It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
.
No Johannmon,

You are thinking about Monoploidy [one copy of each chromosome], Triploidy, [triplicate copies of each chromosome] as opposed to the standard Diploidy [duplicate copies]

Or monosomy [one copy of a single chromosome], trisomy [three copies of a single chromosome] or the standard disomy [two copies of a single chromosome].

What i mentioned is duplication of a portion of a chromosome, creating a longer chromosome.
.




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Evolution IS a fact. It's exact mechanisms are a theory. Edumacation is a wonderful thing.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Kriz_4]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
No Johannmon,

You are thinking about Monoploidy [one copy of each chromosome], Triploidy, [triplicate copies of each chromosome] as opposed to the standard Diploidy [duplicate copies]

Or monosomy [one copy of a single chromosome], trisomy [three copies of a single chromosome] or the standard disomy [two copies of a single chromosome].

What i mentioned is duplication of a portion of a chromosome, creating a longer chromosome.
.


So what you mentioned has no bearing on creating new chromosomes whatsoever?! What then is the point of your innocuous information? I assumed you were refering to the only method on your link by which one could even begin to imagine that a new chromosome is created.

Even in the mutation you are mentioning there is no new genetic code created. There is only an extra copy of the code tacked on the end. This also has never been shown to create viable mutations nor does it somehow transform into viable genetic code that can grow legs on fish or any other remotely useful mutation. This is with labratory induced mutation rates thousands of times greater than what is found in the natural world.

Here is another fact for you. Of the evolution we do observe, in the breeding of specialized species of animals and insects, the new subspecies are never created via mutation of the genetic code but rather by reshuffling of the code. In other words the new species is not a result of added DNA put there by random or directed mutation. Instead the differences are formed by selecting portions of the genetic code that already exists and either giving them dominance or inhibitting them. Hence you can get a dog with short legs or long legs. You can get a bird with more black than brown. You can get a horse with a stocky body or a sleek one. You can get all manner of variation within a species by selecting certain traits and amplifying them or muting them. IF the DNA is mutated by adding extra copies of itself in parts rather than just reshuffled then either it has no effect at all on the subject (if it is an incactive portion of the DNA) or it has a damaging effect. Let me in conclusion restate that it has never been observed that the mutations you have mentioned, have resulted in any new traits that have benefitted the subject. In fact just the opposite. It has been observed that in all cased the effect of these types of mutations are either non-existant or negative.

The more you reach for these straws, the more you display the weakness of your argument. Your house of straw does not stand so why don't you tear it down and stand on the science that IS present in the theory of evolution. If you do this you may succeed in building a solid case for evolutions application to the theories of origins.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfup


"The more we question our beliefs and theories, the stronger they become." I know somone said that before, I just don't remember who.


Surf


Yeah, thanks for proving my point. Right back at ya on this one. Evolution should be presented to the student with the clarity of evenditial validation to date...that would be emphasizing that it is, at a stretch, a theory....absolutely not a law.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
The point here is that most high school classes that teach evolution do not limit themselves to the substantiated portion of evolutionary theory but almost without variation cross over to the unsubstantiated inference that observed micro-evolution is substantiated scientific explanation of the origin of life on this planet.

I have never heard of anyone being taught that darwin's theory 'explains' the origin of life. I find it hard to beleive that a science teacher would teach it, it makes not sense at all. Or even that 'micro-evolution' explains the orign of life?


This statement has religious implications that directly support a humanistic point of view while denigrating much of theistic religion.

So you are opposed to any scientific theory with regards to origins?


If you really believe that a textbook would be removed from the curriculum simply because it directly implies that evolution is a substantiated theory about the origin of life on this planet then you are living in a dream world bereft practical reality.

This 'evolution explains origin of life bit' is scientifically incorrect and I have never seen a textbook that explains anything like it, and I doubt strongly that the textbook in question does. Any textbook that says anything like 'micro-evolution explains abiogenesis' is as incorrect as one that says 'george washington was born in england and ruled china from 1432 until 1579'. It would be rejected. Although, since Cobb county has not taught evolution for so long because of pressure from the religious, perhaps no one there knows what evolution is anymore.


Neither they nor I have been taught the theory of evolution from a purely scientific viewpoint.

Ok, so you've had a poor education. How is this sticker supposed to correct that?


If you doubt this fact, just ask any high school kid, who has been taught evolution whether he believes evolution as a theory of origins is a fact or not

If I wanted to know the answer to a comlex math question, I would not as high school students. I don't doubt that there is a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding of what evolution is and what science is and how it operates and what its claims mean. Stickers like this only advance the problem.


9 times out of 10 unless that kid has had prior religious education they will state that evolution is a factual account of the origin of life on Earth

That statement doesn't even make sense. How is 'evolution' a factual account of origin? Or even the history of life on earth? Evolution is to specific to be anything like that.


It blinds them not only to theistic ideas of origins but also

Teaching evolution most certainly does not 'blind' anyone to any religious ideas, anymore than teaching astronomy does.


but also to the need for further exploration into the theory of evolution itself.

A high school student is not going to be competent enough, nor have the time, generally, to investigate the real controversies in evolutionary theory. I think it would be a good thing to do in science classes, but the average student can't even get evolution itself, let alone the intricacies and complexities involved. And certainly not with so many members of the public advocating stickers or ID or creationism and such.


Therefore to invite students to critically examine evolution and its tenants is a wise and perfectly constitutional counterbalance.

Since there is no imbalance, there is no need to correct it.


Unfortunately, in the real world every student and teacher that comes into the classroom brings their religious beliefs with them,

This is irrelevant. Science cannot be altered so that it agrees with irrational beleif systems.


There is good evidence to support the theory of evolution as it pertains to the evolution of species, subspecies, and related species.

What else do you think evolution covers?

[quoet]There is less substantial evidence to indicate that evolution can take place between types of fauna ie fish becoming mammals
There are only two lines of evidence that are acceptable for that matter, comparative morphological data and comparative genetic data. They strongly support evolution. There is no evidence that speaks in favour of any 'alternative' to evolution, hence to support it as scientific is a fallacy and to teach it in a science class of all things is a waste of time.


There is no substantiation to the idea that the theory of evolution is a factual explanation of how life began on this planet

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.


and evolved from bacteria to the complexity we see today

Except the genetic and morphological data, ie all the data that is had.


The goo to you by way of the zoo theory does not have any credible substantiation and most evolutionary biologist recognize this and even welcome its challenge to find proof.

This, of course, is not true.


While local school boards are given oversight of the educational process, the design of the curriculum and how that curriculum is taught is determined outside of the local school board.

And the highest level that that occurs at is the level of the state, and that varies state by state. As this case and other demonstrate, local school boards have tremendous influence.


Only a partisan could see the statement as throwing things out of balance.

Actually, only a biased partisan could see it as anything but.


Even the judges decision recognized that it was the partisanship behind the sticker that colored its usage

As pointed out at least twice already, the judge based his decision in large part on an amicus that demonstrated that the sticker's language was not, infact, neutral, even taken outside of the evo/crea debate.


