Evolution is a Mystery

[CheesalaIsGood 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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Holy Shit! I agree with you! I too bow to Odin! He guides our axes, spears, and swords.

[SuperJerk 0]

I once told a creationist I thought the world was created in 1832 by a bunch of magic elves, then used creationist arguments to defend my position. Man, he got pissed.

[Justice 0]

I once told a creationist I thought the world was created in 1832 by a bunch of magic elves, then used creationist arguments to defend my position.  Man, he got pissed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Look, I have it on the highest authority around: The AD&D Creature Guide."

[chaosrage 0]

I once told a creationist I thought the world was created in 1832 by a bunch of magic elves, then used creationist arguments to defend my position.  Man, he got pissed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wish I could've been there.

[SuperJerk 0]

I once told a creationist I thought the world was created in 1832 by a bunch of magic elves, then used creationist arguments to defend my position.  Man, he got pissed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wish I could've been there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I strongly recommend trying it yourself some time.

 

The key is maintaining that stuff that predates 1832 was just put there by the elves to fool us.

[Justice 0]

I'd rather say that Earth was built to order by Slartibartfast for pan-galactic beings disguised as mice.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I would love to see a creation argument between a creationist and a scientologist. Maybe one of these religious right fundies could debate Tom Cruise on a TV talk show.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Slartibartfast

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best name ever.

[SuperJerk 0]

Slartibartfast

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best name ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That'll be someone's username by the end of the month.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That'll be someone's username by the end of the month.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Will we get Majikthise and Eccentrica Gallumbits, too?

[SuperJerk 0]

That'll be someone's username by the end of the month.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Will we get Majikthise and Eccentrica Gallumbits, too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only if we're lucky.

[Guest bennerisbetter]

This is so stupid

[SuperJerk 0]

I was giving this some more thought today...

 

...if one small part of the Bible was changed, this wouldn't even be a controversy.

 

(The same could be said for an even smaller part of the Bible and gay marriage.)

[ZGangsta 0]

Well, it looks like those crazy christians have been bolstered by the fledgling acceptance of their intelligent design rhetoric, and are now trying to erode away at other scientific achievements. The fine folks at The Onion report:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

 

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

 

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

 

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

 

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

 

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

 

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

 

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

 

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

 

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

 

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

 

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

 

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

 

God I love The Onion. The funny (and sad) part is that I could actually potentially see that being a real article.

[SuperJerk 0]

Anybody else watching "The Daily Show" this week?

 

Funny, funny stuff.

[cbacon 0]

Is there a site with Daily Show torrents? I've missed it the past couple of weeks.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yeah, Bacon, I posted in the "Thread which doesn't warrant a comment".

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Given the build-up, I found "The Daily Show" this week to be a little disappointing. I enjoyed the Evolution stories, but I don't understand why a show devoted to that controversy requires an interview with Gweneth Paltrow about her new movie. In short, I wish they'd stuck to just stuff about evolution and left the irrelevant celebrity interviews out of it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Science as Kansas sees it

 

Standards change could be short-lived

 

By DAVID KLEPPER

 

The Kansas City Star

 

In the beginning, when voters created the Kansas Board of Education to oversee schools, those intelligent designers couldn’t have imagined it would go forth and multiply all this controversy.

 

The board could close the latest chapter of the evolution debate Tuesday when it is set to vote on science curriculum standards that change the definition of science and cast doubt on the theory of evolution. It’s possible another administrative delay could postpone the vote, but the approval is seen as inevitable.

 

Inevitable, maybe. Permanent, maybe not. The standards won’t go into effect until the 2007 school year. By then the school board could look dramatically different if moderates are successful in unseating conservatives in the November 2006 elections, both sides say. That could make the new standards moot, and start the whole debate over again. Both sides say the controversy has been too heated, and the implications for science, religion and education too great, for any easy solution.

