Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

The Christian Right's Got a New Stealth Tactic to Smuggle Creationism into Science Class

By Sandhya Bathija, Church & State Magazine. Posted August 27, 2008.


A new law in Louisiana allows teachers to bring in "supplemental textbooks" about evolution, the origins of life and global warming to science class.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


In the 21 years Patsye Peebles taught biology in Louisiana public schools, she never received one complaint from parents for teaching evolution.

"The bottom line is that I never questioned their faith," she said.

Whenever she had a student who brought up creationism, she always made it clear that science is science, and religion is religion.

"I wanted them to understand," Peebles said, "that science has to be testable and proven with evidence."

Whether they agreed with evolution or not, Peebles wanted her students to become what she calls "biologically literate citizens." Now she worries that a new Louisiana law, which would encourage teachers to question evolution, will push the state's education backward. 

"My whole curriculum was based on evolution, I integrated it into everything I taught," said Peebles, who testified against the law in a state Senate hearing and serves as a regional coordinator for the National Association of Biology Teachers.

"Now this muddies the waters and keeps students from having a really good education," she said. "When they go to college, they will be at a disadvantage because they will not have a good understanding of science."

Already, more than half of the state's eighth-graders lack basic competence in science, according to recent national test scores.

But despite pleas from scientists, civil liberties activists and educators like Peebles, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed Louisiana Senate Bill 733 into law. The new statute will allow teachers to introduce into the classroom "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials" about evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.

The "Science Education Act," as it is known to the law's proponents, is the first such "academic freedom" bill to make it into the law books. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design, is coordinating the promotion of similar bills throughout the country -- this year in states including Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Michigan and South Carolina.

"These bills are full of creationist code language," said Barbara Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University. "The phrase 'academic freedom' has been used by creationists for decades."

Forrest is co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, a 2004 book that exposed the theocratic agenda of the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations. She is leading the Louisiana Coalition for Science, a network of individuals and groups who organized opposition to SB 733.

Measures like Louisiana's new anti-evolution law are key pieces of the Religious Right agenda. Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its allies believe the Science Education Act is another attempt to force religion into public schools. AU has warned that lawsuits will result if Louisiana introduces religion into classrooms.

The major force behind the law in Louisiana is the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a Religious Right organization that actively promotes creationism. The LFF, which is a state affiliate of James Dobson's Focus on the Family, suggested the measure to its sponsor, Sen. Ben Nevers (D-Bogalusa).

In the past, Nevers repeatedly tried to push through legislation promoting creationism. In 2001, he voted in favor of a measure declaring Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution to be the cause for racism.

Nevers also introduced a resolution encouraging schools not to purchase textbooks that "do not provide students with opportunities to learn that there are differing scientific views on certain controversial issues in science."

Though he insists the new law he sponsored is not intended to promote creationism in public schools, Nevers was caught telling the Hammond Daily Star otherwise.

"[The LFF] believe[s] that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory," Nevers told the newspaper. "This would allow the discussion of scientific facts. I feel the students should know there are weaknesses and strengths in both scientific arguments."

The law was carefully stage-managed. At the Senate and House committee hearings, the room was filled with Religious Right activists. Proponents included a group of home-schooled students, who will not even be affected by the law.

"They see all those people there and all they see are votes," said Forrest, who serves on the Americans United Board of Trustees. "The LFF has been lobbying the legislature for nine years laying this groundwork. They have been waiting for a number of factors to come together -- now the legislature as a whole is conservative and we have a governor who favors creationism."

Despite all the controversy surrounding this issue, Jindal barely publicized his signing of the new law. The press was not invited to witness the signing, and Jindal issued only a brief statement, in which he promised to "consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE [the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education] to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children."

Perhaps Jindal's hush-hush behavior results from his indifference to the many educational, science and legal organizations that pleaded for a veto of the measure. Even Jindal's former college professor released a statement through the Louisiana Coalition for Science.

"Gov. Jindal was a good student in my class when he was thinking about becoming a doctor," said Prof. Arthur Landy of Brown University, "and I hope he doesn't do anything that would hold back the next generation of Louisiana's doctors."

Nine of the nation's most prestigious scientific societies sent letters to the governor asking him to veto the bill.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, said, "The bill disingenuously implies that particular theories, including evolution, are controversial among scientists. There is virtually no controversy about evolution among researchers, many of whom, like you, are deeply religious."

The American Institute of Biological Sciences wrote, "It is difficult to understand how Louisiana or the nation can recruit and educate the quality healthcare providers our citizens deserve if we are willing to sacrifice science education in our K-12 classrooms. If SB 733 is signed into law, Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the national spotlight as a state that pursues politics over science and education."

The New York Times and a well-known columnist for the conservative National Review also expressed concerns about the measure. The National Review headline made it quite clear for the governor: "Governor Jindal, Veto This Bill!"

As more pressure was put on Jindal, supporters of the meaure re-emphasized their claim that only "science" will be introduced to students. But teachers in Louisiana claim the intent of the law has to be to teach creationism, otherwise it serves no purpose.

"Louisiana already has well-designed curriculum in place that allows for critical thinking," Peebles said. "There is no need for this."

The new creationist movement masks creationism in science terminology, but leads students to the same conclusion -- that life was created by a supernatural being, said Americans United Assistant Legal Director Richard Katskee.

Katskee served as one of the principal attorneys in the landmark Pennsylvania case in which a federal district court held that "intelligent design" attacks on evolution "distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge." (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

"The Kitzmiller court exposed intelligent design as what it is -- dressed-up creationism -- so the Discovery Institute had to go back to the drawing board," said Katskee.

Intelligent design, scholars insist, is merely the latest variant of creationism, concocted by the Discovery Institute and its allies. It was widely publicized this year by actor Ben Stein in his documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The LFF already has created a "textbook addendum" available on their Web site that teachers can use to introduce creationism to students.

