Say What?
Judge Rejects Georgia School Board Evolution Stand
ATLANTA (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Thursday ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers challenging the theory of evolution from its textbooks on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution.
In a ruling issued in Atlanta, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said Cobb County’s school board had violated the constitutional ban on the separation of church and state when it put the disclaimers on biology books in 2002.
The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
Where in the constitution exactly does it preclude children from thinking?
If we are to teach our children to accept flawed theories without thinking critically about them aren’t we indeed teaching religion?
Evolution has been proven ~fact~ ….. when???
The sticker language mentions religion ….. where???
At its simplest, evolutionary theory states “gene alelles change over time”. In other words, the information found within our genes changes from generation to generation, from placement to activation.
Is this in dispute?
If we are to teach our children to accept flawed theories without thinking critically about them aren’t we indeed teaching religion?
Yes. That’s what “accepted science” has become. Anyone that challenges what is accepted by a “consensus” of scientists is a “skeptic” (scary quotes included).
Evolution is a fact. The origin of living things via evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a hypothesis. Lets all try to keep our facts straight.
Very well stated, Rusty.
Hey Rusty, can you give me one example -just one- where one species evolved into another.
Just tell me what they were when they started, what they changed into and when (plus or minus a few million years) it happened.
“Flies evolved into birds” won’t cut it. Exact species please.
It is a fact right?
The only motivation for challenging evolution is based on Christian religious doctrine.
Don’t try to pretend that questioning evolution is about free thought. Why not question the periodic table of the elements? Or Newton’s Law?
No, it’s strictly a religious motivated slogan, and the court was right to rule that this was a comingling of church and state.
The only motivation for challenging evolution is based on Christian religious doctrine.
How does your brain still function enough for you to breathe?
No, it’s strictly a religious motivated slogan, and the court was right to rule that this was a comingling of church and state.
I loudly applaud you and completely agree. If you want your kids learning about creationism, put them in a Christian school.
Tis strange how there’s no mention on this site about the halt for looking for WMD. Strange indeed.
AJ- Can you tell me how it establishes a state religion?
For the first time since I’ve been at Wizbang, I’m saddened by the IQ of some readers.
The sticker contains a simple statement of facts and an admonishment to think. On its face, it is in no way religious. The only way it can possibly be perceived to be religious is in considering the motivations of the people who put them there. The fact that judges are now basing rulings on people’s motivations instead of the facts of the matter should alarm everyone, regardless of your thoughts on evolution.
Well, since the belief of creationism is primarily pushed by the Christians, then I would argue by teaching my kids that, you are prostletizing a religion (and one that I find very offensive by the way).
Libertarian Girl, I think you’re being clever with your comment (and I mean that). But just in case…
The Periodic Table has been “questioned”, revised, and modified pretty reglarly since it was introduced in the 1890’s. That was the point, really, since the arrangements of know elements into a table helped to predict the existence and properties of unknown elements.
Newton’s Law, of course, was largely supersceded by Einstein’s theories. Newton’s observations were as good as they could be at the time and they work ok as an approximation of human-scale stuff, but not for very large or very small scale phenomenon.
I like Rusty’s statement because he breaks this out into several issues. I have argued for hours on this topic in the past.
Check out the definition of evolution:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution&r=67
“A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.”
Best as I can tell, this has been duplicated in the lab with bacteria and other simple organisms. So many scientists accept it as “proven.” I can buy that. Applying evolution to the origin of species requires a little more faith in science though, at least at this point in time. But that makes sense to me too.
But evolution is a completely (well, almost completely) separate issue from the question of origin of life. This is where people can argue for hours, and technically both sides can be correct.
I agree with the stickers in this case. I think they are 100% spot on. And contrary to the thought Nazi’s arguments, I’m not stating this from any religious perspective.
Evolution has been proven. Evolution as the origin of life hasn’t. That’s a cold hard scientific fact.
Keep in mind it is taught as the THEORY of evolution, because as of now, it’s the most plausible explanation.
Jmaster??
