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

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

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!!!

1. you don't understand what a theory (in scientific terms) is
2. you don't understand what evolution encompases as you just demonstrated by trying to say that those fossil remains required that some part of evolution theory needed to be "reformulated"

Out of curiosity. Is there anything they could find that WOULD prove evolution wrong in your mind? Think about that and then think twice next time you feel like throwing around the word zealot.

To disprove evolution you would need to come up with something besides DNA as the basic blue print of cells. You would need a lossless way to copy data and DNA is not the medium. Or you would need to demostarte some outside force directing the changes in DNA, the only way to do that is prove the changes are not random. If you find either of the two I would be open to the idea that evolution is wrong.

 

[Whaspe]

Evolution does attempt to explain how life began. Prebiotic chemical evolution most likely started it all off. In one scenario of this theory the first organisms were products of a chemical evolution in four stages: 1) the abiotic (nonliving) synthesis and accumulation of small organic molecules, or monomers, such as amino acids and nucleotides; 2) the joining of these monomers into polymers, including proteins and nucleic acids; 30 the aggregation of abiotically produced molecules into droplets, called protobionts, that had chemical characteristics different from their surrroundings; and 40 the origin of heredity (which may well have been under way even before the "droplet stage"). It is possible to test the plausibility of these stages of chemical evolution in laboratory experiments. Oparin and Haldane in the 1920's hypothesized the chemical conditions of the early world ~3.5-4 billion years ago. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested this hypothesis demonstrating the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules in a model system. Sidney Fox has made what he calls proteinoids which are polypeptides produced by abiotic means. Thomas Cech and coworkers revolutionized thinking about the evolution of life when they discovered that RNA molecules are important catalysts in modern cells, disproving the long held theory that only protein (enzymes) could serve as biological catalysts.

Now to say that science has definitively defined the evolution of life as we know it would be absurd. (It's been only 50 years since we first learned the physical structure of DNA and elucidated how it acts within the genetic model). However, it would be foolish to reject it on these merits (as has already been pointed out by many people in this thread. It's also foolish to state that this understanding in some way disproves Creation. But it does change the way one should look at it. Just like when Galileo proved that the Sun doesn't revolve around us. Take a look at this and see what you think.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Evolution does attempt to explain how life began. Prebiotic chemical evolution most likely started it all off. In one scenario of this theory the first organisms were products of a chemical evolution in four stages: 1) the abiotic (nonliving) synthesis and accumulation of small organic molecules, or monomers, such as amino acids and nucleotides; 2) the joining of these monomers into polymers, including proteins and nucleic acids; 30 the aggregation of abiotically produced molecules into droplets, called protobionts, that had chemical characteristics different from their surrroundings; and 40 the origin of heredity (which may well have been under way even before the "droplet stage"). It is possible to test the plausibility of these stages of chemical evolution in laboratory experiments. Oparin and Haldane in the 1920's hypothesized the chemical conditions of the early world ~3.5-4 billion years ago. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested this hypothesis demonstrating the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules in a model system. Sidney Fox has made what he calls proteinoids which are polypeptides produced by abiotic means. Thomas Cech and coworkers revolutionized thinking about the evolution of life when they discovered that RNA molecules are important catalysts in modern cells, disproving the long held theory that only protein (enzymes) could serve as biological catalysts.

At least based on my understanding, you're still talking about Abiogenesis or something other than evolutionary theory here. Obviously this scientific theory complements evolutionary theory, but its not directly a part of it. Lets not confuse our terminology here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

You're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. It ONLY directly deals with what happened after life was originally created. It doesn't deal with the creation of the world and the universe, other scientific theories would be the ones to address these points. Admitedly scientists in general less confident on some of these than they are regarding the theory of evolution.

Well I can probably admit that my view on the theory of evolution may be incorrect. I always thought it dealt with the creation of life on earth and sisequent growth.

If evolution does indeed only deal with life after the creation of the earth then Ill have to review my opinions on this matter as it is obvious they are flawed.

