Intelligent Design/Evolution War:4-20-06 Georgia Governor signs Laws putting Bible Class in all schools and Commandments

[damonpip]

To the people having trouble differentiating between evolution as a fact or theory. - http://www.stephenjaygould.org...d_fact-and-theory.html

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-18-2005 Ga. Schools to Appeal Evolution Ruling

MARIETTA, Ga. - Members of a suburban district's school board plan to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

In a 5-2 vote, the Cobb County school board decided to appeal last week's ruling.

"We have to make our best judgment based on the facts," said Curt Johnston, a member who was chairman when the board adopted the disclaimers in 2002.

 

[wylecoyote]

-sigh-...

(see sig)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
-sigh-...

(see sig)

"It's not that I have a problem with God, it's his fan club I can't stand... "

:thumbsup:

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I have to wonder what the reaction would be to putting stickers on the bible saying :
"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is an assertion, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

This analogy would hold true if you had mandatory Bible study classes in public schools, but that is not the case. What you do have is a situation where high school teachers and textbooks present evolution as factual and in some cases conflicting to the Genesis tale.

Why would you suggest this ?

Consider the orignal example is : Schools which do not teach creationism as fact must place a warning on material which contradicts creationism.

How is not analogous to : Schools which do not teach evolution as fact must place a warning on material which contradicts evolution ?

Where does it being a public or private school come into it and how ?

Science being mandatory at a public school, or bible study being mandatory at a catholic school has absolutely no bearing on my point, which was to simply illustrate one reason why it annoys people.

 

[Netopia]

There are nutjobs on both sides of this arguement. I'm going to bring up a subject and ask that those of the opposing viewpoint to NOT just go out and try to find sites by nuts, but rather look at the ones that are science based. The subject is catastrophism, which is an arguement against the uniformitarian that is required for evolution to work. The problem is that more and more data is coming to light that supports a catastrophic geological world history. I encourage people to read about catastrophism and weigh it on its own merits and not according to the emotional position that if catastrophism is true then evolution probably isn't.

Here's a site that gives an overview. This one has a somewhat religious bent to it and although I'm a person of faith, I'd encourage people to look for and post other sites that are more purely scientific on the subject.

Joe

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Netopia
There are nutjobs on both sides of this arguement. I'm going to bring up a subject and ask that those of the opposing viewpoint to NOT just go out and try to find sites by nuts, but rather look at the ones that are science based. The subject is catastrophism, which is an arguement against the uniformitarian that is required for evolution to work. The problem is that more and more data is coming to light that supports a catastrophic geological world history. I encourage people to read about catastrophism and weigh it on its own merits and not according to the emotional position that if catastrophism is true then evolution probably isn't.

Here's a site that gives an overview. This one has a somewhat religious bent to it and although I'm a person of faith, I'd encourage people to look for and post other sites that are more purely scientific on the subject.

Joe

After reading the breif review of catastrophism I don't see how that disproves evolution as a valid theory. Even if the planet went through periods where natural disasters were more common I don't see what this has to do with evolution.

I wandered into other areas of the site and found many of the typical errors regarding what "theory" is and a lot of crap about "intelligent design." I'm afraid that you'll have to find something more science based than this if you are going to show that there is any significant chance that evolution isn't the mechanism that brought about the nice variety of life we have here.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Evolution IS only theroy. What is religion, wild guesses? I don't know of a single person who has met God in person. I always fail to see why both camps can't find a middle ground. Can't evolution and creationism both be right?

i agree with you

has anyone ever brought up the point that mabye creation IS evolution

the bible is pretty vague on how "god" "created" the universe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Netopia
There are nutjobs on both sides of this arguement. I'm going to bring up a subject and ask that those of the opposing viewpoint to NOT just go out and try to find sites by nuts, but rather look at the ones that are science based. The subject is catastrophism, which is an arguement against the uniformitarian that is required for evolution to work. The problem is that more and more data is coming to light that supports a catastrophic geological world history. I encourage people to read about catastrophism and weigh it on its own merits and not according to the emotional position that if catastrophism is true then evolution probably isn't.

Here's a site that gives an overview. This one has a somewhat religious bent to it and although I'm a person of faith, I'd encourage people to look for and post other sites that are more purely scientific on the subject.

Joe

After reading the breif review of catastrophism I don't see how that disproves evolution as a valid theory. Even if the planet went through periods where natural disasters were more common I don't see what this has to do with evolution.

I wandered into other areas of the site and found many of the typical errors regarding what "theory" is and a lot of crap about "intelligent design." I'm afraid that you'll have to find something more science based than this if you are going to show that there is any significant chance that evolution isn't the mechanism that brought about the nice variety of life we have here.

