The Separation of Church and State

[ET Warrior]

Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?

This question seems to mark a clear mis-understanding of the very theory you're trying to "mythify". There are no clear "steps" in evolution, like TK said, it's a continuous process that has spanned billions of years. It has never stopped occuring, and it doesn't move in steps.

What caused the first organic life to develop?

We really don't know, because we weren't there to observe it, though there are some theories that have been thrown around. However, just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean it has to be a mystical answer. It's entirely possible that in some amount of time we'll be able to answer that question.

What caused that first process to begin?

Who knows, maybe some strange atmospheric conditions that occured during the formation of the earth itself caused it. Like I said, science itself is a fairly young practice in the life of our species, and look at how much progress we've already made. We may someday answer that question.

Why are there no intermediate species?

I assume by "intermediate species" you mean, say, ancient man? Homo Erectus? Things like that? They aren't around anymore because they died out. They were replaced by their superior descendants, according to natural selection.

Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find?

That's just a ridiculous question. In our own solar system there is currently only one planet that is capable of supporting biological life. Mars MIGHT be capable, but certainly not in it's current state. We've never VISITED a planet outside our solar system, so basically it only happened on Earth because it could only have happened on Earth. With the billions and billions of planets all older than our own out in the universe my guess is that there is life on other planets, and evolution likely occurs on them too. However, we can't get any real empirical evidence on that because we simply don't have the technology to do so.

[SkinWalker]

Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either.

 

It proves that the literature of christian mythology was written by people with knowledge of contemporary and historical people and events. Mark Twain and Melville demonstrated as much in their literary works.

 

If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it.

 

Clearly there are individual things in the bible that have been sufficiently disproven. Global flood and stopping the sun/earth for a day for instance.

After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.

 

There is good evidence that suggest that the pharaohs had little choice in what to allow the Canaanites (the ancestors to the Jewish culture in Egypt during the time of the Exodus legend), whom the Egyptians referred to as the Hyksos. Lower Egypt has archaeological sites that are replete with Canaanite temples. The Canaanites had multiple gods and godesses, including the early versions of Yahweh and Asherah, his wife. There is no evidence of monotheism before the Egyptian monotheist Akhenaten. The earliest monotheistic artifacts date to periods after the Egyptian 18th Dynasty ca. 1350-1330 BCE. Monotheism is an Egyptian invention, borrowed by the much later Jewish descendents of the Canaanites.

 

I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.

 

Right. This would be the same argument that diviners and alternative health proponents could use. Teach kids that there are alternatives such as magnetic insoles, which are believed to provide some medical preventitive benefits. Never mind what science has shown us to date about magnetics, kids -left to their "own devices" should be able to sort out the poppycock, right?

 

Fortunately, most educators understand that giving any credibility to pseudoscientific claims serves only to legitimize them. If creationist nonsense is to be discussed, it should only be properly ridiculed. Since this would be considered crass, it should be left out of school altogether.

 

That statement skews the whole thing in favor of evolution by passing it off as "just another myth".

 

Of course, it *is* "just another myth." How very ethnocentric of you to consider that your own superstitions are valid over those of other cultures.

 

Well, let me tell you something: What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth?

 

It would make you look stupid. Creation myths lack evidence. Evolution is a fact that has a preponderance of evidence (though there are those ignorant of it both wittingly and unwittingly).

 

It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth,

 

No, that would be geology and astrophysics. Evolution provides the explanation for how changes have taken place over time. Hows, not whys.

 

But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.

 

Wrong. There is "heated debate" because the superstitious feel threatened by science. Scientists are in consensus over evolution. It is a fact. It really happened. It is proven far beyond a shadow of a doubt. That there are those ignorant or superstitious enough to reject the science that proves evolution is true, but it is proven nonetheless. The bible is capable only of providing a source of literature by which humans can pretend to draw explanations. I say pretend, because there is plenty in the bible that is simply rejected even by the most superstitious of christians. We don't stone to death adultresses or those that chose to work on Saturday as commanded in the bible.

 

Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought.

