
Q. Do you think that the education of the designers is to blame?
Q. Should Inteligent Design be taught in schools?
I call major bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
There's something wrong here (Score:5, Informative)
An interesting story... (Score:3)
Additionally, it should provide a clue when the Vatican itself proclaims that "The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with the Bible, it is fundamentalists who are trying to read literally a portion of the bible which was never meant to be interpreted scientifically."
People seem, for whatever reason, bound and determined to believe in this myth. Why? Who knows. If they want to be ignorant, let them be. There's too much scientific evidence in favor of evolution to deny that it's true.
Later, GJC
Chuck Norris Is Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
"we're all well educated athiests" (Score:3, Funny)
I wasn't convinced about Evolution either... (Score:3, Funny)
Underworld: Evolution (movie)
Evolution (movie)
King of Fighters Evolution (video game)
Turok: Evolution (video game)
Gah!
Many posts on religion (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nobody I know voted for George Bush!" (Score:4, Insightful)
One is an article (can't remember who by, sorry) that I read shortly after the 2004 election, taking Democrats to task for the re-election of George Bush. Essentially, the author was relating her conversation with a Democrat friend, who exclaimed something to the effect of, "I don't know HOW that man could have gotten re-elected, I don't know ANYBODY who voted for him!" The point of the article was that we all tend to assume that everybody thinks the same way we (and our small circle of friends) do, and it's often disconcerting to find that we're outside the mainstream, or that a very sizable portion of the general population disagrees with us.
I'm also tickled to see that, despite all of the characterizations of Americans as backwoods hillbillies due to the seeming popularity of ID & Creationism here, apparently idiocy knows no national boundaries. I'll be waiting to see the coverage of this in the newspapers & magazines like Time & Newsweek... I probably shouldn't hold my breath for it, because this thinking doesn't dovetail with the image of americans that the world has grown comfortable with, namely that we're overwhelmingly mouth-breathing troglodytes, while the rest of the world consists of polished, cosmopolitan, urbane, well-manicured people.
Being British ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This just begs the question... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ID != Christian creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it?
Yes. Any molecular biology textbook is full of factual proofs of evolution.
Re:bullshit! (Score:4, Informative)
Evolution and intelligent design are simply philosophies, not science. Neither should be taught in science, nor is the teaching of interspecial evolution absolutely essential to learning anything in biology.
Evolution is an inevitable consequence when you have the following ingredients:
- A genome that replicates with less-than-100% fidelity.
- A phenotype that is dependent from the genotype
- A fitness that is dependent from the phenotype
Create such a system, and you'll see it evolve. It's facts: it has been simulated thousands of times in computers, for example. Life is such a system: therefore it will evolve.
Re:ID != Christian creationism (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactamundo. Except science and faith are two completely different things. Science is descriptive and predictive based on a sort of majority rules perception, faith is belief in something that exists beyond our perception. Once something exists in our perception, that aspect passes into the realm of the scientific. What makes evolution science is that tangible things that exist in perceptive reality have been discovered that support the theory. ID is presented as a faith issue, because (and feel free to correct me if you think I've overlooked something) the arguments for it are either purely abstract exercises with dubious logic or attacks against evolution. I mean dubious in a purely logical sense, and I freely admit that logic does not necessarily apply to faith. But it's the cornerstone of science.
"Growing up in America, I could never decide who had a greater missionary zeal: the Southern Baptists or the evolutionists, most of whom were not even fit to be called amateur biologists."
Here's where I may agree with you. How many that scoff at non-evolutionary beliefs actually know a real justification for evolution? However, most people can understand the two theories well enough to understand that one is faith and the other science.
Re:Educate, don't indoctrinate (Score:4, Interesting)
I went to a public school (in South Central Wisconsin), and I think my high school education was excellent. I joined the military and worked in the private sector before returning to college. I wound up bumping into a handful of students I graduated high school with. None of us were upper crust material (I think I was in the 49th percentile). But Hobbs and I aced the math and physics classes, after 6 years of being out of high school.