To me it is ridiculous to imply that two sentences that state that evolution is a theory could be seen as “throwing things out of balance”

Then perhaps you are not familiar enough with the attempts by various national creationist groups to get creationism taught in public schools and to suppress the teaching of science in science classes.

[quoet]Science that denies the possibility that God exists is not science,
And who has said that any science does this? Evolution certainly doesn't. Science looks rationally at the evidence and experimental results. No experiment can demonstrate that god exists, just as no experiment can prove that god does not exist. God is entirely unreachable by science, thus, a scientific explanation is one wherein, effectively, one is able to see how such and such could happen without divine interference. Little demons might be what makes people sick, but the germ theory of disease is the scientific explanation of it. This might denigrate certain irrational beleifs of members of the public, but that hardly justifies putting stickers questioning the existence of bacteria onto medical books.


Hence to be scientifically honest you have to examine all evidences from both the perspective that there is no God and the perspective that there is and see which is more probable.

This is of course entirely not necessary. What is the difference for that matter? If 'god did evolution' as some say or if 'god does not exist and evolution just occured', what is the difference, in so far as the scientific theories about 'it'?


I welcome those who wish to study science from the perspective of no God

There is no such thing as an 'atheistic science' and a 'theistic science', short of theistic science being witch doctors and juju bags.


Fact: If a methodology cannot be established by which extra chromosomal pairs can be added to the DNA of simple life forms then no method is known by which life forms with fewer chromosomes in their DNA can evolve into more complex life forms with a greater number of Chromosomes.

This is no fact. Why should evolution require the addition of chromosomes? Darwin ad his contemporaries didn't know squat about chromosomes, and yet they were widely convinced by his theories. Are you saying that all of them were humanist drones?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

I have never heard of anyone being taught that darwin's theory 'explains' the origin of life. I find it hard to beleive that a science teacher would teach it, it makes not sense at all. Or even that 'micro-evolution' explains the orign of life?


Nygdan, I appreciate your love of pure science and I agree that the pure science of evolution is quite silent on the theory of where life began, yet most people are searching for an answer to this question. Hence when they are taught a theory that many people, unscientifically relate to the origin of life both the teachers and the students tend to apply the theory in this manner. If you really don’t believe that this message is communicated and received on a regular basis, I invite you to talk to some high school students and even their teachers. Tell them that evolution is not scientifically applicable to the explanation of how life began and see what kind of discussion arises. I can tell you the results I have experience support the idea that it has been communicated that evolution is an explanation of how life began and then became what we see today. I’m serious ask and see if you don’t believe me. It is the rare individual indeed who can comprehend the scientific limitations of the theory.


So you are opposed to any scientific theory with regards to origins?


I do not see how you could even ask the question given my posts but I will provide you the answer you seek, one more time though I am getting a little tired of typing it. I believe that science is best served by the free examination of all reasonable hypotheses. I do think it is narrow minded to refuse to understand the social and religious implications of scientific endeavor. Science is never able to be taught in a sociological vacuum and therefore has implications in the socio-religious realm. I do not think that this should affect the study of a science but should be taken into account when teaching a science. By this train of thought I believe that pithy rejoinders such as this sticker are an efficient and innocuous way to address the socio-religious implications of teaching the theory of evolution to impressionable minds who would otherwise draw conclusions that this science does not substantiate.


If I wanted to know the answer to a comlex math question, I would not as high school students. I don't doubt that there is a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding of what evolution is and what science is and how it operates and what its claims mean. Stickers like this only advance the problem.


How does this sticker advance the problem of students believing that evolution is factual explanation of the origins of life as we know it? How does it encourage ignorance of evolution by inviting the student to carefully and critically examine the theory for where it is true and applies and where it is does not apply or is not true but purely speculative?


A high school student is not going to be competent enough, nor have the time, generally, to investigate the real controversies in evolutionary theory.


And if, at the end of the study of evolution they believe it to be a purely factual explanation of the origins of life as we know it they will never give a second thought to doing the kind of research we both feel is necessary to understand evolution and its applications. Hence the sticker also advances the science of evolution by encouraging research into the topic and countering the natural tendency to see evolution for more than it is. Surely all the Pro-evolution posts on this thread are evidence enough of the misconceptions that modern education has fostered toward evolution. You being of a scientific mind Nygdan surely can see the vast amount of misunderstanding of the theory that there is out there. If these posters had been invited to more closely examine the theory rather than simply incorporating what they were spoon fed as fact perhaps they would not have made such glaringly erroneous posts. The same goes for the smattering of overly religious posts. If they had been encouraged to carefully examine the Theory of Evolution, its boundaries and its validity perhaps they could have understood how the theory applies to their perspective rather than dismissing it out of hand. To either of these cases the theory is only advanced by the invitation and statement of the sticker.


This is irrelevant. Science cannot be altered so that it agrees with irrational beleif systems.

I have never and will never suggest that science be altered to agree with any belief system. In teaching, however, you must often find ways to address peoples preconceptions and beliefs if you are going to shape their understanding. If you do not know what someone’s intellectual and social standing is you will find it prodigiously difficult to impart understanding to them. Equally if you ignore their standing you often can not reach their understanding.

Let me put this to practical example. Let’s say that Johnny religious is in a biology class where the theory of evolution is being taught. If he has already been indoctrinated by his parents to believe that evolution is only a theory and probably not true then he will turn off to the teacher who proclaims Evolution as a substantiated theory. If, on the other hand, the teacher begins the lesson by pointing out the sticker placed on the textbook and agreeing with that sticker, that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that it should be examined carefully etc then Johnny religious will be more inclined to at least learn what evolution states and why. In fact he may be more motivated to understand it because he wants to find out where the theory is weak. In the process of examining it he will learn far more than if the teacher had never addressed his beliefs at all.

Conversely, Andy atheist, will be challenged by the sticker and its wording to examine evolution carefully and learn what it says so he can determine how it can be used to validate his beliefs. If Andy is never presented with the sticker and is taught evolution the way most high school text books do then he will give it only tacit attention believing that there is nothing new to discover or explore because science has already established evolution as a fact and there is no more to learn or discover.

In both cases the sticker is a positive influence and challenges the students from both perspectives to carefully examine evolution, opening the doors of their minds by addressing their socio-religious perspective.

What else do you think evolution covers?

That is the wrong questions since I have a good understanding of the theory and what it pertains to. The proper question is, “What else do others think evolution covers?” The answer to this question can be gleaned quite easily from the variety of posters here to this thread.


There are only two lines of evidence that are acceptable for that matter, comparative morphological data and comparative genetic data. They strongly support evolution. There is no evidence that speaks in favour of any 'alternative' to evolution, hence to support it as scientific is a fallacy and to teach it in a science class of all things is a waste of time.


The morphological and genetic data you are referring to are quite subjective and speculative. Basically they are like saying that the Geo Prism is evolved from the dodge Omni because they are of similar size and their blueprints are very much the same with only minor structural changes. These arguments may be used to substantiate this portion of the theory but they are certainly not evidence of it. In fact they could just as easily be supportive of the existence of a single designer as they are of evolution.

