Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Wayne Francis on February 16, 2005 11:49 PM
- Wayne Francis on February 16, 2005 11:28 PM
- Reed A. Cartwright on February 16, 2005 12:10 PM
- Emanuele Oriano on February 16, 2005 12:06 PM
- ts on February 16, 2005 12:04 PM
- Great White Wonder on February 16, 2005 11:46 AM
- David Heddle on February 16, 2005 11:43 AM
- Great White Wonder on February 16, 2005 11:13 AM
- ts on February 16, 2005 11:05 AM
- Grey Wolf on February 16, 2005 11:03 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 27, 2005 04:34 PM
Today, Representative Ben Bridges of the Georgia House, introduced a bill, HB 179, that would require evidence against evolution be taught in Georgia’s public schools whenever evidence for evolution is taught. (However, his fairness is a one-way street.)
Word has it that the Republican leadership will not support the bill, which ensures it will have a short life.
The news is fresh, but it should be covered by the evening news and tomorrows papers. The only story on it so far is a short one.
I’ve gotten a hold of the meat of the bill and addressed it on my blog, De Rerum Natura.
Read it at “GA HB 179: Bridges’ Ding Bill.”
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/766
Comment #14592
Posted by Taco on January 28, 2005 07:27 AM (e) (s)
The proposed bill is also incoherent, because it is logically impossible to teach both evidence consistent with a scientific theory and evidence inconsistent with that scientific theory. A scientific theory is a theory that is falsifiable. A theory is abandoned when there is scientific evidence that disproves the theory. The theory is then falsefied and no longer a valid scientific theory. So, if there is evidence inconsistent with a certain theory, that theory is no longer a valid theory (because it has been falsified).There is either a scientific theory, or prove against it, in wich case it is no longer a scientific theory.
It is of course possible to advance a scientifically valid argument that would disprove the theory if the argument could be proven, as the ID people are trying to do. But if their argument isn’t proven, it isn’t scientific evidence.
Comment #14593
Posted by Jon Fleming on January 28, 2005 07:48 AM (e) (s)
if there is evidence inconsistent with a certain theory, that theory is no longer a valid theory (because it has been falsified)
That’s so-called “naive falsification”, but reality is more complex than that.
There is lots of (quantum) evidence that is inconsistent with General Relativity, and vice-versa; but those are probably the most successsful scientific theories ever, and certainly are valid theories in the domains in which they are known to apply.
Comment #14594
Posted by Lurker on January 28, 2005 07:50 AM (e) (s)
a) Whenever any theory on the historical origins of modern religions is included in a course of study offered by a local unit of administration, factual scientific evidence supporting or consistent with the existence of Mohammed and other major non-Christian religious figures, and factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting their existence shall be included in he course of study.
b) The method of instruction described in subsection a of this code section is intended to strengthen the analytical skills of students by requiring the presentation of a broad range of scientific evidence regarding theories of the origin of modern religions and the existence of their key founders. The requirements of subsection a) of this code are not intended to authorize or promote the presentation of religious beliefs.
What’s the difference?
Comment #14595
Posted by Taco on January 28, 2005 08:18 AM (e) (s)
There is lots of (quantum) evidence that is inconsistent with General Relativity, and vice-versa; but those are probably the most successsful scientific theories ever, and certainly are valid theories in the domains in which they are known to apply.
They give accurate predictions in the domains in which they are known to apply. But that is a different thing. They may have practical value, but as far as they are inconsistent with empirical evidence, they do not correspond to the truth.
Comment #14596
Posted by Aggie Nostic on January 28, 2005 09:42 AM (e) (s)
A scientific theory is a theory that is falsifiable. A theory is abandoned when there is scientific evidence that disproves the theory. The theory is then falsefied and no longer a valid scientific theory. So, if there is evidence inconsistent with a certain theory, that theory is no longer a valid theory (because it has been falsified).There is either a scientific theory, or prove against it, in wich case it is no longer a scientific theory.
I’m certainly no expert in the field of evolutionary science, but my knowledge of the scientific investigative process says this isn’t quite accurate. Evolution (the process) is quite a multi-faceted field with a lot of data points. At any given time, a particular aspect of evolutionary theory might be under scrutiny due a particular discovery that presents challenges to the prevailing view. This is quite welcome in science and does not necessarily mean the entire theory should be chucked out the window. Revisiting, rehashing and reformulating theories in light of new data is not just good science. It’s the way science is supposed to work.
Comment #14597
Posted by GodsOwn on January 28, 2005 10:05 AM (e) (s)
As usual most evolutionist have failed to grasp what the people who believe in ID are actually saying. Scientists that believe in ID do not have the ‘evidence’ that disproves evolution. We all have the same evidence - it’s just how we interpret that evidence. People who believe in evolution just look at the evidence from a different perspective than I do. There will never be ‘proof’ for either side of the argument, but sometimes a different perspective fits better in what we are seeing in the here and now. There is a phrase that seams to apply here, “Seeing is not believing, believing is seeing”. If more scientist actually start from a blank page when looking at evidence then they might just discover something new.
Comment #14598
Posted by steve on January 28, 2005 10:23 AM (e) (s)
GodsOwn, your science is as good as your English.
Comment #14599
Posted by Ed Darrell on January 28, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)
There is no scientist who believes in evolution. Evolution is science, and science is a study of evidence that demonstrates things so no belief, no faith, is required.
If there is a scientist who believes in ID, it is a faith statement, and not a statement of science.
As usual, sadly, the IDists have failed to distinguish between hope of evidence for deity, and reality.
If more anti-evolutionists took the Boy Scout Law’s imprecation to be trustworthy more seriously, we wouldn’t have otherwise sane, rational and friendly people claiming that scientists are all deceived by the creation God made — a statement which is ultimately the opposite of the faith the IDists claim to wish to promote.
What a tangled web, indeed.
Comment #14602
Posted by Steve Reuland on January 28, 2005 11:44 AM (e) (s)
As usual most evolutionist have failed to grasp what the people who believe in ID are actually saying. Scientists that believe in ID do not have the ‘evidence’ that disproves evolution. We all have the same evidence - it’s just how we interpret that evidence.
So what you’re saying is, when the bill calls for the teaching of “factual evidence” that is consistent with evolution, as well as “factual evidence” that is inconsistent, then the bill’s author has failed to grasp what ID people believe in?
I somehow doubt that’s really the case, but feel free to send him an angry letter anyway.
On a more general note, I’ve heard this “different interpretations” argument quite a bit in the past. The two problems are, firstly, there is indeed a strong disagreement over basic facts. When IDists claim that “information” can’t evolve, and then they’re proven wrong, and then they have to resort to vague and mathematically imprecise meanings for “information” to rescue their argument, they’re on the wrong side of the facts, plain and simple.
Secondly, this whole notion that it’s all just a matter of interpretations smacks of extreme relativism (something that IDists claim to hate, but readily adopt when convenient.) It’s true that one can interpret a given set of facts however one wishes, but it’s not true that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally truth conducive. Some interpretations are illogical, ad hoc, question begging, untestable, inconsistent with other accepted interpretations, or at odds with other accepted facts. Since there is usually only one correct interpretation, science is all about trying to find the right one while avoiding the wrong ones.
Comment #14605
Posted by Ralph Jones on January 28, 2005 01:04 PM (e) (s)
GodsOwn:
Steve Rueland: “It’s true that one can interpret a given set of facts however one wishes, but it’s not true that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally truth conducive.”
I would add that the interpretation that counts in biology is the one held by a near consensus of professional biologists. Science is determined by experts in the field. For example, brain surgery techniques are determined by experts in that field.
Comment #14606
Posted by SteveS on January 28, 2005 02:01 PM (e) (s)
But this bill is unnecessary! Biology teachers all across the country are already presenting all the factual evidence that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Presenting all the factual evidence that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, in fact, is one of the easiest tasks in any biology course. All you need to do is maintain total silence for approximately zero seconds, and you’re done!
Comment #14607
Posted by RBH on January 28, 2005 03:02 PM (e) (s)
Steve Reuland wrote
It’s true that one can interpret a given set of facts however one wishes, but it’s not true that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally truth conducive. Some interpretations are illogical, ad hoc, question begging, untestable, inconsistent with other accepted interpretations, or at odds with other accepted facts.
Not to mention occasionally lethal, as when one (mis)interprets the fact of a cliff’s edge at one’s feet as an opportunity to learn to fly or interprets the presence of a predator as a cue to pet the nice pussycat. Natural selection in action!
RBH
Comment #14608
Posted by Richard on January 28, 2005 04:43 PM (e) (s)
Re the comments of “GodsOwn” -
Suggesting that scientist (sic) start with a blank slate flies in the face of how science is done. Scientists approaching this problem bring with them an extensive background in biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. The “blank slate” approach ignores the working tools of scientists. Further, the notion that one can arbitrarily choose a set of assumptions (i.e., a “perspective”) without testing their validity is also a wrong one. I detect the influence of AiG in your post.
Comment #14609
Posted by Flint on January 28, 2005 04:54 PM (e) (s)
The “blank slate” is a synonym for “bible”, but cleaned up for legal purposes.
Comment #14610
Posted by scoper on January 28, 2005 04:59 PM (e) (s)
We evolutionists struggle in this argument because we fail to go far enough. Letting the ID proponents define evolution as a theory lets them aver the presence of doubt. What we need to point out is that evolution (lower case “e”) is an indisputable fact: it is a fact that life on earth today is different than it was in the geologic (or in the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the recent) past. Any reasonably intelligent person who argues to the contrary lacks intellectual perspicacity, or intellectual honesty, or both.
The ‘theory’ applies to the proposed mechanism of this change, ID (like it or not) being a mechanism. The reason ID does not belong in the science classroom is that it’s support is founded on the principle of “res ipsa loquitor.” To it’s supporters, ID must be factual as no other explanation is fathomable. A ‘minor’ flaw of ID is that there isn’t a shred of data (or is it a particle of datum?) to establish the existence of an intelligent designer. “The thing speaks for itself,” to them IS the fact. But to anyone who believes observation of evidence is a fundamental part of theorizing, theory in the absence of observation equals an article of faith; and that would be religion.
We very much need to define the parameters of this debate if we are to prevail. Insist on presenting the FACT of evolution. Examine dilligently the theories of its mechanism. Include as science those based on observation, and dismiss those which are based on the notion that “it couldn’t have happened any other way.
A final note: when Darwin first proposed his theory of Natural Selection, his skeptical contemporaries criticized him: selection requires a Selector, they insisted….the more things change…
Comment #14611
Posted by Steve. the real Steve. Steve Story. on January 28, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)
from Bob Park at What’s New:
4. CREATIONISM: SHOULD WARNING MESSAGES BE REQUIRED ON BOOKS?
Manufactures are required to include warnings on labels. Why not
text book publishers? Besides, the stickers Cobb County wanted
on biology texts weren’t exactly wrong evolution really is
“just a theory.” http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn011405.cfm… Science
is open. If someone comes up with a better theory, the textbooks
will be rewritten. Although requiring warning labels on medicine
bottles is vital, on books they become official doctrine.
Several readers suggested stickers for bibles in Cobb County:“This book contains religious stories regarding the
origin of living things. The stories are theories, not
facts. They are unproven, unprovable and in some cases
totally impossible. This material should be approached
with an open mind, and a critical eye towards logic and
believability.”
Comment #14612
Posted by Bob Maurus on January 28, 2005 08:45 PM (e) (s)
Short and to the point - I love it.
Comment #14782
Posted by Jan on February 1, 2005 10:15 PM (e) (s)
To GodsOwn, When you talk to this group about Intelligent Design, you will be attacked. It brings to mind a comment I read that goes like this: “I am reminded of a Russian believer who said he always suspected that the Bible must be important because the government tried so hard to get them not to read it.” I think that we have nothing to fear. Just as children in the fictional story saw that the Emperor had no clothes, children will see that where there is order, structure, and design, one must look around for a Designer. Evolution may be a word chosen to describe adaptation and change within a species, but it takes creation to bring matter into being. Creation suggests a Creator. We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic natural elements, but where did matter come from? How did it cover the universe in the form of planets and stars? And how did the laws which govern matter originate? I do not believe that evolutionist have satisfactory answers to these questions and while they may be successful in keeping the mention of a creator or of intelligent design out of public schools, the intellectual processes will continue. The day will come, if not in this country, in other countries where the questions will arise and there will be those who will know and serve the Creator.
Comment #14783
Posted by Jan on February 1, 2005 10:21 PM (e) (s)
To GodsOwn, When you talk to this group about Intelligent Design, you will be attacked. It brings to mind a comment I read that goes like this: “I am reminded of a Russian believer who said he always suspected that the Bible must be important because the government tried so hard to get them not to read it.” I think that we have nothing to fear. Just as children in the fictional story saw that the Emperor had no clothes, children will see that where there is order, structure, and design, one must look around for a Designer. Evolution may be a word chosen to describe adaptation and change within a species, but it takes creation to bring matter into being. Creation suggests a Creator. We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic natural elements, but where did matter come from? How did it cover the universe in the form of planets and stars? And how did the laws which govern matter originate? I do not believe that evolutionist have satisfactory answers to these questions and while they may be successful in keeping the mention of a creator or of intelligent design out of public schools, the intellectual processes will continue. The day will come, if not in this country, in other countries where the questions will arise and there will be those who will know and serve the Creator.
Comment #14785
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 1, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)
And how did the laws which govern matter originate?
Brahma, babe. It’s all about Brahma.
http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/shiva.htm
Any other questions?
Comment #14786
Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on February 2, 2005 12:26 AM (e) (s)
To GodsOwn, When you talk to this group about Intelligent Design, you will be attacked.
Poor logic, invalid or unsupported assertions - these will be attacked. People will not be attacked. That would require the use of ad hominems; which are bad form.
It brings to mind a comment I read that goes like this: “I am reminded of a Russian believer who said he always suspected that the Bible must be important because the government tried so hard to get them not to read it.” I think that we have nothing to fear. Just as children in the fictional story saw that the Emperor had no clothes, children will see that where there is order, structure, and design, one must look around for a Designer.
Your personal opinion does not, unfortunately, constitute evidence of anything… except, of course, your opinion.
Evolution may be a word chosen to describe adaptation and change within a species, but it takes creation to bring matter into being.
Since the Theory of Evolution does not deal with the creation of matter, your comment is a non-sequitur. The Modern Synthesis does not deal with market value predictions, either.
Creation suggests a Creator.
Once you demonstrate that creation ex nihilo - which I what I presume you are referring to - actually took place, then perhaps your comment will be more meaningful.
We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic natural elements, but where did matter come from?
I don’t know. The Theory of Evolution does not deal with this subject.
How did it cover the universe in the form of planets and stars? And how did the laws which govern matter originate?
I don’t know. The Theory of Evolution does not deal with this subject.
I do not believe that evolutionist have satisfactory answers to these questions and while they may be successful in keeping the mention of a creator or of intelligent design out of public schools, the intellectual processes will continue.
Intelligent design and a creator can be mentioned in schools now. Apparently you aren’t keeping up with the American educational system.
The day will come, if not in this country, in other countries where the questions will arise and there will be those who will know and serve the Creator.
So? The Theory of Evolution makes no statement for or against a creator of matter.
Perhaps you should spend some time educating yourself in what the theory of evolution actually says before offering inaccurate advice to others?
Comment #14799
Posted by Jan on February 2, 2005 08:56 AM (e) (s)
Your acknowledgement brings us back to the beginning of my first question to an evolutionist. If evolution does not deal with the origin of the species, why are evolutionist fighting the mention of creation or the mention of intelligent design in a classroom? I believe you have given lengthy answers to the effect that none of the scientist who study either of the above are truly “scientist” regardless of the fact that many have doctorates. You have spent a great deal of time expounding your theories of how and why any scientific evidence or theories outside of evolution should be discounted and not allowed in a classroom. In your opinion, this means that the mere idea of anything outside of “evolution” is anathema. (Please, I really do understand your position, even with my limited intellect.) My thinking on this subject is that the origin of the species is indeed a worthy topic for a science class. If the presence of a Creator or the evidence of Intelligent Design in some way causes “evolution” to be brought into question, questions should be allowed in a science class.
Comment #14803
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 2, 2005 11:03 AM (e) (s)
Jan,
You said, “My thinking on this subject is that the origin of the species is indeed a worthy topic for a science class.”
My thinking on this subject is that this is exactly what evolution addresses - the origin of new species through mutation and accumulated change over time, subsequent to the Origin of Life.
Comment #14809
Posted by Jan on February 2, 2005 02:28 PM (e) (s)
From the studies that I have read, I see evolution as change over time within a species. How do evolutionist explain the original species? Even so,I fail to see the origin of new species. I do not believe that mutations create NEW genetic material? To accept evolution as the origin of new species, you still have to deal with the origin of the original species. This must mean that at some point non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred OR a Creator called life into existence. If educators choose to just not address this issue due to the religious nature of the presence of a Creator, it will not stop students from wanting to know. I see absolutely no conflict with the first admendment and the mention of the possiblity of a Creator in a classroom. The idea that life could have been called into existence is not establishing a state religion. The first amendment stated in its entirety reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps we will someday have federal judges who are able to read and understand what this means. Until then, our children may have questions that we are forbidden to answer.
Comment #14810
Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on February 2, 2005 02:35 PM (e) (s)
Your acknowledgement brings us back to the beginning of my first question to an evolutionist.
It’s not clear who your comment is addressed to. I’ll exhibit my usual lack of modesty and presume it’s me.
f evolution does not deal with the origin of the species, why are evolutionist fighting the mention of creation or the mention of intelligent design in a classroom?
Evolution does not deal with the Origin of Life; it certainly deals with the origin of species. And the two other topics you mention are perfectly acceptable fare - just not in a science class until such time as they have scientific evidence and theories to suppor them. These things are currently lacking.
I believe you have given lengthy answers to the effect that none of the scientist who study either of the above are truly “scientist” regardless of the fact that many have doctorates.
They are arguing from a conclusion to interpretation of evidence - they have abandoned the scientific method. In that sense, they are not doing science. Consider Dembksi: name any actual science he has done.
You have spent a great deal of time expounding your theories of how and why any scientific evidence or theories outside of evolution should be discounted and not allowed in a classroom.
You are begging the question and being factually incorrect; we are pointing out that no scientific evidence or theories EXIST that supercede the Modern Synthesis. None.
In your opinion, this means that the mere idea of anything outside of “evolution” is anathema.
Incorrect. You misinterpret our position; any scientist with integrity welcomes the existence of contrary scientific evidence. But none has been presented.
(Please, I really do understand your position, even with my limited intellect.)
You appear to be incorrect; you do NOT understand our position - based on your comments above.
My thinking on this subject is that the origin of the species is indeed a worthy topic for a science class.
And it is taught in science classes. The Theory of Evolution answers this question very nicely.
If the presence of a Creator or the evidence of Intelligent Design in some way causes “evolution” to be brought into question, questions should be allowed in a science class.
I’m glad you qualified that. “If”. There is no evidence either of a creator or of Intelligent Design. Should such evidence become available, scientists will certainly consider it.
Comment #14812
Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on February 2, 2005 02:48 PM (e) (s)
jan said,
From the studies that I have read, I see evolution as change over time within a species.
You need to read more studies. Try this definition,
In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
How do evolutionist explain the original species?
Every species represents a divergence from a prior species, back to the original replicators. The origin of the replicators is a question of abiogenesis, which is not dealt with by the theory of evolution.
Even so,I fail to see the origin of new species. I do not believe that mutations create NEW genetic material? To accept evolution as the origin of new species, you still have to deal with the origin of the original species. This must mean that at some point non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred OR a Creator called life into existence.
The theory of evolution says nothing about the means whereby the original replicators arose. For all we know, God might have done it. But if God did it, it’s not the subject of scientific investigation.
If educators choose to just not address this issue due to the religious nature of the presence of a Creator, it will not stop students from wanting to know.
No, they don’t deal with it because (a) it’s not part of the theory, (b) the field is not terribly advanced yet, and (c) to offer a creator as an option is to cross the line into religion. And whose religion?
I see absolutely no conflict with the first admendment and the mention of the possiblity of a Creator in a classroom.
Then you would be wrong. The teacher, speaking on government money, should not make a statement concerning religion in a science class.
The idea that life could have been called into existence is not establishing a state religion. The first amendment stated in its entirety reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No one ever said it was. Shall we then state in all science classes that the universe might be the vomit of cosmic dragon? That’s equally plausible - and equally acceptable, according to you.
Perhaps we will someday have federal judges who are able to read and understand what this means. Until then, our children may have questions that we are forbidden to answer.
Any such question can be dealt with - in the proper milieu; a science class is not the place to discuss religious possiblities.
Comment #14832
Posted by Frank J on February 2, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)
If evolution does not deal with the origin of the species
As you have been told, probably repeatedly, (1) evolution does deal with the origin of the species –it is in fact the only explanation we have for it, and (2) it does not deal with the origin of life or matter.
… why are evolutionist fighting the mention of creation or the mention of intelligent design in a classroom?
For the last time “evolutionist” (why do you insist on the singular when the context implies the plural?) do not fight the mention of creation or the mention of intelligent design in “a classroom,” they fight the misrepresentation of science in science class.
If the presence of a Creator or the evidence of Intelligent Design in some way causes “evolution” to be brought into question, questions should be allowed in a science class.
The presence of a Creator does not cause evolution to be brought into question. Only pseudoscientific misrepresentation does. Conversely, evolution does not cause the existence or participation of a Creator to be brought into question either.
BTW, are you ever going to answer my comments on the Bathroom Wall?
