Challenge: Evolution Debate in the US settled

[Adamanteus]

This may come as an amusing shock to non-Americans, but in the US, there is a considerable lobby of Creationists who have been trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution from public schools. For the most part, they have been unsuccessful, although in some rural areas they have had success. This lack of success doesn't appear to have slowed down their efforts and the evolution "debate" still continues in some states like Georgia, Kentucky, and Kansas. It has been blamed for the poor quality of science education of Americans.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a way in which the issue is finally put to rest and evolution remains solidly in US public education.

[wkwillis]

There are humans, bonobo chimpanzees, west african chimpanzees, and east african chimpanzees. Bonobos look slightly different, and west/east african chimpanzees look completely identical but are as genetically distinct as bonobos and humans.
None of the four chimpanzee species can interbreed. With humans it's because we have the wrong number of chromosomes, with the chimpanzees it's other reasons. Maybe the west and east african chimpanzees can interbreed. We don't have data because it's new, just a few years old. It might be found to be wrong at any time because if the west and east african chimpanzees can interbreed then they are really one species.
There are reports of a new primate species in africa that lives in trees and is taller and thinner than regular chimpanzees. This report may be true or may not be true. It has only been spotted by natives and never photographed. It's what is called a cryptozootic. Dragons are cryptozootic, but so were okapi, barking deer, etc.
If it is real and if it has 26 chromosomes we may be able to interbreed. We may in fact be the hybrid of this hypothetical tree chimpanzee and sea chimpanzees as hypothesized by Hardy, et al. For those who came in late, some of the weird things about humans vs other primates and monkeys, etc, can be explained by the aquatic ape hypothesis.
This would be a very direct example of evolution. We would not merely have discovered this new chimpanzee, but by extension we would have discoverd the sea chimpanzee, even if it is extinct.
We also would be able to compare the tree chimpanzees with people and discover the genetic areas that made us intelligent, and then transplant them into regular chimpanzees. Imagine an intelligent being that can bench press 1500 pounds! We might also increase our genetic diversity by swapping non critical parts of our genome for new stuff, so maybe we could make humans that could benchpress 1500 pounds, like a regular chimpanzee!
The antievolutionists would freak.

[Adam Parsons]

Well, you always could make education a responsibility of the federal goverment and have it ram it down everyone's throats. This may be a bit too awkward though.

[Dunash]

On the other hand ,there have been some recent works by non-Christians that have been devastatingly critical of the theory of Evolution. What test would fatally disprove Evolution? The idea of billions of years for the age of the Earth is required because Evolution purportedly requires vast aeons in which to even begin to operate. The YECs hold the Earth to be only thousands of years old. What evidence might confirm that? And with what result on education & society?

[Norman]

What amazes me about this argument is the hypocracy of the politicians who allow school boards to seriously entertain the concept of 'creationism' as a science.

Additionally, I do not understand how people who believe in an infinite God can turn to a book with X number of pages, and state with a straight face, "Here is everything we need to know about God's Creation."

[Dunash]

It's not as though Creation Science doesn't have evidence to support it, researched by top PHDs from MIT & Harvard, at least as equally well qualified as Evolutionists. As the question of origins is so important, since both are only theories, why not present CS equally with Evolution, like a course in Comparative Religion?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/faculty.htm

[DominusNovus]

Well, remember that Evolution is still a theory and not a law (like the Law of Gravity). The kinks still aren't worked out yet. For example, many school's still teach interphylal evolution, which is completely unsupported by the fossil record (which shows that all the current phyla appeared at the same time). Maybe if we got the whole thing worked out, there would be less debate?

Or, as I always like to say, if everyone started reading Gerald Schroeder, the whole debate would fizzle. :D

[David Howery]

The biggest problem with Creationism as science is that it goes about the scientific process backwards. Theories are supposed to be formed due to observations; i.e., you see X event happen, form the theory of X to explain why it happened, do research to see if the theory is right. Creationism, though, already has an end goal before any science is applied to it; it wasn't developed as a result of observation. Thus, creationist 'data' will always be suspect because the Creationists have an agenda to make their data fit their desired end goal. To be honest, nothing I've read about Creationist 'facts' strikes me as all that convincing. Most of it involves picking holes in the theory of evolution (which, to be fair, does have a few). From any pure scientific standpoint, the evidence for evolution over creationism is overwhelming. I've always thought of creationism as someone looking at an abnormal leaf on a tree and then denying the tree exists....

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It's not as though Creation Science doesn't have evidence to support it, researched by top PHDs from MIT & Harvard, at least as equally well qualified as Evolutionists. As the question of origins is so important, since both are only theories, why not present CS equally with Evolution, like a course in Comparative Religion?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/faculty.htm

I assume you're joking with this. I sincerely hope you are joking with this.

[David Howery]

One of the unspoken but assumed parts of Creationism is that if it was proven to be true, it would prove the Christian version of religion and creation. I always wondered just why this would be... all Creationism would prove was that the world was created by.. someone. Maybe the Hindus would have it right... maybe the Buddhists would be right. There are dozens of Native American and African religions... maybe one of them would be right. Heck, I could make up my own religion and say that Elvis created the world, and it would be just as right :D
I always thought that if I was one of those teachers in the south someplace who was forced to teach Creationism, I'd base it on some obscure religion like voodoo or Aztec....

[DominusNovus]

One of the unspoken but assumed parts of Creationism is that if it was proven to be true, it would prove the Christian version of religion and creation. I always wondered just why this would be... all Creationism would prove was that the world was created by.. someone. Maybe the Hindus would have it right... maybe the Buddhists would be right. There are dozens of Native American and African religions... maybe one of them would be right. Heck, I could make up my own religion and say that Elvis created the world, and it would be just as right :D
I always thought that if I was one of those teachers in the south someplace who was forced to teach Creationism, I'd base it on some obscure religion like voodoo or Aztec....
Well, the thing about Genesis Creationism is that its one of the more believable creation stories. Besdies, the creation has been proven to be true. People just have to reconcile with the fact that it happened 15 billion years ago.

