Texas’ longtime science curriculum adviser, Christine Comer, was ousted by Texas Board of Education officials last month for forwarding an e-mail about a talk by a professor who debunks “intelligent design†and creationism. The board members accused Comer of not being “neutral†in the evolution debate.
Why should she be?
As the New York Times argued, “Surely the agency should not remain neutral on the central struggle between science and religion in the public schools. It should take a stand in favor of evolution as a central theory in modern biology. Texas’ own education standards require the teaching of evolution.â€
Those standards are up for review next year, and intelligent design proponents on the board are expected to fight to insert ID views into the curriculum, another likely reason Comer was forced out.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
389 Comments
Gee, much as I’d like to make fun of Texas (they also gave us W.), then I remember Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, ZZ Top and the Butthole Surfers.
Instead, I wish thinking folks in the lone star state my sincere sympathies. We’ve been there, done that.
Insert ahead: Nathan’s obligatory complaint about the thread! ;-)
LOL Neel!
In before Nathan’s “You can’t prove evolution happened” post.
Rather than a drawn out battle, I will just post this:
Science starts with a question and then works to find an answer.
ID/Religion starts with an answer and then works backwards to find support for it.
Which is why the two will never be on common ground.
P.S. I heart Texas :)
Also, I just did a lesson on Caminalcules. If you’re bored, google it and work through the lesson, it’s a great way to learn about systematics and evolution!
At some point today, MPS will also add a lengthy tome, totally off thread, trashing USD 259, Science Teachers and the education system in general.
Be prepared for the ramblings!
On this thread…………. I guess Texas and it’s creationist leanings will have to be put in their place with a “Kitzmiller v. Dover” court case! Nothing like wasting the taxpayers money!
All hail the FSM!
Sorry, still too early in the morning………..insert “its” for it’s”!. Time for more coffee!
Intelligent design is a fairy tale. Much like talking snakes, a flat world and a woman being made from my rib.
O, come on people, the world is only sixty years old. I’m not really sixty two; I’m really only 23. The FSM made the world out of meatballs, then overcooked them. He made dolphins the rulers of the world, but forgot to give them vocal cords. Shoot, he forgot to make me rich as well. I’m seriously thinking of changing dieties. Maybe the walking taco mini-dog, or WTMD for short w/salsa.
And Texas used to be such a nice place. I spent my childhood there. I wonder if all of our Kansas religous extremists miagrated to Texas?
If your faith is threatened by science, you have very little faith.
This reminds me of Tom Delay, making all the new voting districts in order for his side to win. I think Texas republicans have egos as big as their state.
I do believe that in the higher levels of education a comparison should be offered. If nothing more then to get a real discussion started and make the students think and develop deductive reasoning. But not as a mandatory course and taught with out a lean one way or the other. But this is just a symptom of a plague I am seeing more and more of. Once again the thought “if you believe in nothing you will believe in anything”. Another way of saying it would be to take nothing as a fact then there is no knowledge to be had.
BTW, I will be the first to admit that some that claim to be of the same faith as I am have done things to warrant ridicule. This is one of them by the attempt to “open up” the common believes to those that are not believers. BUT when you make such broad and inclusive statements about Christians you also slander people like me. To “damn” those who wish to force their believes on you is one thing. To damn my entire religion is unwarranted. Nathan is entitled to have whatever personal believes he chooses, he is An American and free to state his believes as he see fit. He may bring ridicule upon himself for being over baring with his statements. But it is his own personal faults not his religion, he makes himself fair game to be a target if he argues that point too strongly. You too are entitle to your believes or not to believe as the case may be. But in no sense of fairness or justice is his faith a target.
They should be getting some new board members next election, but then again it’s texas!
Boeing to Remain Industry Leader through Evolution.
AeroTechNews4U.comChicago, IL
Boeing Aircraft Company prepares for the future through a commitment to evolutionary thinking. Led by its newly appointed Vice President of Business Operations, Joe Howard, Boeing will begin work on a new aircraft using untrained, uneducated labor that will be paid a fraction of of the pay degreed engineers receive. “We realized that labor costs were going to put pressure on our profits in the long term.” Joe said Wednesday. “We also realized that we were not making full use of science in production methodology. So, for this new pilot program, we will only use employees who have no skills, no intellectual thinking capacity and who require almost no compensation”.
Although more specifics will be presented in next month’s Aircraft Power conference in Everett, WA Howard opined that untrained, uneducated workers can be employed with a mouse, keyboard and computer monitor just like any other trained engineer. “They will be instructed to push all the keys on the keyboard and move and click the mouse in a random motion. Eventually, the best design will survive and become a world class airplane.” The board of Directors where delighted albeit initially incredulous about the promise that payroll costs can be dramatically reduced simply through utilizing the science of evolution. “After the company fully transitions away from to using high priced college degreed engineers, random forces will do the work which will boost profits” Howard predicted.
Howard realized this cost cutting epiphany while watching a recent NOVA broadcast which depicted colorful artistic cartoons of complex life forms that were in the process of evolving from a singular simple organism after millions of years, random mutations and environmental influences. The application to building aircraft was “as plain as day”, he said.
Forgoing the opportunity to make this new approach into a competitive business advantage, Howard assumed that the evolutionary process was common knowledge and therefore non-proprietary. Howard pointed out that no Board member even asked him to provide an example or proof of the concept from nature. “It’s accepted by everybody; I just took what has all ready been accepted by the scientific community and applied to industry”.
While the Board initially opposed Howard’s plan because of the idea that Boeing has been successful at making planes using engineers and designers for decades, it ultimately succumbed. According to an insider, one Board member confessed that he feared they would be labeled “a bunch of flat earthers” if this program was not approved. Thus, the Board eventually approved Howard’s proposal for the new program out of desperation to reduce costs and an irrepressible faith in evolution.
Howard will not stop at simply instructing the new workers to be completely random. He has also set up a clever way to radically change the air temperature, humidity and other environmental factors in the building where the workers will be tapping and clicking away. He also has some ideas about shaking the building and blasting in random noises and a range of smells to make sure that the workers perform truly random actions at all times.
