Darwin foes link Global Warming to Evolution. WTF?

[Munky]

Too mush strawmen in this thread. The bill said debate “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” Not gravity, the holocaust, flat earth or impossible math.

 

[Thump553]

Too mush strawmen in this thread. The bill said debate “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” Not gravity, the holocaust, flat earth or impossible math.

From what I understand of the scientific process, EVERYTHING is a theory. Some are so generally proven that for all practical purposes they are essentially laws, but nothing in science is ever accepted as absolute in all situations.

I find it supremely embarassing that while England was Darwin on their money and just had a major celebration of his two hundredth birthday and Australia has a major city named in honor of him, substantial chunks of US society choose to deliberately blind themselves to intellectual progress. The French have it right-government and religion should be absolutely seperate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

From what I understand of the scientific process, EVERYTHING is a theory. Some are so generally proven that for all practical purposes they are essentially laws, but nothing in science is ever accepted as absolute in all situations.

Just to correct a common misunderstanding which seems implied by your comments...

Scientific theories don't eventually "graduate" to become laws once they're "proven enough." Laws are best thought of as simple equations, like Boyle's Law: pV = k. As the wiki will tell you, Boyle's law is one of several gas laws, all of which are components of the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

An analogy can be made to music. It is a musical "law" of sorts that the 1st and 3rd and 5th notes of any scale when played together "equal" a major chord of the same key as that scale. This is a fact in musical theory. That doesn't mean we're "guessing" about it, unless you're also willing to stipulate that you're "guessing" that you're really seeing a keyboard and monitor in front of you and not being tricked.

 

[CitizenKain]

For those people supporting this bill, do you also think we should have classes on alchemy instead of chemistry? Astrology instead of astronomy?

 

[Hacp]

On second thought, this might not be a bad idea. I can see it now,

"Design an experiment disproving evolution. This is 50% of your grade. If it doesn't meet scientific standards, you fail."

"Design an experiment disproving the theory of Human cloning. No, it can not be about Star Trek. This is 50% of your grade."

 

[Elfear]

For those people supporting this bill, do you also think we should have classes on alchemy instead of chemistry? Astrology instead of astronomy?

You say that like the comparison of life beginning via an evolutionary process or via divine intervention is the same as alchemy vs chemistry. One is a modern, scientific, and factual answer to an age-old question while the other is outdated and believed in only by backwards brain-washed people. Right?

Think of the history of life on Earth being drawn out on a long piece of paper. On one hand you have a group of people drawing what they believe to be the process by which man came about. They have to start at a Neandrathal in the middle of the page and then draw some vague lines back to a monkey some more vague lines back to an amphibian and so on and so forth until they get to a single-celled organism. They then go back to the Neandrathal and draw some vague lines to progressivly more upright human figures. The solid line they would have you believe exists is really non-existant. There are some leaps of faith from each major step to the next because all we've got are some scattered fossils that some scientists BELIEVE show the progression of species through evolution.

On the other hand you have those that believe life started because of divine intervention. Most have no solid ideas about the fossil records but state that man came on the earth as a man and not through the progression of different species. They BELIEVE this is the way that man came to be.

What I hear people saying who argue that only evolution should be taught in schools is that their belief is better. Both in the end are beliefs. Why should one be taught over the other if it takes just as much of a leap of faith to connect the dots of our fossil records as it does to believe in divine intervention (more of a leap to the religious, less of a leap to evolutionists)?

Please don't misunderstand my post. I'm not arguing against the validity of evolution as a process but rather against those who think the theory of evolution is irrefutable fact.

 

[totalnoob]

On second thought, this might not be a bad idea. I can see it now,

"Design an experiment disproving evolution. This is 50% of your grade. If it doesn't meet scientific standards, you fail."

"Design an experiment disproving the theory of Genetic testing. This is 50% of your grade."

If any experimental result could be shown to contradict evolution, that person would win a dozen nobel prizes and millions of dollars. I don't think they'd care what grade the teacher gave them.

 

[Hacp]

If any experimental result could be shown to contradict evolution, that person would win a dozen nobel prizes and millions of dollars. I don't think they'd care what grade the teacher gave them.

More hidden benefits! Our next Nobel prize earned by a high school student. Not the PHDs with their fancy equations and decades of hard work but a plain high school student. Fantastic!

 

[totalnoob]

What I hear people saying who argue that only evolution should be taught in schools is that their belief is better. Both in the end are beliefs. Why should one be taught over the other

Even without fossils, the evidence we have from many other fields puts the nail in the coffin of of intelligent design. There is mutually reinforcing evidence from geology,homology, embryology, etc. But genetics alone has overwhelming rock-solid evidence to prove common descent. Nothing else is necessary.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Think of the history of life on Earth being drawn out on a long piece of paper. On one hand you have a group of people drawing what they believe to be the process by which man came about. They have to start at a Neandrathal in the middle of the page and then draw some vague lines back to a monkey some more vague lines back to an amphibian and so on and so forth until they get to a single-celled organism. They then go back to the Neandrathal and draw some vague lines to progressivly more upright human figures. The solid line they would have you believe exists is really non-existant. There are some leaps of faith from each major step to the next because all we've got are some scattered fossils that some scientists BELIEVE show the progression of species through evolution.

This is a mischaracterization of the reality of evolutionary evidence. I suggest you read the excellent summary of the evidence for evolution available at talkorigins.org. There are multiple, independent yet coincident lines of evidence which under gird the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution were not true, then some supernatural being went to a lot of trouble to make it appear convincingly to be true.

On the other hand you have those that believe life started because of divine intervention. Most have no solid ideas about the fossil records but state that man came on the earth as a man and not through the progression of different species. They BELIEVE this is the way that man came to be.

Again this comparison is apples to oranges. The fundamental "belief" upon which scientists base their conclusions is that reality actually is the way it appears to be with consistency. In contrast, religious theists believe that reality is occasionally (usually, when it supports their preconceived ideas) not as it appears to be, as the result of supernatural influence.

What I hear people saying who argue that only evolution should be taught in schools is that their belief is better.

Are you saying that it isn't "better" to believe that my keys will remain on the hook which I hang them, and not be displaced by a magical djinn or invisible færies?

Both in the end are beliefs.

Obviously, not all beliefs are created equal.

Why should one be taught over the other if it takes just as much of a leap of faith to connect the dots of our fossil records as it does to believe in divine intervention (more of a leap to the religious, less of a leap to evolutionists)?

Please do not confuse your ignorance of the theory of evolution for deficiencies with the theory itself.

Please don't misunderstand my post. I'm not arguing against the validity of evolution as a process but rather against those who think the theory of evolution is irrefutable fact.

You are invited to present a more likely explanation for the evidence described in the link supplied above. Why should the morphological and genealogical nested hierarchies coincide so closely if it isn't because all biological life is related by common descent?

 

[gingermeggs]

Advantages and disadvantages of evolution, that is something I would love to watch.

To me it's just an attempt to slide this in and use it as a platform to rail against abortion. Some people feel evolution cheapens human life. Whether or not you believe that humans are just another animal you have to realize that we still use our animal instincts on a daily basis, every single one of us.

Ironically, the inability to control these legacy instincts is often what most holds us back from achieving greatness as a species.

Give the man a cigar!

 

[gingermeggs]

Even without fossils, the evidence we have from many other fields puts the nail in the coffin of of intelligent design. There is mutually reinforcing evidence from geology,homology, embryology, etc. But genetics alone has overwhelming rock-solid evidence to prove common descent. Nothing else is necessary.

The research involving the possible hybridization of homo sapiens and homo Neanderthalis is very exciting stuff and maybe have been what has made modern man so extraordinary-
Did branches later cross? Seems very plausible to me.
I believe we are all monkeys uncles also, I still believe their is room and their should be room for some make believe all the same. Some people just can't handle the truth, as long as they are heading forward they are ok with me, what I can't handle is authoritarians of any brand.

 

[woolfe9999]

Great, now we can bring back what's been sorely missing in our educational system - critical thinking, questioning what others tell you, debating theories and practices from multiple points of view - everything that the schools should have been teaching all this time, instead of creating hordes of mindless zombies following the mass media and popular belief.

Schools should teach critical thinking. In fact, they do not do so very well at all. It's a gigantic FAIL in our education system.

But you don't teach critical thinking by teaching the Holocaust, then teaching Holocaust denial, by teaching geography, then teaching flat earth, by teaching evolution, then teaching creationism. You don't teach critical thinking by filling people's heads with bunk. That's what the internet is for.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

That's how the mind works. Christians can't see evolution because, unlike you, they have a religious bias. But you are both blind to MMGW because you are both biased about pocket book issues. Blindness is always selective depending on unconscious motivations.

Evolution is no skin off your nose.

Pretty sure I'm not blind and I still think MMGW is a whole bunch of hocus pocus to make some money.

 

[drebo]

All sounds perfectly reasonable to me, on the surface of it. We should teach our kids to question evolution, right? Wait a second. Shouldn't we teach them to question every single thing they are taught in school then? Literally everything? Should schools teach flat earth theory while they are also teaching mainstream geography?

The problem here is the "two sides of the coin" argument presupposes that there are two sides of equal merit. The truth about evolution is that the theory is non-controversial in the scientific community. There is a body of science that is entirely supportive of it, and there is an "opposing" body of religiously motivated pseudoscience which isn't. Since the "science" in "scientific creationisn" *isn't*, it comes down to religious objections to evolution cloaked as science. This is a deceptive way of introducing a religious agenda into public schooling.

- wolf

No one ever said that both theories had to come in the same context in the same classroom.

"Flat earth theory" is quite obviously a topic that should be taught in history. Creationism is a topic that should be taught in a world religions class (which IS (at least in California) and SHOULD BE a requirement for public highschools). Only a fool would suggest Creationism should be taught in a science classroom. But the fact that its opposing theory is more a question of biology does not mean that one or the other should not be taught.

Ignoring the other side of the coin, whether you feel it is equally valid, is not a good way to go about teaching.

Should we never discuss our failures or the failures of our ancestors? Whether you feel theories that fly in the face of abject evolution must be religious in nature, you cannot ignore the fact that the possibility exists or that other people have supposed that the possibility exists. If someone is ultimately able to prove that sentient life can be created from goo, you still cannot ignore that at some point, people thought otherwise. To do so leaves a massive hole in your education.

<snide remark>
Of course, the liberal adgenda is to never let anyone learn or know anything that they don't believe is the "truth" or "accepted fact", even if it is just from a purly informative or historical point of view and not intended to be taken as fact.
</snide remark>

 

[drebo]

For those people supporting this bill, do you also think we should have classes on alchemy instead of chemistry? Astrology instead of astronomy?

Not "instead of". "In addition to" would be the correct answer.

Just because some people don't believe in astrology doesn't mean its existence shouldn't be acknowledged in school. The same for alchemy: it may not be as complete a science as chemistry, but it still exists and it was a major part of some ancient civilizations.

Teach it in a world religions or a history class. But, it should still be taught.

 

[Carmen813]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?hp

WTF? One has millions of years of fossil and genetic records to back it up while the other has a bit more than a hundred years of data, less if you subtract the grafted data. They can't be serious?

Also, human cloning isn't a theory.

Ummm.....looks like you found one of what I bolde below.

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ummm.....looks like you found one of what I bolde below.

I think it's poorly worded, however whether it's a good idea or not depends on how it's handled.

Cerpin Text makes a good point when he says that evolution is accepted in scientific circles, however he also mentions that the proof is incomplete.

There's no serious challenge to it, but one of the problems with human nature is that we tend to parrot what is "true" without questioning it.

Evolution = science = truth. Why is it true? Who cares? It's science!

That's not critical thinking.

Now I would be concerned about this being a "backdoor" problem, as Wolf does, however there is a clause about not endorsing religion.

If it's done well, there is value to questioning that which we take for granted. That's why the world is not "flat" today.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Great, now we can bring back what's been sorely missing in our educational system - critical thinking, questioning what others tell you, debating theories and practices from multiple points of view - everything that the schools should have been teaching all this time, instead of creating hordes of mindless zombies following the mass media and popular belief.

Fail.

 

[Munky]

Fail.

What, one less zombie to follow your global scamming hype? There's an inconvenient truth for you.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Don't forget about them scientists - all of whom change data to suit their needs so they can pay for their Prius with grants that should goto gun research.

sarcasm noted, but I think it's very well worth noting that you don't throw want to throw the baby out with the bathwater... especially when science has been proven to "work" so very well in engineering, medicine and countless other fields.

 

[CitizenKain]

Not "instead of". "In addition to" would be the correct answer.

Just because some people don't believe in astrology doesn't mean its existence shouldn't be acknowledged in school. The same for alchemy: it may not be as complete a science as chemistry, but it still exists and it was a major part of some ancient civilizations.

Teach it in a world religions or a history class. But, it should still be taught.

I guess they could wrap up a class with "Here is a bunch of dumb shit your ancestors believed."

 

[TheDoc9]

Even without fossils, the evidence we have from many other fields puts the nail in the coffin of of intelligent design. There is mutually reinforcing evidence from geology,homology, embryology, etc. But genetics alone has overwhelming rock-solid evidence to prove common descent. Nothing else is necessary.

You're really smart to photoshop a few random skulls together from all over the world from no telling what animals with no references.

I'd like you to explain how lifeless materials and elements spontaneously combined to create the first single celled organisms. Was it 4.5 B years ago now? I loose track, every decade or so you guys add a few billion years.

 

[Brainonska511]

You're really smart to photoshop a few random skulls together from all over the world from no telling what animals with no references.

I'd like you to explain how lifeless materials and elements spontaneously combined to create the first single celled organisms. Was it 4.5 B years ago now? I loose track, every decade or so you guys add a few billion years.

Sigh.....

Let's do this one more time:

Abiogenesis != Evolution.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're really smart to photoshop a few random skulls together from all over the world from no telling what animals with no references.

The really interesting thing would be for anyone who doubts the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, for example, to explain which change in morphology among those skulls is(are) the impossible one(s) for evolution to accomplish.

I'd like you to explain how lifeless materials and elements spontaneously combined to create the first single celled organisms. Was it 4.5 B years ago now? I loose track, every decade or so you guys add a few billion years.

There's always a few of you that just can't help yourselves. Same PRATTs, just different parrots squawking them.