Theory = By all our observations, we know X exists. This is how we think it works with evidence as to why we should think this. Currently it all adds up, but if anything new comes up we’ll have a re-think about what we think we know about X, but that won’t stop X existing.
Theory != we think this exists, but frankly we’re just guessing.
Creation Science = this is how it is, anything that suggest different is wrong. Here’s a few unverifiable tales that back us up.
Actually, when the Kansas Board of Ed attempted to ban evolution from the curriculum altogether back in 2000, Kansas governor Bill Graves, a Republican, threatened to support an effort to disband the school board. It’s a shame he’s not governor anymore…
What possible “intelligent design” would account for Kansas?
Even if the judgement has already been made I still think it would be worth sending an evolutionary contingent into the fray to make the case for evolutionism. Since the collection of agrarian goatherding folktales that comprise creationist ‘theory’ are no match for the actual facts, a failure on part of the evolutionists would constitute clear evidence that Creationists are driven by ideology and dogma rather than evidence. In other words, I think the evolutionist’s cause is better served by a well documented failing in the face of utter recalcitrance and stupidity than it is by taking the high road and boycotting the whole thing.
As an aside. If this measure gets passed, I wonder how they’re going to set about the teaching of creationism.
*Good morning class. Welcome to the course. Are we ready to begin? Good.
God created the world in six days.
If you have any questions please consult the copy of Genesis under your desk. Goodbye.*
Perhaps when statistics are given for where the US ranks in world in sciences, 2 entries should be given: One for the US in general, and one for the US excluding Kansas, Texas, and Georgia. (Not to pick on Texas and Georgia, bastions of support for evolution, both.)
This thread is a bunch of ignorant bigots.
Now don’t get me wrong, so are the people in Kansas you’re all bigotted toward.
First of all let’s stomp a few of your assumptions.
First your Patriotic fervor for Americas standing in “science”. While science may not be a religion per se. It clearly is for many people in this thread, and usually is for many people who enter into this debate. America isn’t “behind” in science. We invent things, other people invent other things, and the standard everyday hick that lives in EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY, doesn’t know a goddamn thing about how those inventions work. China is ahead in Genomics in some ways, California is ahead in Genomics in others. America supplies much of the new computer technology that gets used all over the world.
I am so tired of the word “SCIENCE!!!”, you know what I mean the people that cannot say the word without exclaiming it. Like the mad scientist in a movie. Most of you have no done a bit of testing of that which you accept to be true. The truth is there is absolutely NO WAY to rigorously test evolution, because it happens on a scale of time longer than the lifespan of a human being. Unless you find fossilized evidence of an ape giving birth to a humanoid you’re screwed. The problem with that also is that evolution is GRADUAL. Say it with me class “GRADUAL”. Therefore each step in evolution is going to have a minor variation from the last creature from which it evolved.
Natural Selection makes perfect sense, and most people don’t have a problem with the idea of Natural Selection existing. We all know that if the idiot kills themselves at an early age they won’t be old enough to have more stupid kids. That’s not what’s up for debate. What is up for debate is whether or not humans are descended from apes.
People scoff ALL THE TIME, at intelligent design, whether we are some monkey alien hybrid, whether or not atlantis existed. However, those theories are no less plausible. There is no more or less proof that we descended from apes than any of those things.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that we are somehow descended from Apes. Why? Because it sounds plausible. Did I rigorously test it? No, and neither has anyone else. The theory is pretty fucking sound, but stop acting like anyone questioning it is an idiot.
Why should you stop acting like that? Well, because it’s unscientific.
Here’s something most people who are pro “SCIENCE!!!” have trouble wrapping their heads around. They want THEIR rules to apply across the board, so if anyone questions the scientific validity of evolution, then they have to question the scientific validity of creationism. This is absolutely wrong, because the creationists are merely trying to discredit evolution using it’s own system against it. So the only thing in this debate that even NEEDS to be scientifically tested, is evolution. They are NOT being hypocritical by not holding creationism up to the same rigorous standards as evolution, because they are only holding things up to internal consistency. They are debating whether or not YOUR system of “SCIENCE!!!” is actually valid or not.