“Best as I can tell, this has been duplicated in the lab with bacteria and other simple organisms. “
Can you tell me when exactly? Your whole premiss is critically flawed.
Evolution has been proven. Evolution as the origin of life hasn’t. That’s a cold hard scientific fact.
Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Who proved it?
Newton’s “Law”was questioned. And found wanting. By Einstein. Actually several had found Newton’s “Law”wanting. Einstein was the one who created a theory that addressed the shortcomings of Newton’s laws for very small and very large objects, only 100 years ago.
It would be a miracle of biblical proportions if our current understanding of life and evolution were without error. The source of progress is raising questions about the anomalies of any current theory and displacing them with new theories that more accurately describe reality. To ask these questions requires an open mind. The motivation behind those questions is of little importance if they lead us to a better theory.
Paul, you wanted some examples of observed speciation?
In 1905, Hugo deVries observed speciation in the plant Evening Primose, known by its scientific name Oenothera lamarckiana. He named the new species Oenothera gigas.
Faeroe Island house mouse has speciated since its introduction to the island 250 years ago.
Speciation has also been observed in cichild fishes in Lake Nagubago.
There are many, many more examples. In fact a simple search of Google Scholar (scientific paper database) will show you multiple other results.
Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. There are, in actuality, very few scientific laws. This is clearly an attempt to single out evolution because of a particular subset of religious thought — in the US represented by Biblical Creationism.
However, the biggest irony is that Biblical Creationism, aka Young Earth Creationism (with deluxe world-wide flooding action), does not only require evolution, but it requires a rate of evolution (from one species to another, natch) that is many hundreds of thousands of times faster than any biologist has ever proposed in the past several generations.
Evolution from one species to another has been observed ad nauseam. What Paul is really asking for is evolution between ‘kinds’ — which is itself a Biblical, not scientific, distinction.
I would recommend looking up the Therapsids.
Jeezuz Paul,
I would think you would give me a little more credit SINCE I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!!!
A lot of this is just semantics. Unfortunately, I don’t have the links right now for the bacterial studies. I went through this very same argument about 6 months ago, and I was “converted”. I have to hit the road right now, but I’ll try to dig them up and send them to you later.
The problem when discussing evolution is to define it.
“Evolution is a fact” is both true and false.
Evolution defined as:
* “change over time” – this statement is obviously true since bacteria can become resistent and breeding in just the last century change cows and horses etc.
* “Common descent” – also true to in a sence. Dogs, wolfes and hyenas probably came from a original “dog creature” although giraffes and sharks are harder to place in the “evolutionary tree”
* “Life from non-life with common descent” – now this definition has som major problems and can hardly be considered a fact. Give me o-n-e viable theory on how life come from non-life. Then show how life develop to more complex creatures and where this i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n comes from and propagates through the DNA.
Paul:
Done. Here’s some documented speciation events.
Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992. Basically, two breeds of mice speciating through hybridization. The new mice are unable to breed with the parent stock, but can reproduce amongst themselves.
Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an Old Field. Science 177:664-669 Laboratory observation of a speciation event in fruit flies. The author of that paper has several other events recorded in peer reviewed journals.
Two events right there, one occuring naturally and the other in the laboratory. Both occured in human timescales.
Note: You asked for speciation events. This isn’t “flies into birds”, but two disparate species unable to mate with each other after the event. The dictionary definition of species is: a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
One request: Don’t move the goalposts.
I can sum up my post as: Evolution is true, kind of =)
I’ve always believed that God created evolution. That makes everybody happy!
Question: Were the stickers forced to be placed in the textbooks by a law that Congress passed? No? Then someone please tell me what is unconstitutional about it.
But now I’m waiting for the following sticker to be placed in physics textbooks:
“This textbook contains material on thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a theory, not a fact, regarding the the transformation and conservation of energy. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
How about this for chemisty:
“This textbook contains material on the charge-cloud model. The charge-cloud model is a theory, not a fact, regarding the distribution of electrons around a nucleus. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
Or this for American history:
“This textbook contains material on Lee Harvey Oswald. That Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy is a theory, not a fact, regarding the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Evolution has as a prerequisite that there is already some form of self-replication that is going on. Abiogenesis is what you are trying to say when you say ‘evolution of life.’