Now, schools in the SC region of Wisconsin are some mighty fine schools. But if you head out to say, down town Milwaukee, the schools get larger and the education seems to decline. But I think this has less to do with the schools being public and more to do with class size and funding.
Public Schools aren't a failed system, over all it's a very successful system, look at the high school graduation numbers now compared to 50 years ago, look at the average literacy rates. Now, like any system, there are weak points and short comings, but we're not going to cut off your arm for a broken finger. Standards enforcing, proper funding and class sizes, and teacher reviews can all help improve the lesser schools and help educate our youth.
-Rick
Re:Educate, don't indoctrinate (Score:4, Insightful)
Now many schools systems are pushing for similar obeisity screening programs. What the hell does that have to do with a proper education?
Short and simple -- an overbearing government that feels it knows how to raise kids better than parents is using government schools to achieve it's agends with kids.
Re:Educate, don't indoctrinate (Score:4, Interesting)
But I'd never given any thought to a "faster" public education... if you cut out all the crud, I could see how 11 year olds could be as advanced (if you can call it that) at math as 18 year olds. I'm not sure I agree completely with it, but it's very interesting.
Re:Educate, don't indoctrinate (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Schools are funded primarily through state and local taxes, so even if the Federal government stopped all spending in the area, Federal taxes, (which are the bunk of what people pay,) would stay roughly where they are.
2) K-12 still only accounts for about half of the budget in most states (41 % in CA, for example). So the most you'd be seeing with your "back-to-basics" cutbacks is maybe a 25% reduction in State Taxes.
3) So let's see now 25% reduction in state ta
Re:Educate, don't indoctrinate (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything else -- health, PE, higher sciences, diet -- leave it to the family or to competitive higher education.
Isn't that completely backwards? Most people are able to learn their children basic skills, read, write, basic math, basic science. The point at this age isn't half as much teaching as it is social
Re:What the market will bear (Score:3)
Many who are barely making it by right now will instead say "Hey, educating the kids is no longer mandatory and I finally have the money to really get by. The kids can get a job like delivering papers, I can keep working my job, and we'll finally be secure."
I'm fine with that. My parents came from poor countries and thr=ey self-educated after coming to the US. They learned trades while working.
If families decide to not convert the savings into private
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:5, Informative)
No. Fossil records do not show DNA. However the clues in our genomes today show that what happened was that in a human ancestor one chromosome split into two.
If not, then explain how a (presumably) mutant new example of an "evolved" chimpanzee with 22 pairs of chromosomes can find another exactly evolved 22-paired mutant -- at the same time -- in the same place -- recognize him or her -- and develop a brand new and unique mating ritual that works. All of these steps are recognized as being necessary to begin to form a new species.
These are not the steps recognized as being necessary to form a new species. It is not clear that the offspring of a 22-pair mutant and a 21-pair non-mutant would be infertile, so it might not be necessary for two 22-pair mutants to mate. And there is certainly no reason for a new mating ritual to magically appear or for mutants to recognise each other.
That said, to deny Darwinism is to ignore the stages and features our own embryos develop and discard: gills, tail, front legs.
This is also incorrect, and has been widely discredited. I wonder if I have just been trolled.
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:3, Informative)
*sigh* (Score:3, Informative)
such fusions happen relatively often, and usually result in individuals that can live perfectly normal lives, although they're somewhat less f
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:5, Insightful)
> chromosomes can EVOLVE into one with 22 pairs. Do the fossil records indicate critters
> with 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4.... pairs of choromosomes?
First: Chimpanzees did never "evolve" into humans, we both share a common ancestor.
Second: We do have humans with half an extra chromosone (xyy males).
Third and most important: Evolution leaves out *a lot*. Really, it is not like evolutionary biology is a closed and finished science that explains everything. We learn new stuff all the time and adapt the models, as in all other active scientific disciplines.
Actually evolution is more of a frame or paradigm, than a theory itself.
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look at people with Down's Syndrome, you will see that this is not as impossible as you think.
http://www.downsyn.com/whatisds.html/ [downsyn.com] gives a good explanation.
