Battle over evolution heating up

News 8 Austin ^ | 8/20/2003 | Antonio Castelan

[new cruelty]

"The requested document does not exist on this server. "

Bad link?

[new cruelty]

Nevermind. I found the thread via search. Thanks for posting it.

[PatrickHenry]

That Scientific American link has been giving me fits. It's easier to find it by doing a google search on the title.

[xm177e2]

It amazes me that Conservatives are proud of the fact that a lot of them subscribe to such utterly inane beliefs as "creation science."

Doesn't surprise me a bit. These are Buckleycons--standing athwart Science, yelling "Stop, you're making me uncomfortable!"

Or, as "The Onion" put it: "I don't accept fundamental tenets of science AND I VOTE!"

[TheAngryClam]

The more you do, the more you like it, as long as you can avoid the post-modernist writings about it.

That's why I loved digging holes in the ground- can't really theorize about that too much.

[Conservinator]

You must be kidding!! Even Darwin came back later in life and said that people "took the ramblings of a fool and made them into a religion" (paraphrased). He also said that to look at the human eye, with all its intricacies, and not believe that there is a divine architect, is truly absurd. I suppose you believe in the big bang theory too!! If that is the case, then let's blow up a printing company and see if a book is produced in the rubble!! Get a life man . . . but better yet, get a relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ, and that truth will set you free!!

[RightWhale]

Socialism. Evolution. Global warming. And the list of liberal scams goes on

Liberals are scamming us on global warming, or they were until the Bush Admin. Their current views on socialism are unknown since their last coherent spokesman passed away a half century ago. Evolution, though, is greatly misunderstood.

For practical purposes consider evolution as a set of ordered sets where the order of each set is the complexity of the elements. This has little to do with Darwin or the evolutionary trees of which there are as many as there are paleontologists. That kind of evolution is just something scientists talk about when they're sitting around having a few beers after a hard day at the conference.

[SedVictaCatoni]

UNPOPULAR REASONABLE POSITION #1: Why not teach both? How long would it take to teach "creationism", anyway? An hour? Genesis isn't really all that long.

UNPOPULAR REASONABLE POSITION #2: Is it so absurd to think that evolution is God's mechanism for creating living creatures? We've discovered God's mechanism for creating stars, God's mechanism for creating crystals, God's mechanism for turning the oceans into rain, and God's mechanism for creating sunlight. All of these things have brought us wonder, and have brought us very little closer to understanding any of the important things which the Truth is about. What is so strange or hostile about yet another discovery?

[thulldud]

Not what I was saying, not a-tall.

Once upon a time, education was supposed to be about training people to think. In the Middle Ages, you had to learn Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric (the "Trivia") before you actually got into the "real" studies. Knowing how to read and write, how to follow an argument, and how to express one were considered the elementary stuff.

Not any more. Now that these skills, once considered elementary, are nearly vanished, the aim seems to be to preclude debate, not to foster it. Why do you think the libs are so apoplectic about talk radio? I will take the liberty of answering for you: They don't have any confidence in their ability to defend their position, though they have a religious certainty of its rightness. And the attempt to silence or preclude debate (the natural resort of the ideological monopolists) is in the best tradition of the Spanish Inquisition (bet you didn't expect that!)

[Heartlander]

On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth.

[new cruelty]

Genesis isn't really all that long.

It's not the length... its the depth. : )

[thulldud]

What's with the screen name? You aren't an ex-Scieno are ya?

[SedVictaCatoni]

>>Genesis isn't really all that long.

It's not the length... its the depth. : )

What depth? The explanation given for how God created the heavens, earth, and various creatures is little more than a few paragraphs long. If you take it literally, as pro-creationists tend to do (by definition), then it's a very short and very straightforward explanation.

[TheAngryClam]

No, I'm not.

Click there and your questions will be answered.

[RightWhale]

The explanation given for how God created the heavens, earth, and various creatures is little more than a few paragraphs long.

Right, but it doesn't stop there. In the 2nd chapter there is a different version of the story. And then later there is John, and that is a whole different tradition. It gets very deep, or we can compartmentalize.

[Dimensio]

If they would just wait, it would magically pop out of the Earth by the brillant mind that is evolution.

With this statement, you have demonstrated that you need to educate yourself on the matter before criticizing it. It is clear that you do not understand evolution, but rather your understanding is of an inaccurate strawman thereof.

Evolution implies no "design plans". Your analogy is nonsensical.

[new cruelty]

...then it's a very short and very straightforward explanation.

All those hours in Sunday school and I could have been outside playing ball. Damn.

[Dimensio]

He also said that to look at the human eye, with all its intricacies, and not believe that there is a divine architect, is truly absurd.

This sounds like you got this information from an out-of-context citation. A citation from Darwin is often used by Creationist information sources to show that even he did not believe that the eye could have evolved. They omit a following paragraph where he addresses the very concerns that he raises, explaining that in fact it is not a problem for evolution.

I suppose you believe in the big bang theory too!! If that is the case, then let's blow up a printing company and see if a book is produced in the rubble!!

This is not remotely analogous to evolution.

[Dimensio]

Why not teach both? How long would it take to teach "creationism", anyway? An hour? Genesis isn't really all that long.

Why should a religious story be taught outside of a religious studies class at all? Further, Genesis is not the only "creation" story out there.

[thulldud]

May have to look some other time. It acts as if it's slashdotted or something....