Let me also say that to state that there are no alternatives to evolution is short sighted. If it is a true assumption that there is a creator then it is logical that the creator makes changes in his design from time to time creating new species with built in adaptability to address a variety of climactic and environmental changes. You have admitted that the assumption that there is or is not a God can never be 100% proven, yet this assumption is primal to understanding the mechanisms of many of our theories. If I believe there is a God then I search for ways to identify the marks of a creator. I would look for signs of intelligence in the formation of the things around me. Biology takes on a new bent in that I look for signs of design and order in the life before me. To say that I cannot scientifically study whether there was intelligence involved in the forming of the things that surround us is to invalidate several established sciences that study mans previous activity on this earth. Many of the same methods used by archeologists to prove that this hill is an Indian sacred place can be used to substantiate the theory that this species genetic code is the result of applied intelligence rather than random chance. It is a perfectly valid and researchable hypothesis to state that there was an intelligence involved in forming and shaping the genetic code of all life. I have no delusions that intelligent design will ever in my lifetime be proven short of the almighty showing up just as evolution will not be definitively proven as a theory of the origin of all species in my lifetime because we do not have long enough life spans to observe it. The fact that something cannot be absolutely proven should never invalidate the research into the subject. To do so would be most unscientific.


evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Thank you for restating one of my points, though I am not sure why you insist on doing so.


Except the genetic and morphological data, ie all the data that is had.

Which could as easily be used to support the idea of one designer, as it is used to support evolution from one genetic strain.


And the highest level that that occurs at is the level of the state, and that varies state by state.

Have you ever heard of the National Teacher’s Union? Have you ever heard of No Child Left Behind? Have you ever heard of Outcome Based Education? These are just a few of the national programs and organizations that influence the educational process on the local level. There is a vast array of other private, semiprivate, and governmental bodies both state and national, that set the agenda for K-12 education. To suggest that the local school board is a driving force in curriculum formation is a gross overestimation of both the initiative and influence of soccer moms and dads. Most people have neither the time nor the impetus to take on the big organizations that set the agenda for K-12 education.


There is no such thing as an 'atheistic science' and a 'theistic science', short of theistic science being witch doctors and juju bags.


This is a perfect example of prejudice and intolerance. It says I don’t accept your assumptions so I will belittle them. It also says I don’t understand your methods so I will claim they are primitive and superstitious. If cannot see how the assumption of a creator and the assumption of no creator colors the interpretation of a vast amount of the data pertaining to this subject then you blind yourself to the true implications and possibilities of the science.


Why should evolution require the addition of chromosomes? Darwin ad his contemporaries didn't know squat about chromosomes, and yet they were widely convinced by his theories. Are you saying that all of them were humanist drones?


Darwin thought that the cell was a simple form of life. He had no idea of genetics RNA DNA mitochondria or any of the other working of the cell. If he had understood their complexity perhaps he would have been more hesitant to suggest they randomly mutated to become what they are. Now as to the subject of Chromosomes. If you do not know why it is essential to add chromosomes to the simpler life forms in order to evolve the more complex ones then you do not understand genetics. The number of chromosomes a being has dictates in large part the complexity of the organism. No new chromosomes = no fish becomes mammal. Simple as that.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon

I have never heard of anyone being taught that darwin's theory 'explains' the origin of life. I find it hard to beleive that a science teacher would teach it, it makes not sense at all. Or even that 'micro-evolution' explains the orign of life?


Nygdan, I appreciate your love of pure science and I agree that the pure science of evolution is quite silent on the theory of where life began, yet most people are searching for an answer to this question. Hence when they are taught a theory that many people, unscientifically relate to the origin of life both the teachers and the students tend to apply the theory in this manner. If you really don’t believe that this message is communicated and received on a regular basis, I invite you to talk to some high school students and even their teachers.

I've been thru high school and I've known high school science teachers. They don't teach natural selection as a theory of abiogenesis.


It is the rare individual indeed who can comprehend the scientific limitations of the theory.

Again, this is most likely because of the efforts of creationists to consistently obfuscate the issue and hold back the teaching of evolution whereever they can, or because of poor quality of teachers. It not in textbooks that way anyway so its simply not relevant to this. The sticker isn' a 'clarification' of this abiogenesis issue. Infact in the court decision that evolution v. abiogenesis distinction doesn't even seem to be at issue.


So you are opposed to any scientific theory with regards to origins?


I do not see how you could even ask the question given my posts
The answer as I seem to understand it would be 'yes, scientific theories about origins denigrate religion and therefore are unconstitutional'.


who would otherwise draw conclusions that this science does not substantiate.

Why should a school district have a sticker that says 'this theory is a theory'? Its inane. Science education requires that students understand the scientific method and the limits of theories, this sticker, if its their to reinforce that, is entirely pointless, and especially biased then since its referes specifically to evolution. If the students are too stupid to understand that when a teacher says 'theories are based on evidence' that he/she means it than no sticker is going to correct that.


How does it encourage ignorance of evolution by inviting the student to carefully and critically examine the theory for where it is true and applies and where it is does not apply or is not true but purely speculative?

First off, if students actually did that, then the case would be far worse for creationists/id proponents. THe sticker does all of the above because its being used to require students to study creationism, in any of its various forms, which is irrational faith based beleifs, not science. To pretend that the sticker is just re-iterating whats already manifest in a science text is just silly.


A high school student is not going to be competent enough, nor have the time, generally, to investigate the real controversies in evolutionary theory.


And if, at the end of the study of evolution they believe it to be a purely factual explanation of the origins of life as we know it they will never give a second thought to doing the kind of research we both feel is necessary to understand evolution and its applications.
A good enough arguement for me to say that students should study evolution in much more detail and spend lots more time on it, however the creationists would apparently rather have students talk about intelligent design and the bible than read gould or dawkins or kimura.



You being of a scientific mind Nygdan surely can see the vast amount of misunderstanding of the theory that there is out there.

I agree entirely that science education in the US is very poor, and that evolution education especially is not up to snuff. However, this is the fault of the public and especially anti-evolutionist groups and efforts, such as the ones trying to get ID into science curriculums or stickers like these slapped onto science books. If anything the only real resolution is going to be a national education standard, one that strips out any of this creationist/id nonesense and that requires students to study evolution in great detail. Thats never going to happen tho.


If they had been encouraged to carefully examine the Theory of Evolution,

Science education encourages the careful study of evolution, not some preposterous sticker. If the sticker were going to be used in the way you seem to think its intended to be used, then I'd be all for it. Go ahead kids, critically examine evolution, use your capacity for experimental analysis and rational thought to investigate it. There wouldn't be a moment wasted on creationism/idism, other than to demostrate the danger of irrational faith.





I have never and will never suggest that science be altered to agree with any belief system.

You have suggested that the very fact that evolution contradicts with some faith based beleifs is denigrating to those beleifs and that that needs to be altered by having science classes consider this ludicrous creationist teachings.



If, on the other hand, the teacher begins the lesson by pointing out the sticker placed on the textbook and agreeing with that sticker, that evolution is a theory, not a fact,

Why shoudl the teacher need to do this when the presentation of the theory of evolution clearly does this anyway?


Conversely, Andy atheist,

Why is it that the person who already understand and accepts evolution here is an atheist? I know lots of people that understand and accept evolution who are not in the least bit atheistic.


will be challenged by the sticker and its wording to examine evolution

if "andy atheist' understands evolution already then he has already critically examined it.


If Andy is never presented with the sticker and is taught evolution the way most high school text books do then he will give it only tacit attention believing that there is nothing new to discover or explore because science has already established evolution as a fact and there is no more to learn or discover.

Obviously this is not the case, since there are lots of great evolutionary biologists in the US taught under this system. Besides, evolution is a fact, so why would his science teacher presenting it as such be a problem?





The morphological and genetic data you are referring to are quite subjective and speculative.

If the data is speculative, and its the only data we can have either way on the subject, then what makes any 'contra evolution' 'quasi-theories' supportable?


Basically they are like saying that the Geo Prism is evolved from the dodge Omni because they are of similar size and their blueprints are very much the same with only minor structural changes.

Except for the fact that animals are observed to mate reproduce and vary in the wild, whereas cars are not. You analogy requires us to pretend that all fossil organisms don't mate and reproduce, that they aren't even animals.
These arguments may be used to substantiate this portion of the theory but they are certainly not evidence of it. In fact they could just as easily be supportive of the existence of a single designer as they are of evolution.


Let me also say that to state that there are no alternatives to evolution is short sighted.

List the reasonable alternatives.



If it is a true assumption that there is a creator then it is logical that the creator makes changes in his design from time to time creating new species with built in adaptability to address a variety of climactic and environmental changes.[q/uote]
And how exactly is a person supposed to rationally distinguish between a world where some invisible all powerful creator tinkers with his creation, and one where he does not?



You have admitted that the assumption that there is or is not a God can never be 100% proven, yet this assumption is primal to understanding the mechanisms of many of our theories.

It most certainy is not. A theory does not need to address the existance of god in order to do what we require theories to do.


Biology takes on a new bent in that I look for signs of design

And how does one distinguish between 'intelligent god driven design' and the design that is a product of natural selection and adaptation?


[qutoe] and order in the life before me.

Order has nothing to do with intelligence.



Many of the same methods used by archeologists to prove that this hill is an Indian sacred place can be used to substantiate the theory that this species genetic code is the result of applied intelligence rather than random chance.

Then why is no one able to do this? Does it infact mean that the genome was not designed?

Besides, archaeologists don't use any of the methods of IDists to 'detect design'. Infact, they don't detect design, they detect use and alteration by humans. A stone that has been formed to have a functional surface is understood to have been made by man, becuase in large part of this fucntion. The reason why natural selection doesn't apply to arrow-heads is that arrow-heads aren't a population of organisms that vary and breed and are selected for functions. Similarly, an archaeologist can say that stonehenge wasn't formed naturally because nothign like it occurs in nature, no process in nature would form it.

Also, design by humans is still a naturalistic event, whereas this 'design by a creator' is a supernatural event, and there isn't any evidence that can demonstrate nor refute the occurance of supernatural events.

Also, in a created universe, an unordered lump of rock is designed just as much as a bacterial flagella.


It is a perfectly valid and researchable hypothesis to state that there was an intelligence involved in forming and shaping the genetic code of all life. I have no delusions that intelligent design will ever in my lifetime be proven short of the almighty showing up just as evolution will not be definitively proven as a theory of the origin of all species in my lifetime because we do not have long enough life spans to observe it.
How would observing, say, an animal population in the wild change from one kind to another prove the theory of evolution? We already know that populations of organisms change over time, it doesn't make a difference how great that change is, nad it certainly wouldn't logically rule out something completely different having happened in the distant past. Also, it would not demonstrate that it happened because of natural selection. Natural Selection will allways remain a theory, and change over time is an observable fact.





evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Thank you for restating one of my points, though I am not sure why you insist on doing so.
Becuase you keep bringing it up.


Except the genetic and morphological data, ie all the data that is had.

Which could as easily be used to support the idea of one designer, as it is used to support evolution from one genetic strain.
No, the genetic and morphological data cannot be used to support the idea that there was a designer, becuase no scientific evidence can rationalyl support the existence of a designer. Design cannot be scientifically detected. What the evidence and rational thought does allow us to hypothesise however is that natural selection was at work on these organisms and that they share a common descent.


And the highest level that that occurs at is the level of the state, and that varies state by state.

Have you ever heard of the National Teacher’s Union? Have you ever heard of No Child Left Behind? Have you ever heard of Outcome Based Education? These are just a few of the national programs and organizations that influence the educational process on the local level.
They do not dictate school curriculum and are not headed by a conspiracy of humanists.


is a gross overestimation of both the initiative and influence of soccer moms and dads.

And yet, they are able to variously suppress evolution and promote creationism, as this case and various other sticker and creationism in class cases demonstrate.




There is no such thing as an 'atheistic science' and a 'theistic science', short of theistic science being witch doctors and juju bags.


This is a perfect example of prejudice and intolerance.


It says I don’t accept your assumptions so I will belittle them.


It also says I don’t understand your methods so I will claim they are primitive and superstitious.

The methods of so called 'theistic science' is primitive superstition, superstition that gods control the development of organisms and the environment. Demonstrate 'theistic science', I have never seen it, all I have ever seen is, effectively, folklore.

then you blind yourself to the true implications and possibilities of the science.

You blind yourself to what science is if you think that it can answer whether or not there is a god and whether or not it acts upon the world.



Why should evolution require the addition of chromosomes? Darwin ad his contemporaries didn't know squat about chromosomes, and yet they were widely convinced by his theories. Are you saying that all of them were humanist drones?


Darwin thought that the cell was a simple form of life. He had no idea of genetics RNA DNA mitochondria or any of the other working of the cell. If he had understood their complexity perhaps he would have been more hesitant to suggest they randomly mutated to become what they are.

That is baseless speculation. Darwin, also, was well aware of just how complex organisms are and how complex their interactions over an area are.



Now as to the subject of Chromosomes. If you do not know why it is essential to add chromosomes to the simpler life forms in order to evolve the more complex ones then you do not understand genetics.

If you think it is a requirement then you do not understand genetics.


The number of chromosomes a being has dictates in large part the complexity of the organism.

This is entirely untrue. The number of chromosomes has no effect on the complexity of the organisms. Some organisms have more chromosomes than man, other apparently very simple organisms have large chromosomes. Chromosome count bears no realtion to complexity.


No new chromosomes = no fish becomes mammal. Simple as that.

There is absolutely no reason to make this statement, it has no resemblence to reality.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Here is a sampling of public opinion on the subject......

www.theonion.com...
Amougn others"
"If you don't believe in creationism, then how do you explain the fact that I do, smart guy?"

Gotta love the onion



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I dont read ANYONE on this thread saying that evolution is not being a legitimate study or evidence behind a good THEORY!
NOONE is arguing that evolution should not be taught...
ALL of the discussions about micro debating the nuances of evolutionary theory are DIVERSIONS, meant to shy away from the court case at hand.
ALL of the "what about this sticker for this book", or flawed examples of non related court cases are IMAGINARY things that offer NOTHING do disprove a statement of truth and how a court has reached a paticular conclusion!!! They are RED HERRINGS to keep avoiding certain key questions about this court case.

Lets look back and examine some NON ANSWERS to questions asked.

Spacemunkey bites me,


some people just are so full of themselves....Cazmedia.
Im sorry that either your fear or inabillity to attempt to answer key questiones i posed makes you feel intellectually inferior, causing you to lable me "full of myself". Ill try to talk "down" in a manner better suited for comprehension by everyone.
My post on page 8 has at least 6 specific questions direclty for you, and yet you flee from them with no attempt to give us your responce.
WHY?

Slank avoids my question, using diversion,


Honestly CazMedia, if i knew the person to be a pedophile i probably wouldn't reply to their comment. I would probably quietly walk away. Might be a good idea to make sure the parents had the heads up on the circumstances.
Again Slank, you twist words to avoid the issue. The issue wasnt about your responce to the pedophile, it was to respond to the truthfulness of his statement. (which you avoided)
You proved my point about your bias showing, using demonization of the messenger, to try and invalidate a truthful statement from him. Continuing to use this example, you would see that the girl was a millionare model that indeed has "good looks" , but you would then try to say the pedophile that said the exact same thing was not telling the truth? Who cares about his motive or yours for stating the truth (the girl is pretty)
The statement is true despite your wishes to kill the messenger.

FredT missreads,


And Caz, I still am perplexed as to why you persist in claiming that there was not bias or intent. Its pretty clear to almost everybody that that was the intent of the board there.
I NEVER said that there was no intention BEHIND THE SCENES on this issue. In fact ive said it SEVERAL times already.
I HAVE said that by reading only the sticker as stated that NOONE can infer the bias or intent that is being applied, from the words used!!!!!
DOING THIS IS GUESSING!!
SO
The judge made this ruling by using 3 guesses which i"ll restate AGAIN


the judge in this case put 3 assumptions onto the stickers text...
1)assumes meaning where none is stated.
2)assumes the reader has any knowlege of the senders intent.
3)assumes that the intent of the speaker somehow negates a true statement.
Thats alot of assumptions to base any legal ruling upon.


FredT takes a bite too...chew hard


Caz, maybe people are tired of beating thier heads aginst your relentless dogma?
Im nothing if not persistant!

I had to read back to page 3 of this thread to see where you began to NOT attempt to answer my questions posed, (some just to you) and on page 4 i even call you onto the mat to please offer your answers to said questions.
Now on page 10 you come back with a pithy one liner (isnt that trolling Mr MOD?) which offers NOTHING to the debate but a questionable "attack" on a member whos questions you STILL wont even attempt to answer.
Not answering the questions i pose about the truth of the stickers statement, how and what inferances can be made by reading its text, and how a judge can use 3 guesses to make this ruling
will not make the questions go away,
and reveal some inferances about why you and others will not give straight forward answers to the questions.
Should i waste time diverting this debate by listing them?

Nygdan,
You have been pretty decent so far at upholding the con-side of this debate, and have used better rational as well as attempting to answer quetsions and supply supporting evidence. Congrats!
Now that those pleasantries are over,

Nygdan states,


A high school student is not going to be competent enough, nor have the time, generally, to investigate the real controversies in evolutionary theory. I think it would be a good thing to do in science classes, but the average student can't even get evolution itself, let alone the intricacies and complexities involved.
I'll agree.
BUT
How then can you say the judge was correct to ASSUME that they (or anyone) could have competance or awarness of either the science or the issues about the sticker? Isnt this what Ive been saying, that the sticker itself doesnt lend a person reading it to ANY kind of logicaly derived inferences?
You will partially respond,


As pointed out at least twice already, the judge based his decision in large part on an amicus that demonstrated that the sticker's language was not, infact, neutral, even taken outside of the evo/crea debate.
An interesting work im still reviewing, but i still feel that on the surface it assumes alot. I still defy ANYONE on this thread to write down their inferances (we actually need some new test subjects) and see what kind of things people will put down for
1)what can you infer from reading this sentance?
2)what do you infer about the person writting this sentance?
i think answers will be all over the place with a decent # basically saying similar things, but i really doubght that those would actually be the way the judge or many of you SAY they will.

Nygdan says,


Science education encourages the careful study of evolution, not some preposterous sticker. If the sticker were going to be used in the way you seem to think its intended to be used, then I'd be all for it. Go ahead kids, critically examine evolution, use your capacity for experimental analysis and rational thought to investigate it. There wouldn't be a moment wasted on creationism/idism, other than to demostrate the danger of irrational faith.
GOOD, they we agree, there is no real harm is the sticker then right? I agree that if the students were given the various hypothesis about this issue, that evolution would quickly become the dominate one discussed, because there isnt a way to examine scientifically "god" or creationism. Little more than a passing, "here is another hypothesis" would be given creationism or I.D.
BUT
AGAIN ill say science cant study "god" yet. YET PEOPLE!

Does this mean that we shouldnt try?

Since ancient times, man has thought about man flying. The greeks dreamed up Iccarus as a morality lesson, but also dreampt of a man with wings and flying.
But this couldnt be done, let alone begin to be studied then...YET WE BELIEVED MAN WOULD FLY

DaVinci had great drawings of flying machines, yet hardly had tools nessisary to study the forces that maned flight requires, but he was a step closed in his BELIEFS that it could be done.

Few people were giving serious attention to flight until 2 bicycle makers figured it out as a hobby, not a science or business
suddelny flight is both!

Now man has the tools and understanding to quantify lift, drag, inertia, areodynamics and more...man flies everyday.

To conclude, man BLIEVED that we could fly somehow, yet had no way to quantify or work with this idea until later on...
So,
to shut the door on "god" or creationism as a hypothosis simple because NOW we have no way to observe, test, and quantify these unknowns doenst sound like science continuing to ask questions about the mysteries of existance here,
it sounds like putting blinders on.

This is yet another reason why i find the judges ruling wrong....
making a true statement about keeping an open mind about studying ANY science seems like what the true spirit of science and learning is about!!!
Not giving up asking questions and trying because we cant find a way YET!



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
.
Poor CazMedia is so maligned and misunderstood.

Could we all have a moment of silence and a few crocodile tears for him?

About the pedophile, If i cared about them as a person [which i don't] and thought their mind could be reshaped [which i think is naive] I would try to steer their thoughts elsewhere. If i talk with him i am complicit, reinforcing his obsession, if not legally, then personally. I may have to deal with my own conscious. I am not a robot/slave/parrot of or to the truth. If you are it sounds neurotic to me, IMHO. If i know this girl he talks about personally or her parents i would walk from him and inform her parents. If she is a celebrity i don't know personally, i assume someone is smart enough to take sensible precautions to avoid inevitable people like this. Truth is i don't have time to waste on someone like this. I don't waste time on a lot of other people either. Dull uninteresting people are not worth wasting time on. If people find me that way that is cool too.

If i have proof them being an active pedophile it would be another matter, something for the police to pursue.

If evolution happened it is a FACT. To say it is not a fact is to say something else happened. If you have telling evidence to this effect i suggest you bring it forward. Interested & intelligent people would want to see and examine it. Truth is what science seeks. The only bias science has is with the facts & evidence.
You got evidence?
Science wants it.
You got words without facts or evidence.
Go park it or pedal it to fools who will accept it.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by slank]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Tears are wasted when they are neither sincere nor nessisary.

Perhaps we should shed a few for your continuing sidestepping of this example question.

Did the pedophile make a true statement?
dont lose yourself here now, we really dont care your views about the messenger...i picked him as an example speaker BECAUSE i knew he would be universally reviled.
it doesnt matter what you think about him, want to do with him etc etc etc ad nauseum of your tangents that avoid the question.

given: the girl IS pretty and a $$$ making known child model
given: pedophile says "shes a pretty girl."
extrapolate: Was his statement true? are his reasons which you ASSUME (that he is saying more than this or that it is perverted because of his past)
enough to negate the truth of his statement?
Are you or anyone else NOT supposed to say that sentance because if they do you'll say they are thus a pedophile?


A simple YES or NO to start with, and then a divergent tirade will do.
Lets see you kill yet another messenger with a true statement because you dont like the person, and tru to somehow constru this act as being able to nullify a true statement from being true for this reason.

Do you actually read what is typed or supply your own take on what is being said.
the answer would seem to be NO as you interpret the sticker as well as what ive said here.
if evolutuion happened then it is fact. Fine it happened
but evolution is a THEORY, and by the dictionary and by the definitions used on the originally cited link about this topic, Theory includes facts as PART of it, but a theory is still an UNPROVEN fact itself....this is one step UP from something being a hypothesis, which has far less fact behind it (but still may include fact) but is still far less of a proven situation. This is why ive called creationism a hypothesis.

Please learn the differance between fact, hypothosis and theory. It seems like im NOT the only one on here trying to point this out to you.

You say, (yet wont try yourself)


Truth is what science seeks
Great, fine, NOONE CARES!!! This is a no-brainer!
But just because the truth is unknown, or there isnt YET a way for something to be scientifically quantified does NOT mean it doesnt exist, or isnt the truth. Can you see atoms? Noone can, yet that didnt stop man from working on an atomic hypothsis, until such time as it became a theory, and now science is "building" things one atom at a time.

Dont be soo nieve to close the door to ANY possibillity while pursuing your vaunted science, which is chock full of past theories that ended up being total hogwash too....science didnt save those washed up ideas huh?
New tools and new ways of thinking about them did.

But its ok, say to all students studying science, "well, there is no more left to learn about this, dont think about new, different or other ways things might happen....the world is the center of the galaxy and everything revolves around it, its flat dont fall off the edge, flies spring up naturally out of dung, man will never fly, the sound barrier wil never be broken, the moon is never going to be touched by man....

OOHH the negativity and lack of vision the steralization of science provides us eh?
Why is asking students to remember that it is theory thats being taught, and to keep an open mind such a problem with you?
(i know why, your a religious bigot, you refuse their ideology as fantasy, give it nor them any respect for holding it, and wish to segregate it from other citizens by removing their rights to expouse it and not have it buried by the P.C. thought police.)

Exploring the unknown IS science!



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
I dont read ANYONE on this thread saying that evolution is not being a legitimate study or evidence behind a good THEORY!
NOONE is arguing that evolution should not be taught...

Actually, apparently Cobb County wasn't teaching evolution, because the public was opposed to it. Along with the introduction of it to their curiccula they included this sticker, to appease the fundamentalists.










I HAVE said that by reading only the sticker as stated that NOONE can infer the bias or intent that is being applied, from the words used!

This, however, is what the judge disagrees about. The sticker itself, taken without reference to the creationism sillyness, is incorrect and biased, as it treats evolution as a theory, when it is a fact accompanied by theories. The amicus written and linked to above made this clear to the judge. On top of that, the sticker does not exist in a vacuum and doesn't need to be considered in a vacuum.


Thats alot of assumptions to base any legal ruling upon.

The decision was not based on these assumptions apparently.


Now that those pleasantries are over

Mwa haha, I like your way of thinking.




How then can you say the judge was correct to ASSUME that they (or anyone) could have competance or awarness of either the science or the issues about the sticker?

They needn't, because the language of the sticker itself is read as biased and incorrect by the judge. In addition to that, I don't think it unreasonable to think that, since the parents in this community had largely suppressed the teaching of evolution until recently, that the students are well aware of creationism and probably get a good does of it at home. The judge is required to decide what a 'reasonable person' would view the sticker as (more or less). A reasonable person doesn't have to ignore the context of the sticker.


An interesting work im still reviewing, but i still feel that on the surface it assumes alot. I still defy ANYONE on this thread to write down their inferances (we actually need some new test subjects) and see what kind of things people will put down for

1)what can you infer from reading this sentance?

On 'evolution is a theory, not a fact' I read that evolution is not a fact, which is scientifically inaccurate.


2)what do you infer about the person writting this sentance?

That they don't know what evolution is.



Nygdan says,


GOOD, they we agree, there is no real harm is the sticker then right? [/quiote]
No, because there are only two ways to look at the sticker, as innocuous or as insidious. If innocuous, its meaningless, pointless, and wasteful (of course, a judge can't eliminate it because of that). I'm all for students being taught proper science. Poltically motivated 'warnings' about critical rational thought are not proper science.

I agree that if the students were given the various hypothesis about this issue, that evolution would quickly become the dominate one discussed, because there isnt a way to examine scientifically "god" or creationism. Little more than a passing, "here is another hypothesis" would be given creationism or I.D.
BUT
AGAIN ill say science cant study "god" yet. YET PEOPLE!


Does this mean that we shouldnt try?

If it were doable I wouldn't say its something that should be 'tried', I'd say its vitally important and every scientist should focus on it! It'd be incredible if there was some way to do that. Unfortunately, no one's come up with a way to do so. Scientists and researchers shouldn't use this to mean its not worth contemplating, but schools shouldn't teach basically failed or useless theories on the matter. If there was a successful theory on the matter, then, yes, regardless of any constitutional concerns, it should be taught. Infact, it might require that the constitution be altered.

Since ancient times, man has thought about man flying. The greeks dreamed up Iccarus as a morality lesson, but also dreampt of a man with wings and flying.
But this couldnt be done, let alone begin to be studied then...YET WE BELIEVED MAN WOULD FLY

Interesting analogy. What if there were a greek text on areodynamics, and some had used that text to study flight? And what if daedulites attached 'disclaimers' and 'warning' notices on those texts? It'd be pretty silly wouldn't it? I mean, if one takes a step back from the whole thing, and look at what happened, its pretty darned silly. Cigarettes get warnings attached to them, non FDA studied drugs get disclaimers, but scientific research? Well tested, well supported scientific research, that already makes explicit what it does and does not state, gets a disclaimer? They're putting 'warnings' on rational thought?


Now man has the tools and understanding to quantify lift, drag, inertia, areodynamics and more...man flies everyday.[/QUOTE]
Theoretically man flies. Infact, there are two theories on what produces flight, one is more accepted than the other, but neither is really the 'correct' theory. In that way, evolutionary theory is more widely accepted and better supported than flight theory, and people literally stake their lives on flight every day. By the rationale of this sticker, airlines should state that they don't really know, even in theory, why the big metal birds fly, and can't guarentee, to any degree, that the things won't come crashing down. Infact, they can't be held liable for it either.

to shut the door on "god" or creationism as a hypothosis simple because NOW we have no way to observe, test, and quantify these unknowns doenst sound like science continuing to ask questions about the mysteries of existance

Creationism is not a hypothesis. Its a beleif. It can't and isn't tested or refuted or supported or anything. Its like the catholic dogma of transubstantiation. Should that be taught in chemistry classes? Besides, what would be taught about creationism anyway? 'God might've done it, doesn't seem to be anything to support that, but we'll make a mental note of it anyway'? Even that should not be permited in a science class, its irrational, senseless. If creationists came up with somethign worth teaching, then it'd be a different story.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

CazMedia:
Then tell us spacemunkey, from reading the text of the sticker, how someones rights were violated?

How can you assume some religious intent (even if it exisits behind the true statement)
How does the text say this in any way?

How can you ASSUME this?
more importantly how can the impartial judge?

Do you think kids reading this would have ANY knowledge of the behind the scenes issues here?
Could they even GUESS at them with a hope of getting it right by reading the sticker?

This is about a bad judgment, not creationism vs science
or
religion vs state mingling...

Its about an open minded and open ended sentence that implies NONE of the things your trying to stick onto it,
AND
one where indeed the local people have spoken democratically and culturally to ask for INCLUSIVNESS of thought
not
Repression of ideas based on which criteria today?

You claim that society is open and free where public schools expouse things that are inclusive
yet
by segregating a true statement expousing nothing more than open minded thinking,
You repress both the message, the truth, and others rights to be included while NOT infringing too far upon others.

Bigotry, and tolorance, know no bounds.


The problem is, the community is not allowed to decide certain things, period. The reason being, if a religious community was allowed to decide that they want religion in their public schools, and a new family (who is not religious) moves into the school zone, they have no alternative but to attend the religious public school. This is a blatant violation of any secular individual's rights, present and future. Public schools cannot deny newcomers, regardless of what the community people think. That's why it's detrimental that we keep religion, and other superstitious mythology, out of schools. Otherwise, you just end up with another cult.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Caz,

These fellows are firmly rooted to their position. They will never concede the validity of your points.

If you have seen the new movie "The Aviator" (Leonardo de Caprio as Howard Hughes) you may remember the scene where he says something like he's waiting to hear a certain "popping" sound, a sound of hope. Well, as much as you may try to bring it into being, and as long and as hard as you may listen for it, you will never hear it here. After all, there have been 10+ pages on this thread, yet Nygdan still makes statements such as "evolution is a fact". You may be witnessing natural selection at work right here on ATSNN. Be patient. It's a slow process.

BTW, great posts.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
After all, there have been 10+ pages on this thread, yet Nygdan still makes statements such as "evolution is a fact". Y

You deny that it is? Strange, you have not presented anything resembling an arguement that it doesn't. THere is a threat in which the factual nature of evolution is being discussed on ATS, that would be a good place to go, since this thread is big enough and it is more specific than the factual stature of evolution. Search under 'Creationist Confusion'.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Nygdan,

I have posted on this thread. What I "believe" about the "theory of evolution" is stated rather clearly.

I don't understand the dogged insistence on getting people to say they believe that the "theory of evolution" is a FACT rather than a theory. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the "theory of evolution" is grounded in factual observations. As Caz adeptly explained, many "FACTS" that were later proven to be false, such as the flat earth "theory", were grounded in empirical observations. The flat earth theory was not based on the Bible, which nowhere says the earth is flat!

Evolution is not an observable fact. It is an explanation derived from empirical data, i.e. it is a theory, an attempt to explain what is observed in the natural world.

Maybe in using the word "FACT" as a description of the THEORY of evolution, what you really mean to say is that the THEORY of evolution is a sound, valid, explanation based on the observable empirical data. To a large degree, I would agree with you, if that's what you are really intending to say. However, that's different than saying it is a FACT that can be observed in reference to the origins of life and species on this planet.

Some theories are better explanations than others. Your adoption of the theory of evolution as an explanation of origins to the exclusion of other theories, hypotheses, and beliefs is a value judgment. Plain and simple. It is a belief. It is not a FACT. It is no less a leap of faith than the creationists’ belief that an intelligent designer is the better explanation of origins.

My mental spell-checker has been set so that whenever you say or write the word FACT in reference to the THEORY of evolution, my spell-checker substitutes the word THEORY to guard against being misled by your repetitive insistence on the misuse of these terms.

This debate has become an exchange based on semantic confusion rather than any real disagreement about substance.


[edit on 1/24/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
There is overwhelming proof of evolution. Look at the bulldog, for instance. Shaped by many generations of dog breeders for bullbaiting, and later for homely charm, they differ much from their wolfish progenitors. If domestic breeding can yield such change, natural selection over many millions of years could do much more. Wild species diverge from common ancestors just as domestic varieties do. There are more examples of this type of evolution than you can probably count.

Worker ants, preserved in amber from the Cretaceous period, offer another sort of evidence. Anatomical clues such as wasplike antennae and a broad waste reveal their ancestral status between wasps and ants.

In Egypt, a team of paleontologists found the nearly complete skeleton of a whalelike creature now called Dorudon. Dating back 40 million years, it had a detached pelvis near the end of its tail and useless little legs. Like the human hand, an early whale's front foot retains a five fingered bone structure. A vestigial rear foot has lost several toe bones, but its very existence testifies to the whale's decent from a four legged ancestor.

Many "missing links" are not missing.

Are you going to tell me that the tropical birds of remote islands with their huge diversities of are not the result of isolation, time, and adaptation to local conditions, but were created and placed there individually?

Bacteria and viruses evolve too. Infectious agents often adapt quickly and acquire genetic resistance to drugs.

There is so much evidence of evolution, it's not even a question of whether it happens or not. The only thing we aren't clear on is to what extent evolution happens. Darwin may indeed be slightly wrong in some assumptions, but there can be absolutely no doubt that evolution does happen. That is what's fact, or considered fact by most non-religious humans, and even some who are religious. The fact is, there are more examples of evolution than anyone can even mention. You could dedicate your entire life to studying all of these examples, and still probably never see them all.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Nygdan,
When i said, NOONE is arguing that evolution should not be taught...
i meant on this thread....
I can agree that cobb county was over zealous in NOT teaching evolution theory...THATS apparently religious censorship to me
but not the sticker.

