Ga. Evolution Dispute Embarrasses Some (AP says Christians are an embarrassment to society)

AP ^ | 11/11/04 | Kristen Wyatt

[fr11]

ATLANTA - First, Georgia's education chief tried to take the word "evolution" out of the state's science curriculum. Now a suburban Atlanta county is in federal court over textbook stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact." Some here worry that Georgia is making itself look like a bunch of rubes or, worse, discrediting its own students.

"People want to project the image that Georgia is a modern state, that we're in the 21st century. Then something like this happens," said Emory University molecular biologist Carlos Moreno.

The federal lawsuit being heard this week in Atlanta concerns whether the constitutional separation of church and state was violated when suburban Cobb County school officials placed the disclaimer stickers in high school biology texts in 2002. The stickers say evolution should be "critically considered."

Some scientists say they are frustrated the issue is still around nearly 80 years since the Scopes Monkey Trial — the historic case heard in neighboring Tennessee over the teaching of evolution instead of the biblical story of creation.

"We're really busy. We have a lot to do. And here we are, having to go through this 19th century argument over and over again," said Sarah Pallas, who teaches biology and neuroscience at Georgia State University in Atlanta.

Moreno and dozens of other science instructors, along with the county superintendent, argued that the stickers only make the state look backward. And high school teacher Wes McCoy worried the issue could tarnish his students.

"I didn't want college admission counselors thinking less of their science educations, thinking they hadn't been taught evolution or something," McCoy testified.

Moreno recalled how, after graduating from Georgia public schools, he headed north to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites), only to find that people were less than kind about his educational roots.

"They felt Southerners were not only less well educated, but less intelligent," Moreno said.

Doughnut shop worker Maria Jordan, 48, said her Atlanta customers were shaking their heads over the latest dispute. "Lord, don't we have more important things to worry about?" she asked. "It's just a flat-out embarrassment."

As for what they are saying elsewhere around the country, she said: "Whatever Georgia's getting up north, we're putting it on ourselves."

[RadioAstronomer]

WHO CARES

Obviously you do.

[Dimensio]

When a kid takes a lego set and sets off to make toy insects, dogs, firemen and jet planes, they may "appear" to all have a common ancestor since they are all made of legos. But the only things they have in common is that the building material was the same and the designer was the same.

If life forms, like legos, did not reproduce, then you might have a point. As it is, however, this is a faulty analogy.

But what can I expect from someone who has pretty much made it known that they are willing to use lies to attack evolution?

[Right Wing Professor]

Evolution is, to the remainder of "science" what the Yugo is to German cars

The real problem with "science" is every dolt who ever thumbed through a copy of Discover magazine in the dentist's office thinks he's an expert.

[Right Wing Professor]

All living things were designed to live withing this particular ecosystem.

Which ecosystem?

[RobRoy]

>>If life forms, like legos, did not reproduce, then you might have a point. As it is, however, this is a faulty analogy.

But what can I expect from someone who has pretty much made it known that they are willing to use lies to attack evolution?<<

Heh, heh, yer still whining.

Fact is, if the ID people are correct, there is NO WAY to prove or disprove it. But it doesn't make them wrong. 8^>

But I think I have found one of the more religious of the evolutionists...

[RobRoy]

>>The real problem with "science" is every dolt who ever thumbed through a copy of Discover magazine in the dentist's office thinks he's an expert.<<

BINGO!!!

[RobRoy]

Which ecosystem?

Earths.

In a way, all living things on planet earth are like the creatures in "Rendezvous With Rama," by Arthur C. Clark. That is, the animals came from the "goo" ocean and returned to it when they left a star. They were manufactured from the goo (the raw material) and designed for their place within the ecosystem of Rama.

The earth is the same, but created and designed by a mind much more vast and imaginative than that of Clark or anyone here. And some of those self repairing, self replicating biological "machines" designed for this world also contain a human "spirit" which, unlike the machine they temporarily occupy, are eternal.

These spirits cannot be measured or explained any more than consciousness can be, but to say either does not exist simply becuase you cannot measure it is akin to being a cave man who thinks the sun literally travels across the sky simply becuase he cannot prove otherwise.

At least creationists have the humility to ADMIT that they may not be all knowing as to things as yet unexplained or proven.

Try proving the existence of radio waves on a desert island with no technology to pick it up. It don't mean it doesn't exist.

Just as the Bible proves itself, so the Earth proves Gods existence - to those actually paying attention. But alas, the religious evolutionists cannot see the created "forest" for the fossil "trees."

[JeffAtlanta]

On the question of evolution pace Darwin, I am an open-minded sceptic; the theory has holes in it through which one could fly an entire fleet of 747s (e.g., macro~ vs, micro-evolution).

These are holes at all - they're just a product of ignorance. There is no such thing as micro vs macro evolution. All evolution is gradual (with very rare exceptions). What you call macro evolution is just the accumulation of micro evolution.

[Right Wing Professor]

Earths.

Earth is not one ecosystem. It is many.

The rest of the new-age stuff I'll leave unaddressed.

[Dimensio]

Heh, heh, yer still whining.

You're still lying.

Fact is, if the ID people are correct, there is NO WAY to prove or disprove it.

Which means that ID is not science, and thus has no place in a science classroom.

[Othniel]

Notso, rude boy.

The "theory" of evolution proposes that a) everything in the universe came out of NOTHING; b) that all the stuff that the NOTHING made somehow organized itself and became something; c) that the organized stuff somehow magically organized itself to become elements, and that these elements somehow formed living compounds, and that these living compounds further organized themselves to become cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. Get a clue. Where there's DNA, there's information, information about cells, their mechanisms, their proteins, all that stuff. Where there's information, there is an intelligence behind it. How could the DNA in so many things "change" without some kind of agency behind it? It's the same as having a BIG bag of scrabble letters and drawing them out randomly and expecting to get Dr. Seuss. (I was going to say Shakespeare, but let's make it easy for you.)

Your kind of attitude, pulling this little study and that little study out of the air, when neglecting the bigger issue, then having a "I know more because I know big words" attitude is a discredit to science, and worthy only of elitist Democrats. I've seen post after post by people on the Evo side who have yet to come up with a satisfactory explanation of how so much organization and information can occur when all the factors are against it. I'm a CREATIONIST. I happen to not believe in evolution (the notion that something can pop out of nothing) because I see too much intelligence and design in the universe. It all started SOMEWHERE. For you, PH, and others to denigrade those who believe otherwise shows your blindness and your inability to see past your own prejudices.

Evolution, when broken down to the bare facts as listed above, makes as much sense as the Easter Bunny being the source of all chocolate eggs.

[RobRoy]

>>Earth is not one ecosystem. It is many.<<
You are kidding, right?

Think of it as a single human body. It is a single "system," but also breaks down into individual "systems," all interdependent

The earth as an ecoSYSTEM is the same. It can be broken down into individual eco-SUBsystems, all interdependent.

Where do you think the global warming crowd get some of their logic?

The "new age" stuff is my own hypothesis, thank you. 8^>

[RobRoy]

>>Which means that ID is not science, and thus has no place in a science classroom.<<

...certainly not as a "theory." 8^>

Read my tagline.

[Right Wing Professor]

Think of it as a single human body. It is a single "system," but also breaks down into individual "systems," all interdependent

Oh great, a Gaia worshipper.

I guess you can't help it, you're from Seattle :-)

[RobRoy]

>>I guess you can't help it, you're from Seattle :-)


HEY, I resemble that remark! ;-)

[Right Wing Professor]

. The "theory" of evolution proposes that a) everything in the universe came out of NOTHING; b) that all the stuff that the NOTHING made somehow organized itself and became something; c) that the organized stuff somehow magically organized itself to become elements, and that these elements somehow formed living compounds, and that these living compounds further organized themselves to become cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.

Complete nonsense, of course. The theory of evolution says that species evolved from other species by the mechanism of mutation and natural selection.

I guess we have another 'Discover magazine in the dentist's office' scientific expert here.

[Dimensio]

The "theory" of evolution proposes that a) everything in the universe came out of NOTHING

Wrong.

If you don't understand the most basic premise of the theory, then you are not qualified to tell us that it is wrong.

[balrog666]

You deserve a refund for your education. Gather up a few more of these ID'ers and you can file a class action lawsuit.

[atlaw]

"All living things were designed to live withing this particular ecosystem."

What particular ecosystem?

[atlaw]

Sorry. Posted before I saw your exchange with the good professor. I don't think that word (ecosystem) means what you think it means.