Texas voting on science textbooks for public schools - evolution vs. creation

[elfgivas]

somewhere up-thread, there was discussion of macro-evolution.  dh just recommended this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

which has a list of 29 evidences for macroevolution.

 

hth someone,

ann

[momma2three]

I recently posted this on another thread, but it's so funny I thought I'd post it again.  http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2703

[LucyStoner]

I recently posted this on another thread, but it's so funny I thought I'd post it again. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2703

Best.thing.ever.

[Χά�ων]

I'm tired. Every time this thread pops up I read "Texas Vomits Science Textbooks"

 

Me thinks it is time for bed.

[Audrey]

Lucy, my cordial handshake remains right where it was when you ignored it.

 

Wow.  That's quite a backhand you've got behind that handshake. 

[Audrey]

I nominate this for THE BEST REPLY on the boards this month!

 

Me, too.  I spit my tea. LOL!

[Saddlemomma]

For those of you who are so concerned with Intelligent Design filtering into textbooks and corrupting them with pseudo science, I suggest you read this article:

 

"...we find more and more biologists recognizing that intelligent design (ID) is a serious endeavor. Meyer’s book has been praised by George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School; Scott Turner, a professor of biology at SUNY; Russell Carlson, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Georgia and a dozen others."

 

"The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago. More recent discoveries in China showed that the new phyla — for example arthropods, chordates, and brachiopods — appeared within a ten-million-year period. Others say the “explosive†period took only 5 to 6 million years. Compared with the reported three-billion year history of life on earth, the Cambrian explosion is the equivalent of just a few minutes in a 24-hour day. It happened in a geological blink."

 

"No plausible ancestors have yet been found in lower strata"

 

"Donn Rosen, a curator of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History, wryly summarized what is involved: “Darwin said that speciation occurred too slowly for us to see it. Gould and Eldredge said it occurred too quickly for us to see it. Either way we don’t see it.â€

 

"The geneticist Hermann J. Muller, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1946, bombarded fruit flies with X-rays, which he thought would “speed up evolution.†But nothing came of it. Fruit flies not killed by the X-rays remained fruit flies. Also, mutations that occur early in embryonic development are always lethal — generating “dead animals incapable of further evolution,†as Meyer writes. Late-acting mutations may be viable, but these “do not affect global animal architectures.†Hence the Darwinian dilemma: “Major changes are not viable; viable changes are not major.â€

 

"If a correct scientific theory is pursued, we expect new knowledge to comport with the theory. Yet recent discoveries, especially in molecular biology, were not foreseen and have weakened Darwinism."

 

"...if Nagel’s doubts about materialism hold up (and few laymen really accept materialism in the first place, because it denies free will and we know that consciousness is real), then the idea that there never was much to support Darwinism may one day be accepted. It was extrapolated from the observed facts of variation; it was assumed but has never been demonstrated."

 

There's a lot more juicy stuff in the article.  So, please, do what all evolutionists claim we Christians never do -- read and become educated about something you really don't understand or know; you just fear it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WishboneDawn]

I am so sorry, Saddlemomma, but with all the colors and breaks, I just don't know how to read this. I don't know what parts are quotes. Are you quoting only me? Are you quoting other sites? I just don't know how to respond to this. If you can learn how to break up the quote feature (press the little light-switch looking thing on the upper left hand side of the box when you edit, then use the brackets [ quote ] and [/ quote ], without the spaces) to quote me, then I can understand what you're asking. As it is, I'm afraid I just don't have the reserves to take the time to try and sort it out for you. I'd really like to respond, though, so I'll keep checking back to see if this has been edited. I hope you understand.

 

:blushing:

Thank you Albeto. I wanted to respond to her post and had it just been me and my head cold I might have but it's me, my head cold and a nursing, co-sleeping toddler with the same cold. I could barely navigate my tub of yogurt this morning, never mind an oddly formatted post.:)

[Ipsey]

For those of you who are so concerned with Intelligent Design filtering into textbooks and corrupting them with pseudo science, I suggest you read this article:

 

"...we find more and more biologists recognizing that intelligent design (ID) is a serious endeavor. Meyer’s book has been praised by George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School; Scott Turner, a professor of biology at SUNY; Russell Carlson, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Georgia and a dozen others."

