If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBA)   Maryland approves biology textbook without creationism. Also examining geography textbooks without Atlantis, physics textbook without ESP   (thewbalchannel.com) divider line 982
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8138 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2005 at 9:30 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



982 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-16 12:09:50 PM  
"Creationism, or intelligent design, if you prefer the term, is not science because it is impossible to test by experiment," Ellerton said. "It has no place in a science course."

What the hell is this... someone actually making sense.

BURN HIMMMMMM!!!!
 
2005-02-16 12:16:31 PM  
we all know who created the earth for a 10 million year experiment.
 
2005-02-16 12:21:01 PM  
42
 
2005-02-16 12:26:26 PM  
I don't know why people can't accept that intelligent design isn't science.

Take something as complicated as the human eye. There's no possible way something that complicated could have come to exist without being designed by some super-intelligent external force; a super intelligent external force whos existence is proven by the existence of something as complicated as the human eye.

Oh...wait....

dammit!
 
2005-02-16 12:29:10 PM  
miek:

a super intelligent external force whos existence is proven by the existence of something as complicated as the human eye

But all you have to do is bbeeeeeellllliiiieeeeevvvveeeeee
 
2005-02-16 12:30:07 PM  
OlafTheBent

HE'S A WITCH!
 
2005-02-16 12:37:24 PM  
Yes. Whereas a laughably incomplete fossil record showing no transitional species-to-species forms (the heart of my problem with macroevolution) is really scientific.

Evolution - Best guess of what happened, with strong evidence support in the area of Microevolution, and a dogmatic refusal to address problems in Macroevolution.

Creation - Totally dogmatic, but strangely satisfying to the religious bent

Intelligent Design - A compromise that satisfies neither group of zealots but recognizes that the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is weak, and assumes "Some outside force" involved. Problem is the 'aliens show up every million years to tinker with DNA' fits in this category as well as "The cosmic muffin placed us here to worship him"

The problem with this field is that most of the participants in the debate enter with preconcieved notions. I would consider most evolutionary biologists to be on par in the scientific community with economists. Apologies to any offended biologists, I was an economist. I've seen activist research before. It all has the same smell.
 
2005-02-16 12:57:02 PM  

the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is weak

Do you mean actual macroevolution, or the twisted definition the creationists use? If you mean real macroevolution, there is substantial evidence for it.

 
2005-02-16 01:04:42 PM  
Creation - Totally dogmatic, but strangely satisfying to the religious bent

... I'm not religious
 
2005-02-16 02:28:59 PM  
Darkyn... Please illustrate where in the fossil record (i.e. the EVIDENCE)which shows transitional creatures.

The leaps in species seem leaps of faith in themselves.

We have the pre-cambrian period. No fossils because single celled organisms aren't very good at fossilizing. OK

Then come the fossils. Many different species, trilobytes, anelids, all sorts of creepy crawlies.

Are we to believe that single celled creatures jumped to a variety of whole complex organisms without leaving a single trace?

We are told that the transformation between fish and amphibian would be 1.5Billion years. We have 1.5 Billion years of fish in the fossil record, then whammo! Amphibians. No transitional creatures.

The mathematical unlikelyhood is daunting. First you need a mutation to a whole other species in an organism. Now since different species can not mate and produce fertile offspring, to develop a new species you need two matching mutated critters. At the same time, and place.

Mind you, mutations that potentially enhance a species would seem (based on our own observation of mutation) far more rare than mutations that are damaging.

But to follow macroevolution you need to
a) Ignore the fossil record and its lack of transitional forms, because dogma answers these questions.
b) Assume that species change from one form to another. Creatures suddenly and radically change their internal organs and even whole systems into compatible forms. Despite the odds alone of this happening, a second similar mutation of the opposite gender appears in the same time and area and they mate and produce fertile offspring which enter the record. Over and over again. No failed half species in the record.

The notion of every creature in existance coming into being by such a sudden and perfect process strikes me as greater evidence for intelligent design than a million religious texts.
 
2005-02-16 02:51:52 PM  
miek: I don't know why people can't accept that intelligent design isn't science.

Because your Joe Average guy doesn't even understand what "falsifiable" means. The fact that most people don't understand why Intelligent Design cannot be considered science is evidence of exactly how woeful our science education system is in the U.S.
 
2005-02-16 03:27:04 PM  

McRat

Everything you need is here.

 
2005-02-16 03:30:28 PM  
McRat:
Darkyn... Please illustrate where in the fossil record (i.e. the EVIDENCE)which shows transitional creatures.

-A perceived lack of transitional creatures does not negate the fossil record. Every time a transitional species is presented, Creationists claim it's not really transitional enough.

-There are far more lines of evidence for macroevolution than the fossil record. Patterns of life on this planet today clearly indicate that macroevolution occured.

-Why are there no mammal or bird fossils older than 250 million years? Did the creator start experimenting with simple creatures and wait a while before tackling the tough stuff? How and when does the creator salt the earth with these creatures and why haven't we seen a few fully formed, unique creatures appear during our time on this planet?
 