Basically, when forming sperm or egg cells, the chromosomes divide up 24/22 instead of 23/23, and you have offspring with one chromosome extra. This extra chromosome could be passed on to their own children, so if somewhere down the line two subj
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can understand why you'd think that you'd need to have the same number of chromosomes, but where the hell did you get that bit about making up an all-new mating ritual?
Ah well... [google.co.uk] it's not as if you're even right
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:3, Informative)
The only fact I am afraid you got right is that our current knowledge of evolution is far from complete. There is still a lot that we don't know like how did life start. Lots of theories but none that have been proven. How the first eye evolved. The jump from single
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:5, Informative)
The is good evidence [gate.net] based on structural analysis of human chromosome 2 that it is the fused version of two chromosomes found in modern apes.
The genetics of "Post-zygotic Isolating Mechanisms" of speciation is under much study now. Here is a great review [usc.edu] of speciation mechanisms.
Generally the strong force on post-zygotic speciation is "epistasis", negatively interacting genetic loci. So different and negatively interacting genes are more important in speciation than slight differences in chromosomal configuration. There are some speciation events driven mainly by chromosomal configuration, though most are not.
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Some people have XXY chromosomes; those with genetic disorders like Down's syndrome may have a different number. It is not such a great step to imagine two chromosomes being fused, split up, or being produced twice (first identical, then later one modified).
2. I am not religious, bu
Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor? (Score:3, Informative)
Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean that it's not true. Explaining how it works would fill several pages. Your best bet is to enroll in a genetics course, study hard for a few years, and then you will understand how it's not only possible but probable.
Re:Enough Already (Score:4, Informative)
It does when you and your friends get elected to my daughter's school district board and have it taught to her in science class as if it was equivalent to "believing" that the world is a sphere.
Believe what you want... but don't put in my kid's science curriculum.
I'm teaching my kid to be rational and reasoned. I don't need her being confused by "junk science" being taught to her as if it were real science.
Yes.. your beliefs detract from my well-being (and my families) when you legislate them into law and into school curriculums.
That's where the Christian fundies crossed the line.
Re:wtf? (Score:4)
Atheists do not have "father" issues.
Atheists do not "believe in god deep down inside" yet deny that belief in front of other people.
Atheists are not "suicides waiting to happen". Just because you are not intellectually strong enough to envision a world without your god to "make things right (and get this, AFTER you DIE)" - does not mean everyone is as weak as you.
Atheists believe that everyone is entitled to believe whatever the hell they want, or not believe it. We wish to hell religious types would just leave us alone and drop the issue, instead of constantly trying to engage us in useless arguments. You can no more prove the existence of your god than I can disprove it. So what's the point?
-- An atheist.
Re:Yessh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as a point though, you are confusing the Big Bang with evolution. Evolution says nothing about anything that happened before the first life form appeared. Want to know how it appeared? Evolution does not have an answer. Want to know where the Universe came from? Ask a cosmologist, not an evolutionary biologist.
As such evolution makes no comments about anything even remotely resembling the beginning of time. Your dust particle idea, while interesting, says nothing about evolution whatsoever. I'd enjoy arguing the cosmology, but think I should stay on topic.
Anyway, back to your ideas about God being involved in the Big Bang, I'd have to agree with you whole-heartedly. There is most definately a possibility that He did kick off the whole shebang. Personally I don't believe that's what happened, but that's just my opinion. The idea is also not scientific, however that doesn't neccesarily make it false.
As for your "evolutionists" who pull out "dates and timelines" to argue with you, if they're using it to dispute the idea that God created the Universe with the Big Bang, then they're up the creek without a paddle. Carbon dating says nothing about the Big Bang, since when it happened there wasn't any carbon
If they're using it to dispute that God was involved in the process of evolution on Earth, they're similarly mistaken, since carbon dating will tell you nothing about how something happened, merely an approximate date when it did. We do have numerous other concepts to explain how things happened, such as mutation, natural selection and so forth, but none of them rule out a guiding God. They simply ignore the possibility, not because scientists are neccesarily atheists or anything, but simply because science doesn't deal in supernatural events, and limits itself to the natural.
Good luck with the studies.