Evolution-design debate rages on [Kansas School Board Elections]

Salina Journal [Kansas] ^ | 01 August 2004 | MICHAEL STRAND

[PatrickHenry]

This is a long article, but for a general audience, it sums up the arguments on both sides fairly well.

Underscore and bold font added by your humble poster, in a probably misguided attempt to highlight names and significant statements.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping! This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and maybe other science topics like cosmology.
See the list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail me to be added or dropped.

[Junior]

I predict we'll have the following in the first 100 posts: "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" "Let's just give the students all the facts and let them decide for themselves." "What are evolutionists so afraid of?"

[Mercat]

ping

[Melinda in TN]

I believe all living things change over time (evolve) but do I believe humans descended from monkeys? No. I think humans have evolved, but not from monkeys.

We had a Brittany Spaniel once that bred with my Redbone Hound. There were nine pups. Five were born with a typically docked Brittany tail. Four were born with normal long tails. I asked the vet how that was possible since Brittany's tails are docked after birth. He said (his theory) that people have been cutting the tails off of Brittany's for so many years that occasionally the pups are born with tails already short. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't have believed it. To me, that is a form of evolution. It's not one animal turning into another different animal; it's an animal changing from what it's been in the past to the same animal but slightly different. Just my opinion about evolution but I'm no scientist.

[haywoodwebb]

Personally, I would have to disagree with your vet. I believe that the docked tail was probably a naturally occurring trait within that breed. I think many people liked the look and started applying it to the "inferior" non-docked pups.

Just my opinion.

[lelio]

"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

That one always struck me as smart as asking "If we've all got cars, why does anyone walk?"

[Physicist]

He said (his theory) that people have been cutting the tails off of Brittany's for so many years that occasionally the pups are born with tails already short. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't have believed it. To me, that is a form of evolution.

Well, it would be evolution, if true, but not Darwinian evolution. It would be an example of Lamarckism. Think about it: what is the mechanism for that trait to be passed on? In Darwinism, the mechanism is the deaths (or failure to breed) of the spaniels without the trait. Correct me if I'm wrong, but spaniels don't routinely die (or lose their breeding ability) from the tail-bobbing procedure.

[Melinda in TN]

I'm a little handicapped when it comes to Darwin and his theory. I live 18 miles from Dayton (monkey trial place) and when I was in school nobody even talked about evolution. It was, and still is, taboo for the most part. The only thing I know is what I've read on my own so most people know more than I do. :-) I'm fascinated by it though. I like to believe that the stories in the Bible and the facts of science can both be true. Science is always trying to prove or disprove events from the Bible.

[thad5611]

It is not junk science, but dumb science to confuse an ion engine where electrons are stripped at high energy from atoms with ionic solutions (as when a crystal of salt dissolves in water). But who really wants to know? Here we go again.
No sane person could have the patience or time to deal with the unceasing minute carping and distortions that the ignorant can come up with when they think they are explaining science for their own relights benefit. It is beyond boring by now.

Besides the bad science they always have two basic logical problems.

1. The False Dilemma Fallacy. Even if a Paramecium were shown to be powered by an interstellar warp drive it would not make the Christian view of Creation correct. There are thousands of creation myths at the very least, and they all could be wrong.
It is not a choice between evolutionary theory and Christianity. In fact there are dozens of different "Christian" views of it.
2. Burden of Proof Fallacy. Creationists need to prove and test their own assertions using actual evidence that we can manipulate today. DNA is the molecule of heredity. When we change it the organism and its descendants are changed. Patents and medicines are being developed daily because of this and is a strong test of the theory. Where are all of the patents and inventions from the major "Creation Science" labs? What a joke.

If the Biologists are wrong, if the Chemists are wrong, if the Physicists are wrong, if the the Astronomers are wrong, if the Paleontologists are wrong, if the Linguists are wrong, if the Hubble Telescope is wrong; I would be very interested in finding out what is right. Fame, wealth and Noble prizes await you. When I read this stuff I am reminded of the National Enquirer headline; Satellite Photographs Heaven!!.

Here is the "Creation Science" answer to all of the questions you have from observing nature. --"GOD DID IT" -- Close the books, put down your pencils, test over. "GOD DIT IT". Amen.

The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins does a good job of explaining the intelligent design argument. Try reading it first before you vote.

On a personal note, I am a political conservative. I am convinced of the need for limitation of government power, of competitive free enterprise, a strong national defense and other things. I suppose that is the reason for this type of forum. I have never had a real clue as to why this movement has so many religious nutbergers attached to it. I suppose the left has its share as well, but either way it is an distration from real politics.

[Physicist]

Science is always trying to prove or disprove events from the Bible.

I'm a scientist, and I just don't see it. I'd say it's more the case that science and religion happen to cover a few topics in common. Very few scientists consider the Bible at all in the course of their work. It just isn't relevant, let it be right or wrong. Science is about the way the universe is, and not about what somebody says it is.

[loveliberty2]

A GOOGLE search using "Grand Canyon controversy" will reveal an interesting group of sites relating to Tom Vail's recent book on the Grand Canyon and the resulting efforts to get it off the National Park Service book shelf.

Why must intelligent challenges to the evolution theory be censored?

For more information, visit Vail's site at: http://www.canyonministries.com/index_files/Controversy.htm

[thad5611]

Yet another example of the unceasing dumb science examples that are supposed to convince by the argument "that is impossible so therefore I am right".

After that one is refuted somewhere there will be another and another. You need to prove your own case, whatever that may be.

Nothing is being censored loveliberty2. You can say whatever you want, in pulpits, in Sunday school, in magazines or in forums like this. Please do not confuse the well deserved derision you recieve from censorship. Once again, the creationist science course would be the shortest one ever given on any campus. GOD DID IT. Go home.

Intellegent challenges to evolution theory have actually been going on for nearly two centuries now. It is called science itself. The fact that every single moronic assertion that someone somewhere makes is ignored is not reason for paranoia. It would be a futile fools game to try.
Once again the burden of proof is on the talker.

[VadeRetro]

Show them ["most people"] that the little whips — the technical term is “flagellum” — some bacteria use to move around are driven by ion-powered rotary engines capable of more than 10,000 rpm, with bearings and other parts made of intricate combinations of protein molecules. Some will start to wonder: Could something like this really have evolved?

The question should not be whether "most people" know the answers to some tough technical issue if you stop them on the street and hit them with it out of the blue. The people Jay Leno stops on the streets of New York couldn't find Asia on a map.

[VadeRetro]

The people Jay Leno stops on the streets of New York couldn't find Asia on a map.

Or LA. I don't think Tonight has been in NY on a regular basis since the Carson era (first half).

[loveliberty2]

"Nothing is being censored...."

We must not be naive about "censorship."

Of course, we have censorship! Consult the editing room of any textbook publisher in America.

Our Constitution does not exclude from the public square the kinds of discussions and exchanges of ideas which you seem to believe are relegated to "Sunday school" and other designated arenas.

Rather, America's Founders believed that if ideas were freely debated and exchanged, then truth would more likely be discovered.

No one is threatened by having the ability to purchase a book on the creationist view of the Grand Canyon at a National Park Service store. Neither are school children threatened by challenging and debating such ideas in a classroom.

If such ideas are mere drivel and foolish, then they will be revealed as such. If not, then perhaps they deserve a hearing. To prevent it is to violate liberty. Which ideas will be banned from discussion after that?

[PatrickHenry]

I have never had a real clue as to why this movement has so many religious nutbergers attached to it. I suppose the left has its share as well, but either way it is an distration from real politics.

The lefties have their own brand of pseudo-science. It's called socialism (or communism, or "social justice," or "caring-sharing," or "niceness," or whatever other codeword they're currently using to cloak their motives). Socialism makes no sense and never did. It's a proven disaster whenever it's put into practice, compared to free market economics. But the true believers have convinced themselves that their position is "scientific" and "intellectual."

Alas for the lefties, that's pretty much their whole world. They don't stand for much else. At least conservatives have the Constitution, limited government, free enterprise, etc. If some creationists are attracted to conservatism, that's fine, we'll take their votes; but it's a huge mistake to pander to such nonsense. And it's a gigantic error to imagine that creationists are the whole ball-o-wax. They're an embarrassment to any party, but I guess we've got them.

[thad5611]

There are too many false assertions to parse. That one is called "Argumentum ad Numerum." Which maintains that the more people who are convinced about something, the more likely it is to be true.

A good place to start is:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
or
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

But these type of people also depend on the fact that most people can't do the the work. They wear down with an unrelenting parade of misconceptions. Show one to be false and the will find another with dispatch. They attempt to convince by exhausting you with yet another pile of ignorance. Which is why you must insist that that prove their own case, whatever that be first.

[viewfromafar]

hey, get with the program. no one, not even lefties, has embraced communism for 14 years. it's a utopian failure, like you say. but didn't you get the memo? nowadays, lefties should be compared to terrorists. terrorism is the new communism.

[VadeRetro]

But these type of people also depend on the fact that most people can't do the the work.

ID is in fact purely a political movement, acting mostly in schoolboard textbook review meetings around the country. It postures as a movement within science but does nothing in that arena and has nothing to offer there in any event.