 

First, I'm not in the habit of consulting the theasarus nor do I own one. Proselytize is a word that holds a meaning more specific to religious cults than convert. The very act of proselytization seeks not only to "convert" but to get the "word" out, whether the listener "converts" or not. I'm sorry if you're not familiar with the term, but I'll not reduce my vernacular to elementary level in a forum with adult expectations. It's good, however, that you keep your thesaurus and dictionary handy to keep up.

 

Second, biology teachers seek to educate students with the currently understood explanations of biology. They rarely seek to "convert" anyone to a particular way of thinking. Students are free to agree or disagree with the information, but they must learn the knowledge and information as accepted by science. What they do with it is their choice. "Conversion" is a strictly religious term in this context. In biology or other sciences, it refers to the practice of changing matter into energy through ATP or perhaps changing a measurement into another format, such as Celsius to Farenheit. I very seriously doubt the biology teacher would suggest sucrose and fructose are "proselytized" into Adenosine triphosphate.

 

Since you attempted to damage the credibility of the Bible, I will do the same for the myth of evolution. Answer these questions:

 

 

[*]Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?

 

A strawman argument, obviously. Evolution is defined as change over long periods of time. The "next step" in the evolutionary process can only be speculated on when current conditions that a given organism faces. Future conditions, competitive releases, and evolutionary pressures can only be guessed at. Why would you expect to see a trace of something that hasn't happened? The answer is, you wouldn't. And, as a strawman device, the question fails miserably.

 

[*]What caused the first organic life to develop?

 

Are you asking a question about evolution or abiogenesis? This reveals either witting or unwitting ignorance. If unwitting, allow me to educate you. Evolution is concerned with the gradual changes in speciation over time. Abiogenesis is concerned with "first organic life." If witting, the question is a deliberate distraction attempt, typically used by creation nutters (not referring to you) to create the appearance of a problem for evolution, but this particular strawman argument fails because evolution is a different subject altogether.

 

[*]What caused that first process to begin?

 

See the answer to the strawman question above and apply it here as well.

 

[*]Why are there no intermediate species?

 

There are abundant "intermediate species." I would suggest that you actually took a class that includes discussion of this. A course in physical anthropology would satisfy a core requirement in anthropology for most degrees as well as provide you with an education. Here are some intermediate species: Astralopithecus robustus; Notharctus; Zanycteris; Cantius; Proconsul and Aegyptopithecus. These are just primate forms and I mention them because its an area I've studied in some detail. There are, obviously, intermediate species of horse, canine, bovine, ovacaprids, camalids, angiosperms, conifers, wheat, corn, etc. Indeed, most of the species alive today will probably be intermediate to some successive species, assuming we (or some asteroid) don't destroy the planet first.

 

[*]Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?

 

Obviously another strawman, since our sample size is only just now being expanded from 1 to others.

 

Surely an educated person can come up with better questions than these to question the validity of evolution! Only a couple of these actually applied to evolution. What about the irreducibility of the flagellum or anti-clotting of blood? Or some other such nonsense? At least these are thought out even if wrong. Your questions look as if they were simply lifted from an anti-science website

 

See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.

 

A lot of mythical religions answer these questions. Indeed, most, if not all do. Which further devalues the validity of any one religion. I still have yet to see a good reason why your cult is more valid than that of aboriginal Australians or the Navajo.

 

Every religion attempts to convert others, but the President shouldn't be doing this. So, when he gets out of office he's fine, but now is not a good time for that.

 

There's not a lot of Navajo standing at busy intersections looking for handouts for the Blessing Way. Indeed, show me where Buddhists seek to proselytize others. They may, but I've always assumed that to become a Buddhist, you had to seek them.

[toms]

*Why do humans and other species have vestigial limbs that serve no function?

 

*Why is the human body so badly designed to walk upright? (back problems)

 

*Why, after god had created a pretty much perfect eye in squid did he then use such an inferior design for the human eye?