Also, evolution has nothing to do with organisms being ‘better’ or ‘more complex.’ Evolution is just that there are differences between parents and offspring. Period. Natural selection is the idea that natural processes allow for certain traits to be preserved at the expense of others. This does not mean what thrives is more complex or ‘better.’ It just means that the traits that survive are generally better suited for the current environment.
This is brief, and not meant to be the ‘definitive’ definitions of these concepts, btw, but are intended as a guide. Refer to a good biology text for better definitions.
The notion that the only motivation revolves around religion is dismissed. Although it is the primary driver as they are fundamentally contradictory of one another. It is about proof. For example, as physicists continue their quest for unification, the good ones will be the first to tell you that they are prepared to accept that what they know as fact – may not be.
As Paul asks, where is the proof of Evolution? Killer Bees maybe? By the same token, where is there proof that Evolution is not a fact, as the sticker in question clearly states? Are any of us entirely prepared to accept the idea that what you know to be fact is really not?
That said, the idea that it’s strictly a religious motivated slogan might be right. After all, it’s a pretty hip thing for a parent to say that they are involved in how the state teaches their kids, all the while not giving TV, movies, video games and other factors a second thought.
Does anyone really think that the parents involved care about what the public school system teaches their kids? If they did, they would be home schooled, or elsewhere in private school.
And yes, these types of rulings are indeed disturbing every single time. I truly believe that these parents, the ACLU and the court alike don’t give a damn about what’s in the best interest of the intended audience of the book itself.
It also should be noted that the ACLU has pushed the church and state conflict into both red and blue states, but always on non-Christian or atheist grounds.
No, it’s strictly a religious motivated slogan, and the court was right to rule that this was a comingling of church and state.
I loudly applaud you and completely agree. If you want your kids learning about creationism, put them in a Christian school.
There is nothing – nothing – in the U.S. Constitution requiring “separation of church and state”. What the Constitution does prohibit is the establishment of a State Religion. (See: Church of England).
Notice how the Constitution says absolutely nothing about the acknowledgment of God by the State. In fact, God is acknowledged by our founding documents. This whole “separation of church and state” is a load of hooie. There are guidelines (set up by judge’s, mind you) that are meant to prevent the State from becoming so entangled with a particular religion that it is an endorsement of that one religion. Notice, however, how even this procription does not disallow the acknowledgment of God.
Therefore, if every religion believes in Creationism/ID then teaching that theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause of our Constitution for the simple reason that it would not so entangle the State with just one religion to the point where the State is implicitly endorsing just one religion. All the State would be doing is acknowledging God. Something our Founding Fathers not only did, but believed was a necessary criteria for a successful democracy.
Quote from Rusty: Evolution is a fact. The origin of living things via evolution is a theory.
From from the “unconstitutional” sticker.: Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
Uh..what you just said according that Judge is unconstitutional as what you said and what the sticker says are the same. Apparently you forgot that the word “regarding” is on the stickers.
Quote from Jason: At its simplest, evolutionary theory states “gene alelles change over time”. In other words, the information found within our genes changes from generation to generation, from placement to activation. Is this in dispute?
Yes, in regards to origins of living things as gene (DNA based) alelles didn’t yet exist in the alleged RNA world which the theory claims in every textbook on Evolution to be the process by which the abiotic become the biotic about 3.8 billion years ago. Please describe the exact mechanism of Evolution from RNA to Archea?
Quote from Ignortarian Girl: the only motivation for challenging evolution is based on Christian religious doctrine.
Really? I guess that is why Berlinski, Denton, Morowitz, Tipler, and even Crick are ID? If you known so much about ID why don’t you refute the EAM mechanism? Also from which laws of Physics does MS derieve? Please show those derievations.
Quote: Ignortarian Girl: it’s strictly a religious motivated slogan, and the court was right to rule that this was a comingling of church and state.