To me, both sides of this argument are complete idiots. The creationists for not getting their heads out of the sand whenever a new idea comes along, and the ‘evolutionists’ for not actually standing up to their standards of skepticism.
Both sides are dogmatic. So keep standing here in your SDMB Church where everyone is “So much more intelligent” than the average populace, and throwing your shit at the other monkeys in their church. But I think that while there are a few people on this board that are quite intelligent, and have really interesting arguments, that probably 5% of the posters are bringing up the average for everyone else, and the lowest 60% is probably below the average. In short, there are a lot of fucking idiots in this house of worship.
Go forth, and do not multiply.
Fuck you,
Erek
A-fucking-men!
Generally to the issue:
The Theory of Evolution is hardly “Unassailable Scientific Law;” honest scientists would abhor such a label. It is an emminently reasonable Scientific Theory, supported by ample evidence, but it is hardly the Final Word on the matter.
The Theory of Creation has very little creditable scientific evidence; as such it is a weak candle next to the Theory of Evolution. But it can hardly be dismissed in it’s entirety by honest, open-minded scientits.
Scientists are of course people, and have their own beliefs which may tend to prejudice them towards one Theory or another; this is just human nature, and has to be dealt with.
Just as the relious community must deal with the fact that people can question the fundamental nature of existence without dissin’ God/Allah/Yahwey/Shiva/Buddha/Og, and that the Theory of Evolution is not contradicted by by or exclusive of their Theory of Creation; “first causes” and all that.
From what I can see, it is the hard-core, atheistic, “There Is No Theory of Life-Creation But Ours, And Evolution Is It’s Name” faction butting heads with the “There Is More To Heaven And Earth Than Your Philosophy” faction.
Given that the current definition of “Science” deals with questioning, of observation of phenomena, and deriving some form of scientific “fact” from these observed phenomena into consistent Laws of Science, the Theory of Creation crowd is on pretty weak ground, scientifically speaking.
That doesn’t mean that it should be entirely ignored by our education system. It just needs to be treated the way my high school teachers and college professors dealt with it : presented it [Creationism] as an alternative view, with the caveat that, by accepted and time-honored scientific principles, there is little scientific evidence to support such a theory, but that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They then directed us to seek out religious counsel on the matter of Creationism, as theirs were classes of instruction upon Science, Scientific Principles, and what can be reasonably derived into consistent Scientific Laws from them.
The religious fundamentalists claiming their version of Reality as “Truth” are no better than a scientist, or an atheist, claiming their version of Reality as “Truth.”
The latter simply have a better claim of “a preponderance of scientific evidence” than the former; while scientific evidence is not the final word, it is usually consistent and verifiable by the five senses, reason, and the instruments that our minds can conceive and create. A such it should have the preponderance of “attention” in our school’s (any school’s) Science curricula.
[hijack]Aren’t you an American? What’s with the UK spelling?[/hijack]
Another one: what “intelligent design” could possibly account for the Bible, in the manner that fundies use it?
It’s 100% factually and morally inerrant, but some verses are The Word of The Lord, and others are “what it really means is…”; some OT injunctions are to be taken as still valid in a New Testament age, and others aren’t; and in neither case is there a clear set of rules about which is which. And that’s just the passages that are/might be precepts; I presume I don’t need to go into what a tangle the Bible is with respect to factual statements.
Any God who ‘designed’ the Bible, with the intent that it be used in the manner that those folks use it, is clearly flakier than Zaphod Beeblebrox.
Nobody’s claiming that it can be rigorously tested. It’s the theory of evolution, meaning a well-developed explanation, supported by myriad fossils and genetic data, that covers the facts better than any other.
Pretending to weigh invisible “theories” in my right and left hand…
Atlantis…one short story by Plato with a likely transcription error and NO archaeological evidence…
Evolution…Gazillion fossils and genetic results…
Atlantis…
Evolution…
… I’ll go with evolution, myself.
Even for the pit you have quite a mouth on you. You get up on the wrong side of the bed today?
I think this is the second time I’ve seen mswas bitch about both sides…What, you trying to impress all of us or sumptin?
