This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[SwissMercenary]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ - the story

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections...zmiller_342.pdf - the ruling in itself (Section H is just lovely)


With clear heads pervailing here, I'd say that its a bleeding good thing that America's decided to pull "Reverse" on the roller-coaster to hell. I mean, if the trend continues, I'd say that you guys should come out OK, in spite of the current administration's (common tactical blunder - land war in Asi... Well. You know what I mean).

[DeeBye]

But evolution is a just a theory right? Creationism is just as valid as any other theory.

BZZT! WRONG!

Evolution occurs. It is observable using scientific methods. Creationism has no basis in anything scientific. It's a made-up story, plain and simple. Evolution is still just a theory because we don't fully understand how it works. We do know that it does work though.

I am not against teaching Creationism in schools, just so long as it is left out of science classes. It is more suitable for philosophy or religion classes.

Kudos to the people that stopped this nonsense.

[Bun-Bun]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ - the story

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections...zmiller_342.pdf - the ruling in itself (Section H is just lovely)
With clear heads pervailing here, I'd say that its a bleeding good thing that America's decided to pull "Reverse" on the roller-coaster to hell. I mean, if the trend continues, I'd say that you guys should come out OK, in spite of the current administration's (common tactical blunder - land war in Asi... Well. You know what I mean).
[right][snapback]97858[/snapback][/right]

It's a good step, but there's a whole lot of ignorance left in the well, and the people who are plugging ID/creationism aren't through with their little cultural power play. I'm overjoyed that the creationits chose such a poor test case and drew a sane judge, but the march to theocracy has only been checked. There's still the Kansas standards to fight, and a bunch more test cases where the forces of ignorance will attempt to push on.

At least Judge Jones gave us an eloquent precedent to quote, and for other judges to cite.

[Guest]

Umm a little emotionally invested here?

This is the swing for your "faith in humanity"?

Im against the teaching of Intellegent Design in public schools(its definetly not science), but this is a pretty minor issue compared to all the good, the bad ,the enlightened and all the stupidity I can look around the world and see.

Personally I would like to see schools give a very general caveat on the the nature of philosphy and logic as it relates to metaphysics before they teach science at all. I have heard too many science teachers and writers talk about science disproving religion which is just as much hooey as they guys pretending that a this exscuse for their religion is science.

Science and Metaphysics dont mix and neither disproves the other.

[Ashock]

But evolution is a just a theory right?  Creationism is just as valid as any other theory.

BZZT!  WRONG!

Evolution occurs.  It is observable using scientific methods.  Creationism has no basis in anything scientific.  It's a made-up story, plain and simple.  Evolution is still just a theory because we don't fully understand how it works.  We do know that it does work though.
[right][snapback]97865[/snapback][/right]

Actually the theory of evolution has more holes in it than swiss mercen... err swiss cheese. Evolution does occur, but by no means does it come even close to accounting for us. Having said that, I do agree that the right decision was made. I doubt that this decision is enough to restore someone's faith in humanity however, but then again since I have absolutely no faith in humanity in general, it'd take much much more than this minor event.


-A

[Guest]

Not quite.

Evolution occurs.  It is observable using scientific methods.  Creationism has no basis in anything scientific.  It's a made-up story, plain and simple.  Evolution is still just a theory because we don't fully understand how it works.  We do know that it does work though.

[right][snapback]97865[/snapback][/right]

1 Thats not why its a theory. We do have great evidense of Evolution. And the only rational course is to believe in Evolution. We actually even "know" many mechanisms by which it occurs.

But its a theory because it really cant be "proven". The "Special Theory of relativity" actually is far more "provable" but we still call it a theory.
In rational thought essentially nothing is even proven but we do accept a few laws because we need a base to work from.


2 You say creationism "made up" - actually you cant prove that either. You should say - "we have no evidense for it".



Science is about evidense. Science is the only rational basis for understanding the world world. Evolution is science.

But I get kind of sick of seeing people do what you just did - not trusting the elegant power of science/reason to defend itself.

[eppie]

Not quite.
1 Thats not why its a theory. We do have great evidense of Evolution. And the only rational course is to believe in Evolution. We actually even "know" many mechanisms by which it occurs.

[right][snapback]97871[/snapback][/right]

I think the "evolution theory" is the most attacked theory in science. And it still holds....to me that says enough.

[Flymo]

Personally I would like to see schools give a very general caveat on the the nature of philosphy and logic as it relates to metaphysics before they teach science at all. I have heard too many science teachers and writers talk about science disproving religion which is just as much hooey as they guys pretending that a this exscuse for their religion is science.
[right][snapback]97868[/snapback][/right]

This is the error in thinking that gives rise to nonsense like ID (not to mention homeopathy, crystals, and the rest of it), the notion that scientific and other ideas are equally valid. There is a scientific method that seeks to prove - or where that is not possible disprove - theories to test them. The scientific theories that survive this process are therefore likely to be correct.

