Evolution is a Mystery

[SuperJerk 0]

No witnesses for evolution; legal challenge seen

 

JOHN HANNA

 

Associated Press

 

TOPEKA, Kan. - In what could become perceived as a modern-day Monkey Trial in Kansas, an attorney who's supposed to defend evolution in public hearings doesn't plan to call any witnesses or debate the theory's merits.

 

The attorney, Pedro Irigonegaray, also predicted Monday that the State Board of Education will face a lawsuit if it revises the state's science testing standards to include elements of intelligent design, which Irigonegaray claims some board members are trying to do.

 

He is working with science and education groups that have boycotted the hearings and said he will attempt to shed light on evolution critics' motives. A three-member board subcommittee scheduled six days of hearings, starting Thursday in Topeka, to review evidence for and against evolution.

 

"We determined that it would be inappropriate to debate an issue such as evolution with individuals who are merely bringing to table a supernatural answer," Irigonegaray said during an interview.

 

But John Calvert, a retired Lake Quivira attorney organizing the case for intelligent design advocates and evolution critics, called Irigonegaray's tactics "silly" and "all bluff."

 

Calvert also said following intelligent design advocates' proposals is the only way to avoid a legal challenge.

 

"Pedro doesn't have a case. He knows he doesn't have a case, so he's not putting one on," said Calvert, who helped found the Intelligent Design Network. "His client is on trial and he's not going to have him testify because he can't afford to put his client in the dock."

 

Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause. Evolution says species change over time, and that's how different species can emerge from common ancestors, including man and apes.

 

Though the state board has sought to avoid comparisons with the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which involved a Dayton, Tenn., teacher convicted of illegally teaching evolution, the hearings will in some ways resemble a trial, with witnesses being questioned.

 

Irigonegaray said he's defending a draft of science standards presented earlier this month to the board by a majority of a committee of educators reviewing them. The draft would continue the present policy of describing evolution as a key concept for students to learn before graduating high school.

 

But the board also accepted a minority report with changes designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution. That proposal has the backing of intelligent design advocates.

 

The minority report doesn't seek to include intelligent design in the standards, and its advocates say they only wish to give students a more balanced picture of evolution. But many scientists think the language would allow teaching about intelligent design, which the scientists deride as creationism.

 

Irigonegaray noted that Calvert's witnesses include leading national advocates of intelligent design.

 

"They are not coming here to Kansas to suggest that we teach a Buddhist approach, are they?" Irigonegaray said.

 

Irigonegaray said he will use his questioning to focus on the backgrounds and motives of the witnesses favoring intelligent design.

 

"Who do they represent?" he said. "It's our opinion that they simply represent a rather small sectarian view."

 

But Calvert said he planned to ask his witnesses about their backgrounds, including religious views.

 

"We don't have a hidden agenda," he said.

 

Irigonegaray said that because the minority report advances intelligent design, endorsing it could lead to a legal challenge over whether it represents the state endorsing a particular religious view. He said the board risks spending tens of thousands of dollars on litigation.

 

But Calvert said he and an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., Christian legal group, will present a legal opinion in support of the minority report.

 

They will argue that evolution advances a "naturalistic" philosophy and the only way to avoid a legal challenge is to present a balanced view, Calvert said.

 

credit: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11544836.htm

[2GOLD 0]

Kansas is a very special state.

And I mean special.

 

Why can't we just say it was both of them? Little bit of creation, little bit of evolution and out comes different forms of man? Wouldn't that just be easier than this?

 

That's what I do, it saves me time and energy.

[Highland 0]

At another board I go to this is actually a serious topic. You wouldn't believe how many people scoff at evolution and science but will vehemently defend creationism. It's not confined to the South anymore, unfortunately.

[cbacon 0]

Where is this craaazy message board you speak of?

[Ted the Poster 0]

Vote for Pedro.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

At another board I go to this is actually a serious topic. You wouldn't believe how many people scoff at evolution and science but will vehemently defend creationism. It's not confined to the South anymore, unfortunately.

I have, sadly, seen this too. It is sad to see things like Creationism and Scientology discussed seriously.

 

Someone even complained to me that in our society people don't want to accept things as truth unless they can be proven. Uh, yeah, people generally like to accept only FACTUAL INFORMATION as "truth."

