The creationists are BACK

[Jack Fate]

Basically, ........"If you believe in creationism then you're a hick fool and backwards because my teacher who told me evolution is true is right because the teacher is right because the teacher told me anyone who believes in creationism is a hick fool and backwards because my teacher told me evolution is true is right because the teacher is right because the teacher.........

 

[rikules]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

O.K. as science is predicated on the absence of "God" or any creator or higher entity, it is almost incumbent that you can say any belief in such an entity would be "unscientific" so this is a bit of foregone conclusion. If we are to follow scientific method, it would equally be incumbent to repeatedly re-enforce that unproven theory isn't fact and that there is no definitive answer that doesn't rely on speculation whenever teaching any aspect of theoretical source of the universe or life or the Earth. If we are going to allow speculations, then the “It’s not science” angle is moot, isn’t it as that is surely not acceptable “science” in teaching is it? Treating speculative conclusions as fact is a greater violation than speculation of a designer or higher intelligence.

By this typical self-righteous contention, the only way to teach the subject is to show proven facts and make no pre-conceived conclusions for the students in regard to overall theory of these subjects. The theories being taught require more faith, in my opinion, than religion and change significantly more often, so I will not concede that one isn’t “faith based” while the other is. In short, while the state may make no law on the establishment of religion, it also may not make any law that prohibits the free pursuit of religion. In as much as that is the case, a disclaimer is totally appropriate, if for no other reason than to ensure that the state is not interpreted as having taken a definitive stance on a faith based issue against the pursuit of religion. Intentional denial of the possibility of religion being valid is surely such a stand, is it not?

"as science is predicated on the absence of "God" or any creator or higher entity,"

?????????????

who says?

i've never heard any scientists say that

science is A-religious

it is not predicated on either the existance of or the non-existance of a god or gods

it is the study and investigation of (fill in the blank) with the hope and intent of figuring out how it works.....

even if it means that gods were involved somehow

 

[Jack Fate]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

O.K. as science is predicated on the absence of "God" or any creator or higher entity, it is almost incumbent that you can say any belief in such an entity would be "unscientific" so this is a bit of foregone conclusion. If we are to follow scientific method, it would equally be incumbent to repeatedly re-enforce that unproven theory isn't fact and that there is no definitive answer that doesn't rely on speculation whenever teaching any aspect of theoretical source of the universe or life or the Earth. If we are going to allow speculations, then the “It’s not science” angle is moot, isn’t it as that is surely not acceptable “science” in teaching is it? Treating speculative conclusions as fact is a greater violation than speculation of a designer or higher intelligence.

By this typical self-righteous contention, the only way to teach the subject is to show proven facts and make no pre-conceived conclusions for the students in regard to overall theory of these subjects. The theories being taught require more faith, in my opinion, than religion and change significantly more often, so I will not concede that one isn’t “faith based” while the other is. In short, while the state may make no law on the establishment of religion, it also may not make any law that prohibits the free pursuit of religion. In as much as that is the case, a disclaimer is totally appropriate, if for no other reason than to ensure that the state is not interpreted as having taken a definitive stance on a faith based issue against the pursuit of religion. Intentional denial of the possibility of religion being valid is surely such a stand, is it not?

"as science is predicated on the absence of "God" or any creator or higher entity,"

?????????????

who says?

i've never heard any scientists say that

science is A-religious

it is not predicated on either the existance of or the non-existance of a god or gods

it is the study and investigation of (fill in the blank) with the hope and intent of figuring out how it works.....

even if it means that gods were involved somehow

Is there a creator or isn't there a creator? That is the question. Intelligent design. Einstein believed in intelligent design and he was a pretty smart guy.

 

[Agit8r]

Arrogance gone to seed. Evolution is only a "theory". That is a scientific fact.

No, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory.
Different than any other form or type of theory.
SCIENTIFIC theories are tested by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Do you know what that is?

Is evolution a scientific fact?

Either it is scientific fact, or MRSA is some sort of demonic curse

 

[Jack Fate]

No, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory.
Different than any other form or type of theory.
SCIENTIFIC theories are tested by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Do you know what that is?

Is evolution a scientific fact?

Either it is scientific fact, or MRSA is some sort of demonic curse

Does MRSA have a change in DNA that makes it a new species or does it just become immune to the antibiotics? Evolution consists of a different species evolving out of another species.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

O.K. as science is predicated on the absence of "God" or any creator or higher entity, it is almost incumbent that you can say any belief in such an entity would be "unscientific" so this is a bit of foregone conclusion. If we are to follow scientific method, it would equally be incumbent to repeatedly re-enforce that unproven theory isn't fact and that there is no definitive answer that doesn't rely on speculation whenever teaching any aspect of theoretical source of the universe or life or the Earth. If we are going to allow speculations, then the “It’s not science” angle is moot, isn’t it as that is surely not acceptable “science” in teaching is it? Treating speculative conclusions as fact is a greater violation than speculation of a designer or higher intelligence.

By this typical self-righteous contention, the only way to teach the subject is to show proven facts and make no pre-conceived conclusions for the students in regard to overall theory of these subjects. The theories being taught require more faith, in my opinion, than religion and change significantly more often, so I will not concede that one isn’t “faith based” while the other is. In short, while the state may make no law on the establishment of religion, it also may not make any law that prohibits the free pursuit of religion. In as much as that is the case, a disclaimer is totally appropriate, if for no other reason than to ensure that the state is not interpreted as having taken a definitive stance on a faith based issue against the pursuit of religion. Intentional denial of the possibility of religion being valid is surely such a stand, is it not?

"as science is predicated on the absence of "God" or any creator or higher entity,"

?????????????

who says?

i've never heard any scientists say that

science is A-religious

it is not predicated on either the existance of or the non-existance of a god or gods

it is the study and investigation of (fill in the blank) with the hope and intent of figuring out how it works.....

even if it means that gods were involved somehow

That isn't true. All science is indeed A-religious in that it allows for no deity or higher intelligence to be factored into hypothesis. Hence the absence of acceptance of any hypothesis predicated on such an entity, albeit undefined or abstract in nature. If this weren't the case, Occam’s razor would all but require deistic action as a first assumption in most complex and intricate aspects of the universe, first and foremost the existence of animate life. The obvious appearance of a required design would lead almost instinctively toward an engineer of some sort, yet that premise is disallowed because it isn’t “A-religious” by convention as any belief in a higher being or intelligence would be classified as “religious”.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

No, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory.
Different than any other form or type of theory.
SCIENTIFIC theories are tested by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Do you know what that is?

Is evolution a scientific fact?

Either it is scientific fact, or MRSA is some sort of demonic curse

MRSA developes immunity, it doesn't "evolve" into an entirely different species any more than rats do as they develope immunities, or humans for that matter.

 

[JBeukema]

What I really don't understand is how the same people who believe in creationism usually vote for social-darwinists

Somebody explain this sh!t to me? o_0

Can you describe what a "social-darwinist" is?

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Is evolution a scientific fact?

Evolution is an observed fact
Nylonase, anyone?

 

[JBeukema]

Is evolution a scientific fact?

Either it is scientific fact, or MRSA is some sort of demonic curse

Does MRSA have a change in DNA that makes it a new species or does it just become immune to the antibiotics? Evolution consists of a different species evolving out of another species.

That's not the definition of evolution

 

[Jack Fate]

What I really don't understand is how the same people who believe in creationism usually vote for social-darwinists

Somebody explain this sh!t to me? o_0

Can you describe what a "social-darwinist" is?

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. Now I get it.

 

[Jack Fate]

Is evolution a scientific fact?

Evolution is an observed fact
Nylonase, anyone?

That isn't what I asked. I asked "Is evolution a scientific fact?" That's a yes or no answer.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

The theory of evolution isn't an observed fact, that is a subjective assertion without objective proof, hence the remaining "theory of evolution" lable. Many of the tenants have been observed, some atually inserted evidence has been added to bolster and change the theory through time, but the asserted origin of evolution and its hypothetical process is still unobserved and unproven.

Adaptation and cross breeding have been observed, but many fundamental premises on which the overall theory is based have yet to be proven and have been subject to change as new data has been incorporated. The theory has undergone shifts in the past 25 years and will likely change more in the future, but it isn't by any stretch an observed fact.

 

[JBeukema]

Evolution is an observed fact

the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a scientific theory

the Theory of Common Descent is also a scientific theory

In science, 'fact' is pretty much meaningless. Facts are nothing more than 'things fall' or 'my dog's nose is wet'. A scientific theory is greater even than a scientific law.

That things fall is a fact. The law of gravity is our ability to model the rate at which things fall. There are competing theories of gravity, with that based on the Standard Model being most popular. The fact that the graviton has yet to be detected is the biggest issue surrounding that theory/model.

 

[Agit8r]

I sort of have to wonder... do creationists believe in DNA?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I sort of have to wonder... do creationists believe in DNA?

I suppose they do. Do evolutionists really believe that speed, agility, extraordinary strength and advanced joint structure would all be natuarally selected out of a primate under any circumstances?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Evolution is an observed fact

the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a scientific theory

the Theory of Common Descent is also a scientific theory

In science, 'fact' is pretty much meaningless. Facts are nothing more than 'things fall' or 'my dog's nose is wet'. A scientific theory is greater even than a scientific law.

That things fall is a fact. The law of gravity is our ability to model the rate at which things fall. There are competing theories of gravity, with that based on the Standard Model being most popular. The fact that the graviton has yet to be detected is the biggest issue surrounding that theory/model.

Adaptation is the word you are using evolution as a synonym for.

 

[Agit8r]

I sort of have to wonder... do creationists believe in DNA?

I suppose they do. Do evolutionists really believe that speed, agility, extraordinary strength and advanced joint structure would all be natuarally selected out of a primate under any circumstances?

it seems to have worked out pretty well for the survival of the species.

 

[JBeukema]

I sort of have to wonder... do creationists believe in DNA?

I suppose they do. Do evolutionists really believe that speed, agility, extraordinary strength and advanced joint structure would all be natuarally selected out of a primate under any circumstances?

You don't seem to grasp mutation and genetic drift. It's not a matter of any trait 'being selected out'. If any trait does not give a significant evolutionary advantage to those carrying it, it becomes a matter of genetic drift and gene dominance with selection playing little role. Hence, weaker members of the species can spread their numbers just like stronger ones if the added strength does not give those other members a significant advantage. Same with the different hair colours we see within the White race- red or blond hair does not impair the ability to reproduce and survive, so natural selection plays little role in whether or nor brunettes alone survive.

 

[Agit8r]

I sort of have to wonder... do creationists believe in DNA?

I suppose they do. Do evolutionists really believe that speed, agility, extraordinary strength and advanced joint structure would all be natuarally selected out of a primate under any circumstances?

You don't seem to grasp mutation and genetic drift. It's not a matter of any trait 'being selected out'. If any trait does not give a significant evolutionary advantage to those carrying it, it becomes a matter of genetic drift and gene dominance with selection playing little role. Hence, weaker members of the species can spread their numbers just like stronger ones if the added strength does not give those other members a significant advantage. Same with the different hair colours we see within the White race- red or blond hair does not impair the ability to reproduce and survive, so natural selection plays little role in whether or nor brunettes alone survive.

right. other traits simply became more important. intelligence and impulse control became the most important attributes for survival, and that other human trait of altruism resulted just as it did for every other intelligent species