[Occhidiangela]

I think the "evolution theory" is the most attacked theory in science. And it still holds....to me that says enough.
[right][snapback]97874[/snapback][/right]

I suggest you spend a little time on the critiques of evolution's strengths and weaknesses, and its underlying assumptions, before you settle on

"It's good enough for me."

As noted above, there is a lot of solid evidence supporting natural selection, and adaptation of the species. The mechanisms of speciation are still somewhat unclear, given that the agency of mutation or change is not always traceable.

This is a good thing, for research scientists, since it gives them a lot of area to work on, to explore and discover "how it works."

Intelligent Design, if it isn't merely a smoke screen for Creationism, has a whole lot further to go, and a lot of evidence to uncover to support it, if it wants to catch up with the century and a half of work that has gone into various branches of biology and zoology and botany that have based their research on the theory of evolution being valid.

The major problem of ID as I see it is trying to prove agency. (Evolution is in a similar boat on initial conditions). It might take a miracle . . . ;)

Occhi

[Doc]

I believe to some degree in evolution.

However, I also believe that everything is far to complex to have just happened by chance. Some greater force had to have had a hand in it someplace.

I like confusing the hardcore fundies that claim the earth is only six thousand years old. In the Bible, it says the Earth was with out form and void. When taken from the Hebrew, it clearly shows that the earth has already existed, for who knows how long. It was dark, and had no solid shapes. Which probably meant that it was some ball of moulten rock orbiting the sun. Probably for trillions of years or whatever. Either that, or it may have had some kind of life on it, and got smooshed by some celestial body, like say, an asteroid, which had caused it to go dark and have some serious turmoil. Thing is, nobody knows. The Hebrew there is cryptic. In Job, the whole laying the foundations of the earth thing and existing before that time means God (Once again, knowledge of Hebrew is required, English chops this up to badly) had a fully populated earth and was still God before he laid the foundations of the earth, ie, the events in the first book of the Bible.

So the Bible is chock full of passages that support a very, very old earth.

Also, before the events of the first book of the Bible, experienced scholars will also know that the Earth was created as a garden, a resting place for Lucifer, long before it was created for man. When God cast him out, it says that he fell to Earth like a falling star... Which could have meant that a very physical event took place, something like say, a celestial body cracking the planet and destroying all things previously there. Sort of like an angry parent sending their child to their room, but destroying all the fun stuff inside while doing so.

You can only go so far on either side, creation or evolution. Sooner or later you take a leap of faith for either one.

[Doc]

I suggest you spend a little time on the critiques of evolution's strengths and weaknesses, and its underlying assumptions, before you settle on

"It's good enough for me."

As noted above, there is a lot of solid evidence supporting natural selection, and adaptation of the species.  The mechanisms of speciation are still somewhat unclear, given that the agency of mutation or change is not always traceable.

This is a good thing, for research scientists, since it gives them a lot of area to work on, to explore and discover "how it works."

Intelligent Design, if it isn't merely a smoke screen for Creationism, has a whole lot further to go, and a lot of evidence to uncover to support it, if it wants to catch up with the century and a half of work that has gone into various branches of biology and zoology and botany that have based their research on the theory of evolution being valid.

The major problem of ID as I see it is trying to prove agency.  (Evolution is in a similar boat on initial conditions).  It might take a miracle  . . .  ;)

Occhi
[right][snapback]97883[/snapback][/right]

On mutation.

Mutation as a form of evolving or advancement has been proven false. Mutation is a lack of genes... In some very long and involved studies involving mutations as a basis for evolution, they have found that each critter that mutated was missing genes and the mutation, even if it was a good mutation, was bad because of genetic damage. I am not smart enough to hash this out completely or defend it, so go looking for this stuff your self. It was really very interesting what they did, showing that mutations would only lead to dead ends in the long run.

The study started with fruit flies and worked up to other bugs and critters with speedy reproduction cycles.

[Guest]

False

The large majority of mutations are bad or inconsequential though.

[Guest]

No - I was right. Its not an "error".

The error is when you make real world applications based on the unscrientific and and believe its rational.

Validity is a concept tightly linked to axioms. Science uses rationality as an axiom.

[Doc]

False

The large majority of mutations are bad or inconsequential though.
[right][snapback]97886[/snapback][/right]

The work done with the fruit flies was most certainly not "false". It was nominated for all kinds of prizes and awards, and I believe these people may know a bit more about it than you do. Sorry.

[Guest]

Conceptually you dont seem to see the problem with Intelligent Design.


You are saying people need to find evidense to support it. Where as Evolution grew out of direct observation. Neither situation makes one or the other right, but looking for evidense to support an idea born of metaphysics is not science(an irrational agent, one neither seen nor observered, not leaving evidense is a metaphysical agent) .


That said I dont discount the notion at all of God(and one could use aliens just as well) haveing a guiding hand or some other form of control, but its not science and shouldnt be taught in school.

[Doc]

Conceptually you dont seem to see the problem with Intelligent Design.
You are saying people need to find evidense to support it.  Where as Evolution grew out of direct observation. Neither situation makes one or the other right, but looking for evidense to support an idea born of metaphysics is not science(an irrational agent, one neither seen nor observered, not leaving evidense is a metaphysical agent) .
That said I dont discount the notion at all of God(and one could use aliens just as well) haveing a guiding hand or some other form of control, but its not science and shouldnt be taught in school.
[right][snapback]97889[/snapback][/right]

Well a lot of things are not "Science" and shouldn't be taught in school. But they are.

Humanities. Literature. Arts. Mythology. All things which require you to let go of logic and make the jump to abstract thinking, or thinking outside of the box. They teach the mind to expand and be open to all kinds of possibilities.

That said, I don't think public schools and teachers making 17 grand a year are the places and the people I want teaching kids about delicate subjects like faith. It has no place there. That should be done at home, or a well qualified private school with well educated instructors. This is not a slam to public schools or teachers in public schools... It's really hard to teach about faith when there are so many faiths involved... And in a private school, it's possible to have one faith all lumped together.

Frankly, I am one of those believers that faith should be kept at home in the closet, where the Good Lord told you to be praying, and not out in public making a jackass out of your self trying to get everybody to see you.

[Guest]

I have a degree in Biology and took a the majorityof my advanced courses "Evolutionary Biology" genetics and taxonomy. I probably know a bit more than you.(I only bother mentioning this since YOU brought up the matter of my knowledge.)

I am not disputing your unsighted study. Im am disputing your flawed conclusions.

[Doc]

I have a degree in Biology and took a the majorityof my advanced courses "Evolutionary Biology" genetics and taxonomy. I probably know a bit more than you.(I only bother mentioning this since YOU brought up the matter of my knowledge.)

I am not disputing your unsighted study. Im am disputing your flawed conclusions.
[right][snapback]97893[/snapback][/right]

Those are not my conclusions, so I have lost nothing in this exchange. Meh.

[Occhidiangela]

Conceptually you dont seem to see the problem with Intelligent Design.
You are saying people need to find evidense to support it.  Where as Evolution grew out of direct observation. Neither situation makes one or the other right, but looking for evidense to support an idea born of metaphysics is not science(an irrational agent, one neither seen nor observered, not leaving evidense is a metaphysical agent) .
That said I dont discount the notion at all of God(and one could use aliens just as well) haveing a guiding hand or some other form of control, but its not science and shouldnt be taught in school.
[right][snapback]97889[/snapback][/right]

Darwin had to start with an assumption to base his theory on. ID folks have a box full of underlying assumptions that they need to find evidence to support or they'll never get off of step one, which IMO is where they are.

The best stuff I have read on it basically lies out how devolution is far more common than evolution, and arguments that show pretty well that the progressive evolution from cells to the specialized organ that is the human eye is not yet explained.

That is a Long, Long way from supporting what ID is, it is merely a discussion of what evolution isn't.

In any case, if you have a theory, you have to find evidence to support it, or find out that the evidence doesn't support it.

Occhi

[Doc]

Darwin had to start with an assumption to base his theory on.  ID folks have a box full of underlying assumptions that they need to find evidence to support or they'll never get off of step one, which IMO is where they are.

The best stuff I have read on it basically lies out how devolution is far more common than evolution, and arguments that show pretty well that the progressive evolution from cells to the specialized organ that is the human eye is not yet explained. 

That is a Long, Long way from supporting what ID is, it is merely a discussion of what evolution isn't.

In any case, if you have a theory, you have to find evidence to support it, or find out that the evidence doesn't support it.

Occhi
[right][snapback]97895[/snapback][/right]

Well the eye thing is easily explained, by another one of those things that can not be explained.

In the human female, the breasts stay full and large during her adult life, where in other mammals they only swell during times of nursing, and then shrink down to be out of the way.

Since the human female breasts stays large, it clearly stays there to be pleasing to the eye, to attract a mate. So the eyeball being the specialised organ that it is was clearly designed to look at breasts. See, we can't explain how they developed, but we can see how they clearly work together.

**Looks around for Gris**

I am so going to get detention after class for this one.