[Nosb]

This may come as an amusing shock to non-Americans, but in the US, there is a considerable lobby of Creationists who have been trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution from public schools. For the most part, they have been unsuccessful, although in some rural areas they have had success. This lack of success doesn't appear to have slowed down their efforts and the evolution "debate" still continues in some states like Georgia, Kentucky, and Kansas. It has been blamed for the poor quality of science education of Americans.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a way in which the issue is finally put to rest and evolution remains solidly in US public education.

STOP it. Everybody likes to call poor, little Kentucky backwards. My home state isn't that rednickish. In my high school science book evolution was presented in a chapter called "the theory of Evolution" just by adding that "theory" part seemed to satisfy any creationists in my school, since I never noticed them.

There was an attempt by a school book review board to ban any use of the word "evolution" in a rural town's school books, but it was shoot down by both teachers’ and parents’ organizations and by the state government.

[Straha]

I assume you're joking with this. I sincerely hope you are joking with this.

he's not joking about it. He also said that he'd kill any turks he saw on sight...

[David Howery]

"Well, the thing about Genesis Creationism is that its one of the more believable creation stories. Besdies, the creation has been proven to be true. People just have to reconcile with the fact that it happened 15 billion years ago."

True, the Bible has beautiful prose; I read parts of it off and on. However, trying to pass off Creationism as science simply won't work. Even if you could prove that the universe was created a few thousand years ago, that still wouldn't prove that any particular religion is more correct than any other....

[MerryPrankster]

The Biblical Creation story and the evolutionary process are basically the same (the birds and fish being created before land animals is a mistranslation--a better translation is "Great reptilian creatures" and guess what those might be?); the Hebrew word used for "Day" (yom ) is used for "lengths of time" and not just "day."

Therefore, the Bible story could be a "Reader's Digest Condensed Books" version of the scientific origin of the universe. Remember, Moses had stuff to do besides write stuff down.

True, the "Intelligent Design" theory only states that SOMEONE is guiding the development of the world. It could be Jesus, Allah, Buddha, the Great Pumpkin, etc.

[Michael E Johnson]

This months issue of Skeptic magazine has some interesting articles refuting creationist claims.



http://www.Skeptic.com

ABOUT THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY AND SKEPTIC MAGAZINE
The Skeptics Society is a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas and the promotion of science. Our mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.

The Skeptics Society sponsors a monthly lecture series at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA. The lecture tapes are available in both audio & video for a modest fee. Every year we also host a scientific conference centered around a major theme. The conference is especially popular with out-of-towners who enjoy the opportunity to exchange ideas with other like-minded individuals, and the opportunity to meet the conference speakers.

In addition to our lecture and conference speakers and the cutting edge articles in Skeptic magazine, we also maintain a catalogue of scientific and skeptical books that are discounted for members.

We welcome your donations

The Skeptics Society is a member-supported 501(c)(3) nonprofit scientific and educational organization. While we are largely supported by membership/subscription fees and tape and book sales, we do welcome tax-deductible donations. Your donation dollar goes a long way since we are volunteer organization with very low overhead.

Here is what some readers have had to say about Skeptic magazine:

“…the best journal in the field.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University

“…stimulating and provocative…”
—Carl Sagan, Cornell University

“…a first rate job promoting…science & rationality
—John Rennie, Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

“One of the top 10 best new publications.’’
—Library Journal

“clearly superior…gutsy!”
—Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University, winner of two Pulitzer prizes

Each issue of Skeptic covers a special theme in depth, and also a wide variety of social, scientific, and pseudoscientific controversies by top experts in the field. There is an extensive reader forum feature where our readers can voice their ideas at length. Book reviews and a news section keep our readers on top of the latest developments in the field. Skeptic is an international publication from Millennium Press, also available to institutions as well as university, college, and public libraries. Skeptic is carried by all major bookstore chains in the U.S. and around the world. Special topics have included:

• Can History be a Science?
• The God Question
• The Environment
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Evolutionary Ethics
• Holocaust Revisionism
• Conspiracy Theories
• Cryonics
• The Recovered Memory Movement
• Pseudomedicine—homeopathy, therapeutic touch
• God and Cosmology
• IQ, race & Intelligence
• HIV-AIDS Skeptics
• Evolution & Creationism

[DominusNovus]

Perhaps you might have copied the article instead of putting up a review?

[Mark]

Having been involved in many discussions about creationism and evolution, most of the "creationists" I have met don't really care. They are much more upset by atheists claiming that science has eliminated God. If some of the most ardent proponents of "Evolution proves you wrong" would it tone down, it would help.

As for the creationists who do care, not much will change their views. During a question & answer sessions, I asked one of the ICR guys a question concerning an area of geology I know well. His answer caused my roommate (a library of science major with a social studies background) to laugh out loud.

Evolution (life has changed through time) is as well supported as gravity. The causes/details of evolution are debated. But then, what causes gravity and how does it relate to the other forces? Calling one a theory and the other a law is misdirection.

[Paul Spring]

wkwillis - Chimpanzees can bench press 1500 lbs? I thought that it was the gorillas that were really strong. Chimpanzees are somewhat smaller on average than humans - how do they get that much strength in a fairly small body?

[MerryPrankster]

"how do they get that much strength in a fairly small body"

Muscle as a greater proportion of the body, perhaps, or maybe their muscle structure is different--more strength per pound. I'm fairly certain chimps are stronger than humans.

[NHBL]

but the correctness of evolution vs creation science isn't the question that was posed. The original question was what it would take to put the issue to rest in the US school systems.
Personally, I doubt that it can be put to rest--many (not all, but many, IMHO,) won't be put off of their attempts to put their religion into the schools by anything so trivial as facts, no matter what should come out in the future.

[Adamanteus]

but the correctness of evolution vs creation science isn't the question that was posed. The original question was what it would take to put the issue to rest in the US school systems.
Personally, I doubt that it can be put to rest--many (not all, but many, IMHO,) won't be put off of their attempts to put their religion into the schools by anything so trivial as facts, no matter what should come out in the future.

I've just run through all the responses and found that only a couple of them actually answer my original question. It seems that a disturbingly large number of people (for this website) actually have bought into Creationist propaganda.

Let me be more explicit. Only in the US is creationism a significant political force. There is a good reason for this, and I'd like to know why. Let me also add that creationism has no scientific merit. It is purely a religious movement, with a political interest in subverting public education.

In the US, creationists have virtually no voice in university science departments. They only have power in public schools, where the decisions of curriculum are concluded by school boards, who are often either politically appointed, or are elected directly. In some communities, there are a vocal minority of parents who make a big fuss over this (usually at the prompting of either a local minister or an organization like the ICR), and school boards get scared that the parents will take it further. They don't want any trouble, and want to keep their jobs, so they just cave in.

So perhaps it's true what one poster said. Remove the states from the responsibility of school curricula and make it a federal responsibility.

[DuQuense]

Jehovah Returns from his Grand Tour of the Galixcy, to see what his Toys are up to. Seeing the debate -Jehovah annonuces in a booming voice heard around the world, That Yes he had Built the Toy House.

[MerryPrankster]

"So perhaps it's true what one poster said. Remove the states from the responsibility of school curricula and make it a federal responsibility."

That would probably be unconstitutional. Plus, the potential for abuse grows the more centralized ANY governmental system becomes.

I'd rather have a few places teaching dubious scientific theories than the federal government dictating the content of schoolbooks down to the local-local-local level and possibly using that for totalitarian ends.

Remember, "power corrupts." Do you want any US President removing a predecessor from history books all over the country (just like Stalin cut Trotsky and others out)? Would you trust him (or her) with that kind of capability?

[Max Sinister]

Do you think such a president could actually be elected in the US without 1) anybody noticing what he's up to (who could warn the people) and 2) the Supreme Court or others stopping him? If yes, I'd say the state of democracy in the US ain't too good...

I feel sorry for the kids in Kansas whose chance to have a scientific career is spoiled because some wackos want it that way.

[Melvin Loh]

WI the 'Monkey Trial' in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925 between William Jennings Bryan representing the Biblical Creationism side and Clarence Darrow representing the ACLU and entertaining the Evolutionary side, had developed more conclusively for 1 side or the other ? WI esp Bryans hadn't fallen into Darrow's trap, when the former was on the witness stand, of allowing for the possibility of 'millions of yrs' in interpreting the Bible, and WI bryan had managed to deliver the powerful Evolution-demolishing closing address he'd drafted, instead of being prevented from doing so by Darrow's waiving of his right to a closing address ?

[Max Sinister]

What is this "powerful evolution-damaging closing address" supposed to be?

[Melvin Loh]

Apparently, Bryan had prepared a very well thought-out close addressing each and every major Evolutionist argt- I haven't read it myself, this is according to an episode of THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE I saw last wk. He actually had this closing address published as a short book some time after the trial of John Scopes (for teaching Evolution and using textbooks advocating Evolution in contravention of Tennessee law) concluded.

[NapoleonXIV]

It is an interesting question because the fact that this controversy doesn't happen in many non US nations might indicate a real flaw in the US educational system which should be addressed. What it really is I can't guess because I know very little of non-US educational systems.

What I think might work would be a recognized standards organization for curriculums and textbooks. Sort of like the Accreditation Board for Schools or like the United Laboratories. This would be composed like all of them are and have the standard safeguards against corruption (i.e. pretty much even representation of all relevant interests and sponsorship by several large institutions who do business on their integrity). It would examine and approve or not approve curriculums and textbooks, it might or might not suggest changes, but would not write either curriculums or textbooks

(I think that there was some controversy involving creationism being taught as a viable alternative, and the Accreditation Board removing their accreditation from one or another school system but I may be wrong here. In any case the AB is not working if prevention of this controversy is one of its functions)

The hard part would be in getting people to accept it. A hallmark of such organizations is that the requirement that they be used is pretty much voluntary. Its mainly enforced by the public's belief in, and industry requirement of, their approval.

I can see the religous/rightist interests calling them a "left-wing secular humanist, conspiracy of communist professors," etc. but remember "against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain"

[Dunash]

Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism as an explanation of origins are science in the sense that neither has ever been observed actually taking place. Contrary to myth, no true evolution - not Darwinian, not Neo-Darwinian, not Lamarckian, not Macro,not Micro, not Gradualist, not Punctualist, not Convergent, not Dawkinsian etc - has
ever been observed. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a scientific fact are great con-men, and the story they tell is the greatest hoax ever. They do not have one iota of fact" (Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Director, US Atomic Energy Commission).

[Raymann]

I say creationism is wrong, but what is even more wrong is having the federal government force its beliefs on the states and parents. Why should someone in Washington have anything to say about how parents what their children taught in Florida? Whether or not is right is irreverent, its not their choice and should never be.

[David Howery]

Dunash> that's all true, and it should be presented as a theory... the most likely theory, but a theory. Of course, the same is true for a lot of science... we think we know about space, atomic physics, electricity, etc., but a lot of it is theorizing because we can't directly observe it. For that matter, a lot of history is conjecture as well, especially ancient history... a lot of this depends on a handful of written records or oral history that was written years or centuries after the fact... that's hardly absolute fact, but it's all there is to go on. I suppose a lot of what is taught should be prefaced with "We think this is what happened..."

[NapoleonXIV]

Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism as an explanation of origins are science in the sense that neither has ever been observed actually taking place. Contrary to myth, no true evolution - not Darwinian, not Neo-Darwinian, not Lamarckian, not Macro,not Micro, not Gradualist, not Punctualist, not Convergent, not Dawkinsian etc - has
ever been observed. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a scientific fact are great con-men, and the story they tell is the greatest hoax ever. They do not have one iota of fact" (Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Director, US Atomic Energy Commission).

Then how do you explain diseases becoming resistant to antibiotics?