Nygdan says,



This, however, is what the judge disagrees about. The sticker itself, taken without reference to the creationism sillyness, is incorrect and biased, as it treats evolution as a theory, when it is a fact accompanied by theories. The amicus written and linked to above made this clear to the judge. On top of that, the sticker does not exist in a vacuum and doesn't need to be considered in a vacuum.
And this is what I disagree about. All this debate on the merits of evolution and creationism are a side show to the issue of this case.

There seems to be a line here on this thread about the definition of THEORY, with some stating Theory = fact and others saying theory is a great aproxamation of fact but itsnt proven as fact. Hence still a theory (based off of some facts and some allegations extrapolated from those facts).

This aside, I cant see how anyone could read that sticker blind, seperate from the book, and ASSUME the meanings that the judge is implying it does.
The amicus is interesting, but again im not in full agreement with its application to this case.

Even taking into account the issues behind the sticker, how can context be applied to the statement as is, or as read?
I dont think intent/motive is enough to convict a person on, so how is it enough to somehow invaladate a statement of truth.
(i know what your gonna say, the statement is only true if you lable evolution a theory, implying it is not fact.)

My questions about the truth of a statement being "tainted" just because of the messengers position have been avoided on this thread because answering truthfully will confirm my allegation that the judge was wrong.
and trying to fudge an answer says that you dont know or acknowledge the differance between a theory and a fact.
Again this all comes down to the definition of theory your holding.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The whole point is; evolution is considered fact just as much as math, physics, astronomy...you name it. We can indeed call any of these "theories," but the fact still remains that they are about as factual, on our planet, to us, as it can get. What these creationists did was the equivalent to putting a sticker in a book that says the world being round is only a theory.
And yes, it sure is only a theory, but is there anyone left (who's not retarded or mentally challenged) who doesn't consider it a hard undeniable fact? Only a few religious people, I think.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
I don't understand the dogged insistence on getting people to say they believe that the "theory of evolution" is a FACT rather than a theory.

Again, the Theory of Evolution, which is that evolution occurs predominatly thru a mechanism of natural selection, is, obviously, a theory. The fact is that evolution occurs. The theory attemps to 'explain' the fact.


Everyone seems to acknowledge that the "theory of evolution" is grounded in factual observations.

This is distinct from the factual observation that evolution occurs.



As Caz adeptly explained, many "FACTS" that were later proven to be false, such as the flat earth "theory", were grounded in empirical observations.

It was never a fact that the earth was flat. I don't disagree that some people think some things are facts when infact they are not. In that sense, of couse 'evolution could not be a fact'. Similiary, it could not be a fact that 'george washington was the first president of the United States' or that 'touching a metal wire passing a current will zap you' or that 'what does up must come down'.



The flat earth theory was not based on the Bible, which nowhere says the earth is flat!

Untrue, but irrelevant.


Evolution is not an observable fact. It is an explanation derived from empirical data, i.e. it is a theory, an attempt to explain what is observed in the natural world.

This is entirely incorrect. Evolution is the change in allele proportions of a population over time. In darwin's age, it was merely that populations of organisms change over time. Do you dispute the factual status of either of these statements?


Maybe in using the word "FACT" as a description of the THEORY of evolution, what you really mean to say is that the THEORY of evolution is a sound, valid, explanation based on the observable empirical data.

No, I do not mean to use it that way. When I say that evolution is a fact, i mean that evolution is a factually occuring phenomenon, as factual as 'rain' as a phenomenon is.

When i talk about the theory of evolution, I am, generally, only talking about one thing. That is that evolution, the real world observable phenomenon, is caused, by and large and predominantly, by a mechanism of natural selection, acting upon populational variation, resulting in adaptation. There are other theories about the mechanisms of evolution, such as kimuras neutral hypothesis, which, as far as I understand it, implies that most genetic variation if neutral, and therefore 'invivisble' to natural selection, but that its also able to greatly influence evolution, and even, thru 'exaptations' (to use goulds neologism) part of hte process of adaptation. Notice also that kimuras idea is a testable hypothesis, supported by the evidence, and, should it stand the test of time, would 'become' a 'theory', even tho its just as likely to be refuted if its not been refuted for 100 years as it is if its only been around for three years. But kimuras hypothesis will never 'become' a fact.

I also go try to seperate the process of evolution and darwin's theory of evolution from abiogenesis, (the creation of life from non living matter). I would say, and my arbitrary opinion on this if pretty meaningless, but I would say that any abiogenesis theory that reguires somethin like the logic of natural selection is not a true abiogenesis theory, but rather a theory about the early, very early, history of life (even if its in some barely recognizeable 'sub-viral' form). There are lots of abiogenetic theories. There is no consensus on them. The 'rna' world theory is in high school text books, but high school text books, of necessity, are a number of years behind actual science, and what support there was for the RNA world hypothesis has, I get the impression, faded. I do not, however, think that this means no abiogenetic hypotheses should be in textbooks. In fact i recall, vaugely, seeing some texts that made reference to other possibilities. For my own part, i am partial to Cairns-Smith's 'solid state genomics' and 'genetic take over idea', even tho its rather widely rejected. I am partial, however, if i was conducting abiogenetic research, I probably wouldn't waste any time researching it.


Some theories are better explanations than others. Your adoption of the theory of evolution as an explanation of origins to the exclusion of other theories, hypotheses, and beliefs is a value judgment. Plain and simple.
Correct. Its a judgement on the truth value of the theory. It is not, however, an irrational judgement. In science, there are many, many competeing theories. People have to choose between them. How one chooses between them is as much 'what science is' as how one comes up with the hypotheses themselves. Your apparent inability to decide between evolution or whatever alternative you are considering might be a result of irrational personal beleifs, but my ability to 'choose' evolution is not.


It is no less a leap of faith than the creationists’ belief that an intelligent designer is the better explanation of origins.

Saying that darwin's theory of evolution (again, that speciation and change in populations occurs predominantly thru a mechanism of natural selection and leads to adapatation) is a fact is a leap of faith. As such, i would say that its 'as much of a leap of faith' as creationism, yes. I wouldn't imagine that there is any quantitative way to distinguish between different leaps of faith, and, because of that, would not say that stating darwins theory is a fact, supported by evidence, is less of a leap of faith than creationism, which is refuted (in so far as it can even be refuted) by evidence.

My mental spell-checker has been set so that whenever you say or write the word FACT in reference to the THEORY of evolution, my spell-checker substitutes the word THEORY
Then the programming is faulty. I take care to use theory and fact properly. Some, even some vaugely in support of evolution (and I don't recall specifically seeing it here, but it certainly occurs), make the error of using one when the other is correct. No one, I have noticed, does this more than creationists.


to guard against being misled by your repetitive insistence on the misuse of these terms.

I insist on the proper use of terms, when proper. I won't, for example, toss out a dictonary definition of 'fact' or 'science', since, in the first, a commyn usage dictionary is irrelevant to a scientific discussion, and secondly, becase if there is disagreement on the word 'fact', then the entire converstation is pointless anyway no?

This debate has become an exchange based on semantic confusion rather than any real disagreement about substance.
There has been real, expansive, and critical disagreement on substance, along with massivley improper semantic usage.




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join