2005-02-16 04:03:04 PM  


/ Stops spinning in his grave long enough to blow a raspberry at McRat
 
2005-02-16 04:28:44 PM  
Sorry Darwin... You expected transitional forms would be found too.
 
2005-02-16 04:40:03 PM  

You expected transitional forms would be found too.

Still more information here.

 
2005-02-16 04:43:16 PM  
So, I'll put down 'Evidence isn't necessary' then?

As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet.

Might be. Would make the whole theory work better.

Do creatures of different species mate and produce fertile offspring? Is reproduction necessary to perpetuate a species? Does a fish "change gears" and instantly become a frog, or is there a transitional species?

I'm claiming confusion. I am not a source for TRUTH on this, as I wasn't there. But if macroevolution is true, should I accept it as true without questioning, or should I look for answers to nagging questions? I maintain that microevolution is observed, macro evolution is a theory, and creation is theology.

The fossil record, though woefully incomplete IS the history. The rest is theory. Theory is not fact. The fact that humans and hamsters share so much DNA doesn't impress. Similarities in the basic makeup of life point to creation, intelligent design, and evolution equally.

Thanks for putting up with me and my distrust of all partisans. It makes me quite a nuisance at family gatherings. I can always find the compromise that pisses everyone off.
 
2005-02-16 04:47:02 PM  
Oh, but for the people who can't tolerate the idea of intelligent design, and also acknowledge that there is not enough evidence for macroevolution, there is the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

From wikipedia:

Punctuated equilibrium, or punctuated equilibria, is a theory of evolution which states that changes such as speciation can occur relatively quickly, with long periods of little change equilibria in between. This theory is one of the proposed explanations of the evolutionary patterns of species as observed in the fossil record, particularly the relatively sudden appearance of new species in a geologically short time period, and the perhaps typical lack of substantial change of species during their existence.
 
2005-02-16 04:53:00 PM  
McRat

You're right. Transitional fossils are hard to come by.

The evidence for macroevolution, however, is not merely paleontological in nature. The evidence lies in the convergence of multiple strands of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.

This month's Skeptic article in Sci. Am. touches on it, and I lack the knowledge of the vast diversity of discplines that converge on the conclusion, but it's worth checking out if you're really not sold on macroevolution.
 
2005-02-16 04:54:35 PM  
Buster

Isn't punctuated equilibria just one of multiple theories to explain macroevolution?
 
2005-02-16 04:56:15 PM  
i love the state i live in. i'm so glad my daughter goes to a maryland public school, where she will have normal, reasonable textbooks. yeah!!

/yes, i'm feeling smug right now
 
2005-02-16 04:56:58 PM  
McRat:
Similarities in the basic makeup of life point to creation, intelligent design, and evolution equally.

Can you enlighten us as to the theories of creation and intelligent design as related to the fossil record?
 
2005-02-16 05:05:20 PM  
McRat: As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet.

That's just plain false. You are emabarrasing yourself by making such claims.

Does your research and pessimism extend to reviewing the claims made by creationists, or do you take what they say at face value? 'Lack of transitional fossils' is their biggest deceit.
 
2005-02-16 06:03:41 PM  
so when this thread is done we'll know for sure which side is right...right?
 
2005-02-16 06:08:17 PM  
Deserves a hero tag.

McRat: give me evidence that proves creationism that's not "It's in a really old book written by a bunch of guys."
 
2005-02-16 06:12:40 PM  

McRatSo, I'll put down 'Evidence isn't necessary' then?

I provided two links which deal directly with your questions. If you do not know how to use a hyperlink, allow me to enlighten you: place your cursor over the underlined text and click the left mouse button. The information you are looking for will open in a new window.

 
2005-02-16 07:42:08 PM  
I shall pre-emptively paraphrase Homer.


Ahhhh, Bevets, Mike_71 & walkingtall, the Washington Generals of fark evolution threads.
 
2005-02-16 08:49:19 PM  
McRat: the evidence for macroevolutionary theory is weak

Says you. Please tell us what university you received your population genetics degree from.
 
2005-02-16 08:52:47 PM  
McRat:
The notion of every creature in existance coming into being by such a sudden and perfect process strikes me as greater evidence for intelligent design than a million religious texts.

You also don't seem to even know what intelligent design is. From wikipedia:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the assertion that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that the initial life on earth, and perhaps some of its present details, was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents; additionally, or alternately, it may include the idea that different empirical evidence supports a similar conclusion regarding the universe itself."

It's not just saying that it makes sense that something intelligent created all of this, but that they can show evidence for it to be true (other than "it MUST be true").
 
2005-02-16 08:56:06 PM  
miek: I don't know why people can't accept that intelligent design isn't science.


Because it isn't.
 
2005-02-16 08:57:47 PM  
McRat:

Evolution - Best guess of what happened, with strong evidence support in the area of Microevolution, and a dogmatic refusal to address problems in Macroevolution.


