| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2005 01:18:38 AM |
| Object: |
Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is behind the movement to give equal time to Darwin's critics, and
what do they really want?
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK NOAH ISACKSON; JEFFREY RESSNER
Ken Bingman has beern teaching biology in the public schools in the
Kansas City area for 42 years, and over the past decade he has seen a
marked change in how students react when he brings up evolution. "I
don't know if we're more religious today," he says, "but I see more
and more students who want a link to God." Although he is a
churchgoer, Bingman does not believe that link should be part of a
science class. Neither does the Supreme Court, which declared such
intermingling of church and state unconstitutional back in 1988.
But that decision does not sit well with a lot of Americans. So at a
time when religious faith is increasingly worn on public sleeves--most
prominently that of the President--a dispute that dates back to the
celebrated 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" is being replayed around the
country in legislatures, courts, school-board meetings and
parent-teacher conferences. School administrators in rural Dover, Pa.,
visited biology classes last week to read a declaration proclaiming,
among other things, that "Darwin's theory [of evolution] ... is a
theory, not a fact." And in suburban Cobb County, Ga., officials
pasted stickers on biology textbooks declaring the same thing and are
now appealing a court order to remove them.
The intellectual underpinnings of the latest assault on Darwin's
theory come not from Bible-wielding Fundamentalists but from
well-funded think tanks promoting a theory they call intelligent
design, or I.D. for short. Their basic argument is that the origin of
life, the diversity of species and even the structure of organs like
the eye are so bewilderingly complex that they can only be the
handiwork of a higher intelligence (name and nature unspecified).
All the think tanks want to do, they insist, is make the teaching of
evolution more honest by bringing up its drawbacks. Who could argue
with that? But the mainstream scientific community contends that this
seemingly innocuous agenda is actually a stealthy way of promoting
religion. "Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1019856,00.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 04:09:49 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is behind the movement to give equal time to Darwin's critics, and
what do they really want?
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK NOAH ISACKSON; JEFFREY RESSNER
Ken Bingman has beern teaching biology in the public schools in the
Kansas City area for 42 years, and over the past decade he has seen a
marked change in how students react when he brings up evolution. "I
don't know if we're more religious today," he says, "but I see more
and more students who want a link to God." Although he is a
churchgoer, Bingman does not believe that link should be part of a
science class. Neither does the Supreme Court, which declared such
intermingling of church and state unconstitutional back in 1988.
But that decision does not sit well with a lot of Americans. So at a
time when religious faith is increasingly worn on public sleeves--most
prominently that of the President--a dispute that dates back to the
celebrated 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" is being replayed around the
country in legislatures, courts, school-board meetings and
parent-teacher conferences. School administrators in rural Dover, Pa.,
visited biology classes last week to read a declaration proclaiming,
among other things, that "Darwin's theory [of evolution] ... is a
theory, not a fact." And in suburban Cobb County, Ga., officials
pasted stickers on biology textbooks declaring the same thing and are
now appealing a court order to remove them.
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
The intellectual underpinnings of the latest assault on Darwin's
theory come not from Bible-wielding Fundamentalists but from
well-funded think tanks promoting a theory they call intelligent
design, or I.D. for short. Their basic argument is that the origin of
life, the diversity of species and even the structure of organs like
the eye are so bewilderingly complex that they can only be the
handiwork of a higher intelligence (name and nature unspecified).
Intelligent design is, IMO, not science, though many scientists believe in it.
I.D. is Deism, nothing more, nothing less. Science deals in observable
phenomena, not philosophy.
All the think tanks want to do, they insist, is make the teaching of
evolution more honest by bringing up its drawbacks. Who could argue
with that? But the mainstream scientific community contends that this
seemingly innocuous agenda is actually a stealthy way of promoting
religion. "Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education.
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 07:40:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:49 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
There are MANY theorie*S* of evolution. The fact of evolution is a
fact.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 06:40:27 PM |
|
|
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:49 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
There are MANY theorie*S* of evolution. The fact of evolution is a
fact.
A "fact" is an observable phenomenon, like, the moths change color in 3
generations. That they did it to blend in with their changing surroundings is a
supposition, but a pretty good one. That it happened because of any one of many
theories of evolution, is a good description of the circumstances and methods
that *may* have caused it to happen.
But we really don't know. Intelligent creatures with mutative cosmic rays doing
an experiment on the lifeforms of this planet, however unlikely, could have
caused it. That's a valid, if far-fetched, theory as well. If someone were able
to *measure* those rays it would be confirmable by that fact.