[Dunash]

Antibiotic resistant diseases are not examples of evolution.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm

[Michael E Johnson]

---Jehovah Returns from his Grand Tour of the Galixcy, to see what his Toys are up to. Seeing the debate -Jehovah annonuces in a booming voice heard around the world, That Yes he had Built the Toy House.----


Wow we have a Deist here.Seriously,speaking as a recovering Baptist, the real reason that evolution is so resisted by theists is that it flys in the face of their belief of an "activist" god thats involved in everything. If evoultion is true,then if their god is real, hes indifferent at best and asleep at the wheel at the worst.Personally, I think the best evidence for a "god" thats not involved is recorded human history.If god is out there and cares for his "creation" he has done a piss-poor job with showing it.And please dont blame it on Satan-which as gods creation cant do anything that god doesnt let him do. Accepting creationism as truth despite all the evidence against it cant be done without turning off a part of your brain.It's one of the main reasons ( of many reasons) that many Christians,myself included,leave that faith. However as long as the United States remains the bastion of fundamentalism it is this will still continue to be a "debate".


PS- do the Muslims also teach a form of creationism? I wouldnt be surprised.Speaking of god screwing you over-once againn 100's of Muslim pilgrims were killed in a stampede during their Hajj ritual in Mecca where they symbolically stone the devil.This is nearly a yearly occurrance!! "God" usually lets these 3rd world types die from starvation,disease,war or natural diasters-but from stoning the devil? Jehovah you got alot of splannin' to do :eek:

[MerryPrankster]

"Do you think such a president could actually be elected in the US without 1) anybody noticing what he's up to (who could warn the people) and 2) the Supreme Court or others stopping him?"

Nixon and Clinton both used the IRS as a political weapon, plus Clinton had Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the episode with Elian Gonzalez, as well as unconstitutional wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

"If yes, I'd say the state of democracy in the US ain't too good..."

50% voter turnout is considered "high." Now we haven't gotten to the point where (like in many European states), expressing certain views is criminal ("anti-hate"), but with the Patriot Acts (#1 AND #2) and various other shenanigans, it looks like it CAN happen here.

Bush isn't Hitler, but he could very well be a Paul Von Hindenberg, setting the stage for someone far WORSE to come along later.

"do the Muslims also teach a form of creationism"

I think every religious faith has some notion of how the world came to be. The Greco-Roman religion apparently held that the universe was eternal and that the universe in fact created the gods, but that's a minority view (there are only a few Greco-Roman believers in the world).

[DominusNovus]

---Jehovah Returns from his Grand Tour of the Galixcy, to see what his Toys are up to. Seeing the debate -Jehovah annonuces in a booming voice heard around the world, That Yes he had Built the Toy House.----


Wow we have a Deist here.Seriously,speaking as a recovering Baptist, the real reason that evolution is so resisted by theists is that it flys in the face of their belief of an "activist" god thats involved in everything. If evoultion is true,then if their god is real, hes indifferent at best and asleep at the wheel at the worst.Personally, I think the best evidence for a "god" thats not involved is recorded human history.If god is out there and cares for his "creation" he has done a piss-poor job with showing it.And please dont blame it on Satan-which as gods creation cant do anything that god doesnt let him do. Accepting creationism as truth despite all the evidence against it cant be done without turning off a part of your brain.It's one of the main reasons ( of many reasons) that many Christians,myself included,leave that faith. However as long as the United States remains the bastion of fundamentalism it is this will still continue to be a "debate".


PS- do the Muslims also teach a form of creationism? I wouldnt be surprised.Speaking of god screwing you over-once againn 100's of Muslim pilgrims were killed in a stampede during their Hajj ritual in Mecca where they symbolically stone the devil.This is nearly a yearly occurrance!! "God" usually lets these 3rd world types die from starvation,disease,war or natural diasters-but from stoning the devil? Jehovah you got alot of splannin' to do :eek:

Yeah, the idea of an activist God never fit with me. My opinion is He's (not the God has a gender, but I'm not gonna call the Creator of the Universe an it) a kinda Wu Wei guy, you know, lazy fair. :D Gives me an excuse to sit on my ass all day.

Muslims definately believe in creationism. Hell, the extremists probably have evolution on their list of why the US is the "Great Satan".

[MerryPrankster]

"Hell, the extremists probably have evolution on their list of why the US is the "Great Satan"."

bin Laden sent an "open letter" to the West (that few in the US have read; I found it in a British paper) denouncing us for, in addition to the more well-known grievances like US troops in Saudi Arabia, homosexuality, lending at interest, "licentious" women (probably voting, driving cars, and not wearing tents), allowing men, not God, to determine laws (basically not being a theocracy), and various other things that we would need to give up to avoid war with "the Islamic nation." Evolution could be there, though I'll have to go find the letter again to see what exactly he said.

[NapoleonXIV]

Antibiotic resistant diseases are not examples of evolution.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm

As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
So apparently, evolution does not exist unless a new species is introduced by every change?? Even Darwin didn't say that, evolution is the sum product of many small changes over time

Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance.
No argument here, this is, as I understand it, the process of natural selection. However, please note that the previous words also say this resistance is a GAINED trait
Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic.
Now its a lost trait, oh well, half empty or half full
No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
Please explain how the previous words imply anyone knows that the mentioned resistance to antibiotics involves the loss of genetic material. While you're at it please explain how this proves/disproves evolution. Evolution can't involve the loss of things?? So snakes losing their legs disproves evolution??

A new line of research has produced tantalizing results.Oh God!! Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress.
Please do an Internet seach on Lysenko and/or Lysenkoism
This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place,
Evolution is the changing of one species into another throught the culmination of "minor changes" over time. You've admitted the process exists but eliminated time from the equation. Since we dont have lifespans in excess of 10000 years we must extrapolate. If you're going to say that this means noone has ever observed evolution changing a microbe into a frog then I guess you're right. Please, however, do a search on Robert Occham
but not true evolution.

[Mark]

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, many conservative American Christians had little problem with an old Earth or evolution of existing life. The problem was how to get the first organisms and whether the evolution is directed. During the Fundamentalist-Modernist battles, evolution became a test of belief. One way to reduce the influence of creationist (and here I mean the strict forms, not God-directed evolution) thought would be to have something else become the litmus test for the Fundamentalists. Perhaps psychology (or one of the schools therein).