[Vyce 0]

At another board I go to this is actually a serious topic. You wouldn't believe how many people scoff at evolution and science but will vehemently defend creationism. It's not confined to the South anymore, unfortunately.

I have, sadly, seen this too. It is sad to see things like Creationism and Scientology discussed seriously.

 

Someone even complained to me that in our society people don't want to accept things as truth unless they can be proven. Uh, yeah, people generally like to accept only FACTUAL INFORMATION as "truth."

The thing I don't understand is that most people seem to fall into either one of two camps, either that religion / God / Creationism will prove science wrong, or that science will be the avenging angel, no pun intended, that will finally put this religion / God nonsense to bed once and for all. Neither can disprove the other.

 

No one ever seems to realize that science & religion can exist perfectly harmonious with one another.

 

If you believe in God, you believe in God. Nothing should really change that. Whether God created the Earth and all life on it within six days or by the process of evolution shouldn't really be a question that you lose sleep on.

[Highland 0]

At another board I go to this is actually a serious topic. You wouldn't believe how many people scoff at evolution and science but will vehemently defend creationism. It's not confined to the South anymore, unfortunately.

I have, sadly, seen this too. It is sad to see things like Creationism and Scientology discussed seriously.

 

Someone even complained to me that in our society people don't want to accept things as truth unless they can be proven. Uh, yeah, people generally like to accept only FACTUAL INFORMATION as "truth."

The thing I don't understand is that most people seem to fall into either one of two camps, either that religion / God / Creationism will prove science wrong, or that science will be the avenging angel, no pun intended, that will finally put this religion / God nonsense to bed once and for all. Neither can disprove the other.

 

No one ever seems to realize that science & religion can exist perfectly harmonious with one another.

 

If you believe in God, you believe in God. Nothing should really change that. Whether God created the Earth and all life on it within six days or by the process of evolution shouldn't really be a question that you lose sleep on.

I agree, but people insist on arguing over a topic in the vain hopes of convincing the opposite side of their view, are accused of trying to subvert the Bible or are accused of trying to enforce their beliefs upon another.

[EricMM 0]

The people who have problems, as far as I know, are people who see the bible as the exact, literal word of god and exactly how life began.

 

Adam and Eve never happened literally, but to these people it must have because supposedly nothing in the bible could be untrue.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What? No Slayer post in a thread taking place in his backyard?...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What the fuck is the matter with Kansas?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The only way this debate will ever be resolved is if someone invents a time machine.

[Slayer 0]

What? No Slayer post in a thread taking place in his backyard?...

I'm too ashamed

 

The biggest thing I remember about the issue was back in August of '99 when my friend and I were moving from Oklahoma to Minnesota. We stopped for breakfast somewhere in northern Iowa and I read the local yokels in the paper deriding Kansas for the then-recent ban on evolutionary discussion. My friend laughed and while I laughed too, I couldn't help but feel the shame of the situation. I didn't really care though, since at the time I felt I was leaving that part of my life behind me.

 

Oddly enough I think it was right before moving back (Dec '01) that Kansas lifted the ban, but apparently monkey-talk is still a hot button issue for Kansas fundies

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Vote for Pedro.

What does that mean?

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Reference to Napoleon Dynamite.

[Carnival 0]

Evolution is 50% true.

 

Micro-Evolution = true

Macro-Evolution = FALSE

 

Micro is subtle changes over long periods of time like chameleons developing camoflouge.

 

Macro is major changes over those same periods of time. like Dinosaurs evolving into birds.

 

Macro-Evolution is used to explain how humans "could" have evolved from monkeys.

 

But they forget one key thing about macro-evolution. If it truly exists then the species that evolves dies out as the new species takes it's place. in that case all monkeys would be dead.

[Mik 0]

But they forget one key thing about macro-evolution. If it truly exists then the species that evolves dies out as the new species takes it's place. in that case all monkeys would be dead.

You can't possibly be serious?

[ZGangsta 0]

But they forget one key thing about macro-evolution. If it truly exists then the species that evolves dies out as the new species takes it's place. in that case all monkeys would be dead.

 

You've GOT to be joking.... seriously, you're joking right?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

For me, it's Mayer-lution or nothin'.

[Vyce 0]

For me, it's Mayer-lution or nothin'.

