E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP Photo/Daniel Shanken
Tammy Kitzmiller, left, and Christy Rhem express their happiness during a news conference Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005, in Harrisburg Pa., after hearing the verdicit from U.S. District Judge John E. Jones that prevents the Dover School District from teaching "intelligent design" in biology class. The debate lives on in Tennessee, where a bill passed the House of Representative on Thursday to protect teachers who challenge the theory of evolution.
Tennessee legislators took a step closer Thursday to allowing controversial subjects such as intelligent design to be taught in the science classroom.
The House or Representatives voted 70-28 to pass a bill that would protect teachers from discipline if they challenge the scientific theory of subjects such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Defenders of science education ranging from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the Tennessee Science Teachers Association have come out against the bill, characterizing it as "unnecessary, anti-scientific and very likely unconstitutional."
Support for the bill comes from backers of the intelligent design movement at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.
"There has been a widespread pattern of discrimination against educators who would challenge evolution in the classroom," Casey Luskin, a policy analyst with the institute, told Science Insider. "Schools censor from students the evidence against evolution. This [bill] protects the rights of teachers to teach in an objective way."
An identical bill is up for vote by the Senate Education Committee at the end of the month. If it follows the party line vote of the House, policy experts expect it to pass and to be signed into law.
Science Insider noted that if the bill passes, Tennessee would join Louisiana as the second state with specific protections for teaching "antievolution rhetoric."
More stories on intelligent design:
- Judge rules against 'intelligent design'
- Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design'
- 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism
- Evolution texts survive in Louisiana
John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).
Leave a Comment:
Congratulations Tenn!
Arghh ... I wanted to say a clever, witty joke about this.
But it is just to &*#$@!%# pathetic for humor.
Define irony. One of the biggest joke-stories of the day has left me saddened and speechless.
No kidding! Seriously, isn't it about time that we as a nation require science teachers to actually, well you know, understand science? If they understand science then there is simply no way they would attempt to teach this claptrap.
It's sort of ironic that it was the Scopes 'monkey' trial in Tennessee in 1925 where a teacher was put on trial for 'teaching evolution'. Now teachers are harassed or fired for NOT teaching it.
NO NO NO. Keep religion where it belongs, in the church, and in the hearts of suicide bombers dying for their religion. NOT SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO INDOCTRINATE OUR CHILDREN!!!!
Decisions. We all have them. Opinions. We all have them. Whether we support evolution or a "religious" standpoint, this is not the place to tear people down into thinking they are idiots. No matter how one may feel about someone else's comment .....as crazy as it might seem. Post your opinion. Tell your side. Teach your own children your beliefs. But don't get defensive and start ripping someone because they don't believe like you do or have the knowledge that you do. Get a grip people.
What they should do is teach both sides of the story, Creationist and evolutionist. I'm a creationist that sees ideas of certain small ideas of evolution, like things adapt to the enviroment and can interbreed to create different things. aka the mutt. But teaching both sides to the story doesnt hurt anything, mabey one day it will change the ideas of science. The only reason why many people go with the evolution side is because they dont know the creationist side, becasue evolutionist reject alot of things because they didnt think of it. Even the evidence they have can always be questioned. Nobody knows the awnser, no matter how much evidence you have. You werent alive 6000 to 10000 years ago when the world was created. The truth is revealed when you get old and die, and see what happens.
I agree about keeping religion out of the classroom, but speaking of indoctrination...that is what the public school system (and the NEA) have been doing for decades. The difference being that THEIR indoctrination is about brainwashing children with leftist social ideology. They want to make sure that kids today grow up with a healthy hatred of their country and will agitate for socialist changes once in college and vote Democrat like good little Marxists. Oh joy.
As a member of the NEW CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING, I appluade the Judge's decision.
We must be able to teach how some races evolved from and beyound other races.
We encourage students to read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Ask your teachers which races of man are favored.
If there was a Big Bang, where did the gases and rock come from. I have tried but you can make something in less you have something to start with. So if someone can explain this I would like that but don't give me it has always been there. Because if you would study darwins writes you would find that he to had questions that he could not answer. I'm just saying that If Darwin had Question than maybe he was just writing his own opinion. The Key word (HIS OWN). but like I said if someone smart can tell me where these gases that cause the Big Bang came from then you would find yourselves having unanswered Questions.
"The state's legislators are getting closer to allowing the controversial subject to be taught in classrooms."
Is this an article or an editorial......what's so controversial about something that Billions of people believe in ???....Christians, Jews, and yes, even Muslims believe in the Old Testament account of the creation of the world.....You want to call it a theory.....because we can't prove it using the "scientific method"....fine....Darwin is just a Theory too.....when you find the fish with feathers and the furry frog let me know.....Go to the nearest Mosque and tell them they came from pond scum and see if you and your head leave at the same time....or the one rolls out the door first ....
We have the Theory of Evolution vs. the Theory of Creation-------Check
The Theory of Global Warming vs. the Theory of the Coming Ice Age-----Check
We have the Theory of 1+1=2 vs. the Theory of 1+1 = Yellow makes me happy !!!---Check
The Theory of Heather has 2 Mommies vs. the Theory of Billy has a Mom & Dad, how boring----Check
Did I miss anything ???
jason-1680825.....I think you will find this fascinating....This kid genius is on to something...he doesn't have the constraints of "Conventional Wisdom and Thinking" clouding up his thought processes...
http://creationrevolution.com/2011/03/12-year-old-super-genius-out-to-disprove-big-bang/
I'm for freedom of thought, everyone has the right to their individual believes maybe this subject should be banded period, the parent that believes in religion would not like their children be taught evolution nor would the parents that don't believe in religion want their children being told the Adam and Eve theory, that type of education should be in the parents hands not our government ......
Yes Mike, you forgot the theory of we're all the same despite being separated for hundreds of thousands of years in different environments with different demands and challenges on the human body
vs.
The theory of maybe this whole evolution theory could be applied to explain why people separated for hundreds of thousands of years in different environments have subtle differences in skin pigmentation, body structure, athleticism and intelligence that we could discuss if only the leftist evolution pushers would apply their theory evenly across the board rather than limit its use to that of a weapon against people of faith in pursuit of a new-world-order multicultural socialist agenda.
Actually, most Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe that science best explains how the universe works. They still believe that God started the ball rolling, however. In fact, the only people who still buy creationism are uneducated americans. There is no conflict between science (fact) and religion (mythology) in the vast majority of minds on earth.
I understand where people who believe in creationalism are coming from in saying that it should be taught in schools, but I'm sorry, there are BILLIONS of creationalist theories, none of which can be proven. Things that can't be proven should be saved for philosophy class. Things that can be proven should be taught in science class, and evolution can be proven. If we were really going to teach some form of creationalism is the classroom, which one would we teach? Christianity? Just because it's the popular choice? Forgive me, but I think that's a little silly. That's like saying if the majority says it, it must be true. If we tried to do that, Hinduists might rise up, saying their version should be taught, too, then Buddhists, then Wiccans, and so on and so forth. It should, however, be taken with a grain of salt, considering that many theories are taken as truth for hundreds of years and then proven to be wrong later. But I think some people are misunderstanding what a "theory" is. In science, a theory can only be taught as truth with hundreds of samples of supportable data. It's not quite the same as religion, not to insult religion. But that's how all science is. With how fine-tuned science is in this day and age, I think these theories need to be taught and if you'd like a student to get creationalist teachings, that's what sunday school and private school is for. The best public schools can do is take the most modern, proven sciences they've got and present it. This is in no way insulting those who believe in creatonalism. If you believe in something more than what we see here on earth, teach it to your children, teach it your community, but you cannot impose it on an entire state of children based on a belief. And I know what you're thinking, "Well, why does evolution have more merit?" Because religion just has a belief in it. Just has emotion in it. Evolution has something corporeal that we can see with our eyes. Don't believe in it? That's just fine. People can also say that when they drop and apple, they think it's being pushed to the ground rather than pulled, but gravity is not going to be pulled from the curriculum. I'm Agnostic, so I have no idea what happened or how we got here or why we are here, but in the end, neither does anyone else. No one can stand up and say they have the answers to everything, so we have to do the best with what we've got.
Creationism is based on faith (i.e.; belief in something that cannot be proven).
Evolution is based in science (i.e.; attempts to prove why and how things work).
I have no problem teaching Creationism in a theory class, but it doesn't belong in the science classroom. I can't say for certain how the law is written in Tenn., but in other states they had to change the definition of "science" to be able to include Creationism so science no longer had to attempt to prove the how and why. Tell me, what service are we doing for our children if we teach them scientific proofs do not have to be backed by demonstrable evidence?
There is more scientific evidence for intelligent design than the "Holocaust" but that gets forced down our throats
A TRUE Scientist would present BOTH theories (biological evolution and intelligent design) and allow the students to think about them.
After all, there is no definite proof that biological evolution is how things came to be. Over the course of billions of years, you have no clue what kind of great intelligences are out there in the universe. There is also no proof that God does not exist. People once thought the earth was flat and was in the center of the universe (the Bible never said this, it is not a science book either). Turns out the earth was greater and stranger than most people though.
The universe became even more stranger and arcane during the development of Quantum Mechanics, way more complete and different than anything you learned in high school about Classical Newtonian physics. Did you know your desk and all matter in the universe is literally just "frozen" light? Who is to conclude that there is not another realm that God and billion year-old supreme intelligence exists in while the earth is essentially just a moss-covered rock floating in space?
The ignorant and un-scientific people dismiss theories without absolute proof and lack of knowledge just as they did when they claimed the earth was certainly and absolutely flat...
- from an unemployed Physicist.
Wait, wait, wait, Talmud Scholar, the internment camps, and eyewitness accounts from those internment camps are not evidence enough? The film footage is not enough? The pictures are not enough? Just because you were not there to see it, it didn't happen, is that what you are saying?
As for my thoughts on the article, Intelligent Design is nothing more than an attempt to fit Creationism into the Theory of Evolution. It is still Creationism. It belongs in a religion oriented class. You want to believe in it, fine, but it does not change the religious underpinnings of Intelligent Design.
Talmud Scholar
"There is more scientific evidence for intelligent design than the "Holocaust" but that gets forced down our throats"
There are photographs, videos & eyewitness accounts of intelligent design?
Wake up and reason...
Both creationism and evolutionism both survive the scrutiny of scientific method. This is rather an argument of consequence. If one believes that there is no intelligence in creating form (like protein structures) towards unique function, then the consequence must be athiesm. However, if...there is intelligence behind our design then the consequence is found in something beyond us, something uncreated...God. I beg you to consider this as the true debate at heart. It takes as much (dare I say more) faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. Your passion for this debate stems from the heart not the mind. Find Truth.
Libby and everyone else, this is about creationist vs evolution, NOT religion! Although you can make it a christian political therory as to why they are incorporating it. Bottom line science is just who has the best supported theory with their evidence, not fact, a scientific theory can almost always be thrown out due to a better theory. Ben Stein came out with a brilliant doc called "Expelled". I think it goes into great detail as to how the popular scientific community black balls anyone who claims to believe in creationism. Its a total cop out on the part of scientists who do this and makes them pretty much punks with power who don't like to be disproved. If the evidence points to something other than the smoke and mirrors theory of Darwinism, than that needs to be the direction you should go. They should definitely show both sides of the fence. If not they are doing a dis service to our children and anyone else that has evidence to support Creationism vs Darwinism. There are some things out there that cannot be explained in any other way than creationism. E.G. a scientist in China who is also a photographer found something amazing when he photographed 3 different bottles of water and examined them under a microscope. Each bottle of water was given a msg of Hate, Fear and love. Each one was effected differently then the other and it showed under the microscope. The water with the msg of fear looked dark and ugly. The one with hate looked like a monster blob of some kind and the one with love looked like a beautiful liquid snow flake. Please explain this to me. How does science accidentally do this in nature? BS. There are two sides to the story and they need to present both and let the kids and other professional scientists decide. It's really upsetting when a scientist who has evidence pointing to creationism is fired and blackballed when they present this evidence.
ROFLMAO, I watched the piece of lying idiocy, who directed it? Michael Moore?
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
ps, the astronomer was not given tenure because he quit putting out peer-reviewed papers, nothing else.
Children need to know that God exists, created them loves them and has an Intelligent plan to kill them in a Biblical Apocalypse.
Keeping Christianity out of schools is pure evil and so are Anti-Bullying laws. How else will children know that homosexuals and witchs are of the devil, if the children of Evangelicals can't bully them into converting or committing suicide.
CC,
The disbelief in intelligent design has nothing to do with atheism. Just like the belief in god has nothing to do with creationism. Creationism is a christian construct, nothing more, nothing less.
Rhazes, that's pretty dark sarcasm. I'm afraid that many here might take you seriously.
How about a bill to protect teachers so they can teach the world is flat, it's only 6000 years old, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and snakes talk?
Yeah, I'd celebrate the fact that you're stupid! One reason I would never live in Tennessee.
54-0512
THE.SEVEN.CHURCH.AGES— JEFFERSONVILLE.IN V-26 N-2 WEDNESDAY_
159 Oh, Church of the living God, rise and shine. Look. You don't realize. I wished I
had some kind of a shock that I could give you, some way. I wish the Holy Spirit
would come in His great power and move you to a place that you'd grab this Bible
and say, "Let me look into This," when you see:
Nations are breaking,Israel awaking,
The signs that the Bible foretold;
Gentile days numbered,
With horrors encumbered
"Return, O dispersed, to your own." (That's right.)
The day of redemption is near,
Men's hearts are failing for fear;
Be filled with God's Spirit,
Your lamps trimmed and clear,
Look up, your redemption is near!
That's right. Oh, what a day. "Write it, and send it to the churches."
Wow, you need to get off the sauce.
Please don't give them any more bad ideas.
I can't believe all that I am reading. It makes me sad to think that so many people cannot believe the earth was created by God. I can't believe that people actually think we were evolved from an animal that does not have a conscience or intelligent communication. There is so much evidence to support a created earth that I cannot believe people are so closed minded to even take a look at it. For so long, all we have heard is the theory of evolution. Why shouldn't the theory of creationism be taught along side of it? That is just like in middle school history books, they sure can talk about Islam and that religion but not about Christianity. I am a teacher....I think that to be fair, all should be taught.....Oh by the way, I live in Tennessee, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else......
@ countndonna,
Creationism is a fairytale. Not everyone is a christian and not everyone wants there child raised with an ideology that really has not place in a public school. If you want to teach your child creationism send them to your church and let them be taught it there. There is nothing intelligent about "intelligent design".
Sure teach "intelligien design" instead of science then go to church to learn calculus...any wonder our children are out-performed in science and math thruout the world??? if you believe the Bible literally,fine but keep it in church where it belongs, and keep science in school
countdonna, there is absolutely no evidence that intelligent design is real. Nope, none at all. Everything that you call evidence, is just you applying the word evidence to something that is not. You will say, see this shows that there is a god. When in reality, it does not, you are just applying your own thoughts to something with no definable reason.
Evoloution on the other hand has tons of evidence to support it. Scientific evidence, not just people randomally applying their wants to something.
It is called the theory of evolution for the same reason that it is called the theory of gravity. Because we do, or can, find new evidence that slightly changes the definition of the theory. Surely you believe in gravity right? Same thing with evolution. We leave it a theory because we understand that we do not fully know everything aboutr it yet. We have evidence that has given us a true understanding that is verifiable by science, but leave it open to change as more is learned. We do not say the door is shut and that we know everything.
I don't understand what the big deal is. Why are people so afraid for their children to hear different theories? If you teach them what you believe, then it shouldn't matter. My children were raised to believe in God, yet they hear about the theory of evolution in school. They still believe in God. It's their choice, and my choice. I could make a big deal and complain that teaching the theory of evolution to my children is against their religion, but I trust that they can choose for themselves what to believe.
At Christmas time, when my kids were in elementary school, they came home with papers and coloring pages on Hanukkah. They certainly didn't want to become Jewish after that. I don't feel that schools should be teaching different religions, but come on. They want to teach different theories, why is that so threatening? Teach kids to make up their own minds with the information they're given. Or would you rather just tell them everything, and never have them learn anything for themselves? Then when it comes time to be a grown up, they have trouble adjusting because no one is there telling them what to think and feel. Lighten up, people. Teach your children your values and beliefs and you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
@DTPA you don't need to be a believer to have values. I don't mind the teacher saying a sentence or two such as: "Some believe that the evolution didn't happen and the world was created by God." that's really all that needs to be said in class.
Teaching Bible stories in Science class is absolutely wrong, that's what Sunday School is for. Did you know that I went to a Catholic school (I'm actually agnostic) that taught about evolution. At least they had the sense to keep religion and science separate and let us decide what we wanted to believe.
Bible stories aren't theories and should not be taught as such.
mkeMike, most of the folks in Tennessee are glad that you don't want to live there.
