Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To dismiss the Bible as "myths" because of its religous meaning is a catastrophic abuse of the scientific method.
If I parse this tortured sentence correctly, you are mistaken in your assertion not the least because this occurs every day around the world in the HUMANITIES (not science) departments of universities.
I take that chart to portray a very significant and telling aspect of the domestic political reality in the United States.
Combine it with this chart (see page 2) from the article "Disbelievers in Evolution" in the journal Science 315 (5809): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/315/5809/187a/DC1/1
"Percent believing in evolution, by political view, education, and religion"
The final sentence in the caption for the figure states: "Belief in evolution rises along with political liberalism, independently of control variables."
I would say that this chart is a good candidate to be found framed and on the wall of the offices of Karl Rove and Dr. James Dobson! Lesson: Dissuade the public about the truth status of evolution (frame it as part of "war against religion," which in America means "war against fundamentalist Protestant Christianity"), and you undermine the foundations of liberal political adherence (translation: you manufacture more conservatives!), at least in the United States.
So it is in the interests of American fat cats (traditional conservatives) to encourage the masses to disbelieve in evolution, unlike in every advanced (and Christian) nation in Western Europe. Science education has been thoroughly politicized in the United States due to activism by the Right Wing.
Another reason for the success of these aspect of American Right Wing agenda is that the majority of practitioners of (protestant) Christian theology in America are basically stuck using ideas created and developed in the late 1800s. Check it out.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 10-19-2007 at 03:18 PM..
The question that liberals so far don't have the cojones to ask is: Why are fundamentalists anti-science? Do they actually want to turn back the clock in society to when there were rampant epidemics, no public water systems, no electricity, no high tech, no automobiles and aircraft?
Stop being a know-nothing about science if you want to govern this country!
Blanket statement that isn't true. I'm a christian that believes in the evolutionary process.
you said it yourself.. HISTORIC... not.. scientific.
but there is no argument for studying the universe from a biblical standpoint. the bibilical standpoint is god created the universe. that is one short science book.
Chatper 1: God and the Universe
"God Created it."
Footnotes: The bible..
I wonder what that final exam question would be..
I think your under the assumtion that I am a full-blown young earth creationist, which is not true. I think the theory evolutinon could very well be true, but I havn't seen enough evidence from either side. And you said it yourself as well! The Bible is a very acurate historic text, so to dismiss the stories as myths (I'm not saying you do) is wong. Also, I'm not saying we should study nature from a Biblical standpoint alone, but we also should not study from the point that there is no God alone either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Yes, evolution is a fact. This can be demonstrated.
Micro- and macro- are arbitrary terms used to describe certain points in the same process, which is evolution. Macroevolution, or speciation, can also be demonstrated, so the claim that it hasn't been observed is false.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it equates science with atheism. Again, false.
Nothing personal, but this is gibberish. If one uses the Bible as a reference point, such a study becomes subjective by definition. To objectively study nature, one must look only to nature, which is exactly what the scientific method directs.
Could you show me an example of where we have seen macro-evolutinon occour? I am not eqauting science with atheism, that is common misconception. And yes, it is subjective if one uses the Bible as a reference point by itself, but it is also subjective if one omits the possibility of the Bible being correct because of its religous purpose. The scientific method is objective, but many scientists are not. So what is the remedy? It should be to study nature without studying from a strictly atheistic point of reference.
I again reiterate that evolution (change in allele frequencies within a population) is a fact due to fundamental genetic mechanisms as well as mathematics.
There are huge amounts of data documenting this phenomenon. The interested reader should check out Pubmed Central (PubMed Central Homepage) as well as the National Center for Biotechnology Information (www.ncbi.nih.giv (broken link)) for more data and information.
I think the theory evolutinon could very well be true, but I havn't seen enough evidence from either side.
Are you trained in biology? If not, (1) how would you expect to become informed about it, except by informing yourself, and (2) could you at least acknowledge that the vast majority of practicing biologists around the world accept the theory of evolution as representing scientifically valid fact? If those persons do so, on what grounds do you show scepticism about their body of knowledge?
Could you show me an example of where we have seen macro-evolutinon occour? I am not eqauting science with atheism, that is common misconception. And yes, it is subjective if one uses the Bible as a reference point by itself, but it is also subjective if one omits the possibility of the Bible being correct because of its religous purpose. The scientific method is objective, but many scientists are not. So what is the remedy? It should be to study nature without studying from a strictly atheistic point of reference.
I really hate that the Christians have inserted this "Where is the evidence that macro-evolution has occurred" because by the intrinsical nature of the question it gives the impression that wolves give birth to chihuahua's, ape's give birth to humans (humans are apes by the way), and that fish give birth to pine cones. And, anyone who knows the theory of evolution would understand that it is the change within a species (microevolution) that eventually becomes the macroevolutionary change these creationists are looking for.
These are answers are from evowiki. I agree wholeheartedly.
Claim: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Responses:
Creationists do not define macroevolution in the same precise way that biologists do, allowing them to continually shift the goalposts as to what qualifies as macroevolution, thus allowing them to reject any and all evidence presented to them. Biologists generally define the boundary as change above the level of species, and there have been directly observed instances of speciation as well as many examples of recent speciation in the wild.
The honeysuckle maggot fly has recently been found to have directly arisen from a hybridization between the snowberry maggot fly and the blueberry maggot fly.
In 1905, in his patch of Oenothera lamarckiana, Hugo de Vries discovered an unusual specimen, and found that he was unable to crossbreed it with its parent-plants. He later named it O. gigas, and found that it had 2N=28, while its parent had 2N=14.
Regardless, first-person observation is simply not the only or even always the best sort of evidence relevant in science. Overwhelming physical evidence can often be more convincing and reliable than eye-witnesses in history: the same is true in science, only to a far greater degree because of the sheer amount of converging lines of evidence available to cross-check each other.
Creationists often note that "observation" is a step in the scientific method but neglect to mention that it refers to the initial observation of some situation that needs explanation (say, the diversity of species on earth today). Explaining those observations involves forming a hypothesis and testing its implications with evidence, which does not require literally watching something with eyeballs.
Claim: Species may undergo minor changes, but the range of variation is limited to variation within kinds.
Response:The term "kind", as Creationists use it, is not biologically meaningful. Depending on which life-form you'd like to know the "kind" of, and which Creationist you ask, "kind"s can be more-or-less equivalent to anything from species (i.e., human beings), to genus (i.e., tigers and lions), to kingdoms (i.e., bacteria). The only two constant factors seem to be (a) that Homo sapiens must necessarily be a "kind" unto itself, end of discussion, and (b) the farther you get from Homo sapiens, the greater the degree of variety a Creationist is willing to accept within a given "kind".
Creationists have never bothered to specifically define what this limitation to variation is, nor have they even bothered to show how this limitation functions. This lack of definition thus allows Creationists to summarily dismiss any and all evidence of "macroevolution" presented.
Because of the vagueness of the term "kind", the claim is unfalsifiable. When transgression of "kinds" is shown to happen, creationists can just change the definition of "kind" to contain both old "kinds".
add more responses
Claim: No new phyla, orders, or classes have been observed appearing. (The implication is that there is no macroevolution)
Response: This is exactly as it should be. According to evolutionary theory, new species are sub-varieties of older ones, and new groups are nested within old groups. Because all known life is descended from older groups and represents variations on it rather than completely new creations, any new species appearing today will by definition fall within existing phyla, orders, classes, and so on.
"New" examples of these categories actually do sometimes "appear", but in a different sense: they "appear" only when a species is discovered that represents an ancestral group that was previously unknown as a category in the fossil record.
The fossil record, on the other hand, contains many example of new categories appearing and then diversifying into sub-categories, just as evolutionary theory suggests
Claim: Charles Darwin's finches show only microevolution. In a long-term study, the changes were small and oscillated back and forth. They show no evidence for macroevolution.
Response: The fact that there are several distinct species of finches on the Galapagos Islands, along with several of these species split up into distinct subspecies, all descended from a single, ancestral species of finch from the South American mainland strongly refutes this claim.
That some populations of finches have been demonstrated to modify the size of their beaks in direct relation to the size of seeds produced during alternating periods of wet periods and droughts does not, in any way falsify macroevolution.
How does the beak oscillation of Darwin's finches negate the observed appearances of Oenothera gigas, Culex molestans, and Rhagoletis mendax × zephyria within the last 300 years?
Claim: Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
Response: When one species is divided into two groups, "microevolution" occurs within each group until they have diverged enough that they can no longer interbreed. This is "macroevolution". Thus, micro and macro evolution can be clearly and coherently related, and any Creationists who have unjustifiably divided one from the other either are ignorant of the precise workings of evolution or are pushing a personal agenda.
Creationists who use this claim fail to clearly define the distinction between micro- and macroevolution, beyond "evolution within a species/kind," and "evolution from one species/kind to another." Furthermore, when clear and obvious evidence of macroevolution is provided, it is invariably dismissed as microevolution, or ignored altogether. This makes the claim vague and untestable and thus scientifically worthless.
I again reiterate that evolution (change in allele frequencies within a population) is a fact due to fundamental genetic mechanisms as well as mathematics.
There are huge amounts of data documenting this phenomenon. The interested reader should check out Pubmed Central (PubMed Central Homepage) as well as the National Center for Biotechnology Information (www.ncbi.nih.giv) for more data and information.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Are you trained in biology? If not, (1) how would you expect to become informed about it, except by informing yourself, and (2) could you at least acknowledge that the vast majority of practicing biologists around the world accept the theory of evolution as representing scientifically valid fact? If those persons do so, on what grounds do you show scepticism about their body of knowledge?
I have a generaly sufficient understanding of biology, but no, I am not trained in it..........I'm in high school . (1) I am informing myself (that's why I asked for info). (2) Yes, I know that most biologists believe fully in evolution, I never denied that.
I think I'm coming across super anti-evolution (I am not). But just because a majority believes in one thing, does not mean it's true. Which is why I remain critical of both side of the story.
I have a generaly sufficient understanding of biology, but no, I am not trained in it..........I'm in high school . (1) I am informing myself (that's why I asked for info). (2) Yes, I know that most biologists believe fully in evolution, I never denied that.
I think I'm coming across super anti-evolution (I am not). But just because a majority believes in one thing, does not mean it's true. Which is why I remain critical of both side of the story.
No, AT9, I don't think you're coming across "super anti-evolution", but I think it's important you learn both sides of the argument to the best of your ability. It seems to me that you are of young mind, and have not quite made a decision. Thankfully, that also means that you are not hindered by some indoctrination. You seem intelligent enough to understand the notion of science and how it works. I encourage you to research it. If nothing else comes of the matter, than at least you will not ask questions such as "Why aren't humans still coming out of apes?" That's all I think evolutionists want. They want a fair shot at being heard, but for some reason, there's been an anti-science movement going on in the U.S. for some time. I know you mentioned you are in high school, hopefully it's in a Blue State up north or in Canada or England. They tend to be a little bit more focused on the truth than on myth than their Red state educational counterparts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. (1) I am informing myself (that's why I asked for info). (2) Yes, I know that most biologists believe fully in evolution, I never denied that. 
