Paint with a broad brush much, hmmm? I guess it’s easier to bash Kansans than have an original thought of your own.
I surely hope you take your own advice.
AFAIK, we don’t have stickers on our textbooks saying evolution is “just a theory”, that’s another state. However, several years ago, when this topic was being argued, teachers couldn’t teach evolution at all for pretty much an entire school year. I think it’s horrid, and a tragedy that illogical, credulous people are getting their way in this state. Good lord, I shouldn’t be suprised though, we still have Todd Tiahart representing us, IIRC.
griffen2 what a rude and horrid thing to say! Shall I go by your example for wishes upon your home state? 
I can understand that this disgusts you, however, think of those people who live here and feel as you do, then temper your words with mercy. FTR, not all of the citizens of Kansas are for getting rid of teaching evolution. (I’m certainly for keeping evolution in the curriculum, and probably Baker,** Filmgeek**, and several other Kansas Dopers feel the same way.) That’s why these cretins are having to dredge this up again, because evolution prevailed eventually. We lost Govermental funding for our schools because of the fact that we weren’t teaching Science fully, under Clintion IIRC, I don’t see Bush doing similar though, which is probably why they’re doing this now. 
“First God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards.”
- Mark Twain
I find your comments highly offensive. I also am sardonically amused at your high and mighty proclomation about the population of this thread, which you also inhabit. :wally
So long as Creationism is presented along with the creation myths of forty or fifty other religions, plus maybe the Great Green Arkleseizure theory of origins. (Bless you!) No reason to single out Biblical creationism for special status.
Not to mention the “What an imagination I’ve got!” school of thought.
RTFirefly, I could back the teaching of the Great Green Arkleseizure theory myself. 
mswas
What, precisely, is bigoted about wanting children to have the best possible education? What, precisely, is bigoted about objecting to having a steaming pile of horse manure dumped on the candle of rational inquiry to make room in our science classes for the fantastical myths of agrarian goatherders? Why, precisely, does an angry reaction to the news that, yet again, our tax dollars are to be used to impress a “theory” (and I use the term in its loosest possible sense) which no-one but wilfully ignorant fundamentalists place any stock in, upon kids who may not know better?
Our reactions don’t betray us as doctrinal “science-fetishists” or bigots. We just hate bullshit. And we especially hate like the idea of bullshit being taught in schools, particularly in such a manner that would undoubtedly depict said bullshit as an equally viable “alternative” theory of creation to match evolution, a theory with infinitely more empirical substantiation.
Speaking of making religions of things, I fear that you may be close to taking something of a doctrinaire approach to open-mindedness. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like to consider myself a pretty open-minded person, but forcibly bestowing Creationism with a validity that simply isn’t there isn’t being open-minded. It’s just being dumb. Sometimes, the “other side of the debate” simply doesn’t deserve a fair shake because it’s got absolutely nothing of value to say and progress towards a genuine, fact based consensus on the topic in question is merely hampered by their participation. Simply put, Creationists are like Holocaust deniers, only less offensive. The only thing they bring to the table is bullshit.
I cannot tell you how sick to fucking death I am of the idea that in order to be truly objective one has to give both sides of every issue a fair hearing. That’s not objectivity. It’s laziness. Objectivity involves a neutral, dispassionate and above all stringent adherence to the known facts. If one side of the debate has little or no facts to back him up then the truly objective approach would be to pay it little or no heed.
No you’re not. Evolution has been observed countless times. Insects that develop resistence to pesticides have evolved. So called ‘Superbugs’ are called ‘super’ because they have evolved to render current anti-biotics ineffective. This is micro-evolution and while macro-evolution has never been observed, there is absolutely no reason why ten million years of micro-evolution cannot constitute macro-evolution. I quote Talk.Origins
In other words, we know species diverge, we know how they diverge, and while we haven’t actually seen species diverge we know enough to confidently state that unless a mechanism for preventing macro-evolution is discovered, species will diverge.
That sounds about right. What’s your point?
So…let me get this straight. You are saying that the theory that humans are descended from apes is just as plausible as the idea that aliens changed monkeys into humans and then beamed them back down to earth. Do I have that right?
Well, if you genuinely believe that then the following explanation for why intelligent design is far less plausible than evolution will just blow your mind. I do hope you’re not particularly attached to the wallpaper in your current surroundings 
The foremost proponent of intelligent design (or ID for short) is a chap called Michael Behe. He first coined the term in his book “Darwin’s black box:The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”. His argument is basically that there are some things (things which he calls ‘Irreducably complex’ or IC, for short) which are too complex to have evolved, therefore God must have designed them. Behe defines IC things thusly
But how do we say which ‘systems’ are IC and which aren’t? It seems to me that Behe’s definition of something IC is basically something that he can’t figure out. Would you call legs ‘irreducably complex’? Legs are certainly systems with well matched interacting parts but take away the knee and the system will “effectively cease functioning”.
