Topic awaiting preservation: Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed (Page 1 of 1)

Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed

quote:

---

Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."

-*snip*-

"It's another example of how the bench is dictating to people what symbols they can display, if they can pray or not pray or if they can teach a particular subject," said Sadie Fields, head of the Georgia chapter of the Christian Coalition.

-*snip*-

Scientists, several of whom testified in the case, say the sticker confuses the scientific term "theory" with the word's common usage and inappropriately combines science with personal religious belief.

"Many of us hold deeply personal religious ideals as well," Freed said. "But for a science teacher in a public school to introduce religion into a science class would fall way outside the ideals of any organization of scientists or science educators."

---

I find this a major example of Science vs Religion.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-14-2005 19:11)

I agree that placing a sticker on a book like that is not really logical. For starters, stickers don't do anything but make the author of the book angry. The other thing is that Evolution is based by facts, contrary to what they say.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I find this a major example of Science vs Religion.

---

Not really,it is more a huge example of Religion vs. Secular Humanism. Science is used in trying to prove religious thoughts and ideas as well as trying to prove that they are not good.

What they should have done is ban the religion Secular Humanism . If you are going to ban some, you might as well ban all.

Webshaman, I know you are going to be angry with me about this, but I really want to post this, so please bear with me:

I believe (there you go, I said that for you WS) that Secular Humanism is Satan's religion because of this. It is the incredible anti-Christianity machine: ban everything religious, then the only thing that anyone can talk about is how much we (and later Satan) can do.

Satan, as proposed in the Bible many times, is the Father of Lies. This philosophy uses the theory of evolution to explain what happened in the past. That is not to say the theory is wrong, but there is one huge discrepency: there are no "link" fossils. At least not as many as there should be. Probability speaking there should be several hundreds, but there aren't. Many Secular Humanists, even, have admitted that.

What Satan is trying to do is model a Religious faith after something that it is not. This faith is based soley on tring to extinguish the belief of God, and Satan's primary goal is just that.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

First thing first, it's mindblowing that the religious lobby managed to get those stickers on the books of science. Hooray for the removal of this absurdity, and the respect of the separation between the church and the state.

Wow. Satan, huh? The devil in pragmatism? It didn't occur to me that by not necessarily believing in God, divinity, and some Great Plan - choosing to attempt to understand the undoubtedly real and physical Universe in terms of what can theoretically be studied, quantified, or otherwise determined through experimentation and observation - might actually be a path to Divine Evil as defined entirely by religious testament...

That's a thought that I'll find deeply troubling for at least... nope, it's gone already.



On the subject of the stickers, I can't help feeling that the debate over (for instance) Creation-vs-Evolution is entirely beyond the point. Blatantly, the issue here is whether or not it is [b]appropriate[b] to daub educational material with quite frankly redundant statements like these.

Regardless of the argument, the sticker's placement on such a book suggests only that there are those incapable of making such an assumption in the first place.
This is, indeed, true ? and it appears that they have nothing better to do than to go around adding offensively daft stickers to children's science literature.

The phenomenon of evolution itself is a provable fact, but it seems to me any scientist that accepts The Theory of Evolution in terms of The Origin of Species (and all terrestrial life) as fact in the first place - rather than as a theory based upon the interpretation of observable phenomena, educated assumption, and the study of physical artefacts - should give up their day job.

They obviously have nothing further to contribute to the science community.



Yes, children are susceptible to fantasy. Yes, children are impressionable. Yes, children believe a lot of what they are told as fact...
...but children are also capable of being taught critical thinking. Children are capable of analysing facts and reaching a conclusion. Children are (believe-it-or-not) quite able to determine for themselves what is truth from what is not.

Given the right approach, a child may determine fact from theory - and the inextricable relationship these have to each other in the field of scientific study.

Perhaps this highlights the possibility that school teachers are incapable of imparting the very concept of the discipline of science competently, and implies that a sticker is adequate compensation for this educational deficit.
Surely, if this be the case, then it is patently not enough to simply add stickers to books; we must act! We must inform our children that they have freedom of will - we must liberate them from the tyranny and oppression that is compulsory education, so long as that education fails to prepare them for the fact that nobody knows everything.

I agree that the duty of any educator is to teach others first to learn. Sadly, this has rarely been a priority according to many observations.

I really can't see how a sticker is going to make up for such a travesty.


Personally, I am not religious. I am not an ardent atheist either. I could be considered agnostic but I hate being categorised, so I'm not sure I couldn?t side-step that definition too.
Ultimately though, I don't have any faith in the theory of Creation. However, I have little or no faith in the theory of Evolution.

Not being an expert in either field, or a scientist, or God him/herself, I have no way of personally determining what the truth of the matter is. Rather than lumping my lot in with one or the other in the hope that it is right, and that this sure and certain personal knowledge may somehow benefit me (or my eternal soul), I feel that I'm better-off accepting it all as theory until such a time as one or the other might be proved incontrovertible fact.

This is simply an example of personal belief.

Perhaps the sticker is attempting to impress upon the reader the possibility that they too have this choice - but I can't see how it helps. It really does seem to be confusing scientific understanding with religious faith.

Honestly, I think similar warnings should be placed on history books; "The contents of this book do not necessarily represent irrefutable, factual events, but rather the potentially inaccurate interpretation of events as observed or recorded by means that are inherently fallible."

I mean, history is written by the victors after all?

WH, you got some good points there.

Yeah, I agree that if someone can't reason out fact from theory they need to be taught, and yes, the children in America are not being taught that skill. I think the main problem is that many parents (not most, but many) are not willing to teach their children those skills. That responsibility then falls to teachers, who again do a stereotypically bad job of it. Then you end up with some bad groups of kids.

Stickers don't really do much to help the issue, so I think there should be a major overhaul here soon. Think about it, there is so much children get indoctrinated into their heads in schools it is scary: times tables, pledge of allegence (can do that one forward and back), etc. Granted not all of the things indoctrinated are bad, but it scares me to think about who decides what gets indoctrinated, and what doesn't.

Thanks for reading that ramble WH, it means a lot to me.

As for Satan's religion, I have a strong feeling that Secular Humanism is it. Think about it, if Satan could have one religion, what would it be? Something that is as close to anti-Christ as can be.

If you really think about Christianity has no real beef against science. Actually science is a really good tool that many Christians do to affirm their faith. Just look at your palm and how all those cells have their own functions, and do them well. Think what your hand would be like if all those cells were in disaray!

That whole religion is just taking Christ out of science. When you do that you get a nice big hole that Satan can use to... well, you get the picture.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

If I remember correctly, there is an entire section in my AP bio2 textbook rebuking the statement that "evolution is a theory" based on the definition of a theory.

What kind of rebuke?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

gideon - yet another topic that we've explained to you over and over and over and over.

If you haven't gotten it by now....


~shrug~

*Buries his head in his hands and sighs deeply.*

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

Actually, I was asking if the rebuke is trying to say that evolution isn't a theory as in doesn't exist, or if it needs a different title like: The Fact of Evolution, or The Nondisproven Theory of Evolution, etc.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

We have patiently explained exactly this to you, again, and again, and again, and again.

Why don't you just tattoo it to your forehead, so that everytime you look in the mirror, you will be reminded of it, and not "convienently" forget it?

*sobbing quietly*

I know that you have told me many things, WS, but I wasn't asking you, I was asking what the book said. I'm sorry if you thought I was lost. I'm not, just curious.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Does anybody here, besides me, think that maybe, just maybe, there could be some compromise between evolution and creation? You know things got created by someone or something (not necessarily god) and then evovled from there?

Gideon- Sorry buddy but your not helping yourself with the whole Satan thing, it may bite you in the butt by just reinforcing the stereotype that Christians believe that anything that doesn't go along with them is the devil.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

The problem with a compromise doesn't work for either side.

Evolution is a science, and there is no scientific evidence to support any claim that there was a creator. The scientific evidence sugests that life begain in the ocean at or near volcanic vents, where the heat allowed for some small microbes to come together and actually survive. The first life was much like a virus, just sitting there and multiplying.

As for Creationism, they are based on a belief in the bibles interpretation, which is a static reading, this does not change and neither do their beliefs.

Both side are polarized by their own belief systems, you would have to change the belief system in order to come up with a compromise, and changing either belief system would invalidate both systems. Just won't happen.

As for the stickers. I believe it is good that they were removed. If the reverse were true and stickers were put on the bible I think there would be a similar uproar from the Creationist camp (and many other religious establisments).

Let the work speak for itself, if the students can't make up their own minds on the issue than something is wrong.

When I was in highschool (a Jesuit (Catholic) School) I remember that my biology book had a sentance about creationism, when we spoken on the theories of evolution. I didn't see any of the priests getting upset with the only method. I believe they explained that the story of creation should not be taken literally as much of the old testimant shouldn't be taken literaly, because these storys were not got talking through the people writing them, but they were stories that were told around a fire for hundreds and hundreds of years, exhagerated and changed, and ultimately written down.

Funny how the group who controls the bible (the catholics) say that you can't have a literal interpretation of the thing, yet other groups believe you have to have one.

Dan @ Code Town

Evolution does not mean that there was not a Creator. All it does, is present the facts as we know it, for the developement of life to it's present state.

It does not explain (nor does it attempt to) where life came from or how life started.

Science has yet to find proof for, or against, the existance of a god.

That said, what the Creationists are saying is in the light of the Scientific evidence and fact quite simply not true (for a literal belief in the bible and a young earth).

quote:

---

WarMage said:

the group who controls the bible (the catholics) say that you can't have a
literal interpretation of the thing, yet other groups believe you have to have
one.

---

First off, Catholics did not write the Bible, Jews did. Second, I could say many things about Catholicism, but I choose not to. The point is, differences aside, the Catholic Church did not write the Bible, and the Catholic Church did not translate the Bible (they actually burned those who did). I don't really consider that much respect for the book of salvation, but that is just me.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

The first life was much like a virus

---

I would like you to answer this on the other thread (trying to keep WS happy about one thread for these things), but how is a virus a first life, if it is so complex?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

this does not change and neither do their beliefs.

---

The Bible doesn't change, it has been here for more than 1.7 thousand years, and some have been around for several thousand. As for the beliefs of Christians, they change constantly just like any human being's beliefs do.

The only thing that stays the same for all Christians is: 1.) I am a sinner 2.) I am going to die for my sins 3.) Jesus died instead 4.) Jesus opened the door for everlasting life.

Other than that, there are many different beliefs in the Christian faith. The authority of the Bible is up for grabs even, as you have pointed out, in some circles.

Even taking the entire Bible as authority, there is many things that are left to science, family affairs, doctrine, etc. that are still being discovered and changed.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Evolution does not mean that there was not a Creator. All it does, is present
the facts as we know it, for the developement of life to it's present state.

---

I'm going to answer this in the other thread WS, to keep this one from becoming a Creation debate. K?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I've typed it before and I'll type it again:

Science (as WS has pointed out) neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. Scientific theory simply interprets what is observable or quantifiable. The goal of scientific theory is to explain the mechanisms by which our universe works, and to predict the laws, mechanisms, or particles that we have yet the technology to observe or measure (e.g- the prediction of the neutrino, for instance, which has since been proved).

Science makes no claims that aren't backed by constant study, observation, experimentation, and calculation. Even then, theories are open to intelligent, informed debate, and may be easily changed if/when new evidence contradicts them.

As WM pointed out, Creationist beliefs are based upon the writings of people long since dead; are unchanged to this day; are vehemently defended at the slightest whisper of debate; are entirely unscientific in their assumptions, etc, etc... Creationism makes no allowances for new evidence.

No chance of compromise.

Gideon, sorry I never responded, the book was arguing that it needed a different title.

quote:

---

The Bible doesn't change

---

Bullshit.

The "bible" has chnaged many many times. Both the contents of what is considered to comprise "the bible" as well as the actual content of each book in it.

As far as the catholics go - warmage did not say that they wrote the bible, he said they control it.

If you disagree with this, then you are in very sore need of an education in the history of your religion.

