May Kansas become a sinkhole. [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

RTA

08-11-1999, 09:16 PM

It's good news; I actually hope it goes through.
That way, Kansas will become a total laughingstock. Their universities will be shunned by research dollars and forsaken by academic heavy-hitters. Many corporations will refrain from moving into such a clearly backwards area, costing them jobs and taxes. And as it has been stated, people will be embarassed simply to admit they are natives.
My point is, if people just sit back and allow the religious busybodies (RBs) to run Kansas into the ground, setting that state back 100 years just so they can force their tired mythologies into a few more hapless kids' heads, the eventual backlash will free us ALL from that same RB menace. (RBs infect every community, even yours.)

Dernhelm

08-11-1999, 10:10 PM

Apparently logic has also flown out the window:
Religious groups have argued that evolution cannot be proven...
I dare them to try and prove that God exists. In fact, I double-dog dare them. If they want to teach creationism, let them push for a voluntary religious studies course.

------------------
"I'm not confused, I'm just well mixed"
--Robert Frost

08-11-1999, 10:51 PM

The Kansas board of education voted today to remove evolution from its curriculum as the principle underlying biology.
Praise God. :) Wow. Praise God!

Adam

jazzmine

08-11-1999, 11:05 PM

Only Adam would want to be associated with Kansas. Sheesh.

trisha

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice - Albert Einstein

08-12-1999, 12:37 AM

Only Adam would want to be associated with Kansas.
Sure I would. Hey, I think it's awesome that the school is getting rid of evolution in the classroom. Perhaps, one day, they'd put prayer back in schools too. ALL schools.
More importantly Kansas will produce no scientists or doctors.
Actually, MORE importantly, maybe Kansas will produce more people who know that God created the heavens and the earth.

Wait, are they going to teach creationism in place of evolution? I should hope so. What this country needs is more men, and women of God. Not more scientists, or even doctors. Of course, if you are a doctor, AND a Christian, then that's the best combo. :)

RTA

08-12-1999, 06:43 AM

Just let me off at the next corner ...

hansel

08-12-1999, 07:08 AM

God help me deal with ARG220...

No, they won't be teaching creationism in its place, from what I've heard. Even people in Kansas aren't stupid enough to think that silly-ass pseudoscience is worth teaching.

Does it concern you at all that teaching creationism to elementary schoolchildren would be like teaching flat-earth physics or white supremacist genetics? That, no matter how strongly you believe in them yourself, all you're doing is creating a bunch of children who are hamstrung educationally, who will require a major paradigm shift if they get to some heathen university in the hope of dragging themselves out of the backwater and may come to feel real resentment at you for forcing a political (note: not religious, ARG) agenda down their throats?

Tell me, how is it that millions of people learn about and accept evolution without losing their faith?

Kansas: the new banjo country.

C K Dexter Haven

08-12-1999, 09:13 AM

Dernhelm: << I dare them to try and prove that God exists. In fact, I double-dog dare them. >>

Dern, my understanding is that they are NOT trying to teach "creationism" (they know the courts would eventually kill that), but they are trying to drop evolution.

BTW, one reading of the proposal is not that they stop teaching evolution, but that they drop the word "evolution." Don't wanna allow them naughty four-letter words creeping into the school curriculum. What? More than four letters? Sorry, I went to school in Kansas, I can't count beyond four.

The logic that says that "evolution is only a theory and therefore should not be taught as fact" works for me. Similarly with the theory of gravity, number theory, and any theories of sociology or psychology.

hansel

08-12-1999, 09:39 AM

All science should be taught in schools as "this is the current theory; it explains this, has trouble with this, and replaced this theory." I have little faith that evolution will survive on a technicality. The spirit of the new curriculum is apparently to dodge the issue entirely: if we can't say something creationist about our origins, we won't say anything at all.

NicePete

08-12-1999, 10:27 AM

You know, it takes a real muttonhead not to be able to appreciate a complex idea -- like , hey, maybe God created the evolutionary process.

That would be the same kind of muttonhead who thinks that God wants us to be ignorant sheep. Yep, that God, he gave us the power of thought and logic, but he doesn't want us to use them. What he wants us to do, you see, is believe what other PEOPLE tell us he wants. Thou shalt not think for thyself. That would be the same kind of God who's incapable of using imagery or metaphor in his literary works.

Sheesh. Or more to the point, ARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!

------------------
"Owls will deafen us with their incessant hooting!" W. Smithers

mr john

08-12-1999, 10:44 AM

I am with Adam on putting prayer back in the schools. I will even be the first to lead it, " Oh,RASTOGLATHE, Eater of Children,Raveger of Crops,Drinker of Souls, be with us on this day as we tremble in fear..." Adam, is it ok if my Bahai friend comes to lead a prayer?

08-12-1999, 10:48 AM

Adam, have you so soon forgotten your apology, and your promise not to cram your religious beliefs down unwilling throats? Well, what do you call it when children--Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, atheists--are forced to undergo fundamentalist Christian indoctrination in school? Would you think it was terrific if it happened to be someone else's religion that was being taught as the official dogma to public school students?

Shirley Ujest

08-12-1999, 11:10 AM

Where's Phil when we need him?

ellis555

08-12-1999, 11:45 AM

just thought y'all might like to hear another example of the brilliance of our neighbors in kansas.

i live in vermont, where the state supreme court is currently ruling on same-sex marriages. a group of right-wing whackos from some "church" in kansas schlepped all the way up here to stand outside the courtroom holding signs proclaiming "God hates fags" (which, incidentally, is also their website http://www.godhatesfags.com, a truly sick place) and other, love-thy-neighbor type Christian messages.

i just love friendly christians!

ellis

Dernhelm

08-12-1999, 01:28 PM

CK: Yeah, I was just saying that before they try to trash something that I believe in, they should know that what they believe in isn't exactly rock-solid either. BTW, there was a movement a while back to teach creationism alongside evolution. Which is where (in my initial anger) the last comment came from.

The religious groups who want evolution banned in the schools (or at least the word evolution) are doing exactly what they tell us not to do with the Bible. They're picking and choosing what to teach and what to let alone.
From the article: ...eliminates evolution as a way to describe the emergence of new species — for instance the evolution of primates into homo sapiens — while leaving intact references to ”microevolution,”...
In other words, yeah, species can adapt to their environment, but we are not descended from monkeys!(insert Bible thumping here) Sheesh. It's not like science made this up just to corrupt their kids.

I'm thankful that my Bio teacher had the guts to tackle evolution in our class. To my knowlege, not much in science is taught as solid fact. Evolution is a theory. So far, it holds water. Physics is theory, but it accurately models our world.

Adam said: Hey, I think it's awesome that the school is getting rid of evolution ... Perhaps...they'd put prayer back in schools too. ALL schools.
Whose prayer, Adam? Will you rotate religious prayers based on student enrollment? I don't go to school for prayer (that's what church is for), I go for education. I'll make you a deal. When you get to force me to listen to prayer, then I'll get to force the theory of evolution on you. OK?

------------------
"I'm not confused, I'm just well mixed"
--Robert Frost

Big Iron

08-12-1999, 06:26 PM

[[Hey, I think it's awesome that the school is getting rid of evolution in the classroom.]] Arg

Yeah, because "God" surely wants "His" children to be ignorant bozos with a deep misunderstanding of science.

[[ Perhaps, one day, they'd put prayer back in schools too. ALL schools. ]]

Yeah!!! Even the ones where the parents don't want it!

corvidae

08-13-1999, 12:10 AM

It's pretty short-sighted of fundamentalist christians to think that G-d can't be a little more subtle than just saying "Poof!" and everything is all there in its present form. How are they going to explain away things like fossil records?

Narile

08-13-1999, 12:59 AM

'Oh Shit Toto, we are back in Kansas!!' - Quote from an old Mike Peter's cartoon, now all the more appropriate. *sigh*

Am glad I don't live there.

------------------
>>Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry....unless the other guy is bigger than you.<<

---The dragon observes

pldennison

08-13-1999, 10:27 AM

Sure I would. Hey, I think it's awesome that the school is getting rid of evolution in the
classroom. Perhaps, one day, they'd put prayer back in schools too. ALL schools.

Adam apparently erased Hebrews 13:17 from his Bible.

