LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteAnyone who says evolution doesn't occur is in dreamland.
From the NYT
Evolution Opponents Lose Kansas Board Majority
Kansas voters on Tuesday handed power back to moderates on the State Board of Education, setting the stage for a return of science teaching that broadly accepts the theory of evolution, according to preliminary election results.
With just 6 districts of 1,990 yet to report as of 8 a.m. Central time today, two conservatives — including incumbent Connie Morris, a former west Kansas teacher and author who had described evolution as “a nice bedtime story” — appear to have been defeated decisively by two moderates in the Republican primary elections. One moderate incumbent, Janet Waugh from the Kansas City area, held on to her seat in the Democratic primary.
If her fellow moderates prevailed, Ms. Waugh said last week, “we need to revisit the minutes and every decision that was 6-4, re-vote.”
Ms. Morris lost to Sally Cauble, a teacher from Liberal, who has favored a return to traditional science standards.
Taking another seat from the conservatives in the Republican primary was Jana Shaver of Independence, a former teacher and administrator, who ran far ahead of Brad Patzer. Mr. Patzer is the son-in-law of the current board member Iris Van Meter, who did not seek reelection.
In another closely fought Republican race, in the Kansas City-Olathe district, Harry E. McDonald, a retired biology teacher, lost to the conservative incumbent John W. Bacon, an accountant.
The results seem likely to give the moderates a 6-4 edge on the 10-member board when it takes over in January. Half the members of the board are elected every two years. The election results are not final until certified by the Kansas Secretary of State, Ron Thornburgh, following an official canvas.
Both moderate Republican winners face Democratic opponents in November, but the Democrats are moderates as well, favoring a return to the traditional science standards that prevailed before a conservative majority elected in 2004 passed new rules for teaching science. Those rules, enacted last November, called for classroom critiques of Darwin’s theory. Ms. Waugh, the Democrat, does not face a Republican opponent in the general election.
The changes in the science standards, favored by advocates of intelligent design who believe life is too complex to be have been created by natural events, put Kansas at the vanguard of efforts by religious advocates critical explanations of the origin of life that do not include a creator. But intelligent design was not referenced in the Kansas standards.
The curriculum changes, coming after years of see-sawing power struggles between moderates and conservatives, drew widespread ridicule and, critics complained, threatened Kansas’s high standing in national education circles. But Steve E. Abrams, the chairman of the board and a veterinarian from Arkansas City, said the changes only subjected evolution to critical scientific scrutiny.
link
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Anyone who says evolution doesn't occur is in dreamland.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
I gotta admit, i am highly skeptical wrt the 'truthiness' of evolution.
I think science is on the right trail, but there's a "Missing link" and then some that keeps me firmly OFF the evolution bandwagon.
Until the day someone OBSERVES the mutation that leads to the creation of an all-news species as it happens, i am inclined to believe that there very much is some 'creationalism' going on at some level.
Teaching evolution as defacto science is IMO quite wrong. It should be taught as the THEORY that it is, NOT as a scientific fact, which it most definitely has not been proven to be.
Remember, unless it can be proven in a lab it's not science......it's philosophy.
No one has EVER created a human from a monkey(or an alligator from a fish, or a bird from a lizard, etc, etc) in the lab.
Last edited by Bill; 08 Aug 06, at 19:07.
well, you know, there is also the idea of combining evolution and creation. Where you are looking at a creator that planned out the steps of evolution.Originally Posted by M21Sniper
But it is a fact. The only theory part left are the various ways to explain how it happened.
Just like gravity. Don't know many people that would call it a Theory. By your lab standard it couldn't have been considered a Fact until this year. The ESA measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory and published the results this year.
The only theory about gravity was who had the right explanation Newton or Einstein.
I think if you link evolution with creationism you weaken both ideas. And its a cop out. " Oh, I don't know how it happened so instead of trying to find out I'll just say that some God sprinkled pixie dust and thats what happened. "
Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?
m21,
we have observed evolution, and in our era. dogs arose from human domestication of wolves. corn arose from human selection. in england, the color of the wings of moths evolved from white (to blend in with the white trees in pre-industrial england) to black (to blend in with the coal-smog of industrial england) to grey (the somewhat cleaner air of post-industrial england).I gotta admit, i am highly skeptical wrt the 'truthiness' of evolution.
I think science is on the right trail, but there's a "Missing link" and then some that keeps me firmly OFF the evolution bandwagon.
Until the day someone OBSERVES the mutation that leads to the creation of an all-news species as it happens, i am inclined to believe that there very much is some 'creationalism' going on at some level.
Teaching evolution as defacto science is IMO quite wrong. It should be taught as the THEORY that it is, NOT as a scientific fact, which it most definitely has not been proven to be.
Remember, unless it can be proven in a lab it's not science......it's philosophy.
No one has EVER created a human from a monkey(or an alligator from a fish, or a bird from a lizard, etc, etc) in the lab.
in fact, if you want evolution as it HAPPENS, we have proof of that too. i tell any creationist, that if they truly do not believe in evolution- next time they are down with a bacterial infection, ask for the ORIGINAL noah's-ark version drug. if they have staph infection, they better be using penicillin, because that's what doctors used against staph at first.
see how effective that is against today's staph.
i'm going to guess they're gonna be true believers of evolution real quick. or they'll be too dead to know the difference.
evolution is THE cornerstone of modern-day biological science.
Evolution has NEVER been observed in action at the moment it occured in a controlled environment(THE litmus test to change theory into fact)....it is therefore Philosophy not science, and THEORY, not fact.
