EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Florida Schools To Teach Evolution as 'Scientific Theory'
Florida'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
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
168 Comments so far
Show AllI wonder if these opponents of evolution would object to their "theories", here read creation myths, being held to the same standard as they are trying to hold the principal of evolution to.
Evolution is not a theory, it's an observed scientific fact. It's been observed to have been happening over my lifetime in most human diseases.
Y'know, there's a really sophisticated satellite right now doing a fantastic experiment that relates to the scientific theory of gravitation, specifically to verify the phenomenon of "frame dragging".
So you see, there are big holes in the whole gravity idea, around which revolves this silly notion that the earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun.
Ever fly around the world? Launch a satellite? Drop two objects of unequal mass? These things tell you NOTHING. It's all just a scientific theory.
Christians=Morons
Um, TurnoffyourTV, maybe if you turned off your TV, you'd see that not all christians are morons. Although, it seems that almost all the christians spouting bile on the TV are... Hm, come to think of it, almost everyone spouting bile on the TV is a moron, whether christian or not... Still, if that's how you see the world, you're almost certainly more problem than solution. Is your TV off?
Big_Money, your gravity example is great.
Yes, Evolution is a a Theory, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that is the best way that we've found of explaining it. If only the words Theory and Myth weren't so scandalous. I would be happy to hear that they were teaching the Theory of Evolution along with Creation Myths from multiple religions, and that it was acceptable to discuss science and tradition.
Will Florida now identify the "Scientific Theory of Gravity"? Do the schools in Florida teach the scientific method and make clear it is not possible to prove a theory but rather collect a weight of evidence in support of it; one can only disprove a theory. How do these supposed "educators" expect our children to compete in a global economy when their knowledge base is determined by appeasing a belief system rather than focused on teaching rigorous, analytical thinking and the ability to distinguish between something scientific (the ability to test a hypothesis by experiment) and something religious (acceptance of something as a matter of faith and not testable)?
The proposed a so-called "academic freedom" amendment I really like. It reminds me of the "Patriot Act" & the latest, "Protect America Act".
This subject has been settled and "intelligent design" has been debunked over & over. I pose a question that has not been brought up. Are not churches the place to teach intelligent design? Take a look around. There are more chuches than ANY other type of gathering place. If your children are in danger of not learnig the christian dogma then it is your fault as a parent and the churches for not instilling myth as fact.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion,however satisfying and reassuring. :Carl Sagan
It all seems so silly to me. So now they have to state the obvious, evolution like most science is theory. The students won't care about the name; besides, if they were to make a science course solely on intelligent design, it would be over in about 10 minutes. They have nothing credible to stand on without the supposed "holes" in evolution. All those intelligent design folks don't have a problem pumping all that gas in their cars without a second thought.
I live on the Florida panhandle and our paper is full of editorials by loony toons that want intelligent design taught...Our school board here actually voted 4 to 1 against evolution...go figure...
Here's a link to the madness
http://www.newsherald.com/archives/article.display.php?id=79617
It is just a theory. Pro evolution people shouldnt get so uptight either.
You never see Buddhists debating this subject because they know its irrelevant.
People have used Darwinian views to promote incredible misery, jsut as Creationists have and vice versa.
You can bet the people who want to spread GMOS in Nature believe very much in Evolutionary theories.
No wonder Americans are considered stupid and anti-intellecutal
Iaintbacchus, Big_Money ,You both nailed it. Gravity is merely a theory. The problem lies not with the word but with the sorry state of the average American's education, which doesn't seem to give students a solid foundation in science.
Anyone hear of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as another Intelligent Design theory to be taught in schools? It started in response to the Kansas school board elected to teach ID along side evolution. Here's a snippet of the letter sent to the KS school board that started this movement:
"I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith."
Check out http://www.venganza.org/ for more info.
Arrgh!
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Egad! The only thing I can 'truly' believe in anymore is UFOs.
I truly believe they are Unidentified! AMEN!
Genesis 2:7 "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground..."
Genesis 2:19 "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air."
Christians and Aetheists alike, tell me how these two verses taken together go against evolution?
I have not had the chance to read this yet, but it is fine by me. Evolution is a theory. A WIDELY ACCEPTED ONE.
What we need to do now is explain that gravity is a theory also. Another WIDELY ACCEPTED ONE.
The are no laws in nature. There are constants, like the speed of light in a vacuum, absolute zero, etc.