That's the difference between theory and fact. There is no scale of measurable
evolution. We can't say, "That creature has progressed 10 evols." It isn't
fact.
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 07:57:48 PM |
|
|
No it isn't fact but there is substantial and ongoing evidence that
evolution theory is essentially correct. There is NO OBJECTIVE evidence to
support Creation Theory. Evolution is based on factual evidence, Creation
theory is based purely on religious beliefs.
--
Bill
"Zaghadka" <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nofav0dni8dbm9kj3vcni6p52ieuatvdkh@4ax.com...
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and
screamed...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:49 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
There are MANY theorie*S* of evolution. The fact of evolution is a
fact.
A "fact" is an observable phenomenon, like, the moths change color in 3
generations. That they did it to blend in with their changing surroundings
is a
supposition, but a pretty good one. That it happened because of any one of
many
theories of evolution, is a good description of the circumstances and
methods
that *may* have caused it to happen.
But we really don't know. Intelligent creatures with mutative cosmic rays
doing
an experiment on the lifeforms of this planet, however unlikely, could
have
caused it. That's a valid, if far-fetched, theory as well. If someone were
able
to *measure* those rays it would be confirmable by that fact.
That's the difference between theory and fact. There is no scale of
measurable
evolution. We can't say, "That creature has progressed 10 evols." It isn't
fact.
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 02:35:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:57:48 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
No it isn't fact but there is substantial and ongoing evidence that
evolution theory is essentially correct. There is NO OBJECTIVE evidence to
support Creation Theory. Evolution is based on factual evidence, Creation
theory is based purely on religious beliefs.
Cretinism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 07:26:10 AM |
|
|
In article <re0ev0hhe45446dqrcoodn9un11g1o12uk@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:57:48 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
No it isn't fact but there is substantial and ongoing evidence that
evolution theory is essentially correct. There is NO OBJECTIVE evidence to
support Creation Theory. Evolution is based on factual evidence, Creation
theory is based purely on religious beliefs.
Cretinism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.
It's a myth and not even the most interesting creation myth:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 11:28:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:26:10 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <re0ev0hhe45446dqrcoodn9un11g1o12uk@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:57:48 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
No it isn't fact but there is substantial and ongoing evidence that
evolution theory is essentially correct. There is NO OBJECTIVE evidence to
support Creation Theory. Evolution is based on factual evidence, Creation
theory is based purely on religious beliefs.
Cretinism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.
It's a myth and not even the most interesting creation myth:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Ta. Bookmarked it to look at later.
Blast it! I've got art class tonight and my fine motor control
circuits have been going nuts all day. :\
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
27 Jan 2005 06:20:42 AM |
|
|
In article <7q9gv01u41ep9q8f7u74cn1upco2st078e@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:26:10 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <re0ev0hhe45446dqrcoodn9un11g1o12uk@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:57:48 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
No it isn't fact but there is substantial and ongoing evidence that
evolution theory is essentially correct. There is NO OBJECTIVE evidence to
support Creation Theory. Evolution is based on factual evidence, Creation
theory is based purely on religious beliefs.
Cretinism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.
It's a myth and not even the most interesting creation myth:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Ta. Bookmarked it to look at later.
Blast it! I've got art class tonight and my fine motor control
circuits have been going nuts all day. :\
Damn.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
27 Jan 2005 06:08:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:20:42 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <7q9gv01u41ep9q8f7u74cn1upco2st078e@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:26:10 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <re0ev0hhe45446dqrcoodn9un11g1o12uk@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:57:48 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
No it isn't fact but there is substantial and ongoing evidence that
evolution theory is essentially correct. There is NO OBJECTIVE evidence to
support Creation Theory. Evolution is based on factual evidence, Creation
theory is based purely on religious beliefs.
Cretinism isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.
It's a myth and not even the most interesting creation myth:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Ta. Bookmarked it to look at later.
Blast it! I've got art class tonight and my fine motor control
circuits have been going nuts all day. :\
Damn.
Yeah, I was starting to work on a piece when the hand spasmed and put
a long dark pencil line across the large paper. :\
I've had a paint brush go flying out of my hand.
Surprisingly, things settled down for class. *For class.* My wife
said last night I was dripping with sweat and my whole body was
twitching all night long. At least I didn't have any body spasms
which propel at least half my body straight up.
Couple that with permanent double vision (20 diopters) which is
partially corrected by glasses with prisms and .......
I'm also a retired communications electronics tech who worked black
boxes. (BG)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 09:13:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:57:48 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> said
in alt.atheism:
No it isn't fact
It's a fact that allele frequencies change in breeding populations
over time.
but there is substantial and ongoing evidence that
evolution theory is essentially correct.
There are MANY "evolutionary theories". Some have more evidence for
them than others.
There is NO OBJECTIVE evidence to
support Creation Theory.
There is no *theory* of creation. It's merely an assertion.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 09:12:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:40:27 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:49 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
There are MANY theorie*S* of evolution. The fact of evolution is a
fact.
A "fact" is an observable phenomenon, like, the moths change color in 3
generations.
Like you aren't a biological clone of your unisexual parent.
In order to know whether 'X' is a fact or a theory, you first have to
know exactly what 'X' means and, in the case of 'evolution', you
obviously don't.
Here, let me educate you:
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a breeding population
over time. IOW, you're genetically different than your parent. (If
you need more than one parent, there's nothing to even check - you
HAVE TO BE evolved from them.)
'Evolution' doesn't mean 'speciation', although that's also been
observed - hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
'Evolution' doesn't mean 'abiogenesis'.
'Evolution' doesn't mean 'the Big Bang'.
It simply means 'change in allele frequencies in a breeding population
over time', and that happens trillions of times every day.
That they did it to blend in with their changing surroundings is a
supposition, but a pretty good one. That it happened because of any one of many
theories of evolution, is a good description of the circumstances and methods
that *may* have caused it to happen.
That the reason it happened is that white moths were easier for birds
to spot on soot-darkened trees than were black moths is too simple to
question. Survival of the fittest, while "only a theory", is about as
close to fact as you can get without having the actual blueprints in
your hand. Those species that are more fit to survive WILL survive.
Anything else (that those species LESS fit to survive will survive) is
both nonsense and a self-contradiction.
But we really don't know. Intelligent creatures with mutative cosmic rays doing
an experiment on the lifeforms of this planet, however unlikely, could have
caused it. That's a valid, if far-fetched, theory as well. If someone were able
to *measure* those rays it would be confirmable by that fact.
You think we CAN'T measure cosmic rays? We've been doing that for
decades. However, whatever causes evolution, it remains that
evolution is a fact, unless you redefine the word 'evolution'.
That's the difference between theory and fact. There is no scale of measurable
evolution. We can't say, "That creature has progressed 10 evols." It isn't
fact.
As I said, you have to know what the word means before you can discuss
whether it's a theory or a fact, and you didn't. (BTW, using
'progress' and 'evolution' in the same sentence is nonsense.
Evolution has no direction.)
--
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 05:56:24 PM |
|
|
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:40:27 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:49 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
There are MANY theorie*S* of evolution. The fact of evolution is a
fact.
A "fact" is an observable phenomenon, like, the moths change color in 3
generations.
Like you aren't a biological clone of your unisexual parent.
In order to know whether 'X' is a fact or a theory, you first have to
know exactly what 'X' means and, in the case of 'evolution', you
obviously don't.
Here, let me educate you:
Al, I have a lot of education, but only a basic high school understanding of
evolution. Go learn some social skills. I don't need your *education*.
You behave like a priest.
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 10:45:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:56:24 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
Al, I have a lot of education, but only a basic high school understanding of
evolution. Go learn some social skills. I don't need your *education*.
Social skills? You're going to teach me social skills by being rude?
Okay.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zaghadka" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 06:27:46 PM |
|
|
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
That the reason it happened is that white moths were easier for birds
to spot on soot-darkened trees than were black moths is too simple to
question. Survival of the fittest, while "only a theory", is about as
close to fact as you can get without having the actual blueprints in
your hand. Those species that are more fit to survive WILL survive.
Anything else (that those species LESS fit to survive will survive) is
both nonsense and a self-contradiction.
And *that's* one theory of evolution. Alele pair changes are an observable
fact. Why they happen, and why certain changes are favored over others, is the
theory of evolution.
I may have *devolved* due to the changes in my genetic structure. Evolution
implies that we are becoming hardier and better able to survive. It says that
we could be decendent from lesser primates. It also deals with what actually
causes specfic alele changes leading to advancement or even speciation:
mutation? natural selection? Hidden diversities in the human genome? The
possibilities are endless.
Evolution, my fine educator, is *not* just a changing of genetic structure from
progenitor to progeny, it is a theory of why certain traits get kept and lost
and how *new* traits become apparent, or are created.
Please drop the rabid, "I know better than you" act. I'm tiring of it. Don't
make me killfile you again.
--
Zag
I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 10:47:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:27:46 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Evolution, my fine educator, is *not* just a changing of genetic structure from
progenitor to progeny, it is a theory of why certain traits get kept and lost
and how *new* traits become apparent, or are created.
You're conflating evolution with theories ABOUT evolution.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 02:34:53 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:40:27 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames, and
screamed...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:49 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
There are MANY theorie*S* of evolution. The fact of evolution is a
fact.
A "fact" is an observable phenomenon, like, the moths change color in 3
generations. That they did it to blend in with their changing surroundings is a
supposition, but a pretty good one. That it happened because of any one of many
theories of evolution, is a good description of the circumstances and methods
that *may* have caused it to happen.
But we really don't know. Intelligent creatures with mutative cosmic rays doing
an experiment on the lifeforms of this planet, however unlikely, could have
caused it. That's a valid, if far-fetched, theory as well. If someone were able
to *measure* those rays it would be confirmable by that fact.
That's the difference between theory and fact. There is no scale of measurable
evolution. We can't say, "That creature has progressed 10 evols." It isn't
fact.
Please learn something about evolution. Right now, you've got both
feet in your mouth past the ankles.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 02:33:28 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:49 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jason Spaceman bolted into alt.atheism, wreathed in wicked, white hot flames,
and screamed...
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is behind the movement to give equal time to Darwin's critics, and
what do they really want?
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK NOAH ISACKSON; JEFFREY RESSNER
Ken Bingman has beern teaching biology in the public schools in the
Kansas City area for 42 years, and over the past decade he has seen a
marked change in how students react when he brings up evolution. "I
don't know if we're more religious today," he says, "but I see more
and more students who want a link to God." Although he is a
churchgoer, Bingman does not believe that link should be part of a
science class. Neither does the Supreme Court, which declared such
intermingling of church and state unconstitutional back in 1988.
But that decision does not sit well with a lot of Americans. So at a
time when religious faith is increasingly worn on public sleeves--most
prominently that of the President--a dispute that dates back to the
celebrated 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" is being replayed around the
country in legislatures, courts, school-board meetings and
parent-teacher conferences. School administrators in rural Dover, Pa.,
visited biology classes last week to read a declaration proclaiming,
among other things, that "Darwin's theory [of evolution] ... is a
theory, not a fact." And in suburban Cobb County, Ga., officials
pasted stickers on biology textbooks declaring the same thing and are
now appealing a court order to remove them.
The _theory_ of evolution *is* a theory. Duh.
....dealing with the *fact* of evolution. Duh. Not to mention things
have advanced much in 150 years.
The intellectual underpinnings of the latest assault on Darwin's
theory come not from Bible-wielding Fundamentalists but from
well-funded think tanks promoting a theory they call intelligent
design, or I.D. for short. Their basic argument is that the origin of
life, the diversity of species and even the structure of organs like
the eye are so bewilderingly complex that they can only be the
handiwork of a higher intelligence (name and nature unspecified).
Intelligent design is, IMO, not science, though many scientists believe in it.
I.D. is Deism, nothing more, nothing less. Science deals in observable
phenomena, not philosophy.
Actually, ID is Christianity. It's that "Christian Honesty(tm)," ya
know.
All the think tanks want to do, they insist, is make the teaching of
evolution more honest by bringing up its drawbacks. Who could argue
with that? But the mainstream scientific community contends that this
seemingly innocuous agenda is actually a stealthy way of promoting
religion. "Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Vreeland" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 04:23:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:38 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education.
I think that this was badly worded. He should have said that teaching
non-scientific attacks on evolution is a back door way, etc.
Jack V (Vreejack)
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!"--_Ivanhoe_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Osopher" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 04:45:43 PM |
|
|
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:38 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education.
I think that this was badly worded. He should have said that teaching
non-scientific attacks on evolution is a back door way, etc.
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you ask. I
consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different scientific
paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Chez Watt was: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 07:34:59 PM |
|
|
Nominated:
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you
ask. I consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different
scientific paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 02:50:03 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:43 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid>
wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:38 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education.
I think that this was badly worded. He should have said that teaching
non-scientific attacks on evolution is a back door way, etc.
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you ask.
Only to the uneducated.
I consider God a scientific fact,
Like I said-uneducated.
but you'll need a different scientific
paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
I can't help but cringe at your invincible and deliberate ignorance.
Since I'm a kindly chap, here's a link to start you out. I excerpted
a few paragraphs to start you off.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html#WHATISSCIENCE
/excerpt
What is science?
Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to
understand better, the history of the natural world and how the
natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of
that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural
phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate
natural processes under controlled conditions. (There are, of course,
more definitions of science.)
Consider some examples. An ecologist observing the territorial
behaviors of bluebirds and a geologist examining the distribution of
fossils in an outcrop are both scientists making observations in order
to find patterns in natural phenomena. They just do it outdoors and
thus entertain the general public with their behavior. An
astrophysicist photographing distant galaxies and a climatologist
sifting data from weather balloons similarly are also scientists
making observations, but in more discrete settings.
The examples above are observational science, but there is also
experimental science. A chemist observing the rates of one chemical
reaction at a variety of temperatures and a nuclear physicist
recording the results of bombardment of a particular kind of matter
with neutrons are both scientists performing experiments to see what
consistent patterns emerge. A biologist observing the reaction of a
particular tissue to various stimulants is likewise experimenting to
find patterns of behavior. These folks usually do their work in labs
and wear impressive white lab coats, which seems to mean they make
more money too.
The critical commonality is that all these people are making and
recording observations of nature, or of simulations of nature, in
order to learn more about how nature, in the broadest sense, works.
We'll see below that one of their main goals is to show that old ideas
(the ideas of scientists a century ago or perhaps just a year ago) are
wrong and that, instead, new ideas may better explain nature.
/end excerpt
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 06:59:24 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:43 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid>
wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:38 -0500, Jason Spaceman
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you ask. I
consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different scientific
paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
it's not a scientific question. it's a question about science, which
may stand outside science
creationists forget that not EVERY idea is a scientific one.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 04:54:48 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 16:45:43 GMT, Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> said
in alt.atheism:
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you ask. I
consider God a scientific fact
Then you should have absolutely no problem posting the objective
evidence of the objective existence of this god of yours.
but you'll need a different scientific
paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
Then it's not, by definition, scientific. I can prove anything at all
by redefining words.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cheezits" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 05:40:49 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote:
[etc.]
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you
ask.
Yes, if you ask someone who is clueless about science you will get an
answer that is rubbish.
I consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different
scientific paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
In other words, God is a fact, but only if you first believe that God is a
fact?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 04:56:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:40:49 GMT, Cheezits <cheezits32@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In other words, God is a fact, but only if you first believe that God is a
fact?
Believing is seeing, isn't it?
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
26 Jan 2005 02:49:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:40:49 GMT, Cheezits <cheezits32@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Phil Osopher <phil@address.invalid> wrote:
[etc.]
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you
ask.
Yes, if you ask someone who is clueless about science you will get an
answer that is rubbish.
I consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different
scientific paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
In other words, God is a fact, but only if you first believe that God is a
fact?
That's a fact.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "noctiluca" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 04:58:27 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:38 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of
the
National Center for Science Education.
I think that this was badly worded. He should have said that
teaching
non-scientific attacks on evolution is a back door way, etc.
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you
ask. I
consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different
scientific
paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
How would a scientific paradigm not exclusively based on materialism
work?
robert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Homer Sapiens" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 05:32:29 PM |
|
|
It would work a lot like the paradigm that leads one to believe in the
Loch Ness Monster or Ghosts. Believers would start out with already
pre-determined conclusions, find "evidence" that fits their needs and
disregard everything else that doesn't get them where they wanted to
go. I personally think that the number of single socks I have lost in
the dryer is undeniable evidence for a 0ne-legged Troll living in my
basement. I can't explain it... so it must be "supernatural". Now if I
were bound by that darn materialistic worldview I would never
experience the joy of having a One-Legged Troll living in my basement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
25 Jan 2005 03:28:59 AM |
|
|
noctiluca wrote:
Phil Osopher wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:38 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of
the
National Center for Science Education.
I think that this was badly worded. He should have said that
teaching
non-scientific attacks on evolution is a back door way, etc.
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you
ask. I
consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different
scientific
paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
How would a scientific paradigm not exclusively based on materialism
work?
"What I says, goes." Or at least that's how it's been historically done.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gregwrld" |
|
| Title: Re: Time: Stealth Attack On Evolution |
24 Jan 2005 05:01:41 PM |
|
|
Phil Osopher wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:38 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
"Teaching evidence against evolution is a back-door way of
teaching creationism," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of
the
National Center for Science Education.
I think that this was badly worded. He should have said that
teaching
non-scientific attacks on evolution is a back door way, etc.
But what's scientific and what's non-scientific depends on who you
ask. I
consider God a scientific fact, but you'll need a different
scientific
paradigm not exclusively based on materialism to prove it.
In other words we need pseudoscience from people whose opinions are
worthless, like yours...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