I'm not down with Mayer-lution. With Mayer-lution, we all slowly become more and more pasty and overweight with each passing year.

 

I wouldn't mind evolving into an X-man, though.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

But they forget one key thing about macro-evolution. If it truly exists then the species that evolves dies out as the new species takes it's place. in that case all monkeys would be dead.

 

I believe (though I'm not positive) that people didn't exactly evolve from monkeys - rather, they evolved from monkey-like creatures, which monkeys also evolved from. I suppose I could look it up, but to be honest, I don't wanna.

 

Besides, you also have to take into account things like the areas where the creatures in question live. Like, if a species of turtle spread from it's original home into a new area, it may need to evolve to adapt to that area. However, the turtles that still live in the original place wouldn't evolve; thus, you would have 2 different species, one evolving from the other, and both of them can still exist.

[AndrewTS 0]

Macro-Evolution is used to explain how humans "could" have evolved from monkeys.

 

But they forget one key thing about macro-evolution. If it truly exists then the species that evolves dies out as the new species takes it's place. in that case all monkeys would be dead.

"Monkeys" aren't strictly a species, though.

 

If one primate species died out as it became man, it wouldn't be missed with all of the other species, genuses, and families of primates out there.

 

Although the question of why there aren't any species that even come close to humans as far as intelligence is certainly curious.

 

Just because one species becomes dominant, doesn't mean similar, "inferior" species become extinct.

 

Plus, I've been fascinated by convergent evolution, which notes how vastly different types of animals, under similar conditions, become extremely similar. Sharks and dolphins, for instance. The Macro-theory is that whales and dolphins were originally mammals who gradually adopted more amphibian traits, lost their fur and long limbs--

 

and now, dolphin species and and some shark species look virtually identical on the exterior.

 

Yet, you still see amphibious mammals, such as seals and sea lions.

 

EDIT: Metal Maniac already described divergent evolution, in which a new species seems to branch off from another, while the original species either changes in another way, or remains virtually the same.

[Ace309 0]

Obligatory Talk.Origins link for evolution threads.

[Some Guy 0]

At another board I go to this is actually a serious topic. You wouldn't believe how many people scoff at evolution and science but will vehemently defend creationism. It's not confined to the South anymore, unfortunately.

I have, sadly, seen this too. It is sad to see things like Creationism and Scientology discussed seriously.

 

Someone even complained to me that in our society people don't want to accept things as truth unless they can be proven. Uh, yeah, people generally like to accept only FACTUAL INFORMATION as "truth."

Well, neither evolution nor creationism is fact. They are both theories that cannot be definitavely proven. The former certainly has much more proof behind it than the latter. And since I'm a Godless heathen I tend to buy into evolution more than the magical man in the sky created the world deal. Evolutuion strikes me as much more logical.

[Guest news_gimmick]

I guess it is no surprise I have a major interest in the subject, no?

 

 

BTW I am going to the Y three times a week tyvm.

[Ace309 0]

Well, neither evolution nor creationism is fact. They are both theories that cannot be definitavely proven. The former certainly has much more proof behind it than the latter. And since I'm a Godless heathen I tend to buy into evolution more than the magical man in the sky created the world deal. Evolutuion strikes me as much more logical.

Just a quibble - it's probable that one of them is fact. You're confusing "a fact" with "something we have irrefutable evidence for." An analogy is an unsolved murder - it's a fact that someone murdered the victim, even if it can't be definitively proven who it was.

 

It's also possible that evidence points strongly toward a particular suspect, even if it can't be definitively proven that he committed the murder.

[Some Guy 0]

Well, neither evolution nor creationism is fact.  They are both theories that cannot be definitavely proven.  The former certainly has much more proof behind it than the latter.  And since I'm a Godless heathen I tend to buy into evolution more than the magical man in the sky created the world deal.  Evolutuion strikes me as much more logical.

Just a quibble - it's probable that one of them is fact. You're confusing "a fact" with "something we have irrefutable evidence for." An analogy is an unsolved murder - it's a fact that someone murdered the victim, even if it can't be definitively proven who it was.

 

It's also possible that evidence points strongly toward a particular suspect, even if it can't be definitively proven that he committed the murder.

A fact is something that can be backed up with irefutable evidence.