Oh…and where does the Constitution forbid the comingling of church and state? This is the problem with you stupid Libertarians, you can’t read. I know, I used to be a libertarian but then I learned to how to read and become a conservative.
In conclusion, I wonder how anybody can think that a sticker by itself can be “unconstitutional.” I mean where does the constitution talk about what stickers are “constitutional” and which are a threat to democracy and a functioning republican form of goverment?
Of what are you afraid? Are you afraid the sticker is gonna peel itself off the page and beat a religious confess out of you? This is asburd….stickers can’t be declared “unconstitutional” as they are just stickers.
Drew,
Go back and read CrowScape’s last post. So what if evolution “is not a fact”, as you and the sticker say? We can all agree it’s a theory. But the truth is science is a theory-based field. If you’re going to single out one theory with a warning sticker, you’ll need to do it to all of them. Which, as CrowScape points out, would lead to a pretty huge, ridiculous list of disclaimers on all science books. (And, has been pointed out already, Intelligent Design is *not* a theory.)
Not sure if this is a good way to go with this, but ‘ere it goes….
(and one that I find very offensive by the way).
Is it the practice or the practitioners you find offensive? I’m not one of ’em, so don’t go lookin at me with that pitchfork. 🙂
There are three problems, IMHO, with the premises stated in the MSM (anything besides evolution as fact = hostile takeover of science by religion) and subsequent discussions on evolution vs. creationism vs. whatever else passes on this subject as theories, relgious dogma, or mental excrement:
1. While science deals with facts, human beings that interpret those facts are flawed, and the Newton/Einstein discussion above is a good example about how what humanity accepts as “proven fact” at one point in time can change, as more becomes known about the background of what makes a thing a “proven fact”.
2. Studies of biology cannot stray from either the laws of chemistry (as is currently known, per point 1 above) or physics. Current science dictates that in the realm of physics, systems must be acted upon by forces outside themselves in order to be either maintained over time or improved (Laws of Thermodynamics 1, stasis, and 2, entropy). As biology requires chemical reactions to maintain energy levels, and even “self improving” systems require outside energy to avoid entropy over time, life itself therefore must seemingly require some kind of maintenance to overcome eventual entropy and dissolution. Blind evolution alone cannot explain the existence of the need to maintain systems against entropy, much less explain what, or perhaps who, would be able to do such a thing.
3. Inductive logic as a problem solver can only work when mental or computational simulations can reasonably account for all the possibilities in a given situation. This guideline for using inductive logic sets up a difficult paradox: one can only use inference to solve a problem if one knows every possible variable to the problem. If one knows every variable about the problem, then one knows the problem completely, and complete knowledge of the problem demonstrates the solution to the problem. Therefore, using inductive logic must assume that there is always the possibility, however remote, that a variable exists that could completely change the solution.
Therefore, one may conclude from the points above that facts known to humanity are always open to improved recording methods or interpretation; therefore, the possibility must be retained that facts can change. Furthermore, anyone who makes definitive statements about systems that cannot be completely reverse engineered or deconstructed and understood, or who makes definitive statements about events that took place without anyone present to corroborate those events, leaves themselves open to the possibility that they will be someday proven wrong.
So I ask these questions of our libertarian friend, and of anyone else who cares to discuss them politely:
* If no one was there to record or corroborate the data or theory, how can you be completely sure that what you say happened in fact took place in the way you believe it did, or even at all?
* How can scientists use laboratory results gleaned over days, weeks, or even decades, to prove how events happened, or that they happened at all, thousands of years ago?
* How is it that recognizing human limitations of recording and interpreting data (theories) is dismissed as “religion”? And more to the point, how is it that one person’s theory of origins is called science (again, assuming that the facts can be independently corroborated) and another is dismissed as religion?
* Given that no one has yet completely mapped out a complete DNA sequence and learned how to replicate its construction in a way that works, how can anyone suggest that lab studies that suggest evolution on a micro level are truly scaleable?