To coincide with the textbook's chapter on fossils, the LFF's addendum states, "Flood waters do not produce fossils unless there is a sudden surge of water that is full of a lot of sediment. An example is when a dam breaks. When the billions of fossils that are everywhere are considered in this light, the earth's history had some very violent floods in its past."

Or to complement a chapter on life's origins, the LFF's "scientific" explanation states: "One of the smallest prokaryotes (H-39 strain of mycoplasma, a bacterium) consists of 640 proteins whose average length is 400 amino acid bondings.Under ideal conditions, the odds of this many amino acids coming together in the right order are approximately the same as winning the Power Ball Lotto every week for the next 640 years. How could this have happened accidently [sic]? The step from inanimate organic compounds to a living organism is beyond man's ability to create."

Critics say these types of publications will likely serve as the "supplemental materials" used to teach science under Louisiana's "academic freedom" measure.

"They may not be saying 'Noah's flood' or 'Adam and Eve' anymore, but it is the same creationist argument they are making," said Josh Rosenau, Public Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education.

The Louisiana Coalition for Science fought hard to educate the state legislature on the dangers of this law and what it really means. Nine Coalition members, including teachers and scientists, testified at the Senate and House hearings to oppose the bill, but received no response or acknowledgment.

"The legislature knew full well what this bill meant, and they acted like they just planned for it to pass," Forrest said.

The reality of a new law that could result in costly litigation bills couldn't come at a worse time for a state with economic challenges. Prior to its passage, Alan Leshner, executive publisher of the journal, Science, and chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, referred to this measure as a "dangerous distraction."

"If the Louisiana bill becomes law, we are confident it would be overturned in court," Leshner wrote for the Shreveport Times. "But the fight would be an expensive, divisive distraction. At a time when Louisiana and the United States face serious economic challenges -- and incredible opportunities -- we must ensure the best possible science education for the next generation of problem-solvers."

For the past 40 years, federal courts have ruled against teaching creationism in public schools, according to Forrest. Of the 10 federal cases that ruled against creationism, two came out of Louisiana.

One of those cases was the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science in Public School Instruction Act," a 1981 law similar in purpose to SB 733.

The law required evolution and creationism to be taught equally in science classrooms. When the statute reached the Supreme Court in 1987, it was held unconstitutional since the legislature's purpose "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created human mankind." (Edwards v. Aguillard)

It looks like Louisiana is repeating history, despite concerns from teachers, scientists and legal scholars.

"They just aren't even paying attention to what teachers are telling them," Peebles said. "We don't need this, we don't want it." 

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: science, christian right, louisiana, bobby jindal

Sandhya Bathija is a communications associate at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Let's call out the exorcist
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Aug 27, 2008 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to drive out the creationist demons.

Oh, wait - he's the governor...doh!

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He is on the shortlist Posted by: shortpantz
When exactly...
Posted by: -matti on Aug 27, 2008 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...did Public School Curricula become a "national issue"?

Its because of Federal funding I guess, huh?

Well screw the Federal funding then. If some morons in Louisiana want to spend a lot of time and money to turn their children into morons as well, I say let them do it!

This issue doesn't seem to affect people outside of certain regions of the country.

I suggest that it would be rational for those that find themselves the local cultural minority on this issue -or any other- to contemplate moving to more hospitable regions.

The U.S. allows freedom of movement, perhaps we should use it.

As for someone like myself -who already lives in such a place- why exactly am I supposed to be concerned that people in some other place choose to educate their children differently from how I would?

Is the debate between those who believe what a religious tome (or more accurately its preachers) and those who believe what a scientific theory (and its tests) tell us about the distant past of the World meant to be so quarrelsome that it divides the People?

What a strange idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When exactly... Posted by: bcgirl125
» RE: When exactly... Posted by: paulaH
» RE: When exactly... Posted by: Dboy
» RE: When exactly... Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: When exactly... Posted by: athurlow
» RE: When exactly... Posted by: Libsrule
» RE: When exactly... who cares. Posted by: wolfgangmo
Creationism
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 27, 2008 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing I am aware of that has been created is the dumbass evangelical movement hellbent on defying the Constitutional ban on establishment of any "religion." Apart from this goofball Louisiana development, we'd all better watch out for the emergence of Coeur d'Alene South, because a helluva lot of these nutcases are home-schooling their offspring and will pressure public officials for like-minded lunacy in perpetuity. God save America, "blessing" it is an outrage!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's "Evilgelical Movement" Posted by: BobKincaid
» RE: That's "Evilgelical Movement" Posted by: mercury613
Neo-Darwinism is dead
Posted by: nemonemini on Aug 27, 2008 2:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neo-Darwinism is dead. So what did the promoters of Darwin propaganda expect? It is not clear how the Louisiana law will play out, and no doubt creationists will abuse it. But anyone else who is tired of the NCSE boilerplate promoted by this article and Alternet might also use this law to get a different perspective on the false promotion of rigid Darwinian natural selection hype. Two can play this game: why not a double expose of creationism/ID and Darwinism? The science promoters of Darwin propaganda are suppressing the views of many scientists who don't criticize the theory of Darwin as indadequate.

Stuart Newman on Neo-Darwinism, from Darwiniana

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Neo-Darwinism is dead Posted by: Harris20
» RE: Neo-Darwinism is dead Posted by: nemonemini
» RE: Be careful what you wish for Posted by: nemonemini
» You sir are a liar. Posted by: wolfgangmo
» Smells like superstition Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Smells like superstition Posted by: nemonemini
» RE: Smells like superstition Posted by: meeneecat
» Spencerism Posted by: Tom Tele
» Agreed Posted by: EvilMessiah
» RE: Agreed Posted by: nemonemini
» RE: Agreed Posted by: EvilMessiah
» RE: Agreed Posted by: nemonemini
» RE: Agreed Posted by: EvilMessiah
» RE: Neo-Darwinism is dead Posted by: greenknight
Fifth Column
Posted by: Orinoco on Aug 27, 2008 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would make no sense for Louisiana to pass this law unless there were already in place in the Louisiana school system teachers ready and willing to use this 'supplemental material' and school administrators willing to purchase it.