Comment #14844
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 2, 2005 09:58 PM (e) (s)
Jan something you need to realize is “Species” is just an arbitrary designation. There is no line where one species becomes another. It is a big grey line. The “You’ll never see a dog give birth to a cat” type of statement made by Creationists is not refuted by any scientist. This is because the genetic changes that occur from one generation to the next are not expected to be that drastic. Yet over many generations these changes can build up to the point where the original “species” and the new “species”, many generations later, would not be able to interbreed.
What happens often is that a population, a.k.a. “species”, breaks off into 2 separate populations, still the same “species”, completely genetically compatible. These 2 populations continue to get, different, mutations but their genetic material is no longer shared between the 2 populations. These mutations keep building up over time and you’ll see that over time it becomes harder and harder for these 2 populations to interbreed. Some of it is genetic and some of it physiological and some of it social.
We see this clearly in Zebras, Horses and Mules. They all have a common ancestor but over the years their social and genetic changes prevent them from breeding very successfully. Actually their social changes prevent them from breeding in the natural almost full stop but there genetics allow different levels of success when interbreeding.
Do you consider a Horse, Mountain Zebra, Grevy Zebra, Plains Zebra, Mule all the same “species”?
Do you consider Lions, Tigers, Leopards and your house cat the same “species”?
Do you consider Chickens and Pheasants the same “species”?
Many creationist would say that Equids are all the same “Species” and only micro evolution has occurred on them. But there is more difference between the Equid members, including the 3 types of zebras, then there is between Chimps and Humans.
All of these “Species” above can interbreed to some extent genetically. Socially non of them interbreed naturally.
As for your “I do not believe that mutations create NEW genetic material?” is that a question or statement.
Define New. If I make an exact copy of your car is that “NEW” car? How about if I take out the engine and put in a different one? What if I then put a body kit on the car? Change the transmission from manual to automatic. Tint the windows. Add an air conditioner. Put in a new stereo.
In biological terms what if I take a gene that is 400 nucleotides long but in copying itself it has a problem and the gene ends up 600 nucleotides long? Is that “NEW genetic material”? What if a whole chromosome duplicated itself? Is that “New genetic material”? What if I take a gene and insert a random nucleotide in the middle of it…is that “New genetic material”?
All of these, and more, occur. We’ve seen them occur. We’ve seen organisms create “NEW” and, more importantly, functional genetic material. Things a species couldn’t do before it could do after the mutation.
You give us your definitions of “Species” and “New genetic information” and we can go from there.
Like others pointed out Evolution isn’t concerned with where life originated from just like biology isn’t concerned with where the Universe originated from.
Perhaps we will someday have federal judges who are able to read and understand what this means. Until then, our children may have questions that we are forbidden to answer.
This is was pisses of people the most when creationist that are not expert in the field pretend they know more about something then the experts. I’m pretty sure that judges at all levels understand the law better then the average layperson.
I’ll assume that you are looking at the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
This does not give you the right to practice your religion where ever you want and be funded by the government while doing it. Also being in the USMC for 6 years I get quite annoyed when people don’t even understand the concept of free speech. Free speech does not allow me to run out anywhere I want and say anything I want.
And “Until then, our children may have questions that we are forbidden to answer.”
No one forbids you to answer anything. We do object to answering your religious beliefs in science class Just like I’d object to the Civil war being taught as a mathematical proof in Trig. Religion in a public school could be taught in a comparative religion class. Would you object to your children learning about the Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and other religions along with Christianity being objective and saying they could all be valid?
So please once again don’t confuse Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about with Evolution for which there is a mountain of data for.
Comment #14916
Posted by Jan on February 3, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)
Wayne, you said, “We do object to answering your religious beliefs in science class”. (What does that mean, anyway?)
You misunderstand me on the statement concerning the interpretation of the first amendment. Because of the wording of the first amendment, I stand by my statement that it has been misinterpreted. I am not a lawyer, but I did minor in Political Science and I do feel that I am able to read and interpret written material. First let me say that I do not approve of government schools. I believe that private schools, when affordable and competitive, can be much more effective and less political. But for now, we must work within the framework of government schools. When I speak of the interpretation of the first amendment, I am not referring to the ‘free exercise thereof’ reference. Personally, I do not feel that Hinduism, Buddism, the religion of Islam, Judaism or any other religion is a threat to Christians. I am not advocating that any religion be taught per se in a classroom, Christianity included. It is my belief that the first amendment was never intended to prevent a teacher from acknowledging the presence of God. It rather was intended to: a.) make sure our schools do not endorse a particular religion b.) prevent our government from requiring that we belong to any particular religion or worship in any way prescribed by government and c.)ensure that our tax dollars not be used to support any particular religion.
You stated, “Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about…”
Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith, is it not wrong to deprive children of the fact that many believe in a Creator? This is not teaching religion or prescribing a particular religion, it is telling students the truth. It is not instructing them in how they should believe, it is stating a fact; the fact that many people do believe in creation. I realize that my simple statements here cause others to write volumes, and I plan to get off and leave this website to others, but I do hope that those who read this will consider what I have written and maybe just one will rethink their position on this.
Comment #14920
Posted by Frank J on February 3, 2005 06:20 PM (e) (s)
[Wayne] stated, “Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about…”
Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith, is it not wrong to deprive children of the fact that many believe in a Creator?
You certainly know how to dodge the hard questions and move on to safer turf.
First, as I mentioned, we do know that abiogenesis occurred at least once by definition, and that was ~3.8 billion years ago. There’s no faith involved, other than “God doesn’t lie.” Many creationists and IDers publicly concede this much (and who knows how many others accept it in private). What we know little, but are learning about, is details on the “how.”
Again, I agree 100% that it is wrong to deprive children of the fact that many believe in a Creator. But it is the anti-evolutionists who do that by misrepresenting evolution as necessarily “atheistic.” Furthermore, anti-evolutionists also deprive children of the well-kept secret that most religions accept evolution as the method of how God creates species from other species.
Comment #14921
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 3, 2005 06:37 PM (e) (s)
Jan, once again you fail to read what people say here. No one says you can’t talk about a creator. You just shouldn’t talk about it in Science class just like it has no place in Math class.
How is saying “Many people believe in God(s)” science?
Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith, is it not wrong to deprive children of the fact that many believe
Again science isn’t about beliefs unless you have a plan to investigate the belief with scientific methods and to date no one has come up with any way of investigating a God.
Public schools is a great idea. It means that no child has to go without an education. It scares me that you suggests that no public schools would be better. Nice that you might and I are in a position where we can send our kids to private schools but there are tons of people that could not do this.
Because of the wording of the first amendment, I stand by my statement that it has been misinterpreted.
and here is your arrogance. You believe that with your minor in political science that you have correctly interpreted this amendment when probability ever federal judge for the last 100 years have misinterpreted it. Just like with your knowledge of biology you think that almost every biologist for the last 100 years has misinterpreted the data.
You also did a nice quote mine of my statement.
You stated, “Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about…”
Lets look at what I wrote in full
So please once again don’t confuse Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about with Evolution for which there is a mountain of data for.
note the
So please once again don’t confuse
and
Evolution for which there is a mountain of data for.
Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith
I really don’t understand this. I agree that so little is known about some things but as history shows so MUCH can be learned using the scientific method for with faith does not need to play a factor.
I also noticed you didn’t answer ANY of my questions. If you want creationism taught in science class then feel free to send your child to a private school where that is done. But don’t expect me to flip part of the bill for your non-science to be taught in science class.
