Texas Board of Education does its part to fantasize biology

[Monolithic]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A648425


But here's a bit of nonfiction: The Texas State Board of Education has just those two things. Moldable minds, in the form of Texas schoolchildren, and a party line that favors teaching the "weaknesses" of biological evolutionary theory and, by implication, the strengths of the latest pseudo-scholarly variation on creationism: "intelligent design." Last fall, in the latest episode of that eternal Texas struggle, the Texas Education Agency, which is regulated by the SBOE, fired its science director for distributing information about a pro-evolution seminar. And now, the SBOE is beginning hearings on updated science curricula that teaches the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory.

It's the latest in an ever-evolving effort by religious conservatives to discredit evolution after efforts to explicitly incorporate intelligent design have repeatedly failed. Lessons in Weak Evolution could be coming to a Texas public school near you by March 2009.

sigh, why won't these creationism proponents just give up already, what's up with these anti-intellectuals, even the catholic church recgonizes evolution and religion can coexist :(

[noxagol]

Just take schools out of the hands of the government and the problem will go away over night.

[yongrel]

Just take schools out of the hands of the government and the problem will go away over night.

Well... you'll still have kids believing idiot ideas about the nature of life on this planet, but it won't be by force; it'll be solely because of their parents.

[noxagol]

Well... you'll still have kids believing idiot ideas about the nature of life on this planet, but it won't be by force; it'll be solely because of their parents.

Well, yeah. But people should be allowed to learn whatever they want.

[yongrel]

Well, yeah. But people should be allowed to learn whatever they want.

Agreed. And I will ridicule them.

[pinkmandy]

Why teach either at all? It's obviously controversial, both are considered theories, and just like any other person they can look it up themselves if they are curious. Both sides make too big of a deal out of it imo. A scientifically minded kid is going to look it up and come to his own conclusions. A child of religious upbringing will do the same. Out of everyone else, they won't give a rat's ass- if and when they do, look it up and decide for themselves.

Maybe schools should concentrate on teaching kids to read and write and when/if they actually master that then perhaps they'd be equipped to teach other subjects.

[Dustancostine]

I was introduced to the Chairman of the SBOE as "the guy that taught my children sunday school for the past eight years"

[Truth Warrior]

Just take schools out of the hands of the government and the problem will go away over night.
Bingo! Have a cookie. :D

[Dustancostine]

btw Why do we have to teach how the world began anyways (I have never seen anything begin or end anyways) is it all that important, why not just teach evolution as it has effected nature, and that is it.

[pinkmandy]

btw Why do we have to teach how the world began anyways (I have never seen anything begin or end anyways) is it all that important, why not just teach evolution as it has effected nature, and that is it.


Because then people wouldn't be distracted and might actually realize that their kids are being deprived of the basics in education. The evolution v. creation debate quickly overshadowed the debate on phonics v. whole word method. Instead of asking why kids can't read people argue over how the beginnings should be taught and what can/cannot be said. Meanwhile, remedial reading classes continue filling up on through university level. It's education distraction.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A648425



sigh, why won't these creationism proponents just give up already, what's up with these anti-intellectuals, even the catholic church recgonizes evolution and religion can coexist :(

lol. They are scared of evolution, don't you see?

[Truth Warrior]

lol. They are scared of evolution, don't you see? Nope, just tired of the BS. :p

[yongrel]

both are considered theories

Well, I think I have the honor of being the first to post in this thread that there is a very big difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not just some random guess. Kepler's Theory of Elliptical Orbits is a bit more solid than a shot in the dark. Scientific theories are subjected to extremely rigorous examination and review.

That Evolution occurs is fact. Absolute and indisputable fact. How evolution occurs is what the theory is about. As our knowledge of genetics and other sciences improves, so too does our ability to understand the phenomenon that is evolution.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, I think I have the honor of being the first to post in this thread that there is a very big difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not just some random guess. Kepler's Theory of Elliptical Orbits is a bit more solid than a shot in the dark. Scientific theories are subjected to extremely rigorous examination and review.

