I am a high school student in Kansas, so I have something to say on this topic. From the Washington Post:
Intelligent design advocates said they only want to expose students to more criticism of evolution, giving them a more balanced picture of the theory attributed to 19th Century British scientist Charles Darwin.
When you're having a scientific debate, a 'balanced picture' is not based on a referendum of the opinions of the general populace. It's not based on the opinions of church leaders. Science is not decided by referendum, it's decided by scientists, and to try and make it into a public referendum issue is idiotic and medieval.
A 'balanced picture' of the evolution debate is what Kansans are getting now: the teachers, who are supposed to stick to facts, give the facts, none of which serve to disprove evolution, and many of which serve to support evolution. The students in the classes are free to air their moronic views for the entire class to hear and consider.
This reflects the environment outside of schools in Kansas. The scientists frown and point at the facts and the religious right screams incoherently.
The science teachers and scientists are boycotting this hearing, because it's a farce. One of the witnesses for the anti-evolutionists failed to read the proposed standards. He just skimmed them.
Also, see the defense attorney's press release explaining why the hearings are wrong, here.
Basically it's a ploy to to give a facade of legitimacy when the board changes the standards a bit later. Thus, the scientists are boycotting, refusing to give it any credibility.
I'm sure this debate will never end. Every time there's a conservative majority on the school-board, we'll go through this crap all over again, and then when it's back to a moderate majority it'll all get repealed, repeat ad infinitum. My God--I mean my Darwin--I mean my God...
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Monothan
"I'm sure this debate will never end. Every time there's a conservative majority on the school-board, we'll go through this crap all over again, and then when it's back to a moderate majority it'll all get repealed, repeat ad infinitum. My God--I mean my Darwin--I mean my God..."
That last statement invalidated everything you stated prior. Now at least we know you have agenda issues.
What about the UFO theory, that's a theory too... or the creation theory, if it's not fact, it must be a theory. As was Darwin's... alas, we may never know, but we can suppose.
2 - Steve S
There's one basic premise in the evolution vs creationism debate, that I always keep in mind and which keeps me, like the majority of Americans, supporting evolution.
Both are theories, but the theory of evolution was arrived at by tons of data on all sorts of things from fossils to history books to ancient tombs, researching things like the carbon in bones. The amount of research into the theory of evolution is astronomical.
The amount of data supporting the theory of creationism is a few paragraphs long.
There is no comparison. When someone tries to equate them both as being 'just theories', they are totally disregarding a bigger picture, that I personally just could not dismiss. The kicker is wanting society in general, our schools, to go along with this logic.
3 - homer
that's right. evolution was realized through empirical means, thus making it a scientific discovery. creationism is folklore that many people just so happen to believe. in the mean time, all of those in support of putting biblical teachings in school are ignoring separation of church and state, which is supposed to be a part of democracy
4 - Papa
"at by tons of data" -- Number 2
Sorry Number 2, but what is a "ton of data?"
And Number 3, what about the UFO theory? Or the twinkling of an eye theory, or the Q theory? Darwin's THEORY of evolution, is just that... furthermore, Darwin expressed doubt that it was conclusive or correct...
That said.... Put your evolutionary knee's down... Remember Darwin promoted 2, yes 2 theories. The evolution theory AND the adaptation of the species. The later of which has "tons of proof,” in all actuality the evolution theory has holes... but I am not proposing to know what the holes are filled with.
Theoretical inference is pretty interesting… what is the species here for? To propagate, to survive. . I think that rational man has a problem being reduced to the level of fauna in a strictly survival/propagate model. Which essentially is what fauna does, propagates to survive.
The wolf, for example extracts weak samples from the population so the better genetics are advanced into future generations, both the prey (which escaped the fang, and the wolf who exercised adroit hunting skills), and according to Darwin, further iterations.
Part of the Creation “problem” is that it is folklore, but folklore is simply a rudimentry method of statement or analysis. Lots of folklore abounds, and science clarifies it scientifically, and in many instances actually confirms the folklore.
