This is not a review of the material presented, but a (mis)statement of evolutionary theory. (Vide your nonsensical splitting of evolution into macro/micro; there is no such division except in the mind of folks like yourself.) I'd suggest that you spend some on at TalkOrigins (http://talkorigins.org) and educate yourself.

Biological evolution is as hard a fact as any in science, and to dismiss it as the engine of biology is at the same level as insisting that the earth is flat, or that the sun actually rotates around the earth. Scientists may disagree on some aspects of evolution, but the central idea has been well-tested and valdiated over the years.

But then you'd know that if you had watched the series at all closely.

Interesting post. A couple of comments:

Remaining firm in my stance with my faith in God, I cannot help but question the fairness of the state taking "pop-shots" at my beliefs by supplying evolution as a scientific substitute for God.

When taught well, evolution doesn't take pot shots at anyone's beliefs. It's simply the scientific theory that attempts to explain where we came from. It's religion-agnostic. If your religion doesn't agree with scientific theory, that's up to you to decide and that's not science's [or the school's problem].

I made a similar comment on another thread recently, but if a kid starts to question his science teacher about how or why the science contradicts his religion, the teacher should address the question and then send the kid to his parents or religious mentor to find out more. It's not the science teacher's place to explain religion X to students.

I agree that evolution should be taught as a theory, as you say. It shouln't be taught as fact. But it is the leading scientific theory and it is what the world's scientists believe to be true. That's how it should be taught, and that includes all the pieces of the puzzle that don't quite fit.

The world's religions look elsewhere to their different gods and "creation stories," for lack of a better word. Those are beliefs and are not based in science -- by definition, they can't be questioned or be put to the test with the scientific method, so they don't belong in the the type of science classes most public schools offer.

One more point: A lot of Christians I know are not fundamentalists, so they don't take the Bible literally. That means that to them, evolution doesn't contradict the Bible. They don't believe god literally created the world in 7 days, or that he put two people on earth to start humanity. They see evolution as explaining how god created us.

My point is, I guess, that there are many religions in the world and that they differ in their belief in how we got here. Even within Christianity, there's no consensus on the literal or figurative reading of Genesis, and therefore no consensus on how "man" came to be.

Religion, Christianity to be exact, has not and remains to be constant. From its beginning, it has not once attempted to "fill in" gaps, not once tried to re-explain what has already been explained, or prove what has already been proven.

Um, isn't this post an attempt to do exactly that?

Before responding to this nonsense, there is some information I need to know so I can formulate the correct procedure: are you a heretic or heathen?

Please answer carefully, because the penalties are different. Though there are those who think the choice should be Elect, Preterite or Damned, but that I think is just leaving wiggle room.

[I bet biologists complain, why can't the ignorant nutbars go after the physicists for a change? Now, if the Quantum Mechanics ran the Inquisition, I bet that would be all sorts of fun]

Oh boy oh boy... Now if ANYONE ever questioned if Blogcritics attracted right wing weirdos, here is the proof.

I have been waiting for months with baited breath for this topic to come up!!

I also just won a $20 bet. Right on!

Thanks! =)


Oh, parting words:

Homeschooling. Then you can teach that we all might have been put here by space aliens or whatever floats your boat.

Can I just explain this in simple terms so even the most ignorant Xians can understand?

Science is not a matter of what you believe. Science is a process, a path to incrementally build knowledge through testing, verifying and producing reproducible results, open publishing and re-proving your results and conclusions. Again, it's a process, not a belief system.


Belief systems are what children, the simple-minded and insane people use to build their mental worlds, so they can remain snug inside a nest (or imprisoned in a cell). What you believe doesn't mean anything to anybody else, and it only resides inside your mind.

But when you try to go outside of your own little mind and impose nonsense on the rest of the world, then you've gone too far. Now, git, go back to your nonsense and don't come crying to the rest of the Culture when you need a vaccine, or a drug or an operation. Or electricity, or clean tap water, or toilets which work, and aren't just a hole in the ground.

Evolution may be derided as "just a theory", but general stupidity and ignorance is a fact.

I bet biologists complain, why can't the ignorant nutbars go after the physicists for a change?

Physics paid its dues a few hundred years ago. How about they go after the economists? Or better yet, the psychologists!

Hey, we're talking Science! (as in "She Blinded Me With ..."). I've already explained there is a clear difference between Science and belief systems.

Though you could probably make some interesting teevee out of economics and psychology.

You could have "Economic Death Cage Match" - two dorks go in, and thankfully nobody comes out, and "Pschy'd", perhaps a version of Jeopardy where you have to match a term from the DSM in the form of a question. You either win time off from your term in the Mental, or if you don't have enough points, get committed for a 30 day assessment.

Well, more people were interested in my post that I thought. I take that back, more people were interested in taking pop shots at me than what I thought.

I thought this was a place to post opinions... not become degrated through comments from every other blog "critic" here.

