Subscription Center
Sep 11, 2008 10:10 AM | 79
The addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to the GOP presidential ticket has brought the creationism-evolution fight back into the news cycle, as voters learn more about her agnostic take on the subject: "Teach both," Palin has said. "You know, don’t be afraid of information."
Observers say creationists are content to dilute the teaching of evolution in schools by offering up "intelligent design" as a theory just as air-tight as Darwin's — or to abolish evolution curricula altogether. Now, a patchwork quilt of teaching requirements is emerging across the country, we show in a new in-depth report.
Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this summer signed a law allowing teachers to introduce materials reflecting the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of concepts including evolution, global warming and cloning. The state education board in Texas will vote in March on new standards that could require schools to show the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. And Michigan lawmakers are debating vague "academic freedom" bills that have been criticized for failing to state what theories and their merits instructors are supposed to teach.
This chipping-away strategy has found success in the anti-abortion movement, as well. "They have this idea," a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education told ScientificAmerican.com's JR Minkel, "that … anything you can do to knock evolution down actually promotes creationism without having to say the word."
Tags:
creationism,
Jindal,
Palin
More News Blog:
Next: 9/11: Can the lingering medical and emotional effects be measured?
Previous: Explosive news: Mount Vesuvius may be less dangerous than predicted
See what we're tweeting about
Dhunterauthor Call Me Crazy, But... http://t.co/GK8hD9o8Hp
JenLucPiquant Patent for a Jerkmeter: "If you study jerks in a formal way, you are probably familiar with jerkmeters." http://t.co/wwE8sTCTGG
DrJudyStone Impressive story: How Jeannette Walls Spins Good Stories Out of Bad Memories http://t.co/22Dg2QWggZ
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
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.
79 Comments
Add CommentI used to be amazed at the precipitous decline of society and culture after the fall of the Roman Empire. How could a society so advanced in terms of the arts, science, engineering and general quality of life descend so rapidly into the Dark Ages? Now I know, they were led by the Republican Party.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how most of the people pushing this issue, just happen to be republicans
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Governor Palin, don't be afraid of this information:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientists believe GRB 080319B would have been visible to the naked eye for about 40 seconds if anyone had been looking its way, toward the constellation Bootes.
This is all the more remarkable given that it exploded an estimated 7.4 billion years ago—before the sun and Earth had formed."
from:[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=brightest-gamma-ray-burst-one-two]
I agree - we should not be afraid of information. Therefore, I propose that - alongside the scientific theory of Evolution and the fundamentalist religious belief of Creationism - we must make equal time for the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He who clearly created the universe through His Noodly Appendage, designing our brains and DNA itself in the pattern of His Noodly Image, deserves equal time with that other Creation myth and that stuff the scientists say happened. If you want more information about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please visit http://www.venganza.org.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRidiculous, that's all I can say to this regression of education in our country. My mother was allowed to write an essay on evolution in her Catholic High School in the mid 60's. It is a sign that the policy makers in our country do not care for the well being of our people in general, or the basic freedoms we enjoy. To force the citizens to endure religiously contrived educational programming, which is detrimental to society as a whole i.e. abstinence as the sole sex education=increased population guaranteed. The whole idea that God is anything more than a personal concept is very destructive to society as a whole (not to your group of like minded folks, but to everyone) If she gets in the White House ALL of our freedoms may be at risk (except carrying guns because the more people carry guns the SAFER we will all be) Republicans and b-thumpers cannot get their heads around the fact that we ARE the miracle as we are, the entire universe came from one moment. GOD had it covered from the get-go and everyone who hears voices from the sky is crazy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisall hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Bob Roberts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Evolutionism been proven? I'm not saying to stop teachers from teaching Creationism, I learned, it's important to learn all the sides, to learn where we as humanity/society made mistakes so to improve our selves. I still don't get why there is still a debate to whether we were created like "puff here we are" and "we used to be monkeys" (lousy joke sorry).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you Google "weakness of evolution" the first hit is an essay written by a graphic artiest and does not mention any weakness, just states that say you can teach this "weakness" and some subjective catch words. No real information, just like the whole of the ID movement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the pope, who reveres Christian dogma to the point of being against condoms in poverty-stricken, HIV-infected populations in Africa, acknowledges that evolution is entirely consistent with Christian belief. Why do American fundamentalists try so hard to find a conflict, when science and serious theology find none?