Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Darwin running scared?

    Here in Ohio, our gov't recently passed a new curriculum that will mandate a discussion of the pros and cons of the theory of evolution in the 10th grade.

    It does NOT mention creationism or even intelligent design. All it does is apply scientific method to evolution, and attempts to foster intelligent thought, as opposed to teaching theory as fact.

    Scientists and talking heads are going crazy, as I'm sure you can imagine. Haha the god of evolution questioned? Burn these heretics at the stake :) .

    I'm for it for the simple reason that kids should be taught to think on their own, not swallow whole whatever their "enlightened" teachers tell them.

    And if evolution can't stand up to a cursory examination, what are we doing teaching it in the first place?

    I'm not arguing that evolution does or does not exist, simply that we should teach our kids to question what they're told.

    Pete

    PS This is what happens when the GOP has almost total control. Teach kids to think? Bah!!
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Here in Ohio, our gov't recently passed a new curriculum that will mandate a discussion of the pros and cons of the theory of evolution in the 10th grade.

    It does NOT mention creationism or even intelligent design. All it does is apply scientific method to evolution, and attempts to foster intelligent thought, as opposed to teaching theory as fact.

    Scientists and talking heads are going crazy, as I'm sure you can imagine. Haha the god of evolution questioned? Burn these heretics at the stake .

    I'm for it for the simple reason that kids should be taught to think on their own, not swallow whole whatever their "enlightened" teachers tell them.

    And if evolution can't stand up to a cursory examination, what are we doing teaching it in the first place?

    I'm not arguing that evolution does or does not exist, simply that we should teach our kids to question what they're told.

    Pete

    PS This is what happens when the GOP has almost total control. Teach kids to think? Bah!!

    That will be a simple lesson plan as there is no science against it. Besides, you may be confusing how a theory is defined outside of science and inside of the field. Two different animals.
    mtrycrafts

  3. #3
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Scientific method: definition.

    Scientific Method - The scientific method is the conceptual process of organizing empirical facts and their inter-relationships in a structure of theories and inferences. It is the philosophical ideal of how scientists advance scientific knowledge by methodically and systematically applying procedures that reduce the likelihood of alternative explanations for their observations. The underlying principles are skepticism (an attitude of doubt toward and suspended judgment of statements, even when made by great authorities, prior to analyzing the underlying evidence and assumptions), determinism (the principle that all natural phenomena are caused previous events linked by fundamental physical laws that are the same everywhere in the universe) and empiricism (the practice of relying on observation and experiment for developing an understanding (theory) of natural phenomena).
    __________________________________________________ _


    No science lacking? Where is one shred of proof, or shouldn't we teach our kids "an attitude of doubt toward and suspended judgment of statements, even when made by great authorities, prior to analyzing the underlying evidence and assumptions"?

    This could be discussed in class.

    As a bonus :), here's a couple of Darwins' own statements:

    "Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered .......".

    " .....scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which the facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived".

    And to think that the eye could evolve "by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree".

    Such "simple" instincts as bees making a beehive could be "sufficient to overthrow my whole theory".

    "But then arises the doubt, can the mind of a man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ....... Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind"

    "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy".

    [My favorite]:

    "Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".
    __________________________________________________ __________

    There is still no PROOF either way. And if he had legitimate doubts about his own theory, why shouldn't anyone else? Isn't this why scientific method was adopted in the first place? Shouldn't the whole story be taught in public schools, or is it OK for our kids to be spoon-fed theory as fact?

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    There is still no PROOF either way. And if he had legitimate doubts about his own theory, why shouldn't anyone else? Isn't this why scientific method was adopted in the first place? Shouldn't the whole story be taught in public schools, or is it OK for our kids to be spoon-fed theory as fact?Pete
    First priori is that because I am not able to prove evolution to your satisfaction doesn't mean no one can prove it.

    Second priori is that creation or ID is not science.

    Third priori is that evolution is not based on one authourity but on the whole of the scientific body of knowledge and evidence, that Darving observed and the scientists since have contributed.

    Now, one only has to look to the Botanical Society of America to prove evolution, period. An interesting article about this in the Jul/Aug 2003 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, page 12.
    Slam dunk case. Even the evolution of the eye is a slam dunk case.
    Evolution is not something you can observe taking place from day to day observation in many instance, but in botany, you certainly can, or in micro biology, for that matter.