I’ll provide an example, stick with me now.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Key Word in created, or finished, completed, the work is done.
Then in Genesis 1 verse 2 the scripture reads “Now the earth WAS formless and void….
The Key Word is WAS, which is actually a Hebrew word for “Became”
Argument: If something is created, and is complete…. What happens when it BECOMES VOID. It’s destroyed, in some way, shape or form… in other words"that 1 word WAS which is actually BECAME, explains a lot of stuff…. Fossils, extinction of many species and other possibilities.
So, that is how “folklore” and “Science” align. Don’t trash one, in defense of the other, they are really one in the same… with differing frames of reference " technology has merely closed the gap.
And that’s MY take on theoretical application of weighty subject matter.
5 - DrPat
I have a theory, which should be equal in the eyes of the Kansas science teachers, that Darwin and Ussher were both wrong, and the shapes of living things is determined by sleeping fairies.
Every once in a while, the fairies wake up, diddle around a little with the plants and animals around them, then go back to sleep. So things stay the same for a long time, then change all of a sudden, then stay that way for another long time.
We humans should be worried, though - our fairy has been dreaming for quite a while - due to wake up any day now, folks!
6 - Dawn
I look at this issue like this; there's science, which is based on empirical data, intensive study and facts. Then there's religion which is based on a magical force in the sky.
I would rather be taught science in school and preached religion in church.
Because reality is what life is about, and religion is that special thing that faith is for.
The two have nothing to do with each other. That said, I have no problem as a believing Christian in balancing the notion that God and evolution are part of the same big picture.
Any spiritual person of faith who isn't a numbnut should also be able to handle this as well.
7 - Dave Nalle
It seems to me that endlessly debating evolution vs. creation is the punishment in hell specifically reserved for school board members.
Dave
8 - Steve S
that is how “folklore” and “Science” align. Don’t trash one, in defense of the other, they are really one in the same
Perhaps we can maintain our status as the most powerful, prosperous nation on the planet, if we just teach our future generations that 'science' (quotes required) is really just folklore.
9 - Demi
Sorry Steve S. You missed the boat on that one... before science -- folklore was how things were explained.
And in many instances, folklore is proven by science and they do align.
Papa was using the Genesis analogy to point out that it [writings and renderings of antiquities, in a folklorish way] suggests Geological, Astronomical, Natural events took place which wiped out the planet.
Forensic archaeology agrees (which is a science).
Your too emotional for a debate which includes your belief system. Lighten up.
10 - The Duke
Yeah... Number 2, what the hell is "a ton of data" anyway?
How about using terminology fit for a scientific mind, such as... "a horrendous amount of data" Now that makes more sense.
11 - chachi
"The two have nothing to do with each other. That said, I have no problem as a believing Christian in balancing the notion that God and evolution are part of the same big picture." -- Dawn
Sure enough Dawn. How could the world be wiped out by a flood, and then 900 years later the NATION of Israel walk into Egyptian Captivity. Religionist scream that there was a 900 year period of hyper-propagation... BS.
Either the timeline is flawed... or the flood only occured in and around the area that Scriptures cover. I'll go with the localized flooding theory. As for the Animals... some religionist INSIST that Dinosaurs were part of the flock, BS... I think the Genesis theory that the earth was destroyed (and archaologist, and geologist agree) fits into the factual course of events.
Steve S., doesn't agree... he doesn't believe in folklore or the value of folklore in archaeology. Must be a Dr. Suess baby.
Troy was folklore, yet archaologists are uncovering evidence that Troy actually existed. Babylon existed, it too it described in scriptures... yet facts such as those are being refuted, because they are simply tied to the old or new testament. When in fact, they are archaelogical scripts, or tablets, or skins.
Picking them apart, and finding clues to past events is an exploration, not a bunch of hooey.
Did Adam and Eve exist? Who knows, but I don't believe that every race of humankind sprang from their loins. That's genetically impossbile, however some religios zealot will INSIST that Adam and Eve are the source.. BS.
If you look at the flow of scriptures it's a genetic blueprint down to the Messiah. From Adam and Eve... to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... down through David... etc... etc.. to Jesus. It's the story of the Progeny of Adam and Eve, not the WHOLE WORLD.
Where was the rest of the world... the existed too, and their folklore explains their beginnings as well. But the Christian Bible is not about the Koreans, or the Chinese etc... it's about the decendants of Adam and Eve down through Jesus of Nazareth.
While certain historical facts are recorded in scriptures, doesn't mean those historical things didn't occur. Archaology will tell you that evidence is abundant regarding places, or even events, which are roughly explained in the idiom of the day.
So I contend Dawn, that there is correlation, at many points in the texts with historical events, and with archeological discovery.
To say that folklore isn't the science of past generations of humankind, is a completely incorrect assessment of the value of antiquities, and ancient reasoning.
12 - The Duke
DrPat must've been a Peter Pan baby.... I always that a Peter Pan was a wash basin in a whorehouse.
Boom Shaka laka laka, Boom Skaka laka laka...
13 - Duane
Regarding the colloquialism being used here -- "a ton of data" -- the professionally preferred term, the term used by scientists when they talk to other scientists, is "a ludicrous amount of data." I mean, if you want to sound all scientific-like and stuff.
14 - Steve S
I have no interest in sounding scientific-like. I am not a scientist.
There is value in looking at folklore in terms of history. We only need to remember that it is folklore.
Folklore: a) The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally.
b) A popular but unfounded belief.
I have no problem with the bible being discussed in school. I was pointing out the illogical rationale of equating the 'theory' of creationism, with the 'theory' of evolution. No surprise that you saw it as an attack on your entire belief system.
must be a Dr. Seuss baby
And it is said
That he said as he bled,
"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.
For they walk throughout life in toe crampity shoes."
15 - Herman Cummings
The Kansas State Board should either face reality, or resign from office!!
To the Kansas State School Board, the people of Kansas, and selected
news media. Since December of last year, the members of the state
board have refused to face reality. Five of the six members of the majority,
who think they are "on the side of righteousness", are actually "puppets
of the adversary", not wanting to have the truth taught to Kansas students.
They are blinded by their own (false) beliefs (in Creation Science), using their
position to try to usher the shallow and inept doctrine of Intelligent Design
into the school curriculum. On the other hand, the four members of the
minority were too prejudiced against what is known as "the third option",
and not astute enough to unite together to prevent these "unfruitful"
hearings when they were given the opportunity. Each side has turned a blind
eye to what was offered, and instead has embraced either evolution, or "ID".
The majority accuses the theory of evolution of having "flaws", yet can
not provide any substantial evidence to expose those flaws. Does "ID"
explain how, when, who, and why? Just saying that "it must have been
a Designer" is unsuited for science. Take that weak proposition to
philosophy class.
Evolution, which is overly zealously embraced by secular science, has
come from the conclusions of Charles Darwin, who did not have all the
necessary data at hand. Since when can inorganic matter give
parturition to organic matter by random chance?
Concerning questions of origins:
1) Both evolution and "ID" can not answer when nor how life began,
however the Observations of Moses (OM) answers both.
2) Evolution attempts to explain the geologic history of Earth, and
"ID" does not..., however "OM" correctly explains the history of
Earth and the 600 million year fossil record.
3) Evolution makes a guess at when humans first appeared on
Earth, and "ID" is silent on the issue...., however "OM" documents
when prehistoric mankind first appeared on Earth, answering the
questions of science (anthropology).
If the Kansas Board does not want to put an end to this "controversy",
and examine all possible explanations, they should resign from office
because they are not trying to provide the best education for the students.
The conclusions of Darwin can not stand against the truth of Genesis,
which "ID" does not represent. A video account of a crime is always more
credible than circumstantial evidence years after the fact.