The mechanism for measuring randomness is unclear, but if any logical or intellectual pattern is recognized, the worker will be reprimanded.
“Beginning in the next millennium and beyond, we will be ahead of the competition”. A confident Howard proclaimed.
According to Karen Hoeff, an analyst from Bear Stearns, it is unclear what impact this decision will have on the share price of Boeing in the future. “For now the stock is holding steady due to the company’s impressive backlog of scheduled deliveries for the next 5 years.” She says.
Thanks to the Texans who will now replace the erstwhile Kansas Board of Education as the stupidest people on the planet.
Lucky Texans, they get to watch the sideshow for a few years, just like we did when fact and science were abandoned in favor of faith and ideology.
They will watch while the right-wingers play politics with settled science, ignore long-held scientific data, and crusade for a cause that will eventually lose.
It was like watching a circus freak show here in Kansas, and we are fortunate that it has been spanked down. Connie Morris is back to doing whatever she did before power went to her head, and the rest of us are back to living our lives in the real world.
Thankfully, our freak show is closed and Charles Darwin is again resting peacefully in his grave.
Have fun, Texas.
I’m so glad that Darwin’s theory has be vindicated by “long-held scientific data”.
Fortunately, we can show everyone this data and no one can deny Darwin’s theory was correct.
However, it is concerning that philosophers are doing the dirty work of defending evolution. Why not show them science? You can’t argue with that.
“Ms. Comer forwarded to a local online community an e-mail message from a pro-evolution group announcing a talk by Barbara Forrest, a professor of PHILOSOPHY [emphasis added] at Southeastern Louisiana University”
rfl, not so far from the truth, I believe Stonecipher is credited with saying he could get waitresses to do the production work. Mgmt. has no respect for the skills of the blue collar worker.Hopefully, boeing learned a lesson from outsourcing to so many countries and having development of the 787 delayed. I believe that was a first postponement for development in the co.’s history.
Isn’t it nice to have another state become the laughingstock of the nation, maybe people will forget about ks. in time.
Who cares?
The blogladytes don’t want to hear anything from Christians anyway.
The Hemmingway existential prayer for evolutionists.
” Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.”
I hope that someday the public schools in Kansas will come to their senses and begin teaching the Satan’s magnet concept in science class as a reasonable alternative to gravity. It has been written that in order to spite God, Satan created a gigantic magnet and that is the reason that objects fall to earth. Since it has never been disproven that Satan resides near the earth’s core with a huge magnet laughing as the hapless denizens of earth are tortured by their inability to float and leap from tall buildings without injury, it would be only fair if our children were exposed to alternative ideas instead of being forced to become slaves to the scientific community’s gravity agenda.
Thanks to the Texans who will now replace the erstwhile Kansas Board of Education as the stupidest people on the planet. - Monkeyhawk
Hmmmm… That doesn’t seem like a intelligent remark. Inflammatory maybe.
However, it is a fine example of closed-minded faith in evolution. Supporters of Darwinian evolutionary theory will not even support teaching public school students of the many flaws in the theory. They would rather have students indoctrinated, than to allow them to think for themselves. One wonders why they would fear students deciding themselves whether a flawed theory is worthy of such closed-minded faith.
“outlander” –
There are hundreds of faith-based legends and myths about creation. The problem is they are not science.
Believe for all you want about the naked lady and the snake, or the giant turtle holding the world on his back, or Mother Earth and Father Sky… it’s just not *science.*
And, despite your unfounded assertion, science *does* teach the many gaps and flaws of accepting evolutionary theory; that’s what science is *for.* That’s why scientists continue to research. That’s why your attack on Darwin is flawed; you refuse to acknowlege biology has advanced since Darwin’s and Wallace’s work a hundred fifty years ago.
So go ahead and believe that women are made from ribs and men are sculpted in mud. Live your fantasies about storks bringing babies or water turning into wine. But until you can come up with a scientific explanation — or even a theory that suggests explanation — it ain’t science.
Go ahead and teach a comparative religion course in high schools and cover Genesis and the Druids and the Souix Indians’ creation stories. But don’t call it science.
You mean the legend about the stork that climbs down your chimney on the sixth day to deliver your baby and free chicken wings isn’t true? I suppose next you will tell me that Jesus and Zeus don’t really bring you flowers and perform a singing telegram on your 40th birthday either.
That gigantic magnet would explain the North and South Poles!
rfl,
The majority of intelligent design flaks are trained philosophers, as well as marketing folks–not scientists.
Intelligent Design is just a warmed-over version of the Design Argument that was debunked by David Hume in the “Dialogues Concerning Natual Religion”–Michael Behe’s claims regarding ‘irreducible complexity’ notwithstanding.
Outlander thank you for defending the right of ID believers to have that belief without apology. I don’t want it taught in our schools but until someone is able to show me definite proof of evolution I will continue to have my personal beliefs about the beginning of life and thank those who will allow me to have that belief.
CF,
Question: Was David Hume a scientist or a philosopher?
Why then do you appeal to a philosopher on matters of science?
What role SHOULD philosophers have in defining what is science and what is faith?
I say none. Do you disagree?
Isn’t it nice to have another state become the laughingstock of the nation, maybe people will forget about ks. in time.
Posted by: The Phantom | December 06, 2007 at 09:02 AM
——–
That sounds just like the WEBlog editors! They may not understand evolutionary theory, but they sure are sure concerned about getting teased by their liberal friends. Can’t have that.
But “laughingstock of the nation”? Secular liberals, with their noses in the air, think that they are the arbiters what is the prescribed belief of the nation. But what does the “nation” really believe about evolution? Take a look.
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Good things for evolution supporters that most Americans have enough class not to laugh at minority beliefs.
Great poll Outlander. It seems we have a vocal ‘minority’ here today. Sure give value to the ’squeaky wheel gets the grease’ argument doesn’t it.
rfl,
I cite David Hume because the Design Argument is a argument, and because Intelligent Design is theology or philosophy (take your pick)–NOT science.