Did this "Revelation" occur because of reading on this subject here in P&N??? :shocked:

:thumbsup::beer:

 

[glenn1]

For accuracy's sake, I think we should split the difference. Have the sticker define the word "theory" as it is used in a scientific sense. Once you've defined what a theory is you can subsequently explain while the processes of evolution are a theory, evolution itself is a fact as it has been observed. Additionally, in no uncertain terms, state that abiogenesis is a hypothesis about an original event which was never observed, is therefore untestable, and will therefore NEVER be fact.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Why is evolution even taught at all in a science class? What does the knowledge of evolution give you that helps you understand chemistry or physics or geography or biology? Is this not just more liberal hippy teachers trying, and succeeding obviously, to brainwash impressionable kids to hating religeon as much as they do?

I never said the lack of evidence disproves evolution. I will acknowledge it as a possible theory. Too bad the same can't be said form the rabid liberals who won't open their minds to consider any alternative that involves God. That probably says something doesn't it?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
These zealots are so misinformed that they don't even understand the implications of the term "theory."

Here's an example of someone who doesn't get it either:

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

:laugh:

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Why is evolution even taught at all in a science class? What does the knowledge of evolution give you that helps you understand chemistry or physics or geography or biology? Is this not just more liberal hippy teachers trying, and succeeding obviously, to brainwash impressionable kids to hating religeon as much as they do?

I never said the lack of evidence disproves evolution. I will acknowledge it as a possible theory. Too bad the same can't be said form the rabid liberals who won't open their minds to consider any alternative that involves God. That probably says something doesn't it?

that is probably the most cursury impression anyone has left on p&n and thats saying a lot

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Why is evolution even taught at all in a science class? What does the knowledge of evolution give you that helps you understand chemistry or physics or geography or biology? Is this not just more liberal hippy teachers trying, and succeeding obviously, to brainwash impressionable kids to hating religeon as much as they do?

I never said the lack of evidence disproves evolution. I will acknowledge it as a possible theory. Too bad the same can't be said form the rabid liberals who won't open their minds to consider any alternative that involves God. That probably says something doesn't it?

Actually its rather important to understanding biology or how the natural ecosystem functions. In fact, micro-evolution is absolutely vitual to understand how a ecosystem might react to enviromental changes or the intrusion of a new invasive species. You also will be in huge trouble in the fields of paleoentology and the like if you fail to understand the theory of evolution. You also need to understand something close to macroevolution in order to understand how new viruses such as AIDS can appear in human populations. There is absolutely no reason you can't believe in god and believe in evolution. Really evolution has nothing to do with religion unless you insist on a literal interpretation of the bible. In fact, you can believe that God was who originally set the ground rules of evolution.

Incidentally, understanding of DNA, and mutations is key to a modern understanding of evolution and is a key aspect of biology today with enourmous importance to a variety of fields.

 

[BeauJangles]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents. Evolution is theory. A theory which fits the evidence (thus far discovered) about how we came to be where we are. It does not deal with how life was created. Creationism is not a theory because it is a "faith thing" as a few have pointed out in this thread. By admitting that creationism requires faith, you are saying it isn't a theory - there are no facts that can disprove it. I personally never want to see creationism taught in schools side-by-side with evolution. Evolution should be taught in the realm of science (a biology class). Creationism should be taught in a philosophy class because it is by no means a scientific theory.

 

[glenn1]

By admitting that creationism requires faith, you are saying it isn't a theory - there are no facts that can disprove it.

Sure there is. God could come down and say He used creation instead of evolution. That make it a pretty decent fact to me if it happened. Not exactly an experiment or repeatable, but it sure would make it a fact.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: glenn1

By admitting that creationism requires faith, you are saying it isn't a theory - there are no facts that can disprove it.

Sure there is. God could come down and say He used creation instead of evolution. That make it a pretty decent fact to me if it happened. Not exactly an experiment or repeatable, but it sure would make it a fact.

True enough, but if God came down to earth, he would put a lot of this to rest once and for all .

There is no scientific experiment that can be done to prove or disprove creationism.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: glenn1

By admitting that creationism requires faith, you are saying it isn't a theory - there are no facts that can disprove it.

