It's about timie. It is shocking to think that the standards were actually in place as long as they were, and that the vote to repeal them was only won by 6-4...
quote:John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found [the Intelligent Design Network], accused the board of promoting atheism. And Greg Lassey, a retired Wichita-area biology teacher, said the new standards undermine families by "discrediting parents who reject materialism and the ethics and morals it fosters."
How did we get from natural selection to materialism in two sentences? Wow ...
Excuse me sir, but where does it say that the role of public school is to enforce parents in their fantasies and to not hurt their feelings ? I thought public school was meant to pass sound and verified knowledge to children.
I'm drafting a resolution to remove Kansas, Alabama, and Texas from the United States, by the way. I'm pretty sure they're each more keen on theocratic self-rule anyway.
From: Underneath a mountain of blankets. Insane since: Jan 2007
posted 02-16-2007 03:58
I'm a born-again believer.
I don't mind that they teach evolution in schools. I believe micro evolution.
I don't mind that Intelligent Design is not taught in schools. If it was they'd have to go through every religion's beliefs.
I do mind, that (from what I get by skimming the article) something that's still a theory won't be questioned. How is it science, to not show both sides to a theory?
rukuartic@halflght:~/$ whatis life
life: nothing appropriate.
For clarification: evolution (along with a great many other things) is not "still a theory" in that one day it might graduate to "fact".
In science, as opposed to in common usage I suppose, a theory is a very solid thing, based on testable, observable, measurable facts. Evolution is a theory, yes. Evolution is also a fact.
While obviously the implementation of teaching any given subject is open to a wide range of thoroughness based on the competence of the teacher, you can be sure that any serious scientist is very interested in all sides of any theory. What side is it that you feel is not being shown - other than the "these facts contradict our beliefs" side?
Comparing evolution and intelligent design on equal footing is a purely ludicrous concept however, for reasons that we've gone over far too many times to bring out here and now (if truly interested, check the FAQ for 'evolution'). And if there were anything resembling an alternate scientific theory, it would be jumped on by scientists around the globe.
I think we should go ahead and stop calling it the 'theory of evolution.'
Until we get time machines down, we'll never know for sure. Which means we'll never know for sure. But when *all* available evidence points to it, it sounds pretty solid. The fact that a book written around 1400 B.C.E. (i.e., the Old Testament) didn't get it right isn't too surprising. Folks wandered around the desert a lot. The wheel was new tech. Women were property, and holy days were holy days.
Evolution makes sense. It has evidence. It connects all the dots. But because the only way to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt would be to watch all the history of mankind and take photos every 100 years and put it all into a big cartoon, it's still called a theory.
Let's drop the theory part. It is, for all practical purposes, fact.
Intelligent design has no evidence. In fact, the only reason it exists is as a question mark for evolution. It has no facts. Its supporters also believe that the earth doesn't rotate and mankind and dinosaurs lived together. They have 'museums' that show all this, but it's nothing more than a bizarre group-wide psychotic episode. Intelligent Design is neither. To say to science, "Well, I personally cannot explain this, so I'm gonna pin it all on one all-seeing, all-knowing architect-slash-father-figure, so please treat my idea (that I have scrawled on this bar napkin) with the same validity as your theory (the constructs of which could fill a thousand thousand-page volumes of tiny print)" is to admit that you are part of this massive psychotic episode.
So, it's settled. We're dropping the 'theory' from 'theory of evolution.' But since everyone already refers to it as 'evolution,' this doesn't change anything. When the framers of Intelligent Design (whose crazy idea I continue to capitalize and treat with the 'proper noun' respect despite my best interests) come up with some, I don't know, reasons or evidence or something tangible for their crazy idea, then I'll buy their books and read up on it.
Until then, it's evolution or giant spaghetti monsterism.
