The NCSE is reporting (via an AP article) that an antiscience academic freedom bill has died in Alabama. These bills are a pox on the country, popping up in state legislatures everywhere. They purport to allow teachers freedom to teach controversies, but that’s creationist slang that really means violating the First Amendment and teaching religion in schools.
The Alabama bill’s cause of death is unclear; the article merely says it was because it didn’t pass in the House where it was introduced. I’d love to hear that the politicians had epiphanies and realized that passing it would irreparably damage students’ ability to learn, but I suspect it’s far more likely to have been due to some arcane parliamentary issue.
And lest you think this kind of garbage is quarantined to the U.S. south, I heard last night after my talk from some college students in the audience that Michigan is considering just such an unconstitutional bill. You don’t get much farther north than that.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It’s the end of the legislative session in Alabama. Bills are dying left and right simply because there isn’t time to pass them.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I really do worry about this stuff, and I wonder if we don’t take it seriously enough as a society.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The USA really has to decide to grow up. All this silliness about the bible and evolution was argued about and decided over a hundred years ago by people who were much more intelligent than the current participants. Nothing new has been added to the arguments since. Evolution is a reasonable explanation for what nature shows us. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the creation of life.
Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”, yet that seems to be the hope of the ID’ers.
From the outside, the USA seems to be starting a collapse into a new dark age. How long will we have to wait before we see Americans burning books on the school house steps?
May 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Still gnawing at this bone, are we? I love it how taking exception to one hallowed concept in biology suddenly means believers are completely Anti-Science!
As if we have issues with physics, astronomy, and chemistry as well! All tools of the devil if you ask B.A.!
May 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Teaching in a southern state, I asked my school’s science department head if there was a policy to deal with these attacks on science from state and local governments. I was told, “We have never thought of it.”
May 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You don’t get much farther north than that.
Some consider Canada to be farther north than Michigan. (And we don’t need Creationism any more than you do
)
May 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Matt:
Science is a process. It is not the data, not the theories, not biology, geology, nor physics. These are all fields that use science to gather data and draw conclusions.
You cannot be partially anti-science. If you disagree with the data and conclusions from one field (biology) without your own valid data, then you have no safe haven in other fields. The scientific method crosses all those boundaries.
In other words, science is not like shopping. You cannot pick and choose which results you like and which ones you don’t.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
@Matt Garrett
1. Science doesn’t *do* hallowed concepts, okay? If the whole of science treats something as pretty-much unbreakable, it’s because nobody’s managed to break it yet, and that resilience gives confidence in using the concept as a tool.
2. “Believers” covers a lot of ground. The ones introducing anti-evolution bills are anti-science, yes. They stand fast on their rock of certainty, and are horrified at the existence of a mental process able to erode it.
3. “As if we have issues with physics, astronomy and chemistry as well!” Well, yes. Can you add philosophy, cosmology, geology and information theory to your list?
May 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Gee, I think I’ll lodge a complaint about somebody’s religion being treated badly. After all, the forum forbids religious discussions except under certain specified exceptions that the tinhorn mods now choose to ignore.
Why shouldn’t the same rules apply here? I think Phil is engaging in some hit-and-run troll activity. After all, has he responded yet? Hmmm? There you have it: He should ban himself.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Who’s religion is being treated badly? Just because anti-science crusaders are being being laughed at (rightly so), how is this against any religion?
May 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
While this is indeed good news, sadly the repeal of the law banning …personal gratification devices, shall we say?… also died in the same manner.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It’s sarcasm, Pleco. Check the links.
One of the aforementioned tinhorns shut down one of my BABB strings because a religionist complained that his/her religion was being impugned. This is not the case unless the complainant’s superstition of choice includes a dogma that UFOs are demonic manifestations.
The tin-horn added a gratuitous comment about suspecting me of “hit-and-run troll activity,” apparently since I had not responded in the five days the post had been up. That isn’t very long for a low-activity string, I have a lot to do these days and there was nothing worth responding to anyway.
I have been a member of that board for over seven years, btw, 4 years longer than the offending moderator.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
[…] via Bad Astronomy […]
May 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Actually, denying evolution also requires denying many findings from those fields as well.
Also, evolution isn’t any more a “hallowed” theory than gravity or germ theory. Like them, it’s merely a correct theory which fits the data available, and the creationists who oppose it are only able to attack it through deception and underhanded political shenanigans, because they have no data and no experiments which disprove it.
Attacking a scientific theory using lies and political manipulation is anti-science. It doesn’t matter which scientific theory one chooses to attack. To attempt to deny a scientific theory by lying about it is anti-science, because deceptive tactics like those used by creationists undermine the very scientific method itself.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Michigan! uh-oh, they’re coming for me! (i live in east lansing)
@Matt Garret
Anyone who demands their holy-book be taught as fact in school, over evolution and an “old Earth,” which lines up with everything we have discovered in geology, biology, DNA, and astronomy is indeed anti-science (and theocratic).
Learn about religion in church, but do not force it on students who would like to learn how the world actually works, and would rather not have their education hi-jacked by a religious agenda.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I wonder if the proponents of this bill have thought through the implications? Since they must provide at least a figleaf of Constitutionality, they cannot limit this newfound “freedom” to Biblical Creationism or even ID.
What happens if a teacher decides to start expounding on, say, the theory that humans were planted here by reptoid aliens as part of their food production program? The proponents of such ideas can claim a scientific rationale as easily as Creationists do and it would have the same protection under the law.
Similarly, if an over-enthusiastic fan of Edith Hamilton wants to tell the kids the Olympian gods are real, who is to say no?
May 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“Some consider Canada to be farther north than Michigan.”
One of my favorite trivia questions!
If you head due south from Detroit, what’s the first foreign country you’ll reach?
May 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
BA: “They purport to allow teachers freedom to teach controversies, but that’s creationist slang that really means violating the First Amendment and teaching religion in schools.”
BA: “And lest you think this kind of garbage is quarantined to the U.S. south, I heard last night after my talk from some college students in the audience that Michigan is considering just such an unconstitutional bill.”
I hate to nitpick here, but a state passing such a law does not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Whether it violates the state’s constitution, I have no idea.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
As a student in a public high school, I’m totally against having religion taught in school. That’s not to say that teaching the backround and history of religions are necessarily bad because they are important to history (for instances, why the Jewish people felt that they had the right to claim Jerusalem and why the Arabs too felt that they also had the right to claim it) and liturature (Shakespeare makes a lot of allusions to Greek mythology so we did read Edith Hamilton before starting Shakespeare).
However, recently in my BioChem class we started evolution. Instead of teaching the class herself, my teacher feet so uncomfortable teaching the unit (because of her religion, and yes she blatantly told the entire class this) that she is instead having the class use the book and make posters to teach each other with. But why should I complain? She the coolest teacher ever, she sometimes even plays her IPod for us while we work! <-Verbal Irony, my English teacher would be so proud!
Needless to say, I learned nothing that I hadn’t been taught last year, read in a book or saw on T.V.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Robbie
>>>”I hate to nitpick here, but a state passing such a law does not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution”
Technically no, since the wording of these “academic freedom” bills say something along the lines of being able “to present the full range of scientific views in regards to biological evolution”. It then goes on to say that teachers will not be punished for presenting those views.
Problem is, there ARE NO scientific “alternatives” to evolution. Unfortunately, if a fundie teacher who does not understand this starts talking about either God (any God) or ID, that teacher will still be in trouble.
Even if the bills where passed and they said that religious alternatives were allowed, I doubt very much that these bills would trump the First Amendment. At which point, it would go to court and the fundies would be in REAL trouble.
But hey, whoever said fundies were smart?
May 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Darth Robo, I have no idea what your point was.
Let me clarify my point. It was simply that the First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law…”. This does not apply to the states since they’re not congress.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Jeffersonianon 10 May 2008 at 4:16 pm
“Some consider Canada to be farther north than Michigan.”
One of my favorite trivia questions!
If you head due south from Detroit, what’s the first foreign country you’ll reach?”
ohh ohh ohh, i know this one, its Indiana, my home state :). just ask my dad, he doesnt recognize michigan as part of the US. though his opinions sometimes are worth one grain of salt
May 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Its really sad and surprising that there are still some ‘educated’ people who do not understand a concept as simple as evolution.And they are adamant-sometime I think why not situations like this nurture the development quite justifiably of a Hitler’s stand to eliminate such elements for humanity’s own good ? How long humanity should be left to tolerate such nonsense in the name of freedom of speech and any tom,dick and Harry’s self boasted right to go on repeating absurdities like that !
May 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Robbie, the 14th Amendment is construed as extending the Bill of Rights to the states.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
um
Sorry to burst someones bubble here
But teaching relgion in public schools is not unconstitiounal
“seperation of church and state” does not exist
There is however something saying “there will be no state sactioned relgion” or something like that
May 10th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
@pat denning
““seperation of church and state” does not exist”
Actually, it does. I recommend doing a little research on the history of the First Amendment and look at some of the letters written by its writers. You will find that a separation of church and state was the intent behind the amendment, for a number of reasons.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
@Robbie,
I think the pertinent part of Amendment XIV that bad Jim is referring to is this:
May 10th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Seems pretty clear to me
May 10th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Minnesota actually has had a few bills introduced by creationists who are grasping at any straw they possibly can reach in order to find some way to teach that evolution is bad. The one they introduced this year never made it out of the education policy committee.
Echoing what Todd W said in reply to Pat Denning regarding the First Amendment, the First Amendment has been determined to be applied to the states through the 14th amendment. Of course, strict constructionists such as Scalia and Roberts and Thomas are not so happy about it and think that this should be changed.
Critical analysis of evolution is how all of science works, and there are a plethora of controversies, real controversies being worked out and investigated. The bills try to fix a problem in science that isn’t really there. The only problems are from people with a narrow view of science who think that evolution is bad because it doesn’t fit their religious interpretation.
Academic Freedom Bills, as written, are indirect attempts to promote a religious viewpoint yet they are too transparent to pass Constiutional muster. The Discovery Institute is going to have to go back to the drawing board.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Here’s a scenario:
Imagine that this kind of bill is passed. Let’s say that a Muslim student disagrees about the teaching of the Holocaust in History class. At this point, this student gets allies: Holocaust deniers. They now go to the board to force the school to “teach the controversy” about the Holocaust.
Thanks to such a law, history classes would have to teach the controversy that states that the Holocaust was either exaggerated or simply a hoax.
I think that there should be one class of science history that explains real controversies rather than the made up ones like “ID/creation/creation science/anti-Darwinism versus evolution.” Let the students see that Science is not so boring and is full of fierce and furious competition. Let them get excited at finding something new about the universe.
Let’s re-introduce curiosity in schools. Oh, but science is awesome. Far better than that paranormal crap.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
How does teaching religion in schools violate the 1st Amendment? You might be a great astronomer, but a Constitutional Scholar, you ain’t:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t? Isn’t that a logical fallacy?
Robert
May 10th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Here’s another, far simpler scenario:
Scientologists use such “academic freedom” bills to sneak their brand of “science controversy” into schools. Can you say “every thing you ever heard of the brain and brain chemistry is wrong. Here’s an alternative theory….”
These kinds of bills are reactionary and expel any intelligence in the process of making them. The results would be messy, and would get far messier than a million-year-old nebula.
Here’s another “teaching the controversy”:
TEACHER: Attention, students, we are coming into a controversial theory on an upcoming subject. I have been told that I must warn you that although it is claimed that the United States of America landed on the moon, there are those who say that their is strong suggestion that such a moon landing did not happen. So, in addition to teaching the controversy against evolution, I have to teach the controversy against the moon landing.
*pause, teacher sighs*
TEACHER: I know that at least one of you kids has a gun, would you please put me out of my misery. Stupid revisionists.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Ad Hominid, there is a rule on BAUT not to discuss mod actions except with the mods. I take a dim view of you bringing it here. A very dim view.
And this blog is not affiliated with BAUT. The rules here are different. Sarcasm or not, I don’t appreciate you complaining here about BAUT, nor calling a mod a tinhorn.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
@ Robert
Well, it doesn’t… teaching religion in public schools that are funded by taxpayer dollars is. Clearly. And that you would even try to make an argument otherwise is simply… well… I’m not gonna sugercoat it… plain ignorant. Not even the DI would try to make that claim. The supreme court has held time and time and time again that any teaching of religion in a public school is in direct violation of the First Amendment. Sooo… are you saying you’re just smarter than the Supreme court? Really? Hmmmm…
Well… see, the problem with your supposition is that you are the one who created it. Not one scientist has ever used falsification of Creationism as a means of proof for evolution. Ther very thought behind such an idea is plainly unscientific. There are literally thousands of volumes of data that present a strong case backing the theory of evolution, and not one of them is centered around falsifying Creationism as a means of proving evolution.
So, to answer your question, yes, it would be a logical fallacy if your assertion were in any way, shape of form true… but since it’s just your own fabrication… no need to answer it.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
@robert
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
That means church and state are separate. If church and state were not separate, then there would be a law that establishes religion or favours one religion over another.
For example, in the UK, Canada, Australia, et al. the head of state is also the head of the church of England… in those countries, religion is established even if it wields little or no power (as in Canada and Australia). In the UK, high-ranking archbishops rate seats in the House of Lords (equivalent to being a senator in the USA, but unelected).
The US, however, forbids that sort of thing through the first amendment.
The topic of disestablishment rears its head in the UK from time to time, and gives rise to the longest non-medical word in the English language: antidisestablishmentarianism which refers to the concept of not supporting separation of church and state.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
To Todd W. and bad Jim: Thanks for mentioning the Fourteenth Amendment, but upon further reading and reflection, I think my point still holds up.
The words you quoted Todd W. don’t seem to apply here and if that is how people take them, I think they do so incorrectly.
Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So the First Amendment clearly states “Congress…” and then the Fourteenth Amendment then states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” Well, a state passing a law respecting an establishment of religion isn’t the US congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion so I don’t see how the Fourteenth Amendment applies here at all.
To put it another way, the First Amendment restricts congress from doing something and the Fourteenth Amendment restricts the states from violating peoples’ rights. I don’t see how they interact in this case.
Again, if these laws violate state constitutions, which they very well may, I have no idea.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
@robert
I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t?
No, evolution scientists aren’t interested in creation at all, at least as far as the science of evolution is concerned.
What scientists of all flavours worry about is that creationism is the thin end of a nasty wedge that, once driven into school cirricula, will start indoctrinating children with anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, religious nonsense that will serve only to send the US back to the dark ages in a way that would make any Muslim extremist proud.
Your statement also seems to reek of projection. It’s creationists that want to prove evolution incorrect. In fact, evolution scientists would WELCOME such proof! All the creationists need to do is come up with some hard, reproduceable, irrefutable evidence and that would simply be the end of evolution. The person who produces such evidence would get a Nobel prize (medicine or chemistry, I’d think). It would be THE scientific breakthrough of the century.