@ countndonna,
I am simply appalled that, you being a teacher, do not know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Evolution is called a theory because there is ample evidence. Intelligence design cannot be called a theory because there is no evidence, just wishful thinking. It could be called a hypothesis, which needs evidence. Your bible cannot be counted as evidence, because it was written by man from the bronze-age, whose knowledge about science was nill. I sincerely hope you are not a science teacher, because if you were teaching intelligence design as a scientific theory, you are doing a disservice to the future of this nation.
@MITReader Nowhere in my comment did I say that you have to be religious believer to have values. I said to teach your values to your children...whatever they may be. And I don't feel that the theory of intelligent design is a bible story. To me, it's just another possibility of how the world came to be. Again, I'm just not sure why people are threatened by it. Some people believe, some don't. I think that to make a decision on what to believe, you need all the choices presented to you. What a sad world this would be if we didn't have choices...
@DTPA:
No matter how you feel, the fact is that intelligent design (creationism) IS not only a bible story, but also a Thora story, a Khoran story and books from hinduism and other religions, all based on folklore and folk tales. It probably could be taught in phylosophy or even psychology (- as in why people believe what they believe) class along with all other religions, but certainly not in science class. The threat exists in having popular beliefs presented as facts, and politicians passing laws that affect our lives and liberties (whatever little we have) based on unfounded religious beliefs. This without mentioning that it can thwart scientific research.
Evolution is a theory because of considerable evidence. I have yet to see any evidence to back up intelligent design. Let's keep religion in church & science in schools, at least until someone can show some solid evidence of intelligent design. Faith is wonderful but does not belong in public schools.
I was raised Catholic and I can still tell the difference between science & religion.
I agree, ID should be taught. Just not in a science class, because like it or not - it's not science. Teach it in a comparative religion class or something, I'm cool with that.
Now, if someone ever publishes a scientific paper in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports ID - then it can be taught in a science course. Fair? I think so. Science classes are for teaching science.
Miraxian,
It is called theory of gravity because nobody knows what gravity is. People cannot prove if it is a wave, a particle, or something else. Evolution is a theory because there are still so many gaps, especially at the cell biology level.
Count,
There is a huge difference between believe that God created everything (or makes up everything), and believing in intelligent design. To believe that humans popped out of no where and that animals were created as is on this planet ignores all of biology. Teaching intelligent design goes against chemistry, physics, and biology. They are mutually exclusive ideas. Personally I would rather believe in science and progress than the fact that humans were magically put here one day and will be warmongers until Armageddon happens.
I would say I am shocked by any of this, but our government and the governments of the states love to promote stupidity on so many levels.
For the people on here that think Creationism is a fairy tale, please show me the man you can trace back to the monkey. YOU CANT! That is because it is STILL A THEORY! If the evidence points to something other than darwinism than that's the way you should go until the evidence says otherwise. People on here keep saying this is about religion. It's not. Its about what the evidence shows you. Both sides need to be taught. Just because you can see how things could have evolved, in the Creasionist eyes and others who see the evidence, its like seeing two different Chevy's that look alike. I know they didn't evolve, they were just made by the same manufacturer. A darwinist that says "there's no proof to Creationism", is just speaking with their over bloated ego and no knowledge of it. Do your research and come back and show me there is no evidence to support Creationism. YOU CAN'T because there is evidence to show Creationism vs darwinism. Get off your high horse darwinist and start looking on both sides of the fence. Don't be afraid if your darwinism views get debunked and I won't worry when you try and debunk my views. For a great case vs the both, darwinist of the world need to watch a great doc by Ben Stein called "Expelled". It goes into great detail of how the scientific community blackballs other scientists who come with evidence of Creationism. Forcing the scientific community to stay in the Flat Earth world we live in. It really shows how stupid these scientists are that do the blackballing, either that or they're little scardy cats of getting kicked out of the same community.
Man shares about 90% of it's DNA with a monkey (depends on what kind of monkey). To put that into perspective we share about 50% with a banana, so no we are not particularly closely related to monkeys. We are however quite closely related to apes, namely chimps who we share roughly 98% of our DNA with. But you are still talking about hundreds of thousands of years of evolution between us.
Mr Pink,
Show me this God that created man. Show the this God that created dinosaur fossils 6000 years ago as some joke. While we may never know how old the world and universe actually are, I would be willing to bet it is much longer than creationist teachings.
Yes, evolution is a theory, but creationism is propaganda.
Endo, I guess I could have made it a little more sarcastic by using a different animal instead of apes. I never said creationism is fact. Both are theories and propaganda. To say Darwinism isn't is ignorant. Take a look at some of the evidence that is out there pointing to creationism. It's not hard to find. Older than creationist teachings? Are you kidding? Either or doesn't matter who's teachings are older. What matters is what the evidence shows. People can tell me all day we share 90% of DNA with apes. Well so what? You want to tell me how our genome jumped from that to how we humans are today? Still waiting on that one. Erictheredherring wants to say that 100's of 1000's of years and you have humans today? I also find that hard to believe in fact a lot of scientists find that to be impossible. Obviously things evolve, but not in the extreme fashion in which darwinism teaches, in my belief. If evidence points to something different, and it does a lot, than that's the direction one should go and not be ridiculed because of it.
Then please, if you would be so kind, could you point me in the right direction? Because as a biologist, I have found exactly zero evidence to support Creationism - and God knows I have tried very hard. Apparently I am too stupid to find this remarkable evidence that you speak of which will turn my science upside down. So please, supply it.
We have unearthed dozens of hominid species exhibiting transitional characteristics in the lineage to Homo sapiens. What the hell were those? God's rough draft?
So you believe in a God that wasn't intelligent enough to have the foresight to allow for life to adapt itself to a changing environment, to create an ever changing work of living art? Creationism is as theologically ridiculous as it is scientifically so.
Now this, I agree with 100%. The problem is, the evidence doesn't point the other way. If it did, we would welcome it. It would be a tremendous scientific achievement, to demonstrate that life was intelligently designed. Whoever did that would go down in history as one of the greatest scientists ever, and would likely win a Nobel Prize. It would profoundly change our society and our view of the universe forever. Still waiting on that one.
Don't get your science from trash like Expelled.
C'mon Ericooo, Science is always coming out with different answers that contradict the latter. If you don't have an answer for something your science can't find then what? Is it just put in the files until darwinism can answer it? Is it 100% immpossible to you that ID could never have happened?
Of course I suspect you have answers? This is just a creationists theory
Also, come up with any new fruit fly species latley?
Mr Pink (btw, is your name a reference to Reservoir Dogs by chance?),
I would suggest not getting your science knowledge from Creationist websites. You are, forgive my slang, an armchair biologist. I will address your points, as a biologist, but I doubt that they will suffice for you since you have not put in the time to actually learn the science.
"Lack of Transitional Fossils" - We have countless examples of transitional fossils, as well as living "fossil" species that exhibit transitional forms, and the existence of transitional anatomy among diverse living species as well. I posted a non-comprehensive list elsewhere in this discussion for a Creationist that seemed to be more willing to rationally discuss than you are, so I won't repost it again. A simple internet search will provide the information that you desire.
Also, you cite The Origin of Species - have you actually read it? Doubtful. But regardless, Origins is no longer the authority on evolutionary theory. It was the seminal work, but it is now largely irrelevant. If you are going to argue against evolutionary theory, please use a source that isn't 150 years old. Thanks.
"Lack of a Mechanism" - natural selection is not solely conservative, but also innovative. The statement that it is solely conservative is blatantly false. Find me a single scientific journal article or university level textbook on evolutionary theory that makes that claim, and I will recant.
"Time Constraints" - Absolute pseudoscientific hogwash that demonstrates a complete ignorance of radiometric dating. Once again, if you can provide a single scientific paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal that suggests a young earth via radiometric dating or some other established method, then I will admit my mistake.
"Unacceptable model of origins" - The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolutionary theory (by the way, did you know it was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic Priest? Creationists don't even understand when the science supports their theological framework, lol). Thus, it is not worth discussing here as it only further muddies the waters of the discussion. If you want to refute evolutionary theory, then address evolutionary theory. Don't copy and paste something from a Creationist website that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
I will ask you again - I am a biologist, and I only address evidence. Please support your arguments with scientific journal articles. It should not be difficult, if you believe that the science supports your views. A quick search will provide you with innumerable studies that support evolution. I have been unable to discover any studies that support Creationism. If you would like our discussion to continue, it would be nice if you could actually support your argument with scientific findings. Thank you.
Yes, but I suppose that depends on your definition of "lately". I'll go ahead and include the instances of speciation in Drosophila that I can think of just off the top of my head. Next time, do your own homework please.
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Rice, W.R. and G.W. Salt (1988). "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence". The American Naturalist 131: 911–917. doi:10.1086/284831
Dodd, D.M.B. (1989). "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura". Evolution 43 (6): 1308–1311. doi:10.2307/2409365
And a general review of laboratory induced speciation:
http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/rice/publications/pdf/29.pdf
This is how people who are actual scientists discuss scientific findings - we cite scientific evidence. I would appreciate it if our discussion continued in such a manner, otherwise it is rather a waste of time - isn't it?
And honestly, next time you might be better off asking for examples of speciation in a species that isn't one of the most important and well studied model organisms used for genetics research in the world.
Have a great weekend.
a statement made by someone that is absolutely and utterly clueless. based on that idiotic statement, everything should be spinning and orbiting in exactly the same direction, from asteroids to galaxies. any astronomer or astrophysicist would die laughing at such an idiotic statment, then be terrified at the fantastic ignorance that produced it.
how does the shock front of an exploding supernova compress an interstellar gas cloud to the point at which it's own gravitational pull causes it to collapse? we see it constantly happening out in the universe
the TOTAL entropy of the universe is increasing, but LOCAL entropy can decrease when energy flows through the system (which is supplied by stars, gravity, etc) this is very basic, and constantly overlooked by the creationists that don't understand the basics of physics.
sorry, but your attempted application of conservation of momentum is utterly meaningless, the second law of thermodynamics (which fails to explain boiling water) is quite safe from creationist misapplication also
as far as the first law and what exactly started it in the first place? that does fall into pure speculation at this time. some possible candidates for that explanation such as M theory and superstring theory need much more testing, something that the LHC collider could possibly confirm at least a few parts of.
Ericoo, granted I am not a scientist or biologist. Therefore you will have much more information against my argument than I towards evolution. I am an artist though and both of our professions have the capability to change the world and has done so over history. You want to have a debate of Die Bruch vs Dada, lets get it crackin. I have always been fascinated with new scientific discoveries and try to keep an eye on what is currently happening. For me to get into an in depth debate with you would be ignorant on my part without more study (which I'm doing but my browser is slower than $3!t right now and would take me forever to type it, thus the copy and past on my last post). Although my argument is for complexity and although no Creationist can come and say "I have proof of God right here in my petri dish", is obviously impossible at this point in time and will probably remain so for a long time if not forever. I do have faith that there is a supreme being that has created all we see. I would gather that in evolution when you don't have an answer for something that not you or any scientist can answer or recreate in a lab, it will remain in hypothesis mode until you do come up with an answer for it. But you have faith that science will come up with an answer for it. I have faith in what I believe and see things that science would ignore but I find amazing. For me, I see these complexities and for it to be random doesn't seem possible. There are complexities that can be recreated in one fashion or another through industry or whatever but there are some that cannot or never be recreated. That's where my faith is, in that for all this to be random would be like the cliche of the tornado going through the junk yard and coming out with a perfectly built 150 ft yacht coming out the other side, obviously not going to happen.
P.S. Yes it is Reserviour Dogs, but oddly enough my last name has Pink in it.
mr pink, something about these white background, not-quite newsvine, columns run incredibly slow, maybe it's the ads.
Just asking, cause it's one of my favorite movies ever :).
Fair enough, thank you for your honest response. I will address this quickly though as I see it often:
Evolution, actually, isn't random. It is guided. If it was random, then you are 100% correct - there would be no way that design could originate from it. For clarification, mutations are random - but selection on those mutations is not.
So, since you aren't a scientist, perhaps it would be more fair to continue our discussion from a theological position? I reject Creationism not just because there is no scientific evidence to support it, but also because it doesn't make any theological sense to me either. Allow me to clarify.
If we are to presume that a God exists, and we are to attribute characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence to that God, and we are to recognize that God created the universe - then there are two opposing possibilities with respect to life:
The first is that God created life directly, and it has no method which it can adapt to a changing environment. Thus, when a species goes extinct, it must be replaced via direct creation again. This is not a single, elegant act of creation - but multiple, discrete acts.
The second is that God created the universe with the capacity to produce life on it's own, such that no further intervention was necessary. This is a single, elegant act of creation.
I am of the theological opinion that the second scenario is more compatible with an omniscient and omnipotent God, whereas the first is not.
Interestingly, in the final paragraph of The Origin of Species, Darwin expressed a similar view, and likened the descent of life on Earth to an ever changing work of art - "endless forms most beautiful" - a wonderful act of creation.
God the artist and God the scientist, all in one - that is the type of God that I think is worthy of worship. Others agree - most of the scientists that I have personally worked for believe in God, and they find no conflict between their faith and their scientific understanding of nature.
You explained perfectly what I believe in the last statement of your post. The single act of creation, I like that. Maybe its possible we were given everything that we needed to expand our lives and that genetics allows us to take control of that and continue with our evolution. I think that with our own free will we will be able to go beyond anything and everything in front of us we want to understand, unless it was taken from us. I believe that free will has more power than people give it credit. Although that is another huge debate that psychology is currently getting into. Do we really have free will? The way the US is being run including our schools, free will is turning into indoctrination made to look like free will.
I'm glad :). It has been my observation that many people who adhere to strict young-earth creationism recognize that the alternative (multiple acts of creation) is incompatible with a divinely intelligent supreme being. So, they reject that it occurred in the first place, and accept a young earth despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
This saddens me a bit, because I find the alternative of an ancient universe to be much more theological beautiful and a much more expansive and grand act of creation. Many scientists have commented that studying nature is akin to a form of worship, in the sense that it gives an almost religious feeling of reverence when contemplating our place in it. I have likewise felt this, so I am inclined to agree.
Yes, it would be another huge debate :). Interestingly though, this is a question that could potentially be answered scientifically. I have a number of papers on neurology that I could provide for you if you would like to read about recent discoveries in the area. They don't side very well in favor of free-will though, so it can be somewhat of a bummer to read, heh.
Eric,
I think you are going to have to explain how evolution is "guided". Natural selection and every other theory out there cannot explain how certain mutations propagate. There is nothing out there to explain how certain proteins were initially formed or how certain protein-protein interactions are induced. Yes there are driving forces to make efficient system with high survivability; however, there is a lot of basic concepts that rely on two or molecules being at the right place with the right amount of energy to deny there is a random (or a better word being unguided) component to it.
The more dominant a species, the more negative mutations they have, as there becomes little to know driving force for the removal of them.
With billions of years and energy from stars, supernovas, various radioactive events, you can get many fundamental molecules. Heck, with the energy of a lightning bolt and basic elements that form biological molecules, you can get biological molecules. Not everything needs a driving force any greater than just being possible to achieve (which would make it unguided).
Just look at the fact that the dinosaurs went away, and humans became the dominant species. If we existed during any of the dinosaur periods, I would be hard pressed to believe we would have achieved the same amount of technology in the same amount of time. It is near random as to how we became the dominant species on our planet. A meteor could have just as easily destroyed us thousands of years ago and who knows what would have happened. There are too many events that affect evolution on both a micro and macro level that you cannot say it is completely guided. Many species more genetically advanced than humans could have existed on Earth, yet here we are.
While it is correct that unpredictable events, or even events that seem random, are not necessarily random (like how some people call diffusion "random" when it is not really random). However, at the same time, just because something isn't random, does not mean it is guided. Evolution has aspects that are guided, but many aspects that happen just because some event occurred at the right time to allow some species to die and others to flourish. Some molecules to form, while others denature.
Also,
MrPinks argument about a tornado not being able to produce a yacht from a tornado is flawed at best. That is like me having a container of hydrogen and expecting it to magically turn in to uranium (all the components are there right?). Heck, I can even throw the container in to the sun and it would never turn in to uranium. Now lets say I throw it in to a super nova, there is some chance. Pointing out a flawed premise does not mean all premises with a simple concept at the core (like "random") are also flawed. If humans ceased to exist tomorrow, there is not another species or event that could produce a yacht. However, if all biological lifeforms ceased to exist tomorrow, there are many events to restart that cycle.
Hi Endo, I believe you may have misunderstood me. I did not mean "guided" in some metaphysical or divine sense, but rather "guided" in the sense that natural selection is not a random process. Thus, I am in agreement with your post 100%. I was simply pointing out to Mr. Pink that the reason why complex structures (like the eye, for example) can evolve is because they do so in a stepwise process, driven by natural selection. That is specifically the reason why the tornado analogy is fallacious.
