Democrats & Liberals Archives

Teaching Intelligent Design Found Unconstitutional

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
Judge John Jones

The courts and the legal process have come to the right conclusion, and the quote above shows that Judge Jones gets it. Although evolution doesn't have an answer to every question right now, it is by far the best explanation for the origin of the species and the origin of life, and it's the only current explanation that derives from scientific instead of religious principles.

I doubt the battle is over; I fully expect the Discovery Institute and its allies to appeal this decision and continue to try to push Intelligent Design into public science curricula in other states and other school districts. However, a conservative Republican judge has found that ID "is not (science), and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". Perhaps science education in America is safe for another day.

Posted by LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 12:01 PM
Comments
Comment #104858

This decision is my Christmas, Channukah and Festivus present all rolled into one!

Bravo to Judge Jones for telling the truth: Intelligent Design is not science. If the supporters of ID really want to teach an alternative to evolution in school science curricula, they have to go out and do some real scientific research, publish peer reviewed articles, and reply to the millions of questions about their so-called scientific methodology.


You want to learn ID? Go to church!

Posted by: Steve K at December 20, 2005 12:16 PM
Comment #104887

How about an elective class to teach these theories? Thousands of years of belief, tradition, and history should be taught to students who wish to learn ALL the information before having evolutionary theory shoved down their throats. BTW, they haven’t found that missing link yet….

Posted by: Ilsa at December 20, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #104888

A festivus miracle!

This decision has the ironic result of swaying me toward belief in a higher power. After all, if a conservative justice can see the light of reason, it must be the work of God! Miraculous!

A Joyous Zoroastrian Season of Fire to you all!

Posted by: Yossarian at December 20, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #104895

Ilsa -


There is no missing link! Can some one explain to me where this asinine concepts come from.

“How about an elective class to teach these theories?”

Its called Sunday School.

Posted by: justin at December 20, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #104896
How about an elective class to teach these theories?

I have no problem with that, as long as it isn’t taught as a Science class. If it’s History of Science or Comparative Religion or something like that, go ahead.

evolutionary theory shoved down their throats

Huh? How is teaching Science in Science class shoving anything down anyone’s throat? Do you complain about the Theory of Gravity being “shoved down people’s throats?”

BTW, they haven’t found that missing link yet…

BTW, the missing link is a red herring…

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #104898

Good on Judge Jones!
Good on all people who make use of their brains!
Hooray for Science!
Hooray for Lawnboy!
But what’ll we do about Kansas? :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 12:57 PM
Comment #104900

The Judge is entirely correct. Teaching Intelligent Design in a science classroom, especially in a public school, is inappropriate. It is akin to teaching fashion design in a mathematics class.

I would not, however, be against a comparative religion class that looks at the history of religious thought the world over, including Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, I have the suspicion that American Christian Conservatives would not allow such a thing, because it would lump in Christian thought as being only equal to other religious thought.

Posted by: ant at December 20, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #104905

Further text from the decision:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Wow. Quite a harsh rebuke.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 1:03 PM
Comment #104908

At last. Thanks Judge for inserting sanity back into the discussion. Please teach myth in mythology classes and leave science alone. Comparative religion classes are a good idea as they expose the student to multiple views on the same old stories; creation, floods, plagues, saviors (anyone ever heard of Mithras?). Students should be exposed to multiple points of view based on the classification of the subject.

Let’s get serious about science again. This has become embarassing.

Posted by: Dennis at December 20, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #104914
Let’s get serious about science again. This has become embarassing.

Absolutely. If ID supports get their way, in 20 years American scientists will present their research at international symposia by kneeling in prayer in front of their non-American peers. Of course, they’ll claim it’s all in the name of “science”

Posted by: bobo at December 20, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #104927

Well, the supporters of ID have issued a statement, and here, by way of the New York Times, is what they said:

The lead defense lawyer for the school board, Richard Thompson, said it was ‘silly’ for the judge to have issued such a sweeping judgment on intelligent design in a case that he said merely involved a ‘one minute statement’ being read to students.

‘A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid,’ said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm that says it promotes Christian values. ‘It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that.’

Trouble is, they haven’t done any research, and show no interest in doing it.

Posted by: Steve K at December 20, 2005 1:41 PM
Comment #104935

Steve

I believe it goes further than that.
It isn’t just an invalid theory.
ID ISN’T a scientific theory to begin with.

Posted by: Loren at December 20, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #104940

Ilsa (and all other proponents of OD/opponents of Darwin), I have to ask these questions. Do you honestly believe that all of us are dillusional in our ascertation in the basic principles of science to draw a conclusion? Do you think that we’ve had science “shoved down our throats” all of our lives and it has blinded us to “God’s true word”?

I’m truly not trying to be demeaning or insulting, I very sincerely want to understand the other side of this argument. Pls go into more depth into your view and I implore people not stand on soap boxes putting such a stance down until the full view is understood. I don’t think the media has represented the view that well (or maybe they have and I’m just giving more credit than due).

MY basic belief is that God has a hand in everything and that science is merely a tool of that, thus the theory of evolution and all the evidence there is to support it is just an extension of that will. The fact that God would use billions and billions of years to “create” Man and Nature does not conflict with my belief in the slightest, regardless of the “seven days” blurb in Genesis. Your thoughts?

Posted by: Paul at December 20, 2005 1:54 PM
Comment #104941
Steve

I believe it goes further than that.
It isn’t just an invalid theory.
ID ISN’T a scientific theory to begin with.

Yikes! I hope I didn’t refer to ID as “science!”

I’d be falling into their trap!!!!

Posted by: Steve K at December 20, 2005 1:55 PM
Comment #104951

The Sunday School comment was great Justin. ID is a watered effort by Creationists to slap a scientific face on what they believe. Proponents know if Creationism was offered as an alternative, which was tried for many years, there would be no takers - the theory is too far-fetched.

If students have the option to learn about other theories the key should be that they’re exposed to more than one, not just “intelligent design”. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and less popular religions’ ideas of our beginning must also be offered. The majority can not rule in this instance. The entire American system is set up to protect the views and interests of the minority.

Teaching ID would actually entail shoving something down children’s throats. Evolution has been tested and taught over the years, only to grow stronger. Just because all isn’t know doesn’t mean any ol’ theory will do to fill in the gaps. Evolution keeps winning because it’s the truth. ID proponents are angry because first they wanted Creationism to be taught and they lost the battle, now they lost their compromise too.

The best part about this decision is that the ruling Judge, John Jones, is a Bush apointee and is in favor of ID. The legal system has truly worked in this case.

Said the judge: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

Posted by: Vihar Sheth at December 20, 2005 2:14 PM
Comment #104952

Religion evolved as a result of our evolution. As humans began to talk and to wonder about our existence and the world we live in people started to theorize about reality. In the beginning religion was an early attempt at science and to create order in society. Religions evolved into social institutions creating a conglomeration of ritual, science, law, and government.

People didn’t used to know we lived on a planet. They saw the sun and the moon and the stars and wandering stars that we now know are planets. There were storms, thunder and lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. There ere good years of plenty and bad years of famine and drought. Insects ate crops. People died of mysterious diseases. The world was a vast and mysterious place that created great wonderment and inspired the imagination, and the imagination went wild.

With no scientific information to work with people imagined that there were Gods that were good and evil and that they were powerful and controlled the universe. The sun and moon were gods. The thunder being brought the rains. Life was everywhere so people concluded that stars and planets and the sun and moon might also be alive. They wondered about being that live in the clouds. They wondered about what happens to you after you die, or where you were before you were born.

The difference between evolution and Creationism is that evolution is real and Creationism is not real. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We’ve discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.

If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn’t be able to see starts that were more than 10,000 light years away. That’s because if a star were further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn’t have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn’t be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn’t be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding.

Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn’t write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can’t be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can’t be the word of God.

Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn’t know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn’t know the world was round and there was no such thing as “up”. They didn’t know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn’t living there.

When you look around and you see evolutionary processes at work everywhere and you see how life on this planet all ties together, it’s pretty obvious how it is we got here. Evolution wins. If God created life would he have created us with an evolutionary DNA history that all ties together in a way that looks like evolution? Maybe God hates smart people and faked dinosaur bones to confuse those non-believing faithless scientists so he can punishing them in Hell for their intellectual arrogance. It appears that the omnipotent deity who chooses to remain hidden is hiding the secrets of creation by making it look like evolution.

I say that you can tell something about the designer by the work the designer produces. When I look at life on this planet and ask myself if this is the result of a supreme being - obviously it is not. The work is too sloppy. Life on this planet has a sloppy design because it’s self built from the struggle to survive over eons of time.

Posted by: callitasEYEseeIT at December 20, 2005 2:14 PM
Comment #104954
The fact that God would use billions and billions of years to “create” Man and Nature does not conflict with my belief in the slightest, regardless of the “seven days” blurb in Genesis.

Paul, I agree. I believe in God, go to church, etc… I believe that God had a hand in the creation of everyting as well. However, I also believe that evolution happened as well. I think it is fairly easy to believe that if God could create things, then he could also create them to adapt and change. And with reference to the “seven days” thing… My answer to that is always the following: Exactly how long is a “day” to god? Perhaps a day to him is 100,000 years to us?

Folks should be able to have their beliefs and still have an open enough mind to believe that there is room for science as well.

I too like the idea of an elective class to teach ID (among other religious theories). And I agree that it should be seperate from the science classes. The more informed that people are about the different thoughts and beliefs that are out there, the better enabled they are to make their own choices. And I believe that the ability to be free to make your own choices in life (within the laws) is what this country is all about.

Posted by: BradM at December 20, 2005 2:17 PM
Comment #104959
I too like the idea of an elective class to teach ID (among other religious theories). And I agree that it should be seperate from the science classes. The more informed that people are about the different thoughts and beliefs that are out there, the better enabled they are to make their own choices.

The danger with this (shields up, everyone!) is that there are a lot of religious views in this country that get marginalized and ridiculed.

It’s tough enough for a Jewish kid in a classroom this time of year, but can you imagine a child whose parents have raised him (or her) Wiccan (which, BTW, is growing at a fast clip), or Scientologists?

Teaching people about different religious traditions is a great idea , but I’m not convinced that many teachers can present these different religious viewpoints objectively.

Posted by: Steve K at December 20, 2005 2:29 PM
Comment #104965
When you look around and you see evolutionary processes at work everywhere and you see how life on this planet all ties together, it’s pretty obvious how it is we got here. Evolution wins. If God created life would he have created us with an evolutionary DNA history that all ties together in a way that looks like evolution?

callitasEYEseeIT, It is not a contest… Ideas such as yours are equally as closed minded as the ID people who you are fighting against. If you can offer real proof of how the universe began then, by all means, enlighten us all. Until then your theory remains just that. As does the theory that proponents of ID believe.

Tolerance should be the name of the game here folks. All are entitled to their opinion on this without someone pushing either side down the others proverbial throat.

Posted by: BradM at December 20, 2005 2:35 PM
Comment #104966

BradM,

But there’s the rub. ID isn’t a theory, at least not in a scientific sense. It is in a linguistic sense, at least as the word “theory” is commonly used, but placing an untested, bald assertion on the same footing as evolution, for which there is mountains of evidence and decades of research, is wrong-headed.

I say, talk about ID, argue about it if you want, but if you put it in a classroom in any other context other than a study of myths (and I don’t mean “myth” in the pejorative sense) of creation, you’re doing science, and all of us, a grave disservice.

Posted by: Yossarian at December 20, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #104971
Until then your theory remains just that. As does the theory that proponents of ID believe.

No, one is a scientific theory with supporting evidence from dozens of disciplines. The other is a hypothesis that has never been supported by any evidence at all.

Equating them because two different words both spelled the same (theory) can describe them is ludicrous.

Saying that such a comparison is an example of tolerance ignores how science and knowledge work. It’s not tolerance to give equal weight to a non-supported idea because of political pressure.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 2:51 PM
Comment #104985

callitasEYEseeIT,

If you use the point of view of “being on the earth at the time,” so to speak, the biblical creation account matches up very well with current scientific theory.
This doesn’t mean either one of them is correct, but anyone with an open mind will see that they don’t disprove each other.
I took a class on the geological evolution of the Earth in college. Even the non-Christian instructor pointed out the similarities in the timing of events, etc.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 20, 2005 3:12 PM
Comment #105000

Why do some confuse ignorance with faith? While not a scientist ia am a bit of a biology buff with some college background. I have no trouble seeing the hand of God at work in the continueing creation. That is personal and irrelavent to scientific observation and conjecture. Is their faith that weak? One sad part is that if they do not see the Bible as beautiful.timeless allegory they are missing the point.

Posted by: Bill at December 20, 2005 3:27 PM
Comment #105003

On furthur thought,perhaps missing the point is the point.

Posted by: bill at December 20, 2005 3:30 PM
Comment #105008

I have a Darwin fish on my car, and I complete by into the evolution concept. It works… it makes sense… look around and check it out (except … not so much here in the southern Bible belt.)

I can also look at my 2 daughters (7 and 2) and see something far above a biological/chemical reaction. There’s more than the science there….

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 3:39 PM
Comment #105031

callitasEYEseeIT…

Well, what you’re saying would be true if you interpreted the Bible literally…which is exactly NOT the way you are supposed to read the Bible.

Let us say you are God. Your task is to explain to an unscientifically trained human, Moses, how the world began. Do you actually think Moses would understand “Big Bang” or quarks or quantuum physics or DNA?

Read Genesis. Do you think that some of the people in the “begats” lived 900 years? Or does that represent how strong or great or vital they were?

What about Soloman? Do you think he had a couple of hundred wives and 800 some-odd concubines? Or did it symbolize how wealthy he was?

The examples are many…but the bottom line is that if you take the Bible literally, you need to put it down and forget about it, because all you’re going to find is contradictions.

Now, let’s go back to the subject at hand. All classes in the scientific discipline of evolution should begin with the words, “Why are you here and why do you look like you do? It’s because you are the product of the most outrageous mistake…fluke…accident that has ever happened in the history of the universe.”

Why?

What are the odds of an organism appearing out of NOWHERE…and introduced in EXACTLY the RIGHT amount of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen (etc., etc., etc.) all mixed at EXACTLY the RIGHT temperature…in EXACTLY the RIGHT proportions…in EXACTLY the RIGHT environment? Hundreds of billions of trillions of trillions to one? More?

The human race is a mistake…a joke of the universe…an accident.

At least that’s what science teaches us.

All because they have absolutely no explaination for how the paragraph above happened. Because when you get to that first organism and you ask, “And where did THAT come from?” you get the answer…”Well, it was just there” or some such made-up answer. They don’t know. Maybe one day they will, but for now, it’s a big “I don’t know”.

When it comes to “I don’t know” that doesn’t mean “I don’t know, which doesn’t preclude devine intervention”. It means, “I don’t know…but there’s no God so forget about it.”

Remember when discussing this subject that what science has proven to be true should be accepted. But when it comes to what science has NOT proven and probably will NEVER prove, all bets are off.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 4:07 PM
Comment #105042

Jim,

I actually don’t disagree with all that you say. Problem is, many Christians (or at least the objectionable ones), in my experience, say precisely that you must take the Bible literally.

And if Christians back off from the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, they have fewer arguments for sticking to literal interpretations of the prohibitions from the Old TEstament, like the one they perceive to exist with regard to homosexuality. I doubt they’ll want to relinquish some of those cherished bits of intolerance.

As for your assertion that, statistically speaking, there is an exceedingly small chance of human life, that doesn’t make me believe in God necessarily, but it does make me feel lucky, and, in my view, that’s preferable to believing that there’s an omniscient, omnipotent God out there, watching while people suffer and refusing to explain Himself or do anything to make it better.

But that’s just me.

Posted by: Yossarian at December 20, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #105055

Jim -

Lets say for a second that what you say is true - that science cant answer the question of ‘how did life start’.

Even if that’s the case - in no way does that proactively point towards the existence of some vague notion of a higher power.

Also -

“What are the odds of an organism appearing out of NOWHERE…and introduced in EXACTLY the RIGHT amount of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen (etc., etc., etc.) all mixed at EXACTLY the RIGHT temperature…in EXACTLY the RIGHT proportions…in EXACTLY the RIGHT environment? Hundreds of billions of trillions of trillions to one? More?”

Again - assuming this the correct question - thats not that bad odds when you consider that over the course of billion of years, you have how many days, how many hours, seconds, milliseconds, to find that one point in time? That’s a lot of opportunities to hit that bulls eye. Especially if you add into the calculation the idea that any rock hitting this planet with any sort of biologial material could have set off this chain reaction. If you include that - then you have all the time I listed above * n number of planets.

But again - this is all pure speculation on my part. None of what I said is important at all because even if its all 100% wrong - it in no way points towards ID as an even remote possibility.

There is no evidence FOR ID. There is no research, there is no science. It has all the basis in science as the guy on the bus ranting about the government controlling his mind with vapors.

Posted by: justin at December 20, 2005 4:33 PM
Comment #105060

Yossarian (you must be a fan of Catch-22…just as I am a fan of Dr. Stangelove. See my email address),

There was a recent survey that I found interesting. A survey that revealed that 80 something percent of the people polled believed in God, while only 60 something percent believed in Satan. Interesting. I would have thought the numbers would be more even. Hmmmm.

Anyway, taking the Bible literally is exactly why so many people have such distorted views of Christians.

For example, in Proverbs it says that you should not spare the rod for it will not kill your son.

Well, does ANYONE here believe that you should take a 6 foot stick and beat your kid with it? No…I didn’t think so. The word “rod” is symbolic of strength or punishment. What the Proverb means is…”It doesn’t matter what punishment you use, don’t back off of it. Apply it completely.” So in other words, if you believe in “time outs” for your children, apply it completely. Don’t tell your child that you must take a “time out” for 30 minutes and then let them off after 15 or 20 minutes. It means “discipline your child and no matter how loudly they protest, make your punishment stick”.

Now, I know that what I’ve explained has nothing to do with ID, but it does show you what taking the Bible literally means. It means beating your kids with a 6 foot stick. And that’s wrong and unacceptable.

As to the beginning of life, if you keep asking the question, “And before that…?” you’ll get to the point where there there’s only two answers.

1.) It was just there.

2.) There is a God.

I happen to believe that there is a God, because I cannot accept the answer, “It was just there” as being valid.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 4:42 PM
Comment #105065

Justin,

My post above dovetails nicely with what you said.

A fragment crashes into Earth. It has biological material on it.

“And before that?”

A planet exploded hurling that fragment in our direction.

“And before that?”

The planet was part of a galaxy that exploded.

“And before that?”

The galaxy was part of the Big Bang.

“And before that?”

It was a ball of mass.

“And before that?”

Uh…it was just there.

See what I mean?

I can’t accept “It was just there”.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 4:48 PM
Comment #105067
if you interpreted the Bible literally…which is exactly NOT the way you are supposed to read the Bible.

Wow. That’s completely contrary to the approach taken by several of the mainline denominations in America today. I agree with you, but you might want to ad an IMO or something.

What are the odds of an organism appearing out of NOWHERE…and introduced in EXACTLY the RIGHT amount of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen (etc., etc., etc.) all mixed at EXACTLY the RIGHT temperature…in EXACTLY the RIGHT proportions…in EXACTLY the RIGHT environment? Hundreds of billions of trillions of trillions to one? More?

The human race is a mistake…a joke of the universe…an accident.

At least that’s what science teaches us.

The odds are probably low that it happened as it did. However, you’re the one choosing to view that as a lesson that humanity is a mistake. There’s nothing in the science or numbers that makes such a judgement. That’s your bias and interpretation.

All because they have absolutely no explaination for how the paragraph above happened.

That’s completely not true. Just because you don’t know about it doesn’t mean that no one knows anything about it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 4:51 PM
Comment #105070

Christians are evil.
Lets keep insulting them and mocking their beliefs.
Damn evil right wing world dominating Christians!
I say we stone them all for not believing as we do.

Posted by: kctim at December 20, 2005 4:55 PM
Comment #105084

Why is it that when Christians catch flack for trying to force their beliefs on others, they imediately start with the crocodile tears and complain that they are being prevented from praticing their religion. They love to project their religion onto others (prayer in school… blues laws… blah blah blah) but when others reject their proposal they get all up in arms about being supressed.

Please - go practice your religion. Go tell it to the mountain… so sell it to the seas… just go do it away from me.

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 5:13 PM
Comment #105090
What are the odds of an organism appearing out of NOWHERE and introduced in EXACTLY the RIGHT amount of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen (etc., etc., etc.) all mixed at EXACTLY the RIGHT temperature in EXACTLY the RIGHT proportions in EXACTLY the RIGHT environment? Hundreds of billions of trillions of trillions to one? More?

As long as this sort of misinformation is being presented as speaking for science, people will continue to follow the charlatans of ID.

Nothing of the sort took place(BTW, no Helium in living things). Over billions of years, many elements have formed various chemical compounds that by themselves are not very complex.

The interesting thing about the universe is that it follows universal laws. When chemicals come in contact with each other, changes take place. Those changes result from forces that we can observe all around us. Given the size and the age of the universe, we can imagine that every possibility could have and probably has occurred.

The chemicals that make up life become very stable in life forms. Nature tends to move toward stable situations because it requires less energy to stay that way.

If anyone actually took the time to study evolutionary biology, they would realize that everything the ID people have asserted has been debunked over and over again. Unfortunately, it requires some time and patience.

IDeologues rely upon the fact that many people’s eyes glaze over when they hear a complicated answer. The facts are out there.

Posted by: Loren at December 20, 2005 5:20 PM
Comment #105093

Religion should be and, is best taught in church and related church activities. Once taught it is nurtured and expanded in the home/family environment.

One or the other (ID or Evolution) will fade from the students interest when he comes home from school and begins discussing Darwins Theory. The parents will put that thought/theory in what they consider to be it’s rightful place based on their own beliefs.

GOD vs Darwin will continue to be an ongoing conflict. In fact, Judge Jones ruling may have put GOD in a stronger position because once people cant have something, they want it even more.

I predict a significant increase in the number of children that will be home schooled as this saga gets spun in every possible direction.

Posted by: steve smith at December 20, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #105097

Kctim -

Is there an expiration date on Christian Persecution thing?

Jim -

But - by choosing the religious answer - isn’t that exactly what you’re doing. Unless you have some evidence of the creation date of God, you’re saying ‘God was there - before everything’.

As a personal belief system - I say - whatever gets you though the day. But as science I’m more prepared to say - ‘dont know whats before x, lets find out’ than ‘it must be god’. My reasoning here is this: people have consistently provided a religious reason for things they can’t explain. Science has consistently pushed the boundaries of what we can explain further and further out, but in space and time. I have no reason to believe this trend will come to a stop.

Posted by: justin at December 20, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #105098

“if you interpreted the Bible literally…which is exactly NOT the way you are supposed to read the Bible.”

Jim T. - sorry, you probably feel like your being pounded for this statement, but that is the exact definition of a Fundamentalist. They believe the bible is taken literally.

Personally, I agree that ID should not be taught in science class, but I highly doubt that many families in this country would want their children exposed to other creation theories in a comparative religion class.

Satanism is a legal religion in our country. Could you see the outcry if this was taught? People just need to leave well enough alone.

Posted by: Lisa C. at December 20, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #105099

Lawnboy,

Just because you don’t know about it doesn’t mean that no one knows anything about it.

You’re right. There’s surely someone out there that will put forth their THEORY.

Ahhhhhhh….are we getting the picture? Sure, theories are postulated based on what we know to be fact…but do remember, we once found the bones of dinosaurs and said, “DRAGONS!!!”.

Theories are just that. Theories.

As for reading the Bible literally or figuratively, those that really don’t want to learn what the Bible REALLY teaches us (how to live our life) take the Bible literally. Those that want to see the meaning BEHIND the words take most of the Bible figuratively.

Actually there are many places in the Bible that are meant to be taken literally. Much history can be taught and much science can be learned (science? history?) in the Bible. The Bible gives accurate timelines of many events both B.C. and A.D.

Of course, there are those (ooooweeeeeeooooooh) that think that aliens wrote the Bible. Burning bushes? Blinding lights? Smoke around the top of a mountain? Laws etched into stone (with lasers?)? Yikes!

I remember one book written about a couple of brothers that were marooned on Earth when their spaceship broke and one played God and the other played Lucifer. Very funny and interesting book.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 5:27 PM
Comment #105102

Steve, absolutely. That is why our traditions have allowed a plethora of Sunday Schools, and Public Schools to peacefully co-exist in freedom in America. Now these Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians have some money and one of their own in the Whitehouse, they think their minority should rule over the majority in this nation merging public schools and Sunday schools regardless of a tax payer’s religion, or views on the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution.

They will lose, and they will expend their amassed wealth in losing. That is justice, regardless of whether one view’s it as devine or secular.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 20, 2005 5:29 PM
Comment #105103

JimT

You don’t understand the definition of a scientific theory.

The theory of evolution should not be equated with what someone opines over a checker game. Do some real research. Get the facts. Check them with a few people who know what they’re talking about.

BTW, my Old Testament professor in college said that the Bible is a great history book IF you are interested in the history of about.1% of the people who have lived, but shouldn’t be used outside of that small group.

Posted by: Loren at December 20, 2005 5:36 PM
Comment #105104

But David,

Isn’t that how our government works? The minority dictates to the majority? No?

In everything from race relations to gun control, the minority has dictated to the majority what it will and will not accept.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 5:36 PM
Comment #105108
Theories are just that. Theories.

What do you believe the word “Theory” means? You seem not to understand that there are two different meanings at play here.

In common use, “Theory” means

a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
However,
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven…In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

You see, minimizing Evolution as “just a theory” (or equivalent) displays an utter misunderstanding about what a Theory is.

Science has established that Evolution is true. The evidence is plentiful, with millions of data points across dozens of disciplines. There are small gaps of understanding in places, but the overall concept is as well proven as anything humanity has ever studied.

Evolution is a successful scientific theory. If it were wrong, it could be disproven in many ways. It has withstood those challenges. In contrast, ID is a hypothesis that failed.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 5:39 PM
Comment #105110

JimT

The funny thing about tights in a democracy is that everybody has them. Minorities don’t dictate anything, but if their right are rejected we don’t have a democracy.

Posted by: Loren at December 20, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #105111

“Is there an expiration date on Christian Persecution thing?”

I don’t think so.
The disrespect, mocking and downright spiteful posts against Christians that show up here seem to show it is very much still alive.

Posted by: kctim at December 20, 2005 5:44 PM
Comment #105112

Oops, excuse the typo. Only some minorities have tights.

Posted by: Loren at December 20, 2005 5:44 PM
Comment #105115

We have to keep science out of religion and religion out of science. Science exists because of our curiosity as to how things work and the reasons things are the way they are. Science looks to establish supportable evidence to prove or falsify a hypothesis. Religion demands belief without evidence and quite often considers skepticism as heresy. I’ve not seen an explanation yet in science as to WHY WE exist or why we are sentient, etc. etc. I’ve seen plenty of explanations and theories as to how we came to exist. The WHY stuff is what seems to be at issue with respect to religion or faith. I say who cares? Believe what you want to, but don’t attempt to maintain that it is absolute truth or even scientific fact.

As to where we came from, it really doesnt’ matter if we started from organic material on a meteorite or if we were zapped into existence by one of the hundreds of dieties we’ve invented since we got the idea that there may be a “higher power” out there. There are as many different stories of creation as there have been civilizations. Why does anyone believe the story in Genesis is any more real or relevant than say, Egyptian, Greek, Shinto, Apache,Zuni,Iroquois, African (I especially like this one. The creator, known as “Bumba” vomits everything into existence), Mayan, or Norse explanations? It doesn’t make it true. It also doesn’t make it untrue.

The point of all this, is that science is a methodical, testable method of considering and opining on natural phenomena. It does not seek to explain the supernatural, and leaves astrology, alchemy and the religion to those whose reach is more ethereal.

As to education, we need to know these things, as understanding other cultures’ perspectives on things as basic as “where we all came from” help us to know our selves better. Let’s keep science in the science class and mythology in comparative religion or history.

Posted by: Dennis at December 20, 2005 5:47 PM
Comment #105116
I can’t accept “It was just there”.

But you will accept God was there?

There are many questions out there that I don’t have the answers to. I can accept that without needing a superior being with magical powers. BTW, if I meet someone who has the answer, does that make him/her God?

Posted by: Loren at December 20, 2005 5:51 PM
Comment #105120

“The disrespect, mocking and downright spiteful posts against Christians that show up here seem to show it is very much still alive.”

As far as I can tell - nearly 100% of the posts here have been perfectly respectful of religion. I think you’re mistaking people debating the logic and validity of a concept that we’re being told is science for persecution. Being nailed to a cross - now thats persecution.

Posted by: justin at December 20, 2005 6:02 PM
Comment #105123

kctim wrote:

The disrespect, mocking and downright spiteful posts against Christians that show up here seem to show it is very much still alive.

My friend, I would urge you to be careful before presuming to speak for all Christians. I consider myself Christian, and haven’t taken offense by any of these posts.

Christianity as a belief system is not so weak that it should feel threatened by skepticism or scientific inquiry. Indeed, I worry that some Christians have made the mistake of becoming too easily offended.

I remember some time ago that Democrats were accused of creating a “culture of victimization” where people always blamed their problems on others. Conservatives urged them instead to look to their own resources, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (so to speak).

My fear is that it is easy for Conservatives now to fall into that same trap when in comes to Christianity or “values” issues — to look for evidence of persecution, to blame the problems they see on others (like Democrats), etc.

Let us hope that all of us can avoid this trap. Let us strive to not become defensive in the face of skepticism but to enter a real dialogue with people of different views. Maybe then we can do something about the polarization of this country.

Oh, and as a Christian, I applaud the Judge’s decision. ID is not science. Indeed, it is not even a hypothesis because it cannot be disproven.

Posted by: Steve Westby at December 20, 2005 6:11 PM
Comment #105126

If someone disagrees with you, that’s not persecution, it’s called debate.

Posted by: Loren at December 20, 2005 6:20 PM
Comment #105135

Loren,

You don’t understand the definition of a scientific theory.

Uh, yes I do know the definition of a scientific theory. I didn’t drop out of 3rd grade or something.


The theory of evolution should not be equated with what someone opines over a checker game.

I wouldn’t be disrespectful enough to equate God and the beginning of the universe with a checker game.

Do you know how life, the galaxy, the universe began?

I don’t. I admit it. But I don’t trust science THAT much. I suggest you check your Blaise Pascal.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 6:38 PM
Comment #105137
Uh, yes I do know the definition of a scientific theory.

Your other statements throw this claim into serious doubt.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 6:40 PM
Comment #105144

Dennis,

Religion demands belief without evidence and quite often considers skepticism as heresy.

And science, another set of “beliefs” quite often considers skepticism as heresy.

Need proof? Look at the posts here. They “demand” that I believe in “science” and any skepticism I exhibit is indeed heresy.

So…how is religion and science different?

Oh, yeah. Religion is a certain set of beliefs and science is…

a certain set of beliefs?

Think, people! Question yourself and your beliefs! That’s all I’m trying to do here. To get you to THINK!

If you cannot question your beliefs, then you are NO DIFFERENT than the Fundies that you dump on.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #105145
Oops, excuse the typo. Only some minorities have tights.

I don’t have any tights. What gives?

Posted by: spongeworthy at December 20, 2005 6:56 PM
Comment #105148
And science, another set of “beliefs” quite often considers skepticism as heresy.

This is a common misconception. In fact, the hallmark of science is skepticism. Scientists make names for themselves by finding problems with previous answers. PhDs are earned by finding mistakes in earlier experiments. Nobel Prizes are earned by disproving the commonly-held understanding. Science is built on skepticism.

Need proof? Look at the posts here. They “demand” that I believe in “science” and any skepticism I exhibit is indeed heresy.

No, they don’t demand that you believe in Science. They demand that Science not be overruled in public school science curricula by political and religious demands.

how is religion and science different?

Religion and science take completely different approaches. Science finds questions from phenomena and derives the answers from the accumulated evidence of data. Religion is based on faith and belief driving the discussion starting with the answers instead of the questions.

Science is not a set of beliefs, but instead a methodical approach to answering the questions that we find.

That’s all I’m trying to do here. To get you to THINK!

Strange. It seems more that you’re expressing misunderstandings about the nature of science and religion and making broadly inaccurate claims in an effort to justify injecting religion into public school science classes.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 7:03 PM
Comment #105152

Science is not “a certain set of beliefs”. Science proved that the earth revolves around the sun. Science proved that gravity affects everything equally. It’s not a leap of faith to accept that splitting an atom can result in a very destructive release of energy, it scientific fact.

Provide proof of intelligent design, and I will accept it as sciene. As long as your “proof” relies on faith, it’s not science or scientific theory.

Posted by: Michael at December 20, 2005 7:14 PM
Comment #105154

—-
I don’t think so.
The disrespect, mocking and downright spiteful posts against Christians that show up here seem to show it is very much still alive.
—-
Listening to Christians whine about their persecution is like listening to Nazis complaining about racial profiling… except the whole Nazi thing only lasted a short time. Christianity has presented the world with the worst of human nature (Spanish Inquisition, Christian Crusades, Catholic/Protestant violence in Ireland, Israel’s confinement of the Palestinians after such horrific but similar treatment in WW2… The Catholic’s issue pedophilia whiel condeming homosexuality…) The only difference with the Christian history compared The Huns is that the Huns didn’t preach at you while raping your women and burning down your village.

Some people might see this as a lack of respect for expression of religion. Please, no disrespect intended… I just hate blatant hypocrisy.

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 7:19 PM
Comment #105159

(sorry for the double post… no idea what happened.)

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 7:34 PM
Comment #105160

What I’ve read here today just proves what I believe is wrong with ID. The whole reason behind trying to force ID is to teach Christianity. That is not the only belief system that has a story of the world’s creation. Unfortunately, if ID were allowed in science classes I think you would merely have students discussing the bible and not learning a thing about science. If public schools wanted to have philosophy or mythology as an elective class that would be fine. The only purpose behind the conservative right is to push their version of fundamentalist christianity.

Posted by: Miller at December 20, 2005 7:38 PM
Comment #105161

expatUSA,

Your remarks belong on other blogs…not this one. I find your comments lacking and disrepectful. However, lumping all religious people into your particular and vulgar category only shows and does prove your point. With people like you, there evidently is no such thing as ID.

Posted by: cliff at December 20, 2005 7:39 PM
Comment #105163

LawnBoy,

It seems more that you’re expressing misunderstandings about the nature of science and religion and making broadly inaccurate claims in an effort to justify injecting religion into public school science classes.

No…as a matter of fact, I attended school where no mention of God or creationism was taught. I was instructed in the Theory of Evolution and nothing else. I also believe that science should be taught as science and that ID has no place in school, much less a science class.

But you have proved my point. You are not willing to question your belief in science. And you’re saying to yourself, “Well, why SHOULD I?”

Because that’s why you have a brain. I was taught (in college) to constantly question your beliefs. Only by questioning your beliefs will your belief in any one thing grow stronger…and only by questioning what you think you know to be true can you open yourself up to other possibilities.

By your (and others here) insistance that “science is absolutely right and religion is absolutely wrong” you have closed yourself off to all other possibilities. By the Fundies insisting that “religion is absolutely right and science is absolutely wrong” they have also closed themselves off to all other possibilities.

Here’s something to chew on:

Are Science and religion mutually exclusive terms?

Can science exist in religion?
Can religion exist in science?

Do you have the ability to play Devil’s Advocate with yourself? Does anyone here have the ability to play Devil’s Advocate with themselves?

Then do it.

Label your post with “Devil’s Advocate” if you will. But you must argue exactly the opposite of what you really believe.

Will you post with a bunch of “Fundie talking points” or will you gain insight?

Try it. I dare you.

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 7:55 PM
Comment #105169

hmmm… maybe that’s the issue with religious fundamentalists. I think, to them, playing Devil’s Advocate is a sin.

Personally, I love religions (when practiced alone or shared among friends) and generally get annoyed at the religious or pious.

I do think that both religion and science can (AND DO) coexist. It’s sort of like learning with both FACT and EXPERIENCE. Either one on it’s own only paints half a picture.

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 8:06 PM
Comment #105175
No…as a matter of fact, I attended school where no mention of God or creationism was taught. I was instructed in the Theory of Evolution and nothing else. I also believe that science should be taught as science and that ID has no place in school, much less a science class. But you have proved my point. You are not willing to question your belief in science. And you’re saying to yourself, “Well, why SHOULD I?”

You have proved nothing except that you didn’t read what I wrote. I didn’t say that you went to a religious school. I said that you’re defending teaching ID in schools, which is tantamount to injecting religion into public school science classes (IMO).

Further, you don’t define “question (my) belief in science.” Are you saying that I don’t question the conclusions science comes to? If so, you are very wrong. I’ve thought about and researched the Creation vs Evolution debate much more than you probably suspect. In fact, I once was a fervent creationist myself, giving a persuasive speech in high school English about why Creation Science should be taught in schools. Since then, though, I have learned a lot more about how science works and about how the American constitution works, so I have changed my beliefs.

By your (and others here) insistance that “science is absolutely right and religion is absolutely wrong”

Others may have said that, but I never said nor implied that. My belief is more analogous to what Jesus said about taxation - render unto religion what is religious and render unto science what is scientific.

Are Science and religion mutually exclusive terms?
No
Can science exist in religion?
Yes
Can religion exist in science?
Yes
Do you have the ability to play Devil’s Advocate with yourself?
I play Devil’s Advocate with myself all the time, for issues from religion, science, politics, and more.
Try it. I dare you.

Sure, I could regurgitate pro-ID talking points all night if I wanted to. As I said, I used to believe it myself and presented a speech on the subject. However, taking your dare would prove nothing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 8:38 PM
Comment #105178

I was taught evolution as a scientific fact not to be questioned when I was in the 8th grade (a long time ago). It wasn’t until later that I learned:
1) Darwin wrote his book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” in 1859, to defend the white “master race” theory and slavery, and
2) There is not ONE FACT to support evolution. Every “scientific proof” was staged and the “data” falsified.

I’m all for teaching evolution (as a theory) in schools. I’m also for teaching other theories, then let the students come up with their own conclusions.

Instead of indoctrinating our children, wouldn’t we all be better served if we taught them how to think for themselves?

Posted by: mac6115cd at December 20, 2005 9:00 PM
Comment #105179

—-
There is not ONE FACT to support evolution. Every “scientific proof” was staged and the “data” falsified.
—-

Seriously? You truly believe that? Or is that something you were taught and school?

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 9:03 PM
Comment #105183

I want to thank everyone here for this discussion. It was fun and stimulating.

It doesn’t change my mind about ID being taught as science.

It shouldn’t…but then again, Evolution shouldn’t be taught in a religious setting either.

Or should it?

Posted by: Jim T at December 20, 2005 9:13 PM
Comment #105184
It wasn’t until later that I learned: 1) Darwin wrote his book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” in 1859, to defend the white “master race” theory and slavery, and 2) There is not ONE FACT to support evolution. Every “scientific proof” was staged and the “data” falsified.

I hope that you have since learned that this points are false or irrelevant.

1) Darwin was a racist, as were most people of his day when considered by modern standards. However, he wrote the book after years of research into phonemena he observed, not out of racist motivations. Firther, the views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people’s opinions.
2) There are millions of facts to support evolution. Yes, a few artifacts were faked, but Evolution did not collapse without those artifacts. Evolutionary data comes from dozens of disciplines, and it very much is not falsified.

Do you have a source for these claims? I’m sure it would be debunked very easily.

I’m all for teaching evolution (as a theory) in schools. I’m also for teaching other theories, then let the students come up with their own conclusions. Instead of indoctrinating our children, wouldn’t we all be better served if we taught them how to think for themselves?

Is it indoctrination to teach the best we know?

Does it serve anyone to present ideas we know are unsupportable alongside rock-solid Theories (which means a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified) that have mountains of supporting evidence without giving an indication the difference?

Do you believe that all science is indoctrination, so that we shouldn’t teach Plate Tectonics, the Atom, Gravity, or other Theories that are no more or less valid than Evolution?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 9:13 PM
Comment #105185
Evolution shouldn’t be taught in a religious setting either. Or should it?

Well, define “religious setting”. If you mean a religious school, then it’s up to the school, although the school would be doing a grave misservice to the students not to do so. If you mean a house of worship, then it’s up to the religion. Either way, the Constitution is rightly silent on what religions should teach, so it’s all belief and opinion, not law.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 20, 2005 9:16 PM
Comment #105186

Loren:
“The funny thing about tights in a democracy is that everybody has them.”
“Oops, excuse the typo. Only some minorities have tights.”

I say everyone who needs them should have tights — especially when it’s chilly outside!

Spongeworthy:
“I don’t have any tights.”

You should get some! I’ve got tights in all different colors, some even have patterns! They make my legs happy and cozy when I’m wearing a skirt.

“What gives?”

Oh they’ll give plenty. Just make sure you buy the right size! ;^)

PS. ID is not a scientific theory.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2005 9:16 PM
Comment #105189

a conservitive judge says something correct?
its a sign of the apacolypse!
everyone stalk up on canned goods and pray to whatever dude in the sky you feal like!

Posted by: ? at December 20, 2005 9:24 PM
Comment #105190

—-
a conservitive judge says something correct?
—-

That’s all the proof you need for evolution!

Posted by: tony at December 20, 2005 9:28 PM
Comment #105191

I’m pleased with the court’s decision, even if it is a huge waste of tax payers money.
Unfortunately, this won’t put the issue to rest in the other 49 states.
Religious zealots will think up a new name (i.e. other than Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc.), and re-introduce it again.
Science and theology are totally unrelated, because science never attaches any supernatural significance to any of its theories, and religion does. Religion does not question why or how. Science does. The two are quite different. One attempts to build upon provable facts, and the other does not. One tries to draw conclusions based on laborious fact finding and investigation, and the other does not.

The interesting thing is that conflict between the two is totally unnecessary, and would be, except that there are always (unfortunately) some that wish to force their beliefs on others. They are not content with their own belief. They are, for some reason, compelled to push it, until others (and rightfully so) are forced to object. And another interesting thing is that many religious people of faith don’t feel that same need to proselytize, and recognize there is no conflict. They are comfortable (in this nation) that no one can interfere with their right to worship their religion. They don’t feel the need to infringe upon other’s rights by forcing their beliefs onto others. Science and religion should not conflict with each other at all. Who is creating this conflict unnecessarily? It is the religious zealots that choose to see scientific theories as a threat, and attempt to introduce religion into public school. They don’t get it at all. They see a threat where none exists. Those zealots fear of scientific theories is totally unnecessary, since the two are totally unrelated, and neither one can prove or disprove the other.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 20, 2005 9:42 PM
Comment #105198

I’m a Republican but I approve of this decision too. In fact, I approve of it very very strongly,

Most of the best religious thinkers have long ago argued, and very convincingly, that science and religion are not contradictory in the least. And a great many scientists—even those who believe in evolution—are highly religious.

To my religious conservative counterparts: should Home Ec teachers be required to teach their students that the chocolate in chocolate-chip cookies melts not because of the laws of physics but because God wills it to be so?

Should P.E. teachers be required to teach that when you toss a ball in the air, it falls back to Earth because God makes it happen?

Of course not. And there’s no reason that the science and study of biology should be any different.

In any case, the whole debate is pretty much moot.
Our public school system is a national disgrace and the majority of students aren’t going to learn half of what their teachers tell them anyway.

Posted by: sanger at December 20, 2005 10:36 PM
Comment #105307
There is not ONE FACT to support evolution. Every “scientific proof” was staged and the “data” falsified.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of scientists CURRENTLY doing research on evolution. I suggest you read The Beak of the Finch by Jonathon Weiner, a book that won a Pulitzer Prize. The book highlights research being done in the Galapagos. These people are not white supremascists. They are modern evolutionists

Posted by: Loren at December 21, 2005 6:01 AM
Comment #105357

“Do you believe that all science is indoctrination, so that we shouldn’t teach Plate Tectonics, the Atom, Gravity, or other Theories that are no more or less valid than Evolution?”

I have earned a Bachelor’s degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering so, yes, I believe we should teach the best that we know, including all scientific theories. I also know that many scientific theories can be proven through repeatable, scientific experimentation. Plate Tectonics, Atomic theory and Gravitational theory can be proven…evolution cannot and neither can creationism.

This debate really is “where did we come from?” And that takes us into the area of Religion.

The theory of common descent states that all living creatures on earth share a common, remote ancestor. More specifically, given any two living creatures there was a creature that is ancestor to both. If that’s true, then where are the “in-betweens”? I find it hard to believe that we can find the remains of the beginning and the end but nothing in between.

Evolution also does not contradict religion. There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

Let’s be honest, public school will never teach Christian values, history or doctrine (even though they will teach about other world religions) so you’re better off sending your children to a Christian school as I do.

Posted by: mac6115cd at December 21, 2005 8:18 AM
Comment #105372
Plate Tectonics, Atomic theory and Gravitational theory can be proven…evolution cannot and neither can creationism.

That is false on both sides. Plate Tectonics, Atomic theory and Gravitational theory cannot be proven any more than Evolution. And yet, Evolution is a fact proven as well as the others.

It is a fact that Volcanos erupt, that the atom can be split, that apples fall when you let go of them, and that species change over generations. Those are proven facts. Our understanding of how those things happen is very strong, but cannot be proven. That understanding of the how is where the Theory come in.

This debate really is “where did we come from?” And that takes us into the area of Religion.

That’s your imposition of your beliefs on the question. There is nothing religious inherent in the study of how dinosaurs evolved into birds. Don’t inject religion into science just because you refuse to accept your own inferences.

If that’s true, then where are the “in-betweens”?
They are everywhere in the fossil record. We have dozens of intermediary fossils for many of the missing links.

Of course, there are gaps from one fossil to the next, but those gaps are often filled in with new finds. Unfortunately, doubters view that as the creation of new, smaller gaps instead of acknowledging that the gaps are being filled, and that gaps are expected.

I find it hard to believe that we can find the remains of the beginning and the end but nothing in between.
Then you don’t have to worry, because that’s not the case.
Evolution also does not contradict religion.
I’m glad to see you say this.
Let’s be honest, public school will never teach Christian values, history or doctrine (even though they will teach about other world religions)
Public schools teach about Christian history and doctrine as much or more than about other religions. You just seem to be upset that they don’t favor Christianity. So, it makes sense that you’ve made the choice you made for your children. Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 8:38 AM
Comment #105392
This debate really is “where did we come from?” And that takes us into the area of Religion.

Then break the question into two questions:

“Why are we here?” is religious.
“How did we get here?” is scientific.

evolution cannot (be proven) and neither can creationism.
You’re right that neither can be proven as one would prove a mathematical formula. However, the advantage of Evolution is that it could be disproven. There are thousands of ways that Evolution has been challenged and would have been shown to be false; it has survived those challenges. In contrast, you either accept Creation/ID or you don’t; there is no possible test to disprove it. The lack of disprovability takes it out of the realm of science.

Further, Evolution has been shown to be true by its utility. Scientists have made predictions based on the principles of evolution, and those predictions have been shown correct. Creation/ID has no such predictive power. Creation/ID tells us nothing about the world or how we can learn more. Evolution has given us much insight into the world. For example, we discovered DNA because it was predicted by evolution.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 9:07 AM
Comment #105397

Maybe your ancestors swung from trees. But mine didn’t.
The true ignorance here it this evolution garbage.
How can yaall, being reasonable people for the most part, look at the beauty in this world. Look at our solor system. The way that the planets keep in the same orbit year after year and don’t bump into each other. How the Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun to sustain life. A few feet one way or the other and we wouldn’t be here. Then look at the rest of the Universe and see how the stars stay in the same place and aren’t running around bumping into each other. And then yaal want to say that ALL this happened by chance?
And if we evolved from monkeys or somethiong like that. What are envolveing into? And why aint it showing up? I know it couldn’t be a higher life form. If it was it would take one look at the way we’ve screwed things up and wipe us out and take over.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2005 9:11 AM
Comment #105418

Steve
“My friend, I would urge you to be careful before presuming to speak for all Christians”

I’m not a Christian and by no means do I presume that I speak for all Christians.

“I consider myself Christian, and haven’t taken offense by any of these posts”

That is because you agree with the slant here, others do not.

Some quotes:
-Christianity has presented the world with the worst of human nature

Take out the word Christianity and insert gays or blacks and you guys would be screaming at the top of your lungs.

-Please teach myth in mythology classes and leave science alone

Claiming that most of the peoples FAITH is baseless and just a myth is real respectful and understanding isnt it.

I agree with Judge Jones, I just dont see his opinion as a reason to mock and demean a persons belief.

“I remember some time ago that Democrats were accused of creating a “culture of victimization” where people always blamed their problems on others”

That time is now.

“Let us hope that all of us can avoid this trap. Let us strive to not become defensive in the face of skepticism but to enter a real dialogue with people of different views”

People of different views should include Christians.

“Maybe then we can do something about the polarization of this country”

Not when party is more important than country my friend.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 9:31 AM
Comment #105428
The true ignorance here it this evolution garbage. How can yaall, being reasonable people for the most part, look at the beauty in this world. Look at our solor system. The way that the planets keep in the same orbit year after year and don’t bump into each other. How the Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun to sustain life. …

Did you ever study science in high school? What do you remember from it?

Posted by: bobo at December 21, 2005 9:51 AM
Comment #105430
Maybe your ancestors swung from trees. But mine didn’t. The true ignorance here it this evolution garbage.

You might not like it, but it’s true. Ignorance is denying the truths that you find uncomfortable. Ignorance is ignoring the facts found by millions of trained people over decades of work because you don’t like it.

Then look at the rest of the Universe and see how the stars stay in the same place and aren’t running around bumping into each other.

There are scientific explanations for how starts formed and why they are where they are. And, they sometimes do bump into each other.

And if we evolved from monkeys or somethiong like that. What are envolveing into? And why aint it showing up?
We are evolving into something, but no one knows what. It is showing up, but very slowly. Because human generations are so long (~25 years), it takes longer than one lifetime to see the effects. Also, improved medical care has reduced some of the effects of evolutionary pressure.
look at the beauty in this world…And then yaal want to say that ALL this happened by chance?
How about the ugliness in the world? Or the blandness? Or the purpleness?

No one says it happened by chance. It happened how it happened, by the means of natural selection.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 9:53 AM
Comment #105431
I agree with Judge Jones, I just dont see his opinion as a reason to mock and demean a persons belief.

I agree.

kctim, is this the second debate this week in which we’ve found common ground? I’m scared.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 9:54 AM
Comment #105435

Ron,

We didn’t evolve from monkeys. We have a common ancestor with monkeys, just as we all have ancestors from Africa, some of whom still live in trees. And there is more genetic diversity within the continent of Africa than there is between our African ancestors and us.

Evolution occurs on so many different levels. Pathogenic disease has been the major driving force in human evolution. Take one of our ancestors from even 2,000 years ago and they’d never survive our current diseases. Our immune system has evolved.

Stars bump into each other all the time. the universe is so vast that most of us would never notice.

There are probably millions of planets in the universe capable of supporting life. Our planet is in its current position due to the laws of gravity, which also probably determines the length of our day and the mass of Earth because of its relationship to the sun. It really isn’t about chance at all. Your chance of winning the lottery is slim, but the probability is that someone will. We are on the winning planet.

Posted by: Loren at December 21, 2005 9:58 AM
Comment #105451

Do you go to Sunday School to learn how to do Math?!!!!!!!!!!

Didn’t think so!


I am liberal—-thank God(whom I devoutly believe in:) Do you go to Sunday School to learn how to do Math?!!!!!!!!!!

Didn’t think so!


I am liberal—-thank God(whom I devoutly believe in:)

Liberalism doesn’t have to = atheism

science = facts
faith = home and church

teachers have enough to deal with, don’t make them into pastors

Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2005 10:30 AM
Comment #105454

LB
LOL!
Don’t be scared, I’m sure we share more common ground than most believe is possible.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 10:33 AM
Comment #105459

kctim,

You are a Packers fan, right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 10:37 AM
Comment #105467

LB
Low blow, low blow.
Not fair to bring that up with the year we have had. lol
Go Pack!

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2005 10:57 AM
Comment #105474

kctim,

Yeah, it’s especially low blow coming from a Vikings fan like me.

Maybe we don’t have any common ground after all :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 11:15 AM
Comment #105483
We are on the winning planet.

And just to emphasize the science here, we HAVE to be on the winning planet because the losing planets cannot support life. We are the lucky winners in the lottery of the universe, but if we weren’t winners, we wouldn’t be alive to know it!

Posted by: Steve K at December 21, 2005 11:35 AM
Comment #105489

LawnBoy
When I was in school evolution was taught as a theory. Even the most dyed in the wool evolutionist would tell you that it was theroy. So when did it take the jump from theory to fact? And why do the seicence books STILL treat it as theory?
The fact is evolution IS theory and NOT fact. There is NO WAY to prove it.
In fact I read recently somewhere that DNA was destroying evolution. And that seicentist were starting to question it. So if it isfact like you claim why is this happening.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2005 11:47 AM
Comment #105495

Ron,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

The fact of Evolution is that species change over time, both within the species and into new species. This has been observed in laboratories, in the fossil record, and in many other places.

The theory of Evolution is the explanation for how it happened. The theory of Evolution is the explanation of how natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, and other factors produced what we see around us.

Also, theory means that it’s a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence. It is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified. It is not mere conjecture, as many use “theory” to mean.

In fact I read recently somewhere that DNA was destroying evolution. And that seicentist were starting to question it. So if it isfact like you claim why is this happening.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Unless you can point me to your source, I can’t answer your question.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 11:55 AM
Comment #105560
In fact I read recently somewhere that DNA was destroying evolution. And that seicentist were starting to question it. So if it isfact like you claim why is this happening.

Studying DNA is currently the best way to show ancestral relationships between different species.

Posted by: Loren at December 21, 2005 2:29 PM
Comment #105598

Could this be an impeachable offense, Bush promoting something unconstitutional?

Posted by: Garett at December 21, 2005 3:20 PM
Comment #105604

No, I don’t think so. He was expressing his opinion, not enacting policy. If, instead, he signed an executive order banning the teaching of evolution, then you might have something. There’s no chance of that, though.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 21, 2005 3:24 PM
Comment #105734

In the interest of giving this discussion a little more depth I’d like to build on what sanger said above about science & religion not being contradictory, and I completely agree, it might be valuable for people here to know who actually conceptualised that idea first.
The philosopher who did this was Averroes. Now the fact that he was a muslim might not be helpful for some poor souls, but he is well established as one of the great minds in all of human history. There’s a famous painting by Raphael, ‘The School of Athens’, that has Averroes at the shoulder of Plato and Aristotle whom I’m sure most are familiar with.

Posted by: Jon at December 21, 2005 6:41 PM
Comment #105862

Could this be an impeachable offense, Bush promoting something unconstitutional?

Posted by: Garett at December 21, 2005 03:20 PM

Talk about grasping for straws. Yall want to impeach so bad yall can taste it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 22, 2005 8:36 AM
Comment #105968

Lawnboy,

“How is teaching Science in Science class shoving anything down anyone’s throat? Do you complain about the Theory of Gravity being “shoved down people’s throats?””


From my perspective, the “shoving” happens in that this theory is in many cases treated and taught as fact. There is QUITE a difference between the two.
Your reference to Gravity really highlights this. As I understand, Gravity is a LAW (ie. The LAW of Gravity)- tested, observed, and proven. Short of flaws in the methods used, this is as factual as science can get. Again as I understand, evolution (as the origin of the species) is theory - concept formulated, concept corrolated with certain historical evidences but not unilaterally, untestable (at least with today’s technology). These limits require by scientific method that Evolution remain a Theory.


“BTW, the missing link is a red herring…”

As for the missing link (singular) - this is a misnomer of sorts. The issue is really one of transitional species across a broad spectrum. Namely - they do not exist. Evolution within species is widely documented in fossil records, yes. This is NOT to be confussed with fossil records of transitionary forms from one species to another. This is still the “holy grail” so to speak which the evolutionists “pray” to find.

Posted by: Paul C. at December 22, 2005 11:51 AM
Comment #105999

A Visit From Old St. Hillary

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9181

“MERRY HOLIDAY” from the ACLU

http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2005/12/43-merry-holiday-from-aclu.html

Posted by: Lug at December 22, 2005 12:18 PM
Comment #106021

Paul C.,

As I understand, Gravity is a LAW (ie. The LAW of Gravity)- tested, observed, and proven.

Actually, you demonstrate here that you don’t understand the issue. There is the fact of Gravity, the Law of Gravity, and the Theory of Gravity. They are different things.

  • The fact of Gravity is the fact that objects are attracted to each other; that an apple falls out of your hand when you drop it.
  • The Law of Gravity was Newton’s formulation to help us understand Gravity. It’s a simple equation, which is what a Law must be. It’s accurate for everyday experiences with Gravity. It has been, as you said, tested, observed, and proven within the scale of everyday life.
  • However, the Law of Gravity does not hold true for phenomena on the fringes. At the very large scale (between stars) and the very small scale (within atoms), the Law of Gravity is no longer valid. This is where the Theory of Gravity comes in. The Theory of Gravity is our incomplete but increasing understanding of what’s going on behind the scenes in Gravity, in such a way that explains the everyday effects and the quantum effects. The current formulation of the Theory of Gravity has not been disproven, but there are still gaps in the understanding.
This situation is somewhat analagous to Evolution.
  • The fact of Evolution is that species change over time, both within the species and from one species to another. It has been demonstrated in the lab, it has been seen in the wild, and it is seen over history. The fact that Evolution happens has been tested, observed, and proven.
  • There is no Law of Evolution because Evolution is too complex to be explained as succinctly as is required (just as we later found out that Newton’s succinct explanation of Gravity was incomplete).
  • There is the Theory of Evolution, which is the the explanation of how natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, and other factors produced what we see around us. The current formulation of the Theory of Evolution has not been disproven (although it could be), but there are still gaps in the understanding.
In both cases, for Gravity and for Evoltuion, theory means that it’s a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence. It is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified. It is not mere conjecture, as many use “theory” to mean.

Here’s more on the confusion between theory and fact.

These limits require by scientific method that Evolution remain a Theory.

Yes, but that’s not the limitation that you seem to think it is. As I’ve said, a Scientific Theory is not something to be dismissed so easily.

So, both Evolution and Gravity are Theories that have backing of fact. Nothing but knowledge is being presented. To claim that presenting knowledge is shoving anything down anyone’s throat is misguided.

The issue is really one of transitional species across a broad spectrum. Namely - they do not exist.

Yes, they do. There are many examples. There are gaps, granted, but there are no more gaps than the mathematics and Evolutionary Theory would predict.

Essentially, the problem is that the requirement continually changes. When a transitional fossil is discovered that fills in a gap, doubters don’t see this as evidence that a gap was filled. Instead, it’s used as evidence that there are now two gaps! It wouldn’t matter how many fossils would be found, there would still be a change from one find to the next, and that difference would be used as evidence of a mythical missing link.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #106042

Maybe I’m entering a little late in this discussion but I just thought I’d interject:

What I personally love most about this ruling is that it further divides and distances what I would call “mainstream” republicans from the Religious Right. After all, the RR is obviously angry about this decision….and who are they to be mad at? Why it’s not the ACLU this time, it’s a conservative Republican judge and the constitution itself. Keep at it Dobson, Falwell and co.and it’s been nice to know ya.

Posted by: J.D. at December 22, 2005 1:02 PM
Comment #106165
The fact of Evolution is that species change over time, both within the species and into new species. This has been observed in laboratories, in the fossil record, and in many other places.

So Lawnboy, I reckon that the socalled scientist that are studying this are somewhere areound 10,000 years old. I mean if this would have to be a VERY long term study.

The two things that cann’t be proved are evolution and creation. And sense evolution CANNOT be proved it ISNOT a sceince and has NO business being taught in school any more than creation.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 22, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #106181
The two things that cann’t be proved are evolution and creation. And sense evolution CANNOT be proved it ISNOT a sceince and has NO business being taught in school any more than creation.

You keep repeating this as though you had a point.

It has been proved that evolution happened. Evolution is a Scientific Theory. What can’t be proved is what exact sequence happened in the past, but the evidence is incredibly strong. More importantly, Evolution is dis-provable. There many ways that we would have been able to disprove Evolution, but Evolution has withstood those tests.

On contrast, Creation is a non-Scientific hypothesis with no Scientific evidence that relies on non-Scientific things happening. Further, Creation relies on being neither provable nor disprovable. You either accept it or you don’t; that’s not Science.

Evolution is a Scientific idea with Scientific backing. Creation isn’t.

One should be taught in school. One shouldn’t.

So Lawnboy, I reckon that the socalled scientist that are studying this are somewhere areound 10,000 years old.

Nope, they are normal people. See the link I provide in the 2nd paragraph to learn about these scientists and their work.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #106201
It has been proved that evolution happened. Evolution is a Scientific Theory.

Theory ISNOT fact. So it hasn’t beem proven.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 22, 2005 4:02 PM
Comment #106209
Theory ISNOT fact. So it hasn’t beem proven.

Ron,

Let’s try this again. Evolution is a fact. It happened, it happens, and it has been proven. The understanding of the process of how it happened is a theory. That process and the details of the past have not been proven.

The fact that Evolution happened and still happens has been proven.

Your statement is logically equivalent to saying that Gravity is a Theory, so it shouldn’t be taught.