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough evolution has not been PROVEN, it is as close to proven as scientists are willing to admit. The common argument against evolution is that it is "just a theory". A theory in science is repeatedly tested and confirmed. If ever it is derailed, the theory no longer holds. Evolution doubters need to start looking at theories in the correct light. Creationism (I refuse to call it Intelligent Design, because let us be honest...that's a load of crap to just try to change the name to get around the Constitution) has not gone through a rigorous SCIENTIFIC testing. If anyone from that community would like their ideas to hold, they need to be more than just ideas and beliefs. Oh and don't give me the whole Behe argument, as that has been derailed by showing that the flagellum he argues about most obviously had alternate uses when some of the proteins were missing. Educate yourself on this topic if you haven't already. It is important to know the facts that apparently he will die trying to hide. Science is meant to be UNBIASED. Strong belief in something is inherently biased. Behe, and people like him, will constantly see "proof" where there isn't by misusing science. Please, please, please I implore everyone to educate yourselves on the facts. Don't allow anyone to push religious propaganda onto science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should certainly not be "afraid of information". I'm all for a class that would teach our children about the dangers and foolishness of pseudoscience, irrational thinking, and willful ignorance. Intelligent Design would be an a prominent example of that curriculum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I wonder when we are going to start teaching strengths and weaknesses of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus to our children as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust put in the curriculum already. I cant stand this nonsense. If people want to do this to their children, then let them. High-tech jobs are already being out-sourced, just out-source research and science too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when are we going to start teaching our children the strengths and weaknesses of weather or not the tooth fairy and Santa Claus exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in no way promoting that we teach fiction in schools, but I don't see how you could cover all the different creationism ideas from all the different religions in schools as well. So who decided that we are only going to teach one idea from one religion? I thought that freedom of religion also meant freedom from religion.
Information is power ... as long as the information is based on truth, logic and proof, and of course the reader's open & "critical mind." In this case, Evolution is well on the way of meeting these criterias, while Creationism doesn't. Creationism is based on the assumption that a superior being (i.e. God) exists, as well as the writings of the Bible. God's existance hasn't been proven and many religous scholars admit that the Bible is simply a book of stories meant to teach, in a simple way, moral issues to their followers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, I believe that soon, maybe within 4 years, we should be able to prove that it is unlikely that God exists and this is what's scaring the heck out of the Republicans ... they're loosing another tool (fear) to control the masses. For more information about leadership and controlling the masses, read the writings of the father of neoconservative, Leo Strauss formerly from the University of Chicago.
Remember the Democrates are the progressive party, and the Republicans are the regressive party.
Other cosmological controversies we should teach:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. the sun revolves around the earth
2. the earth is flat
3. the moon is made of green cheese
The problem with creationism is that it's not science. If we want to teach a good, fair, comparative religion course in high school, creationism would be a nice fit, along with the creationist myths of other cultures. Keep it out of our science classes, though!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm: what's with the gratuitous link to abortion politics in your short? Has nothing to do with this issue; the only link I can see is that both are part of the Democratic political platform. Please keep this sort of stuff out of your magazine!
John
The general public's confusion with the word Theory is the science community's fault. The word gets added on to just about anything. On one hand you have Newton's "Laws" being overturned by the "Theory" of relativity, and on the other you have String Theory. It gets to be called a theory even though it has zero successful experimental tests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo need to worry, natural selection will prevail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy even discuss creationism our minds are made up already, right? We are certain that our species evolved from something, right; we just have nowhere begun to determine from what.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes the science is in and the conclusions are evident to such extent that they should not be debated or challenged. Given impossible odds and millions of years and voila we have Earth and life and intelligence and convincing explanation.
That I suppose is why given similar circumstances on millions of other planets there must be countless examples of extraterrestrial life forms and variations of evolution; even if we can't detect them.
So surely we do not want to admit Sarah Palin to our club, or anyone else who attributes intelligent design to the material universe that we see or the other dimensions we don't see. That would be so yesterday. Nope let's stick with our doctrines that species must have evolved by incalculable chance and natural selection.
That works, we really must move on to the next big idea; we should burn the books of all those old radical ideas that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" and let's also toss out "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
We subscribe to science so we know we are right, don't we. Science is governed by the Laws of the Universe, which of course also happened by chance. We can validate our conclusions by our own numbers, we need never, never, never listen to any voice but our own; we are right and that is that.
