Texas Vote May Challenge Teaching of Evolution 1306
tboulay writes "The Texas Board of Education will vote this week on a new science curriculum designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution, a step that could influence what is taught in biology classes across the nation. The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry. Texas is such a large textbook market that many publishers write to the state's standards, then market those books nationwide. 'This is the most specific assault I've seen against evolution and modern science,' said Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution." Both sides are saying the issue it too close to call. Three Republicans on the school board who favor the teaching of evolution have come under enormous pressure to reform their ways.
Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. "This is why America sucks" -EuroTard
3. "Religion is the root, trunk, branches, and leaves, of all evil" -Sgt. Atheist
4. "Intelligent design is not Creationism. It's philosophical." -Closet Creationist
5. "Science is..." insert simplistic, high-school-esque view of 'The Scientific Method' -Every
6. "Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
What do you expect (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Remains unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, for the country that's supposed to be the most modern and have the best technology (all ofcourse delivered through scientific study), it remains unbelievable that evolution is even questioned.
No such thing in Europe. Not even the Vatican and the Church of England (both the foundations for the US churches) doubt evolution theory. They even support it !
Wake up, Americans :-)
His noodly highness approves!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
7. Oklahoma sez,,, (Score:1, Insightful)
Whew, thank God for Texas!
I've never understood (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution. I mean, can't they just say "okay, fine, evolution is the process, and God is the architect". Far as I can see, that kind of solves it.
I do not recall any teacher or textbook saying that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. (For me, bigotted religious zealots did quite a good job of that all on their own).
I know there are those born again types who fervently believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old so they'll never be satisfied until the schools are beginning and ending each lesson with a prayer and throw out all textbooks in favor of bibles, but cummon, there have got to be SOME sane people in Texas.
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite. First of all, evolutionary theory should always be taught as the best theory that fits the available evidence. And it is the best theory. But as a good biology grad, I'm always interested in hearing about holes - so what, in your opinion are the biggest problems and holes?
Re:Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to anyone who actually understands biology.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:2, Insightful)
Need not be said (Score:4, Insightful)
Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution
Why would you even spell that out? I bet the NCSE also promotes teaching of water being wet and the sun being a hot thing we orbit.
More than two sides (Score:2, Insightful)
Students should not be told that the theory of evolution is wrong. Nor should Students be told that it is right, either. The fact is that as a scientific community, we still do not know for sure. Also, every day we disprove things we thought we knew "for sure". This is the nature of Science. We have to teach what we think we know, and present it as such. Doing anything else would be dishonest.
Re:What's the attack on science? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be under the impression that modern evolutionary theory is in some way largely dependent on the raw data collected by Darwin. He was an excellent naturalist and an amazing observer/investigator - but this is simply not true.
It is not bad to provoke thought and questions regarding evolution. But starting with the axiom that life was created and shaped through some unseen intelligence is bad.
Re:Evolution is flawed (Score:2, Insightful)
and your an idiot who obviously never took biology in high school let alone college.
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
To what "problems" or "holes" are you referring? Can you name one?
No. Intelligent design creationism allows for no falsification; evolutionary theory on the other hand most certainly does. That is indeed a part of the point; ID is not science because it makes no testable predictions and is for a lack of a better term: worthless. Evolutionary theory by contrast is as has been described by many others to be the very foundation on which one can understand biology.
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evolution is flawed (Score:2, Insightful)
Evolution is not "flawed", it is incomplete, a work in progress. It is adjusted as we go to deal with new data. Unlike the the bible which is inherently not factual and really hasn't seen any progress in centuries.
Evolution is not taught as fact, it is only perceived by narrow-minded dingwallies as being taught as fact.
Religion sucks moosebladderthroughahairystraw. All religion.
That concludes this series of disjointed comments and attacks.
What is WRONG with these people? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I wish these extremist nuts would understand is that the theory of evolution does not, ipso facto, rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator. Evolution is simply an ever-refining description of how life unfolded on Earth. No one is staking any claim in the theory concerning who or what (if anyone or anything) might have initiated or guided or overseen the process. There are tens of millions of Christian clergy, theologians, and laity who accept evolution as the process that God used to achieve his purposes. Even among evangelicals, most no longer subscribe to the literality of Genesis -- they understand the "six days" of creation as metaphor. They also understand that the Bible is not meant to be a complete, literal history that can be quantified (a la Bishop Usher) to produce a firm figure for the age of the universe.
So, who are these Christians who are on the anti-evolution bandwagon? Not Christians in general. Not even evangelicals. It's a tiny subset that still insists that evolution "denies God," that the universe was literally created in six days, that species were set and defined at the moment of creation, etc. In other words, a minority of a minority of a minority, if you will. And yet, these vastly outnumbered idjits carry incredible weight and influence, especially in the heartland, and people cower in fear of upsetting them.
Re:What's the attack on science? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't want this enshrined in sanctioned science curriculum because "the cell is too complex to have evolved!" is not an evidence-based, scientific argument. Using that as curriculum will simply encourage kids to have sloppy thinking patterns and be unable to actually tell good science from bad.
Feel free to re-evaluate all the observations you want. The data and experiments are out there. The problem is that when people HONESTLY look at all the data, evolution is really the only answer. And teaching anything other than that is a disservice to our children.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory.
The theory of evolution is just as well established as any other scientific theory that is taught in public schools, and should be treated the same way as the others.
When high school science classes start encouraging kids to question the existence of gravity, or to look for alternative explanations for electricity, then we can talk about casting doubt on evolution as well. But to single evolution out for special treatment because certain idiots feel that it threatens their personal superstitions is to condone ignorance -- which is not what science classes are meant to do.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
Texas Governor Rick Perry, who supports teaching Intelligent Design...
I call him Governor Hairdo. I doubt he truly believes in anything more than enriching himself and some select cronies with shady state deals and questionable appointments, the religious pretext seems to be pandering to get reelected. Apart from that, the guy is an empty suit.
Re:What do you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, sure, and it also gave us Molly Ivins.
Still, I wonder.
Think about the places that have lots of oil. Nigeria. Saudi Arabia. Venezuela.
Now, think about how enlightened those places are in comparisons to place that built their economy mostly on the industry and ingenuity of their people. Would you rather live in Switzerland or Nigeria? Denmark or Venezuela?
The thing is, if you want to make a lot of money by digging it out of the ground, once you have enough engineers and accountants and such to fill your needs, an intelligent, educated populace doesn't contribute much to the corporate bottom line. They're a pain in the ass, to be frank. They'll complain about environmental costs you foist on them. They'll ask inconvenient questions about the financial aspects of the government's relationship to the extracting companies, like the details of leases for public lands, waivers, permits and the like.
If you're one of the major benefactors of an extraction based economy, you want your average neighbor to be as idiotic as possible. Since making this happen costs money like anything else in this world, you also want them to stay that way. What's the cheapest way of doing this?
You make them proud. You fill their heads with glorious myths and very few hard facts, until they'll fight like hell to stay ignorant.
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Science has nothing to do with "using our own minds". I can't determine the existance or non-existance of the Higgins Bossom and my opinion about it is completely worthless, as well as any conclusions I might reach on my own using my studies, judgement, rational thought, whatever... ... because I'm not a physicist, nor do I work, investigate or experiment in the field.
That's the crux of the problem when creationists say "we want both theories to be taught, so the kid can choose for himself". The kid doesn't have the tools to prove or disprove any theory on scientific grounds, and nor should he... ... ultimately, to the common joe, science requires faith. So what's the difference between science and religion then? Science constantly delivers tangible results (as shown by the existence of cloned sheep and the Nintendo Wii) transparently, and is willing to unfold it's full body of knowledge and possibilities to anyone willing to dedicate to it.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
The first part of 'On the Origin of Species' is deadly boring because Darwin went to a great deal of trouble to present an ironclad case for something completely obvious where two or three paragraphs might have done.
Re:More than two sides (Score:3, Insightful)
This depends on the details. The first person I know of who publicly challenged people to challenge their own beliefs was Descartes, who said, "I doubt therefore I think. I think therefore I am." Now he didn't tell people to doubt everything--he made exceptions for God and I think some other specific Christian tenants, but everything else was fair game.
However, he didn't say, "doubt evolution" (well that theory didn't exist then) or any other specific science. It's also important to recall that in his time the sciences were not nearly as well established and backed up by the countless experiments of today (many experiments of unimaginable complexity and precision from his point of view).
I, along with many others, still don't disagree with Descartes basic tenant in that you should try to remain critical as much as possible. However, I also feel that the theory of evolution is being singled out for religious reasons similarly to how Galileo was only singled out when he started saying the Earth orbited the Sun (his other technical writings were of no concern to the church).
Also, the amount of doubt should be reasonable. In regards to very new theories reported by very few people and backed up by no more than one unrepeatable experiment like cold fusion there should be tons of doubt. But in other theories like evolution that are not only backed up by many decades of research (and yes, even predictions that have been verified) there should be very little doubt about the overall theory, although the details can still move around and be added over due time of course.
On a personal note I had a Christian roommate who honestly believed the world is 6000 years old and that evolution is baloney and even had various creationist videos to back him up. However, the videos were woefully inadequate in being able to convince anybody who had hardly any knowledge about radiation decay dating, geology, astronomy, physics, and, yes, evolution. Rather, it was painfully obvious they were trying to fit their observations of the world to match a book with at times ridiculously complex theories (especially ones in regards to why galaxies appear to be more than 6000 light years away).
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
This isn't about attacking evolution as dogma. This isn't about attempting to falsify it. This isn't about fighting those who refuse to challenge it. This isn't about halting science by consensus.
This is about a group of non-biologists, led by a dentist who believes that God created all species as they exist today 10,000 years ago, trying to force biology teachers to teach Creationism. These people aren't even pushing for Intelligent Design — they're explicitly against that as well. They want pure Creationism taught as science.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:1, Insightful)
Speaking as someone who lives outside of the US, I say they those morons destroy themselves. Twenty years from now they'll be standing around muttering two things
1) This was someone else's fault
2) Where did all the good jobs go because I sure could use some money right about now.
Meanwhile, the other industrialized democracies will continue to do quite well.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:1, Insightful)
Evolution is a FACT.
Prove it.
Re:People don't really believe in Noah's Flood (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the obvious answer to that is that the creator carefully placed all the oil where it would be as if it were the product of ancient plants and dinosaurs; and the same goes with all the rest of the Earth's geological strata, all observable astronomical events, etc. Anything older than 4000BC (or whereever else you put the crucial date) is planted evidence.
