http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=15&u=/nm/religion_evolution_dc - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896& ;e=15&u=/nm/religion_evolution_dc

  This is so friggin' stupid. I doubt even the most liberal person on this forum could justify this.

Excuse me while I go shoot myself.

(Reguardless as to weather that is true or not) This is one screwed up world we live in.

Oh please.  One doesn't have to be "liberal" to see that this is the correct decision.

Do you see a sticker on your engineering textbook that says that "structural theory is just a theory and should be viewed with an open mind"?  How about a sticker on the psych book that says that "behavioral theory is just a theory..." etc.

Of course not.  In engineering class they teach engineering; in psych class they taech psychology; in biology class they teach biology.  If they want to teach evolution, they should go ahead - in comparative religion.

There are a zillion places stickers like this could have been put, but were not.  Evolution was singled out.  It is an obvious attempt by government officials to impose religious views on the public, and should be prohibited.

Legally speaking, this is a no-brainer.  They never had a chance.

I think people should just stop arguing about this and come to some kind of agreement...

Belt #2 wrote: (Reguardless as to weather that is true or not)

its whether not weather.(the smartest thing ive ever done)

Snipa69 wrote: Im with Clark. I believe the right choice was made here. In my highschool there was a comparative religions class and the standard Biology class every sophomore had to take. If you put a sticker like that one in a Bio book, you may as well put one in the books for comparitive religion that state that they are not fact either; because let's face it, they aren't. The bible is stories about religion that have been passed down for hundreds and thousands of years. Anyone who has played the game Telephone where you sit in a circle and try to get one message all the way arround the circle without it being screwed up knows that things get lost in translation.

But what about areas that have no religion class?  My school never did and never will have anything to do with religion.  We arn't even allowed to say the pledge because of "under God".  You hear a lot about rulings in court like this but it was the first time that B.S. directly effected me.  Hundreds of thousands of years is very inaccurate Snipa since the Bible is based on the world being made less than 5 thousand years ago. 

Schools SHOULD have religion class, and they SHOULD teach creationism/intelligent design in those classes - but that is beside the point.

Science classes teach science.  Evolution is the current consensus scientific theory of the origin of species.  Therefore it is taught.  Period.

Are there potential challenges to evolution?  Sure.  But there are also potential challenges to linear algebra, harmonics theory, astronomy theory, quantum physics, and everything else in your science book.

Regardless of any particular perceived flaw in evolutionary theory, it has the backing of the scientific community, and is therefore taught in science.

In order for that sticker NOT to be illegal, the sticker would have to read "everything in this book is theory and should be judged with an open mind", and then that sticker should be on ALL science books, not just bio books.  There are plenty of other scientific theores taught in school with substantially less evidentiary backing than evolution.  None of these were stickered.

Therefore, this was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.  Simple.  Regardless of your personal views on evolution, this is blatantly unconstitutional.

Now, as to the merits of evolutionary theory itself, I would be happy to discuss those also, but that is a separate discussion from this discussion of the constitution.

But before we do that, I encourage you to read the transcript from the Scopes Monkey Trial and A Brief History of Time.  Both very educational on the beginnings of stuff.

TheHoff wrote: Snipa69 wrote: Im with Clark. I believe the right choice was made here. In my highschool there was a comparative religions class and the standard Biology class every sophomore had to take. If you put a sticker like that one in a Bio book, you may as well put one in the books for comparitive religion that state that they are not fact either; because let's face it, they aren't. The bible is stories about religion that have been passed down for hundreds and thousands of years. Anyone who has played the game Telephone where you sit in a circle and try to get one message all the way arround the circle without it being screwed up knows that things get lost in translation. But what about areas that have no religion class?  My school never did and never will have anything to do with religion.  We arn't even allowed to say the pledge because of "under God".  You hear a lot about rulings in court like this but it was the first time that B.S. directly effected me.  Hundreds of thousands of years is very inaccurate Snipa since the Bible is based on the world being made less than 5 thousand years ago.

