Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFlorida's Board of Education approved a new set of science standards to be taught in public schools that mandate, teaching the `scientific theory of evolution.'
For the first time ever, evolution is to be taught clearly and explicitly in Florida classrooms now that the state Board of Education approved a batch of new science standards Tuesday that mention the ''E'' word.
But there's a catch: The subject will be taught as ``the scientific theory of evolution.''
As originally proposed, the science standards, updated for the first time since 1996, didn't call evolution a ''theory'' when they were drafted and reviewed by a panel of experts last year. Following numerous public complaints, though, the state Department of Education suggested the wording change to clearly label every scientific law and theory -- not just about evolution -- as such.
The seven-member board adopted the alternate proposal, and therefore the standards, by a 4-3 vote.
Religious advocates wanted more.
They proposed a so-called ''academic freedom'' amendment to counter what they say is the ''dogmatic'' tone of the standards that call evolution ''the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.'' The amendment would have given teachers explicit permission ``to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence.''
But supporters of the standards and a majority of the board said the proposal was anything from unnecessary to redundant to suspect. After all, the standards already encourage ``scientific argumentation . . . critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain the data presented.''
Board member Donna Callaway of Tallahassee, who made frequent reference to her faith, tried to get the ''academic freedom'' measure considered but couldn't get other members to go along.
''If we decide that we're going to hide this debate and we're going to hide the controversy, and we're going to hide the fact that thousands of people disagree, then we better get with the witness protection program,'' she said. ``This is a point of debate, and we need to address it right here.''
Board member Roberto Martinez of Miami replied: ``Respectfully, Donna, it is not a form of debate, or controversy, in the mainstream scientific community.''
He was cut off by applause and whistling from the pro-evolution crowd at the packed hearing. Until then, the evolution critics had hissed and muttered when Martinez said evolution was really a fact.
But Martinez and Callaway had this in common: Both voted against the standards -- Callaway because she wanted a less ''dogmatic'' tone on evolution, Martinez because he wanted the original standards as drafted and as praised by the National Academy of Sciences. He said he was concerned that calling evolution a theory -- even a ''Scientific Theory'' -- would still confuse the two common definitions of the word: a simple guess, or a scientific and testable concept based on facts.
LOWERED STANDARDS
Martinez also made a passing reference to a 2005 federal Pennsylvania court ruling that considered an alternative to evolution, called Intelligent Design, and found it to be more religion than science.
''What's going on here is an effort by people who are opposed to evolution to water down our standards,'' Martinez said. ``No matter how much the current strategy may have evolved in the past 20 years, the DNA is the same. . . creationism.''
Board member Akshay Desai voted against the standards because of the use of the word ''theory.'' All seven members, though, said the new standards are an improvement over the 10-year-old version.
With the new standards, teachers will be required to teach evolution and natural selection starting in the sixth grade and, starting in ninth grade, will teach learning ''hominid evolution from early ancestors'' to ''genetic drift'' and ``gene flow.''
POOR SCIENCE SCORES
Evolution is taught now in public schools, but it's not clear to what extent. The old standards never mentioned it by name, though they did mention natural selection, a key component of evolutionary theory. Supporters say the new standards will make science learning more in depth and will improve the understanding of science by Florida students, who do poorly in the subject area when tested.
John Stemberger, an activist with Orlando-based Florida Family Policy Council, said the standards go too far, unfairly muzzle teachers and will lead more people to pull their kids out of public schools in favor of home-schooling and private education.
Stemberger was one of the 10 opponents to the standards who spoke alongside the 10 supporters before the board voted Tuesday.
ROLE REVERSALS
The roles seemed reversed, with evolution supporters talking about God and critics talking about science and the need for inclusive learning.
Illustrating the apparent role reversals: Presbyterian pastor Brant S. Copeland of Tallahassee supported the standards as written and said evolution has helped shed light on God's creation.
Others said that not teaching evolution would mean that Florida's $600 million investment to lure bio-tech firms here is a waste, or that it would be tantamount to a Taliban-style religious fundamentalism.
On the other side: public school teacher David Brackin. He said the standards seem to discourage any teaching that questions evolution.
''There are cracks. There are holes,'' Brackin said, noting research and study from the Intelligent Design movement, which posits that multiple forms of life show such complexity and evidence of design that they must have been made by some unnamed higher intelligence.
Brackin said he was concerned that the new standards wouldn't allow him the freedom to teach some of the problems with evolution.
But board member Phoebe Raulerson said that's not the case. She provided the second to board member Linda Taylor's motion to add the ''scientific theory'' language, but didn't take up Callaway's motion to add the ''academic freedom'' provision because the standards already encourage critical thinking.
''One of the best parts [of the standards] is that we are trying to teach what is the scientific process,'' she said.
Joining Taylor and Raulerson in backing the standards were Kathleen Shanahan and Chairman T. Willard Fair, who cast the deciding vote and quickly slipped out of the meeting during a break.
© 2008 Miami Herald
168 Comments so far
Show Allvaudree February 22nd, 2008 8:46 pm,
yeah, we do share many of our genes with most other species as well. as far as small mammals like mice it makes sense what you linked. it is believed that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs left what to become the dominate species on Earth? small mammals!
i mean, there is a reason why so many organisms have two eyes on their head, two arms and two legs, ten fingers, central nervous system, similarly functioning organs, why the embryo's of so many animals look similar and so on.
the evidence that we share a common ancestory is overwhelming.
Just read an article where a doctor claims, we have hiccups because of genes we inherited from fish. Guess our gills disappeared over the years.
CHESSGAMES56 -- When you mention that "Both beliefs in this regard are show stoppers, and become points of division", I thought about how each of these is 1/2 of the whole, that existed holy prior to being split by Descartes.
I consider that the seat of the 'thought and logic' to be in the mind, while the heart of our heart is where our soul ('spirit') resides.
Although the split was effective for a time (~ 400 yr), it needs now to be healed and we ALL need to function with fully integrated capacities to solve the problems of our human creation.
Thus, I swoosh the two horns of your distillation of the ego's rocky choice to one: G e t __ i t __ t o g e t h e r
We must find how to have the brain and heart co-exist,
and share our existence, or we shall perish
Quite some time ago I lost the ability to find solace or comfort in any belief (Hooray!). There is nothing wrong with having a hunch or assumption, though, as long as you seek validation for it. Scientific validation is not a one-time affair either; the same principle must work ALL the time. This approach can work for higher awareness as well. The problem is that self-understanding cannot be measured or quantified, but that does not make it any less valid. Authentic religion is really about a consciousness beyond the ordinary 5 senses, and one that transcends thought and thinking as well.
Even here, though, thinking is important because it can lead one to the door, but cannot traverse to the other side. Why? Because thought itself is limited and cannot apprehend the limitless.
A Consciousness beyond mere thought is required. The trap is to simply adopt the belief that this higher consciousness exists (or does not exist) and leave it there; no further exploration occurs. Some adopt the belief there is nothing beyond thought and logic (atheism), and others adopt the belief that there is something beyond it (theism--and in many cases they invent some silly myth in which they seek security), but that it cannot be known firsthand, at least while still alive in the physical body.
Both beliefs in this regard are show stoppers, and become points of division, especially when ego jumps into the fray (you know, the identification that follows with 'this is my belief' and 'that is your belief,' etc.). Only by being watchful in the present moment and understanding the nature of thought and belief can one definitively validate or invalidate whether or not there is a state of being beyond thought. This equates to being a 'spiritual scientist.'
The validity of science, is far more tangible, than any faith in a supreme being. There is, and never has been, any thing offered by the faithful, that even remotely comes close to any form of proof. The only thing that religion has contributed to society, is hate, racism, bigotry, violence, and an attempt to control freedom of thought. And most of all, the abuse of women and children.
As far as what should be taught in the schools, the americans might want to start with how to speak proper english." We was", just doesn't cut it.
I for one, am proud to be part of the animal kingdom.
For those of you who still want to believe the earth is flat, fill your boots.
If the time ever comes, that you need a life saving operation, that's the moment, when you will put all your faith in medical SCIENCE!
Whaterver evoluton is, the school kids will learn that humans evolved from ape like animals, like the descriptive picyure offered with this article.
I have this theory . . . well, actually it's two theories, although I'm not sure how to prove either one. The first theory is that the Bible was written by men, men without much in the way of any scientific knowledge, somewhere around 2,000 years ago. The second theory is that a lot of advances in science have taken place in the last 2,000 years or so.
Wait! I have a third theory: George Bush and his buddies have manipulated Christians, via their non-scientific 2,000-year-old book, into allowing him and his buddies to start a war in the Middle East.
Oops! I almost forgot my fourth theory, which is that somewhere in the Constitution it says that the US government is supposed to be be built around, at least in part, the idea of separation of church and state.
Darn! Just remembered my fifth theory: George Bush isn't really a Christian.
Just found out I'm wrong with all my theories. My dog told me a few seconds ago that God created all the fossils that scientists use to base their theory of evolution on, and left them laying around to test our faith. He (my dog) also said that George Bush is a great President. He's a pretty smart dog, too. Can sit and stay and everything. Now, if I could only teach him to type, I could quit writing posts on the internet and go and watch the news on TV, which I know is always true.
Iaintbacchus writes: "Evolution is not a theory, it's an observed scientific fact"
********************************************************
Absolutely right on! Hopefully through this up and coming election the Religious Right will be so badly discredited they'll crawl back in their caves and get a second look at evolution First hand!
Kem, just a few points. The theory of evolution precedes that of the appearance of life. It includes the solar system as well, and how the heavier elements were presumably forged from hydrogen in supernovas. Of course, to understand this, students must learn something about fusion as well.
My point here is that all this belongs in a science class where scientific concepts and relationships are taught. The theory of evolution brings many fields of science together and shows how they interrelate. For example, nuclear physics (astrophysics and carbon 14 dating), biology, cellular biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, inorganic chemistry (relating to crystalline forms and their significance.), bacteriology (adoption of the mitochondria in eucaryotic cells), etc.
I think the kind of reasoning that leads many to say that the theory of evolution may be invalid is because it cannot, as of yet, reproduce the events of evolution in a mini-evolution experiment, step by step. It's like a giant jigsaw puzzle with many of the pieces still missing. So the temptation is to discard the whole theory.
This is the same kind of reasoning that leads many to say that there is no proof that smoking causes lung cancer. Because the etiology of the disease is not completely understood, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. Ditto for global warming. However, for some things, it's already too late once the fat lady begins to sing. But that's a different issue. :o)
Now, I have no problem mentioning that people have many different beliefs about why (and how) the world was created, and in many cases they contradict the findings of science, such as carbon 14 dating, etc.
I'd love students to be required to take a philosophy class in 'comparative religion,' so they get a taste of all the major religions, and the various flavors of belief. You see, it's much more important to inspire students to think for themselves, than condition them to think according to a specified pattern, which equates to brainwashing.
In this country we claim to value separation of church and state, but the push for teaching 'creationism' along with evolution is, in my view, a not so thinly veiled attempt to push a particular kind of religious belief system onto students. And this aggressive push of a specific agenda should concern all of us.
I see ~OU KID~ It is alright to teach the THEORY of evolution in public schools, but it's wrong to teach the THEORY of a supreme being, which MAY have created all life.
Why would that subject have to be termed religion? Why not term it the THEORY of VERY ancient history? The ONLY written history we possess of that time, is written in books such as Genesis. Certainly that book, the dead Sea Scrolls, etc, were written by men. So are all history books and I've never read any that didn't contain errors of the true facts. Was there an Atlantis? What are the huge drawings etched on the fields and mountains in South America symbolic of. They can only be seen from extremely high altitudes. There are so many unanswered questions of the not only possible, but very likely highly intellligent life, lived here on Earth many thousands of years in our past.
I agree Paul, and it's a shame that the only written history of mankind we possess from the year 1 BC, was used to promote religions.
Ok, Kem, I stand corrected...sort of. After some research here's what I got:
"It is the best bet for the best evidence of the oldest life on Earth," said Bruce Runnegar, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute in Moffett Field, Calif. "These are too complicated to be attributed to non-biological processes _ but we don't know that for a fact."