* Why is it not possible to recognize that there is much doubt in terms of what the data suggests, regardless of one’s personal beliefs, and allow that some new information may come along at some point to fundamentally change the “facts” as we believe we know them today?
Food for thought…
G-d, I hate this stuff, it always devolves into something…. idiotic (idiodic?)
Pual, kudos for at least trying to keep this on an even keel without knee jerk ideologies. *sigh* I think you’re tilting at windmills, but, hey – your blog, your rules!
Nevertheless:
Eric said: “However, the biggest irony is that Biblical Creationism, aka Young Earth Creationism (with deluxe world-wide flooding action), does not only require evolution, but it requires a rate of evolution (from one species to another, natch) that is many hundreds of thousands of times faster than any biologist has ever proposed in the past several generations.”
Nope, sorry. Biblical Creationism does NOT require evolution. The biblical account to which creationists refer, and the orthodox view held by the historic church, says six days: birds, sea creatures, land animals (including creepy crawlies, etc), man. Just to set it straight.
Now, I believe in MICROevolution – bacteria getting resistant, mice and fruit fly speciation. That’s provable and observable. (Notice how it happens in the lab, though. No intelligence there, right?)
*I* want proof of how we get from amino acids to cells to fish to amphibians to birds/reptiles to mammals to man. THEN I’ll believe in MACROevolution, and “evolution” as it’s commonly thought of by the average person on the streetwill be fact, and not theory.
Quote: Here’s some documented speciation events.
Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992. Basically, two breeds of mice speciating through hybridization. The new mice are unable to breed with the parent stock, but can reproduce amongst themselves.
Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an Old Field. Science 177:664-669 Laboratory observation of a speciation event in fruit flies. The author of that paper has several other events recorded in peer reviewed journals.
Two events right there, one occuring naturally and the other in the laboratory. Both occured in human timescales.
Note: You asked for speciation events. This isn’t “flies into birds”, but two disparate species unable to mate with each other after the event. The dictionary definition of species is: a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
One request: Don’t move the goalposts.
How does this represent a increasing in both the quantity or quality of the genetic information?
Don’t your examples fall into the catagories of :
1. “new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
2. “new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes. (aka ID)?
And these are irrevelent to the question of major changes which would effect the major body plans. We started with mice and we still have mice so what you cited is simple variation catagorized as speciation for taxonomical purposes.
Whups! It occurs to me I was unclear clarifying the creationist view: creationists (generally – Hugh Ross is an exception, I believe) do NOT say God transitioned the birds, sea creature, etc., from one form to another.
Sorry about that.
As always, there’s more to the story…The court order is here: It looks like an interesting read – I’ve only skimmed it.
Oh, please. You’re being very disingenuous (and building a straw man to boot) by asking “Where in the Constitution does it preclude children from thinking? You insult your readers’ intelligence (this reader, at least). That is not what the ruling said, and you know it. Moreover, “encouraging thought” is not the purpose of that idiotic sticker. (The sticker is even incorrect. Evolution is not a theory about the origins of living things. Evolution says nothing about how life began. It only describes how life has evolved over time.)
In fact, for a great humorous skewering of this sticker, see “Disclaimer stickers for science textbooks” at http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/
No, these stickers rely on the lay public’s misunderstanding of what the word “theory” means in science in order to make them “question” evolution, in hopes of offering them creationism as the alternative. In colloquial usage among lay people, a “theory” is often little more than a hunch. To scientists, the word has a much more specific meaning. In science, a theory is a set of principles that the vast majority of scientists agree best describes a set of phenomenon. Another way of putting it is that theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. In fact, in science, a “theory” is as close to “fact” as science gets. No set of principles is granted the title of “theory” without an absolutely enormous amount of supporting data.
Theories can change over time in response to new data or be supplanted by new theories. The best example is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. It’s radically different than Newtonian theory, but at speeds that are slow relative to the speed of light (the sorts of speeds that Newton could observe), Relativity closely approximates Newton’s laws, meaning that Newton wasn’t wrong. If the theory of evolution is ever supplanted, the new theory will have to take into account all the old observations.