 

*Why did god forget to mention dinosaurs and so many other lifeforms/events in the bible? A few simple footnotes could have ended this debate once and for all before it got started. God is obviously a damn sloppy reporter.

 

*Why, when we can trace almost the entire timescale of most life over the last few million years, with every biological or genetic marker mapping onto a concurrent geographic shift do people still refuse to believe it?

 

*What are the odds that every scientific discovery made over the last few hundred years, even with each new technique or skill that becomes available to us, would all point towards one picture, but the truth would be something totally different, that has NO supportng evidence and even a fair amount of CONTRADICTING evidence?

I'd hate to be accused of murder with a creationist jury, as evidence, facts and proof seem to hold no weight at all.

[Tinny]

Each of those questions have decent answers if you are willing to look. Answersingenesis.org is a good place to start. The mentioning of dinosaurs is common in the Bible, there have been leviathans and then the behemoth whos description in Job can only fit a sauropod. Also i'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I believe it could have happened with numerous supernatural interjections. My main gripe is with abiogenesis, I cannot possibly conceive of how something like that could have happened. Alas, I am out of this thread.

[Samuel Dravis]

Answersingenesis.org is a good place to start.

I don't think you'll find many people who would give credence to that site, I'm afraid. It has a...reputation, shall we say.

[rccar328]

This crap about "teach both and let the students decide" is the sort of rubbish that creationists need to rely on... looks good on the surface, but take a microsecond to actually think about it and you realise its total rubbish.

 

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is constantly being revised and improved. That doesn't mean you should teach fantasies about the world being created by a giant spaghetti monster simply to "present both sides".

Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.

 

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.

[Samuel Dravis]

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.

Any decent scientific teaching of evolution would assume that automatically.

[ET Warrior]

If we're going to the trouble of pointing THAT out then it is also necessary to point out that EVERY SINGLE scientific discovery, theory, or law is subject to potential falsification at some future date. That's one of the basic tenets of science, and if we have to explain that every single time we introduce anything in science, class is going to get pretty repetetive and slow down the entire process.

[TK-8252]

Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.

 

Well, since there's so many people wanting to deny the Holocaust these days, how about in history class we have the teachers show "both sides" and let students make up their own mind if the Holocaust really happened. Sounds good right? Let people decide what they want to believe?

 

We can present the side that most all educated people share, and then we can present the side of the loonies like Mr. Iran.

 

But of course that would be rubbish. All it would do is confuse matters by bringing in the "other point of view" that is invalid in the classroom, like that the Holocaust is a myth... or that a flying spaghetti monster created everything.

[toms]

Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.

 

It is when the "sides" aren't equal sides at all... otherwise every time we teach nything we will have to trot out every alternate theory held by anyone in the world and present it with equal weight to the students.

 

Eg: in 100 years time when teaching about the iraq war they would need to teach that the soldiers who died were killed by god because the US allowed homosexuality... as that is a view held by a few hundred baptist nutters. Surely they sould have to teach that with equal weight to any historical evidence they teach, and then let the students decide?

 

Not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp. I must not be explaiing it very well.

 

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.

 

But the odds that the whole of evolution will be disproven at a stroke are reduced each and every time a coroberating discovery is found. Small parts of the theory are likely to be revised over time, but the whole thing has about as much chance of being disproved as gravity.

 

Creationism on the other hand can never be disproved, but it has been shown to be wrong in every test it has come up against.

 

Answersingenesis.org

If we are trading joke sites then i'll see your Answersingenesis.org and raise you a http://www.venganza.org/

[edlib]

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven...

That's included and implicit within the definition of the word "theory," and to re-emphasize it would be merely redundant. I remember getting that explanation in one of my early classes, before I ever got to science or physics. Didn't think it needed to be brought up each time a new theory was introduced.

How many of the other theories that scientists use and work with every day get this same kind of scrutiny? The Theory of General Relativity hasn't been proven in full yet... yet I don't see too much effort in trying to discredit Einstein everyday. Most of Quantum physics is still largely theoretical, but that fact that you are reading this post is only possible with the technology that is possible using the ideas from that theory.

