Jun 23, 2011
A comic in response to the Miss USA contestants’ thoughts on evolution
Here’s an apropos follow-up to the extremely wishy-washy responses of many of the Miss USA contestants to the question “Should evolution be taught in school?”…
(via TYWKIWDBI)
By the way, no one is allowed to be offended by this comic, because whether you’re a creationist or evolutionist you can just read it as saying that the one you don’t like is the kooky, magical one.
So…
Are you of the teach-both-theories camp, or are you a staunch enough believer in either creation or evolution that you think only one should be taught?
* * * * *
I hate this debate, but if I were forced to come down with one position, it’s this:
Evolution is the product of scientific study and therefore should be taught in the context of science.
Creationism is the product of religious belief and therefore should be taught in the context of religion.
I wouldn’t want Native American creation stories taught as fact in a science class, so why would I want the Christian story of creation taught as fact in a science class either?
Evolution is the result of scientific study done through the lens of atheistic materialism, while creationism views scientific pursuits through the lens of religious belief.
I believe that evolutions should be presented in schools as the prevailing scientific consensus, not as fact.
Joe, evolution is an undisputable fact if you understand the evidence. Read “The Greatest Show on Earth” if you doubt that and if you are honest with yourself, you’ll see that it is clearly FACT.
clearly you are working with a different definition of “fact”
Ah, yes! The reasonable and objective Richard Dawkins. If you can’t trust a raving anti-theist, who can you trust?
as a possessor of a degree in chemistry I have to take offense at anyone calling Evolution a “fact”. In the world of science a fact is something that happens consistently 100% of the time. and there is no way to prove that something happens the same 100% of the time, as there is always a possibility, (sometimes a ridiculously small possibility), that something could change. Even Gravity is not a fact, (the accepted value of 9.81m/s*s has changed several times, and will probably change in the future.) I consider myself to be a young earth creationist, but that is as a scientist who has examined both sides extensively, and will continue to do so. I plan on teaching my future kids both sides, as my parents did with me.
Ah yes, another testimonial from a young earth creationist with a degree in science. I call nonsense on you Nathan. You were a young earth creationist when you were a tiny child. You were a young earth creationist when you attended middle school. You were a young earth creationist when you went to high school and university. You held on to the belief system that was pounded into your brain as a tiny child in spite of encountering what is a world of evidence to the contrary. Your degree in chemistry means that you passed an exam, not that you are unbiased. No one, and I mean NO ONE, who was not raised in a fundamentalist Christian household walks up to the evidence and says, “You know what, I think that the evidence supports the idea that the earth is exactly 7000 or 4000 or whatever (different sects vary on this point) years old, and that there was a huge worldwide flood. This just doesn’t happen. Hindus and buddhist chemists aren’t walking around saying, “You know, that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate, and inaccurate in exactly a way that indicates to me that the Earth is 4000 years old.” It’s rubbish. What happens with people like you (if you honestly are who you represent yourself to be) is that science does not, and does not claim to, have the answer to every question. While evolution is certainly a fact-your definition of fact is pretty infantile-we know it happens, we observe it in farm animals and moths and fruit flies-we do not claim to have built a flawless map from the first microbe to mankind. The basics are pretty evident, but the details are not all filled in. As with most religious fundamentalists, you leap from the concept that science is missing an answer or, heaven forbid, a detail of the prevailing theory has been modified, to the conclusion that your ancestral mysticism is exactly correct. That is, of course, the appeal of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists know absolutely EVERYTHING, because the book has given them all the answers.
@Gordan, You do me a great disservice, you do not know me, nor can you pretend to know how I think or what actions have led me to my beliefs. But let me clear a few things for you. 1. I have never, nor will I ever claim to be unbiased. We all are biased in some fashion, but I recognize where I am biased, and I attempt to keep it from clouding my judgment. 2. My degree means that I passed many tests, (don’t try to cheapen my accomplishment), and it means that I have spent years studying science, and i have a good grasp of scientific theories. 3. Many non-christian scientist doubt evolution, they may not ascribe to the idea of creation, (young earth or old), but they know that evolution is flawed and must be questioned, (Behe, Dembrowski, and others). 4. all forms of evolution observed are micro, not macro. 5. I don’t claim to know everything, I simply believe what the evidence shows. that is what a scientist does, he/she looks at the evidence, postulates a theory, and continues to follow that theory until the data shows reason to doubt.
As a possessor of a degree in chemistry, I am astonished that you can be a young earth creationist. Presumably you have taken classes in thermodynamics, heat transport, etc. How then, can you explain the consistency of age dates – that use a variety of radioactive minerals – which all give dates for earth processes in the billions of years, not thousands of years?
To say that these dates mean nothing then goes against all the chemistry laws/theories that you would by necessity take for granted as part of any American Chemical Society recognized degree program, and to say that they are not constant with time (as many young earthers do) would mean that the earth would now be a molten mess with all the excess heat that would have to be produced in the mantle if these radioactive ratios have changed with time in order to make an earth that you say is 6000 years old (or 10000 years old, or anything less than 4 billion years old). Another thing that young earth “scientists” like to point out is the inconsistency of results when different decay products are used. Of course you’re going to get garbage data from minerals with low closure temperatures (giving the date of cooling past a certain temperature, not a date of formation), minerals that are subject to their clocks resetting due to reheating (through contact metamorphism, for example), samples that have been altered via hydrothermal or weathering processes, and applying inappropriate parent/daughter pairs to a sample which can’t give you a date within the error bars anyway.