Here is a easy question for you Jan. Should we teach kids in high school about ancient alien beings creating life on earth? If not why?
I imagine you will not answer this quest either because if you say yes you’ll completely show that you have no concept of what science is about, since we have no scientific data to support the alien theory, or you’ll say no and show that you just want your religion taught as science because you’re proof for God IDing all life on earth is equally unsupported by the scientific data.
Comment #14922
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 3, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)
test before I double post because of cgi error
Comment #14946
Posted by Jan on February 4, 2005 09:37 AM (e) (s)
Wayne, You think I am confused?? I am not meaning to be unkind, but look at your sentence structure and grammar. Example: “Nice that you might and I are in a position…” This inability to communicate is becoming the norm rather than the exception and I think that the effectiveness of public education should be re-examined.
As for your questions, I did not think you were seriously wanting a reply. Are you asking for this information?
Species - caballus - horse
Species asinus - asses and donkeys of northern Africa
Species - hemionus - desert onagers of Asia and the Mideast
Species burchelli - lowlands zebra of Africa
Species - zebra - Mountain zebra of South Africa
Species - grevyi - most horse-like zebras
Yes, they are each a separate species, however they are closely related and some have been known to interbreed. The offspring is usually incapable of reproduction. I believe Darwin addressed this under ‘Fundamental Constants’.
Do you wish me to list species under (genus Felis)? With the bird family, it would be a little more complicated and take a great deal of space, so I will await your decision.
Would you visit the site below and read materials that I believe are valid and deserve our attention? This work is well documented.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA3-58Frair.html…
As for my original request concerning the origin of the species in a science classroom, the readers of this blog either do not understand that abiogenesis (the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter) is an appropriate topic for science class and that all possiblities should be addressed OR the readers prefer that students be denied access to the knowledge that a large number (actually a majority of)Americans see evidence of an Intelligent Design and therefore evidence of creation. The writers of this blog prefer that students not be told that the chances of a planet having the ability to sustain life as our planet does is only 1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000. How much greater would be the odds of having life appear spontaneously from lifeless matter?
Comment #14948
Posted by Frank J on February 4, 2005 10:08 AM (e) (s)
How much greater would be the odds of having life appear spontaneously from lifeless matter?
The probability that abiogenesis occurred at least once is by definition 1. “Spontaneously,” as you imagine it, is not assumed in the definition, because a Creator is not ruled out in the first place. Any attempt to suggest otherwise misleads students. And guess who wants to do that?
I’ll check the article you linked, but usually articles that talk of “kinds” are full of erroneous assumptions. Nevertheless I will not prejudge until reading it. But don’t forget that anyone who talks of “kinds” (and they are usually clever enough to cover up their differences) automatically implies that abiogenesis occurred many times.
Where is your reference for “1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000?” AIUI, there is no scientific consensus on the odds of any planet in the universe supporting life as we know it. If that number is not supportable, there’s no reason that students need to learn it in science class. Besides, it’s available right here. Who wants students to access the Panda’s Thumb, “evolutionist” or the pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists who like to advertise sites that almost never present all POVs?
BTW, since you reas ASA, what are your thoughts on this?
Comment #14984
Posted by Frank J on February 4, 2005 06:14 PM (e) (s)
About Jan’s link. Even though it was copyrighted 1958, I read on. But when I got to “That the fundamental similarities among living organisms can be explained only on a basis of a relationship of descent.” being a “presupposition of evolutionary workers,” there really was no point in reading further.
Comment #14995
Posted by Jan on February 4, 2005 08:58 PM (e) (s)
Frank, the numbers that I quoted came from Clayton and Jansma who offer “Estimated Odds of Selected Variables Vital to an Earth-like Planet Occurring by Chance” in their book The Source. What do you think the chances are or stated another way, what are the odds of a planet having the precise measurements and positions needed to sustain life? Consider everything needed from the right galaxy to the distance of the moon that controls our tides, the atmospheric gases needed, the distance from a star that is precisely the right size to provide heat without burning anything and/or everything to a crisp and on and on and on….? My personal suspicion is that the odds are much greater than those suggested by Clayton and Jansma. If you are wondering who John Clayton is, from what I have been able to find out about him, he is described as a scientist and a former second-generation atheist who came to believe in God while attempting to prove that the Bible contradicts known scientific facts.
I have not had an opportunity to go to the site you suggested yet, as I have been away all afternoon, but I will do so as soon as I have some free time.
Comment #14997
Posted by Flint on February 4, 2005 09:45 PM (e) (s)
My personal suspicion is that the odds are much greater than those suggested by Clayton and Jansma. If you are wondering who John Clayton is, from what I have been able to find out about him, he is described as a scientist and a former second-generation atheist who came to believe in God while attempting to prove that the Bible contradicts known scientific facts.
And here we are once again. The validity of a statement lies in the degree to which it is in accordance with the availble relevant data. But which data are relevant?
Clayton’s statistical calculations are dismissed by scientists on the grounds that they are based on purely ex rectum assumptions crafted using a post hoc logical error. But these same calculations are presented with a straight face by Believers because Clayton’s religious faith is the appropriate flavor, and that’s all that matters. This difference in the standards of evidence never changes.
Comment #15004
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 5, 2005 02:26 AM (e) (s)
Wayne, You think I am confused?? I am not meaning to be unkind, but look at your sentence structure and grammar. Example: “Nice that you might and I are in a position…” This inability to communicate is becoming the norm rather than the exception and I think that the effectiveness of public education should be re-examined.
Jan thanks for pointing that out. Somehow in building that comment a bit got cut out and I did not catch it because I didn’t proof read the final comment before posting. The line from the comment was supposed to read
“Nice that you might think that everyone including you and I are in a position where we can send our kids to private schools but there are tons of people that could not do this. “
Sorry for the cut section “think that everyone including you ” and I fully realise how my mistake caused some confusion. The fact that I went to a public school really doesn’t have any bearing on that error in the comment. It was more from me being in a rush when I was posting the comment as I was due to go into a meeting in a few minutes and did not proof read my final comment.
So you fully recognise that they are different species. But the fact that they can interbreed with different levels of viability and fertility show that they have accumulated different levels of genetic mutations that effect said breeding. 4 million years ago all of those species where actually 1 species.
So by your comment of “however they are closely related” you can see how this agrees common descent right. You can’t be “closely related” if “God” made each animal within their “Kind”
As for my original request concerning the origin of the species in a science classroom
Jan do you agree that 1 > B ? The same goes for Abiogenesis > Evolution.
Abiogenesis is a subject for science class … no one disagrees with that. It just isn’t evolution. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a high school biology class that talks about Abiogenesis. Should we teach the Hindu creation story in science class too? How about the alien creation story? Since there is no scientific data to support them and no way to test them they are not taught in SCIENCE class.
The writers of this blog prefer that students not be told that the chances of a planet having the ability to sustain life as our planet does is only 1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000. How much greater would be the odds of having life appear spontaneously from lifeless matter?
Where the heck did you pull that number from? Not only is that number just plain stupid its drastically wrong. Heck we already know of 2 bodies within our solar system that can “sustain life”, I’m not saying there is life there just that 2 can sustain life, with a 3rd that is very likely to also be able to sustain life. The question of IF life has ever developed on these bodies is now being investigated. So just with Mars and Earth, both, which are able to “sustain life” it is a fact that microbial life is able to live in conditions equivalent to what we find on Mars.
large number (actually a majority of) Americans see evidence of an Intelligent Design and therefore evidence of creation.