I did think you meant guided in the "natural selection" sense. However, to me, natural selection cannot fully explain propagation of traits. It works very well for traits that benefit species, but is terrible at traits that have no functional effects or traits that have negative effects. There is no real explanation of why most of our gnome is DNA with no known usage. There should be some drive to remove a significant portion of your gnomic waste, but there really isn't (or at least does not seem to be beyond any normal decay).
Environmental factors seem to play a much greater role than any guided evolution. Evolution takes countless generation, whereas environments can change within a generation. Throw in how ecosystems develop and change and it almost seems like evolution takes a backseat to "luck". If some human did or animal brought a new species of tree to the islands, the islands would most likely have the same ecosystem it did a million years ago. A tree that has lived and thrived on that island is being out-competed by another tree that has never lived in that environment before.
No competition essentially amounts to unguided evolution. This allows traits and disorders to thrive and propagate that would cause the downfall of that organism in another ecosystem.
Essentially, in ecosystems with strong competition, there seems to be much more guided evolution. In ecosystems with low competition, there seems to be a much more "random" component as to what propagates. If you are the only organism on an island, you can essentially turn in to almost anything you want. De-evolution would be about as common as evolution as there is no drive in any direction.
This can be seen clearly in how non-beneficial genes (genetic disorders etc) can propagate in humans due to advances in medicine and technology. Since human seem to only compete (in the biological sense) with other humans, there is no driving force to natural eliminate/minimize genetic deformities.
ID is theologic in nature I.E taught based on religious text,theological edict or varies in nature due to a particular faith or sect. Not a single ID theologically based claim can be reproduced therefore can not be proven nor is there a generally agreed upon single version. Evolution is a theory based on reproduced experiments it can be demonstrated thru the volumes of fossils found in the various layers of sedimentary rocks all over the world that can be dated and such changes can be observed. Science should never be confused with belief if it can not be reproduced or demonstrated it does not belong in a science curriculum. Any science teacher that would even concider teaching ID as science should have their teaching credentials revoked and go teach at a religion based school theology degrees are very easy to obtain. That being said if tenn wants their children to be taught religious dogma as a science and they want to build museums that show dinosaurs and humans living together if they want to claim the world is only 6,000 yrs old then so be it. I for one will keep religion and science as individual subjects in my children's education,Therefore ensuring that later in life they do not experience a faith crisis when they happen to come across facts that dispute the theologically based theory of creation.I personally worry what future generations of Tenn children will think of the current so called leaders and educators in this bassakwards part of the country. I only hope they are more forgiving of their ignorance than the current intolerant and ignorant leaders and educators apparently are believe as you like worship as you choose but never confuse fact with faith or science with theology or it will be you having to explain why you defended your lies and forced others to accept them if the afterlife you believe in comes to pass
Of course not. Selection doesn't act on traits that are neutral - their propagation throughout a population is modeled mathematically and in a very predictable manner (when unlinked). When the neutral traits are linked to a beneficial trait, they are propagated with the beneficial trait due to joint inheritance.
Much of what was previously considered "junk DNA" has now been found, in fact, to be extremely important. From epigenetic effects to enhancer regions, it may be that the noncoding DNA is the most important part of our genome for phenotypic diversity - ironically. When I first started studying biology, that was what they told us - junk DNA served no purpose. Years later, I am now studying the effects of epigenetic modification of noncoding DNA in disease processes. Science is progressive.
Of course not. Selection doesn't act on traits that are neutral - their propagation throughout a population is modeled mathematically and in a very predictable manner (when unlinked). When the neutral traits are linked to a beneficial trait, they are propagated with the beneficial trait due to joint inheritance.
Much of what was previously considered "junk DNA" has now been found, in fact, to be extremely important. From epigenetic effects to enhancer regions, it may be that the noncoding DNA is the most important part of our genome for phenotypic diversity - ironically. When I first started studying biology, that was what they told us - junk DNA served no purpose. Years later, I am now studying the effects of epigenetic modification of noncoding DNA in disease processes. Science is progressive.
Except that this is not an analagous situation to what would occur on your island. In nature, animals with disease would possess a selective disadvantage - even if they only competed with each other for survival. Over time, the less-beneficial or maladaptive traits would be removed from the population.
However, bottleneck or founding effects have been observed to disproportionally increase the percentage of maladaptive alleles within isolated populations. So, on your island, you could have a significant divergence because of that.
Man newsvine is acting super glitchy. Sorry for half that post being a repeat
eric0038, I have noticed that glitchiness on all of these "white background" forums as opposed to the regular newsvine columns, especially when they get large. maybe its the ads?
Probably so I imagine. I'm not a programmer or anything so I have no idea about stuff like this, but they also seem to be "busier" in the sense that the layout is not as simple as a normal newsvine column either.
Eric, thanks for all your knowledgable posts so far, you clearly bring a lot of expertise to the debate. Regarding recent work in epigenetic studies, I'm curious, does this re-open the debate regarding LaMarckian (sp?) inheritance of acquired traits?
I'd hate to muddy the water here, and (nonexistent) god forbid, provide any ammunition to the darwinian denialists on here... "See! Even the evolutionists aren't sure. That proves that they're wrong!" but I'm interested in your take on what this recent work implies and where it may lead.
P.S. Also, what's your take on gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium? Dawkins v. Gould?
Ericoo, that would be nice if you could throw those my way. I've read a few arguments on the matter and the side of no free will makes a good case. But at the same time when looking into the crazy world hypothesis of alternate dimensions, I sometimes think about for every alternate decision that could be made; could there be an alternate universe for it?I know I know, crazy, but I read an article regrading Hugh Everett the mathematics genius who came up with the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's mind boggling to think that possibly each time a decision is made a parallel universe branches off for the opposite decision, creating a very large (perhaps infinite) number of parallel universes. Free will or not every decision we make has an impact, hopefully for the better. Its all just very fascinating.
Wow Ericoo, hope I didn't open a can of wormholes in the debate here making others think you were taking the side of a supreme being? I must say this has been the most interesting and intense debate I have seen on newsvine in some time.
No problem man :).
Good question, by the way. In short, it doesn't re-open Lamarckian inheritance as a possibility - but you are quite astute to realize that it is another potential facet by which evolution occurs. That said, it is (in my opinion) likely not nearly as important as traditional alterations to the genetic code.
The reason why I say that is because epigenetic modification is largely reset when an organism reproduces. I'll use DNA methylation as an example: DNA methylation, and heterochromatin formation, is important in silencing genes and determining cell fates during development. But when somatic cells undergo meiosis to create haploid sperm and egg cells with the intent of reproduction, these epigenetic modifications have to be erased. This has to occur, in order to allow all of the cells that are descended from the newly fertilized zygote to become the varied cell types that exist in the adult organism.
There have been, to my knowledge, only a select few examples of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in plants and animals. This is no doubt because it is primarily used as a method of cell differentiation.
Does that answer your question sufficiently?
Certainly :). I'll probably send them to your newsvine page in a PM since these discussion is acting so glitchy. A forewarning though - it may not give you a notice when I send them. I've had that problem lately. If it doesn't show that you've received a new PM, there is a way that you can check by messing with the page settings.
I agree, it's been a great discussion :). Also, if science ever demonstrates the likelihood that some semblance of intelligent design is correct - I will be the very first one to stand up and support it. But as it is, the cards are strongly stacked up against it. And that's okay with me too, because if a supreme being does exist, the picture of the universe that our scientific understanding creates is in my opinion much more theologically beautiful than what ID or creationism suggests.
Non-coding DNA that has regulatory effects is not the same as "junk" DNA (At one time they were considered the same thing; although, it is still interchangeable for some people). Much of DNA still has no known purpose. That is not to say it does not have a purpose, just that it has no known purpose. I still would not be surprised is some DNA ends up never having a purpose.
Humans are still part of nature, irregardless of the fact that many people consider their actions "unnatural". Evolution still applies to humans, and if a theory cannot explain why certain genetic anomalies propagate more in dominant species, that theory is defunct. When you have a dominant species with no competition, their evolutionary path is relatively unguided. Natural selection really no longer applies.
There seems to be an assuption that a species diverges when you have anomalies grow within a segment of a population, which is also not always true. Humans are a perfect example of this. As there is no competition, there is no drive to subjugate or separate divergent sub-populations. People with genetic anomalies are still free to interbreed with segments of the populations without them.
In many animals, species with genetic anomalies do not get to breed or can only inter-breed within their sub-population (causing divergence). Success or failure is a lot more connected to genetics in these species. In humans this is not the case.
Yes it is convenient to ignores humans in evolutionary talks, as they tend to break "rules" like natural selection, but they are more the rule then the exception when it comes to most low-competition species on this planet. Alot of genetic changes and propagation in humans tends to be as much de-evolution as it is evolution.
Indeed, and it is for this reason that "junk" DNA is a quaint term that hasn't been used in a meaningful sense by biologists for awhile now. In the 80's when the term was first being thrown around, it was seriously thought that genes were the only significant portion of the genome. We were so thoroughly wrong about that, that I am now reluctant to label something as truly having no purpose, with the exception of pseudogenes, viral remnants, etc. that are useless leftovers of evolution.
That said, there have been several studies that have attempted to shed light on just how much of the genome is "useless", or can be removed without any significant effects on phenotype. This one is particularly interesting, if you haven't read it already:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03022.html
You are correct. But, we know of other genetic processes that still persist even during a lack of significant selective pressure.
Could you please give an example of some of the genetic anomalies in humans that you are referring to? To the best of my knowledge, many of the maladaptive alleles (of significant statistical abundance) that are accounted for in humans have been explained or have had attempts at explanation. A perfect example that I can think of is the Sickle Cell trait. Obviously, selective pressure has played a role here, but it demonstrates that even in a massive population natural selection still plays a role in certain subsections of that population.
Yes, I would agree with this. It remains to be seen whether our intelligence is actually a long-term adaptive trait though. It may very well turn out that we will cause our own extinction, and in the geological span of life on earth, we will be considered one of the most poorly adapted and least successful species to ever emerge.
Explained as individual events for humans, yes. Explained within the context of a general theory, no.
If humans were mouse or some other animal, there would be no explanation for why Sickle Cell has propagated the way it has in France and various other countries. Since they are humans, it is conveniently tucked away in to human nature.
For most species, sickle cell would have cause some divergence, then that species would have slowly disappeared outside jungle regions. Now you have sickle cell existing in large percentages where it should be a huge competitive disadvantage, yet its propagation is increasing thanks to medicine allowing more people to reach reproductive age and beyond. However, this propagation outside of the jungle happened before medicine was adequately available to mitigate negative effects.
I would say pick any genetic neurological condition or genetic lung condition and you will see higher rates of expression now; however, there are like many environmental factors involved. As such it is hard to say whether there is a true propagation or just more explicit expression (since the industrial revolution but a lot of "crap" everywhere). Plus, there is a more clear desire to cleanly diagnose most disorders (so you do not get neurological conditions being equated to possessions and asthma as a psychological problem). You can look at asthma, various sclerosis disease, alzheimer's (though there is an age component).
Alzheimer's is interesting in the sense that most people did not live long enough for this to be expressed. If it takes 40+ years for plaques to start effecting the brain, there is no real advantage to stop this from happening if you you are lucky to make it to 40. Since "old age" is relatively new in human history, genetics would not have any real means to limit propagation (especially since it seems to have no know effects on early "fitness").
As far as the article is concerned it is interested that while none had any noticeable phenotype difference, a couple of the test subjects had minor changes at the molecular level. It is also interesting that these molecular changes produced no real difference in the growth of the mouse. Even though the gene may have some function, it may not be enough to alter the physiology like altering a coding gene would (or major regulatory genes for that matter).
You hit the nail on the head with this one. Selection only works up to and including the ages of reproductive health and fitness - there is no selective benefit for protecting against things like Alzheimers, or for eradicating things like tumor-suppressor gene mutations, if the effects of the disease occur after reproduction has already occurred. The exception to this, of course, is animals that require prolonged parental care after birth. Humans do, but this period overlaps with the period for viable reproduction.
Much of these conditions we have only identified recently, and many of them we still cannot treat effectively. I suspect that as the population exploded after the Industrial Revolution, many maladaptive mutations were also propagated. It also doesn't help that people have historically tended to reproduce within their own community or race (until this age of globalization that we find ourselves in now). Such practices also tend to propagate mutant alleles.
If we don't get ahead of the increasing spread anti-biotic resistant infectious diseases such as TB, MRSA and C. Difficile, we may, as a species, soon experience a lot more "naturally selective" competitive pressure.
I hope you have a strong immune system.
This is so embarrassing for me. I live in Tennessee but travel often. Normally I looked forward to coming home after a road trip but it is getting increasingly hard to miss the place. What evidence do these so called teachers have that evolution is false? Please don't say because the bible says so.
Its funny this topic was brought up today because we just watched a documentary on evolution today in Biology. The documentary showed numerous organisms that seem to defy the laws of evolution. Some of the organisms had a specific set of body processes that the creature would have had to obtain at the same time in order for the organism to survive. For example, a giraffe has a huge heart that is needed to pump blood up the neck into the giraffe's head. However, when a giraffe bends over to get a drink of water, all the blood being pumped to its brain all of the sudden is not pumping against gravity, rushes to the giraffes brain and blows his brains out. Of course the giraffe is not lying there dead thinking "boy i need to evolve somehow and fix this problem" because dead animals can't evolve. In actuallity, there are small tubes in the giraffes throat that close and stop blood flow to the head and only a small amount of blood is allowed through. Excess blood around the giraffe's brain is store momentarily in a spongy area surrounding the brain. Then say for instance while the giraffe is drinking he sees a lion running towards him, so the giraffe springs up and runs away but soon passes out from lack of oxygen to the brain. So the giraffe is thinking "boy i need to evlove..." but obviously a giraffe cant evolve after it has been eaten by a lion. In actuallity, the spongy area stores enough blood so that it can supply the giraffe's brain until blood flow can continue. So how could a giraffe survive without acquiring all of the body processes at the same time? Well since we know evolution takes place over millions of years, there would be no way giraffes would have survived more than a few days. This is just one of many organisms evolutionists cannot explain using the theory of evolution.
So what you suppose one night the poor damned giraffe sprouted this big long neck and then it got all the rest of the package to support it through some funky intelligent design crap fest?
How about this, maybe over time, the neck elongated, perhaps due to the giraffe finding an ecological niche that was unexploited, to whit, grazing in the tops of trees. Well biology being what it is, developed some mechanisms that allowed to not pass out when it bent down to take a drink for example. I would answer the rest of your ...drivel(?)...but well to be honest, I suspect it would be pointless, you after all, seem to support intelligent design, and that design has allowed to not be able to comprehend sarcasm or irony as a practical manner of saving you from dying of embarrassment because you are somehow able to draw breathe.
What biology class did you watch this so called "documentary" in, Bill? And where are you attending school? Either your instructor is an idiot, you didn't correctly understand the information in the film, you are in some sort of non-science based Biology for Religious Whackjobs class at Oral Roberts University, or possibly all of the above.
dcl above my post has already given the appropriate scientifically correct response to your absurdly naive argument, I won't bother to refute your nonsense in further detail here.
The problem you have with your thinking is that you are completely closed- minded and judgemental to any reasoning that is outside your comfort level. By the way, I am not supporting neither evolution nor ID. Both explanations have facts that support it but both also have their weak points. Quite frankly, no one knows for sure, that is why it is called the THEORY of evolution, not the law of evolution. I recommend you watch the video I watched just this afternoon. It is titled "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution."
Bill, would I be correct in surmising (from the content of your post) that you are in high school? If so, I would recommend taking a real biology course if you ever have the chance.
If I may now address your points:
The heart is an organ that exhibits plasticity, both in embryonic development and in response to stress. Thus, this is actually a non-point as there is no mystery in how the large giraffe heart came to be.
You are referring to the jugular valves. These are NOT unique to the giraffe, and are present in most mammalian species that I can think of (including humans).
The structure that you are referring to is called the rete mirabile (literally the "miraculous net") and it is a structure NOT unique to giraffes. All or most members of Artiodactyla (sheep, cattle, camels, giraffes, etc.) have it. It is thought to serve the primary function of cooling blood to the brain in the other species, with a secondary function of preventing excessive blood flow/pressure in those species that require it to do so (the giraffe is also not unique in that either). Clearly, this structure evolved prior to the giraffe's neck elongating.
He couldn't. Luckily, these structures were pre-existing, and initially evolved for other purposes and simply adopted secondary functions in the giraffe.
Not only did I just explain it using the theory of evolution, but I also pointed out the many flaws in your initial argument. All of that is rather moot though, since we have a large number of intermediate fossil species that document the evolution of the giraffe, as well as the living Okapi which exhibits some intermediate characteristics as well.
So hopefully, you will see that this really isn't a problem at all, and learn to appreciate the true beauty of nature. I hope you will also take a rigorous course in biology/evolutionary theory someday as these are very important foundations for the scientifically-minded individual.