If you think gravity is a law, tell me, which law? Is it Newton's? Because Einstein showed Newton's "laws" are wrong under certain circumstances. In fact, Einstein's theories of relativity say there is no gravity, in fact mass causes space to warp, thus providing something that we perceive as gravity. Newton's "laws" hold up under most condtions that we normally perceive, but they break down at the extremes.
Of course, this is beyond the grasp of most people that have "faith" in anything at all that can't be verified.
Hang on... So, if I jump off a tall building, God will smuck me into the ground? Are you saying that God is a Social Darwinist? I've heard it said, that there is no gravity, just the fact (or theory) that the world sucks...
Photosynthesis is a theory. Gravitation is a theory. Atoms? A theory. The idea of the solar system with the sun at the center of the planets is a theory. The role of DNA in human reproduction is a theory. And they are all well-established theories with no serious falsifying facts. The same is so of evolution. It is a well-established scientific theory with no serious falsifying evidence. David Quammen described what a theory is this way in his cover National Geographic story on evolution:
[A theory is] "not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They [scientists] embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along."
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
"Scientific Theory of Evolution" sounds good to me. That is what it is, and at least they are not obscuring it. Christian Reformed parochial schools in Michigan wouldn't even discuss it, as I remember. It did not exist to them and their students.
We used to joke that our college was the only one in our basketball conference that allowed evolution taught to college biology students.
How fast did Jesus ascend to the Father? Speed of light? Can Rev. Burdett calculate his relativistic mass while he was ascending? Assuming 175 lb at rest?
Humans are glorified apes, get over it.
The concept of theory is a theory, as is the theory of concept.
Simplifying William James; if it works, use it, if not, throw it out.
Judging from the negative attacks I get from so-called American Liberals to anything progressive I post on the Barrack Obama site, like info on alternative energy, combating global warming, ending oil wars, universal health care, I am not surprised . . .
Lets see, as I understand and remember some of it, as the school I attended in 1946 taught us seventh and eigth graders, Darwin's evolution theory. Some of the first living creatures here on Earth, not counting bacteria, were worms, snails, and crabs. After awhile, those creatures evolved into small lizards and funny looking little rodents. I don't remember exactly how the lizards evolved into mammals and birds.
Anyway, eventually over billions of years, there were great big lizards, some of which are the forefathers of little birds. Ain't that funny? Then one fine day, a great big asteroid hit the plantet and the resulting fires, smoke and dust filled air, killed off all of the big lizards ad most of every other types of land life. There wasn't much land life left here on Earth for a few million years.
Then somehow, animal life on Earth began again and there were small animals like deformed horsies and cattle and saber tooted tigers and big birds with no wings and smaller birds with wings. Oh, almost forgot, there were varieties of "evolved" monkeys and apes, which evolved from some other low life creatures. Don't remember how that went though, __ even Darwin didn't know it all.
Well, then it got interesting. Some of the apes evolved to where they could think and they learned how to fight each other with sticks and stones. After a few million more years, some species of the apes learned how to walk upright and some of them left the forests and lived in caves.
Over time, their brains developed better and those scary apes leaned how to grunt and moan and they could communicate and even leaned how to use fire and throw spears. They even drew pictures on the rocky walls of their caves with colored ink they made from water soaked leaves and seaweed, mixed with mud. Things were shaping up. The apes started to act like humans.
As time went on, the apes evolved into less hairy animals, which started to resemble the humans we see in today's shopping malls and prisons, etc. There were Asian apes, who had a more yellowish colored tint to their skin and albino apes, who had whiter skin, as they evolved, the white ones would sit out in the burning sun and try to darken their skin color. Funny thing about that is, the white ones didn't like the brown and black ones because they were dark skinned. Yep, there were black and brown apes too. Did I forget any other colors here?
Oops, I did, __ red skinned apes, __ sorry. Those red ones were maybe more like the forerunners of orangutaines, which missed the boat someplace and are still tryng to evolve into a higher form of life. Of course we more evolved humans, are killing them or-angs off in Borneo and those distant places, which are full of snakes, monkeys and other low lifes, which haven't evolved a whole lot yet.
After we evolved animals, or civilized human beings, as we call ourselves, destroy the atmosphere of our planet and all of this creature evolving shit eventually starts all over again, maybe the snakes will eventually rule the world, instead of monkeys and apes? __ Maybe octopus? ___ I understand they're pretty smart and have great big brains.
You know, I wonder about some of us evolved humans, like our president for example. Wonder what his tribe evoved from? Ya know, it's a fact that starfish don't have a brain, maybe some of those low life sea creatures evolved into humans? Well, I think the entire evolution thing is very interesting, but I do believe that a lot of us humans didn't evolve from apes, I think some came from ancient rats or sea slugs.
I wish I could remember more about what I learned in school, but I was in love with my georgous blond teacher, Miss. Dyer, Whenever she asked me to come up to the chalk board and solve some stupid problem, I'd immediately get a hard-on and was too embarrassed to stand up. I'd mumble that I didn't know the answer. __ She got to where she hated me. Gosh she was pretty, I think she probably was one who evolved from another planet. ___ I think I did too.
Screw science. Computer off....
This is just more nonsense from the anti-social bible-thumping masturbators.
Kem - the orangutans are actually our closest relatives, genetically speaking. (At least, since our ancestors, with their amazing ability to throw stuff, killed off the neandertals) Fortunately for the orangutans, they were unable to understand the snake's devilish instructions to eat from the tree of knowledge, and therefore they have no foolish theories, and they will all go to heaven.
Okay, I'm fully rooted in science, and I don't have a problem with this. Unless I've misunderstood the article, it's asking scientific theories to be labeled as such. Great. That's good science. In fact, the ability for students to really understand what a theory is is fundamental to developing a science-literate population.
The concept of the "theory" is even more basic to biology then evolution.
I'm tired of living in a society which doesn't have the capacity to develop testable hypotheses and work together to form scientific theories. Our society has thrown out evidence as it's MO: in social justice, in law, in knowledge.
We should make it the rule that the methods of scientific thinking be taught early on.
who really cares what creationists think. They're content to be braindead, let them be braindead.
Might I add, it's important not to miscategorize this as a Christian problem.
The world over, outside of America, the vast majority of Christians, like 99% accept evolution, at least in general form.
This is really an only an issue in this stupid country, amongst a narrow faction of about 50-60 million Americans. So in the grand scheme of things, they make up only about 5-6% of Christians worldwide. So include American Christians and all other Christians in the world, and about 95% of Christians accept evolution.
If we go look at other religions, there's no comparison. LIke 99% of Islam, Hebrew, Buddha, Hindu etc. All accept evolution.
It's accepted by about 99% of the world in general. So again, we're dealing with a narrow faction of whackos in this country who are using this issue so they can continue to pretend "they're the victims." Anything they can do to whine and complain.
Such bullshit. The proof of evolution is ALL around us. The scientific community objectively has been recording the evidence since Darwin published his papers in 1859.
If the religionists want to know God's plan, ITS EVOLUTION idiots.
They'd rather literally believe the bible, rather then the evidence staring them in the face.
What their problem is really, is that they cannot accept the fact that humanity has evolved from lower life forms over billions of years. Billions. They can't stand the thought that we came from apes. To them, the Calvinist's, this is unacceptable, because they'd have to admit an ancestory with something that resembles a black man. At it core, its racism, bigotry, and a hatred of anyone who's not white.
Kem - Oh stop, you're killing me! LOL
We are witnessing the decline of America. Religious fanaticism will kill you if you give it a foot hold. I hate the fact that the ignorance of these religious zealots would indeed destroy scientific discovery. They all belong in the dark ages.
If the masters of Guantanamo can preach human rights to the rest of the world...
they can certainly teach their kids that the Moon is made of cheese, or that the Sun is only an optical illusion etc.
I know that it's been stated above, but evolution is considered fact by the entire scientific community. The only thing that is disputed is the mechanism for evolution, is it "Puncuated equilibrium" or continually evolution. There are millions of different proofs to demostrate that evolution has occurred. Millions of fossils, comparitive embryology, comparitive DNA sampling, issolated species populations, etc.
Even the Catholic church acknowledged evolution in 1975.
These religious bigots love to force their beliefs into areas that they have very little knowledge. All it takes is a little bit of research and learning. This is ignorance at it's finest.
Great. Now maybe they can start teaching the "Theory" of gravity.
Science is the latest manifestation of the systems created by people to explain the experiences of existence. Astrology is another example of these systems. Voodoo is another. (I mention Voodoo because I worked with a Haitian guy who practised Voodoo) Religion continues to serve this purpose for the majority of people on this planet, and statistically this goes for the western world as well. In subcultures such as Common Dreams Readers, this may differ.
Science's greatest strength is it's purported objectivity and the implied ability of it to adapt with new information. Technically, everything remains a scientific theory, there are no scientific facts. Relativity overturned many scientific "facts", and now Super-string and Quantum mechanics theories threaten to overturn aspects of Relativity. But when applied, the corruption, nepotism, resistance to change and the bouquet of human nature influences Science negatively. The failures of Science are countless, from Darwinian-inspired colonial genocides, phrenology, the Tuskegee experiments, Nuclear mutual assured destruction, to present day scientists producing mountains of "scientific" material defending the destructive deeds of oil companies, navy sonar, the chemical industry, GMO developers, confusing the issue of Global Warming, or the sanitized version "Climate Change" and it is the misuse of Science, not Religion, that threatens to end life on this planet.
Let us hope one day Science itself may be eclipsed by a new and superior system.
Give me a break. As soon as the first muslim student complains he is being taught evolution and that is against his muslims belief to believe anything but God or Allah created man, everyone of you will be flooding this sight with comments about how intolerant that school was to go against your peaceful muslim friends and demand all girls at that school wear burkas!!!
So, where is your criticism of muslim bigotry against evolution!! Oh, I forgot, liberals are scared to death of muslims- they fight back.
abe - "Let us hope one day Science itself may be eclipsed by a new and superior system."
I say, no, let's stop all this eclipsing crap. Do your religious view eclipse your acceptance of science? Does your scientific understanding eclipse your moral and spiritual beliefs? Does astrology get in the way of your chakras? I'm all in support of a new way of seeing the universe. But what goes through your head, if you throw out so much useful stuff, because you let some other useful system of beliefs "eclipse" it? If it's something other than fear, arrogance, and/or closed-mindedness, please do enlighten me, I'm terribly curious.
They can mention Dinosaurs in American schools as long as they are called "Jesus Horses"
all of our knowledge is theory, to be modified and even overthrown by the next revolution in the field. It is very important that students be taught this, even in the early grades, and taught also that an understanding of the process whereby scientific knowledge is developed is even more important than a knowledge of whatever the process has so far produced.
also, it seems to me that the less extreme folks from both sides of the evolution/creation debate could support teaching of the Intelligent Design view. Einstein for example held to this, and many creationists see the value of the idea. And the idea of Intelligent Design has been arguably a key factor in the development of scientific knowledge, not to mention an important assumption in the creationists' world view.
It's isn't muslims. It's all religious morons. They walk around as brainless zombies, vomiting out nonsense about Jesus or Mohommad or Bhudda with no facts, no evidence, and no clue. It's ok if these people want to live in a fantasy world. It's OK if they want to give up their own feedoms. The problem is that they never keep to themselves. They try to bring everyone else down to their non-existant intelligence level and try to force everyone else to give up their freedoms. It's annoying. The religious people continually swim at the bottom of the gene pool. All over the world conflict rages as these neanderthal mongoloids scream "My God is better than your God." Do the world a favor; shut up and keep your trash out of our schools.
"Theory" of Evolution is fine with me. I didn't complain when my professors taught me the "Theory" of Relativity. Perhaps those who want it taught as fact have forgotten the trouble caused when evolution went up against the fact of a young earth and Garden of Eden in the last two centuries. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the date of the Scopes Monkey Trial.) Theories are accepted till a better interpretation comes along. Facts become dogma.
And Tolerancenow, though I suspect you and I would disagree on many things, you are correct about the selective tolerance practiced by too many in the progressive community.
I wish we could just ignore these pathetic brain dead folks. Unfortunately they vote. As Americans, the fate of the world is partially in their hands. Their failure to "evolve" could help destroy the environment to the point where mass extinctions, including that of human beings, could occur.
I'm alive. - It's just a personal theory of mine, but I like it. It's held true so far. I don't know if it's universally valid and will be true forever. In fact, part of that theory is that it's NOT valid at every point in time, i.e. that my life lasts forever. So it's a theory of limited validity. At some point I'm supposed to be able to prove it wrong. Very paradoxical theory, this... If the theory of me being alive is correct, meaning at some point in time I'll be able to prove it wrong, then the question remains: who's to know? And how am I then to know? That's outside the theory. Life's only a scientific theory, and clearly not universally valid. But I like it. And it's good for laughs - while it lasts, and I manage to believe in it. It feels true, so it must be: Q.E.D.
I think, therefore I am – I think. (Cf. Moody Blues. Their authority proves that I'm right – I think. Because they had a hit song – or at least a good song – saying that. So it's been peer reviewed. I think.)
So goes with the theory of evolution. It's only a theory, but it's the best we have for explaining our presence here, connected to all the other observable facts. And it's much better at explaining the connections than what anyone else have come up with, so far. That's the good thing about it. The bad thing about it is noone has come up with anything better, so far. The theory of evolution presupposes the observing mind and doesn't even try to explain it – that's how lazy that theory is.
But explaining the observing mind raises the pertinent question of «to whom?»: who with an observing mind needs it explained? And who without an observing mind can it be explained to? Hm...
So maybe it isn't all that bad that the theory of evolution doesn't try to explain more than the rise of the material body which the mind employs to present that theory. Maybe us minds can agree that we exist, and that we don't need much more proof or explanation of that than we already in principle know. You know? - We can always have fun speculating and trying to remember where this mind-stuff originated in us. But if some of us lack that memory (none mentioned, noone forgotten...), shouting at each other about it doesn't really help memory much. At least not mine. I think.
My memory is more liable to close down in reaction to shouting, I think. Of course, that's just a theory of mine, based on less than all the evidence in the universe. So please don't shout at me about it – I'm only doing my best here. I think. It's a pragmatic inference I've made. I may be wrong. But please don't try to prove me wrong by shouting to make me remember where my mind came from. Please trust me on this, whether it's scientifically proven or not: my mind doesn't function that way, that I can be shouted into recalling where my mind came from. Rather it stops functioning that way. Makes me go, «Yeah, yeah – maybe you're right, maybe I can be shouted at until I remember where my mind came from, so will you please stop shouting about it now?». And next time someone mentions that question, I may say, «Yes, I know, if only someone shouts loud enough I'll remember where my mind came from. I accept that, so please don't start shouting. I'll agree to anything if only it stops that shouting from starting. Because that makes my head hurt, you see. But if only you don't make that hurting in my mind start, I'll even agree to not mentioning that agreeing to the theory that my mind will remember where it came from by being shouted at makes my mind hurt!» Which makes it forever true, at least in saying, that the theory of evolution is wrong for not including an explanation of the origin of mind. Q.E.D. But of course, that only lasts until I break my promise of agreeing. That's an infidelity I'll probably perform as soon as the shouting has died down. Then I can be accused of breaking my promise to agree, which may be construed as indirectly proving that there was truth – not only comfort – in the need for mind to be included in the theory of evolution for it to be valid. And as that may amount to the shouting starting up again, I may shut up and agree again. But does that make it true that the theory of evolution can't be right for not including an explanation of the origin of my mind? Not to my mind. But please don't tell them. 'Cause just I can't stand that shouting...
Yet the paradox always arises that this purported evolution itself gives rise to the premises of the theory. Sort of boot-strap theory: life lifted itself up from inexplicable circumstances through the process of evolution to look back and confirm that we exist and are connected to everything we can observe through the process of that very evolution. That proves the point: I'm alive. (Not that I ever really doubted it, I think, as far as I can remember...).
And that point is always good for laughs. Seriously. :-)
Laugh,
Sing &
Dance
To the guy who said we were created by Flying Spaghetti Monster: you are wrong. That, my friend, is blasphemy. Humans were created by Flying Lasagna Monster. My fellow true believers and I will now dedicate ourselves to wiping infidels like yourself from the face of the earth, in order to purify it in the name of the one true God. Oh, and the earth is flat.
"Revolution, evolution, masturbation,
flagellation, regulation, integration,
meditation, United Nations,
Congratulations,
All we are saying........."
Ummm, Ullern, cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) pre-dates the Moody Blues by about three centuries. They just failed to cite their source (Rene Descartes). Just wanted to give the old boy his due. It still makes a good starting point . . .
What a field day we're having with this article...
But it's true as said above (not metaphysically speaking here...), to have the specification that Evolution is a scientific theory is a good thing, as it points out that the scientific method comes «before» all theoretic content.
Getting close to the bone here. Now for the marrow: we must be born with some form of innate rudimentary ability to employ scientific method, an ability we trust implicitly, for us to build up consensus knowledge to question the results of that method and even the method itself.
Maybe the power of observing the scientific method is as far (or deep, or close, or wherever the center of the metaphorical mental space is) as we can go (or come, or move, or whatever metaphor for mental change we make) before we are able to prove scientifically that we cannot get any ... closer (let's say) without us all agreeing on the terminology we playfully employ to move further into wherever and whatever the origins of our minds is (or are...).
