Evolution is a Mystery

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

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

This is really the dumbest possible solution. Should we also teach the theory that life on Earth was seeded by aliens from Mars, as on the X-Files? It's just as viable a theory, scientifically, as creationism. The bottom line is science alone belongs in science class, and there is no scientific theory to compete with evolution. It's not like physics where there are competing theories which have scientific value, like string theory and twistor theory.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Teach evolution in biology class and creationism in world history. That's what my high school did.

[Big Ol' Smitty 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.

Is saying shut up your new gimmick?

 

Also, germs and gravity are also "just theories."

 

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

 

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

 

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

 

So, whoever said that evolution & creationism are both "just theories"--creationism is not scientific theory. Evolution theory is the foundation of modern life sciences.

[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.

Is saying shut up your new gimmick?

The crowd pops, what can I say

[Jobber of the Week 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.

Uhm, it's certainly been proved on a small scale. All you need is a petry dish, a constantly reproducing virus, a microscope, and a really cold room.

[SuperJerk 0]

Evolution is a theory, based on scientific facts. It has been scrutinized and revised continuously for over a century by scientists, and scientists are constantly looking for new evidence. It is a teachable topic, because you can write a curriculum and give tests over it.

 

Creationism has not withstood scientific scrutiny, and has no facts to support it. The only proof that has ever been given is attempts at disproving other theories, and then claiming creationism must be true by default. How can you teach that, exactly? What would the curriculum look like? What would the test look like?

[2GOLD 0]

Creationism has not withstood scientific scrutiny, and has no facts to support it. The only proof that has ever been given is attempts at disproving other theories, and then claiming creationism must be true by default. How can you teach that, exactly? What would the curriculum look like? What would the test look like?

 

A lot like college tests written by crazy professors. So, a lot like a college test.

[Slayer 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)

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind...

[Vyce 0]

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.

 

Oh man. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the "old man in the sky" comment thrown out as an insult, I'd be rich enough to buy you all.

 

And again: there's nothing which says that evolution and religion, specifically judeo-christian religion, can't exist in harmony. It's not like evolution destroys the one. It's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for it to do so. And vice versa.

[SuperJerk 0]

^That's not what the creationists are saying.^

 

Every creationist I've ever met has tried to disprove evolution, and claim that creationism must be true by default.

 

Creationists are pushing the idea that the universe and life on Earth is the result of intelligent design. This may be true, but it is unverifiable using the scientific process, and thus has no business being taught in a science class.

 

Creationism has not withstood scientific scrutiny, and has no facts to support it. The only proof that has ever been given is attempts at disproving other theories, and then claiming creationism must be true by default.  How can you teach that, exactly?  What would the curriculum look like?  What would the test look like?

 

A lot like college tests written by crazy professors. So, a lot like a college test.

That's a non-answer if ever there was one.

 

Seriously, I want someone to tell me what would be on a creationism test.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Teach evolution in biology class and creationism in world history. That's what my high school did.

Or you could teach evolution in both.

 

Creationism as actual history? So did the world only begin 12 000 years ago in your class?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How about we leave creationism to the vast network of churches in this country?

[SuperJerk 0]

SPLIT OVER OUR ORIGINS

World will watch hearings on teaching evolution

 

By DAVID KLEPPER

The Kansas City Star

 

TOPEKA — No food or beverages allowed. Security will be ready to kick out any rabble-rousers. And if anyone actually brings a monkey, it will have to wait outside.

 

Those are the rules for the state's great evolution debate, beginning Thursday in Topeka. If it's anything like Kansas' 1999 evolution debate, the hearings may inspire Jay Leno jokes. But both sides are taking it seriously enough to say the state's educational system is riding on the outcome.

 

“This is a fundamental core issue,” said John Calvert, a Lake Quivira lawyer who will make the case for why criticism of evolution should be included in the state's science curriculum. “This is the ultimate question: Are we a design or an occurrence?”

 

It's a question many scientists and educators say schools should stay out of. Nevertheless, the state school board has borrowed the state's Memorial Hall to attempt an answer, and they expect a crowd.

 

Call it a search for universal answers, call it farce, or call it culture wars. But this week's debate could have implications for what our children learn in science class, how much religion we want in the classroom, and what the world thinks of Kansas.

 

Three state school board members will sit as judge and jury as attorneys on the two sides question witnesses and argue whether students are served by the way evolution is currently taught. All three acknowledge doubts about evolution, yet they maintain they'll keep an open mind as attorneys on both sides make their cases.

 

Calvert has made a mission of disputing evolution's revered place on the mantle place of science, and he has called about two dozen witnesses to show what he calls deep flaws in the theory. Calvert is a leading proponent of the theory of intelligent design, which holds that evolution cannot fully explain the natural world and that a creator must have played a role. Calvert's expert witnesses are mostly professors from across the country. One is from Italy and another from Turkey.

 

In the other corner is Pedro Irigonegaray, a defense and civil rights attorney from Topeka. Irigonegaray has called no witnesses but will cross-examine Calvert's witnesses and offer an opposing view. He has called the hearings a waste of taxpayer money and says he will not debate science so much as the need for the hearings themselves, and the motivation behind them.

 

“People are saying, ‘What are you doing in Kansas?' ” Irigonegaray said. “The future of our state is directly related to our children's education. This will affect the economic growth of our state. … Losing this battle to prevent so-called faith-based science is a battle we cannot afford to lose.”

 

In 1999, a majority of the state school board voted to downplay evolution. They were voted out in the next election, and the teaching of evolution was restored.

 

This year, a subcommittee reviewing the state's science standards wrote a report calling for no changes in the way evolution is taught. But eight of 26 members wrote a report critical of the teaching of evolution, and the conservative majority on the school board set up the hearings to investigate the accusations in the so-called minority report.

 

Once the hearings end, the subcommittee will report to the full school board, which will vote on new science curriculum standards. What's not so clear is how the change would affect the science classroom, or whether it could stain Kansas' reputation.

 

Anti-evolutionists say evolution has attained an almost dogmatic following in the science community. They want to insert alternatives or criticism of the theory so students can make up their own minds. The hearings will get to the bottom of the “evolution controversy.”

 

“I hope the people of Kansas can walk away (from the hearings) with an extraordinarily magnificent, eye-opening experience as to the holes in the theory of evolution,” said school board member Connie Morris.

 

Board member Kathy Martin said evolution should always be taught, but included in it should be criticism of the theory.

 

“It (evolution) has a lot of fallacies, and it's been disproven or remains unproven, but it's presented as fact,” she said. “It was a good idea back in 1859 when it came out. Darwin and some of his cronies had some great ideas, but it can't be proven.”

 

But many scientists and educators say there is no controversy about evolution.

 

“If there is, it's in education and not in science,” said Joanne Olson, an Iowa State University professor who studies science education.

 

“Evolution is the best, and frankly a very good explanation,” she said. “When you start saying God did it, it's not science.”

 

The group Kansas Citizens for Science has called on scientists to boycott the hearings. President Harry McDonald of Olathe, a former Blue Valley School District science teacher, says the meetings are a joke, at the expense of Kansas schoolchildren and the state's reputation. Any speculation as to a creator belongs in churches, synagogues and the dinner table, they said, but not in public schools.

 

“They want a theocracy,” McDonald said. “Evolution doesn't mean that there isn't a god. But they make it out that if you believe in evolution you're an atheist. They've made it a cultural war.”

 

The debates — and the media attention that will surely surround them — could hurt Kansas in the long run if researchers or potential college students take a dim view of the state. Kansas has made recruitment of bioscience companies a priority in recent years. Public education is seen as a great incentive to attracting those businesses, and a way of producing top science students.

 

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said the school board should “not jeopardize the opportunities for Kansas kids to compete.”

 

“What we know is, we need more students with math and science skills than ever before,” she said. “We need more students who are excelling in scientific achievements.”

 

But already, just as in 1999, when the school board voted to downplay evolution, the state's reputation is already taking a hit, according to Olson.

 

“The sad thing is, the more this hits the press around the world, the worse Kansas, and by association the U.S., looks,” Olson said. “I was at a conference not long ago. They were laughing about Kansas.”

 

credit: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11556379.htm

[Carnival 0]

I've been known to Do The Evolution from time to time.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Slayer, you've got 48 hours to evacuate. I'm melting Kansas.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Back at Edwin MacPhisto's place:

 

"Space Station, do you copy?"

"Ten-four."

"Arm all weaponry towards Kansas. This is a direct order."

"Affirmative that. Targeting Kansas."

 

beep... beep.... beep...

 

"Everything is looking good up here, sir. Fire the death ray when ready."

 

FIRE!!

 

"Firing the laser in 3...2..."

 

*THOOM*

 

"What happened? Why is Kansas still there? Hello, is anyone on the other side of this line? Hello?"

 

"Kansas was saved by God. Clearly, this means that the world is only 6,000 years old."