The whole point is that if catastrophism is true, then there is not geologic column and that means that there isn't any true record of progression from one species to another via the fossil record. It also means that our time tables could be completely inaccurate.

Joe

 

[dgevert]

Looking at that catastrophism site, the first thing that struck me is that they link to sites that:

* defend the ridiculous claim that Noah's Flood was real,
* use the same old tired straw man arguments against radiometric dating,
* make the false claim that there are no transitional fossils,
* use the straw man argument claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution (they way they use it, it also contradicts snow flakes...)

Catastrophism.net is NOT a scientific website. It's the same old creationist drivel that's been refuted time and time again on website after website.

Don't believe me? Click on "About Us" on the bottom of the page...

 

[conjur]

Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism

Creationism is no longer the simple notion it once was taken to be. Its new advocates have become more sophisticated in how they present their views, speaking of "intelligent design" rather than "creation science" and aiming their arguments against the naturalistic philosophical method that underlies science, proposing to replace it with a "theistic science." The creationism-evolution controversy is not just about the status of Darwinian evolution - it is a clash of religious and philosophical worldviews, for a common underlying fear among creationists is that evolution undermines both the basis of morality as they understand it and the possibility of purpose in life. In Tower of Babel, philosopher Robert T. Pennock compares the views of the new creationists with those of the old and reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less-charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins.

Can't wait until that arrives.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Netopia
The whole point is that if catastrophism is true, then there is not geologic column and that means that there isn't any true record of progression from one species to another via the fossil record. It also means that our time tables could be completely inaccurate.

Joe

Catastrophism as described by this website is not true. It's just another creationist website spouting the same old tired claims.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dgevert
Looking at that catastrophism site, the first thing that struck me is that they link to sites that:

* defend the ridiculous claim that Noah's Flood was real,
* use the same old tired straw man arguments against radiometric dating,
* make the false claim that there are no transitional fossils,
* use the straw man argument claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution (they way they use it, it also contradicts snow flakes...)

Catastrophism.net is NOT a scientific website. It's the same old creationist drivel that's been refuted time and time again on website after website.

Don't believe me? Click on "About Us" on the bottom of the page...

Our Faith Statement


The Bible is the only inspired Word of God ? a supernaturally integrated set of 66 books, written by 40 authors, over nearly 2,000 years.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Netopia
There are nutjobs on both sides of this arguement. I'm going to bring up a subject and ask that those of the opposing viewpoint to NOT just go out and try to find sites by nuts, but rather look at the ones that are science based. The subject is catastrophism, which is an arguement against the uniformitarian that is required for evolution to work. The problem is that more and more data is coming to light that supports a catastrophic geological world history. I encourage people to read about catastrophism and weigh it on its own merits and not according to the emotional position that if catastrophism is true then evolution probably isn't.

Here's a site that gives an overview. This one has a somewhat religious bent to it and although I'm a person of faith, I'd encourage people to look for and post other sites that are more purely scientific on the subject.

Joe

After reading the breif review of catastrophism I don't see how that disproves evolution as a valid theory. Even if the planet went through periods where natural disasters were more common I don't see what this has to do with evolution.

I wandered into other areas of the site and found many of the typical errors regarding what "theory" is and a lot of crap about "intelligent design." I'm afraid that you'll have to find something more science based than this if you are going to show that there is any significant chance that evolution isn't the mechanism that brought about the nice variety of life we have here.

The whole point is that if catastrophism is true, then there is not geologic column and that means that there isn't any true record of progression from one species to another via the fossil record. It also means that our time tables could be completely inaccurate.

Joe

as someone else mentioned there are other methods of dating fossils - also - just b/c there were more catastrophic events doesn't mean that everything got completely reorganized. In general it would still seem that the older stuff would be down near the bottom and the newer stuff on top. At worst, it seems like catastrophism might make using geology to date things slightly less accurate but by no means does it disprove evolution.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Evolution IS only theroy. What is religion, wild guesses? I don't know of a single person who has met God in person. I always fail to see why both camps can't find a middle ground. Can't evolution and creationism both be right?

Evolution is a theory with a LOT of evidence, study, experimentation and understanding to lend credence to the truth of it.

Creationism on the other hand is a theory with NO evidence nor any means of gathering evidence; no experimentation to test and prove or disprove the theory and no empirical data to clearly delineate intelligent design BY a designer.

There are GOOD reasons why evolution should be presented as a legitimate course of scientific study and GOOD reasons why creationism SHOULDN'T.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: daveshel

There is a God.