Creationists are making the claim that is contrary to the current immense body of evidence, so the burden of proof is on creationists. Evolution scientists will not care what Creationists think until those creationists start producing scientific evidence.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
And by the way… to those of you pedants making the case that the term “Separation of Church and State” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights…. I would please ask you to stop assuming most of us here are just plain stupid or uninformed.
DUH. We know that particular phrase is not, verbatim, part of the Bill of Rights… nor has anyone made the claim that it is. The phrase is used to refer to the spirit of what the first amendment refers to, as first quoted by Jefferson, and has been used by the Supreme Court when referring to the First Amendment since the late 1800s.
Or here’s an example for those of you of the religious persuasion who might be poo=pooing what I’m trying to tell you: Using the phrase “Separation of Church and State” to descrive the spirit of the First Amendment is no different than using the phrase “The Lord works in mysterious ways”… a phrase which appears no-where in the Bible but has been quoted I don’t know hom many times as Biblical verse. But when you hear it, you get the point… right?
May 10th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
“I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t? Isn’t that a logical fallacy?”
Except it’s creationists who insist on trying to prove that creationism is true by proving that evolution isn’t. The whole push behind the Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom movements has been an attempt to cast doubt on evolution. Scientists don’t need to disprove creationism to validate evolution. The theory holds up well enough on the evidence, something that is lacking on the creationist side.
Perhaps that’s why they have to resort to ad hominem and underhanded legislating to try and push their agenda?
May 10th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Robbie, forgive me if I’m being daft or missing something here, but are you saying that individual states are legally able to ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution and teach religion in public schools?
Robert (the different one)
>>>”I’m just curious, why do evolution scientists insist on trying to prove evolution is true by proving creation isn’t?”
No, that’s what creationists do. You know, “evolution is wrong, so GODDIDIT!”
May 10th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
@ Robbie
Again, stop making the assumption that because you can read the literal transcript on the Bill of Rights, that you are in any way quilified to interpret its legal bearing on US law.
That job belongs the the US Supreme Court. And just like using “Separation of Church and State” as a phrase used to confer the intent of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has long since, and many times over, interpreted the 14th Amendment to imply that the Bill of Rights shall apply to all states.
I know you are trying to make a point or state your case ny quoting word-for-word parts of the Amendments… but unless your are a US Supreme Cpourt Justice, you just aren’t qualified to make arguments by using bits and pieces of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The interpretations made by the Supreme Court are based on a study of the Constitution as a whole, and how each item and bill relates to the others.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Darth Robo: “Robbie, forgive me if I’m being daft or missing something here, but are you saying that individual states are legally able to ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution and teach religion in public schools?”
Not at all. What I’m saying is that the First Amendment does not apply in this case. The states are not violating it.
Celtic_Evolution: “The phrase is used to refer to the spirit of what the first amendment refers to, as first quoted by Jefferson, and has been used by the Supreme Court when referring to the First Amendment since the late 1800s.”
Pet peeve of mine here. Why do people feel the need to rephrase the First Amendment or refer to the spirit of it. The damn part we’re talking about is 16 words long. It doesn’t really need to be shortened or dumbed down. End rant.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Celtic_Evolution that was a beautiful appeal to authority argument. Thank you for making it.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Ugh… so many typos… hurts the eyes…
sorry about that, ladies and gentlemen…
May 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Fine… call it an “appeal to authority” if it makes you feel better… I love it when people start picking off the ol’ “logical fallacy” tree. I guess that’s better than providing an answer to the question, eh?
So first of all, it isn’t “people here” re-phrasing the first amendment. That honor first went to Thomas Jefferson. I know… he couldn’t read 16 simple words either.
My question remains… what makes you think that your ability to read the “16 words” written in the first amendment is somehow more valid than 150 years of upheld Supreme Court interpretation? Pet peeve or not.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
WE’RE WINNING!
May 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Robbie, The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to make the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment apply to state governments and public schools.
These anti-science pro-religion academic freedom bills most definitely violate the First Amendment and if one of these bills is ever passed, there will be a trial, the creationist traitors will lose again, and more taxpayer money will be wasted, just like in Dover.
Then the creationists will rename creationism again, and there will be another trial, and more money will be wasted.
The solution? I suggest hunt down and kill all creationists. Nobody will miss them.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
And by the way, Robbie… Pet peeve of mine… that use of “appeal to auhtority” is tossed around a great deal in here… and I’m not sure using the Supreme Court as an authority on the interpretation of the Constitution (which is its primary function) constitutes a fallacious argument.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Not sure that was called for, BobC… no matter what your position or belief…
May 10th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I called it an appeal to authority because that’s clearly what it was. You stated that since I’m not on the Supreme Court I am not qualified to and shouldn’t even try and interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
“I love it when people start picking off the ol’ “logical fallacy” tree.”
I do too. Aren’t we all about logic here at the Bad Astronomy blog?
“So first of all, it isn’t “people here” re-phrasing the first amendment.”
Let me quote myself to clear my position on this up: “Why do people feel the need to rephrase the First Amendment or refer to the spirit of it.”
I wasn’t just referring to people here. My pet peeve includes Thomas Jefferson in this case.
I see your question as coming from a flawed premise. The way I would ask myself the question is like this: “What makes you think that your ability to read the “16 words” written in the first amendment is somehow more valid than any one else’s interpretation?”
I couldn’t care less whose opinion mine contradicts. To do so would remove logic from the picture.
And the answer to my rephrasing of the question is that I am a reading, thinking, skeptical, analytical person and have every right to question any conclusion or disagree with any opinion I want, regardless of how long it has been held or upheld by whomever.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Robbie, I think you need to look up the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Try wikipedia or something.
Appealing to an authority is NOT a logical fallacy, in and of itself. It is only a fallacy when the authority cited is not a credible source of information for the topic.
As the purpose of SCOTUS is to intrepret the constitution, and it is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on such, it is not fallacious to cite SCOTUS rulings when discussing how the constitution should be intrepreted.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Read that first paragraph. Hell, read the whole thing. Appealing to an authority IS a logical fallacy, in and of itself.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am
For an astonomer you sure are an ignorant jerk.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Man, we just have THE lamest, most ineffectual trolls on this site!
May 11th, 2008 at 2:14 am
As a practical matter, the Supreme Court exists, and its decisions are the law of the land. Appeals thereto are not logical fallacies. A state law or local ordinance contravening the Bill of Rights will not long stand.
It’s true that the court is a political animal, and just what is or is not constitutional varies. We used to tolerate racial segregation. We don’t now, and it wasn’t because the constitution changed. We the people did.
We’ve actually become more relaxed about official endorsement of religion than the founders were. There is no mention of any god in the Constitution (except for thedating of the title) and the convention declined Franklin’s suggestion that they pray for guidance. The creators of this rigorously secular document were not the ones who saddled us with the motto “In God We Trust”, and it’s likely that they would be saddened by the current presidential contenders’ religious panderings.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Evolving Squid: Why did you only quote half of the Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;?”
Celtic Evolution: Could you show me in the Constitution where it gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on whether or not legislation is Constitutional?
I know the answer, but apparently you do not.
For those of you who want to hang your hats on everything the Supreme Court has “decided” perhaps you’d like to explain why Dred Scott was overturned?