I mean, if legs are IC and thus proof of ID then what damn thing isn’t proof of ID? Hands, fingers, eyes, toes, stomachs, hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, brains, wings, gills, all these will break down if you remove any one of their component parts.
Behe also argues that IC things (like legs) can’t evolve because before they reached the supposedly IC state in which we know them now they can’t have been complete and hence wouldn’t have worked.
This is crap for a number of reasons. Firstly, evolution is, as you’ve noted, a very GRADUAL (say it with me class) process. Changes to systems like legs or ears or eyes happen very slowly, by the tiniest of tiny increments*. Removing a whole part of a system is a major change to that system. Therefore, Behe’s contention that IC systems couldn’t have existed in a ‘less complex’ state and evolved into a more complex one is bollocks. If the ‘less complex’ form gradually grew more complex in minute increments of a period of millions of years, it certainly could have evolved.
Secondly, the actual precursor may have had more parts, not less. Evolution may have, over time, rendered some parts of a system obsolete and these parts, while performing a function in the past, may have been ‘phased out’ by evolution.
Thirdly, it is not true that a precursor missing a part must be nonfunctional. It need only lack the function we specified. Even a single protein does something.
There are a load more reasons why ID is more a rationalization designed to prop up creation mythology than a valid scientific theory but I trust I’ve made my point.
The problem here is that these ideologues who push ID or Young Earth Creationism or whatever in our schools aren’t merely questioning evolution, they’re ignoring that it fits perfectly with everything we already know to be true and are advocating instead a theory with no empirical support because it makes them feel better. People question evolution all the time. The people who question it most rigorously and most effectively are scientists. Researching and questioning is their job. That’s what they do. We don’t treat them as idiots because they are actually acknowledging the truth and not spending their days trying to undermine it with lies and slander in order to score brownie points for the afterlife.
The fuck? The creationists ultimate aim is to get creationism taught in schools instead of evolution. THEY are the one’s who want their rules to apply across the board. If I can guarantee you anything it’s this: If a reproducable, methodologically sound experiment is conducted that debunks evolutionary theory, the people who will stand behind it most staunchly will be scientists. If the creationists actually had any proof that evolution is as hollow as they claim it is then they would be taken far more seriously. The sad fact of the matter is that all they have in their arsenal is bullshit, conjecture and a few unanswered questions about evolutionary theory. The only reason they’re getting supposedly ‘credible’ hearings is because they won’t accept that they’re wrong and shut the fuck up. They been shouting and pushing and gaining momentum for about a hundred years and now they’re a significant political force. Piss off the fundies and you piss off a whole lot of voters. And since ‘creation science’ has been moulded and redefined to prey on the scientific ignorance of the average voter as effectively as possible, they’re meeting less and less resistance the louder they become.
And they fail miserably each and every time they do. Doesn’t this tell you something?
Then, with all due respect, why the fuck are you wasting your time with us?
With all due respect, if you don’t believe in public education, you should join or start a thread about it, rather than taking out your problems on an only tangentially related discussion.
So what you’re saying is that every time somebody comes up with a kooky idea in any field, and gets enough yahoos on his side that he can tie up school boards in knots, the schools should abandon that subject entirely, or give equal time to both sides?
Maybe I’ll create some alternative version of arithmetic, and once the argument gets going good and hot, you’ll tell everybody here that arguing about arithmetic and FireflyNumerics in the schools gets in the way of education, and both sides should shut up, or both sides should get equal time, or something.
No! We should not reward the yammering of a bunch of ignorant baboons by giving their yammerings equal pride of place with scientific theories. Danegeld won’t keep the Dane away, and all that.
You’re certainly doing a good job of holding up one end of that debate.
I feel suitably chastened. My apologies to the sane people of Kansas (both of you ). May sanity prevail in the hearings and may your classrooms be free of fundie gibberish forever.
Hey, don’t blame me. I got it from Mark Twain. You saying he was wrong?
Should be
[sub]preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my…[/sub]
He’s known as a humorist, and said that in jest, which is a different matter. It also makes a difference that he was joking about his own nationality.
ExTank:
I’ll ignore your misuse of the term ‘theory’ and instead ask what exactly “it” is.
Were all species created separately over the course of a billion years?
Were all species created all at once 6000 years ago?
Did a smaller number of proto-species emerge from Noah’s Ark and “micro-evolve” into the current varieties?
Did all life evolve slowly while the DNA was incrementally yet intelligently programmed?
