Evolution vs. Creationism

[Ninjahedge]

MAN this really gets me irritated:



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aVeLoLOEyMEI&refer=us



For a religion in which their own SAVIOR, Son of frigging GOD no less, uses metaphors and analogies to teach his followers the lessons of life, why are people so frigging opposed to evolution? (Saying that creationisim is not a story.....)



I like to say "how frigging stupid are they?"



But I know that already, and it scares me.



Technological Dark Age in T-Minus 12 years.

[redhot00]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

[Ninjahedge]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

Oh you do not know.

They are trying to state it as if the theory is nothing but an idea, and that other ideas such as creative design are ranked as equal to it merely because they both are not 100% proven.

The thing is, there is no way to DISPROVE a theory when you put a rule on it like "this is how it happened, but you can't see it until you are dead".

That just does not stack up with science.



BTW, you know Relativity is just a theory too, and Gravity. AAMOF, 99% of all science is just theory. That is the one thing that makes science different than religion.

People in science will, albeit begrudgingly, admit to their own favored theory not being the best fit. In religion, it is heresy to question the rule of God.


The thing that annoys me about this is not that these guys are saying that it should be taught as a theory, that may not be 100% on the mark, but introducing these other "theories" that are not based on anything that can, or has been proven.

Just because you cannot say with absolute certainty with fossilized and DNA evidence. Hell, eyewitness accounts why dont you, that we all came from the same basic starting point does not mean that pigs can fly.

[lofter1]

The confusion displayed in your post shows the failure of the education system, not the lack of validity regarding Darwin and evolution.


All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution.
Do you really believe that is ALL they are "teaching" with their mumbo-jumbo?


... there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven.

Wrong -- it has not been DIS-Proven (see below). Ergo it stands.


Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

Hopefully you understand the use of the term "theory" within the scientific realm differs from the general usage of the same word.


In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm) that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research), in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity)) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law) is a general statement based on observations.


In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)", for example, there is no implication that global warming is not occurring; world temperatures have been measured and are increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that explains how and why this has been happening.

In various sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), a theory is a logically self-consistent model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29) or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) or supported by them (see scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), testable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment), and has never been falsified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

[lofter1]

PS: "Intelligent Design" **cough** meets NONE of the established criteria to be labeled as scientific theory.

[Ninjahedge]

PS: "Intelligent Design" **cough** meets NONE of the established criteria to be labeled as scientific theory.

Bill Nye said something funny about that this morning on the Morning Show on CBS (and Pat Robertson was on there too. Man I hate him!).

He said, paraphrased, 'You can say that my chair is the creator of the universe. That every six seconds it instantly expands out to the size of the whole universe and changes things, then contracts back again so fast that noone can see it'.

A scientific theory is not a statement that, by it's own assertions, cannot ever be proven or disproven.

[lofter1]

What this discussion shows more than anything is the limitation of mankind to express ourselves (there is a reason that Darwin didn't call it the "Conjecture of Evolution" or the "Hypothesis of Evolution").

This confusion & limitation is clearly exhibited by the use of the same word (THEORY) to express contradictory conditions ...

THEORY

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.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

[Ninjahedge]

Fact:

A fact based on fact rather than fact.

[lofter1]

Bill Nye said something funny about that this morning on the Morning Show on CBS (and Pat Robertson was on there too. Man I hate him!).

Interesting pairing: Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Pat Robertson "The Anything-but-science Guy"!

[lofter1]

Fact:

A fact based on fact rather than fact.
"It's twue because I says so" (Elmer Fudd)

[ryan]

http://www.venganza.org/images/noodledoodlewall.jpg

Yeah, this is why I'm Pastafarian (http://www.venganza.org/)

[Ninjahedge]

Lookit them Meatballs!!!!!

(Ironic, eh?)

[lofter1]

http://www.venganza.org/images/noodledoodlewall.jpg

Yeah, this is why I'm Pastafarian (http://www.venganza.org/)
I hear they've added this to the high school curriculum in Kansas.

[TLOZ Link5]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

People who call the theory of evolution "just a theory" belittle the very nature of a scientific theory. A theory involves a tried-and-true hypothesis which has enough evidence to support it that it can be accepted as a possible truth. Keep in mind that the theory of gravity is "just a theory".

Creationism and intelligent design are not even theories by comparison because they are not even hypotheses, and do not have much scientific evidence to support them, if any.

In any case, I don't believe in either evolution nor intelligent design.

I believe in the theory that life as we know it first came about when Gil Gerard built a time machine, went back to the Hadean Eon, and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.

[Ninjahedge]

They rank right up there with the "what ifs" from the comic books.


What if we are just planted life forms from an alien race that wanted to terraform the planet for future colonization?

:rolleyes:

[Comelade]

considering a report on French television, two documentary, one on the "Creationist" and one on a judge who wanted to replace the loies by the ten commands. when is it really? the "creationist" does it become so popular? that made fear

[lofter1]

...that made fear
Be afraid ... be very afraid :eek: !!

Something like 55% of Americans literally believe (and therefore reject any scientific basis for other possibilities) that this old guy with a white beard created the world and man in 6 days some 6,000 years ago.

[Ninjahedge]

Be afraid ... be very afraid :eek: !!

Something like 55% of Americans literally believe (and therefore reject any scientific basis for other possibilities) that this old guy with a white beard created the world and man in 6 days some 6,000 years ago.

And since he is omnipotent, he made all this fake history up (like the whole thing with Sumeria, and the fossils, and oil) to keep us busy on this big dietal anthill we call Earth.


The one thing people do not believe is that just because more people believe in something to be true, it does not, in and of itself, make it true.

Most people believed the world was flat. Most believed we were the center of the universe. Most believed that sickness was caused by defilement of the humors and you needed to be bled to heal.

Thank GOD there were enough people that did not believe crap like that or we would still be stuck in the stone age.

[lofter1]

And then there is Pennsylvania ...

Pennsylvania Voters Oust School Board

By MARTHA RAFFAELE,
Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 9, 2:39 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/evolution_showdown&printer=1;_ylt=Am5OmwFRFW5QykyiC0.QJCRH2ocA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

The election unfolded amid a landmark federal trial involving the Dover public schools and the question of whether intelligent design promotes the Bible's view of creation. Eight Dover families sued, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Dover's school board adopted a policy in October 2004 that requires ninth-graders to hear a prepared statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution in biology class.

Eight of the nine school board members were up for election Tuesday. They were challenged by a slate of Democrats who argued that science class was not the appropriate forum for teaching intelligent design.

"My kids believe in God. I believe in God. But I don't think it belongs in the science curriculum the way the school district is presenting it," said Jill Reiter, 41, a bank teller who joined a group of high school students waving signs supporting the challengers Tuesday.

A spokesman for the winning slate of candidates has said they wouldn't act hastily and would consider the outcome of the court case. The judge expects to rule by January; the new school board members will be sworn in Dec. 5.

School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn't just about ideology.

"Some people felt intelligent design shouldn't be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit," he said.

Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some kind of higher force. The statement read to students says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."

A similar controversy has erupted in Kansas, where the state Board of Education on Tuesday approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The 6-4 vote was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards.
___

[NYatKNIGHT]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

They aren't just "teaching that doubt exists", they are also teaching this completely untested 'intelligent design' fairytale at the same time, giving it equal weight, and teaching it in a science class no less. In the scientific community it's not a choice between the two, only in the far-right Christian community.

There is no longer any doubt among scientists (and those who believe them) that species evolve - it can be demostrated today in the laboratory and the historical evidence is overwhelming. There are several theories about the mechanism of evolution; Darwin wasn't sure if his Natural Selection theory is how evolution works, but he and the rest of the scientists know that all species, including humans, evolve.

Apples might start to fall up instead of down one day, proving Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation incorrect, but nobody expects this possibility to get equal time in the classrooms.

[lofter1]

There is no longer any doubt among scientists (and those who believe them) that species evolve -

Then how do we explain Bush, Cheney, et al???

One answer to the problem they've created: Intelligent RE-sign

[TLOZ Link5]

The following is a transcript of yours truly quoting the Young-Earth arguments of a creationist and debunking them one by one. Watch and marvel as science pwnzes pseudo-science in an awesome display of intellectual superiority!

>>>Fact - the blast at Mt. St. Helens could not have happened, because according to Evolution the changes made afterwards must have taken thousands of years.>>>

Debunked:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_young1.htm#16

Rebuttal: It is true that the ash from St. Helen's did form a deposit within a few days that was a few hundred feet thick in places. But it was a deposit of fine ash, of pumice. Any geologist can differentiate between layers of pumice and actual sedimentary rock -- i.e. sandstone or limestone. Their textures and colors are entirely different.

