Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[cracker]

Ohio's Board of Education has been reviewing the teaching of Intelligent Design, partly in response to two bills introduced in the House and Senatethat would ban "naturalist bias" and require "alternatives" to evolution in biology classes.

The Dispatch has long been a forum for cr-evo debates, with numerous guest columnists and letters local OSU faculty (split), ministers, local Federal judges (anti-evo) and others, as well as weekly science columns on biology and geology (pro-evo).

[cracker]

FYI, Ohio's capital city paper weighs in on the recent Crevo dust-up in the state science curriculum.

[keithtoo]

"The scientific method consists of observing the natural world OK and drawing conclusions about the causes of what is observed. OK again These conclusions, or theories, are subject to testing No, they are not, evolution from one species to another - Macro Evolution, has never been tested and revision Yes, the only observable changes in the Theory of Evolution, are the constant changes in the theory itself as additional facts are discovered that either bolster These supposed supports get front page coverage or undermine No coverage for these, or else a Clintonesque escuse is used, ie: "those previous statements are no longer operative" the conclusions and theories. Scientific truth, such as it is, is constantly evolving You can say that again! as new theories replace or modify old ones in the light of new facts Or what passes for facts .

[Junior]

No one outside of the willfully obstinate questions the idea that new life forms evolved from older ones, a process conclusively illustrated in biology and the fossil record.

We've got a whole lot of these folks on this forum...

[Gridley_here]

So bent are they on getting Christianity's foot in the door of science classrooms that they apparently don't mind that this bill also appears to give the green light to the creation stories of competing religions, cults and any other manifestation of belief or unbelief. Apparently, even Satanists would have their say.

This guy needs to get at clue, the Theory of Evolution is the Satinsts creation story.

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

No one outside of the willfully obstinate questions the idea that new life forms evolved from older ones, a process conclusively illustrated in biology and the fossil record.,

Micro-evolution is what is being refered to here, adaptation to change WITHIN a species. There is no fossil record of a species evolving into a different species, known a macro-evolution. The mixing of these two ideas is what seems to cause the fevered debates concerning evolution.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Yay! Another crevo thread!

[jimt]

We've got a whole lot of these folks on this forum...

You can say that again...

[Junior]

...Theory of Evolution is the Satinsts [sic] creation story.

Would that be folks who worships soft, silky fabrics?

[cracker]

There is no fossil record of a species evolving into a different species, known a macro-evolution.

"I see you have a nice collection of small pictures, arranged in chronological order, and affixed to a narrow strip of celluloid. An impressive display, but there is no evidence here. You claim these are moving pictures - but which picture shows the motion?"

[JediGirl]

This guy needs to get at clue, the Theory of Evolution is the Satinsts creation story.

A Satinist? Yeah. I like satin. But I've never heard of Satin worshippers...I'm sure they're around though--whatever creams your twinkie I suppose.

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

What pictures? Are you holucinating?

[Free the USA]

Bump List

[cracker]

They're called fossils. Subtle.

[cracker]

Crevo List

evolution

More bump lists

[jennyp]

I think the "evolution" list is going extinct, and in my objective opinion, no self-respecting, mainstream Freeper takes it seriously. Those few malcontents who point out that I was the creator of "crevo_list", and insinuate that I could be biased, are utterly misguided. :-)

[cracker]

I wondered about that...
You being the creator, that is. I long susperted that the Crevo_list had been designed.

[PatrickHenry]

Part of the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"I see you have a nice collection of small pictures, arranged in chronological order, and affixed to a narrow strip of celluloid. An impressive display, but there is no evidence here. You claim these are moving pictures - but which picture shows the motion?"

Very good. This is the best analogy I've seen on this subject. Did you come up with this on your own? (Just curious.)