No need to worry, Natural Selection will take care of the Sarah Pallins of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is frightening how the Creationists don't understand the difference between Belief and Scientific Method. They confuse the two and thus attach the Scientific Method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust when you thought it was safe to do back to school!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust when you thought it was safe to back to school!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrcbache,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post implies that people who believe in evolution do so as a matter of faith, rather than as a matter of evidence and reason. What makes scientific beliefs different from other beliefs is that it celebrates heretics rather than condemns them; every scientist who ever contributed anything of value to the field did so by questioning what was generally accepted as true. To become a famous scientist, you must be a heretic; scientists who accept only what is generally believed die forgotten, having contributed nothing.
Of course, it is easy to be a heretic, if by heretic you just mean someone who disagrees with the mainstream (anyone can do that!). To be a heretic in science, you have to state your beliefs in a form that someone else can prove you wrong (it has to be "falsifiabile"). Then, if you manage to interest anyone, they scramble to see whether there's anything to your crazy theory. If so, scientific belief begins to change; if not, not.
Faith does not follow this process, and for good reason; faith deals with the eternal and unknowable, and cannot wait for the cumbersome process that is science. We all act on faith, because if we did not, we would never get out of bed, or live, or love, or fight for what is right, or turn the other cheek; there would be no reason to do so. Faith is fundamentally and profoundly different from science, and it can be vital for the health of the soul. The fact that it is useless for launching a rocket in no way diminishes it.
So the point of all these "closed-minded" posts is that ID just isn't science; it doesn't propose anything that can be tested. Shrewd thinkers will point out that string theory is similarly untestable, and even many scientists agree that string theory will truly qualify as science only when our technology develops to the point it can be tested (we're not there yet, though maybe soon). Regardless, ID proposes nothing that can be tested, even in theory. That doesn't mean ID is bad - it's a marvelously elegant argument that may even be correct! It just isn't science, which means that it should be taught in philosophy or religion classes, where it belongs.
It's almost as if people don't realize that regardless of holes in the fossil record or whatever, creationism is still a faith based 'theory.' The whole idea of faith and religion is that you believe something, not that you know it. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God, but you have faith, you believe in the teachings and ideals of Jesus because you believe in and aspire to the idea of a 'good' person. No one knows if there really is a god, but thats why its a faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is one thing that shows what a good christian is, it's not church attendance, or even drawing a fish in the sand with your toe, it's about helping and protecting other people. Imposing faith based teachings in schools is not only scientifically and logically unsound, it's morally wrong.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods (Matthew 22:21).
Keep christianity in sunday school, and science in science class.
Sadly, while China, India, Russia, Europe, and most of the developing third world countries readily pursue science and rational thinking, and are rapidly educating their children to embrace modern science to move their countries forward in the 21st century, the USA is busy teaching it's children perverse superstition and religious fantasy -- defaming the principles of logical thinking and scientific exploration as they grow evermore vocal and threatening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur universities are filled with students from China and India who are happily taking advantage of learning from our inpired and world-renowned academics, while at the same time our academics are harrassed, threatened and even fired for attempting to teach facts -- by our own citizenry.
Modern American society is rapidly becoming a laughingstock throughout the world. It is hard to understand exactly why this is happening, however, it appears there are far more ignorant, fearful, superstitious people living in America than we had ever imagined possible -- all being lead by a president whose administration actively and heartlessly promotes the perpetuation and exploitation of such ignorance and superstition for political gain.
To keep the USA at the forefront of technology and leading-edge development, we must strive to provide the proper, unfettered, state-of-the-art education to our youth, but we are now in danger of losing a large number of these to fallacy and faithism meted out via a bizarre, crippled curriculum.
How shameful this is. What a terrible price we will pay.
Tucker M, you did a great job with your post. By far the best one in this discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing a Christian is about believing that Jesus led a perfect life and died so our sin would be forgiven, not about helping and protecting other people. Don't get me wrong. That goes with it, but it is not even close to being the most important.
