Kansas and evolution

[Jake]

Of course they have a right to do it.  Seperation of church and state doesn't exist on a State level.

Correction, seperation of church and state doesn't exist anyway.

I was giving the anti-religion folks a freebie there

[Rob]

This decision was idiotic.

[John Dibble]

Evolutiuon, like Creationism, is a theory. I wouldn't want either taught in science books. I am a firm believer in Creationism, but would I want that foreced into everyone's mind?

Time to strike Gravity from the textooks. After all, it's just a theory, too.

And plate tectonics, among other things.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis. In science the difference between theory and hypothesis is great, and for something to become theory it must have sufficient evidence backing it, and if it has enough to where all the gaps are filled, it becomes scientific law.

Sorry, they are both theories.

hy·poth·e·sis
n.
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

the·o·ry
n.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Talk to a scientist if you don't believe me - ask what thethere difference between a theory and a hypothesis is in the world of science. Heck, creationism isn't even testable, and doesn't really have any data for it - it probably shouldn't even count as a hypothesis. Evolution has enough evidence to be considered a scientific theory(though not a scientific law, as there are too many gaps).

[John Dibble]

As for top scientists here is one:

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

This guy doesn't sound like a 'top' scientist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A philosopher is not a scientist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Intelligent design is not the same as creationism, it is basically the same as evolution except it also says that God guided evolution. Evolution is a neutral theory as far as God is concerned, you can believe God was involved or not. I believe God was involved so I do believe in intelligent design, but I don't want it taught in schools since simply teaching pure evolution is not forcing any idea of religion, it is simply teaching the theory supported by the most evidence as religiously neutral, I only would have a problem if the textbooks then went to say that the evidence for evolution somehow disproves God. Let the kids decide for themselves if they believe in the intelligent design aspect or not. Teaching literal creationism is forcing a religion and if my school taught creationism it would be forcing it on me as well as not only do I not believe in it, neither does my church, therefore myself, most other mainline Protestants and most Catholics would also have fundamentalist Christianity views pushed on them in addition to non-Christians.

Also even though I lived in a rather conservative city, I never once heard anyone raise an object to evolution or argue for creationism.

[ATFFL]

Evolutiuon, like Creationism, is a theory. I wouldn't want either taught in science books. I am a firm believer in Creationism, but would I want that foreced into everyone's mind?

Time to strike Gravity from the textooks. After all, it's just a theory, too.

And plate tectonics, among other things.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis. In science the difference between theory and hypothesis is great, and for something to become theory it must have sufficient evidence backing it, and if it has enough to where all the gaps are filled, it becomes scientific law.

Sorry, they are both theories.

hy·poth·e·sis
n.
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

the·o·ry
n.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Talk to a scientist if you don't believe me - ask what thethere difference between a theory and a hypothesis is in the world of science. Heck, creationism isn't even testable, and doesn't really have any data for it - it probably shouldn't even count as a hypothesis. Evolution has enough evidence to be considered a scientific theory(though not a scientific law, as there are too many gaps).

How do you test evolution?  ANswer: Observational method.

How do you test Intelligent Design?  Answer: Observational method.

As for gaining wide acceptance, I have studied Ether Theory which, to my knowledge, is widely disprived yet still called a theory.  Why?  Because at the time it was formed it adeuately explained the current knowledge about space.

ID currently explains everything we know about the origin of species, in some cases better than Darwininian macro evolution.

Plenty of theories that were initially scoffed at and dismissed by people such as yourself and called psuedoscience were later proved to be true.

Don't believe me?  Go look at the history of vacuum theory, aerodynamics, early responses to the Theory of Gravity

[John Dibble]

How do you test evolution?  ANswer: Observational method.

How do you test Intelligent Design?  Answer: Observational method.

First off, I didn't mention intelligent design - I mentioned creationism. Second, you can't observe an invisible hand guiding the evolutionary process. ID and evolution, whichever may be true(if either), would appear the exact same on the surface of things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reread the definition - there's and 'or' in there you seem to have missed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm quite aware that many theories were scoffed at. The continental drift hypothesis was scoffed at - but mainly because it did not provide mechanisms for moving the continents. When more evdidence was found it became the theory of plate tectonics, which we study today. Heck, a doctor came up with an idea that washing your hands and having clean equipment would be better for patients(specifically, when he did so the babies he delivered had a lower rate of infection and death than with other doctors, but he was scoffed at because he was an ethnic minority in his country, bet they felt dumb later).

The problem with Intelligent Design is that there is one aspect, actually the central and most important aspect, that can not be tested or proven, at least not with any scientific tool that is within our reach(probably we never will be able to get any at that level) - it can not show the invisible hand that guides the process actually exists. I won't deny the possibility of the existence of such a hand in evolution, but if it can't be proven in the slightest then Intelligent Design will not be given theory status - it can only be hypothesis at best.

[angus]

"Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion
I was soaring ever higher
But I flew too high

Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreaming
I can hear them say

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man, well
It surely means that I don't know

On a stormy sea of moving emotion
Tossed about I'm like a ship on the ocean
I set a course for winds of fortune
But I hear the voices say

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more"

  --KANSAS


this mullet-rock moment was brought to you by God and angus.

I'm sure this is a matter that the good people of Kansas can sort out without any help from all of us.  As for the invisible hand, I think that was adam smith's idea, and it certainly had more to do with economic Rightism than with intelligent design.  I think if I lived and paid taxes in Kansas I'd be irate.  being as how I don't, it's really none of my business now is it.  it's kinda like the French banning skullcaps, crosses, and scarves from their public schools.  Maybe I have an opinion about it, but my opinion about it is about as relevant as the average Frenchman's opinion of George Bush is.  I.e., not at all.

[John Dibble]

Well, I was using the 'invisible hand' as reference to the designer in ID - I thought it was an appropriate metaphor.

Anyways, just remember angus - federal money goes into education, and you pay taxes on that.