That would mean the fighting and shouting is in principle over, and from here we can only move on playfully and lovingly. Sounds good, eh? - Though we have to understand that in common first, and remove the blockages that material exploitation places on such playfulness, for that common, fairly shared understanding to be established. Which seems to be what we're working on, in all humanity. :-)
We sure have a country filled with uneducated, closed minded, ignorant bigots..these christionites would be a joke if they were not led by our "president" and his cronies in the administration and Congress.
Hey for a thought and another theory, lets forget the religion bull and evolution theory too for a few minutes, or even days. Just pretend we never heard of a Bible, or Darwin's theory, because it is very possible that they are both a bunch of nonsense.
Here is what may have transpired. Did we humans honestly evolve from big apes or some slimey sea slugs? If we did, how come there are still apes that didn't evolve into humans? Perhaps this is what happened, a THEORY. We first came here to this galaxy and this planet from other worlds, from a far advanced civilization that was and is, so technically advanced, we cannot begin to comprehend it. They had and have the secrets of warp time travel through space, have flying saucers and giant space ships and are very much like what we see in fictional science fiction movies, such as Star Wars.
Humans came here to seed and settle this rare water planet and Mars was also a water planet and the first Earth settlers home base. Over a period of millions of years, the humans on Mars lost contact with their original homes, but they had the wisdom to have atomic power and they played with genetics and cloning. Eventually, as humans are inclined to do, they polluted Mars atmosphere and very possibly had developed some nasty bacteria that devoured plutonium and other atomic wastes. Those genetically altered germs mutated and got loose and were killing everything. They had gone too far with their science and the deadly bacteria killed off Mars ocean's phytoplankton and Mars ended up a dead planet.
The humans remaining there all moved here to earth, even though it was not fully prepared for humanity. They did however have the means and science to develop other humanoids, who were designed to be used a slave labor. They weren't really good at that genetic altering and ended up developing brutish humans, we now refer to as cave men. They also managed to develop huge animals, we now call dinosours.
Here on Earth, the humans had the scientific technology we have not as as yet managed to reach, but we're getting there. They didn't have the heavy equipment however, for serious mining of minerals and such to maintain their spacecraft, and over time they were marooned here. One day a giant asteroid did indeed strike the planet and that disaster wiped out almost all life on Earth. ___ Some humans survived, some cave men did also.
Down through the ages, the written records of their history, the fabulous city of Atlantis, their history of Mars, etc, were lost. The history of human life in the Milky Way galaxy and where we humans actually came from became stories, fables and fokelore. Some of those stories eventually were put into writing and books such as the Bible were the end result. A lot of the true history of humanity was lost there however, with some truths, some half truths and some bull shit.
Now we are being visited by some of our ancestors, and or, possibly people of other worlds, and we see their space ships and flying saucers at times. They are observing us, they fear us, because of our use of atomic power, and spreading atomic waste into the enviroment and of our war like personalities. They are watching us burn down our precious rain forests and polluting our oceans and the atmosphere. The aliens are waiting for us to self destruct, wondering if the planet will survive for their use a few million years from now.
Anyway, that "theory" of where humanity came from, is a hell of a lot more sensible, than to believe Darwin's theory, that mankind evolved from worms, bats or apes. Yes things evolve, genes are altered, and humans become smarter over time, ___ so friggin smart, they can totally destroy the only place they have to live.
And a God? Well we better believe there is one and he still loves us, because that's about the only hope we have now. __ McCain, Hillary or Obama, are not going to save mankind. Neither is mankind going to stop killing this planet.
Gravity isn't a theory, it is a fact. How it actually works is a question that Newton himself didn't address (didn't have a theory about), and it was left first to Einstein, and then the more recent quantum physics developments, to try to nail down what gravity is. Similarly evolution is a fact, indeed so much of a fact that it is simply a tautology (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/83019/Are_you_there_Mr_Darwin.html). If individuals in a population vary they must evolve, there is no choice in the matter. Evolution could only not occur if every individual was identical, and even then a mutation could set the process rolling. Since Darwin's time, theories about how evolution works in detail (genes, mutations, DNA, population genetics, sympatric speciation mechanisms) have been proposed and proved, one after the other. The Florida schools decision is very strange indeed in a civilized western country in the 21st century.