Seems like the jury is still out. My claim for saying life was less than one billion years old was based on old info when I studied geology in the 1970's at which time the leading claim was life was only about 600 million years old developing during the pre-Cambrian period.
Despite the fact these claims are just 'theoretical' my apparent error is very appropriate to this thread. People must make paridigm shifts to match the most recent evidence despite previously held beliefs based on the facts at the time. This is the basic failure of trying to apply religious beliefs to rational scientific argument. Religious dogma is fixed & closed minded, while good science requires flexibility & an open mind.
Hey Paul, if Carl Sagan says that it is possible, there was a mastermind inventor, of what evolved into everything, what would one call that inventor? An inventor, a mad genius, a real smart fella, or gal, or perhaps what some may refer to as a God?
Those great minded men were guessing on that issue. Highly educated educated guesses, but nothing more than guesses actually. They didn't know the answer to that mystery any more than anyone else ever did, or does now. Is there a God? I've never seen him or spoken with him as Bush says he has.
According to this link, scientists say there was life here over three billion years ago. Three and a half billion actually.
http://www.whyplankton.com
I have never read Jesus lived here durng the age of the dinasours.
Just as a point of reference, for those of you posting about life existing on this planet for 'billions' of years, the earliest traces of life on this planet are less than ONE billion years ago, and more like less than 700 million years back in time.
Can you prove the statement you posted about Darwin ~ASCOTT?
I believe IF there is such an entity as God it was whomever invented the hydrogen atom, the most common element in the universe, and all life originated through evolution from there.
A great book, "Dragons Of Eden", by Carl Sagan, explains the evolution of the human brain over the past 15 billion years in scientific terms. Near the end of the book he grants the possibility, just as Einstein did later in his life, of a mastermind inventor of what evolved into everything, but neither of them suggest in any way some omnipotent, omniscient mythological control freak, who knows what each & every one of us does & thinks every moment of our lives. Certainly, both of them agreed that after a certain period of origination & evolutionary process the myth commonly accepted as "God" is just that, a myth, and the stories associated with the 'myth' are of manmade origin hence subject to ignorant beliefs of the day during the time of their creation. Equally certain is the fact neither believed the earth to be a mere 6,000 years old, or that Jesus living during the age of dinosaurs is scientific heresy (if that word is applicable) and a total absurdity. Only a fool, or someone delusional, could disagree with these two accepted geniuses.
Edit?
Of coruse we don't know where humanity originated ASCOTT, whether here on this planet, or originally on other worlds. We can only make half way educated and totally un-educated guesses. If one happens to believe in a supreme being, a God if you will, then that may be the answer. ___ We just don't know. Well, perhaps you do, but you didn't offer any decent opinions on the subject.
Perhaps all life in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE evolved on this planet and started with the ocean's microscopic phytoplankton and over billions of years animal life evolved, until humans were fighting and killing one another. If you know of anything of substance and decent information on the subject ~ASCOTT~, perhaps you could write it. Or perhpaps just sit there at your computer and start an stupid argument for no reason whatsoever. You ought to consider adding another "S" to your code name.
What's your problem ~ASCOTT~? I gave my opinions and that's my opinions. I don't give a shit if you don't like them and find them tiresome. What do you want to start some shit for, when this thread has been fun? ___ you can shove your crappy comments as far as I'm concerned. You obnoxious Jerk.
I don't know where humanty came from, they MAY have come here from other worlds, they MAY not have. Some people believe we originatd from evolving from some other animal life form. They may be correct. I don't choose to believe that until it is proven and the evidence so far is not specific enough for me, or for a hell of a lot of other people to believe it.
BUCKOO -- Great summary. I especially like the part about "Thank God we were entrusted with enough foresight to try to teach them to think."
_ C _ H _ O _ I _ C _ E _
EITHERwe support SCIENCE, as a technique to train the children's mind to think independently
ORwe support RELIGION, as a technique to train the children's mind to follow orders obediently
¿ It really isn't at all hard to make this stark choice, is it ?
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
KEM
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
If humanscanr here from another planet, How did they come to be on that other planet? Evebtually, you would still be left with the question, How did humans come to exist?
Your fooling around is becoming puerile and tiresome.
Buckoo
Darwin never embraced the belief in god. That was a lie by a religious nutter - and it has been thoroughly discredited.
This is a fact and not a theory. We have all evolved to recognise that we all have opinions. We are a composit of thoughts and ideas of others that proceeded us. Thus we speak.
This is truly stimulating to me to see so many opinions and respect for those opinions of our fellows. Of course there are those that are of the opinion that the egg preceded the chicken, however, in is not proven.
As humans progress or evolve we shall continue to vary in our opinions. This Forum has proven that 1 + 1 still equals 2 unless someone has a different opinion.
I agree with you all. Our children are confronted with far more challenging issues than we ever had. Thank God we were entrusted with enough foresight to try to teach them to think.
I am honored to have participated in such a Venue of great thinkers.
So why did the chicken stop in the middle of the road? She wanted to lay it on the line. Much love all!
Well this has all been fun.You are all missing the point! The point being that school boards should not EVER be able to decide what curriculum is to be taught in the classroom!!! That should be left to educational professionals. The fact that is it not in large parts of the country is one reason why we have such an ignorant population. Jeffersonian democracy depends on an educated electorate and we ain't got none. The state of education in this country is just as scandalous as the state of our for profit health care system.
The original purpose of the Board of Education in most communities was to raise funds for the schools and hire the educational administrator. In most places those functions have been taken over by other educational agencies and in a lot of more enlightened districts the School Board is a thing of the past. Having a group of people who think that what was good enough for Granddad and me is good enough for the kids is the best way I know of to keep education in the dark ages. This is the information age where knowledge is advancing at a phenomenal rate, not the industrial age where all we needed from our schools was to train workers.
Having a school board that dictates what is taught is a disaster. What we teach and the way we teach it is already light years behind reality. But that is the subject for another blog.
If people want religion to be taught is the classroom they should send their children to church schools, private schools or home school their children. Teaching religion is the class room is a violation of church and state restrictions and there is a good cure for this. No school that teaches religion should get public money in any form. That is a violation of the Constitution and no matter what your opinion on evolution that is just plane wrong.
truth addict:
Mice, men share 90 per cent of genes linked to disease
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/12/04/mouse_genome021204.html
I think all us animals have many of the same genes - though probably not the same range of alleles and repeats. I usually explain alleles as flavours of icecream and repeats as scoops.