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
(706) 662-2893
Ephraim7@aol.com
16 - Mark Schannon
So this is where you all were...not fighting over on my post where God & I talked about this very issue.
Oh, so much good stuff to go after. One hardly knows where to begin.
Herman said, "The conclusions of Darwin can not stand against the truth of Genesis." I assume, Herman, you're talking about the original edition of Genesis, written in the Aramaic, I believe? (Yes/No?)
But it certainly wasn't written in any living language. And of course, I assume you're knowledgable about the verbal version since it wasn't written down until many decades later...when of course no one made any mistakes.
But I can't figure out what truths in Genesis are in contradiction with Darwin. God made the sun on, what the 3rd or 4th day...time is measured (grossly) by the earth rotating around on it's axis & twirling around the sun.
Are you sure the first two days were exactly 24 hours (well, not 24, but whatever the exact number is?) Why couldn't Day 1 been 1 billion years (after all, creating the universe is hard work, even for God.)? That wouldn't violate Genesis nor diminish God in any way?
Oops...droning on too long as always.
Last point...for now...let's be clear about the word "theory." In every day language, it means "an idea" or "guess" as in, "I've got a theory about that." That is NOT how it's used in science. A scientific theory is only accepted once it has been subjected to rigorous review and can be replicated. That's why the so-called theory of cold fusion was rejected as a theory. It couldn't be replicated.
There is no "theory" of creationism or Intelligent Design or Dr Pat's fairies (although I'd believe the fairies before the other two.) That doesn't mean they're bad ideas--they're just not science.
Isn't it odd? Why is it that scientists have no trouble believing in God while creationists have so much trouble believing in science?
In Excelius Deo
17 - Duane
Just kidding around, Steve S. I happen to agree with your comments.
Concerning folklore, you might want to have a look at James Frazer's The Golden Bough, wherein he discusses the relation of magic, religion, and science. He says, for example,
"...the movement of the higher thought, so far as we can trace it, has on the whole been from magic through religion to science."
He point out the similarity of magic and science, insofar as they both rest on a faith in order as the underlying principle of all things...."
The transition from magic to religion occurs when Man finds that
"... the order of nature which he had assumed and the control which he had believed himself to exercise over it were purely imaginary...."
after which
"... he ceases to rely on his own intelligence ... and throws himself humbly on the mercy of certain great invisible beings behind the veil of nature .... Thus in the acuter minds magic is gradually superseded by religion...."
Centuries pass, and then,
"... this explanation in its turn proves to be unsatisfactory. For it assumes that the succession of natural events is not determined by immutable laws ... and this assumption is not borne out by closer observation."
Religion is displaced by science:
"Thus the keener minds, still pressing forward to a deeper solution of the mysteries of the universe, come to reject the religious theory of nature as inadequate ...."
Referring to religion as "clouds and thick darkness," he says about the coming of the scientific age,
"Here at last, after groping about in the dark for countless ages, man has hit upon a clue to the labyrinth, a golden key that opens many locks in the treasury of nature."
Isn't that a refreshing and optimistic description of history?
18 - Einstein
I like math.
Mathematicians need 3 things
a pencil
paper
and a waste basket
Philosophers need 2 things
a pencil
paper
The Theory of evolution requires proofs. Postulation abounds catagorically. But specifics are really unknown. Missing links are not in evidence, some skeletons have been stuck together, and deemed a certain species, when years later it turns out to be 2 or 3 seperate structures.
Do I believe evolution. Scientifically, since everyone on this blog with the exception of Steve S. is a scientist... ahem.... scientifically, there isn't enough factual evidence to support Darwin's theory. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Mathematics, can be proofed. Evolution has not yet acheived that status. You have early eras then late... with no middle era when all the "change" was thought to occur.
As far as the classroom experience goes... I have always maintained that we need to teach people how to think. Not what to think. If bringing 2 or more differing opinions into the classroom teaches people HOW to think, then I'm all for it. Regardless of what is being brought out.