>>>Fact - the Mississippi River flood of 1993 could not have happened because according to Evolution, the amount of sediment moved would have taken thousands of years.>>>

Debunked:

River Deltas [DB 1507 (27); OAB 22] The claim is that the size and growth rate of river deltas proves that they cannot be very old. The error here seems to lie in thinking that the delta consists only of what are actually the very youngest delta deposits (the parts that still look like delta deposits). In fact, the Mississippi Delta, which is used by young-Earth advocates as an example, actually consists of a seven-mile-thick layer of sediment covering much of the south-central U.S. (by contrast, sedimentary rocks in most places on Earth are only one mile thick). The same is generally true at the Earth's other great river deltas. River deltas are actually a potent argument against the young-Earth hypothesis. Not only are the 7 miles of Mississippi delta sediments far more than could accumulate in 10,000 years (especially since delta deposits cannot accumulate underwater, and thus could not have been accelerated by Noah's Flood), but the observed sinking of the crust under the weight of the delta, which keeps the surface at sea level and allows the delta to continue forming, could only happen very slowly.

River Canyons [OAB 74] It is pointed out that "the meandering serpentine course of many rivers and canyons cut through many layers of strata." However, it is not completely clear what conclusion is intended to be drawn from this observation, so I will cover two different possibilities. One argument that I have heard is that meandering riverbeds will not maintain the same channel long enough to dig deep serpentine canyons, such as the San Juan River in Utah, because periodic flooding will break through to a straighter course, creating oxbow lakes, as happens with the lower Mississippi River. In fact there are two reasons why the riverbed of the lower Mississippi is not stable, and these two reasons are not necessarily present for all meandering riverbeds. The first is that the Mississippi floods rather frequently, and the second is that the lower Mississippi riverbanks are made of relatively soft material (soil and shale). In Utah, flooding is not as frequent, so the river will have time to cut a deeper canyon. Also, the riverbanks in Utah are made of hard sandstone, not soft shale. Both of these factors will make it much harder for floods to break through to a straighter course.

Not only are serpentine canyons easy to explain from an Old-Earth standpoint, they are virtually impossible within the Young-Earth model. A canyon formed in a short period of time by a huge torrent of water could not possibly be serpentine, because the flood would overflow the shallow meandering channel and form a more straight canyon. The only way for a river to be serpentine is for it to be flowing slowly (like the lower Mississippi River today), therefore a serpentine canyon can only be formed by a slow-flowing river. Since a slow-flowing river would take at least many tens of thousands of years to dig a deep canyon, these canyons cannot possibly be any younger than that.

Another possible argument simply notes that many present rivers are cutting into sedimentary strata (A.W. Mehlert, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v.25, no.3, pp.121-123 (Dec 1988), as cited in OAB). Of course, since rivers change their course relatively frequently, especially near their deltas, I see nothing implausible in the theory that a river flowed through a certain area, laying down sedimentary deposits, then changed course to a different area, and finally returned sometime later to erode its own sediment.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

>>>Fact - the picture of Neil Armstrong's footprint on the moon could not have happened because according to Evolution there should have been over 3 feet of moon dust on the surface after millions of years of solar wind. (And it only would have taken 10,000 years to get the 1/4 inch that was really there.)>>>

Here's an easy one. Go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

1. The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a SINGLE (my emphasis) preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a TOTAL FABRICATION (again my emphasis). As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.

Further:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Not_enough_moon_dust_for_an_old_universe

1. The total influx of dust on earth is about 40t per day (Source: H.H. Voigt, Abriß der Astronomie). It is easy to calculate that this would accumulate to only a few centimeters of dust in 5 billion years on earth. There is no reason why the influx density should be very different on the moon, so there should also only be a few centimeters of dust. In addition the surface of the moon is also often hit by larger meteorites and asteroids which turns-over the regolith layer (a loose layer of heterogeneous rocks and grains which is several meters thick and covers the surface of the moon) and mixes the dust into it.
2. Radioactive dating shows that the oldest rocks on the moon are about 4.4 billion years old, which is in excellent agreement with the oldest mineral found on earth (zircons with an age of 4.407 billion years).
3. Even if the moon were young, this would not say anything about the age of the earth or the universe.

>>>Fact - the riverbed in Texas with fossilized dinosaur footprints and human footprints overlapping could not be there because Evolution says these creatures could not have existed at the same time.>>>

Explain to me, then, why there are no cave drawings of primitive humans hunting dinosaurs. Further:

Human Footprints in Cretaceous Sediments [DB 1517 (96)] Although there are several claims of fossilized human footprints in "old" sediments, none is as credible (relatively speaking) or has received as serious consideration as the prints in the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas. At this location, supposedly human footprints are interspersed with undisputed dinosaur footprints. Yet upon closer consideration, even the Paluxy footprints are highly disappointing for young-Earth advocates. The "human" footprints are too far apart to fit the stride of humans, and the footprint size is also too large. Many of the "human" prints show dinosaur features like claw marks, and most damaging of all, some trails of "human" prints continue as a path of near-perfect dinosaur prints. Recognizing the overwhelming evidence, ICR president John Morris admitted in 1986 that the Paluxy footprints are probably not human but are eroded dinosaur footprints (ICR Impact #151). However, many young-Earth advocates, including many at ICR, unfortunately are still reluctant to give up on this now-discredited claim.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

>>>Fact - the fossilized tree going upward through many strata of sediment in the Grand Canyon cannot really exist, because according to Evolution, a dead tree would have to stand upright for many thousands of years for that to occur.>>>

Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

By this, Dr. Hovind means fossils which cross several strata. Usually that means fossilized, vertical tree trunks. Creationists are attacking a straw man. No geologist claims that every little stratum requires thousands of years to be laid down! The strata associated with polystrate fossils invariably show evidence of relatively rapid deposition.

'Polystrate' trees show every sign of extremely rapid burial, generally when rivers flood over their banks.

(Eldredge, 1982, p.105)

An example of this very thing is given by Dunbar and Waage (Dunbar & Waage, 1969, p.52). They show a photo of the Yahtse River area in Alaska, which depicts a number of upright, broken-off stumps stripped of most of their branches. The taller stumps poke out above the alluvial mud. This is the result of natural processes accompanying river course change. A couple of pages later we find a photograph showing how trees can be buried fairly quickly in another way. In this case, volcanic ash has partially buried a forest whose trees are mostly reduced to broken-off stumps stripped of their branches. Continuing volcanic eruptions over a period of years (dead trees last a long time!) and the interaction with wind would create variations in the strata which finally bury the stumps.

In some cases, burial might well be less than instantaneous. In the San Francisco area fossils of cedar and redwood (dated at 23,000 years) are found in place 20 feet below present sea level. This may be due to a rising sea level from melting ice-caps. (Encyclopedia Americana, 1978 Annual [Geology].) A similar find exists off the coast of Japan where remnants of a forest of willows and alders are found in 70 feet of water. They are some 10,000 years old (Chorlton, 1984, p.90).

Thus, we have polystrate fossils in the making, without the aid of Noah's flood.

>>>Fact - the downed WWII era planes in Greenland could not possibly have been discovered as far under the ice as they were, because according to Evolution, it would have taken thousands of years for that amount of ice to have formed.>>>

http://evowiki.org/index.php/WWII_airplanes_are_now_beneath_thousands_of_annual _ice_layers

1. The arguments ignores the fact that ice-layers get compressed as more layers are laid down on top of them. Therefore the lowermost, oldest layers are much thinner than the uppermost, younger layers.
2. The argument implicitly presumes that all places get the same amount of snow/ice per year -- a presumption which is demonstrably false. In this case, the place where the airplanes were ditched was close to the shore of Greenland, while ice cores are taken from the interior where there is less snow-fall.
3. Weather records show that the locale of the "Lost Squadron" gets about two meters (6.6 feet) of snow per year. Therefore, the 'problem' addressed by this argument (which is supposed to be solvable only by accepting a Young Earth paradigm) is nonexistent.
4. The planes landed on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since then. Glaciers are not used for ice core dating because their movement throws the measurement off.
5. As a conclusion, the dating method did not work correctly in this case because ignorant creationists botched it. In the hands of experts, it works.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Then how do we explain Bush, Cheney, et al???
You got me there!
One answer to the problem they've created: Intelligent RE-sign
I like that answer, except scrap the word 'intelligent', it shouldn't be used to describe anything about these clowns.

[lofter1]

Of course "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with Religion ...

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453

A Regular Look at the Worst from the Right brought to you by PFAW Foundation

Robertson tells Dover, PA citizens, after the election:


“Don’t turn to God if you need help”




November 10, 2005 - On today’s 700 Club, Rev. Pat Robertson took the opportunity to strongly rebuke voters in Dover, PA who removed from office school board members who supported teaching faith-based “intelligent design” and instead elected Democrats who opposed bringing up the possibility of a Creator in the school system’s science curriculum.