Nothing that politicians do surprises me anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I'm concerned, the process of evolution has been proved. The theory of human evolution has some gaps, but following the dots isn't that difficult -- I mean it isn't rocket science (haha). However, I've also accepted Jesus as my Savior and made a covenant with G_d. I have absolutely no problem believing G_d set forth all the Laws of physics, nature, etc., etc governing the Universe. A Being who existed before time began (by human reckoning) and will be when time ceases, S/He can wait for his creations to reach their final stage. I mean, on the one hand G_d is supposed to be this incredibly complex Mind that we could never understand. Why can't this incredibly complex mind use forces and methods of such intense scientific complexity to perform all miracles? There just shouldn't be a problem reconciling science with G_d and vice versa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the fact that we haven't found life elsewhere actually supports current evolutionary theory, because odds would go up astronomically if a second type of life form evolved completly independently of whats found on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are also incorrectly using the word "chance," because you don't start from scratch at every generation. Thats kind of the whole point.
Yes, one can't be Christian without accepting Jesus as your Savior, but personally, it goes far, far deeper. While this isn't the place for this sort of discussion, but belief is just the basis. Being Christian involves leading a life similar to the one Jesus led which is, of course, a lot more than believing he died for our sins. (Of course, Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo said we can never match the life Jesus led, we will always fall short of truly being Chirstian, hence the Tragedy of Christianity.) But regardless, there still shouldn't be a problem with being Christian and believing in Evolution and stem cell research
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt continually amazes me how the language is perverted by these rabid right-wingers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes "Information" cover BELIEFS? If it does let's teach Hinduism, Buddhism and ALL other religions also, see nothing to be afraid of.
Let's teach ALL other political systems too - like communism, its just INFORMATION, right?
Let's have a robust press to print anything and everything - its just INFORMATION, right?
But here the 'Pubs REVEAL THEIR TOTAL HYPOCRISY - why were members of the press arrested at their convention, when all they were trying to do was gather INFORMATION?
Nothing to be afraid of here - except McCain and Palin.
Anyone else notice the crazy gleam in her eyes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone else notice the crazy gleam in her eyes? It's always there, in all the pictures and in video too,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a science teacher in the state of Alaska I can say that this is a tempest in a teapot. AK is the ONLY state that has tightened its regulations on teaching Evolution in the classroom. It is, in fact, harder to teach ID here than anywhere else. The fact that our crackpot governor has views just to the right of Atilla the Hun does not mean anything to the average AK student or teacher. I tell my students to go to their clergy for Creationism and I'll teach Evolution. From there they can make up their own minds; isn't that what science is all about? BTW, isn't SciAm a science magazine. What's up with all the political stuff lately online? LHC not enough for you?!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChaves,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the feedback! For full disclosure, I must admit that part of my personal faith is that the God who many believe to have created the world and continues to love each one of us as his (or her) creation...does not exist. And yes, I have been led to this very personal faith in part by studying science, but also by reflecting on the experiences of my own life and my observations of the world around me. But that in no way entitles me to claim this belief as "scientific," and it gives me absolutely no reason whatsoever to denigrate the faiths of others. To me, faith is a person's core "hunch" about what is really true in this strange universe of ours, and it necessarily extends far beyond what science is capable of investigating, much less answering. Many of my loved ones (whom I respect and admire) believe that, as you say, Jesus led a perfect life and died so our sins would be forgiven.
I do not, but that is not a scientific belief; in fact, it has little or nothing to do with science, except in the sense that science (like everything else) is a part of my life, and has influenced what I believe. But at heart, my personal beliefs about universal truth (beyond the more mundane questions that science IS able to answer, like how old the earth is, and what mechanisms drive life on earth to change through time) are a matter of faith.
Wow, ViciousZer0 - what a refreshingly "enlightened" view. If all christians felt and practiced as you do, the world would be a whole lot nicer for everyone...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Teach both," Palin has said. "You know, don’t be afraid of information."... *sigh* that about sums it up. I realize our leaders have mostly been nutjobs and whackos throughout history but when did it become o.k. for them to be so blatant about it? I have a daughter that thinks this way...her excuse? She's 9 and I'm pretty sure she's still wondering whether or not the tooth fairy is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was a pre-teen back in the late 70s, my father made me read FutureShock and Megatrends by Toffler and Naisbitt. He thought I should understand where society was headed, and Ive thanked him ever since.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne societal evolution theme Ive always recalled essentially went as follows: 1) As technology exponentially advances all around us, there will be an increasing percentage of the population that cannot grasp the pace of change and bombardment of information. 2) People generally do not like to admit that they do not understand the world around them or that they are, essentially, ignorant. 3) Because people will not admit that they do not understand, an increasing percentage of the global population will place the world around them into the hands of God, astrology, mysticism, fate and similar venues where faith alone, rather than healthy faith combined with healthy knowledge, can suffice.