Did lower forms evolve but humans were created specially?
These hypotheses compete with one another as well as with atheistic evolution, so it’s not a simple dichotomy.
OK. Lay it out for me. I may not, in your opinion, as a science teacher in Scotland, express my utter disdain for this abortion of the truth that is happening in science teaching in another country, because I do not come from that country?
Now, I, I hasten to add, have utter carte blanche to defend my own country against criticism. I do not think though, that I would ever do so solely on the grounds of ‘You are a foreigner. You have no right to comment’.
Do you feel like adding to the debate here or were you just chiding me for saying something you don’t like about an aspect of America? There **is **a great tradition of anti-intellectualism in your country. Do you disagree? What do you think about the Creationism debate? Reflect well on your country?
I am sorry if I offended you (twice in two threads now!). I assure you I am far too clever to make the mistake of thinking **all **Americans are dumbass hicks. I am sure you are not one of them. Rest easy.
Would it help if I started a thread about all the things I like about America? Would you feel better?
I wish you could reassure me that your strong and robust tradition of democracy (which I admire) and your proud Constitution and Bill of Rights (which I certainly wish we had over here) would be sure to protect you against this child abuse. If nothing else, you would think your enormous economy would take its own future interests into account and realise it needs the next generation of Americans to be scientists, not Creationists. That alone, enlightened self-interest, should do the job. Government or big business will inevitably step in and squash this madness. Would you say?
Eh?
To put it simply, I don’t think creation OR evolution should be pushed on our children. If anyone in here disagrees with that sentiment they can kindly fuck off.
We should teach kids critical thinking skills, then offer them the debate to pick apart as they see fit.
ALL religions I have been exposed to have a creation story. It would be too time consuming to address every creation story, but to throw out the idea of being created by an intelligence isn’t scientific, it isn’t rational, it isn’t skeptical. A truely pro-science argument would not say either way. It would simply state that there is no way to verify whether or not we were created by an intelligent being/system.
I don’t hate public education. I am simply saying that it’s current incarnation is basically useless. Half the people in this thread are pushing an agenda and are unwilling to see any other side to it. That’s bigotry my friends. The fact that you are unwilling to even discuss creationism’s place in the curriculum even though a HUGE portion of the world believes in it, shows that bigotry.
I maintain that the majority of people who believe evolution to be true, have no basis in that belief other than a faith that ‘some smart guys rigorously tested it’, and they depend upon the fact that some other smart guys will back them up with cites on this forum, and their ignorance goes unexposed.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to insult the whole state of Kansas, only the people establishing the Kangaroo court that was discussed here.
Open-mindedness is not laziness. If you don’t know the answer, if you don’t have all the facts, admitting that you don’t is ok. THAT is being open minded. Entertaining opposing sides of an issue is not being lazy. Being UNWILLING to entertain that other side is what is lazy.
Sorry for the broad strokes. A GOOD AMOUNT of the people in this thread, are fucking idiots.
To be clear, I am not calling people idiots for believing in any one thing one way or the other. I am calling people idiots for dismissing people for a behavior that they themselves are engaging in currently.
Maybe I should say ‘hypocrites’.
Just because someone else tested it doesn’t mean you did. If you haven’t read their methodology, or tested it yourself then YOU ARE ACCEPTING IT ON FAITH.
The truth, try using it sometime. You’ll marvel at it’s wonders.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, so it belongs in the schools, as [Thomas Dolby]SCIENCE![/Thomas Dolby]
The young earth/flat earth/creationism/Jesus horse/intelligent design nonsense is just that - ignorant nonsense, dogmatic bullshit, put forth by incredibly arrogant, overbearing vociferous, control-crazy stupid people. It has no business being taught as science. It has no business being taught as fact.
It is an attempt by a few stupid people, to keep other people just as ignorant and stupid as they are, so that they can control them. I feel no need at all to even pretend to respect ignorant bullshit, or the ignorant assholes who peddle it. I see no reason why The State (such as it is) should be forced to support or to teach what is a “religious” dogma, especially since most religions (even christian ones) do not share this dogma. It is tyranny by the minority at its finest.
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. - Goethe
Who’s mad at scientists in general? Where in my post did you get that?
I expressed the opinion that scientists blindly adhereing to scientific dogma are no better than religious zealots adhering to religious dogma.
I expressed the opinon that the majority of the contention between Evolution and Creationism is being caused by both.
I expressed the opinion that both views could be presented (as various educators have presented it to me) in the manner I described in my previous post. In essence: “We’re teaching science, here. Evolution has the advantage, but Creationism cannot honestly be ruled out; since Evolution has the advantage by the Scientific Methods, and since this is a class teaching science, go talk to some religious people about Creationism if you want the 4-1-1 on it.”
I have never read the Bible beyond a few, select passages (like the 23rd Psalm at funerals, and such) and haven’t set foot in an establishment of Faith for the purposes of expressing that Faith in over 10 years (when my niece received her Masters in Public Health from St. Louis U. last year, the commencement was held in a Cathedral, and I was honored to attend that commencement and see her graduate to her Master’s degree).
I am not an advocate of teaching Creationism as being equally valid as Evolution; I never said that I was, and where you may have apprehended the notion is beyond me.
And since it isn’t unreasonable to conceive that somewhere, some Biological Science student is at this moment raising the questionof Bigfoot, 'Nessie, and the Yeti, I don’t see any impediment from my expresed viewpoint for any teacher anywhere to simply say:" There is some scant evidence to support the existence of such creatures, but no hard, verifiable evidence has yet to be presented which would necessitate their inclusion into the zoological record."
As far as the Philosopher’s Stone is concerned, that has been thoroughly debunked by Science, and would not countenance such being taught in a science class beyond an introductory “History of Science” type lecture. You cannot discount the quest for the Philosopher’s Stone, and it’s contributions to our understanding of the physical sciences, even if it has been debunked.
Fuck sake, indeed. :rolleyes:
ExTank and mswas:
I am not getting through here, am I?
How about bringing in Holocaust denial to the History class? Would that be OK?
“There is some scant evidence to support the relevance of such a theory, but no hard, verifiable evidence has yet to be presented which would necessitate its inclusion into the historical record”
The Holocaust never happened, the Jews faked it all. After all, it is a theory. And one theory is as good as another. And neither you nor I were there to see it happen.
Would that work for you?
Or you could insist that NASA provide equal time to the people who think that the Apollo program was a fake, but that UFOs are real. Unless the other side can **prove **that UFOs aren’t real.
Any good?
Or, best of all, should the Roman Catholic Church be compelled to give equal time to the DaVinci Code by Dan Brown?
Actually, that last one would be quite amusing!
As with Creationism, you could quite easily find, in each case, a substantial body of people who would vote for it. Is that reason enough to put it into a school curriculum?
Did I say otherwise?
They may very well do so, and I wouldn’t disagree with them, or their right to do so. “As good as it gets” is still not absolute truth, even if it is the best, current explanation, and that disregarding that evidence is “tilting at windmills” or living in a fantasy world of I.P.U.'s.
And Abiogenesis is, as you have pretty much said, the cutting edge and practical explanation for origins of life here on Earth; it is by no means the final word. At one point in our history, Geocentric and Heliocentric models of existence were all the rage, as well and the Flat-Earth Theory. Advancements (Science rarely stands still for very long, nowadays) may render much of what we perceive to be “the most very likely explanation” a relic of scientific history.
I revel in the advancement of human understanding by science, even if much of it is beyond me; I’m just flat-out suspicious of anyone saying, “That’s What It Is, And That’s That!”
Which is why I advocated that Science classes not seriously discuss Creationism beyond the fact that it’s a theory, and not even a very creditable one by the accepted Scientific Principles, and that any student wishing to explore the matter any further should take it up outside of class with their respective religious counsel.
Since I never advocated such an approach to “knowing” in the sense of established Scientific Principles, I’m wondering why you bring it up in response to my post?
While IANAP, I have read and vaguely comprehend some of the cutting-edge theories as to the creation of the Universe; as Scientific explanations go, they are so far over my head that I have no rational basis with which to evaluate their validity; but I also have no rational basis for thinking that the author has pulled an I.P.U. from his or her fundament, either. I fully accept the theories as good-faith efforts to identify and explain the Universe and its workings according to scientific principles; I also recognize that those theories, while being good words, even worthy words, are not the final word.
But I also see the assault on the Creationism Theory as an assault on other realms of human understanding, those which are extremely difficult to quantify and “prove” by scientific methods. For instance, “prove” that you “Love,” or have “Hope,” or any other unquantifiable human emotion. Yet these human qualities exist, and Creationism touches upon them. These other realms, from which the Scientific Principles have been derived over the history of philosophy (and it’s concomittant split into various endeavors), need not be advocated strongly by science classes; I would rather they not. Yet they need not be “edited” out of our classrooms in totality by the faction of scientists (whatever percentage they may be) who are hostile to anything that can’t be quantified in a laboratory, or reduced to a scientific equation
Thus, I see no serious impediment to mentioning Creation Theory in a public-education science class, if only briefly. Science cannot separate itself from, and set itself up as, the sole and exclusive venue of human understanding from its roots and contemporaries; it just need not delve into those other areas to any degree beyond a passing mention in a science class.