Your ‘NO WAY’ statement might be valid if evolution was something that only happened to man. Fortunately you are wrong! It can, and has been tested. That flu shot that changes every year? Evolution brought that about. Those college kids raising fruit flies for specific traits? Evolution. Dandelions in a yard that gets mowed regularly only having short stalks? Evolution. Happens all the time. In fact, evolution is one of the most observable theories around.
Actually, Darwin never said that man was descended from apes. He basically said that apes and man both descended from a similar source. Which is true of all mammals. Apes do not precede us, they evolved into what they are just as we have evolved into what we are BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Darwin would never say that apes have been apes have been apes for over a million years and while they didn’t change, our branch did.
As above. There is plenty of proof that we did NOT evolve from apes. But we did evolve.
Monkey see monkey do, mswas?
-Tcat
I’ve noticed him doing it too, and wondered. Maybe it’s the Canadian influence, being up in the PNW.
Oh dear.
**ExTank **and mswas. I feel so sorry for you. It must have been horrible growing up with such anger. I can see why you would want to hang around a board like this and bait the ‘clever folks’. A fine old American tradition of anti-intellectualism.
I so wish you could have had a better education, both of you.
The really ironic thing is that in a way you are right; science is not a dogma. You are potentially very bright people. If it is not too late and you can bear to read something to challenge your anger and ignorance, try Steve Jones’ ‘Almost like a Whale’.
I realise in writing this that I am wasting my time though. You would rather stay angry at them goldarn Scientists. Hope it works out for you.
Anyone, ever, who says that Creationism and evolution theory are in any way comparable in esteem or in veracity, is a complete and utter fool. One is as ‘true’ as the physics that let us build computers that work or aeroplanes that fly. The other is as true as the imaginary friend I used to have when I was a kid, or the tooth fairy. To see people who have (presumably) reached adulthood without grasping this essential difference is deeply sad somehow.
Extank, to follow your line of reasoning, we would have to teach about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Yeti in Biology. Transmutations of base metals to gold in Chemistry. And fucking ghosts or UFOs or something in Physics. After all, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’.
Fucks sake.
Hear hear. Check this link if you like, and if you haven’t seen it before.
You may be an idiot, and are at least ignorant of the theory of evolution, if you believe it states that humans descend from apes. Humans and apes share a common ancestor, just as humans, apes, and monkeys share a common ancestor, just as all mammals share a common ancestor, and so on.
No.
It’s unscientific to refuse to accept any questioning of dogma. But it’s also unscientific to fail to acknowledge what one must bring to the table to effectively question a well-supported scientific theory. Like it or not, you can’t knock over the Great Pyramid with a pop-gun.
And combining a handful of oddities of animal anatomy that evolutionary biologists haven’t got a good explanation for yet, with some idea that provides a superficially tolerable explanation for those oddities but provides no superstructure to understand biology as a whole, is the pop-gun in this analogy.
But prove me wrong: got a link to a site outlining ‘Intelligent’ Design’s overarching ideas that explain human and animal biology?
guinnog - I’ve seen it before, but it’s always worth another mention. Thanks for bringing it up!
There are no “Unassailable Scientific Laws”, but I think it behooves anyone who acknowledges that truth to also acknowledge how impressively tenable those scientific laws and theories really are. Most of those honest, open-minded scientists you appear to know all about would stake their very lives on the confidence those conceptual frameworks so amply deserve. Neo-Darwinian Evolution is about as good as it can conceivably get in terms of “theories”, and I highly doubt there are any evolutionists out there who expect any significant modification to that framework will ever be needed. Rather, what continues to surprise is the explanatory and predictive power the concept of natural selection has, to the point it can be applied to even non-living, yet self-organizing systems, and may in fact lead us to tenable theories on the origins of life here on Earth.
In that regard, if it’s not the last word, it’s about the only word to be taken seriously, because nothing else even comes close. Honest, open-minded scientists know when to be sceptical, but there’s no need to be absurd in the honest pursuit of new knowledge about the natural world. One needn’t be so open-minded that they must seriously consider the Biblical creation story has even one iota of fact in it, because it doesn’t. Those who like to play with the word “truth” to make it fit their own preconceptions are, of course, free to do so, but there’s little point in arguing about metaphysics. From a scientific point of view, that’s not terribly relevant; and as soon as something once confined to metaphysical scrutiny becomes either applied physics, or applied mysticism, metaphysical arguments are beyond moot. They are pointless.
