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

[Gaard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never thought that the theory of evolution had anything to do with "how life came about."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never thought that the theory of evolution had anything to do with "how life came about."

You are right, it doesn't. Which is why there was nothing wrong with the stickers and the way they were worded, which said that "evolution is a theory, and not a fact, regarding the origin of living things".

I ask, what is wrong with that? And why are certain people confusing this issue in their argument against the textbook stickers?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never thought that the theory of evolution had anything to do with "how life came about."

You are right, it doesn't. Which is why there was nothing wrong with the stickers and the way they were worded, which said that "evolution is a theory, and not a fact, regarding the origin of living things".

I ask, what is wrong with that? And why are certain people confusing this issue in their argument against the textbook stickers?

:shrug;

Personally I think both camps are being boneheads. One camp feels the need to put little 'disclaimer' stickers in books. The other camp feels the need to fight this action.

:shrug;

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never thought that the theory of evolution had anything to do with "how life came about."

You are right, it doesn't. Which is why there was nothing wrong with the stickers and the way they were worded, which said that "evolution is a theory, and not a fact, regarding the origin of living things".

I ask, what is wrong with that? And why are certain people confusing this issue in their argument against the textbook stickers?

What's wrong with that still goes back to your misuse of the word, theory. Evolution is an accepted, operative theory that describes relationships between oberved facts and phenomena.

Repeat -- A theory is considered valid until it is disproven. It takes exactly ONE disproof to invalidate a theory. Got any that disprove evolution? There are plenty in the documented history of this planet and its life forms that disprove twinkie based creationism and "intelligent design." They are Trojan horse concepts intended to force religious teachings into publically funded secular educational systems.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never thought that the theory of evolution had anything to do with "how life came about."

You are right, it doesn't. Which is why there was nothing wrong with the stickers and the way they were worded, which said that "evolution is a theory, and not a fact, regarding the origin of living things".

I ask, what is wrong with that? And why are certain people confusing this issue in their argument against the textbook stickers?

What's wrong with that still goes back to your misuse of the word, theory. Evolution is an accepted, operative theory that describes relationships between oberved facts and phenomena.

Repeat -- A theory is considered valid until it is disproven. It takes exactly ONE disproof to invalidate a theory. Got any that disprove evolution? There are plenty in the documented history of this planet and its life forms that disprove twinkie based creationism and "intelligent design." They are Trojan horse concepts intended to force religious teachings into publically funded secular educational systems.

Bullsh!t. The issue here is that you continue to confuse the issue of evolution with the actual origins of life, an aspect that evolution does not even cover, but which you and every other anti-God nut want to insist that it does, and teach other people's children such.

Repeat -- evolution is not even a theory with regard to the origins of life. Evolution is a factual theory regarding the evolution of single-celled organisms into complex multi-celled organisms like human beings. You are confusing a very unscientific view of evolution, and when science becomes unscientific, it tends to become religion, and religion (of all types) is something I want kept out the schools I pay for, thank you very much.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never thought that the theory of evolution had anything to do with "how life came about."

You are right, it doesn't. Which is why there was nothing wrong with the stickers and the way they were worded, which said that "evolution is a theory, and not a fact, regarding the origin of living things".

I ask, what is wrong with that? And why are certain people confusing this issue in their argument against the textbook stickers?

It's not a theory about the origin, noone except for a bunch of clueless Jesusfreaks claimed it to be, so yes those stickers would be incorrect, or the very least misleading.

It's completely unfathomable to me that people in this day and age would believe in tales like Creation.
Maybe they believe in Santa Claus as well? Or the tooth feary?

They should cease to use computers to begin with, after all they're the result of science, can't have that, science is evil :roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
Repeat -- evolution is not even a theory with regard to the origins of life....

I'm not disputing your point. It's just meaningless to the issue in this case.

