US school battle over evolution (moved from ATSNN)

. . .I'm waiting for a reply from someone that was leftbehind.

. . .apt name, you have been left behind

I see, that's what you call friendly debate, ok.

I could care less what kind of member you are.

This debate has been covered in the link I gave you.

I don't really feel like posting pages and pages of evidence for evolution just to appease you.

If you want to know what I mean about "macro" and "micro" evolution just read the thread.

One less creation vs. evolution thread is a plus as far as I'm concerned.

Appeasement? Do you think I look for that?

You still haven't proved your point. No worries, I'll just have a smoke.

Make a theory a fact and I'll be a happy guy.

Banana Rama.

From LeftBehind's Previous Posts.
Evolution is the only theory with a huge amount of data to back it up. There is no other "origin of life" theory that has stood up to rigorous testing, not to mention the ridiculous charges leveled by creationists.

Yes. Evolution proposes theses that can be objectively tested in the real world, AKA science.

Theory: [n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Where did I say that evolution was a bonafide 100% true fact?

Evolution is the best theory we have right now, but it is not 100%, hence the theory.

However, name an origin theory that has as much evidence as evolution.

Earlier you called evolution a lie.

I posted a link to explain evolution as it is too much for one post, so please post a link explaining why evolution is a lie, or tell me why you think so.

Preferably one not sponsored by creationists, since you say you don't believe in what they have to say either.

You want macro evolution? Here it is!

www.origins.tv...
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Oh wait, fossils are evil, placed by satan! That is the main difference between evolution and creation. Evolution calls for the P word, PROOF! Creation calls for the S word, SATAN! "What? You have proof? SATAN!!!!!!!!!! What? world is round? SATAN!!!!!!!!! What? World isn't center? SATAN!!!!!!!!!!"

Originally posted by intrepid
I think that neither of these belong in "science" classes. Evolution is still a theory.

The whole basis of science is to test and consider theory......

I think that schools should have the right to teach anything that is facts and not be stopped by religious groups because they think that it’s biased against religion,

Since when has science ever been on the side of religion?

I agree that schools should be able to teach facts and not stopped by religous groups but since Evolution is not fact but theory then applicable critisisms should also be taught. Intelligent Design is just as sound a theory as evolution even more so in some areas so why not teach that as fact?

If Biblical Creationisme should be tought alongside evolution, then why not toss in the rather popular intelligent design theory's that aren't related to religion but UFOlogy?

Theres are actualy more historical references poping up all over the place supporting Intelligent Design by another race then there is for the biblical creation story, which is in 1 place and 1 place only, the bible.

Originally Posted by James the Lesser
You want macro evolution? Here it is!

www.origins.tv...
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Oh wait, fossils are evil, placed by satan! That is the main difference between evolution and creation. Evolution calls for the P word, PROOF! Creation calls for the S word, SATAN! "What? You have proof? SATAN!!!!!!!!!! What? world is round? SATAN!!!!!!!!! What? World isn't center? SATAN!!!!!!!!!!"

With all due respect anyone and there brother can pull up websites that support their positions on any argument. The real trick is understanding what you are saying.

You have pointed to Whale evolution as a form of transitional fossil. Lets review shall we? Ambulocetus Natans is an alleged transitional fossil between Mesonychids, carnivorous, land-based mammals who varied in size from foxes to large wolves or bears, and modern whales, the toothed whales, Odontoceti, and baleen whales, Mysticeti. Ambulocetus Natans is a species that is 7 feet long, however many internet sites including talkorigins.org refer to it as being 12 feet long so I will say it's 12 feet long for sake of any argument. The next step in the alleged evolution tree is Rodhocetus which is only 10 feet long. Following Rodhocetus is Basilosaurus which is 70 feet long which again certain internet sites list differently at 60 feet. So what we have here is minimum difference in size of 48 feet between Ambulocetus Natans and Basilosaurus (50 feet if you want to go with Rodhocetus).

This is not descent with modification as proposed by evolution but rather a massive change in the species that evolution cannot account for (either in the fossil records or in how such a species could evolve from a mother which could not bear it).

Also more news that might interest you on Whale Evolution from 2001

Wednesday, 19 September 2001 18:23 (ET)

Whale find shakes evolutionary theories
By LIDIA WASOWICZ, UPI Senior Science Writer

In findings that throw cold water on the two most popular theories of the
evolution of whales, researchers in the Punjab Province of Pakistan have
unearthed 50-million-year-old fossilized remains of the closest land
relatives of the giant mammals.

Expeditions to a scorching, rugged area halfway between the capital of
Islamabad and the Afghan border yielded nearly complete skeletons of two
whale ancestors, one the size of a modern-day fox, the other wolf-sized. In
their day, both animals sported land-friendly features -- long, spindly
legs, distinctive ankle bones -- seen in cows, pigs, sheep and other hoofed
mammals-as well as tiny ear bones found only in whales and other cetaceans,
scientists said in the British journal Nature.

Experts told United Press International they deem the find as significant
as that of the most primitive bird Archaeopteryx or of the early human
relative Australopithecus.

The discovery throws into question two predominant theories which hold
that whales are related to either hippopotamids, which number hippopotamuses
and pygmy hippos, or to mesonychians, an extinct group of meat-eating
mammals from the Northern Hemisphere that could be as small as a weasel or
as large as a grizzly bear.

The new findings instead suggest whales are closely related to a group of
mammals called even-toed ungulates or artiodactyls that include camels,
pigs, deer, cattle, peccaries, llamas, giraffes, goats, sheep and antelope.
The crucial evidence comes in the form of an anvil -- a bone about the size
of a handful of poppy seeds that is delicately suspended in the ear --
recovered from what is thought to be the first cetacean, dubbed Pakicetus,
which roamed Earth some 50 million years ago during the Eocene Epoch, said
lead author Hans Thewissen of Northeastern Ohio Universities College of
Medicine in Rootstown, Ohio.

"Hearing is one of the most fascinating parts of early whale evolution;
these early whales are really experimenting with different hearing systems.
We don't know all the details, but it seems that they may have listened the
way crocodiles do, pushing their lower jaw into the ground and picking up
vibrations of the footsteps of other prey animals," Thewissen told UPI.
"Maybe whales are doing the same thing."

The ear of modern whales and dolphins is specialized to listen to sounds
under water. Unlike the flat, translucent sheet of tissue that comprises the
eardrum in other mammals, the hearing organ in whales is a thick, opaque,
cord-like structure. All cetaceans have three small ear bones-the hammer,
anvil and stirrup-just as their land mammal ancestors did, though their
shape has been greatly modified over the ages. The hearing organ of Eocene
whales represents a compromise between adaptations aimed at receiving sounds
under water and holdovers from a system used for listening to air-borne
sounds, scientists said. The fossils "should take their place among other
famous intermediates such as the most primitive bird Archaeopteryx" and the
hominid Australopithecus, said Christian de Muizon of the Laboratoire de
Paleontologie at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, who
authored an accompanying News and Views article.

"These partial skeletons provide a good argument that cetaceans and
artiodactyls are closely related," de Muizon said in a telephone interview.
Thewissen, Ellen Williams and their team pieced together the skeletons of
two different whale species: the fox-sized Ichthyolestes pinfoldi and the
wolf-sized Pakicetus attocki. These are the oldest, most complete skeletons
of early whales found to date, they said. The bones point to a small
wolf-like body, but with a longer, muscular tail, a lengthier snout and
small eyes set close together on top of the head. Pakicetus lived on land
and likely fed while wading in shallow streams. The animals' anklebones
indicate "the earliest whales were good runners," de Muizon told UPI.

There is no "which" with this. there is no "either or". The Christian therory,if it is even a therory seeing as it's backed up with zero evidence is only one of many throughout the world.

If the Christian creation theory is to be considered another possibility then so must the creation theories of the rest of the world’s religions. The version from the Hindu Puranas for example? The repeating cycles of Buddhism? Or the pagans Great mother? Why stop at religions? What about the many versions from ancient cultures? Surely being closer to the creation the stories should have all the more significance? Aboriginal Dreamtime? Native Americans emergence from the underworld? Ancient Chinas Phan Ku and the cosmic egg?

Would the Christian creationists advocate joint teaching of all these beliefs and theories that in terms of possibility are on a par with their own? I doubt it. The reason Christian creationists would most likely give for the teaching of their particular belief above the others is that their culture, history and laws are based on Jeudo/Christian beliefs. Realising that, they must also realise that therefore the teaching of creationism has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with pushing their own religious dogma.

The problem most people have with evolution is abiogenesis, life from non-life.

I thought this had been proved out, but upon re-examining the evidence, I see nothing conclusive - just more possible explanations.

