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.

(Some Guy)   Mississippi wants to join Alabama by putting disclaimers on evolution textbooks; "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory,"   (christianpost.com) divider line 897
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

5835 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2009 at 11:27 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



897 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-01-20 06:32:02 PM
Isn't that why they call it the theory of evolution?
 
2009-01-20 06:37:07 PM
They're just lucky god isn't here!
 
2009-01-20 06:39:24 PM
nice straw man they have going there.
 
2009-01-20 06:40:50 PM
Nice to see that the South continues to live up to all of the stereotypes and perceptions I have.
 
2009-01-20 06:41:56 PM
lrosu79: Isn't that why they call it the theory of evolution?

shhhhh... you'll confuse the stupid people.
 
2009-01-20 06:45:41 PM
Well there's a leap of logic. Clear off a cliff.
 
2009-01-20 06:45:41 PM
Why are they still wasting time and money on science education ?

Until people can understand what a theory is there's no point in going any further. "just a theory" is like the people who say "but how can there be global warming when my driveway is slippery ?!"

You just give up.
 
2009-01-20 06:50:21 PM
Mordant: Why are they still wasting time and money on science education ?

Until people can understand what a theory is there's no point in going any further. "just a theory" is like the people who say "but how can there be global warming when my driveway is slippery ?!"

You just give up.


It's more fun to hit them in the face with a shovel though.
 
2009-01-20 06:59:46 PM
Right so all theories should be given equal weight. I can't wait until they start teaching FSM.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-01-20 07:31:28 PM
i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-01-20 07:37:36 PM
This is so retarded I think it's in the wrong classroom.
 
2009-01-20 07:41:15 PM
I have some theories about why this headline ends with a comma, but I don't have the proper disclaimers to post them here and don't want to piss off certain states. So I won't.
 
2009-01-20 07:43:50 PM
"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory"

Let us now read a passage from the Book of the Theory of Genesis...
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-01-20 07:45:00 PM
i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-01-20 07:45:33 PM
"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory," the proposal continues...

The textbook disclaimer would end with the following advice: "Study hard and keep an open mind."


Its pretty obvious why atheists would have a problem with that last part.
 
2009-01-20 07:48:39 PM
Bevets: Its pretty obvious why atheists would have a problem with that last part.

ah, bevets.

well - by that logic, we should teach astrology alongside astronomy, right?

fine. let's let these backwards-ass states ban science from the classroom. let's let them bring superstition into science class. we're on the road to becoming the morlocks and the eloi - only the threshold isn't the earth's crust - it's the mason-dixon line.
 
2009-01-20 07:51:28 PM
....And the judge says, "No witnesses? Well hell. Can't be a murder if nobody saw 'em do it...."

Willful ignorance is unattractive. If you guys wanna secede again, I'll back you. No blood, no biatchin', just go if you want.
 
2009-01-20 07:53:52 PM
FTA: "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some 99.999% of the world's scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things."

fixed that for them.

and then there's this gem: "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory,"

this statement is so full of epic, gargantuan fail, i don't even know where to begin.
 
2009-01-20 07:57:09 PM
Bevets: some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things.

I have a problem with this part. Evolution is NOT an explanation for the origin of living things. It is an explanation of how living things have changed over time due to inherent variation, various selective pressures, and genetic drift.

Abiogenesis (^) is A scientific explanation for the origin of living things ON EARTH. (link goes to one possible hypothesis)

Yeah, yeah, I realize that trying to argue with Bevets is about as fruitful as arguing with my breakfast and much less tasty, but oh well...
 
2009-01-20 07:57:40 PM
onfinite.com

Need I say more?
 
2009-01-20 07:57:46 PM
chemical_angel: Nice to see that the South continues to live up to all of the stereotypes and perceptions I have.

You'll be disappointed to learn that HB 25 is apparently dead in committee (new window).

No stickers this year.
 
2009-01-20 08:00:23 PM
Bevets: "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory," the proposal continues...

The textbook disclaimer would end with the following advice: "Study hard and keep an open mind."

Its pretty obvious why atheists would have a problem with that last part.


And it's pretty obvious why you ignore the first part, seeing as that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nice try from your creationist brethren though. Too bad it won't pass.
 
2009-01-20 08:01:10 PM
I can't believe that I've made it through 20+ posts in this thread and have yet to see anyone point out the clear error in the headline: Evolution does not intend to be a statement about the origins of life. Instead, it traces the development of life from the starting point of life existing to present. It does not explain how life came about (or originated).
 
2009-01-20 08:02:47 PM
Bevets: "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory," the proposal continues...

The textbook disclaimer would end with the following advice: "Study hard and keep an open mind."

Its pretty obvious why atheists would have a problem with that last part.