FWIW, I don’t want ID taught in schools either, nor do I want my children taught evolution as a fact, especially with such flawed “scientific” discoveries as archaeoraptor. Finding a handful of bone fragments, then declaring a new species, and then explaining what color it was, what noise it made, and what it ate isn’t science, it’s pure conjecture. And I’d bet my brontosaurus on it. Just like the rant on Ben Stein’s picture, the problem isn’t the “science,” it’s the arrogance of the so-called scientists and the inability to see beyond their own spectacles and allow any dissent whatsoever. Natural Selection is quite obviously true, however, interspecies evolutionary steps and the role of evolution in the origin of life just as quite obviously isn’t.
Perhaps, we’ll someday learn the lessons of Sir Isaac Newton, and find a “better” explanation, but until we do, well, at least Albert Einstein was intelligent enough to say “we just don’t know…” As is Stephen Hawking put it: “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.”
So, feel free to slam the door shut in intellectual thinking and “decide” for millions of children what they should learn, however, for some, the Constitutional protections against the establishment of a religion apply to the religion of Evolution also… Just like any other religion, there’s no substantial proof, it’s never been seen, and it’s taken on faith. And even if it is true, you cannot prove that there was absolutely not intelligent design behind it. After all, even the greatest scientific minds today believe that every one alive may have descended from one woman in Africa. http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
The other “theory,” that humans evolved in parallel on different continents turns statistical science on it’s head even more than accidental, spontaneous, creation of life from non-organic matter.
In other words, sure, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, the “Big Bang” are all “exciting” theories, but they’re just that: Ideas dreamed up by big thinkers with no proof or basis in reality. After all of the mental gymnastics one has to go through to apply relativity to the Big Bang, you’d think scientists would have given up on it by now. Most people in the 21st Century should know by now that true science isn’t coming up with an idea and trying to prove it. That’s alchemy. And you can’t call yourself a scientist if you rule out every single possibility and make a conclusion before all of the evidence is in. In other words, the idea that evolution is 100% proven is sophistry at best and disingenuousness at worst, and is simply modern day mysticism.
Robert
May 11th, 2008 at 6:28 am
“Creationist Reality Denial” should be an Olympic sport.
It’s more entertaining than badminton.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Except it’s creationists who insist on trying to prove that creationism is true by proving that evolution isn’t.
That is an argument that is completely lost on creationists. If, through the finding of some truly Earth-shattering evidence, evolution could be disproven tomorrow, it STILL doesn’t mean creationism is true. Because so many creationists are against the scientific method, this simple fact eludes them.
In fact, creationists have a property in their claim that even if it were proven true, would start most creationists frothing-at-the-mouth in anger…
That property is that a god created things… the controversy: which god performed creation?
It’s not enough to determine that a god created life, the universe, and everything. It’s important to know which one. Generally in this sort of debate, it is assumed that the god of creation is Yaweh / I am / Allah, but we all know that Hindus think it was some other god, as did the Vikings, the ancient Greeks and Romans, etc. To say “God created the universe” is an inadequate explanation of creation EVEN FOR A CREATIONIST.
To prove creationism as it is normally presented in North America, it is not only necessary to prove that an invisible sky fairy created everything, but it is also necessary to prove that the sky fairy in question is the particular sky fairy in the Christian bible.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Evolving Squid: Why did you only quote half of the Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;?”
Because that clause is clear and was the subject of the point at hand. “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” refers to people practicing religion, and you are talking about separation of church and state. Those aren’t the same thing and the practice of religion is not the topic at hand.
“establishment of religion” refers to separation of church and state - specifically that some religion is not established as a state religion.
“prohibiting the free exercise thereof” refers to not making laws to prevent people from practicing religion.
This may help: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/established+church
May 11th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Constitutional protections against the establishment of a religion apply to the religion of Evolution also
If you could imagine that there was a religion of Evolution, then yes you could imagine that the establishment clause would apply.
But there is no religion of Evolution, so it does not apply.
You don’t seriously need to be schooled on the whole “is atheism a religion” thing do you?
May 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I had half of a reply to Robert put together in Word before binning in. Not worthy of my time when I have a big report due tomorrow.
Concisely: not even wrong.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I see a Larry Farfarman episode ahead.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:38 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&NR=1
hmmm… I really don’t even know where to begin… i think i detect a hint of sarcasm though…
May 11th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Adrian #2
I hear you… there’s no point in debating with a person who already feels they have a better grasp on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and its proper interpretation than the very judicial body who’s job it is to interpret it.
And Robbie… I can read the Wikipedia definition of “Appeal to Authority” just as well as you can… but apparently unlike you, I can also understand it.
Just incorrect, sir… please see some other references on logical fallacies. Derek and bad jim pointed this out to you, but just as your supreme understanding of the constitution and bill of rights far outweighs what anyone else might tell you, I’m sure you’ll insist your definition is correct.
And ironically enough, your link to Wikipedia to back your statement WAS an actual Appeal to Authority fallacy. In fact, listed among its own examples of fallacious Appeals to Authority is this: “Believing something because it was written in Wikipedia. ” Oh, just wonderful!
Did you catch that, Robbie? Now THAT is an appeal to authority. Thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us!
May 11th, 2008 at 8:10 am
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when the authority being appealed to cannot be held as an expert on the topic at hand. This is an appeal to authority fallacy:
If the president of the United States says evolution is false, evolution must not be true.
It is a typical A-to-A fallacy because it relies wholly on the authority of someone who cannot be reasonably expected to know any more than an average person, let alone be an expert on the subject at hand.
This is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy:
PZ Meyers says there is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution, so a creationist explanation for speciation is not likely true.
This is not an appeal to authority because PZ Meyers is a reknowned biologist, considered to be an expert in that field. He is supposed to know a lot more about that field than you or me. He publishes research in that field, writes articles, and furthers the body of knowledge. We’re supposed to be able to depend on that kind authority to be able to speak intelligently and CORRECTLY on topics within his field of expertise.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Umm… Robbie
It’s not very credible to site Wikipedia. As much I love using Wiki, I haven’t been able to on any report/project/paper since 7th grade. No teacher will even accept my paper if I cite.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Typo-
No teacher will even accept my paper if I cite *Wiki*.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:56 am
With regards to Robert:
If I remember my history of science correctly, creationism was the first theory that the earliest biologists (or the people who did things we would today call biology) worked with, but even before Darwin was born there were many scientists who were dissatisfied with it because it was not consistent with the evidence. Creationism as a scientific theory failed then on its own lack of merit. It fails now for the same reason. It has nothing at all to do with evolution.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
There are three divisions of the US government: Executive, Legislative and JUDICIAL. The function of the judicial is to pass on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws passed by the legislature but that is only done when someone complains about that particular law. In other words, the Supreme Court merely decides the constitutional applicability of arguments presented to it by opponents/proponents of a particular law. They are supposed to be experts on the constitution and its applicability to our current social situation,( which is also, interestingly enough, what a matawa does in Islam,,,).
The law is based upon logic, evidence(gee, why does THAT sound so familiar?) and precedence. When I was in college(in the stone age of the early 1960s) I was presented with a list of 20 questions, from a pop quiz taken by a friend majoring in law. He was trying to show how difficult study of the law was. He was somewhat surprised I was able to answer 3/4 of the questions by merely applying logic to the problems, since I was a physics major with no knowledge of legal precedence.
The PRINCIPLE of separation of church and state is one of the over riding precedents of our legal system. It is an essential part of our ability to get along in a society that has many different religions. NO religious dogma may be allowed to have the upper hand in our society.