That's not how science works, Bill. It's not like a hypothesis, once tested, becomes a theory, which after subsequent testing becomes a law. This is a common misconception among people that are not well versed in science. Perhaps this will clear some things up for you:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4414/scimethrn6.png
Funny...from a scientific point of view a theory is one step away from a law...however, you are using the term as though you are describing an hypothesis. Don't you find it odd that people never question the THEORY of relativity? I have an idea...let's get all of the nutty "it's just a theory" people parading around like they have an inkling of what science is and stand them next to an atomic bomb to "test" this silly theory of relativity. Any takers?
I didn't think so...
The fact of the matter is that in 150 years of testing and retesting there has NEVER been a single shred of evidence to indicate that evolution does not happen. You see, science never proves anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, it merely disproves ideas and rules out incorrect hypotheses. As soon as one piece of evidence comes out showing that evolution is incorrect, scientists will go back to the drawing board to begin again with a new set of assumptions to be tested and which are supported by ALL of the available evidence. That is where science is truly different from all other methods of enlightenment in that ideas are adaptable and change to fit the data rather than demanding that we believe anything without question or in spite of the data.
Bill 55
The giraffe example is easily explained anyone who actually understand biology. It does not "defy" anything. In sounds like your class provides a good example of what happens when we let schools teach bad science.
I know you were refuting Bill, as I was, but I must point out for the sake of clarity that a scientific theory is not on any sort of continuum towards a scientific law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
I think that misconception is all too often perpetuated by scientifically illiterate Creationists, and that is certainly not a good thing.
The rest of your post I give two thumbs up though :).
Bill, unless you are proposing that the first giraffe was born from completely non-giraffe-like parents which possessed none of those characteristics, then your assertion of "at the same time" doesn't even make any sense. Evolution never makes any such claim, so you are arguing against a strawman.
I feel i should first address Eric0038. All sarcasm aside, I do thank you for posting and refuting my statements, however anybody that knows how to type "giraffe" into a wikipedia search bar could refute me as well. Let me remind you i could just as easily edit that page myself. Specifically, you said the primary function of the rete mirabile was to "cool blood before it entered the brain" yet, members of Artiodactyla are warmblooded, thus not needing to be cooled. I am also very aware the meaning of the word "theory" To thecryingprohpet, it is called the theory of relativity because it is a THEORY of how spacetime effects the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
I apologize Chuck-2601317 if i was in anyway unclear about my "propositions." ID, Intelligent Design, would say an intelligent being created, for example, the giraffe and equiped it with what it needed to be successful in life. Thus not being born or evolved from some other "non-giraffe" species.
Bill55
Obviously, the giraffe's originally short neck would not have evolved another half-inch until it had the circulation to support it, and so on and on.
There, that was easy.
jock59801
So what your saying is the giraffes' desires to have a longer neck told their circulatory systems to prepare for a longer neck? In this case, the neck would have to grow before the circulatory system adapted, which would be highly unlikely.
Brontosaurus is the most famous dinosaur but it never existed. The study of science was held back because of the wrong head.
Don't be so sure about all your bones that you guys say is fact.
Bill55:
Are you a warm blooded mammal? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are. Does your body have internal mechanisms to cool you when you are hot? Of course it does. Do you suffer brain damage if your brain gets overheated? Yes it does. Being a mammalian order adapted to very warm places, should Artiodactyla have specific traits to help prevent them from becoming overheated and suffering permanent brain damage? They wouldn't be a very successful order if they didn't now, would they? Come on man, use a little deductive reasoning before you regurgitate your creationist tripe in such a public forum.
58-0928E - The Serpent's Seed
branham.org/messageplayer/58-0928E
I think the most frightening aspect of this entire debate is how little most people know about the socio-political agenda of the Discovery Institute. They aren't interested in advancing science; they want to destroy science in order to re-establish the church as the authority on ALL things. Don't take my word for it though...run a quick search for the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy (1998)...they talk about their plan to overturn the foundations of scientific inquiry and produce a cultural reformation by returning us to our pre-Enlightenment roots (i.e. when the church was running the show). Some of you might not think that sounds like such a bad idea, but think about everything you will be giving up; all of the freedoms you have that you didn't then, all of the technology that has made your lives so bearable, all of the possibilities that will be taken away from your children and grandchildren so that we can return to the "good ol' days" when the majority of the population were slaves owned by nobility and seen as little more than livestock, when there was no constitution guaranteeing your rights, when there was no recourse to prevent the nobility from taking whatever they wanted from you whenever they wanted. Think about why any organization would plan a strategy to leave you and your descendents uneducated, unenlightened, and dependent on them as the source of all truth and knowledge.
A Theory is a collection of laws and facts. Just like a Title is general reference to all the pages. Because the Theory is constructed by the Laws and Facts it's merit rest on those Laws and Facts. It's a container. Now here is an eye opener. A lot of people say that a Scientific Theory is different from common theory. Not really. Every theory is as strong as the facts that support it. If you came up to me and said "I have a theory that your wife is cheating on you." Guess what I would say. "Where is your facts that support this theory." The Theory of Evolution is a strong theory because it is supported by numerous facts. It is so good that scientist can form hypothesis in order to predict and progress into better understandings and find new facts. Theory = Facts and Laws. Facts and Laws make the Theory. Get it? If not then stay off the roads and wear a helmet with floaties. You have bigger problems than understanding science 101.
I have degrees in biology and genetics and I am currently in veterinary medical school. Does that perhaps qualify me to address your question with a degree of validity, Bill? Tell me, what is your background in the biological sciences?
Nevermind, my question was just answered. Bill, the blood needs to be cooled specifically because they are warm-blooded. Do you understand that mammals have to keep their brain temperature within a very specific range for normal function? For exactly the same reason that your hypothalamus regulates your body temperature within a narrow homeostatic range, so too does the rete mirabile exist in these species to assist in keeping their brain temperature within normal range.
Great. So how does ID explain the existence of transitional fossils in the giraffe line, the existence of ERV sequences clearly indicating common descent in the giraffe, and the existence of poor anatomical or physiological design in the giraffe? It cannot, of course. But evolutionary theory does.
I appreciate your interest in science, it is more than most people have. But I would drop the armchair biologist act, you aren't very good at it (yet). I am more than willing to patiently teach you some biology, but not if you are unwilling to learn.
Bill55: "So what your saying is the giraffes' desires to have a longer neck told their circulatory systems to prepare for a longer neck?"
No, that isn't even close to what I am saying. If it were advantageous for the ancestors of giraffes to have longer necks, then longer-necked giraffes would have been favored and had more offspring, until the side effects of circulation problems made it no longer advantageous. Or until such time as a slightly better circulation system shifted the balance back to being able to have a slightly longer neck. Since each of these steps would have been almost unnoticeably small, neither would get ahead of the other.
Well all of the interesting conversation aside I don't think you should teach intelligent design in school because it has no supporting evidence other than a claims that religions make which is in itself not actually proof. So it is really just teaching faith and calling it science. It would be similar to me teaching that magic was real because it occurs in Harry Potter and the reason us muggles aren't aware of it is because they can sheild themselves from us...
jock, I would also add as supplement to your post that it isn't as if the circulatory system and a neck are independent processes that had to "adapt" independently of each other. Embryonic development allows for both to occur at the same time, and the degree of plasticity that the circulatory system affords makes adaptation for a longer neck a minor physiological stepping stone. Especially since all of the major circulatory adaptations that the giraffe possesses were already in place to begin with.
What freedoms do your refer to? Freedom to have sex with just about anything living, drink, smoke, and maybe marijuana in the near future. The freedom to have big business destroy the middle class? The freedom to have society commit mass suicide cause they can't get off of oil. The freedom to have the government strip us of our SS? The freedom to have insurance so high nobody but the rich can afford it. Take a look at when they took God out of the schools in 1962 (abington vs schempp) and 1963 how society is unraveling. The spike of sexually transmitted disease, divorce, and pregnancies. The drop in SAT scores. You can't even talk to anyone anymore. They are all so hateful, unless they want something from you. Look at how everyone on this site bashes ID cause they are afraid of the dark days when the catholic church had the power of everything (which our founding fathers made sure that wouldn't happen again). And profess that evolution is confirmed fact. It hasn't been proven. It is all guess work and I think the head goes here but they found it a mile from the site. Have an artist draw up what he would like it to look like. You have been taught it is fact and it isn't. Our founding fathers loved the Lord and our constitution was made using God's Word as their example. For example George Washington's Farewell Address these portions are removed from your text books. If you don't believe me go look it up for yourself. And I Quote " Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained with out religion, What ever maybe conceded to the influence of refined education on minds reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Another part of George Washington's Farewell Address removed from textbooks, "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Your Famous saying of "wall of seperation between church and state" from Thomas Jefferson was in response to a letter not in any constitution or government document. If you actually take the time to read the letters Danbury Baptist to Thomas Jefferson Nov 7, 1801 and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association Jan. 1, 1802. It was taken out of context and does not mean what you have been taught. I DARE you to read it. Why not look up John Adams speech July 4, 1837. That is some amazing stuff.
I am a math guy so I look at it mathematically. 1 where does the one come from? Until you can answer where the one came from I will be open minded giving both credit.
Nothing comes from Nothing. Neither created nor destroyed (MAGIC)
Do you believe in the impossible Black Hole?
We live in the atomic level and perceive things in 3D. What things can we not currently of physically imagine?
ok so if living things do not evolve, then why are "Superbugs" being created? the over use of antibiotics is creating bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotics, they have evolved beyong being harmed by them...it has taken several years, and because bacteria are such simple life forms, that was enough time...
It doesn't take years for it to evolve it takes about 20 min to create a new generation for it to survive and adapt and start filling out what the antibiotics has cleaned out. That is why it is so important to take all your meds. It takes us years to counteract a new strain. Humans also survive and adapt when exposed to certain diseases. We become resistant that doesn't mean we have evolved.
Then as a math guy you should understand that evolution is modeled by mathematical growth. That's really all it is, at the most fundamental level. The increasing proportion of alleles within a population is what causes the population to change.
You are correct. The adaptation of the immune system is not evolution. But the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is evolution. The two are completely different things.
i saw that stupid documentory,...it was a dentist who now self proclaims himself to be an expert in biology....the basic premise was because evolutionary biologists cannot provide a step by step evolutionary pathway for every possible physiological structure in biology, he concludes that evolution is false, and intelligent design is true,....ignoring the fact that they don't have to provide that kind of evidence to prove evolution is true...they only need to prove common decent, in a single species,...besides the guy in movie does not fully understand the theory of evolution...thus he cannot adequately criticize it...he draws conclusions based on his beliefs not on any actual evidence ...so even if evolution were false (and its not) it does not prove that intelligent design is true...in addition, while hypothetically, the lack of any evidence that ID is false, this does not prove it to be true either.
Bill 55
"because dead animals can't evolve."
And dead animals can't multiply either, which is part of evolution. If it is a successful mutation then it is likely passed on, if not it likely dies out.
When the churches ran the world, it was called "The Dark Ages" for a reason. 99+% of the population were serfs, hardly better than slaves. They drank to forget their problems like us, and couldn't conceive of a state run Social Security system or health insurance. They had children at 16, had rampant STD's, and couldn't pass any Standardized Test because they were UNEDUCATED. Our Founding Fathers truly believed in the SEPARATION of Church and State because when the church dictates our educational standards, they have a vested interest in keeping us dumb. More people who believe and will donate money...the church's #1 priority.
why do creationists want to bring the US back into the dark ages?
bill55, what you are referring to is known as "irreducible complexity" a concept that has been shot down and proven false time and time again, yet is constantly spouted by creationists upon yet more ignorant people that have never heard of it. (or were asleep in high school biology) and the only possible school that would show such a movie would have to be a chrisitian school trying to indoctrinate their religion and to increase the scientific illiteracy in the US. ( the ultimate goal of evangelical creationists)
if you are a "math guy" claiming that a black hole is impossible, then you must be an unemployed "math guy" (and for very good reason)
ok "math guy" explain this:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/pictures/orbitsMovie.shtml
something very small at the center of our galaxy is throwing stars around like toys, what is it?
that is an animation of actual star positions taken over several years, nothing except a massive black hole of roughly 150,000 solar masses could possibly have the gravitational pull to cause these stars to move like this (and some are much heavier than our sun)
Mama always says; Stupid is as stupid does.
One of the hallmarks of science is the inquiring (open) mind, but once men and women commit themselves to a career in "science", it seems they often lose their open mind and accept the narrow realities that their reading in school has taught them.
I have a degree in Chemistry, but I like reading about intelligent design theory...it responds to some doubts I have about biology and some feelings about the Great Spirit that conventional biology doesn't speak to...everything can't be answered by calculus and equations...
david
Science isn't about the "spirit" ... It's about science.
If you want to talk about spirits, the human condition, theories of god and the like ... take a philosophy class!
WTF is the 'Great Spirit' and where is your evidence that it exists? Yes, there are gaps in science and evolution, and that is one of the reasons that religions have flourished (unfortunately). People need an explanation, so they fill in the blanks with gods. Here's to those gaps being filled with sound reasoning and rational independent thought.. clink! Cheers to a society free of religion.
I love this rhetoric about scientists having closed minds when it comes from creationists - and lets not pretend ID isn't just a creationist sheep in wolf's clothing.
ID promotes unfounded certainty. Its proponents see a mystery, rubber stamp it "God did it!" and wipe their hands of it. Real science sees a mystery and investigates. Real science is open to new ideas when those mysteries point to new discoveries. ID can't change. It can't evolve with new ideas. It is static and unmovable. The answer is always the same. God did it!
What "Great Spirit" are you talking about, Dr. Dave? Depending on your religion, there's a bunch of them.
Talk of intelligent design belongs in Sunday school, not the public schools.
just because 1 teacher does not teach the "theory" of evolution, does not mean all follow suit. the basis of being human takes on more than just going from being an ape to a man. so seem to forget that. we are also taught even an athiest has a power greater than himself.
Look, unless we are going make students start taking a mandatory religious class that gives equal time to teaching about every single religion known to man, religion needs to stay out of the public school system.
That is why you take your family to church on Sunday, if you're so inclined.
@Megalodon You might be taught that an athiest has a higher power above them, but us athiests know those teachers are full of crap.
drdavid57
No, of course not everything can be answered by science or equations. Science does not and should not even try to answer spiritual questions. But evolution IS a scientific question that science CAN explain, and has done so quite satisfactorily, holding up over 150 years of intention questioning.
Bravo! There are still some judges and teachers left with common sense.
Personally, I am believer in God. And I don't feel like I'm backward in any way.
From my experience with atheists and believers I found the whole evolution discussion isn't about evolution. It's about "is there God or not".
And both sides in this dispute demonstrate signs of religious fervor. That is they both show great deal of faith in their believes. Yes every atheist must have a faith too. Evolution is scientific theory but not a scientific FACT.
We could argue here day and night years to come and still not agree.
Because as I know every faith can make a person blind. Just as religious person can become so blindly possessed that he refuses anything that contradicts his religion, so can atheist be so full of it that even mentioning of God makes his blood circulation change its direction (mad).
One thing for sure, there were always people who believed there is no God. Being atheist doesn't make anyone superior and somehow more modern. Book of Psalm was written probably 1000 years B.C. Read Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 and see how advanced and ahead of all believers atheists are. They are nothing new under sun.
To me it's all about Who I am. Why am I here. What is the purpose of all this nonsense in the world. Is there hope for better future. Is my life worth it. Is life of people around me worth it. Etc.
I'm sorry, but lowering my self to the realm of animals, despite my body similarity, doesn't give me satisfying answers. Our mind is so much superior to any animal. We rule this world and it is not by accident. Believe in God is in no way obstacle to study things around us. Exactly opposite, it inspires people. Issac Newton, and many others I'm sure were great example of that.
My believe in God the Creator, helps me to find answers to my questions.
And gives me a hope.
Believing in accident is not the answer. Nothing alive can come out of none-living thing and none-intelligent can not produce intelligent. That is the FACT.
Except that we are made up of non-living things. Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Copper, Iron, Calcium, Nitrogen. When we die our bodies decompose into the elements that are not alive. As Carl Sagan once said "The Earth and every living thing are made of star stuff." We are not called Carbon based life forms for nothing. Amino Acids, the building bolcks of peptides, are a compound of non living things.
Also, what about intelligence? You type as if it's some divine right, but you don't address the fact that it's not guaranteed to our species. With one slight adjustment to an organ that is of physical and chemical properties. One that can be broken down and seperated onto the Table of Elements. The brain. You can be reduced to the I.Q. of a tomatoe. You spit on our fellow humans that are not even aware they are alive. Then you arrogantly flaunt it around like the winner of the world win in fact the simple single cell owns this title. They have been here before us and they will outlast most of the things that could bring about our extinction. They may even be the executioner.