Abiogenesis could very well have happened in dust clouds, across the universe, but we can't prove that. It could have taken place in earth's oceans, but it's highly improbable. Basically this is the largest of the flaws in the theory. However, many of those who seek to prove it wrong go about it the wrong way. They argue using the assumption that earth always had an oxygen rich environment, which is false. Anyway... There are more complex arguments which I'm still trying to fully understand, involving protein synthesis and the evolution of micro structures that would serve no purpose on their own, and would therefore have to be evolved in tandem.

Inteligent design is a misnomer, and there are countless examples of just how uninteligent the design really is. Those who pimp this idea have not carefully examined the physiology of the various creatures that inhabit our earth.

Evolution is just a theory, but theories are all we have. There's no reason to shy away from theories in school. Teaching adaptation is a viable way of showing students the ways creatures change to suit their environments, and getting them to think critically on a number of levels. For me, it was the most fascinating aspect of biology.

Religion is a belief system that requires no evaluation, no experiments, no debate, no proof, no science. There's no place for it in school science classes. You might as well teach the theory of the universe according to Mike. It would be comparable.

Homeschool has always been an option, and perhaps the standards could be changed to allow parents to keep their children in the dark regarding certain sciences and theories. I have no problem with people who want to raise their children to be lopsided, it makes no difference to me or to my children. If anything, it will give my children an advantage in life.

There are schools that teach religion. If you want to indocrinate your child into your particular faith, send them there. Public schools are for the dissemination of commonly agreed upon secular knowledge, because that's the only universal knowledge. Good scientists will never say evolution is a fact, and neither should science teachers. They should do their part to encourage critical thinking and develop a love of erudition in their students. The teacher should provide all the evidence at their disposal, and leave the students to make up their own minds.

This country is at a crossroads, and it will be very interesting to see where we go from here.

i have no real problem with that. i have even mentioned it a time or two in these discussions. only problem would be that it would become at least one whole class unto it's self. but it would be educational just the same. good idea. considering all the theories are just as valid as evolution. after all they are ALL just differing opinion of what happened. i will say it is better than the bad sciance typicaly used to back up evolution.

Originally Posted by Kegs
There is no "which" with this. there is no "either or". The Christian therory,if it is even a therory seeing as it's backed up with zero evidence is only one of many throughout the world.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't see why evolution cannot be taught with Intelligent design, Creationism and Panspermia taught right along side. Why not expose our children to everything that is available rather that just one theory? Evolution is full of holes and as long as it is taught as bonafide fact the truth, whatever that is, may never be known.

BlackJackal, yes but do you seriously think the right wing Christians proposing all this legislation are doing it so that all the varied theories of creation can be taught? Its all about pushing there own version. That's the only "opposite" according to them. That's what I mean by there is no either or. There is room for other theories but it's not in School.

Kegs,

Agreed, and that is quite sad because we should want to enlighten future generations so that they can be open to all possibilities rather than indoctrinate them with our dogmas and beliefs. I view people who unabashadly belive creationism or evolution into the same boat. These people are ignorant, not because they are mentally undeveloped but because they are closed to possibilities.

What really chaps my butt is the scientific theory for the creation of the universe. Random quarks popping up in a vacuum and then expanding to the Big Bang. Talk about a leap of faith. But anyway, back to evolution and intelligent design.

Fine, you teach science and BS, I'll teach math and BS. Math- 2+2=4. BS 2+2=22. I'm right because I say so, go to hell anyone who disagrees with me. You do the math! take a 2, put another 2 next to it and what do you have? 22! So I am right, 2+2=4 is wrong, go to hell.

"Friend, I am a '22 Scientist'. I want to introduce you to a beautiful and simple truth: 2 + 2 = 22. You can just look at it and it is obvious. The evidence for this fact is all around us. We are surrounded by the number 22, and EVERY SINGLE '22' shows how it is created, by adding '2' and '2'. Glory be!"

All found here at www.xenophilia.com...

Makes sense doesn't it? I mean, if you are going to teach the truth, you should teach the BS because I say so. Next in english class, you teach english, I teach ABC9JHBJLHB794KJN:KKL

James The Lesser:
Although I can read between the lines and empathize with your annoyance with one dimensional thought based individuals whom share a common delusion over a work of fiction, in all fairness I would have to point out that BlackJackel made some good points concerning the genus issues of whales.

Black Jackel:
Additionally thumbs up to the idea of alternate explainations of our origins without 'quoting' from a book, but rather based on observation and organization of thought.