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Watch the video: Broadband (http://media.pfaw.org/video/pfaw/VideoDisplay.asp?headline=11/10/05-%20The%20700%20Club&caption=Rev.%20Pat%20Robertson%20strongly%20critic izes%20the%20decision%20by%20voters%20in%20Dover%2 C%20PA%20to%20remove%20all%20school%20board%20memb ers%20that%20supported%20Intelligent%20Design.%20&videofile=11-10-05-700Club-IntelligentDesign) | Dial-up (http://media.pfaw.org/video/pfaw/VideoDisplay-low.asp?headline=11/10/05-%20The%20700%20Club&caption=Rev.%20Pat%20Robertson%20strongly%20critic izes%20the%20decision%20by%20voters%20in%20Dover%2 C%20PA%20to%20remove%20all%20school%20board%20memb ers%20that%20supported%20Intelligent%20Design.%20&videofile=11-10-05-700Club-IntelligentDesign)

[Ninjahedge]

If it is his God, the one that so many loyal followers prayed to in Mississippi and Louisianna, I don't think we need him.

What an ass.

[lofter1]

The beauty of Robertson's inability to keep his mouth shut is that it completely undermines the often-stated position of the pro-ID gang.

***

[Ninjahedge]

He is too out of touch with reality, which is fine when you are dealing with a smaller audience.

But the fact that he is dealing with so many people now and is so easily sited on widely accessed national TV does not lend much to his credibility.

Not only that, but he seems like he is turning into more of a fidgety old man. One that states his opinion to everyone no matter what it is.....

That combined with a self perceived religious edict and you have some sadly humorous commentary.

[davidcaspian]

There is such a lack of faith here it is alarming.

I am a Christian, and I believe in God. But it doesn't matter to me whether God created man in 6 days or in 6 million, I just believe God created him. If Evolution has any hopes of being convincing to the public, it has some serious rehashing that needs to be done, because despite what some of you have said here, it is a poor theory, made up by a man of "below average intelligence" as Darwin's professors would say. So you wonder why most Americans don't believe in Evolution? Because it doesn't make sense.

I am not looking to get into a debate, I just thought since no one was representing the other side, someone should step up. :)

[redhot00]

Thanks David, for your post. I originally attempted, albeit rather feebly, to represent the other side, but got flamed immediately. I felt kind of intimidated trying to represent Intelligent Design against those on here that are so passionate about bashing it (most ultra liberals are quite passionate about what they argue about).

When the titile of the thread is calling you an idiot right off the bat, you kind of know going in what you're up against. I mean, I can imagine what kind of response I'd get if I titled a thread "Gay Rights Idiots" or "Pro-Abortion Idiots" or "Bush Bashing Idiots"....I wouldn't, but you get the idea...

Anyway, thanks for stepping up.

[Edward]

redhot00, I agree about the title, and I renamed it

[Ninjahedge]

There is such a lack of faith here it is alarming.

Why do you find it alarming?

What if it is not YOUR faith people have?

I am a Christian, and I believe in God. But it doesn't matter to me whether God created man in 6 days or in 6 million, I just believe God created him.

Good for you. It really does not matter to me whether "he" did or didn't. If you get so caught up in the nitty gritty you lose sight of what the real message is.

If Evolution has any hopes of being convincing to the public, it has some serious rehashing that needs to be done, because despite what some of you have said here, it is a poor theory, made up by a man of "below average intelligence" as Darwin's professors would say.

BZZZZT! Wrong answer!

thank you for playing!

It has to be re-written? Excuse me, it has been revised and tweaked continuously since its inception by more than just Darwin. Pinning it on one man and then calling that man "below average" in intelligence is a straw man arguement.

you might as well say "Hitler believed in Evolution!!!! Evolution is Evil!!!!"

BS!.

So you wonder why most Americans don't believe in Evolution?

Nope. Most americans are dumb. Most americans do not know how to keep themselves healthy. Most americans havent got a clue about genetics, DNA, or even high school trigonometry.

Most americans would rather believe in a simple answer than admit they do not know the complicated one.

Because it doesn't make sense.

You are SO off base.

I am not looking to get into a debate, I just thought since no one was representing the other side, someone should step up. :)

You are getting an arguement. If you wanted a debate you would have presented theory and different factual points rather than thing things like "well most americans dont believe it" and "It does not make sense" and "he was below average in intelligence".

It does not matter if most Americans believe in creation. Most people also believed the world was the flat center of the universe created 6000 years ago.

Things that are stated as God Given law with no proof are not admissible in scientific discussion without proof.

And reliance on these fables is not a sign of a strong faith in the being and existance.

Let me put it this way. If God is omnipotent, who the hell says that "he" did not create everything just the way the scientists are discovering it? If he made all the damn rules, why are you people so quick to say that these rules don't count?

If he created everything, and the laws of nature are part of everything, aren't you being blasphemous by contradicting and denouncing them?


Rhetorical question. please don't answer until you come back with something solid.

:mad:

[Ninjahedge]

Thanks David, for your post. I originally attempted, albeit rather feebly, to represent the other side, but got flamed immediately. I felt kind of intimidated trying to represent Intelligent Design against those on here that are so passionate about bashing it (most ultra liberals are quite passionate about what they argue about).

You did not get flamed, you got trounced.

And as for ultra liberal, why don't you have a chat with my mother. Devout protestant for 40 years now, church choir, whole 9 yards.

Also Biology, Anatomy and Physics teacher. Faith does not mean BLIND FAITH.

When the titile of the thread is calling you an idiot right off the bat, you kind of know going in what you're up against. I mean, I can imagine what kind of response I'd get if I titled a thread "Gay Rights Idiots" or "Pro-Abortion Idiots" or "Bush Bashing Idiots"....I wouldn't, but you get the idea...

An idiot is an idiot. I will not call a mountain a river. Creationists may actually be brilliant sociologists using a primitive simplistic analogy based on faith and culturally acceptable to convince people to follow them and give them creedence in any of their other suppositions of how to live their lives.

Or they could be people who genuinely believe in the creation of man in 6 days and that Eve was created by a rib from Adam.

That is only an "angels hair" away from Greek Mythology which most of nowadays treat as fiction.

How is this any different? Just because more people believe it today?

Anyway, thanks for stepping up.

Whatever.

[Ninjahedge]

Thread title change.... :mad: :mad: :mad:

This thread was not mean t as a debate Ed.

It was meant as an expression of the moral and intellectual outrage I, and others in the scientific community have felt from this group of people who come in and denounce all that we have learned and struggled to discover just because it does not fit with what they have been taught as "right".

It is an outcry of indignation that science can be looked on, yet again, as if it was some sort of evil tool from a Disney movie.

I am tired of that, the reactions from people, and the fact that people have the ability to force me, my children, and people in my community to follow a metaphor as the true story of the world and ignore anything anyone else tells them.


It sickens me and frightens me.


It is the same attitude that had people burning others in town squares and calling others that practiced "witchcraft and wizardry" banned from their communities.

I ironically thank God that we moved from those dark ages, but I see the pendulum swinging back into the other area, where the average Joe that does not understand science more than a hole in the wall decides that the story that makes them feel better is what should not be not only accepted, but forced into the heads of everyone else that does not believe in it as they do.

This is not presenting an alternate "theory". This is simply ignoring what they do not understand, or WANT to understand.

[lofter1]

Philosophers Notwithstanding,
Kansas School Board Redefines Science

New York Times
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 15, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evol.html?ex=1289710800&en=8222cfc9c70fd951&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science.

In the early 1990's, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed "the end of objectivity." The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth.
The right defended the traditional notion of science back then. Now it is the right that is trying to change it.

On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.

The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science.

The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin's opponents, said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations."

Gerald Holton, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, said removing those two words and the framework they set means "anything goes."

The authors of these changes say that presuming the laws of science can explain all natural phenomena promotes materialism, secular humanism, atheism and leads to the idea that life is accidental. Indeed, they say in material online at kansasscience2005.com (http://kansasscience2005.com/), it may even be unconstitutional to promulgate that attitude in a classroom because it is not ideologically "neutral."

But many scientists say that characterization is an overstatement of the claims of science. The scientist's job description, said Steven Weinberg, a physicist and Nobel laureate at the University of Texas, is to search for natural explanations, just as a mechanic looks for mechanical reasons why a car won't run.

"This doesn't mean that they commit themselves to the view that this is all there is," Dr. Weinberg wrote in an e-mail message. "Many scientists (including me) think that this is the case, but other scientists are religious, and believe that what is observed in nature is at least in part a result of God's will."

The opposition to evolution, of course, is as old as the theory itself. "This is a very long story," said Dr. Holton, who attributed its recent prominence to politics and the drive by many religious conservatives to tar science with the brush of materialism.

How long the Kansas changes will last is anyone's guess. The state board tried to abolish the teaching of evolution and the Big Bang in schools six years ago, only to reverse course in 2001.

As it happened, the Kansas vote last week came on the same day that voters in Dover, Pa., ousted the local school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design.

As Dr. Weinberg noted, scientists and philosophers have been trying to define science, mostly unsuccessfully, for centuries.