    There is no case for any other even taking place but evolution. Everything else has not even a testable shred.

    The BSA Council approved just such a statement in 27 Jul 2003 and at their annual 2003 meeting. Perhaps there is soemith on their website www.botany.org?
    mtrycrafts

  5. #5
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Mtry,

    If evolution has been proven, period, why does even the blatantly pro-evolution Botanical Society call it a theory? I'm sure the proof would make headlines the world over.

    The article in the Skepical Observer is not available online, even though many articles in that issue are posted in their entirety on their website.

    The definition of science does not exclude creationism or ID. But that doesn't matter!

    My original post said:

    *I'm not arguing that evolution does or does not exist, simply that we should teach our kids to question what they're told.*

    Which is certainly in keeping with one of the three principles of scientific method:

    ...skepticism (an attitude of doubt toward and suspended judgment of statements, even when made by great authorities, prior to analyzing the underlying evidence and assumptions), ....

    Also:

    *It does NOT mention creationism or even intelligent design. All it does is apply scientific method to evolution, and attempts to foster intelligent thought, as opposed to teaching theory as fact.*

    I haven't seen any reason why this discussion couldn't or shouldn't take place, or what harm would be done, particularly in light of:

    "But then arises the doubt, can the mind of a man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ....... Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind"

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    If evolution has been proven, period, why does even the blatantly pro-evolution Botanical Society call it a theory?

    What would it be called, a law? There are very few laws but an awful lot of scientific theories that are proven factual. Don't forget, a science theory is supported by an awful lot of science. On the other hand, non scientists use of theory is equivalent to a guess.

    The definition of science does not exclude creationism or ID. But that doesn't matter!


    Creation is based in faith as is ID which is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent creation. It isn't science. It is not testable, hypothesis not falsifyable!!



    *I'm not arguing that evolution does or does not exist, simply that we should teach our kids to question what they're told.*

    Which is certainly in keeping with one of the three principles of scientific method:
    ...skepticism (an attitude of doubt toward and suspended judgment of statements, even when made by great authorities, prior to analyzing the underlying evidence and assumptions), ....


    Oh, they can question it as much as they can question any theory. Trying to imply creation or ID has a standing is laughable and would be dismissed on first examination. However, there is nothing else besides evolution.



    *It does NOT mention creationism or even intelligent design. All it does is apply scientific method to evolution, and attempts to foster intelligent thought, as opposed to teaching theory as fact.*
    I haven't seen any reason why this discussion couldn't or shouldn't take place, or what harm would be done, particularly in light of:

    "But then arises the doubt, can the mind of a man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ....... Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind"Pete


    Just because Darvin questioned his profound theory doesn't degrade its standing in science, certainly not after all this time. Einstein questioned his, I am sure.

    Harm? Most likely no harm but there is no reason to entertain any other aspect besid evolution. ID and creation has no standing, what is there to compare?
    mtrycrafts

  7. #7
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Agree to disagree.

    I think that's where we're at. I have a feeling we could go back and forth for quite a few posts !

    I agree that a true "fact" is hard to come by. I was taught in school that a fact is a theory that "has been proven every time in the past, and can be proven every time, now and in the future, in any circumstance" and how do you prove the future? That said, the fact that the earth is round is a lot closer to this definition than, say, the big bang. I can't help but say that we do not say "the round earth theory"!! I once read a Russki scientist say "theory [is] nothing. Prediction, [that's] what matters". By that statement we're both holding nothing, at least until, in your base position, a new genus appears, and in mine, the second coming.

    BTW, I like how the Skeptical Observer lampoons the UFO/mind power people. At first I thought they were serious! (I need to loosen up occasionally lol!)

    Pete
    Last edited by piece-it pete; 03-19-2004 at 10:46 AM.
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Scientific Method - The scientific method is the conceptual process of organizing empirical facts and their inter-relationships in a structure of theories and inferences. It is the philosophical ideal of how scientists advance scientific knowledge by methodically and systematically applying procedures that reduce the likelihood of alternative explanations for their observations. The underlying principles are skepticism (an attitude of doubt toward and suspended judgment of statements, even when made by great authorities, prior to analyzing the underlying evidence and assumptions), determinism (the principle that all natural phenomena are caused previous events linked by fundamental physical laws that are the same everywhere in the universe) and empiricism (the practice of relying on observation and experiment for developing an understanding (theory) of natural phenomena).
    __________________________________________________ _


    No science lacking? Where is one shred of proof, or shouldn't we teach our kids "an attitude of doubt toward and suspended judgment of statements, even when made by great authorities, prior to analyzing the underlying evidence and assumptions"?

    This could be discussed in class.

    As a bonus , here's a couple of Darwins' own statements:

    "Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered .......".

    " .....scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which the facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived".

    And to think that the eye could evolve "by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree".

    Such "simple" instincts as bees making a beehive could be "sufficient to overthrow my whole theory".

    "But then arises the doubt, can the mind of a man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? ....... Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind"

    "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy".

    [My favorite]:

    "Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".
    __________________________________________________ __________

    There is still no PROOF either way. And if he had legitimate doubts about his own theory, why shouldn't anyone else? Isn't this why scientific method was adopted in the first place? Shouldn't the whole story be taught in public schools, or is it OK for our kids to be spoon-fed theory as fact?

    Pete
    The common answer is that evolution (descent with variations) is an established fact. The theories of evolution concern how evolution takes place (i.e., natural selection, genetic variability, etc.).
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  9. #9
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Aaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhhh!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    The common answer is that evolution (descent with variations) is an established fact. The theories of evolution concern how evolution takes place (i.e., natural selection, genetic variability, etc.).


    Pat,

    I look forward to the proof backing this statement. Heck, even as they taught it to me as a "de facto" fact they called it a theory. They still do.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete


    Pat,

    I look forward to the proof backing this statement. Heck, even as they taught it to me as a "de facto" fact they called it a theory. They still do.

    Pete

    A theory with overwhelming evidence. Slam dunk. Nothing else to consider, certainly not ID or creation which cannot be falisfied.
    mtrycrafts

  11. #11
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    I have a couple of questions for those who put a lot of stock in the evolution theory.

    Question #1: Why did it stop?

    Question #2: What's with all the monkeys?

    They're kind of interrelated questions. If (as the theory suggests) it took millions of years for humans to evolve from primates, why are there still so many un-evolved monkeys living on this earth? I mean, what are they waiting for? Have they been skipping evolution class? Talk about being a year behind - these guys are MILLIONS of years behind! That's a LOT of summer school!

    Okay, so they missed the bus somehow. The rest of us humans got on the "A Train" and now we talk, create, debate, ponder and take vacations once or twice a year.

    But this leads into question #1. Why did evolution stop? If it took millions of years to transition from primate to human, shouldn't there be billions of examples of half-men, half-ape or quarter-men, 3/4 ape and the infinite number of such variations? Shouldn't we be able to see instances of these transitions at any given slice of time in this evolutionary process? Where are all the fish with legs? We just don't have gaps in the fossil record, we have gaps ALL OVER the place!

    These are the kinds of questions that should be discussed. Maybe there are valid answers, but I've never heard them. If you have the answers, I'd sure like to hear them. But as P-I-Pete suggests, I believe there is a place in school for discussion of the evolution theory - to raise valid questions about the theory. It has been sold and accepted as FACT for the longest time, but it is just a THEORY with some pretty big holes in it.
    Click here to see my system.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Talking Hey Pete, I'm back!

    You might be glad to know that Ohio isn't the only state to adopt this kind of legislation. Their are several states in fact that wish the "theory" to be argued in the classroom. And while I think this is a good thing in general, I believe it could go too far without a certain amount of consideration for what science does know about our past. An example would be my home state where the "theory" was completely stripped from the classroom a few yrs back by the religious right due to it's incomplete nature. It would seem to some that if you can't explain your ideas to their entirety from start to finish, put it in a book with a first page and a last page, and have it answer completely the questions of mass majority, then it doesn't belong in the classroom.

    Having said that, I would only like to create some irony in what you've stated here...

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Scientists and talking heads are going crazy, as I'm sure you can imagine.
    Just like the church did 500yrs ago when the world was flat and at the center of the universe! Hopefully science won't go around killing the bishops and the pope!