A “large number” of Americans, and people the world over, have looked up at the sky and seen cloud formations that resemble something they recognise like peoples faces, animals, and teddy bears. But there is no scientific proof that these formations are formed by “intelligent design”
I’ve read your article and its old….in more ways then one. This is something you should realise. Micro/macro evolution is a creationist term. The article say “micro evolution” occurs and that this “micro evolution” can at the extreme ends produce members of “kinds” that can not interbreed but that “macroevolution” “has not been observed and because of its nature never will” this from a scientific point of view is true because there is no Micro/macro evolution. There is only “evolution”. While the article goes into “Kinds” it has a problem in that is says “Mutations as we know them have produced small changes but not the large changes necessary for one kind to pass into another kind”. Yet no where will you find a definition of what makes a “Kind” and with the rest of the article this can never be falsified because the article says that evolution occurs, that changes occur and that these changes can be drastic enough to produce “species”, which are a sub group of “Kind”, that can not interbreed.
The further statement of “To assume that an organism responds to the demands of its environment by producing only or even mainly those mutations that specifically answer these demands would mean that the organism has a prescience of the future” shows how flawed this explanation of mutation is. The data shows mutations occur. They are indifferent to being good, bad or neutral. Natural selection how ever can make this appear that only certain mutations occur but this is not the case. If a mutation aids in breeding directly or indirectly, thus passing on this mutation, then said mutation will be passed on.
I’ll go on to note that it is inaccurate when they talk about female mules. Female mules are actually sterile in the vast majority of cases. A przewalski and common horse can produce fertile offspring, about 100% of the time, despite the fact that they have 66 and 64 chromosomes respectively.
Being this article is 50 years old lets also look at their claim about transitional fossils. I’ll stick with the Equids for one but will mention another well recorded line of fossils. We have transitional fossils for the Equine group back to 55 million years where the “species”
Hyracotherium was drastically different then today’s horse. This animal was only 10” to 20” inches tall. It had flexible, rotatable and unfused legs. It had 4 toes on the front feet and 3 on the back which where soft pads, much like a dogs or cats. It had a very small brain and teeth that where composed of incisors, canines and molars.
Let us skip forward ~15 million years to the Mesohippus was taller, average height about 2’. You can see that its back is not as arched as the Hyracotherium, its neck and face was longer, its 4th toe on the front foot became vestigial and has some notable changes to its teeth which helped it eat the tougher grasses that this animal found it self foraging on.
Fast forward ~20 million years to the Merychippus to an animal that was ~40” tall, It still had 3 toes but radius and ulna have fused by this point and the animal was perpetually on its toes. Its teeth now high crowned and very thick.
Fast forward ~12 million years to Equus and you seem more of what we expect of horses. They where the size of a pony with a typical modern Equid body, Rigid spine with long neck and face, the long legs with fused bones and single toes and teeth well adapted for grazing
Note: I’ve left out much of the branches on this limb of the tree of life for the sake of simplicity
You can go to Fossil Horse Cybermuseum and The Horse evolution FAQ found on the The Talk.Origins Archive for more information.
So your paper would say “well this is only evolution within a “Kind” A horse would not be able to interbreed with a cow”. Well… A horse would not be able to interbreed with a Hyracotherium either. If you put the 2 side by side you would not classify them as the same “Kind” i bet either.
The problem here is Creationists first said “There is no evolution” when that was proven wrong they came up with this “microevolution” statement saying that’s ok but “macroevolution” does not occur. Now 50 years after your paper we see creationists like Paul Garner say “Well microevolution occurs and sometime you see macro evolution but you never see “megaevolution”
Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Paul garner got much of his information from the ICR
Basically they are saying all the genetic information is there and via gene expression we should be able to control all the changes from the Hyracotherium to the modern horse.
The hard line between “kinds” or families is only drawn by creationist. Evolution shows there is no real line. A good source for learning is Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ found at The Talk.Origins Archive. Many “transitional” fossils have been found linking the Mesonychid and modern whales The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence found at National Center for Science Education. Creationists would like you to think that the evolution of the horse only goes back to the Hyracotherium but it doesn’t. It is just an arbitrarily point that is used for that topic.
Because you keep confusing “Evolution” with “Abiogenesis” maybe you should read The Evolution Fact FAQ by Dr. M. R. Leipzig
Note: I have fully proof read this comment. Feel free to flame me about my grammar but the subject at hand is “Evolution” not “Abiogenesis”, “Cosmology”, or “My inability to spell words correctly”. Don’t worry, we here at the PT are very used to creationist moving the goal post so even if you try it again we’ll understand what you are doing.
Comment #15005
Posted by Wayne Francis on February 5, 2005 02:33 AM (e) (s)
Oh Jan a point for you to note is that life here on earth happily exists in ranges from -25c to 125c (that is well above boiling). Don’t confuses what humans currently require for life as the requirement for all life. Scientist expect to find even more life here on earth that push that margin of temperature. Lets not get into how toxic some of the conditions that other life here on earth is to us.
flame this comment all you want I have not proof read it
Comment #15011
Posted by Jan on February 5, 2005 09:20 AM (e) (s)
Wayne, You said: “Where the heck did you pull that number from? Not only is that number just plain stupid its drastically wrong.”
What is the number, Frank?
I did explain the number I came up with in a subsequent post, I guess you missed it. Only earth can sustain life as we know it and personally, I do not see any moves afoot to colonize another planet. Remember, we are here on planet earth and able to discuss whether this planet was created for life as we know it or if it came about by random selection. If life here appeared from the spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter that evolved to where we are now, wouldn’t the odds be increased rather than decreased by the presence of other planets that could have had this same spontaneous origin of life and evolution, and yet did not? Hence validity is given to Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, WHO FORMED IT TO BE INHABITED:
and
As for the “mountain of data” I know that there is an enormous amount of data. In fact, I tend to find that rather than having so many great scientist who have proven evolution is whatever it is you believe it to be, you have a great number of evolutionist who interpret the data of a few true scientist. The same is true of creationist. They look at this same data and often come to a different conclusion, but sometimes the same conclusion. That sort of blows your (they are not scientist, we are, position out of the water) It reminds me of politicians and judges who interpret the constitution and subsequent laws. The same two people can look at the same evidence and disagree. For the life of me, I cannot see how you are able to look around you and miss seeing the presence of intelligent design, but obviously you can. What amazes me is you continue to make statements like the following:
“Because you keep confusing “Evolution” with “Abiogenesis” maybe you should read…”
I have made it so clear that the two are NOT the same, but I suppose that if you acknowledge that, you would have to deal with what I have been asking you rather than just attacking all creationist everywhere because of there ignorance and stupidity.
Comment #15013
Posted by Bob Maurus on February 5, 2005 09:57 AM (e) (s)
Jan,
“Remember, we are here on planet earth and able to discuss whether this planet was created for life as we know it or if it came about by random selection.”
How exactly do you suggest proving that this planet was created for life as we know it - or even discussing the possibility?
I would suggest, from the perspective of a card-carrying member of the Life-as-we-know-it Club, that everything which has happened in this planet’s history has contributed to the development and presence of life as we know it. It seems to me that that’s pretty much the end of that conversation.