Plus what about fetuses? Ants are more intelligent than they are at this stage. Then they come out as babies, but they don't know a damn thing. They pee all over themselves, eat their own poop, not much intelligence there. Only their senses drawn to adrupt changes in the enviroment. Something most life forms do instinctively. They don't know what's going on, but they respond to what's going on. Eventually, as their brain (That physical and chemical organ) developes, they make connections of the causes and effects going on around them, but they don't comprehend the mechanics of it. They don't say dady because they know your dady. They say dady because, like Pablos dog, there is a rewarding response toward it. Then when they are kids they begain to inquire about the world around them, beause they were not born with the knowledge, and so therefore they ask questions. This is the stage that makes me throw up because this is the time people like Orech insult the very development of intelligent thought by lieing to them about the world around them. They know no better and sadly think they do. Intelligence is not some spirit or fairy dust. It is the trail and error. Stick your hand on the stove. Stove hot. Don't stick hand on stove again. Only thousands of those are happening at once and years of living among them reinforce your understandings.
Or you can be born with brain development problems. Never to be independent and never having the compacity to understand why. Intelligence is a product of natrual causes and is associated with a natrual thing, the brain, and therefore can be studied or even changed. Nothing supernatrual about it.
@Skepology
Man, o man!
Let me correct my last sentence a bit:
Nothing dead can produce a living thing.
That we are made from dead particles (dust of earth as bible says) doesn't mean particles can assemble them-self into living functioning organism.
And that the same particles are all over universe it is good indicator of one source of the origin for the whole universe - creator.
Regarding intelligence, either you have it or don't. Did I offended all the humanity, by believing that every human is intelligent and above the animal world ?
When it comes to fetuses, it is exactly one of those phenomenons which inspire awe in me. No fetus can evolve into living human without DNA in its cells, which is astonishingly complicated and greatly superior to any program language known. Every program language has intelligence behind it.
Citation:
You spit on our fellow humans that are not even aware they are alive.
Man, your blood pressure must be quite high now, You are turning my arguments upside down.
But I understand why, I mentioned "God".
Look I will give my children the information I think is the best for them, and you give your's the same. I hope we both want the best for our children.
To you, intelligence is trial and error. - good. To me intelligence helps a person to know not to touch hot stove even without ever burning his/her self.
What you describe is more of an instinct. And that's where the difference between a man and an animal starts. Intelligence is not knowledge, it is something you've received when yo were born. It's your gift you use during your life. You can learn whole life as much as you want but if you don't have it you ain't it, my offended friend.
I declared before, atheists hate slightest idea about God. And logically they hate us believers. Whole evolution dispute is about God and not a science.
And i don't think I or anyone on this forum will change anything about it here today.
I let God change any body's mind. It is not my position to do.
And when it comes to article's topic, which is yes/no to teach about creator in schools, I think that will help stay America what it always was. Special and unique place, where people of all backgrounds could feel at home.
You as parent can and should teach your kids whatever you like. But in schools no believer or unbeliever should be discriminated.
Communists did it and look where they are now.
Orech, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for posting your comments. We as believers in God do get discriminated against. What is the difference of teaching BOTH aspects, I believe conviction will occur, God will take blinders off, and people are afraid of Truth.
And we non-believers in God get discriminated against. We're all victims of discrimination of some kind.
However, ID is based on religion. It's based on a story that God created everything. It has no place in a public school.
If you want your children to learn ID, send them to a religion based school, and they can learn about it to your hearts content. I went to CCD to learn about it once a week because my parents were both Catholic and wanted me to learn it. And when there was no evidence to back it up other than what the Bible said, I rejected it.
I went to public school to learn things with no religious background or undertones. And that's how it should stay.
Pressingon:
Tell me, when has an athiest ever broken down the doors of your church/synagogue/mosque and shouted at the priest (or pastor or other appropriate figure) that they're wrong and that they should be talking about both sides?
Groups like the Discovery Institute have the audacity to claim that they're being persecuted against simply because the government is not catering specifically to them. You claim to be the victims here, and yet no one has attacked you. They've simply refused to treat you as special.
Since you're so determined to equate science with religion, consider this. If you dislike the idea of evolution, you can always go to your church where everyone shares your beliefs and will happily teach them and help reinforce them.
Now where can those of us who don't share those beliefs go if people like you keep trying to force your personal ideals into every aspect of our lives? What can we do? And aren't we entitled to the same respect that anyone else is?
What is it that makes you feel so justified in being so self centered? If there is a god out there, I highly doubt they would approve.
So Orech's god hates retarded people. Or his god is a sick P.O.S. If Intelligence is a god given right that he magically just puts into people (and not a process limited by the function of the brain, and the exposuer of cause and effect or trail and error through development.) than it begs to question. What does god have against certain fetesus? Did they touch themselves? Pray to the wrong god? The wrong color?
I'll go ahead and reinforce my statement. It has nothing to do with given rights that had been declined, and everything to do with biological and nurological development. Intelligence is a natural process. It can be altered, it can be studied.
Orech, there is no such thing as scientific fact.
Everything in Science is hypothesis, theory, or disproven.
WHAT I FIND SILLY ABOUT ADVOCATES OF ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION:
How can you reasonably claim that NOTHING working on behalf of NOTHING for NOTHING through NOTHING created EVERYTHING? That requires more faith than a belief in God.
Except that the Theory of Evolution doesn't say nothing for nothing through nothing created everything. In fact evolution is not about everything. It's about the diveristy of life forms. I think you are talking about abiogenesis. Just the very study of abiogenesis trumps your claim that we think nothing for nothing through nothing created everything, because that is the study of compounds (which is something) coming together to demonstrate functions that are considered living. Not even at this point do scientist say nothing started everything, because the very study of cosmology trumps your claim on that. This where Big Bang Theory unites the study of our universes. Still, even now. No scientist is saying came from nothing. Right there at the singularity (which is a something) they do not say nothing is before that. So you are either a horrible liar or your a parrot munching on jesus crackers.
Evolution has nothing to do with the nonexistence of God. In fact, my copy of The Origin of Species that is sitting on the bookshelf next to me right now cites "the Creator" several times (in a positive light, no less). Why don't you do yourself a favor and read it. I'm growing tired of having to educate people like you.
Okay class.
After Astronomy, lets take out our astrology book.
Then after Chemistry, we can take our our alchemy books!
Then, after all that boring Biology stuff ... I'm going to teach you how god ripped out Adam's rib and created your ancestor Eve.
...and in our earth science segment we will learn how the mighty Mjolnir, when weilded by Thor Odinson, creates thunder and lightning!
We will also begin our exploration of the anatomical structures unique to dragons and unicorns...
Prepare for Ragnarok all ye who mock Thor the hairy thunderer. And for all those who really want to know, it was Vishnu who created the world.. Now lets get out there and have a good old fashioned christian book burning.........WoooHooo!!!!!!!!
Intelligent Design is the anti-science
Science attempt to use observation and experimentation to explain the world.
Intelligent Design already knows the answer, to any topic, without even the need to know what the topic is. "God did it" is the answer, end of story. You will have to forgive me if a generic answer that fits any and all situations does not satisfy people who are actually intelligent and looking for real answers for our lives.
Ah, the continued dumbing down of American. What crap are they going to teach our children next, that trickledown economics works?
Yes that's it...give tax cuts to the rich and maybe they'll create jobs for us.
That makes sense doesn't it?
Montana
I think ModDem would agree with you .... unless I'm missing something?
ahhhhh i get it.....liberal boo hoo hoo time...why didnt i see it sooner? ok ill grab the kleenex... make a few calls for a truck load of pampers.
MontanaDem
Maybe they will create jobs? Who do you think created your job? (assuming you even have one) Do you think it was some low income couch potato who likes to sit on his computer all day and bitch and moan about how he thinks he should get a tax break instead of someone who has worked hard all their life? Or do you think it was the person who DID work hard all their life an built a buisness from the ground up?
Bill55
So people who don't own businesses with employees don't work hard their whole lives? Everyone who does own a business with employees worked hard to get it? The rich person with lots of employees didn't get rich off the blood and sweat of the labor of other people? Your assumptions leave alot to be desired.
The jobs existed before the employer, you know. Did the first human feed himself with a paycheck, at the local grocery store? Nope. Worked to gather, prepare, store, food etc. Built shelter with a contractor? Nope. Worked, built it him/herself. Humans invented "job" "paycheck" "employer" to control others. And we do a very fine job of letting a very small number of very wealthy people have total control over us and the conditions of our lives.
Oh MY GOSH!!! The jobs existed before the employer? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! OMG Really!!! I guess cars just sort of sprout up out of the ground back in the old days. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Thank you for the laugh.....OMG I can't take it. Oh and paychecks are a way to control others.....STOP!!! I can't take anymore!!!
Verizons Ivan Seidenberg made over 14 million dollars last year and cut 13,000 jobs from the company.......Yeah, trickle down economy works.........They piss on your back and tell you it's raining.
In other news, it's no longer the theory of gravity but Intelligent Falling.
LOL that is a good one.
It's no longer Cell Theory, but Rib Workshop? Okay so that was dry. I don't care. The notion is stupidly ignorant, just like the people who press such time wasting matters. Send in the S.W.A.T. if they want mystery kool-aid to replace mystery meat in the school cafeteria.
The problem isn't that "Intelligent Design" is controversial -- as the lead-in on the article says. The problem is that ID is simply WRONG.
That's because you're an indoctrinated sheep just like the Bible folks that think the world is only 5,000 years old or whatever they claim.
There is no proof that it's wrong. There's no proof that it's right.
Except that there is proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Light travel, glacier cycles, rock cycles, strata study, moutain cycles, magnetosphere cycles, fossil record, oil cycle. That's just to name a few.
So Skepology, when in 1905 the Earth was declared to be 2 billion yrs old, by 1970 it was 3.5 billion and by the 1990's it became 4.6 billion yrs old. So is it possible that scientists will come back one day and say its 8 billion yrs old. Just so you don't attack the 8 billion retort, I was being sarcastic. There contradictions in science non stop. I can see how things evolve in certain ways, it makes sense, but show me the blood line from one man back to the ape. Im waiting......Science shows many wonderful things and explains it in full detail, it amazes me. Science will forever try to explain how this all happened by acciedent but it will never show me 100% that it did. That in one moment there was nothing and then something and how life sprung up from that nothing and then there were apes that morphed into human beings. Its all very fascinating to me but it's just showing me how beautiful ID is and gave us all these capabilties. Obvioulsy a Creasionist will most likely never come up and say "look ma, I found God in this petri dish right here." I have faith that it is ID just like you have faith in the things that you nor any scientist for generations to come will ever explain. I do believe we need to keep religion out of the class room but the door shouldn't be closed to something because science can't explain it, obviously we dont need to slap "God did it" on the label, but a deeper look into ID should be taken if thats the path you are thrown in.
At one time Aristotle suggested that everything was made of pieces of air, water, fire, and earth. That was wrong, but we know that at that time man was thinking about what was matter. The term atom came from the Greeks who thought that there was a invisible thing that could not be broken down further. Until it was. Science took over the very concept or philosophy of matter. Then there was the findings of the proton and neutron. Some thought this was the essential blocks. Until we broke down the protons and neutrons and found quirks. Today we are breaking away at matter and are on the verge of finding that profound connection between Mass and Energy. Hell they may have even found a fifth force. But will you, Mr. Pink, reduce your understanding to Aristotle's (A brilliant man of his time) concept of matter just because we are finding PROOF (PROOOOOFFFF, PROOF, P R O O F, something creationist/id can't even provide) that atoms are not the undividable?
Yes Mr. Pink. If they provided PROOF, and if that PROOF was held to scrutiny, that the earth was 8b years than I would say " They seem to have PROOF, Mr. Pink say it with me Pa Ro Of FFFFa, that the Earth is 8b years old. Do you know what PROOF is Mr. Pink?
And no, Mr. Pink I've not seen any scientist explain things as if it was all an acciedent, because in science it's simple about discorvering what is. Not what should be. You using acciendent is my PROOF that you, Mr. Pink, are jebus cracker munching parrot. Instead of reading about the science the scientist, themselves, have worked hard to obtain. The ones out in the field finding the very things that fuel your crap stained rag of sources, because as far as I know creationist have always been on the defensive since they can only cry about other people findings and not yet even got off their holy butt to find some themselves. You went right to some twat that probably don't even know how focus a microscope and can't even define the scientific method correctly.
BTW we are apes. Homosapien is the species of ape that we are. It's okay though. I know you are just a jebus cracker munching parrot so I'll help you out here. Plus we didn't morphe, we aren't Power Rangers, if you have kids (which, I very much hope they are not home schooled) they are the next step in evolution from you. The genetics that are unique toward themselves is capable of becoming a niche in their future lienages. It's through offspring that evolution progresses, not an individuals morphing like pokemon.
Obvioulsy a creationist will most likely never come up and say "look ma, I found god in this petri dish right here." That's because your idea of god is unfalsafiable and because it is unfalsafiable it is not science. It's as if those two dots, in your head, are just a microspan apart from one another and yet you are trying to connect them by filling the 24,901 mile gap in the other direction.
Mr. Pink, if you like, I can show you something better than a bloodline - direct genetic evidence that can only be explained in the form of common descent. There is a large amount of evidence of this sort, but I will cite what I consider to be (as a biologist) the most convincing evidence:
Humans are apes, but we are genetically unique in that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The rest of the apes have 24. At the level of the DNA, the genetic differences are minor. At the level of a karyotype, every single one of the chromosomes that a Chimpanzee has are grossly identical to our own...with the exception of one. Where did that extra chromosome go? Is it missing? No, it isn't. In fact, it is fused to the end chromosome 2 in Homo sapiens. The genes in each chromosome are identical to the two separate chromosomes in the Chimpanzee, and it even has a vestigial centromere that serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever (since it resulted from the fusion event).
This is unexplainable via Creationism, but explicitly explained via evolutionary theory. The true power of a scientific theory comes in it's ability to both explain and predict natural phenomena. Therefore, this is extraordinarily strong evidence for common descent of man and other ape species.
The second line of evidence that I think it highly convincing is the existence of endogenous retroviral sequences (ERV's) in the genome. These are DNA sequences from retroviruses that are inserted to the genome in a relatively random fashion, subsequently inactivated, and are passed on in the DNA to the offspring of an individual. Therefore, when we look at the ERV's from a number of different individuals, we can construct a picture of common descent, as the ones with identical ERV's would have been descended from the same ancestor. We can look at them to see common descent between you and I, and we can also do the same between two separate species.
What is striking about this, besides the fact that it provides strong evidence for recent divergence between humans and chimpanzees, is that these ERV sequences serve no purpose - they are pathologic. Indeed, they have been associated with autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis in Homo sapiens, and schizophrenia. Therefore, an argument from design for the existence of these sequences is invalid. They are explained only by common descent.
There is much, much, much more evidence where that came from of course - including the existence of dozens of hominid fossils that exhibit transitional characteristics. However, I consider this evidence to be the most impressive because they paint a picture that is hard to ignore. Creationist's have tried, but they have to resort to pseudoscience or an incomplete understanding of genetics to explain them away.
Much easier, I think, is to recognize this as God's method for creating life and to be in awe of the grandeur of it.
Next let's teach that it's acceptable to sell children that are disrespectful into slavery and that it's ok to kill your neighbor that doesn't observe the sabbath. When people complain about this we can then yell that they are discriminating against Christians.
What idiocy! Do what you want in your home and place of worship. Please quit trying to force your ingnorant idiology on the rest of us.
I've been to Tennessee and other parts of the South on many occasions, and if there's anywhere in the entire Universe that refutes the concept of intelligence designing anything, that's it.
 I also believe in intelligent design of the universe.  What I don't believe is that any of the right-wing bible thumpers have any intelligence at all.
As a Tennessean and and Atheist, I'm appalled, but not surprised. After all, TN has a long history of promoting religious beliefs in school in lieu of scientific fact. Remember the Scopes Monkey Trial?
I grew up in Middle Tennessee in the 70's and 80's. I can recall being forced to listen to bible passages being read over the school PA system every morning during a "morning devotional". I remember once at a school wide assembly I dared to challenge a preacher that came to speak about the evils of rock 'n roll. I professed my like for rock and certain groups like Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, etc and I thought that I was a decent, hard-working, intelligent individual with a good moral compass. Later that week, word was going around that I was a devil worshiper. I was so fed up one day that I loudly proclaimed in the hallway that I couldn't possibly be a devil worshiper because I didn't believe in the devil.
Don't get me wrong. I don't care what your religious beliefs are. They're personal and private and cannot be mandated or regulated by any government or official. I have served in the military for 20 years and was proud to defend your right to worship as you see fit and even have many friends that believe in god. But, religion belongs in church, not in school.