The question raised by the school case is whether "creation science < blech >", "intelligent < gag > design" or any other such religiously based tripe should be taught in publically funded secular education. Its promoters offer this garbage as alternatives to evolution, and it is not.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Vic
You are right, it doesn't. Which is why there was nothing wrong with the stickers and the way they were worded, which said that "evolution is a theory, and not a fact, regarding the origin of living things".

I ask, what is wrong with that? And why are certain people confusing this issue in their argument against the textbook stickers?

Actually its increadibly obvious for anyone with any substancial knowledge of science. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of living things. That's covered by the entirely seperate theory of abiogenesis, which merely happens to be complementry to the theory of evolution which deals with what happened after life was originally created. The stickers were outright factually incorrect in that they implied that evolution dealt with the origin of living things.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Sunner
It's not a theory about the origin, noone except for a bunch of clueless Jesusfreaks claimed it to be, so yes those stickers would be incorrect, or the very least misleading.

It's completely unfathomable to me that people in this day and age would believe in tales like Creation.
Maybe they believe in Santa Claus as well? Or the tooth feary?

They should cease to use computers to begin with, after all they're the result of science, can't have that, science is evil :roll:

If it's not a theory about then origin, as you and I both agree, then what is wrong with the stickers? Bear in mind that, in the US, biology teachers and textbooks tend to teach evolution as a theory that does include the origin. And many people agree. See Harvey who just posted that my saying that evolution did not include the origin was because I was somehow misusing the word "theory".

BTW, your condescending opinions about the beliefs of others represent a tremendous bigotry and prejudice, and a desire to limit the freedoms of others. I am very glad you don't live in my free country. While I myself do not believe in literal creationism, I do believe strongly in the freedom of religion, and will defend even the most unpopular of religious beliefs in the face of anti-freedom bigots like yourself.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
Repeat -- evolution is not even a theory with regard to the origins of life....

I'm not disputing your point. It's just meaningless to the issue in this case.

The question raised by the school case is whether "creation science < blech >", "intelligent < gag > design" or any other such religiously based tripe should be taught in publically funded secular education. Its promoters offer this garbage as alternatives to evolution, and it is not.

It would not be meaningless if teachers and textbooks were not teaching children that the theory of evolution includes the origin.

If you believe that science is somehow aware of or has a factual theory regarding the origin, then you are no different than the religious "garbage". When science becomes unscientific, it becomes religion. Your religion is obviously science, i.e. you believe science can prove things that it cannot (or does not), and thus you are using faith when you believe it can (or does). I would prefer you kept your religious battle out of our publicly funded schools, thank you very much.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Vic
If it's not a theory about then origin, as you and I both agree, then what is wrong with the stickers? Bear in mind that, in the US, biology teachers and textbooks tend to teach evolution as a theory that does include the origin.

Its because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life directly. The sticker gave a false impression about what evolution covered. You may be able to to criticize some teachers for not making it sufficiently clear that the origin of life was a seperate theory known as abiogenesis and not actually part of evolutionary theory but that's a seperate issue. (If you wanted to put a sticker on the biology textbook cover accurately defining the differences evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, I wouldn't have a problem with that.)

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never thought that the theory of evolution had anything to do with "how life came about."

You are correct. Several people have stated this in this thread but some people just can't seem to get it.

 

[Cerb]

Evolution is a theory. It is only a theory.
Why? Because there is enough evidence for it over other possibilities, but not enough overwhelming evidence for it to be a law.
Now, my personal opinion is that if the parents didn't like it, they didn't have to send their kids to public schools. Public schools should teach the best scientific theories we have. Maybe they aren't 100% right, but the smart folks try their best, and all work both as evidence of evolution, and as inquiry into other theories (actually, most tend to be evolution variants), is undermined by crap like this. I agree about going into it with an open mind and all, but a sticker won't help with that.

*grumble* The Cobb Co. computer show turns to crap, and in only a couple years we get this.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: oslama
Man created god as an explaination of how the natural world worked. This theory is result of our primal fears and insecurities about our surroundings.