Are there any surveys regarding how many Louisiana science teachers buy into this crap? Believe me, they are there, or this whole thing would be pointless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundies are at it again...
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 27, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well one thing The Theory of Evolution is not the root to Racism anywhere. Racism has been around since before evolution was discovered. What I will say is that Social Darwinism has founded Eugenics which some of the most brutal men had used to wipe out certain races of people, but racism itself has been around since long before that.

Secondly, only a fundie or a literalist would believe the creationist hogwash, and I am disgusted that the people are trying to enact a law that dumbs down the education system further.

I couldn't even say that the creationists just want people to decide for themselves since this law replaces one with the other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This bit's really great--
Posted by: shikejian on Aug 27, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One of the smallest prokaryotes (H-39 strain of mycoplasma, a bacterium) consists of 640 proteins whose average length is 400 amino acid bondings.Under ideal conditions, the odds of this many amino acids coming together in the right order are approximately the same as winning the Power Ball Lotto every week for the next 640 years. How could this have happened accidently [sic]? The step from inanimate organic compounds to a living organism is beyond man's ability to create."
Uhhhhhmm...who said man created anything?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This bit's really great-- Posted by: greenknight
Fun with creationists
Posted by: rob-bot on Aug 27, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you get in such a discussion with a friend or co-worker who believes in intelligent design, let them lead you down the path with explanations of the flaws in the evolutionary theory, and how only an intelligent being could have brought about life in all its complexity. Then when they ask if you see their point, reply with " So you're saying that life on earth resulted from genetic engineering experiments by advanced beings from outer space?"

I actually did this and the response was instant and total rage. Try to have a camera ready to record a priceless moment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That kind of stuff is ALWAYS fun! Posted by: BobKincaid
» RE: Fun with creationists Posted by: davidg
» RE: Fun with creationists Posted by: Alexender Hamilton III
» can't you read,? Posted by: Tom Tele
I'm puzzled????
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 27, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize that these born again people are opposed to knowledge of anything other than what is in the bible (even that is selective), but "creationism/intelligent design" as a theory cannot be proven!

For those of you that don't know the difference between theory and faith! A theory is something that can be tested and either proved, or disproved. Science works to explain the natural world that we live in and on. Creationism/intelligent design is not a theory, any more than God is a theory - either you believe in God or you do not! Science never set out to disprove God, in fact the early scientists belonged to the church - does no one remember Galileo Galilee - oh, that's right no learning there!

These religious wing-nuts are equal in their intolerance of learning to the early christian church fathers that condemned Galileo! And their insistence that everyone else become dumbed down to their level is an abomination against a civil society, against learning for learnings sake, and against the very God that they profess they follow, whether they want to see it that way or not!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm puzzled???? Posted by: theoldguy
» RE: I'm puzzled???? Posted by: Freticat
» RE: I'm puzzled???? Posted by: jleman
Origins
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 27, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Students today are being indoctrinated to believe science and religion are incompatible. Religion, we are told, is the shadow of the past: the last vestige of a dark, gloomy age, in which the masses were subjected to the fear of spirits, ghosts, devils, God, and other imaginary beings by ecclesiastical authorities seeking to maintain political control. Science, however, supposedly provides humanity with empirically verifiable knowledge -- understanding the world through quantifiable observation, analysis, reduction and reason.

Current theories in astrophysics cannot account for the formation of galaxies. General relativity contradicts quantum mechanics: these theories cannot be integrated on a sound mathematical basis. The equations needed to explain planets condensing from clouds of gas and dust have not yet been solved, and the origin of the solar system itself remains a mystery.

Evolution is mostly speculation. The physical evidence from the past is fragmentary; of the one billion species believed to have existed, 99 percent did not leave fossils. In the deliberate breeding of species, there are limits to the changes one can make. When pushed beyond a limit, species become sterile and die out or revert to their standard design. We can induce changes in existing forms via breeding, but cannot generate new complex structures.

If this cannot happen by man’s conscious efforts, why should it happen by blind natural processes? No satisfactory evolutionary models have ever been made.

In an article on animal rights entitled "Just Like Us?" appearing in the August 1988 issue of Harper's, Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said:

"You cannot find a relevant attribute in human beings that doesn't exist in animals as well. Darwin said that the only difference between humans and other animals was a difference of degree, not kind. If you ground any concept of human rights in a particular attribute, then animals will have to be included. Animals have rights."

Many in the animal rights movement still base their ethical system upon the Darwinian theory of evolution. This will have to change, as Darwin's theory is being demolished. Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson's Forbidden Archaeology (1993) is a step in that direction. This controversial book shocked the scientific community and became an underground classic.

The book's premise is that evolutionary prejudices held by powerful groups of scientists act as a "knowledge filter" which has eliminated evidence challenging accepted views, and left us with a radically altered understanding of human origins and antiquity. Forbidden Archaeology shocked the scientific world with its evidence for extreme human antiquity. It documented hundreds of anomalies in the archaeological record that contradicted the prevailing theory and showed how this massive amount of evidence was systematically "filtered" out. This is how mainstream science reacts (almost like a religion) to any challenge to its deeply held beliefs.

In biology, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated the probability of proteins forming from the random interaction of amino acids -- the building blocks of life. They found the odds were one out of ten to the 40,000th power. Given these extreme odds, it is hard to imagine the self-organization of matter without the deliberate intervention of some kind of higher power(s) or intelligence(s).

All life is thus precious and sacred. Dr. Francis Crick has admitted, "the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Future scientists and science teachers would do well to approach the study of the phenomenal world with this kind of reverence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Origins Posted by: john mont
» Cowardly idiot Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Origins Posted by: jroth420
» Um, what? Posted by: balance
» I have some Good News for you! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» I always love it ... Posted by: EvilMessiah
» How vs. Why Posted by: suprmark
» Sadly... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Origins Posted by: jleman
Gee, the notion that folks paying for their child's education should have a say in that content?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 27, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blasphemy! Next time, those same folks will be prattling on about "no taxation without representation"!

Yeah, it's ridiculous to teach the philosophy of creative-alter-id in any scientific context. I think, however, that your pals Bush and Cheney have done quite enough trampling of our rights to justify taking away more parental input on education...

...At least until the Obiden adventure takes over, and wipes out what's left of our rights to privacy and association outside draconian government regulation. Meh, maybe they'll go more slowly about it than the McCain train to hell.

One can hope for the best, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A lack of faith
Posted by: solrev on Aug 27, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a Christian and I fail to understand what this argument is all about. Suppose we let every school teach creationism, what would you teach? All I know about the creation comes from the first two books of Genesis. That should take about a half-hour to teach, class dismissed. ID shows a real lack of faith, to prove that God exists or worse to prove that God is intelligent, how insulting to God is that? Damn, Jesus warned me there would be a lot of born again pagans. These born again pagans need to go back to Sunday school and stop chanting in public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A lack of faith Posted by: Richard House
LA was a HICK state to begin with. The system in that state has already collapsed.
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 27, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess this is only another symptom. I hate to say it but the state has already turned out uneducated people a long time ago. Add to it, ultra-sellouts in both parties to make matters worse. This Christian is ASHAMED of the uber-rightwing corrupt MISleadership and calls them non-Christians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creation theory is flim-flam
Posted by: luzmejor on Aug 27, 2008 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The motive for this scheme is control over an undereducated population.

Most people know that "creationism" is not science, but a way of teaching children that they should be afraid of learning.

When people are ignorant, they and their votes can be controlled by charlatans like Bobby Jindal and focus on Family types.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MORE CONTROL AND PROGRAMMING
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 27, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fact is, the kids shoud be taught to read, basic math, facts about money management (their own) and what they need to get a job and get through life. Scientific stuff is very exciting to children. It's a shame to ruin a natural curiosity just to satisfy a group of biased and uninformed adults. Science has no blinders. It shouldn't. It keeps on happening. To attempt to rein it all in and edit what children have access to is wrong. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about other creation myths?
Posted by: lepidopteryx on Aug 27, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we're going to allow the teaching of Genesis as an "alternative theory," then we also need to teach the "theory" that the earth sits upon the back of a giant tortoise. Or on the shoulders of a Titan.
While we're at it, our medical schools need to teach the "theory" that disease is caused by evil spirits, and that meat spontaneously generates maggots.

I live in Louisiana, and I am SO glad that my high school biology teachers taught science and not religion. I'm glad that my daughter had science teachers who actually taught science as well. I hope that by the time I become a grand-parent, school systems will have come to their senses and stopped adding religion to science classes. If not, I may offer to help my daughter home-school any children she may have - assuming that either of us are still living in this benighted state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deception and the most deceived are those who zealously believe they are not
Posted by: jhubbard on Aug 27, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder when the Relgious Right will wake up to the fact that using DECEPTION in order to get your way, or to create reality as you want it to be, is the main tool of the great deceiver, the flesh!

Whose puppets are they and whose agenda are they pushing? My web site at jeroldhubbard.com (home page) explains how DECEPTION IS THE SELECTIVE FORCE IN PLACE FOR LIVING ORGANISMS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barbara Forest's Political Hype
Posted by: island on Aug 27, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Christian Right's Got a New Stealth Tactic to Smuggle Creationism into Science Class

If this was true, then you'd be able to get these bills shot down in court like you did in Dover, but you cannot do that because the wording of these bills strictly prohibits the teaching of religion, creationism, "creation science", "creation facts" and ID, so your claim carries no more weight than a bogus lie.

How can you expect to gain the support of anyone that isn't in your "choir" of antifantics when you lie, embellish, mislead, and distort the truth just as much as the creationists do?

This issue is political on both sides, and regardless of what either side righteously claims via ideologically distorted science that either, willfully ignores evidence that appears to support the creationists position, or, on the other side of the coin, wrongly leaps to the conclusion that evidence that can indicate that there is higher purpose in nature, necessarily requires an intelligent agency.

This culture war will never end, and nobody on either side of the debate ever modifies their position. It's always a matter of who has the vote and scientists are not even close to being immune from the influence of their ideological belief systems.

Evolutionary theory suffers equally from the adverse effects of both sides, as does physics and cosmology, and in spite of much theoretical righteousness from the left.

Let the chorus of denial begin...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» origins of life? Posted by: suprmark
Is creationism really Christian?
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Aug 27, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read the bible and consider myself a Christian, albeit not a fundamentalist one. When I read the New Testament, to me it says that one should follow Jesus's example by acting more like a truly loving hippie guru. We are to have a big heart of giving and high morals that always encourages love, peace and respect for all humanity. The fundamentalist Christians on the other hand are mixing the KKK attitude with old Europe racism and anti Islamic fervor and hatred with the Old Testament literal commands and get all crazy. They feel very threatened by science, intellectualism and anyone not believing in the literal bible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just sayin' Posted by: balance
» which Christianity? Posted by: Tom Tele
The Christian Right damn sure isn't right
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 27, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth is christianity is only one piece of the Creation puzzle. They have a small piece of it and the other faiths hold the others. Besides christian's have'nt had that great of history on this side of the world. They have authorized genocide,family busting and indoctrination into a faith that killed off it's principle teacher,then took the dead guy on a stick as their icon. Truth is Jesus' message was that we never die because we are children of the Creation and that's an eternal
energy that has no gender bias. Unlike it's followers. But as long as their icon is a dead guy,that's what they will bring to the world...death. Just look at their new leader George Bush,he's the biggest Christ killer of them all. If there's any truth to the 'rapture' them we can rejoice that the real problem makers on Earth will be gone and we can get back to living instead of dreading
what those crazy christians will do next.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forward into the past...
Posted by: BlueSun on Aug 27, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1920s, the USSR turned to a wack agronomist, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, to try to undo the disastrous results of the failures of agricultural collectivism.

