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school-board, we'll go through this crap all over again, and then when it's back to a moderate majority it'll all get repealed, repeat ad infinitum.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...
I am a high school student in Kansas, so I have something to say on this topic. From the Washington Post:…
Article comments
26 - Cerulean
I guess the Kansas schoolboard is evidence against evolution
27 - Leoniceno
I wish the anti-evolution majority would resign, Herman. What did youmean by the second part, though?
28 - Steve S
Why is it, that hardy anyone has the intelligence to ask "what is Genesis
telling us?".
I would think the answer is they haven't first answered 'why is Genesis a source?'
29 - Da goose
Ok people. I realize that as soon as I am finished typing this, that someone will go and tell me off. Oh well, here goes. I am a christian, not a scientist, and I really have no idea what the heck most of you are talking about, that is probably because I am only thirteen. All I want to say is that I believe in creationism. It doesn't matter to me that what my God does is beyond human ability, that is why he is god, right? All that I know is what his word tells me, and I am willing to go on that, then ask him the details when I see him. I know that when we all are dead, we will find out the truth. So my advice to you is to stop thinking so much, doesn't your brain hurt after a while?
oh, and my dorky, 15 year old bro says that if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?
30 - Bennett
Hey Da Goose, don't worry your pretty little head about this thinking stuff. All you need to do is read The Truth About Creationism and then get your parents to take a field trip.
Remember, thinking is BAD 'cause you might figure stuff out for yourself!
31 - Herman Cummings
The Kansas Board should face Reality (3)
Hi. This is for Leoniceno.
You (and others) read the first letter,
and you should read the submissions that follow. Why is it that none of them were astute enough to realize that it was said that Genesis documents the existence of prehistoric man? All of them, except you and the thirteen year
old, kept their heads in the sand. As for the 13 year old (Da goose ), keep on believing the Bible until you are giving more understanding, which may come out of Georgia soon.
32 - JR
Da goose: oh, and my dorky, 15 year old bro says that if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?
If we Americans came from Europe, Africa and Asia, how come there are still Europeans, Africans and Asians?
33 - Branwen
The problem this endless debate always has had is the use of incorrect terminology. First, there is no “theory” of evolution. It is a scientific truth. Evolution happened, people. There’s nothing to debate there. There are, however, varying theories about how evolution occurred, the exact nature of the process. Scientists and other knowledgeable people can debate those issues, and certainly the different points of view could be included in textbooks.
Second, even before the facts were established, it wasn’t Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin was one of several scientists (naturalists, actually) who discovered the process. Evolutionary concepts can be found in early Greek writings such as Thales and Aristotle, but little was done to further these ideas due to the influence of the Church for the next 15 centuries. Later, Linnaeus discussed the mutability of species, as did others who studied anatomy. The first to state a clear evolutionary view was Lamarck in 1801. In the mid 19th century, A. R. Wallace and Charles Darwin simultaneously set forth the concepts known as the theory of evolution, but it was Darwin’s work that became most influential.
Modern evolutionary theory, as noted, is a theory only in that the exact process is still disputed. However, the evidence of the fact of evolution has been well established from paleontololgy, geographical distribution, comparative anatomy, biochemistry and molecular biology. Genetic mutation is accepted as the agent of change, but natural selection, as it was originally formulated, is not the only explanation for the direction of change a given species may follow.
Third, creationism is not a theory either. The term “theory” applies when there is a hypothesis or hypotheses explaining a phenomena and that such hypotheses are subject to proof through scientific discovery and experimentation. Creationism has no such hypotheses since it is based on the words of one book without any objective knowledge to support it. No thinking person could view this as anything more than a myth or folklore, elevated to the status of theory for the purpose of supporting theological doctrine.
It is a nice story, but story it is, and there are many more like it. If we are going to teach creationism in schools, then by all means, do so, but include all creation stories since they are equally valid views. We should teach more mythology, and I for one, would like to see the creation stories told that reflect every culture on earth " Hindu, Waorani, Crow, Zuni, Shuar , Yoruba, Cherokee, Azande, Shavante, hundreds of others,….oh yes, and Christian too.
And by the way, humans did NOT evolve from monkeys but from a common ancestor. Our closest relatives, genetically speaking, are the great apes. Read more than one book, people. It can be very enlightening.
34 - gonzo marx
Branwen gets today's cookie for clear thought and insightful delivery...
/golfclap
thanks
Excelsior!
35 - gottajaboo
da goose-
Please try to understand that we did NOT evolve from monkeys, we and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. Our two species split from chimps(monkeys is a very broad term, there are lots of different types of monkeys) about 5-7 million years ago. The key for this split was bipedalism(walking on two legs). After that split there were a number of "missing links" that adapted to physical circumstances and slowly(very slowly) changed over time. Some of these "missing links" include australopithicus africanus(the "lucy" skeleton), australopiticus aferenus, and a number of other species that we are continually finding and developing further scientific speculation on. See in science we find the evidence and develop ideas around the evidence. In creationism you have the idea and try to develop evidence around the idea. That just isnt how science works. When you get older you should take a few anthropology classes to help broaden your scientific understanding hun... i bet you would learn alot about science and about where you really came from.
gottajaboo
36 - dixon
OK. Here's a little history lesson. Charles Darwin (passenger of the Beagle) did not put forth the theory of evolution. Many scientists before Darwin believed that evolution occurred and put forward thier own theories about the mechanism through wich evolution occurs (most notably Charles Darwin's gradfather, also named Charles Darwin). Darwin's theory is Natural Selection, a mechanism by which evolution might occur. Most high school kids in America, not just Kansas, don't understand this distinction. I think school boards should address this problem, not invent new bondoggles.
dixon
P.S. Who designed the Designer? Or, did he evolve through natural selection.
