Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists (Forced removal of evolution 'warning' on textbooks.)

CNN ^

[Happy2BMe]

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."

[shubi]

If there was a better explanation for evolution, science would embrace it.

Of course the misinterpretation of the Bible is not an acceptable alternative to science. You are quite correct.

[onja]

"Really, all the creationists do is attack but they have no real alternative theory that isn't strictly based in their religion. How would species come about other than God just making them pop out of the ether(or being instantly converted from another animal?) Is there a non-God based version of how speciation occurs? Seriously." -Skywalk

First, I hope I understand your question corectly and second I don't want to get in a heated argument. I have a theory of how species came. God created two dogs. They had all the genes in them. Their children lost some genes and became more and more specific. Once lost the genes were gone. So a terrier won't have a German Shepard.

A beetle may lose its wings. That is speciation and micro-evolution. He can NEVER get his wings back. He is losing info. not gaining. In my mind, Macro-evolution is not plausible at all as a FACT.

BTW- IMHO Darwin did not understand the complexity of life. He saw speciation. He supposed it as macro-evolution. It could have been a plausible THEORY till more knowledge. He did not know about cells, atoms, etc.

P.S.- I was thinking he proposed the theory humbly and said "if the data supports it". I'm not sure but thought I remembered that.

[onja]

BTW- Who or what is Enkindu? If I should already know this, please pardon my ever abounding and never ending ignorance.

[onja]

BTW again- I understand that evolution and creation/intelligent design is a major issue. Still though it is slightly (or more) sad how much this issue divides and turns brother against brother (or sister vs. sister, sister vs. brother, etc.).

[onja]

BTW AGAIN- It's not fair. Once I came in it ended. Nobody pays attention to little Onja. Hmmmm. Hey! Maybe that's good. That way I'll have NO chance in getting in argument, flamed, or banned.

[onja]

Nevermind- Turns out I'm a whole day behind. Sorry! And now I'll quit and find something else to relieve my boredom.

[js1138]

A beetle may lose its wings. That is speciation and micro-evolution. He can NEVER get his wings back.

I suppose no one in the past 145 years has ever thought of that and put it to the test?

[onja]

Yay! Someone responded.
I'm ignorant of what tests they have done. What kind of tests CAN they do? Just curious but can they do those tests? Oh well.
Another good example of speciation is that in a few million whatever years soccer players who type will have pretty much no arms but fingers.

[Skywalk]

Enkidu: A natural man created by Aruru, modeled after Anu and Ninurta, to become a rival then a friend and alter ego of Gilgamesh. He is introduced to civilization by his sexual liaison with Shamhat the sacred temple girl.

http://www.mythome.org/enkidu.html

I was just making the point about how even a disproving of evolutionary theory would not result in the Biblical story being any more accurate or true(being mythical and all.)

[ananda]

"Actually, to split a hair, evolution is a "fact." A fact is something that is either true or false, as distinguished from an opinion. Evolution, indeed, the entire materialist view of life, is either true or false; therefore, it is a "fact.""

Your statements amount to a perfect non-sequitur. A fact is something that IS. The subject of a false statement is not a fact. A theory is a hypothetical account that awaits experimental confirmation. Evolution, at best, is a theory -and apparently, not a very persuasive one since 70% of the membership of MENSA are of the opinion that it is not merely a theory but a mistaken theory.

[crail]

We can study extinct species without saying "this species begat this one". The jury is still out.

There are also a lot of things we don't know about WWII as well. We can study both Germany and Britain without every saying they went to war. There's even people who deny the holocaust ever happened. The jury is still out. Until historians and holocaust deniers can agree, we should concentrate on things we know. I don't understand why historians insist on teaching it before we have every last piece of knowledge in place, start to finish, east to west.

[doc30]

Excellent post. You hit the nail on the head. Too many people here equate conservatism with Christianity. There are many areas of overlap, but science isn't one of them. Creationists will drag down the entire conservative movement if given the chance.

[Protagoras]

If we assume that the a part of the 4.5% error is in the creation story, we can put these crevo debates to bed forever.

Clever theory. Seems like there are lots of clever theories.

[weegee]

Thank you for the back handed bitch slap calling me a Holocaust denier.

I suppose I could claim that you support Darwinian Theory to justify the Nazi Master Race over lesser creatures like Jews. < /sarcasm >

[js1138]

Dawn of the dead thread placemarker

[Gava]

The court has it wrong. Not all evolution is about the origin of things and none of the supported theories are meant to identify the unrecorded data. The theory (the repeatedly testable scientific model) of evolution has two basic premises:

1. Relationships exist

2. Things interact with each other, causing mutual change

These are FACTS as far as our mortal bodies can be concerned. If religious creation stories are absolute truth, then they are of no use to us whatsoever. Absolute truth is of no concern to mortals, leave it be. That illusion of the way the world seems to us is of more value.

Why should secular humanism (evolution) be taught in schools instead of religion? Evolution builds bridges.