I’ll say it again: Intelligent Design has literally NOTHING to do with science. Period. It does nothing more than raise philosophical / theological objections to ‘naturalism’ or ‘Darwinism,’ and it markets itself brilliantly, if quite disingenuously. It is, however, completely bankrupt as a scientific research program. Which is not to say that, for something so intellectually bankrupt and fundamentally dishonest, it has not been enormously influential.
To answer your other question, scientists aren’t generally in the business of subjecting their operating principles to a higher-order scrutiny; hence the need for philosophers of science. Same thing for philosophical appendages to other scientific fields: philosophy of biology, philosophy of mind / neuroscience. Or, for that matter, to other fields such as the philosophy of law, philosophy of religion, or, within philosophy, to metaethics.
Kant famously said that he found it necessary to limit reason in order to make room for faith. I think it is ABSOLUTELY the business of philosophers to determine the putative limits of knowledge, and the boundaries between the object domains that belong to different disciplines.
outlander,
So, when it comes to scientific matters, ‘what the nation believes’ trumps the expertise of scientists?
Superficially plausible, but dishonest populist arguments are to be more highly valued on scientific matters than the judgments of experts? I see.
ksgrm and outlander,You are free to believe whatever you wish. Faith does not require evidence. Science does. There is overwhelming evidence supporting the various tenets of evolution. That should have no impact on your faith — sorry that you let it do that.
outlander as a populist - now that is a knee slapper.
“scientists aren’t generally in the business of subjecting their operating principles to a higher-order scrutiny”-CF2K
Because science is a knowledge based on what can be proven, observed and many times repeated.No higher order scrutiny is needed because there is no debate in what can be observed.
“I think it is ABSOLUTELY the business of philosophers to determine the putative limits of knowledge”-CF2K
From this statement alone, considering the topic of this thread, you have gone so far as to claim that evolution can not be adequately defended without the assistance of philosophy.
However, it should be clear to you that philosophy is relative and is therefore not science.
Neither is ID.
Be careful when you claim that something is defended by science if you have to call on the assistance of philosophers to help you make your case.
In order to maintain the integrity of science, a distinction between science and philosphy needs to be in adhered to.
rfl,
Excellent job completely misinterpreting my post!
“You have gone so far as to claim that evolution can not be adequately defended without the assistance of philosophy.”
Totally false; I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. I said that because Intelligent Design isn’t science but rather is philosophy, that a philosophical response is appropriate.
Evolutionary theory, Darwinian or otherwise, is perfectly able to respond to scientific objections based on scientific grounds. Intelligent Design isn’t scientific; it’s objections are philosophical or theological. Therefore meriting a philosophical response.
I in in no way undermined the distinction between philosophy and science. Philosophers don’t do science: they do the philosophy of science. These are comlpetely separate activities; never did I claim otherwise.
“So, when it comes to scientific matters, ‘what the nation believes’ trumps the expertise of scientists?”
Well, in a generic sense, what a nation believes surely could trump science. Science certainly doesn’t have all the answers. But I don’t think that I argued that point, CF. I was responding to a couple of haughty, condescending remarks from the minority view.
Steven is no way can my post be interpreted to mean that I am defensive about my faith in ID. No statement made today has impacted my fatih.
That should have no impact on your faith — sorry that you let it do that.
Posted by: Steven Davis | December 06, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I simply said allow me to have by beliefs without the constant barbs that evolutionists feel is necessary in order to defend their faith.
Contrary to what CF tried to say evolution is a faith based belief because it can’t be reproduced much as ID.
We can each be content in our belief and get along fantastically.
CF,
Well, you are the equivocal one aren’t you.
I’ll repost what you said:
“To answer your other question, scientists aren’t generally in the business of subjecting their operating principles to a higher-order scrutiny; hence the need for philosophers of science”.
Do you not remember typing “hence the need for philosophers of science”?
What the heck is philosophers if science if they are not philosophers?
But please, enough with the attempt to understand your belief in evolution and why it is science (minus philosophy of course), do us all a favor and list the scientific evidence that “overwhelmingly supports” evolution. That should put this thread and all future threads on this topic to rest.
I digress until such attempt is made by such a capable individual as yourself.
“You are free to believe whatever you wish.”————-Damn right Steven.
I hereby extend the same worthless consideration to you.
rfl - Dr. Forrest is indeed a philosopher . . . one whose specialty is the philosophy of science.
From wikipedia: “With scientist Paul R. Gross she co-authored Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press 2004), which examines the goals and strategies of the intelligent design movement and its attempts to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology. They analyze the absence of a scientific intelligent design hypothesis, ID’s religious foundations, and the political ambitions of intelligent design proponents. They examine the movement’s Wedge strategy which has advanced and is succeeding through public relations rather than through scientific research. They also highlight intelligent design creationism’s relationship to public education and to the separation of church and state.”
Forrest is recognized as an expert on the ID movement and was a witness for the (winning) plaintiffs in the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover case in PA.
Now, of course the head of Texas education, dentist & avowed creationist Don McElroy, wouldn’t want the state’s director of science education to actually, you know . . . support science.
Forrest’s presentations deal with the history of creationism in our country. She doesn’t pretend to be a scientist; she’s just pointing out the antics of those who are working to destroy science.
So, rfl, science still relies on scientists and data and evidence to defend itself . . . but Forrest provides valuable insight to the onslaught of creationists and their political machinations.
Gee, much as I’d like to make fun of Texas (they also gave us W.), then I remember Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, ZZ Top and the Butthole Surfers.–Don’t forget Kinky Freidman, singer, author, cigar smoker, cowboy-hat wearin’ candidate for governor
Ksgrm — If you are waiting on absolute proof of Evolution, then you will have a long wait.. IF Evolution could be proven, it would no longer be a “theory” — It would be a “fact”.
And I am happy to see that you dont want ID taught in the schools.
And rfl asks for the evidence supporting evolution . . .
Here ya go!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Or . . . you can do a bit of Googling yourself. Beware, though, that the journal articles are highly specialized and unless you have a strong background in the relevant field, you may find yourself in over your head.
But of course, anyone who *seriously* questions evolution - like Connie Morris, Kathy Martin, et.al. - already has those qualifications, right?
You know, throwing darts at evolution believers, and making ridiculous use of revisioned prayers, as one blogger has done, shows how ignorant they are.
I was raised Catholic, and was taught the world was 4 billion years old, man had a history spanning millions of years, and had no problem believing it.
I will say this about the bible: there were three wise men in th story of Budda, who was born prior to Jesus. Figure that one out.
Thanks nunyer,
I’ll read up on the link and maybe I will find the evidence I am seeking. I’ll check it out during the next few days.
Perhaps, with your familiarity with the link, you could point me in the area that lists some evidence with the whole natural selection thing. Its pretty easy to understand that such a concept requires the existence of transistional forms. They should be in the fossil record.If “inferential” evidence is used to prove evolution in this link, I will take that as well, but I will be skeptical in order to be sure about its scientific authenticity.
Thanks again! I take anything scientific. Most people prefer to philosophize, I need some facts before I am going to believe something.
Chas - there’s a difference between how the word “theory” is used in everyday language and how the word “theory” is used in science. And the IDcreationists are masters at using what you just stated to promote more confusion!
Lots of other words take on different meanings according to context. For instance . . . the word “light” can mean illumination, or it could mean that an object isn’t heavy. Only by knowing the situation can you figure out what the word is representing.
Same with the word “theory.” In everyday use, it’s a wild-a$$ guess. In science, though, a theory is an explanation of what happens in nature that’s based on evidence from different fields. You can use it to make predictions, and thus test the theory even further.
When someone states that “evolution is ‘just a theory’ ” it’s usually a dead giveaway that the person doesn’t have a grasp of how science is done.
I know that nunyer, why do you think I used it?? LOL
Chas you must have miss interpreted what I was saying.
There is no scientific proof for either theory. I choose to put my faith in ID. I don’t question the time frame. One day to an Omnipotent God could be 10,000 of our days. He isn’t limited by our understanding.
My point is that I choose for myself what I believe and don’t feel I have to denigrate your faith in evolution to legitimize my belief in ID.
Stumper I guess if I was a Buddist that would mean something to me. Not sure what your point was.
Nunyer that was good double speak but give me the factual scientific definition of theory. That is the problem with the english language. We humans give words meaning. A word is just a combination of letters until defined by someone.
Always want to have my facts right.
rfl - oh no, don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t want you to *believe* evolution!
Maybe I’m being too picky . . . but facts and beliefs aren’t the same thing.
Facts are widely agreed-upon observations. Beliefs don’t have to be based in fact. I *believe* that pepperoni pizza is best, but you may *believe* otherwise.
Facts and theories (and critical thinking and experimental design) are what our kids need to learn in science class.
Our beliefs can be taught in home and church, and guide us through life.
“Stumper I guess if I was a Buddist that would mean something to me. Not sure what your point was.”
Ksgrm, my point is there are certain parts of the bible that may be taken as not gospel, like the fact of the three wise men being used in both the bible and the story of Budda. There is also the great flood, being as the same story was used decades prior to the biblical account. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world’s cultures past and present have stories of a “great flood” that devastated earlier civilization.
Does this mean the biblical account is wrong, or does it mean there was a great flood prior to the biblical account, like at different times in different countries? Too many questions left unanswered, except for faith. That is hardly a scientific measuring stick, now is it?
Whether one believes in God or Gods, is a personal thing having nothing to do with the bible. If your beliefs are strictly composed on what the bible says, in my opinion, you got a problem with your religious beliefs. The bible, to me, is a reference to living a moral life. And I find nothing wrong with that, nor do I believe I am condemned to hell for believing that.
Arguments for I.D. are nothing but sophistry, and are rightfully addressed by a philosopher.
ksgrm, this one time, I’ll do your homework for you . . .
From Wikipedia:”The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.”
From the AAAS (American Academy for the Advancement of Science) at http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”
But Nunyer are we teaching them in error when we teach fact as fiction or vice versa.
Until something is able to be reproduced then it isn’t factual and must be presented as theory much as gravity was.
And no I don’t want ID in our class rooms. I do however want truth there. When I present to my children in my home or a church setting my belief in ID I don’t want them to think I have trying to discredit their science teacher.
Here come members of the Church of Darwin holding evolution services in public schools, zoos and museums forcing everyone to join their choir. Evolution is the orthodoxy in public and much private education and to not believe means low grades or no tenure. Show me one evolution preacher who can provide evidence man came from whales and bacteria, yet they require students believe it! How did man and woman evolve side by side and all the other creatures which reproduce sexually when asexual reproduction makes so much more sense? Alert observers using observational and experimental science find bacteria produce bacteria and dogs produce dogs. Evolutionists preach millions and billions of years but never examine the faulty assumptions which scientifically undermine these beliefs. How do evolutionists explain the 60,000 miles of blood vessels in the human body - mutation and random chance? What a great faith they must have! Let’s not tarnish the word science with the required beliefs and tremendous faith required to believe the stories in evolution.
ksgrm, you said “But Nunyer are we teaching them in error when we teach fact as fiction or vice versa.”
Please elaborate. What exactly is being taught as *fact* that really isn’t?
I understand that you don’t want your kids to think you’re trying to discredit their science teacher. OTOH, I wonder if you’re more worried that maybe you don’t know as much about science as their teacher, and that any explanation you give will just highlight that point.
“..facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Stumper this isn’t true of evolution anymore than it is of ID.
Gravity on the other hand is now a ‘law’ because it can be proven by repeated observations. The two are not alike.
No matter how closely we have watched and recorded them facts do not support evolution. They may point to the fact that it might be factional.
Again it goes back to faith. Where do you put yours? Where do I put mine?
Stumper you are indeed accurate in noting similarities between books of different religions. Is my faith what it is because of the bible. I don’t think so. As with you I use it as a guide for a principled life. The New Testament to me is a different book altogether and my faith is there.
No arguments from me. Put your faith where you will just allow me to have the same freedom.