In other words: if you believe in Creationism, you believe that God is lying to you.
There's no other conclusion to come to. Everything in the universe hangs together too well for it to be a coincidence. Either it all actually happened the way it looks like it happened, or else Someone has spent a great deal of effort arranging things to make it look that way.
There are a number of interesting aspects to this, not least of which is the idea that if the universe has been carefully faked to look the way it does, would it not be against God's will to reject all that and believe something completely different? Might Creationism actually be blasphemous?
This is, by the way, one reason why most scientists reject Creationism (both young-Earth and old-Earth; the only difference between them is philosphical hair-splitting, anyway). Contrary to popular belief, a lot of scientists are deeply spiritual people who believe strongly in their quest to explore the universe. I can easily imagine whole idea that anyone wants to simply dismiss such a wonderful, exotic, complicated thing as being a lie would be deeply distasteful to them --- it certainly is to me.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's utilitarian. But it's based very strongly on evidence, which is what science is all about. And we're talking about science EDUCATION, not cutting edge theoretical physics. You have to start somewhere.
BTW, Newton's work is very much true in the appropriate domain. Just as with any science. There is no place for including weak nuclear interaction in calculating the motion of planets, just as there is no place for Newton's equations in calculating the probability of an electron's position in the electron cloud.
Understanding domain [wikipedia.org] is a very important science lesson you seem to have missed.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Creationism is not science. It never has been and it never will be.
Creationism is a dark age religion nonsense that people in the 21st century should abolish. People around the world should also abolish there own primitive religions.
There is one good reason for that, among many others to do this. To make the world a better place.
The human race can do so much, and can have so good live. We don't need a world with poverty, wars and disease. The human race is on the technological point that those things can be abolished all together.
Sadly, some people are more keen to hold on there to there own greed, power and religion bad ideas then to improve the world around them.
For the record. I am an atheist and I want the world to be a better place for everyone.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't RTFA, did you? Two specific proposals on the table:
Depending on what those "specific aspects" are, this could in fact be actual, hard science in these textbooks.
But this claim is bollocks... Yeah, and I don't think a photon could ever be a wave and a particle at the same time, because gosh, that just doesn't fit my preconceptions. It's more a comment that he doesn't want to believe in evolution, than anything resembling evidence.
This chairman is clearly incompetent in science -- not because he disbelieves evolution, but because he can't or won't distinguish a scientific argument from a non-scientific one.
P.S. I'm inclined to think his first category of evidence also boils down to "I don't think this could work" but since TFA lacks details I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Intelligent Design is not science, therefor it doesn't belong in the science books or classroom.
How hard is that to understand.
This isn't special protection of evolution, it's protection of the integrity of science. It just happens to be those trying to violate the integrity of science are specifically targeting evolution.
Re:More than two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take every word literally, you will run into a great many problems. Not the least of which is Mark 4:31 which states "It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground." Again, this was written to be understood by the common man.
I am not inconsistent in my beliefs. It is the one who does not understand the purpose of the Bible and takes every word literally who will find himself faced with inconsistencies.
The reason the Bible does not go into detail about the creation of the Earth is obvious once you consider the purpose of the Bible: How the Earth was created simply is not important. All that is important is that the Earth is God's creation. This the Bible says clearly, explicitly, and repetitively.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not an attempt to falsify the teaching of evolution.
Get a pen and a paper, draw 10 of gene A organisms, and 1 of gene B. Assume gene B organisms reproduce twice as fast, and ideal conditions. Start drawing the generations. Do that until gene B becomes dominant.
Now, falsify the principle you just proved. Mathematics. Reproduction rate sets an exponential curve, the initial conditions are just the polinomial part of the equation. It's not something you can or can not believe in.
If you increase the chance of reproducing of those with a specific gene, that gene will become dominant.
You cannot falsify evolution any more than you can falsify "1 2", because that's what it really is. If you accept the fact that genes exist (even christians know about dogs I believe), and that living organisms tend to reproduce as much as they can, you're already there. (Oh, one more assumption: random genes can appear. We have evidence of that too, just talk to your doctor about the latest flu variant.)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that the Quantum mechanical Model isn't completely right either.
Hmmm...a scientific theory as I understand/define it can never be known to be 'completely right', because it will always have to be falsifiable (even if no one ever falsifies it).
Re:It's time for Catholicism to step up (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd actually prefer if the Church didn't weigh in on the subject at all, and admitted it's the provenance of science, not faith.
Asking the Church to promote an anti-creationist viewpoint is one step closer to having the Church's opinion taken seriously on other scientific matters.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Insightful)
"BTW, Newton's work is very much true in the appropriate domain. Just as with any science. There is no place for including weak nuclear interaction in calculating the motion of planets
Bad example. You might not need the weak nuclear force, but you can't explain the observed peturbations in Neptune's orbit using Newtonian mechanics. You need general relativity.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because it isn't taught in school. One big problem with science education is that it tends to be taught as THE TRUTH without any nuances that show why scientists regard it as reliable and useful. I understand doing this at young ages, but by the age of 12 or so, I'd think most kids can grasp and might even be interested in WHY science is constructed as it is.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
That would matter only if the dominant religion in Texas was CoE or Roman Catholic oriented. It's not, most of my coworkers here claim to be baptist, or use the generic term "bible based".
