Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both

Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[RogueIsland]

The Sun is part of the closed system. When did the Sun ever cause an increase in complexity, without intellegent guidance or intervention?

You're kidding, right? You don't understand that what he was saying was that the Earth's entropy can locally decrease at the expense of a corresponding and greater increase in entropy in the sun? There is NO violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics here. None.

[Junior]

Other way around, IIRC. Shemp => Curley => Curley Joe.

[narby]

In post #27 you said: He hits the nail on the head, however, about how evolution is seen as part of a general, and undeniable, assault on religion.

I said: "And where does he mention the teaching of evolution as justification for religious people to feel threatened?"

You replied: He doesn't. He just mentions that religious people had a justification to feel threatened.

Now which article did you read? The one where Krauthammer hit the nail on the head about how evolution is seen as part of a general assault on religion. Or the article where he didn't?

I think this is a general problem with creationists. They have very little reading comprehension and memory. They learn cartoon versions of evolution and cannot comprehend the theory any further. Or even comprehend the scientific meaning of "theory".

I can understand why the preachers are pushing this stuff now. It filters out anyone in the congregation with thinking skills. And when the preacher says "give me money", the folks in the congregation say "how much"?

It's just good business to preach literal Genesis these days.

[Junior]

The Sun is part of the closed system.

And the overall entropy of the system is increasing, but localized decreases in entropy within the system are still allowed.

When did the Sun ever cause an increase in complexity, without intellegent guidance or intervention?

God guides the growth of every blade of grass?

[Dimensio]

The Sun is part of the closed system. The only truly "closed" system is the universe itself. All other systems are subject to energy input from the interference of things outside of the system.

Now, in the case of the solar system, it is still unlikely that any more energy will be input than the sun outputs, so what happens is that while the local entropy of earth decreases, it comes as a result of energy input from the sun, where entropy is increasing. Of course, none of this falsifies evolution. You have yet to actually explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics falsifies evolution.

When did the Sun ever cause an increase in complexity, without intellegent guidance or intervention?

When it provided the energy input to earth to allow life to thrive and, consequently, evolution to occur.

[narby]

Oh wow. You have convinced me... ...that you have a commanding knowledge of HTML. That really is impressive

Is HTML all you saw in that post?

Well, now I understand.

[fmonkey]

Gravity THEORY is just that. Atomic THEORY is just that. Electromagnetic THEORY is just that, but for some reason those THEORIES, taught as FACT, are not assaulted by the religious. Just evolution.
I think you've hit it head on. The reason evolution is 'assaulted by the religious' is because not all theories are created equal. I can see examples of all of the other theories you've mentioned (to some degree or another) but I've never seen examples of evolution. Theories can range from asinine through plausible even to probable. I don't think plain-jane evolution is asinine, but I don't think it's probable either.

[b_sharp]

"I got more if you need it."

Geez. Good one. To choose between text taken from a work of fiction intended to capture and preserve a culture primarily based on animal husbandry, and its attempt to explain the (at that time) unexplainable on one hand and text gleaned from the works of thousands of dedicated, educated ,hard working scientists using a tested methodology that has given us technology and understanding far beyond what those original herders could even imagine on the other hand.

Hmmm. Hard decision.

[Tribune7]

That you two have found a nit to pick and appear to be liking it may be evidence of a shared common descent with chimps.

Post 27 was to an evo skeptic. How about this: He hits the nail on the head, however, about a general, and undeniable, assault on religion, of which religious people see evolution as part.

Would you disagree with that?

[VadeRetro]

Krauthammer says it plainly and explains it very well. I see one numbnutz after another on this thread making a point of not getting it.

[Dimensio]

I can see examples of all of the other theories you've mentioned (to some degree or another) but I've never seen examples of evolution.

Really? Give me an example of gravity, and I'll give you an example of evolution.

Theories can range from asinine through plausible even to probable.

Do you know how an explanation comes to be regarded as "theory" in science?

[highball]

Evolution is seen as part of an undeniable general assault on religion by religious people whether Krauthammer spells it out or not.

Which would probably explain why some religious people would rather cover their eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.

Such a fundamental ignorance of evolution is unfortunate. That some choose to remain ignorant is shameful.

[b_sharp]

"And obviously none of it sunk in."

[whisper] Pssst Narby, over here. I bet he never read any of it. Maybe he's afraid to? Whaddya think? [/whisper]

[Elsie]

Let the games begin!

[Dimensio]

That you two have found a nit to pick and appear to be liking it may be evidence of a shared common descent with chimps.

When did I say that your inaccurate commentary on the article was evidence for evolution?

It looks more to me that, rather than admit that you misspoke and demonstrated a poor understanding of the article, you're trying to shift attention to attack a point that I never made. Once again a creationist refuses to admit an error, even an extremely simple one.

How about this: He hits the nail on the head, however, about a general, and undeniable, assault on religion, of which religious people see evolution as part.

That's a better phrasing. Unlike your original posting, you don't imply with it that the article cited evolution as something seen as an attack in religion.

[Elsie]

Anyway i'm off to chase a guy that spontanously morphed from an ape.

Yup, he's wrong all right.

EVERYONE knows that us AND apes morphed from something else...

[WildHorseCrash]

That is a very interesting article. It's like the creationists are like cultists who have to undergo deprogramming. Interesting.

[Elsie]

 Do they think there was really a talking serpent?

 

 

 

Yup!

 

 

Other critters as well!

 

 

NIV Numbers 22:27-30
 27.  When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff.
 28.  Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"
 29.  Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now."
 30.  The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?"   "No," he said.

[Tribune7]

Which would probably explain why some religious people would rather cover their eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.

I don't think anybody's arguing that it doesn't exist. What's being argued is whether it explain every thing its proponents claim. Further, there is a concern stemming from he recognition that it has been used in many cases to advance philosophical or social causes that violate fundamental American beliefs.

[Elsie]

...and some mud.

OH??

Methinks thou shouldest read the Book again....