 

"The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago. More recent discoveries in China showed that the new phyla — for example arthropods, chordates, and brachiopods — appeared within a ten-million-year period. Others say the “explosive†period took only 5 to 6 million years. Compared with the reported three-billion year history of life on earth, the Cambrian explosion is the equivalent of just a few minutes in a 24-hour day. It happened in a geological blink."

 

"No plausible ancestors have yet been found in lower strata"

 

"Donn Rosen, a curator of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History, wryly summarized what is involved: “Darwin said that speciation occurred too slowly for us to see it. Gould and Eldredge said it occurred too quickly for us to see it. Either way we don’t see it.â€

 

"The geneticist Hermann J. Muller, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1946, bombarded fruit flies with X-rays, which he thought would “speed up evolution.†But nothing came of it. Fruit flies not killed by the X-rays remained fruit flies. Also, mutations that occur early in embryonic development are always lethal — generating “dead animals incapable of further evolution,†as Meyer writes. Late-acting mutations may be viable, but these “do not affect global animal architectures.†Hence the Darwinian dilemma: “Major changes are not viable; viable changes are not major.â€

 

"If a correct scientific theory is pursued, we expect new knowledge to comport with the theory. Yet recent discoveries, especially in molecular biology, were not foreseen and have weakened Darwinism."

 

"...if Nagel’s doubts about materialism hold up (and few laymen really accept materialism in the first place, because it denies free will and we know that consciousness is real), then the idea that there never was much to support Darwinism may one day be accepted. It was extrapolated from the observed facts of variation; it was assumed but has never been demonstrated."

 

There's a lot more juicy stuff in the article.  So, please, do what all evolutionists claim we Christians never do -- read and become educated about something you really don't understand or know; you just fear it.

 

None of us fear creation. Why should we? Is that what you think scientists are doing. They're just ignoring evidence and wringing their hands crying over their fear.

 

If scientists could find new evidence that identified a new and better explanation for speciation than evolution, they'd do so. They'd make bagoodles of dollars.  They could fund their research forever!  This would be TERRIFIC for science. It would expand on a great  preponderance of the evidence and open up vast new areas of research.

 

But, instead their just whinging away, crying in fear.  I'm sure the head of the Human Genome project, an Evangelical and believer in evolution is in abject terror over creationism. :)

 

If you'll link to the article, I'd be happy to read it. 

 

ETA: "they're" not "their" Brother!

 

 

 

[redsquirrel]

What?  They must be a minority.  I admit I don't read Mercola or Natural News, but I've been part of the anti-vax crowd for a loooooooong time, and I'm a former scientist married to a chemist and we certainly believe in the Germ Theory of Disease.  I have never heard anyone in the anti-vax side say otherwise.  I'm sure there are religious folk out there who do not vax for different reasons than me and my "crowd", but I certainly have never heard this one!

 

I have. I have heard it going back to the discovery of HIV. There were those who did not accept that it is caused by a virus and called the entire Germ Theory of Disease into question. But, there were those who denied HIV without questioning the theory.

 

Around there it comes mostly from the overlap between the Mercola/Leaky Gut people.

[Saddlemomma]

The Bible agrees with microevolution? You mean the Bible says that lions and tigers evolved from a common ancestor (like Ken Ham proposes) - which is macroevolution not micro and which is also a feat impossible for evolutionary processes to achieve in 6000 years by the way.

 

Creationists sounded more reasonable, I think, when they rejected all of evolution. But they could not continue to do so what with increasing evidence of observed speciation events (which is also macroevolution, not micro). Plus they needed to make the ark story more plausible. So they keep adding all this extra biblical interpretations into Genesis - zebras and horses evolved from a common ancestor in a mere 6000 years, there were baby animals including baby dinosaurs in the ark, animals were vegetarian before the fall, T.rex had its massive teeth to shred watermelons, there were no parasites before the fall (I wonder how tapeworms and roundworms completed their complex lifecycles) and on and on and on. All of this without a shred of evidence.

 

Sure, evolution and creation are comparable theories :rolleyes: and should be taught in the science class.

 

I believe the Bible agrees in this way:  a lion is a cat; a tiger is a cat; a mountain lion is a cat;  They are all the same kind.  The Bible never stated that same kinds would not change in variety, shape, size, color.  It makes no claim to that; only that they will reproduce after their own kind.  So in this sense, I don't see any problems with the Bible agreeing with microevolution.