Man evolved and as was able to think rationaly and observe the natural world. This theory is science.

If only God hadn't invented the Babelfish!

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Sunner
It's not a theory about the origin, noone except for a bunch of clueless Jesusfreaks claimed it to be, so yes those stickers would be incorrect, or the very least misleading.

It's completely unfathomable to me that people in this day and age would believe in tales like Creation.
Maybe they believe in Santa Claus as well? Or the tooth feary?

They should cease to use computers to begin with, after all they're the result of science, can't have that, science is evil :roll:

If it's not a theory about then origin, as you and I both agree, then what is wrong with the stickers? Bear in mind that, in the US, biology teachers and textbooks tend to teach evolution as a theory that does include the origin. And many people agree. See Harvey who just posted that my saying that evolution did not include the origin was because I was somehow misusing the word "theory".

BTW, your condescending opinions about the beliefs of others represent a tremendous bigotry and prejudice, and a desire to limit the freedoms of others. I am very glad you don't live in my free country. While I myself do not believe in literal creationism, I do believe strongly in the freedom of religion, and will defend even the most unpopular of religious beliefs in the face of anti-freedom bigots like yourself.

People are free to believe as they want, and I'm not trying to deny anyone that right, I'm merely completely unable to understand how anyone can believe in silyness like Creationism.
And if anyone was trying to push for creationism to be taught in any other class than one about religion, yes then I would be very upset.

If you told me you believed the earth was flat, I wouldn't try to beat you up over it, or convince you of the errors of your ways, I'd just think you were extremely uneducated.
If you tried to convince my kids(and no I don't have any, this is a theoretcal example) about it, then I would get very upset.

Oh and it's funny you mention you don't want me living in your "free" country because of my opinions.
You do see the irony in that, right?

By the way, would you mind telling me why I'm an "Anti-freedom bigot" :roll:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Evolution is a theory. It is only a theory.
Why? Because there is enough evidence for it over other possibilities, but not enough overwhelming evidence for it to be a law.

How nice of you to skip over all the posts in this thread. Your lame pseudo-scientific understanding of a theory has been dealt with and you should know it's bogus.

 

[judasmachine]

let's just face it, we're great apes. well we're not that great of apes.

 

[syconub]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Evolution is a theory. It is only a theory.
Why? Because there is enough evidence for it over other possibilities, but not enough overwhelming evidence for it to be a law.
Now, my personal opinion is that if the parents didn't like it, they didn't have to send their kids to public schools. Public schools should teach the best scientific theories we have. Maybe they aren't 100% right, but the smart folks try their best, and all work both as evidence of evolution, and as inquiry into other theories (actually, most tend to be evolution variants), is undermined by crap like this. I agree about going into it with an open mind and all, but a sticker won't help with that.

*grumble* The Cobb Co. computer show turns to crap, and in only a couple years we get this.

i cuncur. there is alot of evidence for it, or just enough for it to be taught in a public school. if they dont like it then they can go to a private school where they teach more then just "creationism" becuase if they just complain about that one thing, then they would be better off in a private school becuase then they would learn more then just about creation. I personally think that they should still teach evolution in public schools.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Cerb
Evolution is a theory. It is only a theory.
Why? Because there is enough evidence for it over other possibilities, but not enough overwhelming evidence for it to be a law.

How nice of you to skip over all the posts in this thread. Your lame pseudo-scientific understanding of a theory has been dealt with and you should know it's bogus.

Lame, pseudo-scientific understanding?

Simple googling:

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don?t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Evolution fits very neatly as a theory. It can be observed, has been in short life span creatures many times, by many groups. However, the nature of it is not understood well enough to make any laws, which would require overwhelming evidence of it (we don't have evidence for evolution like we do Boyle's Law), and the ability to predict its course in a simple manner.

 

[Infohawk]

Where specifically is your definition of scientific law from?

All of science is based on theories. So to act like evolution is somehow less true than other scientific theories is silly. Evolution being a "theory" is in itself a useless attack.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Again, evolution is a fact. "Evolution" is what we call the observations that new species are created and species go extinct.

Neo-Darwinism is a theory. Neo-Darwinism attempts to explain the mechanism through which evolution occurs.

Like someone else already posted, an apple falling from a tree is a fact. Gravity is the theory that attempts to explain why apples fall from trees.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Where specifically is your definition of scientific law from?

All of science is based on theories. So to act like evolution is somehow less true than other scientific theories is silly. Evolution being a "theory" is in itself a useless attack.

Google scientific theory.
And where did I say anything about being less true than other scientific theories? You must be confusing me with some other poster.

Until evolution is disproven, it will remain the proper theory.
That is no different than the example of gravity.
One day, we might understand what makes gravity work, at which point we may be able to stipulate nicer mathematical proofs for it, and even modify how it works. The current theory of gravity could be shoved under a rug when that happens, having a better theory.
That new theory won't change the gravitational force of the sun on the earth, though, any more than a new theory on our continuing existence will make white moths in a coal mine not turn black.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Sunner
People are free to believe as they want, and I'm not trying to deny anyone that right, I'm merely completely unable to understand how anyone can believe in silyness like Creationism.
And if anyone was trying to push for creationism to be taught in any other class than one about religion, yes then I would be very upset.

If you told me you believed the earth was flat, I wouldn't try to beat you up over it, or convince you of the errors of your ways, I'd just think you were extremely uneducated.
If you tried to convince my kids(and no I don't have any, this is a theoretcal example) about it, then I would get very upset.

Oh and it's funny you mention you don't want me living in your "free" country because of my opinions.
You do see the irony in that, right?

By the way, would you mind telling me why I'm an "Anti-freedom bigot" :roll:

Oh, I'm sorry. It's just the way you spoke about those who dared to wrong-think by believing in Creationism made me think of how the medieval Catholic priests likely spoke of pagan heretics during the Inquisition. Now I see that it was just your ignorance and/or immaturity speaking.
And I didn't say that I didn't want you living in my country. Kindly don't twist my words. I said I'm glad that you don't. Big difference, so no irony... you just need to brush up on your English.

If you have a belief about things that occurred thousands, millions, or billions of years ago, and think you can call your belief "fact" when in reality there is no way of knowing beyond educated guesses, then you have gone way past science and entered the realms of faith and religion. You see, we could say that "we have a good idea" about what occurred all that time ago (and I would agree completely), but when you say that you "know for fact" and begin to speak of various punishments for those who would dare to heretically believe differently, then you are no longer thinking with the discipline of rational science, and insted are thinking exactly the same way that a religious fanatic does.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
let's just face it, we're great apes. well we're not that great of apes.

Nice....

You're right, we're not that great of apes... after all, the chimpanzees' accomplishments are soooo much greater than ours. :roll:

Give me a break. Under every single aspect of evolutionary theory and history, humans are the greatest species the earth has ever seen by far. We are the pinnacle, near perfection. The flaws in us simply represent the flaws in the evolutionary system itself.

Try to be consistent in your beliefs, eh?

 

[wylecoyote]

Near perfection? I would tend to disagree... "perfect" is a dangerous word to use... our intellect may be vast in the scope of our earth, but completely amoebic compared to an alien intellegence. Once again, we have no way of knowing...

We're the only species that systematically kills each other for no reason, we destroy our habitat, blah blah blah... while I agree with you we're certainly far more advanced intellectually than anything else our planet has seen, I would not say we're near perfect.

And to all of you who say "evolution is a theory"... llike you Cerb...

For the last time, evolution is an observable scientific fact, going on around us as we speak. Read the posts above.

What you mean to say is, "it is a theory that our origin arose from evolution". That has merit. ALthough it certaintly has orders of magnitude more supporting evidence than creationism.