 

But we are talking about discussions in the context of a science class here: Shouldn't the science teachers teaching science to science students in a science classroom have the freedom to be able to teach them what is the universally accepted scientific theory of other professional scientists? Shouldn't that be the way it is? When you are in science class, you learn what scientists believe.

 

And when you are in theology class, you learn the (inspired?) writings of the ancients.

 

We don't try to interject political philosophy into our algebra lessons... Why the push for theology in science classes?

[StaffSaberist]

Eg: in 100 years time when teaching about the iraq war they would need to teach that the soldiers who died were killed by god because the US allowed homosexuality... as that is a view held by a few hundred baptist nutters. Surely they sould have to teach that with equal weight to any historical evidence they teach, and then let the students decide?

 

The problem with your example is that everyone that has heard of the Holocaust knows it happened because it's a FACT. Your theory of evolution is not proven yet as a FACT because it's still a THEORY. Why not call it a LAW if it's so damn accurate?

[rccar328]

Any decent scientific teaching of evolution would assume that automatically.

Yet, I had a professor of Biology last quarter tell our class that evolution theory is pretty much factual - that even though evolution is technically classified as a theory, it's classification as such is like biologists' classification of gravity as a theory. Some on this very forum have made similar assertions.

 

Personally, I'm not in the crowd that wants Biblical creationism taught in schools. I just want some intellectual (and scientific) honesty - just an acknowledgement that there are other possibilities. Biology textbooks used to do just that, devoting an entire chapter to the subject (a friend of mine showed me his text from when he took college bio back in the '60s), but now people are filing lawsuits over a sticker that merely states that evolution is a theory that should be critically considered!

 

According to this article, a sticker claiming that "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." promotes creationism. Anyone want to explain this one to me? I thought the whole purpose of science was to put forward a hypothesis, approach it with an open mind, consider it carefully and critically, and then test it.

 

Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.

[TK-8252]

According to this article, a sticker claiming that "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." promotes creationism. Anyone want to explain this one to me? I thought the whole purpose of science was to put forward a hypothesis, approach it with an open mind, consider it carefully and critically, and then test it.

 

But why is it just limited to evolution? I mean, have tectonic plates and seafloor spreading really been proven yet? How about global warming? I remember learning about that in middle school. Or even dinosaurs? Sure we have their fossils but how do we know for sure what they really were like? And how do we know exactly how hot the center of the earth is? Can our readings be truely accurate in such extreme temperatures?

 

All these things rely on a certain degree of speculation and estimation. As does evolution. So why is it only evolution that receives a disclaimer? Why not just put a disclaimer for the entire content of the textbook to be fair?

 

The answer? Because they have to do something to keep the creationists in Kansas from burning the textbooks like they do to Harry Potter books. This isn't about the fact that evolution is 'just' a theory. If it were then the entire textbook would have to have a disclaimer on it, not just for evolution. Face it: people don't like something that they see as a threat to their religion. It's been happening for centuries. Religion has always attempted to silence science. The church was going to execute Galileo for the crime of saying that the earth is round.

 

Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.

 

I couldn't agree more...

[SkinWalker]

The problem with your example is that everyone that has heard of the Holocaust knows it happened because it's a FACT. Your theory of evolution is not proven yet as a FACT because it's still a THEORY. Why not call it a LAW if it's so damn accurate?

 

You've GOT to be kidding us, right? You seriously think that the word "theory" refers to the colloquial sense? A "theory" in science is a set of tested hypotheses. Moreover, the idea that there is some hierarchy in science that follows from "theory" to "law" is a very under-educated position.

 

This argument from ignorance presented by creationists has been so beaten to death, I'll let another source respond:

evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms (Gould 1981).

 

Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.

 

Yet another argument from ignorance. Guys, if you're going to criticize science, at least educate yourselves in it first. Evolution is as proven as any other theory in science. As proven as atomic theory. As proven as gravitational theory. As proven as electrical theory. Theory does not mean a speculation in science. One cannot have a scientific theory without one or more tested hypotheses. Evolution has hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of tested hypotheses. And not one alternative or null hypothesis to the idea of evolution has resulted in any verification. Evolution is proven to the extent that anything in science is proven.