Because it is an explicitly sectarian assault on science, that's why.

Listen closely, Bevets.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Evolution has nothing to say about the existence or activity of God, either for or against.
Evolution is the name we use for the cumulative change in the relative frequencies of the variant alleles in the gene pool that happens over the course of generations.

Nobody actually believes in your straw man of "evolution-ism," even though some people have used that term in the past.

Evolution is not dependent on atheism- Many very devout men and women are scientists who study evolution. Your implicit assertions about their faith are insulting.

Open-mindedness is a virtue, but being willing to listen to good arguments does NOT logically require one to also be willing to teach bad, false and misleading ideas to children.

Creationism is a lie.

Genesis cannot be interpreted literally, no matter what Old Testament scholars think the authors might originally have intended, because the early history of plants and animals simply did not happen the way that Genesis describes.

Out of context quotes do not constitute evidence.

Assertions of infallibility also do not constitute evidence.

Interpreting Genesis as non-metaphoric history misses the whole point of what the book is meant to teach.

Your persistent assertion that your interpretation of scripture has better claim to veracity than the interpretations of the physical world is both supremely arrogant and heretical. It is arrogant because you are claiming that you alone have a correct understanding of scripture and the world, and it is heretical because it elevates the work of humans (translation of scripture) over the presumed work of God (the physical world).

Do not bother to hurl more lies and insults at me. I do not care. You have proven to be a rude, obnoxious and dishonest person, and a poor example of what a Christian is supposed to be. Go away, and pray for your own forgiveness for all of the horrible things you have done here in Fark and elsewhere. You should hope that God forgives you; I certainly I cannot.
 
2009-01-20 08:03:01 PM
It would be fine if they wouldn't reproduce.
 
2009-01-20 08:09:01 PM
quickdraw: It would be fine if they wouldn't reproduce.

Unfortunately, illiterate trailer trash seem to be particularly fecund.
 
2009-01-20 08:09:18 PM
It's only a theorem!
 
2009-01-20 08:10:18 PM
Ace Frehley's Ghost: chemical_angel: Nice to see that the South continues to live up to all of the stereotypes and perceptions I have.

You'll be disappointed to learn that HB 25 is apparently dead in committee (new window).

No stickers this year.


Good.

So this thread shouldn't be green-lit.
 
2009-01-20 08:10:56 PM
Bevets: "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory," the proposal continues...

The textbook disclaimer would end with the following advice: "Study hard and keep an open mind."

Its pretty obvious why atheists would have a problem with that last part.


I don't think evolution ever claims to present a theory about the origin of life. I think it explains how early life evolved in to present life. That is why they call it evolution and not the "origin of life theory".
 
2009-01-20 08:17:44 PM
FloydA: quickdraw: It would be fine if they wouldn't reproduce.

Unfortunately, illiterate trailer trash seem to be particularly fecund.


Idiocracy - its more than a movie. Its the future.
 
2009-01-20 08:21:54 PM
FloydA: quickdraw: It would be fine if they wouldn't reproduce.

Unfortunately, illiterate trailer trash seem to be particularly fecund.


Kind of makes you wonder if, biologically speaking, intelligence is an advantageous trait, hmmm? ;)
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-01-20 08:25:53 PM
Bevets: "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory," the proposal continues...

The textbook disclaimer would end with the following advice: "Study hard and keep an open mind."

Its pretty obvious why atheists would have a problem with that last part.


Bevets,

Here are three examples of out of context quotes from your web site.

I have pointed these out to you numerous times. However you have only addressed the first one and made a lame attempt at showing a "dispute" on an obvious attempt to mislead by omission.

Doesn't the Holy Bible say something about that? I think it might by in the Ten Commandments, like possibly the 9th commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Here are the quotes from your website, then the quotes in their correct context.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Origin of Species (1859) p.189

Link (new window)

Here is the quite in the correct context along with some additional commentary.


If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

Fomrner scientist Michael Behe quotes this in Chapter two of his book. Well not exactly; Behe quotes only the first sentence, leaving his readers in the dark about the fact that Darwin answered his own question, and that he realized evidence might be irretrievably buried in the ash heap of history. This is a dishonest practice known as "quote mining."


Link (new window)


Your second sinful act for the entire world to see,

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Origin of Species (1859) p.186


Link (new window)

Here is the quote in the correct context.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition

Link (new window)

And last but not least


For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. ~ Charles Darwin

Link (new window)2009-01-07 02:23:06 PM

Now in the correct context,

"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.18). [top]

Link (new window)

I know by now it is sheer foolishness to think that you would actually respond to this, but I feel I must expose your sinful deeds as to keep others from straying down the wicked path of dishonesty that you have chosen.