 

The board’s conservative majority says it’s merely injecting criticism of what it calls a blindly accepted theory, and allowing students to decide for themselves. And they have their supporters. Polls indicate most Kansans have doubts about evolution and don’t dismiss the idea of teaching alternatives. Other states like Ohio and schools in Georgia and Pennsylvania have joined the debate as well.

 

“We want students to understand more about evolution, not less,” said John Calvert, leader of the Intelligent Design Network and one of the driving forces behind the changes. Intelligent Design is the belief that aspects of the natural world show signs of design, and not random evolution. “To understand a claim, you should also understand those aspects of the claim that some people think are problematic. That’s all these changes do.”

 

Moderates disagree and aren’t conceding defeat. They hope to unseat enough conservative board members in November 2006 to retake control of the board in time to change the standards back. They say the revisions to the standards are a step toward creationism and an unacceptable marriage of religion and public education. The changes, they say, jeopardize the state’s efforts to grow the bioscience industry and hurt school children who will one day graduate to an ever globalizing high-tech economy.

 

“This is distracting us from the goal of making sure every kid is well-educated,” said board member Sue Gamble, a Shawnee moderate. “Regular people are starting to say, ‘Enough is enough. We’ve got to stand up for ourselves.’ ”

 

In 1999, the board voted to remove most references to evolution, the origin of the universe and the age of the Earth. The next year, voters responded and the board’s majority went to moderates. The standards were changed back.

 

In politics, however, there’s no such thing as extinction: conservatives regrouped, retaking the majority in 2004.

 

“The state board used to be a pretty mundane office,” said Kansas State University political science professor Joe Aistrup. “But this is a clash of ideas, and it reverberates up and down, with everything that’s going on with conservatives and moderates. It’s not surprising that it’s become this high-profile, and voters will remember.”

 

The board’s 10 members serve four-year terms. Every two years, five seats come up for election. Conservative board members John Bacon of Olathe, Connie Morris of St. Francis, Iris Van Meter of Thayer and Ken Willard of Hutchinson all face re-election in November 2006, as does Waugh. Not every incumbent has announced re-election plans, but most are expected to run.

 

Conservative groups say they’re ready for a fight, and say the evolution issue cuts both ways.

 

“People will vote their wishes,” Bacon said. “I think the public of Kansas supports what we’re doing.”

 

Doubts about Darwin

 

The board routinely reviews curriculum standards for just about every facet of education, kindergarten through high school. The standards are the basis for state assessment tests and serve as a template for local school districts and teachers. Local districts are not required to teach the standards — they just risk lower assessment scores if they choose not to.

 

When a 27-member committee of scientists and teachers began the process of updating the standards, a vocal minority proposed inserting criticism of evolution. Six members of the Board of Education applauded the changes, and agreed to put most of them into the standards. Now the board is poised to put the amended standards to a final vote.

 

The changes to the standards incorporate substantial criticism of evolutionary theory, calling into question the theory made famous by Charles Darwin. Supporters say there isn’t proof of the origin and variety of life and the genetic code. The changes also alter the definition of science to allow for non-natural explanations.

 

Supporters of the changes say they don’t want children indoctrinated with an unproven theory. The board had two weeks of hearings in May to hear testimony from scientists who dispute evolution. Conservative board members said they made their case.

 

Calling them a farcical publicity stunt, mainstream scientists boycotted the hearings. Nobel Prize winners, scientists and religious leaders signed petitions opposing what they said was a blurring of the lines between science and religion and thinly veiled push for creationism.

 

Bloggers and national comedians lampooned the hearings as national and international media poured into Topeka. Board members say they received mocking e-mails from around the world. If the ridicule got to them, the conservatives won’t say. But they admit to a certain evolution fatigue.

 

“I’m extremely anxious to put this behind us,” Morris said. She has been a strong critic of evolution, even calling it “impossible” in a newsletter to supporters.

 

Other states have seen similar fights to change the way evolution is taught. Education officials in Ohio changed science standards there to cast doubt on evolution. A Georgia school district tried to put stickers on textbooks that read “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.” A judge later ruled the stickers illegal, saying their message promotes Christian fundamentalism. And a legal challenge is now in court in Dover, Pa., where school officials voted to include alternative explanations to evolution.

 

Morris and her fellow conservatives cite polls that show Kansans have doubts when it comes to evolution. The Kansas City Star conducted a poll last summer and 55 percent said they believe in either creationism or intelligent design — more than double the 26 percent who said they believe evolution to be responsible for the origin of life. But opponents say that’s beside the point: Most Americans say they believe in God, too, but that doesn’t mean he should be taught in public schools.

 

“I believe in the Biblical account of creation,” Waugh said. “But it has no place in the science class. In a comparative religions class, sure. The best place to teach is at home or at your place of worship.”

 

Board members say the public is behind them, and that unseating them on Election Day won’t be easy.

 

“People come up to me and tell me we’re doing the right thing,” Van Meter said. “We wouldn’t do this if Kansans didn’t support it.”

 

All eyes on Kansas

 

Evolution turned this little-known governmental entity into a battleground in the state’s clash between conservatives and moderates. And that’s the way it’s likely to stay for a while.

 

This year, it’s not just the board’s take on evolution that’s stirred controversy. Conservatives also want to make it easier for parents to pull children from sex education classes, and last month they chose Bob Corkins as education commissioner, even though he had no experience teaching or running schools.

 

All those issues prompted a group of Kansas residents to form the Kansas Alliance for Education, a group with the goal of defeating board conservatives. Alliance leader Don Hineman, a cattle rancher from Dighton, Kan., said the group will work to support candidates and get out the vote.

 

“There’s a sense of frustration that I think many Kansans share,” he said. “The conservative majority on the board is focused on a narrow agenda, at the expense of their objective, which is improving education for Kansas children.”

 

He’s not alone. Harry McDonald, an Olathe resident and the leader of Kansas Citizens for Science, has announced his candidacy for the seat now occupied by John Bacon. More candidates are expected.

 

“We need to take down two to retake the majority,” Gamble said. “I’m focused on four, but that’s an enormous undertaking.”

 

Calvert, the intelligent design leader, said he knows the evolution debate will factor into the election. No matter what happens at the polls, he said the public is coming around to the notion of challenging one of science’s sacred cows.

 

“It’s going to happen,” he said. “It’s really what the public wants. Anybody who takes these changes out really needs to be thinking seriously about what they’re doing.”

 

If conservatives hold on to the majority, Gamble said she expects a legal challenge to the new science standards. If moderates unseat conservatives, the latter will pour its energies into the next election, even if some conservatives admit to being weary of the fray.

 

Kris Van Meteren is a conservative activist who helped get his mother, Iris Van Meter, on the school board. He’s part of the effort that has kept evolution front and center. He said he hopes it’s not necessary, but his side will keep pushing until evolution comes down from its pedestal in the academic world.

 

“We’re not in this for one or two elections,” said Van Meteren, who changed his name to reflect his Dutch heritage. “That was clear in ’99 when we lost control of the board. Everybody thought, ‘They’re gone, that’s over.’ But even if we lose another election, we’re not going away.”

 

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/13092974.htm

 

I'm glad I don't teach in Kansas.

[Slayer 0]

Well, at least I'll be out of here as soon as possible...

[SuperJerk 0]

'Intelligent design' school board booted

Eight of nine members lose reelection bid

 

DOVER, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

 

The election unfolded amid a landmark federal trial involving the Dover public schools and the question of whether intelligent design promotes the Bible's view of creation. Eight Dover families sued, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

 

Dover's school board adopted a policy in October 2004 that requires ninth-graders to hear a prepared statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution in biology class.

 

Eight of the nine school board members were up for election Tuesday. They were challenged by a slate of Democrats who argued that science class was not the appropriate forum for teaching intelligent design.

 

"My kids believe in God. I believe in God. But I don't think it belongs in the science curriculum the way the school district is presenting it," said Jill Reiter, 41, a bank teller who joined a group of high school students waving signs supporting the challengers Tuesday.

 

A spokesman for the winning slate of candidates has said they wouldn't act hastily and would consider the outcome of the court case. The judge expects to rule by January; the new school board members will be sworn in December 5.

 

School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn't just about ideology.

 

"Some people felt intelligent design shouldn't be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit," he said.

 

Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some kind of higher force. The statement read to students says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."

 

A similar controversy has erupted in Kansas, where the state Board of Education on Tuesday approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The 6-4 vote was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/evo...n.ap/index.html

[Justice 0]

Can anyone say fucking PWNED?

[EricMM 0]

Gooo PA.

 

Now on to Kansas...

 

Actually, let them teach it.

 

I hope to God I never have to fight that fight here in MD, and we can just take every single person who knows a lick about biology come here instead of the backwards there. Or at least a portion of them.

[SuperJerk 0]

See? Here it is.

[super_tigris 0]

Couple of things:

 

Scientifically, this thread is horrendous. Nothing in Science is ever proven, you can't do it, you can't do it. It needs to be said that the only thing Science is capable of in terms of 'proving' things is disproving them. Science is compiling ideas such as theories and hypothesis and attaining evidence (NOT PROOF) in order to disprove certain aspects of theories or hypothesis. What that means is that we have no way to prove evolution, we have evidence to suggest that certain things did or didn't happen (which esentially means the door is wide open), but nothing that says "HEY HEY, MOTHER FUCKER, THIS IS FACT!"

 

Furthermore, the reason you can't teach Creationism in a Science class is because the fuck-tards who put up the fight to put it in Science classrooms have no clue what they're talking about or definitions of what they're saying. They ramble on the air about having 'proof' that Evolution is false, and go so far as to create songs that revolve around lines of 'whenever we hear evolution, ask if they were there', to which all the little children scream 'NO' out loud. They fall into their own hypocritical arguments, and in one breath they support one theory and Evolution with their own 'proof'. I've heard a woman argue that remains of whales were found atop mountains, and how can Evolution be true, that whale must have been placed their by God! Well, fuck face, there's this thing called plate techtonics. There's a million other things they nitpick that only further disprove things that scientists disproved years ago.

 

Another reason you can't teach creationism in schools is because that class cannot be placed in other classes Government funded. If you don't fund Stem-Cell research based on religous grounds, you don't fund religous classes in public schools. If my teacher told me I had to learn this as part of state curiculum, I would tell them to fuck themselves and to first fund stem-cell research in order to find out more about a disease that nearly took my great grandmother away from me.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Teach creationism in history class, evolution in science class. That's what my high school did, and I didn't come out of it as a nutcase.

[Slayer 0]

Well, at least I'll be out of here as soon as possible...

Fuck, I'm still here!

[SuperJerk 0]

Teach creationism in history class, evolution in science class. That's what my high school did, and I didn't come out of it as a nutcase.

Why the hell would anyone teach creationism in history class, except to to point to it as an idea that belongs on the scrap heap of history with fascism, divine right of kings, and the New Coke.

[dubq 0]

Teach creationism in history class, evolution in science class. That's what my high school did, and I didn't come out of it as a nutcase.

Why the hell would anyone teach creationism in history class, except to to point to it as an idea that belongs on the scrap heap of history with fascism, divine right of kings, and the New Coke.

 

[Guest Felonies!]

Teach creationism in history class, evolution in science class. That's what my high school did, and I didn't come out of it as a nutcase.

Why the hell would anyone teach creationism in history class, except to to point to it as an idea that belongs on the scrap heap of history with fascism, divine right of kings, and the New Coke.

Uh, yeah. Y2Jerk gets a little too eager to debunk people.