Evolution issue tips board’s balance [Kansas school board election]

Lawrence Journal-World (Kansas) ^ | 02 August 2006 | Sophia Maines

[trashcanbred]

I am curious what this evidence is. Most evidence I have read about from various sites on the net is not at all. For example, modern skeletons were unearthed in layers of rock near Moab that dated to hundreds of millions of years old. Sounds like we got a winner right? Well... no... because the skeletons were hardly that old. They were Indians (Anasazi) and they were probably caught in a cave in while mining (which they did a lot of).

Now... of course many sites and books won't point that out.

Oh and by the way, when a theory has been around for quite sometime it is normally taught as a fact, especially if it has tons (both literally and metaphorically) of evidence to back it up.

[Doc Savage]

Dogbert says to Dilbert,"I've decided to spend more time discussing things I know nothing about!"

I suspect that very few people have a clear and concise understanding of cellular reproduction, DNA, RNA, etc., and yet feel themselves well qualified to pronounce the THEORY of evolution as proven and peer-reviewed fact.

May I suggest asking each board member to take a 100 question test on cell genetics and molecular biology. I doubt if any of them could achieve a passing grade.

[HayekRocks]

Creationism is a theory in the sense that it is an attempt by man to explain the world around him.

I am afraid you seem to be avoiding my question. I did not ask if creationism is a theory. I asked if it is a scientific theory.

BTW, you might be surprised to learn that there is scientific evidence that supports creationism.

I think you might be underestimating my familiarity with the literature of creationism. Yes, I would be surprised if there were scientific evidence that supports creationism, but that is not because I have not been exposed to claims that such scientific evidence exists.

[srmorton]

It has been several years since I read the book. I just recall that it was pretty technical with footnotes and references to articles that were based on what I would call scientific research. I commend you for at least looking for the evidence for creationism. Most Darwinists would scoff at the idea that any such evidence might exist.

Of course I know theories supported by a lot of evidence are generally accepted as fact, but evolution is a little different. No one was there to observe what actually happened and there is no way in the lab to duplicate the exact conditions that existed. The Cell Theory, for example, can be directly observed in the lab and there are no organisms that can be considered truly living (as opposed to viruses) that are not composed of cells as the basic structural unit. You must admit, a lot of the evidence for evolution is indirect and incomplete. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. I know that it does because I have been teaching Biology for over 20 years.

The real conflict between the two seems to me to be the time frame and what set the whole process in motion, neither of which to me are "irreconcilable differences". IMO, it is a lot more difficult to believe that the world as we know it happened just by chance and that structures like the eye could have evolved at least twice just by fortuitous mutation.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[freespirited]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Evolution is change in the gene pool of a population over time. It can be observed experimentally in species that replicate much faster than we do. Bacteria and fruit flies come to mind as a couple of examples.

Such repeated observations across multiple species make it fair to say that evolution is not just a theory, but also a fact.

Now if you are limiting the population under discussion to humans, I can see why you would say that evolution is a theory but not a fact. The problem is that there is no scientific basis to limit the discussion to humans when discussing evolution.

[furball4paws]

I think the Board's biggest political goof was to drag in that IslamoWacko Creationist to support their position. Reasonable Kansans would find that quite repugnant and begin to ask quite penetrating questions about the brains (or lack thereof) of the School Board members.

Americans tend to ignore many political dealings, but when the idiots go too far, they usually slap them down. Who wants to be embarrassed in the public eye when any sane person would avoid such? So- Out you go, to be replaced with another hack, but maybe one that thinks before they act.

[PatrickHenry]

I think the Board's biggest political goof was to drag in that IslamoWacko Creationist to support their position.

Mustafa Akyol (Turkish creationist) testifies in Kansas "Monkey Trial".
Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol. Exerpts:

Muslims should also note the great similarity between the arguments of the Intelligent Design Movement and Islamic sources. Hundreds of verses in the Qur’an call people to examine the natural world and see in it the evidence of God. Great Islamic scholars like Ghazali wrote large volumes about design in animals, plants, and the human body. What Intelligent Design theorists like Behe or Dembski do today is to refine the same argument with the findings of modern science.

In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it.

[presently no screen name]

History will record that you were disgraced

That's a given! We KNOW the end of the story and God will not be mocked!

Evos are deceived and misery wants company as they 'try' to corrupt others to their deceptive beliefs.

[retMD]

Would you then teach "intelligent falling" if there were students who had this as a deeply held belief? After all, Newton felt there was something to it, and there are inconsistencies in the theory of gravity. Definitely a "controversy"!

[doc30]

Only one thing to say: Good News!

[PatrickHenry]

Intelligent Attraction. Teach the controversy!

[RightWhale]

“Students need to have an accurate assessment of the state of the facts in regard to Darwin’s theory,” said John West

Why, when they have no training in critical thinking?

[2nsdammit]

Allow me:

http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

[2nsdammit]

You forgot to condemn us all to Hell. Isn't that usually the next sentence in that diatribe?

[retMD]

Ah, sorry! I had not seen this new theory, surplanting intelligent falling as ID to creationism.

I wonder if we could apply the theory to human relationships. Schools could also teach intelligent attraction wherever they teach sexual education. The parsimony of a good theory!

[af_vet_rr]

I wonder what curse Pat will be putting on Kansas for its crime.

I don't know, but I hear Jack Chick is loading dozens of aircraft with his pamphlets to make airdrops over Kansas.

[trashcanbred]

You must admit, a lot of the evidence for evolution is indirect and incomplete.

I can admit that for a large number of theories that exist today; many of which can be applied in building the electronics for cell phones and personal computers.

One thing I do know is science doesn't attempt to answer phenomena with "an unknown intelligent being" like Intelligent Design does. If science did, we would be in very big trouble for we would think that lightning strikes, tornadoes, aerodynamics, and many other studies to be the simple work of God.

For example, let's say you lived near a dormant volcano but recently it has started to vent steam. Now the US Geological Survey sends out a volcanologist and after some studying the town asks him/her "is it going to erupt?". And he/she answers, "Well... it depends on if this town has been faithful to God or not."

I would think you would want another volcanologist.

[js1138]

Mustafa Akyol is a FReeper in good standing.

[trashcanbred]

Are you serious? Is he even still alive (come to think of it, does he even really exist to begin with)?