Subscription Center
Interactive map highlights recent battlegrounds in evolution education
Creationism Vs. Evolution
The controversy over evolution rages on. Win all your debates against creationists with the science in our special report.
»
September 10, 2008
See what we're tweeting about
huler Trying, failing to spend money on Delta Airlines. Unnavigable website. 2+ hours hold time. But -- they promise to call me when it's my turn.
tvjrennie @DrBondar @docfreeride If we can't all be in same city at once, would tele-partying suffice? Virtual debauchery?
docfreeride Better-half reconstructing "License to kill Mad Men", a cocktail that melds a Vesper Martini w/ rye. High proof = hard to recall accurately.
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
99 Comments
Add CommentThe problem with ID or "Creationism" is it leads to a Theocracy. The middle ages is a prime example when rational thought went to sleep for a 1000 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism leads to Theocracy? That's like saying a heliocentric solar system means there is no God. Alarmism and hyperbole are not going to help resolve this problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we all need to do is just calm down and let nature take its course. Does it matter what ONE person believes about the origin of the universe? What matters is what the most people believe. And in order to change most minds, it takes time.
So winning debates with individuals is really pointless, regardless what side you argue. Because in the end, you may have only removed one drop from the bucket.
Stick to the scientific method. Conduct experiments. Publish articles for rigorous peer review. Question the conclusions of others.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but neither were the sums of religious and scientific knowledge created in our lifetimes.
Have faith, and this debate will work itself out.
(Yes, that is a pun)
There's a danger of presenting the present problem in this manner. Teachers and school officials don't need a state law in order to introduce creationism into the biology classroom. The current strategy of the anti-evolution movement is "teach the controversy". "Evidence against evolution" is presented without using any of the key terms identified with the anti-evolution movement. Its discussed briefly, or given as extra credit. Its possible that no one involved, including the teacher, will know that creationism is being discussed, or at least belief that it is. This is taking place in many more classrooms in every state than most people realize. Parents should be encouraged to ask questions of how evolution is being taught in their children's school, even if their state isn't highlighted on some map.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What matters is what the most people believe"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo truth is determined by consensus?
Welcome to the new Dark Ages :(
I imagine the good news would be that an "Academic Freedom" bill would allow a teacher to demonstrate that neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design are scientific theories. Of course, once the word gets out that a teacher is "attacking" religious belief in a classroom, then I think the "academic freedom" would by a "miracle" no longer pertain to teachers. Just think how many legislators would have to demand then that the separation of church and state really does exist. The fact the people who bring about legislation supporting the teaching of ID or Creationism know very well that these ideas are not science is a demonstration of the sophistry these legislators are using to gain votes and campaign funds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few words of France. Until these last years we watched you with curiosity. In France education is secular and evolution is taught to students aged 11-12, 14-15 years and 17-18 years. The teaching creationism is a religion that has no place in school. But the evolution is a difficult education is neglected by many teachers. But since Haroun Yaya sent a copy of his book in all schools (!!!) and that we are Europeans, things become worrisome to the point that the Academy of Science has scheduled a series of conferences to provide arguments against the intelligent disign and creationism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis text is the result of an automatic translation
A few words of France. Until these last years we watched with curiosity. In France education is secular and evolution is taught to students aged 11-12, 14-15 years and 17-18 years. The teaching creationism is a religion that has no place in school. But the evolution is a difficult education is neglected by many teachers. But since Haroun Yaya sent a copy of his book in all schools (!!!) and that we are Europeans, things become worrisome to the point that the Academy of Science has scheduled a series of conferences to provide arguments against the intelligent disign and creationism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis text is the result of an automatic translation
Welcome to the dark ages?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think so.
It's like investing in the stock market. You may lose money in the short term- especially if you invest in one stock. But if you invest in many over a long period of time, you will make money in the long run.
In the same way will people's minds be changed with regard to science/religion. These matters of belief are matters of the heart and mind. No hearts and minds can be changed quickly. A legal case may produce results in actions, but the fundamental root of these actions (the hearts and minds that motivate them) will only change very slowly- perhaps even imperceptibly.
However, as with any thing worth doing- any idea noble enough to propagate, those who adhere to it must persist in its evangelism. It may take more than our lifetimes, but we will ultimately see a return on our investments.
Indeed, just because a lot of people believe something, that something isn't then validated as true. Also, I get the impression that critiquing or examining evolution theory in school is frowned upon by the general internet equivalent of the armchair philosopher. Rather, any and all generally accepted ideas should be scrutinized to the most minute detail. This lack of scrutiny of thought and ideas is exactly why education is so lacking in the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect, this is not really a debate and it will not work itself out. In debates (like science) people are prepared to listen to reason and change their thinking when presented with facts. The minority of the world's people who believe absolutely in the Judeo-Christian creation myth base all their reasoning on what they already 'know' to be true and are not prepared to listen to reason or indeed look at reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find this very odd in supposed Christians. For them the 'world' (or universe) is the Word of God made flesh. So, to do science and study the universe is to hear the word of God - hence the Vatican's interest in science. To accept that a myth from a poorly translated and viciously edited text (the Bible) trumps the actual Word of God made flesh, seems a tad blasphemous. I'm sure the Big Guy will keep a special place in Hell for Creationists and an even worse one for ID supporters who compound their sins with hypocrisy.
There is no consensus when scientific theories gradually become accepted. If anything, there is a "consensus" among the relevant scientific community. In this case, the community would be made up of Paleoanthropologists, archaeologists, geologists, and biologists. Sorry, no creationists would be considered part of the "scientific" community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem putting creationism or any other religious principle into public school classrooms so long as they are in a comparative religion class. Of course no Christian denouncing evolution seems to want that. They don't want to be held up against something so hard to disprove like another religion. Creationism simply isn't science it is religion and should be forced to be examined side by side with every other creation story from the various religions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most glaring oversight in all of this is the topic at hand; Science. We are talking about SCIENCE. There is no place for religious discussions in a Science class. SCIENCE is about tangible proofs and conclusions reached from the standpoint of logical observation. FAITH is the belief in something when their is no proof to substantiate the claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of the groups pushing Intelligent Design (Creationism or Religion) in public schools is calling for the Theory of Gravity, Economic Theory, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Cell Theory, or the Theory of Matter and Energy (Conservation of Matter and Energy) to be questioned; to have their "weaknesses and shortcomings highlighted."
Faith-based learning should be kept in the Church, Temple, Mosque - where it belongs. SCIENCE should remain in the non-religious classrooms, where it belongs.
The most glaring oversight in all of this is the topic at hand; Science. We are talking about SCIENCE. There is no place for religious discussions in a Science class. SCIENCE is about tangible proofs and conclusions reached from the standpoint of logical observation. FAITH is the belief in something when their is no proof to substantiate the claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of the groups pushing Intelligent Design (Creationism or Religion) in public schools is calling for the Theory of Gravity, Economic Theory, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Cell Theory, or the Theory of Matter and Energy (Conservation of Matter and Energy) to be questioned; to have their "weaknesses and shortcomings highlighted."
Faith-based learning should be kept in the Church, Temple, Mosque - where it belongs. SCIENCE should remain in the non-religious classrooms, where it belongs.
The most glaring oversight in all of this is the topic at hand; Science. We are talking about SCIENCE. There is no place for religious discussions in a Science class. SCIENCE is about tangible proofs and conclusions reached from the standpoint of logical observation. FAITH is the belief in something when their is no proof to substantiate the claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of the groups pushing Intelligent Design (Creationism or Religion) in public schools is calling for the Theory of Gravity, Economic Theory, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Cell Theory, or the Theory of Matter and Energy (Conservation of Matter and Energy) to be questioned; to have their "weaknesses and shortcomings highlighted."
Faith-based learning should be kept in the Church, Temple, Mosque - where it belongs. SCIENCE should remain in the non-religious classrooms, where it belongs.
The most glaring oversight in all of this is the topic at hand; Science. We are talking about SCIENCE. There is no place for religious discussions in a Science class. SCIENCE is about tangible proofs and conclusions reached from the standpoint of logical observation. FAITH is the belief in something when their is no proof to substantiate the claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of the groups pushing Intelligent Design (Creationism or Religion) in public schools is calling for the Theory of Gravity, Economic Theory, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Cell Theory, or the Theory of Matter and Energy (Conservation of Matter and Energy) to be questioned; to have their "weaknesses and shortcomings highlighted."
Faith-based learning should be kept in the Church, Temple, Mosque - where it belongs. SCIENCE should remain in the non-religious classrooms, where it belongs.
My Apologies on that multi-posting, Firefox was goofing up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe person best suited in this nation to comment on ID and the class room is Dr Clough from the University of Ohio. His articles on ID and Evolution explain it better than any I have ever read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will try to sum it up for those that are not familiar with his works. I apologize in advance if I butcher it. If this does not make sense to you, I misspoke, and you need to look up his works.
In summary:
Evolution is a scientific theory because one can conduct experiments that support the theory.
ID is not a scientific theory because one cannot conduct experiments that support the theory.
Scientific theorys should be taught in science class.
Non- scientific theories should be taught in philosophy or theology class.
In other words:
If you want to learn how to bake a cake, go to home-ec.
If you want to learn about ID, go to church.
If you want to learn about evolution, go to science class.
Conversely, if you are in church don't expect a science lecture. If you are in science do not expect a church sermon.
What exactly are your specific scientific problems with teaching ID and evolution as the theories that they are. You can not prove evolution and you cannot prove ID. But lets think about actual science. Shouldn't the findings of scientist who use modern scientific methods and find problems with Evolution be seriously considered? They came to their conclusions in much the same manner as those who proposed and support Evolution as the most realistic theory: the scientific method. Show me where their findings are flawed without looking at the purpose for conducting the experiments. Because if you shut them down just because they are supporting ID you are operating with extreme prejudice and failing to follow the scientific principles that you so high tout.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us think about "actual" science, yes. Modern scientific methods are even more advanced than at the time of Darwin and Wallace. Yet, modern science and its techniques seem only to support the archaic theory of natural selection. When has a finch acquired its particular characteristics through means other than natural selection? All theories are welcome in the scientific community, but as duke442 stated earlier, science cannot conduct experiments to prove or disprove ID. Therefore, ID exists in the realm of philosophy or theology. Natural selection is being tested every minute of every day of every year of every century and so on. If I am prejudging ID and creationism because I can't test it, then it must not be science. The Hadron collider is testing proposed theories of what happens when protons collide. That situation has been speculated for decades. New methods and capabilities allow us to try. Too bad we have no new way to test creationism claims. None. Maybe if we go to a church, synagogue or a mosque, maybe we can debate it though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seem to be confused. I thought that in order to prove something scientifically you would have to be able to repeatedly achieve the same results. What experiment has been proposed and attempted that "proved" Evolution? I thought that was why it was still a theory, because it was unable to be proved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn your point about not being able to "prove" ID. I guess one way would be to show that Man originated thousands of years ago, or to show that elements that should have decayed in millions of years are still around in quantities that would place the implantation of the element thousands not billions of years ago. These are a few experiments that I can think of. What flaws do you find in them?
I seem to be confused. I thought that in order to prove something scientifically you would have to be able to repeatedly achieve the same results. What experiment has been proposed and attempted that "proved" Evolution? I thought that was why it was still a theory, because it was unable to be proved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn your point about not being able to "prove" ID. I guess one way would be to show that Man originated thousands of years ago, or to show that elements that should have decayed in millions of years are still around in quantities that would place the implantation of the element thousands not billions of years ago. These are a few experiments that I can think of. What flaws do you find in them?
--I posted this once before but I did not see the comment appear this is my second attempt.
This is good. We need to provide other different explanations for the origin of the the earth. This isn't about spreading Christianity but giving students the opportunity to make the decision for themselves instead of force feeding them the Theory of Evolution. As an educator I hope ID is added to the Texas curriculum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth Science and Religion go to ridiculous extremes: Science brushes away the design in Nature, Churchoids ignore their own Bible traching Absurdities- as they've done for CENTURIES.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTruth suffers as a result!