Microevolution and Macroevolution do not exist. They are terms make up by creationist nutballs to make arguments that don't involve science.
 
2005-02-16 09:32:38 PM  
Damn those rats!

42
 
2005-02-16 09:34:59 PM  
Great headline.
 
2005-02-16 09:35:04 PM  
Get Bevets in here ASAP! Use the summon card please.
 
2005-02-16 09:35:33 PM  
Next thing you know they're gonna be setting up equipment down at the church-house to measure the Holy Ghost.

Are Evangelicals really trying to turn into empiricists? Do they not consider the implications of this?

Personally, I hope they pick more and more fights with more and more people, opening up more fronts than they can sustain.

.
 
2005-02-16 09:36:00 PM  
Not only is there no Creator, there was no Jesus. No Moses either.

Yep, you guessed it, here comes the smart-ass slash-flamebait:

/the gospels are complete bullshiat.
 
2005-02-16 09:36:55 PM  
bulldg4life
WRONG! All you have to do is OBSERVE! The thing is that there is evidence to observe.
 
2005-02-16 09:36:56 PM  
EVOLUTION IS JUST AS THEORETICAL AS CREATIONISM!!!1!!1!

TEH BIBLE IS A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT!!!1!1!!!eleven!1!

*drools, makes moaning sounds*
 
2005-02-16 09:37:23 PM  
McRat

Yes, it is so much more plausible that an unseen, outside force got us to where we are than evolving through stages that were lost from the fossil record. After all, we've all seen the aliens, we know they are there - makes perfect sense. And just last week we saw Jesus heal a broken leg. We see this stuff all the time, why would we believe a broken fossil record?

/sarcasm
 
2005-02-16 09:38:04 PM  
What exactly IS a transitional fossil, anyway? Every creature fits into a species; there are no such things as "in-between" species. Species do change through stuff like geographic isolation into different species (like say, 1 type of frogs gets split into two diff. locations: a swamp and a mountain; after many generations, it's likely that the two will be different species). But every step is its own distinct species.
 
2005-02-16 09:38:17 PM  
Either believe what most educated people believe (evolution) OR believe a book that was written long ago by primitive humans who believed that the earth was flat and that sacrificing animals would magically make water fall from the sky (creation).
 
2005-02-16 09:39:00 PM  
Them doggone liberals messin' wit' our god given rights to learn agin? 'Em bassturds, we'll sho' 'em, somebod' git me my shotty!!

oh, and mjr props to submitter. tha' headline sho' is brilliant!
 
2005-02-16 09:39:01 PM  

You also don't seem to even know what intelligent design is. From wikipedia:


...

It's not just saying that it makes sense that something intelligent created all of this, but that they can show evidence for it to be true (other than "it MUST be true").

So offer the evidence. Nobody ever can or does. If there's evidence for it, display it, analyze it and present it scientifically.

And leave it to some creationist bible-thumping jackasses to also believe Wikipedia is a source of imperical knowledge. Hahahaha. farking awesome.
 
2005-02-16 09:39:35 PM  
Here is my biggest issue, I believe in parts of creationism. ie. We cannot explain what happened BEFORE the big bang and we don't know how -time- will end. These are two big issues. HOWEVER, these two points are for science to address. Creationism by itself has religioius roots that should be taught BUT as philosophy, not science. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
 
2005-02-16 09:40:41 PM  
"As for a perceived lack of fossil evidence, I'll go further, but try to be open minded. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional species... yet. "

Behe made a claim like this about the lack of whale transitionals in the early 90's. Then transitionals were found.

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

Creationists are just plain ignorant of evolutionary biology. They've been brainwashed into believing that there are no transitional and that evolution couldn't occur that they'll invent all sorts of ad-hoc reasoning why evolution is impossible.

It's sad.

In any event, transitional fossils aren't even required for evidence-even without them we can be confident that evolution occured.

I mean, how do you explain endogenous retroviral inserts without common descent?

You can't.
 
2005-02-16 09:40:50 PM  
Rabble
Rabble Rabble Rabble Rable

/intelligent design is not a science, theory does not mean speculation, hurray for someone actually being smart for once.
 
2005-02-16 09:41:11 PM  
excellent headline
 
2005-02-16 09:41:20 PM  
If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science. You might as well try to use hockey rules to defend a play in football. Something doesn't become science just because you REALLY REALLY want it to be science. There are rules to science. And if it isn't science, it has no business being taught in a science classroom. It belongs in a theology classroom.
 
2005-02-16 09:42:18 PM  
I've always wondered why creationists are horrified by evolution, a theory, being taught in school, but have no problem with the Bohr Model or any of the other thousand theories we're taught.

Speaking of which, wasn't the Bohr Model disproved? It's still being taught.
 
2005-02-16 09:42:27 PM  
I was sitting in an Evolutionary Biology class today and some tool behind me was biatching about evolution and calling it "not science". Let me say that again, I was in EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY and this tool was arguing against evolution. Yeah good luck on the exam there, pal.
 
Displayed 50 of 982 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report