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    I'm for it for the simple reason that kids should be taught to think on their own, not swallow whole whatever their "enlightened" teachers tell them.
    I'm not so sure that the schools aren't already doing this anyway. When I was in school, it seems to me, the teacher presented the subject matter as "the most scientifically credible of many possibilities" and if we sought other non scientific possibilities that my parents might be a good place to start.

    The thing I find interesting about your "enlightened teachers" comment is until you get to college, the teachers are only teaching what the state wants them to anyway and have little if any personal input to add for fear of prosecution by the school district or the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    And if evolution can't stand up to a cursory examination, what are we doing teaching it in the first place?
    I could say the same about Creationism in church schools. The one thing that is constant in this topic is the want to know and that one or the other(science or religion) will have to reconsider what they're teaching.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Who said evolution has stopped?

    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    I have a couple of questions for those who put a lot of stock in the evolution theory.

    Question #1: Why did it stop?

    Question #2: What's with all the monkeys?

    They're kind of interrelated questions. If (as the theory suggests) it took millions of years for humans to evolve from primates, why are there still so many un-evolved monkeys living on this earth? I mean, what are they waiting for? Have they been skipping evolution class? Talk about being a year behind - these guys are MILLIONS of years behind! That's a LOT of summer school!

    Okay, so they missed the bus somehow. The rest of us humans got on the "A Train" and now we talk, create, debate, ponder and take vacations once or twice a year.

    But this leads into question #1. Why did evolution stop? If it took millions of years to transition from primate to human, shouldn't there be billions of examples of half-men, half-ape or quarter-men, 3/4 ape and the infinite number of such variations? Shouldn't we be able to see instances of these transitions at any given slice of time in this evolutionary process? Where are all the fish with legs? We just don't have gaps in the fossil record, we have gaps ALL OVER the place!

    These are the kinds of questions that should be discussed. Maybe there are valid answers, but I've never heard them. If you have the answers, I'd sure like to hear them. But as P-I-Pete suggests, I believe there is a place in school for discussion of the evolution theory - to raise valid questions about the theory. It has been sold and accepted as FACT for the longest time, but it is just a THEORY with some pretty big holes in it.
    The idea that evolution has stopped is IMO premature considering the kind of time it may take for change to occur. Evolution or the theory of teach's us that not all creatures have to or do evolve. Sometimes, creatures change very little overtime in part do to the lack of environmental changes forcing evolution. Sharks and croc's are good examples of creatures that haven't changed in millions of yrs. Why? No change was necessary for the survival of the species. Why isn't there more evidence of human evolution? Well, it might have to do with the limited population available. You see, there weren't always 6 billion humans on the planet. It stands to reason that the evidence will only be as plentiful in relation to the original population. Even so, we by far haven't covered all the ground that's out there. What has been uncovered does tend to describe what you speak of(1/2,3/4 human,ect) and that is the basis of the theory. Here's some interesting places for info if you're inclined...

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
    http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

    And I'll throw this in there just because I find it ironic that the creationism that is supposed to be so universal among the believers, is as diverse in it's nature as religion itself!

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

    I won't argue about something like this, I can only say that it makes the most sense to me based on what I've read and those looking for answers should do so.

    An interesting footnote...

    You claim that evolution has stopped, then what would you call it when describing the current trend for humans to be born either taller or fatter than what is considered to be normal. Or that the life span has increased(and not necessarily do to medicine) over the last 2000yrs? At this point in our history, it wouldn't surprise me to see evolutionary changes in humans be attributed to changes we induce in our own lives instead of those caused be nature.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    The one thing that is constant in this topic is the want to know and that one or the other(science or religion) will have to reconsider what they're teaching.

    Science wants to know. Religion is happy with what was written in the good book.
    mtrycrafts

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Question #1: Why did it stop?

    Really? Is that a real question or a trick question?

    How long have you been around? In evolutionary time scale, you just got here.

    Question #2: What's with all the monkeys?


    Why would they not be around? Does one species must totally disappear for you to show evolution in process? A foolish speculation.


    If (as the theory suggests) it took millions of years for humans to evolve from primates, why are there still so many un-evolved monkeys living on this earth? I mean, what are they waiting for? Have they been skipping evolution class? Talk about being a year behind - these guys are MILLIONS of years behind! That's a LOT of summer school!

    Obviously you have no concept of evolution yet. Just because something splits off of one species and strives doesn't mean the other cannot adapt and survive. Best learned in school of the appropriate classes, not in church.