That Evolution occurs is fact. Absolute and indisputable fact. How evolution occurs is what the theory is about. As our knowledge of genetics and other sciences improves, so too does our ability to understand the phenomenon that is evolution. Everybody's a layman. :p

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Nope, just tired of the BS. :p

More like intolerant. Some libertarian you are.

[yongrel]

Everybody's a layman. :p

It's a relative term and you know it.

Sometimes, I think you just like being difficult ;)

[Truth Warrior]

More like intolerant. Some libertarian you are.
Yep, a whole lot of the libertarians are tired of the BS. :p

[Truth Warrior]

It's a relative term and you know it.

Sometimes, I think you just like being difficult ;)
Of course it is, and I do. :)


Unlike you, of course. :rolleyes:

[yongrel]

Unlike you, of course. :rolleyes:

Me? Difficult? Nooo. :D

[Truth Warrior]

me? Difficult? Nooo. :d
agreed! :d

( What's with the sporadically broken "big grin"? Are we running short on them? )

[pinkmandy]

Yongrel-

I think that we've reached a point where we should be able to prove that evolution is fact. Physics- we still don't have a good grasp on that subject. We have the basics but there's a lot to be learned in the area of quantum physics. Look at the Hawkings theory about infinite multi dimensions! How cool is that as a possibility? We just don't understand so much. I also believe that the mentality that we already know things and adhering to those things as absolutes prevents us from considering alternatives- it closes the mind.

Evolution? Should be easy enough to prove by now as it's something tangible we can document. Or maybe they haven't shifted from theory to law because they cannot prove it? What about rapid evolution? Something is missing, right? What's missing and why, with all of our science, can we not prove something that should be so simple to prove? If we can't prove one pov and we can't disprove another then what's the point in arguing over it? Let people decide for themselves.

Ftr, I'm not sure what I believe.

[Truth Warrior]

Micro works, macro doesn't.<IMH(layman)O> :)

[yongrel]

Yongrel-

I think that we've reached a point where we should be able to prove that evolution is fact. Physics- we still don't have a good grasp on that subject. We have the basics but there's a lot to be learned in the area of quantum physics. Look at the Hawkings theory about infinite multi dimensions! How cool is that as a possibility? We just don't understand so much. I also believe that the mentality that we already know things and adhering to those things as absolutes prevents us from considering alternatives- it closes the mind.

Evolution? Should be easy enough to prove by now as it's something tangible we can document. Or maybe they haven't shifted from theory to law because they cannot prove it? What about rapid evolution? Something is missing, right? What's missing and why, with all of our science, can we not prove something that should be so simple to prove? If we can't prove one pov and we can't disprove another then what's the point in arguing over it? Let people decide for themselves.

Ftr, I'm not sure what I believe.

Evolution is proven. That evolution occurs is fact. We can both observe this and replicate it in a laboratory. It's like saying "I know fire exists." You can observe it and replicate it, it is proven. The process of fire took a bit more time though.

However, no one questioned the existence of fire because they couldn't explain how it worked or existed. Likewise, we can look at the overwhelming amounts of evidence and say "Evolution occurs. This is a fact." and then continue to try to achieve an understanding of how evolution occurs.

[Truth Warrior]

Create life in the lab ....... from scratch. :p

[pinkmandy]

Of course evolution is proven but not in humans as, again, something is missing. That's why it isn't called the Law of Evolution. ;) They can't prove that evolution has made us what we are. Why not?

[yongrel]

Micro works, macro doesn't.<IMH(layman)O> :)

The two aren't seperate entites. Micro evolution is the same thing as macroevolution, just with smaller amounts of time involved.

The domestication of dogs from wolves into the great variet of current breeds is not fundamentally different from ourselves evolving from A. afarensis.

[Truth Warrior]

The two aren't seperate entites. Micro evolution is the same thing as macroevolution, just with smaller amounts of time involved.

The domestication of dogs from wolves into the great variet of current breeds is not fundamentally different from ourselves evolving from A. afarensis. Time just doesn't cut it, as a causitive agent. :p

[yongrel]

Of course evolution is proven but not in humans as, again, something is missing. That's why it isn't called the Law of Evolution. ;) They can't prove that evolution has made us what we are. Why not?

Well, yeah, it pretty much has been proven. People like to talk about the "missing link" but that doesn't say anything. We can go back a good 4 or 5 species before we encounter any sort of supposed gap. H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilis, etc. By looking at the chronological progression, we can see a clear progression towards recognizably human bodies.

Humans evolved from glorified monkeys. Cool, huh?

[yongrel]

Time just doesn't cut it, as a causitive agent. :p

Time isn't the causative agent; the environment is. Time is significant because it determines to what degree the true agents of change can act.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, yeah, it pretty much has been proven. People like to talk about the "missing link" but that doesn't say anything. We can go back a good 4 or 5 species before we encounter any sort of supposed gap. H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilis, etc. By looking at the chronological progression, we can see a clear progression towards recognizably human bodies.

Humans evolved from glorified monkeys. Cool, huh? Prove it. :D

[ItsTime]

Well, yeah, it pretty much has been proven. People like to talk about the "missing link" but that doesn't say anything. We can go back a good 4 or 5 species before we encounter any sort of supposed gap. H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilis, etc. By looking at the chronological progression, we can see a clear progression towards recognizably human bodies.

Humans evolved from glorified monkeys. Cool, huh?

whats the Huckabee primate quote? Man I cant think of it! The one he said during one of the debates...

edit found it
"But you know, if anybody wants to believe they're the descendants of a primate, they're welcome to do it." Mike Huckabee

[yongrel]

Prove it. :D

Seeing as how I don't have on-demand access to the Leakey Hominid Collection, this will have to do for now: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html

[Truth Warrior]

whats the Huckabee primate quote? Man I cant think of it! The one he said during one of the debates... Let's just leave religion, out of it. It only further muddies the already muddy water muck. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Seeing as how I don't have on-demand access to the Leakey Hominid Collection, this will have to do for now: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html
I'm aware of the Leakey conjecture. Where's the proof?

[yongrel]

I'm aware of the Leakey conjecture. Where's the proof?

The fossils, and these groovy little buggers the mitochondria.

[Truth Warrior]

The fossils, and these groovy little buggers the mitochondria.Rock bones? Therefore?

Mitochondria? Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere now.

Time for a new thread yet? :D

[yongrel]

Rock bones? Therefore?

Mitochondria? Ah, maybe we're getting somewhere now.

Time for a new thread yet? :D

Well, by looking at the fossil record, we can piece together a surprisingly complete timeline (considering that we're looking for bones of relatively low density, compared to something like a dinosaur). Then we can observe the trends towards characteristics over the millenia. Combine this with the info we gain from the mitochondrial DNA, and you've got yourself a solid case for monkey great^10 grandparents.

[pinkmandy]

I agree, leave religion out of it. It has nothing to do w/whether or not the theory of evolution is accurate.

Again, it's a THEORY, not a LAW which means you cannot prove it. If it were proven then it would be a law and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is simply what they assume happened but have yet to gather enough evidence to make it a law. Where's the evidence? Why don't they have it? Maybe we could learn a thing or two from the Sumerians? :cool:

[yongrel]

Again, it's a THEORY, not a LAW which means you cannot prove it. If it were proven then it would be a law and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is simply what they assume happened but have yet to gather enough evidence to make it a law.

*facepalm*

The United States National Academy of sciences:
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

[Truth Warrior]

Well, by looking at the fossil record, we can piece together a surprisingly complete timeline (considering that we're looking for bones of relatively low density, compared to something like a dinosaur). Then we can observe the trends towards characteristics over the millenia. Combine this with the info we gain from the mitochondrial DNA, and you've got yourself a solid case for monkey great^10 grandparents.

Does "can piece together" constitute proof?

[yongrel]

Does "can piece together" constitute proof?

You'll have to forgive my informal language.

[Truth Warrior]

I agree, leave religion out of it. It has nothing to do w/whether or not the theory of evolution is accurate.

Again, it's a THEORY, not a LAW which means you cannot prove it. If it were proven then it would be a law and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is simply what they assume happened but have yet to gather enough evidence to make it a law. Where's the evidence? Why don't they have it? Maybe we could learn a thing or two from the Sumerians? :cool: Thanks Mandy. :)

[Truth Warrior]

You'll have to forgive my informal language.
Of course. :)

[pinkmandy]

*facepalm*

The United States National Academy of sciences:
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

No facepalming me. :p:D

Many facts does not equal all the facts- that's my point. Some are noticeably absent. I am not saying evolution doesn't exist but it has not been proven that what we are today we owe soley to the theory of evolution. Have all other potential factors been examined and ruled out? Or have we spent a lot of time examining only the pieces that fit the theory? There's still a lot to learn imo.

[amy31416]

I guess I'll post again about the colloquial use of the word "theory" vs. the scientific definition.

In colloquial usage, theory is used to mean "guess" or "educated guess." This is not the same as the scientific definition of the word theory. A hypothesis is essentially the scientific version of educated guess, but is based on observation of natural phenomena.

A theory, using the scientific definition, is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that is supported with repeated testing, observation, verified by many other scientists in other parts of the world who have no stake in the outcome. A theory is closer to law than it is to hypothesis.

Scientific laws must be simple and absolute, often a mathematical equation is involved. Evolution, no matter how much evidence/testing/observation, will never be a law. Laws are generally in physics, optics, math, chemistry--I can't think of a single biological scientific law.

When discussing science, given it's attempts at precision in meaning, you should be using the scientific definition, not the colloquial.

[Truth Warrior]

I guess I'll post again about the colloquial use of the word "theory" vs. the scientific definition.

In colloquial usage, theory is used to mean "guess" or "educated guess." This is not the same as the scientific definition of the word theory. A hypothesis is essentially the scientific version of educated guess, but is based on observation of natural phenomena.

A theory, using the scientific definition, is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that is supported with repeated testing, observation, verified by many other scientists in other parts of the world who have no stake in the outcome. A theory is closer to law than it is to hypothesis.

Scientific laws must be simple and absolute, often a mathematical equation is involved. Evolution, no matter how much evidence/testing/observation, will never be a law. Laws are generally in physics, optics, math, chemistry--I can't think of a single biological scientific law.

When discussing science, given it's attempts at precision in meaning, you should be using the scientific definition, not the colloquial.

Thanks, again. :)

How about "life exists", for starters?

[amy31416]

Thanks, again. :)

How about "life exists", for starters?

Ya calling that a theory, law or hypothesis?

[Truth Warrior]

Ya calling that a theory, law or hypothesis? I'd call it law. ;)

[amy31416]

I'd call it law. ;)

It is here and now, but is not likely in all times and all places. So it can't be a law. Laws hold up no matter where you are or what time it is. If we are all life in the universe and all life is exterminated tomorrow. Life no longer exists and the law is broken, therefore it's disqualified as a law.

It's more of a philosophical statement than a law. The fact that life exists is taken as so obvious in science that it's not even considered as a theory, law or anything. Just as questions like whether or not we are self-aware, capable of thought--that sort of thing. We do take an awful lot of things for granted and leave those analyses to the philosophers. :)

[Truth Warrior]

It is here and now, but is not likely in all times and all places. So it can't be a law. Laws hold up no matter where you are or what time it is. If we are all life in the universe and all life is exterminated tomorrow. Life no longer exists and the law is broken, therefore it's disqualified as a law.

It's more of a philosophical statement than a law. The fact that life exists is taken as so obvious in science that it's not even considered as a theory, law or anything. Just as questions like whether or not we are self-aware, capable of thought--that sort of thing. We do take an awful lot of things for granted and leave those analyses to the philosophers. :) Until it's gone, it's law NOW. Before it existed it wasn't LAW. After it's gone, "life existed".

Before the Big Bang what was THE law?

[amy31416]

Until it's gone, it's law NOW. Before it existed it wasn't LAW. After it's gone, "life existed".

Before the Big Bang what was THE law?

The point is, you can't create laws that, if I hit the big red shiny nuke button, would no longer be laws. It's in the realm of philosophy, not scientific law. While every scientist in the world may agree that, yes, there is enough proof to show that you are alive, a law would never be created specifically for that because it's also true that one day you will no longer be alive.

[Truth Warrior]

The point is, you can't create laws that, if I hit the big red shiny nuke button, would no longer be laws. It's in the realm of philosophy, not scientific law. While every scientist in the world may agree that, yes, there is enough proof to show that you are alive, a law would never be created specifically for that because it's also true that one day you will no longer be alive. I think that I addressed those scenarios.

Can we get get back to evoultion yet? :)

[acptulsa]

Does "can piece together" constitute proof?

It really depends on how many pieces of the greater jigsaw puzzle they can dig up. Which is why there are digs going on constantly. Every previously unidentified bone, once they fit the species into a gap or hole in their family trees, brings them closer to having a sufficiency of proof.

[brandon]

I don't see any reason to teach evolution or creationism in schools. Focus on the fundamentals. As far as science goes, teach basic chemistry, physics, biology (taxonomy, cellular structures etc) and the rest of the basics. One needs to understand chemistry and biology (among other things) before they have the knowledge to come to an independent conclusion regarding the accuracy of evolution. And there is no need for a layman to have studied evolution in high school. What would they ever gain from this?

Save evolution for college.

[Truth Warrior]

It really depends on how many pieces of the greater jigsaw puzzle they can dig up. Which is why there are digs going on constantly. Every previously unidentified bone, once they fit the species into a gap or hole in their family trees, brings them closer to having a sufficiency of proof. How so? This critter lived before, same time or after that critter, proves exactly WHAT? Sequence in time does NOT establish causality nor species lineage.<IMHO> ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I don't see any reason to teach evolution or creationism in schools. Focus on the fundamentals. As far as science goes, teach basic chemistry, physics, biology (taxonomy, cellular structures etc) and the rest of the basics. One needs to understand chemistry and biology (among other things) before they have the knowledge to come to an independent conclusion regarding the accuracy of evolution. And there is no need for a layman to have studied evolution in high school. What would they ever gain from this?

Save evolution for college. Ya gotta get and brainwash 'em while they're still young, before mature thinking skills kick in. ;)

[acptulsa]

How so? This critter lived before, same time or after that critter, proves exactly WHAT? Sequence in time does NOT establish causality nor species lineage.<IMHO> ;)

And do DNA sequences add enough to that information to create a causality for you?

[10thAmendment]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A648425



sigh, why won't these creationism proponents just give up already, what's up with these anti-intellectuals, even the catholic church recgonizes evolution and religion can coexist :(
Both sides of the ongoing c&s separation feud, the judges and the people, particularly Christians, are misinformed about what the Constitution and its history says about government power to regulate religion. The problem is that even judges have the wires crossed where the Founder's division of federal and state powers is concerned, particularly with respect to state power to regulate religion. Let's examine how we got into this mess.

Justice Black's infamous, politically motivated interpretation of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion is wrong. This is evidenced by the fact that regardless that Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the establishment clause was meant to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to regulate religion uniquely to the states. In fact, Jefferson had noted this on at least three occasions. See for yourselves.


"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Note that 10th A. protected state power to regulate religion is now limited by the honest interpretation of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., as opposed to the USSC's politically correct interpretation of the religious aspects of that statute. This is so religious fanatics cannot pirate state power to regulate religion to shove their radical beliefs down everybody's throats.

So the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorized public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the people to think that doing such things is public schools is unconstitutional.

Finally, the series of posts at the following link help to explain how the USSC got us into today's c&s separation messes. The posts will help people to understand how ongoing problems with the Founder's division of federal and state powers took a turn for the worst when FDR established his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal federal spending programs.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=148854

[driller80545]

Why not teach evolution in a science class and the bible's explanation in a bible class. On Sunday.

[noxagol]

Why not teach evolution in a science class and the bible's explanation in a bible class. On Sunday.

Cause that makes too much damned sense.

[SeanEdwards]

Evolution? Should be easy enough to prove by now as it's something tangible we can document.


It's been routinely proved over and over and over. Adaptation and survival of the fittest has been demonstrated in probably a billion petri dishes all over the world.

[10thAmendment]

It's been routinely proved over and over and over. Adaptation and survival of the fittest has been demonstrated in probably a billion petri dishes all over the world.
sigh :^(

Here we go again...

People simply aren't thinking where politically correct, anti-Christian evolution propaganda is concerned.

Please consider that scientifically unverified macroevolution ideas, so-called long term evolution processes, have no more business in public school science classrooms than creationism for the following reason. In order to conclusively substantiate the claim of evolution "scientists" that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, the scientific-method based experiments that would need to be conducted in order to verify such claims would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments in order to verify results.

Also, consider that when experiments that "simulated" great periods of time to show evolution processes at work were conducted, harmful mutations became a problem.

Evolutionists need to wise up to the sobering fact that they need to dig up and examine the whole earth before they can arrive at a final conclusion about so-called macroevolution processes. Indeed, evolutionists seem to think that they have the license to revise evolution "laws" every time the dog unexpectedly digs up a strange fossile; the Hollywood version of the scientific method. Quarrels by evolution "scientists" concerning the significance of the relatively recently discovered "hobbit" fossil are an example of the Hollywood version of the scientific method at work.

Finally, what's going on with evolution progaganda is the following. Evolution "scientists," atheists hiding behind the lab jackets of scientists from where they mudsling evolution ideas at Christians, long ago realized that they couldn't properly verify their claims about long-term evolution processes for the reasons given in the paragraphs above. But since the public generally doesn't understand the importance of scientific method experimentation in verifying scientific claims, evolution factions were able to pull a fast one. Evolutionists resorted to putting on lawyer's hats, using courtroom theatrics to sell the jury, that's people like you and me, on their anti-Christian ideas about macroevolution based on their incomplete, inconclusive evolution evidence.

[SeanEdwards]

sigh :^(

Here we go again...

People simply aren't thinking where politically correct, anti-Christian evolution propaganda is concerned.

Please consider that scientifically unverified macroevolution ideas, so-called long term evolution processes, have no more business in public school science classrooms than creationism for the following reason. In order to conclusively substantiate the claim of evolution "scientists" that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, the scientific-method based experiments that would need to be conducted in order to verify such claims would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments in order to verify results.


It's not any more necessary to repeat a billion years of evolution to prove the accuracy of the theory, than it is necessary for physicists to destroy and recreate the universe in order to study the big bang. Macroevolution has been demonstrated in multicellular organisms, and the genetic footprint of macroevolution is evident in existing species' DNA. That's good enough for me, and vastly, infinitely more convincing than the juvenile mutterings contained in the world's various "holy" texts.

[10thAmendment]

It's not any more necessary to repeat a billion years of evolution to prove the accuracy of the theory, than it is necessary for physicists to destroy and recreate the universe in order to study the big bang. Macroevolution has been demonstrated in multicellular organisms, and the genetic footprint of macroevolution is evident in existing species' DNA. That's good enough for me, and vastly, infinitely more convincing than the juvenile mutterings contained in the world's various "holy" texts.
I beg your pardon, but you are inadvertently comparing apples to oranges. And not only are you questionably attempting to compare our understanding of grand-scale physical phenomena with molecular and atomic scale biophysics, you also seem to be confusing short-term, experimentally verifiable microevolution processes with macroevolution, experimentally unverifiable long-term evolution processes.

Again, as I previously expressed, I have no problems with short-term process microevolution ideas being discussed in public school science classrooms. This is because such ideas have been verified by the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments.

Also, unlike evolutionists, consider that physicists have been up front about what they still don't know about the big bang, freely admitting that they don't understand what happened in the initial fractions of a second of the bang.

At the other extreme, for years I've been asking indignant evolution "experts" to cough up a DNA mutation timeline which catalogs all the DNA mutations that must take place in order to evolve single-cell organism DNA into human DNA. But their best response has been to reluctantly admit that that such a timeline not only doesn't exist, but that its impossible to make. So the bottom line basis for people believing in macroevolution "science," given the void of knowledge about actual DNA mutations, is actually faith as much as Christians believe in Jesus Christ by faith.

Again, the faith basis of macroevolution is why macroevolution ideas have no more business being discussed in public school science classrooms than creationism does.

[SeanEdwards]

Again, the faith basis of macroevolution is why macroevolution ideas have no more business being discussed in public school science classrooms than creationism does.

Macroevolution is not faith-based. Speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) has been demonstrated in the lab. It's true that nobody has observed a chimp giving birth to a human offspring, but that degree of proof is not necessary to demonstrate the process at work.

[10thAmendment]

Macroevolution is not faith-based. Speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) has been demonstrated in the lab. It's true that nobody has observed a chimp giving birth to a human offspring, but that degree of proof is not necessary to demonstrate the process at work.
Your unsubstantiated statements that macroevolution is not faith-based and that it is not necessary to observe a chimp giving birth to a human offspring in order to demonstrate evolution processes at work are merely examples of politically correct evolution propaganda as opposed to reflecting the scientific method. And you wouldn't be getting away with saying such things if more people were up to speed on the importance of scientific-method based experimentation in verifying science facts.

Thank you for your patience with this discussion, but let's quit wasting each other's time.

[Theocrat]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A648425



sigh, why won't these creationism proponents just give up already, what's up with these anti-intellectuals, even the catholic church recgonizes evolution and religion can coexist :(

The reason why creationists continually expose macroevolution is because it's not scientific. Like creationism, macroevolution is philosophical/religious, a way of interpreting natural phenomena based on assumptions about the course of nature. Once the public realizes that truth, the further we will get in this "Creation vs. Evolution" controversy to see once and for all that creationism gives the better explanation for what we observe in nature.

I find your comment that creationists are anti-intellectual to be quite distasteful and ignorant on your part because it seems abundantly obvious to me that you've never spoken with a creationist who understands science; otherwise, you would not have made such a comment. On another note, just because the Roman Catholic Church approves of something does not make it necessarily true. As a Protestant Christian, I find the Roman Catholic Church to be in error on a number of issues (mostly theological in nature), and their approval of evolution is one of them.

[10thAmendment]

For the record, and this may surprise SeanEdwards, I am not a YEC (young earth creationist). In fact, given that Genesis I does not provide details as to how God created life, who's to say that God did not use so-called macroevolution processes to some extent in creating life as we know it today?

However, it remains that creationism beliefs and macroevolution ideas are based on faith as opposed to having been properly verified by the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments.

Finally, although the discussion of macroevolution and creationism have no place in the science classrooms of the public schools, in my opinion, creationism has been wrongly banned from the public schools altogether because of the USSC's bogus constitutional principle of c&s separation. In fact, the series of posts at the following link probably provide more information than people want to hear as to how the USSC has wrongly limited our religious freedoms.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=148854

[SeanEdwards]

What is your reasoning for rejecting the experiments that have demonstrated speciation?

If I prove to you that a given triangle has 3 sides, will you then demand that I prove EVERY triangle that exists also has 3 sides before you will accept the proposition that triangles have 3 sides?

[10thAmendment]

What is your reasoning for rejecting the experiments that have demonstrated speciation?

If I prove to you that a given triangle has 3 sides, will you then demand that I prove EVERY triangle that exists also has 3 sides before you will accept the proposition that triangles have 3 sides?
Will you please provide urls which reference write-ups of successful scientific-method based experiments, the consistent results of which show that single-cell organism DNA can be transformed by mutations into human DNA?