When pressed for a definition of what they do, many scientists eventually fall back on the notion of falsifiability propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper. A scientific statement, he said, is one that can be proved wrong, like "the sun always rises in the east" or "light in a vacuum travels 186,000 miles a second." By Popper's rules, a law of science can never be proved; it can only be used to make a prediction that can be tested, with the possibility of being proved wrong.

But the rules get fuzzy in practice. For example, what is the role of intuition in analyzing a foggy set of data points? James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science at the University of Toronto, said in an e-mail message: "It's the widespread belief that so-called scientific method is a clear, well-understood thing. Not so." It is learned by doing, he added, and for that good examples and teachers are needed.

One thing scientists agree on, though, is that the requirement of testability excludes supernatural explanations. The supernatural, by definition, does not have to follow any rules or regularities, so it cannot be tested. "The only claim regularly made by the pro-science side is that supernatural explanations are empty," Dr. Brown said.

The redefinition by the Kansas board will have nothing to do with how science is performed, in Kansas or anywhere else. But Dr. Holton said that if more states changed their standards, it could complicate the lives of science teachers and students around the nation.

He added that Galileo - who started it all, and paid the price - had "a wonderful way" of separating the supernatural from the natural. There are two equally worthy ways to understand the divine, Galileo said. "One was reverent contemplation of the Bible, God's word," Dr. Holton said. "The other was through scientific contemplation of the world, which is his creation.

"That is the view that I hope the Kansas school board would have adopted."



Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[lofter1]

Evolution and Its Discontents

New York Times
By KENNETH CHANG
November 14, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/science/15evol_side.html


The Kansas Board of Education adopted new science standards last week that include required criticism of evolution. Some of the additions are below, paired with the mainstream understanding of evolutionary biology. (Words bolded for emphasis)

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:

Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernible direction or goal.

RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

"Unguided" is "a very slippery word," said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education. Scientific explanations of all natural processes, from hurricanes to supernovas, are all "unguided."

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:

The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recently by such things as: Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.

RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

The family tree relationships of some of the early life forms remain unclear. But fossil and biological evidence argues that all life today descends from the earliest organisms. Not surprisingly, new methods like comparison of proteins or genes have generated family trees that differ somewhat from those deduced from fossils. But those differences have not fundamentally changed scientists' view of evolution or common descent.

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:

Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial.

RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

Most biologists do not make the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution; the larger changes are simply the accumulation of small changes. Most also say that the issue is not controversial and that there is much experimental evidence to indicate that such changes have occurred.

The term "irreducibly complex" is used by Michael Behe, a professor of biology at Lehigh University who is one of the main proponents of intelligent design, but is not used by other biologists.

ADDITIONS TO KANSAS SCIENCE STANDARDS:


Some of the scientific criticisms include:a. A lack of empirical evidence for a "primordial soup" or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;

b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of protocells; and

c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.


RESPONSE OF MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS:

The issue of how life originated is different from that of evolution. Current ideas on the origin of life are incomplete and no consensus has yet emerged. Most scientists find that this means more research is needed, not that it is impossible for a theory to emerge.


Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[ZippyTheChimp]

This thread was not mean t as a debate Ed.All threads are subject to debate. It's what scientists do.



I ignored this topic because of the title, but was hesitant to change it to avoid complaints about censorship.

Although I disagree with their position, the few that expressed contrary (to this forum community) views are to be congratulated for doing so in a dispassionate manner.

In reading this thread, I am left with this observation:

If you were standing apart from two people who are discussing an issue and cannot hear what they are saying, and the person who has the correct position appears to be screaming, which one of the two would you think was an idiot.

[Ninjahedge]

which one of the two would you think was an idiot.

The one with the pointy hat.

[redhot00]

the fact that people have the ability to force me, my children, and people in my community to follow a metaphor as the true story of the world and ignore anything anyone else tells them.

Ninja, re-read the article that you posted that started this whole thing. It says that the KS school board wants to teach Creation ALONG WITH the theory of Evolution. It also goes on to say that it wants to teach that the Theory of Evolution has not been proven, and is not believed by all to be the truth.

Reading your posts in this thread you might think that every public school in the country wants to ignore Evolution and teach Creation as absolute truth.

[lofter1]

Rankings of US students internationally ( http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/ar04f.html#ex5 ):


For decades, studies have shown American students trailing their overseas counterparts academically. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's latest study of 29 countries, released in 2003, ranked American 15-year-olds 24th in math, 24th in problem solving, 19th in science and 15th in reading.



Education Dollars: Not Enough Bang for the Buck

American Students Lose Ground…

On international math and science tests, U.S. students' relative performance deteriorates as they move from the fourth to eighth to 12th grade. By the end of high school, they've fallen to near the bottom in educational achievement.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit5a.gif

…Despite Hefty Outlays for Schooling

America ranks near the top in spending per student on secondary education, but its 15-year-olds lag in math, science and reading. The solid line shows the positive relationship between spending and test scores. The United States and the other countries below it are underperforming.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit5b.gif

Teaching Gets Less of the Money

Over time, a smaller portion of America's education budget has been going to teaching and a larger share to administration. Recent measures show teaching's slice of the pie shrinking to an all-time low of 52 percent, the result of a steady decline that began in 1970.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit5c.gif

Ignorance Is Misery; Knowledge Is Bliss.

Free economies get the most out of education. The top quarter of the 108 nations in the Index of Economic Freedom (in green) cluster toward the top of the chart, indicating they're getting a lot of per capita GDP from years of schooling. The least-free quarter (in orange) tend to get less from their education, which pushes them toward the bottom of the chart. The remaining countries (in purple) make up the middle two quarters of the index.

The solid lines summarize the positive relationship between years of schooling and per capita GDP for the three groups of countries. Nations above the line of their peer group are getting higher returns on schooling. Being below the green line suggests Americans aren't getting as much income as we could from our years in the classroom.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2004/images/exhibit3.gif

[lofter1]

Kansas Students at Grade 10; Test Results 2004-2005:

Kansas State Math Assessment Results

http://online.ksde.org/rcard/state_assess.aspx?assess_type=2&org_no=D%&grade=99&subgroup=1

Text Version


Kansas State Science Assessment Results

http://online.ksde.org/rcard/state_assess.aspx?assess_type=3&org_no=%&grade=10&subgroup=1


Text Version

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/evolution/

[lofter1]

http://www.statestats.com/edrank05.htm

2005-2006 Smartest State Award

[Ninjahedge]

Ninja, re-read the article that you posted that started this whole thing. It says that the KS school board wants to teach Creation ALONG WITH the theory of Evolution.

Well then, I say it was SATAN that did the intelligent design to make man, the most evil destructive creature incarnate.

The point is, if you force people to learn both as if they were somehow comparable, you get people believing that Saddam blew up the WTC.

It also goes on to say that it wants to teach that the Theory of Evolution has not been proven, and is not believed by all to be the truth.

Being that NO theory is absolutely proven. There are many things that do prove it. Please quote the passage that says this so that we are not sitting here arguing about an out-of-context paraphrasing.

And just because people do not BELIEVE it, does not mean it is invalid. How many times have I said that now? Do I need to bring up the flat-earth example again?

Reading your posts in this thread you might think that every public school in the country wants to ignore Evolution and teach Creation as absolute truth.

No, it is that the majority of Americans are ignorant of most things scientific and are outright afraid of it. Most enemies in movies are portrayed as someone who knows more science, or something we do not know.

In a society where kids are killed more by people who they know, to have most of their enemies as evil geniuses painted in dark colors is just not right to begin with, but to have the whole "evil science" thing brought up again and again does not help in MANY different fashions.

There are two main points that most scientists want to remain as the absolute truth of science and religion.

The first is that Science can be dis-proven, no matter how solid something may seem at the time. People may contest any theorem, but they must also do so with more than "because I said so". Religion never had this. They have no way to prove or disprove what they are saying, and disagreeing with religion is often met with more than simple disapproval.

The second is that science does not totally refute the existence of a Divine being. It researches the rules that we are forced to live our life by, and the possible connections that have been made through time. No matter how far back it goes, it can never really address what happens BEFORE the beginning of time.

As one thing Lofter pointed out, many scientists, my mother included, believe that there is a Divine being that created all of this. they also believe that they made the rules, and that somehow people saying that they not only made the rules, but keep nudging it is rather irritating.

if you are omnipotent, and omniscient, wouldn't you know what is going to happen from the very start? Why would you have to "nudge" it if you know that your breaking shot will sink all the balls on the table, in all the pockets you called, at all the TIMES you called them?

And don't tell me "because he wanted to". that is as bad as "because I said so". It does not hold any weight in a discussion.

[Edward]

... the KS school board wants to teach Creation ALONG WITH the theory of Evolution.
Creationism is not a theory in scientific sense, by this logic you might insist that some peoples opinion that the Earth was created by aliens was also taught in schools alongside evolution.

... the Theory of Evolution has not been proven.
For scientific community it is as much proven as any other (scientific) theory. It is not proven for religious activists, but they are not in good position to judge science.

...and is not believed by all to be the truth.

That is not how scientific facts are established - in many cases they are opposite to popular opinion.

[Ninjahedge]

http://www.statestats.com/edrank05.htm

2005-2006 Smartest State Award

Wow, 1-4 are all NE/Tristate......

Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
NJ

Go fig...

Oh, the only thing that gets me about these standardized tests is that they are up to whoever makes them what they are measuring.

It was a contest in middle school to see which of us would be able to get the highest "grade ranking" in any one subject.

Most of us had the test scores to graduate HS by the time we ENTERED 7th grade.


None of these tests show any of that.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Hypothesis
Theory
Fact

The Scientific Method (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html)

[Ninjahedge]

Hypothesis
Theory
Fact

The Scientific Method (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html)

Yep:
Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by ...


Although he does call "blinders" "blinkers" in one of the sections.

I just pictured a bunch of guys in lab coats with turn signals on their butts... ;)

[davidcaspian]

Why do you find it alarming?

What if it is not YOUR faith people have?

i didn't specify the faith. I have observed a general lack of faith in A God, since He was being bashed as an "old man with a white beard." It is alarming because in secular institutions, it is thought of as primitive and silly to be theistic, when that should not be the case. It is perfectly plausible to be intelligent and simultaneously be religious.


BZZZZT! Wrong answer!

thank you for playing!

It has to be re-written? Excuse me, it has been revised and tweaked continuously since its inception by more than just Darwin. Pinning it on one man and then calling that man "below average" in intelligence is a straw man arguement.

you might as well say "Hitler believed in Evolution!!!! Evolution is Evil!!!!"

BS!.

I wasn't "playing" a game, I was stating a simple fact. Americans have been taught Evolution in public schools for years, but yet still more than half don't believe it. Why? Because, whether it is a substantial theory or not, it does not appeal to people because it is not as believable, for some reason, as an 'old man with a white beard' creating the earth. You may ask the question: "Why do Americans lean towards faith in God?" America is a highly religious country, so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools, since many Christians send their children to public schools. Of course, they could simply send their children to Private Christian schools, but one could argue that that is often expensive.



Most americans are dumb.

Poor argument. This would render the rest of the world as "dumb," since a HUGE majority of the world is theistic. I understand that most of the world believed that the earth was flat, and simply because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. But there has been a rejection of secularism and evolution worldwide, and that says something. This has been researched by the socialogists Peter Berger (http://www.geocities.com/williamjamison/Berger/) and Christian Smith (http://www.unc.edu/~cssmith/).

But like I said, it does not matter to me whether or not Evolution took place, I simply believe God to be the creator of all things. I'm not a Creation Scientist or an expert on Evolution, so I can't really offer you anything more links to some websites (making attempts at) debunking Evolution, if you like. But I wouldn't be doing them justice by simply restating their facts here, quoting them as if they are my own. I'm not an expert on the subject and will not pretend to be.

But with that said, I can understand your frustration. It is sad that so many people (especially in the Christian right) have blind faith and refuse to think about the prospect of scientific evolution. It is sad that there is a general lack of enthusiasm for intelligence. This includes the arts, music, theater, science, ARCHITECTURE, and is certainly not limited to these things. Very sad indeed.

[Edward]

America is a highly religious country, so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools, since many Christians send their children to public schools.You seem to be shy to follow the argument all the way - "since US is highly religious (Christian) country, Christianity should be taught at schools". That of course would violate separation of church and state principle.

[davidcaspian]

You seem to be shy to follow the argument all the way - "since US is highly religious (Christian) country, Christianity should be taught at schools". That of course would violate separation of church and state principle.

Of course, but Christianity isn't the sole religion, and may represent the majority, but does not represent everyone. So atheists (one example) would be in a poor position, being forced to send their children to a Christian Public School. Which is why I think a middle ground would be most beneficial.

[Ninjahedge]

i didn't specify the faith. I have observed a general lack of faith in A God, since He was being bashed as an "old man with a white beard." It is alarming because in secular institutions, it is thought of as primitive and silly to be theistic, when that should not be the case. It is perfectly plausible to be intelligent and simultaneously be religious.

But your tone suggested that:

a) noone here that was refuting Creationisim was religious in any way
b) Scientists in general do not have faith
c) That the lack of faith invalidates any statement on the subject.


I wasn't "playing" a game, I was stating a simple fact. Americans have been taught Evolution in public schools for years, but yet still more than half don't believe it. Why? Because, whether it is a substantial theory or not, it does not appeal to people because it is not as believable, for some reason, as an 'old man with a white beard' creating the earth.

You use the believability/appeal arguement again.

You know that is not valid, why do you keep insisting on using it? Just because people did not WANT to believe that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and scientists were BODILY threatened for saying so, did not make it false.

People believed, in Rome and Greece, that there was a set of gods much like their own version of government, almost parlimentary, comprised of bickering factions that were in control of everything from the rising of the sun to the passing of sand through an hourglass. They all BELIEVED this as the absolute truth.

It is all story now because people do not want to believe in things of that sort. It does not fit their current feeling of self, and they wanted something more comfortable. So they chose the grandfather to rule the universe. They first made him vindictive and punative, but then as time went on and SOCIETY changed again, so did the image of God.

So you are basing your arguement on things that have no bearing on anything solid, provable or substantial. You are trying to put your faith as the absolute, and the lack of proof as irrefutable evidence of its existance.

You may ask the question: "Why do Americans lean towards faith in God?"

No I don't. In the same way that man has "lucky habits', , lucky horse shoes, salt over the shoulder and other superstitions. They want to believe in two things.

That somehow there is some control over seemingly random events they have no control over and that THEY have some influence over them as well.

Whether by being good to their God, or by practicing the rituals they believe will please him, or whatever mystical force is out there that controls the ways of the universe.

America is a highly religious country, so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools, since many Christians send their children to public schools. Of course, they could simply send their children to Private Christian schools, but one could argue that that is often expensive.

It is not the responsibility of the government to provide religion or religious instruction. Religion CAN be taught as a SEPERATE SUBJECT with an inclusion of all practicing faiths that time can allow, but you should NOT put it on level with science.

They are different animals, and somehow saying that their might be a God controling evolution has no place, WHATSOEVER, in a science class.

Poor argument. This would render the rest of the world as "dumb," since a HUGE majority of the world is theistic.

I thought you said a huge number was religious? That "America is a highly religiou country" that still believes in fad diets, that Saddam was part of the 9-11 attack although even the administration does not formally say so, and a host of other fallacies.

Human beings are dumb.

I understand that most of the world believed that the earth was flat, and simply because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. But there has been a rejection of secularism and evolution worldwide, and that says something.

No it doesn't. Nobody has proven anything else. people like the happy ending story that fits in with what they are told by their spiritual leaders. It has always been that way.

"A rejection of secularisim"? As if that proves Divine Intervention? You are not backing your arguement.

1) Not all scientists are secular
2) Science does not refute the existance of God
3) Rejection od secularism does not validate EITHER the existance of god, or the invalidity of evolution.

This has been researched by the socialogists Peter Berger (http://www.geocities.com/williamjamison/Berger/) and Christian Smith (http://www.unc.edu/~cssmith/).

What, you post two guys, do not site any of their works, and do not quote anything by them and it is somehow up to us to read everything by them and refute them to prove OUR point against your rebuttal?

Not quite.

But like I said, it does not matter to me whether or not Evolution took place, I simply believe God to be the creator of all things.

Fine, believe what you want. But I do not want my tax dollars, in any form, supplimenting your religious views.

I also do not want religion to EVER be placed back in the same realm as science.

I'm not a Creation Scientist or an expert on Evolution, so I can't really offer you anything more links to some websites (making attempts at) debunking Evolution, if you like. But I wouldn't be doing them justice by simply restating their facts here, quoting them as if they are my own. I'm not an expert on the subject and will not pretend to be.

Which means, you don't understand the points of the arguement, so you are agreeing with the guys that you were told to agree with because it makes you feel better about your faith.

It is very common.

It takes a very strong faith to be able to question it and still hold it. Many do not have that. Most will simply reject anything that questions it and leave it at that.

But with that said, I can understand your frustration. It is sad that so many people (especially in the Christian right) have blind faith and refuse to think about the prospect of scientific evolution. It is sad that there is a general lack of enthusiasm for intelligence. This includes the arts, music, theater, science, ARCHITECTURE, and is certainly not limited to these things. Very sad indeed.

That is what I can agree with. The one thing that must be communicated is that science does not FORBID or DISPROVE religion. It only says that they are not the same.

the people who say they are the same, and only one is right, are usually the ones that stand to gain the most from the people that follow them, or are those that are doing the following.

[Ninjahedge]

Of course, but Christianity isn't the sole religion, and may represent the majority, but does not represent everyone. So atheists (one example) would be in a poor position, being forced to send their children to a Christian Public School. Which is why I think a middle ground would be most beneficial.


Um, what about Buddhism? What about Islam? What about all the other religions out there?

Do they all believe in Intelligent Design? Do they all believe in Creation?

Ed brings up the stickiest point in the whole arguement. That you say you want a middle ground, but that middle ground is being determined by the church A church in particular, and it is using its own yardstick to measure it.

It is a Christian belief that is being railroaded into the educational curriculum of the US by the christian followers, all others be damned....

[Fabrizio]

Good reading:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1860310,00.html

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

BTW: In Catholic schools and Universities (among the most prestigious in the world) the theory of evolution is taught... science and scientists are respected ( the Church learned the hard way... a long time ago.... ) there is no "mirror" course for "creationism". You have your science studies and your theology studies. They are basically not mixed.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'm not a Creation Scientist or an expert on Evolution,
so it makes sense to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools,
Of course, but Christianity isn't the sole religion, and may represent the majority, but does not represent everyone. So atheists (one example) would be in a poor position, being forced to send their children to a Christian Public School. Which is why I think a middle ground would be most beneficial
You are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design, the actual subject of this thread.

The middle ground that you advocate is a clear-cut violation of church and state. The proponents of Intelligent Design understand this fact completely, which is why the concept is being promoted as a science discipline.

Science does not preclude belief in God, but faith is not part of the job description. Einstein once stated, "God does not roll dice with the world," to illustrate his disagreement with the indeterministic nature of Quantum Mechanics accepted by most of his colleagues, but he spent the rest of his life being a scientist in an attempt to disprove it.


.

[davidcaspian]

But your tone suggested that:

a) noone here that was refuting Creationisim was religious in any way
b) Scientists in general do not have faith
c) That the lack of faith invalidates any statement on the subject.

You interpreted my tone that way, I never said that Scientists in general do not have faith, or that the lack of faith invalidates any statement on the subject. That was your interpretation, which, with all due respect, seems evident that you are looking for an argument. You interpreted what I said with your own supposition.

You use the believability/appeal arguement again.

You know that is not valid, why do you keep insisting on using it? Just because people did not WANT to believe that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and scientists were BODILY threatened for saying so, did not make it false.

People believed, in Rome and Greece, that there was a set of gods much like their own version of government, almost parlimentary, comprised of bickering factions that were in control of everything from the rising of the sun to the passing of sand through an hourglass. They all BELIEVED this as the absolute truth.

It is all story now because people do not want to believe in things of that sort. It does not fit their current feeling of self, and they wanted something more comfortable. So they chose the grandfather to rule the universe. They first made him vindictive and punative, but then as time went on and SOCIETY changed again, so did the image of God.

So you are basing your arguement on things that have no bearing on anything solid, provable or substantial. You are trying to put your faith as the absolute, and the lack of proof as irrefutable evidence of its existance.

Right, and I said that at the end of my post. "Just because everyone believed the earth is flat, doesn't mean it was true." But my point here was that Americans are religious, so would it not make sense to teach Creationism in the classroom?

And you could basically use that argument with anything, for many years Scientists believed that there was an unknown element causing fire, when really it was simply oxygen. (I'm sure you could explain it better.) So because of that misbelief, are all Scientists requests to be taken seriously laughed at, or trashed?

I thought you said a huge number was religious?

I did, perhaps you took me using "theistic" as a typo for "atheistic."

Human beings are dumb.

Human beings came up with Evolution.

No it doesn't. Nobody has proven anything else. people like the happy ending story that fits in with what they are told by their spiritual leaders. It has always been that way.

"A rejection of secularisim"? As if that proves Divine Intervention? You are not backing your arguement.

I never said it proves anything, I said it says something. That something is, that for some reason the majority of the planet finds something completely valid in a relationship with God, and it is true to them. To you it may be silly, but to most people it is desirable, and they find fulfillment in it. What I'm saying is, religion deserves its due credit, and should not be dismissed as silly superstition.

1) Not all scientists are secular
2) Science does not refute the existance of God
3) Rejection od secularism does not validate EITHER the existance of god, or the invalidity of evolution.

Right, we can agree on these points. Like Gallileo believed: there is God's world, and science is the study of it.[/quote]



What, you post two guys, do not site any of their works, and do not quote anything by them and it is somehow up to us to read everything by them and refute them to prove OUR point against your rebuttal?

Not quite.

They were there simply for reference. I didn't expect you to read all of their works, they are simply interesting socialogists. And their studies are highly respected on the topic of secularism, which is something that I research heavily. I guess if this was a messageboard on secularism I could simply say their names and everyone would know whom I was talking about, and what their research entailed.

Fine, believe what you want. But I do not want my tax dollars, in any form, supplimenting your religious views.

I also do not want religion to EVER be placed back in the same realm as science.

But you see, my Mother could use the same argument: that she does not want her tax dollars to support a theory like Evolution in public schools.

And what you want, and what the American people want are two different things. I think it should ultimately be up to tax payers as to what happens with their money, and the majority of the country does think it would be fair to teach both Creationism and Evolution in public schools.

Which means, you don't understand the points of the arguement, so you are agreeing with the guys that you were told to agree with because it makes you feel better about your faith.

It is very common.

It takes a very strong faith to be able to question it and still hold it. Many do not have that. Most will simply reject anything that questions it and leave it at that.

You take a lot of liberties with my posts. You assume that I agree with others simply because it makes me feel better about my faith? Perhaps I can assume about you that your devoutly religious Mother abused you or mistreated you and you now have a presuppositional hatred against religion and/or Christianity. But I won't do that, because it's not fair. I understand the arguments, and like I said, Evolution or not, I believe in God, and their are many Christians who believe in Evolution and God as well.

And trust me, I live in New York City, I question my faith, and have often doubted, but yet I still adhere to it.

That is what I can agree with. The one thing that must be communicated is that science does not FORBID or DISPROVE religion. It only says that they are not the same.

the people who say they are the same, and only one is right, are usually the ones that stand to gain the most from the people that follow them, or are those that are doing the following.

Absolutely. And I am not saying that simply one is right. Science does not forbid or disprove Religion. Correct.

[davidcaspian]

You are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design, the actual subject of this thread.

Ah, perhaps we should change the title then? At this point it stands "Creationism vs. Evolution."

Also, the phrase "Seperation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, which I think is interesting. (Interesting in that so many people assume that it does.) But that doesn't strictly mean the constitution does not promote seperation of church and state.

I can see how it would conflict with the seperation of Church and State though. Many make the argument however, that America is in fact a "Christian State," which I do not believe, but it's important to look at all arguments.

I really do wonder what the harm is in giving a brief discussion on Intelligent Design in addition to Evolution in a class, since most Americans believe in God anyway?

This is ever the ongoing debate: the scientists vs. the man of faith. But like Ninjahedge stated: Science/Evolution does not negate faith. I strongly believe both can co-exist.

[Fabrizio]

"This is ever the ongoing debate: the scientists vs. the man of faith."

I´ll take the scientist!

Comes in handy. Thanks to him I can ride in a car, a train, a plane, ....light, heat and cool my home, communicate long distances, live longer than the previous generation.... and on and on and on and on......

Who would YOU choose to be lost on a desert island with?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The term separation of church and state originated from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in which he stated "a wall of separation between church and state."

The Constitutional reference is the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The misinterpretation of the meaning of separation of church and state has led to the current hostility of many religious groups toward enforcement of the First Amendment. The establishment clause was not enacted to remove religion from American life, but to protect all religions from an attempt to form a Church of State.

[Ninjahedge]

David, you are going off again.

I am not going to quote you on everything, but you continue to state you are right just because you believe it so.

You will not be convinced otherwise.

Net is going down in 5, so I will leave it at that....

[redhot00]

"This is ever the ongoing debate: the scientists vs. the man of faith."

I´ll take the scientist!

Who would YOU choose to be lost on a desert island with?

Ah, but when you come to the realization that you are never getting off the desert island, what good will the scientist be to you than? I bet at that point your faith in God would increase immensely.

It's funny how when people near death they become more devout. Why do you think senior citizens fill churches every Sunday?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Well, if I wasn't getting off the island, I wouldn't need either one of them.

At that point, I would only hope that he was a woman.

[davidcaspian]

"This is ever the ongoing debate: the scientists vs. the man of faith."

I´ll take the scientist!

Comes in handy. Thanks to him I can ride in a car, a train, a plane, ....light, heat and cool my home, communicate long distances, live longer than the previous generation.... and on and on and on and on......

Who would YOU choose to be lost on a desert island with?

Well, that depends on the scientist. I would NOT like to be stuck on a desert island with a psychiatrist. That's for sure.

[davidcaspian]

David, you are going off again.

I am not going to quote you on everything, but you continue to state you are right just becaiuse you believe it so.

You will not be convinced otherwise.

Net is going down in 5, so I will leave it at that....

Fair enough.

[lofter1]

And then there are those little problems that arise when you mix things up ...

Report Details F.D.A. Rejection of Next-Day Pill

New York Times
By GARDINER HARRIS (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=GARDINER HARRIS&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=GARDINER HARRIS&inline=nyt-per)
November 15, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics/15pill.html?pagewanted=print


WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - Top federal drug officials decided to reject an application to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill months before a government scientific review of the application was completed, according to accounts given to Congressional investigators.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, concluded in a report released Monday that the Food and Drug Administration's May 2004 rejection of the morning-after pill, or emergency contraceptive, application was unusual in several respects.

Top agency officials were deeply involved in the decision, which was "very, very rare," a top F.D.A. review official told investigators. The officials' decision to ignore the recommendation of an independent advisory committee as well as the agency's own scientific review staff was unprecedented, the report found. And a top official's "novel" rationale for rejecting the application contradicted past agency practices, it concluded.

The pill, called Plan B, is a flashpoint in the debate over abortion, in part because some abortion opponents consider the pill tantamount to ending a pregnancy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/pregnancy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). In scientific reviews, the F.D.A. has concluded that it is a contraceptive.

The report suggested that it quickly became apparent that the agency was not going to follow its usual path when it came to the pill. "For example," it said, "F.D.A. review staff told us that they were told early in the review process that the decision would be made by high-level management."

Top agency officials denied many of the report's findings, including its conclusion that the top officials' involvement was unusual and that they had decided to reject the application before the agency's own scientific review was concluded. Julie Zawisza, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, said the agency stood by its rejection of the morning-after pill application.

"We question the integrity of the investigative process that results in such partial conclusions by the G.A.O.," Ms. Zawisza said.

Earlier this month, after Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, denounced the agency's decisions on the pill, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt also said the agency had acted appropriately.

But on Monday, Dr. Susan F. Wood, former director of the agency's office of women's health, said that what she described as the F.D.A.'s willingness to ignore science in the service of abortion politics has "only gotten worse" since the events that were the focus of the G.A.O. investigation. Dr. Wood resigned in August after the agency decided to delay its decision on the morning-after pill once again.

Senator Murray and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of New York, issued a statement saying that the report "has confirmed what we have always suspected, that this was a politically motivated decision that came down from the highest levels at the F.D.A."

The investigation was requested by 30 House members and 17 senators. On Monday, 18 Democratic House members signed a letter of protest to Mr. Leavitt.

The letter noted that Congressional investigators had been unable to uncover the role in the Plan B decision played by the former agency commissioner, Dr. Mark B. McClellan, because agency officials told investigators that all of his e-mail messages and written correspondence on the subject had been deleted or thrown out. The Democrats charged that these acts contravened federal records laws.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest provider of abortion services, issued a statement saying, "The G.A.O. report confirms the F.D.A. has been playing politics with women's health all along."

Wendy Wright, executive vice president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative women's advocacy group in Washington, said that the report's finding that top agency officials had overruled staffers was comforting. "The F.D.A. has been making some pretty serious mistakes lately," Ms. Wright said.

Plan B is manufactured by Barr Laboratories and is now available only with a prescription. Manufacturers rarely criticize the F.D.A., fearing that doing so might anger agency officials. Carol Cox, a Barr spokeswoman, chose her words carefully.

"While we're disappointed that the F.D.A. has not approved Plan B for over-the-counter use, we continue to seek that approval," Ms. Cox said.

Plan B was originally manufactured by Women's Capital Corporation, which won approval from the F.D.A. in 1999 to sell the drug by prescription. The pill contains high doses of the medicines present in birth control pills.

If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, Plan B generally prevents pregnancy. But it is most effective taken soon after sex, prompting the efforts to make it available quickly and without a prescription.

In April 2003, Women's Capital applied to make Plan B available over the counter. Barr bought the rights to the drug and continued to pursue the application. An advisory committed voted 23 to 4 in December 2003 to recommend approving the switch.

Within days of the committee's vote, however, Dr. Janet Woodcock, the F.D.A.'s acting deputy commissioner of operations, and Dr. Steven Galson, acting director of its drug center, told four top staff members that the application would be rejected, even though the agency's scientific review of the application had yet to be completed, the staff members told Congressional investigators. That review was completed in April.

Drs. Woodcock and Galson denied to investigators that they had made such statements.

Dr. Galson told them that "although he was '90 percent sure' as early as January 2004" that he would reject the application, he made his final decision only after reviewing the scientific evidence.

From 1994 to 2004, F.D.A. advisory committees reviewed 23 applications to switch drugs from prescription to over-the-counter status. Plan B was the only one of those 23 in which the agency went against the committee's advice.

Dr. Galson said in a May 2004 news conference that while he had consulted other top officials at the agency, the decision to reject the Plan B application was his alone. He decided to issue a "non-approvable" letter to Barr, he said, because only 29 of 585 participants in a Barr study of the drug had been ages 14 to 16. None was under 14.

Dr. Galson said younger teenagers might act differently than older ones and might engage in riskier sex if they knew an emergency contraceptive was easily available. The company needed more data to ensure that this was not true, he said.

But the G.A.O. called this rationale "novel" and said it was not in keeping with earlier agency decisions in which the behavior of older adolescents was routinely used to predict that of younger ones. The report also noted that the December 2003 advisory committee had voted 27 to 1 that Barr's study had demonstrated that consumers, adolescents included, could use the drug appropriately.

In his rejection letter to Barr, Dr. Galson suggested two ways it could receive approval. First, it could perform another study that included more young adolescents. Or it could seek to sell the drug "behind-the-counter," making it easily available only to women 16 and older, with younger women still needing a prescription.

Barr took the second approach in an application filed in July 2004. Although the agency's rules required it to issue a decision in January, it has delayed doing so indefinitely.

It is unusual for the agency to suggest a means of approval to an applicant only to decide later that its own suggestion might not be appropriate.



Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[Ninjahedge]

Ah, but when you come to the realization that you are never getting off the desert island, what good will the scientist be to you than? I bet at that point your faith in God would increase immensely.

Um, no.

I would like to stick it out with the guy that would probably try to find a way to solve the problems you are facing rather than pray to god to do it for him.

Not saying that either is the case, but I would rather have a construction foreman on my side than a politician. One talks about how everything can be done very well, the other knows how to do it.

It's funny how when people near death they become more devout. Why do you think senior citizens fill churches every Sunday?

Because they want someone to fight off Death. They are willing to believe in anything if that entity will either stave it off, or promise them a happy afterlife.

Why do you think the 72 virgin thing is so popular?

[TLOZ Link5]

"When you get to be my age, you see Death everywhere.

AAAGGH! DEATH!"

[Ninjahedge]

Even the Vatican says "What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

[lofter1]

Exhibit on Darwin creates
Bush bash at museum gala


Friday, November 18th, 2005


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/366907p-312314c.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/366907p-312314c.html)


It was supposed to be a fund-raiser for the American Museum of Natural History. But a new exhibit on Charles Darwin caused the Wednesday evening gala to evolve into something of a rally against President Bush's preferred theory of intelligent design.


"This is a time when those of us who care about science and Darwin have to take a stand," museum patron Tom Brokaw told the black-tied and bejeweled species, including Caroline Kennedy, Princess Firyal of Jordan, Viacom big shot Tom Freston, Michael Eisner, Eva Longoria, Jimmy Buffett, Jonathan Demme, Nora Ephron, Brian Williams, Lorne Michaels and most of the "Saturday Night Live" cast.

Clearly aware that Bush favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classes, the museum's patrons erupted in applause.

Brokaw reminded us later that the exhibit, which opens tomorrow, is "about Darwin's life and how he came to these conclusions. We aren't looking to pick a fight."

But, he added, the exhibit "doesn't attempt to argue the theory of evolution — because there is no argument."

"Daily Show" anchor Jon Stewart marveled at the museum's collection of specimens demonstrating Darwin's discoveries.

"It just makes you wonder," deadpanned Stewart. "Why is Jesus trying to trick us?

"I do wish George Bush would start paying attention to issues that are important for the country," Stewart went on. "Gay marriage, for instance. I don't understand why the religious right fears homosexuality. They say it's an abomination. The Bible says that shellfish are also an abomination. … They who oppose sodomy must also oppose scallops."

Stewart introduced Neil Young. Along with singing his hits, the venerable rocker sat down at an antique organ and performed "When God Made Me," his challenge to fundamentalism.

Young agreed that the Darwin show "couldn't come at a better time, with what's going on with the neocons." He allowed that Bush might truly believe in Genesis and not be pandering to the evangelicals. "I've never met him," he told us. "I've seen some of the things he does, but I'm not sure."


http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/314-young_gala.JPG
Evolution rock Neil Young —
no dinosaur, he — wowed a
Museum of Natural History crowd

[Fabrizio]

"Even the Vatican says...."

Ninja: you have to understand, America´s Christian right does not consider Catholics to be Christian.

[TLOZ Link5]

At the very least, you can't not attribute intelligent design to reinvigorating scientific debate, however pointless it might be to question something that is universally accepted in scientific circles.

Crouching fundies, hidden agendas. Anyone want to start a pool to bet when the Kansas Board of Ed will start teaching that the world is flat?

[lofter1]

Even the Vatican says "What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution
Of course, he's a Jesuit ...

The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

[ryan]

http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif
Jesus, Meet Evolution

By Bryan Collinsworth, Campus Progress
Posted on November 21, 2005, Printed on November 21, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/28483/

[Editor's Note: This interview was originally published on Campus Progress (http://campusprogress.org/features/652/jesus-meet-evolution).]
It used to be that if you wanted to provoke the wrath of God, you had to do something really horrific, like enslave an entire race of people to build your pyramids.
These days, though, you just have to vote for the wrong school board candidate. At least that's televangelist Pat Robertson (http://campusprogress.org/tools/543/know-your-right-wing-speakers-pat-robertson)'s take on the ousting of eight Dover, Pennsylvania school board members who had mandated the teaching of intelligent design in local science classrooms.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson warned on the November 9 broadcast of his televised insanity (also known as The 700 Club). "And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city."
Of course, even many conservative Christians dismiss Robertson as a shamelessly immoral fraud (http://www.msmagazine.com/sept03/sizemore.asp) (though the White House apparently does not (http://www.nydailynews.com/09-06-2005/news/wn_report/story/343712p-293471c.html)). His tirade, however, was only the latest in a series of attacks on the religiosity of those Doverites who dared oppose teaching intelligent design as science. During the campaign even neighbors (https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20051114&s=zengerle111405) accused the challengers for school board of being un-Christian, anti-God, and in bed with the dreaded ACLU, terrorists, and pedophiles (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91835/).
There's only one problem: Most of the newly elected board members are people of sincere and devout faith. Of the four Republicans and four Democrats (although they all ran on the Democratic ticket), at least two hold leadership positions in local churches, and even the group's stance on intelligent design (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:_KSvDN-pJNsJ:www.dovercares.org/+dover+cares&hl=en) can't be construed as anti-religious: They simply assert that since the concept is more about faith than science, it is more properly broached in religion and humanities courses.
For the countless Americans who comfortably balance belief and science every day, the discovery of Christian evolutionists in Dover won't raise any eyebrows. But it will strike many others as a rare contradiction. This is understandable: Conservative Christian leaders have been working for twenty years to reshape the American lexicon and popular consciousness until the word "Christian" refers not to a broad range of self-professed--and often progressive--followers of Jesus Christ, but solely to right-wing fundamentalists like themselves.
These efforts, however, cannot mask the reality that it is perfectly possible to be a good Christian and embrace evolution at the same time.
How? The simplest explanation is that science answers "how" questions while faith answers "why" questions, and never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately, it's not always that easy: Faith often embraces and builds upon certain assumptions about how the universe works, and science often digs beneath those assumptions, seeking to unlock the secrets of what many consider the divine.
Evolution is a case in point: For certain Christian traditions, science's contention that all life on Earth developed through millions of years of mutations clearly invalidates their assertions that everything originated exactly the way it's described in Genesis.
This might not be so bad, except that that "how" creation story is intimately tied to the "why" of these believers' faith. For very conservative and fundamentalist Christian traditions, a literal reading of Genesis sets up many of the religious concepts and morals they hold dear: that men and women were created for biological partnership with distinct gender roles, say, or that our ancestors' eating of forbidden fruit makes all humans sinners, with salvation available only through Jesus Christ.
Moreover, this approach to the creation story is the first expression of a central tenet of fundamentalist faith: that the Bible is the literal and infallible word of God, and that as such it offers clear, unquestionable lessons for how we should live our lives. After interpreting Genesis in this way, conservative Christians proceed all the way through Exodus and Leviticus to the Book of Revelation, constructing their entire edifice of theology and morality from a narrow reading of carefully selected passages.
An admission that things in the beginning were not so cut-and-dry, then, wouldn't just undermine the creation story and its religious lessons; it could cast doubt on the entire concept of scriptural authority and the uncompromising moral code that religious conservatives derive from it. If we question the Bible's account of creation, could questioning its stance on homosexuality or original sin be far behind?
While intelligent design abandons this literal approach to Genesis, it too is an effort to defend a narrow understanding of Christian theology--namely, that God acts primarily through overt interventions in the physical world, and that a theory of evolution which makes such intervention unnecessary could be taken as evidence that God is not present in any aspect of existence. This is why ID advocates are struggling to force Godly interventions back into biology by any means necessary.
What motivates all of this pushback against evolution, then, are fears that science threatens not only the "how" but the "why" of Christian faith. The real danger, though, is only to exceedingly narrow and literalistic interpretations of that faith. The best way for Christians to resolve this conflict is not to attack science, but to embrace a broader and deeper approach which can not only accommodate evolution but fulfill the full potential of Christianity itself.
Conservative preachers sneer at this approach as a cop-out or a concession to "secular humanists," but they push the limits of their own rigid standards all the time--starting with Genesis. After all, the well-known "Biblical" story of creation is actually a combination of two different accounts. In the first (Genesis 1 - 2:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%20%20%201:1-2:4)), God makes the world in seven days, with plants first, then animals, and humans last of all. In the second (Genesis 2:4 - 3:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%20%20%202:4-3:24;&version=31;)), God makes everything in one day, starting with a human, then plants and animals, and finally splitting the human into man and woman.
This contrast illustrates the limits of narrow literalism from the first verse of the Bible, but it also points to the real power of the text. Millions of believers have dwelled on these stories with all their contradictions not because they were desperate for a simple account of human origins, but because they found in them immense insight into the mysteries of the universe and our existence within it. While a literal reading of the seven-day account leads only to petty disputes and outrageous questions, a meditation on its spiritual significance inspires awe at the vast complexity of our cosmos, our earth, and ourselves.
This is where the Bible begins to take on its real power and authority: not as a precise account of physical truth, but as a deeply resonant revelation of moral and spiritual truth.
If we insist on approaching the tale of Adam and Eve as literal truth, we come out of the story with little more than frustration that our ancestors could be so stupid as to condemn all humanity by trusting a talking snake. But if we let go of this literalist fixation and dig to the moral and spiritual heart of the story, we confront a fundamental tenet of Christianity: that the Garden of Eden drama is played out every day, by our neighbors and ourselves; that we are not just condemned by the temptation and sin of our predecessors but by humanity's perpetual weakness in choosing evil over good; that we have all made choices to eat forbidden fruit for which we desperately want and need redemption.
Opponents of evolution fear that modern science advances a "materialist" worldview in which every aspect of existence is approached only on a crude, physical plane. But the literalist approach to scripture is precisely this--only when Christians move beyond it do we encounter the most meaningful realms of spiritual understanding and revelation. Thus, while intelligent design advocates desperately try to make science validate a clumsy interventionist God, C.S. Lewis envisions in The Screwtape Letters (http://members.fortunecity.com/phantom1/books2/c%2e_s%2e_lewis_-_the_screwtape_letters.htm) a Deity for whom the linear progress of evolution means nothing, because It operates beyond the bounds of space and time, intimately involved in "the whole, self-consistent creative act."
The greatest Christian believers throughout history have understood and embraced these depths of the faith, and continue to do so today. In 1996, Pope John Paul II declared of science and belief that "truth cannot contradict truth (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm)," acknowledging that while evolutionary theory may challenge literal creationism, it can never challenge the basic spiritual message of Christianity: that humans face suffering and need redemption; that the vision, light, and life of Christ offer, for many, the means of that salvation. Many U.S. denominations, including the Episcopal Church (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm), United Methodist Church (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1820), and Presbyterian Church (http://www.pcusa.org/ga213/business/OVT0155.htm), USA have taken similar stances.
The Bible is not a scientific text. But neither modern science nor modern fundamentalism can challenge it as an incredibly powerful historical, psychological, moral and spiritual document. As the great sage of another religion, Master Yoda, once said, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." We should approach Christian scriptures and faith in the same way.
Brian Collinsworth is a student at Sarah Lawrence College and an intern for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.
CampusProgress.org (http://campusprogress.org/) is a progressive, youth-oriented online magazine run by the Center for American Progress.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/28483/

[lofter1]

Good Riddance ...

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=LAURIE GOODSTEIN&inline=nyt-per)
December 4, 2005
Ideas & Trends

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=feb51306425b8c81&ex=1291352400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design. At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world. President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project."

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith. The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy.

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution.

"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination.

At Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical university in Illinois, intelligent design surfaces in the curriculum only as part of an interdisciplinary elective on the origins of life, in which students study evolution and competing theories from theological, scientific and historical perspectives, according to a college spokesperson.

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution
.
Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class."

Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced."

John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific "fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.

"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West said.
"The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."

In the Dover trial, where intelligent design finally got its day in court, the move