Well, maybe there is! Then again, maybe there isn't. But since no proof exists FOR his existence and no proof CAN exist against it, it's really a non issue. Either you believe or you don't, but make no mistake: Your belief is NOT knowledge.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: piasabird
There was a theory that stated that native americans were inferior due to the small size of their cranium. Shortly after many native american gravesites were robbed of their occupants, and many historical sites belonging to American Natives were destroyed. In fact many remains of native americans were sent to the smithonian institute for further study. They called themselves scientists at the time!

Wow SOME scientists made a mistake in the past... I'd better stop listening to all of them altogether. :roll:

Scientists make mistakes all the time, as do we all. The difference between a scientist and a man of faith is that the scientist isn't looking for some arbitrarily defined "perfection", he's looking for the TRUTH. The scientist observes, theorizes, experiments, analyzes and then interprets the results. If he is wrong he tries to figure out where, how and why he was wrong and what the truth *really* is. To the scientist, authority is granted based on truth. To the man of faith, though, truth is granted based on authority.

Understanding this, it isn't hard to see why a man of faith can easily be lead to some evil places.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Just yesterday evolutionary theory had to be reformulated because of some fossil remains. Facts don't need to be readjusted continually.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Simply stating this in no way endorses one or the other. The judge, in this case, is being just another liberal activist judge.

Oh ya, I got a haircut a month ago and already my hair has evolved and now I need another cut!!!

Um, hair growth doesn't constitute evolution, goofball

But with regards to "Facts don't need to be readjusted continually" I have to say that nothing could be further from the truth. There is no such thing as "perfect knowledge", and in a world as complex as ours it is imperative that we, at all times, keep checking and re-checking our premises as we learn and discover more and better information. We must do our best to integrate that new information without contradiction, and when we DO find a contradiction we have to realize that it's because one of our premises is WRONG.

A contradiction can't exist in reality, only in "Terms".

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

The stickers ascert that evolution is possibly incorrect when it is about as close to being correct as we can prove anythign to be in the natural world.

The stickers imply that evolution has something to do with the "origin of living things" which is misleading again because evolution is not the entire story. It simply explains one part of it.

Evolution says you can take a cat, make it live in the ocean, and millions of years later it will have fins. That's not laughable to you? Is that observable scientific fact? :roll:

Also, real quick. How long according to the theory of evolution has mankind, in our current form, been in existence?

Well, your misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, very common in Churches, by the way, is exactly why we have this "discussion", if you can call it that.

Until you have taken the time to study the subject and actually UNDERSTAND it, it's a futile effort to talk to you. You've made it clear that you DON'T understand evolution, you DON'T understand the Scientific Method and you're hell-bent on maintaining the bliss of your ignorance.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This country was founded on christian values. Should we toss that out too because the left has bastardized the meaning of seperation of church and state?

If it is so that this country was "founded on Christian values" then tell me, why didn't we "turn the other cheek" instead of confronting our KING and telling him we would no longer be subject to his tyranny? If our values were so Christian why did the author of the Declaration of Independence say that

"It makes no difference whether my neighbor claims there are no gods or twenty gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

? If we are so Christian, why did our Christian second president, John Adams, sign into law a treaty that states

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Adams was himself a devout Christian, yet even he acknowledged and respected that the US government was NOT a Christian government but one which is neither friend nor enemy to any particular religion.

In any case, it isn't the LEFT that has "bastardized the meaning of separation of church and state," it's the RIGHT. They've done so by attempted to change those words to mean that there should be no such separation, and they've done so with tactics that amount to nothing less than reversing the meanings of words.

Evolution is good science with a lot of evidence to back it up; creationism isn't science at all and, by definition, can have NO evidence to back it up. It's simple and clear why it shouldn't be in ANY science class, much less taught as superior to evolution.

Jason

 

[BadNewsBears]

This is ridiculous. Religous dogma? What is religous about that statement. Im athiest/agnostic and in no way find it religous. tards of the 21'st centurey unite.

 

[imported_Dimicron]

In theory both ID and evolution can be correct. Just say God decided to create the nebula and spun it around so it turned into our solar system and got bored of waiting after X billion years and created a single celled organism. And then he let evolution take over from there.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Dimicron
In theory both ID and evolution can be correct. Just say God decided to create the nebula and spun it around so it turned into our solar system and got bored of waiting after X billion years and created a single celled organism. And then he let evolution take over from there.

If you believe in God he could have started things from the beginning knowing full well what would happen since time and space would be meaningless to such a being. This doesn't mean things were set up in a reasonable way (in other words a way that science could explain) instead of "magic." I would find it much more impressive (and God-like) for God to have created the rules by which the Universe works and let things go.

 

[Infohawk]

Fundy Christian understanding of science.

 

[slash196]

I'd just like to point out that it is possible that there is a god that doesn't conform to the Christian belief system.