Lysenko and the Soviet leadership rejected evolutionary genetics as bourgeois science. Lysenkoism had no actual science or scientific evidence supporting it, but was drawn from pre-Darwin Lamarkist theories.

So, until the '60s, Lysenkoism was the only officially approved alternative to the 'discreditied bourgeois pseudoscience of the fascists.' The immediate result is that Russia for decades failed to reap the agricultural benefits that a true understanding of biological science could have brought to them. The long-term result is that Russian biological science languished for 40 years or more and fell far behind that of the West, a gap that has still not been completely closed.

Creationism is to evolution what Lysenkoism was to genetics, basically a replacement of true science with ideological nonsense based on superstition or ideology, rather than on facts, experimentation, and validation.

As the rest of the Western world rushes forward into the amazing science of the 21st Century, it seems that America is trying to return to the superstition and ignorance of the Dark Ages.

What's next? Are we to teach astrology along with (or instead of) astronomy? Replace chemistry with alchemy? Close our graduate schools of meteorology and economics and replace them with classes in Tarot Card reading and casting the I Ching? What about closing medical schools and teaching faith healing and prayer circles instead?

If a particular religion wants to teach its adherents the Judeo-Christian mythology, that humans descended from a couple created by a supernatural being in a universe he also created in six days; or the Bakuba creation myth where Mbombo, the white giant, vomited forth the sun the moon and the stars, then vomited a second time to eruct forth trees, animals, people, and all living things; or the Zoroastrian creation myth where the good god Ahura Mazda created 16 idyllic lands for his humans, while the evil god Angra Mainyu polluted these lands with evil and plague and sin; or the Navajo belief that the "Holy Supreme Wind" was created by mists of lights and animated the myriad "Holy People" in the three lower worlds. Insect people were the first life, and they fought with each other, ascending through the second and third world to the forth world we know today, where they were transformed into humans. There, First Man and First Woman were created from ears of white and yellow corn; I have no problem with these being taught to their adherents in their own houses of worship or schools. But when any of these groups attempts to force its superstitions on the rest of the community, they have crossed over the line.

I don't care if you worship a man who has been dead two thousand years through acts of symbolic cannibalism or strip naked, paint yourself blue, drape your shoulders with fresh chicken guts, and howl at the full moon every month.

But don't come trying to teach my children to do that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lenny Bruce asked Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» RE: get the jew Posted by: bitsfick
» Stripping Out Science Posted by: LeaderofMen
Um, what?
Posted by: balance on Aug 27, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are you pulling these assertions from? I just learned exactly how galaxies and our solar system formed, in my astronomy class! Basic 101 stuff. It's hardly a big mystery. It's not even controversial or complex advanced stuff!

Someone didn't get a very good science education, and believes the ID folks unquestioningly when they say science can't even figure these things out! Try reading an astronomy book. Seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumbing down of America is by design
Posted by: PakiBoy on Aug 27, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This promotion of anti-intellectual nonsense coupled with endless hrs of entertainment from sports to sitcoms is designed to do only one thing:
Keep Americans dumb and ignorant.

This way elites can bail-out their friends in the investment banking while making it far more difficult for the middle-class to file for bankruptcy.

This way elites can give away tax dollars to big pharma while making healthcare far more expensive for the public.

This way, elites can scare the shit out of dumb Americans by invoking one bogeyman after another, so as to divert the tax dollars to the military-industrial complex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creationists Can't Have It Both Ways
Posted by: ranchero42 on Aug 27, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They can't preach this bogus crap and support candidates who advocate social policies that are nothing more than "survival of the fittest". Hypocrisy may be the order of the day in presidential campaigns, but the candidate most likely to put it into practice should never be encouraged, let alone allowed to BE president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes they can... Posted by: LeaderofMen
Much of this problem is explained by relative IQ differences from one state to another.
Posted by: yellow on Aug 27, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting feature on a site called www.zombietime.com, which attempted to debunk the idea of a Red State/Blue State IQ gap, actually ended up proving the very opposite. On average there was only a average 2 point gap between Red and Blue states (about 101 vs. 99) however all of the deep southern states were concentrated in the bottom half with most concentrated in the bottom third!! One suprise was the Blue State of California coming in 48th in IQ with a score of 95.5 just above Louisiana whose score was 95.3. As always, Mississippi came in number 50 with a score of 94.2. Many of these studies place New England averages above 104 and deep southern ones below 90. Anywhere below a score of 80 is often considered functionally developmentally disabled and automatically qualifies one for Social Security Disability Insurance. These numbers should be kept in mind when considering the high rates of religious fanaticism in certain regions of the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creation or just everything happens because it's naturally happening
Posted by: Pop on Aug 27, 2008 12:02 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People cling to creation because the creator gives them live eternal. The fact of no creator leaves only oblivion. Folks do not wish to think once they are personally gone, they simply do not any longer exist. Besides, every major sleasy forse effectively uses the god-con to overtake the will of believers to get what-ever glorious war where they might gain what-ever ransom they pursue. Creationism if it belongs in public schools, it should be confined to school library fiction section asside Alice and the 7 dwarfs and like tales. Blind is faith in the unknown.
Stupid is any that avoid the proven fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aiming for last place
Posted by: TennMom on Aug 27, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2006-07, Louisiana ranked 46th in academic achievement, down two spots from the previous year. I guess they're aiming for 50th.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maths, Physics & Chemistry has Been Totally Dumbed Down To The Story Of These Subjects
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 27, 2008 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's deliberate Government policy in the UK - and probably in the US.

Educational Standards have completely collapsed in Real Terms.

More kids might get better grades - but they are no longer taught science in a fundamental way such that they understand the principles.

They can produce reams and reams of documentation presented in a beautiful manner without actually understanding their subjects to any real depth.

One of the most important things about studying maths and physics to a high level - is that it teaches you critical objective thinking. It enables you to analyse a whole array of different problems in a logical manner completely without bias.

Any fool can memorise stuff by rote but applying knowledge in a useful way to solve real problems requires a completely different skill set than mere memory dumping.

On top of this dumbing down - research has become so politicised - that only the "required result" is acceptable. If something new and fundamental has been discovered that conflicts with the financed objective - then that information will be discarded.

Unless this deliberate dumbing down changes we will become totally left behind by countries like India, Russia and China.

We used to lead the World in these subjects and now are at the bottom of the class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» completely without bias? Posted by: suprmark
BACK TO THE DARK AGES OF FUTURE PASSED
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 27, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Response to Sandhya Bathija and American's United for Separation of Church and State
regarding article posted on AlterNet about science and creationism. . .

The problem with the basic premise of the author, as well as with AUSC&S and most so-called "progressives" is, none of you believe in freedom of speech and/or, the First Amendment.

The First Amendment very clearly gives every American the right to state their opinion in a science or any other public forum, regarding anything, regardless of how "scientific" it may or may not be. For example, Thomas Jefferson himself, while a sitting president, began his re-write of the New Testament and tried, while still a sitting president, to have his version adopted as the official U.S. version, thus insuring that Jefferson's bible would be read in every public classroom. James Madison, the main force behind the original ten amendments, stated that he believed the First Amendment would aid in the spreading of Christianity and Benjamin Franklin openly complained that the constitutional convention did not rely enough on guidance from the "Father of Light" when drafting the new constitution, a decidedly Biblical viewpoint.

Thus, your entire interpretation of "separation of church and state" clearly was neither intended, endorsed nor practiced by our so-called "founding" fathers.

Notwithstanding that, there is zero evidence that the universe or anything else designed itself and/or, came into being by "natural", "unguided" processes, thus Sandhya Barthnija's basic premise that "science is science", has no purpose or rational place in an article defending a theory that is not based on evidence.

I most definitely agree, that science is science and what is not based on evidence, is neither science, nor rational.

And finally, according to the Bible, "faith is the evidence of things not seen". Note how much the Bible and true science agree with each other and how strongly they both disagree with the position of this author and other so-called "progressives", who seek to set freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of everything else back into the misty dark ages, where perhaps Neanderthals such as you prove your selves to be, rightly belong.

I don't want to live in no God-damned so-called "progressive" country that doesn't allow me to praise or damn God at will, whether you like it or agree with it or not, as the case may be.

Sincerely,
Richard Aberdeen

on behalf of Thomas Jefferson,
Benjamin Franklin, James Madison
and our Father in heaven, who makes
his rain to fall on both the just and
those who just pretend to be just.

(or maybe we should ban Shakespeare and that famous "I Have A Dream"
speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., which also freely quotes the Bible, as well,
after all, we wouldn't to corrupt our children with the truth now, would we?)


Thank You, Sincerely
Richard Aberdeen
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let them read their tablets and tabloids and recede
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Aug 27, 2008 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as far into their backwardness as they can, provided they keep to themselves; there'll be more enlightenment to share among the intelligent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Don't Think Anything Was Created. It Always Existed and Just Changes Form in Cyclic Time.
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 27, 2008 3:08 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course its only a theory - but most things that at first appear to go on linearly for infinity - are in fact cyclic or global.

For example if you start moving in one direction across the planet you will have the perception that your journey will go on infinitely.

It took an aweful long time for the human race to realise the implications of the planet actually being a globe.

Now time appears to go on linearly to infinity. Yet it could be that if we could visualise our universe from another dimension that the universe and time itself is global.

There is no start and there is no end. Things just change in an endless global loop.

Now if this theory is true, it raises the possibility that after an almost infinite period of time the entire universe will have exactly the same structure and existence at some point in the future as it does now.

When you are dead you have no perception of time. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

So when you die you go to heaven.

Heaven is when you become aware of your own existence in your mother's womb - perhaps when you start to suck your thumb.

You are then born and lead exactly the same life as you did before - except it seems like the first time.

But there never was a first time. You have always lived this life and always will.

There is no escape from life. This is the only one you've got and it goes on forever.

And its the same for absolutely everyone else and every other form of life.

This isn't about morality - except to say that being nice to others makes you happy - so be nice.

This theory doesn't eliminate the concept of God or spirituality. In fact it could be a description of God. Most human societies have had a perception of God and often that perception has been that of being a part of God. It also doesn't eliminate any religions. Human societies have believed in religions throughout human history.

I've held this theory from the age of about 16. Most people dislike it intensely.

I was brought up as a Catholic and totally rejected all religions at the age of around 15. Yet I too had to come up with a belief - so with my pal Paul came up with this one. No one has ever disproved it and I have recently discovered that other cultures have held the same theory.

If I register it as a religion will people send me loads of tax free money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After All, It's Only A Theory...
Posted by: Freticat on Aug 27, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to this report, scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning have declared that the theory of gravity is flawed, and that things stay down "...because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down...". They claim that Newton't laws can define gravity and its effects but can't explain it. They call their concept "Intelligent Falling".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saw this stuff on just that; 'Origin of Life,' at Glasgow University, UK. Extract below:
Posted by: Squarehead on Aug 28, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To those who post with certainty on any side of this argument:

I saw this stuff on just that; 'Origin of Life,' at Glasgow University, UK. Extract below:

"Present day life depends to a large extent on solar energy that drives the chemical systems of green vegetation. Plants use water and carbon dioxide from the air to produce organic molecules with oxygen as a waste.

We consider that the first living cells formed on the floor of an ocean on the earth thousands of millions of years ago. Life 'emerged' at the sites of warm submarine springs where chemical energy was focused and the mixing of spring water with seawater could lead to the precipitation of chemicals.

It is now well established that this process can lead to metal-rich mineral deposits, often containing iron sulfides but with very variable chemistries.

How could the first cell have assembled itself in such a setting on the early Earth or on any similar stony, wet and sunny planet?

The precipitation of chemicals on mixing of solutions can form a barrier preventing further mixing and precipitation.

At the warm spring we envisage the formation of a special precipitate that not only formed a boundary that inhibited mixing but also provided a template for the assembly of chains of organic molecules, and acted as a catalyst for electrochemical reactions.

The initial membranous precipitate consisted mainly of small groups of iron and sulfur atoms. Iron-sulfur groups still play an essential electrochemical catalytic role in all living cells. Our research has focused to a large extent on the origin, nature and role of iron sulfides.

As a boundary, the precipitate concentrated organic molecules such as amino acids. These formed at depth below the spring where water and its dissolved chemicals reacted with rocks containing iron and iron-rich minerals.

The boundary also concentrated other chemicals that could participate in chemical reactions. But eventually the boundary evolved by a process of 'organic take-over' into a cell membrane consisting of organic molecules."
It strikes me as completely logical, and a good possibility.

As regards the other aspects of 'Darwinism' or 'Neo-Darwinism' or 'Evolutionary synthesis'; to me, the newer terms are all part of the same branch of science and are themselves philosophical evolutions of the first concept. (From Charles Darwin) Again, to me, there is no basic conflict betweeen religious belief, Christian or Islamic or whatever and awareness /acknowledgement of these science based concepts. Personally, I am agnostic, but I do not believe I know more than some believer, in Christ or Mohammed or ?? I just don't know. It's the scientific method, to acknowledge lack of certainty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I normaly don't reply on far-Left sites
Posted by: papabryant on Aug 28, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but the comments left here deserve it.

If you read the peer-reviewed literature on evolution, the questions being raised by scientists themselves are far more damaging to the theory of evolution than anything the "Creationists" have come up with. The problem is its the political enemies of the Left who are publically challenging it. You guys fail utterly to realize the "Religious Right" is simply taking scientists own questions seriously.

A word of advice - quit conflaiting Creationism and Intelligent Design. They are NOT the same. First off, there are too many Hindus and Buddhists who support ID for it to be stealth Christian Creationism. Secondly, ID was the direction science was heading prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Modern ID scientists simply picked up what was abandoned in the mad rush to embrace Darwinism, dusted it off, and are reworking the hypothesis in light of modern techniques. Given the problems with Darwinism - remember, even Dawkins admits there are problems in peer-reviewed literature, away from the prying eyes of the public - ID scientists are quite correct to check out whether science threw the baby out with the bathwater when they abandoned design for chance.

THe reason they are correct is because Darwin's theory has been corrupted by late 18th-early 19th century scientists that took a theory on biology and attempted tp ham-handedly apply it to disciplines that had nothing to do with biology - or has the American Left forgotten Social Darwinism and Eugenics?

Scientists of Darwin's day were not specialists like they are today. A man of letters dabbled in a multitude of disciplines and interests. As a result Darwinian evolution was introduced into politics, urban planning, astronomy, physics, voting demographics - you name it, it was applied - with inappropriate and disasterous results. ID offers the hope - EVEN IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE A FALSE DIRECTION - of forcing Darwinism to defend its assertions in areas inappropriate to it, thus purifying the theory.

You guys on the Left are on the wrong side if you want evolution to really survive. heheheh

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hahaha...a creationist/ID advocate... Posted by: hurricane hugo
» This is so adorable Posted by: EvilMessiah
Gloria E.
Posted by: Gloria E. on Aug 28, 2008 3:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The movement to destroy bona fide science education must not be allowed to prevail. China, India and other developing nations are already poised to surpass us in the biological fields. Think of all the antibiotics, vaccines, and other disease prevention programs which would not be possible without the application of evolutionary principles. This movement to squash the teaching of evolution is not only anti-intellectual, it is dangerous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Esteban
Posted by: Esteban on Aug 28, 2008 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What in the blue blazes is this article talking about? The original public education (which I believe is a failed and flawed experiment of the founders)was meant to be a Religious education, howbeit a generic Christian Biblical one, in order to allow the principles of the fragile Christian Republic be expounded as found from the scriptures expunged from denominational peculiarities. The problem with this approach, even comendable in its basic premise, is that it allowed government one of the largest usurpation into parental obligations and responsibilities, and that is educating one's own children. The other more recent usurpation is government doing charity, in that this word is also a Biblical translation of the Greek Agape which was practical, unconditional love. A brief condemenation here is that Government involvement into charity actually changes the nature of the gift. Governments cannot do charity without a demand for requitement of some sort and are chock full of mandates, condtions, strings, and even for the candidates of both parties, requests for patronage. But to get to the main point, the question of Creationism in education is moot in that government involvement in education, remember it was first thought of as a Christian religious education, is entanglement of government in religion. For those ambitions haters of our Republic who may find fellows even amongst us who desire our Republic back, look at the real opportunity to disengage government from religion once and for all and divest governments from Federal to local of all things education and charity. Perhaps the government will soon be undistracted from its real aim of protecting LIFE, LIBERTY and POSSESSIONS for the good of the people. It then falls on the community in their own spheres of private party or private associations to educate their own to be the best candidate of whatever heaven, nirvana, or social utopia private resources can manage and at the same time bring forth the best philanthropic citizen in competition of that created by other worldviews in our society. Competition of the brightest and the kindest and the most philanthropic citizens should be fomented rather than competiton for power over the thinking of others by means of the force of the community of which governments are the managers. But you non Christian whussies are afraid of real comptetition and must have big brother government do the spanking for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you... Posted by: LazyEight
How does evolution explain the development of two sexes?
Posted by: hankhawk on Aug 28, 2008 5:59 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like to hear your "theory" of "The Problem of Sexes

Advanced organisms have two sexes. Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor. Even if one sex of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. Difficult to imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ID distorsion at work Posted by: dkm
Apparently I struck a nerve...
Posted by: papabryant on Aug 28, 2008 8:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the personal invectives - in CLEAR violation of the rules of this web site. Tsk tsk.