 

A fact would be that 2+2=4 or that I wear size 12 shoes. Those are backed up by irefutable evidence. The former becuase it was decided and became the standard and the latter by the boots on my feet.

 

The devlopment of the earth is obviously a fact as last I checked I'm living on it, I never disputed that. Whether God or the big bang or evolution is responsible is no more than theory, hence "the theory of evolution." None of those have been proven, some have more evidence to suggest their validity than others but none are fact.

 

"Fact," according to my dictionary means: 1. a deed; act. 2. a thing that has actually happned or that is really true; thing that has been or is. 3. The state of things as they are; reality; actuallity; truth.

 

I could say that Papa Smurf invented Kool-Aid and find some kook to back me up, but that doesn't make it true, nor a fact which are one and the same.

 

There is no such thing as "ones man's truth." The truth is the truth and their is only one. Their is a such thing as one man's interpretation of the truth or of the facts, but that doesn't make it true or the facts.

 

As far as your analogy about murders, no one is judged in the as to whether or not they are 100% guilty or innocent. People are judged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not guilty. Being innocent and being found not guilty are not the same thing. I undestand your point but just because evidence may point one directiong or another doesn't necessarilly make it true. It seems that somewhere along the lines the defintion of fact has been lost.

[Carnival 0]

Was I Joking about All Monkeys being dead....yes.

 

But i seriously don't get Macro. Because i haven't seen the link between monkey and primative man. But then again where did monkeys evolve from?

[Ace309 0]

A fact is something that can be backed up with irefutable evidence.

 

 

"Fact," according to my dictionary means: 1. a deed; act. 2. a thing that has actually happned or that is really true; thing that has been or is. 3. The state of things as they are; reality; actuallity; truth.

Without getting into a philosophical debate, I'd seize on definition 2, and offer the classic example of a tree falling in the woods - it fell, regardless of whether anyone saw it. (Whether it makes a sound, I'll leave as an exercise for someone who cares.)

 

Thing is, judging by what you're writing, we agree about everything but a standard versus nonstandard definition of the word 'fact.' If you're depending on irrefutable evidence, you're needlessly restricting your definition of 'fact.'

 

I could say that Papa Smurf invented Kool-Aid and find some kook to back me up, but that doesn't make it true, nor a fact which are one and the same.

 

True. Irrelevant. Your quarrel is with the inappropriate appeal to authority, not with empirical evidence.

 

There is no such thing as "ones man's truth."  The truth is the truth and their is only one.  Their is a such thing as one man's interpretation of the truth or of the facts, but that doesn't make it true or the facts.

 

True. I agree wholeheartedly - that's why what a fact (in this case, the elusive accurate description of the process by which the diversity of species as we know it came to be) is isn't dependent on whether we've found 'definitive proof,' whatever that is. In this case, the diversity of species came to be by some process that we didn't witness. (Scientists will likely disagree with the way I phrased that. To them, I say, there's a reason I'm not a scientist.) That we don't have definitive proof doesn't change what the fact of that process is.

 

I'd also suggest that the evidence points strongly in favor of the evolution theory.

 

As far as your analogy about murders, no one is judged in the as to whether or not they are 100% guilty or innocent.  People are judged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not guilty.  Being innocent and being found not guilty are not the same thing.  I undestand your point but just because evidence may point one directiong or another doesn't necessarilly make it true.  It seems that somewhere along the lines the defintion of fact has been lost.

 

I'm talking about the act itself, not any legal evaluation of that. The legal system is irrelevant.

 

The evidence pointing in one direction doesn't make it true, no. It just provides something to critically consider in deciding which way to lean - you're still going to be right or wrong, but if the idea is to figure out what's true, relying only on 'definitive proof' is going to leave you without answers in many cases.

 

Science doesn't deal in definitive proof. This might prove helpful in dealing with the "evolution is only a theory" canard that you trotted out. It's worth a read, if only to chew on.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Who could imagine that they would freak out somewhere

in Kansas . . .

(Kansas . . . Kansas . . . Kansas . . . Kansas . . . )

(Kansas, Kansas, do-do-dun to-to

Kansas, Kansas, la la la)

(Kansas, Kansas, do-do-dun to-to

Kansas, Kansas)

 

But seriously. Just teach them both as theory, because we could never fuckin' know. It's that easy. Fundies and atheists, STFU.