First, i said Hundreds AND thousands, not of. Second, stickers placed on any text book that challenge the content of said book are stupid to even a logical standard. How seriously would you take that class if for every homework assignment you could just say "I didn't do it because of my views on biology. This sticker pretty much allows me to skip out on this class.'' I know many many people that would use such a loop-hole.

cdacda13 wrote: Belt #2 wrote: (Reguardless as to weather that is true or not) its whether not weather.(the smartest thing ive ever done)

It's great that you spend all of your time patrolling the forum for spelling and grammar errors, and everything...

But, quite frankly, I don't care how it's spelled.

"Weather" or "whether" It's all the same to me.

Quick, off to the nub and "idea's" forum, you have work to do!

hashi2008 wrote:   Clark, please show me where the constitution says anything about the separation of church and state.  There was nothing wrong with the sticker.  The ruling violates the first ammendment, not the sticker.

There is a common tendency among many people to confuse "the law" with "what I would like the law to be".

The First Amendment does not specifically mention separation of church and state.  However, we have a common law system, as established by the Constitution.  Pursuant to that constitution and that legal system, we have 200+ years of interpretation of the First Amendment, and there are a variety of Supreme Court rulings that state VERY clearly that the First Amendment means that there is a wall between church and state.  This principle is one of the most solid in American jurisprudence.  To deny its validity just because the word "separation" does not appear in the First Amendment is silly.

You are simply wrong.  As a matter of fact, and as a matter of law, you are wrong.

Darur wrote: Pardon me asking, but how does that sticker push creationsim?  I read it about 30 times and I dont see it.

Read in a vacuum, it does not push anything.  This was the point made by the supporters of the sticker.

But we do not live in a vacuum.  When viewed in societal context, the sticker attempts to discredit one particular scientific theory.  By not attempting to discredit other theories, the sticker singles out this one theory.  This one theory (evolution) happens to be perpetually embroiled in religious controversy.  There is no apparent reason to single out this one theory for discredit, other than religious motivation.  And that makes it unconstitutional.

It doesn't push creationism - it discredits evolution for religious motivations.  Different approach, same motivation.

errr.....

SandMan wrote: Except that evolution IS a religious belief... .

Evolutionary theory may happen to coincide with some religious/quasi-religious views, but so does astronomy, prime number theory, feng shui, and certain diets.  That doesn't mean that those are religious beliefs for purposes of the First Amendment.

tippy_182 wrote: So now your basing it on assumption that it was the creationists who were behind it... I hope Mr. Bush starts using more of his morals on his country. He doesn't have to worry about re-election anymore, he shall own.

I don't understand any part of this post.

SandMan wrote: The fact is, and there's no way you can logically deny this, the teaching of evolution as fact IS an endorsement of a religion.

Here's logic:

Evolution is science.  Creationism is not science.

Therefore, in science class, we teach evolution.

Any apparent endorsement of religion in the process in entirely incidental.

Well, to the extent that believing in science is faith, then yes, I have faith in science and science is my religion.

But by that standard, this computer is a religious instrument, and the government should not be allowed to own computers.  Or tanks.  Or telephones.  Or clothes.  Or anything else that is the result of science.

It is all science.  Singling out evolution as somehow "different" than other scientific theory is simply flat-earthing.

Although I am curious as to why the same sticker was not applied to books discussing the Big Bang.

SandMan wrote: You have no solid justification for the stance that creationism isn't every bit as scientific as evolution.

Are you serious??

There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory.

There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.

Clark Kent wrote: SandMan wrote: You have no solid justification for the stance that creationism isn't every bit as scientific as evolution. Are you serious?? There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory. There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.

Sandman has already done a good job discrediting arguments for evolution but after reading the quoted post I gotta put in my reasoning.  Might I add that there is a lot of evidence against the theory of evolution too.  I believed we already discussed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and somebody hyperlinked a web site that didn't solve anything.  There are also no examples of the so called "missing link."  Eohippus [the mini horse that was the "missing link"] is now found in the same strata as full sized horses.  If you ever looked at results from geological explorations?  ALL have shown that the earth was once covered by water.  What "theory" supports that?  Creationism.  I'll even give you an example from the Bible.  Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle.

