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."

[Glenmerle]

"It's just a flat-out embarrassment."

I will never understand why some people let others define them. Who cares what northerners or anyone else thinks? If you believe in creation or intelligent design rather than evolution, don't live in fear of some bigot calling you a rube. Honestly, I'm so sick of this "What will the sophisticates in New York think?" garbage.

[atlaw]

"I'm so sick of this "What will the sophisticates in New York think?" garbage."

Yeah. And to heck with those sophisticates in Nebraska too.

[RobRoy]

>>I don't think that word (ecosystem) means what you think it means.<<

I apreciate the comment, but I need to cut this from dictionary.com:

e·co·sys·tem n.
An ecological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit.

---

From my perspective, the earth and it's inhabitants could be described as an ecosystem and satisfy the criteria contained in this definition.

...and, in an analogous way, my entire body as well as my cardiovascular system could also be described that way.

[OriginalIntent]

Hey silly kid, read my post. You either purposely lied about what I wrote or you are not as smart as you try to pretend.

The first law says, (paraphrasing), that neither energy nor matter are being created nor destroyed.

So for your suggestion that energy or matter to get here by spontaneous generation is a real stretch, a leap of faith. You may also then have faith in the eternity of energy and matter in a useful form, but that would be another leap.

You are indeed a zealot, and are as condescending as they come.

If you are going to get cocky and talk like fool, at least get your facts straight.

I mentioned "only" the first law, and "only" applied it to show you that your leaning toward the "spontaneous generation of matter" defied the FIRST law of thermodynamics.

I did not make the claim you said I made that the first law of thermodynamics negates evolution. I said it means matter and energy did not just come into being...poof...like you think it might have.

If you are going to name-call and make false statements and get into another frenzy, at least get your 'guesses' correct, you do look silly indeed.

[tjwmason]

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.

Putting aside the Cambrian explosion, my point was to illustrate that Darwin's little theory has a couple of holes in it, and only the most extreme fundamentalists (such as our own dear Richard Dawkins) would deny this. This is why I am sceptical, but I am also open-minded - indeed I have found the most closed minds to be in the scientific community who impose evolution as a litmus test even more than do the creationists.

[jwalsh07]

Sorta.

Sortascience the same as pseudoscience?

[jwalsh07]

Some years ago, I was walkign through a large field of snow in Iowa. For no apparent reason, I was followign the tracks of a squrrel. Tracks that just ended... no backtracking, no digging under the snow... just ended.

For a Creationist, this would be proof that the Squirrel Rapture came, and Rocky got borne up into Heaven. For the Evolutionist, this was evidence that Rocky was borne up into the heavens... probably by a large owl.

A pity the owl didn't come back for you but then again most owls have a distinct dislike for the taste of hubris.

[Glenmerle]

Yeah. And to heck with those sophisticates in Nebraska too.

Sure, OK. Since those who think themselves sophisticated are often the most insular, provincial, small-minded dolts of all. I wasn't commenting on evolution so much as some people's willingness to be defined by others.

I'm not from the South, but it seems that some southerners are worried about what northerners will think of them (I think the last line of the article mentions something about how Georgia gets what it deserves from the north when it does crazy stuff like this). There's this cliche that southerners who take Christianity seriously are yokels -- and some southerners and Christians seem to want to buy into that.

[stands2reason]

Please propose an experiment that could theoretically disprove the "theory of intelligent design." For a theory to actually be a theory, there needs to be a theoretical way to disprove the theory.

Do I hear crickets?

[orionblamblam]

> Just as the Bible proves itself,

Ah, yes, that great tome of scientific wisdom. You know, the one that says that insect have four legs...

[Condorman]

The "rubes" are the ones that want to argue an unprovable theory is fact.

It is fact that populations exhibit changes in allele frequencies. The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain these frequencies.

Any theory of how the world was created is doomed to remain a theory since it is scientifically unprovable.

You demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge with respect to the scientific process generally, and the Theory of Evolution specifically.

Can you even state the Theory of Evolution that you attemp to argue against?

[orionblamblam]

> So for your suggestion that energy or matter to get here by spontaneous generation is a real stretch, a leap of faith.

I simply pointed out that recent theoretical and experimental work suggests that mass-energy can be produced from the quantum foam. The Casimr effect seems to demonstrate this in practice. Heisenberg showed that this does NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you have a problem, take it up with him. I could post the equations showing the energy available per unit length of vacuum, but it'd be a complete waste of my effort.

> I said it means matter and energy did not just come into being...poof...like you think it might have.

Except, of course, that you are quite possibly wrong. Again, I suggest you do some actual research before spouting off. Just as Einstein modified Newton without negating Newton, Heisenberg modified Newton without negating Newton. That's the great glory of science that the cesspit of religious dogma will never be able to aspire to... our understanding of the universe changes with new data. For religious fanatics... new data is simply evil.

I *seriously* suggest you research this before you spout off again (I will give you a hint: "Froning."). You will find that you are mistaken.

[orionblamblam]

And that added *what* to the discussion?

[Condorman]

You know, it occurs to me that if I saw a footprint in the snow, I would conclude that it was NOT made by a person. The way I see it, a person would be smart enough not to walk around barefoot.

Clearly, what we are discussing is evidence of the existence of Sasquatch.

[chitownfreeper]

Frankly, if it weren't for the fundamentalist Christians, Kerry would have been elected, so I can't complain.

But I for one am sick of being allied with people who believe in talking snakes.

[jwalsh07]

And that added *what* to the discussion?

Can't stand whiners. Go write the paper repealing the conservation laws.

[orionblamblam]

> Can't stand whiners.

Well, then I guess you aren't long for this world.

> Go write the paper repealing the conservation laws.

I thought that was The Bible? "Poof, there it is!"

[Condorman]

These changes.

Grrr...

[VadeRetro]

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.

Darwin's writings are not about this. Odd that his writings do not address what you claim to be the subject matter of the theory he originated.

[Dimensio]

I notice that Othniel hasn't returned to defend his rantings. So typical of creationists: when it's shown that they don't know what they're talking about, they run away like cowards (only to repeat the same falsehoods in the next discussion).