Back to the topic. On it’s face this firing seems overboard and the board should have to explain itself to the people of Texas.
Well Nunyer if a science teacher presents evolution as fact and not a theory that can’t be proven and therefore is not a scientific law that would be teaching them fiction would it not?
STL, shorter:
“I don’t understand it, therefore nobody else does.” Or, “We don’t know everything yet, so God did it!”
I’m really, really glad that my God isn’t limited to the gaps in our understanding of the world. Don’t you wish yours was, STL?
Ksgrm — How did i misinterpret you?? You SAID you dont want ID taught in schools… I said I was happy about that… See??
“And no I don’t want ID in our class rooms. I do however want truth there.”
And the truth?? Well, the TRUTH is that ID is NOT science — as has been shown numerous times today, as well as numerous times in the past… So, the TRUTH is there… It might not be what you WANT to call TRUTH, but that does not make it UNtruth!!
Ksgrm, from what you just posted to Nunyer, it is way too obvious that you are not clear as to what scientific method and scientific theory is really all about… Either that, or you just want an argument… Which is it??
Nunyer this isn’t about ‘whose God is bigger’ is it?
I thought we were have an intellectual discussion about the scientific definition of ‘theory’ and ‘law’. This thread always goes off on personal attacks about this time and I choose not to participate in those attacks.
Well Chas when you can’t use reason - use personal attack. See my last post to Nunyer - I don’t want to play anymore.
ksgrm, we might be at cross-channels here . . .
To help me, please tell me what you think: What are the differences between facts, theories, and laws? In the scientific context, that is.
I did not use a personal attack!! If you want to talk scientific theory, and scientific method, then lets do it… If not, lets do that too!!
ksgrm, my God-of-the-gaps comment was directed at STL, not you. I thought I’d made that obvious - guess not!
Evolution is factCreationism is religious myth
The Dover trial already ended the debate. Clearly some people in Texas needed to watch Nova a couple weeks ago.
“The Dover trial already ended the debate.”
Chuckle… you wish, Doug.
Outlander, once you state your support for “Intelligent Design” then two more things MUST be stated — Namely, The source of the “Intelligence,” and the “Designer” — At that point any resemblance to scientific method is null and void!
Scientific method, as represented by the theory of evolution, and ID are not on the same page!
The debate is ended between reasonable people. Evolution is fact. That it is not yet entirely fleshed out fact does not diminish it.
There’s nothing new in Nova’s Judgment Day except that it was paid for by billionaire evolutionist Paul Allen. The myriad problems with the program are thoroughly covered by a JPL scientist who writes: Judgment Day: Will it Be the New Inherit the Wind? 11/14/2007 at http://creationsafaris.com/crev200712.htm
Only open minded readers are encouraged to check it out!
Outlander, you had the guys from the Discovery Institute debunked and they even admitted that creationism was as scientific as astrology and phrenology. When asked to produce scientific evidence for creationism they admitted they had none.
So where’s the debate? The scientists produced loads of scientific evidence and the creationists couldn’t provide any rebuttal.
A debate is two sided, the creationists have yet to debate the issue.
STL — What exactly do Paul Allen’s finances have to do with anything related to this topic??
I am just curious??
“Outlander, once you state your support for “Intelligent Design” then two more things MUST be stated”
Why?
“The debate is ended between reasonable people. Evolution is fact. That it is not yet entirely fleshed out fact does not diminish it.”
JR: I will take your minority opinion into consideration.
STL, someone’s mind would have to be so open that their brains fall out to fall for the rubbish on that poorly designed website.
“rfl - oh no, don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t want you to *believe* evolution!”
Lets be serious. Either we got here by happenstance and natural random gene mutations or there was some kind of miracle by a Creator that gave this earth and the universe the form that it exhibits today.
If there are facts supporting eternal matter evolution, That sometime many millions of years ago, my ancestors were apes and theirs were squirrels and so on back to some primordial ooze, I will *believe* that as fact (not philosophy).
Whether or not we believe in a creator or not has a HUGE impact on what choices we make during this life.
If science conclusively elminates the need for a Creator, then we all need to know about it. We should not take it lightly and we should not send a philosopher to do a scientists work.
Thanks
Doug — the only evidence for faith, is, well, faith –
So the creationist argument is, “Paul Allen has money, therefore evolution is false.”
And creationists want to be taken seriously?
Theories are nice until they are proven wrong.
For example, the earth doesn’t not actually rotate around the sun.
Both the sun and the earth rotate around a common gravimetric center point.
The earth being smaller in mass will have a larger elliptical orbit and the sun being larger in mass will have a smaller elliptical orbit.
rfl — Are you implying that there can be no moral standards, or no “common good” without belief in a Creator??
Outlander, dont just ask WHY… Think about what I said first, ok?
The theory of gravity is not ENTIRELY fleshed out.
I myself buy it.
Oh and outlander?
MOST people once thought the Earth was flat.
MOST people like beliefs that give them comfort.
Comfort and company in a belief is not the pursuit of truth. It is the embrace of dogma.
I did think about it Chas. Why?
Kansas, I think you have finally passed that strange point of no return… Of course the Earth moves around the Sun… And the Solar system circles some other point of center in the galaxy, and the galaxy circles some other center point elsewhere in the vastness of space.. But you are not going to get away with such a statement that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun!! That just wont fly, not even with the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!
“the earth doesn’t not actually rotate around the…”
should read as
“the earth doesn’t actually rotate around the…”
can leave out the “not”
my day for double negatives I suppose…
JR: Poor analogy. You can demonstrate gravity. It is repeatable.
Outlander — You argue for Intelligent Design… Who/What is the Intelligence?? And who/what is the Designer?? That is what I am asking YOU to define!! As soon as you state those two things, you have deleted it from the realm of scientific method, and scientific observation!
rfl — Are you implying that there can be no moral standards, or no “common good” without belief in a Creator??-Chas
Are we going to philosophise now?
If right and wrongs (moral standards) change from year to year, century to century, based on the whims of man, then there is no such thing as right and wrong.
If there is a creator, external to man, then there is a right and wrong which can not be changed regardless of man’s chronologicaly fluxuating wishes.
So yes, that is what I believe Chas.
But Chas, gravity is like evolution, they are just theories. And since Paul Allen has a lot of money and believes in gravity and evolution they are clearly false. Not to mention Newton’s Apple, like Nova are both shows on PBS therefore gravity, like evolution, is a lie.
You see, it’s easily understood.
I doubt that the earth exactly revolves around the sun, or any of those other points. The earth moves as our understanding and perspective allows.
Sorry Chas, “thems the fact.”
Otherwise, it doesn’t meet the laws of physics in accordance to known laws of gravity.
Kansas — break down your analogy even further… IF what you say is true, and I seriously doubt that it is, based on too many thihgs to list here… But IF it is true… THEN, the moon does not actually revolve around the earth… and to take it even further, the electrons dont actually revolve around the nucleus of the atom!!
Just how far are you wanting to take your “statiionary universe” argument??
Chas: The source does not have to be identified to observe evidence of design.
Wow, creationists are even going as far as suggesting the theory of gravity is a lie. Man, it just doesn’t get any dumber than this.
rfl — hang on… AT one point in time, not too many years ago… It was considered perfectly RIGHT to execute people for being convicted of being pick pockets… or horse thieves…
TODAY, we clearly see that was not RIGHT, but in fact, WRONG!!
SOME moral standards have indeed changed over time… And not just those two mentioned above… in fact, MANY others!!
So, do those changes negate a Divine Creator?? or do they just mean we have overcome our abusive forms of justice/government??
Another one — Not too many years ago, nobody imagined that a nation could function without a Monarchy…. THEN, we fought a war to throw off a monarchy, and now we consider the concept of democratic republics to be a thing desirous to have all over the world…
Was GOD wrong in the past?? Is GOD right now?? And yes, government, and the people governed, are moral standards…
Chas: The source does not have to be identified to observe evidence of design.
Posted by: outlander | December 06, 2007 at 12:34 PM
========================Then, WHY do you demand a source to observe evidence of evolution??
Checkmate!!
Man, it just doesn’t get any dumber than this.
Posted by: Doug | December 06, 2007 at 12:35 PM
======================Boy howdy, I do hear that Doug!!It’s getting harder and harder to be a part of reality these days!!
Hi Tara.
Do creationists see no evidence of design in their religion by the hands of man? Or does that just apply to universes being designed by gods?
outlander
I can indeed demonstrate evolution on a small scale. REAL observation of evolution would require many generations of observation.
I don’t plan to jump off a building a thousand times in order to try and prove that maybe once I would not fall.
Time for lunch break… Hopefully I will get back later!!
rfl, you said “If there are facts supporting eternal matter evolution, That sometime many millions of years ago, my ancestors were apes and theirs were squirrels and so on back to some primordial ooze, I will *believe* that as fact (not philosophy).”
This is most definitely not how evolution happened; anyone who described it in those words to you is was lying to you.
Have you tried learning about how evolution really works, as opposed to the caricature you described?
“please tell me what you think: What are the differences between facts, theories, and laws?”
Facts are those items that can be proven over and over. A thought is just a thought until it becomes a fact. I think it is sleeting outside. I walked upstairs and sure enough it was coming down. Now it is a fact that it is sleeting outside.
Theories are just theories until I can take proven facts and reproduce the same results over and over again. Water freezes at 32 degrees F. Every time I put a dish of water out on the porch when the outside temp is below 32 degrees, when the temperature of the water reaches 32 the water freezes everytime. It freezes even if I put out boiling water instead of luke warm water. This is assuming that the attributes of the water aren’t altered in any way. When this action causes the same results everytime I do this experiment then it becomes a scientific fact or law.
Doug do you need a refresher on the ‘Law’ of gravity.
Doug, if the Creationists would take the time to read the myriad of creation myths from around the world, say compiled by someone like Joseph Campbell, perhaps they would see what we are trying to say… But, I havent found many willing to do so… yet…
I didn’t make it up Chas, orbits are based on “Barycenters,” which is a common point of gravitational forces where orbiting bodies meet.
The moon has its own “barycenter” with the Earth and both are pulled towards the sun’s stronger gravitational barycenter in which both the moon’s and earth’s orbits are affected.
Click on my name here and get linked to a really great Christian website that supports teaching evolution.Some good sermons here!
Then, WHY do you demand a source to observe evidence of evolution??
What????
I thought science operated on proof. Can’t provide it, right?
Kansas, that is soooooo interestink.
Well, it’s been fun… Off to lunch break now… Later all!!
I’m quite familiar with gravity, I’m not the one who is suggesting that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. I can’t even believe this needs to be discussed but I don’t converse with people as ignorant as creationists in my daily life.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/pdf/Is%20God%20a%20Delusion.doc
This one sounds interesting enough.
Tracy — I’ve been involved in that project for nearly 3 years now… EXCELLENT web site!! Thanks for posting that!!
Boy howdy, I do hear that Doug!!It’s getting harder and harder to be a part of reality these days!!
Posted by: Chas. | December 06, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Chas one assumption you always make is that you are always right. I’m not trying to tell you I am right - I merely told you what I believe. Would you like me to give you some reading suggestions to support my point?
Thought not. According to you, you have read many of the same books I have. I just interpreted them differently.
Isn’t diversity great?
Tracy, you might note that Butler University either is or was a university of the Christian Church - Disciples of Christ…
God represents the unknown.Until we know everything, (s)he will exist.
There is no such thing as free lunch.
Where did the singularity come from?
What about the laws of physics?
Ksgrm, as I have told you countless times before, believe whatever you want!! That is certainly your choice… And I also said earlier, I was happy to see that you dont want ID taught in the schools… I dont see where you think I am attacking you… You always claim that you are under attack!!
“If there are facts supporting eternal matter evolution, That sometime many millions of years ago, my ancestors were apes and theirs were squirrels and so on back to some primordial ooze,”-rfl
“Have you tried learning about how evolution really works, as opposed to the caricature you described?”-nunyer
nunyer,
Will you tell me how it works or will you kindly suggest I read a website?
I will read the website when I have more time. However, for today’s discussion can you correct my apparent misguided summary of evolution in your own words?
Or is it too complicated?
Tracy, how can you have laws of physics, if you are off believing that the earth doesnt revolve around the sun?? :: shaking head ::
Chas….Noted.It’s Theistic evo for me!God’s plan IS evolution.Try to stop it, just try!I dare ya!Go ahead,
knock this fossil off my shoulder!
Doug when you condescend to the masses around you with the attitude you have it doesn’t make you right only arrogant.
Until you can prove scientifically that evolution indeed happened your argument is baseless.
As Outlanders USAToday poll show the majority of US citizens don’t agree with you.
Tracy has a good point because I can actually see how evolution and ID can co-exist. I am confortable in my position and don’t have to make fun of others beliefs.
I have many questions that science hasn’t answered. Still waiting for the origin of life to be explained.
Scientific facts aren’t determined by a popular vote like American Idol ksgrm. It’s sad that that had to be pointed out to you. An example of many facts supporting the fact of evolution were presented in the Nova show about the Dover trial. They were explained so even simpletons could understand. I don’t know how I can dumb them down any further for you.
rfl,
Smugness is the luxury enjoyed by those who comprehend. Your posts thus far don’t qualify you for any such privilege.
The object domain of scientists consists of objects in nature.
The object domain of philosophers of science is scientists, as they go about doing science–which is to say, as they go about observing, measuring, hypothesizing, experimenting, and critiquing, all with regard to nature.
Philosophers of science ask descriptive and normative questions scientists may not ask, like ‘what counts as a fact?’ Given your ignorance about the disputed status of ‘facts’ within science (one doesn’t ‘believe’ facts, rfl; one them), you’re getting ahead of yourself by demanding them with regard to evolution.
It is quite unclear what you are accusing me of, although you know that, in some vague way, you disagree with me, and want to act as if what I’ve said is controversial.
What I have said about Intelligent Design may be controversial, but only to someone who isn’t a scientist. You appear to want to engage me a debate about the “factual” “evidence” for “evolution.” I freely admit that I’m not qualified to have that sort of a discussion; I’m not a scientist. I suspect you aren’t, either, given your apparently unreconstructed idea of what does and does not consist of a ‘fact’ within a scientific context.
If you ARE a scientist, rfl, or if you have some special background that qualifies you to render informed judgments about the scientific facts that support the theory of evolution, I’d like to hear about it.
As it stands, you appear to have an unreconstructed notion of what counts as ‘empirical’ as your bright evidentiary line, and that’s about it. Not much of a basis for asserting what you’re asserting.
Hmmm. TypeKey wouldn’t let me use brackets to emphasize the word ‘knows’, as in “one doesn’t ‘believe’ fact, rfl, one *knows* them.”
And even weirder, TypeKey wouldn’t even let me be myself in the above post.
Fer cryin’ out loud, the earth doesn’t rotate about the sun? Ye gads, Kansas, try again.
The average (mean) distance from the earth to the sun is 1.49 x 10^11 m.
The mass of the earth is 5.98 x 10^24 kg and the mass of the sun is 1.99 x 10^30 kg.
The mean radius of the earth is 6.37 x 10^6 m.
The mean radius of the sun is 6.96 x 10^8 m.
The distance from (the center of the sun) to (the center of mass of the sun-earth system) is found by taking
(mass of the earth)*(earth-sun distance)/(sum of the earth’s & sun’s masses)
This distance is 4.48 x 10^5 m, less than 0.1% of the sun’s radius.
So the center of mass of the sun-earth system is located well within the sun itself, and the earth is indeed orbiting the sun.
****************************ksgrm, thank you for your thoughtful response. I hope to get back online later!
Can someone who believes ID is science tell me what provable/disprovable predictions it makes?
The problem with teaching kids “alternatives” to discuss is that anyone who takes the side that ID is bunk will be accused of denegrating religion.
Sorry - translating to English:
The sun is so much more massive than the Earth that the center of mass of the two objects is buried waaaay inside the sun.
If the sun & the earth were on a teeter-totter, the ‘balance point’ would be just about right underneath the center of the sun.
Still, it moves!
Job opening:
Evolutionist - Grade 10
Tasks:
Take one pool of primordial ooze and in 4 billion years develop tens of thousands of different species along with suitable environment for subsequent survivability on a planet yet to be specified. Must make “evolving” species over the time specified as instant Laboratory models are not desired nor intended to be the purpose of the project. Extra bonus for “evolving” intelligent beings which can be your replacement so you can be qualified for Evolutionist 11 grade.
Must provide own energy sources and elements.
Apply at the front desks. Resumes not typed will not be accepted.
How many times does this ‘what is taught in schools’ debate have to surface before people start chanting:
“This has all happened before. This will all happen again.”
The cause of this ‘problem’ is simple to identify. The monopolistic school system deciding what is taught to all the children. We need a system where parents choose the schools. Empowering the individual, not some bureaucrats insolated for the consequences of bad decisions.
This is why I really hate it when WEBlog gets going on ID and Darwin. Things get real crazy. Like Kansas trying to prove the Earth doesn;t revolve around the sun!
Those who think the Earth was created in 6 days and is only 6k years old will blather on and on and on and on.
Those of us who believe in science will blather on and on and on and on and nothing will be resolved!
silly hopeless crap
HEY BOY….Can I still believe in science and God?
Tracy:
I do!
Me too!!
“It is quite unclear what you are accusing me of”-CF2K
I am quite clear in that I insist that tenets claiming scientific hegemony be defended based on the principles of science, NOT philosophy/science.
Based on your assertions, you provide room for philosophy when refering the the widely held claim that evolution and all of its tenets are scientifically proven.
That is where I have expressed my dissagreement.
To obtain knowledge, one conceptualizes a hypothesis that is consistent with scientific logic. That hypothesis must be testible and observed in order to bridge the gap into the realm of indisputable truth.
If that gap is or can not be made through the effort or the scientist, then the gap is bridged by philosophers. The point where the philosopher comes into the play is the point in time where debate can begin.
If evolution where fully defended by the science, than there would be no need for the philosopher. Period!
That evolutionist quoted in the thread introduction above is a philosopher. I rest my case.Therefore, Evolution is suject to debate because it is not proven from a purely scientific standpoint. It can not claim hegenomy in the classroom.
Until that happens, the philosophers that you believe in and who attempt to “prove” evolution will be met with incredulity because of their own world view bias that rejects creationism/ID.
If you disagree, look in all the pro-evolution posts above. How many defend evolution without disparaging creation/ID? Hence, where then is the basis for their belief? If science is behind evolution, cite the evidence. IF not, no need to criticize creation. Hence no need for a philosopher.
Correction:
If so, no need to criticize creation. Hence no need for a philosopher.
Tracy has a good point because I can actually see how evolution and ID can co-exist. I am confortable in my position and don’t have to make fun of others beliefs.Posted by: ksgrm | December 06, 2007 at 12:54 PM
So right, ksgrm! I have no problem believing that evolution is the tool of God. How God makes it all work is beyond me, but I have faith that God makes it happen.
“Once again the thought ‘if you believe in nothing you will believe in anything’.”
But this isn’t possible! If you believe in NOTHING, you are a Nihilist. But that would mean one bellieves in something, .i.e., nothing. Ergo, one cannot believe in “nothing.”
rfl,”If evolution where fully defended by the science, than there would be no need for the philosopher. Period!”
The scientists that I know are much to busy doing the research they became scientists to do to spend time trying to explain the basics to religious yokels who refused to learn them in school. Philosophers will explain anything to anyone, so they got the job!
Kansas,There is no “law of gravity”. There is Newton’s law of gravitation, which is completely different from the theory of gravity.
“In scientific usage gravitation and gravity are distinct. “Gravitation” is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while “gravity” specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are interchangeable in everyday use, in theories other than Newton’s, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving objects to tend to accelerate towards each other. Another (discredited) example is Le Sage’s theory of gravitation, in which massive objects are effectively pushed towards each other.”
What this means is gravity is still a theory, because the mechanics of it are still not fully understood. But gravity still works, regardless.
The moon revolves around the earth, via gravity. The earth revolves around the sun via gravity, the sun revolves around the milky way, via gravity. If they didn’t, we would not be here. It is centrifugal force that is slowly pulling the moon away from the earth, and has been for millions of years. Basic physics 101.
There is also no “Laws of physics.” That is a misnomer, because physics is still not fully understood. Look at quantum mechanics; that is part of the phisics equation. If there ever is a tested theory of everything, then laws can be generated, but not now, when it’s still inits infancy.
For those poor souls who think I’m uniformed and perhaps nuts. Maybe you include the scientists at NASA nuts as well.
“What’s a Barycenter?
You’ve no doubt heard that Earth revolves around the sun. Well, actually, that’s not quite true!”
cont’d at:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/barycntr.shtml
Kansas, did you bother to read nunyer’s reply to you? Because of the massive difference in, uhm, mass, the Earth does in fact orbit around the sun.
Still, actually I think you do have a good point in there, although its application to this issue is not what, I suspect, you would think that it is. Namely, that science teaching should not consist of certainties, but how information is used to make predictions about the natural world.
As for the “poll” information about evolution, here is the unfortunate reality. Evolution is not taught adequately in most public schools in the country because it is so controversial. Even though creationist and ID frauds have lost in court cases, too many teachers and school districts make the understandable decision to avoid the uproar if evolution was given its due as one of the unifying concepts of biological science. Now, that being said, there is also the reality that people don’t remember a lot of what they were taught in school, particularly secondary school (how many of you think you could do as well on the algebra or history tests you took in high school after studying for them?). Then there is the obvious, a majority opinion on a point of reality does not necessarily correspond to the actual reality in question.
Finally, there is a canard here that is being recycled by a number of folks here, particularly rfl, ksgrm, and outlander. This is the idea that historical sciences can not be tested or produce replicable results. This is false. Historical events leave marks upon the physical world that can be examined and re-examined. For example:
1) A meteor impact crater leaves evidence of ejecta around it. If ejecta is found around a suspected crater site, then other expeditions should also find such ejecta around the suspected site. This is replication.
2) I sited an article in another thread about retroviral DNA in the DNA of humans, apes, and Old World Monkeys. The hypothesis is that this is inherited evidence of infection in a common ancestor. If this is the case, then an examination of the DNA of any old world monkey, non-human great ape or human, collected from anywhere in the world, should have that DNA. This is a prediction, and it is replicable, even though it is a test of an infection that is believed to have happened millions of years ago.
There are all sorts of historical sciences that depend on replication. In fact, it is the popular subject of television series like CSI, and we hear news reports about historical sciences all the time, such as people being convicted or exonerated of crimes that happened years ago because of DNA evidence left at the scene. Paternity testing is also a historical science. One does not have to witness the sexual act that resulted in conception to confirm a hypothesis about ‘who is the father’. Evolution (the idea of common descent) not only makes testable predictions, it makes predictions that can be tested in a number of ways. By definition, such tests of predictions are replicable.
Actually I did read Nunyer’s response.
It is partially correct with an understanding of elementary physics, it is not how orbiting celestial bodies orbit though.
They orbit as described and it is because these orbits that planets have “wobble” with orbits that make synchronous orbit an unsatisfactory explanation when it comes to explaining trajectory via relative position.
There is more to science than meets the eye.
The deeper one gets into Science, the more we understand that we don’t have the knowledge of it that we thought we did.
Speaking with more targeted focus I’m saying that we barely have a grasp of the fundamentals and our understanding of why the fundamentals happen may be flawed or based on incomplete science.
That’s why I laugh when someone says that a certain science is an absolute certainty. If they only knew. :)—–
What exactly IS industrial hygiene anyway?
Anyone know?
Is that where you tell steel workers to wash their hands?
I cannot believ