|
|
|
|
#1
11-05-2004, 07:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Return of the Scopes Monkey Trial
In this article, it explains that a Georgia school is challenging the validity of evolution.
Quote:
If God can create man by breathing into a pile of dust, then he can certainly create man by designing an evolutionary process, right? Why do creationists have such a problem with evolution? (As a side note, most of the debates I've heard about it refer specifically to the origins of man. I didn't realize anyone could dispute the existence of evolution in the rest of the plant and animal world anymore. Isn't the evidence that species evolve overwhelming? We've not only seen it, we've controlled it with domesticated creatures and a massive array of plants.)
__________________
Everything in moderation! 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
11-05-2004, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Evolution is a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that species die out and other species which weren't there before take their place, over millions of years. This is a fact, demonstrated by the fossil record.
The theory of evolution is that different groups from the same species become isolated, thus developing different characteristics rather like two isolated groups of Latin-speakers developing different languages. Just as those Latin-speakers could eventually not understand each other, the two biological groups could eventually not breed, thus becoming new species. This theory explains the fossil fact. We should keep an open mind by all means, but evolution is a fact.
|
|
#3
11-05-2004, 08:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
11-05-2004, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
11-05-2004, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The reason that lawsuit described in the linked article isn't as straightforward is that they're not specifically teaching creationism. Instead, they're branding evolution as a questionable theory, thus encouraging students to ask questions that could lead to discussion of creationism, even though they aren't explicitly mentioning it. Personally, I don't have a problem with mentioning creationist beliefs in school. Explain that virtually all cultures and religions have their own creation stories, and discuss Adam and Eve along with some of the others. Explain that it's the most prevalent in the U.S., and that, unless taken literally, it in no way conflicts with the scientific facts (and yes, theories, too) behind genetics, mutation, survival of the fittest, and evolution of mankind.
|
|
#6
11-05-2004, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#7
11-05-2004, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
11-05-2004, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
11-05-2004, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder if their physics textbooks have similar warnings about the theories of gravity and relativity.
|
|
#11
11-05-2004, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using my amazing psychic powers, I'll hazard a guess that what Ravenman is cleverly suggesting is that the people calling for the sticker would object strongly to any sticker suggesting that the Bible is not a fact.
|
|
#12
11-05-2004, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
11-05-2004, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I used to think that the people pushing evolution were trying to tell me that God had nothing to do with creating life. I now realized that's not (always) the case. It took me coming here to realize that (yay for the squashing of ignorance!). When I took Biology 101 a few years ago, my professor handled this in exactly the way I think it should be handled. He said there are three theories as to how life began:
I'm not asking for biology teachers to get very deeply into the religious side of things, but I think it's worth mentioning since it clearly explains that the teacher is not trying to convert people into godless heathens or disprove God in any way. I'm sure that if one of the students started pushing the issue, he would have responded similarly to Dr. Indiana Jones. Quote:
|
|
#14
11-05-2004, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
If I was teaching an earth science class, I would most likely discuss all of the evidence that the earth is round, and then point out that there are still people (e.g., the Flat Earth Society) who believe it to be flat. I see no reason to treat evolution differently. Were I teaching the subject, I'd explain all of the evidence that species evolve, and then point out that there are people (e.g., fundamentalist Christians) who believe otherwise. That would take up half an hour out of a full-semester course, and it would give the students some extra information about the world around them. That's a good thing, right? If they asked for details about creationism, I'd direct them to their local clergy or to a comparative religion course. I don't think public schools should teach creationism, but what's the problem with mentioning it in the appropriate context (especially if it's done inclusively, covering a wide variety of religions)? Quote:
|
|
#15
11-05-2004, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
11-05-2004, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
11-05-2004, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
11-05-2004, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
11-07-2004, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just to clarify: evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life.
The origin of life is explained by abiogenesis, whereby amino acids and complex organic molecules in comets are deposited on planets upon collision, forming spherical proteinoid structures in which further chemical reactions occur, eventually yielding RNA and the self-replicating molecule DNA.
|
|
#20
11-08-2004, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The teaching of "Creationism"( if they must ), IMO, would be more appropriate in a philosophy or history class. This environment is more attuned to emotion and differences of opinion. To give equal status between Creationism and Evolution in the class room, is tantamount to forcing a "Flat World" concept to equal status in a Geography class. Evolution is a fact beyond any doubt. Why it is still an issue for debate is well beyond my comprehension.
|
|
#21
11-08-2004, 09:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It seems with someone like "Dubya" leading our country, this issue would surface once again. If nothing else (as others have mentioned), the "argument" that evolution is "just a theory" is ludicrous.
