Evolution is a Mystery

[SuperJerk 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?

Do creationists claim that God created all viruses at the beginning of time? Have there been no new viruses EVOLVE into existence during our lifetime?

 

While I'll acknowledge that "God created evolution" is a good compromise, that's not what the "intelligent design" bandwagon wants. They want to cast doubt on evolution, not show how it can exist side by side with creationism.

 

Most people I know who believe in evolution, also believe in God.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Do creationists claim that God created all viruses at the beginning of time?

Yeah, something has to get rid of the evil homos...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How does the virus get in the petry dish?

 

The dish is left wide open to its pre-existing environment.

[cbacon 0]

Only in America would this even be a serious issue. Science classes should teach evolution. Evolution is the scientific explanation for the origin of species. Whether it's "fact" or not is as immaterial as whether gravity is a "fact." It's the scientific explanation, and it can and should be taught in high school classes with abslolutely no attention paid to possible alternatives, which are almost always religion-based anyway.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'd like to see if they'd consider putting stickers on textbooks saying "Gravity is just a theory".

[SuperJerk 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.

Man, how did THIS post get past me the first time?

 

Poor fellow actually thinks evolution says humans evolved from monkeys.

 

Creationists are so horribly misinformed.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

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

Take a look at a Microraptor and tell me dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds.

[SuperJerk 0]

Evolution hearings end bitterly

Science standards go to vote this summer

By DAVID KLEPPER

The Kansas City Star

 

“You have a responsibility to the children and to the future of this state — a responsibility that you have sadly, sadly failed.”

 

Topeka lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray

 

 

TOPEKA — The Kansas Board of Education's hearings on the teaching of evolution ended Thursday with more name-calling than science.

 

It was an acrimonious end to four days of hearings that had been heralded by some board members as a scientific dialogue for the public's education.

 

The hearings began last week to worldwide media scrutiny and a packed audience, but by Thursday there were fewer than 50 members of the public watching, and much of the debate focused on emotional accusations and not Charles Darwin.

 

With the hearings over, two things are clear: The three board members who had called for the hearings believe evolution is a flawed theory with atheistic overtones.

 

And mainstream scientists think the board members are creationists who want to insert their own beliefs in public schools at the expense of schoolchildren and the state's reputation.

 

A proposal now before the board would incorporate greater criticism of the theory of evolution and allow alternatives to be taught. It would also change the definition of science to allow for explanations that do not rely on natural causes.

 

The proposal will probably go to a vote before the full 10-member board this summer. The science guidelines are used by local districts to set curriculum, and are the basis for statewide assessment tests.

 

The proposal was pushed by John Calvert, a Lake Quivira resident and a leading proponent of intelligent design, the belief that some aspects of nature are so complicated that they can only be explained as being the work of a creator. During the first three days of hearings, Calvert called 23 witnesses who criticized evolution.

 

The witnesses led board member Kathy Martin, who had expressed doubts about the theory before the hearings began, to conclude that evolution is “an unproven, often disproven” theory.

 

On Thursday, it was the opposition's turn. Topeka lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray defended the way evolution is taught, and argued that intelligent design is a thinly veiled form of creationism. He called it “a narrow sectarian theological view” that is opposed by most people, including mainstream Christians.

 

Irigonegaray also accused the board of abusing the political process by holding the hearings, which he called “a gigantic waste of time” and tax dollars. The state paid about $10,000 for the hearings — for the travel expenses of witnesses and for the services of a court reporter.

 

“Each penny taken by you, Mr. Calvert, for your witnesses, is a penny taken from Kansas children,” Irigonegaray said. He went on to tell the board, “You have a responsibility to the children and to the future of this state — a responsibility that you have sadly, sadly failed.”

 

The proposed curriculum change was not supported by most of the 26-member panel of educators and scientists who reviewed the state science curriculum. Steve Case, a University of Kansas professor who leads the panel, said that if the proposal was adopted, he would support school districts that choose to ignore the guidelines or refuse to give the assessment tests.

 

“I would encourage schools and districts to practice civil disobedience,” he said.

 

Scientists and educators who accept the theory of evolution chose to boycott the hearings, which the president of the Kansas Citizens for Science, Harry McDonald, called a sham and publicity stunt. But those scientists supported Irigonegaray, who stepped forward to defend the teaching of evolution.