TheHoff wrote: Clark Kent wrote: There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory. There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.   Might I add that there is a lot of evidence against the theory of evolution too.

There are some weaknesses - but often those serve more to discredit the basic understanding of science of those who argue those weaknesses than to actually discredit evolution. 

But more to the point, an argument against evolution does NOT equal evidence in support of creationism.

I believed we already discussed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

And poorly - this goes to my point above about basic understanding of science.  Read A Brief History of Time.  That will answer your questions on that particular subject.

There are also no examples of the so called "missing link."  Eohippus [the mini horse that was the "missing link"] is now found in the same strata as full sized horses.

And ditto.  This is evidence better understanding of your lack of understanding of science fundamentals than anything else.

If you ever looked at results from geological explorations?  ALL have shown that the earth was once covered by water.  What "theory" supports that?  Creationism.

If that is your "evidence" for creationism, then you are in trouble.  The earth covered in water is also consistent with evolution, as well as with a zillion other theories.

BTW - what does the bible/creationism say about the ice age?

I'll even give you an example from the Bible. Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle.

The above is, AT BEST, weak evidence of a particular natural occurrence that is consistent with one element of the bible.  That is NOT evidence of creation.  Not even close.

BTW, a variety of people have described the recent tsunami as "biblical."  In biblical times, with a more limited population and poor communications, such an event could easily meet the criteria for a Noahian flood...

Your previous post simply restated points that had been raised and addressed earlier in this thread, and therefore does not warrant a separate reply.

Scientists have been able to estimate the Earth's age by using space, time and distance of light years, and visibility. It's pretty amazing calculations.

Clark Kent wrote: TheHoff wrote: Clark Kent wrote: There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory. There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.   Might I add that there is a lot of evidence against the theory of evolution too.

There are some weaknesses - but often those serve more to discredit the basic understanding of science of those who argue those weaknesses than to actually discredit evolution.  

But more to the point, an argument against evolution does NOT equal evidence in support of creationism.

But an argument for evolution makes creationism obsolete?  Double standard.

I believed we already discussed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

And poorly - this goes to my point above about basic understanding of science.  Read A Brief History of Time.  That will answer your questions on that particular subject.

After reading some of your arguments I seriously doubt you have the intelligence to read a book like that and actually understand it enough to realize flaws in it.  Its easy to copy something from a paper, but totaly different to read and comprehend.

There are also no examples of the so called "missing link."  Eohippus [the mini horse that was the "missing link"] is now found in the same strata as full sized horses.

And ditto.  This is evidence better understanding of your lack of understanding of science fundamentals than anything else.

Based on what?  That even though there is no proof there HAS to be something out there?  A "it has to be out there" comment shows that evolutionism is a belief system, much like a religion.  How is this showing [back to the horse] a lack of understanding?  This has to be the vaugest comment I have ever read.  Prove that I am wrong on this.  Classification on this clearly shows that this is a modern day animal.  "You don't understand" only works with teenage girls. 

If you ever looked at results from geological explorations?  ALL have shown that the earth was once covered by water.  What "theory" supports that?  Creationism.

If that is your "evidence" for creationism, then you are in trouble.  The earth covered in water is also consistent with evolution, as well as with a zillion other theories.

BTW - what does the bible/creationism say about the ice age?

Did I only use the earth covered in water as support for creationism?  No, I had about 3 points arguing different areas from fossil records to flaws in well recieved modern science.  You just took one of my points out of context because you had no legitiment agrument against it.

BTW- there is nothing in the Bible to rule out the ice age.  God had to do something with all the water after the great flood.

I'll even give you an example from the Bible. Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle.

The above is, AT BEST, weak evidence of a particular natural occurrence that is consistent with one element of the bible.  That is NOT evidence of creation.  Not even close.

No, it shows serious errors in modern science thinking.  Go back to the drawing boards.  Consistant with the Bible timeframe?  I don't see anything supporting evolution in that.  It does back up the Bible.

BTW, a variety of people have described the recent tsunami as "biblical."  In biblical times, with a more limited population and poor communications, such an event could easily meet the criteria for a Noahian flood...

You are taking arguments by a very minor population of the Christian realm to make your points.  These people are the uneducated ones in the history of geology.  If I took some athiest drug lord out of prison who believed in evolution it would not be hard to discredit his reasoning.  This is basically what you are doing. 

[/QUOTE]

TheHoff wrote: But an argument for evolution makes creationism obsolete?  Double standard.

Nope - scientific standard.

(made up approximate numbers to follow)

If 99% of scientific evidence is consistent with evolution, and 1% is inconsistent, a good scientist will conclude that evolution is a pretty darn good theory.

If 20% of scientific evidence in consistent with earth's creation 5000 years ago, and 80% is inconsistent, a good scientist will conclude that creationsim is a pretty bad theory.

It is the SAME standard, applied CONSISTENTLY, that leads to different conclusions.

The bottom line is that if you want to apply the scientific standard, the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution is, well, overwhelming.  Are there blanks to be completed, inconsistencies to be figured out?  Sure - that is the nature of science. 

Hoff wrote: me wrote: Read A Brief History of Time.  That will answer your questions on that particular subject. After reading some of your arguments I seriously doubt you have the intelligence to read a book like that and actually understand it enough to realize flaws in it.  Its easy to copy something from a paper, but totaly different to read and comprehend.

Now you are just making me giggle.

Do I fully understand quantum mechanics?  No - but to quote/paraphrase Richard Feynmann:  "Nobody understands quantum mechanics".

I suggested Hawking's book because it is the SIMPLEST treatise of its kind on the market - he does a pretty good job condensing what is essentially college physics into a single slender book, and making it fairly understandable.  He does, however, also specifically address concerns about the 2d Law when applied to the Big Bang, which also involves order from chaos and is therefore seemingly inconsistent.  His reponse will approximate the response to the anti-evolution argument. 

As to finding flaws - as to the parts of physics that I do not understand, I am comfortable taking Hawking's word for it.  Are YOU prepared to challenge Stephen Hawking in his field of expertise?

hoff wrote: ...Based on what?  That even though there is no proof there HAS to be something out there?  A "it has to be out there" comment shows that evolutionism is a belief system, much like a religion.  How is this showing [back to the horse] a lack of understanding?

Time for a quick parable:

Let's say, over the course of a few years of excavation, we discover a bunch of old human skeletons.  Using available dating technology, we conclude that these skeletons vary in age from 1000 to 2000 years old.

We also notice that the older skeletons are consistently shorter (in height) than the younger skeletons.  Generally speaking, the younger the skeleton, the taller the skeleton.

We do no, however, find any skeletons between 500 and 700 years of age.  There is a gap.  Other than height and age, however, there is virtually no difference between the older and younger skeletons.

From this pile of oversimplified evidence, which of the following do we (as scientists) conclude:

A - Humans got consistently taller during that 1000-year period.  The missing skeletons may have destroyed, or maybe just haven't been found yet.  If we found the missing skeletons, they would probably fit into the "growing taller" theory.

B - The missing skeletons are missing because they don't exist.  They are evidence that God brought down a flood (or whatever), and wiped out humankind, and then re-created humans 200 years later, just a little taller.

This is how science WORKS.  You NEVER have all the evidence.  You look at the available evidence, and reach the logical conclusion.  When inconsistent evidence comes up, you tweak.  If the missing horsey comes up wrong, we tweak - we don't throw throw out evolution.  That makes no sense, given the volumes of evidence supporting the basics.

Evolution is not just something that Darwin sat down and dreamed up.  Evolution (small e) is a mathematical necessity, and disputed by nobody.  Add to that the volumes and volumes of fossil evidence which lines up oh-so-nicely, add to that the growing volumes of genetic evidence that also lines up oh-so-nicely, and you get a very powerful argument indeed that humankind evolved from something else.

To flat out disbelieve Evolution is to disbelieve science.  And nobody typing on a computer gets to disbelieve science.  Science is not a bunch of separate facts and theories - everything is connected.  The same theories and facts that support the Big Bang (and therefore disproves a world 5000 years old) also led to space travel and nuclear weapons.  You cannot simply dismiss the Big Bang unless you also think the moon-landing and Hiroshima were frauds.  That would be like believing that 2+2=4, but then arguing that 20+5 does NOT equal 25.  It is all interconnected and interreliant.

Evolution is not "merely" a theory.  Evolution is SCIENCE, and that is what they teach in SCIENCE CLASS.

Did I only use the earth covered in water as support for creationism?  No, I had about 3 points arguing different areas from fossil records to flaws in well recieved modern science.  You just took one of my points out of context because you had no legitiment agrument against it.

No - I took one point because the others were addressing evolution, not creationism.

There is a qualitative difference between (i) an argument/datum supporting theory A, and (ii) an argument/datum inconsistent with theory B.

AT BEST (in a fantasy world), your fossil evidence brings evolutionary theory tumbling down.  Even if that were the case, however, this would not amount to a shred of evidence for creationsim.  Evidence against evolution is qualitatively different from evidence for creationism.  And, of course, your fossil evidence does not bring evolutionary theory tumbling down.

hoff wrote: Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle. ... it shows serious errors in modern science thinking.

No, it doesn't.  Your statement shows your lack of understanding of scientific thinking.  All your petrification data shows is that science is always a work in progress.  That is how science works.  Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is apparently inconsistent with Newtonian physics.  Quantum mechanics, in turn is apparently inconsistent with Relativity.  Yet all three of those are taught in schools today, and used by engineers around the world every day.  How could this be, if the three theories are inconsistent?

BECAUSE THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.  Science is always a work in progress.  Newton, Einstein, Feynmann - it all works.  We are still working out the kinks, and maybe one day we will figure out everything.  Those theories are incomplete - that doesn't make them WRONG.

Similarly, evolutionary theory is incomplete - nobody disputes that.  But incomplete is not the same as wrong.  Evolutionary theory might still be proven wrong - that is the nature of science.  But given the volume of evidence supporting the evolution of man, that is overwhelmingly unlikely.  While the kinks are still being worked out, Evolution is at this point as much of a scientific fact as the Big Bang.

I liek the guy this writer quotes.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=26350&ntpid=1 - http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=26350&ntp id=1

Clark Kent wrote: SandMan wrote: You have no solid justification for the stance that creationism isn't every bit as scientific as evolution. Are you serious?? There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory. There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.

There were some people in Sweden, I believe that proved that creationism was possible but not that it happened. That might have been fiction though. It's ever so hard to tell with Dan Brown. I'll have to read it over again to see if he states that it actually happened in reality.

Clark Kent wrote: Evolution is SCIENCE, and that is what they teach in SCIENCE CLASS.

True. We have science for Evolution and church for Creation. Creation should be excluded from the schools just as much as evolution is from church.

phillll227 wrote: Clark, explain to me how the big bang is fact, and how it has any relevance to this debate.

For facts surrounding the Big Bang - read A Brief History of Time, or just study astrophysics for a few years.

The super-oversimplification is that we can measure the movement of celestial bodies, and if you 'rewind' that movement back far enough, we discover that everything started out at the same place.  Think of a slow-motion 3-D recording of a grenade explosion, except that we don't have the first half of the tape.  Just looking at the second half of tape, however, it is a relatively simple matter to backtrack to the idea that there WAS a grenade, where it was, and when it exploded.

That is the fundamental principle, but all the evidence cannot be summarized meaningfully without a solid grounding in mathematics and astrophysics (although Hawking does a pretty good job in Time).  Generally speaking, we do not claim to know what happened at the Big Bang, and certainly do not claim to know what existed "before" the Big Bang (if that concept is even possible.  Relativity tells us that "before the Big Bang" is a meaningless phrase).  We do know that something happened, and we do know approximately when (depending on how you define time).

As to relevance - only tangentially relevant.  I use it as a convenient example of how the Second Law of Thermodynamics is misapplied, as the 2d Law was once raised as an objection to the Big Bang.  I use it as a convenient example of how science is tied together, and I use it as an example of another scientific theory that is apparently inconsistent with creationism (depending on your particular brand of creationism).  Many creationists object to Big Bang at the same time they object to Evolution.

Mostly I use it because I have a much better understanding of mathematics/physics than I do of biology/paleontology, so I can fomulate my arguments better.

Ultimately, however, it all comes down to this:  The same science that gave us computers, airplanes, modern medicine, space travel, gene therapy, aspirin, and everything else we take for granted, also gave us the Big Bang and Evolution.

To simply disregard Evolution requires that you also disregard genetic theory, geology, nuclear physics, and all the other branches of science that come together for this single explanation of the origin of species.  Evolution is not isolated.  It is also to disregard the mountains of fossil evidence, the volumes of genetic evidence, and the terabytes of computer models, that ALL support evolution.  Pointing out apparent weaknesses/flaws in evolutionary theory does not "disprove" the theory - it simply helps refine it.  Silly points like the eye, or the missing link, or some misplaced horse - those do not "disprove" evolution.  To think that they do is to fail to understand the nature of science and the sheer volume of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

Skeptical thinking is always important, and it should be applied to evolutionary theory as well as everything else.  But there just isn't enough evidence in existence to simply unbelieve the fundamental basics of evolution.  Until that evidence surfaces, to unbelieve evolution is simply irrational.

Are you serious?

Apply basic English comprehension skills.

It IS all science, in the sense that we evaluate everything with scientific theory.

Creationism is NOT science, in the sense that creationism in not supported by scientific evidence.

Good lord.

Checked the site quickly - found only politics and Bible study.  Is there science there also?  More specific link would be appreciated...

And yes, evolutionary theory has flaws.  Of course.

Thanks for the links - but apparently we have different ideas of "science".

Can you point me to a scientific study or scientific article supporting creation?  Cuz those aren't it...

I recognize that actual science is hard to find on the internet, but even a cite to an off-line journal would suffice...

tippy_182 wrote: Alright, sorry it took me so long but I've got an angry girlfriend on AIM I have to deal with while lookin this stuff up. http://www.icr.org/ - http://www.icr.org/ I just linked the whole site because the entire site is filled with nothing but creationism science.

Thanks - very interesting.  Will review.

I combine the two like phillll227. I believe that God created the world but the way he did it is more likely to be the big bang theory. I can't take the Bible's version of creation too seriously seeing as there are two versions that differ in dramatic ways.

This topic has kinda strayed from the point though.

I'm always troubled by threads like these because it paints religion and the religious in such a terrible light.

Somehow in recent years (and demonstrated so well here) being religious for a lot of people has come to mean a reactionary turn into willfull ignorance, very similar in nature to what the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists have done to Islam. And I don't mean that even slightly in jest or as an insult. The rejection of science by the christian right is a terrifying prospect for the future. To willfully walk away from truth because it conflicts with what you want to believe is to retreat into barbarism and superstition.

Evolution is not some sort of scary remote concept out "to get" religion. It's an utterly simple and painfully obvious process of nature. Long before Charles Darwin gave it a name, mankind saw glimpses of evolution and understood enough about how it worked to use it to our advantage. Don't believe in evolution? Then you don't believe in cows, horses, chickens or dogs just to name a few examples.

Evolution is not something you can justifiably believe in or not. Evolution doesn't require belief...it requires understanding. You can choose to ignore it...but its out there just the same.

phillll227 wrote: There are two different "types" of evolution, micro and macro. Almost everybody who understands evolution at all, (including the Catholic Church I believe), recognizes that micro-evolution does occur. The debate occurs when the issue of all modern life being spawned from primordial DNA and amino acids is brought up. So you can understand evolution, and yet choose not to believe that it is responsible for all modern life on Earth.

The origin of life on earth is something else entirely and not really the purview of Evolution "macro" or "micro" at all. Evolution has nothing to do with creation...just alteration. The Macro/Micro differentiation at the species level is an arbitrary human construct (as are species for that matter). Life evolves...the only difference is that macro takes a lot longer.  

If this is really just about the origin of life however...then the word evolution should immediately be dropped. I know far too many people (co-workers, friends etc) who when they hear the religious right say "I don't believe in Evolution" assume that's exactly what they mean...and immediately dismiss them as woefully ignorant.