Einstein postulated the "Theory of Relativity". Ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they think e=mc² is just a theory.
|
|
#22
11-08-2004, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#23
11-08-2004, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the attractiveness things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
|
|
#24
11-08-2004, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geez ultrafilter since you asked so politely, here's what it has to do with the topic in question.
The argument I hear most often from creationists is that "Evolution is just a theory". I'm sure just about all of us have heard that enough until it's been run into the ground. Einstein's Theory of Relativity stated (among a great many other things) that if you were to convert matter directly into energy, the resulting energy yield would be determined by the formula e=mc². (Want to explore this more? Go to www.1728.com/einstein.htm) Basically the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 resulted in tremendous devastation. The energy yield of each of those bombs was the result of about one gram of matter being totally converted to energy !!! So, it's just a not so subtle way of my telling creationists that a theory is not some far-flung totally contrived piece of fiction. As others have said, creationists really should learn the scientific definition of theory.
|
|
#25
11-08-2004, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stephen Jay Gould has done a wonderful article on the background and the history of the Scopes Trial, where he himself was a expert-witness.
I think the article is in Hen's teeth and horse's toes Gould also has some interesting idea's why creationists have made such an identity out of attacking evolution. One of the little factoids Gould cites that I found of particular interest was that the Pope himself has admitted that "Evolution is more then just a theory". Creationism is not a Catholic thing at all.
|
|
#26
11-08-2004, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#27
11-08-2004, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
11-08-2004, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Yes, the Scopes trial was in 1927. I'm to tired to look it up, but Gold wrote about a much later one. The most likely candidate, IMHO, is EPPERSON vs ARKANSAS, 1968.
|
|
#29
11-08-2004, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was actually Edwards v Aguillard, heard before the Supreme Court in 1987.
|
|
#30
11-08-2004, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#31
11-09-2004, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
11-09-2004, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Parent: "OMFG!! THEM GODLESS HEATHENS ARE INTERFERRING WITH HOW I RAISE MY CHILDREN!!!"
|
|
#33
11-09-2004, 07:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can't Believe This Nonsense Keeps Coming Back!
I mean after almost 80 years?? Lets face it, this thing will finally die when textbook publishers finally remove evolution from biology texts. I have a proposal-remove evolution AND creationism-that ought to make everybody happy. Then have ONE class to present evolution, and preface by saying: this is a theory. That ought to do it.
Seriously, I think this ignorance is being fed by the trextbook publishers..this way, they get to seel a new edition of biology texts every year!
|
|
#34
11-09-2004, 07:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#35
11-09-2004, 07:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My introductory biology course handled the creationism issue brilliantly. A quotation from Theodosius Dobzhansky was displayed: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.". This was briefly explained, and it was said that, since the course was on biology and not religion, creationism would not be discussed in the course. Questions on creationism would not be answered during lectures (but could be asked privately).
There is an overwhelming abundance of evolution in modern biology; the morphological evidence alone would be sufficient to convince a rational person in the absence of an 'alternative' belief which is put forth as a religious requirement. Once molecular evidence, in the form of genetic sequences evolving over time, was discovered, the evidence in favor of evolution became so pressing that it is nearly impossible for someone to reject this evidence unless they believe their salvation is threatened by the belief. Creationists need to believe their theory because they require the Bible to literally true for their particular religious belief to stand. If the creation account falls, they believe their literal Christianity falls with it. Therefore, they take their hypothesis (whether it's young-earth or old-earth creationism) as true, and then find evidence to fit their hypothesis. Many of their arguments are logical (e.g. creationism must be true because evolution leads to immorality, evolution is impossible because it defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Others are based on very weak geological observations (there are dozens of creationist claims that 'the world must be 6000 years old because <geographical feature> is far too <deep,shallow,large,small,etc.> for the earth to be billions of years old'). (There is a list of a large number of creationist arguments with scientific rebuttals at the talk.origins archive.) The idea that 'more than one theory should be discussed' is wholly inappropriate, especially for high-school students. I would support teaching about creationism later on, when students are already aware of the abundant evidence in favor of evolution and are able to understand this evidence. High school students do not yet fully understand the evidence for evolution, so an evolution-vs.-creation argument seems like an ordinary debate. Many creationist claims (the watchmaker argument, the second law of thermodynamics argument, etc.) might make a lot of sense to someone who doesn't know to think critically about these arguments, and doesn't understand what it means if morphological differences between species correspond to genetic differences. Some high school biology teachers may not even be sufficiently familiar with this material to teach it effectively. Also, 'alternative' theories are taught at no other place in a high-school science curriculum. Students in chemistry classes are never taught the alchemist's theories of four elements combining to make up matter. Students of physics are never taught that the ether might actually exist and is 'just as good' as modern theories of propagation of light in a vacuum, or that Einsteinian relativity might not be true, or that the sun may revolve around the earth. Why do creationists believe it is acceptable not to teach alternatives at other places in a science course, but wrong not to teach creationism beside evolution? Why is the origin of life is the only place they want 'alternative' theories, where they suddenly feel a need for 'balance' in scientific education?
|
|
#36
11-09-2004, 07:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I doubt creationists would suggest their own theories should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered" -- a label like that could only exist in a book that teaches evolution but not creationism. Creationism is the search for evidence to meet what creationists see as God's own hypothesis, a hypothesis that is not subject to change. It is not to be 'critically considered'.