Sure there is. God could come down and say He used creation instead of evolution. That make it a pretty decent fact to me if it happened. Not exactly an experiment or repeatable, but it sure would make it a fact.

you misunderstood

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I just wanted to add my 2 cents. Evolution is theory. A theory which fits the evidence (thus far discovered) about how we came to be where we are. It does not deal with how life was created. Creationism is not a theory because it is a "faith thing" as a few have pointed out in this thread. By admitting that creationism requires faith, you are saying it isn't a theory - there are no facts that can disprove it. I personally never want to see creationism taught in schools side-by-side with evolution. Evolution should be taught in the realm of science (a biology class). Creationism should be taught in a philosophy class because it is by no means a scientific theory.

i agree with all this except for the part about evolution fitting the evidence. Unfortunately, evolution is more of a dogma than a scientific theory. Correct me if I'm wrong but part of being a theory involves making predictions and verifying that your theory is correct. As far as I know, nobody has done or can do that with large-scale evolution. So it essentially remains unfalsifiable because it can never be tested and proven wrong.

The other thing that really p!sses me off is that every single time somebody tries to bring up valid scientific criticism against evolution, they're completely blown of as a creationist (assuming the ACLU doesn't sue them for publically endorsing religion). The stickers at the beginning didn't say anything untrue, and they said nothing about religion. Why are they being ordered off books like pornography or something. It seems to me that a truly rational society would let students realize that it's possible the precious theory of evolution might be wrong. Be we can't admit that because we'd be supporting state religion.

P.S. It's 2am here in Spain, so I probably wont be posting replies.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I just wanted to add my 2 cents. Evolution is theory. A theory which fits the evidence (thus far discovered) about how we came to be where we are. It does not deal with how life was created. Creationism is not a theory because it is a "faith thing" as a few have pointed out in this thread. By admitting that creationism requires faith, you are saying it isn't a theory - there are no facts that can disprove it. I personally never want to see creationism taught in schools side-by-side with evolution. Evolution should be taught in the realm of science (a biology class). Creationism should be taught in a philosophy class because it is by no means a scientific theory.

i agree with all this except for the part about evolution fitting the evidence. Unfortunately, evolution is more of a dogma than a scientific theory. Correct me if I'm wrong but part of being a theory involves making predictions and verifying that your theory is correct. As far as I know, nobody has done or can do that with large-scale evolution. So it essentially remains unfalsifiable because it can never be tested and proven wrong.

The other thing that really p!sses me off is that every single time somebody tries to bring up valid scientific criticism against evolution, they're completely blown of as a creationist (assuming the ACLU doesn't sue them for publically endorsing religion). The stickers at the beginning didn't say anything untrue, and they said nothing about religion. Why are they being ordered off books like pornography or something. It seems to me that a truly rational society would let students realize that it's possible the precious theory of evolution might be wrong. Be we can't admit that because we'd be supporting state religion.

P.S. It's 2am here in Spain, so I probably wont be posting replies.

If they put the stickers to warn about all theories and in all text books that had theories then it might not have been sued. For example I want a warning sticker in my calculus text book that says it contains information of the fundimental theormy of calculus. And that a theory is not fact. I want one for gravity to.

Evolution can be tested. It is very simple to test here are the steps. Step 1. get a population of an animal. Step 2: expose said population to a new enviroment with many nitches that are unmeet. Step 3: wait Step 4: wait another hundred thusands years. Step 5: See if any of the population will mate with the control population and produce viable offspring.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I will acknowledge it as a possible theory.

What the hell does that mean?

:laugh:

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Why is evolution even taught at all in a science class? What does the knowledge of evolution give you that helps you understand chemistry or physics or geography or biology? Is this not just more liberal hippy teachers trying, and succeeding obviously, to brainwash impressionable kids to hating religeon as much as they do?

I have no words for that.

Wow... Just... Wow. :roll:

 

[Kntx]

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!!!

Buddy, FYI creationism isn't a theory.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Harvey

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?

the'o-ry n.

1. A formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some extent.

2. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

It takes only one contradiction to disprove a theory. Got one that refutes evolution?

The only "intelligence" in a speculative Trojan horse like in "Intelligent Design" is the directed, intentional effort by its proponents to cloud the definition of the word, theory with the more colloquial, less precise usage. The concepts presented by "creationism," "creation science" or "intelligent design" are contradicted by the physical evidence of the history of this planet and the observed universe. They fail out of the gate as a scientific hypothesis or proposition.

I think that not only is creationism pure bunk, but so is organized religon. Man seems to have a need to have a greater purpose in life, a need to have a reason for being and I think we should ask ourselves "Why is that?". I think someone long ago realized that "need for a purpose" in humans and invented religion as a means to control people. It worked so well that the leaders of nations are still using it. That doesn't mean that there isn't a higher intelligence at work here, it just means that organized religion is bunk and therefore so is creationism.

None of the other animals have that need for a "higher purpose" besides procreation as far as I am aware. They don't seem to understand that we are on this earth for a short time, they just live in the moment. Do you think a mountain goat understands time? Or gravity? He uses gravity almost to perfection hopping around on the crags and cliffs of mountains, but he doesn't understand anything about it. It just is the way it is for him. If he really understond gravity he would probably be afraid to jump around on the crags the way he does. Animals just exist driven only by instinct. Man is different, why? Are their homosexual animals? I don't know for sure, but I would be surprised if there are. I think man is the only animal that has the ability to "step outside" of his basic instincts. How did we get that ability? Is that just another facet of evolution and if so why haven't other animals done the same?

When I am outside in the spring and study the beauty of a tree and how it lives, but at the same time has a built in purpose that relates to the rest of the balance of nature I'm just amazed. If I lay on the ground in the grass and look closely at the soil, I see it is alive with insects, etc and how the new life is springing from the humus of the old. Why does life miracoulsy spring up everyplace it is needed? How does evoulution explain that? Do we just accept it the way a moutain goat accepts that down is down and up is up? I can't, won't, and don't.

I just think that the theroy of evolution, while fitting all the known facts still has too many gaps in it to be absoulutley conclusive. It seems to be heading in the right direction but to me it doesn't explain why man is so different then the other animals or why the balance of nature is so perfect.

 

[BeauJangles]

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!!!

Sorry, I just wanted to point out that you know nothing about evolution.

If you are trying to disprove evolution by saying your hair is growing it shows that you know 0 about the topic and need to step out of this thread before you hurt someone or yourself.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I just wanted to add my 2 cents. Evolution is theory. A theory which fits the evidence (thus far discovered) about how we came to be where we are. It does not deal with how life was created. Creationism is not a theory because it is a "faith thing" as a few have pointed out in this thread. By admitting that creationism requires faith, you are saying it isn't a theory - there are no facts that can disprove it. I personally never want to see creationism taught in schools side-by-side with evolution. Evolution should be taught in the realm of science (a biology class). Creationism should be taught in a philosophy class because it is by no means a scientific theory.

i agree with all this except for the part about evolution fitting the evidence. Unfortunately, evolution is more of a dogma than a scientific theory. Correct me if I'm wrong but part of being a theory involves making predictions and verifying that your theory is correct. As far as I know, nobody has done or can do that with large-scale evolution. So it essentially remains unfalsifiable because it can never be tested and proven wrong.

The other thing that really p!sses me off is that every single time somebody tries to bring up valid scientific criticism against evolution, they're completely blown of as a creationist (assuming the ACLU doesn't sue them for publically endorsing religion). The stickers at the beginning didn't say anything untrue, and they said nothing about religion. Why are they being ordered off books like pornography or something. It seems to me that a truly rational society would let students realize that it's possible the precious theory of evolution might be wrong. Be we can't admit that because we'd be supporting state religion.

P.S. It's 2am here in Spain, so I probably wont be posting replies.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The theory is neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is not dogma. Macroevolution is not easily testable simply because it usually occurs at such a slow pace - but it has been observed. It is testable, it is tested all the time, and so far, no one has ever produced evidence that neo-Darwinism does not fit the facts. Go pick up a copy of any number of evolution-related academic journals, such as Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Evolution, Evolutionary Anthropology, Journal of Molecular Evolution, etc. Last I checked, there are about 50 of them published in English. They all contain nothing more than tests of neo-Darwinism.

And for your second point, if someone were to make a valid scientific criticism against evolution, they would be heralded as a genius, given the chance to conduct research and teach at the best universities, and remembered for all time - much like those who showed that Newtonian physics don't always work, or those who have shown that relativity doesn't always work.

The stickers did in fact say something that was horribly untrue - that evolution is a theory. Again, it is not a theory, it is a fact. By dismissing neo-Darwinism as 'just a theory', the stickers subvert a scientific education, just as if they dismissed gravity as 'just a theory'.

 

[glenn1]

The stickers did in fact say something that was horribly untrue - that evolution is a theory. Again, it is not a theory, it is a fact. By dismissing neo-Darwinism as 'just a theory', the stickers subvert a scientific education, just as if they dismissed gravity as 'just a theory'.

They do not subvert scientific education any more than your statement does. The statement on the sticker is true that the theory is not a fact, a theory CANNOT be a fact by definition. A theory can be said to be factual, but never a fact itself. The observed event is the fact, the theory is a statement explaining why it happened. The theory of gravity is not a fact, rather the apple falling from the tree to the ground is; ditto with natual selection and adapation (the fact) and the theory of evolution (the explanation of the fact).

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The stickers did in fact say something that was horribly untrue - that evolution is a theory. Again, it is not a theory, it is a fact. By dismissing neo-Darwinism as 'just a theory', the stickers subvert a scientific education, just as if they dismissed gravity as 'just a theory'.

They do not subvert scientific education any more than your statement does. The statement on the sticker is true that the theory is not a fact, a theory CANNOT be a fact by definition. A theory can be said to be factual, but never a fact itself. The observed event is the fact, the theory is a statement explaining why it happened. The theory of gravity is not a fact, rather the apple falling from the tree to the ground is; ditto with natual selection and adapation (the fact) and the theory of evolution (the explanation of the fact).

evolution is the apple falling from the tree
the theory of evolution is analogous to the theory of gravity

when the stickers say evolution is a theory what do you think they mean? honestly?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Why is evolution even taught at all in a science class? What does the knowledge of evolution give you that helps you understand chemistry or physics or geography or biology? Is this not just more liberal hippy teachers trying, and succeeding obviously, to brainwash impressionable kids to hating religeon as much as they do?

I never said the lack of evidence disproves evolution. I will acknowledge it as a possible theory. Too bad the same can't be said form the rabid liberals who won't open their minds to consider any alternative that involves God. That probably says something doesn't it?

First of all, we are talking about science textbooks. That being said we must apply the scientific method. Enter -> the bible. Book 1 = Genesis. So you're saying we need to teach an (the) alternative that is the "christian" creation story along side evolution? Applying the scientific method, the bible doesn't even give us a HINT as to what really happened. Where did the bible come from? Who wrote it? Has it been completely and genuinely translated? If what it says is true, how in our feeble state of being, do we have any idea how to understand it?

It fails every question. Very badly at that. How can you say straight-faced that this should be taught in science class?

Secondly, let's say some serious scientists decided to take up the idea that this may be a viable alternative. The simple answer that "it's true because the bible said so" fails the whole argument right out of the gates. Again, where did this 'bible' come from, would be the first question. Who wrote it? Neither of which would have any rational bearing.

Creationism, by any stretch of the imagination would be a hypothesis at the very best.

So you say... I have *faith* in the scientific method, and therefore it takes *faith* to believe in it, right? You could say that. However, since the scientific method has been developed in the last few thousand years, most notably the scientific advancement in the 20th century, how can you rationally compare that with the "its true because the bible said so" argument?

I'll take the scientific method for $1000, Alex.

 

[DealMonkey]

I think the school officials in Cobb County that started this nonsense need to be stickered. I'd recommend that the sticker say: "Warning! I'm an IDiot ... please don't ask me important questions!"