Redstate

years old should not be allowed to teach science to children. Why don't we have folks who believe the moon is made of green cheese teach astrophysics at MIT?

Anyone who believes that THEY KNOW how and at what time our universe, none the less the planet, was created should not be teaching science. All that we have are theories. Now granted some require more faith than others but either way you slice it they are only theories. And for the teacher to tell his students to question Darwin is completely fine. He is teaching them critical thinking skills as applied to scientific theory...for him to do otherwise would be him teaching them what to think instead of how to think about the different theories and the gaps/flaws within those theories. I mean if it is ok to question God shouldn't it be ok to question Darwin?

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

Usually the Right criticizes the Left for the idea that all ideas, no matter how discredited, deserve a hearing.

Charlie Hall

HTML Help for Red Staters

If so,I'll take it.

A nice fur hat even. :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters

You know, even most young earth creationists don't put the earth at 6000 years old. The 4000 B.C. creation date which is so widely assigned to Christians everywhere was a date posited by Bishop James Ussher in the 17th Century.

But evolution faithful just love to claim that this is "what creationists believe" like it's some sort of club membership mandate, because it allows just that much more sarcasm for their ridicule. "Why they think creation happened 8,000 years after the sphinx was constructed."

Who cares about facts, though, when you can smear someone's faith to so much more effect?

absentee
RedState Graphic Design Contests

You are free to believe what you wish. I also don't argue that we know exactly how and when life began. What we do know is that it did not happen as it is literally described in the Bible. I cannot prove that God created life, but I believe it because it is my faith. However, I believe that God wants us to use the brain He gave us and to use logic and reason when contemplating anything. So, while I continue to believe in God and in His creation, I cannot believe in a young earth because the facts do not support it.

No we don't KNOW that. Nobody was there and history is a non-reproducible event.

The facts do not support a 'millions of year' meme as much as there is a framework of interpreting data that assumes that from the beginning.

I'll give you two facts that fly in the face of those assumptions:

1. Dinosaur blood and soft-tissue that can't have survived more than several thousand years: Here
When this discovery was made every article mentioned how shocked the scientists were because it shouldn't be possible.

2. detectable c-14 in coal, diamonds, and other material that is 'millions of years old' that is not from contamination. The half-life of c-14 isn't long enough to allow any to remain if it's that old. Here

There is mounting evidence that rates of radioactive decay have been higher in the past. If true, that destroys the fundamental assumption underlying radiometric dating. And there are at least a hundred other measurable geologic processes that indicate a young earth.

absentee

You are welcome, encouraged, applauded, I will fight to the death to allow you to, to have and practice your faith.

But the point many of us make is that your faith is your faith, not mine, not my children and not something that I want you to use my tax dollars to proselytize in the schools.

I would like science taught in school, not faith based theories.

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

I would like science taught in school, not faith based theories.

Funny, those of us who don't buy into Evolution want the same thing.....

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

So, I assume you are floating above your keyboard about now in protest.

evolution is your theological stance as to the origin of life and man.

Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean that I don't recognize gravity.

However, as with most who are of your mind, you do not discuss, you just hurl insults.

That's ok. We're used to it. I'm not going to get into the old "Evolution vs. Creation" debate with you. Mostly because you do not wish to debate, just browbeat and then claim that Christianity is trying to force itself onto you.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Evolution, at least the Darwinian model as I understand it, does not explain the origin of life. It describes the development of life and how it changes and adapts.

Evolution itself does not deny a divine cause to life. It is merely the mechanism by which life changes.

It does give the origin of man, and the origins of life are drawn from its theories.

I just finished a science class in which Evolution was THE concept taught as though it were recorded history.

They are even restructuring the orginizational charts for biology (rather than Kingdom down to Species) to include a method of organization that tracks 'likely' evolutionary development.

DARWIN did not suggest that evolution was an answer to avoid a divine cause, but that is not where it has been taken.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

And it is recorded though not by man. Instead, it is recorded in the fossil record and more importantly in the genes of every living thing.

Ahh, "Interpretation"

The refusal to admit to your faith is very amusing, Or, at least, it would be if it was limited to just you.

It is amazing to have so many people so rabidly evangelistic when it comes to evolution, yet at the same time crying 'foul' when they hear a vaguely christian message.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Used to be called spontaneous generation.

Anyway you need to break apart evolution from the evolutionary model.

You get two separate issues Does life change and adapt is this how the diversity of life comes about.

Just how did life get here.

Its always fun to accuse people that don't properly understand their position of promoting spontaneous generation.

I'm not endorsing the theory of abiogenesis here.

But you are correct that the issue is really two issues.

It gets observed regularly. It can be created in artificial systems. Mathematically the statement is tautological. The response to it should be something like DUH.

Origin of life is an entirely different matter. Take it up with your pastor. If he wears a white lab coat fine, just don't proselytize on the public dime.

I'm completely in agreement with you. I'm an agnostic Jew who can't stand to see science sullied with ID and so forth.

No pun intended.

It can be created in artificial systems.

Not without guidance or a framework. Are you talking about genetic algorithms?

Genetic Algorithms are more like selective breeding.

BTW there is an example of Lamarckian evolution currently. (Nobody ever gets this)

I could look it up to be sure, but I think I know what Lamarckian evolution is. What is the example of which you speak?

Otherwise, I'm with nobody.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

As a species we have advanced leaps and bounds all because our forebears exerted the effort. We do the same for our descendants.

While Lamarck's giraffe struggled to reach the top branches, we struggled to take down entire forests.

Cultural and societal "evolution" is a far different thing from biological evolution. Darwin and his successors studied and wrote/write about the latter, not the former.

Some of the former may result from the latter, however. Neanderthals were not successful in the ways that early man was, perhaps because of biological/neurological differences that had evolved in man's brain that didn't happen for the Neanderthals.

"So easy Warren Buffett could do it."

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

And In a lamarckian way that too may soon change
We are very near to making germ line alterations in ourselves we already do with other species.

Lamarck didn't deal with "germ line alterations." He dealt with passing on physical changes acquired by living plants and animals that are already developed, such as having one's little toes cut off and then producing 8-toed offspring.

If "germ line alterations" are modifications to the genetic makeup of mature animals which can then be passed on, it still isn't Lamarckianism.

Sentence structure bad, hopefully understandable.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Cultural evolution though achieves exactly the same effects of passing on physical characteristics.

DNA is primarily encoded information. Cultural abilities are just information encoded external to our bodies.

If we alter our own genome using that external information we effectively close the loop.

Happy 4th of July. Peace!

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Hoist a cold one for me.

Evolution is based on science and reason. Evolution does not pretend to explain the origin of life, only the mechanism by which current life on earth evolved from previous, sometimes simpler forms.

