View Full Version : Evolution versus Creationism ... goes to trial
Lets see if the courts can determine this one ...
Evolution Fight Set for Trial
By Josh Getlin, Times Staff Writer
DOVER, Pa. -- In the beginning, members of the Dover Area School Board wrangled over what should be required in their high school biology curriculum.
Some were adamant that science teachers should stick with the widely taught theory of evolution and random selection. Others said teaching the theory of intelligent design should also be required, saying certain elements of life, like cell structure, are best explained by an intelligent cause.
The debate had strong religious overtones.
"Nearly 2,000 years ago someone died on a cross for us," said board member William Buckingham, who urged his colleagues to include intelligent design in ninth grade science classes. "Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him?"
On Monday, a trial will begin over the board's decision last year ordering that students be taught about intelligent design and flaws in Charles Darwin's teachings.
Several parents, fearing the intrusion of religion into public schooling, filed a lawsuit to block the policy, backed by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys.
Activists on both sides believe stakes are high in the case, which has divided this small rural town 100 miles west of Philadelphia.
The proceedings in a Harrisburg federal court will be the first legal challenge to the mandatory teaching of intelligent design, which is championed by a growing number of Christian fundamentalists. And the verdict, to be rendered by U.S. Judge John E. Jones, could have a profound impact on America's cultural wars over religion and its role in public life.
Witnesses are expected to debate whether the theory is scientifically valid, or a Trojan Horse designed to subvert the theories of Charles Darwin.
"We're fighting for the First Amendment, the separation of church and state and the integrity of schools," said Philadelphia attorney Eric Rothschild, who is teaming up with a battery of Pennsylvania ACLU lawyers to argue the case. "This trial should decide whether a school board can impose its religious views on other students."
The statement on intelligent design approved by the board was read to ninth grade science students in January and will be read again this year. It reads in part:
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in theory exist for which there is no evidence. . . . Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin. . . . With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
Several days after the Dover school board's 6-3 vote approving the intelligent design resolution, the three dissenting members resigned in protest.
In November, two opposing slates will vie for seven open seats on the Dover school board: one backing the teaching of intelligent design, the other strongly opposed.
School board members and their allies also believe that freedoms are at stake. They have blasted the ACLU for seeking a "gag order" on what teachers can say.
"This issue is bubbling under the surface all over the country, but the Dover board had the courage of their convictions," said Richard Thompson, counsel for the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center. The center promotes and defends the religious freedoms of Christians, he said, and is handling the case pro bono.
If all this sounds eerily reminiscent of another case on evolution, it is.
Eighty years ago the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tenn., tested the legality of a state law banning the teaching of evolution. That case, immortalized in the movie "Inherit the Wind," featured an epic courtroom confrontation between attorney Clarence Darrow, who argued against the law, and former Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who defended the statute. Although teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating the law, the state Supreme Court later overturned the verdict.
As in Dayton, Dover's local politics have been roiled.
The pages of local newspapers have been filled with letters pro and con. And the national media have increasingly focused on the case. But there is one notable voice missing from the fray. The Discovery Institute, an influential Seattle-based organization that backs intelligent design, is not supporting the Dover school board.LINK (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dover26sep26,0,4324588.story?coll=la-tot-promo&track=morenews)
The result will be eagerly awaited.
Papewaio
09-26-2005, 04:28
Gah!, this is the information age. If they want to stick their heads in the sands and then trade their lands in a thousand years for some beads and blankets let them!
I with you Cube.
My philosophy is that if science can't prove aspects of "Evolution Theory", it's because it hasn't been discovered yet. It does not mean it is wrong.
Papewaio
09-26-2005, 04:35
Other scientific theories:
Gravity, Newtons Laws of Motion, Photoelectric effect, gravitational lensing, electromagnetic theory etc
Soulforged
09-26-2005, 04:36
This things keep showing up again and again. Wasn't there, a time ago, a trial on this behalf in some town? For God's sake (irony), how is that this kind of stupidity keeps on showing up in the 21th century?
Reverend Joe
09-26-2005, 04:39
Cue the angry rightwing nutjobs, and the bleeding heart liberals, and thus begins the same crap all over again...
Because noone cares about the nature of man, or how we work on the inside, or any of the interesting philosophical questions that plague us. No, we all prefer to live in ignorance. And how shall we fill the empty spaces? With more tripe about deevolution and unintellegent design.
I'm sick of this.
Papewaio
09-26-2005, 04:47
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in theory exist for which there is no evidence. . . . Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin. . . . With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory,
Kind of the statement of the obvious. It might be nice if someone actually informed the board that science has gone a bit beyond Darwins initial theory, but hey I have heard textbooks cost a lot and being a hundred years behind only means no flight, radio or tv, what the heck what is a bit of science and technological advancement between friends... just don't mention this to the American Indians as we weren't so nice about their lack of education. ~;)
it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered.
Yes, that is the whole idea of science not to rest on your laurels but keep at it.
The theory is not a fact.
And a cat is not a dog... so what? Oh a theory is not a fact!!!!!, well good! Theories in science are based on facts not hallucinations or security blankets.
Gaps in theory exist for which there is no evidence
Was this before or after Cricks and Co and DNA? The gaps are there but some theories have gaps so large they aren't even termed science:
. . . . Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin
Differences of opinion are fine in science. But don't think it is a democracy. Intelligent design has all the intellectual strength vs Evolution of a moth meeting a Kenworth barreling down the road. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and as such should be taught in comparative religon class.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
Thats good. The students should be taught to respect any scientific theory and not to pick on those proven wrong.
Soulforged
09-26-2005, 04:59
What I don't understand is why they want this on school? Why don't go to the church? This will not fill any gaps, just will make a perfect illusion...
Guys, you must understand, I lived in Western Pennsylavania for a long time. While living there I visited my cousins in centeral PA (near Harrisburg) quite often. It is a very different story from the rest of the country. These people have been using the same morals and traditions for generations upon generations. To force them to change like this is like pissing on their tradation. Although I do not completely agree with either side, I understand where the tradionalists are coming from.
Electricity is the work of satan and the earth is flat!
... :wall:
well, the USA sure is a intresting nation.
Ignoramus
09-26-2005, 10:16
The evolutionist scientists themselves know they have no evidence for evolution, they just persuade gullible people, because the average person has no idea whether they are right and wrong, and because people these days are becoming anti-Christian, they go with anything that disagrees with Christianity. And if they haven't discovered solid evidence, why are their theories, many of which have been proved wrong, still taught in schools?
The_Emperor
09-26-2005, 13:36
Science itself works on the foundation that you remain objective and evaluate the facts before comming to a conclusion.
Evolution came about after extensive study of various species around the world by Darwin and many other scientists after him. The fossil record also backs up the theory of evolution by tracing the development of species through the ages... Early species of Birds for example started out looking more like dinosaurs with a few feathers and gradually their features changed to become closer to what we see today.
The problem I have with "intelligent design" is it didn't come about after unbiased scientific analysis of the facts. It came from people determined to prove that their religion is scientifically true... They knew what their goal already was beforehand and so selected fact to support that pre-determined goal.
I was always told that a scientist comes to conclusions after analysis of the facts avaliable, not having facts selectively taken to fit a pre-drawn conclusion.
Adrian II
09-26-2005, 14:11
What I don't understand is why they want this on school? Why don't go to the church?In many cases intelligent design is just religion by another name. Look at what one Board member says about it:
Nearly 2,000 years ago someone died on a cross for us," said board member William Buckingham, who urged his colleagues to include intelligent design in ninth grade science classes. "Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him?"One myth is called upon to support another one. This is what this struggle is all about. It is about the nature of American society: is it religious or secular? It is not about Darwin or evolution, it is not about science at all, but about power. That much I understand from all the things I have read about this debate in the United States. Intelligent design originated with Christian groups who understood that their version of the earth's history would never make it into a science book.
In the same vein, other Americans are now rewriting the history of their Constitution and the Founding Fathers to make them fit the notion that the country is Christian, not secular. Again this is not about history, it is about political power and ideology.
I think you are all mean bullies. Why can't the state pay for children to be taught that unfounded fairy stories are as legitimate as any other description of the world?
Who cares? Honestly? School is for teaching real things. Church is for religion. The world will not collapse if they are not allowed to preach their ignorant reactionary dogma to impressionable children who's parents may or may not want that. Nothing stopping them from doing it at home, or at church.
They obviously care, and with that attitude is most likely why they hate evolutionists. In many places there, school and religion are interwoven. If they want to keep it that way fine, just send your kids to a different school if you really care that much.
Bullcrap. There's ample evidence for evolution. You're confusing several theories and bunching them into one, without a shred of reason to back up your claim.
It is also just a theory. Just like the thoery of creationism. I have studied evolution, not a great detail, but pretty well in depth. There are still gaps in which they have no idea how life arose. They have an idea, but they are not sure at all.
yesdachi
09-26-2005, 15:28
There are a heck of a lot of private schools out there and if people want their kids to learn religion in school, a private school is the place for them :book: .
Side note #1 if they decide to teach a religious creation theory like the Christian Intelligent design, what happens when a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, etc. moves to the town? Do they teach that religions creation theory as well, or only the theory of the majority? Evolution applies to all where creationism changes depending on the religion. The advocates of teaching intelligent design have such a small view of the world. These religious crackpots are the US’s version of the Muslim type extremists except the ones in PA would rather raise barns than a wars.
Side note #2 I recently saw an Amish guy with a cell phone. ~D
Rodion Romanovich
09-26-2005, 15:35
It is also just a theory. Just like the thoery of creationism. I have studied evolution, not a great detail, but pretty well in depth. There are still gaps in which they have no idea how life arose. They have an idea, but they are not sure at all.
Being quite good at the evolution theory myself, I can say a few things to clear misconceptions in this thread up:
1. Darwin's theory is faulty in many ways if you use it as a model for describing reality. It's not because he was a bad scientist, but because he only discovered the basic principles of it, and never made an attempt of creating a full model of it. Therefore, it's only of interest to scientists, not for laymen. The modern science, knowing this principle and having proved it both theoretically and statistically, is making better efforts at making a complete model based on this principle.
2. With the modern evolution model, there are no contraarguments which prove any of the parts to be wrong. Unlike the popular misconceptions of the 19th century fascists, scientists realize that it's nearly impossible for a man to predict which genes are "the strongest" in the long run, and scientists also realize the importance of genetical variety.
3. The Christian creationist theory in the popular catholic form has met strong contraarguments and has been, largely, counterproved.
4. Compare point 2 and 3, it's an important difference. We might not have fully proved the evolution model, not the creationism theory either. But at least we've counterproved the creationist theory but not the evolution model. A more methafor based interpretation of the creationism theory results in a view that isn't contradicting reality, for example the Bible knew that most other animals came before humans, and that earth was created before animals etc. I'd say the popular fundamentalistic creationist theory is counterproved, but not the creationist theory that's written in the bible, if you read it as you're supposed to. And the evolution model we have today is nearly correct.
All good points. I guess what it comes down to is what you put ur faith in: religion,science, or a mix of both?
Haha that's hilarious. People will be burning witches next.
Steppe Merc
09-26-2005, 18:26
"Nearly 2,000 years ago someone died on a cross for us," said board member William Buckingham, who urged his colleagues to include intelligent design in ninth grade science classes. "Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him?"
:dizzy2:
Let's hope that the judges are intelligent enough to relize what BS intelligent design is. It is a purely religous matter, and should be confined to religous studies, or classes dealing with the customs of different religons. Not science.
Geoffrey S
09-26-2005, 19:15
As to whether evolution is real or not, it's a theory: nothing is a definite fact, just as any other scientific theory. The holes are being filled in all the time. Believing in God is fine by me; just don't try to wrap belief up in pseudo-scientific nonsense and claim it's scientific.
Zharakov
09-26-2005, 20:24
I beieve in Evolution.
I believe that God wanted us to evolve from Monkeys. It makes sence to me.
Adrian II
09-26-2005, 20:28
I beieve in Evolution.
I believe that God wanted us to evolve from Monkeys. It makes sence to me.Couldn't he speed it up a bit?.. ~:confused:
Look at the Miller Experiment. Proof that life can arise from nothing under the right circumstances. It was certainly not.
Bullcrap. There's ample evidence for evolution. You're confusing several theories and bunching them into one, without a shred of reason to back up your claim.The irony is precious in that statement. ~D
The world will not collapse if they are not allowed to preach their ignorant reactionary dogma to impressionable children who's parents may or may not want that. Nothing stopping them from doing it at home, or at church.Nor will it collapse if they are allowed either. I really don't care what they choose to teach in their own, local schools. It speaks very poorly of the ACLU that they are on the plaintiffs side of this, imo.
Steppe Merc
09-26-2005, 22:04
Nor will it collapse if they are allowed either. I really don't care what they choose to teach in their own, local schools. It speaks very poorly of the ACLU that they are on the plaintiffs side of this, imo.
Well the world will certaintly get no better if kids are taught old fashioned, supersititous ideas in school like this.
Kaiser of Arabia
09-26-2005, 22:12
I have a solution: make science an elective rather than a required course. It's not like it's important unless you want to become a physicist anyway. Plus, I could use the credits for somthing constructive, like Psych-Soc.
Goofball
09-26-2005, 22:17
It speaks very poorly of the ACLU that they are on the plaintiffs side of this, imo.
Please explain.
Here we have a group trying not just to preach their religious dogma at people who don't adhere to it, but they are actually going so far as to try to have their dogma declared scientific fact and taught in science classes in public schools.
Science classes, for crying out loud...
:dizzy2:
If they are allowed to do this, it will be a clear example of "establishment of religion" by the government.
Why should the ACLU be in favor of this?
Please, enlighten me...
Kaiser of Arabia
09-26-2005, 22:24
Please explain.
Here we have a group trying not just to preach their religious dogma at people who don't adhere to it, but they are actually going so far as to try to have their dogma declared scientific fact and taught in science classes in public schools.
Science classes, for crying out loud...
:dizzy2:
If they are allowed to do this, it will be a clear example of "establishment of religion" by the government.
Why should the ACLU be in favor of this?
Please, enlighten me...
Evolutionists sucesfully got their anti-religious dogma declared scientific fact and taught in science classes. We all know Evolution is just an accepted theory, it's not a proven fact.
Have you ever seen anything evolve?
Kanamori
09-26-2005, 22:27
Have you ever seen anything evolve?
The most documented case is the peppered moth.
Why should the ACLU be in favor of this?
Because they support Constitutional ideas that are a stretch, at best, sometimes. ~;)
Goofball
09-26-2005, 22:30
Evolutionists sucesfully got their anti-religious dogma declared scientific fact and taught in science classes. We all know Evolution is just an accepted theory, it's not a proven fact.
Have you ever seen anything evolve?
Have you ever seen Jesus?
Please explain.Because it's an organization that still claims to be our nation's guardian of "liberty", supporter of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties when they're only really concerned with their own narrow, anti-religious, view of the 1st Amendment. I really don't see where allowing a democratically elected school board to set it's own curriculum has anything to do with Congress making a law as to the establishment of religion. You could make the tenuous link, I suppose- but an organization that claims to support the entire Bill of Rights seem remarkably unconcerned about the 10th in this case, as well as the town's "liberty" to elect their own school board to run their school district as they see fit.
I anything, they should've just butt out.
yesdachi
09-26-2005, 22:34
Have you ever seen Jesus?
Nice. I almost spit soda all over my monitor. :laugh4:
Goofball
09-26-2005, 22:44
Because it's an organization that still claims to be our nation's guardian of "liberty", supporter of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties when they're only really concerned with their own narrow, anti-religious, view of the 1st Amendment. I really don't see where allowing a democratically elected school board to set it's own curriculum has anything to do with Congress making a law as to the establishment of religion. You could make the tenuous link, I suppose- but an organization that claims to support the entire Bill of Rights seem remarkably unconcerned about the 10th in this case, as well as the town's "liberty" to elect their own school board to run their school district as they see fit.
So is it your opinion then, that if 50% plus one of the members of a public school board vote to institute an Islamic fundamentalist curricilum that focused only on the teachings of Qur'an, that this would perfectly within their rights and that the families of the children who were not Muslims would just have to send their kids to school elsewhere if they didn't like it?
Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might be a better idea to confine all religious teachings in public schools to elective religious studies classes?
Kaiser of Arabia
09-26-2005, 23:33
Have you ever seen Jesus?
Have you ever seen Darwin? Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.
Also, there are witnesses to Jesus, I have never met someone who's watched an entire race of animals evolve.
Evolutionists are just scio-stalinists. It's either their way or expulsion. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, and until we, as a human race, can witness somthing "evolve," it will remain a theory. So says Kaiser.
Goofball
09-26-2005, 23:49
Have you ever seen Darwin?
No I haven't. But I'd be pleased to engage in a debate where you have to try to prove that Jesus really existed and did all of the magic that Christians say he did, versus me having to prove that Darwin existed and did all of the writing and research that there is ample historical evidence of.
Who do you think would be able to prove their case, you or me?
Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.
Hmmm. What sounds more like it was based on an acid trip:
"A virgin gave birth to the son of a god who then was murdered by his own people, but came back to life and loves us all anyway."
or,
"Over billions of years, creatures evolve and adapt to their environments as those who are most suited to survival naturally thrive and those who are weaker naturally die off."
Let me think about that one for a minute...
:idea2:
AntiochusIII
09-26-2005, 23:55
Have you ever seen Darwin? Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.Guess what? Darwin is just a guy. The theory is the key. However, you base your hash-enduced hallucination claim on a guy like...2000 years ago. Who may as well only intended to preach what's in my sig.
Also, there are witnesses to Jesus, I have never met someone who's watched an entire race of animals evolve.You might as well say that there are witnesses to Charles Darwin. And we do witness bacteria evolve; like, really evolve. Study some science, for God's sake.
Evolutionists are just scio-stalinists. It's either their way or expulsion. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, and until we, as a human race, can witness somthing "evolve," it will remain a theory. So says Kaiser.Evolution is a theory. Great, you got your first lesson correct. But you seems to forget that it's based on facts, and ever-changing in itself. The theory is evolving as more experiments are being done. While unintelligent design based its claim on a 2000 years old politically-washed literature. And yeah, all biologists are Stalinists...
For curious non-US people, these kind of people are those who support "unintelligent design."
Kaiser of Arabia
09-27-2005, 00:00
No I haven't. But I'd be pleased to engage in a debate where you have to try to prove that Jesus really existed and did all of the magic that Christians say he did, versus me having to prove that Darwin existed and did all of the writing and research that there is ample historical evidence of.
Who do you think would be able to prove their case, you or me?
Hmmm. What sounds more like it was based on an acid trip:
"A virgin gave birth to the son of a god who then was murdered by his own people, but came back to life and loves us all anyway."
or,
"Over billions of years, creatures evolve and adapt to their environments as those who are most suited to survival naturally thrive and those who are weaker naturally die off."
Let me think about that one for a minute...
:idea2:
1. Well, since we know both men at least existed, we can prove both. We can't prove either was right, however.
2. Obviously the 2nd one! I mean, how the HELL can you know what happened billions of years ago? Where you there? Were ANY humans there? Nope, nein, нет, no, non, não, αριθ, and nr. (I love babelfish).
If those who are weaker naturally die off then why do we have so many poor who do nothing but leech off of society? Why is my half brother alive? Why is the world ruled by babeling morons? They should have died off, already! Also, I'm not denying things adapt, but it's on a more case-to-case basis rather than as a whole species.
Have you ever seen Darwin? Yet you beleive his theory. Which he based off of an opium-enduced halucination I think.
Also, there are witnesses to Jesus, I have never met someone who's watched an entire race of animals evolve.
Evolutionists are just scio-stalinists. It's either their way or expulsion. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, and until we, as a human race, can witness somthing "evolve," it will remain a theory. So says Kaiser.
You need to be a little more careful here Kaiser selective breeding of domestic animals has been around for many thousands of years. Dogs have been selective breed to preform certain tasks or for looks. Horses likewise have been selective breed to get faster horses - better jumpers, etc..
Selective Breeding is one of the methods Darwin used to confirm his theory of evolution as being a viable explanation of the way nature works. ITs called artifical selection in evolution terms. Artifical selection supports the Evolution Theory with physical evidence.
While I support the Intelligent Design Theory in its religious context - its still a religious explanation of one way the earth, man, and animals all came about. That it attempts to use artifical selection as its basis for theory also does not discount it as a premise and a valid scientific theory - what makes it questionable is that instead of saying the answer is unkown as to the cause it requires the individual to believe in a creator. In that aspect it really does not have a place being taught next to biology in the classroom.
Take it to a Philosophy class (Which religion does fall into) or have a elective course on Religious studies in the public school system. Either way works for me - however lets not confuse the issue - about what Intelligent Design really is - verus what Darwin's Theory of evolution is.
If you remember the other thread - said things very similiar to this until someone decided it was more fun to attack religion verus having a discussion.
Now as for the ACLU presenting the arguement - is it doing so at the bequest of a citizen of the county in question? Which is prefectly within the purview of what the ACLU is organized to do. Or did the ACLU go looking for the case to make a poster case for their idealogue views in the courts? If they did this then the ACLU is violating its own charter in my opinion.
Kaiser of Arabia
09-27-2005, 00:08
Bullshit. Every word of that. Do you exist to offend, Kaiser?
"Evolutionists"? No such thing. Anyway, evolution has been witnessed. I believe there was some kind of dolphin evolution discovered awhile back. And there is always the Moth example. How do you explain Neanderthals?
Evolution is a very well-established collection of theories. Lumping them together and proclaiming it as fact is wrong. Dismissing it because it threatens your ignorant, offensive, and reactionary view of the world is likewise wrong. It's a promising theory, that is more established than alot of other things we take as fact. It merits further research, as all promising theories--and facts--do. Science is not a dogma. It's common-sense. Without it, we'd all still be dying of old age at 40, for crissakes.
Basically. Well, let me elaborate.
Most of the time when I present a very rediculous argument it is not because I'm an idiot or actually beleive it, it is simply to stir peoples most basic emotions and observe how they react under certain situations so I can better myself in my skills to debate and the like. It also allows me to push people further and make them think of responses, therefore expanding their experience and benefiting them as well. ~:)
Humans have characteristics that place them outside the natural order of things. Namely our ability to multiply like hell and manipulate the environment to our absolute advantage.
Incorrect - the abilty to multiply is a quality that almost all successful species have demonstrated. Look at the cockroach - it multiplies much faster then the human and doesn't have the long difficult growing process that we have.
Now we are the only species that has the ability to formulate and use tools of our own design. Which makes us unique in nature - however if you believe in the evolution theory then you must understand that man is also part of the natural order of things.
However, Natural Selection pervades every aspect of your life. You might like the theory of Social Darwinism, although IMO that is a very simplified view of it.
Not so much Natural Selection for our lives right now. What is overwhelming evident in our daily lives is the effects of artifical selection.
So is it your opinion then, that if 50% plus one of the members of a public school board vote to institute an Islamic fundamentalist curricilum that focused only on the teachings of Qur'an, that this would perfectly within their rights and that the families of the children who were not Muslims would just have to send their kids to school elsewhere if they didn't like it?
Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might be a better idea to confine all religious teachings in public schools to elective religious studies classes?
Interesting, I wasn't aware that the notion of Creationism and/or intelligent design were strictly limited to Christianity... in fact, I know they're not. Muslims also have a creation story and believe that God had a hand in the development of the world.
I beieve in Evolution.
I believe that God wanted us to evolve from Monkeys. It makes sence to me. Me too :nice:
I am neither a scholar nor a scientist, but in my humble opinion, I think evolution is a part of God’s great work.
But this level of animosity is surprising, in my home the Qur'an and Scientific American sit side-by-side on my shelf and they get along well.
The big difference here is that people seek to use religion as a control mechanism, and the people seeking that tend to be the worst kind of reactionary. Science opens up questions and possibilities. Reactionaries don't like that. Oh, I meant ‘locally’. I didn’t know it was such a touchy subject here.
The big difference here is that people seek to use religion as a control mechanism, and the people seeking that tend to be the worst kind of reactionary. Science opens up questions and possibilities. Reactionaries don't like that.
Where do you live, and what's that world like? ~D
Kralizec
09-27-2005, 00:33
I don't even understand why christians are trying to legitimize their religion with science...as the bible is quite clear IMO that faith does not require earthly observances, on the contrary.
John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
I think that says about all actually.
Strijder loves it when he gets to use peoples' own books against them ~D
Where do you live, and what's that world like? ~D
Iran?
Goofball
09-27-2005, 00:39
Because it's an organization that still claims to be our nation's guardian of "liberty", supporter of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties when they're only really concerned with their own narrow, anti-religious, view of the 1st Amendment. I really don't see where allowing a democratically elected school board to set it's own curriculum has anything to do with Congress making a law as to the establishment of religion. You could make the tenuous link, I suppose- but an organization that claims to support the entire Bill of Rights seem remarkably unconcerned about the 10th in this case, as well as the town's "liberty" to elect their own school board to run their school district as they see fit.So is it your opinion then, that if 50% plus one of the members of a public school board vote to institute an Islamic fundamentalist curricilum that focused only on the teachings of Qur'an, that this would perfectly within their rights and that the families of the children who were not Muslims would just have to send their kids to school elsewhere if they didn't like it?
Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might be a better idea to confine all religious teachings in public schools to elective religious studies classes?Interesting, I wasn't aware that the notion of Creationism and/or intelligent design were strictly limited to Christianity... in fact, I know they're not. Muslims also have a creation story and believe that God had a hand in the development of the world.
As I expected, you dodged the question.
Artificial Selection? Not quite sure that works. I'm a big beleiver in the idea that Humans, having thrown themselves outside of the Natural Selection loop, have created their own environment with it's own rules of natural selection. This is especially evident in capitalist societies. Instead of people fighting for survival, it's ideas, companies, nations, ect. fighting for survival.
But that's more of a philosophy than a science.
If you study Darwain's Theory you will find that he studied selective breeding of domestic animals to develop and provide the basic proof of his Theory. Selective Breeding is also know as Artifical Selection because man is on purpose attempting to bring about traits or remove traits from animals.
Hybrid Plants is another form of artifical selection, especially those that can create seeds.
You have created one of the fallacies that many find wrong with Natural Selection because you are determining it to be something outside of evolution of animals, into a philosophy of human development. That is a whole different discussion then the science behind the Theory of Evolution.
Big_John
09-27-2005, 01:54
Artificial Selection? Not quite sure that works. I'm a big beleiver in the idea that Humans, having thrown themselves outside of the Natural Selection loop, have created their own environment with it's own rules of natural selection. This is especially evident in capitalist societies. Instead of people fighting for survival, it's ideas, companies, nations, ect. fighting for survival.
But that's more of a philosophy than a science.you are drawing an unnecessary dichotomy. while it's important to appreciate the complexity of modern human interactions, the difference between the socio-politics/-economics of modern human societies and those of earliest human societies is one of degree, not of kind. would you argue that small hunter-gatherer groups operate outside of natural selection?
maybe you are trying to say that fitness is a relative function, which is certainly true. fitness is a function of environment. that humans can, to a degree, define their environment does not in anyway diminish the connection between the environment and fitness.
i don't understand your attempt to anthropomorphize "ideas". how can an idea 'fight for survival'? companies and nations are analogous to population groupings found in any social species (bee hives, wolf packs, whale pods, etc), so there is nothing about them that should suggest that humans are subject to unique rules of selection and fitness.
Big_John
09-27-2005, 05:25
Maybe I am trying to draw comparison where they don't exist, but when you look at it abstractly it does make sense. As far as ideas go, well, let's take a look at different economic models. There are countless ones out there, that people will fight tooth and nail over (Socialism, Communism, Capitalism), and just in the last 50 or so years there has been an incredible amount of "evolution" and "natural selection" in those ideas alone.in that case, you can treat the idea as a characteristic of a population group (e.g. 'communism' is the shared ideology of a group of people.. communists). in as much as power is a motivation in ideology, the propagation of ideas (by their proponents) is simply a socio-political phenomenon. so if there is an 'ideological' conflict between capitalism and communism, for example, from sociobiological perspective it is a power struggle between two populations. the environment would determine the "ideological fitness" of the each group. that fitness would, in turn, control the "selection" of the ideas via power distribution.
clearly a simplistic model, but imo one doesn't need to invent a new type of environment or selection to account for the propagation and 'evolution' of ideas, nor other social aspects.
But such a thing is hardly "natural" selection.
Soulforged
09-27-2005, 05:48
in that case, you can treat the idea as a characteristic of a population group (e.g. 'communism' is the shared ideology of a group of people.. communists). in as much as power is a motivation in ideology, the propagation of ideas (by their proponents) is simply a socio-political phenomenon. so if there is an 'ideological' conflict between capitalism and communism, for example, from sociobiological perspective it is a power struggle between two populations. the environment would determine the "ideological fitness" of the each group. that fitness would, in turn, control the "selection" of the ideas via power distribution. I'll not use positive science to proove ideal models on social science, it has been prooven to be insufficient.
Big_John
09-27-2005, 06:05
But such a thing is hardly "natural" selection.why? it's just a social struggle between two competing populations. how is it qualitatively distinct from one pride of lions competing with another?
one could argue that the complexity of the human mind, and consequently the ideas it can produce, are the factor of distinction between us and other animals. however, i don't see the clash between competing ideologies as a competition exclusively between cognitive structures without regard to the physical world.
in other words, if we were talking about philosophers arguing about the elegance of two proofs or something.. that would seem to be fairly well removed from a discussion of natural selection. however, economic models and the power struggles between their proponents is, as much as wars between nations, an attempt by one group to dominate another group. such competition is the very essence of fitness and selection.
I suppose. It's always just so boggling to me how many dimensions of existence humans have compared to the run-of-the-mill animal."dimensions of existence"? :stunned:
i don't deny that we are very complex animals, and obviously our minds would seem to be something rather special in the history of life on earth. but i don't think anything we have talked about, yet, is that different from natural selection seen elsewhere in nature.
there are some definitional problems and philosophical questions in this, though. should one draw an arbitrary line between a "natural" environment and a "social" environment? how do you distinguish between the two? if one does draw such a line, can "natural" and "social" selection really be treated as independent entities (think about concepts of sexual attractiveness, for example)? does the fact that we humans can be aware of evolutionary 'forces' somehow remove us from them? generally, it's at questions like those that i stop worrying about it. :coffeenews:
that's right adrian, i stole your smiley!!
I'll not use positive science to proove ideal models on social science, it has been prooven to be insufficient.feel free to elaborate. :book:
Papewaio
09-27-2005, 06:45
Human brains are to memes what amino acids are to genes?
why? it's just a social struggle between two competing populations. how is it qualitatively distinct from one pride of lions competing with another?
one could argue that the complexity of the human mind, and consequently the ideas it can produce, are the factor of distinction between us and other animals. however, i don't see the clash between competing ideologies as a competition exclusively between cognitive structures without regard to the physical world.
in other words, if we were talking about philosophers arguing about the elegance of two proofs or something.. that would seem to be fairly well removed from a discussion of natural selection. however, economic models and the power struggles between their proponents is, as much as wars between nations, an attempt by one group to dominate another group. such competition is the very essence of fitness and selection.
Such a thing would fit more into an "artificial selection" category. It is still selection, after all, but it is simply not one of natural...nature.
Take, for instance, traits like fashion sense. If a man who dresses well is more liked than a man who doesn't, he may breed and the socially awkward one may not. Simplistic, yes, but I think it illustrates a point.
Big_John
09-27-2005, 07:59
Such a thing would fit more into an "artificial selection" category. It is still selection, after all, but it is simply not one of natural...nature.
Take, for instance, traits like fashion sense. If a man who dresses well is more liked than a man who doesn't, he may breed and the socially awkward one may not. Simplistic, yes, but I think it illustrates a point.i'm missing your point, i think. i don't understand the distinction you are drawing between natural and artificial. taking your example, how is "fashion sense" different from other fitness displays in nature (e.g. the colorful plumage of many male birds)?
i don't think being socially awkward is exclusive to humanity; any population of social animals should have individuals that are better at the group politics than others. the character of that behavior range is probably heavily controlled by intelligence, however. so "social awkwardness" is probably more recognizable and tangible in chimpanzees than ants, for example, but i doubt it's uniquely human.
pape, could you explain your question to me, it was too terse (i.e. over my head :embarassed:).
Papewaio
09-27-2005, 08:12
Richard Dawkins coined the word meme.
<philosophy> /meem/ [By analogy with "gene"] Richard Dawkins's
term for an idea considered as a replicator, especially with
the connotation that memes parasitise people into propagating
them much as viruses do.
Memes can be considered the unit of cultural evolution. Ideas
can evolve in a way analogous to biological evolution. Some
ideas survive better than others; ideas can mutate through,
for example, misunderstandings; and two ideas can recombine to
produce a new idea involving elements of each parent idea.
The term is used especially in the phrase "meme complex"
denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an
organised belief system, such as a religion. However, "meme"
is often misused to mean "meme complex".
Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans
(and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts)
cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has become
more important than biological evolution by selection of
hereditary traits. Hackers find this idea congenial for
tolerably obvious reasons.
So for instance we have one meme complex (religous fundamentalism) trying to compete for the same niche as another meme complex (science). While science really isn't changing to fight religous fundamentalism (RF). RF is changing its ways to try and partake more in the cultural evolution by inserting itself into the science syllabus. RF is acting like a virus to the science host.
Science has an advantage in that it is constantly testing its memes and selecting the best. However it may still fail if other memes get inserted in it that are basically no more then viruses and cuckoos.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.