One note - referencing professors/PhDs/MDs as against or for evolution without giving their backgrounds is simply calling on their authority and has NO scientific value. An atomic scientist will generally have as much right to authoritatively pronounce on evolution as a paleontologist has to authoritatively pronounce on nuclear processes.

[Grimm Reaper]

Settle the debate over evolution?

About time someone took care of them godless atheists trying to peddle their devil-theories to raight thinking church going moon-shine enjoying decent folk!

OOPS! Forgot to include either 'pinko' or 'commie'.

Given the current president, how can anyone doubt we are related to the apes, chimps in particular? :D

[Michael E Johnson]

--Given the current president, how can anyone doubt we are related to the apes, chimps in particular---- LOL :)

[Max Sinister]

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a scientific fact are great con-men, and the story they tell is the greatest hoax ever. They do not have one iota of fact" (Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Director, US Atomic Energy Commission).

Hmm, is evolution a greater hoax than creationism? Even creationists have to admit that no man was there to observe it, if their story was right.

[Akiyama]

How about this? Early in the 20th Century, Bible translators, wishing to fit in with modern scientific knowledge about the age of the earth (Creationism wasn't such a big issue in the US before the 1920s) use the word "era" rather than "day" in the English translation of Genesis (so God creates the world in seven eras, not in seven days). This would actually be a more correct translation (as most of the early Church fathers such as Origen or Augustine knew) since the Hebrew word here translated "day", when used without a definate article means "indefinate period of time" (the same way a phrase like "in King Harold's day" wouldn't refer to a single 24 hour day) and in Genesis it *is* used without the definite article.

Since modern translations of the Bible, including the New International Version used by Evangelical Christians, would no longer appear to claim that the earth was created in a literal seven days of twenty-four hours, evolution might become a non-issue in the US, the way it is everywhere else in the Christian world (or was until recently, with US evangelists being fixated on the issue and wanting to spread the good news that Darwin was wrong to other nations). More likely, creationism would still exist, but it would be "old-earth" creationism rather than "young earth" creationism.

Alternatively, what if some genius comes up with a good solid theory reconciling biblical creation with scientific evolution, and the theory of original sin with our being descended from apes (I know there are LOTS of Christian scientists today with ideas as to how this is possible), and, say, publishes a best selling book on the topic that gets his ideas accepted into mainstream Christian American thought (let's say in addition to being well read in both science and theology he's a brilliant writer with a talent for self-publicity and a modicum of luck).

Alternatively, conservative Christianity could go into a decline. Liberal Christians today are mostly rubbish at converting and inspiring people, but this doesn't have to be the case. Look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers - an extreme liberal (for his time) who inspired thousands to reject the established Church and re-dedicate their lives to Jesus. How about a liberal religious revival sometime in American history?

[Michael E Johnson]

---would no longer appear to claim that the earth was created in a literal seven days of twenty-four hours, evolution might become a non-issue in the US, the way it is everywhere else in the Christian world (or was until recently, with US evangelists being fixated on the issue and wanting to spread the good news that Darwin was wrong to other nations). More likely, creationism would still exist, but it would be "old-earth" creationism rather than "young earth" creationism. ----


Even some "old-Earth" or intelligent design creationists are loath to admit Earth is as old as scientists believe it is.And while they often "accept" microevolution they wont acknowledge that the principals of natural selection,mutation,symbiosis,preferential selection,genetic drift and macroevoultion all come along with it-in other words the theory of evolution :eek:

[Mark]

I think there are two options to reduce/eliminate the strict creationists. Either the Modernist/Fundamentalist split needs to be avoided or Fundamentalists need to choose a different litmus test for orthodoxy.

One major problem with using a new Bible translation is that the King James Version was The Standard. Even in the 1980s, I met someone who argued that KJV was the only true English-language Bible. I also remember people questioning the use of the Revised Standard Version, which is generally considered more "literal" than the NIV. So a new translation won't satisfy the Fundamentalists.

I still think psychology or sociology had the potential to become a litmus test. Perhaps an earlier Margret Mead type of person?

[gianluca790]

Those who are most qualified are usually the ones who get elected. It is only the Christian Patriots who believe that there is a Communist conspiracy to subvert the values of good old fashioned Whites with Atheistic Socialist Science. The American Patriots probably believe all scientists think in terms of extremely racist National Socialism. The Christian Fundamentalists who believe in the Originalist Constitutional viewpoint are the ones who think that Theocracy is better than Democracy. The Divine Right of Kings is based on this concept. Just replace King with President and you know what it is that these militant extremists believe. I do not want any of those people anywhere near the levers of power.

[Max Sinister]

Hey gianluca,

excessive thread-bumping is one thing, but your last posting sounded pretty confused. I don't like the creationists either, but what you say isn't the best advertising for scientific worldview.

[oudi14]

Only time will make this controversy go away. About 400 years ago, when Gallileo invented his telescope and discovered the Jovian moons, he advanced the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. And then the church freaked out in a major way. It was accepted doctrine then that the earth was the center of the universe, and everything else revolved around it. Galileo was thrown into jail, declared a heretic, and this charge was only dropped by the vatican in comparatively recent times. Yet today nobody believes that the sun orbits the earth. [some claim the earth is flat, but that's another issue]
But there has not been enough time for fundamentalists to give up their cherished beliefs that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve. I can't think of any new scientific discovery that could sway them, if they can't accept the obvious from what is arlredy out there. Only time will work. I know lots of fundamentalists, and some really hard core ones even claim that Cain married his sister, who followed him to the land of Nod, even though the bible itself admits that there were other people out there [Gen.4:14] Maybe in 200 years nobody will believe in creationism.

[Cavendish]

I am really concerned about how the greatest cultural, economic and geopolitical power in the world is still arguing about science that was accepted long ago by the rest of the world.

What I also find concerning is the marketing of creationism to children. For a child the complexities of cellular biology, ecology and biochemistry are far to difficult to comphrehend, yet a delighfully illustrated picture book showing lions and horses playing with humans and dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden is.
When such ideas are promoted to people at a young age they are going to struggle with understanding more complicated aspects of science.

Oh, and anyone who says that "evolution is just a theory- therefore it can be discounted" is utterly ignorant of science. Evolution is as true, accepted and proven as just about any other aspect in biology, chemistry, physics and other sciences.

All I can say is that the rest of the world looks at parts of the US with their "Jesus Camps" and anti-evolution lobby with a mix of horror and amusement.

[Dave Howery]

I am really concerned about how the greatest cultural, economic and geopolitical power in the world is still arguing about science that was accepted long ago by the rest of the world.

All I can say is that the rest of the world looks at parts of the US with their "Jesus Camps" and anti-evolution lobby with a mix of horror and amusement.

before you get too horrified and worried, realize that these nutters are a distinct minority, and evolution is taught in the vast majority of classrooms...

[Cavendish]

before you get too horrified and worried, realize that these nutters are a distinct minority, and evolution is taught in the vast majority of classrooms...
Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

[Dave Howery]

Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

they do. In fact, they have influence in government far over and above the numbers of people who actually believe in them. But in spite of that, most schools still teach evolution. the main reason the RR has so much influence in the US is that far too many Americans are apathetic about politics in general and don't vote. If the US had voter turnout rates like most other democracies, the moderates would dominate everything...

[Nosb]

Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

True, but local government is strong as well and has more of a say at what is taught at schools then the Federal government. Even in states with a strong religious-right, most people don't believe that local churches should dictate school curriculum. If they do they send their kids to a Catholic or Protestant school - which, on the vast majority, still teach evolution because its required at the state level to earn a high school diploma. School curriculum is decided in a complex way that involves the federal government (to a very small degree), state government, county/school district, teachers organizations and parent organizations. If any one of the last three causes a big enough problem with a curriculum change then it doesn't get done. And most of the school district positions are electable. What happened in a rural county in Pennsylvania is they introduced "Intelligent Design" along Evolution in the school district and all six of the board members that supported it lost their sets the next year and the new board got ride of ID.

Sex Education took years to implement in most schools - its still not taught in a lot of places and in a lot of private schools - in the county despite most state governments and the Federal government pushing for it because of the resistance of parents and some teachers. Sex Ed is still a little bit of a touchy subject and was a volunteer extra-curricular class in my middle school.

Teachers have a powerful sway at what is taught in the classroom both officially (text book and curriculum choices) and unofficially (how something is presented.) Needless to say, teachers in the US are part of the 25% minority that have college educations and are overwhelming smart enough to oppose ID.

Even though ID may, at one point or another, have been taught in a minuscule amount of schools for a very short time with conjunction with evolution Europeans still, on the whole, have more religious tunes to education. I say this purely based on the fact that almost no public schools teach classes on religion with the exception of in a historical context. That said, American education is a national disgrace. Its no wonder that most of our leading intellectuals overwhelming went to private schools (either religious or not) for most of their entire education or to specialized, but highly, highly selective public schools (like Bronx Scientific).

[Dan1988]

There was a program on PBS not too long ago about the Earth's origins and an argument was put forward that evolution could complement creationism and the other way around. This could be the moment.

[Keenir]

Oh, and anyone who says that "evolution is just a theory- therefore it can be discounted" is utterly ignorant of science.

gravity's a theory too.

[Cavendish]

gravity's a theory too.

Indeed it is. A theory in a scientific context is different to your own "theory" on why your favourite sports team isn't doing so well this season. my annoyance is with the "just a" part of that phrase rather than the "theory" part of it.

[Wendell]

Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

But how are you seeing this whole matter being played out there?

[gianluca790]

Hey gianluca,

excessive thread-bumping is one thing, but your last posting sounded pretty confused. I don't like the creationists either, but what you say isn't the best advertising for scientific worldview.

Evolution as the tool God uses to affect change in the world.:rolleyes:

[zoomar]

Well, from a scientific/philosophical perspective, I hope "the debate is never settled." We (scientists and evolutionists) still have a lot to learn and we need to recognize that unanticipated evidence might require us to revise our paradigms.

The problem in the USA is that this debate (as well as other areas of legitimate scientific debate such as climate change) becomes a political football with laypersons attempting to decide the answers. You would need to get rid of the basic American suspicion of "expert authority". This country was founded and settled by people who often rejected and fled the prevailing "expert authorities", both religious and intellectual, of the places they left. They came here because in america, ideally at least, one person's opinion was no better than another's. Thus, as long as there remains at least one crank with a PhD who believes the earth is 6000 years old, a large percentage of americans - even more than a few who accept evolution themselves - will say he or she has the right to have that theory at least mentioned in high school science classes.

[nunya]

This may come as an amusing shock to non-Americans, but in the US, there is a considerable lobby of Creationists who have been trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution from public schools. For the most part, they have been unsuccessful, although in some rural areas they have had success. This lack of success doesn't appear to have slowed down their efforts and the evolution "debate" still continues in some states like Georgia, Kentucky, and Kansas. It has been blamed for the poor quality of science education of Americans.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a way in which the issue is finally put to rest and evolution remains solidly in US public education.
This assumes you CAN conclusively prove evolution,once and for all,which is called "lying".
Also,hate to break this to you,but you dont know jack.About anything.Im not gonna bother shooting down each and ever one of these disprovable cliches,because since you dont have an actual argument here,just a few lines of BS rhetoric,its insnt possible.
I am getting so sick of people posting these political threads I want to give you a hatchet wound to your face.Post ALTERNATE HISTORY.This is not Daily Kos.

[DuQuense]

One of the problems in the Debate is there are three sides in a Bipolar debate, and depending on which two sides are arguing they refuse to accept the third side,
this in spite of each of the three sides using the other in the Debates

Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance.
No argument here, this is, as I understand it, the process of natural selection. However, please note that the previous words also say this resistance is a GAINED trait
Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic.
Now its a lost trait, oh well, half empty or half full
No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
Please explain how the previous words imply anyone knows that the mentioned resistance to antibiotics involves the loss of genetic material. While you're at it please explain how this proves/disproves evolution. Evolution can't involve the loss of things?? So snakes losing their legs disproves evolution??