And so for more than 30 years Ive watched religious fundamentalism explode around the world, cults and spiritual healers come and go, and the Sarah Palins of the world come to power even here at home while Ive personally been able to participate in a renaissance of technology, scientific advancement and hope for a world where the tools of our better future are within the imaginations of our science.
The 50/50 split in our countrys political choice, I believe, in some ways tells us how close we are to having our future fall either way into dark ages or into advancement. That said, I dont see any of us on the scientific side successfully able to yell over into the faith side and have them see the error of their ways. It isnt working.
So the question is -I believe the problem is - how do we take that percentage of the population that has no grasp of the scientific approach, that was or will never be strong in math and science as children and that could care less as adults, and help them understand the world around them in terms they grasp without their having to turn to faith as the foundation against admitting ignorance?
About 500 years ago, everyone "knew" that the sun went around the earth, you could observe it going across the sky during the day, and everyone "knew" that it went around the back side of the earth at night. Gradually we came to understand the truth that relatively, the sun remained in the same place and that the earth rotated on its axis to produce night and day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're in a similar position with evolution today. Most thoughtful people understand that evolution has and is continuing to happen. The scientific data that piles up daily, verifies the idea of evolution more and more. Just as with the idea of the earth-centered solar system, we will just have to wait until the unenlightened die out. Four or five hundred years from now people will just shake their heads and say, "How could the creationists have been so stubborn and stupid?"
About 500 years ago, everyone "knew" that the sun went around the earth, you could observe it going across the sky during the day, and everyone "knew" that it went around the back side of the earth at night. Gradually we came to understand the truth that relatively, the sun remained in the same place and that the earth rotated on its axis to produce night and day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're in a similar position with evolution today. Most thoughtful people understand that evolution has and is continuing to happen. The scientific data that piles up daily, verifies the idea of evolution more and more. Just as with the idea of the earth-centered solar system, we will just have to wait until the unenlightened die out. Four or five hundred years from now people will just shake their heads and say, "How could the creationists have been so stubborn and stupid?"
The concept and process of Evolution is a fact. How and from whom we evolved is debatable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe process of Evolution, itself, is a fact. How and from whom we evolved is debatable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood idea! Let people choose for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood idea! Let people choose for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow to turn a tempest in a tea pot into a category 5 or 6 hurricane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists rely on a not too intelligent designer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no reason to continue this discussion. There is no reason to offer any respect to those who offend the sanity of the rest of humanity. There is no reason to permit extremist beliefs into the political discussion.
Christian Nazis or Muslim Nazis, they are all the same.
Well guys , gravity is also a theory but you don't see them "reps" jumping off the Empire State's roof to prove it wrong, doya?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually LIncoln was a Republican, but these people that promote the "creationist theory" (they keep calling it theory when in reality is a dogma) are doing what the power hungry people have done thru the ages: use superstition, ignorance, fear, lies and religion to divide and control in order to achieve their ends "for our well being", today they use the "republican" label, wrapped in stars and stripes waving the flag, tomorrow they may be something else, as long as it suits their goal. ( they believe the end justify the means).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI got this "just a theory" crap from a contractor yesterday. I pointed out that evolution is something that ordinary people, with some patience, can observe and know to be true -- you don't need a lab and a PhD. That should make it far more proven, to voters and educators, than a great deal of other scientific knowledge that no one disputes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt used to be believed that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.*, variously at noon, 9am, or 9pm (but 9pm was "just a theory"). We should all celebrate every October 23 with many repetitions of 'poo-poo', 'tut-tut', and miscellaneous jeering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* See Wikipedia, article "Ussher Chronology"
As a preface, I am a degreed engineer with a background in nuclear plant operations and ceramic engineering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the followers of the religion of Evolution would put as much effort into looking at all of science, in it's big picture, including thermo-dynamics, mathematics, and probabilty, not just, as Albert Einstein called it, the junk science of biology, they wouldn't be so ready to slam Creation / Intelligent Design as faith without fact.