    But this leads into question #1. Why did evolution stop?

    It didn't. End of story.


    If it took millions of years to transition from primate to human, shouldn't there be billions of examples of half-men, half-ape or quarter-men, 3/4 ape and the infinite number of such variations?

    Survival of the fittest. 1/2, 3/4 is not fit enough.

    Shouldn't we be able to see instances of these transitions at any given slice of time in this evolutionary process?


    Start digging and help us look.

    Where are all the fish with legs?

    They were no longer fish. The fossil is buried in time. Good hunting.

    We just don't have gaps in the fossil record, we have gaps ALL OVER the place!

    Ain't that a *****. I guess you gave no concept of nature, geology, what happens to things over millions of years of erosion, change, upheaval, vulcaninc eruptions and burials, etc. Maybe the Hawaii vulcano will give it up?

    These are the kinds of questions that should be discussed. Maybe there are valid answers, but I've never heard them.


    Start researching it then. It will not come to you if you don't look. Get on an evolution chat board and ask the geologists, planetary scientists, antropologists.


    If you have the answers, I'd sure like to hear them. But as P-I-Pete suggests, I believe there is a place in school for discussion of the evolution theory


    Oh, they do discuss it.

    - to raise valid questions about the theory. It has been sold and accepted as FACT for the longest time, but it is just a THEORY with some pretty big holes in it.


    Ah, you still don't have the concept of a scientific theory. And, you are basing evolution on the merits of how we here can answer your questions? If we cannot satisfy you then evolution is not the right answer?
    What is the evidence for the other silly claims?
    mtrycrafts

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by karl k
    Why isn't there more evidence of human evolution? Well, it might have to do with the limited population available. .
    You are doing such a bang up job

    But to chime in here, isn't all the different races enough for him? The change from Cromagnin, Neanderthal, etc, sufficient for him?
    Maybe we should ask what would it take to convince him?
    mtrycrafts

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720

    What

    would it take to convince you? Anything? Nothing?
    mtrycrafts

  18. #18
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    I don't want to know what it will take!

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You are doing such a bang up job

    But to chime in here, isn't all the different races enough for him? The change from Cromagnin, Neanderthal, etc, sufficient for him?
    Maybe we should ask what would it take to convince him?
    I suspect he/they don't want to be convinced either. To do so would induce a question about their faith. If anything, he/they would only be searching for vindication by asking anyway.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular jack70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    202

    My 2 cents... (well, 3 or 4):

    My 2 cents... (well, 3 or 4):

    Any person with a solid appreciation of the scientific method ALREADY does question things... EVERYTHING... it's part of the deal. I think a lot of the resistance here is more directed at the state MANDATING things from "on high", instead of letting local school boards, communities and teachers do what they deem best. Bureaucrats and lawmakers are the last people I want in charge of teaching. They've already screwed up the curriculums in many places. Their mandates of 3'rd rate AWFUL school textbooks are a disgrace and gargantuan waste of needed funds. Government calls this "progress," but it's really corruption resulting in dumbing-down of our schools.

    As for "questioning" evolution... I would expect most every good teacher to do that, at least in the big picture. BTW, most scientists are religious.

    "Evolution" is, in no way, anti-religion, but that's the way the creationists have framed it. These types are not searchers, or truth seekers... they are people of faith, intolerant of reality.

    The big problem I have with the creationists and ID morons is their blind pigheadedness. They are EXACTLY like the church condemning Galileo... the facts be damned. Certain factions of Christianity (that mimic certain Islamic fundamentalists today) want to take the Bible "word for word". In so doing, they are at odds with reality... the same "reality" that's given us satellites, communications, planes, nuclear energy and 21'st century medical technology. They pick & choose their "truth" regardless of the science... the truth be damned. To each their own, but don't tell me radio waves are "magic," or gravity can be explained in the Bible or Koran. It's the same general sort of thinking we had in the dark ages.

    I have no problem with bringing God or spirituality into the teaching of evolution, but "intelligent design", as it's presented,
    is just a load of crap that only wants to use the science that "fits it's view". They change their views every time some new scientific discovery comes out. I've seen some of these guys interviewed (leaders in the creationist movement). They're a joke. They have models of Noah's Ark with dinosaurs on them. Need I go on? They value belief & faith over fact. Faith is faith... science is science. Keep em apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    They're kind of interrelated questions. If (as the theory suggests) it took millions of years for humans to evolve from primates, why are there still so many un-evolved monkeys living on this earth?