As for the separation of church and state and whomever brought that little candle to the window on this blog... go take a history course. The separation of church and state doesn't happen in the U.S. Constitution. It was used in the Communist Manifesto.
19 - Duane
Einstein, you seem to be forgetting yourself. First of all, you are a physicist, not a mathematician. Second, you did some of your finest work, and published it for all the world to see, without requiring any proof at all. Remember when you completed the general theory of relativity. You were surprised that anyone doubted its validity, even though there was no proof. People are still devising ways to test the theory, 90 years after its publicaion. Remember? Third, you used to be a much better speller, even though English is not your first language. What happened?
20 - Leoniceno
You don't prove a theory, just to be clear. A theory is a frame-work of consistent observations that support one over-arching proposition, and to which new little bits and datums of knowledge can be consistently added. As long a theory can predict occurences in the real world and vice versa, it stands.
Anti-evolutionists have provided sample after sample of facts that in their estimation cause the theory of evolution to a house of cards. One of the most popular is the eye. Unfortunately none of these examples stand up to the rigours of science; the facts presented by anti-evolutionists are carefully screened to support their pre-conceived conclusions.
So, to sum up (and respond to your statement that there isn't enough factual evidence, Einstein), you don't need stuff to prove evolution. To shoot it down you need stuff that abso-positively disproves evolution. And no one is coming up with any.
21 - sydney
As a science teacher I think it's important to point out that it does not matter that a theory is provable or close to being provable. It would not be a theory if it were proven.
Text books, and teachers, only give students access to the dominant, most accepted theories in the science community. These theories are nothing more than that- theories. Students are constantly reminded of how theories have morphed over the years, and how some have been completely disproved.
As such, students understand evolution in terms of the context it is given; a theoretical model partially accepted in the science community.
It is also important to note that the common definition of theory is not the same as the scientific definition. A scientific theory is developed through processes of scientific inquiry.
A religious theory does not hold any water in the science community because it is based on faith and there is no science to support it. It cannot be proved or disproved based on the laws of science. IT is a non "issue in the context of science.
For this reason, religion has no place in the science classroom. You can use religious theories in other classes, but if you bring it into science than you undermine the very principles science study is built upon. In affect you would be telling students, to forget all the laws and principles that we’ve study and not apply them to religion because it simply IS, and cannot be understood. If America wants to move to this sort of education system than they should get rid of science study, and think of a new name for a new field of study which only sometimes uses the what we used call scientific laws.
Once again, here, the Christian right and many Americans are proving themselves truly idiotic. When is America gonna pull it's head out of it's fuckin ass. What an embarrassment.
22 - a-[e]
The Intelligent Design (ID) vs. Evolution debate shouldn't be an issue simply because ID is not a scientific theory. ID posits that life on earth is too complex to have occurred without an intelligent designer. That is a metaphysical assertion. Without operationalizing their "theory," generating hypotheses, specifying & collecting the necessary data, and testing those hypotheses, so-called creation scientists aren't doing science. They're making a philosophical argument that is and should be irrelevant to both grade school science education and science in general.
That should be the end of the story. It isn't a coincidence that they're using lawyers to plead their case as opposed to data.
23 - DrPat
Oh, Duke, James Barrie had nothing to do with my theory - which is actually an established scientific paradigm, punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary change, except for the sleeping fairies...
24 - Tancred
Considering that the basis for Christian theology is supernaturalism, why even try to use rational explanations for anything? Didn't Kierkegard declare that Christianity was "a leap of faith"? At least he was an honest Christian. If one actually believes that a person can "rise from the dead" or that the earth was "created" with a "design," they have already crossed into the realm of ghosts (holy or otherwise).
25 - Herman Cummings
The Kansas Board should resign(2).
Why is it, that hardy anyone has the intelligence to ask "what is Genesis
telling us?". Perhaps then, someone
will stumble upon the good sense to
ask the leading expert on the subject.