As a "Christian" you should be helping other have a closer walk with the Lord and not lead then astray by deceitful behavior.
You might want to get out your Holy Bible and reflect on how your disingenuous actions relate to Matthew Chapter 18 Verse 6

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-01-20 08:34:50 PM
Bevets,

I almost forgot about this jewel, so lets just add this to your list on sins by omission.


The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin

Link (new window)

Now in context

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-01-20 08:37:39 PM
bevets! bevets! bevets! four more years!!

it's appropriate that someone who doesn't "believe" in evolution (bevets) has never showed any sign of evolving.
 
2009-01-20 08:44:42 PM
img89.imageshack.us
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-01-20 08:45:44 PM
i132.photobucket.com

Still waiting for your reply Bevets
 
2009-01-20 08:54:12 PM
Ahh, gotta love Atheists...

i371.photobucket.com
 
2009-01-20 08:59:44 PM
CanisNoir: Ahh, gotta love Atheists...

Would this be where I mention Pope John Paul II fully supported evolution and the theory thereof?
 
2009-01-20 09:02:46 PM
CanisNoir: Ahh, gotta love Atheists...

uhm. you don't have to be an atheist to understand and "believe" (for lack of a better word) in evolution.


i've never understood what the was so threatening about evolution to begin with, especially why it causes people to froth at the mouth and ban and label books and all that. My HS Bio teacher was a Born Again Xian, and when he taught Darwinian evolution to us, the one word he never said was "god". In fact, in school curriculum here "intelligent design" and "creationism" aren't even mentioned as a teachable option. . .

maybe that's a result of being educated in Canada?
 
2009-01-20 09:04:46 PM
Bevets: Its pretty obvious why atheists would have a problem with that last part.

So to share my breakdown of this, as I conversed the language of the bill with a friend.

"The word "theory" has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations."


While true, the word theory does have many meanings, none of the presented definitions match (except in the most loosest of ways) to the scientific usage of the term. (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses)

First paragraph:
people.virginia.edupeople.virginia.edu

"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory."



The language of this paragraph is very carefully crafted to illicit certain responses. "controversial" with the addition of "some scientists" creates the illusion of academic debate, as well as relying upon it's strawman definition in the previous paragraph to weaken the concept of theory further.

Second Paragraph:
people.virginia.edu

"Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things"


Yet more language crafted to create a negative opinion. "unproven", "belief", "random", "sudden". Further, the final paragraph displays gross scientific ignorance regarding the existence of fossil information, but gets away with it, as (as I understand it) the textbook this notification will be placed in is a Biology text and thus has very little, if anything, written in it about the fossils record.

Therefore, while technically true ("questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook") it is a lie to say that these are "unanswered", that we "lack" the transitional fossils, that we "lack" major new forms developing in the strata, and finally the last sentence is invoking the outmoded and outdated concept of genetic DNA information being required for the process of evolution and subsequent life.

Third paragraph:
people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu


"Study hard and keep an open mind."


The only valuable portion of the bill. However, when taken in total with the rest of the language...

Fourth paragraph:
people.virginia.edu


Speaking of which, Bevets did you ever get around to emailing FloydA about what material you felt would be appropriate for his Origins class? Maybe some peer-reviewed papers from the ICC'08?
 
2009-01-20 09:20:49 PM
I got no problem with that. It is a theory.
 
2009-01-20 09:22:45 PM
I hope they slap this on the Bible also, then.
 
2009-01-20 09:24:36 PM
Stereotypes exist for a reason.
 
2009-01-20 09:24:39 PM
DamnYankees: I hope they slap this on the Bible also, then.

Except that the word "Theory" does not apply to the contents of the bible. Perhaps "allegory" or "myth" would be more appropriate.

/why not? It would be good, imho, to start trying to get rid of the layman's definition of "theory" and stick to the scientific
 
2009-01-20 09:26:38 PM
That's such a peculiar statement, even in biblical terms. I guess it is true that life was present before Adam and Eve, but that means A&E didn't witness the creation of life either, including their own.
 
2009-01-20 09:30:21 PM
I came here looking for a picture of a bible with a warning label on it and left disappointed.
 
2009-01-20 09:30:48 PM
I'm sure someone pointed this out, but according the them, wasn't God there? That means SOMEONE was there.
 
2009-01-20 09:35:13 PM
lrosu79: Isn't that why they call it the theory of evolution?

THIS



That's what they have called it for as long as I can remember.
 
2009-01-20 09:47:33 PM
mamoru:
/why not? It would be good, imho, to start trying to get rid of the layman's definition of "theory" and stick to the scientific


They bible does not attempt to prove anything. It assumes God exists.
 
2009-01-20 09:51:44 PM
sloppy shoes: the layman's definition of "theory" and stick to the scientific

The Bible IS the layman's definition of "theory."
 
Displayed 50 of 897 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