 

I don't believe the Bible endorses macroevolution - large scale speciation  (one kind morphing into a totally different kind over a period of millions of years)

 

From Dictionary.com:

 

microevolution: evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

 

macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion I may have caused in my wording.  For what it's worth, I try never to read anything into the Bible but take analyze its actual words.  I'm of the opinion that predators were carnivorous before the fall, as I don't see anything that says they weren't, and they were designed specifically for that purpose.  I don't have a set of beliefs regarding the age of the earth.  The Bible states that a day is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years a day to God.  To me that states that God acts outside of time.  Therefore, how would I know what a day was to God?  He may have illustrated each day as a means for man's finite brain (compared to Him) to comprehend the idea that God created over a period of time.  Who knows? I certainly don't and won't pretend to.  That would be arrogance indeed. All I know is that God created, and I'm satisfied with that.

 

[Ipsey]

I've Googled around to try to find what you're referring to, SaddleMama.

This appears to be a book review of a book published by the Discovery Institute. This is not a creditable science organization. It is a religious organization. 

 

[ETA Text removed Sept 2014]

[Free]

I don't believe the Bible endorses macroevolution - large scale speciation  (one kind morphing into a totally different kind over a period of millions of years)

Evolutionary theory does not say this either - that an organism would morph into a totally different kind.

An organism belonging to a clade will forever remain in the same clade no matter how much it has changed over time.

 

macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion I may have caused in my wording.

Yes, I am aware that this is the formal definition of macroevolution. You probably do not realise though that by this definition, a proto-cat splitting into multiple cat species is an example of macroevolution.

[Saddlemomma]

None of us fear creation. Why should we? Is that what you think scientists are doing. They're just ignoring evidence and wringing their hands crying over their fear.

 

If scientists could find new evidence that identified a new and better explanation for speciation than evolution, they'd do so. They'd make bagoodles of dollars.  They could fund their research forever!  This would be TERRIFIC for science. It would expand on a great  preponderance of the evidence and open up vast new areas of research.

 

But, instead their just whinging away, crying in fear.  I'm sure the head of the Human Genome project, an Evangelical and believer in evolution is in abject terror over creationism. :)

 

If you'll link to the article, I'd be happy to read it. 

 

ETA: "they're" not "their" Brother!

 

Sorry for the misspelling. I'm glad the grammar police are alive and well. 

 

I did link to the article, but apparently it didn't take.  Here it is:

 

The "fear" I'm referring to is not the crying into their handkerchief kind, of which I'm sure you already know, but hey, the theatrics were great.  However, they may fear the fact that man is not the supreme being they originally thought.  There actually may be a more intelligent being pulling the strings, which would be catastrophic to their whole belief system and imply another whole host of revelations abhorrent to man:  such as the idea that we are morally corrupt and must answer to a higher power than ourselves; objective morality is real; relativistic naturalism is false, and there may well be repercussion for immoral behavior.  In short, they may be in fear because they got it wrong.

 

[Saddlemomma]

Sorry for the misspelling. I'm glad the grammar police are alive and well. 

 

I did link to the article, but apparently it didn't take.  Here it is:

 

The "fear" I'm referring to is not the crying into their handkerchief kind, of which I'm sure you already know, but hey, the theatrics were great.  However, they may fear the fact that man is not the supreme being they originally thought.  There actually may be a more intelligent being pulling the strings, which would be catastrophic to their whole belief system and imply another whole host of revelations abhorrent to man:  such as the idea that we are morally corrupt and must answer to a higher power than ourselves; objective morality is real; relativistic naturalism is false, and there may well be repercussion for immoral behavior.  In short, they may be in fear because they got it wrong.

 

 

Again the link did not appear.  Search The American Spectator.  The article is under their archives of 2013 and titled - "Darwinism and Materialism: They Sink or Swim Together"

[Free]

However, they may fear the fact that man is not the supreme being they originally thought.  There actually may be a more intelligent being pulling the strings, which would be catastrophic to their whole belief system and imply another whole host of revelations abhorrent to man:  such as the idea that we are morally corrupt and must answer to a higher power than ourselves; objective morality is real; relativistic naturalism is false, and there may well be repercussion for immoral behavior.  In short, they may be in fear because they got it wrong.

I am not sure if I understood clearly, but are you saying that non-Christian scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to suppress evidence against creationism because they want to promote an immoral lifestyle?

 

Okaaay....