The origin of life is a mystery which will never be solved...nor explained, because it can't be. Even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a random collection of amino acids became a life form in some primordial pool you could never prove the catalyst wasn't the work of God. What better divine spark than a bolt of lighting? An aethiest could claim random chance and a man of faith could claim it was the hand of God...and no one could ever really know.

And kudos on a sensible post in a rarely sensible thread.

Well I've always said that if we came from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?

The theory that we evolved from monkeys is crap (not saying that anyone said we did) and come on... How did that sticker have anything to do with our creation??

duckncover21 wrote: Well I've always said that if we came from monkeys, why are monkeys still here? The theory that we evolved from monkeys is crap (not saying that anyone said we did) and come on... How did that sticker have anything to do with our creation??

We didn't evolve from monkeys.  Go read about evolution some more.

phillll227 wrote: I belive that species do change over time through the process of natural selection. What I do not believe is that all modern life forms somehow evolved from one amino acid or one strand of fragile DNA surrounded by a self-forming phospholipid bilayer. The inprobability of this occuring is mindboggling. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, but I do not believe that it did happen.

As pointed out above, the origins of life themselves are much less known than the subsequent evolution.  But you shouldn't let the extreme improbability of that event bother you.

Remember, if the chance of life forming randomly is one in a zillion, that's ok - nature got a trillion zillion shots on goal.  Nature is STILL making random attempts at life - here on earth and elsewhere. 

As they say, even a monkey could write Shakespeare, given enough monkeys and enough time.  Not to mention, of course, that the chance of winning the lottery is also about one in a zillion, but nobody claims that it is a miracle every time somebody wins.

As for the evidence against creationism based on the age of the Earth and the universe, I am what's called an old-earth creationist. I belive that the science that gives us our current estimation of the age of the earth is valid, be it geological and/or astronomical. This is where the translation and interpretaion of the Bible become a little bit unclear. Here I see two possibilities. One, when God created the Universe he made it appear old.

I always thought this was the most logical combination of science and creationism.  Perfectly consistent, as far as I can tell.

I am still waiting for an answer from Dune regarding my original question: "how is the sticker "degrading" the theory of evolution by encouraging students to approach it with an open mind

By negative implication.  The amount of "open mind" required for the study of evolution is neither more nor less than the amount required for the study of psychology, anthropology, English lit, chemistry, and everything else you learn in school.  But by applying the sticker to evolution only, and to everything else being taught, the sticker STRONGLY implied that evolution was somehow "less" than all the other science in that bio book.  By pointing out a weakness in evolution, and not pointing out that same weakness in everything else, the sticker unfairly singled out and degraded evolution.

Honestly - from a legal standpoint this decision is an absolute no-brainer.  Seriously.  Not even close.

phillll227 wrote: There are two different "types" of evolution, micro and macro. Almost everybody who understands evolution at all, (including the Catholic Church I believe), recognizes that micro-evolution does occur. The debate occurs when the issue of all modern life being spawned from primordial DNA and amino acids is brought up.

I have never heard the macro/micro distinction used by anybody other than critics of evolution.

Different people mean different things, but I usually hear that "macro"-evolution is the development of major new things and species, rather than the small incremental changes that nobody disputes.

The example usually raised is the development of the eye.  As it turns out, however, every alleged macro-evolution step I have ever heard described turns out to be plain old micro-evolution after all.

If by "macro" you mean amino acids, then that is a different thing...

our legal system is so ****** up

Actually, yes.  I am offended, irritated, and embarassed every time I hear the Pledge.  It bothers me absolutely to no end.

I tell people in other countries about the sticker case, and they (rightfully) laugh at the silly Americans.

It really really bothers me.  Seriously.  I get a headache just thinking about it.

Clark Kent wrote: tippy_182 wrote: http://www.icr.org/ - http://www.icr.org/ Thanks - very interesting.  Will review.

This might take me a while - not only is the site very dense, but the research page keeps crashing my computer (I don't know if that's a sign or what).  But I'll keep at it. 

:)