I doubt anyone would want to place a sticker on a physics textbook stating: “This textbook contains material on Relativity. Relativity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the motion of objects. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Saying the same thing about evolution is equally ridiculous.
Creationism exists for only one reason: To disguise religious believes as science.
Oops. That’s “beliefs” not “believes.” (Overeager to hit the “post” button.)
What I’ve gathered from my quick skim of the court order is that the stickers were NOT placed on the books in order to call evolution into question, but to placate the many Cobb County parents who didn’t want evolution taught at all, and to encourage the children to give it serious consideration. Sorta puts a different spin on things…
Wanderlust —
Good post, good points. I’m no libertarian, but I’d like to try to tackle at least two of your questions:
* How is it that recognizing human limitations of recording and interpreting data (theories) is dismissed as “religion”?
Recognizing limitations of theories should definitely never be dismissed as “religion” — as pointed out here numerous times, that’s how science evolves (bad pun intended). However, dismissing a theory (a testable, predictive statement/set of principles) in favor of a non-theory (something not based on substantive research) might be reasonably called religion. At the very least, it’s not science; and since this is a science textbook we’re talking about…
* And more to the point, how is it that one person’s theory of origins is called science (again, assuming that the facts can be independently corroborated) and another is dismissed as religion?
I think it’s important we talk about “theory” not in the colloquial sense (as in “what one believes”) but in the strict scientific sense, i.e., “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” In this sense, ID or creationism is not a theory.
* Given that no one has yet completely mapped out a complete DNA sequence and learned how to replicate its construction in a way that works, how can anyone suggest that lab studies that suggest evolution on a micro level are truly scaleable?
Plenty of genomes have been fully mapped, right? And DNA is replicated in the lab on a regular basis (PCR which got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993). Or am I missing your point?
J
Listen brainiacs…..whatever we “think” we know about ourselves or our universe …..is but a grain of sand…and that is being generous.
Regardless the so called measurable scientific evidence…nobody knows dick.
They had to create a whole new geometry to “invent” the atomic bomb.
Every so called fact is subject to revision given the proper circumstances.
We are looking at a solid brick wall and guessing at what is on the other side.
That’s the truth, you know it, I know it, a lot of people know it.
creation….evolution….intelligent design…..a beautiful mirage…..they could all be the truth simultaneously.
All we really know for sure is that nobody knows for sure.
Jesse, here’s a bit of background on me, in case you care. I’m not religious, I’m not a scientist, I don’t have kids and I believe that the ACLU, when addressing pertinent and worthwhile issues, can be a good thing. So why am I commenting?
* because the sticker is a joke – you can’t say that something is a theory and NOT a fact in the same sentence. Besides can you imagine this conversation?
Child > Mommy, what does this sticker mean on my textbook? I didn’t start reading it because I wanted your input first.
Mom > Well, it means that your school is going to teach you about evolution while at the same time acknowledging God.
Child > Mom, I’m glad because it would be a damn shame if I didn’t have to read some bulls**t disclaimer before cracking my 7th grade Biology book…
* because the parents’ and ACLU’s arguments are a pointless waste of time and money. If they really cared, a prerequisite for Biology would be a history class on why the separation church and state exists and the fact that it’s a problem that is thousands of years old that will never end.
* because the proper forum for this is indeed a friendly discussion with strangers on the Internet as opposed to the Courts or incessantly badgering friends, family or co-workers about it.
* I like this blog
So, I didn’t say that evolution is or is not a fact, and if someone can dismiss one or the other outright, frankly they don’t have a very good imagination.
The thought that this case wasn’t laughed out of court is troubling, but it makes for good discussion anyway.
Septeus7, I believe Paul asked for speciation events. These were provided. Now you want me to provide something else, changes in “major body plans”.
Didn’t I ask quite clearly not to move goalposts?
If I went around asking “derive the mass of the electron from first principles”, I wouldn’t get very far, would I? Nevertheless, I can still introduce you to some voltage across the nipples should you suddenly have a heart attack. There are problems with the theory, although we can provide you with a measured mass of the electron.
Gene alleles change over time. I can’t show you fish crawling onto land and devloping lungs and legs, but I can show you other things, from fossils, gene sequences, comparative morphology and developmental biology.
It might surprise you to know that there is more evidence for evolution than there is for electromagnetic theory. If you want to set the same standard for the standard model that you want to apply for evolution, I suggest you break out some stickers and plaster them all over your monitor, because it’s all running on theory shakier than evolution.
I suspect I’ll get a lot of flack for that last paragraph, but so what? Gene alleles change over time. Is this in dispute? Crying about body design and quibbling over what is considered change in information (variations or change? Please!) is not evidence to the contrary, I’m afraid.
Romeocat sez: “Nope, sorry. Biblical Creationism does NOT require evolution. The biblical account to which creationists refer, and the orthodox view held by the historic church, says six days: birds, sea creatures, land animals (including creepy crawlies, etc), man. Just to set it straight.”
Um, you really need to read up on your Biblical YEC dogma. Not to mention your Genesis. There was a world wide flood (according to the Bible) about 4000 years ago. The only animals who survived the flood were in Noah’s ark. He did not bring sets of each species, he brought sets of each ‘kind.’ The meaning of the word ‘kind’ is somewhat loose, since it pre-dates the science of biology by several thousands of years. Since there would have been no room on the ark (as impossibly large as it was supposed to have been) for a set of each species, current Biblical YEC thought is that the different ‘kinds’ saved by Noah experienced a period of ‘rapid evolution’ into the species that are currently observed. For example, instead of saving hundreds of different sets of the various bovine species, Noah only had to save one set of ‘Bovine Kind’ which rapidly spread all over the world, and incidentally evolved into hundreds of species.
If you think this is stupid, don’t blame me. Take the issue up with them. This summary is sound. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
though if you have any sense at all, I would advise you to not have any fluids in your mouth as you read it, since said fluids will likely exit your nose and end up on your (presumably) rather expensive computer system.
In fact, in science, a “theory” is as close to “fact” as science gets.
I that a natural/scientific “law” is as close to “fact” as science gets.
Brushing the dust off my science classes it goes, in ascending order: hypothesis, theory, law. Some theories are stronger than others and have more support than others. That does not make them, (ahem) Gospel. So there is much proof for evolution you say? I say, so what? Does that mean every other hypothesis/theory/whatever out there automatically gets dismissed? If you say yes, then you are dogmatic and evolution has become your religion.
Science is all about asking questions. I would think real scientists would not only be willing to listen to evidence that disproves evolution – they would actively seek it out in order to ensure they know the truth. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to happen anymore.
wanderlust sez: “2. Studies of biology cannot stray from either the laws … physics. Current science dictates that in the realm of physics, systems must be acted upon by forces outside themselves in order to be either maintained over time or improved (Laws of Thermodynamics 1, stasis, and 2, entropy). As biology requires chemical reactions to maintain energy levels, and even “self improving” systems require outside energy to avoid entropy over time, life itself therefore must seemingly require some kind of maintenance to overcome eventual entropy and dissolution. Blind evolution alone cannot explain the existence of the need to maintain systems against entropy, much less explain what, or perhaps who, would be able to do such a thing.”
It’s called ‘the Sun.’
Thank you for proving once again that those who think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has anything to do with evolution know little about either.
Flawed theory? No, religion’s explanation of things is flawed. So flawed that it contradicts itself.
sean sez :Science is all about asking questions. I would think real scientists would not only be willing to listen to evidence that disproves evolution – they would actively seek it out in order to ensure they know the truth. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to happen anymore.
The thing is, these are the same questions that were asked in the 1880’s. 1890’s. 1900’s. 1910’s. 1920’s. Etc, etc, etc. These questions HAVE been answered, the problem is that the answers are not enough to unseat religious dogma. Period. 99% of what you hear Creationists say is false. Demonstrably and clearly false. But they are repeating what people want to hear. People like to hear what they want to hear, and thus the answers are drowned out by willfull ignorance.
Very powerful, Eric. Here here.