The “paranormal” (or whatever you want to call it) approach to “knowing” simply occupies a separate branch of enquiry, quite different from the practical application of the scientific method, and further quibbling about relative epitemic values, in my mind, is completely futile (because no evidential resolution to the debate can be had), and further, utterly unimportant to the pursuit of empirical evidence to test or refute theory, if experience is any guide. “Creation” has never made one testable prediction, nor offered a single explanatory principle about the natural world a scientist could apply in anything remotely resembling “theory”. Hence, it long ago revealed its lack of potential, and no longer warrants consideration. One needn’t be “close-minded” to think so. Sanity will suffice.
Not trying to impress people, I’m just a little bit tired of hearing people claim “SCIENCE!!!” as though what they are spouting is actually scientific.
I believe in both evolution and creation. To me the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are somewhat syncretic. If there was not intelligent design then there is no such thing as intelligence at all. The fact that we are intelligent and design things, shows that any aggregate for which we are a subset must therefore be intelligent. If you begin to question intelligent design, you must question whether or not intelligence exists at all. In the end creation vs evolution is the evolution of the debate on “Free Will” vs “Predestination”, but it’s hard to tell who’s arguing which side anymore. In my mind, the two theories are useless without one another.
No one is doubting whether or not we were created, and most people I have met believe that humans are adaptable creatures capable of learning.
The real problem with this is the idea of public education. Public education is state indoctrination regardless of which side it’s being a proponent of. When you underpay idiots to teach your children a static curriculum designed by bureaucrats based upon a mixture of scientific studies, morality, cultural norms and budget concerns, you have to expect a very high noise to signal ratio. Public education that teaches ANYTHING other than reading, math and critical thinking skills as a requirement is going to fall short. Until we have a system that offers multiple tracks that a person can follow, it’s just not going to work. Both sides have a problem with their child being REQUIRED to learn the other side’s curriculum.
Some things I have realized since my public education was that, most of the history taught to me was so shallow as to be of little value. I was actually good at Algebra, it was a conflict with teachers and the system that made me hate it. The kids that COULDN’T do it in their head eventually surpassed me because I felt like it was a waste of time and paper to write out 6 pages of Algebra problems, and they did their homework. I learned almost NO chemistry because I had a teacher that would go off on tangents about zoology and many other things on a daily basis. The Scarlet Letter was a dull uninteresting book, and that I was totally vindicated by skipping entire chapters in it when I ended up getting a near perfect score on the exam.
Arguing about Evolution and Creation in the school system stops us from actually doing anything productive with our educational system. It’s increasingly creating a meritocratic overclass while the majority of students are left behind. “Alphas work too hard, I’m so glad I’m a Delta.” People argue this issue CONSTANTLY when the real problem is that our education system is fucked up and backward on the whole. If our educational system made any sense at all, we could offer kids both ideas and let them decide on their own.
Right now we violate the constitution every day with public education. Because the only two sides represented are Fundamentalist Christianity and a Judeo-Christian influenced Secularism. Either way, Judeo-Christian modes of thinking are going to win out. It’s just a matter of which side of one coin you fall on.
The larger question of whether or not intelligence exists at all needs to be a consistant part of this debate. Intelligent design proposes that intelligence came first, then the material world came into being. The two sides of this argument are essential to any discussion of this issue IMO.
All I ever see in this debate on these boards is idiots who believe in evolution making fun of idiots who believe in creation, with occasional snipes from the sidelines of people picking apart irrational arguments on either side.
Erek
“Fuck you, Erek” indeed.
Please, guinnog, you’re not helping matters by seemingly taking every opportunity to slam the U.S. in some way or other. We’re not all narrowminded fundamentalists. We didn’t all vote for Bush. We don’t all support the war in Iraq. Even if you’d just referred to ‘benighted rustic Americans’ it wouldn’t have been so bad.