Teaching children about science is not the area of expertise for religion due to the very fact that one contradicts the other, just as I wouldn't go to church to hear a preacher or priest talk about particle physics or E=MC2. Any teacher who would try to promote intelligent design instead of evolution isn't very likely to stop there. It would be a short hop to actually proselytizing in school. Intelligent design is still a matter of faith, no matter how much you try to cloak it in science. Teach children the facts. Until religion can provide proof...quantifiable, measurable, identifiable proof of some sort of intelligent design, it's all a matter of faith in what an individual believes.
Science has proved, to those willing to accept it, that man evolved from primates over millions of years. Even if there was an artificial hand in our evolution, it would most likely be from an extraterrestrial origin, which still wouldn't prove the existence of god, only that the universe and our world are much older than religion can allow for, and much more diverse and exotic (religion doesn't like things that are exotic; it takes away from god). Of course, I suppose if extraterrestrial life is ever discovered, then religion will just try to umbrella them in under god's dominion as well. But until then, we have fossils and skeletons and mummified remains and cave paintings and dinosaurs and carbon dating and a slew of other scientific research that tells that this is the way it is.
It's amazing that today, in the 21st Century, after having walked on the moon, harnessed the atom, peered across the universe with the Hubble telescope, cured sickness and disease, made it possible to travel the globe in a matter of hours, examined the very building blocks of matter and DNA, that we still allow superstition and disbelief of factual evidence to push us around.
Well said Kristofer72...
And thank you for your service.
Excellent post Kristofer72! Excellent.
"Science has proved, to those willing to accept it, that man evolved from primates over millions of years"
Actually, it hasn't. It's still a theory, not a "fact". There are still holes and guess work involved in that theory. Anyone holding belief in that theory is putting "faith" into the scientific guess work involved in the theory. No different than those that put their "faith" in the Bible and scienfitic guess work involved in that theory.
I don't see anything wrong with teaching children both sides of the story and allowing them to believe what they want based on the evidence on both sides.
I'm sorry, but no - you're wrong. I hear this all the time from people unfamiliar with science and it is simply not true. I used to explain, in detail, what a scientific theory is and how it is based on facts - but I learned that was often a waste of my time. Hopefully, this simple diagram will suffice:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4414/scimethrn6.png
That is the relationship between a scientific theory and facts. Evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, are based upon an enormous body of facts. But beyond that, it explains those facts via a mechanism and makes predictions which are testable. ID does no such thing, because it is not a scientific theory.
Joe in MN
"I don't see anything wrong with teaching children both sides of the story and allowing them to believe what they want based on the evidence on both sides."
Therein lies the problem, while there is considerable evidence to back up evolution there is nothing to back up intelligent design.
No, a book is not scientific evidence.
Kristofer72,
Your final paragraph is very inspiring. If there is an external God (I follow Heinlein, myself), these accomplishments are the very reason HeSheIt gave the human race free will, intellect, and curiousity. These traits allow us to rise above our animal natures, harness and control our environments, and explore (with scientific deliberation) the myriad wonders of our universe.
I always find it depressing how many "True Believers" have such a limited imagining of their Godhead. Don't they realize that the sort of intellect who could imagine and bring into being such a vast and intricate construct as our Galaxy would have very little need for their worship? No, most seem content to imagine a sort of grandfatherly beard in the sky, handing down arbitrary rules and "thou shalt nots". Ignoring the beauty and truth EVERYWHERE in the environment of which they are a part in favor of pressing their beliefs upon others may be the only true "sin".
Science is humanity's hope for a future. Religion is a static dead-end, as nothing needs to be questioned or examined, as all things are "God's will".
Don't allow anything but science to be taught in taxpayer funded science classes.
Children don't have the reasoning skills or experience to make that kind of judgement. They will choose the theory that seems the most plausible to them, not necessarily the one that is correct. Now, if you want to educate them all to the PhD level in biology and astrophysics, then I'm all for letting them make their own decisions. Until then, however, it is our responsiblility to teach children what is best supported by available evidence.
Let's be honest. The average adult American doesn't have the reasoning skills or experience to make that kind of judgement. Americans are best at watching sporting events and reality shows. They;re really good at memorizing sports stastics too. ESPN has numerous teaching events daily where the average American can educate themselves on who plays what sport, where and how well they play it too. LOL
Great post Kristofer72... time for a beer!
What I don't get kristofer, is I see how science can explain and show in great detail that all these things happened. But does it show irrefutably that it was all an accident, a random happening? Maybe aliens came down and helped create man from an ape or it slowly evolved over time. Please show me the lineage of the man back to the ape blood line. All science is doing is showing me how it happened. It doesn't show me that it was all random and an ID had nothing to do with it. I myself believe in complexities and how that isn't random but that's just my opinion.
Thank you to everyone for your kind words of support and of your own experiences / opinions.
For Joe and Mr. Pink....I don't have all of the answers, but then no one does...not even science. Our evolutionary process occurred over an incredible amount time by our reckoning, and the world / geological events over the course of that time have left us with little go on, but it is enough to know that there was sometime in our past where changes to the primate form were taking place. Given that adaptations were likely happening based on environment or some other mutation that may have been localized genetically, those changes that occurred during the leap from ape to man are most likely lost to time. There may never be a "bloodline" which we can follow. Those evolutionary leaps were most likely not widespread, meaning that the "bridge" which would show the connection is like looking at every grain of sand on all the beaches in all the world for the one grain that is different from all of the rest. And still, it may be gone to dust by now.
But we can look at Neanderthal and Cro Magnon fossils and see ourselves as near cousins, relatively speaking. We can compare them with other fossils of animals that clearly are more advanced than the typical ape as we know them today and see similarities that can't be explained by any religious belief. Those facts by themselves, things that can be measured and quantified, cannot put us in the same neighborhood as events in the bible. These aren't something to take on faith. It's a rational explanation based on reasoning, deduction, and standards of science that work elsewhere in our lives, etc.
How did it happen? I don't know, but that is why we must continue to ask questions and investigate and probe and check our results and so on. If an extraterrestrial intelligence had a hand in it, you could say that there was intelligent design. Hurray! You Intelligent Design believers would be right! But...where did they come from? Are they worthy of our worship if they're just some interstellar scientists who were just passing through? Do they want our worship? Are we worthy of their attentions now given our history of violence and greed and abuses of power?
As for teaching both to evolution and intelligent design to children and letting them decide for themselves....bad idea in my opinion. If we teach intelligent design, which faith do we pull our curriculum from? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Seek-ism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Paganism, etc? There are too many religious faiths to cover all of them fairly and it would be an undo burden on teachers who are already burdened with teaching something based on factual evidence and facing budget cuts and everything else. Like I said before, religion belongs in church, or, in the homes of those that believe. You don't have the right use government money to promote your religious belief.
What we really need is some "Intelligent Design" in our educational systems. What do we mean by "education". Rote learning? Memorization of "truth"? Creative, open inquiry? Some combination of both?
And what is "science"? If the definition is based on the scientific method, and if evolution is scientific, then let students apply the method and see if the doctrine holds up.
I currently do not like the idea of teaching evolutionism or creationism in grades K-12. I think those topics should be left for the college level.
In grades K-12 we can teach students the scientific method. Let them find and interpret evidence and learn to think like scientists. This should be acceptable to scientists because it is the method they promote. It should also be acceptable to Christians because "Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1-3). This is a non-doctrinaire approach. It should encourage both sides to dialogue with each other instead of hurling accusations and talking past each other.
The Bible actually says quite a lot on the theme of testing and searching. Some samples:
Does not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food?—Job 12:11
The naive believes everything, but the prudent man considers his steps.—Prov 14:15
I [Solomon] directed my mind to know, to investigate, and to seek wisdom and an explanation. —Ecc 7:25
. . . think so as to have sound judgement.—Rom 12:3
Be putting yourselves to the test whether you are in the Faith. Be putting yourselves to the test for the purpose of approving yourselves, and finding that you meet the specifications, put your approval upon yourselves. —2 Cor 13:5, Wuest
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. —1Thes 5:21
Test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. —1John 4:1-3
There are also many Biblical examples of people using this approach, and doing so with God’s approval:
Abraham questioned God to better understand His righteousness and mercy. (Genesis 18:22-33) God answered the questions and participated in the discussion. God did not say “Look Abraham, I am God of the Universe. Trust me. I’ll do the right thing.”
Gideon made sure of God’s will with a cross-over test involving dew on fleece and even surreptitiously listened to his enemies. Why didn’t he just believe God the first time? —Judges 6:36-40, 7:9-18; 6:14
David repeatedly asked various people what the reward would be for slaying Goliath. He also rejected Saul’s armor because he did not have time to test it.—1Samuel 17:20-30, 39
Solomon experimented with the pleasures of wine, women, song, and empire building. (Ecclesiastes chapter 2) Solomon was given wisdom by God. Couldn’t he “just know” these things without running expensive experiments? (cf. Daniel 7:16)
Thomas was not present when Jesus first appeared to the disciples after his resurrection and was not convinced that the disciples had actually seen Jesus. Although Thomas was one of the twelve apostles, he still wanted first-hand evidence that he could test himself. Jesus invited him to do so, and then reminded the disciples “You are witnesses of these things.” (John 20:19-29, Luke 24:36-43)
The apostle Paul gave proofs of the resurrection of Christ for he said “If Christ has not been raised . . . . we are of all men most to be pitied.” —1Corinthians chapter 15
These people were trying to convince themselves of something, pro or con. They sought out evidence and put it to the test. If they could not examine the evidence, how could they make a decision, except based on the emotions of the moment, and perhaps influenced by the various blindspots and prejudices we all possess?
Jesus used a similar approach. However, he was trying to convince, not himself, but others. He offered the evidence and appealed to others to do the testing (he did not shame them for not believing): ‘If you do not believe me, believe my works’ (John 10:37-38, 14:11) He was saying in effect, Perhaps you cannot see my close relationship with my heavenly Father, but you can at least see what I do, and then believe because of that.
When talking to a group of Pharisees (whom he bluntly called a “brood of vipers”) he said “a tree is known by its fruit” and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Mat 12:33-37, NKJ). We cannot see what is in a person’s heart, but we can see the deeds they actually do, and we can hear the actual words that come out of the mouth. These allow us to know whether the heart is full of good things or evil things. These tangible things bespeak an underlying reality. We can perceive that invisible reality if we examine the visible evidence.
None of these passages use technical terms like "scientific method" or "falsifiable hypothesis". But I think the ultimate effect is much the same.
The debates about whether evolutionism/Creationism is true are really irrelevant. The real issue is about power and indoctrination, not how students use scientific methodology, no matter what side you are on. That is why I do not like the idea of teaching evolutionism or creationism in grades K-12.
See also:
"One Christian's Perspective on Quantum Mechanics" (a student paper) at:
scripturalphysics.org/thirdgenerationphysics/ReflectiveEssay.html
"What is Scriptural Physics" at:
scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/whatissp.html
Brian, Evolution is not a "ism" that depends on you believing in it or not. It is actually a very large and diverse body of scientific knowledge. What your tiny little mind thinks of as evolution is Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Modern evolution biology includes fields such as genetics, ecology, plate tectonics, biochemistry, population genetics, etc. that were non-existant in Darwin's day. Evolution is the change in genetic makeup of populations of organisms over time. Speciation, which was Darwin's focus, is one aspect of it. You actually know less than nothing about modern evolutionary biology because you're brain is full of misconceptions.
Go ahead and indulge yourself in religious psychobabble, but keep your religion out of public schools, except in course that compare the various religions and their belief systems.
You're right. It's not an "ism". It's a theory.
Here are some cold hard facts- Darwin no longer believes in Evolution.You want seperation of church and state-you will soon get it,but you won't like it.You don't like all these Christians around you telling you about Creationism-when the Rapture hits,you got your wish.Oh,by the way,you are really not going to like who takes His place here on earth during the Tribulation.A sure sign for you Atheists and non-believers is this- you will be required very soon to receive a mark on your hand or forehead.Without it you will not be able to buy anything.It's in that Book that you say is a fable.When we are gone and this happens you can look it up.I am sure this is just a coincidence that it was predicted thousands of years ago.We will see who is "intelligent" then.The fool says in his heart" there is no God".
It is a theory in the same sense as the theory of electricity. We know it is true, and it is more along the lines of an axiom, but somehow the theory tag stuck to it.
"Darwin no longer believes in Evolution."
That's because he's dead.
And no Darwin did not recant evolution at the end. That lie was refuted long ago. Not that it matters whether Darwin believed any of it or not. He was just one scientist who had a successful idea. The science has progressed beyond anything he would even recognize since then.
"And what is "science"? If the definition is based on the scientific method, and if evolution is scientific, then let students apply the method and see if the doctrine holds up."
That's fine with me, but that is not what creationists want to do. They want to present creationism (ID) as an equally viable scientific alternative to evolution, which would be an outright lie. But teenage students or even younger are perfectly capable of grasping the scientific method. It really isn't that difficult, if it is explained well and they get interactive experience. I still remember my first grade class doing an experiment on comparing plant you put in the closet vs. the window sill.
Indeed jock, when people bring up that ID should be taught as science I now reply:
Sure thing! Show me a single scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed, respectable scientific journal that supports Intelligent Design and I will 100% support the teaching of it in a science class.
*crickets*
LMFAO @ statisticman's hate filled garbage! What a hoot!
You better check the source of your "facts." Darwin never recanted evolution. That's typical christian revisionist tripe.
We already have separation of church and state per the Constitution and I like it just fine. What I don't like are those who blatantly violate the separation of church and state by trying to push religious dogma into our schools or government/laws.
ROTFLMAO!!! Congratulations. You have effectively demolished any credibility you may have had by invoking such nonsensical proselytization. It also makes for good comedy.
Guess what? That book is still a fable!
The wise man says: "Show me the proof!" So, are you wise enough to prove there's a god?
53-0403
THE.CRUELTY.OF.SIN.AND.THE.PENALTY.THAT.IT.COST.TO.RID.SIN.FROM.OUR.LIVES—
JEFFERSONVILLE.IN V-25 N-4 FRIDAY_
43 What's He doing? He's writing His first Bible. The
first Bible was ever written, was written in the skies, the zodiac. It starts
out with the virgin; that's how He come first. It ends up with Leo the lion, the
second coming. And He's writing His first Bible.
The second Bible was written, was written by Enoch, and put in the pyramid.
The third Bible was written, and the last one, is this One.
[Brother Branham indicates his
Bible--Ed.]
God always does things in threes.
God is perfect in three. He's perfect. [Brother Branham clears his throat--Ed.] Pardon me. He's perfect in Father, Son, Holy Spirit. He's perfect in justification, sanctification, baptism of the Holy Spirit. He's perfected in His
threes.
We are in His making, so we are perfected in three: soul, body, and spirit. And our body's controlled of--of
nerves, of blood, and of cells (flesh): three. All perfected in
three...
goldsmith-soul and spirit are the same thing. I think you meant mind, body, and soul. Still rather ridiculous.
Also, nerves and blood are also made of cells. I think you need to take your meds.
53-0729
QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS.ON.GENESIS— JEFFERSONVILLE.IN COD
WEDNESDAY_
176 Here's the message we have here. Jesus was Jehovah inveiled in flesh, come down
inveiled. Now, God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) is not like your finger, one,
like some people thinks it. The whole thing's just like... No, God is... I just
unfolded it for you awhile ago (See?); that there's a trinity in the
One. I'm a trinity in one. I'm soul, body, and spirit in one person. Is
that right? Sure. I'm--I'm made up of--of cells, blood, and nerves, and yet one
being. See? Everything you look at is in a trinity, and a trinity in
one. There was a trinity in the ark: the bottom floor, the creeping things; the second floor for the fowls, flying
things; and the third floor for the Noah and his family.
Everything...In the tabernacle there was a
congregation, the holy place, the holiest of holy. See?
And there's been three dispensations: the Fatherhood, the Sonship, and the Holy Spirit dispensation. See
what I mean? But those three all... We don't say, "our Gods." That's heathen,
and the Jew knows that. But when you can make it to him that this Jesus is God,
Jehovah God, not a second person or a third person; it's the same Person all the
time making Hisself manifest... See? And then with signs and wonders to prove
that Jesus has rose from the dead...
54-0216
JAIRUS.AND.DIVINE.HEALING— WOOD.RIVER.IL TUESDAY_
E-23
You know, I've often thought, back here is the spirit of a man, the next is his soul, the next is his
mind, and then his flesh. All right. Satan does not tempt down in here, he
tempts out here in the flesh. For instance, you go down the street tomorrow,
you're walking along singing Christian songs, and somebody says, "You know, she
or he, is just a hypocrite (talking about you.); there's nothing..." Now, the
first thing, your flesh picks that up in the ear, and it suggest to the mind,
"Get even with him." Time it gets back here, he says, this back here says,
"'Vengeance is Mine,' saith the Lord. 'I will repay.'" See? That's it.