Could you elaborate a bit on some of these alternatives either in post or u2u?
If viable alternatives that have actual data to back up key parts of a particular observation on the origin of life without having to invent them out of thin air, I would welcome such alternative theories to the educational system as a global standard.

Peeps:
I am releaved there are those whom may acknowledge a creation matrix without using an idiom that exists at the moment. Robin Williams joked about this to a degree on stage here recently... " 'And God said let there be light', couldn't that be a metaphor for the Big Bang? [mocked Fundie reponse: "Nah, he just turned on the light switch" ' It's a scary thought there are actual people who think like that.....

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Crysstaafur]

This site pretty well sums up the most popular scientific theories for the origins of life.

serendip.brynmawr.edu...

At the bottom you can find links that describe the theories in more detail.

On a personal note, I personally have studied evolution and competiting theories for the better part of a decade now. In that time I have gone from a diehard darwinite to diehard Creationist and every spot in between. The facts of the matter are that there are facts to back up any theory out there and facts that disprove every theory out there. So where we are is in a state of total confusion about our origins. It takes a leap of faith either way you look to believe a certain theory so I have decided that I am of too little wisdom and knowledge to know the true origin of the species. With that in mind I also cannot accept the idea that consciousness, self awareness, knowledge of ones place in the cosmos is a result of molecules accidently bouncing into one another.

But in the end I think the true answer may be found but only if both Darwinist's, Creationists and the like cast aside their dogma's and search for the true answer.

Firstly, religion has no place in the public school system.

The school board, commitee or whatever really needs to enforce this kind of thing, and tell these people that they have no right to tell the school it has to teach some magicky alternative theorie that makes no real sense.

People really need to stop acting so stupid, its public school, not, teach are kids what we believe school.

If a person wants to force there kid(s) to be there religion, than they should do it at home, or there place of worship, or if there really gonna have a fit about it, send them to catholic school, or something like that.

This kind of idiocracy really infuriates me, especialy when its creationists trying to force there belief in to every where they want to.

Firstly, religion has no place in the public school system.

By the quote above, then the evolutionary theory should not be taught in public schools either,
Religion is not only the belief of a higher power. It is considered by many that the evolutionary Theory is a form of religion.
The evolutionary THEORY, is just that a theory, that does have a lot of facts to back it up but even after all these years, it is still only a theory. A theory that since it has not been proven, requires at least some faith to believe it. As it is only a theory, it is not the end all to end all. Religion is a belief system it is a theory, with the same need to have people to have faith in it to give it credence.
The denial of other theories, beliefs that is now being promoted in the schools smacks of history repeating itself. Throughout history, science and it's beliefs were ridiculed were denied, were ostracized by those of religious beliefs. Now, science, which is currently in power, is doing to religion as religion has done to science in the past. By denying the existance of other theories, by school teahers feeling that to ANSWER/ RESPOND questions presented by the students on this (or any subject) says very little for our school system. For those of the scientific community who are promoting the evolutionary theory to even refuse to attend publicly held meetings by the city of Topeka is reprehensible. A student is in school to learn. Not just what is written but to learn to think! For our teachers to feel that it is confrontational to respond to students questions is so wrong that I am surprised at all the debates on this.

Recently, many here as well as around the world condemned Japan for attempting to re-write history. The issue here was that Japan was publishing high school history books that did not even mention the use of "comfort women" and had down played Nam King as only being an incident (the murder of 30,000 civilian men, women and children).
The world condemned Japan for this. Many here did the same. The thing is, is that the issue in Topeka is virtually the same issue. Also keep in mind, that this is not only an issue in Topeka, there are many communityies ion the US today that are facing the same issue. This is an issue that need to be taken up (by the people and not the courts) to decide, if, any version of creationism should be included.

The issue in Topeka, is not one of religion, it is one of having the schools present multiple facets (theories) to explain the beginings of the human race and life on this planet. The belief in creationism, is not the sole propietorship of religion as their are people out there would do not subscribe to any specific religion but have a belief that some kind of higher power had a hand in our creation / evolution. So by refusing to answer questions to refuse to respond is very sad.

As to Howard's suggestion that creationism should not be brought up in a science class, then since evolution is only a theory, then it should also not be in a sciencce class. Maybe both should go to the biology class as you have suggested (biology is by the way a science class). If this is not enough, then both the creationsinm theory as well as the evolutionary theory should not be taught in the classroom as both need faith in which to believe in either of them