Comment #15015
Posted by Frank J on February 5, 2005 10:12 AM (e) (s)
Jan, the point is that, even if the odds against abiogenesis occurring, or against any planet sustaining life were calculated to be ~1 in 10^40000 (the Hoyle #) it would have no bearing on evolution whatever (it might weaken the alternatives, however, as evolution is OK with a rare abiogenesis). Nevertheless, abiogenesis calculations assume certain pathways rather than integration over all pathways, most of which are not yet known. For the latter, the probability of abiogenesis “somewhere, sometime, somehow” is by definition 1.
Forgive me if you provided a link to Clayton and Jansma and I just missed it. If not I’d like to see it, and also give “equal time” to a critique of it of course. BTW, aren’t you at least a little skeptical of a “scientist and a former second-generation atheist who came to believe in God while attempting to prove that the Bible contradicts known scientific facts?” As I mentioned, I don’t think that creationists and IDers are ignorant or stupid (well the professional ones aren’t). I don’t even think that many of them even privately believe what they say.
Comment #15147
Posted by Justpassingby on February 7, 2005 11:20 AM (e) (s)
Wayne suggested that if creation is taught in public schools, then we should teach that aliens began the human race or that the universe might be the vomit of cosmic dragons. This would be absurd because there is no mountain of evidence that there is a shred of truth there. A creation story should be taught in an origins class only if that theory comes from a source so credible that it has effectively changed the world. Biblical creation has just this to support it. The major religions that acknowledge and teach the Biblical story of creation have changed the world. As a matter of fact, one can take Christianity alone and make the case.
Consider the following:
Jesus came approximately 2000 years ago and the world has not been the same since. He came, and although He was born in a manger, angels announced His birth and a star marked the location. Many deny this, but have never come up with a logical explanation of how the shepherds and magi found the stable or even why they sought it other than the Biblical account. Jesus grew up in a carpenter’s shop as the son of Joseph and did not begin his ministry until around age thirty, yet the few who met him in the temple, remembered Him. His ministry lasted only three years and only 11 followers were faithful till the end, but his disciples (who either hid or denied him during his trial) risked their lives to tell the story after the resurrection. Is it because they effectively shared the story with others or because the Holy Spirit of God spoke to men that the world today knows about Jesus and many worship Him?
Whatever the reason, time is reckoned around His birth. The “Christian calendar” is the term traditionally used to designate the calendar commonly in use, although its connection with Christianity is sometimes debated. The fact remains that Anno Domini
(In the year of our Lord) and BC (Before Christ) are accepted terms. This calendar is used by the United States, and most countries in the world.
Today there are around 1500 Christian sects in the USA alone with 76.5 % of all Americans identifying themselves as Christians according to the 2000 census. According to the 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year, Christianity is the most widespread religion in the world.
Christ and the Christian church has indeed changed the world. No other creation story can make this claim. The fact that Judaism and Islam are present to support the same claim is further evidence of the truth of creation. Does this belong in an origin of the species class? I am not afraid to say “Yes”, I believe that it does.
Comment #15162
Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on February 7, 2005 12:01 PM (e) (s)
Christ and the Christian church has indeed changed the world. No other creation story can make this claim. The fact that Judaism and Islam are present to support the same claim is further evidence of the truth of creation. Does this belong in an origin of the species class? I am not afraid to say “Yes”, I believe that it does.
This is what is technically called an argument ad populem. The number of people who support a given idea is not evidence that it is true. And since Christians (and Jews and Muslims) are collectively a minority group in the world’s population, we cannot even use their opinion as a basis for argument.
A science class teaches the currently accepted scientific theories that explain the empirical observations of the world around us. Christianity is not a scientific theory.
Comment #15272
Posted by Frank J on February 7, 2005 05:08 PM (e) (s)
Biblical creation has just this to support it. The major religions that acknowledge and teach the Biblical story of creation have changed the world.
Flying reindeer have “changed the world” too, but that story too is an allegory – the message is what counts, not “what happened and when.” Similarly, most religions these days do not say that Genesis (if that’s what you mean by “The “Biblical story of creation”) should be taken literally – not in any of the mutually contradictory accounts (e.g. YEC, day-age, gap) that are all claimed to be “literal.” Most religions, especially Christian ones, acknowledge that evolution is how God creates species. If the pseudoscientists who misrepresent evolution were sincere about putting God back in the classroom, they would only ask for a disclaimer that says that evolution does not rule out God. Instead they (creationists and IDers) concocted a pseudoscience that not only misleads the public, it disrespects God by caricaturizing Him as a hapless designer who hides in ever-shrinking gaps, and can be outsmarted by His creation.
Comment #15275
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 05:17 PM (e) (s)
Justpassinggas writes
Does this belong in an origin of the species class? I am not afraid to say “Yes”, I believe that it does.
What a brave, brave stand for arrogance and willful ignorance!
The majority of the world’s Christians respectfully request that you educate yourself before you engage in any further mockery of Jesus’ teachings.
Comment #15280
Posted by Justpassingby on February 7, 2005 05:47 PM (e) (s)
Great White Wonder, You presume to speak for the majority of the world’s Christians and yet you call someone arrogant! Who gave you the authority?
Comment #15282
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s)
Who gave you the authority?
Spare me.
The majority of Christians also say that the sky is blue, bro’, and it’s good to drink at least one glass of water every water day. Who authorized me to speak for them? Who cares.
The view that evolution is a secular humanist fraud which threatens Christianity and the view that the Christian creation story should be taught as science in public school biology classes is a minority view among Christians.
Most Christians are not fundamentalist Biblical literalists. Most Christians are not Christians because they were persuaded by a bogus “logical proof” that it is impossible to have morals without resort to a deity (a la apologists like Francis Beckwith). And most Christians don’t find it necessary (or indeed, Christian) to brag to evolutionary biology blogs about what the Encyclopedia Britanica says about them.
You’re welcome to refute my claims, of course. But I might recommend simply pausing to read the New Testament and refreshing your memory as to what Jesus Christ taught you about mocking the hard honest work of your scientist neighbors.
Comment #15927
Posted by Jan on February 11, 2005 07:23 PM (e) (s)
Dear Great White Wonder, I am a conservative, fundamental, Bible believing, born again, Christian and I prefer that you not speak for me. So I suppose the answer to your question, “Who cares?” would be, Jan cares. I do not feel that I am mocking anyone when I choose to believe Isaiah 40:8-“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” However, if it is mocking, then I want to come down on the side of one who mocks a scientist rather than one who mocks God.
Comment #15932
Posted by Emanuele Oriano on February 11, 2005 08:13 PM (e) (s)
Dear Jan,
as a “conservative, fundamental, Bible believing, born again” Christian, you should face the unpalatable yet undeniable fact that you are a member of an extremely small minority of Christians. As such, while you are certainly entitled to speak for yourself, you should not delude yourself of speaking for Christians at large. One billion Christians, for instance, members of the main branch of Christianity, accept the Papal dictum on doctrine, and that _includes_ the recognition of evolution as a fact, as well as of the present state of the Theory of Evolution as the current best explanation for that fact.
So, while scientists definitely do not “mock God”, those who mock scientists are at the same time treading on highly dubious theological ground. I dare say that Catholics, as well as most members of other Christian denominations, might find _your_ attitude quite dangerous.
St. Augustine famously said:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world … Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.[1 Timothy 1.7]”
I don’t think Augustine was “mocking God”. Do you?
