Small note to Adam:
Science-Ask the question and find the answer.
Religion-Give the answer and make the question fit, ignore the question, or attack the question.
Science-When something is not yet known, the term used is “unknown”.
Religion-When something is unknown, the term used is “god”.
Biology, geology, and for the most part history, are SCIENTIFIC persuits, and thus should use a scientific method of fact-finding.
Excuse me - I’m a junior in high school in Lawrence, Kansas. And I’m completely ashamed to admit to living here now! I’m a non-christian. And to those of you who want to put prayer back in the school, or at least have religious freedom in public schools – kids shouldn’t be suspended for wearing the pentagram or carrying witchcraft books. I have hindu friends who aren’t hounded because they are from India. But my peers see me, a white American, and all of a sudden I’m supposed to be a christian? What’s up with that? And why must all Christians push their beliefs on everyone else… when that’s what they were running away from when they were getting persecuted. I wouldn’t mind learning about Christianity, if I also was forced to learn about other religions as well. But to take evolution out of science classes. It’s like taking every theorem from a math class. I don’t have to take biology again, but hell if I’m going to let my younger sister go through school not learning about evolution because some idiots in western Kansas decided to take this state back to the dark ages.
vern,
One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is conversion of the non-believer. They see you as a damned soul, bound for hell in a handbasket. Understand that for them, they’re trying to save you from what they see as an inavoidable fate unless you convert. It’s not mean-spirited, in theory. They’re trying to do you a cosmic favor. Problem is, they don’t respond well to a “No, thank you.”
Nicely put. I think it’s wonderful that you’ll teach your sister. It may be the only chance she gets until college, unless the supreme court over-rules this abomination.
I understand that they are doing it as a favor to me. What I want to know, is why they don’t try to convert, say, my friend, Arijit, who happens to be Hindu. I’ve stopped telling people I’m agnostic, because that gets a bad response from most. My mom urged me just to tell them I’m Buddhist. But, when I say that, they look at me, see that I’m white (you can barely see the asian in me), and still won’t respect me. I think I’ve been wrong to judge all Christians as a whole and label them bad. That’s wrong, but it’s hard not to, when the majority of those you meet can’t show you the respect you deserve and decide to damn you to hell every other sentence! It gets pretty old. Sorry if I offended any Christians with my last post… but you have to understand where I’m coming from!
Micro-evolution is fact. But macro-evolution is an idea based wholly on assumption.
Evolutionists often make analogies between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity.
I’d like to make my own analogy. If you walk onto a field untouched by humans, or other intelligent life, and see a group of stones lying on the field, one might ask, “How did these stones get here?”
Simple answer: Gravity. Because gravity is fact, fact, fact! (Because all things fall to earth, these stones must have fallen to earth.)
But upon further analysis, you see that these stones spell out the words: “The Cat in the Hat.”
Well, according to science, the probability that these stones were to fall in this order is infinitesimal, but nevertheless they have fallen. After all, gravity is fact, fact, fact!
Of course, if we were to assume that the only mechanism for these stones to be on the field was gravity, then however infinitesimal the occurance of “The Cat in the Hat” is, it is, nevertheless.
My point is: we don’t thoroughly know the mechanisms that cause life, or the mechanisms that cause change (mutation is bogus), but we embrace this Theory of Evolution. We base this theory on our underlying assumption of a naturalistic universe, even though we don’t completely understand nature itself.
Evolutionary theory is dying. Maybe it served its purpose of ousting Creationism from the throne, but it has no right to the throne itself.
When will stupid, arrogant scientists finally admit that they truly don’t know.
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
If I only had a match for every straw man…
What would be the point? “We’ve been wrong all along; we’ve got no idea. Let’s go home.”
How about this? “Well, our theory of evolution sure pushed that creationist stuff out of the way. Now that our propaganda has served its purpose, let’s put it away and start over from scratch. I can’t believe anyone ever swallowed that ‘macro-evolution’ crap in the first place. ‘Mutation’! What’s up with that? People sure are gullible.”
There is intense competition within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific problems with the theory are well known, and hard fought over. No scientist, that I’m aware of, has ever declared the theory of evolution to be finally settled and unquestionable.
Given the amount of anti-science sentiment here, it’s less and less surprising to me what happened in Kansas.
Exactly what does everyone have against science?
beeruser:
Have you actually read any scientific discussions on evolution? Not only is evolution not dead, Darwin’s specific version is hardly suffering a stitch in its side–and it’s been running for a long time.
New information (Mendelian genetics, DNA, etc.) have tended to provide the mechanisms that support Darwin’s thesis.
Mutation is real. In recombining DNA from parent pairs, “mistakes” are made. These occur at mathemetically predictable rates. Much of DNA is “filler”, so many of the “mistakes” are never noticed. When a mutation occurs in a sequence that happens to control growth activity (which also occurs at mathematically predictable rates), the offspring is materially affected. This can cause sufficent harm to prevent birth; it can cause sufficient harm to permit the birth, but conveys an unfavorable trait to the offspring so that it dies young (or before it can produce many offspring); it can convey a trait that is favorable–leading to many more offspring; or it can convey a trait that is neutral and is passed on to future generations simply by normal mathemetical chance. Occasionally, these “neutral” traits later confer an advantage on a future generation when the ecological niche of the species changes. All of this genetic activity has been discovered in the last 25 years as the result of other discoveries in the last 50 years.
Every one of these discoveries has tended to support the original hypothesis by Darwin.
Where did you ever get the idea that evolution (or even macro-evolution) is suffering in any way?
Tom~
Amen Tom – you’ve obviously done your homework!
I think it’s truly sad that Christians think that their god would resort to such a crass and facile method of propagation of species as creation, when to cause the miraculous diversity of life by evolution would be much more subtle and awe-inspiring.
The whole “it’s much too random” argument is inspired by a lack of knowledge of the nature of speciation and evolution. The point of evolution is that lots and lots and lots of random mutations are possible (which is why there are lots and lots of species). However, only those which are beneficial are passed on. That’s why you don’t usually end up with freaks of nature, and when you do, they usually die quickly. (I am studiously avoiding saying anything about ARG here.)
Incidentally, the example of the California condor only laying one egg per two years only serves to prove evolution’s point. Up until humans started to interfere with the condor, its reproductive schedule served it adequately. However, now it has ceased to do so, and as a result it is (sadly) dying off, since evolutionary pressures (human activities) are selecting against it.
Fortunately, other human activities are working toward re-establishing condors in their natural habitat. So far, they appear to be working, though it will be several years before we know for sure that condors can, once again, survive in the wild.
Rich
I know this has nothing to do with condors or anything… but I was just watching the local news here, and heard that the school board here in town (Lawrence, KS) will not be eliminating anything from the curriculum or test standards!
And God Said, Let There Be Light in Kansas
By Gene Weingarten Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 14, 1999; Page C01
Memo to: The members of the Kansas Board of Education
From: God
Re: Your decision to eliminate the teaching of evolution as science. Thank you for your support. Much obliged.
Now, go forth and multiply. Beget many children. And yea, your children shall beget children. And their children shall beget children, and their children’s children after them. And in time the genes that have made you such pinheads will be eliminated through natural selection. Because that s how it works.
Listen, I love all my creatures equally, and gave each his own special qualities to help him on Earth. The horse I gave great strength. The antelope I gave great grace and speed. The dung beetle I gave great stupidity, so he doesn’t realize he is a dung beetle. Man I gave a brain.
Use it, okay?
I admit I am not perfect. I’ve made errors. (Armpit hair–what was I thinking?) But do you Kansans seriously believe that I dropped half-a-billion-year-old trilobite skeletons all over my great green Earth by mistake? What, I had a few lying around some previous creation in the Andromeda galaxy, and they fell through a hole in my pocket?
You were supposed to find them. And once you found them, you were supposed to draw the appropriate, intelligent conclusions. That’s what I made you for. To think.
The folks who wrote the Bible were smart and good people. Mostly, they got it right. But there were glitches. Imprecisions. For one thing, they said that Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and then Cain begat Enoch. How was that supposed to have happened?
They left out Tiffany entirely!
Well, they also were a little off on certain elements of timing and sequence. So what?
You guys were supposed to figure it all out for yourselves, anyway. When you stumble over the truth, you are not supposed to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and proceed on as though nothing had happened. If you find a dinosaur’s toe, you’re not supposed to look for reasons to call it a croissant. You’re not big, drooling idiots. For that, I made dogs.
Why do you think there are no fossilized human toes dating from a hundred million years ago? Think about it.
It’s okay if you think. In fact, I prefer it. That’s why I like Charlie Darwin. He was always a thinker. Still is. He and I chat frequently. I know a lot of people figure that if man evolved from other organisms, it means I don’t exist. I have to admit this is a reasonable assumption and a valid line of thought. I am in favor of thought. I encourage you to pursue this concept with an open mind, and see where it leads you.
That’s all I have to say right now, except that I’m really cheesed off at laugh tracks on sitcoms, and the NRA, and people who make simple declarative sentences sound like questions?
Oh, wait. There’s one more thing.
Did you read in the newspapers yesterday how scientists in Australia dug up some rocks and found fossilized remains of life dating back further than ever before? Primitive, multicelled animals on Earth nearly 3 billion years ago, when the planet was nothing but roiling muck and ice and fire. And inside those cells was . . . DNA. Incredibly complex strands of chemicals, laced together in a scheme so sophisticated no one yet understands exactly how it works.
I wonder who could have thought of something like that, back then.
Just something to gnaw on.