Anyway, Adam, tell me, based on your (I'm sure) wide home-school instruction in biology, which of the following statements, if any, you disagree with:

1) Living creatures contain a substance called DNA, which encodes the information for making another creature of the same type.

2) Many living creatures often combine their DNA with that of another of their type to create offspring.

3) Because of this combination, and because of the possibility of errors in copying, most offpsring differ slightly from their parents, and some differ in major ways.

4) All living creatures compete with each other to find mates, and to feed from and live among limited resources.

5) Some creatures are more likely than others, for whatever reason, to find food, living space, mates or some combination thereof.

6) Those creatures that are unsuccessful in finding mates will not combine their DNA with anyone else's; those that are successful, will.

Big Iron

08-13-1999, 01:26 PM

[[Let's just say that I wish that they would allow freedom of religion in schools, but then we get into the whole church and state thing, and on this subject, I'm very ignorant, so I don't think I'm going to say anything else about prayer in schools.]] Arg

Of course, FTR, they DO allow freedom of religion in public schools. What "they" don't allow is for the government to use its resources (including comulsory attendance) to foster religious belief in impressionable young children. Children can pretty much pray on their own initiative all they want in school, wear fish pins, you name it.

NicePete

08-13-1999, 02:00 PM

ARG, what we have now is freedom of religion in our schools. You're free to pray or otherwise non-disruptively practice your religion in school. What you are NOT allowed to do is enforce your religion on other people. The government is not allowed to tell you how to pray or require you to pray. Why do you assume if "prayer was returned to schools" the prayer would be to your liking? I'm willing to bet that fundementalists of your ilk would be the first to holler if mandatory prayer was returned to public schools because the prayer used did not meet your doctrinal interpretation.

I just find it hard to understand why people who have strong religious beliefs think it would be a good thing for the government to madate religious practice. It's OK for the government abnegate religious freedom so long as it's your religion that's being imposed on everyone.

------------------
"Owls will deafen us with their incessant hooting!" W. Smithers

AuraSeer

08-13-1999, 02:24 PM

ARG220 wrote:
Let's just say that I wish that they would allow freedom of religion in schools...

You know what, Adam? For once, I agree with you. I wish that kids in school could really be free to practice their religion.

I wish that pagan students could wear the pentacle to school if they chose, without fear of its being confiscated as "gang insignia." I wish that possessing a book on witchcraft at school were not considered an offense subject to discipline.

I wish that schools who want their students to be moral would actually start teaching and demonstrating morality, instead of posting the Ten Christian Commandments and assuming that all the students will instantly start behaving themselves.

If people say they want religious freedom, this means ALL religions. I wish they would realize that.

VegForLife

08-13-1999, 02:44 PM

Tell me, honestly, how will not learning about the Big Bang and the origin of life affect the studies of a MD. Or, will not learning about that stuff affect a biologist?

It will affect them in the same way that not learning about Mozart will affect someone who currently plays in a jazz band. . . It will affect them in the same way that not learning about Monet will affect someone who paints today. . . Perhaps most importantly here, it will affect them in the same way that not learning about other religious beliefs will affect someone who tries to teach others about his or her own religious beliefs.

In short, it will affect them by making their education less complete, and therefore making them potentially less effective at what they do.

Rich

08-13-1999, 03:53 PM

The decision of the Education board was stupid. But I believe High School kids are mature enough to make sensible opinions on this subject.

vanillanice

08-13-1999, 04:47 PM

I hear Kansas is actually admitting also that this is a country run by the people, for the people, and of the people!What some folks will believe...

08-13-1999, 07:32 PM

To rephrase for clarity: You are saying that Big Bang and other evolution stuff doesn't make sense to you. It isn't presumably in your view logical. What is it about these things that seems illogical to you?
Ok, here's what irritates me about evolution. It takes God out of the equation. That's the bottom line. It says that the universe, and everything in it were formed out of nothing.

Tell me, honestly, how does absolute nothingness become something? Anything. Instead of saying that God (or some great being) CREATED something out of nothing, evolutionists just say that it happened upon chance.

I wonder, what the chances are, mathematically, of random "particles" becoming the elements of the universe. what are the chances of them just bumping together in the vastness of space, and forming atoms, and elements. I think those monkeys have a far better chance of typing out Hamlet. And what of those random elements becoming amino acids. And then what are the chances there would be four basic amino acids coming together and forming DNA. And what are the unbelievable odds that that simple tiny strand of DNA would figure out, all by itself to copy itself, and then copy itself again. And what are the chances that an amoeba would be formed, much less the infinite complexity of a insect, or a mammal for goodness sake.

You see, for me, and many others, it's far more logical that God created those amino acids, and those amoebas. And that He created those dinosaurs, and those fossils of the trilobite.

Evolution asks many questions, but rarely does one find answers. Where are all the millions of lissing links? If species are constantly adapting to increase their rate of survival, then how do you explain the Giant Panda (who has the most inefficient digestive tract of any mammal), or the California Condor, who lays one egg every two years. (Or something like that.)
And the most important question, where did all those vast particles in space come from? The Big Bang?

Creationism has the answer. It was by the mighty hand of God that everything you see was formed.

I'm not speaking to those who believe that God put the universe in motion, then let "evolution" take it's course. I'm asking these questions to the ones who took God out of the the equation totally. It's that belief that I find...impossible to believe.

Adam

08-13-1999, 08:36 PM

Science is not supposed to teach WHY the Universe got the way it is. That's religion's job. Science is supposed to teach HOW the universe got the way it is.

The only people who are asserting that "science is attacking religion" are a bunch of cracker preachers who have no real faith themselves! These crackers got into religion because , in their tiny hillbilly towns, preachers had status and power. And they wanted that power! Power over the minds, beliefs and even the lives of the people in that community.These people saw education as a threat. It gives folks the ability to see through the BS the cracker preachers spout, and do without these false priests.

A REAL man of faith does not need to oppress others . His faith comes from within, and is based on a desire to serve others; and thereby serve God. Attacking science education is an attack on our children's future. If evolution is strictened from our books and schools, soon all science will be strickened. As well as art, music , literature, philosophy and anything else except a 'religion' that would be FALSE! False, because it would be enforced by law--by the police powers of the state---by violence.

If you don't believe this is possible, remember what happened to Galileo--he observed the univers through a telescope; saw things that contradicted the Church's teachings, and was punished for speaking the truth by being imprisoned for life!
REMEMBER--the Spanish Inquisition! They tortured anyone they could catch if they did not agree with the Church's religious doctrine!
REMEMBER---the religious wars of Europe, where whole towns were exterminated because in the struggle between Protestant & Catholic they had the hard luck to choose to pray in the wrong church.

Our Founding Fathers remembered these things and more. SO THEY SEPARATED CHURCH AND STATE!
And thus spared us vast ammounts of bloodshed. Now some callow, unthinking fools want to undo this.

May God save us from the people who loudly proclaim that they serve Him, for they have never met Him, and they would destroy us all.

hansel

08-13-1999, 10:44 PM

Tell me, honestly, how does absolute nothingness become something? Anything. Instead of saying that God (or some great being) CREATED something out of nothing, evolutionists just say that it happened upon chance.

How does absolute nothingness become God, who then creates the universe?

Seriously. Why God? Or perhaps, how God? How is it that the concept of God makes more sense than the Big Bang? Answer this without reference to faith, as in "that's just what I believe". Why is an omniscient, omnipresent being somehow more reasonable than natural processes amounting to the universe as it is today?

By the way, in this thread and the one in Great Debates, the big bang keeps getting brought up along with evolution. I wasn't aware that the two were ever tied together explicitly. I realize there's a good fit, but I don't think evolution is in any way dependent upon the big bang for its premises or conclusions. The conflation of the two seems to get at the heart of fundamentalists insecurity about both: the lack of God in the equation.

08-14-1999, 12:22 AM

Ok, I opened up a whole can of worms with my statement about prayers in school. Now I wish I hadn't said that. Let's just say that I wish that they would allow freedom of religion in schools, but then we get into the whole church and state thing, and on this subject, I'm very ignorant, so I don't think I'm going to say anything else about prayer in schools. (Yes, I'm dodging the question...er...topic)

Now the topic of evolution is a different story, right? I will not argue that species today can adapt. But, I have huge problems with the Big Bang thoery, and the belief that all of us came from some primordial ooze. THIS is what I believe is poppycock, and shouldn't be taught in schools.

Tell me, honestly, how will not learning about the Big Bang and the origin of life affect the studies of a MD. Or, will not learning about that stuff affect a biologist?

Schools will never stop teaching evolution, so all of you have nothing to worry about. But I'm just asking if somebody could survive in the field of science today, without ever hearing of Charles Darwin. (Well, except paleontology, or anthropology...or studies along those lines)

Adam

bernard

08-14-1999, 12:33 AM

I can respect that you think Big Bang (which is supported by observations of the universe) and us coming from primordial ooze is "poppycock", but why? Please don't say because the bible says so.

To rephrase for clarity: You are saying that Big Bang and other evolution stuff doesn't make sense to you. It isn't presumably in your view logical. What is it about these things that seems illogical to you?

Question #2: Can you see a parallel between your seeing these things as illogical and making no sense, and atheists who say that God makes no sense?

Xgemina

08-14-1999, 01:28 AM

Adam stated:
how do you explain the Giant Panda (who has the most inefficient digestive tract of any mammal), or the California Condor, who lays one egg every two years. (Or something like that.) ...

Creationism has the answer. It was by the mighty hand of God that everything you see was formed.

So what your saying is that God has a pretty wide sadistic streak messing up the poor panda and condor like that. After all he is all-powerful and all-knowing, what's the excuse for the shoddy work in this case?

Lissa

08-14-1999, 01:38 AM

To Adam/ARG, Re: your particle junk:

Natural selection is not random, nor does it operate by chance. Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. There are hundreds, if not thousands of intermediate steps, some of which still occur in nature.

According to author Michael Shermer, in order for the monkey to type Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 trials for success. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter is eradicated, then the process is much faster. Richard Hardison in 1988 wrote a computer program in which the letters were selected for or against, which is much the way genes are selected for/against.

It took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. It took about 90 seconcds. The entire play can be selected in only 4.5 days.

Sigh . . . The so called "Missing links" are there. There are plently of transitional fossils. Just look at the Archeopteryx, part reptile/part bird. Also the Ambuloecteus natans-- an example of the transition from land mammal to whale. We also have oodles of human transitional fossils.

Here's how I explain the condor and the panda: they have evolved to suit their present environment. The panda may not need a better digestive system . . . he is suited to his environment, or even now is still in the process of changing to meet his environment. Species that have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, such as the horseshoe crabs, sharks and the like have merely met the needs of their unchanging environment. They have evolved to the point where change is no longer needed, because their environment is stable and unchanging, while other marine species have changed rapidly and dramatically to suit their needs.

There is not one blueprint suiting all species that dictates how often they breed, how they digest or ANYTHING for that matter. Biodiversity is so amazingly complex. If God created all of the species, why didn't He create them to all breed and function in the same manner? Are you saying that God goofed when he made the panda's faulty digestive tract? Why would He give a species a faulty system?

You find evolution/science hard to believe because you've never been properly exposed to any of it. If you sit there saying to yourself, "Well, you can explain your science to me, but I'm not buying it because I believe that God did it," you won't learn a thing. And if you are the kind of person who would turn a blind eye to evidence, logic and reasoning, then you are pathetic indeed. I am open to learning about all theories. I will not automaticly discard knowledge because it doesn't fit my preconceived notion of the way things are. I don't fear challenges to my beliefs. Only ignorant people are. Lack of knowledge on a subject is understandable, but ignorance is unforgivable. Because ignorant people don't WANT to learn.

Your faith is strong. Surely it wouldn't be shaken by reading a few books on evolutionary theory.

I'll admit that evolutionary theory can't explain everything, if you'll just admit that neither can the Bible. I am not afraid to question inconsistancies in science, but you won't question the inconsistancies in your belief that God created this world for his amusement.

bernard

08-14-1999, 08:03 AM

Ok, here's what irritates me about evolution. It takes God out of the equation. That's the bottom line. It says that the universe, and everything in it were formed out of nothing.

It does? How do you figure that? Ask a scientist someday what was around before the Big Bang. Wait I can save you the trouble and answer it for what most scientists are likely to say: "I don't know".

It could be that before the Big Bang there was the Big Crunch (the end of the "previous" universe), but according to our best current knowledge it looks like our universe will expand forever, and since our universe is presumably the same "stuff" as the previous universe then the Big Crunch seems unlikely. So, suggesting evolution or the Big Bang has nothing to do with taking God out of the picture. Maybe God created the Big Bang. Certainly, one thing is absolutely and totally clear:

If there is God then he certainly made a universe which at a minimum appears to be created from a Big Bang, and he certainly made it at a minimum appear that we evolved from lower orders of life. How acknowledging what God's world looks like is an attack on religion is beyond me.

As stated by others, if this is the sort of games that God plays (i.e. making it BAD to examine the universe and find the discoveries that God made) then this only solidifies me more that either God doesn't exist or I want no part of God's "plan".

bernard

08-14-1999, 08:06 AM

And another thing ...

once more I love how certain religous types state that when the bible/religious teaching are contradicted by "extremely proven" science then the claim is "Well, the bible is just being poetic".

BUT is there is the remotest chance of poking the smallest holes in a theory (NOT a hypothesis) then the claim is "Well, the bible is being literal, and your science is an attack on my religion." GOOD GRIEF!

Somebody PLEASE invent a time machine so we can put all of this to rest! Although one would wonder it the religious types would claim that the time machine is actually a hallucination and any evidence gathered by it is suspect.

Czarcasm

08-15-1999, 12:13 AM

Small note to Adam:
Science-Ask the question and find the answer.
Religion-Give the answer and make the question fit, ignore the question, or attack the question.

Science-When something is not yet known, the term used is "unknown".
Religion-When something is unknown, the term used is "god".

Biology, geology, and for the most part history, are SCIENTIFIC persuits, and thus should use a scientific method of fact-finding.

vern

08-15-1999, 05:50 PM

Excuse me - I'm a junior in high school in Lawrence, Kansas. And I'm completely ashamed to admit to living here now! I'm a non-christian. And to those of you who want to put prayer back in the school, or at least have religious freedom in public schools -- kids shouldn't be suspended for wearing the pentagram or carrying witchcraft books. I have hindu friends who aren't hounded because they are from India. But my peers see me, a white American, and all of a sudden I'm supposed to be a christian? What's up with that? And why must all Christians push their beliefs on everyone else... when that's what they were running away from when they were getting persecuted. I wouldn't mind learning about Christianity, if I also was forced to learn about other religions as well. But to take evolution out of science classes. It's like taking every theorem from a math class. I don't have to take biology again, but hell if I'm going to let my younger sister go through school not learning about evolution because some idiots in western Kansas decided to take this state back to the dark ages.

Lissa

08-16-1999, 01:05 AM

vern,

One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is conversion of the non-believer. They see you as a damned soul, bound for hell in a handbasket. Understand that for them, they're trying to save you from what they see as an inavoidable fate unless you convert. It's not mean-spirited, in theory. They're trying to do you a cosmic favor. Problem is, they don't respond well to a "No, thank you."

But to take evolution out of science classes. It's like taking every theorem from a math class. I don't have to take biology again, but hell if I'm going to let my younger sister go through school not learning about evolution because some idiots in western Kansas decided to take this state back to the dark ages.

Nicely put. I think it's wonderful that you'll teach your sister. It may be the only chance she gets until college, unless the supreme court over-rules this abomination.

vern

08-16-1999, 06:36 AM

I understand that they are doing it as a favor to me. What I want to know, is why they don't try to convert, say, my friend, Arijit, who happens to be Hindu. I've stopped telling people I'm agnostic, because that gets a bad response from most. My mom urged me just to tell them I'm Buddhist. But, when I say that, they look at me, see that I'm white (you can barely see the asian in me), and still won't respect me. I think I've been wrong to judge all Christians as a whole and label them bad. That's wrong, but it's hard not to, when the majority of those you meet can't show you the respect you deserve and decide to damn you to hell every other sentence! It gets pretty old. Sorry if I offended any Christians with my last post... but you have to understand where I'm coming from!

the first supraliminal

08-16-1999, 08:17 AM

Micro-evolution is fact. But macro-evolution is an idea based wholly on assumption.

Evolutionists often make analogies between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity.

I'd like to make my own analogy. If you walk onto a field untouched by humans, or other intelligent life, and see a group of stones lying on the field, one might ask, "How did these stones get here?"

Simple answer: Gravity. Because gravity is fact, fact, fact! (Because all things fall to earth, these stones must have fallen to earth.)

But upon further analysis, you see that these stones spell out the words: "The Cat in the Hat."

Well, according to science, the probability that these stones were to fall in this order is infinitesimal, but nevertheless they have fallen. After all, gravity is fact, fact, fact!

Of course, if we were to assume that the only mechanism for these stones to be on the field was gravity, then however infinitesimal the occurance of "The Cat in the Hat" is, it is, nevertheless.

My point is: we don't thoroughly know the mechanisms that cause life, or the mechanisms that cause change (mutation is bogus), but we embrace this Theory of Evolution. We base this theory on our underlying assumption of a naturalistic universe, even though we don't completely understand nature itself.

Evolutionary theory is dying. Maybe it served its purpose of ousting Creationism from the throne, but it has no right to the throne itself.

When will stupid, arrogant scientists finally admit that they truly don't know.

------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

hansel

08-16-1999, 09:10 AM

If I only had a match for every straw man...

When will stupid, arrogant scientists finally admit that they truly don't know.

What would be the point? "We've been wrong all along; we've got no idea. Let's go home."

How about this? "Well, our theory of evolution sure pushed that creationist stuff out of the way. Now that our propaganda has served its purpose, let's put it away and start over from scratch. I can't believe anyone ever swallowed that 'macro-evolution' crap in the first place. 'Mutation'! What's up with that? People sure are gullible."

There is intense competition within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific problems with the theory are well known, and hard fought over. No scientist, that I'm aware of, has ever declared the theory of evolution to be finally settled and unquestionable.

Given the amount of anti-science sentiment here, it's less and less surprising to me what happened in Kansas.

vern

08-16-1999, 04:09 PM

Exactly what does everyone have against science?

tomndebb

08-16-1999, 09:46 PM

beeruser:My point is: we don't thoroughly know the mechanisms that cause life, or the mechanisms that cause change (mutation is bogus), but we embrace this Theory of Evolution. We base this theory on our underlying assumption of a naturalistic universe, even though we don't completely understand nature itself.

Evolutionary theory is dying. Maybe it served its purpose of ousting Creationism from the throne, but it has no right to the throne itself.

Have you actually read any scientific discussions on evolution? Not only is evolution not dead, Darwin's specific version is hardly suffering a stitch in its side--and it's been running for a long time.

New information (Mendelian genetics, DNA, etc.) have tended to provide the mechanisms that support Darwin's thesis.

Mutation is real. In recombining DNA from parent pairs, "mistakes" are made. These occur at mathemetically predictable rates. Much of DNA is "filler", so many of the "mistakes" are never noticed. When a mutation occurs in a sequence that happens to control growth activity (which also occurs at mathematically predictable rates), the offspring is materially affected. This can cause sufficent harm to prevent birth; it can cause sufficient harm to permit the birth, but conveys an unfavorable trait to the offspring so that it dies young (or before it can produce many offspring); it can convey a trait that is favorable--leading to many more offspring; or it can convey a trait that is neutral and is passed on to future generations simply by normal mathemetical chance. Occasionally, these "neutral" traits later confer an advantage on a future generation when the ecological niche of the species changes. All of this genetic activity has been discovered in the last 25 years as the result of other discoveries in the last 50 years.

Every one of these discoveries has tended to support the original hypothesis by Darwin.

Where did you ever get the idea that evolution (or even macro-evolution) is suffering in any way?

------------------
Tom~

vern

08-16-1999, 09:54 PM

Amen Tom -- you've obviously done your homework!

matt_mcl

08-16-1999, 11:21 PM

I think it's truly sad that Christians think that their god would resort to such a crass and facile method of propagation of species as creation, when to cause the miraculous diversity of life by evolution would be much more subtle and awe-inspiring.

The whole "it's much too random" argument is inspired by a lack of knowledge of the nature of speciation and evolution. The point of evolution is that lots and lots and lots of random mutations are possible (which is why there are lots and lots of species). However, only those which are beneficial are passed on. That's why you don't usually end up with freaks of nature, and when you do, they usually die quickly. (I am studiously avoiding saying anything about ARG here.)

Incidentally, the example of the California condor only laying one egg per two years only serves to prove evolution's point. Up until humans started to interfere with the condor, its reproductive schedule served it adequately. However, now it has ceased to do so, and as a result it is (sadly) dying off, since evolutionary pressures (human activities) are selecting against it.

VegForLife

08-17-1999, 10:56 AM

Incidentally, the example of the California condor only laying one egg per two years only serves to prove evolution's point. Up until humans started to interfere with the condor, its reproductive schedule served it adequately. However, now it has ceased to do so, and as a result it is (sadly) dying off, since evolutionary pressures (human activities) are selecting against it.

Fortunately, other human activities are working toward re-establishing condors in their natural habitat. So far, they appear to be working, though it will be several years before we know for sure that condors can, once again, survive in the wild.

Rich

vern

08-18-1999, 06:39 PM

I know this has nothing to do with condors or anything... but I was just watching the local news here, and heard that the school board here in town (Lawrence, KS) will not be eliminating anything from the curriculum or test standards!

Sassy

08-24-1999, 03:12 PM

And God Said, Let There Be Light in Kansas

By Gene Weingarten Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 14, 1999; Page C01

Memo to: The members of the Kansas Board of Education

From: God

Re: Your decision to eliminate the teaching of evolution as science. Thank you for your support. Much obliged.

Now, go forth and multiply. Beget many children. And yea, your children shall beget children. And their children shall beget children, and their children's children after them. And in time the genes that have made you such pinheads will be eliminated through natural selection. Because that s how it works.

Listen, I love all my creatures equally, and gave each his own special qualities to help him on Earth. The horse I gave great strength. The antelope I gave great grace and speed. The dung beetle I gave great stupidity, so he doesn't realize he is a dung beetle. Man I gave a brain.

Use it, okay?

I admit I am not perfect. I've made errors. (Armpit hair--what was I thinking?) But do you Kansans seriously believe that I dropped half-a-billion-year-old trilobite skeletons all over my great green Earth by mistake? What, I had a few lying around some previous creation in the Andromeda galaxy, and they fell through a hole in my pocket?

You were supposed to find them. And once you found them, you were supposed to draw the appropriate, intelligent conclusions. That's what I made you for. To think.

The folks who wrote the Bible were smart and good people. Mostly, they got it right. But there were glitches. Imprecisions. For one thing, they said that Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and then Cain begat Enoch. How was that supposed to have happened?

They left out Tiffany entirely!

Well, they also were a little off on certain elements of timing and sequence. So what?

You guys were supposed to figure it all out for yourselves, anyway. When you stumble over the truth, you are not supposed to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and proceed on as though nothing had happened. If you find a dinosaur's toe, you're not supposed to look for reasons to call it a croissant. You're not big, drooling idiots. For that, I made dogs.

Why do you think there are no fossilized human toes dating from a hundred million years ago? Think about it.

It's okay if you think. In fact, I prefer it. That's why I like Charlie Darwin. He was always a thinker. Still is. He and I chat frequently. I know a lot of people figure that if man evolved from other organisms, it means I don't exist. I have to admit this is a reasonable assumption and a valid line of thought. I am in favor of thought. I encourage you to pursue this concept with an open mind, and see where it leads you.

That's all I have to say right now, except that I'm really cheesed off at laugh tracks on sitcoms, and the NRA, and people who make simple declarative sentences sound like questions?

Oh, wait. There's one more thing.

Did you read in the newspapers yesterday how scientists in Australia dug up some rocks and found fossilized remains of life dating back further than ever before? Primitive, multicelled animals on Earth nearly 3 billion years ago, when the planet was nothing but roiling muck and ice and fire. And inside those cells was . . . DNA. Incredibly complex strands of chemicals, laced together in a scheme so sophisticated no one yet understands exactly how it works.

I wonder who could have thought of something like that, back then.

Just something to gnaw on.