37 - Faerie
People, I don't understand why you have to go and dog on "Da Goose." I, for one, completely agree with you, "Da Goose." You go girl!! Keep doing what you're doing, America (starting with the esteemable Kansas School Board/puppetmaster) and someday all your kids just might be lucky enough to stop thinking their way right into permanent jobs flipping burgers at McDonald's.
38 - Michael Fischer
A problem with the Intelligent Design paradigm in a teaching context is that ID potentially eliminates the need to explain anything at all. ID is not limited to biology, it is equally applicable to physics, chemistry and astronomy, among others. This is not really conducive to cumulative learning, since the simplest solution to all problems is to invoke a designer.
In fact, most IDers accept all but a very few of the facts and principles of mainstream biology. The major concept they add is that of ‘irreducible complexity’ (IC). There are two things they have not established.
Firstly, to establish that an IC is, in fact, irreducible, which is necessary to have any scientific relevance. The scientific value of providing a strong evidential case for irreducibility would be very high. There is not even a weak evidential case at present, although there are claims. The present scientific value is thus very very low, too low to compete for time against stronger cases for alternatives in the already limited time available in science classes.
Secondly, to establish that even if an IC is irreducible this requires a designer. ID has no theory relating to why a designer is needed in this circumstance, nor is any way to increase the confidence in a designer proposed. There is only a mystery. Appealing to a designer to solve the mystery is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. It is a conjecture that arises from an act of faith with absolutely no chain of evidence leading from IC to ID.
This is also a considerable deviation from the normal practice of science. Even if, some day, someone can prove that an IC is indeed ‘irreducible’, necessarily this would simply mean that the proof demonstrated that accepted principles of biology, physics and chemistry were flawed and did not operate as we expected. This happens with fair regularity in science, and the scientific response is not to say “Well, that’s that. Must be a designer”, however tempting. Instead it leads to more science, attempting to work out the revised nature of the flawed principles. Recourse to a designer, for whatever reason, is simply giving up in a scientific sense.
The whole underlying premise of ID is flawed as a scientific approach; it is a fundamentally unscientific approach that only designates a point at which science stops. It is not clear that ID promotes the creationist camp especially well either.
ID does not contradict any fundamental point of Darwin that has survived scientific scrutiny, so it is not ‘anti-Darwinist’. ID does not, in general, overturn notions of the antiquity of the Earth, so it does not serve the Biblical ‘literalists’. It does not even provide any additional opportunity to draw on one’s faith in whatever deities one chooses, whether it be the god shared by Muslims, Jews and Christians, or the many deities of Hinduism. It is only through misunderstanding what modern evolutionary theory is about, and indeed what ID is about, that creationists could draw any comfort at all. Fundamentally they should be equally against ID and scientific evolutionary theory, excepting, perhaps, the conjecture that leads to the designer.
If ID is to influence the scientific curriculum of schools, the most ID has to bring is the concept of an IC as a problem to solve. IDers offer no scientific approach to solving these problems and that is where the influence should stop. There is no basis to introduce the concept of a designer into curriculum, as they offer no evidence for this conjecture, scientific or otherwise.
39 - Beemer
Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the "tree of knowledge"?!
I wonder if Herman Cummings is familiar with Argumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam.
I'm sure he is....
Herman Cummings is the type of person that doesn't care about anything but his religious agenda. He can't reconcile with evolutionary science because it proves without a doubt that the Genesis account is nothing more than mythology.
In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, people like Herman Cummings act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts.
These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They're willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them.
Then they become 6 to 4 pro-creation on a state board of education and risk a child’s future for their religious agenda.
Good going Herman. You're a real humanitarian.
40 - Les Slater
First, I would like to thank Sam Jack for posting this subject.
Second, just a reminder that creationism is not what is being disputed here. It is Intelligent Design.
Third, Michael Fischer's #38 says most of what needs to be said about intelligent design. I would, however, like to expand a little on part of his remarks.
"Fundamentally they should be equally against ID and scientific evolutionary theory, excepting, perhaps, the conjecture that leads to the designer."
I think this is very important and is usually overlooked in this debate. To the extent that ID gains a foothold in the Christian community it is a serious threat to the literal interpretation of the Bible, and with it, Creationism. As Michael says, “ID does not contradict any fundamental point of Darwin that has survived scientific scrutiny, so it is not 'anti-Darwinist'.”
In general, Intelligent Design could be applied to any science, not just biology. Already ID dumps any literal translation of the Bible. Where then, is one to look for an explanation of our material world? Obviously God designed it, but what are the details? One must look to science. God becomes superfluous, and eventually takes his rightful place along the side of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
41 - Les Slater
First, I would like to thank Sam Jack for posting this subject.
Second, just a reminder that creationism is not what is being disputed here. It is Intelligent Design.
Third, Michael Fischer's #38 says most of what needs to be said about intelligent design. I would, however, like to expand a little on part of his remarks.
"Fundamentally they should be equally against ID and scientific evolutionary theory, excepting, perhaps, the conjecture that leads to the designer."
I think this is very important and is usually overlooked in this debate. To the extent that ID gains a foothold in the Christian community it is a serious threat to the literal interpretation of the Bible, and with it, Creationism. As Michael says, “ID does not contradict any fundamental point of Darwin that has survived scientific scrutiny, so it is not 'anti-Darwinist'.”
In general, Intelligent Design could be applied to any science, not just biology. Already ID dumps any literal translation of the Bible. Where then, is one to look for an explanation of our material world? Obviously God designed it, but what are the details? One must look to science. God becomes superfluous, and eventually takes his rightful place along the side of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.