If you apply the Antibiotic to a virgin population it kills 90% +. if you continue this every couple generations, you get a population where the AB kills less than 10%.
If you come back a couple or more dozen generations later then the AB still only kills 10%, so you use a new AB, and repeat the process.
But if you wait a thousand generations, with our using the First AB, then the First AB can again kill 90%, even if the population is immune to some of the newer AB's

?So does this prove Evolution,? There were changes just not permanent ones
?Does this prove Creationism?, God made the Cell, and nothing could change it.
?Does this prove intelligent Design? All the changes were in the cell to begin with, whe just caused them to Manifest.

To answer the Question, I think a lot of the debate is the same as the Dumbing down of lots of todays School, and the whole academics debate.
Few of us today can pass a 1900's- 8th Grade Exam
http://www.barefootsworld.net/1895finalexam.html,
So to end the Debate ---Either Raise the Eduction level a lot:cool: , or lower it a little bit more:rolleyes: .

One major problem with using a new Bible translation is that the King James Version was The Standard. Even in the 1980s, I met someone who argued that KJV was the only true English-language Bible. I also remember people questioning the use of the Revised Standard Version, which is generally considered more "literal" than the NIV. So a new translation won't satisfy the Fundamentalists.
The funny thing about this --Till about 1870~1880 the "King James Version" was considered the ''Catholic Bible" while most People used the "Protestant" Geneva Bible.

[Adamanteus]

This assumes you CAN conclusively prove evolution,once and for all,which is called "lying".

There's no such thing as proving any scientific theory with 100% certainty. In any case, proving it is irrelevant. No amount of proof would convince religiously minded doubters because they care nothing for evidence, or else they would not believe creationism, which has even less evidence.

I hate to break it to you, but everywhere else in the world but the US, evolution bears no controversy. It is taught quite freely and without any disruption because there is no movement by priests to poison the minds of youth.

[Ian the Admin]

This assumes you CAN conclusively prove evolution,once and for all,which is called "lying".
Also,hate to break this to you,but you dont know jack.About anything.Im not gonna bother shooting down each and ever one of these disprovable cliches,because since you dont have an actual argument here,just a few lines of BS rhetoric,its insnt possible.
I am getting so sick of people posting these political threads I want to give you a hatchet wound to your face.Post ALTERNATE HISTORY.This is not Daily Kos.

Let's see... trolling, personal insults, disrespect toward other members, and even a silly internet threat. This is alternatehistory.com, not Little Green Footballs. You definitely have to behave better than that on this board. I'm kicking you for a week.

[AMBOMB]

It's not as though Creation Science doesn't have evidence to support it, researched by top PHDs from MIT & Harvard, at least as equally well qualified as Evolutionists. As the question of origins is so important, since both are only theories, why not present CS equally with Evolution, like a course in Comparative Religion?
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/faculty.htm
Setting aside the unconstitutionality of your proposal, evolution is both scientific and a fact. Creationism is neither. It's a religious belief. School is where people go to learn facts, not beliefs. Beliefs don't belong in school. Besides, what about all the other creation stories? Do you want to teach them all? There wouldn't be time for anything else.

[AMBOMB]

The Biblical Creation story and the evolutionary process are basically the same (the birds and fish being created before land animals is a mistranslation--a better translation is "Great reptilian creatures" and guess what those might be?); the Hebrew word used for "Day" (yom ) is used for "lengths of time" and not just "day."

Therefore, the Bible story could be a "Reader's Digest Condensed Books" version of the scientific origin of the universe. Remember, Moses had stuff to do besides write stuff down.

True, the "Intelligent Design" theory only states that SOMEONE is guiding the development of the world. It could be Jesus, Allah, Buddha, the Great Pumpkin, etc.
No they're not. The Bible says God created the animals. It doesn't say new species came about through natural selection.

[AMBOMB]

People need to stop calling creationism "creation science." It's not science; it's a religious belief. The term creation science is a misnomer.

[AMBOMB]

WI the 'Monkey Trial' in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925 between William Jennings Bryan representing the Biblical Creationism side and Clarence Darrow representing the ACLU and entertaining the Evolutionary side, had developed more conclusively for 1 side or the other ? WI esp Bryans hadn't fallen into Darrow's trap, when the former was on the witness stand, of allowing for the possibility of 'millions of yrs' in interpreting the Bible, and WI bryan had managed to deliver the powerful Evolution-demolishing closing address he'd drafted, instead of being prevented from doing so by Darrow's waiving of his right to a closing address ?

There's no such thing as an evolution demolishing closing address because evolution can't be demolished because it's true.

[AMBOMB]

It is an interesting question because the fact that this controversy doesn't happen in many non US nations might indicate a real flaw in the US educational system which should be addressed. What it really is I can't guess because I know very little of non-US educational systems.

What I think might work would be a recognized standards organization for curriculums and textbooks. Sort of like the Accreditation Board for Schools or like the United Laboratories. This would be composed like all of them are and have the standard safeguards against corruption (i.e. pretty much even representation of all relevant interests and sponsorship by several large institutions who do business on their integrity). It would examine and approve or not approve curriculums and textbooks, it might or might not suggest changes, but would not write either curriculums or textbooks

(I think that there was some controversy involving creationism being taught as a viable alternative, and the Accreditation Board removing their accreditation from one or another school system but I may be wrong here. In any case the AB is not working if prevention of this controversy is one of its functions)

The hard part would be in getting people to accept it. A hallmark of such organizations is that the requirement that they be used is pretty much voluntary. Its mainly enforced by the public's belief in, and industry requirement of, their approval.

I can see the religous/rightist interests calling them a "left-wing secular humanist, conspiracy of communist professors," etc. but remember "against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain"

It's not because of a flaw in the American educational system. It's because the United States has a lot of brainless fundies who worship a deity like cavemen. I was watching this program on North Korea last night and the people there worship Kim Jong Il like a god. But, our fundies are even worse, because at least their god exists.