The essence of the DiscoTutes arguments is that science is as much a dogma as any religion and should be treated the same way. Fortunately, the law of our land is so oriented to logic and evidence that appeals to precedence(old dogma) are usually repudiated in favor of logic and evidence. Best two out of three rules the day,,,
GAry 7
May 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Creationists have also started to make noise in Maine.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Celtic_Evolution, you are wrong, but let’s read the post before I linked Wikipedia to find out why I did so.
Derek: “Robbie, I think you need to look up the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Try wikipedia or something.”
So what I was doing in that case was using Derek’s own example to prove him wrong. It was quite simple really. It’s the previous post to me linking it. You might want to check that for yourself.
Honestly, this talk about there even being authorities on the Constitution is silly in the first place. It was written as simply and clearly as the authors could make it for a reason. Anyone with a grasp of English and a dictionary can interpret the Constitution and be an authority on it. It was written for the layman.
The reason this works is because, first and foremost, you interpret a law by the words provided and their meaning. You only ever consider things like original intent and precedence when the meaning of the words of the law are unclear.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Furthermore, what some of you have been doing in disagreement with my point is merely changing the subject and not addressing it at all by employing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.
Here’s how it’s gone so far:
Me: “The law in question that was struck down does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.”
Opponents: “The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise therefore you are wrong.”
May 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
It’s a shame that schools aren’t teaching the principles of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
May 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
@ Robbie
Yeah… that’s about right… so what’s the problem? How the heck is our response changing the subject? The subject is, frankly, your completely erroneous statement that the law in question doesn’t violate the constitution. And our response is to point out to you that it does, in that in violates the First amendment, and in doing so as a state, the 14th amendment. You then continue to insist that “nuh-uh, nuh-uh… I READ it. It doesn’t say anything with the words “Church and State in it, so it doesn’t violate the constitution. The Constitution is simple if you just read it and those supreme court idiots just don’t get it.”
So excuse us for feeling a bit exasperated at that point of view, and our attempts to try to point out to you WHY the Supreme Court again and again rules that such a law DOES violate the first amendment and why it’s the Supreme Court’s job to make such rulings regading the constitution.
It is not that we are simply changing the subject… it’s that you still seem to think you are somehow just smarter and more qualified than the Supreme Court to judge on this topic… and I for one find that not only offensively arrogant, but just plain wrong. So I will continue to say as much.
And despite at least 4 of us trying to explain to you otherwise, I still don’t think you truly understand what an “appeal to authrority” falacy is.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Robert
>>>”nor do I want my children taught evolution as a fact, especially with such flawed “scientific” discoveries as archaeoraptor.”
Oh dear. You mean the archeo-raptor which turned out to be two separate fossils that STILL fit with evolution and was NOT found to be fake by Creationists? What are you gonna mention next, Piltdown Man? (snicker, giggle) The reasoning behind the fake fossil was NOT an attempt to prove evolution by creating a fake fossil but for someone to make money off a supposedly unique one. And at the risk of appealing to authority myself, let me point you to this thread:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/05/09/real-controversy-in-evolution/#comments
>>>”Perhaps, we’ll someday learn the lessons of Sir Isaac Newton, and find a “better” explanation, but until we do, well, at least Albert Einstein was intelligent enough to say “we just don’t know…” As is Stephen Hawking put it: “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.”
This the same Stephen Hawking who (if memory serves) is on the list of Project Steve?
>>>”Constitutional protections against the establishment of a religion apply to the religion of Evolution also… Just like any other religion, there’s no substantial proof, it’s never been seen, and it’s taken on faith.”
Perhaps you could tell us what the um, DOCTRINES of evolution are?
>>>”And even if it is true, you cannot prove that there was absolutely not intelligent design behind it.”
Nobody can ever prove that there WAS Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why ID ain’t science.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Add math and statistics (Dembski especially, and more generally confusing unconditional and conditional probabilities by way of the religious anthropic argument).
@ Robert:
As regards to what? He wasn’t a biologist. (And as the saying goes, a creationist quote is a quotemine, so you will have to provide the full context, preferably the reference, before we rely on it.)
But as far as abiogenesis goes you will hear biologists say the same. While the scientific community accepts evolution as the basic theory of biology, independent of abiogenesis.
Besides, “we don’t know yet” is an acceptable answer in empirical science.
Wrong! The concept of matrilineal and patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA @ PRCA) is a statement on populations genomes as all such statements. Moreover, as forward lineages progresses some goes extinct, so the MRCA and PRCA population will change over time. MRCA and PRCA aren’t statements of abiogenesis, they are statements of evolution.
Here is another statement of evolution: humans derive from a common ancestor with modern apes. And as opposed to your claims, we know this.
How is a multiregional evolution after African migration a claim on abiogenesis? After all, humans are currently evolving ” in parallel on different continents”, yet we don’t observe abiogenesis.
You don’t know what scientific theories are any more than validation (not “proof”) nor facts. Theories contains their facts by way of their predictions, and the dependencies means they are more evidenced than any isolated fact.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
There are three obvious problems with these bills.
1) They single out evolution among other sciences.
2) This also forgets that evolution is our best evidenced science by way of the complexity of the process studied, thus so many interdependent observations and mechanisms in evidence.
3) Academic responsibility is the priority in education, not academic freedom. (And the reverse goes for research, which is largely self correcting due to the market of ideas mechanism used.) You can’t responsibly analyze and discuss the current questions in sciences before teaching the basics.
IANAUC (I Am Not A US Citizen) but singling out a religion shouldn’t be any better than “academic freedom” bills singling out a science. Considering freedom for religion it is actually much, much worse when people from one religion are repressed by another.
And in no nation is it responsible to teach religion, such as creationism, in science class.
However, in Europe you can teach religion in comparative religion classes from early on. As long as religious teachers don’t push their own religion there is no problem.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
“2) This also forgets that evolution is our best evidenced science by way of the complexity of the process studied, thus so many interdependent observations and mechanisms in evidence”
The obvious problem with that is that it simply isn’t true! There are MANY more branches of science that are much better understood and documented and contain much less conjecture, and um, well, faith.
“Nobody can ever prove that there WAS Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why ID ain’t science.”
Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.
See, it works both ways, I believe that is called “hoist on your own petard.”
Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God? Perhaps because it threatens your own ideas of intellectual and moral superiority? Perhaps because it doesn’t allow you complete “freedom of will?” Perhaps simple arrogance or ignorance?
So, apparently, all of you are SOOOOOOOOOO incredibly smart that anything you believe MUST be true, and anything you disagree with MUST be wrong! Hmmm? Isn’t that really what you’re saying?
Robert
May 11th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Celtic_Evolution: “You then continue to insist that “nuh-uh, nuh-uh… I READ it. It doesn’t say anything with the words “Church and State in it, so it doesn’t violate the constitution. The Constitution is simple if you just read it and those supreme court idiots just don’t get it.””
Hello straw man. How about you stop employing logical fallacies in every post arguing with me and debate the actual issue?
The only arguments actually presented to me have been that 1) I don’t know what an actual appeal to authority is, and 2) the Supreme Court ruled otherwise therefore you’re wrong. Neither of which actually deal with the issue I originally had with BA’s post.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
‘The obvious problem with that is that it simply isn’t true! There are MANY more branches of science that are much better understood and documented and contain much less conjecture, and um, well, faith.’
What branches are they?
you do realise that Evolutionary science draws on the other ‘branches’ of science. If you discount Evolution then you have to discount physics and chemistry, they are interlinked.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
It’s hard to say what we can make of the death of the Alabama bill. On the one hand, it “died” along with many other bills pretty much without discussion because the state Senate has been under filibuster for quite a long time. The Lt. Governor broke the filibuster using a very controversial trick. The session is almost over, and only the really important bills (budgets) are even being considered. I don’t think the bill’s death tells us anything about its chances for passing.
On the other hand, this is I think the fourth time this bill has come up. That may tell us that it will never pass. However, this most recent version may have been the stealthiest of all the ones proposed in the various states this year. It didn’t mention evolution specifically and strangely made reference to the “controversial teachings” being supported by peer-reviewed research. However, in all news reports about it, it was referred to as the bill that would allow teachers to include criticisms of evolution in their classes.
I’ll be watching for it again next year, and will do my damnedest to get my scientist colleagues active early.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.
Actually, there’s a mountain of evidence that there wasn’t Intelligent Design behind speciation. That’s why evolution is science and ID is not.
No, I’m not going to recite it all here, look it up for yourself… it’s not like the papers and journals aren’t publicly available. You can deny the existence of the evidence all you like, but that doesn’t make it not exist.
On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the idea of Intelligent Design. All that supports ID is untestable conjecture. That is also why ID is not science.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Robert
>>>”Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.”
That’s has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. That first sentence above has nothing to do with evolution, so I don’t see how the second sentence would follow. And remember, evolution says NOTHING about whether or not there is a god, therefore Intelligent Design (if there was an actual theory) would have no bearing on it, unless there were limits in Intelligent Design uh, “theory” placed on the ‘designer’. A little basic science principle for you: In order to be scientific, a theory has to be falsifiable. Now, those pre-Cambrian rabbits would certainly falsify evolution. Can you tell us what would falsify ID? In fact, (I’ve been asking this question alot while having some fun at Topix but never ever get an answer) could you tell us what the uh, “scientific theory” of ID actually is?
>>>”Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God?”
Why are you posting this here instead of somewhere which actually promotes atheism? Remember, many Christians accept evolution even if you don’t. Creationism does not cover the whole of Christianity.
>>>”So, apparently, all of you are SOOOOOOOOOO incredibly smart that anything you believe MUST be true, and anything you disagree with MUST be wrong! Hmmm? Isn’t that really what you’re saying?”
Uh, no. But please post some more creationist nonsense so everyone can see just how stupid creationism is for themselves.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
@robert
Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God?
Well, I can’t speak for every atheist, but I have no reason to believe that my difficulties with the idea of their being a god are that much different than other people’s difficulties with that idea… So to answer your question:
1. Because the people who DON’T have difficulty with the idea seem to have an overpowering desire to control every aspect of everyone else’s life, whether or not everyone else wants anything to do with some god. I don’t want people telling me how to think, who I can sleep with and when, or what skin I can grow on my willy.
2. Because believing in a god is intellectually lazy and specifically stunts the ambition to better oneself, or to increase one’s knowledge of the universe around him. This is a demonstrable fact. Belief in god halted western progress for nearly 1000 years, and for the most part turned the Arabs and Persians from scientific leaders to iron age drones. That is a truly terrifying difficulty with the idea of there being a god.
3. Because it is logically unreasonable to believe that there is an invisible, unknowable being who controls the entire universe and deliberately obscures himself from detection but takes such a personal interest in the life of an individual that the individual can be subjected to eternal torture and damnation for simply not believing that there is an invisible, unknowable being.
4. Because no religion has existed since the beginning of time. All religions prior to those in existence right now have risen and died out. There is no reason to believe any religion currently in existence right now is not at some intermediate place along the path of rising and dying out.
5. The previous reason could be overlooked if any religion was able to produce evidence to support the notion that the god they put forward actually exists.
6. Because the very idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being would be so arrogant as to demand unfailing WORSHIP from its creations on pain of eternal torture. Wouldn’t that be like setting your children on fire because they don’t say “hi Dad” when you come home from work? The very idea of a being that would threaten anyone with ETERNAL torture for any reason is utterly, completely, thoroughly, repugnant but to make such a threat over something as egotistical as worship takes it one step further into repugnance. This is kind of like #3 but is more specific in terms of the nature of a god.
7. Because where gods go, so does the belief that a certain person or people are somehow chosen… that they’re better than everyone else, that they’ve got the inside track on something awesome, however you want to describe it. To me, that hubris is surpassed only by what I mentioned in #6. The concept that humans are the acme of “creation”, or that some specific group of humans is - by virtue of their invisible friend who, for reasons unknown, refuses to demonstrate his existence - somehow better/more worthy/uber/awesome/whatever disgusts me. And this point, the acme of creation thing, is really what irks the religious folks about evolution. Because if humans evolved from some primitive ape, it’s a lot harder to justify humanity’s trashing of the world like a bunch of drunken frat boys than it is if the world was handed to us by god like a cheerleader full of Rohypnol.
So the real question - the question that has the most bearing on the here and the now - is: Why do some people have such difficulty with the idea that there aren’t any gods?
May 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
It occurred to me after writing all that, that I am feeding a troll (even if it felt good to write).
My apologies all.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Robert:”Why do *some* people have such an incredible difficulty with the idea of there being God? Perhaps because it threatens your own ideas of intellectual and moral superiority? Perhaps because it doesn’t allow you complete “freedom of will?” Perhaps simple arrogance or ignorance?”
Agree with robert 100%
Captain Swoop:”you do realise that Evolutionary science draws on the other ‘branches’ of science. If you discount Evolution then you have to discount physics and chemistry, they are interlinked.”
i dfail to see how because evolution relies on other ‘branches’ of science that it proves evolution, now if other ‘branches’ of science relied on evolution that would be a different story.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Evolving Squid:”So the real question - the question that has the most bearing on the here and the now - is: Why do some people have such difficulty with the idea that there aren’t any gods?”
i dont have difficulty with the idea, and each is free to believe what he will, however i am not trying to force you into my way of thinking.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:30 am
>>>”i dfail to see how because evolution relies on other ‘branches’ of science that it proves evolution, now if other ‘branches’ of science relied on evolution that would be a different story.”
You used the word “relies”. Captain Swoop didn’t. Evolution does not “rely” on geology for example, it is just a simple fact that facts of geology coincide nicely with evolution.
And as for you agreeing 100% with Robert regarding his comments about God, I remind everyone again that evolution does not say there is no God. So what’s the problem? Answer: None. Unless one happens to be a creationist who doesn’t “believe” in evolution. Problem is, creationists objections are purely based on theology, not science.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Umm. Folks, even if an authority makes a statement in his or her field of study, stating that they are correct because of their personal status as “expert” is still fallacious. A statement is true or false based on its relationships to supporting evidence, never on who made the statement. I admire the accomplishments of BA and PZ, but I think they’ll agree that they must still be duly diligent when making assertions. You know there are a lot of people insisting on being called “Dr.” who cannot support what they say.
Those of you arguing about the Constitution need to do some research on the principle of incorporation, the process by which the Federal Constitution is considered operative on the State and local level. It’s an interesting sport because people are notoriously two-faced about it. How so? Well, take each of the Amendments to the Constitution and see how they are treated. The 1st is routinely upheld for individuals, the 2nd is routinely denied - see Morton Grove v. Quilici. It’s confusing because people do not think to define terms first before they argue “rights” vs. “powers”, etc.
Enjoy!
May 12th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Robert: Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.
Prove in a way that doesn’t prompt the response, “Well, God could have meant it to be that way”? Of course it can’t disprove that; talking about what God “meant” is fruitless, since even religious folk will try to tell you that no one understands the mind of God.
But it can and has disproven many empirical assertions of ID: that blood clotting or bacterial flagella are “irreducibly complex”, for example. There hasn’t been an empirical assertion of ID that has stood up to scientific inquiry.
Faust: i dfail to see how because evolution relies on other ‘branches’ of science that it proves evolution, now if other ‘branches’ of science relied on evolution that would be a different story.
Well, since biology is the study of living things, and evolution is a theory that explains how populations of living things behave, it should be no surprise that evolution has a lot to do with biology.
Nevertheless, you should look into its applications in (for example) medicine and epidemeology. These sciences depend heavily on evolution. (What kind of thinking, do you suppose, goes into determining which strains of flu should be vaccinated against in the coming season, and to which degree?)
As to how the fact that evolution is consistent with other branches of science lends support to evolution, one must remember that a scientific theory can only hold if it explains all the available facts. If a new idea in geology contradicts a well-established theory in physics, that new idea will find it hard to gain traction. If, on the other hand, this new idea makes use of a well-established theory in physics to explain itself, it immediately merits greater consideration — because that idea may also (by implication) be supported by all the evidence gathered that suggested the theory.
That’s what we mean when we say that the sciences are “interlinked”. There is strong evidence from geology, chemistry, physics, natural history, and other branches of science that evolution occurs and has occurred. The fact that these different branches reach the same conclusions when tracing different lines of evidence is a strong indication that the conclusions are on the right track.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:32 am
First i would like to say thank you MattFunke for the response given
“Well, since biology is the study of living things, and evolution is a theory that explains how populations of living things behave, it should be no surprise that evolution has a lot to do with biology.”
i agree 100% that evolution as a theory as alot of supporting facts, however it does not explain all available facts, there are still holes in the theory as well as missing “links” (for lack of a better word), just as i am sure creation theories have missing links (and i dont always agree with everything the creation scientists say), what i am saying is that we have and use the same information and the same sciences to prove our theories, we are not just saying the earth is 6000 years old, why because God says so, we are not just sucking figures out of thin air.
i am not saying do not teach evolution in school, what i am saying is allow people (if they want to) to hear the different view points, if i want my child to hear about creation science and evolution side by side so that he or she can make up her own mind, then that should be allowed, i am not forcing anyone to believe like me, i just want them to have all available facts.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Faust (my last response got stuck in moderation queue, but someone else done a better job anyway)
There are NO FACTS of Creationism. THAT’S why creationism cannot be taught in schools. (Plus the fact it’s religion). There will always be “missing links” in evolution (missing link is an outdated concept), however, that’s not a problem for the theory. As for “holes” I have no idea what you’re referring to.
You don’t HAVE to BELIEVE in evolution…
May 12th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Evolving Squid:
“No, I’m not going to recite it all here, look it up for yourself… it’s not like the papers and journals aren’t publicly available. You can deny the existence of the evidence all you like, but that doesn’t make it not exist.”
Perhaps you should evolve more. So far, all you’ve done is quote yourself, make statements, and refer to facts that “everyone knows.” It really isn’t fair to single you out, since that seems to be the crux of the entire evolutionist argument presented here so far: I believe it, therefore it must be true!
“1. Because the people who DON’T have difficulty with the idea seem to have an overpowering desire to control every aspect of everyone else’s life…”
And how is that any different than you? You insist there be no public prayer, that no one practice their religion in the public square, that no politician have religious beliefs, that religion take no part in legislative decisions, yet you insist that both sides of the evolutionary argument may not be taught!
MattFunke: Before you go any further, you might want to look up the difference between evolution and natural selection. The latter is pretty much a given, and explains everything you stated, the former is not proven, and probably won’t be in our lifetime.
Celtic Evolution: “I hear you… there’s no point in debating with a person who already feels they have a better grasp on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and its proper interpretation than the very judicial body who’s job it is to interpret it.”
So… What you’re saying is that I’m completely wasting my time trying to explain this to you?
Darth Robo: “>>>”Nobody can ever prove that there WASN’T Intelligent Design behind ANYTHING. That’s why evolution isn’t science.”
That’s has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.”
You are EXACTLY right! Notice that that sentence was simply a re-statement in the opposite direction of else’s “dumbest things I have ever read” statement. In other words, if you read “between the lines” I have used EVERY single argument others have used here towards me, but when I turn them around and restate them towards them, they ridicule them! It’s not necessarily the best debate tactic ever, but it is highly amusing to watch people who don’t know what they’re talking about defend something they don’t understand!
So, let me get this straight: I should believe in the scientific fact of evolution and the fact that God doesn’t exist simply because - you guys said so! Yet those of you that descended from monkeys accuse ME of being narrow-minded and intolerant? Even after I agreed and said I didn’t want ID taught in schools? And said I wanted evolutionists to stick to the facts, and stop embellishing?
OK, read this: “Scientists have identified a new dinosaur species that had one of the longest necks relative to body length ever measured.
A typical neck bone in this creature was about the size of two loaves of bread.
The species, Erketu ellisoni, belongs to the group of massive four-legged herbivorous dinosaurs called Sauropoda, the largest land animals ever to walk on Earth.
This giant group also includes Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, and the largest of them all, the 120-foot long Argentinasaurus.
E. ellisoni had an extremely elongated neck. A single neck vertebra measures nearly two feet long, longer than the same vertebrae of the much larger Diplodocus carnegii.
“If you compare the index of elongation — how long vertebrae are compared to how long or tall the dinosaur is — to Diplodocus carnegii, [E. ellisoni’s] vertebrae are longer, but even more stretched out from front to back,” said study co-author Dan Ksepka, a graduate student at Columbia University who studies at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.”
Wow, impressive creature, eh? Well, sort of… If you actually READ what the article says: “Researchers also recovered a chest plate, two lower leg bones and a potato-sized ankle bone in Bor Guve in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert in 2002.” So, we have a half a dozen bones, and a whole lot of “may haves.” (PS, unlike my evolutionary opponents, I’ll actually cite my sources, I’m sure Phil would approve of that small part of intellectual honesty: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188536,00.html)
Any chance that the two foot long vertabrae was a deformity? Since the graduate student only found one of them, how do we know how many it had? Maybe it only had 2 or 3? There’s way too many unanswered questions, and common sense should tell anyone with a quarter of a brain that you just simply cannot come to the conclusions in the article without more evidence. And I’d bet my brontosaurus on it!
May 12th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Oh, BTW, Google the words “dinosaur may have.” You get 539,000 hits! It reminds me of a display that I saw that has the skeleton of an Iguanadon compared to a skeleton of an iguana, and amazingly enough, they’re almost identical! So, what do you think the chances are that if an iguana lived long enough, it would be the size of an iguanadon? Well, considering that I’ve seen a Komodo Dragon up close and personal (through glass), I’d say that’s a distince possiblity!
For instance: “The 1830s saw additional dinosaur bones, which were discovered in England and received names such as Hylaeosaurus (“Wealden lizard”), Cetiosaurus (“whale-like lizard”), Poekilopleuron (“mottled rib”) and Thecodontosaurus (“socket-toothed lizard”). These first dinosaurs, however, were not called dinosaurs; paleontologists of the time saw them as giant, lizard-like reptiles.
For example, Mantell estimated Iguanodon’s size by simply scaling up a modern iguana to produce a 25-meter-long giant. (Later knowledge of complete skeletons of Iguanodon would reveal that it was only 8 to 9 meters long.) Of course, all the discovered dinosaur fragments from the 1830s resembled the bones and teeth of living lizards (and crocodiles), so the image of dinosaurs as gargantuan lizards was well-founded at the time.”
Of course, the author of this piece is just a paleontologist, what would he know?
http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html
Robert
May 12th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Aw hell. Michigan? Seriously?
Then I shall go write a pre-emptive letter.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:38 am
And how is that any different than you? You insist there be no public prayer, that no one practice their religion in the public square, that no politician have religious beliefs,
That is absolutely false. Although I would prefer that people “keep it real” and not have religious beliefs, and although I long for the day when religion is finally and forever gone from the planet, I would never compel someone to not practice religion.
I would, however, require that the state not compel anyone to practice religion.
Put simply, practice all the religion you want. Just don’t make anyone else practice it - and that means that forcing people to pray in schools, at public gatherings and so forth is something I would oppose. Any student who wants to pray privately in his spare moments at school is welcome to do so.
I don’t even stop people from praying in my own house, as long as they don’t disturb people.
that religion take no part in legislative decisions,
Absolutely. Definitely. 100%. Religion should take no part whatsoever in legislative decisions. Legislation should be based on evidence and reason, not fantasy and hearsay.
yet you insist that both sides of the evolutionary argument may not be taught!
I insist because THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE.
However, let me use small words so that you might better understand what I am saying.
If you produce a scientifically valid hypothesis, and back it up with verifiable evidence, and that hypothesis (backed by the evidence) points to a different mechanism for speciation than evolution, then BY ALL MEANS, PLEASE TEACH IT. In fact, you should be COMPELLED to teach it.
But…
At this time there are no hypotheses that are supported by evidence that counter the theory of evolution. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The wild ramblings of the Discovery Institute do not meet the very simple criteria I have set out. It’s not even a matter of religion - the creator could be the great Azathoth (sp?) instead of the Christian god… it’s irrelevant who the creator is supposed to be. What is relevant is that there is absolutely no verifiable supporting evidence for creationism in any form.
If you want to hold a religious service in a public park, I’m cool with that as long as it doesn’t involve hurting other people. I would oppose the state holding a religious ceremony, however.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:44 am
So, let me get this straight: I should believe in the scientific fact of evolution and the fact that God doesn’t exist simply because - you guys said so!
No, you should believe the former because there are literally mountains of evidence that are publicly available that support the theory of evolution. You can read them for yourself.
You should consider that God doesn’t exist because the only evidence for God is pretty slim: one book written by bronze age sheep farmers 2000 years ago.
I don’t want you to believe in evolution because anyone here says so. I want you to go learn about it. Who knows… maybe you’re the guy who has that piece of evidence that will bring evolution crumbling down? Nobody will know as long as you cling to that irrational belief in creationism despite the complete lack of supporting evidence. I challenge you to bring evolution down. Do good science and if your hypotheses are correct, we won’t be talking about Darwin, we’ll be talking about Robert.
I don’t want you to stop believing in God because I say so. I want you to go learn about it. Follow your own advice and learn boths sides of the God argument…
May 12th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Name one scientist who promoted archaeoraptor as a genuine find.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Faust: i agree 100% that evolution as a theory as alot of supporting facts, however it does not explain all available facts, there are still holes in the theory as well as missing “links” (for lack of a better word),
It doesn’t have to. No scientific theory has to explain its holes. It just has to explain what we see.
In other words, we see evolution. The fact that we don’t have every single step in the phylogenetic tree for every species is irrelevant — just as it’s possible to have a universal theory of gravitation without knowing the gravitational acceleration of every single astronomical body out there.
Faust: what i am saying is that we have and use the same information and the same sciences to prove our theories, we are not just saying the earth is 6000 years old, why because God says so, we are not just sucking figures out of thin air.
Perhaps. But to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, you must also ignore certain kinds of evidence, or else devise elaborate justifications for what we see with no experimental basis (e.g., assuming that the same radioactive clocks can “tick” at wildly different rates). I remind you that scientific theories attempt to explain all the facts we see; a theory that assumes that the Earth is 6000 years old ignores a great deal.
Faust: i am not forcing anyone to believe like me, i just want them to have all available facts.
It is a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old. It is a fact that the Earth was not created instantaneously. It is a fact that organisms took substantially longer than six twenty-four hour days to appear. We are as certain of these facts as, say, a forensic scientist examining a murder scene is of the conclusions she reaches about the type of firearm used based on the bullet, casing, and powder marks left behind, if not more so.
I think it would be useful to teach creationism in a social studies class, since the impact of the movement cannot be denied. But it’s not science.
Robert: MattFunke: Before you go any further, you might want to look up the difference between evolution and natural selection. The latter is pretty much a given, and explains everything you stated, the former is not proven, and probably won’t be in our lifetime.
It seems you need to study your scientific history more. Evolution was posited based on the available evidence long before natural selection was proposed as its driving mechanism. Read up on Carolus Linnaeus; John Ray; George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Erasmus Darwin; and Jean Baptiste Chevalier de Lamarck, to name a few. They all preceded “On the Origin of Species”.
It might also behoove you to study the many available evidences for evolution completely outside the fossil record, though this recommendation is based on the weight you seem to be attributing to an incomplete fossil in scientific conclusions (many conclusions about incomplete fossils need to be based on much more than the remains).
Evolution has been witnessed directly many times, both in the wild and in the laboratory. That you expect evolution as a theory to be “proven”, though, seems to betray some ignorance about the scientific method.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
MattFunke: “It doesn’t have to. No scientific theory has to explain its holes. It just has to explain what we see.”
i agree, but it does not mean that they dont exist, plus i was pointing out that creationists and evolutionist alike keep harping on the others flaws instead of being objective in finding the answers.
MattFunke:”It is a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old. It is a fact that the Earth was not created instantaneously. It is a fact that organisms took substantially longer than six twenty-four hour days to appear. We are as certain of these facts as, say, a forensic scientist examining a murder scene is of the conclusions she reaches about the type of firearm used based on the bullet, casing, and powder marks left behind, if not more so.”
i am not a scientist so please feel free to correct me if i am wrong, i have a basic understanding (very basic) of how radiometric dating works, as i understand it each element has a rate at which it decays, by having a look at the rock (fossil, or whatever) and seeing how much of the decayed element is left behind that tells us the age of the rock, however this itself is based on certain ussumptions, like the starting amount of the parent element, that the conditions have been the same since the begining of time, etc, etc,,, (i could probably look this up and use big words to make myself seem more intelligent, however i do understand the concept)now i have read that tests have been done that have seriously questioned the reliability of radiometric dating and that known items have ( 50 - 100 years) have dated into the millions, so that for me means that maybe the earth is a little (or a lot) younger that we thought, however it is not fact that the earth (in my opinion) is not 6000 years old (we only need an old earth for evolution to be true).
as far as i understand it, to prove a scientific fact the results must be observable and repeatable, neither evolution nor religion fit that criteria.
MattFunke:”a forensic scientist examining a murder scene is of the conclusions she reaches about the type of firearm used based on the bullet, casing, and powder marks left behind, if not more so.”
number one these tests are based on repeatable and observable experiments, the match a bullet to the gun by firing the gun (each barrel leaves a “fingerprint if you will) and matching up the bullet that way (yes we have all watched CSI, not that complex), however you are comparing observable tests with ones that we cannot observe, ever.
MattFunke:”I think it would be useful to teach creationism in a social studies class, since the impact of the movement cannot be denied. But it’s not science.”
i dont think that evolution or religion fall into the science catagories, but more so that scientific facts will either prove or disprove them.