 

What about some of the Christian evolutionary biologists who accept that the current data is best explained by the TOE? How do you explain their role in this conspiracy?

[Saddlemomma]

I've Googled around to try to find what you're referring to, SaddleMama.

This appears to be a book review of a book published by the Discovery Institute. This is not a creditable science organization. It is a religious organization. 

 

I have no intention of reading the 450 page book. The article itself tells me all I need to know. Particular bias is shown immediately in the statement, ""The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago. More recent discoveries in China showed that the new phyla — for example arthropods, chordates, and brachiopods — appeared within a ten-million-year period. Others say the “explosive†period took only 5 to 6 million years. Compared with the reported three-billion year history of life on earth, the Cambrian explosion is the equivalent of just a few minutes in a 24-hour day. It happened in a geological blink.""

 

What? I'm sorry, did they actually do the math to determine this, or is it just "close enough" to make some sort of specious connection to the Bible? Is this what the Bible really means? So, not 24-hour days, but just some relative period of time in some human designated period of ancient history? That's what I'm seeing, and that's why the Discovery Institute is a religious organization and not a scientific one. They're researching with the "Truth" already determined. They don't do research to determine reality, they make whatever they find try to fit their preconceived religious beliefs.  

 

If you read the article, you would realize the quotes are from credible, secular, authentic scientists - biologists, microbiologists, etc.  The quotes are from people who you do believe are credible.  Get a grip.  Even when quoting scientists you would agree with normally, you turn up your nose because they are quoted in a publication you question.  The quotes did not originate with The Spectator (where the article is found) or the Discovery Institute.  For this reason I must ask, do you know what a quote is?

 

You can find the article at The American Spectator.  Search 2013 Archives for an article titled: "Darwinism and Materialism: They Sink or Swim Together"

 

Hopefully you don't dismiss all authentic quotes from scientific papers just because they show up in venues you don't agree with.  That would be truly sad indeed, not to mention extremely biased and bigoted.  Hopefully this is not the case.

 

[albeto.]

For those of you who are so concerned with Intelligent Design filtering into textbooks and corrupting them with pseudo science, I suggest you read this article:

Do you have a link to the article itself? [ETA: I see you tried, but it wouldn't take, thanks for the google search words]

 

If you don't mind, I'll add my own opinions to these selections in hopes that you can understand a little more why creationism isn't an acceptable scientific hypothesis.

 

"...we find more and more biologists recognizing that intelligent design (ID) is a serious endeavor. Meyer’s book has been praised by George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School; Scott Turner, a professor of biology at SUNY; Russell Carlson, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Georgia and a dozen others."

Appeal to masses - the number of believers in an idea doesn't give the idea credibility. The facts do, and creationism has no credibility to date. Further, every solution offered by creationism is more plausibly explained by evolution.

 

"The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago. More recent discoveries in China showed that the new phyla — for example arthropods, chordates, and brachiopods — appeared within a ten-million-year period. Others say the “explosive†period took only 5 to 6 million years. Compared with the reported three-billion year history of life on earth, the Cambrian explosion is the equivalent of just a few minutes in a 24-hour day. It happened in a geological blink."

"Others say" is important here. What are they saying, and on what evidence are they basing it?

 

"No plausible ancestors have yet been found in lower strata"

Evidence for evolution has been found everywhere.

 

"Donn Rosen, a curator of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History, wryly summarized what is involved: “Darwin said that speciation occurred too slowly for us to see it. Gould and Eldredge said it occurred too quickly for us to see it. Either way we don’t see it.â€

This is a good commentary on your earlier question about learning science but still believing in creationism. This curator does not comprehend the theory of evolution. Regardless of the details speculated by Darwin 150 years ago, the theory of evolution is an accurate explanation of the biodiversity we can see on planet earth. Research continues to explain these details. To date, there has been no research that has offered another explanation.

 

"The geneticist Hermann J. Muller, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1946, bombarded fruit flies with X-rays, which he thought would “speed up evolution.†But nothing came of it. Fruit flies not killed by the X-rays remained fruit flies. Also, mutations that occur early in embryonic development are always lethal — generating “dead animals incapable of further evolution,†as Meyer writes. Late-acting mutations may be viable, but these “do not affect global animal architectures.†Hence the Darwinian dilemma: “Major changes are not viable; viable changes are not major.â€

Let me understand this correctly, because x-rays don't "speed up evolution," it cannot be true?