Also, Evolution does not in any way conflict with the notion that God is the Creator. What it does conflict with is the literal Biblical interpretation of Creation. The earth and life were not created in six days. Animals did not all appear in their present forms on the same day. It has taken billions of years for life to evolve from simple single cell organisms to the complex forms you see today. Those facts don't preclude the possibility that God set it all in motion. I'm a Christian myself, and like most Christians, we can accept the facts of Evolution while maintaining our faith in God.

I am happy to debate you on this issue, if you like.

As to the insults, coming from someone who hurls insults the way you do on this board, I'll take your comment with a huge grain of salt.

See? really upsets them when you refer to their faith as faith.

Like Obama and race, they are 'beyond faith' yet are sunk deep in it.

I am happy to debate you on this issue, if you like.

I'm sure you would, but believe me. I have heard EVERYTHING you would bring to the table and you have no interest in actual debate.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

So, what you are actually saying is that you get to frame the debate by equating your falsible belief with reams of peer reviewed scientific data? Of course, if you get to say that your beliefs are equal to my facts no matter how I respond, I guess I lose.

Let's do this instead. Since you seem to believe that we should teach kids all "legitimate" theories of creation, including Biblical literal Creationism, I think you would agree that we should also make sure that we teach kids that these theories are equally viable.

Science Lessons for Lance

So, what you are actually saying is that you get to frame the debate by equating your falsible belief with reams of peer reviewed scientific data? Of course, if you get to say that your beliefs are equal to my facts no matter how I respond, I guess I lose.

Given the success of the "Peer Review" process in all the propaganda scientists and their 'man made global warming' crap, you'll forgive me for not viewing Peer Review as monolithic and unfailing as you do.

Let's do this instead. Since you seem to believe that we should teach kids all "legitimate" theories of creation, including Biblical literal Creationism, I think you would agree that we should also make sure that we teach kids that these theories are equally viable.

I have no problem with evolution being taught in terms of intraspecies adaptation to environments.

Teaching that a horse used to be fish, on the other hand... no.

Such supposition and interpretation of data ought not be shoveled into the minds of teenagers as the sole answer.

The reason why people such as yourself really cry "That's not science!" is because you currently have a stranglehold on what is taught in science class and you will flail towards any argument to keep it that way.

If it really WAS about wanting to be open and the scientific method of analyzing information, multiple forms of origin of life and man would be taught and the students would be able to practice their critical thinking skills to find which they find most agreeable.

However, just as you don't like those pesky creationists being allowed near a classroom, I also wouldn't necessarily trust an evolutionist to fairly speak on creation.

Perhaps, as with some other topics, the origin of life and man ought not be taught in school.

Of course, I also think the mockery of education when it comes to sex really shows that schools ought to get back to Reading Writing and mathematics.

Once they can do those three well, we can see what we can add to it.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Evolution and a creator are not mutually exclusive. But evolution and Christianity are theologically incompatible. You can't have suffering and death before man. Death as a result of sin is the foundational truth of the whole religion.

Lance

When I bump into one of you fine foks that want to teach ID, or Creation Theory or any of the other non scientific theories of creation and origin of species, I start with a simple question to see if it's worth discussing the question.

Are you a believer in biblical literalism?

If someone believes in bible literalism, then it's pretty much a waste of time on ether side of the argument to continue. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

I don't give you that option.

This isn't done on your terms.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Lance

Your frame of reference for this discussion appears to be based in biblical literalism, therefore what you are arguing is really a discussion of faith.

Science is not faith, it's based on observation, measurement, postulating a theory and verification of theory based on data and observation.

You're welcome to have your faith, the rest of us will stumble on with science on this matter.

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

You're right, science is not faith.

But you demand that your faith be taught as science.... all the while decrying faith being taught as science.

You have NO idea as to my idea on biblical literalism, nor do I let you frame this discussion.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Lance

Demand, hardly, the theory of evolution is now taught in public schools, no demand necessary.

Seems like the ones demanding something are the biblical literalism folks like you who are wrapping their faith into pseudo science under various names that are making demands.

What's the next demand, go back Pre Isac Newton and demand that children be taught that the sun revolves around the Earth because faith says so?

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

As an opposing theory actually enhances the education process.

Science is not about absolutes or answers for that matter. It is about the process of finding them. Teaching anything as a monolithic absolute revealed from authority is harmful.

I have no problem with kids learning creation myths from several cultures. I remember learning about the Titans and the Gods of Olympous in school. However, my teachers never made any claims that those stories were anything more than myths.

What we refer to as science used to be called natural philosophy. It is about process it is about theories arising achieving dominance and in turn being superseded.

Catastrophism and Plate Tectonics great examples of of the rise of laughable theories (That was in the modern period by the way).

The I.D. people have theories, evidence and framework to fit them together. Let them fight. The kids will actually learn science not somebody's pet theory.

Science is about truth, about the facts, about observation and measurement.

To suggest teaching creationism as having any basis in truth as a peer in science and scientific method of the theory of evolution is the same sort of mental mush that is decried on this site all the time.

There is no pass or fail, there is only participation....YIKES.

I have not problem teaching creationism or ID or anything else based on a literal interpretation of the bible in philosophy, or comparative religion or basket weaving, but it's not even good pseudo science.

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

billions of years ago, shall we?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Heh.

No comment necessary.

I'd like to, but no. That's ok.

There's a biblical teaching here. Involves pearls.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I think you just disqualified yourself on any scientific or educational discussion.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

If shoofly is so supremely safe from creation in his evolutionary science, it only further illuminates the absurd and vicious intent in exaggerating for the sake of smearing. I address his six-thousand years talking point, which I'm sick of seeing. If his science is so above reproach, then why be sneeringly smug hmm?

You'll note, as well, shoofly didn't make the distinction about what should be taught, but rather who should teach. A bit different from your reply.

absentee
RedState Graphic Design Contests

is a first class load of unsupportable, untenable bullcrap. I have the credentials and the background to know what is being taught and what is scientifically supportable.

It takes a great deal of faith (I would term it gullibility) to buy what they are selling.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

inhibited this professor for imparting essential science to his students for years.

Your attitude is like those that burned witches in Salem. See Ben Stein's "Expelled..." and get your mind right. Many science teachers believe that man evolved from a single cell billions of years ago, on faith. Should they be fired?

Shoo fly

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Did they come to that conclusion based on the scientific method? If so, then they're fine. They're just wrong, but the peer review of the scientific method means it gets corrected.

Did they come to this conclusion based on something other than science? Are they misrepresenting what science is? If yes, then fire 'em.

requires more faith than ID. Can't be disproved either.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Believers in ID or Biblical Creationism are like the ones who burned the young women (not witches - there's no such thing) in Salem. You see, GC, they acted on belief and more accurately on superstition. That is exactly what Biblical Creationists do on the matter of evolution.

By the way, Ben Steins movie was a joke. I put it up there with one of Michael Moore's fine documentaries.

Believers in ID or Biblical Creationism are like the ones who burned the young women (not witches - there's no such thing) in Salem. You see, GC, they acted on belief and more accurately on superstition. That is exactly what Biblical Creationists do on the matter of evolution.

No, GC is dead on right. You just refuse to accept it as it would mean having to admit to your faith.

By the way, Ben Steins movie was a joke. I put it up there with one of Michael Moore's fine documentaries.

I'm sure you do. I can think of a blog where you'd be right at home. I was banned from there for this VERY topic.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I'm a Christian, a Roman Catholic. I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit anything.

not that faith.

your faith in evolution.

Nice try though, almost worked.

Well, no it didn't, but I'm being nice.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It is an observable science. Perhaps you don't know the difference between faith and fact.

Interesting thing about observations.

They require perspectives and worldviews.

Faith is what drives both worldviews and observations.

We look at a human hand. one sees billions of years of evolution, another sees the great work of an Grand Architect.

Both observe the same thing but draw different conclusions.

Why? Faith.

I would suggest that you do not realize how many of what you call facts are just your deeply ground matters of faith regarding the orgin of man that has determined your perspective of what you observe.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Bias is always present in experimentation but it can be minimized. There is a massive array of tools to do this.

Oh yes, I quite agree.

However, when your tools are devised based on the same biased nature as the observer. . . well, you can see where it might cause problems.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Erastothene's proof the world was round and his measurement of its size.

Pasteur's proof of the germ theory

Rutherford's determination of structure of the atom

Are all good examples.

Simple and elegant. They posit a circumstance and look for the logical outcomes.

By themselves they are still subject to experimental error and selection biases. But when other experiments looking for other things confirm them and when the results start popping up in unexpected places then you can consider bias minimized.

Both of these

Yup.

Though I also believe that if a scientist, today, sets out to prove that a horse used to be a fish, they can find a way to make it so.

And, once you throw in the bias created by the agenda of those FUNDING research, you have a good way of ignoring certain experiments to focus on others that are more fitting to the money.

A great example is the 'vast amounts of scientific evidence' of man made global warming. Why are there so many experiments and research papers that are peer-reviewed and point to something as silly as "Global Warming Exists and it is Man's Fault!"?

Because that is where the money is.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Yet your rigid view allows you to ignore facts in order for the world to make sense. That's the problem with Biblical literalism. It requires very little logic or reason to debunk the scientific(like) claims within. But because literalist can't believe anything but what is on the page, they go through painful contortions of logic and reason to try to explain what is self evident.

*yawn*

comments designed to try and upset me or just plain ol' insult me really don't work.

All they do is show how unreasonable you are.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

going through life never being wrong about anything. One day you'll have to tell me all about it.

Your condescending remarks aside, I am wrong about many things.

Life is a daily struggle to evaluate what I believe and 'know' and comapare it to what I see around me to test it for Truth.

Once again you hurl an insult at me that is more properly directed towards yourself.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Trying to square everything to your (or anyone's) personal frame of reference is a recipe for being wrong about most things. I'm sorry for seeming condecending, but this is one of those things about members of our party that really bothers me. How can we govern in a modern world if we are wedded to old fashioned superstitions?

Are you going to accuse us of being bitter, too?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

taxes, for starters, and have no 5000 yr old book of wisdom that survived a pre-chevy induced flood that seems to jibe with our "modern" experience for seconds?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Microevolution (horses,donkeys) is observable science. The rest is not.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

are doing the burnings these days. Its those of the faith in Darwin's single-cell God.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

to expel those of the multi-cell Creator.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

It is interesting that you defend the teaching of evolution in schools, given its faith-based nature and the lack of any opposing views being allowed.

I'd have thought that you'd be all up for freedom in schools.

And yes, opposition to evolution is crushed and never allowed to see the light of day.

I am studying to be a teacher, and I have spoken to many teachers, in and out of my family, about that very thing.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

While you teach that Intelligent Design is an opposing, valid theory to Evolution, you can teach that the earth is held up by a giant turtle (or Atlas, take your pick) and that the sun and planets revolve around it. It's certainly an alternate theory and we wouldn't want the kiddies to not see all sides of the argument.

Yes, because Intelligent Design and Evolution come up often in Math Class.

Once again, it is not the subject that you fear, it is the belief of the teacher.

You don't even know what I am studying to teach, but because I believe in creation, you sure know that you don't want me teaching YOUR child.

and you refer to me as rigid.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

that the sum of 2 and 2 was 5, I would have a problem. I wouldn't have a problem having you teach my children math otherwise.

That was a sucker-punch, Lance. If you can't teach it, your comment was a non sequitur.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Who say's I can't teach it? There have been math teachers that showed Al Gore's movie on man made global warming.

History teachers as well.

But you can bet that if a math teacher talked about Creation, his butt would be out on the curb.

Why? Because while teaching about man-made global warming or evolution are ok in any setting, teaching about creation is considered verboten.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Ah, ah, ah.

"Who say's I can't teach it?"

You implied that. Another non sequitur.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Lance, if you believe that evolution is taken on faith, you need to study it some.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I've studied it quite a bit. Not only was half of my education in public schools, but I just finished a science class that spent alot of time on it.

Perhaps if you believe that anyone who does not agree with you needs to 'study some' you should study some.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Obviously you didn't quite understand the material or the material was very poor or the teacher was incompetent. How else can you come out of the class and claim that some scientists are claiming that horses came from fish. If you learned that modern fish and horses have an ancient common ancestor, that would have been a successful term of study.

*smirk*

Or it could just be wrong.

But that wouldn't occur to you. Your faith doesn't allow it.

Yet it requires me to assume that I am wrong.

THAT is why I do not discuss this with folks such as yourself.

What you demand of me you are not willing to take upon yourself.

And your side calls me rigid and closed-minded.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

would I be forced to agree? Getting back to politics, what if you insisted that Obama was a true Conservative? Would I have to meet you half way. The bottom line is that literal biblical creationism is false. There is no nicer way of saying it. The world is not young, it is ancient. God did not create the earth in six literal 24 hour days. Your "opinion" is just not a viable alternative to Evolution. That has nothing to do with me being rigid. Those are just the facts.

Your faith tells you that God did not create the earth in 6 days.

You were not there at the beginning of time, yet you state as fact what did and did not happen.

That is where you show your faith.

You don't want to believe in Creation, that's fine.

You care much more about what I believe than I care about what you believe.

And yet it is folks like me that you rail against.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

to know that it is full of Frenchmen. It is not faith of any kind that shows that the earth is 4-5 billion years old. My faith tells me that God is the Creator and that we are His creation. It does not pretend to tell me to ignore fact in order to conform my reality with a fable written 4,000 years ago.

4,000 years ago?

It was 6,000 years further up.

Will it be 2,000 years in a couple hours?

At what point do we reach that the earth hasn't been created yet?

*snicker*

There is quite a bit of faith involved in your view and that you STILL won't accept it is kind of amusing.

Almost as amusing as your assumptions about my faith.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

again. The 4,000 year comment was related to the origin of the Adam and Eve creation story. I may be off by a milenia or two, but that's not really relevant to the point I was making which is that human beings made it up relatively recently in our history. The 6,000 year comment was my understanding of the age of the earth as claimed by Bible literalists. Again, I may have been off by a milenia or two but once again it is not relevant to the point I was making which is that they are wrong since the earth is 4-5 billion years old. Got it?

You take the laws of physics as understood as being invariant and constant.

You take the constants that govern those laws as being constant.

You take on faith that no agency interfered with the process so that you misinterpret it.

Let me give you an example. Currently the accepted model for the birth of the universe is the big bang. We know of the big bang through the observation of cosmic background radiation. In time this will fade to undetectability. So if we were to have arisen in a later universe we would have an entirely different but still scientific idea of the nature of the universe.

We can't say that the reverse does not hold if we arose earlier.

You're taking the views of some Christians, disagreeing with them, and jumping from there to claiming that every possible interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with science.

Sorry, wrong. Your name isn't Evel Knievel, you can't make a leap that large.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Even if you think the creation story is more Kipling's Just So Stories than a real chronology, the Bible still hints at a previous Earth age.

No threadjack intended. Just saying. Come to think of it, comparative theology should be in everyone's curriculum as we also improve real science education. We're supposed to know how to "rightly divide" these things.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Anyone who believes the earth is 6-7 thousand years old should not be allowed to teach science to children.

So we're now going to require that teachers with the wrong beliefs should be fired or not allowed to teach. That is the definition of thought crime.

This is a different matter from the question of what is appropriate to teach in the classroom. Now if this teacher is actively deviating from the prescribed curriculum, that is one matter. But to simply hold variant beliefs - that is no grounds for firing.

Now presenting alternative views in the classroom is a teaching method that is well recognized, and this is where we come to the crux of the matter: was the teacher trying to undermine the curriculum or was he trying to instill critical thinking skills?

Given that the original news stories were essentially that the teacher was torturing students - branding them with Christian crosses - and these have been disproven, it would seem that now somebody's moving the targets and trying to manufacture grounds to fault the teacher.

Since this guy has been openly teaching in this fashion for 21 years, and this has well-known to other teachers and the administration, then the sudden objection looks like a pretext for embarrassed administrators to cover their posteriors.

And Rightly So!

That being so, I'd say however that there are a whole TON of teachers in elementary and secondary schools who are not qualified to teach children - since they can't keep their personal views from adversely affecting what they teach. I speak specifically of left-wing nutjobs who use their positions as an excuse to foist leftist crap on impressionable captive audiences.

So when you cast out my creationists, then you need to cast out the lefty ideologues too.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Let's start in Maine and work our way west. :-)

Impeach the 5 usurpers

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Although if the rumors are true that some sports hybrids will be ripping 0-60 times in the 3's, I might cross over and join the Disciples of Algore.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

no, but see, the lefty nutjobs are helping to form young minds.

Those evil creationists are just religious bigots.

*wink*

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

If someone came to that theory by the scientific method and it survived peer review, then yes it was.

Something can be false and still be borne of the scientific method.

by the scientific method. Origin of species -- especially when expanded to some explanation of the whole of Earth's biota -- is conjecture. There is a good bit of extant evidence that seems to support it, a good bit of evidence that strongly speaks against it (hint, try foisting evolution onto a boichemist or a physicist). Nothing about origin of species involves the scientific method.

In this respect it is on a par with ID.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Reference, Mike?

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Sorry. I meant a reference for "the theory that man evolved from one cell."

I'm not familiar with your meaning.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

conversation into english lit. That was not a federal offense. Neither should fed judges have any say if a conversation in a science class delves into creation.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Okay. Howzabout using phrenology in a psych class? Howzabout presenting phrenology as if it actually WAS psychology?

I don't give a fig of folks *discuss* these theories in class. Just don't treat them as science or equivalent to it. That's my problem. Don't treat an unscientific theory as science, as in so doing you misrepresent what science even is.

What is the difference between a "theory" and a "law"?

Always liked the idea.

Councilor Game

If it a pattern of wandering innocently into the question of creation science just seemed to happen on a regular basis, I think your client would be found guilty.

If you read the report, seems like that is what was happening.

Perhaps the creation science conversation could be saved for Sunday school or Vacation Bible School?

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

hence the desire for stickers on the textbooks in Cobb County, GA that a fed judge would not allow. All the sticker said was that free speech be allowed.

Free speech, a concept that used to be available in all classes until the State established a religion of transmogrified Darwinism. Local schools should set curricula, not federal judges.

If Anytown, USA wants to discuss bugs in math class and Shakespeare in health class, then let it be. No business of fed govt.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Doesn't it suck that we're not as educated and smart as steve and shoofly?

*grin*

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Creationism and ID may, indeed, be absolutely and 100% correct, but they simply are not science.

Therefore, in your view science does not equal correctness or truth.

Anteater: To answer for him, your statement is at least partly "correct." Science equals the best evidence-based answers for questions related to the observable universe.

"science does not equal correctness or truth."

It's not always a question of correctness or incorrectness, either. Sometimes it is correct but incomplete, sometimes merely imprecise, that is, useful on one scale but not on another.

Sometimes, the accepted scientific answer turns out to be wrong, but the better answer is found in disproof through scientific methods, not via logical but incomplete argumentation.

IANAP, but it seems to me that "truth" is a concept of philosophy, not science.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

component as well as a biologigal, physiological component, so it can be taught in science class. Eros and Agape can and should be taught in theology, philosophy or other similar classes.

When one believes in an active Divine influence, one cannot help but have an effect on the other. Secular Naturalism is itself a philosophy, and assumes(!) no Divine influence is allowed.

If separated,it should be taught as only presently observable science. Leave ALL theorizing on past issues, none of which are scientifically testable, to philosophers and anthropologists.

"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate

That then requires Evolution and Old-earth theory to be barred from science class as well.

Since THAT won't ever happen, teachers must deal with the fact that Old-Earth Secular Naturalism isn't the only theory out there.

"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Are you implying that the age of this planet can be measured in thousands of years?

(and yes, I know that technically it could me measured in seconds, just a whole lot of them, but I think you know what I meant)

Besides, the postulated age of the Earth *is* testable. It's an assumption, but one you can play with.

hands." You all don't come to the table with clean hands, and, hence, can't demand same of those you would expel. It is you that seek to expel, i.e. burn at the stake, deniers or even doubters of your God, not us, neither of whom's belief in said Gods inhibits studies of Christian Newton's laws. Your single cell God can't be verified scientifically anymore than ours of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

So lets adherents of each teach about chlorophyll.