The catholics most certainly were the ones who chose which writings would be considered "the bible" and most certainly changed things around to fit their view of how it should be written.

You owe your faith as much to roman politics as you do any concept of divinity. =)



(Edited by DL-44 on 01-30-2005 23:49)

quote:

---

The Bible doesn't change,

---

Ditto on the El-Toro poo poo! =)

It was maybe about a year ago I caught an interview with the head of a stateside religous university.
Was his name Smith or Jones... or was that the U. ? Can't remember... it matters not.

The chit-chat finally got around to capital punishment which this head-fella supported. This head-fella was then asked just how that squared up, with the ol' 'thou shall not kill' bizness.

This head fella then went on to explain that way back when.... when the bible was being translated somebody goofed and what was translated out as "kill" was wrong.

The 'correct' translation of that specific word, according to this head-fella, should have been and is 'murder.' So 'thou shall not kill' really should be 'thou shall not MURDER.'

And because the state is not an 'individual'... this 'directive' does not apply... thus allowing the 'state' to 'kill' somebody convicted of 'murder.' And with god's blessing.

OK see this word here... that's wrong... it really should be this and when you change that to what it really should be and read it again.... what god is really saying.... is... Well here... I'll explain it to ya....


Fuck.... you gotta luv it! Gotta luv it!!

Thanks Xc, that is what I was looking for.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As far as the catholics go - warmage did not say that they wrote the bible, he
said they control it.

---

I realize that. But the point I was trying to make is that the author of a book has control of the book, and what the meanings of that book are. The Roman Catholic Church was not the author, the Holy Spirit was. Therefore, the Catholic Church can't interpret the Bible as how they see fit. The only interpretation of the Bible comes from the true author of the Bible. They can decide what they think it said, but they can't affirm that the Bible agrees with them. It doesn't. They have to agree with the Bible.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The "bible" has chnaged many many times. Both the contents of what is considered
to comprise "the bible" as well as the actual content of each book in it.

---

You are thinking of the translations of the Bible aren't you? I agree that the translations are all a little bit different. That is to be expected. I am in a Latin class right now, and if you have ever taken one, there are many words in English for just one word in Latin (the same is for many other languages). What you try to do is get the just (sp?) of the word, then portray that word the best you can. That is how translating works, and that is why there are so many translations out there. They all help to understand meanings if you have more than one, and a key word Bible actually helps more.

As far as I know about the Canon of the Bible, it has been set for at least 1500 years (that is the entire Bible). The OT was set before that, and used by the Jews.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

If you disagree with this, then you are in very sore need of an education in the
history of your religion.

---

I don't like religion, it is too wieghty.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The catholics most certainly were the ones who chose which writings would be
considered "the bible"

---

Not really. I have done some research since the last time this was discussed, and the Catholic Church did not sit in a council and decide which books they liked. The books that were being used at the time by the Christian home churches were brought together. The only books decided upon were the ones that were in use already. Then, only the books that were by apostles, or someone close to the apostles (since most apostles were uneducated and couldn't write) were allowed in the Canon. That is for he NT. Like I said, the OT had already been decided upon a few hundred years earlier.

The other thing that this article talked about was the grammar of the books. I am no expert in Hebrew Grammar, but he is. He said there is a definite difference in the canon books and the others, but that he was probably the only one that would really take his word for that.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

most certainly changed things around to fit their view of how it should be
written.

---

Actually, if they changed the Bible to fit their beliefs, then they did a really bad job of it. The Catholic Church contradicts so much scripture, no wonder they burned the English translations in the 1500s.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You owe your faith as much to roman politics as you do any concept of divinity.

---

No, I owe my faith to my Savior Jesus Christ, and I get His revelations from the Holy Spirit, through His servants (Paul, Peter, James, John, David, Isaiah, etc.). The Roman Catholic Church may have been the one to legalize the scriptures, but they certainly weren't the ones to write them.

I also read something somewhere that the preservation of the Bible is a testimony that the Bible has divine intervention written all over it. I think it was the Emporer Domitian who tried to eterminate all the copies of scripture. He thought he did it, but obviously he failed.