The theory/law distinction is not really something that is present in modern science. Scientists today are very unlikely to get a 'law' named after them (and it's usually just a set of simple observations about the way something works, like Woodward's Rules in organic chemistry). The theory/law distinction is rarely invoked today because theories and laws describe different things. When used to refer to historical material, a 'law' is an observation about how something works, and a 'theory' is a possible way of explaining it. Darwin, then, did have a theory of evolution -- he suggested that the origin of species occured by natural selection for desirable traits. There are other theories of evolution, such as the punctuated equilibrium theory, and Lamarckian evolution (a largely discredited theory where individuals retain adaptations they acquire over their lifetimes and pass them on to their offspring). These are 'only theories', with a body of evidence to support each (and, in some cases, such as Lamarckism, powerful evidence against them). But the idea that evolution happens is not 'only a theory'; there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it does occur. The only controversy related to evolution in modern biology regards the mechanism by which evolution takes place, not whether it takes place at all.
|
|
#37
11-09-2004, 01:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#38
11-09-2004, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's what I find chilling about the case:
Quote:
|
|
#39
11-09-2004, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[HIJACK]
Does anybody know what the No Child Left Behind Act actually requires for testing in regards to evolution? I've found an article on a pro-creation website that says that there was originally an amendment to the bill, by Rick Santorum nonetheless, that left the door open with the following statements: Quote:
[/HIJACK]
|
|
#40
11-09-2004, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nevermind:
Quote:
|
|
#41
11-09-2004, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(joking)
God poofed everything into existence because He is that cool! The fossil records are obviously just little easter eggs He put around as a test for the faithful! Haven't you immoral heathens ever heard of anything called "character development" and "backstory"? (/joking) (Personally, I believe that God created. Doesn't really matter how. He could have done it in seven 24 hour periods by way of Fiat, or He could have taken His sweet time by way of evolution. It's supposed to be a reminder of your personal worth, purpose, and responsibility, not something that you bash into the heads of students in a public school biology class. If your kid loses his faith over something this minor, than maybe it's better for him to be disillusioned. You're doing him a favor, really. Belief in God is much more encompassing than whether or not we were descended from monkeys. )
|
|
#42
11-09-2004, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's the thing, though:
Stupidity is not unconstitutional. Should the Cobb County school board have put these stickers on books? No, of course not. The stickers are stupid. Are they unconstitutional? Different question, and the one upon which this case will be decided. It's a tricky one, too, since the stickers don't directly endorse any religious belief. Judge Clarence Cooper is a Democratic appointee, for what that's worth. Don't envy him having to sort this one out.
|
|
#43
11-10-2004, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about these stickers:
Quote:
|
|
#44
11-10-2004, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There was some testimony yesterday which might be important. A Cobb County School Board member testified that the stickers were placed on the books with the specific intent of promoting classroom discussions about creationism. That might be enough for Judge Cooper to hang his hat on if he is inclined to strike down the stickers as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
|
|
#45
11-10-2004, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#46
11-10-2004, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A summary that I always find useful;
"Evolution" and "The Theory Of Evolution" are not the same thing. Evolution = What happens. Theory Of Evolution = Why and How we think it happens. In this sense it is possible to think critically of the theory, deny it, rethink it, or even totally disprove it. You can even make up your very own theory of evolution that says it happens because god's goofing around. But none of this makes the slightest difference to evolution itself. It happened, and will keep on happening no matter whether your theory is right or wrong. Unfortunately this difference will never sink in with creationists. They're attacking a science in a manner they think it is weakest, and who cares if it's based on nothing more than word-play and a failure to understand the terminology.
|
|
#47
11-10-2004, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
One of the reasons I used to be a Creationist (years ago) and why many around me still are has to do with the doctrine of Original Sin and how it brought Death (and reproduction, although this is never mentioned outright) into the world. If God used evolution to create man, then how could death be a result of sin? This would make certain quotes from Christ complete fabrications and would throw evangelical Protestant Christianity in a cocked hat.
|
|
#48
11-10-2004, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's a more conservative and theocracy-friendly Court now, but that 1987 decision seems to sum it up pretty well; there is no clear secular purpose for this action.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