'k?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Get your facts right. There are many types of radio-isotope dating. Carbon-14 is only good for a few thousand years because it has a very short half-life. Argon-Potassium dating is good for many millions of years.

Evolution is based on many observations about progressive differences in genomes (DNA can be sequenced now), about radio active dating, progression of morphology in fossils, etc. It is on very sound scientific footing.

I'd like to get in on some of that radio active dating. Would she glow in the dark? (^:^)

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Then again, maybe she'll just get her kicks from surfing through the stations on my car radio. (Not while Rush is no, no sirree!)

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

1. We've never observed macroevolution in action, not once.
2. We've never seen a mutation actually create new information. not once. Even bacterial resistance is, as Mike Behe says, 'trench warfare'. It's devolution that produces an advantage.
3. Huge gaps in fossil records, not what evolutionists ever expected by this point in time.
4. Radioactive dating completely falls apart if the assumption of CONSTANT DECAY RATES is thrown out. And the evidence is mounting that assumption is wrong.

bobnivik--

This statement is completely at odds with reality.

"Evolution is no more science than Creationism."

Disregarding the fact that it completely ignores the thousands of man-years that have gone into trying to discredit Evolutionary theory on its merits (some of which have assuredly brought about refinements in the theory), it misses the point of the scientific method, which is what makes "science" science.

Evolution started with observations and went to conclusions (scientific conclusions, always up for amendment in the discovery of new information).

Creationism starts with the conclusion and proceeds to ignore any information that would tend to cast doubt on it. The conclusion is never to be questioned or amended.

Beyond all that, the study of evolutionary theory has led to thousands of procedures and discoveries in biology, zoology, microbiology, and medicine that improve our lives every day. It has actually been useful.

Creationism is a circular argument that leads nowhere.

And no one is "persecuted because they dare criticize the sacred cow of Evolutionary Dogma."

That's what scientists who are on the cutting edge in all sciences are basically working on--finding anything new about their field. If it proves that long-held ideas are wrong they become even more exalted. The key word there is "prove."

So far, the creationists and IDers haven't been able to do that. As long as they insist on some degree of magic being involved, they won't be able to do so, because science doesn't deal with magic.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Oh, and evolution isn't a sacred cow that is never allowed to be questioned? please.

Both creationism and evolutionism both result in hundreds of claims that can be tested (to some degree) with the scientific method:

hypothesis
experiment
gather data
intepret

Examples:
The Earth is X years old
There was a global flood
Species X cam from species Y
random mutation and time can create new proteins
The Grand Canyon was formed over time by slow erosion
The Grandy Canyon was formed quickly by a mudslide
There was an Ice Age
There were 10 Ice Ages

There is really no difference. The problem is you are doing historical science which is more open to interpretation and involves more assumptions than things you can repeat in the lab.

Many of the hypotheses of creationism are continually amended based on the data. For instance, creationists have been moving away from the vapor canopy theory and theories about changing speed of light over time.

The origin of a hypothesis has no bearing on whether or not that hypothesis is true or whether it can be tested. If someone reads some ancient historical document and bases an theory on that, is that any less valid than one they come up with on their own? All theories start with some observation.

Outside of the initial creation week, no MAGIC is involved in creation science. And there is also no reason that 'science' only has to consider naturalistic causes.

This has been fun, but I don't think anyone is changing their mind here. Let's get back to things we all agree on.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

I would recommend you read up a little on theory vs. law, and how scientists use the terms. Let's just say that a theory does not have to be 100% factually and undeniably correct to be useful, nor are all laws 100% correct.

As to your other question, I have no idea. I don't overly concern myself with origin questions, as you will likely find to be the case with most scientists. I prefer to look forward.

overly concerned with origins lest their State established religion of the Darwinian single cell God be dissed.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Just quit teaching origin crap in science classes. You can teach it in theology or history or whatever..."Science Based Origins vs. Faith Based Origins and the Inherent Strengths and Weaknesses Within Each".

I don't want ID being taught in my kids' science classes and would be more than willing to give up them being taught "The Origin of the Species" in exchange.

Any ID takers?

I've never had an issue with that.

But then, it isn't my side of this that is trying to censor information to push their own beliefs.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Look, here's the issue. I'm not saying that the OoTS is scientific. I'm saying that they used science to come up with the theories. The Darwinists as you call them use this as their justification for teaching it in science class. It's about as scientific as archaeology. You can't use the scientific method to test if an ancient people held certain rituals, because you cannot test it. However, you can use scientific principles of dating, soil analysis, etc. to help you come up with a theory of their rituals. Darwinism is the same way.

Where the problem comes in is when IDers simply say, "That's not how I believe life began on this planet" and try to get their faith-based theory integrated into the class as well. They don't realize that even if Darwinism is unscientific, at least there are scientific principles that can be taught while studying it, where the same cannot be said of ID. Every time someone tries, their science never makes it past peer review.

This is where the third party comes in. Those like me who would say, "Ok, you want to teach Darwinism, fine. The kids will learn about studying species of animals, cell division, DNA, etc. I may not agree, but they're getting something scientific out of it. However, ID is posing as science and, more importantly, ignoring other vetted scientific theory because it doesn't fit with their belief. I will not have my child taught that this kind of belief is on par with actual scientific study."

We're not trying to censor anyone, we're trying to make sure our kids are taught the difference between fact and fiction, science and theology. ID in science class blurs that line.

I guess that would be anthropology, not archaeology. My bad.

let theory be the realm of the colleges and private institutions. Is that agreeable. The laws will teach them how to think instead of what to think.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

If you can figure out some way to also teach that theories build upon other theories (I think this is important to the basic premise of science) I believe you have a winning solution. I may cut that down to K-8, though. I think high school students who want to pursue further scientific study should have that available to them.

Time to make a call to my school board, I guess.

see this is where the real problem is...some parents want evolution some want other theories...at what point is it the parents choice vs. the gov't choice. To me it is about the parents having the right to choose over the gov'ts push to mandate not only how but what we teach our children. And that is why I said to leave it in the hands of college and other private institutions.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

No matter what get discussed, it is not an establishment of religion unless one has to PAY to support a church.

We can't comtrol where discussions go. Let's let the market control. I moved my kids from a religious school once and from a secular public school.

But my point is that the LEGAL problem is not as narrow as you say, as you blame IDers alone.

see Ben's Expelled

and see the 170+ page science class protocols from a federal judge!!!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Suing a school because your kid heard about Christianity in class is about as dumb as suing because your kid learned about sex in school. I don't want my kids exposed to religion in school, you don't want them exposed to Darwin, someone else doesn't want them exposed to sex, and someone else doesn't want them exposed to homosexuality. Guess what? We are all going to lose because public schools are, for good or for bad, a collection of all of these things and more: a mini version of the society in which the children live outside of its walls.