Any other interpretation is either intentionally disingenous or foolishly naive.
Take your pick.
Bzzzt. Gravity can and has been proven via DIRECT OBSERVATION in a CONTROLLED SETTING.
THAT my friend, is the threshold that takes something from THEORY to FACT.
Fact is gravity is NOT fully understood, but CAN be quantified and observed(both directly and indirectly AS IT OCCURS), even if it does not conform to either classical physics or quantum mechanics.
Hopefully some form of string THEORY(again- that word- THEORY) will unify gravity with the other forces and create a QUANTIFIABLE AND PROVABLE theorum, but it aint happened yet.
Truth is, though we can PROVE that gravity is a quantifiable force of nature, no one can tell us exactly why it exists, or why it's such a weak force. (though numerous theories abound.)
PS: It IS called the "Theory of Evolution" for a reason sports fan...
Last edited by Bill; 09 Aug 06, at 19:45.
Bzzzzzt.
Wrong. It is believed by SOME that is the case, but it was not observed as it occured, and CERTAINLY not in a controlled environment.
BZZZZT....that was deliberate human caused genetic ENGINEERING- ie, CREATIONALISM in action.
Did anyone OBSERVE this happen WHEN it happened in a CONTROLLED environment?
Nope. Therefore, it is mere theory.
"Until something is quantifiably observed in a controlled environment it is NOT A FACT, it is a THEORY."
~S.Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell.(slight paraphrase from memory, bold text added)
No one has ever observed the moment of genetic morphing of ANY living species in a controlled environment(that i am aware of), and that includes virus's.
Prove that god didn't modify those strains.
You can't. NO ONE knows how- or why- things suddenly mutate.
Sadly that includes Gun Grape and you...Astralis.
For all we know, God saw those moths and said, "Let their wings be black in order that they may survive and flourish in the face of the determined predators which i have created".
Call it a modified form of creationalism...
Last edited by Bill; 09 Aug 06, at 19:53.
Gravity which you mentioned is also called theory of gravity!!!!!..
theory in english and theory in science is different..please check some of the articles
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
That was not evolution. That was selective breeding.
Black wings and white wings both existed at the same time. The black wings weren't as successful because they stood out against the background and were more likely to be preyed upon.
Industrial revolution hits, trees were covered by dark soot, white wings all of a sudden stood out, and were preyed upon.
Both existed, just a matter of how successful they were in the given environment.
We only have circumstancial evidences to back up evolution as most of the times it's a bit difficult for us to observe tiny incremental changes. We only see the result of the changes when we leap over thousands of generations.
But that being said, it's still more believeable for me to believe in evolution than creation.
I just remembered, the best example we have to support evolution is probably the Galagapos Island.
Native finches are different than any other finches in the world. We know for a fact the island is relatively new and completely seperate from any land mass. Life could not have possibly evolved seperately on this island by itself, therefore, life migrated there. After this migration, creatures changed through selective breeding by the environment. After enough time, selective breeding evolved creatures to their present state.
Last edited by gunnut; 09 Aug 06, at 20:09.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Gravity is still partially unproven and largely unexplained. Hence the theories of supergravity, string theory, and finally M theory...all of which exist to unite the forces into a unified "theory of everything", ALL of which are UNPROVEN and therefore CAN NOT BE CONSIDED FACT.
"Until something is quantifiably observed in a controlled environment it is NOT A FACT, it is a THEORY."
~S.Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell.(slight paraphrase from memory, bold text added)
Holy ****..dont you guys work!!..I know M21 ur self employed!! but dammm man that was a fast reply..my boss is around..i cant do much here
All correct, and those changes are almost entirely attributable, and therefore a result of, natural selection....NOT EVOLUTION.
Again, to the board: Evolution- while sound theory- has NOT ever been proven at any level.
Never.
IOW, it is a matter of FAITH....not fact.
This is why ann coulter- and others- call evolution a religion, not a science.
Selective breeding differs from evolution in that it is modification of an existing creature- not EVER the sudden spontaneous creation of some all new creature from one that always exists.
IOW, selection is a bird getting a better camo job, evolution is said bird growing gills and swimming away.
We have NEVER observed that, or anything even remotely close. Therefore, evolution remains theory, and not fact. And i suspect- it always will.
Last edited by Bill; 09 Aug 06, at 20:27.
Hehe, i'm fast typist with a broadband connection bro....
PS: When something progresses beyond theory because of quantifiable prediction and direct observation in a controlled environment, then....and only then.... it becomes a law.
Natural selection is LAW....Evolution is theory.
End of story.
Me personally, i reject evolution as the real answer, and i will give a simple example of why.
Evolution states all life originated from the 'primordal goo', and that all life evolved from a single cell seaborne organism into what it is today.
HOWEVER, this is DIRECTLY contradicted by the LAW of natural selection, which states that a creature will mutate to BETTER FIT it's existing environment. IOW, the law of natural selection dictates that a fish will mutate to be more survivable IN THE SEA, not LESS SURVIVABLE as an amphib that splits time between the sea and land.
There are countless thousands of direct observations of natural selection in the books, yet evolution has never once been observed in action(that i am aware of). Not once.
Last edited by Bill; 09 Aug 06, at 20:32.
I guess we will not live long to see it in real life and you cannot set a controlled environment for an evolution, it takes ages to do that.
One good example may be appendix, we dont use em anymore. Another would be the outer ear lobe, kids of the future "may" not have it.
But Evolution still offers a very good explanation that other dont at this point. Its still better than to say God created earth in x number of days.
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: