Palin wants creationism taught in schools

[Ravi]

You know, I like this issue. I've been toying with the idea of campaigning for McCain, and this is a good issue to discuss with my neighbors.

McCain/Palin, I can tell them, will tear down the separation of church and state. Our children will be taught Creationism in school, and our teachers will scoff at the notion that viruses and bacteria can evolve. I'll be duty bound to point out that with this erosion of separation of church and state the evil liberals will start slapping "This is only a theory" stickers on bibles, but our children's faith will be able to withstand it.

 

[007]

Can any one of you bitter, liberal, geniuses explain to me how creation is accomplished? No? Didn't think so. It's beyond mans pathetic scope of comprehension. It's beyond mans power of science to explain it. Sounds like a much more complicated process than the dreamt up scheme by man called "evolution," yet all you full of hate for religion liberals accept that gallon of kool aide like it was fact.

You people are the biggest morons and hypocrites on earth when it comes to this topic.

 

[Sunni Man]

You know, I like this issue. I've been toying with the idea of campaigning for McCain, and this is a good issue to discuss with my neighbors.

McCain/Palin, I can tell them, will tear down the separation of church and state. Our children will be taught Creationism in school, and our teachers will scoff at the notion that viruses and bacteria can evolve. I'll be duty bound to point out that with this erosion of separation of church and state the evil liberals will start slapping "This is only a theory" stickers on bibles, but our children's faith will be able to withstand it.

You are way, way out there!!

Evolution is just a theory. Creationism is just a theory. Let them both be presented.

The idea of Education is to present all sides of a subject and stimulate crital thinking.

Why be against that?

 

[Inferno]

You are way, way out there!!

Evolution is just a theory. Creationism is just a theory. Let them both be presented.

The idea of Education is to present all sides of a subject and stimulate crital thinking.

Why be against that?

I'm against it because creationism is religious. You would be teaching about some god thing.

 

[007]

I'm against it because creationism is religious. You would be teaching about some god thing.

Is not the duty of sceince to explain the unknown? Is not how creation was accomplished the unkown?

If you're going to teach ANYTHING about how we got here, why silence one unproven idea when you're babbling all over about another that's just as unproven?

Seems very hypocritical to me.

 

[sealybobo]

Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School | Wired Science from Wired.com

She is no different than condi, harriet meirs and monica goodling. good little germans doing what "the man" tells them to do. And women voters will vote for gender. The republicans are genius. It might not work, but they#e done everythin else. gay vs straight, religion vs. religion, guns, abortion, stem cell. finally its gender.

I don't think it matters. If obama does what he did thursday, if he fights back and gives detail on exactly why the gop should not be trusted with power, we'll win.

That woman is way over her head.

 

[Glori.B]

The republicans are genius.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I'm already seeing the same uninformed comments from the anti-evolution crowd. I believe evolution is one of the rare things we discuss on this board where someone might have their mind changed on the subject. Most people who don't acknowledge it do so out of a lack of understanding of the theory. Here's a few myths that many of you hold:

Top Ten Myths About Evolution

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.
A Note to Visitors

I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to answer this question:

What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
1. Humans Evolved From Monkeys

Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.
2. It’s Only A Theory

“Theory” does not mean “hypothesis” or “guess” “Theory” means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.

* Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
* Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
* Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges, and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.
* Music Theory illustrates another use of the word "theory," to mean the underlying principles of a subject as opposed to actual practice. Music Theory is the set of accepted conventions used in European music. Other conventions are possible. That's why Asian music sounds so different from ours.
* The Phlogiston Theory was the notion that heat was a substance that reacted with materials to explain combustion. It's wrong. But it's still a theory. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether the ideas in question are right or wrong.

3. If Nobody Saw It, We Can’t Be Sure It Happened

If you find your house trashed and your TV and stereo missing, will you hesitate to call the police because nobody saw it happen? Would you want the judge to dismiss the case just because you only had forensic evidence, but no witnesses?
4. Science Can’t Say Anything About Origins

Maybe not. But once the origin happens, everything after that is history. And historical evidence is preserved in the physical record.
5. Obsolete Concepts

Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man (actually the tooth of a fossil pig erroneously claimed to be human). These both happened about 100 years ago. They can't cite any cases of false claims of ancient human fossils since then.