Once and for all, I do not associate science and my belifes... nor do I think they are the same thing. I believe in the bible, and I also enjoy science. What I don't enjoy is people craming down my throat a theory that tries to explain how man evolved from an ape-like creature 5-8 million years ago. Bats, for one, have remained the same for 55 million years! Read this issue of Discover magazine if you don't belive me.

I also do not enjoy people craming down my throat that I'm a nut because I belive in the bible. I have a grasp on reality. I know why the sun rises, I know why the sky is blue. I know and understand scientific principles. I love astronomy and physics. I can't stand people pawning off what I say as if I should be in a loony bin because the simple fact I am a Christian.

Not only am I upset at the lack of common decency you all have, but I'm upset at myself for posting my opinion AND THEN allowing you all to give me your insults through the comment posting. Last time I make that mistake again.

Oh... and you're welcome that you won the $20 bet... I hope you buy a heart.

Interesting how all the posts which call bullshit on superstition vs science have been disappeared.

But then nobody expects the Inquisition.

Let me make it clear: religion is a belief system, believe what you want, but when you start to impose on a process based system which relies on facts, data, and burden of proof, then you are messing with Science! Science is a process, not a belief system.

You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but, if you post it here, you better be prepared for almost everybody to tell you that you are full of shit.

Ohmighod, somebody call 911 quick, somebody got his feelings hurt because he spewed patent nonsense. Obviously a heretic, Cardinal Fang, ready the comfy chair.

Good thing you didn't choose the "heathen" option, because that involves hot pokers (and no, it ain't a new fangled martini with hot pepper vodka, but now I think about it ...)

Dumbass, Science is about making a proposition (known as a theory), testing that proposition, publishing your findings for peer review who then verify the findings. It's about reiteration, not right or wrong.

I'm a big fan of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but I know from Pride Week parades that Man-Hating Dykes are a fact (I'm probably sure you've never seen "Chasing Amy", so that's a gimme).

And if you bring up any of that Xian bullshit, I'm just gonna kick your ass like those Tibetan monks.

Don't you have anything else better to do than harass people?

"...how the school system can get away with teaching a theory as truth...."

You need to understand the difference between the colloquial term "theory" and what the scientific community means by "theory." Anti-science types seem to think that a theory is the same as a conjecture. When you say, "It's just a theory," you are really saying, "It's just a conjecture." Scientists make conjectures every day --- "maybe the speed of light was different in the past," let's say. A formalized version of a conjecture is known as an "hypothesis," which is a question posed in such a way that it can be tested. If there is no way to test the idea, it remains a conjecture. A "theory," is a much grander beast. A body of scientific knowledge does not get elevated to the status of "theory" until it can account for a wide range of phenomena. The theory also predicts consequences that must be tested -- for example, the Big Bang Theory predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has been detected and measured to exquisite precision. If the backgound was found to be absent, or if it was found to be much different that what was predicted, the theory either gets squashed or it gets refined. Scientists hate dogma. Dogma is boring. Scientists who crush prevailing theories become famous among their peers. Scientists do not say that the Big Bang is "just a theory." It is a theory, which means that it is accepted by a consensus of experts, after decades of development and refinement by thousands of highly trained scientists, but always subject to disproof by observations that would be inconsistent with the theory.

The way in which you use the word "truth" is meaningless in a scientific context. Quantitative sciences, such as physics and chemistry, strive only to provide a description of Nature, which might take the form of a set of equations, or a page full of chemical symbols. Scientists don't go around thinking they have found the "truth." It would be naive to think that. We must settle for what works. Newtonian physics was shown to be "wrong" in a strict sense by Einstein, and later by the developers of quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics was also incomplete in that it did not account for the existence and propagation of light (see Maxwell's Equations). Newton's Laws are not "truths." But they work well enough. The freeway you drive on, the building you live in, the planes in the sky, the Cassini spacecraft exploring Saturn -- all of those amazing things, developed and built by us lowly humans, are based on Newtonian physics. Why don't you complain about Newtonian Physics being taught in the schools?

OK, what gets me is the 'obedient to God' concept voiding the concept of evolution.

Evolution, a word derived from 'evolve'. Just by observations made in recorded history of man, that has been happening. From what, when where, why, I can't say. But the process of evolution does exist.

The god-heads that doubt evolution sure make me question the existance of the god thing even more.

I dunno. I have zero theological training. God, I'm lucky.

peaceloveguidance.

"Science is changing, constantly coming up with theories and laws that try to patch the holes it left when stitching together the "reasons why. . ." to the universe."

First, "science" does not consider "why" to be within its purview. Its chief aim is to reveal the "what" and the "how."

Second, your comment about "holes" is one that I hear often. And this is always an implied criticism of the scientific method, not to mention scientists themselves. People who make these comments have no understanding of the process. It's a bit like going back to the Classic Greek era, and trying to construct a map of the world. You start off with what you know, or what you think you know, and add to it piece by piece. Aristarchus knew that Earth was not flat, but he no idea at all about the geography and topology of most of the unexplored world. He had a working theory that had holes in it, right? Skippy, the anti-science guy, comes over to Aristarchus and says, "You can't prove to me that the world is not flat. You don't even know where the great sea ends!"

There is always more to know. No theory, including the Theory of Evolution, is ever 100% complete. And scientists will argue amongst themselves over details. 'Twas always thus. There will always be holes. If you don't accept that that's the way it is, always was, and always will be, then you simply refute the entire scientific enterprise, and all that it has given us. You sure you want to do that? If you do, then why don't you think about how that computer monitor of yours works. That's physics in action, Raul. It works. You can't be selective about what science you "believe" and what you don't.

And here's another thing you might want to think about. Some scientists think that the way to discover the Creator is to understand the creation. If there is a God, then, maybe after centuries of research, all natural phenomena will be found to be consistent with His existence. Wouldn't that be something to strive towards? Why do you worry?

What I don't enjoy is ignorant Xians who don't read Greek, Hebrew, Latin or Aramiaic and spout off nonsense.

What I don't enjoy is people craming down my throat a theory that tries to explain how man evolved from an ape-like creature 5-8 million years ago. Bats, for one, have remained the same for 55 million years! Read this issue of Discover magazine if you don't belive me.

If anything this posting should highlight the spectacular success of "faith-based software" -- I'm surprised M$ hasn't latched onto this market share. Since if they will believe anything, they'd certainly just buy and use M$ software on faith.

Because of course, software just creates itself, and never need de-bugging or rewriting. And the code is just a mystery which can't be understood by man. I mean, how can mere humans understand software code. Obviously, it was created out of a greater power, just like John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme".

Anybody who says that music is just made out of notes and intervals is obviously some sort of doubtie bad person who doesn't understand faith and nonsense.

Raul: (if _that's_ his real name) sez:
Don't you have anything else better to do than harass people?

But damn, don't you get the science methodology right down pat. The whole point of science isn't about saying things, it is about proving it.

So, this alleged bible you have? Did you or people known to you pack it? Do you own the copyright to this text?

There's a whole lot of other questions you can't possibly be capable of answering.

Just go into a corner and whimper and think about what you've done.

And shame, but you already have loads of that, you little freak.

Oh man, (thumpin' bibles in the background), I am someone who has faith, faith in more tangible things like myself, other people and the direction we take ourselves, etc..

Do god fearing automobiles put their little front tires together and pray to Henry Ford?

Ah shit, anyway folks, quit being so rightous. Never understood religion, except it seems a good excuse to kill. Oh, that quotes Alvin Lee, I better stick to comments on music...

peaceloveguidance

I am a Biochemist who buys Evolution so on some level I agree wih Jim Carruthers but I have to say your posts are extremely rude and petty. People are more important than the need to prove you're right. Plus the unnecessary insults distracts from what you're saying.

Just one comment for Jim, Ah heck, the guy is Canadian. What can you expect? He talks like he is soused on hi-test half the time. Well, you can only hope so. Otherwise, cool it Jim...

Oh, sorry Canadians. I learned that slag from Scott Thompson. Naw, I love Canada, but I just had to throw some slag at Jim....

peaceloveguidance

OK, OK, this is the deal in my existence. The magic creation by God vs. evolution and all that science. I say what the hell difference does it make? All I know is that we are here now, we have a pretty good idea what it takes to exist.

To me, whatever the creation of the universe is it came from somewhere, maybe. But the whole deal is that the machine of the universe/earth is off and running, so here we are. Don't fuck it up people.

My cat (and all other animals) sure have no idea of what a god is (notice how I did not capitalize god). When something goes wrong, blame god. Might have to sue the guy/gal (or heck, maybe the god as you think it is, could be some invisible gas or condensation or something).

Being tapped into the energy of every living thing and being the most humane person possible is how I live in the here and now. Well, I'm a scorpion, so sex is my god/goddess. Powerful stuff in the soul department there.

Anyway, I'll just stick to the music. The concept of god is just too far-fetched for me. I have no idea what the hang up is...

Jim, I can dig on what you're saying, so don't mind me.

Outa here,
peaceloveguidance

I think God is the one who created us all!
I apalogize to whom ever disagrees but it's what
i was raised to and i Believe it.




I Mean think about it, the monkey evolution....if
we were once monkeys then WHY are there still monkeys?Slow evolvation shouldn't be it because my Bioligy teacher said Most species evolve togeather..besides who wants to be a monkey?I mean they are adoriable,but still

i apalogize to anyone i offend1!!!

Have a nice day
Envi **

p.s u guys are mean for attaking Canadians


buh bye ^^

How right you are! Evolution is taught as a fact, but actually it seems completely absurd! And who came up with it? "We, the people"... but why would we call ourselves that if we are all just higher animals??
God is beyond our understanding, and all over the bible we find evidence that evolution is a complete misunderstanding. But by rejecting God we make ourselves God and therefore sin. This does not mean we shouldn't question! And seriously, where did this blob of energy and gas mass come from that allegedly created the whole universe? And where is it expanding to??

Seba... did you pay attention in your science classes at school? Did you even attend them?

Any of them?
At all?
Ever?