So Satan tempts out here. You see? He doesn't get down here, because is immortal. See? It's the flesh that he tempts.Young man going down the street, young Christian boy, a young lady coming immorally dressed. The eye picks it up; the flesh suggest to the mind evil. Then time it gets to the mind, goes to the soul, the nature's good... The soul of man is the nature of the spirit, of course. And so, when the soul
gets there, but the spiritsays, "Whoever looketh upon a woman to lust after has committed adultery in his heart already." The young man turns his head and walks away. See? That's down here is where it's
got to be, not out here. It's got to be down in your heart, where it's got to come from, where--where God lives.
My children go to a private, Episcopal school. I am a Methodist, but raised in Assembly of God. I am all for seperation of church and state. Because I believe in equality, I can't see our Government supporting prayer in public schools, etc... because then you'd have to cater to all religions. Our Country was founded on Freedom of Religion, which means ALL religions.
I'm also very much, at the age of 52, excited by science. I very much believe in logic and common sense. Along with that comes the idea of, if it can be proven, then it's factual. The "intelligent design" theory can not be proven, evolution can and has. Just recently, our scientists have found creatures living thousands of feet below the oceans surface, where no other entity could survive. These creatures learned to thrive under the weight of thousands of pounds per square inch by how?.. evolution. The organisms that live in and around lava flows and vents, thrive on acidic liquids and heat, how? evolution.
Someone also made the statement of "where did all the gases come from for the big bang to happen"?... If they were just a little bit more informed, they'd know there were no gases for the big bang theory to happen. It all started from a the tiniest of particles, the Atom. This atom was so dense, that it would have been so heavy, it couldn't have been weighed. If you took a teaspoon of the material of a neutron star, it would weigh more than a fully loaded dump truck. That scale is hard to imagine. So many people believe the "big bang" was an explosion. It was not. It was the rapid expansion of space, from that single atom. For me, that's where "my" God comes in. Like it was said, that atom had to come from somewhere. For me, God held his hands out and made a mighty clap of his hands, into that atom, then space rapidly expanded. According to scientists proven theories, it's still expanding today, which also goes against the guys statement in another post that said the world was only 10,000 years old. Science has already dated the Earth to be billions of years old, that we're sure of. All we know, has come from that expansion. We, as humans, were made from the star dust of a supernova. The material of star dust, blown away from a dying star, makes up all the molecules in our body. The iron, calcium, H2O, all from a dying star. This has been proven by the scientific community. Energy is never used up, only transformed into something else.
So, though I belive in God, my perspective on life and evolution also has a scientific approach. The Catholic church also believes in this theory. The Catholic church has a huge observatory where they study our Universe themselves. Until you can prove your theory of "intelligent design", as a theory that works out mathmatically, then it's hard for the general population to understand what it is you preach. Proof, as in court, is all it takes for you to say the justice system to teach your theory.
Southern Snipe,
I like your post. A lot.
So, the large percentage of Americans who don't progress beyond high school will have no knowlege of evolution? That means that they'll be sucked into the clutches of their ministers with no hope of escape.
Joe Mota, you must have been picked on a lot in school Huh? It shows how small your little brain is when you attack him right away becuase your ego was challenged. Why dont you come with your evidence to refute his opinion. We're all having a debate that neither side will win and you come off with name calling. Nice, still in school are we?
The Pope accepts evolution as fact. Why not these 'nut jobs?'
Do I hear Dueling Banjos playing in the background? Yep, I thought so.
Wow...a truly original, never used Southern joke. So, teachers being allowed to teach an alternative view to what our esteemed "scholars" tell them they have to present as FACT without fear of being punished or fired is a bad thing? Communism, anyone?? If students in America today are so ignorant that they can't handle more than one idea as to the origin of our absolutely amazing universe and decide for themselves, then we certainly are in trouble. Then again, anyone who can simply accept that all they see when they look around this world happened by chance without considering how virtually mathematically impossible that is probably enjoys a life of elitist emptiness that isn't really concerned with the future of this country anyway.
By the way, have you ever even tried to play a guitar or banjo? I suppose it makes no difference to you either that Deliverance was neither set in nor filmed in Tennessee. And no, I don't live there myself.
Don da Don don dan don Dan don dan... Dudta tuta tuta Tuta tuu (bumm bumm ba bumm)...
gimmeabreak
We exist in an effectively infinite universe. Therefore, nothing is "effectively mathematically impossible".
An infinity of possibilities yields an infinity of results.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that an external "God" created the whole thing 10000 years ago. But there is no proof of that statement.
There are, however, proofs that the universe and the Earth itself are much, much older than 10000 years old.
There is no physical evidence, anywhere, of a being, or intellect, we could call "God".
There is, however, physical evidence that supports the theory that everything "just randomly happened". The fossil record is full of evolutionary dead ends, overspecialized species who couldn't adapt . . .
(sigh). . . I'm wasting my time, aren't I.
One of the hallmarks of science is the inquiring (open) mind, but once men and women commit themselves to a career in "science", it seems they often lose their open mind and accept the narrow realities that their reading in school has taught them.
Umm - Yes - an open / inquiring mind. No people in science do not 'lose thier open mind', etc.
What happens to scientists is that they require scientific method to propose a theory or to prove a 'fact'. A fact IS NOT when one waves a magic wand, has a strong belief in something unprovable via scientific method or decide that something scientific is fact simply because it's written in a religous text. You are confusing feelings, beliefs and emotional response with scientific fact and scientific theory.
Nothing about God creating the heavens and the earth is provable via scientific method. That the heavens and earth exist IS provable via scientific method. There is a substantial difference between the two. You are clearly getting the two concepts mixed up.
I have a degree in Chemistry, but I like reading about intelligent design theory...it responds to some doubts I have about biology and some feelings about the Great Spirit that conventional biology doesn't speak to...everything can't be answered by calculus and equations...
The usual lousy coverage of a subject like this. Let a Creationist spout about "fairness" without any rebuttal from a scientist. Let's be clear:
* This is not about a science based challenge to a scientific belief. This is about taking a thinly disguised set of religious claptrap that has been repeatedly debunked by experts a veneer of respectability so that religion can be taught in public schools.
* This effort, as with many such efforts going on in states, is funded by a bunch of extreme right wing religious nuts who wouldn't know what science is if it bit them in the butt.
* The "evolution doesn't explain everything, so let's teach creationism" argument is basically saying "Let's abandon a theory that has enormous predictive power and is the basis for most biological research because we can't yet make it go out to the tenth decimal place. And let's replace it with a theory that has no predictive capability and no basis in fact!"
* And while we're on logical fallacies, let's add the "argument from ignorance" to the pile - it's a favorite of the Creationists: "I don't understand / know how this can happen, therefore it doesn't happen!" As in "I don't understand how vision can evolve in an organism, so God must have made it happen!" (In fact, evolutionary models show how vision would evolve almost embarrassingly quickly. Sensing your surroundings a bit better than your rivals is a huge survival advantage.)
It's worth looking at at least the summary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision, where the court went carefully though the issues and determined that:
* "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" and
* "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
The summary and a link to the decision can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.
I can't even bring myself to read the article after spotting FOUR spelling errors in the caption. Someone is obviously not doing their job. The funny thing is that they fixed two of them but were still unable to correct the others!
I suspect they were educated in Tennessee. Perhaps that's "intelligent spelling". Or "creationist spelling".
They replaced the grammer class with tounges speaking :D balahahhhaha Jebus nanaghty manus wezars piiiinnnklyssss grrrrr grrr wahhhahaha club soda . That was my thesis. I got an A++.
All I have to say is:
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
What is wrong with these people!? The reason there is no debate in Science class about the theory of evolution is because it's a SETTLED issue. Any true/objective scientist must accept evolution, not because of dogma or peer-pressure, but because it is what the science supports. Why is this not obvious to these ignoramuses?
What people normally think of as the theory of evolution is just Darwin's theory of the origin of species by natural selection. Modern evolutionary biology encompasses over a dozen scientific disciplines most of which didn't exist in Darwin's time. Like Genetics, molecular biology, ecology, plate tectonics, ethology, population genetics, ecological genetics. In modern terms, evolution is about the changes in relative gene frequencies within and between populations of organisms, and the mechanisms by which that happens. It's way more than just Darwin's theory. What's remarkable about Darwin is that his basic theory has been validated by thousands of studies over 150 years of scientific advancement.
Sorry Joe, not true. Darwin himself refuted his own theory. ID addresses the origins of life and if you have an open mind...........then look up something called "The Truth Project".
In a nut shell the odds that "life just happened" by random chance are 1 in 10 to the 174th power.
When a single celled organism formed it had DNA, the odds of DNA forming out of randomness are less than say if a tornado went through a junk yard and built a 747.
Yeah, no he didn't. Where did you hear such utter nonsense? And even if he did, that wouldn't matter- he was one scientist. The modern synthesis takes his original theory above and beyond what he proposed. Go take a course in biology.
You are talking about abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are two different theories. If you want to debate evolution, then address evolutionary theory specifically. If you want to debate abiogenesis, than address abiogenesis specifically. As it is, you just contribute to muddying the waters further in the debate.
I can't wait to hear about the TN science teacher who challenged evolution by teaching about creationism - but not the biblical version. I want that teacher to teach the creation myth of another religion as if it were the most viable option. I want to see the parents up in arms and demanding this teacher be fired for steering them away from Christ and into the hands of the devil!
Then I want to hear the principal tell them, "Sorry. You wanted the teachers protected if they challenged evolution so we can't fire him."
That's truly excellent. I'm going to move to TN, get a teaching job, and teach that I am Satan and I've trapped the entire Earth in the Fifth Bolgia of Dante's Hell. And I'll be protected! (Plus, my theory has at least as much empirical proof backing it as does intellegent design.)
how can teachers be 'objective' about intelligent design, when they can't even speculate about what the 'intelligence' is, without invoking god, which is hardly an objective subject. Intelligent design requires the existence of god, an entity which has not and probably cannot be put into scientific terms. This is all about trying to bring religion into public schools, which our constitution strictly forbids.
Intelligent design is the stupidest idea to come along since the Iquisition.
Is it obligatory to say that nobody expects intelligent design?
Why is it obligatory? Because you aren't intelligent
Stupidest??? Iquisition???? Are you the posterboy for Evolution?
When you miss a reference that many millions of people understand, and insult someone due to this lack of awareness, it does not reflect well upon you.
There is a double standard when it comes to evolution and the teaching or non-teaching of it. Let's say that a science teacher wished to provide arguments both for and against evolution. In most states it would not be possible unless the teacher was also willing to lose his job. Why? Mostly, it is because the phrase "intelligent design" is both perceived and constructed as a cover for a religious agenda. Public schools are not supposed to endorse any particular religion, so for most educational administrators, that's that.
From a scientific point of view, the theory of evolution is exactly that: a theory. What is taught in schools with respect to science is not necessarily just what is incontrovertibly true; it can also include what is believed to be true among a majority of scientists. For instance, up until the 1950's and 1960's, the consensus of the scientific community was that the geologic formations of Earth were developed over eons of time during which the relentless forces of the cooling of the Earth's crust, volcanic activity, and the like resulted in the shape of our planet. Then came along a new school of thought which was largely not accepted at the time but which is now the dominant theory with respect to one of the other important forces that has shaped and will shape our planet, namely asteroids and other space debris. The question is should this new view of planet dynamics have been taught in the 1960's when it was in dispute right alongside the older evolutionary approach? Should Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision have been available in school libraries to represent such a viewpoint, flawed or not? Should it have been a matter of academic freedom to teach it then?
Withholding such teaching today would be regarded as backward, ossified thinking; but such an observation unveils an important fact about public education: it is for the most part parochial, doing obeisance to whatever happens to be fashionable at the moment. We see it in every school across the nation when teachers tell their students in the most condescending manner, “Everyone’s a winner!” and when they exclaim, “Good job!” when a student merely breathes. It is our current fashion to view every child as confidence-challenged and as a victim of some sort or another, so we tailor our teaching to address what is widely agreed to be the “correct” diagnosis of what ails the American population of school children.
The essential question is whether or not educational institutions should be places where a variety of schools of thought can be taught, leaving the decision as to how much weight one should assign to any particular theory to the students themselves. We do this in the disciplines of economics, in literature, in music, in art, and others…except for history. In the teaching of history for instance, a subject whose purpose many educators believe to be the building of good citizenship as much as to teach about the past, instructors say that the United States doesn't have a class structure and everyone has equal opportunities. This is greatly disputed by a large portion of the American population based on real life experiences, and it remains in some areas factually untrue. Yet, history teachers across America repeat these assertions in the face of undeniable contradictions to the veracity of such instruction. In these cases the consensus of the "experts" with respect to the correctness of the teaching has little or nothing to do with whether or not such is taught. So, in essence, what is preferred to be taught by the educational cognoscenti is delivered in the classroom regardless of the demonstrable facts or errors of the matter.
Science teaching seems to want to have the same free pass. Science, like clothing, goes through various fashions over time. A few hundred years ago, inducing bleeding was believed by scientists to be medically sound treatment for many diseases, and only a couple of generations ago eggs were thought to be about as toxic as eating a bucket of lard. Now, bleeding is (mostly) ill-advised, and egg critics have newfound religion. No single generation of scientists represents the total repository of truth, and for either present day scientists or those who take sides in the evolution debate and who do so to advance specific agendas, whether for or against religion, to pretend to be such is utterly disingenuous. Facts will eventually be found out, one way or the other, and their veracity needs no assistance from human prejudice on either side of the fence. Some day one or more enterprising scientists will come up with the silver bullet that puts to rest the dispute over evolution vs. intelligent design. The advocates of the victorious side will strut and gloat; and the losing side will retreat, lick its collective wounds, and then try to spin it with the belief that the public is immensely stupid and
incapable of seeing a naked king for what he is.
If a teacher wants to present intelligent design as an opposing view to the theory of evolution, he should be allowed to do so with the caveat that he presents all offered viewpoints with the same vigor, intellectual honesty, completeness, and fairness. Failure to do that and only that would be a violation of his obligation to teach and not merely to indoctrinate.
Science doesn't go through various fashions, it looks for new data and updates existing Theories and ideas about the physical world. This isn't a matter of free speech but a matter of encouraging teachers to miseducate their students with drivel like ID and biblical creation. You can believe anything you want, but it ain't science.
Intelligent Design is merely an attempt by people who believe in religious doctrine to rationalize that belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's nothing scientific about it.
Evolution is an advanced concept and should be introduced after students have some scientific understanding of plants and animals and reproduction (yes, SEX, that should drive you religious nuts batty), along with some knowledge of earth science so they understand a little bit about fossils. Darwin might be appropriate for high school.
I largely agree with the quote:
"If a teacher wants to present intelligent design as an opposing view to the theory of evolution, he should be allowed to do so with the caveat that he presents all offered viewpoints with the same vigor, intellectual honesty, completeness, and fairness. Failure to do that and only that would be a violation of his obligation to teach and not merely to indoctrinate".
My main concern is that K-12 students do not yet have the judgement and experience to weigh evidence from different viewpoints accurately if they are being taught opposing theories from a teacher with a specific ideological agenda.
I am an evolutionary biologist by training, and I remain so because the vast expanses of evidence indicate that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life. It explains everything beautifully, is testable, and can (and has been) observed in real time. I have no allegiance to evolution itself. If a more reasonable theory is proposed that can be empirically tested, and it is shown to be superior, then I for one would happily renounce evolution in exchange for the alternative. That is how Science works.
Unfortunately, reasonable alternative explanations for the origin of life do not exist. Intelligent Design is a gargantuan failure as a scientific theory. The only testable aspect that has been proposed has failed. I'm talking of course about irreducible complexity. Aside from that failure of a testable hypothesis, the rest of the theory amounts to admitting "if it's complicated, then God (or the the designer) did it".
So, although I don't think Evolution should be taught dogmatically, there really is no other reasonable Scientific alternative with which to compare it. Any unbiased comparison between it and another 'theory' is just silly. Until a reasonable alternative exists, I find it hard to believe that 'teaching the controversy for the sake of Science' isn't just another way to impose illogical superstitious thinking on our students when they should be learning what Science really is all about.
Funny...from a scientific point of view a theory is one step away from a law...however, you are using the term as though you are describing an hypothesis. Don't you find it odd that people never question the THEORY of relativity? I have an idea...let's get all of the nutty "it's just a theory" people parading around like they have an inkling of what science is and stand them next to an atomic bomb to "test" this silly theory of relativity. Any takers?
RD12
Yours is one of the most intelligent posts I've read in quite some time, concerning this issue. Absolutely fair and truthful.
Those who oppose such a viewpoint have obvious issues with religion, as they cannot understand, that religion or not, science has not yet been able to prove exactly how the universe or mankind came into existence.
Until that time comes beyond any doubts, I believe both sides of this issue should be discussed objectively to provide a fair portrayal of what humanity believes. Anything less is a disservice to students.
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with how the universe came into existence. But besides that, yes, we have thoroughly demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever the method by which mankind came into existence. Unless, of course, you are referring to "existence" in more of a metaphysical sense, and not simply the origin of the human species.
"If a teacher wants to present intelligent design as an opposing view to the theory of evolution, he should be allowed to do so with the caveat that he presents all offered viewpoints with the same vigor..."
But ID cannot be presented with the same scientific vigor or intellectual honesty as evolution, because it doesn't HAVE such vigor or honesty. It isn't even a falsifiable scientific hypothesis, and it has ZERO scientific evidence or even theory to support it. It's ONLY purpose is to force reality into compliance with the Bible.
That being said, it IS prevalent in our culture and students will be exposed to it either way, so I think high school students are old enough to discuss the issue, and be shown WHY evolution is a valid scientific theory and ID is not. The sooner we teach students to think for themselves and really understand the process of science, the better off we will be with an educated citizenry.
If "intelligent design" could ever come up with something useful then that aspect or element of it might be appropriate. But teaching it in an unbiased manner would equate to saying it's a bunch of crap. That is not what these teachers want to do, they want to present it as if it is the only possible alternative to evolution and then try and present nonsensical interpretations of biology in order to convince students "the alternative" is true.
As it is, I think ID should be taught in a class, along with astrology and superstition and geocentrism, which dissects them and teaches students how they are illusory and why people are prone to believe in such things even though they are false.
Don Robetello,
You said:
I agree with your observation, but I don't think that it is sufficient reason to refute my original assertion that the teacher has to give equal weight to each view that is presented in a classroom setting. If the tenderness of one's age is the basis for withholding certain topics from a classroom, then where would one draw the line? For example, aside from the fact that most college freshmen are 18 years old and at an age of majority, there is no real psychological or emotional difference that comes about in the three months between the time that a high school senior becomes a college freshman. Should certain topics be withheld from college freshmen? No college I know of would accept that, yet they are dealing with the same adolescents that high schools dealt with only 90 days before.
Teaching is not a matter of shielding people from notions, ideas, concepts, and the like because of their age. If that were the case, there would be no sex education in elementary and middle school. In fact, sex education, as an example, is taught at an age that educators believe is one at which the mind would be more of a factor than one's hormones. If the intended purpose of sex education is to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies, then it is clear that there is an intentional asynchronicity with respect to the timing of the teaching and the need or ability to appreciate the significance of it.
In this article the issue is what is occurring in Tennessee. I have been in Tennessee, and it is a part of the country where religion is very important to a lot of people; moreover the form of religion taught is one that favors intelligent design. So, let's accept for the moment your premise that the students are incapable of weighing the evidence fairly because of age and inexperience. If a classroom teacher presents only evolutionary material in a science class, he is not presenting that information in a vacuum. The student's family, friends, and religious instructors may all disagree with the veractiy of what the teacher has presented and likely would disparage both it and the teacher for making the presentation. The child gets two messages like it or not and is thrust into a situation requiring it to take the side of the teacher or the family and religious teachers. A choice must be made by the child, like it or not. The question is whether or not the child will be able to make an informed choice that rings true in his own mind or one that simply is the result of giving in to the forces that exert the most pull on him.
Most teaching in American schools is contextual by nature. For instance we don't go out of our way to teach about the manners one should exhibit if royalty should cross our path as might occur in England, the customary response of businesses when a daily call to prayer occurs as would happen in Iran, or the ways to carve blubber from a walrus as might be of significance to Arctic dwellers. There are some things that are more important and which have more currency in different parts of the world. Intelligent design is important in Tennessee as is evidenced by the ability the legislation has displayed to get as far as it has. Should the permissibility of the teaching of intelligent design in Tennessee be snuffed out because California educators are afraid it will spread to them as if it were a bad case of cooties? Regional differences exist, the job of the educator should be to address in a dispassionate manner the foundations of these regional idiosyncrasies so that a person can truly make an informed decision.
The only reason that I can see for the posts appearing in response to this article, apart from yours which is well reasoned, that belie a kind of visceral dislike for the presentation of intelligent design is an equally visceral dislike of religion or at least a particular form of religion often closely associated with what is often called "creationism." I am not defending creationism, and in fact I am persuaded that evolutionary principles are closer to the truth than others for the reasons you cite, but the issue here is not the correctness of a viewpoint. Rather it is the freedom or lack thereof to present alternatives to the majority view.
I indicated in my original post that the obligation of the teacher is to present all views with their pros and cons with equal vigor and intellectual honesty. Intelligent design's weakness is that it requires a Kierkegaardian "leap to faith" in order for it to be a possibility. That weakness should be presented alongside its other positive or negative attributes. Teaching intelligent design is not the same thing as teaching religion any more than showing an image of Michelangelo's "Pieta" or Chagall's "White Crucifixion" in a high school art class would be a religious rally.
One cannot teach about the culture and knowledge of humankind without brushing up against human weakness and its various religions which attempt to make sense of the seeming senselessness, brutality, and capriciousness of life. If people fear coming close to religion as a subject that is taboo, then it would seem that they are exhibiting some of the very caricatured behaviors of religious people to which they object. Science should be able to address precisely and without the rancor in which the rest of the world seems to want to engage.
It's really very simple- in science class, teach evolution; in comparative religion class, talk about creationism. What- you say they don';t have courses on comparative religion in high school? Well, then either they start, or they include the material in a course on comparative literature. Oh, religious material cannot be lumped in with, or called, pure literature? Well, then, it can';t be taught in the schools, then , can it? Sorry, there is just no way to call a fairy tale the truth, is there...
Tetrapoda has it right. Science is always, for lack of a better word, evolving. New facts and discoveries open new doors, and human understanding of the universe and our place in it advances.
Religion doesn't advance. Believe what you want, teach it to your children. Taxpayer funded science classes need to teach science, nothing else.
I believe the only people that post in these topics are at the extremes of each side.. and when a moderate opinion happens to bless the readers with an intelligent synopsis or approach to compromise, that opinion is instantly berated to show its insignificance so that the extremes can further argue in order to be "right".
we preach tolerance and understanding to our children, but when something so harmless as teaching another concept of human existence is brougth forth, it is ostracized due to its religious foundation. Teaching ID in schools will not hurt the children, it just shows a differing viewpoint to the possibility of human's existence being different than a theory created/developed by a devout Christian, yes Darwin was a Christian.
I am a Christian and though I believe in ID, I do not protest the schools in regards to the teaching of evolution because I do not need to fight a battle against a secular concept that ultimately will NOT amount to a hill of beans throughout our lives. No one will ever NOT give you a job because you believe in the evolutionary theory (unless you are trying to teach at a private religious institution, but something tells me you are not doing a good job of searching for employment if that is the case). No one will burn your house down or murder you for believing in the evolutionary theory. No one will segregate you from society for believing in the evolutionary theory, and no one will divorce you for believing in the evolutionary theory.
I believe people go up in arms about this issue more because they are more fearful of what may happen if ID was taught, rather than the constitutionality of it. People do not give a rat's hiney about the constitutionality of something unless (1) it will bring about the downfall of the government (2) they can make money off of it (3) they can get attention for their dramatic behavior or (4) they just want to become glorified, self-indulging, pride ridden attention-getters.
But seriously, what are you afraid of? Do you think your children will turn into mindless automatons? That teaching ID will "convert" them into people who go out of their way to help others selflessly, without question, and without malice? (sarcasm check, i know).
I really do not understand the big deal with teaching this concept. If this was "TRULY" a majority ridden approach to combat a specific educational instruction that was violating the constitution, then I would not post anything on it and let it run its course (but yet it is still debatable, in the public eye, and has proponents to support it), but, in my opinion, the combatants are NOT supporting it due to its unconstitutionality, but rather because of their prejudice towards religiosity.
People just need to get off of their "high horses" and ground themselves in the fact that "we" do not know everything, though many will do their damndest to attest that they do; we should be more humble in our existence on this earth and quit arguing about petty differences that will not stop you from dying when your time comes; and recognize that we all have a right to learn aspects of where we came from... because ultimately, even the theory of evolution is still not proven either.
And, in closing to address "thecryingprophet's" statement, the theory of relativity is still argued, if it was not, then it was be the "Law of Relativity".
Biology and other science classes are for teaching our children scientifically proven facts. Inteligent design is a belief, not a fact. If that is taught it should be in a philosophy class or a comparative religion class. As far as I'm concerned it has no more place in a science class than the teachings of Islam or Scientology.
Glass houses:
Sorry...but your statement is incorrect. A theory will always remain a theory and a law will always remain a law. After 150 years of supporting research the theory of evolution is still a scientific theory; if it was supported by 10,000 years of investigation and research it would still be a theory. This does not make it untrue, it is just the nature of theory in science. ...and no one argues the theory of relativity. We know it to be true, just as we know cell theory to be true, just as we know gravitational theory to be true, just as we know the germ theory to be true. These theories are all predicated on very strong bodies of knowledge, have withstood decades of investigative research and exploration, and allow us to make predictions which can be scientifically tested and verified...just like the theory of evolution.
sorry RD12...
You are proposing that ID is worth comparing to evolution...but one idea is based on science and the other is based on nonsense. All of the historical examples you provide are meaningless regarding this issue, and some of them are completely baseless and misleading. The 'silver bullet' has already been provided by science. Isn't 150 years of scientific scrutiny of evolution enough to settle this issue?!?! Please stop trying to push your bogus Christian/ethnocentric agenda.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Duh?, I am amazed that you and Mr. Robotello think that my mere questioning of the blind and thinly disguised anti-religious sentiment expressed in some of the posts here constitutes my pushing a "bogus Christian/ethnocentric agenda." Would it surprise you if I told you that I do not believe that intelligent design has enough i's dotted and t's crossed to match wits with evolutionary teaching? What I am questioning is the eagerness and frankly unscientific mentality that says we know everything that needs to be known and that everything else should be suppressed simply because we don't like it. There is no real difference between your insistence on the silencing of such teaching and the dogmatism that mediaeval "scientists" exhibited when they were confronted with the observations of Copernicus and his support by advocates such as Galileo Galilei.
The common element in both is the use of coercion. Where science flourishes, coercion is absent. Scientific thinkers are free to consider all options, even those that have been discarded as being errant or misguided. Science does not advance because its participants know ahead of time what it is that they will discover or achieve. It advances because it uncovers things not known beforehand. When ideas are found to be mistaken, they are not suppressed; they are merely disregarded and laid aside. That is the essential difference between what takes place in science versus that which takes place in education and blogs like this.
Education, as I asserted earlier, does not exist just for the sake of imparting knowledge. It exists in part to indoctrinate with the belief that if we provide enough "guidance" for children, they will turn out to be model citizens, thus allowing society to advance in the direction that we prefer. The history of tens of thousands of years of civilization should make us a bit more honest about the success rate of indoctrination. It works only when there is the threat of force, either of the physical or psychological variety, behind it, and even then it only works for a relatively brief time until the people who were determined to keep their world under their thumbs have died off to make way for a new wave of people who are likely to be just as chauvinistic with respect to their own favored views.
In all likelihood after another couple hundred years people will look back on the teaching of intelligent design and wonder why so many people were so upset. They will have come to the quasi-universal conclusion that evolutionary principles are the only ones that make sense, and they will regard the few remaining intelligent design advocates as fringe elements who pose no significant threat to the then current fashions of thought. They will have arrived at that point because the tide of science was with them and against intelligent design, but they will be able to abide the continuing presence of intelligent design advocates without the rancor and name calling that seems to be so necessary here today.
This really is an issue of democracy, not science. I believe that if students were given the option of learning about evolution and about intelligent design side by side and could see the strengths and weaknesses of both views, they would choose evolution. The tenets of intelligent design are weighted heavily toward poking holes in the corpus of evolutionary facts. It only attempts to present a non-polemic side after it has fired all its bullets first. Evolutionary theory would be able to accommodate nearly all of the objections of advocates of intelligent design if the proponents of evolutionary theory would respond by simply saying that we don’t know everything about everything but such being the case, the objections of intelligent design do not vitiate the overwhelming evidence of our being on the right track. Is it not possible to allow intelligent design to be given exposure in the classroom such that its abundant weaknesses are made as evident as its purported strengths, thereby opening up the possibility that this needless carping could end in a single generation once and for all? Why not take a lesson from the children who are supposed to be the “protected” group in this discussion. If you tell a child he cannot have something, in all likelihood it will only elevate its desirability in his eyes. If you tell a generation that it cannot learn about intelligent design, it only will have the effect of making it to appear as a suppressed “truth” and thereby serve to perpetuate it perceived potential scientific value and its longevity. It sort of reminds one of the apple and Eve.
Hi RD12,
No I am not surprised to find out that you are not a staunch ID supporter. In fact, I agree with you completely that Scientific theories should always be tested and refined with new introduction of new evidence, or even discarded entirely in favor of other 'better' theories. That is how Science works.
I am quite young, so High School was only ~15 years ago or so for me. I can say with absolute certainty that I was more impressionable then compared to now and that I would have had a hard time separating facts from fantasy had the fantasy been presented in a way that ID is today. So I agree that if ID was compared to evolution in an unbiased fashion is high school Science class, there would be nothing to be worried about since it is an absolute embarrassment/joke of a theory. I think where you are mistaken is in thinking that this bill has anything to do with improving Science education. There really are no reasonable alternatives to evolution. There just aren't. Intelligent design is, as I mentioned above, a giant con and colossal failure. Its proponents are dishonest, picking and choosing data to support their ideas, and frequently mis-represent evolution (I'm still not certain if this is intentional or unintentional). The simple fact is that there just AREN't any teachable alternatives, and is extrmemely dishonest to support 'teach the controversy' nonsense when there really isn't any controversy to teach.
I definitely appreciate your viewpoint and agree with almost everything you said. As I mention above, though, I think you might not be aware of just how dishonest and vacuous ID is and just how much scientific support there is for evolution.
THIS is the problem with this bill. They are labeling up silly ideas as 'equal' to evolutionary theory, which is absolutely ridiculous
I have a science background and taught Life Science at a parochial school. Out of respect for the Principal, a nun, and to the school, I asked about covering evolution in a class and she said "No". I was fine with that and didn't teach the class. I have a question. If Creationism is being taught in public schools, why not allow for evolution to be taught in parochial schools? I'm all for presenting all "theories" to students so they can form their own opinions.
I really have some problems with your post. As a Catholic, I am keenly aware that we are one of the few Christian religions that recognize some of the undeniable truth behind the Theory of Evolution. I really can't believe that a Catholic school principal would not allow it. Every Catholic school I know of, including my college, St. Louis University teaches evolution. That nunmust have been 100 years old.
That being said, I was also taught to think critically and logically. The Theory of Evolution has a lot of holes in it. Anyone with a degree in science recognizes that. The problem is so many uneducated people that read things like "Popular Science" and "Scientific American" and garner their "education" from this sort of material.
We have to realize that science is merely the best way that we humans have to explain the world around us, AT THIS VERY MOMENT. Science has been wrong many, many times in the past and will continue to be wrong in the future. Great strides are made every day in science. When we decide that science KNOWS that "x" is true and we put a lid on it, we quit learning. Scientists don't do that. They continue to investigate.
Let us not forget that less than 75 years ago the best scientific minds in the world told Robert Goddard that space flight was impossible because in a vacuum there is nothing for a rocket to thrust against.
Science and religion explore theworld in different ways. Science is about facts. Religion is about truth. Science examines the physical world around us. Religion examines the spiritual world. Science requires proof. Religion requires faith. They are separate entities each with merit. Science aids us in making a better world through medicine and research in saving lives. Religion aids us in being loving and charitable to our fellow man and saving lives.
Those who condemn religion based on past wrongdoing are simply not intelligent enough to see that at it's best there are always men and women who enter into religion to gain power and status. The same can be said for those scientists that twist scientific fact in order to impress those who would provide them with money to continue their "work". 'Nuff said.
If it is not too ironic, "amen" to weatherbymarkv. I am a native Tennessean, a Christian, have a B.S. in molecular biology and a DVM degree, and I have not ever felt my religious beliefs threatened by anything I ever learned in school, or continue to learn post-school. If anything, science enhanced my religious feeling by showing me the marvels of this universe. The problem I see with the folks who promote intelligent design is them having this extremely narrow view of God. The 6000-year-old earth idea is based on the presumption that God MUST operate on a 24-hour-day cycle, (you know - Genesis, Earth created in 7 days, so God must observe our time parameters, and He gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night like us.....). Ridiculous! These folks are trying to fit God into a box that they understand 100% and are comfortable with. Last of all, to the person who stated they would never live in Tennessee - you will find narrow-mindedness, and open-mindedness everywhere. I think the Tennessee legislation is bowing to political pressure from fundamentalists who are unfortunately louder and more organized here than perhaps than other states, but they are everywhere. But that same "don't tell me what to think" attitude that is prevalent here has worked both ways - I have been told in my Episcopal church that East Tennessee has been surprisingly more accepting of gay ordained priests than other diocese elsewhere in the country. Interesting, huh?