Seems that our PM is much like your President:
Harper gov't has 'disregard' for science: journal
A biting editorial published in one of the world's most well-respected journals accuses Stephen Harper's Conservative government of having a "manifest disregard for science."
The editorial, called Science in Retreat, appeared in Thursday's edition of the British journal Nature.
"Science has long faced an uphill battle for recognition in Canada, but the slope became steeper when the Conservative government was elected in 2006," it says.
The editorial says that while Canada's researchers consistently rank among the world's top ten, the federal government's track record on science is "dismal in comparison."
The Harper government has also been skeptical of the science on climate change and stepped away from Canada's commitment to Kyoto, the journal charges.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080222/journal_sci...
Well what you say there makes sense ~Chessgames~. I am aware that they have used pig livers for human tansplants. I don't have any problem with teaching the THEORY of evolution in publc schools, I do not believe it should be a required subject or classified as science either. I do believe many believe, that the theory of evolution tecches that humans evolved from ape like creatures, as the picture on this article suggests.
I also don't believe religion or the Bible, other than paragraphs of the book of Genesis, should be taught in public schools. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to have an elective subject on the THEORY of, there may be a supreme being and that supreme being is the cause and reason for any and every form of life, from sea slugs to apes to humans. Then it would be apropriate for such a subject, to use the only written histroy of our beginning, the book of Genesis and similar writings, combined with forklore and fables which relate to life on Earth, which occurred more than 5,000 years ago.
If it is apropriate t0 teach one theory it would be also appropriate to teach another theory. They both would most certainly be interesting subjects.
Kem, I don't think the theory says we evolved from 'apes,' but that both apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, which diverged somewhere along a branch of origin that includes the primates. Virtually all life has DNA/RNA in common (instructions for development and differentiation), which again suggests a common origin.
If you take a heart cell from a pig and a human and compare them, you will find they are more similar than different, as with most multicellular organisms. Coincidence? Perhaps, but much more likely there is a connecting thread here. The science of evolution attempts to establish relationships along these lines.
Something else to consider is that the earth as a whole may be alive, and not merely a dead ball of matter hosting the lifeforms upon it. This was actually suggested by P.D. Ouspensky years ago. Fascinating stuff for sure.
Edit?
That's because we don't know the entire story or the histoy CHESSGAMES, but good points there.
For all we know, God was present before our universe was here, multi-trillions of years ago. We just don't have a clue. We know ONLY, that we humans are here and just because our bodies are covered with hair and we have a stubby tail while in our mother's womb, doesn't prove to me that we once evolved from apes. The dzo or heterosis, are very hairy and they have tails, no one is suggesting we evolved from those specie of bovine. Why not?
And craving for bananas proves nothing either in that respect. It means the person's body may be lacking in potassium. You know, a person may develop a craving for cheeze, that don't mean we evolved from mice. ____ Well, maybe it does. And the fact that our DNA is very simiar to apes could mean that some men once had sex with animals and apes evolved. Did you know that it's legal for a man to have sex with a sheep in Bahrain if it's a female sheep. If it's a male sheep, that's the death penalty. __ So much for gay rights there.
Hey, DZO is a great scrabble word BTW.
"Hey, another question for some of you deep thinkers. If Darwin's theory doesn't tell us man came from apes, how come they show pictures of an ape and show how it evolved into what we see as men today? Just like the picture on this article's title."
What's wrong with evolution being nature's method for expression of some greater Essence? I have no problem with the finite deriving from the infinite. Evolution as a scientific theory only explains HOW we came to be, not WHY. It's not for science to try to answer why, but to study the mechanics of what already is, based upon cause and effect.
Evolution really means change in time, but there is no doubt that we are a reflection of an 'intelligent' universe. How could we be 'smarter' than the universe from which we originated? Can't happen. Nature has an intelligence of its own, an intelligence out of which we came to be, and which sustains our existence, and not the other way around.
It may very well be that that intelligence originated from an Essence, a consciousness completely invisible to the physical senses. Yet that is not for the theory of evolution to prove or disprove.
Even if the 'panspermia' theory is correct, life had to originate SOMEWHERE, and is it my guess that intelligent life is the rule rather than the exception in our universe, meaning man is really nothing special. That same Essence and intelligence permeates ALL of being. Earth is likely to be only one of many similar planets. Unfortunately, there is no way to validate or invalidate this at present.
The fundamentalist Christian view of creation seems to be a very egocentric one to me, unless I'm missing something.
Seaweed, He's the poster boy.
I like that word, 'intelligent design'. Do you suppose that George W. Bush is a result of 'intelligent design'?
I have a sudden craving for bananas.
KEM PATRICK,1:35. :)
hey about the "marketplace" of ideas I got a suggestion in the same vein as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
do you know what really cleans our teeth in toothpaste?
i have an alternative theory to the "theory of fluoride."
there are invisible pixies who scrub our teeth! colgate has a farm of them!
now who thinks their childrens time in school should be wasted with such distracting nonsense?
vaudree,
we most certainly came from apes (why else do we share 98% of our DNA with them and why when in the embryo we initially have ape-like hair all over our bodies and a tail), and them from other organisms.
Can gravity be created in an enclosed room? If one wishes to use a toilet on the moon, one can only hope. Imagine a puddle of yellow water just floating there in mid air and watching that puddle get larger and less dense. I guess that it would eventually lower to the ground. But, then again, maybe not.
RE - If Darwin's theory doesn't tell us man came from apes, how come they show pictures of an ape and show how it evolved into what we see as men today?
I think one of them in the picture is Australopithicus rather than ape. I doubt that homo erectus was the final form of man.
Kristina40's link: Board member Pat Sabiston said the standard should allow for other viewpoints. "Teaching only Darwin's theory without teaching alternative or opposite views is censorship," Sabiston said. "Children are in desperate need of critical thinking. I believe education should be a marketplace of ideas."
Notice the word "marketplace" - how does "devine intelligence" aid the marketplace over evolution? Isn't there something impermenant about evolution - about a theory where change trumps the status quo?