The accepted science hsows that the universe is about 15 billion years old. It also shows that almost every living thing on Earth has been wiped out by catalysm at least 3 times. And mathematical probability says that the amount of time that would be required for a so called "primordial soup" of chemicals to spontaneously produce the 7 most basic amino acids that are required to produce the simplest of protein (the building block of all life), would require about 15 billion years. And then all you would have, even if the amino acids somehow came together to form a single protein cell, is a single protein cell, not life.
If life has been wiped out on this planet at least 3 times in 15 billion years, and that's assuming Earth is as old as the universe, it can be easily seen, with this one simple illustration, that true science, doesn't support the Theory of Evolution at all.
There are many other huge holes in the "water tight" hull that is the "Theory". The Second Law of Thermodynamics, notice it is a law, not a theory, tells us that an organized system, without the influence of some external force (Intelligence) will not stay organized, but will disintigrate into chaos. The Theory of Evolution says chaos will spontaneously organize itself into life.
I wish people who have chosen not to believe in a Creator, for whatever reason they have, would quit trying to use the U.S. Constitution to hide behind just because they want to shut down a debate that, when it comes down to it, forces them to face the fact that there is a Higher Authority to whom they will someday answer.
Chavez, Newton's laws are by no means overturned by relativity. At normal sizes and velocities relativity calculations return exactly the same results as newtonian mechanics. If this were not true relativity would not have been accepted until it became true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're a nuclear, I'm afraid, very afraid. Did you learn nothing about research or elementary scientific method in school? Can you not see how ID or creationism in any of it's forms has nothing to do with science? Creationism should be taught in school; in comparative religion or philosophy class where it belongs, not in science class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't control a mass population if you start telling them to jump off buildings because they will fly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I learned it in engineering school, science is taking ALL the known facts about a question, and using only the facts to try to come to a conclusion. In the operation of a pressurized water nuclear reactor, the only the reason they are controllable is because of the existence of a partical called a Delayed Nuetron. At the time I first learned about this partical, one had never been seen. But its existance is accepted as fact because all of the other evidence points to it existing, and it makes the the whole equation work. If the facts (mathamatical probabilty, physical, archeological), point in one direction, it seems it is much more of a religious response to continue to hold on to a belief (Evolution) that the facts don't fit than it is to steer to a conclusion that the facts DO fit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the sake of debate, if it turns out that there is in fact a God, how can it be scientific to deny His existence. If the facts point to His existence, and His hand in our world, how can it be scientific to say He doesn't exist, or He didn't do what all FACTS point to Him having done.
The fact that organisms evolve/adapt to their environment doesn't prove Evolution. The holes in Evolutionary theory are so large that even the leading "scientists" in the field can't fill them with anything that makes sense from a logical or scientific basis. Some have even tried to claim that the Earth "knows" when Evolution needs to happen and it (the Earth) can speed Evolution up or slow it down. This is how they try to explain things like the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.
Please, don't try to argue science with the statement " If it has to do with a Creator it can't be science - just because it can't". Look at the facts.
Glad to see you are all so purely unbiased in your thinking, and only basing your thoughts on Scientific and verifiable evidence on your views of the THEORY of Evolution, public education, religion and politics. Your openess is impressive, the Catholic Church in the days of Galileo would be proud of your love for open discussion and debate in education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne big question though ... Where did the original uncreated "stuff" that made the universe and us come from? Why did it happen? I mean, you know in the beginning? And how many miracles do you need to support your Scientific / verifiable conclusions / theory?
Might make for a good discussion? Could even be educational?
Remember theories without absolute proof = FAITH.
Also, when you all respond to try to do it without name calling and grouping people in categories ... its more intelligent and civilized.