As for it being science's goal to show 'both sides of a theory,' I must ask this: If I claim that gravity actually is a construct of my local deity simply pushing down on my stuff, are gravitational scientists ethically, morally, and scientifically bound to explore that option? Of course not, because it's a stupid dumb-fuck idea. And I've got lots and lots and lots of dumb-fuck ideas.
Man, I like hearing my keyboard. Clickity-click-click-click.
Just for the record, evolution is already taught as a fact and not as a theory in France.
I wonder how biology teachers would explain fossiles, radiometric dating, ice core dating, plate tectonics etc to their students if evolution was taught as just a theory.
Edit: DL, as far as I know, the word theory has different meanings depending on the context.
Depending on which one you use, evolution is and is not a theory
Let's drop the theory part. It is, for all practical purposes, fact.
I agree with your sentiment, of course, but my previous statement is an important one, and applies to your statement as much as the other side -
A theory and a fact are not mutually exclusive things. Theories require facts to exist - without tested evidence to support it, it would be a hypothesis. The "theory" of evolution is the part that ties together all the "facts" of evolution.
So like I said - it *is* a theory. And a it is a fact.
And the fact that it's a theory does not mean that anyone is unsure, or that the evidence is not contradictory, or any other such thing.
I wish as much that people would understand the meaning of the word theory as much as I wish they understood evolution...
Moonshadow - I missed the part of your post regarding the word theory. In science, the word theory is used as I described. Thus the part where I said "as opposed to common usage"
Scientifically speaking, a theory is a specific thing, regardless of the variety of dictionary definitions.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 02-16-2007 21:26
From DL's 2nd link
"The gist of the message is that teaching evolution in U.S. schools is unlawful. "
No secret I stand with the evolutionists but what mystifies me most about this line of thinking is the 'individual.' Not necessarily this specific individual but I really do wonder what, firmly entrenched, creationists were like as children.
Many were raised in xian homes, likely but not necessarily, fundamentalist environments, while others came to it later in life via the 'born again' route. But all, at one time, were kids and I really do wonder when the switch was thrown. I'm not sure it's the environment and 'indoctrination' (he said as gently as possible).
I say this from personal experience. Members of my family are in the clergy, others are not but are more religious than those who are and yet others, from the same environment have no time for creationism. All kids at one time. All from the same environment. What was the event??
Anyway...
Also from DL's 2nd link just in case you didn't go down that far (so-to-speak). Some rather explicit language but I think you can deal with it. =)
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
From: Underneath a mountain of blankets. Insane since: Jan 2007
posted 02-16-2007 21:59
I was never comparing Evolution to intelligent design. There are problems with Evolution. Last time I read my textbook, I sure didn't see anything about the fossil record missing "transitional forms" and the outright contradiction of thermodynamic's 2nd law. You'll notice that this isn't, "It contradicts my beliefs..." it contradicts science.
And as for Intelligent Design being rediculous? How about I place all the pieces of a sports car inside a large room, shake it around for a few millenia, and open to find a Porsche. Not to mention, building a Porsche is much easier than building a living, breathing human.
Ah. There. I just contradicted myself, and compared Intelligent Design to Evolution. Couldn't resist that one.
twItch^, so there's never been a fossil pieced together and labeled the missing link?
rukuartic@halflght:~/$ whatis life
life: nothing appropriate.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 02-16-2007 23:08
Oh no, here we go again! *long, drawn out, exasperated sigh*
quote:There are problems with Evolution. Last time I read my textbook, I sure didn't see anything about the fossil record missing "transitional forms" and the outright contradiction of thermodynamic's 2nd law. You'll notice that this isn't, "It contradicts my beliefs..." it contradicts science.
First of all, there are no "problems" with Evolution. You need to study it more.
Second, you did not see anything in your textbook about any "missing trasitional forms" because evidence of transitional forms have been found. Again, you need to study it more - see Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
And third (and this is the most absurd accusation of Anti-Evolution loonies), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has not been contradicted in any way, shape, or form by the Fact of Evolution - see Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution especially this part
quote:"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
And please, do NOT reply back until you have read and UNDERSTOOD what is posted there.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I was never comparing Evolution to intelligent design.