First off, no one is saying evolution - MICROevolution to be specific - occurs. One needs only to catch the flu to see it in action. But this is very different from MACROevolution, in which those changes accumilate over time resulting in a new species. What apparently you are not familiar with is the peer reviewed literature from evolutionary scientists, in which they admit that the evidence for... gosh I hate typing this out but since you Lefties won't let me short hand "the evolutionary process by which small mutations accumilate over time to change the organism from one species to another" -- Oh heck, that's YOUR problem ... MACROEVOLUTION is NON EXISTANT!

There are no "missing links", no true "transitional species" (OH I better try explaining this one before you guys blow a gasket and have an ecodisaster. By Darwin's own definition, a transitional species is EACH one of the individual mutated offspring of the original animal of a given species. As each offspring mates and passes on its genetic material, the offspring is itself a new transitional species. This means that as one species evolves into a new species, say two legged dinosaur to bird, as the arm elongates and flesh fills in the gaps in the fingers, the appendage passes for several dozen generations through a state where it is no longer functional as an arm but isn't functional as a wing either. Even with the difficulties in getting fossils in the first place we should have at least ONE fossil animal that looks like a thalidimide baby, and Dawkins, Dennett, Onfrey, Ruse and the dean of the Oxford Biology Department ALL ADMIT THERE ISN'T ONE SUCH FOSSIL ON THIS PLANET!!!)

So please, continue to throw invectives, call me a Creationist, tell me again how stupid I am. Bottom line, you haven't addressed one point I've made. Yes, social Darwinism was a corruption of the scientific process - you are correct - but you cannot see that science as a profession and process is STILL corrupted by the a priori assumptions it makes and needs a corrective. As Nicola Tesla wrote in a NYT letter back in the 1930's, Biologists aren't engaging in science but Ontological speculation, and he predicted that would bring ruin to the scientific enterprise. Judging by the shortsighted apologists for Darwinism we have here, Tesla was right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you... Posted by: LazyEight
» You blew it big time! Posted by: dkm
Why it Matters
Posted by: dkm on Aug 29, 2008 3:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I am about to say is nothing new, but it bears repeating.

A major reason that the US is going down the tubes is that our upcoming high school and college graduates are just not academically prepared to survive and prosper in a world where reality is becoming more and more important. Science education in other countries has surpassed that in the US and accordingly, the people in those countries who are responsible for their progress are doing the job. In the US this is no longer true.

Therefore, if one state allows, even encourages, its students to be raised ignorant, then it affects all of us because that is one more group of people who aren't able to function as well as we need them to. Apparently other states are considering going down the same path which just makes the situation that much worse. So it really does affect everyone when one state decides that its citizens should be raised to be ignoramuses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trained Ape Theory
Posted by: trained ape on Aug 29, 2008 10:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Just like gravity.
Gravity was a fact before Newton, and before Einstein.
Evolution was a fact before Darwin.
The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
THEREFORE,
We humans are trained apes.
Some of us are trained better than others.
Those who argue for creationism and ID simply fail to understand evolution.
They could use more training.
Our big brains are way overrated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evolution Needed in This Discussion
Posted by: Liberty G on Sep 1, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm saddened by several things about this discussion.

First, the tone of contempt, even hatred toward those with differing viewpoints, is disgusting. Whether evolution or intelligent design or creationism is your belief, surely a movement toward civility, compassion and kindness is the positive direction.

Consider how much of the wars, isms, and just plain unpleasantness of the human species is caused by the arrogance and ego of those totally convinced of their own perfection and "rightness". Unfortunately, "liberals" are equally susceptible to this flaw as their "right-wing" counterparts.

Folks, we are all merely human, with limited understanding. We see on this earth "through a glass darkly". Whether there is another side where our vision clears is a question not really resolved until we "cross over" - or just die.

So, the other major point which only a few here are acknowledging is that science is not perfect, and certainly not complete, on the enormous issue of the nature of life, birth, death, etc. Evolution appears to be, at least, a mechanism operating on this planet. But those who ask how the incredible complexity of the life here could have come as a matter of chance - and as something from nothing for no reason - are not exactly rigidly scientific - where is proof, even evidence, about the beginnings of the whole shebang? One major hurdle - evolution and science depend on reliable rules as to how things work - a reality easily proven. However, rules by their nature are organizational, not changeable, not coincidental. To assume that the rules themselves came about just by chance is a true leap of faith.

Bottom line - I believe in science - but I don't worship it, and I am aware of its uncertainties. Some things are impossible to prove, and evidence is often mixed, supporting both sides of a question. It's also often skewed by scientists with a bias.

As far as the beginning of life and the existence of God - there is actually lots of experiential evidence of that - much of which is unscientifically dismissed by some scientists because it doesn't suit them. But just because we can't "prove" something with experiments controlled by us doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. You can't put love in a test tube. And if those with experience of God can't "prove" their reality, neither can they be disproven.

Can't we all accept that none of us know it all, that we probably each have some truth, and treat each other with respect as fellow adventurers on this strange and interesting planet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement