this didn't happen until...

[luke warm]

... bobby fisher died... coincidence? it's probably something winston should look into :)

 

iceland

[Winstonm]

It's common knowledge that the root cause of Iceland's problems was that they allowed Boris Spassky, a known communist and atheist into their country to compete for a World Chess Championship - the current problems are simply God's retribution for that insult.

 

Fortunately, Louisiana won't suffer a similar fate:

 

Louisiana's State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted guidelines Jan. 15 that allow teachers to use ``supplemental materials'' that aren't in regular textbooks about ``controversial'' subjects such as evolution and global warming.

 

Louisiana's new rules ``ensure the state's teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution,'' according to the Discovery Institute , the headquarters of the intelligent design movement in Seattle .

 

There's a proud moment in our country's history.

[PassedOut]

It's Fortunately, Louisiana won't suffer a similar fate:

 

Louisiana's State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted guidelines Jan. 15 that allow teachers to use ``supplemental materials'' that aren't in regular textbooks about ``controversial'' subjects such as evolution and global warming.

 

Louisiana's new rules ``ensure the state's teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution,'' according to the Discovery Institute , the headquarters of the intelligent design movement in Seattle .

 

There's a proud moment in our country's history.

I wonder if Louisiana will be teaching about ring species. If so, the students will be asking some of the right questions anyway.

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps they would be interested in the new Creationist textbook:

 

"Origin of the specious"

[mikeh]

It's common knowledge that the root cause of Iceland's problems was that they allowed Boris Spassky, a known communist and atheist into their country to compete for a World Chess Championship - the current problems are simply God's retribution for that insult.

 

Fortunately, Louisiana won't suffer a similar fate:

 

Louisiana's State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted guidelines Jan. 15 that allow teachers to use ``supplemental materials'' that aren't in regular textbooks about ``controversial'' subjects such as evolution and global warming.

 

Louisiana's new rules ``ensure the state's teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution,'' according to the Discovery Institute , the headquarters of the intelligent design movement in Seattle .

 

There's a proud moment in our country's history.

Similar nonsense has been voted on before... and the Courts so far have struck down this close-minded bigotry... the good news is that there are enough parents out there concerned that religion be excluded from science that lawsuits are brought. The bad news is that they are necessary...

[HeavyDluxe]

At the risk of getting LOLed at, these discussions irk me.

 

Evolution and Creationism are both *philosophical* positions. Neither can be proven nor disproven through scientific inquiry. While one may have, in ppl's opinion, the bulk of the evidence in its favor that only makes it a hypothetical until more data is gathered.

 

These discussion would be helped greatly if people would focus on true science, rather that swedging psuedo-scientific and religious dogma into the conversation.

 

Why not present the the issue as follows: "We have a fossil record, it would seem to indicate X. However, there is a decided lack of evidence for the incremental, transitional species we would expect to see if X were true. What do you make of that? What are possible explanations for the things we observe? Are there things that can be studied to rule out possible explanations?"

 

In that case, we'd actually be teaching science (and the scientific method) rather than ideology wrapped in lab coats or pulpit robes.

[mikeh]

At the risk of getting LOLed at, these discussions irk me.

 

Evolution and Creationism are both *philosophical* positions.  Neither can be proven nor disproven through scientific inquiry.  While one may have, in ppl's opinion, the bulk of the evidence in its favor that only makes it a hypothetical until more data is gathered.

 

These discussion would be helped greatly if people would focus on true science, rather that swedging psuedo-scientific and religious dogma into the conversation.

 

Why not present the the issue as follows:  "We have a fossil record, it would seem to indicate X.  However, there is a decided lack of evidence for the incremental, transitional species we would expect to see if X were true.  What do you make of that?  What are possible explanations for the things we observe?  Are there things that can be studied to rule out possible explanations?"

 

In that case, we'd actually be teaching science (and the scientific method) rather than ideology wrapped in lab coats or pulpit robes.

LOL

 

Only someone with little knowledge of the evidence in support of evolution, or a wilfull refusal to accept the implications of such evidence, would argue that Evolution and Creationism are 'philosophies' that are both unproven or unprovable.

 

Certainly, creationism by definition is unprovable.. which is why it is absurd to teach it as or as supplemental to science.

 

But evolutionary theory has been studied and explored for 150 years... including, critically, several decades of genetic study.

 

The argument that the fossil record is incomplete is no longer, if it ever were, a valid response to evolutionary ideas. The fossil record, by its nature, will always be incomplete. Many forms of life do not fossilize well... any with no bony or hard parts will tend not to fossilize other than in extraordinary circumstances.. extraordinary in comparison to the already rare scenarios in which the more common fossils form. And, even for those that fossilize, the strata of rock in which the fossils have formed has to become accessible to human discovery.

 

Consider that, for large animals commonly found as fossils, the average 'life' of a species is on the order of a million years, and that the transitionary period may be hundreds or thousands of years, and we see that we would expect the vast majority of fossils to be from the period of relative stability rather than transition.

 

But, of course, the real answer is that current understanding of evolutionary theory has gone far beyond recourse to fossils.. only an intellectual fossil would think otherwise :)

 

Evolutionary theory now depends far more upon genetics and math than upon stumbling across a dinosaur fossil in the badlands.

 

In short... evolutionary theory is a real scientific theory.. unlike belief in creationism or its stalking horse, ID.

[jdonn]

At the risk of getting LOLed at, these discussions irk me.

 

Evolution and Creationism are both *philosophical* positions.  Neither can be proven nor disproven through scientific inquiry.  While one may have, in ppl's opinion, the bulk of the evidence in its favor that only makes it a hypothetical until more data is gathered.

 

These discussion would be helped greatly if people would focus on true science, rather that swedging psuedo-scientific and religious dogma into the conversation.

 

Why not present the the issue as follows:  "We have a fossil record, it would seem to indicate X.  However, there is a decided lack of evidence for the incremental, transitional species we would expect to see if X were true.  What do you make of that?  What are possible explanations for the things we observe?  Are there things that can be studied to rule out possible explanations?"

 

In that case, we'd actually be teaching science (and the scientific method) rather than ideology wrapped in lab coats or pulpit robes.

I think the reason the discussion irks you is you seem to have made no effort of any kind to learn of the science behind evolution. Then you would understand, as you clearly don't, that it's not some philosophical position. That is like calling gravity or inertia a philosophical position with a decided lack of evidence.

[Al_U_Card]

Incoming....

 

Kind of like saying that since you don't know how oxidation works, you never studied the chemistry and you don't want to know how to "prove" it...that it is debatable and that your house just burned down by a REAL act-of-God!!!

 

LOL

[luke warm]

i love this forum... where else can we go from a verifiable conspiracy (chess and the collapse of iceland) to evolution/creationism? fwiw, the louisiana law doesn't promote religious teaching

 

E. This Section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

 

a belief in evolution is protected ;)

[HeavyDluxe]

I think the reason the discussion irks you is you seem to have made no effort of any kind to learn of the science behind evolution. Then you would understand, as you clearly don't, that it's not some philosophical position.

No, that's not the reason, Josh.

 

As far as my 'effort at learning' - I doubt you'd accept any evidence to the contrary, right? If I state that I have considered the evidence, you'll either label me an ignoramus or tell me that I should buy better books (preferably ones with words rather than pictures written by scientists rather than zealots). If I present some sort of academic or professional cred, you'd dismiss that too.

 

So, I won't try.

 

I still stand by my statement. The very 'religious' sentiments that are often argued against are equally present in some corners of science today. I don't have a problem with that - I just wish we could call it what it is.

 

Anyway, I gave everyone their chuckles. Now let's get back to talking about bridge - another subject where my ignorance astounds. ;)

[jdonn]

i love this forum... where else can we go from a verifiable conspiracy (chess and the collapse of iceland) to evolution/creationism? fwiw, the louisiana law doesn't promote religious teaching

 

E. This Section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

 

a belief in evolution is protected ;)

By chance, are you in the market for swampland in Florida? I have huge tracts of it!

[mikeh]

i love this forum... where else can we go from a verifiable conspiracy (chess and the collapse of iceland) to evolution/creationism? fwiw, the louisiana law doesn't promote religious teaching

 

E. This Section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

 

a belief in evolution is protected ;)

Is there anyone out there naive enough to believe that this policy is not intended to result in the teaching of ID, creation 'science' or other fundamentalist interpretations of nature?