Young earth creationism is flawed science on every level. It is a gross misunderstanding of radioactive decay and mineralogy and magma dynamics and heat transport… all things that (presumably) young earthers have no problems with as separate sciences, I mean, you’re using technology to post this pseudoscience to the internet, so you’re taking it for granted that your computer chip and the power plant that powers the server will behave a certain way. Those same principles apply to the earth.
I would ask your university for a refund. You obviously got nothing out of your chemistry degree.
Nathan,
As a rational human being possessing a degree in computer forensics and a lifetime of reading and studying the Bible, I have to say that your refusal to call Evolution a “fact” is absurd from a scientific standpoint. Every piece of accepted scientific study points to evolution as the process that led us, biologically, to where we are today. I have no doubt in my mind that, when we look at things through the lens of science, we come out with an understanding (missing details, of course, but come now, we can’t travel back in time) of how Evolution works and how we came to be.
At the *same time*, however… having read and studied the Bible for most of my life, I *believe* in a young earth, created by the Father, just as I *believe* that we have all sinned and require the forgiveness provided by Christ. I still know that science shows the universe to be, undeniably, 13-ish billion years old. But I also believe that science is simply a tool that we have been provided with, and that it can only show us so much. God would not have given us the intelligence that we possess if we were not to use it.
tl;dr : Science and religion do not need to agree, and very often will not. That doesn’t mean we can’t have a solid understanding of both, or that we must believe in a way that agrees with science.
Sarah,
What age date consistency? One thing I learned in school was that when your data is all over the board, you need a different testing route. There are many problems in radioactive dating, (Mullins, J. 2009. Solar ghosts may haunt Earth’s radioactive atoms. New Scientist. 2714: 42-45. And Cardone, F., R. Mignani R. and A. Petrucci. 2009. Piezonuclear decay of thorium. Physics Letters A. 373 (22): 1956-1958. For example), and the data cannot be trusted completely. I am a young earth creationist, not because my Bible commands it, (nowhere does the Bible give the age of the earth), but because the data points towards it. If the data ever points towards a older earth I would change my views in that respect. The one thing I have against evolution, (aside from the scientific problems), is the fanatical dogmatic approach of many of its believers. It really borders of a religion at times. If you dare to question it, or explore new ideas you are attacked, called illegitimate, or told to “ask your university for a refund”. And here I thought scientists were supposed to be constantly questioning the data and exploring new theories.
Mike,
I not only refuse to call evolution a fact, but insist that “facts” do not exist in the scientific world. Facts are 100% true, and cannot be challenged or investigated. Everything in science must be constantly examined, even the most accepted laws and theories have a small probability that something could change and alter them. Evolution is a theory, and should be examined and tested. No matter what you believe in science, you should always be willing to test it and explore the option that it should be modified, or thrown out. You can’t do either with a fact.
Nathan, in response to the articles you posted:
Mullins, J. 2009. Solar ghosts may haunt Earth’s radioactive atoms. New Scientist. 2714: 42-45.
Fascinating and perplexing. But on a geologic time scale – even a young earth one – it would average out over time.
Cardone, F., R. Mignani R. and A. Petrucci. 2009. Piezonuclear decay of thorium. Physics Letters A. 373 (22): 1956-1958.
That is for 228 Th, which only has a half-life of 1.92 days. It’s not even used in geologic dating. Reading the comments letters, and papers that have cited it, there also seems to be some serious argument about the methodologies used.
All of those measurements, even if they did apply to minerals, would be within the error bars of analysis. It’s like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is far more evidence for a 4.65 billion year old earth than any other age. Using a variety of isotopes, using a variety of minerals, using a variety of samples. It’s not just based on one single date using one single methodology.
“Little g” changes with elevation. Are you confusing it with “big G”? But no, we do not understand gravity well. It is actually a very active area of research to figure out hoe gravity works within the standard model and how particles have “mass”. However, for some reason most people do not dispute that gravity exists because they observe it’s effects every day. We also observe the effects of evolution everyday, but people will deny it because the concept of common ancestry upset some people within the Christian establishment, do a campaign of misinformation and lies about evolutionary theory (currently being perpetrated by organizations like the Discovery Institute) has been successful in the U.S. I would suggest reading “Finding Darwin’s God” since it is written from a theist’s perspective. No, nothing in science is a “fact” in the extremely strict sense, however evolutionary theory is an extremely successful theory. It is as successful in predicting outcomes and observations as any other highly accepted theory. There is no controversy within the scientific community that evolution happens, or even the concept of common ancestry. The half a dozen “scientists” (many of which are theologians) does not a controversy make. Behe may do some good work, but his ideas of irreducible complexity are as unsound and he has even admitted the flaws in his reasoning. Just read Ken Miller’s books on the subject.
@ Nathan M. “Even Gravity is not a fact,” Really, dude? Now, I don’t have a degree in chemistry, biology, or anything actually. But I have attended college, and I have taken courses in Biology, Chemistry, even Old and New Testament (baptist college, in the south, I had a scholarship). It’s been many, many moons ago, but I recall hearing the terms “theory” and “law” bandied about. Evolution is a Theory, I’ll give you that, but Gravity is a Law. It’s value may change, it’s effect may diminish or increase, but it’s there. And your statement, “In the world of science a fact is something that happens consistently 100% of the time. and there is no way to prove that something happens the same 100% of the time, as there is always a possibility, (sometimes a ridiculously small possibility), that something could change” is an arguement taken to the absurd.
Now, I have a question, and I mean this with all due sincerity and not sarcasm (disclaimer given because hey, this is the internet and there’s often confusion about that), “what is your proof or evidence that your “Young Earth Model” is correct? There IS proof of evolution. Whether it is micro or macro in scale, there is observable proof. I look forward to your response.
This is incredible. Sarah, I think I love you.
Jesse there is no complete substantial proof that evolution is correct. As a matter of fact I find it hard to believe that something as organized as a cell could randomly come into existence considering that atoms prefer randomness. I find it much harder to believe in that than I do to believe in an almighty creator who made everything
And therein lies the BIGGER question – whose responsibility is it to teach children in the first place? I was really hoping to hear one of the Miss America contestants talk about the unconstitutionality of the public school system instead of assuming government education is appropriate and healthy for any culture. Interestingly, the “everyone has their own beliefs – let them decide” statement that most of the ladies made actually means the government will determine what your children learn in public school, so whatever they teach is what they think we need to believe. So, socialism and secular humanism win.
My thoughts exactly. The only reason this debate exists is because the American people have already conceded that it’s the government’s job to educate our children.
Wait a second. The unconstitutionality of the public school system? Unconstitutional as to whose constitution? It can’t be the federal constitution because the federal government doesn’t have a public school system. As far as state constitutions go, Article 7 of the Texas constitution provides for public schools, so it can’t be unconstitutional as to Texas’s constitution. Maybe there are states whose constitutions prohibit public funding for schools, but I haven’t heard of any. It would, then, be interesting to hear one of the Miss America contestants talk about the unconstitutionality of public schools…
On the other hand, I’m all for the privatization and “home-atization” of education. The state governments generally to a terrible job of education their citizens.
Unconstitutional in as far as the federal government is involved with it.
Very well thought out and said. Thnak you.
Where’s the T-shirt?!?!
My thoughts exactly
In schools? Public schools, funded by public tax money? In that case, creation is an article of faith, and has no place being taught. The exception I would allow for would be if it’s a school with some type of AP World Religions and Beliefs class or something, and the Book of Genesis gets equal time with what other religions have to say about where life came from. And i would assume that my Christian friends would prefer not to HAVE TO talk about evolution, or string theory, or antibiotics, or anything science-y during a church service, either.
you can’t separate christianity and science. the bible and science don’t necessarily disagree with each other-just certain theories of science-in this case, evolution. science should be taught in church whether people like it or not. While the Bible is, of course, the main focus. A church or church-type context should be teaching christians the science that lines up with the Bible. Knowing there is science to backup Biblical accounts is encouraging to Christians. While Christians live by faith-they are also to be ready to defend their faith. They are to study and have reason for what they believe, and I think it’s wise to learn the science side of the Bible, just as we would also study the historical side.
So, saying we shouldn’t talk about science in church is no reason to say we shouldn’t talk about creation in science class. There are legitimate scientists, with valid reasoning and evidence for a young earth and the Biblical account of creation. The problem is that, in schools, the creation account is not presented as having any scientific validity. But the fact of the matter is that, scientifically, it’s accepted by many. Hypothesized, and tested, and therefore should be taught as another theory.
Yes, public schools. Funded by public tax money. And something like 75% of said public claim to be Christians. So, since the majority of the tax support is coming from Christians-their scientific viewpoint has as much (if not more) of a right to be taught than opposing viewpoints. As much as people like to throw out the “separation of church and state” card-that phrase was originally about protecting the church. By regulating Christianity being taught in schools, or not allowing the science of the creation account to be taught-the government is going against the original intent of the founders of this country.
:)
The thing that this cartoon misses is that both are the product of belief systems — one “pro-God” and one “anti-God” (for lack of better terminology) — neither is observational science. I do believe that they should be taught side-by-side, but not as science or, at least, not observational science. They should be taught as two philosophies which take the same raw data, but spit out different conclusions.
I agree with Kevin. I wouldn’t want any one particular religious creation idea taught, I believe the better term would be intelligent design, it is more agnostic.
Intelligent design is a sham brought to you by creationists who were trying to get Christian fundamentalist creationism taught in schools. They literally went through their proposed textbooks and changed God to “a creator” and “creationism” to “intelligent design” in order to PRETEND that it was not a religious idea.
Creationism and Intelligent design are not even close to the same thing. Intelligent design suggests that life could only arrive at the state it is in through the intervention of a supernatural creator, whether through theistic evolution, old earth creation, or young earth creation. Creationism posits that evolutionary theory is a misinterpretation of the evidence and that viewing that same evidence through a Biblical lens will show that science lines up with a plain reading of Genesis 1-11.
Evolution is science tainted by atheistic philosophy. ID is theistic philosophy placed over top of evolutionary science. Creationism is science viewed through a Biblical framework.
That I’d not how most people use those terms and isn’t consistent with the origin of the words either.
Kevin, Evolution is very much based on observational science. You are deeply mistaken. As I said to Joe above, read “The Greatest Show on Earth” if you doubt this.
Also, science is not anti-god, it is pro-evidence.
I disagree; evolution is very much based in humanist philosophy which has but one agenda, to lead people away from God.
If evolution is observable science then I should be able to find clear evidence going on right now of one species evolving into another, where this evolution involves the creation of new information (ex. DNA changing to have more information than it previously had). Instead what we consistently see is the destruction of information (ex. antibiotic-resistant diseases result from the loss of certain characteristics which cause the resulting bacteria to not react to the antibiotics).
Evolutionism is a philosophy, not a science, just as creationism is.
Kevin, do you think that if you personally can’t observe things happening in geological time, things that take eons and eons to happen, they are therefore not happening?
Kevin, you are putting the cart before the horse. Evolution is an idea that came about based on observed evidence in the current diversity of species and the fossil record. Humanists and atheists have a fondness for evolutionary theory because it supports their belief system. They did not create the idea; they just like it. “Evolutionism” isn’t even a thing. You observe evolution every time you see dogs of different breeds, cows that produce gallons of milk a day, or a dozen other changes in the general characteristics of life forms that have been observed by humanity.
As for your nonsense about “new information” in DNA: Most of the DNA chain is not active in most life forms anyway. Secondly, we see chromosomal changes and additions in species all the time. Most of these mutations are fatal. Some result in mental retardation and deformities. All of these things SUPPORT the idea that life forms can change their genetic characteristics spontaneously in one generation. Just because most of the time that this happens it is wildly unsuccessful does not mean that it never was and never will be successful.
I don’t even know why I am arguing with you. Your first line gives you away. The idea that the only objective of secular humanism is to lead people away from god is based on two completely irrational beliefs. 1. That the stories that were told to you as a baby are all true. and 2. That there are only two world religions-yours and “not yours” and everyone not with you is only there to lead you astray. It is what preachers preach because it is how they keep people like you in the pews. Because, yeah, all the hindus and buddhists and atheists know that your religion is the truth, and they just feel like being naughty, so they pretend it isn’t.
AGREED!
Most scientists will tell you that data is data. The person analyzing it gets to interpret it how they want, unless the conclusion is super clear. Origins “science” really isn’t as scientific as everyone wants to think. There’s so much speculation, and data can be interpreted more than one way depending on the lens through which it’s viewed.
I’m more of a fan of teaching Intelligent Design with evolution, because that’s as logical, if not more logical a conclusion, given the data, as evolution.
Evolution is not a product of an “anti-God” system, it is a product of scientific system.
What’s more telling than anything is how all girls were saying, “I don’t believe in evolution…” Evolution is not a faith-based theory like creationism, which is something you’d BELIEVE in. You could just as soon say you don’t believe in gravity. Doesn’t matter, that apple’s still gonna hit you.
Gravity is not a product of evolution and is a scientific fact which is testable and observable. Evolution of one species into another through the addition of information is not.
You can’t observe someone aging, does that mean it’s not happening?
Umm . . . as my children get older their features change, they get taller, etc. As I get older (and engage in debates like this) my hair gets grayer and various body parts begin failing. If that’s not observable I don’t know what is.
Devolving, your not helping your cause Dude.
Adam, I think his point is that we know something is aging because we compare what it looks like at several points in the past and what it looks like in the present. That’s what anthropologists do with the earth, basically, and can make conclusions as to how the earth has aged, various stages, in the same way that you can look at various pictures of a person throughout their life and know that they have aged – instead of assuming that the person just magically appeared a week ago. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
I agree with your statement that evolution is a product of a scientific system. I don’t think it came about purely as a result of an anti-God system. Indeed, science has not historically been anti-God, as many of the most important scientific discoveries were made by people who believed in God and were motivated to study by that belief.
The problem is that evolution has failed the scientific method too drastically to be valued as very much more than a loose theory (theory being the key word not used often enough in schools!) that has fueled a lot of today’s research and discoveries. There is value in that role, obviously.
“Belief in” evolution shouldn’t be based on faith, but it very much is, because it can’t be proven and its no closer to being proven (I would argue it’s FURTHER from it) than it was when it was first being tested. Intelligent design (different from creationism, in my opinion) does not require proof to be taught as a theory like evolution does (because so many other theories are dependent on its truth), but there is much evidence for it!
Oh please. In science, theories are proposed and when they stand up to scrutiny we stick with them until either they are flatly disproved or another idea comes along that better fits the evidence. Please, please tell me how evolution has failed the scientific method so drastically. Darwin’s idea of natural selection was formulated long before the discovery of DNA. We now understand DNA as the method by which hereditary traits are passed from one generation to the next. What’s the problem? Also, intelligent design is NOT different from creationism. Name for me one person not raised in a Christian household who believes in it? And please clarify why intelligent design doesn’t require proof, but evolution does.
Please inform us what evidence you have for ID, besides “I can’t figure out any other way for it to happen so therefore I must invoke magic.”
The statement that evolution has failed the scientific method is patently false. The theory of evolution has itself evolved as we have more and more technology to study it… but that doesn’t mean it has failed the scientific method. Science is constantly trying to disprove itself. Evolution has not been disproven. Some ideas have been tweaked a bit from Darwin’s original “On the Origin of the Species” as we technologically advance, as would be expected because we have new ways to measure things and new ways to observe patterns and new ways to do experiments that weren’t possible in the late 1800s.
ID is no different from Creationism. It’s just got a new name to make it somehow nondenominational.
This comic and post is an example of a few logical fallacies (false choice, begging the question, either/or). It’s what happens when your interests are denigrating religion instead of actually taking seriously that creationism in general is simply the belief in a designer. Comparing that to “phrenology” for instance, demonstrates an unserious mindset.
It’s one thing to say “teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes/church.” It’s quite another to imply that any theological conceptualization of a creator is the equivalent of alchemy.
The cartoon is a piece of satire. “Teach them both and let them decide,” is an example of the false choice logical fallacy. What Christian fundamentalists will not acknowledge when talking about evolution and the Big Bang theory is that there are not 2 ideas about the evolution of life and the creation of the universe. There are literally hundreds of unsubstantiated, irrational creation myths-one for every tribe that ever walked the face of the planet. In order to give them a choice and let them decide, we would have to let them decide. The implication is always that there is some evidence to support the Christian creation myth and there is NOT. The closest they can get is to say that no evidence exists that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Christian creation myth is untrue. (They’re wrong about that too, but it’s not important.) When asked any question about reality, I could respond with “the fairies did it,” and you couldn’t prove me wrong. Old bones in the ground? Fairies did it. Huge mountains with sea shells on them? Fairies did it. The moon and stars? Fairies again. You CAN’t prove that it’s wrong. But that’s not a reason to believe it either.
Excellent.
I always ask this question: if God is perfect, why on earth would he have created so many failed species? Shouldn’t they have all been good enough to withstand anything in their environment?
And if you don’t believe in the fossil record at all, then why would God put it there? Just to mess with us?
Creationism is flawed theologically as well as scientifically.
What do you mean by “fossil record”. I went looking as this sounded conclusive -as I follow the mostly “inconclusive” discussions on this post.
This article seems the most factual of what I found but it doesn’t appear to line up with your position?
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/fossil-record.htm
Have you never heard about the Fall of Adam and Eve? Have you never heard of Noah’s Flood? How can you call creationism flawed if you clearly have no clue what it teaches and how it backs up its claims?
What’s interesting is that “school” was never defined in the original question. Public (i.e. government) or private?
If we didn’t have compulsive education at taxpayer expense this wouldn’t even be an issue. Of course, the belief that all public funding of schools should be cut off is less popular than either creationism or evolution.
well said.
Actually, the Theory of Evolution is the product of man’s attempt to deny the existence of a Creator and therefore accountability to God. It’s a matter of different perspectives on the same scientific data.
I am of the, Let the Parents Decide, camp.
Regardless of the choice, I just don’t think that the government should be the decision maker on this one.
I agree with this conclusion completely. I don’t want the government deciding what religion to teach my children, and this falls clearly into that category.
I would also like to say that I just hope that “Gordon R.” doesn’t ever get to be the decision maker on this one.
Neither.
Micro-evolution is the only fact in the debate. You can share theories, they do this with many other subject (economics is a good example).
The real problem is that parents should be able to choose the school they want their kid to go to rather than single provider education for those who can’t afford private education.
Oh that origin of life theories were taught the same way economic theory is taught in schools today! I think we’d be much better off! What a wonderful way to fuel imaginations and learning among students.
There are several interesting theories put there about the origin of life. Most biology books spend very little tome discussing it. Ideas about the origin of life are not considered part of biological evolutionary theory. The only “biology book” that obsesses about the origin of life and presents a theory with little support as the only reasonable theory, mischaracterizes other ideas and theories, and avoids presenting current research on the topic is “Of Panda’s and People”.
Beggars can’t be choosers. If you want the government to provide you with a service, you have to take the one they give you.
All theories of origins are, in their essence, religious. Your answer to the question is the same as your answer to whether religion should be taught in schools.
Something that is often missed when discussing the topic of evolution. Evolution as in “traits in any organic population changes over time and natural selection has a lot to do with that,” IS a fact… any good dog breeder could tell you that. Evolution as in “lightning struck the primordial soup and out slithered an amoeba, which is to credit for how we ultimately got here,” is a theory of origin, and is no more provable than the Genesis account, because neither can be recreated in a lab. That’s why I believe both theories should probably be taught in public schools. Though I never plan on sending any future children of mine to public schools anyway.
Yes, Laura, you are correct about some of this. However, the “lightning in the primordial ooze” fits best with our current understanding of biochemistry. Experiments have been done that have resulted in the formation of complex molecules in a laboratory under the conditions that we think existed at about the time life came about. There are logical reasons to back one horse over another. When new evidence suggests that the composition of the global atmosphere was different than we thought, scientists will examine that evidence, and if it holds up to scrutiny, the prevailing theory will change. The Genesis account will never change. Any evidence brought forth to challenge it is dismissed as trickery out of hand. There is no room in religious fundamentalism for any objective examination of facts. In fact, they view an open mind as a weakness and a sin. That fact alone should inform you about which group of people are more likely to come to correct conclusions.
I’ve personally never had a problem believing in God as the creator, and the strong science behind evolution. I believe in both, so I must have missed the memo that evolution was the devil. You know what’s a product of the devil? Ignorance. Evolution should continue to be taught in school, not as an elective, but part of your science curriculum. Even if you don’t believe in evolution, you should let your children hear about it. Just because they hear about how we all, at one time, were bacteria swimming in the primordial oceans as a fact(which to this crowd is obviously debatable), they won’t automatically become agents of Satan. But raising a kid with blinders on certainly won’t make him a saint.
Creationism is not peanut butter and chocolate, the best of both worlds. What is science without objectivity? Not science. I believe this has no place whatsoever in a public school biology class. And the plan to teach “both sides of the story,” as so many contestants wished for, simply couldn’t happen in the current state of our public schools. There’s simply not enough time in a school day to teach every single belief system appropriately. And if you, as a tax-payers, demand this of your school district, the education of your child would be so watered down that neither the Christians, nor everyone else(let’s be honest, it’s not like we’ll see a Hindu creationist class anytime soon) would be happy with.
Well-said.
For lack of a better phrase. “Oh thank God.” Cris, I have finally read something sensible on this forum.
Is it ok to suggest that I don’t care? Probably not, but I said it anyway… I thought the comic was amusing. THanks for posting it.
Love it: “No one is allowed to be offended…”
Offense was rising in my heart until I read that, Abraham. Now I’m okay, since I don’t want to break the rules.
Well. This is sure way to get some traffic on your site :-)
Scientific data can’t be anti God, only people can be anti God. Many who accept evolution are atheists, but many are Evangelicals and even more are Christians. There is more than one way to read Genesis, and though the Bible is infallible, an interpretation is not. Evolution is a scientific theory which has unfortunately been ceded to the other camp while too many in the church cling to YEC. Young people are not embracing atheism over Christianity because they’ve been taught by the football coach with an education degree and an emphasis in science. However, they may reject Christianity because they see only Christians who have made the devil out of science and put more emphasis on the details of origins than on the Gospel. We are doing our children a disservice and causing an unnecessary crisis of faith when they encounter the facts of science one day and think that they must choose what is obvious to them (particularly in regards the age of the earth) and their parents faith.
Cal, you are awesome.
‘I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because uh, some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and uh, I believe that our education, like such as in South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here in the US should help the US, or, or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.’
Word.
In related news: 12 year old genius is working on disproving the big bang theory.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/
Looking for a fight, huh, Abraham?
It’s impossible to do or understand modern science without having a solid grasp of the theory of natural selection and those ideas that flow from it. Our medicines come out of an understanding of science that is grounded in evolutionary theory. Schools should be in the business of teaching science and its major theories, including evolution, because to not teach it leaves children poorly educated and unprepared for modern life.
That said, I don’t think creationism has a place alongside evolution in school curricula, because creationism is a religious, devotional belief, and those matters should be taught by parents and religious institutions.
I find it really interesting that most people who are critical of teaching evolution haven’t actually read Darwin and don’t really have an accurate understanding of what he said. We might have much less contentious debates if we worked with the actual theory and not the stereotypes.
Very well said, Laura. Also, this hostility among Christians towards evolution is a uniquely American phenomenon. Scientists in other countries who are serious, devout Christians, who believe that God is truly the Creator, find the American fundamentalists’ obsession with opposing evolution very puzzling. Unless they’ve been influenced by American fundamentalism themselves. That’s an unfortunate development when it happens.
Creationists who insist on only literal readings of Genesis fancy themselves defenders of traditional Christianity, but they’d be surprised to find out how far off-base many truly traditional Christians consider them to be.
Laura and Diane, kudos to you both for reasoned and well thought out responses.
I don’t mind so much if creation is not taught in public school. But I do have a problem with the entire timeline of evolution being taught as an incontrovertible fact. What we know is that we can observe change in genetics over time. What we know is that there are a lot of traits in common between many existing species.
What we *don’t* know for sure is exactly how it all boiled down billions of years ago. We can make educated deductions and draw some logical conclusions from the information we do have, but we cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that “this is definitely, 100%, absolutely for sure what happened, and you are an ignorant Bible-thumper if you question it.”
If evolution was presented as, “Here is the evidence, and here are the conclusions that most scientists agree on”–even if only one side was given without so much as a nod to the opposite–then I would have much less problem with it being taught in school. I don’t even mind students being required to study and understand the conclusions being presented. What I dislike is how it is hammered home as an absolute fact that only idiots would dare to argue with, and how students are penalized and ridiculed for taking issue with it.
We weren’t there a billion years ago. We can’t say for sure what happened. The best we can do is offer what is most likely, given our current knowledge of the evidence. When it is taught with the same kind of factual authority as saying that the moon is not made of cheese, then we are overstepping the bounds of what what we are actually able to know, and we are doing our students a disservice in our exaggeration.
People who would have a problem with their tax dollars being used to pay for abortions (most often the reason is because they believe it wrong according to their faith and worldview) should also remember that other people would have a problem with their tax dollars being used to teach creationism in public schools. The fact of the matter is, the public school is not an appropriate forum to be teaching faith-based perspectives on origin of life in the science setting unless they are going to teach all faith-based perspectives. And since I doubt most anyone is in favor of that, leave it out of the curriculum and and let the churches and families teach their children about their faith-based beliefs.
I’m too short of time to read all the discussion above, but three things need to be pointed out:
a) Theistic evolution is an untenable position. If you believe God is sovereign, you cannot believe in chance. If you believe in evolution (that is, survival of the fittest according to chance mutations over long periods of time), you don’t believe in a sovereign God. Those who think “God worked through evolutionary means” either don’t understand evolution or don’t understand God. The position is illogical and non-sensical. Chance is an irreducible component of evolutionary theory. Take away the chance and you no longer have evolution. Evolution by definition is random, not controlled. If you advocate that God directed or guided evolution, it’s not actually evolution at all. You’re basically arguing some form of ‘intelligent design.’
b) If evolution is true, logic, reason, math, and even science itself are suspect, being the mere happenstance products of minds that have evolved by random chance.
c) Evolution, of course, cannot be true, because science has demonstrated that mutations only degrade the gene, they don’t improve it. (This is, of course, what the Bible has argued all along, that a perfect creation has become corrupted by sin.)
Those who have pure-breed horses or dogs know this to be true – the purer the breed, the more health issues it will have. The same goes for so-called “antibiotic-resistant bacteria” – they have mutated a resistance to antibiotics, but the resistant bactera is genetically weaker than the “wild” bacteria, and once the exposure to the antibiotics is removed, the “wild” bacteria eventually become dominant again. The same with horse and dog breeds – once selective breeding on the part of human owners is removed, the breeds eventually revert to the wild, feral “mutt” form.
Thus, evolution falls on two major points (as well as a multitude of minor ones): A) There is no plausible explanation for where the original organism came from, and B) mutations always weaken the gene, never strengthen it.
I think that (1.) your characterization of the role of “chance” in evolution is flawed, probably laughably oversimplified to biologists; and (2.) your view of God’s sovereignty is ironically restricted to what sovereignty looks like to our puny human logical constructs, and then only a narrow field of Calvinist-flavored logic favored during a certain slice of western history, at that.
Genesis 1 says a few times that God created elements in the world, and then *commanded those created elements to bring forth more created life.* Creation is not inert (that’s a gnostic view). Creation has agency (under God, yes) in bringing forth more of creation. Think about that.
Dianne,
1) I encourage you to speak with actual biologists (on any side of the issue), who will assure you that a “guided evolution” is not evolution at all. It’s just run-of-the-mill intelligent design (which I would argue also has flaws as it’s commonly presented). If you’re affirming divine selection, you’re ruling out natural selection. This is a simplification, yes, but not an oversimplification. To suggest some sort of fatalist solution where God sets the rules in such a way that they will spin out unattended precisely how he wants them to is *not* evolution, nor is it biblical. God was and *remains* active in creation at every moment. We are not deists.
2) The Bible indicates that reason is an attribute of God’s character, and is therefore universal in its scope and application. (After all, if logic is merely a human construct, then before humans came along, did logic exist? Could the universe exist and not-exist at the same time?) Because of sin, we are fallible in its application, but to presuppose that God may not be sovereign because our logic may not be flawless completely up-ends authority. By whose authority does one make such a statement? By our own authority, which is a dead end, since we’ve already conceded that our own authority may be flawed. Our only reliable *true* authority is Scripture, which asserts a God who is sovereign over all creation, now and forever.
(Someone may ask by what authority do I assume the Bible is our only true and reliable authority, but the answer is: I don’t. If I were to do so, I would be putting myself in authority over it.)
3) Calvinism is a total red herring to this discussion. I think perhaps you’re confusing sovereignty with monergism? All Christians agree that God is sovereign. What sets Calvinists apart is that they argue God acts unilaterally to save his people, that is, he does all the work and we contribute nothing towards our own salvation. As I said, that’s a red herring to this discussion, since the question at hand is whether one affirms the eternally sovereign God of the Bible, or the uninvolved god of Deism.
4) What Gen 1:24 actually says (an important distinction) is “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” So a) biological differentiation is already in place and b) there is a sovereign decree as to the results. Whatever this verse is describing, it’s certainly not “Here nature, you’re on your own, come up with some good species!”
5) No one is suggesting an inert creation, on the contrary, you seem to be suggesting that God himself is inert after his initial work in creation, that he gave things a kick start and then leaves them to spin off unattended according to natural processes. This sounds more like Deism. Deistic evolution, if you will.
I encourage you to check out Edgar Andrews’ book “Who Made God?”, which primarily addresses atheism, but also touches on natural selection. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Made-Searching-Theory-Everything/dp/0852347073/
I often wonder why so many Christians refuse to acknowledge how compatible the creation accounts (yes, both of them) coincide with evolutionary theory and modern cosmology. There is a spectacular event where energy is released (light), the stars and galaxies form (the heavens) and then, in stages, various life emerges. I think it’s just a quinky-dink, but it is a much more compelling and realistic and honest interpretation of all facts than dinosaurs and humans coexisting (which is frankly just silly).
I suspect the real reason that some Christians reject evolutionary theory is because they want to feel much more special than other creatures. The concept that they have a common ancestor with other primates is simply offensive to them.
This debate is really dumb.
“Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? 1
But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? 2
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. 3
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” -Charles Darwin
To this day not one transitional link has been discovered in the fossil record. But oh yeah… some guys that spent a few years of their life studying a biased science from a biased school with a curriculum censored by a socialistic-humanistic government say it’s a fact so I’m going to believe them.
Micro-evolution on the other hand (should be called something more fitting like adaptology or something else… I’ll let you all decide) has a perfect place in science up to and excluding the massive inconsistency of carbon dating.
So what should be taught in schools? How about the truth for a change?
Why not just tell the poor little kids and the physics students that we (the whole flippin world) just don’t know for sure, but here are a few ideas that carry weight. And here’s what could happen when a dog with white hair mates a dog with black hair.
“Species” are not well defined. In fact, defining “species” is difficult enough that there are many controversies concerning whether or not certain groups of animals should be considered a separate species than another, such as the Red Wolf or the Baltimore Oriole. Being able to define “species” is considered an on-going problem, because animal groups are so closely related and because groups of animals evolve.
All fossils are “transitional forms”. Even if you go by an extremely strict definition of “transitional” the fossil record is littered with them. If you want a listing and an explanation you can go to the “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ” on the TalkOrigins website.
Also, please just quite quoting Darwin in order to attempt to discredit his theory. 1) He often rhetorically asked questions right before he answered them, so it’s dishonest to quote a rhetorical question of his and then pretend as if he thought his own theory sucked and 2) He lived 150 years ago and biologists have actually discovered stuff and revised evolutionary theory since then (not that you noticed, but hey).
I do agree that we don’t do a good job of explaining science to children sometimes, but I don’t think you would like it better if we did. If we were better at teaching science to children, they would become even more convinced of the validity of evolutionary biology because instead of glossing over it and just explaining the basics of the theory (because we’re worried that some of their parents and some of them will crab at us), we would present the evidence and explain how that evidence supports the theory, and we would also mention evolution much much more, since nothing makes sense in biology without it. For example, when studying cell theory, we would talk about evolution. When talking about disease and illness, we would talk about evolution. We wouldn’t just teach taxonomy, but explain phylogeny and how plants and animals can be classified according to how they evolved and how that evolution can be tracked genetically.
No, I don’t think you would like it if we taught the truth for a change.
Sinman, if you actually believe that, then the rest of my remarks are not meant for you… your ignorance is obviously too far below the ability to comprehend anything logical. Based off what you just said. Science can keep changing the definitions to make less of the importance of what Darwin was saying about his species to species evolution theory. He didn’t think his theory sucked, he honestly thought that with time and technology scientists after him would actually discover missing links–oops. He defiantly insisted that we would uncover the transitions in fossil record, but we failed him. The problem with science today is that it spends too much time not being scientific. By spending 150 years trying to prove a broken theory, scientists have tested; trying to get a result granting their case some validity. You don’t see evolution scientists testing against their theory, rather only trying to manipulate tests that can prove it. Is it a wonder why they keep failing and it remains the theory of evolution? No, because you cannot prove wrong—right in a test tube, fossil, lab, or definition change. Wrong is always wrong in science, you can’t test a false theory and get correct result.
Your ignorance is showing in your face right now… the heat in your veins is not because you are angry at my words, it is because deep down inside you are absolutely devastated by the realization that all this time you have been so blindly led down the path of your evolutionary faith. And since you won’t accept the fact that you’re an idiot you will continue to rage until your last wasted breath. Your life must really suck.
No, I’m not angry. I don’t have “heat in my veins” because I’ve heard what you are saying many, many times before. I know anti-evolutionary arguments better than some of the people who make them. At the very least, I don’t think anyone is making the “Evolutionary theory violates the Law of Thermodynamics” argument any more. (Anti-evolutionary arguments tend to change in time too.) Science, at least ideally, is self-correcting so details of evolutionary theory have changed in time as new evidence has been gathered and we do use some language differently now than scientists used to a hundred or so years ago. This happens in all sciences. There is such a thing as confirmation bias and I’m not going to pretend that does not exist. However, you are pretending that a great many things do not exist. I sent you to information about transitional forms that you simply don’t care to see or acknowledge. Our ideas about how evolution plays out have certainly been revised and added to since Darwin, however his theory (as opposed to Lamarck or others) is the one that the evidence supports. Our new understanding of genetics and the genome all are consistent with evolution through natural selection. I can understand why some people get pretty angry at people like you, though. I don’t do work in biology. I teach physics. However, I have been around researchers and I know how many of them function and how much ownership and dedication they put into their work. I can imagine that someone who has worked very hard to increase humanities body of knowledge, and knows a great deal of the evidence that supports evolution, as well as seeing the consequences of it every day would become very frustrated at people not only disregarding their work, but essentially lying about biology and insulting them on top of that. I mean, do you recognize at all that I confronted you with arguments and evidence that you were wrong, and you didn’t refute what I said, you just called me names? Do you think that speaks to the validity of your position?
After reading (most) of the posts on here, it seems to me that anyone who believes in Christianity is ultimately on trial on this thread. Regardless of what you believe, or what you feel should be taught in school – where is it written that anyone has the right to force their opinions on anyone else? It doesn’t even matter what side of the fence your on, it seems to me that no one here is giving anyone the right to their own personal belief systems. And, before any of you start – a belief system – whether based in scientific or religious background is still just a belief system.
This was a satirical comic – and look at you all.
I just scrolled down past the enormous wall of text and laughed at all the wasted time.
I love these kinda posts :) Whole lot of people beating drums of every camp and not one actually listening to the other.
Shall we throw another troll on the fire ? ;)