Comment #15989
Posted by Jan on February 12, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)
Dear Emanuele Oriano,
St. Augustine of Hippo was born long ago. I think he was born around 340 AD. He has been described as a philosophical and theological genius. The masses were unable to read and write at the time he lived. I would by no means attempt to judge him or his works. He believed in creation, and were he living today, we do not know what he would have to say.
I do not approve of incompetent and reckless people attempting to explain the Holy Scriptures any more than he did in his day. As for mocking God, it was Great White Wonder who suggested that Justpassingby was “engaging in a mockery of Jesus’ teachings” and later that they were “mocking the hard honest work of your scientist neighbors.” Great White Wonder spoke for all Christians in his answer and then that person who goes by the title Great White Wonder asks “who cares?”. As a Christian, I answered that I do care who speaks for me. Again, as a Christian, I prefer to speak for myself. You say that I should face the unpalatable yet undeniable fact that I am a member of an extremely small minority of Christians. I have no problem accepting numbers, but I know that you are not suggesting that I should have no voice even if, as you suggest, our numbers are small.
Comment #16046
Posted by Emanuele Oriano on February 13, 2005 07:32 AM (e) (s)
Dear Jan:
Augustine was very clearly referring to those Christians who, while knowing nothing “about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of this world”, spout laughable words and try to defend these “obviously wrong statements” appealing to the Christian Holy Scripture.
If this sounds familiar, it is because Creationists do the same; they say false things about the world and try to defend them with the Bible.
St. Augustine said very clearly that this was dangerous for the Christian faith, and things haven’t changed one iota.
As to your other remark, I already said that you are certainly entitled to speak for yourself; but Great White Wonder was instead reporting the opinion of the vast majority of Christians, who share with Augustine the concern for the Creationists’ tactics. Since this is obviously true, challenging GWW’s words was out of place.
Comment #16231
Posted by Jan on February 14, 2005 04:51 PM (e) (s)
Could you give me your sources please? I wonder just how you came to know with what “the vast majority of Christians” are concerned? Are your referring to Catholic Christians, Orthodox, or Protestant? Where do you find these majority opinions voiced? Please post the “false things” you are concerned with that Creationist are going against their faith by stating. Are you referring to Biblical teachings or church teachings? Are you referring to leaders of the church or would these “creationist” be considered heretics? Please provide more information with your charges.
Comment #16233
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 14, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)
Jan
if it is mocking, then I want to come down on the side of one who mocks a scientist rather than one who mocks God.
The creationists do mock scientists and it’s clear where you come down, Jan.
Most Christians don’t think scientists are deluded idiots who can’t tell a useful theory from a useless one. That is a viewpoint held by a tiny minority of fundamentalists.
As for polls which show some large amount of Christians claiming to believe that evolution is bogus: I spit on such polls. If you’d ask those so-called Christians questions about their holy book or about evolution, you’d learn that they know very little about either and certainly not enough to provide an informed response. It’s like polling five year olds about whether they believe in Santa Claus or the story of Hansel and Gretel. What do the answers say about the stories? Nothing.
You know that I speak the truth, Jan. Will you admit it?
Comment #16241
Posted by steve on February 14, 2005 07:10 PM (e) (s)
if it is mocking, then I want to come down on the side of one who mocks a scientist rather than one who mocks God.
Not me. Mocking a person can get you punched in the face. Mocking sky ghosts won’t get you anythinged in the anything.
Comment #16242
Posted by Emanuele Oriano on February 14, 2005 07:23 PM (e) (s)
Dear Jan:
Although it is not my task to educate a self-proclaimed Christian on the basic facts concerning his religion, I offer you - in a spirit of fraternal assistance - the following data, compiled from www.adherents.com, with the indication of the public stance of each denomination concerning the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is not a problem: Catholics (1.05 G), Orthodox (240 M), Liberal Protestants (200 M), Anglicans (73 M), LDS (11.2 M), Quakers (300 K)
Evolution is a problem: Conservative Protestant (200 M), Pentecostal (105 M), JW (14.8 M), Christian Scientists et similia (1.5 M)
Position unknown: African indigenous sects (110 M)
Basically, these are the official positions of each denomination. So, out of an estimated 1,955,000,000 Christians, about 1,524,700,000 belong to denominations that see no problem in accepting evolution. I’d say you have that ‘vast majority’ right there.
As to the false things about the world that concern me, you only need to take a look at the creationists’ posts on this site: there’s a little bit of everything, from the bogus claims concerning the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the false equating of the mechanisms of evolution with “blind chance”. As to why those false claims go against mainstream Christianity, please refer back to the words of St. Augustine.
As to heresy, that’s a concern for the churches in question. Undoubtedly, considering the huge gulfs in Biblical interpretation, EVERY Christian on this planet is a heretic to a lot of other Christians, from Pope John Paul II to the last televangelist in the US. It’s too bad, but that’s the way things are.
Comment #16339
Posted by Jan on February 15, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)
Dear Emanuele,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the questions. It appears that www.adherents.com has a set of data for sure. Preston Hunter has taken on a tremendous project and as far as accuracy I do not know if that one site is reliable. It would take quite a long time to verify his numbers. Belonging to a denomination that holds a position does not necessarily mean that every member holds the same position either, so it is a very complicated matter to prove or disprove. Also, stating that evolution is a problem or is not a problem does not accurately depict a person’s beliefs either. One might have a problem with a segment or a teaching without having a problem with all the teachings of a branch of scientific findings.
If you look into this 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you will find that the perimeters of the law itself has been redefined by some in order to accommodate the evolutionary process. It is interesting reading, but I find that often a person will change what they once believed to accommodate what they wish to believe.
Your referral to St.Augustine’s statements may seem appropriate to you, since you equate creationism with illiteracy, but some indepth examinations of the works of creationist will prove otherwise. Most evolutionist have chosen hostility and insults as the favored methods for halting the teachings of creationist. While there may be some creationist who do not know the field very well, there are many with PHD’s who are not illiterate. It seems that the main problem most evolutionist have with creation is that many creationist believe the Bible to be true and accurate. Evolutionist who interpret their data in ways that they feel disprove the Bible become angry and hostile toward those who choose to believe the Bible over what they call “Science”. Those who have and preach “tolerance” in every other area of life, suddenly lose all tolerance.
Comment #16346
Posted by neo-anti-luddite on February 15, 2005 01:20 PM (e) (s)
It’s interesting how creationists believe that a Ph.D. qualifies someone to discuss evolution, unless that Ph.D is in one of the biological fields that actually study evolution; in that case, the Ph.D. simply proves that the person in question is a deluded idiot who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. It’s similar to their belief that the only people who don’t understand the Second Law of Termodynamics are physicists.
I’ve never read the Bible but I have studied the Ramayana; using Jan’s logic, I’m obviously far more qualified to talk about the Bible than she. Or any other Christian, for that matter.
Why is it that creationists never actually understand the point I’m trying to make?
Comment #14588
Posted by EoRaptor on January 27, 2005 08:38 PM (e) (s)
I have not previously examined a bill like this before but to a lawyer, the proposed language is fascinating. In particular, the clause, “…factual scientific evidence supporting or consistent with evolution theory and factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting the theory shall be included in he course of study” is a juicy chunk of meat for the litigation grinder. The first issue being, of course, what is “factual scientific evidence” and who gets to decide. If Bridges’s bill were to pass, it would be delicious irony to use the quoted language to slam the first person who tries to bring ID into a Georgia classroom.