 

If there is 'science' that conflicts with evolution (Lamarck, anyone) it is now thoroughly discredited... and thus should not be taught.

 

In ancient days, serious scholars constructed instruments intended to show the revolution of the sun and planets around the earth.. which was 'known' to be the centre of the solar system (not called the solar system, of course). That was what passed for science then... surely we don't suggest that such should now be taught as a valid alternative explanation for our observations of the sun and the planets?

 

There is, afaik, no currently accepted or contemplated alternative to the basic ideas of evolution mediated by natural selection... arguments amongst evolutionary theorists are about detail, not basic ideas.

 

So the only plausible explanation is that the ID idiots have clued in enough to try to shield the new policy from court review... but I have too much respect for the judiciary, even an elected judiciary (which strikes me as fundamentally an absurd idea... do we elect medical doctors? Do we elect nuclear engineers?) to imagine that this ruse will fool anyone.

 

In a weird sort of way, the efforts by the creationidiots validate the principle of evolution through natural selection. Their initial open efforts to teach creationism as science were defeated, so their ideas evolved to ID.. which failed.. and now they have evolved to a statement that they only want 'science'. It too will fail, because, ultimately, creationism is a non-viable intellectual adaptation.

 

Any nation that wilfully schools its children in idiocy will lose a competitive edge with the rest of the world. The US has been able to avoid many of the consequences of a very poor educational policy by importing more rationally trained workers from other countries and by having, still, a large part of its educational system functional. But let the loonies take over, and sooner or later, they will reap the harvest.

[Al_U_Card]

Is there anyone out there naive enough to believe that this policy is not intended to result in the teaching of ID, creation 'science' or other fundamentalist interpretations of nature?

Pretty much most of the bible-thumpers.

 

The theory of gravity gave way to the law of gravity which we now refer to as gravity....but since the spacemen are weightless....is that proof that gravity is just a theory????

 

We say evolution but it is short for "Theory of" which became "Law of" when Crick and Watson identified DNA.

 

It all came from God (didn't it?) so why blaspheme against all of His hard work by showing (and even revelling in) our poor human ignorance?

[luke warm]

Is there anyone out there naive enough to believe that this policy is not intended to result in the teaching of ID, creation 'science' or other fundamentalist interpretations of nature?

well the law says what it says, mike... i'm sure there are brilliant legal minds working on its overthrow (and defense) even as we speak... maybe they'll even give you a call for help... you can call people ignorant and naive

[Al_U_Card]

If I state that I have considered the evidence, you'll either label me an ignoramus or tell me that I should buy better books (preferably ones with words rather than pictures written by scientists rather than zealots). If I present some sort of academic or professional cred, you'd dismiss that too.

 

So, I won't try.

 

I still stand by my statement. The very 'religious' sentiments that are often argued against are equally present in some corners of science today. I don't have a problem with that - I just wish we could call it what it is.

 

Anyway, I gave everyone their chuckles. Now let's get back to talking about bridge - another subject where my ignorance astounds. ;)

Right, like the bridge "creationist" that I partnered recently....he created a reverse bid on a 2443 14 count saying that it wasn't a reverse because he had to show his 4 card major over my 1 spade response to his 1 diamond opener....

[mikeh]

As far as my 'effort at learning' - I doubt you'd accept any evidence to the contrary, right?  If I state that I have considered the evidence, you'll either label me an ignoramus or tell me that I should buy better books (preferably ones with words rather than pictures written by scientists rather than zealots).  If I present some sort of academic or professional cred, you'd dismiss that too.

 

So, I won't try.

 

Now, that is the sort of reasoning any fundamentalist would understand ;)

 

'I can't engage in an intellectual discussion, because you'll laugh at me... so I'm right... take that!'

 

Very convincing.

 

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

 

If not, I commend to you The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, any of Gould's collections of essays (many of which are fascinating excursions on non-evolutionary topics, btw).

 

Read these and THEN we can discuss the gaps in the fossil record... altho, if you read with an open mind, I suspect that the gaps in the fossil record will no longer strike you as having any significance.

 

And, yes, I have attempted to read some of the creationist material on the eye, and other aspects of physiology that the wingnuts put forward.. altho, seriously, it is very difficult to keep reading such puerile 'reasoning' once you actually understand anything to do with evolution.

 

Ignorance can be bliss.. but express your ignorance publicly and don't be surprised if you get called on it.

[Lobowolf]

I simply took him to mean that (in practice, anyway), evolution has serious limitations along the lines of testability of hypotheses (unlike, say, gravity).

[jdonn]

I think the reason the discussion irks you is you seem to have made no effort of any kind to learn of the science behind evolution. Then you would understand, as you clearly don't, that it's not some philosophical position.

No, that's not the reason, Josh.

 

As far as my 'effort at learning' - I doubt you'd accept any evidence to the contrary, right? If I state that I have considered the evidence, you'll either label me an ignoramus or tell me that I should buy better books (preferably ones with words rather than pictures written by scientists rather than zealots). If I present some sort of academic or professional cred, you'd dismiss that too.

 

So, I won't try.

 

I still stand by my statement. The very 'religious' sentiments that are often argued against are equally present in some corners of science today. I don't have a problem with that - I just wish we could call it what it is.

 

Anyway, I gave everyone their chuckles. Now let's get back to talking about bridge - another subject where my ignorance astounds. ;)

"I'm right, but if I told you why you wouldn't believe me, and if I told you the nature of my expertise on the subject you wouldn't believe me. But believe me, I'm right!"

 

Sorry, I don't believe you.

 

Both your posts show the same flaw in your thinking. You base your beliefs on your suspicions rather than any evidence!

[655321]

By chance, are you in the market for swampland in Florida? I have huge tracts of it!

You have huge... tracts of land? ;)

[hrothgar]

fwiw, the louisiana law doesn't promote religious teaching

 

E. This Section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

 

a belief in evolution is protected ;)

The following Scientific American article has some interesting information

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-la...-of-creationism

 

One of the more telling comments is the following:

 

The bill was introduced at the behest of the Louisiana Family Forum, which seeks to “persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.”

[HeavyDluxe]

'I can't engage in an intellectual discussion, because you'll laugh at me... so I'm right... take that!'

I actually meant that posting our CVs seems like the intellectual equivalent of a pissing match and isn't going to convince anyone one way or the other.

 

Have you read ANY Dawkins (not his God Delusion, which has nothing really to do with evolution and a lot to do with atheism) or any Gould, or any Diamond, or..

No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything.

 

*sigh*

 

Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work.

 

Let me underscore my point, again. I'm not arguing - for the sake of this thread, anyway - the particulars of evolutionary or 'intelligent design' science. I *am* saying that there are some (IMHO) no-so-scientific presuppositions that both sides bring to the table which compromise the objectivity of the science behind them. I think both camps would be better served to own up to those.

[HeavyDluxe]

Right, like the bridge "creationist" that I partnered recently....he created a reverse bid on a 2443 14 count saying that it wasn't a reverse because he had to show his 4 card major over my 1 spade response to his 1 diamond opener....

If I had known that would come back to bite me in this thread, I never would've said it. :P

[Fluffy]

I agree with Luke in the sense that I don't understand what winstonm had started in a thread about Iceland.

 

 

What I don't understand either is why people tend to say you are wrong, I am right, for me when someone says that something is true, I tend to believe him, even if it is contradictory with my beliefs.

 

What I mean is that there is surelly a way to make evolution compatible with religion as there is a way to make islam compatible with cristianism or any other religion. (sorry for putting evolution in the same sentence with 2 religions, not comparable I took it :))

[Codo]

I really hate this kind of debate.

Heavy states his opinion that evolution is just a theory.

 

Now, the true believers in evolution claim that he is wrong and that his claims are silly.

 

Impressive. So you state an opinion is wrong, but your opinion is right.

Now, this is really convincing- at least for you fundementalists.

 

What you (Al, Josh and Mike) did, was: Ha ha ha, you stupid guy, you are wrong, I am right. When you had read the right books you would know the truth.

 

This is stupid.

 

Please, I know that you can do better then that.

That you believe that Dawkins is right, is no proofe for the theory of evolution.

 

So, when you want to show him and others, that evolution is more then a theory, maybe some statements like: Look here, a nice article about ring species, or here a research about the evolution of bacterias etc.

 

Of course, if you simply want to write your already well known opinion and your believes, go ahead, we all have the right to believe in things we do not understand. I for my part believe that evolution is more then a theory.