# Can science disprove God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301 "2013-11-07T03:01:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/361 "2013-11-10T17:51:29Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You know, it’s telling that only denialists of evolution tend to talk much about Darwin. Why do you think that is? Why is it that the only people who tend to spend a lot of time thinking or talking about the founder of the theory are those who deny it and who run against a _gigantic_ scientific consensus built over literally centuries? > > Well, simple. It’s because evolution is no longer the same theory that Darwin proposed. He got a lot of it right, and his insight has been important, but if you try to argue against the views of Darwin, or Darwin’s colleagues, you are arguing against science from over 150 years ago. You are trying to craft an argument from authority based on the opinions of scientists who lacked most of the evidence that we have today to support evolution. It _was_ reasonable to doubt evolution around 1850, back when Darwin first published the book. Just like it was reasonable to doubt Pasteur’s germ theory of disease back when it first was published. But now? With the massive preponderance of evidence you apparently don’t know or don’t care about? Why should we _care_ whether or not one of the co-authors of a theory believed in it? Darwin himself could have recanted the theory on his deathbed (there’s no credible evidence that he did) and all it would imply is that one person 100-odd years ago disbelieved a theory that has since been backed up by more evidence than any theory beyond perhaps Germ Theory or Gravitational Theory. > > The article is utterly irrelevant. It makes absolutely no real statement about the validity of evolution, and its conclusion (that the fact we could find a surprising mechanism behind the presumed inefficiency of the Glass Knifefish somehow demonstrates that there are no designed inefficiencies) is utter crap. No, all you can derive from this is that there is a mechanism that makes _this_ inefficiency useful. You can’t just assume such a generality like this. Especially when the examples of complete inefficiency (or incompetence) in design are so myriad - the [Laryngeal nerve of the giraffe](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/08/30/dawkins-gets-inside-the-giraffes-neck/), the human appendix, [the list goes on and on](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html). These are all things that make perfect sense if the organism evolved gradually, but which make _no_ sense if the organisms were designed more or less in their current form. And none of these are explained away by the Knifefish. But then again, this site promotes the idea of “teaching the controversy”, so what do you expect? :rolleyes: You need to get an actual science education, and stop getting your information from BS creationist websites. I have not heard of any studies done on the nerve of the giraffe, maybe because evolutionist believe their assumptions. Maybe if there was a study done, biology have may progress further. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/362 "2013-11-10T17:53:56Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Your links are from non-scientific organizations and contribute nothing to this conversation. > > Intelligent Design is religion, not science. It has no place in a science-based discussion. Actually evolutionist are religionist too. Evolutionist like religionist have a belief system based on faith. Nothing in the fossil record demonstrates evolution. No slight modifications in animals turning them from one kind to another. Only theories upon theories that turn out to be wrong. All the past hoaxes that was needed to get people to believe. Hoaxes like the embryo drawings were continued to be used even after it was discovered to be a hoax. Only the orthodox view of evolution is presented to the public. All dissenting views are silenced. Evolution has all the hallmarks of being a religion. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/363 "2013-11-10T18:09:28Z")
Suppression of dissent against evolution is a widespread tactic of supporters of evolution. Suppression itself denies academic freedom and cases of suppression include denial of earned degrees, loss of careers, refusal to publish in peer reviewed journals, and government bans on even religious schools teaching students about creation or Intelligent Design. Suppression of dissenting views occurs in a number of fields other than evolution, including the Big Bang and Global warming. Suppression includes not just suppression of dissenting views, but discrimination against those holding dissenting views, or even those who are deemed (sometimes incorrectly) to be giving support to dissenting views. Tactics include vilification, whereby critics of evolution are not merely subject to academic disagreement, but are ridiculed, called names, and compared to groups such as holocaust deniers or fundamentalist Muslims. The effect is to intimidate others from also taking a stand on the issue. [http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression\_of\_dissent\_against\_evolution](http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution) ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/364 "2013-11-10T18:13:55Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > You obviously didn’t watch Darwin’s Heritic. He was not religious. I tried to watch it, but after reading this on the host site, I’m pretty sure there is nothing valuable or scientific about it, so it’s not a good source for truth or science: > [@](#): > > [What is intelligent design?](http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php) > > Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This is so wrong that the rest of the site is worthless. Even representatives for the [Institute for Creation Research](http://www.icr.org/) have admitted, under oath ([Kitzmiller v. Dover](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)) that there is no such research going on, nor ever was. It’s a proselytizing site, not a scientific one. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolutionist like religionist have a belief system based on faith. You have a lot to learn about evolution and science. Before you repeat such nonsense, it would be good to learn about what science is. It does your argument no good to make claims based upon ignorance. [Science is the opposite of faith.](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/) Jerry Coyne says: > [@](#): > > The definition is laid out in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Science is the opposite of faith – it relies on observation and evidence, Coyne said. “It’s the conviction of things seen.” [Science is not based on faith](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/science-is-not-based-on-f_b_676016.html) > [@](#): > > Christian apologists think it is rational to seek out evidence that supports their preconceived beliefs and ignore the evidence that doesn’t. They already know the truth, and so view their job as making a case against any arguments from skeptics and doubters. Scientists, even if they have preconceived beliefs, examine all the evidence and go wherever the data lead. > > Scientists trust scientific method, logic, and mathematics because they work. They give us answers that we can independently test against objective observations. They give us electric lights, computers, and cell phones. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Suppression of dissent against evolution is a widespread tactic of supporters of evolution. Suppression itself denies academic freedom and cases of suppression include denial of earned degrees, loss of careers, refusal to publish in peer reviewed journals, and government bans on even religious schools teaching students about creation or Intelligent Design. So now you want to play the conspiracy card. The truth, as you define it, is being suppressed. Ho-hum, we’ve heard it all before and it doesn’t carry any weight in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/365 "2013-11-10T18:19:29Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Actually evolutionist are religionist too. Evolutionist like religionist have a belief system based on faith. > Nothing in the fossil record demonstrates evolution. No slight modifications in animals turning them from one kind to another. > Only theories upon theories that turn out to be wrong. All the past hoaxes that was needed to get people to believe. > Hoaxes like the embryo drawings were continued to be used even after it was discovered to be a hoax. > Only the orthodox view of evolution is presented to the public. All dissenting views are silenced. > Evolution has all the hallmarks of being a religion. Nice cut 'n paste. Nothing original. Every one of your arguments have been refuted. [Misconceptions about evolution.](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php) ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/366 "2013-11-10T18:32:43Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Actually evolutionist are religionist too. Evolutionist like religionist have a belief system based on faith. > Nothing in the fossil record demonstrates evolution. No slight modifications in animals turning them from one kind to another. > Only theories upon theories that turn out to be wrong. All the past hoaxes that was needed to get people to believe. > Hoaxes like the embryo drawings were continued to be used even after it was discovered to be a hoax. > Only the orthodox view of evolution is presented to the public. All dissenting views are silenced. > Evolution has all the hallmarks of being a religion. This is remarkably ignorant. Quick question: do you believe the vast majority of scientists are lying about evolution, or do you think they’re such fools that they’ve been unable in a lifetime to spot flaws you noticed with just a casual interest? ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/367 "2013-11-10T18:38:57Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I tried to watch it, but after reading this on the host site, I’m pretty sure there is nothing valuable or scientific about it, so it’s not a good source for truth or science:This is so wrong that the rest of the site is worthless. Even representatives for the [Institute for Creation Research](http://www.icr.org/) have admitted, under oath ([Kitzmiller v. Dover](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)) that there is no such research going on, nor ever was. It’s a proselytizing site, not a scientific one. > You have a lot to learn about evolution and science. Before you repeat such nonsense, it would be good to learn about what science is. It does your argument no good to make claims based upon ignorance. > > [Science is the opposite of faith.](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/) Jerry Coyne says: > > [Science is not based on faith](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/science-is-not-based-on-f_b_676016.html)So now you want to play the conspiracy card. The truth, as you define it, is being suppressed. Ho-hum, we’ve heard it all before and it doesn’t carry any weight in this forum. Darwins Heritic is history. Your evidently so biased that you can’t take the blinders off. Intelligent design is discrimanted against so evolutionist do not have to face the arguments it makes. Religious people have strong biases too. It prevents them from even gazing at the truth. Personally I’m not afraid to look at both sides of an issue. Science is the opposite of faith. That is why evolution is a religion and not true science. When you look for evidence of evolution it just melts away. This is why there are dissenters. Why not present both sides? Why are evolutionist afraid to present both sides? If ID is wrong then it would come to nothing. Problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/368 "2013-11-10T18:50:27Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Actually evolutionist are religionist too. Evolutionist like religionist have a belief system based on faith. Wrong. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Nothing in the fossil record demonstrates evolution. No slight modifications in animals turning them from one kind to another. We do not need fossils when we have observed evolution in currently living life forms. Beyond that, you claim is just silly. We have hundreds of examples of fossils that are clearly related animals in separate layers of stone, with each life form showing differences in a progression of increased or decreased size or advanced or deteriorating usage. Turning a blind eye to those examples is simply willful ignorance. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Only theories upon theories that turn out to be wrong. All the past hoaxes that was needed to get people to believe. Name “all” the past hoaxes. I know of two hoaxes and one misinterpretation–none of them were actually accepted by mainstream paleontologists, biologists, etc. as evidence for Evolution; all of them were exposed by scientists studying evolution. What “hoax” has ever been “exposed” that changed anyone’s thoughts on evolution? > [@jstucker15](#): > > Hoaxes like the embryo drawings were continued to be used even after it was discovered to be a hoax. The embryo drawings were placed in textbooks by textbook publishers, not scientists studying evolution. You would not even know that Haeckel had distorted his images if scientists had not pointed it out. > [@jstucker15](#): > > Only the orthodox view of evolution is presented to the public. All dissenting views are silenced. Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit. Every scientific challenge to the Theory of evolution is published and discussed in papers that anyone can read. Even nonsense like the sort of bad “science” produced by the authors of “Intelligent Design” are published (and refuted) publicly. No one has suppressed the nonsense spouted by Behe and Dembski. It is out there for anyone to read (if they want examples of bad logic, poor math, and silly claims). > [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution has all the hallmarks of being a religion. Really? It has a liturgy? People come together to worship it in some hall or another? There are prayers associated with it? It sets forth a moral code? Those are hallmarks of a religion and evolutionary science demonstrates NONE of them. You are just being silly. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/369 "2013-11-10T18:59:00Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Intelligent design is discrimanted against so evolutionist do not have to face the arguments it makes. Go back and tell whoever fed you this line of bullshit that they need to stop lying to you. The three foremost proponents of Intelligent Design have been Behe, Dembski, and Johnson. Every one of their books has been published without any attempt to suppress them. Every one of their books has been rigorously trashed using science to demonstrate their errors. The only “discrimination” that they have faced has been the refusal to allow their errors to be fed to kids in high school classes, wasting time and money on stuff that has already been refuted. Behe made claims about “irreducible complexity” in his first book, pointing to the Bombardier Beetle and the chemicals it uses. Within a couple of years, biologists had already examined his claims and shown that he was wrong–not in theory, but by actually looking at the chemical process. Dembski’s math has been shown to be so bad that he probably should not get a job teaching algebra, much less biology. You really need to stop believing the liars from whom you are “learning” this stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/370 "2013-11-10T19:02:24Z")
Intelligent design _should_ be discriminated against, because it’s irrational claptrap. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/371 "2013-11-10T19:11:21Z")
Evolution Fraud and Myths to name a few: Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down! Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link”). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52) Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983) Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20) The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction [http://digilander.libero.it/avifauna/classificazione/sequence6.htm](http://digilander.libero.it/avifauna/classificazione/sequence6.htm) Lucy [http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html](http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html) The Peppered Moth > **[The Peppered Moth](http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth)** > > At the beginning of the nineteenth century, most moths in the UK were an off-white color, highly adapted to hiding from predators, such as birds, by resting on pale, mottled grey tree trunks. But the Industrial Revolution polluted the environment,... ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/372 "2013-11-10T19:19:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Intelligent design _should_ be discriminated against, because it’s irrational claptrap. This is what I have been talking about. Pure bias. You don’t even know issues. There are so many people that don’t believe evolution maybe time should be spent on ID. If you want to change peoples minds you have to know something about ID. Your totally ignorant on it. I have looked at both sides. I understand why evolutionist don’t want to acknowledge the issues. To write it off as claptrap so you donn’t have to be embaressed for your beliefs. I’v seen this in religious people before. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/373 "2013-11-10T19:20:54Z")
You’re right, science _is_ self-correcting. Another reason it’s better than faith. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/374 "2013-11-10T19:23:03Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > This is what I have been talking about. Pure bias. You don’t even know issues. There are so many people that don’t believe evolution maybe time should be spent on ID. If you want to change peoples minds you have to know something about ID. Your totally ignorant on it. I’m okay being ignorant of the finer details of something that is crap. Fortunately, not everyone has to understand or accept evolution to benefit from it > [@](#): > > I have looked at both sides. I understand why evolutionist don’t want to acknowledge the issues. To write it off as claptrap so you donn’t have to be embaressed for your beliefs. I’v seen this in religious people before. I’m embarrassed for _your_ beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/375 "2013-11-10T19:26:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You’re right, science _is_ self-correcting. Another reason it’s better than faith. But self-correcting many years too late. And when it is correcting some don’t get the message because its not headline news. Some still believe in primordial soup and the giraffe’s long neck fallacies. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/376 "2013-11-10T19:32:23Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Your evidently so biased that you can’t take the blinders off. > > Intelligent design is discrimanted against so evolutionist do not have to face the arguments it makes. Yep, this could also apply to astrology. Those damn biased astronomers not devoting enough time and effort to understand it. Astrology must be a science, right? The word itself ends with -ology. That’s a dead give away right there. It has theories about cause and effect and makes predictions. I bet the astronomers are intimidated. I once heard Kenneth Miller talk about his role in the _Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al._ case. He had an interesting figure in his talk. It was a graph of the occurrence of the terms “Creationism” vs. “Intelligent Design”. It was pretty obvious use of the terms had flip-floped and, IIRC, Miller pointed out that the year when this occurred was 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled in _Edwards v. Aguillard_ that requiring the teaching of creationism was unconstitutional. After 1987, creationist textbooks replaced the terms creation and creator with intelligent design and designer. He also showed an example in _Of Pandas and People_ of how this was just a Find and Replace job of editing and they had missed a few instances of the terms in a draft the plaintiffs had acquired. It seemed pretty obvious this change in terms was a legal tactic to get around the Supreme Court ruling and not the introduction of a scientific theory. ---
**Author:** ![jstucker15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@jstucker15](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jstucker15)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/377 "2013-11-10T19:38:30Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Yep, this could also apply to astrology. Those damn biased astronomers not devoting enough time and effort to understand it. > > Astrology must be a science, right? The word itself ends with -ology. That’s a dead give away right there. It has theories about cause and effect and makes predictions. > > I bet the astronomers are intimidated. > > I once heard Kenneth Miller talk about his role in the _Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al._ case. > > He had an interesting figure in his talk. It was a graph of the occurrence of the terms “Creationism” vs. “Intelligent Design”. It was pretty obvious use of the terms had flip-floped and, IIRC, Miller pointed out that the year when this occurred was 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled in _Edwards v. Aguillard_ that requiring the teaching of creationism was unconstitutional. After 1987, creationist textbooks replaced the terms creation and creator with intelligent design and designer. > > He also showed an example in _Of Pandas and People_ of how this was just a Find and Replace job of editing and they had missed a few instances of the terms in a draft the plaintiffs had acquired. > > It seemed pretty obvious this change in terms was a legal tactic to get around the Supreme Court ruling and not the introduction of a scientific theory. Yes astrology used to be science. In the future will be laughing about evolution being science. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/378 "2013-11-10T19:42:51Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > But self-correcting many years too late. Well, at least nobody got crusaded in the meantime. Besides, what do you mean “too late” ? I don’t recall Piltdown Man going on any killing sprees. > [@](#): > > And when it is correcting some don’t get the message because its not headline news. Some still believe in primordial soup and the giraffe’s long neck fallacies. So? It’s not hurting them or telling them to hurt others. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/379 "2013-11-10T19:43:19Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Evolution Fraud and Myths to name a few: > Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down! > Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig > Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link”). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52) > Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983) > Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20) > The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction > [The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction](http://digilander.libero.it/avifauna/classificazione/sequence6.htm) > > Lucy > [omniology.com](http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html) > > The Peppered Moth > [The Peppered Moth](http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth) Kent Hovind? Is that you? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301/380 "2013-11-10T19:46:12Z")
> [@jstucker15](#): > > Yes astrology used to be science. In the future will be laughing about evolution being science. You misspelled evolution. It should read “Intelligent Design”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-disprove-god/673301.md?page=20)