[AMBOMB]

Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism as an explanation of origins are science in the sense that neither has ever been observed actually taking place. Contrary to myth, no true evolution - not Darwinian, not Neo-Darwinian, not Lamarckian, not Macro,not Micro, not Gradualist, not Punctualist, not Convergent, not Dawkinsian etc - has
ever been observed. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a scientific fact are great con-men, and the story they tell is the greatest hoax ever. They do not have one iota of fact" (Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Director, US Atomic Energy Commission).

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:2T0rmQqDenMJ:emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm+%22evolution+in+action%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
By the way, I never heard of this guy Tahmisian before reading your message. But hey, if the president can be brainless, why not the director of the Atomic Energy Commission?

[AMBOMB]

I say creationism is wrong, but what is even more wrong is having the federal government force its beliefs on the states and parents. Why should someone in Washington have anything to say about how parents what their children taught in Florida? Whether or not is right is irreverent, its not their choice and should never be.
Evolution is an extremely important concept in biology. It's in the best interest of the United States to have a population familiar with it. Besides, I could easily turn your question around and ask why should parents or states have the right to deny kids the opportunity to learn about evolution?

[AMBOMB]

Antibiotic resistant diseases are not examples of evolution.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm

Oh yes they are. The bacteria that survive the antibiotics reproduce and their offspring are resistant too because they inherited their genes. The fittest survive to procreate.

[AMBOMB]

--Given the current president, how can anyone doubt we are related to the apes, chimps in particular---- LOL :)
That sir, is an insult to apes and I am offended! :D

[AMBOMB]

Basically what you're talking about from an alternate history perspective is a way to make the de-Christianization of America happen sooner. Aside from some ASB timeline, there's really no way to do that. Science finally got the upper hand in the 90's. But, I don't see how it could realistically have happened earlier.

[AMBOMB]

This assumes you CAN conclusively prove evolution,once and for all,which is called "lying".
Also,hate to break this to you,but you dont know jack.About anything.Im not gonna bother shooting down each and ever one of these disprovable cliches,because since you dont have an actual argument here,just a few lines of BS rhetoric,its insnt possible.
I am getting so sick of people posting these political threads I want to give you a hatchet wound to your face.Post ALTERNATE HISTORY.This is not Daily Kos.

Evolution can and has been proven once and for all. Just because some people don't accept it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[dmz23]

Creationists ummmmmmm.Well,you can prove the existance of evolution quite easily.The big chances in animal life,like the evolution of legs or wings take millions of years,but smaller changes can occur quite quickly.For example,new forms of Moths known as Melanics,with dark wings instead of pale ones,evolved in some cities in the space of a few years.The dark forms are harder for birds to see on sooty walls and tree trunks,so they survive better and quickly increase,while the pale ones are found by birds and eaten.Mutation is the beginning of evolution in a species and we see mutations in every species known to science even in humans.The Creationists have not got a leg to stand on,when faced with the solid scientific fact of evolution.Its nice to think that God created us all and Earth has some sort of special place in the cosmic scheme of things,but we are just a small drop in a very large Ocean.

[Wendell]

How exactly does one go about trying to prove creationism, anyway?:confused:

[FletcherofSaltoun]

To solve the creationism v evolutionary debate in the states, one must give the Americans a more European outlook. I dont know of anyone who disbelieves in Evolution(except an african student i know who is a devout christian, and takes it as the literal truth).

[Dave Howery]

That sir, is an insult to apes and I am offended! :D

waste of time... MEJ very publicly and tearfully abandoned this site some time ago,and hasn't been back...

[Wendell]

waste of time... MEJ very publicly and tearfully abandoned this site some time ago,and hasn't been back...

Why did he leave?

[AMBOMB]

waste of time... MEJ very publicly and tearfully abandoned this site some time ago,and hasn't been back...

He posted his goodbye June 16, 2005. The message I responded to is from February 4 of this year.

[Dave Howery]

Why did he leave?

because this site is overrun with conservatives and racists.


Or something like that...

[Dave Howery]

He posted his goodbye June 16, 2005. The message I responded to is from February 4 of this year.

uh... yeah... and he won't see your reply... thus, the waste of time...

[AMBOMB]

uh... yeah... and he won't see your reply... thus, the waste of time...

No, his message was from February 4. In other words, he came back.

[Wendell]

because this site is overrun with conservatives and racists.


Or something like that...

I'd suspect that Ian would justly ban any open racists among our membership. As for conservative, I just don't see it:confused:

[Dave Howery]

I'd suspect that Ian would justly ban any open racists among our membership. As for conservative, I just don't see it:confused:

you're confused because you don't know MEJ. Anyone who disagreed with him was a conservative and a racist...

[Dave Howery]

No, his message was from February 4. In other words, he came back.


...in 2004....

he no come back...

[Wendell]

you're confused because you don't know MEJ. Anyone who disagreed with him was a conservative and a racist...

Okay, interesting.

[AMBOMB]

...in 2004....

he no come back...

Damn, you're right. This thread is old!

[Superdude]

This assumes you CAN conclusively prove evolution,once

There is just as much evidence for gravity as there is for evolution.

Of course, they are both just theories.

Edit: lol, bump

[alt_historian]

Bumpy boingy bouncy bump.

Etc.

Anyway, having read through this, there are some interesting ideas on how to neutralise the creationism / evolution debate.

Sadly, there have been some schools over here in the UK teaching creationism, founded by this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Vardy_%28businessman%29). Despite what the article says, the guy does appear to have a large influence on teaching in the schools. I did see a program - it was Newsnight IIRC - in which they talked to two former pupils at one of his schools who said when it came to science classes they were taught evolution, but only very briefly. Every time it was brought up it was essentially 'well, the government says we have to teach you this, so,' etc. And then the 'teachers' would say 'However, I believe [Genesis], which is true.'

Also, read this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1389500,00.html) (if you have the time).