It’s ludicrous.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 4:07 PM
Comment #106279

I knew someone would try and line up Evolution alongside Gravity sooner or later. First of all LawnBoy is spot on. Newton’s Law of Gravity was shown to be limited (though still fairly useful) by Einstein’s work (& Bohr, etc). By the way his Theories (and even these are ‘Theories’) are celebrating their 100th anniversary… shows you how long it takes ideas to percolate through society.
The theories of gravity, evolution and every other facet of science can be disproven, even the ‘Laws’. (Mind you I’d fall over dead in amazement if someone invalidated the Second Law of Thermodynamics)
So why is gravity ‘only a theory’ now. We know the universe is expanding, and what’s more the various galaxies within it are moving away from each other, clearly gravity is not holding sway here. Now some scientists are hypothesising that there is ‘dark matter’ out there, but they are still working on that one. As said earlier as well, at the atomic level (& human size level) gravity is too weak so other forces take over. There are 4 (that we know of), Electromagnetic, Strong and Weak Nuclear, and Gravity. Finding some way to unify them into an overarching theory is the biggest prize in science today. And Gravity is the one that poses the major problem… because it seems we actually don’t understand it that well, not as well as the other 3 forces anyway.
The school of thought that currently has the lead in coming up with a possible answer are the String Theorists. The primary argument against them though is that string theory by its nature is impossible to test, and as a result disprove. On this point there is a similarity between string theory & ID, the difference being that string theorist are making an effort to put forward their ideas for peer review and challenges to make it stronger. That is if it doesn’t somehow get debunked, or as is more likely someone comes up with a better explanation that makes it into the big-T Theory league.
Let me prempt anyone who wants to jump in and say evolution can’t be tested, no, that’s not the same… the challenge with evolution is timescale, if you wanted to do a re-enactment of human evolution (as I suspect is the proof that some would require) you need a lot of space & time. If you were to fit the history of the universe (current estimate at about 13 billion years) into a calendar year, all of human history fits into the last couple of seconds. On this scale the building blocks of life probably started around July, and no that last part is not science, I’m just pointing out that for those of you for whom fruit flies (who get picked on because their lifespans are short and can ‘evolve’ quick(er)) & DNA is not enough Proof, the rest of us can not help you anymore than we have already tried.
Anyway back to Gravity, there’s a rather large missing link. How does it actually work? Most of you have just sat there and simply accepted big planet here, a sun or a moon there & they just orbit right? Or let go of an apple and it drops to the ground. But how do the planets, sun, moon or apple recognise there are other objects there? How do they interact and make gravity happen? Really just pause for a moment and think about it…
Now under the current theory, there should be a sub-atomic particle that’s been called the graviton that’s the key part of this interaction. Problem is no-one has actually observed one. We’ve theorised every other sub-atomic particle, run those very expensive particle accelerators, found it, everyone has a little party. But the graviton is harder to find, and so Gravity has its own missing link. People smarter than you & I are looking for it, and they have piles of government money helping them. If they do find it, you’ll hear about it, because it will be a really big deal. The possibliity remains though that it doesn’t exist, that our current Theory of Gravity is wrong, or perhaps partly wrong, and someone needs to rework the whole idea.

There is nothing in Science that is held to be beyond invalidation. Some scientists might every now & then claim absolute truth, by that’s just the megalomania speaking. Science itself doesn’t claim to be The Absolute Truth, it embraces it’s heretics and makes them heroes when they do something useful.

Posted by: Jon at December 22, 2005 7:51 PM
Comment #106282
Evolution is a fact. It happened, it happens, and it has been proven.

No it aint fact. And it aint been proven.
If it is happening then what are we ‘evolving’ into. Where are they? Why aren’t there some kind of part human part higher beings running around? When I see one of these then I just might concider evolution has a remote chance of being fact.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 22, 2005 8:06 PM
Comment #106285

Ron,
Really I appreciate your willingness to challenge the status quo, it’s what a good scientist would do. Plus you probably posted while I was composing my little opus.
The point is for your test to be valid you need to take a trip and come back in say 10 or 20 thousand years, maybe more, and see if there are any changes. Even better human kind needs to colonise a couple of suitable planets, live separatly on each for a suitably long time, and then the changes might occur, different from each other according to what works better on the particular planet that they are on. And if something here disproves Evolution, then so be it.

Posted by: Jon at December 22, 2005 8:17 PM
Comment #106289

Ron,

It is a fact, and it has been proven. Spend some time at talkorigins.org to learn about the issue. I don’t know why you refused to accept it; I just can’t tell. However, simply denying the facts does not make the facts go away.

If it is happening then what are we ‘evolving’ into.
As I said before, no one knows. It’s impossible for us to know, because evolution works as a reaction to the situations to species encounters, and we don’t know what our species will encounter in the future.
Why aren’t there some kind of part human part higher beings running around?
Who says that our descendents will be higher in any way? The only thing we could say is that they would be different.

In fact, we do see evolution, but on a minor scale. For example, the addition of eyeglasses to our world has decreased the evolutionary harm of having bad eyes. So, the percentage of people with near-sightedness has increased.

Evolution is real. Just because it is described with a Theory doesn’t make it any less real. In fact, Theories are the only tool Science has for something as complex as Evolution. You’re essentially denying Evolution on the basis of Evolution being complex. Does that make sense?

I’m not sure how long I’ll keep responding to your unsupported claims against Evolution, but maybe you’ll learn something at some point.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 8:28 PM
Comment #106302

…I wonder what the evolutionary effects of blogging will be… ;-) It’s certainly addictive enough to have an impact.

I’d like to suggest what’s going on here. First Science has no problem with Religion. A great example is Einstein himself. Faced with the consequences of his own theories, in combination with quantum physics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Einstein took offence at the implications this had for the invalidation of cause & effect (at the atomic level) and what he felt posed a threat to an almighty being. Thus (one of) his famous quotes “God doesn’t play dice”. Personally I disagree that he needed to feel that God, physics & the uncertainty principle could not all get along, but this didn’t stop him from spending (and you could argue wasting) the rest of his life trying to invalidate his own theories. My point is you can place your trust in science and still have faith at the same time. Please see Averroes above. Even more on point is Darwin himself… he procrastinated for years in fact before publishing his work because he realised what the implications were, and he still remained a person of faith.
The way I see it, it is Religion or more accurately the institutions of faith and the threat it/they feel to their unquestioned authority, power & influence that science presents through principles like evolution where the ‘controversy’/problem is really at. This ID/Creationism vs Evolution slapfest is simply a re-run of when the Church felt it needed to put Copernicus and Galileo in their place because they said the Earth was orbiting the Sun, and the Church wanted to insist that mankind and as a result the Earth was at the centre of the universe. The strategy difference being that the IDers want to play the part of victim, such an important political & moral high ground in today’s world. So evolution poses a threat to the absolute truth of the Bible… God can still exist without that, right?… tick… tick… tick…

Posted by: Jon at December 22, 2005 9:15 PM
Comment #106303
I’m not sure how long I’ll keep responding to your unsupported claims against Evolution, but maybe you’ll learn something at some point.

Re-reading this, I realized how obnoxious it sounds. What I meant is that I encourage you to do some outside reasearch and study the issue and realize that Evolution is well established.

Sorry.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 9:20 PM
Comment #106515

Ron,

What part of evolution hasn’t been proved? I’d really be interested in hearing what you think the theory of evolution actually is. We might actually be able to have an intelligent conversation.

Posted by: Loren at December 23, 2005 6:23 AM
Comment #106734

Loren

All of it.


Jon
I don’t feel threated by anything. I just don’t see any proof of evolution.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 23, 2005 1:46 PM
Comment #106755

Loren,

I guess Ron isn’t interested in the intelligent conversation you offered. Oh well.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 2:11 PM
Comment #106937

Good for you Ron. I’m glad you feel secure. Clearly some others do feel threatened by Evolution, specifically because (without saying anything about the existence of God) it does contradict the literal interpretation of Genesis, which by the way is the basis of more than one monotheistic religion. These people are unable to accept the existence of God without this literalism, so they lash out at Evolution.

So you reject Evolution (but not for the reason I’ve just outlined, ok), I can’t do your thinking for you. At some point you have to accept that you are not prepared to be Rational. Do I feel threaten by a refusal to accept Reason? No. Annoyed, yes. But only because we’ve done alot of good using reason as the cornerstone of science, and that includes the evolution sciences. At some point your children, grandchildren, a descendant or someone you care about will have their lives saved, and that will be done through the exercise of reason using the science of evolution. Will you be denied access to its benefits, while rejecting the ideas that create these advances? No, of course not. But it is just a little odd, and while you may refuse to openly acknowledge it, some part of you secretly knows this.
Your God is important to you. Ok, I have no problem with that.
My God and Reason are important to me.

Posted by: Jon at December 23, 2005 9:12 PM
Comment #107173

Jon
Like I said, I’m not threatend by anything.
I’m willing to except resonable rational. There isn’t anything resonable about the rational that the earth came from some big bang. And out of all the chaos this caused order somehow magicaly appeared. And the earth by chance just happend to get just the right distance from the sun to sustain life. Then some how some form of life just happend to start. And from that chance start, that life developed into humanbeings.
Where’s the rational with this?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 24, 2005 5:52 PM
Comment #119900

Hi everyone. Just to let you know there is a great new raffle going on.. It’s for a brand new Mustang GT Convertible!!, I found it here.

Posted by: James at February 3, 2006 1:43 AM
Post a comment