In the pit rather than MPSIMS, just because creationist assholes who try to get their bullshit taught in public schools piss me off so much, but I found this story absolutely hilarious.
In this story here, about creationist nutjobs on a school board fighting well-proven scientific theory, we have this lovely quote:
“We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture,” he [creationist idiot] said, adding that the school board’s declaration is just a first step.
Yes, you have. Thank you for admitting that you are unintelligent and uneducated. Finally something I agree with creationists about. Why stupid and ignorant ideas deserve an equal footing with intelligent and informed ones is a matter for another time, but at least we agree which side you’re on.
Are we ever going to get past this stupid, ignorant, fallacious argument that the theory of evolution is a theory, and not a fact? Since their theory of intelligent design is an unproven, fallacious, ignorant, faith-based, hypothesis, and not a theory-something none of them will ever cop to because they would have to admit that the theory of evolution is in a whole other fucking universe as far as proof goes.
Fucking loons. I mourn the loss of objectively teaching children unbiased knowledge.
No. To understand that, a person must begin to understand how science works, so the vast majority of creationists will never grasp it. Plus it’s just too easy for them to say “It’s just a THEORY!” a feel like they made some kind of point.
Unfortunately, you are wrong here. It’s not a hypothesis. It’s a logically sound inference from their premises. That their premises are what appears to be the joint creation of a loon and a hyena on LSD laced with speed is a whole different story. But if you presume that
[ul][li]Human beings are fallible; God is not;[/li][li]God dictated the contents of the Bible, and it is therefore true; any perceived error in it is due to human misunderstanding;[/li][li]The Bible, as God’s work, is always to be understood as literal except when it’s “obvious” (their definition of “obvious”) that He’s speaking metaphorically;[/li][li]Any evidence from science that supports their interpretation of the Scriptural account is to be accepted; any that refutes it is to be rejected as fallacious or misinterpreted;[/ul][/li]then it follows clearly that Creationism must in fact be true, and “Evolutionism” the product of human pride and vainglory.
I presume on SDMB I need not go into what’s wrong with those bullet points. But as Lib is fond of pointing out, one can reason soundly from false premises. And that is precisely what the Creationists are doing – and why nobody ever wins Creationism vs. Evolution battles. Because each side is working from completely contradictory premises.
Evolution as commonly used has two senses: 1) a process of change and development over time (not necessarily for the better, ie what we call ‘progress’) - typically from a simple state to a more complex state; 2) the idea that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to natural selection of variations that arise (eg by mutation) in successive generations. 1) is a fact; 2) is a theory.
By analogy, it is a fact that a boy armed with three guns killed nine people recently in Minnesota (ten, if you count the boy himself). It is a theory, expressed eloquently on these boards by some well placed to have an informed opinion, including a policeman, that if you arm the officers of the schools, eg the teachers and the security guards who oversee the metal detectors at the entrance to schools, that the incidence of deaths caused by youths armed with guns will decrease.
Okay, a bit provocative, but now that’s been addressed (and no analogy is ever exact - that’s the nature of the beast) , do you agree with the distinction made between the two senses of evolution? Always important to clarify terms in a critical rational discussion.
Number two in your post, Roger, is the Theory of Evolution, simplified. What distinction need there be? The theory of Evolution, the object of this discussion, holds that all living things have a common ancestor. It’s a scientific theory. Not an educated guess, a scientific theory.
Your post was not provocative. It was yet another signal of your blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah…