Raw Story: Four states considering laws that challenge the teaching of evolution

[Sinister]

Here's how I silence creationts. I tell them that no all perfect God would create a woman who had hairy legs and mustaches. Short, sweet, and to the point. In most cases they switch the subject to something else.

[Larry]

Here's how I silence creationts. I tell them that no all perfect God would create a woman who had hairy legs and mustaches. Short, sweet, and to the point. In most cases they switch the subject to something else.

Mom's been watching Reba, lately. Line from that show that I've been hearing a lot:

"God has a great sense of humor. Look at ostriches."

[alexey]

Here are some of my "favorites":

Penis fencing worms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_fencing

Mallard Ducks' reproductive system:
http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/0...f-duck-mating/

..
Their reproductive organs have co-evolved in a “sexual arms-race” resulting in large corkscrew phalluses and complicated vaginal tracts.
...

There is also all kinds of morally wrong stuff like wasps that lay eggs inside living caterpillars.

Also fungi that makes zombie ants
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/ne...rasitic-fungus

The modus operandi of the Cordyceps fungi is the stuff of nightmares. These parasites grow inside their insect hosts by feeding off the non-vital organs, and manipulate the hosts' behaviour so that they can reproduce. When it is ready to produce spores, the fungus grows into the brain and releases chemicals that make the host climb a plant then attach itself near the top. It then kills its host by devouring its brain, before sprouting a mushroom from the top of its head, which disperses its spores as widely as possible.

Nature can get pretty messed up. It is not all clouds and kittens

[sportjunkie07]

I dont mind people having an issue with a divine creation, but I do mind when people such as the OP assume evolution and the big bang theory is scientific, when it clearly is not. The origin of our universe was not observed and is not repeatable. It takes a leap of faith very similar to a belief in intelligent design.

[Larry]

I dont mind people having an issue with a divine creation, but I do mind when people such as the OP assume evolution and the big bang theory is scientific, when it clearly is not.

Funny. Here I've been told for decades that evolution and the Big Bang were both scientific theories, which people have designed scientific experiments to verify, and those experiments have, in fact, produced the results that were predicted.

And that this was kind of the definition of "scientific".

[elkabong82]

I dont mind people having an issue with a divine creation, but I do mind when people such as the OP assume evolution and the big bang theory is scientific, when it clearly is not. The origin of our universe was not observed and is not repeatable. It takes a leap of faith very similar to a belief in intelligent design.

One is backed by scientific inquiry, the other stories from ancient times when they also believed the Earth was flat, monsters were at the ends of the oceans, the sun and entire universe revolved around Earth, we are the result of just two human beings reproducing so we are all inbred, witches existed, left handedness is the sign of the devil, etc. etc.

Scientists have been replicating Big bang conditions with the large hadron collider for a couple years now. It takes a complete lack of understanding science to claim the big bang and evolution theories require "leaps of faith." Believing the Earth was round required a "leap of faith" despite a lot of evidence because it wasn't proven 100% until we shot a rocket into space and took pictures of the earth. But all that other evidence painted a pretty clear picture that the earth was round, just like the evidence now paints a pretty clear picture about the creation and evolution of life.

I think adaptability is better proof of an intelligent design. Divine creation was an anecdote for its time but now it is shown as ignoring facts in order to still work. Religion just needs to update the anecdote. God created the God particle, initiated the big bang, and constructed life in a way that it could adapt based on interactions with the rest of life.

[PeterMP]

I tend to think the number of people lying w/ respect to creation vs. evolution on both sides of the debate is relatively small.

I don't think people like Joe Gibbs are lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdHiRLXPUiM

Depedning on how you want to define terms like "maker", they might believe things that don't make sense to me, but that doesn't equate to lysing.

In terms of this particular discussion, ABQ, you've said not teaching in a science classroom, but that is what the OP is talking about.

How are we going to teach these concepts in the science class room and why are these things being singled out vs. all the other things being taught in the science class room (why teach the controversy about evolution in science and not the structure of an atom?).j

(Heck, when I was in 8th grade they were still teaching a flat out incorrect model of an atome (the Bohr model). I don't know if that has changed.)

[Larry]

(why teach the controversy about evolution in science and not the structure of an atom?)

OT:

Remember a cartoon from some time ago, lampooning conservatives.

Part of the cartoon shows a caricatured conservative demanding that science classes must "teach the controversy" about evolution, and "let the students decide for themselves".

Later, the same caricature is loudly demanding that the schools must teach abstinence, and only abstinence. The interviewer asks why we shouldn't "teach the controversy", teach abstinence and contraception, and let the students decide. "What? And let children decide?"

Now, back to the topic.

[alexey]

I tend to think the number of people lying w/ respect to creation vs. evolution on both sides of the debate is relatively small.

I'd say that vast majority of people who repeat standard creationist arguments are, at least on some level, aware that they are advancing an agenda and are not being entirely open and straightforward.

At the very least they are borderline aware of evolution being widely accepted in science, of that having important implications, and of those implications being directly related to (and likely in opposition of) what they are advancing.

I don't think people like Joe Gibbs are lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdHiRLXPUiM

He is either lying himself or is faithfully repeating lies of others. At 3:30 he explains why he does that.


Perhaps I should clarify that people who lie are not necessary bad people. Sometimes they are really good honest people who are trying to deceive you and themselves with best intentions.

[PeterMP]

At the very least they are borderline aware of evolution being widely accepted in science, of that having important implications, and of those implications being directly related to (and likely in opposition of) what they are advancing.

At the very last they are borderline aware of the idea God played a role in the orgin of humans beign widely accepted by religious people, of that having important implications, and those implications being directly related to (and likely in oppositoin) of what they are advancing.

He is either lying himself or is faithfully repeating lies of others. At 3:30 he explains why he does that.

Why?

You don't deny that the human brain is designed to detect causality?

[Larry]

You don't deny that the human brain is designed to detect causality?

"Is designed"???????

[PeterMP]

"Is designed"???????

Evolved. Same point!

[HeluCopter29]

I dont mind people having an issue with a divine creation, but I do mind when people such as the OP assume evolution and the big bang theory is scientific, when it clearly is not. The origin of our universe was not observed and is not repeatable. It takes a leap of faith very similar to a belief in intelligent design.

Wrong. All of that was just wrong. And very ignorant.

[twa]

Later, the same caricature is loudly demanding that the schools must teach abstinence, and only abstinence. The interviewer asks why we shouldn't "teach the controversy", teach abstinence and contraception, and let the students decide. "What? And let children decide?"

Now, back to the topic.

Since contraception is discussed in abstinence only classes then clearly conservatives are clearly more tolerant than evolution only-ers

somebody ought to suggest a skit to the Daily Show

[HeluCopter29]

Since contraception is discussed in abstinence only classes then clearly conservatives are clearly more tolerant than evolution only-ers

somebody ought to suggest a skit to the Daily Show

I think the OP has proven you wrong on this one. Sorry bud.