It's senseless to argue religion based on what others are doing or what empirical data suggests. People here really believe it was Adam and Eve all the way, there's really no arguing. Making a stink over it only encourages this idiocy will jump into yet another generation.
Re:Whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
Evolution is just another scientific theory. It is by far and any way the front runner because nothing else even comes close. This theory, like all theories is constantly changing to take into account new information.
Did you realize that Gravity is a scientific theory? It also is under contention. Some scientists have a different gravitational formula that explains certain galactic motions without dark matter. Of course, since we haven't actually found/identified dark matter, that is also under contention.
Now, just because something is a scientific theory, and it's not perfect, do you doubt it's generalities without contradictory proof? Only if you are ignorant, stupid, or take any religious text as literal fact despite the voluminous quantity of contradictory data, which to me, is the same as the first two reasons.
Whether you like it or not, evolution has been observed many times by mankind. It does exist without any reasonable doubt. If you want to quibble about the fine details, that's expected. However, just because you don't know how many ounces of gas your car burned going to the grocery store, it doesn't mean that the car doesn't exist.
(Yeah, I know, that comparision is going to have every smartass without a car making a comment about there is no car... And the Matrix fans making spoon references... I know, have fun with that...)
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that people like you are the ones singling out evolution and making it "special", right? I've never taken a science class that refers to evolution as anything more than the current scientific theory of how man came to be. In a science class, we deal with the observable. Faith and belief have no place in science. We leave those at the door and pick them up later on the way out. God and his/her actions are not directly observable by men, by design. They are therefore NOT science.
The religious camp could as easily have decided to attack the law of gravity and surface tension because Jesus walked on the water. Or the Theory of Relativity because God is everywhere at once. Both cases would make about as much sense as the freaking out over evolution does.
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation
You can criticize the theory of evolution when you earn the right to do so.
You earn that right in a classroom, not in a church.
Re:Need not be said (Score:3, Insightful)
Names don't always mean what they sound like they should mean, such as Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion demands we blindly accept it, and offers nothing as proof other than your own personal belief that it's true.
Science asks that we accept it, and offers a 600 page book written over two decades exhaustively proving it using clearly observable phenomena and repeatable experimentation.
Please tell me you can see the difference.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Asimov wrote an essay called "The Relativity of Wrong" that addresses this. The thrust of it is that scientists make errors and that perfect, absolute truth may be unattainable, but by and large each generation will come up with ideas and theories that are closer and closer to the truth.
A geocentric model of the solar system that involves orbiting bodies is a tad closer to the truth than "it's all painted on a big dome in the sky", and a heliocentric model is closer still. Explain its mechanics like Newton did and you're getting closer. Find out about Relativity and you're really getting somewhere.
Each one is "wrong", but each is less wrong than the one before it.
Re:What do you expect (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it say "Born in Texas"?
No.
Does it say "Home of George Bush"?
Yes.
Are you as clever as you thought you were?
No.
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Physics/biology/etc: We think nature follows these rules and as long as we don't see evidence to falsify these rules we assume they are correct. Else you need to search for a new rule that does match all your observations.
Would you say that "the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees" is an absolute truth? How about in non-Euclydian geometry?
Re:Compromise (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus Christ people, you don't use an apostrophe to pluralize a noun. Fucking cut that shit out.
Screw evolution, I'd like to see basic literacy skills make a comeback.
Re:Compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to see proof that Evolution explains how life began.
It's not supposed to.
That would be abiogenesis [wikipedia.org], down the hall to your right.
Re:This will influence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for pretending to have the moral high ground.
Re:Devil's advocate. (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to brush up on what "theory" and "proof" means in science.
And the same goes for the ones who moderated your post "Insightful".
Re:Devil's advocate. (Score:2, Insightful)
As of late we even have DNA to back up the claims of old.
>but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students.
Oh right, so we're to ignore the massive amount of evidence backing up evolution, forcing school kids to think about life and instead teach religious crap to them from birth?
Makes me sick, it really does.
Next: Gravitation -- just a theory! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I have yet to see proof that Evolution explains how life began."
If by "evolution" you mean "evolution of species by means of natural selection" you are right... as much as I'd be if waiting for explanations on black body radiation on Galileo's relativity principle. Hint: "evolution of species by means of natural selection" is NOT about how life became to be.
On the other hand, to grasp the concept that *if* some kind of particle were by chance able to produce slightly imprecise copies of itself then life was almost unavoidable you don't need a theory, just plain common sense.
Re:How about this, wise-guy (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wanted to use my mod-points here, but this is the second comment to make the erroneous statement that "evolution" is about the start of life on Earth.
In very stern, irrefutable terms I would like to say WRONG!
"Evil-ution" makes no claims as to the origin of LIFE. "EVA-lution" is about the change in an organism over a period of time.
Oh, and while I'm at it, please don't make the mistake of assuming evolution has anything to do with humans descending from monkeys or apes. This is another common fallacy. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Apes are not going to evolve into humans at some point in the future. Humans are not going to become GODS!
One last nit-pik: Evolution is not a path. We are not going to some higher order in the future. Evolution only says your ancestors were strong enough to get you here. Your children are not necessarily going to be around after you pass. We are here because we are strong enough to exist in the current environment. If global warming is real and the Earth changes so that humans cannot exist, too damn bad.
Re:What do you expect (Score:3, Insightful)
We do what we do because God is with us. [blogger.com]
- Barack Obama
Are you saying there's no proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're saying there is no proof, it's impossible to "prove" without a time machine. However, there's a tremendous amount of strong, dramatic evidence. Certainly there's far more evidence in favour of evolution than there is evidence supporting creationism/intelligent design. If that's not enough, we'll also have to take all other "theories" out of the classroom, starting with the theory of gravity. After all, we only have a large body of evidence that our model of gravity works.
What else are you willing to sacrifice in favour of trimming out all topics but the completely, irrevocably proven ones? Certainly the biology, chemistry and physics textbooks are completely laden with theories as opposed to proven facts.
Social studies, philosophy, and history have also got to go. They are the very definition of theoretical topics. Every article is written by somebody with a subjective viewpoint, and some events reported in the history books probably never happened.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, go ahead and flag me as flamebait rather than engage in intelligent discussion. And you wonder why we question the validity of your beliefs.
That's like engaging in an 'intelligent' discussion about the existence of unicorns.
Why do you care what we heathens think anyway? You get to spend an eternity in heaven laughing at us evolutionist while we burn in hell. Isn't that enough?
Re:How about this, wise-guy (Score:3, Insightful)
The really sad thing about that statement is that you clearly have no concept of how ignorant it makes you look. We've known that the earth was round since before your religion even existed. We've known that the earth was round before science even existed. Where do you get this crap from?
Re:What do you expect (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you rather live in:
Norway or Uganda?
Venezuela or Bangladesh?
Saudi Arabia or Sierra Leone?
Russia or Afghanistan?
See, I can play this game too!
Re:Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, educate me: what is the difference between "fundamentalist" and "protestant." I was under the impression that protestants were "protesting" the changes that the Catholic Church had made, and were therefore returning to the "fundamentals" of Christianity or something wacky like that.
This being one of the reasons why protestants refuse to accept evolution: the Catholic Church does accept it. AFAIK, only protestants refuse to accept evolution as truth.
No, you're confusing two different things.
The protestants did indeed protest against some Roman Catholic doctrines and practices in the 16th century, but not all of them. Most Christian doctrines are still shared by protestants and Roman Catholics.
(Christian) Fundamentalism is a movement within protestantism, that developed in the late 19th/early 20th century as a reaction to protestantism doing exactly what most folks here think it should do -- change in the light of new evidence and better understanding. Protestantism was a reaction against Catholicism, fundamentalism was a reaction against modernism.
Your conflation of those two things is revealing though -- it helps me understand some of the hostility to Christianity, if a reactionary movement within it is mistaken for the whole thing. It's like condemning the republican party because you think they're the same as the KKK or condemning the democrats because you think they're the same as revolutionary communists.
Re:Compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, scientists still can't give a definitive answer on how the first cells were formed, only some scifi-esque ideas.
Uh, no?
There is not one "definite answer", that's correct. However, there is a number of competing, plausible theories. Definitely a far cry away from "scifi-esque".
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
+1 insightful and pithy retort.
I always remind people that religion, by definition, must
1) make no sense,
2) be impossible to prove/have no observable evidence and/or
3) be directly contradicted by observable evidence
If you believe in something that makes sense and is demonstrably true, then it's not a religious belief. It's only 'faith' if it's nonsense or obviously wrong.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
+1
I remember a few years ago there was a test, can't remember if it was national or in one particular state. The purpose of the test was to gauge scientific literacy. One of the questions asked if the reader believed that the universe was formed in a giant explosion billions of years ago. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the question.)
I thought that was a ridiculous way to test scientific literacy. I don't believe in the Big Bang, or evolution, or Newtonian mechanics. I accept that certain theories are supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence, and therefore probably best describe the way the universe works. The moment you start believing in something, you've got religion, not science.
Students should be encouraged to question established theories, to gather evidence and think critically about how things work. Unfortunately, whenever someone asks people to question a particular theory, it's usually because they want to push a particular truth.
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've never understood (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution
Because if you truly accept evolution and all its implications, you accept that:
1) Our remotest ancestor, ie. your own great-great-great grandmother times umpteen million, in direct line of descent, was something less complex than a bacteria. Intermediate grandmothers (necessarily incomplete) include fish, reptiles, tiny mammals and apes. This process took over 3 billion years.
2) All human form and function, including consciousness, is a product of evolution. ie. naturally occurring, essentially random.
I can completely understand how people who think that God literally created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them on the earth, somehow outside the natural process, in a timeframe that has some meaning to humans, and will somehow come along and resurrect them after death, have trouble with this. I don't agree with them, but I can understand how their brainwashing and/or wishful thinking would lead them to not accept it.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
While you describe Darwin's The Origin of Species, it is important to note that his work is only an exceedingly tiny fraction of all the proof there is of Natural Selection being the mechanism by which evolution of species is achieved.
Re:I've never understood (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution. I mean, can't they just say "okay, fine, evolution is the process, and God is the architect". Far as I can see, that kind of solves it.
It's a solution. But it may not be a terribly satisfying one for devotees of any particular mythology: it implies that the architect could be infinitely lazy (and effectively indifferent to suffering)---almost as if the architect *isn't there at all*. Consider that modern Darwinian evolution explains the origin of all known forms of life. That means that, in order for complex life to come into existence, divine intervention is not required. It also means that if divine intervention *did* happen, then it happened in such a way as to be indistinguishable from natural phenomena.
To people who were brought up to believe in the resurrection of Jesus or the flying horse of Mohammed, that can be a hard pill to swallow, because if a *seemingly* miraculous phenomenon (like the existence a complex organism) is actually best explained through natural events *without* conscious design, then it means that the god that such people believe in---i.e., a god who performs miracles in order to make desirable things happen---doesn't *necessarily* exist. So then a religious person is faced with the idea that there might still be *a* god, but probably not the kind that performs magic tricks and talks to people.
And so if you've been praying to a personal, miracle-performing god since childhood, then the mere *idea* of a workable, rational scientific explanation for some of the biggest "miracles" (without an actual *understanding* of said explanation) could be potentially more upsetting than a death threat against a close relative. And so a natural response is denial, because otherwise you would be afraid of losing the feeling of being connected to and cared for by the universe.
(I'm not saying the religious folk are correct; I'm just saying that I consider this to be one plausible explanation for why they have a hard time with it; why they often don't even learn what Darwinian evolution is; etc.)
Another explanation probably has to do with the belief that one's personal brand of mythology was, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, dictated by the creative force of the universe to an **unerring stenographer**; and that any statement contrary to the mythology is just wrong by definition. (I still don't know why anyone would hold to that, and I would love to read more about any science on the topic.)
Re:It's time for Catholicism to step up (Score:3, Insightful)
They pretend they don't exist.
Any contradictions you can find, someone has already come up with convoluted explanation of why it's not "really" a contradiction.
When they say the bible is "literal" they don't mean the same thing you and I mean when we use the word.
They mean that it absolutely, positively, without any question, means whatever they believe it means, not what it seems to actually, you know, say.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, people say "Germany invaded France in 1941," "The Brazilians have won the World Cup," "the Japanese like raw fish," "Greeks dislike Turkey" etc. all the time, without batting an eye. But when someone makes a categorical claim that includes you, you have a conniption fit? Sorry, get over it. Unless they say "each and every American, bar none, criticizes fundamentalism in Muslim countries, but.." your complaint is an empty one.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
no amount of breeding of dogs has produced a non-dog
But breeding of wolves has produced a non-wolf. It's called a dog.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
And doing nothing while these people deny evolution is going to help?
Keeping quiet isn't going to prevent the idiocy passing to another generation, only the opposite.
Evolution is a fact (Score:3, Insightful)
>Since evolution is not a fact,?P>
Wrong. Evolution is an observed fact. It has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. You have stated a false premise, so any conclusions drawn from your premise are also false. Your remaining paragraphs continue this pattern of logical fallacy. Perhaps you should learn something about evolutionary biology that isn't parroting the mouth breathers at Answers In Genesis.
Re:Devil's advocate. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, unless you go to college, or do some self study, you are unlikely to be "reasonable informed" on very many things.
i.e. 90+ percent of the people who have a problem with evolution ARE NOT reasonably informed, some aren't informed at all.
That's kind of the point of university, a place where people can study, and GET informed. Self study works for some, but reading a 90 page synopsis of evolution written by a "hostile witness" is not the way to become "reasonably informed" about anything.
The problem with your statement about "opinion hold more credit" is that opinion has no place in science. Science is about facts, there is room for opinion about what theory best explains observed facts, but a theory that ignores the facts, isn't scientific. An expert in the field knows more about it than a layman, typically. i.e. he is more informed. So no matter how reasonably informed you think someone is, as a layman, they are likely to be less informed than an expert.
So do you think it's snobbery to let an MD make medical decisions over someone who watches general hospital a lot?
Also I wouldn't take the advise of an MD on building a bridge, over that of a civil engineer.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
Sorry, that's just too sensible.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Students need to actually learn the theories before questioning them.
Not understanding a theory before questioning it and creating your own only makes you a crank. Especially if you don't have reproducible experimental evidence to back yourself up.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Lady Does Protest Too Much! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh.
This really illustrates the torturous path of creationist thinking. You will concede as much as is so blindingly obvious as to be certifiable if denied, and then as soon as you perceive a conflict with your dogmatic interpretation of your precious book, it's suddenly "not science".
If a single population becomes two reproductively isolated populations, and each one continues to change, what mechanism do you propose would keep the divergence between the populations below some upper bound? Perhaps God step in and say "nope, that's one micro-evolution too far. You'd be different species, and we can't have that."?
Why can various related but distinct species still interbreed (e.g. horses and donkeys or lions and tigers)? If your answer is that they are the same "kind", then why are the offspring usually only weakly fertile? Can't you see that continuing genetic divergence in the respective species will only push the descendants of each species further apart, and eventually they won't be able to interbreed at all? Have you heard of ring species [wikipedia.org]?
While selection usually changes the frequency of existing alleles, new alleles are being constantly created through mutation. Most mutations are deleterious, but not all; multi-antibiotic resistant bacteria are a good example of a repeatedly observed beneficial mutation.
Of course these ideas, which all logically follow from facts you seem not to dispute, contradict your book. That makes them "chicken shit science", right?
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
The Bible has survived over 2000 years, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it's far more than an old book of stories.
[citation needed]
The Bible is an old book full of stories, some of the stories have components, but as far as I can tell none of the theological bits have been proven. To the contrary, many of the miraculous bits have been proven to be common literary conventions of the time.
It certainly isn't fact, and it shouldn't be taught as such.
True, though it is a theory strongly BACKED by facts, where creationism isn't. It's a theory strongly backed by "faith", which means it isn't SCIENCE, and therefore should never be taught as such. Evolution is theory, but this doesn't mean it is a colloquial theory, it is tested, backed by evidence and proper logic, and serves to explain existent circumstances. Creationism doesn't fill any of these. I have no problem with it being taught in comparative religion classes, where it belongs.
Until, of course, someone comes up with a factual, and logical proof of the JudeoChristian God, based on hard empirical evidence.
Re:I've never understood (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What do you expect (Score:3, Insightful)
"It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose -- his purpose." -- Barack Obama"
Religion is required to rule Americans, so pretending to believe it is necessary even for educated men who aspire to power. Obama is not only smart enough not to believe in religion, he is smart enough to pretend to believe it.
Re:What do you expect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong on all three points.
1) abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution is a separate hypothesis that explains how life diversified once it was around. For all evolution cares, life could have arisen by abiogenesis, or poofed into existence by God or Cthulhu or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Praise unto her name. May her holy hooves never be shod)
2) Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution. Systems can evolve where every part is needed to function. This is due to a number of processes: 1) Parts of the system can have other functions in earlier forms 2) A system can evolve in a non irreducibly complex way and then evolve to require part to function even if that part was previously optional (this occurs when systems evolve to optimize functions they could already do somewhat well). In fact, J.B.S. Haldane almost a hundred years ago predicted as a consequence of evolution that we would see such systems.
3) Others have already answered this. But to just demonstrate how incredibly wrong this is, , one of the largest young earth creationist ministries on the planet, and Answers in Genesis, the largest young earth creationist ministry on the planet, both agree that the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that they list the claim that no speciation has occurred as an argument creationists should not use: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996 [creationontheweb.com]. That's how good the evidence for speciation is. Even the YECs agree it occurs.
Instead of claiming that this is about amorphous beliefs against beliefs please try to actually look at the evidence and learn a bit. Also, note that nothing in science is ever "provable." Proof is for math and alcohol. However, scientists can talk about evidence for or against a hypothesis. And the evidence for evolution is very strong.
Re:I've never understood (Score:2, Insightful)
[snip]
To me, it is "insane" and foolish to believe in the tenants of evolution.
Evolution does not give any meaning to life - God does.
Evolution does not give any purpose to MY life - God does.
Evolution does not give any hope (for anything) - God gives hope for eternal life.
Evolution does not give joy - only depression at the meaninglessness of life - God gives joy both now and eternally.
But God only does this if we choose to believe in Him, His Son, and the Biblical claims of them.
I choose meaning and purpose and hope and joy and TRUTH over a theory filled with innumerable holes.
What do you choose?
A very nice synopsis of the basic problem with religious thinking, wrt evolution.
Evolution is not TRYING to do any of those things.
Science DOES NOT CARE about any of those things.
Science is about explaining how the world works.
Meaning, purpose, joy, and hope are things for individuals and philosophers.
If god does all those things for you, great.
If, for some reason, evolution takes one of those things away from you, that is your problem, not evolution's.
If you can't believe in god if someone explains how the world works, that too is your problem, not a problem with science.
If an observation contradicts something in your holy book, does that invalidate the whole thing? If so you might consider the fragility of such a stance. Religious texts may be fine for morality lessons and such, but as science textbooks they fall a bit short of the mark. As a rule, science is defined by change, religion is defined by it's lack.
Finally, you don't get to choose how the world* is, only what you believe.
Guess what, the first is unaffected by the second.
The world is what it is, it was before you were born and will continue after you are gone.
*by world I mean "entire universe"
Re:Cue the following: (Score:1, Insightful)
The theory of evolution is just as well established as any other scientific theory that is taught in public schools, and should be treated the same way as the others.
When high school science classes start encouraging kids to question the existence of gravity, or to look for alternative explanations for electricity, then we can talk about casting doubt on evolution as well. But to single evolution out for special treatment because certain idiots feel that it threatens their personal superstitions is to condone ignorance -- which is not what science classes are meant to do.
No, all efforts should be made to falsify evolution, because that's how science works. To produce a theory, you create a hypothesis based on facts and attempt to disprove it. If it is not disproven after however much testing the scientific community does, it becomes a theory.
Science is what it is because scientists come up with an idea and try to disprove it. In contrast, priests/etc. come up with an idea and don't think it has to be tested at all.
Re:Plenty of religious folk don't (Score:3, Insightful)
I've argued before [slashdot.org] that this is the best line to take. Science marches on, after all, and if today scientists are starting to think something on a question of fact that contradicts the Bible... well, tomorrow they might have ironclad proof of it, and the day after that they'll have based some technology on it that pervades all our civilisation. And if your church has gone on record as saying that this discovery contradicts the Bible and is entirely false and heretical - then you're going to look a fool.
Much better to nudge God back one more gap and retcon the whole thing: explain how the new discoveries fit just fine with a more sophisticated view of what you've taught all along. Come up with some cunning logic and creative apologetics - I mean isn't that what Jesuits are for? Explain that God can be known through revelation and through tradition, but also through careful study of his creation. Position your religion to be able to incorporate science, rather than opposing it; that way you avoid making awful mistakes like the Church made with Galileo, and like the American Protestants are making with evolution. You don't want to do that.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm sure that your noble prize was much better than his.. eh?
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. But valid criticism in the scientific community involves quite a bit more than simply sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "goddidit, goddidit, goddidit"! They either have to 1) Put forth peer-reviewed research that falsifies the key tenants of evolutionary theory, or 2) Publish their own theory - again subject to peer-review. And this publication needs to have a considerable more meat to it than a picture of a mousetrap as evidence of "irreducible complexity".
Re:What is WRONG with these people? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's even simpler than that. A scientific theory is essentially a model, an abstraction if you will.
I don't care that the Newtonian mechanics are "incorrect", it provides an approximation that is good enough for my daily life tasks. And when it fails, I can use relativity or quantum mechanics or any other model that gets the job done.
Same with evolution. Does it really matter in practice whether the fossil record is really billions of years old or some supernatural god just made it appear this way? As long as this god dude did a reasonably consistent job (omnipotence helps), it does not affect the value of the theory or its predictive abilities.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Insightful)
"God did it." is not a criticism or an objection to evolution - it's an absolute rejection of a scientific theory backed by an ever growing mountain of empirical evidence that not only strongly points towards the evolution of all life on earth from a common ancestral source, but also makes religious explanations of biological origin outright laughable.
Texas school board chairman Don McLeroy is not seeking to point out the incompleteness of evolutionary theory, which no respectable evolutionary biologist would contest, but is rather seeking an opening to teach his ignorant religious beliefs as legitimate science - which they certainly are not.
Dr. McLeroy has a a BS in electrical engineering and a DDS, teaches Sunday school and is an avowed Creationist. In other words, when it comes to biology, especially evolutionary biology, the man is talking our of his fundamentalist backside.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:1, Insightful)
I buy into the theory of evolution as a very good explanation for varied speciation. However, your blanket assertion that "evolution is a FACT" is erroneous.
To make that kind of assertion, you have to define "evolution." Otherwise, your statement has no meaning. You might as well be saying "blue is a fact."
Then, to explain what evolution is, you need an underlying theory. In your case, since evolution is "fact," the theory must have been proven true.
Unfortunately for you, the scientific method proves no theories true. It only disproves them and leaves scraps along the ground for scientists to assemble into a predictive model of the universe.
You do science a great disservice by making such statements.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:2, Insightful)
Lol! You have *got* to be kidding. This from someone who believes in an all-powerful yet absent super-parent.
I've had this conversation many times.
Me> So, I understand that you believe in a god. How did you choose that particular belief?
OtherGuy> <blank look and medium-length pause> It's what I believe.
Me> Yah; I know; but why?
OtherGuy> I'm just as entitled to me beliefs as you are to yours... etc..
*conversation dies*
Feel free to engage in the 'intelligent discussion' you mentioned. Perhaps you could stand in for OtherGuy? Why choose to believe in a god in just the way that religions have done?
Re:It's time for Catholicism to step up (Score:1, Insightful)
"It's not the Catholics who are the problem, it's certain fundamentalist Protestants."
My brother saw his science teacher out mass, and asked her if she believed in evolution. She told him that she did not, but she was forced to teach it anyway.
I grew up in California, where our priest was about as openly gay as you can get without actually screaming it from the church roofs. Here in Arizona, however, the Catholics are competing with the protestants and the mormons for "most fundamentalist" and "most brain dead." I hope this is not the case in the rest of the country. I never enjoyed mass, and never believed, but I could at least tolerate the liberal California churches. Out here, they are something else.
And I guarantee most of them do not believe in evolution, despite what the Vatican says.
"Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be" Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory.
The Catholic Church still supports intelligent design, but they believe that it co-exists with evolution. They follow the idea that God created the big bang, and evolution itself was his design.
Re:I believe that was a strawman... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Evolution vs. Speciation (Score:3, Insightful)
This is mere sophistry. The base unit of a gas is a single molecule, but gasses have properties such as density, temperature, and pressure that individual molecules do not have. Similarly, populations of organisms have properties such as genetic diversity that individuals do not have. Natural selection is an emergent property of populations. It is dependent upon there being genetic diversity--a large degree of genetically heterogeneity among individuals, each of whom possesses a different set of mutations.
Nor is there any need for such a thing. Computerized genetic algorithms are quite successful in solving problems without any such mechanism.
I am using "preference" because separation of populations does not require complete incompatibility--it can occur by the gradual accumulation of variations that enhance within group mating preference relative to outgroup. In such a situation, genetic drift will eventually begin to impair outgroup reproductive success. There is no point at which there needs to be two individuals that are only compatible with each other, and completely incompatible with everybody else.
But if you insist on looking only at tiny finite elements, you can easily convince yourself that there are no such things as curves--which seems to be pretty much the error you are making in thinking about speciation.