Your Friend - Preacherdan.
there are a lot of people that are not really "afraid of information" but moreso adverse to exposure of information that contradicts what they have always believed. it certainly is difficult to find out that what you have believed since childhood is completely false. in addition, i have found that people will hold on to those beliefs however wrong because they fear that they become a part of an opposing group of people if they accept it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am all for teaching every possibility in schools. darwin's theory of evolution has not be unequivocally proven. i think it is unfair to deprive today's generation of youngsters the opportunity that we had. with access to ALL theories and possibilities you are then left with the ability to do your own research and form your own opinions. do we want to raise a generation of drones that all believe the same thing and never stray from what has been driven into them as the only way, or do we want to raise a generation of free thinkers that feel empowered by learning new and different ways of doing and believing? this is why we have so many people that hate in ignorance. it is why we have extreme religious in america that think all muslims are evil and vice versa.
knowledge truly is power. knowledge of the facts and knowledge of possible variants. ignorance is dangerous.
sciamreader: i challenge you to read "The Science of God" by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. even the most intelligent scientist is 'willfully ingnorant' if he chooses to ignore that creationism is a valid enough point to be worth learning more about it. plus, it offers an interesting point of view that is somewhat controversial in the scientific community and religious alike. a good read no matter what you believe.
Stop releasing this crap as if it is news. It's only purpose is to slam right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was said before she was elected governor. She said that if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
She back peddled after that statement and said discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms. I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
I'm sorry, but this is site is not a credible news source.
This story is obviously posted to slam the political right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quote by Palin in the article is out of context and was said before she was elected governor. She said that if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. She back peddled after that statement and said “discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms. I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
This web site needs to learn about what it means to report scientific news.
Oh, so now I see that the comments are screened. That's really nice!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in possession of a copy of a volume written at least 1000 years before Copernicus, Galileo and Ptolemy that records that the earth is round and that it is hanging in space upon nothing. Can you guess what that book is? The Bible. Look in Isaiah 40:22, and Job 26:7. How did these men know that information unless the designer told them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in possession of a copy of a volume written at least 1000 years before Copernicus, Galileo, and Ptolomy that records that the earth is round and that it is hanging in space upon nothing. Can you guess what book that is? The Bible, see Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7. How could those men have known that unless the designer told them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing lack of perspective and basic brain development. I think witch-burning will restart again in US, the heartland of people who need to be sure that they are not Chimp's descendants, but God's children, in order to pump up their spirituality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease come up with facts. Insults are the tools of those who come to a battle with no other weapons, or a debate with no facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@lettermens
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you failed Thermodynamics.
The Second Law refers to CLOSED systems. The Earth gets energy from the Sun.
Also never has there been an event that took out 100% of life on earth. There has been catatrophic exstintions of like 95% but never 100%.
The universe is a closed system. And I received an A in thermo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree. Using "intelligent design" (creationism, rebranded) as a part of a curriculum opens the door for certain teachers to teach religion in the classroom. I'm certain that some teachers would try to be balanced - but why teach a completely discredited view in a science class?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's teach our best true science in our classrooms.
Funny how many so called evolutionist claim to be democrats. How can anyone who fully understands evolution claim to be consistent philosophically and remain a democrat? Does a welfare system fit into evolutionary theory anywhere comfortably? Survive, pass on your genetic material and you win! Capitalism is what happens when we pay attention to how nature really works. A strong military and a system which allows those most capable to thrive and pass on their genetic material to a future generation. Repubilcan values mimic the way the natural world operates. Conservation? If we make the world inhabitable for our own species we simply die and are replaced by what ever species can survive in the aftermath. This is how the world operates. If the republicans want to impose a man made philosophy into their world namely creation science, how is that any different from the way democrates say,' life is like this ..' when evolution teachs us it is not at all like their claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou dont need guns the government will protect you from everything.
You dont have to be the best to suceed just the politically correct race, gender for the current time.
You need to have compasion for those less fortunate.
You need the arts more than a strong military.
You need to protect other species or they will become extinct.
The above statements better describe a Democratic outlook yet none of the above statements would fit into a philosophy derived from the natural world as described from evolutionary theory. What is the world really like ....that is the first question any reasonable person must ask before attempting to develope a world veiw that mimicks what is really going on. Evolution says the natural world is like this....and since we are animals living within this natural world dont you think our philosophies should mimick an understanding of the natural worlds simple trueths?
The Creationists know they can’t come through the front door, so they are constantly trying to come through the back or the side doors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, they hope to destroy Evolution and winning their argument and debate by default, never having to put their case on the witness stand which would suffer from their primary witness, GOD.
This is depressing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose working in Evolution can only wonder where the Intelligent Design theorists are going, seeing flaws in the Darwinian construct of life, especially through Natural Selection and Random and Chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, the ID prosecution of such advocacy and case fronts their strongest arguments.