 

"Jerry, I agree completely."

[Vyce 0]

^That's not what the creationists are saying.^

 

Every creationist I've ever met has tried to disprove evolution, and claim that creationism must be true by default.

 

Creationists are pushing the idea that the universe and life on Earth is the result of intelligent design. This may be true, but it is unverifiable using the scientific process, and thus has no business being taught in a science class.

I don't seem to remember me disagreeing with you. In fact, I quite emphatically DO agree with you.

 

Even though I think I've seen you bust out the "old man in the sky" remark at one point.

 

I don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools, for the reasons you stated. If private parochial schools want to teach it, and they make that fact known to students / prospective students, I wouldn't really have much of a problem with them doing so.

 

As ostensibly Christian, though, I suppose I have sympathy for the creation folks. Though I view them as misguided, I can understand that they do what they do out of their faith, rather than simply cop a rather imperious or conceited attitude towards them.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Teach evolution in biology class and creationism in world history. That's what my high school did.

Or you could teach evolution in both.

 

Creationism as actual history? So did the world only begin 12 000 years ago in your class?

We held debates over which it was, and learned arguments for each. Canopy Theory and stuff like that

[The Czech Republic 0]

JPEG Theater

Where's Randy Orton?

[Slayer 0]

"Space Station, do you copy?"

"Ten-four."

"Arm all weaponry towards Kansas. This is a direct order."

"Affirmative that. Targeting Kansas."

 

"Firing the laser in 3...2..."

"Carry on my wayward son, there'll be peace when..."

 

"AAAHHHHHHHHHH!"

 

"Clearly this was God's will..."

[Some Guy 0]

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

 

<snip>

 

"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.'

 

True. We disagree because the non-standard defintion of "fact" is wrong. There is a standard defintion, IE the correct defintion and the rest are wrong. How am I "needlessly restricting your definition of 'fact.'" It is quite warranted that I restrict my defintion to the proper one, not some make believe one.

 

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.

 

OK.

 

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.

 

I never argued that the case for evolution wasn't way stronger than creationism, quite the opposite actually. All I argued were that they both were theories, with one having way more merit than the other.

 

The "fact" is that the earth and all of her species are here, the theories are attempts to explain that. I don't really give a shit why we are here or how we got here. We are and I try to do the beat I can with what I have.

[SuperJerk 0]

*THOOM*

 

"What happened? Why is Kansas still there? Hello, is anyone on the other side of this line? Hello?"

 

"Kansas was saved by God. Clearly, this means that the world is only 6,000 years old."

 

"Jerry, I agree completely."

I'm so glad I started this fucking thread.

[Vyce 0]

JPEG Theater

Where's Randy Orton?

 

"I find evolution.....sensible."

 

 

"Boy, you'd best shut the fuck up lest I rip open your stomach and shit on your intestines!"

 

 

"RRRROOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!"

[Jingus 0]

I never argued that the case for evolution wasn't way stronger than creationism, quite the opposite actually. All I argued were that they both were theories, with one having way more merit than the other.

 

The "fact" is that the earth and all of her species are here, the theories are attempts to explain that. I don't really give a shit why we are here or how we got here. We are and I try to do the best I can with what I have.

Exactly. (Gotta give props to an old-school OAOASTer.) Evolution should get the lion's share of teaching time because it has much more evidence behind it, and if they want to throw in Creationism as a footnote, well that's fine with me. But they shouldn't be treated as having equal scientific merit.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm so glad I started this fucking thread.

"My penis is only this long. Hard."

 

"Whoa. That explains why you're so intimidated by the gay people, then."

 

"HOLY CRAP THAT MAN'S PENIS IS SO SMALL THAT THE ONLY THINGS EVEN SMALLER ARE JOHN KERRY'S BALLS AND CHRIS MATTHEWS' BRAIN! YA'LL BEST SHOW UP WHEN I CHALLENGE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BASTARDS TO A DUEL! IT'S MILLER TIME!"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh Christ...

[Slayer 0]

Leave it to Jobber to engage in phallic comparisons

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I didn't even bother to read. I just looked at the pictures and moved on. Although now that I read it I have to conclude that it was a little gay...

[The Czech Republic 0]

JPEG Theater

Where's Randy Orton?

JPEG Theater

I'm gonna kick your fucking ass.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Uhm, it's certainly been proved on a small scale. All you need is a petry dish, a constantly reproducing virus, a microscope, and a really cold room.

How does the virus get in the petry dish?