    Why did evolution stop? If it took millions of years to transition from primate to human, shouldn't there be billions of examples of half-men, half-ape or quarter-men, 3/4 ape and the infinite number of such variations? Shouldn't we be able to see instances of these transitions at any given slice of time in this evolutionary process? Where are all the fish with legs? We just don't have gaps in the fossil record, we have gaps ALL OVER the place!

    These are the kinds of questions that should be discussed. Maybe there are valid answers, but I've never heard them.
    I think you're joking here... but maybe not. The quick answer is you need to study the science more... there are many books and articles ... The Eighth day of Creation by H Judson is a broad overview of 100 scientists and 20 Nobel Prize winners that sheds light on how biology has undergone a revolution that's akin to what Einstein did to Newtonian physics. There's also a recent book (name escapes me) that describes how we (living today) are ALL related (genetically) to but a half-dozen ancestors thousands of years ago. It's based on hard genetic science. Extremely interesting. NOT anti-religious.

    I'm someone who sees education as the most important thing for our countries continued success. We (the US) need over 2 million new engineers and science/tech specialists over the next few years. But fewer & fewer kids are coming out of college or high school with even a basic knowledge of scientific principles or critical thinking skills. We are fast becoming a nation of idiots.

    Anyway, Darwin's contribution to science was his discovery of "natural selection", not so much evolution, although that's attributed to him. Actually Darwin's grandfather proposed a similar theory a half century earlier. Darwin & others helped provide the scientific research that made the "theory" more real, albeit more complicated too, since we have only limited records of 99% of the animals and plant life over the past billion years (a fossil is a scarce thing). And that's why it's generally called a "theory" (a semantic issue really). We keep finding fossils that fall in line with this "theory", but when you're talking about hundreds of millions of years, any record is going to be missing things... it doesn't mean it's not true.

    Einstein's general "theory" has been proven, time and time again with dozens of experiments over the past century... yet he failed to unite everything in his theory "of everything". Today mathematicians and physicists are doing that with String Theory... which is truly a theory.... not worked out or tested. But it's real beauty is that it attempts to explain everything. It's, as Brian Green describes so well... is an elegant theory. A shame more people don't see the beauty in it, the way most don't see the beauty in a Bach Partita, or even a snowflake or their dog.

    Darwin's amazement at the beauty, intricacy, and complexity of nature & the universe in no way excludes evolutionary development.... with or without "God," regardless of what he said. If you look at ANY of his contemporary's thinking in other sciences... astronomy, chemistry, physics, math, you'll see that nearly ALL of those (mid 19'th century) "common scientific knowledgable" was all shot to hell over the next 150 years. Biology & genetics is no different.

    BTW, there ARE many homanids (cousins to modern man) that have died out only very recently (in evolutionary scale), over the past 100 thousand years. In fact, modern man (homo sapiens) nearly died out in this (recent) period as well. Weather, disease, or nature nearly did us all in, just like so many other species over the eons. To mimic a quote from the Terminator: "we almost went out."

    Here are 2 major issues (facts) that most non-hard-science people need to come to grips with to even begin to understand "Evolution"-

    1/ Plant and animals survive, over time, through reproduction. The heart of this involves DNA and genetics. This is a science that we are only just beginning to unlock. It has great promise to us as a culture because it will make huge progress in battling disease and other humane issues. Yet we have only begun to understand genetic markers and sequencing. Medicine in a hundred years will make today's modern "miracle" medicine look like medicine of the 1800's (pretty inept & backward). But... it's this highly complex genetic code that's responsible for minute changes in every living thing. There are hundreds of thousands of these genes that can undergo natural changes (mutations), that give rise to the "natural selection" process. If you were born with a genetic marker or disease that made you blind, or a diabetic, you would die... not in todays' world, but in ANY other time in the past. This natural process, akin to genetic diversity, exists with every animal's progeny, and has been doing it for millions of years. It's such a complex chemical phenomenon that even todays' high speed computers have a hard time making sense of it. Learn about it before off-handedly mocking it.

    2/ The big "imponderable" that most normal people have the biggest problem with here (in understanding evolution or cosmology)... is one of the concept of time. Unless you've studied advanced math, or a bit about "hierarchies of infinities" in mathematics, and cosmology and physics, you can NEVER appreciate, let alone contemplate something like evolution. The reason is the reality of the huge amounts of time involved dwarf most men's (pea) brains. We think in terms of hours and days, not epochs and parsecs. The sad thing is, most people never will understand such concepts. So I won't even try explaining them more. But that's where the answer lies my friend... it's in the math... and physics. Most people today would fit right in if they were brought back to the middle ages... they really understand little of what our science and culture has produced over the centuries.

    I've always been interested in electronics and electricity. I've designed and built my own hi-fi equipt since I was a kid. The whole 20'th century was very different the previous century in one major way... the introduction of electricity... used for lights, autos, motors, power, communication. We all know how our lives change when the power goes out; it's involved in EVERYTHING. It's been like that for a HUNDRED years. Yet the average person doesn't even know Ohms Law... one of the simplest scientific laws there is. People know tons of moronic trivia about movie stars and celebrities, but even basic science about how the world works is ignored. We, as a culture, ignore it at our peril.
    You don't know... jack

  20. #20
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Hubris!!

    The one thing humans always get right!

    We're all sitting on this insignificant rock spinning around an insignificant star, an almost invisible pinhead on the universe, pathetic in our feeble attempts to understand the physical world around us (oooooo, we're thinking about going to Mars? Using fossil fuel? We've got a small, primitive man-made satellite outside of our pathetic solar system?). Wow, we've got it ALL figured out.

    How can one prove a theory by quoting other theories? Look at molecular theory - at least they acknowledge that there is huge problems.

    How about the big bang? The universes' expansion is speeding up (thanks Hubble!)? They said it should be slowing down, before collapsing. Oooooohhhhhh, I see, suddenly 90% of matter we never knew about is also invisible & impossible to measure, except that the universe wouldn't be speeding up without it, according to our (now obviously flawed) theory. Now that's proof ?!! How could I question these perfect scientists without the rose colored glass that Scripture provides (this is sarcastic. The Bible is not a "happy" story in the common sense).

    Sorry for my knee-jerk religious reaction to the obvious fact that we KNOW what happened 1,000,000,000 years ago, how could I question that paragon of absolute fact, carbon dating?

    I have now seen the light & will accept any theory "they" say is true, "they" being the same "establishment" that laughed at Ptolemy & Eratosthenes (not yet religious, they just "knew" the earth was flat), long before the "newly religious" establishment laughed at Galileo.

    Natural selection is nature choosing those traits ALREADY PRESENT in an organisms' genetic code that best matches that organisms' current enviroment. This includes skin color & general physical charateristics, such as weight & height.

    Evolution is similar, with one, huge, UNPROVEN difference - something ADDED, new, to the genetic code.

    Jeskibuff has got it perfectly - the entire theory of evolution shows that this is an ongoing thing. It's how it operates! With the millions of organisms here, and the millions & millions of dollars & tens of thousands of manhours (that's personhours to some of you ), why can't they find ONE proof, this little itty bitty piece of NEW genetic info, could be in a single cell organism, where is it??

    Just one, little shred?

    Everything else is the same kind of heresay that "the powers that be" used as an argument for the flat earth.

    Who is swallowing what story?

    Why would we want this conversation in the schools? It's clear it's just the people who really know vs. the insufferable ignorance of religion.

    Pete

    PS dust in the wind:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  21. #21
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Howdy, Karl!

    How's your insane subwoofer doing ?

    I agree that this could easily go to far, but for all the bluster you'd think they're going to teach Creationism and Intelligent Design, both of which will not even be mentioned.

    What state do you live in? They're not allowed to teach evolution at all? That to me is extreme. All I've been arguing about here is that the theory of evolution be discussed! It would appear that there are extremists on both sides of this issue.

    I didn't know that they didn't teach this theory in the church schools. But those parents have a choice, and still pay for public schools.

    Hey, ya learn something new all the time .

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete

    I didn't know that they didn't teach this theory in the church schools. But those parents have a choice, and still pay for public schools.

    Hey, ya learn something new all the time .