But do they seek the same purpose as the Creationists?
Their websites, basically The Discovery Institute’s Evolution New & Views, and the Idea Club finds only promoted propaganda in terms of being anti-Evolution, never offering any idea of that Intelligent Design, or any insight on life itself.
This leaves those seeking a better understanding of Intelligent Design totally thinking the mysterious hand behind the ID cause is the Creationists.
It sounds like it, it looks like it, it feels like it, and therefore, it must be…………………..
To the Creationists, where did GOD come from?
To the ID advocates explain Intelligent Designer and what that would mean?
To Darwinian Evolutionists give me a complete history of a single specie specific case of Random and Chance, explaining how it all worked?
Those working in Evolution can only wonder where the Intelligent Design theorists are going, seeing flaws in the Darwinian construct of life, especially through Natural Selection and Random and Chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, the ID prosecution of such advocacy and case fronts their strongest arguments.
But do they seek the same purpose as the Creationists?
Their websites, basically The Discovery Institute’s Evolution New & Views, and the Idea Club finds only promoted propaganda in terms of being anti-Evolution, never offering any idea of that Intelligent Design, or any insight on life itself.
This leaves those seeking a better understanding of Intelligent Design totally thinking the mysterious hand behind the ID cause is the Creationists.
It sounds like it, it looks like it, it feels like it, and therefore, it must be…………………..
To the Creationists, where did GOD come from?
To the ID advocates explain Intelligent Designer and what that would mean?
To Darwinian Evolutionists give me a complete history of a single specie specific case of Random and Chance, explaining how it all worked?
Peg sounds like nothing more than a religious right winger. She is so brainwashed making her the chatter of ideologies, having no original thoughts of her own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a Republican and supporting the current administration that is self destructing our democracy and country imposing their fascist’s tactics, Peg sees no problem fronting anything they have to offer, not knowing that their values is not hers.
This will come too late.
Maybe it's a good idea to present both sides. Evolution should also be taught in Sunday school and from the pulpit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe it's time to present both sides. Evolution should be taught in Sunday school and from the pulpit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anything in my post sound remotely religous?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIdeologies like care for the less fortunate are religous creations which are not a reflection of anything we can see in evolution. I am not religous or republican. I am simply saying that the people who understand evolution need to be consistent with their beliefs. If our philosophies stem from an understanding of the natural world and how it operates then how can we create a form of government which so completely disregards what nature teaches us?
evolution tells us that those who survive by whatever means and pass on their genetic material to the next generation are the winners. Hands down. We see that usually the strong survive but this is not always the case. My point is that nowhere does evolution say help the poor, help the less fortunate, help them to survive and pass on their genetic material. Unless you have found a way to lay to rest the massive incompatibility of evolution and monotheistic religion, then dont say you understand what evolution teaches us about the nature of the world and in the same breath say you actually care about another human being.
Evolution says throw them to the dogs and if they find a way to survive then they can pass on their genetic material and survive. If they dont they go the way of so many species. Evolution teaches us that nature is heartless, amoral, completely unconcerned with if humanity survives or passes. If you understand what nature is teaching us about the way 'nature' is, where do you develope these ideas of compasion for others and helping those nature has deemed less fortunate? These alien ideal stem from the monotheistic tradition. So be consistent. Republicans have tended to side with the religous but some also side with the teachings of the natural world. The democratice party has been notibly concerned with a welfare system and conservation, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, preserving other species. Nature says to these people 'I DONT CARE". Nature doesnt care about the less fortunate, it doesnt care about the preservation of species that it eliminates, it doesnt care about itself. Nature rewards those who excel at surviving and even then it doesnt care who it is.
oh and do i sound like a woman? Peg is a he
It just goes to show how ignorant we remain in this country, and how arrogant we are about our beliefs. We are willing to throw away our place as the leader in science and innovation to protect our belief in a biblical philosophy that has few connotations to todays world view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince there appear to be 2 competing theories, I can postulate 2 possible outcomes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) if creationsist are right, the "rapture" or whatever version of that you believe will happen and all the religious fanatics will be saved. Leaving the rest of us to ponder in peace.
2) If evolutionists are right, at some point in cognitive evolution. The lack of ability to conduct rational thought and apply basic common sense or logic will result in death. Which if your deeply religious, shouldn't be a bad thing.