However, I would argue there's a difference between suing a school over a, in my opinion, bad law (state law saying no teaching of anything but Protestant Christian creation theology, for example) and suing because a teacher decides to foster a discussion among students about the origin of man, which may include Christian theology. I would support the first lawsuit (to get it struck down as unconstitutional) and not the second.

And since we did veer of earlier regarding college professors, I'll say this fits there as well. Let the board and the faculty decide. If they decide wrong, people will stop sending their kids there, and they will adjust or fail.

In fact, I would consider it malpractice not to have them learn of same. My main point is that the current federal judge made law interpreting the establishment clause is closer to a violation of same than anything fostered by IDers. The meaning of the est clause in the 1st amendment is actually quite narrow, and I am confident, given recent cases this last term and Roberts, Alito and even kennedy's opinions when O'Connor was devising 14 point tests, that mush of the aclu crap will be overturned, but local officials are still too worried.

The whole Cobb, County GA sticker case was due to fear of student initiated discussions.

Your slightly wrongly askewed problem is that you want judges to "PROTECT" your kids ears. The only way that procedure works is to squelch free speech and bring fear into the class, to fashion an antiseptic science class. This is madness!

let local schools decide

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

While science is not exact truth, and never can be, accuracy of the material should be of prime importance; otherwise it isn't science, but belief. Every benefit that you mentioned that may come from teaching macroevolution can be gained from teaching areas of science that, to the best of our knowledge, are absolutely factual and supported by direct observations.

Teaching students the principles of science by teaching them a belief system that is unobservable and unverifiable is doing them a disservice, even if it leads to some accurate conclusions. I would be happy if the teacher said "This is what we know. Ask your parents, etc, about the origin of life." We can't prove evolution or creation, so why not leave the subject alone.

By the way, you know as well as I that a non-evolution based journal article is never going to make it through peer review. The very few times one has slipped through, it has been roundly condemned, notwithstanding the merits of the article itself. It doesn't matter what it is about or how much of a contribution it makes. That argument is like saying that being pro-life isn't a legitimate theory because NARAL won't print pro-life articles in their newsletter.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

now, can we get the pro-evolution side to agree?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Stop equating evolution with the origin of the species. Darwinism relies on evolution being true. Evolution has no requirement that man started out as a single cell.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

are to real science what Bones is to House. Determining who a person is by their thigh bone is only useful to the next person who has to identify someone by their (the victim's) thigh bone. It's self serving. Figuring out when it is and is not Lupus helps other people in the future.

(oh, and it's never Lupus)

That's who is teaching.

Badmouth them all you want, I'll join you.

But they're still the ones doing the teaching and creating the textbooks.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I don't know where you live, but our public school's science curriculum (at least a few years ago when I was looking into it for another discussion like this one) spends very little time discussing evolution or origin questions.

I learned a lot of science in K-8, and all I can recall about Darwin was "platypus" and "Scopes". Most of the classes were geology, chemistry, and plant biology. Honestly, if there was a liberal bent to it, I would say it was more ecological based rather than evolution based.

Of course, I do live in the Midwest, so...

And how long ago was that?

I just finished a science class within the last month as one of the last generals before I get into the core of my mathematics degree.

The only thing that I am having to bite my tongue MORE with is my current course in US History.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

You're a big boy now, use your own brain to either accept or dismiss what they are teaching you. We're talking about kids who cannot make those determinations for themselves.

As to how long ago it was, I believe I was in science class when we heard that the Challenger exploded. That should put you in the ballpark.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

I don't disagree. And as I have a child entering Intermediate school, I'm sure I'll find out just how much. However, I was not going by my experience of a couple decades ago, but by my questions to the principal of the school just a couple years ago. They just don't focus on it a whole lot.

If they did, I don't see why you can't just tell your kid, "Well, I understand what the teacher is saying. He is using the information he has to try to figure out what we already know by faith. We know how it was God who created the earth. This teacher doesn't understand that, so he is trying to use science to explain it. That's what science is good for, trying to explain things we don't understand. You don't have to believe what he is telling you is true, you just have to prove to him that you are learning the material. Science is wrong this time, just as it has been wrong in the past, but it is also right a lot. It's worth learning."

Why do we have to bend over backwards so that your religious belief on the development of life can be taught as the standard?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

you need to add Reading Comprehension 101 to your current course list. Come see me again when you have passed this course, because, based on current evidence, I'm not inclined to believe you could test out of it.

And as always, one turns to insults when one runs out of arguments.

At least get some original insults.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

...the only problem I have is that unfortunately the teachers end up spending alot more time with your children than you do. They are taught to trust the teacher instead of the parent. The parent ends up having to fight an uphill battle.

It's like sex ed...the parent has to actively work against the school system to instill the values that are left out by those who we entrust our children's education to.

It's a classic catch 22 and there in lies the rub.

The school system hos morphed into social engineering instead of reading writing and arithmetic. We have lost the youth.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

Funny, when it is a christian doing the teaching, your side is not as open to 'letting the student decide'

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It's not "my side". I told you I was the third party, who just wants them to teach actual scientific method and quit trying to explain the origin of man. Have you read my comments, or are you just trolling?

However, if I were a member of the board at a college and one of my faculty was using the science classes to pass information that had absolutely no scientific basis, going so far as to not even pretend to be scientific and only "offering an alternative explanation", yes, I would not want them teaching there.

Ok, so if someone was teaching that evolution explains life, you would support their removal?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I graduated from public high school in Raytown, Missouri, in 1961. I had one semester of zoology, and I don't remember Darwin's name being mentioned. I don't think there was any mention of how the different species originated, either, but maybe I just forgot it. We must have studied genes, but cellular mutation was probably as deep as we went.

I took no biological sciences in college, either, but I would think that upper-level undergrad courses are the appropriate place to actually get into the study of evolution. At that point, a student is in the position of questioning intelligently whatever he wants to.

I find it mind-boggling that there are seemingly so many high schools that teach evolutionary theory. Seems to me to be far beyond the "scopes" (couldn't resist the pun) of high school science. And I don't have a clue how Intelligent Design could be "taught" (which implies advocacy or antipathy) without promoting or denigrating the idea of a god as the overseer of the universe.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I couldn't agree with you more if we woke up on the sun and you said "Dang it's hot!"

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

My concern at this point is that it took you this entire thread to come to the same conclusion that Lance and I started at. Did we not frame our arguments correctly to identify that we were talking about k-12? Was the original diary not clear that it was about a high school teacher? Or was this yet another failure of the public school system that you graduated from...lol..had to at least get one dig in there...but yeah I agree with your post above.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

Maybe I'm just "stuck on stupid." (^:^)

I didn't have any problem with or see much to add to your earlier comments, so I didn't respond to them (#4 for example).

Later ones called for comment--maybe not even yours, but some mini-threads you then contributed to.

My initial (perhaps all) comments to Lance dealt with his attempt to argue like a Democrat, by making comments that implied one thing, then complaining that "he didn't say that." And no, he didn't use those exact words, but my statement describes the situation well enough for friendly discussion.

I doubt that I've been inconsistent in my own comments.

I didn't change my position on anything. I did expand on a different aspect of the situation that I hadn't mentioned before.

On the OP--After skimming the PDF of the investigation, I see nothing to indicate that Mr. Freshwater was fired unfairly, based entirely on his classroom behavior, not including the Tesla coil incident. He seems to have had many warnings, many chances to tone down his proselytizing and chose to ignore them, but maybe I'm wrong.

Since the school had certain guidelines regarding what he should teach and how to teach it, it doesn't seem to have been a difficult decision. Maybe he needed Ward Churchill's lawyers.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

... we may all agree in principle but the waters get all muddy because people leave out context and then that missing context becomes the conversation piece instead of the principle...like the whole argument between intra vs. inter species evolution. if we don't provide that context when speaking about "evolution" the conversation itself becomes meaningless.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

...primarily because they view Darwinian Evolution as science and all other theories on the origin of life as religion. But if it came down to it the flying spaghetti monster would be ok./snark

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

As someone else has already pointed out, evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.

I can understand the concern, but if one insists on an Intelligent Designer to cause species to evolve, why couldn't evolution be Its tool of choice?

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I feel the need to clarify because you appear to be stuck on stupid.(I am not calling you stupid it's just a phrase I use..blame the U.S. Army) I believe that God created everything. How he created everything is not my concern because I can't ever hope to duplicate it. Evolution in the sense that species adapt and evolve within their own species is fine. The idea of single cell evolution leading to the origin of all the species is not provable and hasn't been replicated ever in our history. God created the world and everything in it, all of the species were there at the beginning and since then evolutionary changes have taken place within each species, other than that nothing else can be proven by either historical text or science.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

I believe the key to resolving this type of debate is to settle first on what tools (mathematical for example), postulates, and assumptions you will use for the ongoing purpose of determining what science has to teach us.

For example I have seen the "carbon 14 dating" tool is subject to error. I believe one of the assumptions that has to be made is just how much error are we going to infer in C14 ages? Likewise, what can we use to confirm or deny the dating? Can we use tree rings? The assumption here is that each ring corresponds to a year.

I believe Descartes had it right when he refused to believe that nature and discovery were designed by an "evil one" to fool us. If this were the case then we could never be certain (to any degree) of anything.

If you want to discuss evolution in the context of a science class, then you have to spend the time discussing the limits of knowledge before going forward. I believe if this is done, then the teacher, Christian or whatever will not be evicted from the classroom by the school board.

This will also mean that certain "tools", for example "The Book of Genesis" can only be used as a source for things that can be verified with other accepted tools that are in the "toolbox" discussed above.

I have no problem with teaching Darwin and evolution in the context of how much credibility modern scientific tools can used to verify these theories. Where there are discrepancies, these need to be left as a challenge for future work, and where these discrepancies open the door to alternate concepts, this can be mentioned as well.

KC, still living free, or trying to.

...and in addition to the doubts you raised what about time itself...can we really accept time as a constant? I wouldn't think we could. Especially if you believe the Universe has expanded over "time". After all it the earth was once closer to the sun wouldn't a year be shorter?

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

Yes, all the assumptions related to the study of the concept need to be identified and verified or if they cannot, (like the constantcy of time) then this becomes another one of the assumptions. What happens then is that certain concepts end up being verified within the constraints and others diverge because they have different assumptions as their basis.

This happens all the time in fields like anthropology where theories are generated and discarded based on new discoveries and new theories. This is at the heart of science, and is why religion and science can co-exist, if the proponents want them to.

KC, still living free, or trying to.

I'm so glad it wasn't personal. I always figured the General was being very personal. But that's neither here nor there.

I select one sentence from your post:

"Evolution in the sense that species adapt and evolve within their own species is fine."

Why is that fine and all else fraught with peril?

One more sentence:

"The idea of single cell evolution leading to the origin of all the species is not provable and hasn't been replicated ever in our history."

You and Gamecock keep mentioning this. Not part of my data base. Is it a new straw man promoted by the Discovery Institute?

The rest of your comment is about your religious beliefs. They belong to you, so I have no comment. There are certainly abundant fossil records that contradict the statement that "all of the species were there at the beginning...."

Beyond all that, nothing in your comment remotely responds to what I wrote, beyond the statement that in spite of the evidence you don't believe that new species come into existence over time. Was it actually addressed to somebody else who is stuck on stupid?

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

you appear to be stuck on stupid. And as for you quip about the discovery institute if it's not in your data base why even comment on it...just go look it up...otherwise you are being disingenuous to say the least.

As far as why the idea intra-species evolution is fine is that is has been observed, whereas inter-species evolution has not.

One Species has never evolved into another species.

How is this so hard for you to understand?

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

(Snarky comment deleted by author)

"And as for you quip about the discovery institute if it's not in your data base why even comment on it"

Not what I was asking about. Was asking about the one-celled god concept (roughly speaking). I know what the Discovery Institute is. My question was about a concept you and gamecock brought up.

You seem like a reasonable kind of person, and smart as well. You might want to back off on the hair-trigger condescension a bit if you want to be taken seriously on topics that are important. After all, you don't really know to whom you're being condescending. It might be somebody who disagrees with you on only the single point in question. Just a suggestion.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

The one cell thing is just that...From my understanding the ultimate conclusion of evolution is that the creation story didn't happen not even in a non-literal 7 day sense. The theory points to an original single-cell organism that was brought to life and it evolved beyond a single cell and eventually there were all the species know to man. That is the concept that is prevalent with the Richard Dawkins crowd. It is the atheistic evolution that has won the day in the classroom and that ends up being and implied denunciation of God as the creator. Can you understand how this can be construed by people of many different faiths as an assault on their faith? This is the problem what you learned in the 60's about evolution is not the flavor that is being espoused today. They have gone into the realm of untested, non-duplicable speculation being taught instead of limiting what they teach to that which is fact. I blurs the reality of evolution with the speculation. Never a good thing, but an awful thing when it is being done by a government bureaucracy.

Now all snark being in the past...Are ya with me?

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

Peace. It's hard to get all the details into a blog entry sometimes.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think the single-cell origin of life thing is part of the actual scientific theory of evolution. Speculation only. If I find out differently, I'll get back to you.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

of his theory, and he would not support the gestapo tactics of those IDers that seek to poke holes in his theory. He would welcome it.