 

There are no holes in the fact of evolution that have been presented and stand the test of science. If there are, I challenge you to list them. I'm perpetually amazed at the anti-science crowd. They have no problem getting a vaccination or taking a plane ride or filling their cars with petrol, but the deride the very methods that offer these technologies as invalid and "unproven." Freakin' amazing. Fascinating to no end.

 

There are, however, holes in the mythical nonsense that creationists cling to. Many of them. I dare anyone to ask me to list them.

 

Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.

Superstition and magical-thinking are killing it.

 

Reference:

Gould, Stephen J. (1981). Evolution as Fact and Theory.

[Samuel Dravis]

Yet, I had a professor of Biology last quarter tell our class that evolution theory is pretty much factual - that even though evolution is technically classified as a theory, it's classification as such is like biologists' classification of gravity as a theory. Some on this very forum have made similar assertions.

If it's a good model, use it. There's no reason why you shouldn't. Theory does not mean mathematical proof, and it doesn't take a genius to find out that people just guess sometimes. I'm just glad there aren't any books from Abeka in my college classes... my mom tried to make me use them when I was in grade school (homeschooled), but they just rubbed me the wrong way. I was never interested in what someone thought about it in my science studies, just what they knew. If I want metaphysics I can get it more efficiently elsewhere.

 

Personally, I'm not in the crowd that wants Biblical creationism taught in schools. I just want some intellectual (and scientific) honesty - just an acknowledgement that there are other possibilities.

That's what's being assumed. Nothing is being excluded by science save things that can't be proven by science. It doesn't even exclude them as possibilities either, it just ignores them. It makes a strange sort of sense, in fact...

[StaffSaberist]

I'm afraid I won't be able to reply for a little while. I didn't know it was possible to contract so many viruses at once, but there you go. Started with the stomach flu, then a cold, now I got pink eye and an ear infection thrown in the mix... my point is that I'm going to be gone until at least some of this clears up.

[SkinWalker]

I'm afraid I won't be able to reply for a little while. I didn't know it was possible to contract so many viruses at once, but there you go. Started with the stomach flu, then a cold, now I got pink eye and an ear infection thrown in the mix... my point is that I'm going to be gone until at least some of this clears up.

 

Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.

[rccar328]

Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.

Be careful with that one, Skin...Theraflu contains acetaminophen (tylenol), which shouldn't really be mixed with alcohol...

[TK-8252]

Be careful with that one, Skin...Theraflu contains acetaminophen (tylenol), which shouldn't really be mixed with alcohol...

 

Skin likes to live on the side of danger. X)

[toms]

Darn those viruses, we'd be able to create a cure if they didn't keep evolving so quickly!!!

*kidding*

 

OT: What is pink eye anyway, it seems to be a US only thing...

[rccar328]

I just love Wikipedia...

Pinkeye (aka conjunctivitis)

 

I don't know if it's a US only thing...but I do know that it's really annoying. I got it a few years ago.

[StaffSaberist]

Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.

 

ROFL

 

From my profile...

 

Additional Information

Birthday: January 18, 1991

Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!

Interests: Star Wars, Civilization

Occupation: High School Student

 

Sorry, that's out. (Actually, state law says I'm allowed to drink in my own home. But I didn't want to eat or drink anything over the last couple of days)

 

Anyway, I'm doped up on medication, so I doubt my posts will be coherent. Because of this, I'm not back; just wanted to check in. But at least I feel what doped-up should be!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.

And certainly long before anyone was around to say it was round.

 

No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.

Political Correctness isn't the reason for Creationism being re-Christened into Intelligent Design. It's merely an attempt to make it sound less religious so that it can be included into Science class. It seems to me sometimes that the Creationists are getting desperate.

[StaffSaberist]

Actually, I couldn't care less if it gets integrated or not, but I wanted to see how bigoted this body would get. I am not impressed.