 

Board members critical of evolution said the scientists' boycott had backfired.

 

“I can only conclude that they don't have evidence (for evolution),” board member Connie Morris said.

 

Irigonegaray refused to answer questions from board members and from Calvert. That prompted Chairman Steve Abrams to say the rules of the hearings had been broken, and he gave extra time to Calvert. He defended the changes he wants to see in the science curriculum and blasted his opposition.

 

Then the board members, who all admit to having strong doubts about evolution, proceeded to criticize Irigonegaray, the media and scientists who boycotted the event.

 

Morris told Irigonegaray his tactics amounted to “abuse,” and blasted the media as a “propaganda machine” for reporting that some board members had not read the standards they criticize. Martin, who admitted that she had not read the entire standards, said the board had been unfairly criticized.

 

“The board has been accused of being close-minded, and the jury rigged,” she said. “I guess we'll leave it up to the public to decide.”

 

Calvert attacked the methods used by Irigonegaray and mainstream science groups, accusing them of “character assassination.” Throughout the hearings, Irigonegaray questioned the anti-evolution witnesses about their beliefs. Two told him they believe Earth is as young as 5,000 years, and most said they doubt that humans evolved from lower life forms.

 

Calvert said Irigonegaray's only weapon was “an attorney's rhetoric,” designed to make evolution opponents look like “ignoramuses.” In the end, he said, he couldn't even shake his opponent's hand.

 

“I don't think this strategy deserves a handshake,” Calvert said.

 

credit: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/l...on/11633645.htm

 

I am SO glad I'm going back to teaching in Missouri next year.

[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?

Do creationists claim that God created all viruses at the beginning of time? Have there been no new viruses EVOLVE into existence during our lifetime?

I have no idea. My point was that every sound experiment that helps prove evolution does indeed start with an outside force (the scientist) setting it in motion.

 

While I'll acknowledge that "God created evolution" is a good compromise, that's not what the "intelligent design" bandwagon wants.  They want to cast doubt on evolution, not show how it can exist side by side with creationism.

You're right but the article you just posted is flawed in that the statement:

 

"...intelligent design, the belief that some aspects of nature are so complicated that they can only be explained as being the work of a creator."

 

I agree with lowercase "intelligent design" as written above. The problem is the nutjobs in Kansas believe in uppercase "Intelligent Design" with all the garbage of 5,000 years old and the like.

 

 

Most people I know who believe in evolution, also believe in God.

Yeah, you can count me in here. That's why I hate Science vs. God debates.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush evolution comment roils long-standing battle

Sun Aug 7, 2005 11:43 AM ET

 

By Alan Elsner

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's call for schools to discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution is the latest shot in a long-standing war between religion and secularism in the United States in which religion now seems to be making broad advances.

 

Bush told Texas reporters last week he thought students ought to hear different schools of thought. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes," the president declared.

 

Intelligent design holds that life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution and therefore an unseen power must have had a hand. Opponents say that conjecture is a matter of faith and has no scientific basis.

 

This is just the latest clash between Christian fundamentalists, whose political power has grown exponentially in the past 20 years, and secular opponents. Other battle fronts include school prayer, stem-cell research, display of the Ten Commandments in public places, assisted suicide and end-of-life issues and above all, the question of abortion.

 

"For most of the 20th century, the secular perspective moved forward and was in the ascendancy. Recently however, conservative Christians have been on the offensive, recovering some of that lost ground," said John Green, an expert on Christian evangelicals.

 

The United States has always been a religious nation. For several decades in the middle of the last century, however, Christian conservatives took little organized part in politics, with churches preferring to look inward and focus on the congregants' spiritual well-being.

 

That has changed. For example, last October, the National Association of Evangelicals, with 52 member denominations, adopted a resolution stating: "We make up fully one quarter of all voters in the most powerful nation in history. Never before has God given American evangelicals such an awesome opportunity to shape public policy."

 

A month later, Bush, who says he found his Christian faith as an adult, won reelection after a presidential campaign designed to maximize the turnout of Christian conservatives, who accounted for about 36 percent of his vote, according to exit-poll analyzes.