Hope you and all have seen Ben Stein's

Expelled

must see to understand the issue

both scientific and legal and free speech

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

to his theory. He would welcome Coulter's book Godless.

do you agree?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

might have been a man of inherent faith from living in his time, even with his new ideas. I don't think he told anyone to end the debate.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Sorry. I might see Expelled if I get to for free, but I make it a point to not watch docu-dramas and pseudoscientific exposes. Based on the previews and promo material, Expelled must make Michael Moore look like Edward R. Murrow.

I like Ben Stein's humor, but I disagree with his brand of conservatism, including his ideas about economics and taxation. This quote turns me off on his movie.

Darwinism as I understand it--and maybe I don't understand it--but Darwinism holds that life began by something like lightning striking a puddle and inorganic matter was converted into living matter. And from that, after four-and-a-half-billion ears, came the form of life that we now know.

----Ben Stein

If he starts from that wrong base, I don't have a lot of interest in seeing which way he runs around the diamond.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

expulsions, so judged by Lawyer gamecock.

u can't go wrong

I paid $5 for a before noon matinee

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

inevitably comes up! And we can't have aclu lawsuits poised to sue when a teacher allows a discussion!

There is nothing HOLY about a damn science class.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

So evolution is a theory, not a law, but useful. Got it.

And you don't concern yourself with origin questions, nor do other scientists. Very convenient. Again, got it.

Unfortunately, I guess I'm a little dense. I get the contempt in your post, but am missing the message. Do you deny that theories are important to furthering scientific understanding? Perhaps you disagree with my other point, and think that scientists have to put in 100 hours a year of continuing education at the Charles Darwin Center for Re-education and Enlightenment?

And try to explain where I come from.

1) I think evolution over time and within species is a given. I think that one species evolving into another is quite different, and has not even come close to being proven, despite millions of fossil records.

2) If scientists don't care about the origin of life, I think that is a cop-out of the highest order. If they don't, it is because they have not been able to use any of the tools at their disposal to come up with a theory that is not laughable on its face. That, however, does not keep them from deriding intelligent design.

3) As far as theories and laws go, I believe it is the scientist's duty to look at every possibility when it comes to solving a problem. If a possibility / solution is completely ignored, even it is not within the realm of scientific inquiry to prove / disprove, it seems to do a disservice to those who are being taught. My point was that despite what we have heard, and what kids are being taught, evolution is a theory.

Let me go one step further. We have all seen the chart that begins with a monkey and ends with a man. Fine. When you look closely at the fossil evidence that support the various "links", the lack of actual fossils is alarming, and the stretch that is taken to turn the fragments of bone into said "link" borders on a scam. I never heard anything about that in school, and I believe it is hidden intentionally to squelch debate about an assumption that needs to be believed in whole in order for the other parts of the theory to hold up.

To close (I'll bet you liked me better when the contempt button was on), we also need to look at what makes humans tick. If scientists could actually study the thoughts and motivations of animals, would they? Would they incorporate their findings into various theories about how the animals evolve and survive? Of course they would. Humans have been studied, but only in the Darwinistic behavioral sense (Skinner, et al). If a scientist was able to find proof of a higher power in the psychological and behavioral make-up of humans, would that not need to be incorporated into any theory of evolution or origin of life? Would that knowledge of what makes humans exceptional in the animal kingdom, even if straddling the line between science and theology, need to be incorporated into both in order to provide a full picture?

Just some thoughts...

"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate

1) Good, you're like me. Not a zealot one way or the other. I accept some things, have a hard time with others, admit I'm not smart enough to understand them all.

2) I do have an issue with this one. Do you hate science that much that you would smear all scientists with the same brush? It's not a cop-out for a botanist or a geologist to not question the origin of man. I would argue that even a good molecular biologist could get well just fine without giving thought to the ultimate origin of life on this planet.

3) This is where the problem with your logic lies.

As far as theories and laws go, I believe it is the scientist's duty to look at every possibility when it comes to solving a problem.

Then you believe wrong. You can't redefine what "science" means, then belittle scientists because they don't fit your convoluted definition. It is not their duty to look at every possibility. That is completely impractical. Can you even imagine a peer review of a scientific paper with a response of, "Well, this is interesting, but did you consider the beliefs of the peoples of the Amazon basin before your determination that plants thrive due to photosynthesis and not due to magic fairy dust?"

Look, you obviously have the ability for rational thought. Why is it so hard to understand why scientists want to force science classes to teach the scientific method, or at least call it something else if you can't do that?

(and no, I don't like contempt better than open discussion. I find the inability to keep one's emotions in check can hinder communication, and honestly don't why one person would treat another with contempt simply because of a different opinion.)

1) Thanks.

2) Well sure, if it is not your field of study, fine. I am just saying if one is a proponent of evolution between species as the answer to the question of how man arrived, and don't also take a crack at the origin of life, it is a huge cop-out. Any other scientist is exempt from this requirement.

3) I cannot accept the premise that it is not a scientist's duty, if progress and problem solving are the goal (and not strict adherence to methodology only), that something outside the realm of explanation be considered. Perhaps a finer point on my comment would be "look at every *reasonable* possibility".

Let's look at this example. Let's say scientists were looking for a cure for the common cold. They try penicillin, which sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. Then they notice that, for some reason, penicillin given after dinner to subjects who are doing Bible study works EVERY TIME. Even non-religous people who study the Bible after dinner have the same reaction to the drug - their colds are cured. How does a scientist take that into account? Is it ignored because it cannot be explained? Or is it included in the protocol?

I do not have any problem with the scientific method being taught in science class as the basic and best way to handle problem solving. But to ignore, or treat with contempt and derision, anything that does not fall into the category of "can be explained and replicated" seems to be very limiting, and seems to be a disservice to the student and a hindrence to progress. Scientists, for all the good they have done, just don't know a lot when it comes to all there is to know. Why limit yourself?

As far as contempt because of a differing opinion goes, just ask someone who believes in ID how he is treated by scientists.

In your example, of course things that are observed will have to be taken into account and hypothetical explanations tested. No jumping to conclusions would be allowed and the facts would have to be replicatable by others to ensure no falsifying of the data. OK so far?

A similar situation did come about when some scientists discovered “cold fusion” and thought they had part of the answer to future energy needs. No one could replicate the experiment, so we don’t talk about the discovery of cold fusion anymore.

Now, what if no hypothesis except for divine intervention resolved the cold cure example? Well the vast majority of humanity would soon discover that they could cure their colds with a little bible study. And they would do so. Other changes in international religion would also occur. This is not far from Rabbi Lappin’s theory that a little religious study in the public schools may lead to the learning environment of the private schools, but he too may be mistaken in this. (Not that I would not be willing to give it a try.) But aside from this happening, the scientific method would have served its purpose in ferreting out what was going on.

KC, still living free, or trying to.