 

"If a correct scientific theory is pursued, we expect new knowledge to comport with the theory. Yet recent discoveries, especially in molecular biology, were not foreseen and have weakened Darwinism."

This is an untrue statement. The entire field of biology, and every specialty therein, is only comprehended through the theory of evolution. If there is a recent discovery that suggests another explanation to biodiversity, the discoverer of it would offer that research for peer review, get it published, and pick up the Nobel Prize for Science.

 

"...if Nagel’s doubts about materialism hold up (and few laymen really accept materialism in the first place, because it denies free will and we know that consciousness is real), then the idea that there never was much to support Darwinism may one day be accepted. It was extrapolated from the observed facts of variation; it was assumed but has never been demonstrated."

The concept of free will is increasingly being rejected under the weight of evidence to the contrary. Most scientists accept materialism, as there is no other scientific explanation to offer (no scientific evidence of spirits or supernatural phenomenon, for example). Further, the theory of evolution was not "assumed," it is a conclusion based on evidence collected over centuries. It has been demonstrated again and again.

 

There's a lot more juicy stuff in the article.  So, please, do what all evolutionists claim we Christians never do -- read and become educated about something you really don't understand or know; you just fear it.

There's no fear here. There's a lack of evidence. You've been misled. The theory of evolution has been misrepresented to you. You might ask yourself why? What would these people have to gain for promoting such blatant falsehoods? What do they have to gain?

 

We can speculate, and your answer may be different than mine, but I suspect it's because they have been misled themselves, and have an overwhelming emotional need to find justification for a religious belief that is increasingly rejected for being irrelevant. The fact is, the creation mythology doesn't explain biodiversity on planet earth any more than the Boshongo creation myth (In the beginning there was only darkness, water, and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals: the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and, finally, some men.) The creation myth is familiar, the stories are well known, and in general the religion is celebrated by society. As a nation we break from schools and business to celebrate Christmas, we accept traditional Christian morals (as revealed in our laws and our justice system), we draw lines of acceptance around religious belief (seven states still have laws preventing non believers from holding public office). The desire to find legitimacy for these beliefs in an era where they are no longer respected as being accurate naturally and understandably creates a sense of tension for many people. You've been taught to trust these people, but they're misrepresenting the theory of evolution, and if you're interested in learning how it works, you can follow the links provided in this thread. In the meantime, this misrepresentation should be corrected, not be promoted, as the state of Texas is debating.

[albeto.]

 I'm of the opinion that predators were carnivorous before the fall, as I don't see anything that says they weren't, and they were designed specifically for that purpose.  I don't have a set of beliefs regarding the age of the earth.  The Bible states that a day is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years a day to God.  To me that states that God acts outside of time.  Therefore, how would I know what a day was to God?  He may have illustrated each day as a means for man's finite brain (compared to Him) to comprehend the idea that God created over a period of time.  Who knows? I certainly don't and won't pretend to.  That would be arrogance indeed. All I know is that God created, and I'm satisfied with that.

 

But you see, there is no evidence for "the fall." There is no evidence for sin, or a time before sin. There is no definition for it, there is no way to identify it. The bible cannot be taken as credible scientific evidence any more than the Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, or any other one of thousands of religious beliefs worldwide. Your being satisfied with this belief, and the majority of Texans being satisfied with this belief, does not justify it being taught as scientific fact in the public schools that have been created to offer an education separated from religious influence or any kind. 

[Haiku]

In short, they may be in fear because they got it wrong.

 

Science is a search for how the world works. Scientists want to know how things work; they want to know the truth. If they didn't, there would be no such thing as science, because science requires verifiable evidence. Saying that scientists are afraid they got it wrong illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. The history of science is rife with scientists getting it wrong. 

 

I am a life-long, avowed atheist. If science were to prove the existence of a god, I would accept that there is one. Not because I blindly believe in science, but because science exists to provide verifiable evidence ... unlike faith, which doesn't (and shouldn't) depend on verifiable evidence. Although I am an atheist, I do practice a religion, and there are things I am willing to take on faith. I just don't desire that they be taught in a science class.

[Saddlemomma]

I am not sure if I understood clearly, but are you saying that non-Christian scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to suppress evidence against creationism because they want to promote an immoral lifestyle?

 

Okaaay....

 

What about some of the Christian evolutionary biologists who accept that the current data is best explained by the TOE? How do you explain their role in this conspiracy?

 

No, that is not what I'm saying specifically.  What I am trying to convey, not well apparently, is that science has suppressed and does actively try to suppress anyone, be they fellow scientists or professors, etc., who would dare to suggest that the evidence no longer supports Darwinian Evolution but actually is proving to slant more towards intelligent design.  Look at the effort going into suppressing the learning of an alternate theory (ID), which is gaining traction with many biologists/microbiologists, from being included in TX textbooks for heavens sakes.  Heaven forbid we question the status quo.  It's ironic when science is supposed to ask questions and seek truth wherever it may lead.

 

It is incomprehensible to many that there may be a power higher than man.  Our own arrogance shudders at the possibility.  Further, if that higher power is God, and God specifically prohibits and condemns certain behaviors, yet we eagerly participate in those behaviors, then the punishment God says may actually happen to those who actively participate in those behaviors (whatever they may be).  Maybe all our habits and behaviors aren't as banal, acceptable, and innocuous as we think they are.  Maybe there really is a higher power who will judge us according to how we lived our lives.  That is the fear.  The fear of ....what if we were wrong?

[albeto.]

 

....what if we were wrong?

There would be evidence.

[Haiku]

an alternate theory (ID)

 

You are misusing the word theory. ID is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. It is a religious guess. That is why people are opposed to including it in a science curriculum.

[mommymilkies]

I have. I have heard it going back to the discovery of HIV. There were those who did not accept that it is caused by a virus and called the entire Germ Theory of Disease into question. But, there were those who denied HIV without questioning the theory.

 

Around there it comes mostly from the overlap between the Mercola/Leaky Gut people.

Weirdness. My circle is mostly scientists and medical workers. I know there are people with religious reasons. I guess I'm not paranoid enough to join that group! Lol

[Free]

No, that is not what I'm saying specifically.  What I am trying to convey, not well apparently, is that science has suppressed and does actively try to suppress anyone, be they fellow scientists or professors, etc., who would dare to suggest that the evidence no longer supports Darwinian Evolution but actually is proving to slant more towards intelligent design.  Look at the effort going into suppressing the learning of an alternate theory (ID), which is gaining traction with many biologists/microbiologists, from being included in TX textbooks for heavens sakes.  Heaven forbid we question the status quo.  It's ironic when science is supposed to ask questions and seek truth wherever it may lead.

I realize you have been led to believe that the evidence no longer supports the TOE. But many of us who have studied the theory are equally convinced by it. The reason there is opposition to "alternative theories" being added to science textbooks is not because scientists are afraid of challenging the status quo, but because these so called theories have absolutely no evidence to back them. They are not science.

 

That is the fear.  The fear of ....what if we were wrong?

Would you encourage your child to not ask questions or to not try anything new for the fear of being wrong? Would you parent your child in a way that s/he would only do what is right because s/he fears your punishment? Maybe you find comfort in the idea of a God who (to me) seems so juvenile and petty. If I had to believe in a God, I would choose a more compassionate character. I do not mean disrespect to you or your beliefs. We all find comfort and peace in different things and I wish you peace in your chosen path.

[justasque]

  Further, if that higher power is God, and God specifically prohibits and condemns certain behaviors, yet we eagerly participate in those behaviors, then the punishment God says may actually happen to those who actively participate in those behaviors (whatever they may be).  Maybe all our habits and behaviors aren't as banal, acceptable, and innocuous as we think they are.  Maybe there really is a higher power who will judge us according to how we lived our lives.  That is the fear.  The fear of ....what if we were wrong?

 

Let's remember that many scientists who accept evolution are Christians, and do follow Christian morals.  

[amsunshine]

 the evidence no longer supports Darwinian Evolution but actually is proving to slant more towards intelligent design. 

 

There is no evidence supporting intelligent design.  Even if evolution were to be disproven, it does not necessarily follow that ID is therefore considered proven in the vacuum.  There would need to be actual, credible evidence to support ID before scientists accept it as plausible. 

[nmoira]

I realize you have been led to believe that the evidence no longer supports the TOE. But many of us who have studied the theory are equally convinced by it.

 

Yes. :) Think about what Darwin didn't know and how these new discoveries helped refine but still supported ToE, plate tectonics and the discovery of DNA being but two. The former explained how similar fossils appear at distant locations separated by oceans and the latter provided the basis of the mechanism he was missing. In the 150+ years since On the Origin of Species was published, scientific discoveries across disciplines from biochemistry to geology only further support the theory, often coincidentally (ETA: coincidental in the sense that the research in question was not done with ToE even in mind).

[Χά�ων]

I feel the guy for alien intervention makes a better case than is made for ID.

[Nancy Ann]

It is my understanding that when scientists use the term "scientific theory" they are meaning an explanation based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed by observing and experimenting.  But, it is important to note that a scientific fact, or scientific theory are not final. They are the best we know now with the information we have. Science is moving and changing and what is a scientific theory today can be thrown out 10 years from now based on new information. So, this includes the scientific theory of evolution, it could possibly change or be non existent 50 years from now. 

 

ETA:  Here are some links that support what I am saying. 

 

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact

 

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

 

 

[nmoira]

It is my understanding that when scientists use the term "scientific theory" they are meaning an explanation based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed by observing and experimenting.  But, it is important to note that a scientific fact, or scientific theory are not final. They are the best we know now with the information we have. Science is moving and changing and what is a scientific theory today can be thrown out 10 years from now based on new information. So, this includes the scientific theory of evolution, it could possibly change or be non existent 50 years from now. 

 

ETA:  Here are some links that support what I am saying. 

 

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact

 

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

 

 

But there is "theory" and "established theory", and ToE is and example of the latter, just as is heliocentric theory. In other words, given the preponderance of evidence the chance of either of these theories being overturned is vanishingly small. In 150 years, ToE has been refined, yes, but nothing but supporting evidence has come in.

 

"String theory" is not  considered an established theory.

[MomtoCandJ]

God created the Big Bang, end of story :) I think all creation stories should be discussed along side evolution. Let the families decide what to believe, but present all sides not just one.

[nmoira]

God created the Big Bang, end of story :) I think all creation stories should be discussed along side evolution. Let the families decide what to believe, but present all sides not just one.

 

In science class?

[albeto.]

God created the Big Bang, end of story :)

 

 

Which one?

 

:laugh:

 

[Onceuponatime]

I've read a lot and skimmed the rest of this thread. For me, the most telling argument is that if there was no book of Genesis, there would be no problem. The interconnectedness of life is so plainly obvious, the vast age of the universe is pretty obvious too. With today's technology noone would espouse a theory of a six day creation with miraculous human beings if there wasn't a "sacred text" saying something different.

[Mergath]

If you read the article, you would realize the quotes are from credible, secular, authentic scientists - biologists, microbiologists, etc.  The quotes are from people who you do believe are credible.  Get a grip.  Even when quoting scientists you would agree with normally, you turn up your nose because they are quoted in a publication you question.  The quotes did not originate with The Spectator (where the article is found) or the Discovery Institute.  For this reason I must ask, do you know what a quote is?

 

You can find the article at The American Spectator.  Search 2013 Archives for an article titled: "Darwinism and Materialism: They Sink or Swim Together"

 

Hopefully you don't dismiss all authentic quotes from scientific papers just because they show up in venues you don't agree with.  That would be truly sad indeed, not to mention extremely biased and bigoted.  Hopefully this is not the case.

 

 

The article you're quoting is referencing a book that came out of the Discovery Institute.  And they'd never intentionally misquote someone to further their own agenda, right?

 

Oh, wait:

 

"At the foundation of most criticism of the Discovery Institute is the charge that the institute and its Center for Science and Culture intentionally misrepresent or omit many important facts in promoting their agenda. Intellectual dishonesty, in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence, form the foundation of most of the criticisms of the institute.^[65][66] It is alleged that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Its critics, such as Eugenie Scott, Robert Pennock, Richard Dawkins and Barbara Forrest, claim that the Discovery Institute knowingly misquotes scientists and other experts, deceptively omits contextual text through ellipsis, and makes unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials, and are often said to claim support from scientists when no such support exists.^[67] A wide spectrum of critics level this charge; from educators, scientists, and the Smithsonian Institution, to individuals who oppose the teaching of creationism alongside science on ideological grounds. Specific objections with examples are listed at the Center for Science and Culture article." (wikipedia)

[Mergath]

God created the Big Bang, end of story :) I think all creation stories should be discussed along side evolution. Let the families decide what to believe, but present all sides not just one.

 

And if science classes took the time to present every creation story, there would be no time left for actual science.  I don't think you realize just how many there are.

[Nancy Ann]

But there is "theory" and "established theory", and ToE is and example of the latter, just as is heliocentric theory. In other words, given the preponderance of evidence the chance of either of these theories being overturned is vanishingly small. In 150 years, ToE has been refined, yes, but nothing but supporting evidence has come in.

 

"String theory" is not  considered an established theory.

 

I agree in the scientific community there are theories that have more strength than others and I agree that ToE is one of them. But, they are changeable all the same. 150 years may seem long to us, but in the grand scheme of existence in the world it's just a teeny speck! Regardless if you think the world is 10,000 years old or 10 million, it is still just a speck.  

[MomtoCandJ]

The creation stories can be mentioned (it was in my public school, not in any detail but just saying that it was another way to explain how things came to be) in science class, but the stories can be analyzed in literature or theories class.

[MomtoCandJ]

Which one?

 

:laugh:

Both :)

[nmoira]

I agree in the scientific community there are theories that have more strength than others and I agree that ToE is one of them. But, they are changeable all the same. 150 years may seem long to us, but in the grand scheme of existence in the world it's just a teeny speck! Regardless if you think the world is 10,000 years old or 10 million, it is still just a speck.  

 

Ummm, ToE has been refined, so yes, it has changed in that sense. But you states it could be completely overturned within 50 years. What would be an example of a discovery that could completely overturn it, given all we already know? Let's set aside the possibility of a supernatural power coming forth and taking credit as too obvious. :)

[MomtoCandJ]

And if science classes took the time to present every creation story, there would be no time left for actual science. I don't think you realize just how many there are.

I agree, I was thinking of the major ones. But even just a mention of "Some believe that a higher being (God or what have you) created the Earth and all that is on it, if you want to know more about creationism, here is where you can look. In this class we will focus on evolution because there is more scientific evidence that this was how things came to be."

[Nancy Ann]

Ummm, ToE has been refined, so yes, it has changed in that sense. But you states it could be completely overturned within 50 years. What would be an example of a discovery that could completely overturn it, given all we already know? Let's set aside the possibility of a supernatural power coming forth and taking credit as too obvious.  

 

 

 

Than 200 years!! LOL  My comment was just saying that it is possible for ToE to change and years to come could be something different.  How am I suppose to know what could be discovered to change ToE, but science does change. Scientists are suppose to be open to things changing, they don't hold onto ToE as if the world will end if it is proven to no longer be a scientific theory. If ToE changes to something else than it just changes to something else because something new was discovered.  

[albeto.]

Both :)

 

:huh:

 

I don't follow

[nmoira]

I agree, I was thinking of the major ones. But even just a mention of "Some believe that a higher being (God or what have you) created the Earth and all that is on it, if you want to know more about creationism, here is where you can look. In this class we will focus on evolution because there is more scientific evidence that this was how things came to be."

Should we do the same for other theories covered in science class that contradict some religious or philosophical teachings? Or only ToE?

[Haiku]

"In this class we will focus on evolution because there is more scientific evidence that this was how things came to be." 

 

I think that would be sufficient.

[Onceuponatime]

And if science classes took the time to present every creation story, there would be no time left for actual science.  I don't think you realize just how many there are.

 

Not only that, are there any other creation stories that are claimed to be absolute historical and scientific fact? I've not heard of any except the Christian one.

[Mergath]

Also, I'm still anxiously awaiting an explanation for why whales have vestigial leg bones if they've always been whales.  Anyone?

[Julie Smith]

I recently posted this on another thread, but it's so funny I thought I'd post it again.  http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2703

 

That was great.

[nmoira]

Than 200 years!! LOL My comment was just saying that it is possible for ToE to change and years to come could be something different. How am I suppose to know what could be discovered to change ToE, but science does change. Scientists are suppose to be open to things changing, they don't hold onto ToE as if the world will end if it is proven to no longer be a scientific theory. If ToE changes to something else than it just changes to something else because something new was discovered.

I just asked for an example of something you could envision overturning ToE. I'm not expecting you to prognisticate, and I promise not to come back 50 years from now and say, "Ha, ha!" :)

 

I'm confused as to the test of your post. Science is about challenge and process, not holding on to cherished dogma. True sometimes individuals get in the way for a time, but they can't stop the tide.