And Nojive, here is some scripture about capitol punishment:

quote:

---

Genesis9:5-6
5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.

---

That is probably what the man was refering to.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 01-31-2005 15:24)

I forget what the actual numbers are but the probability for one cell to just appear is astronomical almost the same as the probability for winning the lottery which is (assuming you buy one ticket every time) 1 every 4,000 years. And your chances lower every time you buy another ticket for the same lottery. Two words: GALAPAGOS FINCHES

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

gideon - yes, I know very well how tranlsation works

as for your other comments...

~sigh~

I don't have the inclination to go through these issues yet again...

All I can do is recommend that you do a great deal more studying. And don't stick to only the authors that you already know you will agree with. Get some variation...

quote:

---

Not really. I have done some research since the last time this was discussed, and the Catholic Church did not sit in a council and decide which books they liked. The books that were being used at the time by the Christian home churches were brought together. The only books decided upon were the ones that were in use already. Then, only the books that were by apostles, or someone close to the apostles (since most apostles were uneducated and couldn't write) were allowed in the Canon.

---

There were many books in use at the time. Many of these were discarded (and burned) even some written by apostles. In the same meeting, they voted on whether Mary was a virgin or not. It was a very close vote and virginity just squeaked by.

quote:

---

I forget what the actual numbers are but the probability for one cell to just appear is astronomical almost the same as the probability for winning the lottery which is (assuming you buy one ticket every time) 1 every 4,000 years.

---

Ah, but people do win the lottery.
And 4,000 years is fine. It took millions (billions?) of years for that first cell to develop (not "just appear").




(Edited by briggl on 02-01-2005 04:02)

I don't know Sangreal, I have heard more than that. It is close to the probablity of throwing a bunch of legos into the wind and them falling into an exact replica of the Cisteen (sp?) Chapel.

I'm glad you know how translation works DL. It is unfortunate that many people seem to glaze over a few things when they start attacking that aspect of the Bible.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

All I can do is recommend that you do a great deal more studying. And don't
stick to only the authors that you already know you will agree with. Get some
variation...

---

About 1 and a half steps ahead of you DL. I used to read with a "variety" (no Christian books, even a Bible) for quite a while. Then I started a few years ago reading a few books by Christian authors. I am now in the process of reading a Darwinist approach to Darwinism (at your last suggestion), and hope to finally get around to the Origin, but that is looking a little bit into the future for all the reading I have now. But, yes, I am getting variation.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Many of these were discarded (and burned) even some written by apostles.

---

Like the Shepard of Hermas (I think that is it)? Yes, some were discarded. The main reasons were 1.) divine inspiration 2.) authoritative writer 3.) compatability with established scripture 4.) it was read regularly in Churches, just to name a few. But like I said above, if the Catholic Church did pick the books, they did a bad job of picking ones that conformed to thier view point. A lot of scripture is harsh and very cut and dry. Catholicism at that time was not as much.

quote:

---

briggl said:

In the same meeting

---

Was it all done in one meeting? That must have been a really long meeting!

quote:

---

briggl said:

they voted on whether Mary was a virgin or not. It was a very close vote and
virginity just squeaked by.

---

Do you mean Mary was a virgin before, durring, or after the birth of Jesus? I have had conflicting reports. A Catholic I talked to before thought that Mary was a virgin from birth to death. The scriptures speak other wise, but that was her view point.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Was it all done in one meeting? That must have been a really long meeting!

---

Yes it was. A few months, maybe longer. The meeting was called by the Roman emperor Constantine, who was the emperor who made Christianity the official religion of Rome on his mother's urging. He never actually became a Christian himself until he was on his death bed.

quote:

---

Do you mean Mary was a virgin before, durring, or after the birth of Jesus?

---

The original scriptures did not say that she was a virgin. Some of them were translated incorrectly from the Hebrew into Greek (one simple word) and gave the impression that she was a virgin. This mistranslation was carried over into the Latin versions. The religious leaders at this meeting voted and decided that she was a virgin and got pregnant through "imaculate conception".




(Edited by briggl on 02-03-2005 07:43)