I'm opposed to "Intelligent Design" theory on religious grounds.
No, when I see a lovely lady and she turns me on. Happens almost every day.
KEM PATRICK
'getting an erection _ at the wrong time'... whadda ya mean? like when you're trying a gravity experiment in the toilet??????
WOW!!! Talk about varied opinions, must be 60 or more here and obviously some very deep thinkers too. I agree with those who fear religion. I don't agree with any religions, I do agree wth many of their beliefs of how we should conduct ourselves as human beings. I also believe that the Bible and many other religious books were derived from actual history. It's just that the factual history is not aways true as has been written.
The old testiment book of Genesis and the Dead Sea Scrolls for example, were printed millions, or even billions of years AFTER some of the events portrayed occurred. Then some hucksters took those books, called them religious writings and opened a church. Of course they also had to have church 'offerings' for expenses and the religious leaders salaries. Those leaders are often a bunch of friggin, bull shittin crooks, and that is another form of evolution.
Someone explained to me here that man did not evolve from apes. I agree with that and never said we did, and don't believe we did. Woman may have, _____but notice I used the words MAY HAVE there, so please don't be offended gals. And then too, I've never seen an ape that had the body of Racquel Welch.
Hey, another question for some of you deep thinkers. If Darwin's theory doesn't tell us man came from apes, how come they show pictures of an ape and show how it evolved into what we see as men today? Just like the picture on this article's title.
Anyway, I believe humans originally came here from other worlds. I believe those worlds are ruled by a Supreme God, in an advanced society, whose technology is so superior to what we have here on Earth, that it can only be imagined. For example, they have the secrets of eternal life, and or re-incarnation and the soul never dies.
I also believe that there was a great Universal War in those other worlds, a war of good versus evil. The result of that war is published in the books we have, which are now called religious books, instead of history books. Of course those books, such as our Bible, are written from passed down history stories and therefore much of the true history has been left out, or is seriously flawed. We humans living on Earth, are the offspring of those cast out of those other worlds when the Universal War went into a long time and a still standing truce.
We are given the choice of living a decent life and if so, we will be able to someday return to our original homes, or other worlds. We don't have to join a religion to do that, nor join one to live like decent human beings and love our fellow humans on ths planet. We also have the choice of living a life that ain't so hot and someday re-joining the leader of the one who started the Universal war, becaue he became a jealous man, who wanted to be God. That's our choice, be good, or be evil and sometimes we are tempted to be a little evil. One of the first clues fo that, is a getting an erection ___ at the wrong time.
Your religion - Live by it, don't rule by it! i.e., don't push your agendas down my throat, into my bedroom, into our future's heads, into my doctor's office, into my schools, into my laws, into my Constitution. I freaked out last night while and after watching an indy film, "Jesus Camp", filmed before Alito's comfirmation. It is so sinister what these fundamentalists are doing to our most impressionable kids, Christian-style madrases less guns. The fanatics will adopt them as they mature. Scary stuff! Amazing how such supposedly "good, well-intentioned people" can put such a large percentage of their brain on hold and put so much of their remaining (un)reasoning into their faith.
As Epicurus said of the current gods in vogue in the first century BC, and this can be said of any god, past or present, "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both willing and able? Whence then is evil?" Gotta love those Greek philosophers!
Witnessed the Dover, PA School District creationism debacle. From the MSM, it was minimalized almost to a non-event. The truth of what happened and the mind-set/agendas that were eventually defeated will make your level of despair over current affairs increrase.
There are so many issues to be concerned about, none of which are easily resolved and which require action, that it is daunting. It all boils down to respect and cooperation for and by all to work for a better future for all. Unless we get it together, Mother Nature will, in several million years, get intelligent life back. Or maybe She won't think it worth the effort, recognizing the failure of this last attempt.
The real reason behind the push for Creationism in our schools - so that future generations see the following as unbiased observations:
OBSERVATIONS:
Rat A (in the fresh air cage)
- drank water from bottle
- licked self
- ran in wheel
- licked self
- gnawed on cage
- ate
- licked self
- looked like he needed a smoke
Rat B (In the Lucky Stripes cage)
- drank water from bottle
- inhaled sweet mild Lucky Stripes smoke
- savoured the moment
- coughed and gasped mildly for an unrelated reason
- casually strolled over to corner of cage, sauntering with an air of suavity
- died of natural causes
- corpse seemed to have an aura of "pip" and "vigor"
http://www.alt130.net/oldsite/writing/rant08.htm
All knowledge is at best an approximation of what it attempts to describe; it is never absolute. Science need only be accurate within certain parameters, depending on the application. You know, components need only operate within a certain tolerance for any device to work. Now, just because it is approximate, doesn't mean it is like a 'moving target.' It is more like a target where the essential elements stay in place, but always remain open to a more refined focus.
shakker,
evolution is most certainly a fact just like the theory of gravity is a fact (yet we lack complete information on this "theory" too) or that germ theory of disease is a fact. the purpose of the phrase theory in scientific discourse is to leave something open to be falsifiable. it doesnt mean the theory is not a demonstrated fact.
evolution is an explanation of how organisms inheritances change through time. infectious diseases demonstrate that evolution is a fact. you can replicate a molecule in a test tube and the chance that some form of mutation will occur is about 1/1000. That mutation is an example of evolution.
PBS did a wonderful documentary on evolution a while back. Here is written comment about AIDS and Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_20.html
Has it occured to anyone that all the discussion here is because none of our ideas, theories, or concept's about the origin of life on this planet, are completely true to begin with!
Perhaps what we're looking at here is Genetic Engineering on a Grand Scale (think about it), which, by the way, is what is about to be hoisted upon the masses in the very near future from both ends of the spectrum. ...except they won't be telling you the entire truth about that either, because institutions like the Brookings Institute and the Rockerfeller Foundation's studies have shown that to do so would cause widespread confusion, and the collapse of accepted paradigms across the board.
Time to start thinking outside the box people, do the research yourself, and stop believing everything you're told.
....Oh, and one more thing, judging from the anger and intolerance of some of the so called "progressives" in this forum, ...I'd say some of you need to "Evolve." Nuff said.
Sorry, but evolution is a theory. The observable facts support several fairly major variations and there is some data that crops up from time to time to cause revision, rejection, or creation of new concepts of how things began. Evolution is also a possible theory that could be radically changed by the type of new information that is called BLACK SWAN. Before the discovery of black swans all swans observed were white. If you saw a bird of another color it was not a swan.
The imagination can come up with thousands of black swan events, extra terrestrial visits in the past could be discovered. Life discovered on another planet could give clues that cause us to look elsewhere or change conclusions. Of course, the existence of a black swan is defined by not being predicted from previous direct evidence.
If evolution was a fact - like the speed of light it would be nailed down and new discovery would not change it. Similarly, a better supported theory - atomic theory - has predicted many particles that have yet to be observed if they are real.
The beauty of science is that it is a moving target. When I was a child stomach ulcers were never considered to be from a bacteria and countless effort was spent on diet and stress reduction with limited success. Now they are treated with antibiotics and the former experts look stupid indeed. Keep an opened mind and look at the evidence again rather than fall in love with a theory like evolution or spontaneous generation.
"You don't test theory. You test hypotheses derived from theory, and judge whether or not the hypothesis is confirmed."
Right, and if confirmed, it reflects the 'reality' we all experience, does it not? So why do we need to believe in anything at all? If it cannot be confirmed perceptively what value does it have except to divide one from another? Physically, the consequences of action/reaction are relatively easy to measure and record. However, psychologically/spiritually, the same thing is not so easy, but does that necessarily mean there are no consistent laws governing it? The mystics claim that there is a consciousness beyond the mundane which cannot be proved, but only apprehended, and this apprehension has less to do with belief than direct perception. Each must decide to take the journey or not. Either way, the scientific approach seems best. We have to ultimately decide for ourselves if the 'evidence' pans out. For example, only a deluded or confused individual would doubt the validity of the science behind the computer he uses to participate in this or any other blog
RE: - If the brain was simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it
My response used to be whenever I read that was: how do we know this isn't already the case!
That said, there are things that we can understand and one of those things that we understand is that things can change.
This is a town hall discussion including Richard Dawkins and a bunch of religious folk where evolution is discussed. My favourite contributer is Cheri DiNovo who points out that Dawkins has a very specific idea what the god he doesn't believe in looks like (video to your right):
http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/evil.html
RE: - A "theory" is anything that has not been scientifically proven. Over the years, there have been countless well established theories, which were later proven scientificaly, to be false theories.
You mean like the theory of the "compassionate conservative"?
Usually, when that happens it turns out that the person went beyond the data in their conclusions, the methodology was flawed, or the scope of research too narrow. Look at the science of investigative journalism where you check and recheck your facts. Walter Cronkite was able to resist the fire of the right as long as he kept to those standards - and he did until that one little memo. WC had enough to prove his case without the memo (which turned out to be fabricated) yet this one unscrutinized document is used to discredit, not the theory, but the fact, that Bush was AWOL during Vietnam.
Sometimes when one gets one aspect of it wrong, one only has to make a small modification to the whole and other times it means that the whole theory has to be thrown out and a new one proposed that incorporates the new information along with the old.
RE: - Until evolution is proven beyond any question or argument, that it is a fact that humanity evolved from apes, evolution is only a theory, __ which is actually just a fictional story.
Evolution doesn't claim that man evolved from apes or visa versa - only that we had common ancestors. Evolution is a theory of geneology and shared DNA. If you wish to disprove Evolution, you need to prove that scientists are making conclusions which go beyond the data, that they are either including or excluding information that they shouldn't to make their theories work, or that their methodology is flawed to the point that their finding are meaningless.
Curiousity is the cornerstone of science and ego and the desire for fame or wealth is it's enemy.
Seems that the same pseudo scientists who questioned the science that smoking was bad for us are now claiming that global warming is unproven. With all the research to keep up with, how does one "scientist" become an expert in both the effects of tobacco on the body and the effect of pollution on the environment - there are just too many differences between your mother's body and the body of mother nature - the best one can do would be investigative journalism informed by a scientific background:
The Denial Machine
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html
RE: - So sex was good for individual differences, and individual differences were good for survival.
So endogamy undermines the evolutionary benefits of sex? Seems that having rats that are more genetically similar rules out individual differences as a potential cause for results (though limits the findings to only that particular strain of rat). However, too little genetic variability between parents and offspring also proves problematic - if one's goal is to have future viable offspring.
RE: - does it matter whether we were created or we evolved?
Why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive! Have you ever experienced the irony of when your prized creation turns to you in his little two year old voice and says "You can't make me." Evolution does not necessarily negate creativity - whether one believes in a divine creator or just the creativity of our ancestors.
However, what creationists propose is that humans have always existed in our present form - just like the myth where Athena was born an adult out of the forehead of her father.
Yes, I evaded answering your question. Is there an objective truth or is "truth" merely that which those in power tell us it is? How do we determine fact from fiction? Is science worth teaching? Is the history of our species worth teaching?
RE: - could it just be that God chose to create the world using Evolution as a tool
Sure, but how would you prove or disprove that? In science, you have to operationalize your terms. How would you operationalize the concept of god - what is and isn't god?
RE: - Religion is the greatest evil in the world, not terrorists (americans)
Some consider hockey a religion because it exists of rituals and devotees - and some credit the expulsion of hockey player Maurice Rocket Richard for the rest of the season for a hockey fight as the start of the Quiet Revolution which led to the religion of Quebec Separatism.
Religion is a tool - and, like any tool, can be used for both good and evil.
Do I believe in UFO's? I believe that there are flying objects in the sky that I cannot identify.
Do I believe in life on other planets? I don't know whether there is or not beyond the most simple few celled organisms.
Not to get to the videos you all so kindly volunteered ...
Wow! It's amazing to see so many humans debating their origin. Well, I wonder what people thought before Darwin introduced the idea, theory, hoach, question, of Evolution?
What did intelligent humans believe prior to Dawin's introduction of Evolution as an Idea? King Solomon was, according to the writings of most noted intellectuals, the wisest man on earth at one time. I see nowhere in his writings where Evoultion was ever considered. Though I am certain that he was wise enough to have thought of such.
Folks, why do you spend so much your precious time and Tax Dollars on such??????????. Darwin later confessed that there was a God. To which he also submitted himself.
I graduated from High School in 1970 and was taught the Theory of Evolution at that time. Why are you debating whether this theory should be called a Theory? It is a Theory. Scientist have not investigated Darwin's brain to determine where he came up with the idea.
Young generation, move on and solve some of the more pressing problems that your idiotic parents and grandparents have created in this world. God has given you more wisdom as you've evolved to think broader than the generations that proceeded you.
Please stop wasting your brilliant minds on such. The purveyors of this idea are simply attempting to sustain the industry that they have created. The unspoken behind the idea is Money. Darwin is dead. Yet humans continue to debate his idea.
As you gain knowledge, you evolve every day. However, when God allows the removal of the Breath Of Life(Spirit) from your body, it will return to the dust from which it was created or evolved.
What comes out of the Bible is nothing but 'theory'! Maybe one of these days people in this country will grow up enough to realize that. The biblical story is not proven fact. It never has been proven fact. Thus comes the word 'Faith' when dealing with the Bible and Religion both. So the fanatical Christian's are standing in quicksand that is sinking fast with them in it. Evolution is a 'fact' one that only the ignorant can continue to deny. And they continue to deny it to their own peril. I can remember 40 years ago that I scoffed at the idea that man was descended from apes. It seemed so far fetched that it was hard to fathom. And not due to any large amount of religion. But, the strides that have been made that point to where man came from over the years have changed my mind. That's the problem with these people (Christian's). With every new discovering about ancient man their Bible becomes more and more of a fairy tale. So, they are going to fight it with every fiber of their being.
--Religion is the greatest evil in the world, not terrorists
I don't know where to start here! First of all the terrorists are fueled by a militant religion. Religion is not necessarily violent. Are you saying the Dalai Lama is perpetrating evil by furthering the Buddhist religion? Religion is dangerous when it meets authority.
Religion didn't invent gunpowder or global warming.
I think we need to be very careful about blaming religion. I think we need to focus on authority. Religion is often ruled by reactionary and unjustifiable authority as are many other fields of human intellect such as science, philosophy, politics. Let's not leave out god-less soul-less capitalists and the like in our critique of power. It's fundamentalist and authoritarian to dismiss all religion as the root of evil.
I applaud the florida schools. Evolution is only a theory. And I'm surprised that so many folks from the left are willing to submit to the hegemony of scientific theory. Science is not the only way of knowing the world and mythology and religion and poetry are still important. Evolution doesn't explain everything away about life. I am far from a creationist...but is creationism really the worst thing to believe. Sometimes I think that all this fuss about evolution is designed by people who want the scientific world-view to trump all others. As liberals and leftists I think we should be critical of the unwarranted power of science as well as religion.
I'm extremely proud of the fact that the science curriculum of my home state has been brought kicking and screaming into the 19th century.
I'm all in favor of "academic freedom" as long as it includes the right of teachers to teach that superstition is indistinguishable from religion and that the religious right consists of nutcakes who should home school their ignorant offspring so as not to contaminate others.
If you have not already done so, Look up "Sumerian Creation Myths" and compare to the "Judeo-Christian" mythology that arose about 3000 years later..
Fascinating .. and very revealing.
I am so sick and tired of people milking the bible for everything they can get out of it and calling it Christianity. It's shameful. In the United States, legislators put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they do not put their hand on the Constutuion and swear to uphold the Bible. Freedom really is the distance between Church and State. The Bible is not a political "game-plan."
One last thing. In quatum theory - the physics of the sub-atomic - Newton's and Einstien's theories no longer apply.
What I love about quatum mechanics is that "things" are popping into and out of existance all the time. Where do these things come from? Where do they go? This, to me at least, brings the idea of a higher intelligence behind all that exists in this world. At the turn of the previous century God was declared dead. While not a religious person myself, I really love the way that quantum theory has brought the possibility of a greater "something" behind all that we see.
After all, everything is supposed to untimately tend toward entrophy. Yet, there were and are chains of molecules (protiens) which organize themselves into basic structures. Why is this?
Wars and Bush aside, this world is a wonderful place, if we don't turn it into another Mars, as Kem suggested and which I feel is not too far fetched of an idea.
People should be able to edit the bible more to individual preferences The re-publish it as an edited version in mass publications. People should be able to distribute their version of biblical events to the masses. An underground campaign could be planned to swap out Giddeon bibles in hotel rooms across the USA. A few decades of this and "The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus could be easily incorporated into Christian beliefs across America.
At least the students are getting some education about fact instead of fiction.
but it is terrible that religion still controls pretty much everything - from education, heath and politics to the choice for abortion and euthinasia.
Religion is the greatest evil in the world, not terrorists (americans)
TheProf February 21st, 2008 10:50 pm
Evolution is more firmly based than gravity.
As a thought experiment suppose the sun suddenly ceased to exist. Then the Earth would continue is it's direction of travel without orbiting the non-existent sun. Eight minutes later we would become aware of the sun's non-existence due to the lack of sunlight, given the time taken for it's light to travel to Earth. But nothing travels faster than light so why did the Earth not continue to orbit the non-existent sun for 8 minutes? Just one of many gravitational paradoxes.
----
Rising to the bait...
Visualizing the orbiting planets like marbles rolling around the sun in a sheet. Didn't Einstein hypothesize that the gravitational reaction would be experienced at the speed of light as well?
Remove the Sun and the planets continue to orbit a non-existent body until the light goes out - about eight minutes later.
Some of my ideas could get me a private room in an Alaskan sanitarium. Discussing science vs. magic seems less risky.
Religion is just post-mortem agriculture.
Late to the discussion..
KEM.. Wonderful recollections of earlier life and school teachers.
One question... How/where did the Martian Earthlings evolve?
Evolution actually suggest that we and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor, with the split in the evolutionary path occurring some millions of years ago.
What is very interesting is that if you look at the embryology of any animal, you can see representations of the earlier creatures that it might have been. Not in all the tiny details of course, but in essence and in the f=general structures present.
That is one very very strong indicator that the theory is in fact, correct in the broad strokes.
To answer your actual question as best I can..
Any scientific "theory" is (of course) man-made in that it is our humancentric way of explaining the various physical constants that allow for us to actually exist.. It works because the constants are just that.. Whatever we called them their values would be the same.
Religion was developed by man from no actual hard information or findings, to understand what he saw around him.
Nothing has ever been found to suggest that religious tracts are anything more than social/political documents. In the case of the Bible, written some 3 - 400 years after the events described although presented as contemporaneous.
Evolution is a result of thinking mankind analysing that which he can see all around him. Once the theory was espoused, much unexplained became explicable and obvious. Furthermore, more and more evidence was found that could only corroborated the theory.
That is another good test.
The nutters who refuse to concede evolution as they cling to Creationism and its cousin ID, are the human equivalent of the single celled amoeba that knowthegreedyslime told us about..
Lets us hope they do not reproduce too effectively..
Crikey, people!
The scientific use of 'theory' is clearcut. Look it up. It is not just a story, or a supposition, or a surmise.
One begins with a series of observation, develops a *testable* hypothesis, and, finally, (assuming the hypothesis survives the tests), one pulls all the results into a theory - which is still open to refinement, should new observations/tests warrant it.
That's why religious/metaphysical beliefs can't be called science: they aren't testable.
KEM, humans did not evolve from apes. Evolution does not say this. Humans and apes had a common ancestor. Contemporaneous species cannot be ancestor and descendent to each other. (That's like saying you descended from your cousin.)
Big_Money, the chimpanzee is our closest relative, not the orangutan.
kloro, I don't know where to begin: Intelligent Design *is* creationism (in pseudo-scientific guise). It has led to precisely *nothing* of scientific value. Einstein would never have supported teaching Intelligent Design: it doesn't meet scientific standards, and he was dedicated to science. Further, Einstein did not believe in a personal god: no personal god, no supernatural intelligence to do the designing.
Well KP the subject your not being taught is biology. It's not anthropomorphism but single cell organisms that evolved through natural selection. For billions of years all life reproduced asexually, simply by dividing in half. All offspring were exactly like their parent. In the world of single cells sameness was deadly, a few cells had to be tougher and faster as equality was liable to get you killed. Clearly, individual differences were a good thing, and this is where sex comes in. Sexual reproduction began as a PERVERSION of ordinary reproduction. Some cell, instead of dividing into two regular cells, split into four half-cells called gametes. Since these gametes had only half a set of genes, they experienced-the urge to merge!! And that was it. SEX. By splitting into gametes and recobining, the cell had found a way to reproduce and shuffle it's genes at the same time. With two parents, it worked even better, as the offspring combined features of both. So sex was good for individual differences, and individual differences were good for survival. So with the earliest cells, sexual ones survived, and the ones that did best were the ones that liked sex the most--which is why sex felt good then,feels goods now, and can only feel better tomorrow. Gametes evolved into eggs and sperm. Sex is designed to create individual differences. Sex allowed the development of higher organisms. Sex speeded up evolution as it allowed useful variations to be spread rapidly throughout a population. Also sex created the need for natural death, when an asexual amoeba divides, its individual life becomes two new ones--unlike sexual beings, which have to be cleared away for the NEW generation.
The "story" of God and creation is an unproven subject.
The "story" of evolution regarding humanity evolved from apes, is an unproven subject.
Why is it alright, to teach one subject in public schools, but not the other? ___ That is my question.
That has been well proven to be a false theory also Namaste, be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.
Mammon's morons are in charge.
… and then there's the theory that Geo was actually elected twice as prez …
Are you saying the theory of evolution is science?
~UBREW~ I didn't say God created humanity, others say it. I asked if that subject should be taught in public schools, if the the subject of evolution is. Both subjects are unproven stories.
KEM PATRICK said: "...God created humanity... Shouldn't that subject be taught in public schools also"
No. God created humanity whether evolution is 'fact' or 'theory'. The subject of God has never been at issue with evolution, except in the minds of the religiously rigid. Admit that what evolution threatens is NOT God but religion, and the solution is easy: Teach science in school. Teach religion in church. But, in church or in school, you can't teach 'God'. You can only channel God, and hope it passes on to those around you.
Big_Money: excellent gravity example. Newtons 'theory' of gravitation can predict the location of Mars for the next million years. Certainly, it must be a 'law' by now, yes? For the answer to that, google someone called Einstein.
In science, calling something a theory is as close as you can come to acceptance (sure there's a first and second laws of thermodynamics, but they were engineers, and may have done more harm than good by making such a claim).
Newtons laws were theories after all. Einsteins corrections, are they laws? By now, we all know better (except in Florida).
Don't worry, it'll be underwater soon.
Another consequence of ignoring science...
A "theory" is anything that has not been scientifically proven. Over the years, there have been countless well established theories, which were later proven scientificaly, to be false theories. Until evolution is proven beyond any question or argument, that it is a fact that humanity evolved from apes, evolution is only a theory, __ which is actually just a fictional story.
Now that does not mean that anyone who wishes to do so, cannot believe the fictional story of evolution, or theory, to be a true fact. I believe evolution should be taught in public schools, "IF", if, it is taught that evolution is merely a theory, a fictional story, and is NOT a scientifically proven fact.
Now, if that is fair, and many who have commented here believe evoluton should be taught in public schoolsas an elective. why do so many of the same people, object to having the subject taught in public schools, that God created humanity? Shouldn't that subject be taught in public schools also as an elective subject, and only "IF" if, that subject matter was based upon faith, fables and the well documented story, of God's only son's life here on earth?
Are those fair questions?
All I have to say is: "What Fun We Are Having, Here/Now" Actually, I have more to say, but it always sounds good to start with, All I have to say is...because you think I am going to be brief and lucid. On this thread, lucidity is far from the norm...who is Norm? Never Overestimate Rational Mind.
"I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation"
peace,
st john I am the One I have been waiting for(I am the One for Whom I have been waiting)
The Keep-America-Stupid-Campaign is alive and surviving ever since Vietnam Vets and hippies got it right in 1973. Do like a mole and move underground. Thousands of us have.
Florida has now topped Calif. as the land of nutty folks.
Maybe they also want to label the earth's age as a theory.
But of course what can we expect from a bunch of republican extreme religious nuts.