 

'RAGE' AT COURT DECISIONS

 

Peter Berger, director of the institute of culture, religion and world affairs at Boston University, points to two crucial decisions that sparked a backlash among many American Christians and propelled them into political activism -- a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed organized prayer in public schools and the Roe v. Wade ruling 10 years later that legalized abortion. Both, he said, enraged Christian conservatives.

 

In the meantime, Berger said, as more traditional Christian denominations have declined, evangelical branches have added members. They now number perhaps 60 million or 70 million people in the United States, with an extensive grass-roots organization and sophisticated, well-funded lobbying groups.

 

"With the disintegration of the labor movement, evangelical conservatives have become the most organized group in American politics. They are a big deal," said John Judis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

 

Religious revivals or awakenings have been a recurring theme throughout American politics, the first one dating even from before the founding of the Republic. Robert Fogel, the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in economics, identifies four "great awakenings," the latest of which began in the 1960s.

 

Previous cycles have been divided into three phases. The cycle begins with a religious revival, followed by a period of rising political activism and accomplishment, and ending with a backlash as the movement overreaches. If Fogel's theory is correct, the United States is currently in the second phase of its fourth great awakening.

 

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in a recent column that much of the evangelical agenda was a needed corrective to liberal efforts to expel religion from the American politics, but it might now be going too far.

 

"Religion is back out of the closet. But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion," Krauthammer wrote in Time Magazine.

 

But many religious conservatives are pressing ahead with their agenda, and looking to the prospect of a more conservative Supreme Court to support them on issues such as religious displays in public places.

 

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle....RELIGION-DC.XML

 

We need a president who believes in science.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

Can someone, preferably a cocky, atheist, secular science whiz, tell me how exactly evolution proves there is no God. Say for instance Darwin was 100% correct on Micro-evolution, macro-evolution, everything. Say all animals come from some viral, primordial soup. How does any of this determine how the sun, moon, and stars got here to start with.

 

I'm not trying to be ultra-fundie (because I'm not), but I am kind of green on the subject and would like a serious answer.

[The Amazing Rando 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?

Do creationists claim that God created all viruses at the beginning of time? Have there been no new viruses EVOLVE into existence during our lifetime?

 

While I'll acknowledge that "God created evolution" is a good compromise, that's not what the "intelligent design" bandwagon wants. They want to cast doubt on evolution, not show how it can exist side by side with creationism.

 

Most people I know who believe in evolution, also believe in God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It seems that it's pretty much a bell curve as far as who believes in what. There are a small comparable percentage of people that believe ONLY in creationism, a small comparable percentage that believe ONLY in evolution, and then there is the large and vast middle ground, which lies somewhere in between, believing varying pieces of both ideas.

 

The problem is, it seems the extreme creation/evolution people are the loudest, with the creationists slightly louder on the whole.

 

 

It always surprises me how much press things like this get, because it is quite irrelevant on the grand scale of things. Since it's INSANELY doubtful that one theory will ever be totally proven, it's just hot air being blown around in the hopes that the opposition will tire and they can claim victory and have the knowledge that their idea is "correct" because the other side just wanted some quiet.

 

 

Had I dealt with this in my school, nothing else that year would have been done, cause every single day would have been a huge debate. The Science vs. God debate is almost as hard to talk about and deal with as The A Word, though more people seem to be open to telling you about the former than the latter. Also, the A Word, as far as I know, doesn't have churches devoted to it.....yet.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Can someone, preferably a cocky, atheist, secular science whiz, tell me how exactly evolution proves there is no God.  Say for instance Darwin was 100% correct on Micro-evolution, macro-evolution, everything.  Say all animals come from some viral, primordial soup. How does any of this determine how the sun, moon, and stars got here to start with. 

 

I'm not trying to be ultra-fundie (because I'm not), but I am kind of green on the subject and would like a serious answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It doesn't. That's the Big Bang Theory. (Yeah, I know there are other theories about the origin of the cellestial universe, but none of them are coming to me right now)

[ANKLELOCK 0]

Then why is it supposedly a "God vs. Science" debate when it can't prove or disprove the existance of God at all?

 

And I know about the Big Bang Theory(and believe it to be a load of bull), but what are some other theories how it all came to be?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Then why is it supposedly a "God vs. Science" debate when it can't prove or disprove the existance of God at all?

 

Because that's what the religious fundies make it out to be.

 

And I know about the Big Bang Theory(and believe it to be a load of bull),

 

That right there tells me you have no real idea what the entire theory is. If you actually knew any of the hard science behind it, you'd realize it's one of the most well-supported theories in all of science, both in terms of a sound theoretical basis, overwhelming experimental evidence in support of it, and the complete failure of any competing theories to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

but what are some other theories how it all came to be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Various "steady-state theories" (the universe exists and has always existed, objects in the universe - galaxies and so on - have no actual origin) have surfaced over the years, all of which have been discredited. Fred Hoyle, the most steadfast defender of steady-state theories, eventually did concede defeat when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered and measured. Steady state theories have consistently failed to account for his, the Hubble expansion velocity and redshift, and have even attempted to violate such basic laws as the Law of Conversation of Mass/Energy.

[NoCalMike 0]

For me the debate is as simple as this. Whether you believe evolution is a fact or not is irrelevent to the discussion, it is a scientific theory, thus belongs in SCIENCE CLASS.

 

On that same merit, Creationism, whether it is fact or not is irrelevent to the discussion, it has nothing to do with Science, thus does not belong on SCIENCE CLASS.

 

When you start bringing things into a Science Class that have nothing to do with Science, then you are opening the door for further changes and modifications, by those who may or may not happen to like and/or agree with certain aspects and subjects in the science book.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So a school district 'round these parts approved a Bible Study elective for high schools yesterday. It's billed as emphasizing the literary and cultural influence of the Bible itself.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Both things already get taught.

 

Evolution gets taught in science classes.

Creationism gets taught in history and philosophy, at least it did when I was in school.

 

BTW, I belive in the Big Bang, but I also believe that God was the one who initiated it. There is little to no evidence of what existed before the Big Bang because the Big Bang wiped out all of it, sort of like how we have no evidence (on Earth) of what our planet was like during its creation, all the rock material from that time has been subducted into the interior of the earth. There are theories of course, but we will never be able to prove any of it. That's why the Big Bang is always used as the starting point of the universe.

[ZGangsta 0]

And I know about the Big Bang Theory(and believe it to be a load of bull), but what are some other theories how it all came to be?

So then how about enlightening as to why the big bang theory, the one theory that is backed up by all the physical and cosmological evidence, is a load of bull.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I will say this about Bush and his views on Evolution: It's just more proof that he's basically ruining the republicans chances of winning the next Presidential election. Even half of the Republican party now realizes this, and is constantly criticizing this jackass. Even Rick Santorum is criticizing Bush for his comments.

 

Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen a man as dividing as Bush.

[SuperJerk 0]

Can someone, preferably a cocky, atheist, secular science whiz, tell me how exactly evolution proves there is no God. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Evolution doesn't disprove God. It doesn't even try to. If anything, it explains how God created humans. Evolution only disproves the literal understanding of the book of Genesis.

 

That's not much of an accomplishment, though. The creation story from Genesis could already be easily disproven with some basic knowledge of physics, astronomy and geology.

 

 

Then why is it supposedly a "God vs. Science" debate when it can't prove or disprove the existance of God at all?

 

Because a bunch of religious fanatics want to use publicly funded government agencies to promote their religious views.

[cynicalprofit 0]

Ya know the fact this debate has raged on for years and there is still no full proof one way or another says to me that NEITHER side is right and we need a better theory.

 

I tend to learn toward evolution, but after all these years and not finding that missing link, I'd like to believe we were put on earth by super-space-alien-cows from a universe very far far away.

[SuperJerk 0]

Ya know the fact this debate has raged on for years and there is still no full proof one way or another says to me that NEITHER side is right and we need a better theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The reason the "debate" has raged so long is because one side is unwilling to acknowledge the validity of proven facts.

 

The creationist argument (God created human life instaneously and the world is less than 10,000 year old) has zero hard info to back it up.

 

The creationists are so devoid of anything rational to contribute to the conversation that I'm hessitant to call it a debate. Its more like one side trying to show where the provable facts lead them, and the other side sticking there fingers in their ears while shouting "God is on my side!" over and over again.

[Slickster 0]

The fact that evolution cannot be proven does not lend credibility to creationism/intelligent design, which also cannot be proven.

 

And to those who say "evolution is just a theory," I remind you that gravity and heliocentrism are also theories.

 

As of now, Kansas is to education what Michael Jackson is to child care.

[cynicalprofit 0]

Ya know the fact this debate has raged on for years and there is still no full proof one way or another says to me that NEITHER side is right and we need a better theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The reason the "debate" has raged so long is because one side is unwilling to acknowledge the validity of proven facts.

 

The creationist argument (God created human life instaneously and the world is less than 10,000 year old) has zero hard info to back it up.

 

The creationists are so devoid of anything rational to contribute to the conversation that I'm hessitant to call it a debate. Its more like one side trying to show where the provable facts lead them, and the other side sticking there fingers in their ears while shouting "God is on my side!" over and over again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with you about the whole one side being stupid about it, but really, I want both sides to get a better idea because this old debate is really quite boring and really going in one LONG circle of nowhereness. And if you don't have an answer now, what makes you think another 100 years of screaming at each other back and forth will change anything? Really, get a new view on the whole thing...spacecows......

 

Of course it will never end because faith takes no real proof and people will cling to that long before science because science is not as happy a place as faith is.

 

If evolution is correct, why are most people retarded when it comes to which side is right? Shouldn't those people have been weeded out by now? Or maybe evolution is wrong...

[SuperJerk 0]

Personally, I'd be interested in knowing what grades the creationist zealots made in high school biology.

[Slickster 0]

If evolution is correct, why are most people retarded when it comes to which side is right? Shouldn't those people have been weeded out by now? Or maybe evolution is wrong...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because Christians will always portray themselves as an oppressed minority under the thumb of godless society and its heretical traditions. Since the 1400s, Christianity and science have been at odds. I don't see that battle ever coming to a conclusion.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Ya know the fact this debate has raged on for years and there is still no full proof one way or another says to me that NEITHER side is right and we need a better theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The reason the "debate" has raged so long is because one side is unwilling to acknowledge the validity of proven facts.

 

The creationist argument (God created human life instaneously and the world is less than 10,000 year old) has zero hard info to back it up.

 

The creationists are so devoid of anything rational to contribute to the conversation that I'm hessitant to call it a debate. Its more like one side trying to show where the provable facts lead them, and the other side sticking there fingers in their ears while shouting "God is on my side!" over and over again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with you about the whole one side being stupid about it, but really, I want both sides to get a better idea because this old debate is really quite boring and really going in one LONG circle of nowhereness. And if you don't have an answer now, what makes you think another 100 years of screaming at each other back and forth will change anything? Really, get a new view on the whole thing...spacecows......

 

Of course it will never end because faith takes no real proof and people will cling to that long before science because science is not as happy a place as faith is.

 

If evolution is correct, why are most people retarded when it comes to which side is right? Shouldn't those people have been weeded out by now? Or maybe evolution is wrong...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There ARE valid debates going on with regards to evolution. It just happens to be that they are between neo-Darwinists and Stephen J. Gould's disciples, and the issue is gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. Creationists don't "debate" with evolutionists, because they don't bring any scientific material or credentials with them.

[chaosrage 0]

Then why is it supposedly a "God vs. Science" debate when it can't prove or disprove the existance of God at all?

 

And I know about the Big Bang Theory(and believe it to be a load of bull), but what are some other theories how it all came to be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well there's the theory that Odin killed a Frost Giant and made the world with his dead body.. http://thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg Oh, you mean a theory that there's a chance might've actually happened? I'm afraid it begins and ends with the Big Bang.

[Justice 0]

Only in America would this even be a serious issue. Science classes should teach evolution. Evolution is the scientific explanation for the origin of species. Whether it's "fact" or not is as immaterial as whether gravity is a "fact." It's the scientific explanation, and it can and should be taught in high school classes with abslolutely no attention paid to possible alternatives, which are almost always religion-based anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dude, your country had a party devoted to the repeal of the law of Gravity. And it got 40,000 votes. You really don't have room to talk.

 

But this is idiotic. While evolution has 'holes', there's more sensible proof to it than there ever was to simple literal creationism. I always thought the compromise is the easiest way to look at it, and it's not like it's a direct contradiction when you really think about it.

 

Personally, I full endorse Norse myth as the correct theory to be taught in schools. It'd be a hell of a lot more interesting than anything Christianity could summon up.