True, I leapt to a conclusion there.
quote:
There are problems with Evolution. Last time I read my textbook, I sure didn't see anything about the fossil record missing "transitional forms" and the outright contradiction of thermodynamic's 2nd law.
Except for two things:
1) while clearly we will never come close to having a fossil of every transitional form (i mean really....*every* form is transitional...that's the point ), we do have a great many very distinctly transition fossil records. The idea that we don't is a creationist myth.
2) As WS demonstrated, the idea that evolution somehow contradicts any aspect of thermodynamics is a long established misconception.
quote:
it contradicts science.
I would challenge you to find any credible scientific evidence for that statement. The two examples you mentioned are the standard fare of creationists, and have been answered over and over and over - you will find no significant number of scientists who will offer any support of them, and I would dare say no scientist who is not first a creationist. Among those who creationists, that - for them - trumps science and so their answers will also heed the biblical call in favor of the scientific method.
I hope you can see that such a stance negates any scientific argument they might have...
quote:How about I place all the pieces of a sports car inside a large room, shake it around for a few millenia, and open to find a Porsche.
speaking of ridiculous...
(was that seriously meant to have a valid point? I do hope that was a half-hearted attempt at a joke...)
quote: rukuartic said:
so there's never been a fossil pieced together and labeled the missing link?
"the" missing link? Another absurd notion in the battle against evolution is that there is such a thing as "the missing link" (as adressed at the start of this post).
I am in full support of anyone who wants to approach evolution skeptically, and evaluate the evidence that is available. That's what science is about.
You will find that once you move past the creationist myths about evolution (many of which have worked into the general public), the science is there, and the facts support the theory. The more we learn, the more the evidence lines up.
quote:Last time I read my textbook, I sure didn't see anything about the fossil record missing "transitional forms" and the outright contradiction of thermodynamic's 2nd law.
Which Textbook? But you're right on both counts. Transitional forms don't exist and complex organisms could never have evolved - entropy and all that - you can't get order from disorder.
As some of you know I spend a considerable chunk of my free time photographing wolves. I love wolves - such beautiful and noble creatures. Every time I look at a picture of a wolf i realize how unique they are and marvel at the fact that they look exactly the same as they did thousands of years ago. Wolves are just the way they were in the Garden at the time of creation.
The proof: if there were such things as evolution, natural selection, mutations, variability, adaptation, even inter-breeding we would at one point have discovered wolf-like creatures. I will calls these fictional transitional creatures evolved from wolves "dawgs" for lack of a better term. Canis dawgus.
Yet we have no evidence that dawgs ever existed - no fossils exist of these forms.
Continuing this argument, dawgs would have evolved/changed over time and through breeding. As a result, today we would probably find very large dawgs - let's call them GrateDanish dawgs - and there would be tiny little dawgs - some might be so small as to fit in a woman's purse.
But while it is fun to fantasize the whole concept of a fictional creature called a dawg - evolving from a wolf ancestor and actually diversifying into hundreds of forms (let's call them breedz) - this is total nonsense.
As your textbook must have stated, entropy would never allow for that and the "missing links" have never been found.
Cavemen coexisted with dinosaurs - not dawgs - that's why their pets were called "Dino" and not "Fido".
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 02-17-2007 17:13
Ermmm...I thought a "dawg" was something you woke up with in the morning, and you were willing to chew your arm off at the shoulder rather than wake it...
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Sorry to backtrack here--I'm a bit late to the party. I usually avoid threads like these (in truth, I peruse them but refrain from posting), but I couldn't help myself this time. I just have to ask about something twItch^ said:
quote: twItch^ said:
Its supporters also believe that the earth doesn't rotate
"Its," of course, refers to Intelligent Design. Is this true? Can someone toss me a link on this? I cannot fathom how someone living in modern society could believe that the earth doesn't rotate. If you don't believe that the earth rotates, you are basically espousing geocentrism, aren't you?
Again, sorry for the backtracking, but I just had to ask.
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
If the Earth was round the people on the bottom would fall off. Sure you could glue them on upside down, but then they would shit out of their mouths.
So it has to be flat....if you walk far enough east, west, north, or south..you will eventually hit a wall.
If the Earth spun round and round we would all suffer from really bad vertigo and puke all the time, so thank God it does not spin. The Sun, however, does move around the Earth - this explains why we have night and day - i.e when the sun is at either ends of our flat earth.
From: Underneath a mountain of blankets. Insane since: Jan 2007
posted 02-19-2007 04:25
It took me too long to write this.
WebShaman -- Exasperated sighs are not necessary. Neither are words in caps. You're not speaking to a six year old, you're debating with an adult.
To make sure that we're all on the same page here, I'm not arguing micro-evolution. Yes, you can breed something to look completely different. If you put a pile of giraffes in a land with tall trees, you'll either find no giraffes in X years or giraffes with significantly longer necks. Yes you may ind cows that get so fat that they stand in water because their legs can't support them. No, you won't see their legs disappear and gills grow.
While looking through the five common misconceptions, I found a few interesting things. The first is their list of "Observed Instances of Specification". They're plants and fruit flies, perhaps the easiest things to toy with. Alright, so they get a rather mutated offspring. That checks out. But, the fruit flies they bred didn't turn into ants. You could breed them to the point where they have no wings and look like ants, but they're
still fruit flies. They won't seek out different food, or work with a pack mentality.
And here I'm marked for not understanding Evolution because I quote thermodynamics. Let me call you people out who think ID folks think the world is flat. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0104/ps2.html If you actually believe either of those sites are credible...
And DL-44, I jumped the gun on my sports car comment. Where did life come from?
rukuartic@halflght:~/$ whatis life
life: nothing appropriate.
That fixed earth site is disturbing. I have to admit that I didn't go through everything, but I don't understand why it is so important that the earth not move. He mentions that the Bible references the movement of the sun 67 times, but all of these references are figurative. We still talk about the sun rising and setting, but that doesn't mean we believe it is the sun that moves.
Anyway, thanks for the link. It was a real eye-opener.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 02-19-2007 11:52
quote:WebShaman -- Exasperated sighs are not necessary. Neither are words in caps. You're not speaking to a six year old, you're debating with an adult.
Then you misunderstood me here - it is an exasperated sigh because we have had this sort of debate with those who believe as you do (or, I should say, present their beliefs as you do) ad infinitum before. The same old, tired topics. Everytime, they have been soundly defeated.
As such, you have already been defeated, you alone are just not aware of it yet.
quote:To make sure that we're all on the same page here, I'm not arguing micro-evolution. Yes, you can breed something to look completely different. If you put a pile of giraffes in a land with tall trees, you'll either find no giraffes in X years or giraffes with significantly longer necks. Yes you may ind cows that get so fat that they stand in water because their legs can't support them. No, you won't see their legs disappear and gills grow.
You make alot of rather off-in-the-boonies comparisons here, none of which you can back up. You yourself have no idea what can happen over millions of years (as you have not lived that long). You make conclusions that you cannot back up. You seem to think that evolution only occurs instantaneously, or even within your lifetime. Or within a few thousand years.
The reason that we often use species that have a really short lifespan, is so that we can use them to speed up the process - they have generations much faster than larger species do. Thus, one can shrink the amount of time that they need to be observed to witness evolutionary changes.
quote:While looking through the five common misconceptions, I found a few interesting things. The first is their list of "Observed Instances of Specification". They're plants and fruit flies, perhaps the easiest things to toy with. Alright, so they get a rather mutated offspring. That checks out. But, the fruit flies they bred didn't turn into ants. You could breed them to the point where they have no wings and look like ants, but they're
still fruit flies. They won't seek out different food, or work with a pack mentality.
You also need to keep in mind, that the fruit fly is distantly related to the ant (and I mean distant - they had a common ancestor way, way back in the generations tree). This is what is referred to, not a fruit fly turning into an ant (or vice versa here), but that this common ancestor had the potiential to become both and did. I personally have no idea what potiential lies within a fruit fly, in the sense of evolutionary potiential. What it would become if subjected to the same evolutionary processes as the common ancestor is beyond me. Perhaps it would die. In any event, we are talking about rather substantial amounts of generations here. That equates to time.
Still, that is beyond the point here. Again, you are setting up ridiculous situations here. It shows that you have very little understanding of the subject matter. This is why I suggested that you study the material well and learn it, for some of us have.
quote:Their other arguments seemed to try and sidestep the issue or target people basing their entire argument on one point. For instance, the one
on transitional fossils. You'll note that I didn't say there weren't any, I just said there were a few key ones that they haven't found yet.
Nothing has been sidestepped (if you think so, state your evidence, please). As for targeting one point - well, if people state one point, it will be targeted. But there are also examples of addressing people with multiple points. Perhaps you need to read more?
quote:And here I'm marked for not understanding Evolution because I quote thermodynamics. Let me call you people out who think ID folks think the world is flat.
Yes, you got nailed for attempting to use the Thermodynamic gig, that has been debunked. That really does show that you know little of Evolution, in fact, it really shows that you are a believer. As such, you will not be able to offer any evidence for your belief (otherwise, it would not be a belief, would it?).
I am not aware of anyone on these boards who seriously think that all ID folks believe that the world is flat, or that all believe that the world does not turn. However, some seem to.
And for the record, ID is not Science, it is belief. Evolution is science, it is not belief.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Are you familiar with the large scope of forensic sciences, where they do exactly this - take badly eroded remains and create an image specific and detailed enough to identify victims?
There are also broad fields dealing with understanding how a body will work and look, building from the bones up. Why can we do this? because we have predictable muscular and functional patterns based on skeletal systems.
You may find it humorous, but that does not invalidate it.
Of course, such images are generally not intended as definitive - that's why they are typically labeled as 'artists renderings'
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 02-19-2007 22:36
Geeez where'd you get that.... that's me and my first date !
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
quote: rukuartic said:
For instance, the one on transitional fossils. You'll note that I didn't say there weren't any, I just said there were a few key ones that they haven't found yet.
If one understands fossilization then one must conclude that it is remarkable that we have any transitional fossils. The odds of an animal becoming properly fossilized are astronomical - against that is.
So the fact that we don't have a transitional form for every major species is to be expected.
On the subject of transitional forms, the ones we did find as fossils: there are too many to enumerate here. The evolution of the camel and the horse are superbly documented in the fossil record - dozens of intermediate forms of both these species exist. We also have winged dinosaurs, creatures that are part dog and part bear and on and on.
We also neglect to talk about vestigal organs - why does Man have a remnant of a tail? Did God run out of vertebrae? Why do we have an appendix? ID?
ID should surely be called FSD (guess what the F means, the S is for stupid) - because only a really poor designer could have come up with such imperfect creatures as man. Hell without eyeglasses most of us would never survive in the wild.
Should we talk about disease, birth defects? Surely ID would not have 9 pound babies come out of a woman's yoohoo, particularly when it's delivered outside on the plains or in the jungle.
I can hear the objections that Intelligent Design <> Perfection, but call a spade and spade and call it Moron Design or FSD.
because only a really poor designer could have come up with such imperfect creatures as man
My chiropractor has said that he thinks we would all be a lot more comfortable if God had spent an additional twenty minutes thinking about our design before creating humans.
There was a great article in the July 2006 issue of National Geographic called "The Downside of Upright" that reviewed the sacrifices to the back and legs, as well as to childbirth, that were made in exchange for walking upright. If you can get a hold of a copy, I recommend it.
OZONE Asylum
posted 02-15-2007 16:18