“Survival of the Fittest” was borrowed by Darwin from the economic writings of Herbert Spencer. What does “fittest” mean? It's not just a tautology, like saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the team with the most points." There are objective features that make some creatures fitter than others. If you need to move fast in the water, there is one shape that works best and it's shared by squid, sharks, tuna, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and nuclear submarines.
6. There Are No Intermediate Fossil Forms

This is a claim for which there is a monosyllabic definition: lie. Not error, which implies honest ignorance, but lie, because the people who make this claim are generally fully aware of the fossil record and simply choose to misrepresent it. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known fossil bird for a long time (some recent finds may be earlier) has a thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and so on.
7. Evolution Is Not Testable

Darwin suggested birds had evolved from reptiles in 1859; Archaeopteryx, a creature with a reptilian skeleton but feathers, was discovered in 1862.

Piltdown Man, the famous early fossil man hoax, actually vindicated evolution. The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn’t match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds.
8. Evolution Means Humans are Just Animals

Are you a vegetable or mineral? Humans have hair and nurse their young just like all other mammals. Traits like nurturing, cooperation and monogamy are often favored by evolution because they enhance survival of the species.
9. Evolution is Just Random

Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279? It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No. These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.

Random does not mean “meaningless.” The scientific meaning of random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.
10. Complexity Cannot Arise Naturally

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often paraphrased as:

* ”Things always go from bad to worse”
* ”Disorder in the Universe is always increasing"

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy, which is defined as (Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of “disorder” are of no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is worthless.

Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by 30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.

Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na

But of course the reasoning is ridiculous. The chances of getting that arrangement of atoms is close to 100 per cent.

And we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids.

"But when cells divide, there's a pattern already available" say some anti-evolutionists. Try this: go to the lumber yard and buy the materials for a tool shed. Then put a set of plans on top of the pile, and let me know when the materials spontaneously assemble. I can pour gasoline onto a garbage pile and the molecules in the garbage won't suddenly get the urge to develop into gasoline, even though there's enough carbon and hydrogen to do it. The pattern means nothing. DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble.

Return to Pseudoscience Index
Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page

Created 21 January, 2003, Last Update 23 February, 2006

Not an official UW Green Bay site


I'm going to a phd program soon for marine biology, so feel free to shoot any questions at me. I'm not an expert by any means, but I can explain the basics and answer any fish questions you got

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Can any one of you bitter, liberal, geniuses explain to me how creation is accomplished? No? Didn't think so. It's beyond mans pathetic scope of comprehension. It's beyond mans power of science to explain it. Sounds like a much more complicated process than the dreamt up scheme by man called "evolution," yet all you full of hate for religion liberals accept that gallon of kool aide like it was fact.

You people are the biggest morons and hypocrites on earth when it comes to this topic.

LMAO, Pale Rider calling someone bitter and full of hate.

Did it ever occur to you that some people believe in certain aspects of creationism and the evolutionary process?

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm against it because creationism is religious. You would be teaching about some god thing.

Just use the term "Intelligent Design" and don't allow any religious doctrine to be in the texts or discussion.

 

[Inferno]

without religious doctrine you have no creationism. Design shows prior intelligence and it is in fact teaching of a god. no god not in schools. Like teaching kids that Alice in Wonderland is real.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I'm already seeing the same uninformed comments from the anti-evolution crowd. I believe evolution is one of the rare things we discuss on this board where someone might have their mind changed on the subject. Most people who don't acknowledge it do so out of a lack of understanding of the theory. Here's a few myths that many of you hold:

Top Ten Myths About Evolution

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.
A Note to Visitors

I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to answer this question:

What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
1. Humans Evolved From Monkeys

Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.
2. It’s Only A Theory

“Theory” does not mean “hypothesis” or “guess” “Theory” means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.

* Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
* Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
* Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges, and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.
* Music Theory illustrates another use of the word "theory," to mean the underlying principles of a subject as opposed to actual practice. Music Theory is the set of accepted conventions used in European music. Other conventions are possible. That's why Asian music sounds so different from ours.
* The Phlogiston Theory was the notion that heat was a substance that reacted with materials to explain combustion. It's wrong. But it's still a theory. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether the ideas in question are right or wrong.

3. If Nobody Saw It, We Can’t Be Sure It Happened

If you find your house trashed and your TV and stereo missing, will you hesitate to call the police because nobody saw it happen? Would you want the judge to dismiss the case just because you only had forensic evidence, but no witnesses?
4. Science Can’t Say Anything About Origins

Maybe not. But once the origin happens, everything after that is history. And historical evidence is preserved in the physical record.
5. Obsolete Concepts

Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man (actually the tooth of a fossil pig erroneously claimed to be human). These both happened about 100 years ago. They can't cite any cases of false claims of ancient human fossils since then.

“Survival of the Fittest” was borrowed by Darwin from the economic writings of Herbert Spencer. What does “fittest” mean? It's not just a tautology, like saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the team with the most points." There are objective features that make some creatures fitter than others. If you need to move fast in the water, there is one shape that works best and it's shared by squid, sharks, tuna, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and nuclear submarines.
6. There Are No Intermediate Fossil Forms

This is a claim for which there is a monosyllabic definition: lie. Not error, which implies honest ignorance, but lie, because the people who make this claim are generally fully aware of the fossil record and simply choose to misrepresent it. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known fossil bird for a long time (some recent finds may be earlier) has a thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and so on.
7. Evolution Is Not Testable

Darwin suggested birds had evolved from reptiles in 1859; Archaeopteryx, a creature with a reptilian skeleton but feathers, was discovered in 1862.

Piltdown Man, the famous early fossil man hoax, actually vindicated evolution. The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn’t match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds.
8. Evolution Means Humans are Just Animals

Are you a vegetable or mineral? Humans have hair and nurse their young just like all other mammals. Traits like nurturing, cooperation and monogamy are often favored by evolution because they enhance survival of the species.
9. Evolution is Just Random

Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279? It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No. These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.

Random does not mean “meaningless.” The scientific meaning of random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.
10. Complexity Cannot Arise Naturally

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often paraphrased as:

* ”Things always go from bad to worse”
* ”Disorder in the Universe is always increasing"

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy, which is defined as (Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of “disorder” are of no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is worthless.

Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by 30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.

Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na

But of course the reasoning is ridiculous. The chances of getting that arrangement of atoms is close to 100 per cent.

And we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids.

"But when cells divide, there's a pattern already available" say some anti-evolutionists. Try this: go to the lumber yard and buy the materials for a tool shed. Then put a set of plans on top of the pile, and let me know when the materials spontaneously assemble. I can pour gasoline onto a garbage pile and the molecules in the garbage won't suddenly get the urge to develop into gasoline, even though there's enough carbon and hydrogen to do it. The pattern means nothing. DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble.

Return to Pseudoscience Index
Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page

Created 21 January, 2003, Last Update 23 February, 2006

Not an official UW Green Bay site


I'm going to a phd program soon for marine biology, so feel free to shoot any questions at me. I'm not an expert by any means, but I can explain the basics and answer any fish questions you got

Let me add to that a common misconception of adaptation; species will grow new physical traits that allows them to adapt to changes in their environment.

You'd be surprised how many people who are against evolution believe that's how it works.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

without religious doctrine you have no creationism. Design shows prior intelligence and it is in fact teaching of a god. no god not in schools. Like teaching kids that Alice in Wonderland is real.

Creationism is probably the first thing taught to kids. Kind of hard to not talk about the big elephant in the room when discussing the origins of human beings in high school.

 

[Sunni Man]

without religious doctrine you have no creationism. Design shows prior intelligence and it is in fact teaching of a god. no god not in schools. Like teaching kids that Alice in Wonderland is real.

No, it's just teaching a theory, that's just as viable as the evolution theory.

 

[Inferno]

No, it's just teaching a theory, that's just as viable as the evolution theory.

Last response to this. Creationism is a religous based teaching keep it in church it does not belong in school. It is like telling your child that Oscar the Grouch is real and lives in a garbage can down the street and telling the child that this is reality. No god in school.

 

[Sunni Man]

Last response to this: You are No better than the book burning Nazis.

You are closed minded to anything except what you believe.

To people like you, intellectual discussion is Not allowed.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Both

I hope this strange women from Alaska sticks to her guns and shows what a wacko she and those that support her are. My guess is she will back down on this.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Can any one of you bitter, liberal, geniuses explain to me how creation is accomplished? No? Didn't think so. It's beyond mans pathetic scope of comprehension. It's beyond mans power of science to explain it. Sounds like a much more complicated process than the dreamt up scheme by man called "evolution," yet all you full of hate for religion liberals accept that gallon of kool aide like it was fact.

You people are the biggest morons and hypocrites on earth when it comes to this topic.

So, you think that because we don't know something that we should teach God created everything???

Who created God and when?

 

[Orange_Juice]

No, it's just teaching a theory, that's just as viable as the evolution theory.

Wow!

 

[Sunni Man]

I hope this strange women from Alaska sticks to her guns and shows what a wacko she and those that support her are. My guess is she will back down on this.

Why would she back down?