theMadJW@comcast.net
As a future father of a child that would never see a classroom of such a regressive curriculum, I would hope that creationism would be taught as an elective in a philosophy/theology/spirituality curriculum. Theories are the ultimate goal in the Social science field. Darwin was a social biologist. Speculation in the social science fields are going to be stated in the phraseology of the abstract. In other words, life either imitates your theory or it doesn't. There is no need to prove the theory. A new robin was just recently discovered in Gabon. Isn't that amazing that ornithologists have overlooked a species that has either evolved recently due to man's expansion, or it's population recently grew large enough to be noticed. This olive-backed forest robin is unique in all of its colors and markings. Very beautiful. However, is the particular design of this bird a logical product of an omniscient designer? Or, is it an common variety of robin found in that region of Gabon that was separated geographically by a mountain/forest/river region, forced to change its foraging habits, imitate another bird to successfully breed, etc. The factors that ultimately cause natural selection, the concurrent observed accepted theory of life's progress, are many and cross many scientific disciplines. How many scientific disciplines are needed to fully explain creationism? Does creationism rely on the very important field of geology? Are current geologist, people who determine the age of anything, not doing their jobs correctly? Geologists all over the world would probably have a problem with creationism's "age" claims. Would creationism have to completely ignore an entire branch of earth science in order to postulate its dogma? Very important questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think retarded religionists that have no skill in basic logic should not be allowed near a classroom. When man originated and how elements radioactively decay has already been studied extensively, and has nothing to do with a mythical designer. And acolchad, you make me fear for the future of my country. Public education doesn't need to provide different explanations for the origin of the earth for the same reason we don't need to provide different explanations for quantum electrodynamics. As soon as you show evidence that supports a competing theory, then the existing one will be modified. No one backing ID or creationism has shown evidence, they just try to place doubt in people that don't have the time or the ability to understand it. Science is not a popularity contest, there's smart people who figure it out, and there's dumb people who are scared of those conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dunno dude, it all makes perfect sense to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJosh
www.privacy.cz.tc
Teaching students creationism may be validly accepted, if teachers can teach them 'in the right way.' It should be stated clearly that creationism is not scientific at all. People, who endorse ID, try to make it sound right by all aspects of points of views, including science. In reality, they fail to explain it by science that only preserves the idea of evolution. Not to harm science by which the US is leading the world, making distinction between scientific and non-scientific in teaching evolution and creationism is crucial for the US future that kids will embark on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeaching students creationism may be validly accepted, if teachers can teach them 'in the right way.' It should be stated clearly that creationism is not scientific at all. People, who endorse ID, try to make it sound right by all aspects of points of views, including science. In reality, they fail to explain it by science that only preserves the idea of evolution. Not to harm science by which the US is leading the world, making distinction between scientific and non-scientific in teaching evolution and creationism is crucial for the US future that kids will embark on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy question remains. What has proved evolution to be valid?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are discussing what should be taught as science in the classroom. So if you were going to prove to me scientifically that evolution was a valid description of nature what would you say? Would you give me arguments about why it is better than another theory or would you actually use science to prove your idea? Your statement that you dont have to prove the theory is not held by evolutionist around the world as they constantly seek scientific proof that evolution is valid.
As of now I have not heard one discovery that shows evolution to be an actual process. Only it could be arguments like the newly discovered robin. The robin is not proof. Science is a show me pursuit. It endeavors to keep people from making unsubstantiated claims. Please cite some substance for evolution being valid. If it is really so valid in nature surely you can show me a specific example of evolution.
Concepts are always influenced more by what is believed, than what the FACTS are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere will ALWAYS be a problem of DOGMATIC cirriculum- unless both concepts- and others- are explored and left to the students to decide!
Do you think that I can answer to your questions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the book, Only A Theory, written by Kenneth R. Miller. He carefully and reasonably describes how and why ID doen not make sense scientifically, but evolution does. My point is not about whether or not the concept of ID is right, but all about that ID is not scientific. Then, if ID is being incorporated into school program, ID has to be carefully taught not to make a direct conflict with evolution. While ID is introduced, preserving evolution theory is crucial...
The fact that evolution is constantly being scrutinized is exactly the beauty of science. As I said, life imitates theory or it doesn't. What part of creationism can be observed? None. All aspects of natural selection and evolution can be objectively observed every day, every year, and during your entire lifetime. Nothing claimed by creationism can be observed unless you have "faith" that something exists. How is a new species of robin not an example of natural selection? I don't know why you need proof? Proof is language for a courtroom. An undisputed theory like natural selection repeatedly stands the scrutiny of the smartest people on earth for the last 120 years. A concocted story with a fabricated timeline doesn't stand a chance as a competitive theory. Another extremely substantial problem for creationism, next to geology, is paleoanthropology. How do you explain away the Australopithecines and other Homo species like Erectus, Habilis, and Ramidus. These tangible specimens of bones have been analyzed by a multidisciplined approach of geologists, paleoanthropologists, anthropologists, and archaelogists. All of these smart people, highly educated in their respective fieldes, seem to corroborate that natural selection is the vehicle for evolution to happen. All of the before mentioned fossils have been carbon-dated to 2-11 MILLION years old. Unless you want to debate the scientifically accepted method of carbon-dating, no more discussion is needed. Just in case you have a problem with carbon-dating, mitochondrial DNA has been sampled all over the world to find the proverbial "Eve". The results of that test places the mother of all people on earth somewhere in Africa 17 MILLION years ago. Both methods reinforce each other. Natural Selection remains unscathed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"....left to the students to decide." Really? Have you every gone to school? What class did you have in which you could determine your education content? Imagine if engineering students chose what concepts of physics and engineering they could spend time on. I don't think I would be driving over any bridges or walking into any buildings. That's hilarious. Students deciding what to learn. Ha ha ha.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink it as you LIKE: Theories need to STAY theories if you want honest cirriculum. And theories SHOULD be up to a student to choose, rather than masqueraded as 'fact'!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect, it appears you know little of Christian theology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo denomination that I am aware of teaches that the "world" (or "universe") is the Word of God made flesh... what they actually teach is that Jesus was the Word of God made flesh.
Here's a thought... efforts to stifle questions, or to silence debate or dissent, have nothing to do with science. They are mere ideological totalitarianism.
Do you ever hear of the fact of Relativity? Or do you hear of the Theory of Relativity? The THEORY of relativity also remains unscathed as a law of physics, yet also a THEORY. If anyone were to postulate a more important and relevant theory of relativity, then by all means. E=mc2 is not really disputable because all of science pretty much accepted it as a good foundation to build more knowledge upon. Similarly, natural selection allows biologists and and more importantly conservationists to better understand the environment humans share with the rest of the planets' species. Why would we teach future conservationists of the world a flawed understanding of their respective fields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem if you believe that natural selection is divinely inspired. In fact, if I were the narrator of the world, I would portray that the tendency of life to try another way because this way of subsisting is becoming difficult, as the way A god of Life manifests itself.
I am not a narrator, but merely an adamant anti-creationism blogger.
Your own opinion about the actual dates and bones that exist in scientists' labs doesn't affect the story observable data tells.
Looking at the debate that has been raging in the United States it seems that both sides are desperately trying to convince each other that their point of view is the 'only correct one'. However the reality is that both sides are presenting flawed arguments rather than accepting the discrepancies in each others theories. Yes Darwinism (using the term Evolution in the context of the debate I believe is unsuited) does have its weakness, however the irrationality that is presented in the arguments of Creationism leaves a lot to be answered. I personally am a very devout religious person, I believe in God, and in the rational of God. “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30), “And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander.” (Quran 51:47). Dr. Abdus Salam the first Muslim Nobel Laureate in Physics once said "The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of God's created laws of nature". One must remember that fanaticism in any area leads to ignorance, and that is exactly the case here. Both sides of the party are unwilling to accept each others truth because they are too ignorant to see past their Ego.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorth repeating, Mc Fernis :), but like all arguments of this nature will fall on faith-based deaf ears. I despair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is extremely simple. We discovered something new that explains a lot of previously unknown things. Now it must be integrated into the curriculum just as any new discovery should be so that it can further our knowledge and understanding of things. Thats it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I would hope legislatures around the country will realize, one has the inalienable right to one's own stupidities, however, one has no right to insist those stupidities onto another, least of all a developing child. It is irresponsible guardianship on the part of many parents to forcibly compel their children's views in line with their own. A very large part of responsible parenting is encouraging a child to explore, discover and come to their own understandings and feelings about themselves, about those around them and the world at large. Children must be given accurate information and the tools to come to their own judgments. Judgments ought not be dictated to them. It borders on or even dips into the issue of child abuse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet's remember that evolution is still called the "evolutionary theory"...it's still only a theory not scientific fact has yet to be proven as FACT. so until then, introducing another THEORY that is widely accepted (intelligent design) shouldn't be a problem...let the kids look at both, research it, and decide for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOmg, you are retarded, do you understand what the word theory means in this respect? Do you hear anyone talk about the fact of gravity? the fact of relativity? No, they say the word theory for a very specific reason. Maybe educate yourself and figure it out. People with small minds see a complicated phenomenon like evolution and think: It's too complicated for me to understand so mythical sky being must have caused it, intelligent people see it and say: wow, isn't that cool how all those observable complex phenomena couple together to create the entire system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are exactly correct drdeflag, most of the entries from creationist supporters respond as if they know none of the evolutionary vocabulary. Most of the opinions are retorting as if there is no discussion going on. It seems as if they are talking to themselves. Maybe if they understood what some of the vocabulary means then maybe they can involve themselves with adult discussions about our children's future. Please do yourself a favor, please read the preceding entries before you repeat a retort. You just look silly and uneducated on this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism supporters are infiltrating politics. Sara Palin believes the world was created 10,000 years ago. I think electing her to office could be the most detrimental situation for our country. While Europe and other enlightened areas of the world build upon their knowledge base, America would regress to days before the Enlightenment. Our Christian fundamentalism must not invade our science classes. Please keep science in science class and Dogma based on faith in theology or philosophy class. Creationism is not new and nobody can really learn anything from it. However, natural selection serves as the ultimate platform to understand the rest of nature. It is too bad people cannot educate themselves before they spout out baseless opinions,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am new to this board, but I have read many responses and found some of the responses are just funny. Here are some.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Teach the students all and let them decide the truth.
First of all, the truth is not decided. The true happens and exists, people have to find it. And most important in term of science, one cannot pick and choose what is the truth.
2. Evolution is flaw therefore it must not be accepted.
Science creates a foundation, and must be improved and built upon. Science leaves room for improvement, however you have to improve science using science not FAITH.
3. Theory are not fact.
Please educate yourself to understand what a "THEORY" actually means in term of science, not English.
4. Please respect each other and have a polite conversation. We gain nothing by putting the others down.
Creationism is a dangerous precedent, why the foundering fathers had said little, when the New World was escaping the religious dogma of the Old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe states that have adopted creationism in the classroom will later regret this move and implications.
I respect greatly the contributions of mathematics and science. I have had college level classes that studied evolution. I find godless evolution, however, very hard to rationally accept. It requires that I blindly believe that the super-complex organic life on earth ultimately exists because of accidents. For instance, the human mind and ability to communicated are ultimately accidents. Either New York City exists by accident or it was created. Either life on earth exists by accident or it was created. Things exist in their present form by accident or by creation. What other choices are there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn science things do work that way. There is little to no debate about the relevance of evolution. In law and politics however, the scientific method is substitued for a less predictable social method. People are irrational and foolish, public opinion is skewed and the results can have drastic effects. The potential for a President Palin, was a prime example of such.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutions primary source of evidence is cumulative observations from, geology, biology, chemistry, archaeology and common sense observation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent Design's primary source of evidence: The bible...........
What is so hard about this?
ID is NOT science, because science does not address the supernatural. When you read a paper on evolution there is only reference to other established and repeatable observations which contribute to a larger theory. When you lood at a paper on intelligent design. There is either a direct reference to GOD or to a "designer"---which is not testable or otherwise established.
The fundamental argument for ID is: THIS STUFF IS COMPLICATED............SO GOD MUST OF DONE IT
Science does not address the supernatural
One flaw, of many, is that in the same breath you indicate that scientific methods for dating the earth when supporting evolutionare flawed, but of course this other method of dating must be accurate, and supports ID. Without getting into this cyclic argument. Probably the largest flaw in the ID argument is Dinosaurs. Oh ya and a failure to accept logical analysis of physical observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is the only area of study pretending fact!!! That is why science uses words like hypothesis and theory while religion uses the GOD excuse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudents ARE welcome to question science.... Thats what science is all about. Unfortunately, because we are confusing our children, it's unlikely that we will produce any good scientists until the religious groups motivating this injustice decide to do what is actually good for their children.
trakrunner: "You can not prove evolution and you cannot prove ID. But let's think about actual science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you did think about 'actual science', trakrunner, instead of what you seem to imagine is 'science', you would know that a scientific theory is not about proof, which lies in absolutes such as mathmatics. For this reason, a scientific theory can never be disproven (although those who are biased against specific areas of science for religious reasons seem to invest an exorbitant amount of time in misguided attempts at doing so). A scientific theory can only be superceded by a more effective theory, and then only once that theory has made its way through the checks and balances within the scientific system, as any theory must.
erichard: "Either New York City exists by accident or it was created. Either life on earth exists by accident or it was created. Things exist in their present form by accident or by creation. What other choices are there?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse analogy. We know and can establish empirically how New York came about, and who designed and built it. Right? But to use such terms as 'designed' and 'created' when applied to the natural world is inadmissible in science, because such terms employ presupposition. That is: a 'design' presupposes a designer, a 'creation' presupposes a creator, and so on. So these loaded terms have an unestablished first cause which forever puts them outside the sphere of science. Either you respect the terms of science or you don't. If you don't, then fair enough, but it won't be science.
I offer proof in the form of a simple school science fair project... The student would display a cake next to a bowl of flour, sugar, eggs and etc. The sign on the cake would say "I made this cake" and the sign on the bowl would say "I am waiting for cake to evolve."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfantum: "I offer proof..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou consider that 'proof'? Of what? An unmade cake? How about the sign reading "This is a false analogy dreamed up by a creationist who couldn't come up with anything more persuasive"? Your too-slick-for-its-own-good second sign demonstrates both your apparently total lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, and why creationists' waffle is only taken seriously by their fellows who share the same misguided delusions.
Next time you attempt to propose an analogy on a science website, try to come up with something a little less juvenile.
fantum
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA better proof
A student with an empty bowl
A sign on the bowl says
"I am waiting for SOMETHING(ANYTHING) to be created"
I respect also the opinion of those who believ in evolution but if we were all evolved from a microscopic organism who or what created that? And what created the substance that created the microscopic organism. To say the less we can go on and on asking what created this and that and the fact is something created someting else and something greater, better and devine . Whether we that have degrees and theological studies to show this and that we must accept the fact that there is a God who created everything.Creation overpowers evolution just because evolution always imposes the question and before that was____????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheCOCICtheologist: "Creation overpowers evolution just because evolution always imposes the question and before that was____????"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOverpowers? All you have done in your own statement is insert a god-of-the-gaps. 'I don't know and cannot prove what came before, but it must have been something, so I'm going to call it 'God'.
Evolution might 'impose the question', as you put it (actually it doesn't, as it is concerned with speciation, but I'm running with your thought here), but if all that you can manage by way of an answer to that question is to assert a supernatural uncaused first cause which you in your turn can neither verify nor establish except as an article of faith, then, hey, I might be missing something here, but it doesn't seem to me like you have made much of an improvement upon science.
I would like to see the reaction to forced evolution education in sunday school. Isn't it hypitcritcal how creationists feel everyone that doesnt believe that horses, cows, trilobites, dinosaurs, and humans were all created fully formed and living together at the same time should be forced to learn it in public school. But feel it would be sacrilige to teach evolution in church.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel if it becomes law that children should learn the Christian creation story as literal truth in science class then they should also have to learn the creation myths of the 4200 other world religions.
Creationism is blind ignorance to blatently obvious evidence. Creationism is the I KNOW science. Why ask questions when everything is already known and presented in the Bible......... Stratification?..... Oh it was just the flood. Fossils on Mt Everest?..... It was just the flood. Linguistices...... Tower of Bable. Dinosaurs...... the Bohemath. Plate Techtonics ........ whats that.
It is most sad there are so many people who are unable to even percieve that their faith-based belief that there is a creator deity is only 'true' within their personal faith-based belief. Many are so singularly indoctrinated they use the term (capitalized)'god', referring to only the Judeo-Christian version. They'll ask the question, 'Do you believe in God?,' when what they mean is, 'Do you actually not believe in the god that I 'know' exists?' I am glad people feel their beliefs with such strength. I wish they could understand that it does not make it any more true for someone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Theists, encountering someone not believing in their
deity, feel they must call them atheists or fiends."
Sadly, the ones I am addressing will not be able to understand this (and hope that I 'wake up' and see what is 'obvious').
What ID represents is the wide-spread support of religious fascism in the US. ID's only reason for existence is to violate the constitution's separation of church and state. It is the point of the wedge that would turn public school science classes into Sunday school classes. If the American people do not stand against the American Taliban in their attempt to bring old testament law to the US, the US will sink further into their own dark age. The US is already losing the lead in many areas of science and technology because of the hatred and distrust the far right has for science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because something wasn't there before (Creation overpowers evolution just because evolution always imposes the question and before that was____????) doesn't mean that a supreme being is required to bring it into existance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is all God's will how do you explain, for example, that Japanese got taller over a couple of generations, or that the onset of puberty varies across continents, or that snake venom within the same species varies in its toxicity according to geographic location?
Anyway, follow the creationist line to the letter and we are all descended from Adam and Eve, therefore we are all the product of incest - who else would A and E have procreated with? and who would their children have procreated with, apart from each other?
The ID/Creationists had better be careful...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat else but evolution could explain the rampant spread of willful ignorance?
For starters, ID and creationism are not theories, they are simply hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA hypothesis is the first proposal of an idea, whereas a theory is the final proof stage of said hypothesis, where ample evidence has been collected to support it as correct, and lack evidence to refute it.
ID and creationism hypothesis are NOT founded in science, there is not scientific support for them, and therefore do not belong in science class. Very simple.
Creationism is the miracle of evolution. The argument I always use to creationists (small capital intentional) is if I were to believe in a God he is a far bigger God than you or your limited thinking can comprehend. Evolution as a mechanism of nature is a tool that can only have been invented by a far greater God than any earthly religion can even begin to explain. I love the way most people of faith squirm as they try to get out of this one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven most theologians tell us that the Genesis stories are just a way to explain to primitive people a concept far too complex for their limited knowledge.
As far as converting one person at a time is concerned that’s how most arguments are constructed drop by drop until it turns into a waterfall.
Can I just ask why is this question only an issue in the USA?. It’s not even an issue in the Muslim world where they believe the Koran is the literal word of God. Europe is the birthplace for 90% of the Christian Churches and not one country seriously allows creationism anywhere near a science lesson.
You are generating a loop argument. If everything was created, who created the Creator? Another "God"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis argument does not expose the true source. We don't know yet but may some day get closer.
The same is valid for the "monkey typing out Shakespeare" argument (or in this discussion, the cake argument). Each iteration in evolution is a response by an organism (better: species over time) to specific environmental conditions, or changes thereof, leading to the next variation. There is no goal of a perfect organism to be created. Most species don't make it for too long.
The interplay of the generally observable effects of entropy in the physical world countered by the complexity building biological world is interesting to contemplate and should be the topic of more scientific and philosophical discussion.
I am still in shock how anyone can believe evolution to be absolute truth. Evolution in and of itself is not empirical. It requires just as much, if not more, faith to believe it. IT IS NOT SCIENCE BY DEFINITION!!! It is just as much based on presupposition as Creationism. People talk about this freedom of religion (or better said, freedom from religion), and yet our schools cram the religious tenets of secular humanism (yes evolution) into the heads of every child.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEducation was originally an institution of the church. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution from the perspective of Creationism, and gathered every ounce of morality basis for laws from the Bible.
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
--Thomas Jefferson
If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
--John Adams
"ID and creationism hypothesis are NOT founded in science, there is not scientific support for them, and therefore do not belong in science class. Very simple."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL!!! So you are actually saying that there is more evidence for evolution? Everything points toward a young earth.
For instance, science has proven that Earth’s magnetic field has a half-life of 1,454 years. That would mean that 20,000 years ago, the heat produced would have disrupted the Earth’s internal structure. In other words, there would be no life on an imploding ball of lava only 20,000 years ago.
Also, how many people are on the planet? 6.7 Billion and constantly growing. If there were people reproducing 100,000 years ago. Can you imagine the world population? Much less, the un-regulated animal population after 4 billion years.
Also, There are 20 billion tons of mud added each year to the ocean floor. 1 billion tons removed each year. That would allow for current amount in 12 million years(assuming that the earth had not imploded or burned up from the magnetic field). Again use that imagination to think of what our planet would look like after 4.5 billion years of mud. I think it would have expended the source. And we would have a nice mud ball to live on. I guess anything is better than an magnetic, imploding fireball. :)
Hmm. Well those "facts" muddied the waters a bit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Sorry, I couldn't help myself)
Adaptation =/= Evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I have said before on numerous occasions the reason why there is such a rift in this country on this topic is because each side does not listen to the other, but as you can see in these posts neither side has any moral advantage. I have been run off by preachers for accepting evolution, and then run off by atheist scientists for believing in God. There is a middle ground, but it isn't easy to stand there without being attacked by both camps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, there is a debate because there is a real problem here. It is not a manufactured problem. On the evolutionists side there is a growing defensiveness in the scientific community that sometimes borders on censure for a real legitimate critique of evolution from within. Many scientists have seen this and have written against it. In other words, among some defenders of Darwin it has become close to religion by becoming a dogma for atheism (see Dawkins as an example of this). Darwin was no defender of dogma. He was (for those who care to read his work) reluctantly an agnostic despite the worries of his wife who was a believer and most of the people in mid-nineteenth century England. He mentions God a number of times in his Origin of Species and not in a negative way like many do now.
On the Creationist side there are issues with evidence. Many among them do not accept obvious truths that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt like the age of the earth and geological knowledge. They raise fake evidence like the finding of a "mans" footprint next to a dinosaurs.
However, I am a believer in God no less because it is less logical to be an atheist who believes the universe happened by chance. It takes more faith to believe in atheism than it does in believing in a Creator. I used to be an atheist but could not get past the logical problems with this position.
Having said this, I would leave the teaching of science in the classroom with science only and questions of God in a class on religion or perhaps the philosophy of science. For sure, intelligent design can be discussed in a philosophy of science class 303, but not in biology 101. It is too complicated.
My only concern is that the debate get co-opted by the militant atheist (or militant Creationists) who is intolerant of listening to reason. I have more concerns about this recently in these discussions more than anything. I have very little tolerance for these kinds of people. I am surprised by the number of posts (by I'm sure non-scientists) who attack people because they believe in God as if this were an irrational position. I've been on both sides of this as an atheist and as a believer and it has been for me a rational choice. I know of a number of practicing scientists who also believe in God as well. There are more than you think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe creationists could end this 'controversy', once and for all, by simply proving their point. Sadly, they seem to labor under the impression that discrediting Darwin means they win by default. No they don't. Merely attacking Darwin does not prove creationism. So, creationists......please present YOUR proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiology is the science of studying (non-cultural) memes, that to persist must be self-replicating, i.e., species. Nowadays that is achieved by encoding the meme in genes. Genes get expressed, create individuals, get replicated, and pass on the biological meme. The biological meme is subject to change (mutation, exchange of genes between species via viruses, activation of unused genes via environmental triggers, really any number of mechanisms, i.e., evolution, no goal here just forces influencing each other). If self-replication is possible in a given environment the (changed) meme will persist, and perish if not. Some evolutionary forces create more complex memes. Most don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiological memes emerged from chemical memes (we don't yet know fully how), which in turn emerged from physical characteristics of matter (physical memes if you so will).
The question is why a creator is needed: (a) where did the first memes come from?, (b) how can we fill in the gaps in our knowledge?, and (c) is that it? Why?
a) the "god of the framework" is irrelevant to exploring the effects and consequences of that ur-meme(s) since the creation of the framework is outside of observation and has no further influence,
b) the "god of the gaps" has been pushed back ever since science emerged,
c) again irrelevant to exploring the mechanisms of the world, this belongs in the realm of the "god of comfort"
Unless you postulate that the creator is still active, she is irrelevant. If it is still active, an experiment should be devised to expose its function.
Spending time on discussing creationism to explain biology and evolution is unreasonable.
@The Shadow, "It requires just as much, if not more, faith to believe it." that would standard right wing fanatic logic. Say something enough and it becomes true. Of course you provided no evidence because, like for you magical sky daddy, you have none. As I have said many times. The reason you disagree with evolution is because you do not understand it. The reason you don't understand it is because you have chosen your world view and are not willing to listen to anything that would challenge it. You are fundamentally irrational, completely ignorant and morally questionable as you are aware of your ignorance yet pretend to be an authority to advance your agenda. You are a great example of why religion is not only based on B.S. but that it produce people of low moral character. It is a intellectual virus that will kill us all if we don't take steps to treat it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the dangers of creationism is embedded in its context of referential power. It basically says, "if you believe that I am right on this, you should believe me this other thing too". Religious contexts exploit this power to further their agendas. The emotional and intellectual needs for the "god of comfort" and the "god of the gaps" was for too long reason for people to believe creationism, and thus too often, "the other thing" too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference is that science says "believe me only if you can replicate it and only what you can replicate".
I can not think right now of a good metaphor to express the idea that the very fact that this discussion happens on a science forum is already a win for ID, no matter the ludicracy of the arguments (I am looking at you, mud promoter).
Anyone got one?
robert schmidt, I don't know who you are or what you do but you are not helping by using hateful language and otherwise dismissing the arguments of believers without engaging them. You are a militant atheist and obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I see no cogent argument from you except spiteful attacks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, I implore the science minded to take the high road in their argumentation. We don't persuade anyone with mud slinging and attacks on character. It will just get us defeated because it promotes the idea that science is against God. Science is not against God. Stick with the argument. The argument is that the discussion about God does not belong in the classroom where science is being taught. I agree with this as long as we don't promote atheism as an ideology, or that we treat evolution with kid gloves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you find "godless evolution" very hard to rationally accept? Do you find "godless gravity" or "godless electricity" hard to accept? All science is in a sense godless because science has *nothing* to say about what God does, what He is, or even whether He exists. That doesn't mean we have to reject the scientific explanation of why thunderstorms happen just because they don't mention God. That would be a return to the dark ages!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural selection is anything but a random process. Once life exists, it is subject to the demands of its environment. Surely what is beneficial in an environment is more likely to persist, and be passed on, than what is harmful? That's all it takes for evolution to happen.
@Centaurus-A, "You are a militant atheist and obviously have no idea what you are talking about." your hypocrisy is noted. Your comment to me is no different than the comments I've made to those who deliberately lie and misrepresent the data in order to advance a political agenda. If you can understand why you have attacked me, you should be able to understand why I attack those who have demonstrated that they are not interested in the truth but only furthering a caustic world-view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I see no cogent argument from you except spiteful attacks." what is there to argue against? They make statements that are nothing more than lies, accusatons and distortions. They don't have evidence. They don't have a rational position. Yet, the evidence and arguments supporting evolution are easily accessible to everyone. There is nothing more I can add to the immense body of knowledge about evolution that will change their closed minds. The fact that these individuals have chosen not to look into this clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in understanding, only in preaching. Now, if people have a reasonable argument or want to discuss that facts then I am glad to participate. But individuals, who are deliberately ignorant, come here to preach I will call them out, just as you felt the need to call me out.
I am sorry Mr. Schmidt, you must have missed the following post that contains a minuscule fraction of the evidences against evolution. I was in no means using fanatical logic. The fact that evolutionary "scientists" have never so much as come close to creating life out of nothing much less out of something, but expect it to happen on its own is exceptional evidence against evolution, but I am very happy to repost some simple and obvious evidences that no evolution scientist has ever been able to explain much less refute:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, science has proven that Earths magnetic field has a half-life of 1,454 years. That would mean that 20,000 years ago, the heat produced would have disrupted the Earths internal structure. In other words, there would be no life on an imploding ball of lava only 20,000 years ago.
Also, how many people are on the planet? 6.7 Billion and constantly growing. If there were people reproducing 100,000 years ago. Can you imagine the world population? Much less, the un-regulated animal population after 4 billion years.
Also, There are 20 billion tons of mud added each year to the ocean floor. 1 billion tons removed each year. That would allow for current amount in 12 million years(assuming that the earth had not imploded or burned up from the magnetic field). Again use that imagination to think of what our planet would look like after 4.5 billion years of mud. I think it would have expended the source. And we would have a nice mud ball to live on. I guess anything is better than an magnetic, imploding fireball. :)
BTW, I do very much understand evolution. I understand that you would believe the sun and stars came before the earth formed, that life started in the oceans, reptiles came before birds, and land animals evolved into man. I also understand that since the early 1900's evolutionists have dated the earth at 4.5 billion years based on the false science of radiometric dating. I understand that evolutionists would degrade the aborigines by saying they first evolved out of apes into humans 60,000 years ago which is before 40,000 years ago at which time Ross would date modern human life just beginning. I understand that evolutionists would date the universe at 13.7 billion years old, but we can see light from stars 46 billion light years away (its is almost as if a being would have had to create the light in place hmm). The fact is, I understand quite well and am willing to look into and attempt to truly scientifically refute any evolutionary evidence. I AM OPEN TO CORRECTION. ARE YOU?
The Shadow: You may want to go back a repeat science classes since the 3rd grade or something. Your mix of electromagnetic, thermal, and physical phenomenon shows you are completely mixed up (anyone who hasn't read it yet has really got to check out his comment 69). How (assuming you must know you don't have a full grasp of the physics you are talking about) could you describe such complex events (which by the way, never did and never will occur) and think anyone with the most basic grasp of high school level physics would not just start laughing as they read your comment? I'm sorry, but seriously...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really think you should go back to 3rd grade, or whatever because you clearly weren't listening to the bit where they tell you that man probably isn't descended from apes; that old cobblers comes, in part,from missionaries thinking that 'noble savages' were closer to animals than humas because they didn't wear shoes, therefore they must be at a different stage of evolution from ape to human.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, we're taught in europe that we have a common ancestor somewhere in the dim, distant past.
We went down one evolutionary path, the apes went down another; we developed in parallel, if you like.
(and we don't think we have a god-given right to carry an automatic weapon; we've developed the good sense to leave it to the professionals and to trust in our legal institutions)
Um Iamorpa, and everybody else you could just look at comment 82 since it describes the exact things said in 69. But, Iamorpa must already know this as a result of his vast knowledge of high school physics as well as his knowledge of my posts. In the future, PLEASE POST WITH A SCIENTIFIC REFUTE (supposing you have one) RATHER THAN LOGICAL FALLACIES. Saying something isn't true does not change anything including the minds of those that read your post. Niether does bashing the person that supposedly posted something false. In attempting to discredit hard facts and professing yourself wiser than I, you have proven yourself incredible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not like posting with logical fallacies, and as such will not post with the intention of establishing my credibility. If you want to believe me or not, do it on the basis of fact and not how intelligent I am or not.
Anyway, I am exceptionally confused about what physics you are referring to. If you are talking about the magnetic field, it has been recorded since 1835, and the half-life is documented fact. Here is a source that that says the same basic thing, only stating that 10,000 years ago the metallic core of the earth would have separated from the mantle, and the planet would have disintegrated. I do not necessarily agree with all that the site says:
http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field/
BTW, 3rd grade is not high school (at least where I grew up) as your post implies. :)
Because they can't be taught, retraining classes are hopeless, so the unemployment rate among Creationists is more than double that of the general population and almost as much as that among Birthers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFire a Creationist today! You'll be glad you did!
@The Shadow, "The fact that evolutionary "scientists" have never so much as come close to creating life out of nothing much less out of something" as if we need any more evidence of your complete and utter ignorance of evolution, biology, geology and science in general. Please explain how your comment has anything to do with the theory of evolution. By the way, scientists have also not created stars, black holes, planets, etc. so I guess it means they don't exist either. Once again, my frustration with people such as yourself is not that you are ignorant, it is that you are deliberatly so. The answers to your idiotic questions are easy to find. All you have to do is look. The fact that you haven't reflects on your low moral character that you would instead choose to misrepresent the facts rather than risk loosing your faith. But thanks for once again illustrating what religion has to offer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@The Shadow, "Also, how many people are on the planet? 6.7 Billion and constantly growing. If there were people reproducing 100,000 years ago. Can you imagine the world population? Much less, the un-regulated animal population after 4 billion years." you can't be that stupid!? Have you ever actually gone to school? One of the main controllers of population is food supply. The surface of the earth can only generate so much primary productivity. That means there is only so much for herbivores to eat. That means there is only so much for carnivores to eat. There is not an unlimited amount of food available therefore population expansion is limited. The current distribution of humans and the size of our population is due to farming, the ability to generate more useful primary productivity from a given piece of land. Unbelievable!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could go on picking your comments apart but what is the point? They are absolutely idiotic. No one who has ever read a science text book would say such ridiculous things. You need to pull your head out of the mud and get yourself educated or please leave us in piece. You have nothing to contribute here.
@The Shadow, one last thing, please look up dunning-kruger. That will explain all your ideas about evolution and science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrobert schmidt you are probabaly an angry 20 something brat. How dare you make such a comment such as below. As I have said I was an atheist who is not rejecting evolution. I am trying to bring some sanity to this discussion, but you continue your tactics of seeing everyone who is a believer as the enemy. You do not help this discussion at all. And in fact turn science minded and religious people off by your unwarranted attacks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat world-view are you talking about? I am not espousing any kind of "caustic world view over the truth." I am like others in science trying to find the truth. My search lead me to the conclusion that believing in God was a logical and reasonable choice. I am not hearby saying you need to believe too. But to question my truth seeking as invalid because of this just shows me what kind of person you are. A selfish arrogant person. Who are you trying to reach? You are certainly turning people off not winning them over. You are not helping the causue of science at all if that's what you want to do.
Yes, 'The Shadow', I read your comments. They provide great entertainment value. You prove my point more, going on about a belief that I would not know of the existence of the Earth's magnetic field; As though anyone with a 5th grade science education wouldn't know about it. Obviously it's not the magnetic field that is being disputed; It is your incomprehensible assertion that, "the heat produced would have disrupted the Earths internal structure. In other words, there would be no life on an imploding ball of lava only 20,000 years ago" Where did you come up with this sillyness? The statement is no more serious than if you told me you used a flux capacitor install in your car and went back in time to see your creator deity bring the world into existence (scientific reference: Dr. Emmett Brown, Back to the Future, 1985) This is a Scientific American forum, not some fundamentalist, creationist, I-stay-intentionally-ignorant-of-science-because-it-is-of-the-devil choir you're preaching to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou close you comment with a typical dodge into an irrelevant, intentional misinterpretation of a simple point I made (you get a lot of practice at this, I'm sure, being a 'creationist') "BTW, 3rd grade is not high school (at least where I grew up) as your post implies." I didn't imply this, if you read carefully.
Also, as far as my providing scientific assertions goes, the general record on evolution, which can be found anywhere, is more than sufficient. Just take a look. I know you have an easier time coming up with new 'proof' material, because as far as I can see, you just make it up as you go along.
(Note: I had no need to resort to all capitals to make any of my points)
@Centaurus-A, "What world-view are you talking about? I am not espousing any kind of "caustic world view over the truth." I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the people to whom I was originally directing the comments you found offensive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"but you continue your tactics of seeing everyone who is a believer as the enemy." no, I see people who come here to preach as the enemy. I see people who would try to force their religious beliefs on others by trying to force creationism into the schools as the enemy. I see people who have taken no time to study the subject yet speak as though they are experts as idiots. People are entitled to their own beliefs not their own facts. If someone tries to pass their irrational B.S. off as fact then I will call them out.
"My search lead me to the conclusion that believing in God was a logical and reasonable choice." well then you need to search again because there is nothing logical about god. It may help if you try to understand logic first. The onus of proof is on those that assert the affirmative or the existence of. That is logic. Therefore it is illogical to believe that something exists when there is not only no evidence but when all evidence indicates that is not possible for it to exist.
"A selfish arrogant person" again with the hypocrisy. I suppose it is only ok for you to attack people when you disagree with them. But then again, hypocrisy is the cornerstone of religion so I guess it comes naturally to you.
"You are certainly turning people off not winning them over." my comments are directed at close minded individuals. There is no possible way to win them over. I am just letting them know that I see them for what they are, ignorant, irrational and fundamentally amoral.
very entertaining comments as always...ps there is no god....those that get it will be highly unlikely to change the believer's minds....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, since unlike Mr. creationists do not have jobs would have you to believe. I have a job and am taking many college classes and do not have ample time to keep replying every day. For now this will have to do. The videos in the direct link are rather long and kind of boring but contain excellent proof, and for the stubborn, plenty of fuel to start steaming off on this forum without support on how stupid creationism supposedly is. "Answers with Ken Ham" are great if you are short on time and would like hard facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnjoy...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fossil-record/fossil-record
I cannot BELIVE people are so ignorant....no wait BELIEF is not the right word to use right...everyone is entitled to their BELIEFS. I BELIVE in evolution there is no question about it but I also BELIVE there was some sort of outside source that helped our evolution. Brain size does not triple and DNA almost completely transform in a matter of 3000 yrs. Who or what was the outside source I BELIVE is the controversy GOD? Aliens? Is god and alien? They need to teach many BELIEFS and let people decide for themselves. I don't think the dictatorship of religon is way to teach nor is strictly teaching evolution both of these things are OUR history noone can deny that. atacking others is not going to resolve anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't have to like what others think or belive, but if we should respect at the very least that there still humans and we have the power to choose what we belive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not Evodelusionism VS Creationism. It ideology against science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this70% of the mutations of the human DNA are deleterious, bad, reduce fitness and reduce intelligence. We have mapped over 4000 genetic defects so far and still finding more propagating in the human species. There is no evolution at all, never has been. We have more new diseases than ever in history and you believe in fairy tales of magical mutations.
DNA is absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence of de-evolution with 100% no possibility towards more complexity or more fit to survive. Preserving what we have left of our genome is what we need to focus on, not perpetuation the medical industry with drugs that add to the degradation o the human genome's ability to have correct cell replication.
Evolution is a fraud, and is full of mystical human "magical thinking" emotion mental garbage faith and belief. There is no magic "evolution fairy" that fixes our genomes.
If you want to believe in evolution you are just delusional.
This is THE definition of evolution:
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
There is no advances towards more intelligent, more complex nor more fit to survive. Humans are heading for extinction by not taking care of their existing genomes from self destructive habits.
Wake up from you delusions and look at the facts.
Thank You "GoodScienceForYou", finally someone that posts facts rather than pure insults.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you on almost everything, other than a few matters of semantics. Most creationists do believe in the micro-evolution of "species", but what makes us different from evolutionist is the fact that we do not believe in the macro-evolution of "kinds". An example is dogs, we have everything from Dachshunds to Great Danes (species), but they are all still distinctly dogs (kind). And, like you said, all the genetic changes that these species resulted from was downward. Evolutionist also think that creationists do not believe in survival of the fittest. However, it was creationists who coined the term years before Darwin. It is an obvious and observable phenomenon. But that is a different issue.
Anyway, I just want thank you and encourage you to stay firm on scientific proof against evolution, and do not compromise. Also, don't ever forget that truth gets its basis from the Bible, and science simply confirms and repeatably proves it true. The most well-known evolution "scientist" will not deny that the Bible is true on most historical facts except that God created. Though he tries to avoid accountability to an almighty God by attempting to create evidence.
Teaching controversy about evolution in high school, before educating students with the basic tenets of the theory and how it came to be developed is definitely not the proper way to introduce young minds to evolution in particular, and to science in general. Teachers should demonstrate proper knowledge of the theory and competence in teaching it. This is required for all disciplines, it should also be a requirement here. Clearly, presenting ID and creationism should not be part of the scientific curriculum. The US, with South Korea, is one of a very few countries to promote ID in schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is important to engage with other people about these ideas. Winning one mind at a time is the way to do it. Not waiting for some miracle that would would seduce a whole bunch at once. And yes, I think that we might see this happening in our lifetime. The consequences of willfully closing our eyes to the laws of nature (and what science has taught us) are just too damaging. This can be already be seen in the US, where 'consensus' (or the loudest voices) are literally bending rational behavior.