    Pete
    If I remember correctly, didn't the Pope accept evolution?
    mtrycrafts

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Thanks for your $$ worth of goodies posted
    mtrycrafts

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    The one thing humans always get right!

    We're all sitting on this insignificant rock spinning around an insignificant star, an almost invisible pinhead on the universe, pathetic in our feeble attempts to understand the physical world around us (oooooo, we're thinking about going to Mars? Using fossil fuel? We've got a small, primitive man-made satellite outside of our pathetic solar system?). Wow, we've got it ALL figured out.


    No, we thry. The Bible has it all figured out. How simple.


    I have now seen the light & will accept any theory "they" say is true, "they" being the same "establishment" that laughed at Ptolemy & Eratosthenes (not yet religious, they just "knew" the earth was flat), long before the "newly religious" establishment laughed at Galileo.

    Interestingly, science is self correcting. I don't see any such coming from any religion.


    Evolution is similar, with one, huge, UNPROVEN difference - something ADDED, new, to the genetic code.

    You think it unproven. Have you asked the experts yet?

    Jeskibuff has got it perfectly - the entire theory of evolution shows that this is an ongoing thing.

    Who said it stopped?


    It's how it operates! With the millions of organisms here, and the millions & millions of dollars & tens of thousands of manhours (that's personhours to some of you ), why can't they find ONE proof, this little itty bitty piece of NEW genetic info, could be in a single cell organism, where is it??

    Just one, little shred?


    Your mind is closed.
    mtrycrafts

  25. #25
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Hey Pete! I can always rely on you...

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    How's your insane subwoofer doing ?

    I agree that this could easily go to far, but for all the bluster you'd think they're going to teach Creationism and Intelligent Design, both of which will not even be mentioned.

    What state do you live in? They're not allowed to teach evolution at all? That to me is extreme. All I've been arguing about here is that the theory of evolution be discussed! It would appear that there are extremists on both sides of this issue.

    I didn't know that they didn't teach this theory in the church schools. But those parents have a choice, and still pay for public schools.

    Hey, ya learn something new all the time .

    Pete
    to pick some of the best topics here!

    The subs are doin' great but the mains are suffering a bit. Got some clipping or something goin on with the peerless woofers I'm trying to figure out.

    Yes, my state...Kansas. And believe it or not, it did happen. As I understand it, the teaching of evolution was stripped from all public schools K-12. It may have been reinstated(don't remember seeing it on local news) since but it really did happen and even made the national news for a bit. Maybe this explains my anger towards things like closed minded, self centered, self righteous, irresponsible people. I live amongst them all day long. And don't turn your back or let down your guard or they will take away everything in the name of morals and ethics.

    Now enough ranting!

    I think the point to the excitement is the possibility that this is only the first step in removing the subject from the classroom. Those who would do such a thing, haven't been able to do so in one swift blow so now maybe just chip away until removal is only a small step to take and easier for the public to swallow. Myself, I tend to agree with you and most that if science can't stand a little scrutiny, then what would be the point but as I said, one should be careful not to let it get out of hand. Maybe you should look at this more form the scientist eye's. In their eye's, they scrutinize all their work before releasing it to their collegues. Then it is scrutinized some more by the collegues before it is made public. Then some more by the gov. before it is acceptable to teach. And now the ignorant public want to reargue the matter without the crudentials to do so in an effort to throw out the sum of knowledge and work. And for what? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against those who have enough of an open mind to consider the possibility that evolution is part of the truth we seek and wish only to debate it further while still being taught. I would just like to see the general public do some research on their own before allowing the dismissal of the idea as a whole.

    BTW, did you happen to see why the decission to force debate in 10th grade was being required by your state? What was the context of the states arguement? What would be the end result the state was seeking? Who sponsered the bill and what was their motovation to do so? I think you might be suprised at the answers... maybe not.

    Here's to the aquisition of knowledge!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Running on low power.
    By 92135011 in forum General Audio
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-15-2004, 06:49 PM
  2. Advantage of running component video thru receiver?
    By booniewillow in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-13-2004, 08:25 AM
  3. Running a Proton D1200 in 2 ohm stereo...danger?
    By Weister42 in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 08:13 PM
  4. Snot running down his nose....
    By Swish in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-26-2004, 06:42 PM
  5. scared to move on
    By the11 in forum Speakers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-27-2003, 07:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •