Scientists generally accept the theory of evolution as the back-story of how animal species (including humans) came into being over a period of several billion years. Religious literalists maintain their belief in creation, as laid down in the Bible: God made the earth and all that is on it (including humans, after His own image) in one week, a couple of thousand years ago.
These are the extreme positions in a debate that has been raging for years now in the United States, and more particularly in the school system. Since each state can determine what should be in the local schools’ curriculum, the teaching of evolution and/or creation differs throughout the country. Yet contrary to what one might think, it’s not so that creation is taught in the Bible Belt states (in the South), and evolution in more liberal states (everywhere else).
This map is taken here from the website Science Against Evolution, which quite cleverly tries to win the debate for creation by arguing that the theory of evolution itself has been discredited by scientific evidence and by numerous scientists. However, the map is drawn up by a proponent of evolution, as can be deduced from the remarks on the map and even its colours (green is good, red is bad).
Green indicates that evolution theory is taught in a ‘very good/excellent’ way. These states include the liberal states of
- California (“Well organized”)
- Rhode Island
- Connecticut
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania and
- Delaware.
But also a Midwestern, more conservative state such as
- Indiana (”Exemplary”)
and even two southern states with a reputation for religiosity:
- North Carolina (“Model of good organization”) and
- South Carolina (“Thorough and challenging treatment”).
Yellow indicates indicates where evolution is taught in a ‘satisfactory/good’ manner. This includes the majority of states, from the north and west not usually included in the Bible Belt, such as
- Washington
- Oregon (“solid if uninspired”)
- Idaho
- Montana (“human evolution ignored”)
- South Dakota
- Nebraska (“marred by creationist notions”)
- Minnesota
- Michigan
- New York (“inclusion of creationist jargon”)
- Vermont and
- Massachusetts (“marred by creationist jargon”)
Similarly, the colour red, indicating where the teaching of evolution is’ unsatisfactory, useless or absent’, is spread out across the entire country, not just in the South:
- North Dakota
- Wyoming
- Illinois (“an embarrassment”)
- Ohio (“the E-word is avoided”)
- Maine (“useless”) and
- Mississippi (“Mississippi seems determined to keep evolution outside its borders”)
The map first appeared in 2002 in Scientific American, and was based on data collected by Lawrence S. Lerner of California State University at Long Beach.

here’s a link with images of diagrammatic map like deals created by a contemporary artist colleague whose work is pretty great; file under interpersonal/paranoid delusional narrative schematics
http://www.artic.edu/~dsokolow/
Comment by paola — April 3, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
…their belief in creation, as laid down in the Bible: God made the earth and all that is on it (including humans, after His own image) in one week, a couple of thousand years ago.
Religious literalists, I think, tend to believe that the earth was created more than two thousand years ago. Christian fundamentalists, for instance, hold that the Earth did in fact exist when Christ walked on it.
Comment by Sartorius — April 3, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
@ Sartorius:
By ‘a couple’ I mean more than just two. I think I’ve read somewhere that the literalists (Jewish and Christian) hold the Earth to be somewhere between six thousand and seven thousand years old…
Comment by strangemaps — April 3, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
It always seems to me that this whole issue is an excellent argument for the privatization of education. The problem would vanish if the government didn’t have an effective monopoly on primary education. As it stands, the government’s insistence that state-supported education must take place in government-run schools makes the policy of those schools toward evolution (and all sorts of other matters) a political issue, which it never should and never needed to be. Bring on the vouchers and end the madness!
Comment by Mark — April 3, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
The six thousand figure comes from Usher’s Chronology, which was made by a guy named Usher who counted up all the geneological generations in the old testament that link the time of Adam to recorded history.
The key debate among Christians is whether or not anything in the Bible can be a metaphor. It’s a complex question because it obviously contains sections of poetry and discourse. It’s not all straight narrative.
I personally think it’s a mistake to treat the bible like a cosmology textbook. It’s concerned with the human soul and that’s the context it should be read in.
Comment by John M. — April 3, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
[...] sends along a handy map. For once, I can be proud of New Jersey, a state where the facts are taught. Now if only we could [...]
Pingback by Leaning Towards the Dark Side » Blog Archive » Is science being taught in our schools? — April 3, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
That’s strange, in my 10th grade biology class in RI there was no mention of evolution at all, at least that I can remember. Perhaps my school was out of line with the state’s guidelines.
Comment by Stuart Coleman — April 3, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
[...] Re: Best Place to Live (game) Where and how evolution is taught. 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US strange maps [...]
Pingback by Best Place to Live (game) - Page 6 - Folsom Forum — April 3, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
[...] Check out this map: Where (and How) Evolution is taught in the US [...]
Pingback by PorkBanana » Blog Archive » Evolution? — April 3, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.
Comment by bevets — April 3, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
There is a junkyard acroos the street, I don’t see it turning into an airplane.
Explain: Love, Guilt, Happiness, Sadness, Passion, Self-Control to me. How did evolution create those things?
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
There is a junkyard acroos the street, I don’t see it turning into an airplane.
Explain: Love, Guilt, Happiness, Sadness, Passion, Self-Control to me. How did evolution create those things?
Wow, this may be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. Evolution does not deal with inanimate things like junkyards and airplanes. As far as the emotions you mentioned, they are all simply ways that your brain interprets chemical reactions to stimulus that you encounter.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Interesting!
I wrote a whole series of 5 posts in my blog, about the teaching of The Evolution Theory In Greece, where the theory goes in an out of schools due to Christian reactions…
you may read it here
it’s for any reader who reads Greek.
Nice meeting you.
Comment by roidis — April 3, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
I wonder what sort of conversations Creationists have with farmers:
Farmer: “I’m trying to breed a new strain of cows that produce low-fat milk.”
Creationist: “You can’t do that, it’s against God’s plan!”
Farmer: “B-but my family has been breeding livestock selectively for centuries. It’s common practice.”
Creationist: “You Godless Commie Darwinist, you!”
(*SATIRE*)
Comment by A.R.Yngve — April 3, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
The Creationists and their ilk are no longer able to use their most potent conversion tools — burning, beheading, boarding schools. They’re still trying to keep kids stupid so they can be used for wars of empire, but it’s better than the Bad Old Burning Days. We can’t stop monitoring them, of course — they’re idiots, but they’re deadly — but at least as a woman it’s no loner LEGAL for them to use the word “witch” to murder me.
Comment by wolffood — April 3, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
[...] Map of Evolution Education in the US 03Apr07 Strange maps has a map of where and how evolution is taught in the US. I have no idea how accurate it is. According to the [...]
Pingback by A Map of Evolution Education in the US « import Mind.Reason — April 3, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
“There is a junkyard acroos the street, I don’t see it turning into an airplane.”
Duh. You need to add some humans with a background in science in order to build something flight-worthy out of the junk yard ACROOS your street.
Comment by jason — April 3, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
If you understand evolution, you would know that it fully explains things like emotions, ego, etc.
Comment by ml — April 3, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
I don’t understand why schools can’t teach both evolution and creationism as what they are: theories. Teach them as theories and let the students decide what they want to believe. Neither theory can be PROVEN one way or another. There is evidence for both theories.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
[...] surprising results here…I recomend reading the whole post at strange maps. cd 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « strange maps Scientists generally accept the theory of evolution as the back-story of how animal species [...]
Pingback by 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « strange maps at INCREDIBLE FUKN.US — April 3, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
What evidence is there for creationism? The bible?
Should they teach that you can bake bread…or create it with a miracle in a cooking class?
Comment by ml — April 3, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
@Chad: Some primates display these abstract traits as well. How is this explained? Maybe it’s just self-organizing behavior present in any reasonably intelligent species?
Comment by Kevin — April 3, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
@ ml
The Bible states the theory; science provides the evidence:
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html
Like I said, there is evidence for both theories.
Your comment about baking bread is about as brilliant as the comment about the junkyard evolving into an airplane.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
@Kevin
Things that are created by the same Creator tend to have similarities.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Dear Sir,
If you believe that the world was created by chance, you mine as well admit your amonkey right now. Further more your are admitting that anything can become of just chance. I think that evolution was invented just so you evolutionists don’t have to accept God as the creator and upholder of the universe. I am not surprised but I do think that if you want to call yourselves monkeys thats ok with me cause you sure aren’t human, you have to be awful messed up in the brain to give in to believing that stuff. If you don’t want this comment on your blog then just delete it but I had to get something said to defend my God, because he is getting his glory robbed from him.
The MaskedMaster
Comment by MaskedMaster — April 3, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
The Darwin theory is so convincing I sometimes wonder if this really is the case but so many chance events have taken place over the centuries and for instance the 12-year old child protegy depicting the Godly aspect of our being that I veer towards the Adam and Eve concept as I can’t see how apes can have developed such fine tuned skills without the intervention of some divine being.
Comment by literaryc — April 3, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
The comment about the airplane and the junkyard refers to the argument that the chances of evolution producing life as we know it would be about the same as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling an airplane. Jason makes an interesting comment, when he says that it takes a very intelligent person to create something as complex as an airplane out of raw materials. This is what Christians believe, that an intelligent designer (God) created the universe and set it in motion with the processes that we can scientifically observe today.
Christians don’t challenge the existence of the process of evolution, but the theory that all life began when the universe spontaneously exploded.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
Romans 1:20
Comment by Jonathan — April 3, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Jarod-
What you’re reccomending is the famous “teach the controversy” model that intelligent design (the “trojan horse” of creationism, as some have called it) has tried to implement. I don’t see you arguing that we should be teaching Greek, Roman, Gnostic Christian, Hindu, Norse, Aboriginal, etc. creation myths, which would all have to be included if your appeal for “equal time” were genuine.
Evolution, as Gould pointed out, is both fact and theory; we know evolution occurs, but there are many theories to explain it. Even if it was “just a theory” an actual scientific theory has gone under rigorous testing and holds true over many tests and under inspection, which is something evolution has done ever since Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. Teaching creationism along with evolution would, in effect, lying to students and leading them to believe there’s some scientific controversy over whether evolution is a real when there is not.
Since you put creationism on equal footing with evolution, I assume that you propose that the Bible is infallible in its description of natural events, i.e. the creation of Earth and life upon it. What version of the Bible is the correct one? We know the King James Version is fraught with inaccuracies because it was taken from a shoddy Greek rendition created by Erasmus, and Bible scholars acknowledge that today’s Bibles are fraught with mistakes, additions, deletions, and other changes (both intentional and not intentional), so how can the Bible be taken as an entirely accurate text when concrete evidence shows us that it has not been in any way “divinely preserved” or unaltered? I reccomend the book Misquoting Jesus which deals with these topics in great depth.
There is nothing about creationism that is scientific; there is no actual evidence to support it, and it is inherently anti-science. Creationists, rather than looking at the natural world for the truth, believe they already have the truth, and hence they twists and distort science to try and fit it back into the Bible. If someone wants to believe that God created the world in a week 6,000 years ago or that life is “intelligently designed,” they’re welcome to do so, but that’s theology (not science) and it doesn’t belong anywhere in the science classroom.
Comment by laelaps — April 3, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Apologies for my spelling/grammatical errors; I was so aggravated that I didn’t proofread (d’oh!)
Comment by laelaps — April 3, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
The world was created 5 minutes ago. Prove me wrong.
Comment by Anonymous — April 3, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Great post. Talk about a conversation starter!
Comment by rlwilliams — April 3, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
A scientifically uninformed populous can only hurt itself in the long run by being clueless on even the most rudimentary foundations of biology. Moreover it’s easy to manipulate people with political rhetoric and confusing information on such matters when this is their default view.
Comment by Brinticus — April 3, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
@ Laelaps
I have not studied the history and accuracy of the Bible enough to reply to your comment on the accuracy of the Bible; those questions have arised in my head, and I do intend on researching that subject when I have time.
Just because we can’t teach all theories doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach the major ones. We should teach the major ones with some scientific evidence (not Anonymous’s 5 minute theory ;)).
Some aspects of evolution are fact. It can be observed that species can adapt to their environment. However, there are no documented cases of a species evolving into another species.
Where are the transition species? Why are there big gaps between species? If a mutation is advantageous, the previous species should die off, and the new species should thrive. There should be thousands, if not millions, of transition species alive and in the fossil record, but I have not seen any. Re-creating an entire skeleton from a fragment of a skull or a tooth does not count in my books.
I have studied evolution in school, but nothing ever convinced me that it was true. To the contrary, some of the “cavemen” (for lack of a better word) that were taught to me in school later proved to be hoaxes. This goes to show that some evolutionists can twist and distort science to fit their theory as well. That happens in both camps.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Hmmm… scientists are “unanimous” on global warming too… The problem with all this is that nobody was there when it happened, so we just don’t know. The best we can do is guess, and evolution ought to be taught as just that- science’s best guess.
Comment by Dayne — April 3, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
I agree completely, Dayne.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Just to be clear evolution doesn’t claim that life arose by chance – far from it.
All life (and that includes us) evolved by natural selection i.e. the selection process is highly directed (the environment either kills off or selects for a modification) – it is the modification that appears by chance. I find it hard to believe that anyone who considers the variation in life (within and between species) can’t see that there is such a variation.
And as for teaching ID/creation on an equal footing as evolution because both are theories is misinterpreting the scientific definition of theory. Gravity is a theory like evolution – but few people would argue that gravity is a ‘fact’ in common parlance. Whereas ID/ creation isn’t a scientific theory at all – there is no evidence, no concept that the idea should be questioned, tested and modified. Indeed religion is all about not questioning.
In other words not all ideas are equal – we don’t teach alchemy, the idea that the spaghetti flying monster created the world, that Gods live on Mount Olympus and nor should we teach ID in science lessons. We should of course teach Christianity in schools – but alongside all other religions.
Comment by Tom Scott — April 3, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
MaskedMaster, if your god is capable of creating so much (and destroying so much), why would he need someone like you to defend him? It seems he should be perfectly capable of defending himself.
BTW, evolution is not a theory in the sense that the word theory has come to mean in common language. It’s a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory. So go ahead and try to disprove gravity or decide that you don’t believe in it. It doesn’t matter that it still is a fact.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Evolution does not explain guilt when we eat a Krispy Kreme donut before dinner. Give me a break monkey boy. When we do something wrong we have guilt and usually seek….and the survey say….Forgivenwss. Ding Ding. Evoultion does not explain why we are here or where we are going. It does not explain the intricate connections that make up are everyday life. Evolution is just an excuse for people to seek a “truth” that doesn’t exist. If Darwin lived a million years, he would never find what he was looking for. America would be much better if it wasn’t so secular with people trying downplay a religion that has influenced millions of people throughout history. How do you know the difference if you never even have opened a Bible. It so full of metaphors that it is mind blowing. You can’t just put it in a box. If you believe in evolution than you must believe in evolution of thoughts making the Greeks WRONG.
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
I think students should be presented the evidence, and told that some people believe it means this, and some people believe it means that, but you can decide for yourself. It might actually raise a generation that can think for itself, rather than being told what to believe. I don’t want to force Christian beliefs on anybody. It has to be a decision that each individual come to on their own. I just think it’s misleading to teach students that “This is how the world began, and this is how humans began, and that’s a fact,” when it can’t be proven.
I don’t put evolution and gravity in the same category. There is great evidence for gravity all around me; I have never seen any evidence that convinces me that the theory of evolution is true.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Chad,
I have to disagree with you. Evolution does explain why you feel guilty when you eat a doughnut. A doughnut is bad for you, and your body know that. It doesn’t want you to eat it. If you just ate doughnuts, you would die off, and only the healthy eaters would survive. Natural selection. Or maybe it’s God’s way of telling you to live a healthy life so you will be around and you can actually make an impact with it.
Evolution doesn’t explain why you feel guilty when you lie, steal, kill, or commit adultery, though.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Chad, take your same argument regarding guilt and the doughnut to the same logical conclusion regarding the other things you listed. Emotions are not a hard, set in stone thing. They are interpreted by each individual in their own way. Not everyone experiences guilt to begin with. Guilt is a socially learned reaction to a stimulus. If you are not taught to feel guilty in certain situations, you won’t feel it.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Jarod- I’ll attempt to be brief in my explanations as to not crowd the commentary, but there’s much I find contentious about what you’ve said.
As for teaching the “best” theories; why is creationism the “best”? In America, perhaps the Judeo-Christian creation story might be “best” because it fits in with the religion of the majority, but what about in other countries? Would Indian, Iranian, etc. schools teach evolution and the Christian creation myth? I don’t think so; I think it would be evolution vs. whatever religion is dominant, and we’ve already seen this in places like Turkey. There is a wider acceptance of the Genesis creation myth because most people in this country are raised in some sort of Christian home (whether more or less pious), and so there’s an inherent gravitation towards that story rather than others; if the majority religion were different, then we’d have the same debate but another type of religion vs. evolution.
Your assertion that species evolving into another species is not documented is completely false. Speciation (the process of one species turning into another) is well known, and there are many books documenting the processes by which it happens (notably Speciation by Coyne and Orr. I’ll use a recent news story to help illuminate this; a new species of clouded leopard has been formally recognized in Borneo, being different in color and pattern than its ancestor. This cat became reproductively and geographically isolated from its ancestor (the Clouded leopard lives on the Asian mainland, the Bornean variety on islands), and in being adapted to its own environment became a new species. I could go on and on about speciation, but to say that we don’t have any evidence for the emergence of new species is preposterous.
As for transition species, there are many (here’s an excellent resource for it), and your statement is rather vague. Fossils, while “common” are extremely rare at the same time, i.e. it takes special circumstances to create and preserve fossils, and there will naturally be gaps, especially if evolution happens quickly in relatively small populations. There is much more than recreating an entire skeleton from just skulls or teeth; just look at the comparative completeness of Tiktaalik or “Selam”, the Australopithecus child. As paleontologists have recently noted, we’re living in a “golden age” of fossil discovery, and nearly every day there’s a new species being heralded in the news that illuminates some aspect of evolutionary change (one of the most recent being a lizard without front limbs).
Your assertion about mutations is also wrong. Sometimes evolution happens in a straight line, one species replacing another and changing over time, but more likely a small population (broken off from a larger group or other area) become geographically isolated from their parent population. In such a situation, if enough changes occur to cause speciation, then even if the group comes back into contact with the parent population they may no longer mate with them (because of behavior, morphology, etc.), and the changes will continue to accrue according to what is advantageous in the environment. Once again, I would refer you to Coyne and Orr’s work on the subject if you wish to know more about this process.
You say that you studied evolution in school: at what level? A grade school education (or even a college course or two) doesn’t count as being any kind of authority on the subject. Ecology & evolution is my field of study and when I’m not in class, I’m reading both creationist and classic evolutionist texts, and if you need proof you can see from my blog I’m heavily invested in this topic. This is a topic that everyone has an opinion about, but few actually gain any understanding of. How many books by Gould, Dawkins, Darwin, Mayr, Simpson, Carroll, Huxley, or other figureheads of evolutionary thought have you read? You can’t tear down an idea unless you understand it, and from what you’ve written it appears that you don’t really understand what you’re arguing against.
You mention “cavemen” (for clarification, the term is Hominid) as well. Indeed, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are two famous cases of mistakes and scientific hubris, but this does not debase all of paleoanthropology. Indeed, if you look at the stories more carefully (especially in the case of Nebraska Man) it’s obvious that science self-corrected itself and was largely a misunderstanding that stemmed from one scientists desire to jab at a famous lawyer from Nebraska. There’s a wonderful essay about it in Gould’s Bully for Brontosaurus called “Essay on a Pig Roast.”
Your point in bringing this up is the common theme of trying to show science as a religion, or at least corrupt establishment. While it is true science does make mistakes, there is at least the hope of correcting those mistakes, and there are few things scientists seem to love more than pointing out someone else is entirely wrong. As I said before, creationists can’t ever be wrong because they believe they have absolute authority, coming from God, so it’s “anything goes” on the scientific front. Science isn’t 100% correct 100% of the time, and that’s the main distinction here; creationists base their entire case on being correct from Biblical authority, and as such there can be no ideas that aren’t inherently biased (i.e. if it doesn’t match Scripture, it must be wrong no matter what).
This all stems from the change in science that came during the 1600’s. For a long time, science was often the province of “natural theologians”, people who believed they could find out about the mind of God from studying nature. Many, however, did not study nature but rather read lots of books, books by Aristotle and Pliny the Elder which were fraught with errors. If you wanted to know how many teeth a horse had, you didn’t count them in a living specimen, but rather you looked it up in a book (books controlled by the church, oftentimes). Then, scientists actually started to look at the natural world and find it inconsistent with scripture, and we’re still having that argument today, despite all that we’ve learned by looking at the natural world. There is no creationist argument under the sun that is not older than Darwin himself. The point of this is that creationists (even highly respected scientists like Richard Owen) have oppossed evolution from the start but it still stands, even more firmly than when Darwin first published. The underlying creationist fear (and reason for all this debate) is that evolution will make people stop believing in God or somehow they’ll become evil materialist communists. Indeed, in all the creationist literature I’ve seen, the issue isn’t whether evolution is correct, it’s that evolution somehow will take people away from God, and that’s why there’s a debate. The mission statement of AiG states that it primarily wishes to uphold “God’s Word” and the infamous Discovery Institute “Wedge Document” talks about removing materialism so that people will go back to being believers again. Nothing is said about scientific truth, accuracy, or objective study. As such, creationism of all kinds is fraught with condescending paternalism (”We know what’s best for you”) and sometimes I wonder if its propenents really believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark and that Neanderthals were really people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. I doubt I’m going to change your mind with anything I write, but I’ve taken the time to read just as many creationist works as I have ones about evolution, and anyone involved in this debate should do the same; how else can you even begin to have an informed opinion?
Comment by laelaps — April 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Ok, ok… so that wasn’t so brief, hah
Comment by laelaps — April 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Jarod, Chad
For what its worth I have not only opened a bible but I’ve read the lot.
And yes I do indeed believe in the evolution of thought (as well as species). So yes I know the ancient Greeks were wrong, and one day we will look back and think the same about Christianity.
We will also look back and realise where we got it wrong with evolution, understand where gravity comes from and generally have moved our understanding forward – and I think that’s great.
So yes we should equip our children to help us move along that road by thinking for themselves. So we should teach all religions as part of philosophy and/or theology and evidence based subjects as sciences. And hopefully they will then think for themselves and not blindly follow others, whether that be their parent, teach or blogger. And will hopefully mean our children are able to choose their religion, or lack of and interpret what the evidence says to them.
Comment by Tom — April 3, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Why is it that when people hear that you are not a christian or that you don’t believe the bible that you must not have read it? Believe me, I’ve heard the “good news”, but have yet to hear or read anything to convince me that it’s true. I don’t have to be convinced of evolution, it just makes sense. If you take off the glasses of christianity through which you observe the world around you and really look around, you will see evidence of evolution everywhere.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Jarod,
If you believe in Evolution of thought, then you think that one day we will reach a point of optimization. This is impossible, because there is no defined limits to what that is. If we reach this “optimization” than what? nothing. We are not perfect or never will be because we must master the void of making good and bad choices. We do have choices everyday and the Bible tells us that there will never be a choice that is too hard for us to make. I am not a radical or anything of the sort. When my children ask why were are, I am not going to say for nothing, I am going to say the closest thing we have to knowing the truth. The Bible. If you don’t believe drive down the streets of your city and look at the hundreds of churches.
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
If the bible is so obviously correct, why are there so many versions and so many different interpretations? Yet there is only one evolutionary theory. Hmmm.
So Jarod , your logic is that because there are so many churches, they must be right? Yea, that makes sense.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
You would be doing your children more of a service to tell them it is quite possible that we are here for no reason at all, than to tell them that the bible is the truth.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Monkey boy, the Bible is a symbol of Christianity to you. Why would you read it if it is merely a tool you use against Christians. I see evidence of God everywhere. I see satan everywhere too. I see balance, not progression or evolution.
You have evolution mixed adaption. Things adapt to the enviroment, not evolve. When an animals fur changes color because of its enviroment, does that mean it got better? No, it just ADAPTED.
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Chad,
I never said anything about “Evolution of thought”. I actually have no idea what that is.
And monkeyboy,
I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to the churches. I never said anything about churches.
You guys should maybe calm down and take the time to figure out who you are talking to.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
OK, Chad so we are all talking about the same thing – what’s your definition of species vis-a-vis adaptation? And what evidence would you need to make you think that species evolved, rather than being designed or created?
Comment by Tom — April 3, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
[...] Is it possible to not believe in God, but still believe in angels? [...]
Pingback by Notes From The Ant Empire #2 « Art of Starving — April 3, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
laelaps,
I appreciate the detail you went into in your response. I also appreciate the time you have taken to research both sides of the argument.
However, I am not an expert on either side. You are right: I learned evolution in grade school. There are two things I remember: 1) It was taught as fact. 2) It wasn’t fact.
My only point is this: evolution should be taught as theory, not fact. I am not an expert, and I am not trying to convince anyone here that Creationism should be taught as a fact.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Sorry Jarrod, that churches comment was meant to be directed to Chad.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Yeah I meant to say that was Tom but I pressed submit and then noticed that. Ha… Sorry Jarod.
Soo Tom.
For one, incredible things don’t come nothing. The connections in the human body like the five sense had to have been designed. As humans we are the only species that has control of other species. (We cant even control ourselves). We also have a different hierarchy of needs. For animals it is food, sleep, food, food. For us we have the ability to sit down and argue for hours. That fact right there shows me that there must be some elements of design to this world. That would be my evidence.
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
So does that mean if I could show you species (other than humans) that control other species; and present an argument (backed up with evidence) that our senses don’t need to be designed, but could have evolved – would that make you reconsider that evolution by natural selection is at least a viable alternative worth investigating further?
Comment by Tom — April 3, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
That’s funny, I see my cat’s play with one another all the time. How does that fit in to food, sleep, food, food? I mean they are cats so they mostly sleep and eat, but they take time out of their busy schedule to play with one another or with me or strive to get my attention and affection. In a sense the cats have learned how to control me. They meow, I pet them. They whine, I feed them. How does that fit into your design theory?
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
Bigots and fanatics are there in religion as well as in science.
=Those who blindly believe in creation, jus see how it is poss for one man Moses to write the five extensive complicated books during the 40 years he was in the desert wilderness struggling with the migrant progeny of Israel.
=even in genesis there are many allusions to life beyond the family of adam, instance where did Cain go to and to whom? and who were the sons of god and the daughters of men? Yes it is 5 – 6,000 years since adam, but then rckon all the rest of the world families?
=so you read other progresive creation ideas in detail. light was created first.from what and where out of who.from light all the rest, the subatomic and nuclear material. even tho too complicated for simple basic people like me, it is well within our ken.
=read about the corners of the universe.
= so i find no conflict between science and religion. we evolved from creation. and we are still evolving looking at the mutations even in the viruses! our life soan of a hundred years each is not enuf to grasp the concepts. evolution needs creation first.
Comment by george pradhan-mbbs — April 3, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Gravity is a LAW. It is irrefutable. Evolution is a theory.
The issue is that man wants to be in charge and not accountable for following his own selfish inner desires. “The consequences of rejecting evolution sends them directly into the Face of God. They would no longer be free to to follow their inner desires and accountability must be now faced.” – Dr. Del Tackett
Even Darwin said the thought of the human eye made him “feel cold all over.” He said the sight of a peacock feather made him “sick.”
The very definition of evolution is randomness. Yet the more we know, the more advanced we become in studying atomic and subatomic particles, the more clearly it becomes that there is ORDER. Either we have chaos or we have order. One argument refutes the other.
“Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second LAW of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to PRECLUDE the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.” (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)
The second law of thermodynamics holds that the universe is winding down – not the other way around. The Earth’s magnetic field has been measured scientifically for over 100 years. Studies reveal the strength of this field is decaying exponentially at a half life of 1,400 years. If this measurement is consistent with the past, the magnetic field would have been comparable to that of a magnetic star as few as 30,000 years ago. The estimated heat produced by those currents would have MELTED THE EARTH.
The belief that the Earth is billions of years old is firmly entrenched in our society. These numbers are derived from radioactive dating. There are three main types: carbon-14, potassium-argon, uranium-lead. Carbon-14 is used to date things that were once alive. Potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating are used to date rocks that are supposedly millions and billions of years old. Due to the half-life of carbon-14, no objects over 50,000 years old should test positive for c-14. If a sample does test positive for carbon-14, it is great evidence the sample is not millions of years old. Coal was alleged to have formed many millions of years ago. This means no coal should test positive for c-14, but that is not what happens. There has never been any coal found that is completely void of c-14.
The following is quoted from a “Formal Definition of Force” on physicsforum.com and is basically the same as all other definitions: “When neutrons and protons are pushed close together, like they are in the nucleus of an atom, then the quarks are close enough to interact a little bit; and the blue one will push its mate in a nearby neutron or proton away, and snuggle up to the other two quarks to which it is attracted. Once the neutrons and protons have all arranged themselves so that all the quarks are happy, they stay that way, and the force that holds them is far stronger than the electric force that tries to push all the positively charged protons apart. Thus we can see that the strong nuclear force is actually a residual force of the color force between the quarks, made of both attraction and repulsion as the Van Der Waals forces are among atoms.” Other definitions all generally use terms such as “strong force” and “weak force”.
One cannot explain the “force” without some foundational basis that explains the source of the “force”. There is no remotely reasonable “scientific” explanation of the source of the charge of electricity, yet all matter is made up of these charges of electricity. Note that the particular physicist mentioned above states “the neutrons and protons have all arranged themselves so that all the quarks are happy.”
The statement regarding “arranged themselves” is a direct inference of some intelligence, if you will, acting on or within the quarks. With respect to “all the quarks are “happy””, it is evident to this physicist that some ORDER must be present. Otherwise, the subatomic particles break down into something he cannot explain – that is: nothing. If there were no electrical charges, there would be – NOTHING – no mass. This “quark happiness” intelligence is the external “force”. There must be some source “generating” the electricity. We cannot “see” electricity. All matter is made up of that which we cannot see.
You can bet your soul that God did not say “It would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.” Mark 9:42-44
On the other hand you could place your bet on a “100 quintillionth of a 1% chance” (Richard Dawkins) there is no God.
Ready? Place your bets.
Comment by D. Pahn — April 3, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
D. Pahn,
When most people are on their deathbed, they ask for a Bible.
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
george pradhan,
yes but we don’t pass on our immunities to our children or our knowledge. They are born clean slates. I would say disease is actually taking over many people. Look at cancer, heart disease and aids. Goodness sakes.
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
D. Pahn
For what its worth – both gravity and evolution are scientific theories; the problem is one of semantics: in common parlance we use the term theory to mean something different to the way it is used in science – where there are no facts, only theories and hypothesis.
As I’ve noted above evolution isn’t in anyway the very definition of randomness – it’s not random at all, it’s directed (by the environment).
Others may wish to pick up your other points but to address your issue regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics – you (and Duane Gish) would be quite right if the earth were a closed system – its not we receive lots of external energy from outside to power things along quite nicely – it’s the Sun!
BTW even if evolution by natural selection turns out to be wrong – why would the idea of a Christian God be the only alternative? That is in no way logical – there are plenty of other ideas out there.
And since you ask my bet is that there isn’t a God (of any religion), but like Dawkins I’m willing to concede that there may be (albeit a small chance), are you willing to concede you might be wrong too?
Comment by Tom — April 3, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
I believe this issue here is that some people do not want to accept that they are descended from “lower” life forms. People want to think that they are special in some way.
Get over it, you aren’t “special”.
Religion has absolutely no place in science. Science is based on fact, religion myth. I do not care what your beliefs are, please keep them to yourself. Teach YOUR children whatever you want. Please let the schools teach what is tangible, measurable, and logical. If you do not like what the public schools are teaching, send your child to a private religious one.
D. Pahn,
Actually the Earth’s magnetic fields are weaker because the poles are getting ready to reverse, its happened before in the history of the planet.
Phoenix
Comment by Phoenix — April 3, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
The theory of creationism has a major flaw in that it said God created all life a few millennia ago. At the time of the Bible’s creation, people were not as aware that life had been around for millions of years and in many different forms, had they I think it would have been different. Since we can cite biological and fossil records of evolution occurring a very long time ago, arguing that God placed all life on the planet a couple thousand years ago just makes you seem ignorant. One could more logically argue that God started life by placing a single cell on the Earth, and then guided its progress. Saying otherwise is similar to someone still believing the Earth was the center of the Universe, despite the fact that we have visible and theoretical proof it is not. Also, just because the Earth is not the center of the Universe we do not discredit the existence of God, instead some people say He created the Universe with a set or rules that all things must follow, and our planet is following them. In fact, all the work done to discover and prove the laws of planetary motion were done by people attempting to bring us closer to God, not people looking to eradicate Him. Perhaps the theory of evolution is just another example of science bringing us closer to God and his work, so religious theory should be modified to answer the new question, how did that first cell come into existence and become what life is today?
Comment by tipman — April 3, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
[...] post completo/see post: Strange maps Escrito por macacoproducciones Archivado en Filosofía en los [...]
Pingback by Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « Imágenes de la Filosofía Iberoamericana — April 3, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
I’d like to know where the “thing” that was around for evolution work came from. What I mean by “thing” is the tiny spec that the big bang exploded from. Or the single celled organism that all life sprang from. How did those or that thing get here to begin with? And don’t tell me it always was because that is less believable than a God existing that actually had a purpose and created everything.
Comment by iwanttofitin — April 3, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Also, Chad, cancer is more prevalent in society today due to things like our diet and birth habits, as well as our increased life expectancy. Our change from nomadic people to settled people allowed for more virulent diseases (such as AIDS) to survive, before that we mostly were infected by parasites. Society has changed a lot from when humans first appeared on the planet, and with that comes new challenges. Evolution is process that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years though, and we are changing our environments quicker than we are evolving.
Comment by tipman — April 3, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
[...] in America. Read it and weep…or sob…or blow your brains out…because these are a backward and superstitious [...]
Pingback by Pollywogs! » Blog Archive » Omens, portents and signs… — April 3, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
[...] 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US [image] Scientists generally accept the theory of evolution as the back-story of how animal species (including humans) […] [...]
Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — April 3, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
Chad Stroh, grow up, educate yourself.
Here is one for you: all human beings grow from one single cell – or developed from sperm and egg. Using your own words, I want you to “Explain: Love, Guilt, Happiness, Sadness, Passion, Self-Control to me.” How did we grow those things from one single cell?
Billions of other people, now and during the past, when on deathbed, do not ask for a Bible.
Comment by h3nry — April 4, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Interesting that all other mainline religions in the world have come to grips with the fact that their creation story is a myth…why can’t Christians do the same. Just the simple fact that the Bible says that the Earth formed before the sun and the moon is ludicrous. I am a high school science teacher in NC and I teach evolution (ooohh, and the Big Bang)every day…you can’t seriously teach biology without teaching evolution, it’s a unifying theme in the subject. I am thankful that I live in a forward thinking state(at least where evolution is concerned). Besides I don’t really think God cares whether or not I believe in a Hebrew myth…He’s got bigger fish to fry.
Comment by Luanne O'Neill — April 4, 2007 @ 12:48 am
[...] Where (and how) evolution is taught in the US – the Northeast is doing OK except for Maine (”useless”) and NH… [...]
Pingback by EVOLT » Hey, wow, social news — April 4, 2007 @ 12:55 am
…one other thing….
A scientific LAW is a statement DESCRIBING a natural occurance or event.
A scientific THEORY is an EXPLANATION of a natural occurance based on observation, modeling, and experimentation.
The scientific use of the word theory is different from the everyday usage…it is not simply someone’s “guess” or “hypothesis”. You can’t dismiss a scientific theory with the wave of a hand just because you don’t happen to agree with it. You “believe” in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny…not a scientific theory…you can disagree with it but what you need to remember is that the burden of proof is not on the proponents of evolution…the burden of disproof is on the disbelievers…and so far they aren’t doing such a good job.
Oh yeah, one more thing…theories DO NOT become laws…not no how…not no way…
Comment by Luanne O'Neill — April 4, 2007 @ 1:00 am
[...] about those crazy Creationists! You so [...]
Pingback by Back From Vacation « The Sound of EmCeeKhan — April 4, 2007 @ 1:05 am
I’m from Ohio, I seem to remember learning about evolution in HS. In fact, I remember it clearly. I’m surprised that they came up red. I lived in Cleveland, so maybe being in the city had something to do with it. Very strange. Now I live in Louisiana, no offense to any cajuns, but I would have thought La. would be a red rather than a yellow.
Comment by Rob Clements — April 4, 2007 @ 1:19 am
@Chad Stroh
A junkyard doesn’t have any of the life processes that would cause evolution! It’s INANIMATE! Go educate yourself.
These arguments against evolution are so pathetic. It makes me almost ashamed to be a creationist when most of the people against evolution don’t even understand what they’re arguing.
@h3nry
It is true that we develop from a single cell, BUT this single cell already contains the genetic information in its DNA to create a human. Ergo, human sperm will not create a bird. New genetic information does not materialize in DNA. It’s impossible. What’s there is there, what isn’t will never be there. We didn’t “grow” those mentioned characteristics: they already existed in the incredibly long coils of DNA. Yes, there was a point behind those Punnett squares you did in freshman biology, and it wasn’t to prove evolution.
Comment by Philip — April 4, 2007 @ 1:22 am
Evolution is a theory – from a human. A rather strange human from what I’ve read. However, didn’t know the man. Not anyone’s judge. Personally I don’t believe I came from slime, nor a monkey.
God isn’t really needed….until one comes to a critical point of desperation, pain, or a near death experience.
Over my lifetime I have seen atheists, agnostics, and almost everyone I’ve known call out to God at some point. Instinctively.
Ever had a miracle? A healing? Probably not as an atheist you probably have not used the POWER of prayer and faith.
Think I’ll stick to getting my top notch information from the good book, keep my faith, and I’ll even
say a prayer for you!
Trust one man’s theory – I think not. I will trust my experiences, my gut level knowledge, and keep knowing that someday, even you, might call upon the name of God for help.
Comment by Marsha J. O'Brien — April 4, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Oh, I did forget one thing. You’ve done a great job at getting people to think and respond! I’ll bet people that never responded to anything before, took the time to respond to this. :)
Comment by Marsha J. O'Brien — April 4, 2007 @ 1:28 am
… that’s just plain scary :(
Ok, it might be a theory, but you wouldn’t stop teaching theoretical physics because it’s a theory.
It is a pity that so many people are so closed minded.
M
Comment by magia3e — April 4, 2007 @ 1:38 am
Maybe we need a mashup?
Google maps and user-input to see where different theories, of evolution, literal and metaphoric creationism, etc, are taught or not taught, across the globe!?!
M
Comment by magia3e — April 4, 2007 @ 1:40 am
I have been reading a great book on the Internet by a Canadian psychologist which explains where Creationists come from. It seems that, in tests conducted over a period of years, it has been observed that when fundamentalists are given a series of facts (such as in a mock trial) they commonly make up facts which were never given in evidence, and forget facts which actually were given in evidence, to come to totally erroneous conclusions. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/%7Ealtemey/
Let me explain God, so that you can all get it in one.
Some 15 billion years ago, god said “let there be light”, which the physicists and astronomers like to call the Big Bang.
The design and execution in that first moment of creation were so perfect that god has not had to touch the universe since. It is unfolding by design, using God’s design, and the tiny aspect that relates to the emergence and progress of life on earth, we call evolution.
For those religious fundamentalists who have this idea that there is this bumbling old fool wandering forgetfully around the universe, every moment spent fixing his mistakes, listening to their prayers and repairing their lives, are completely missing the nature of God.
My God is perfect. His creation was perfect, and He hasn’t had to touch it since, or listen to me whine about what I need from him.
And if His creation was perfect, then you and I are part of His perfect expression and intent.
When you deny God the right to have a 15 billion year old universe, and use evolution as His mechanism to raise His flock, you are telling me that you are usurping Godly rights to determine how creation took place, and ignoring all the facts, you Godless heathen!
I noted a Creationist in earlier posts claiming that monkeys were contributing to these comments. If you are a monkey, and you are also a contributor, please contact me. Also, if you have some proof of dinosaurs walking with men, I really need to hear from you. Ummm ….. that was proof. Not wild-a** conjecture and lots of wishful thinking.
Now go have a beer and leave me alone.
Comment by Richard Gibbs — April 4, 2007 @ 2:17 am
One man’s theory? My guess is you haven’t read all the posts, but, instead, responded to the basic question. Thousands of scientist have contributed to the evidence that supports evolution. Not just one man.
Miracle is a word used to mean “I don’t know what caused that event so it must of been god,” or “the timing of that event was so perfect, it must have been god.” People who say this have no understanding of probability and how the human mind works. I have read many books on the subject of strange phenomena and have concluded that just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean its cause is supernatural. People used to believe flies were created spontaneously.
It is a myth that most atheists turn to a god in times of crisis or on their death bed. That would imply our rejection of unsupported myths is based on faith rather than a life time of scrutinizing evidence.
There are scientific studies about prayer which show it has no effect on outcomes. There is no power in prayer except what it gives you on a personal and emotional level.
I was in the hospital recently. My doctors expected me to die, and were surprised when I did not. My atheist family supported me, but no one prayed – my survival was amazing, but not supernatural. I didn’t need god then – nor do I need him now. He isn’t there, and I’m okay with that.
So…if you believe in god because you can’t believe this wonderful (yet, horrific) world could not happen by evolution – it had to be planned by an intelligence – then where did that intelligence come from? No fair saying god has always been – that’s a non-answer. God must be far more complex than the things he/she created – who created him/her. You can accept a god who just happened = who has always existed – with no tangible proof, but you can ignore the vast amount of evidence pointing towards evolution and natural selection? Odd.
Comment by atheist_guy — April 4, 2007 @ 2:23 am
1) There is no GOD, at least in the conceptual paradigm of the Judeo-Christian image.
2) Creationism is a load of propagandist garbage designed for one thing: MIND CONTROL.
3) Jesus never existed.
read this book:
http://www.godwithoutreligion.com
Comment by alex k — April 4, 2007 @ 2:27 am
I should have clarify myself – I compare humans growing up from a single cell to evolution, two completely different processes, to make the point to Chad Stroh that, just because he/she doesn’t see how complex things like us can grow/evolve from simple things, it doesn’t make embryology or evolution wrong.
Marsha J. O’Brien – what you personally believe and your own personal experience don’t matter at all, sorry to point that out, in the world of reality. What you feel and blindly believing do not make facts false. Evolution is not a one man theory.
Again, billions of people out there are now and throughout history are atheists (for example, only 1% of Japanese are Christians) – God is not needed to explain “miracles” nor any other spiritual experiences . Why do only certain types of “miracles” occur – for example, have you ever heard of an amputee regrow an arm or leg? Or a mother grows a wing to travel to far away places to save her child? Now these would be miracles.
If you give me a good science to doubt evolution, then I will happily accept that. If you give me a “I can’t imagine we evolved, therefore evolution must be wrong” or ignoring the fact that most humans being are non-God believers, then I will have problems with you.
Comment by h3nry — April 4, 2007 @ 2:30 am
[...] Where (and How) Evolution is Taught in the U.S. [...]
Pingback by blog.rightreading.com » Are We Evolving? — April 4, 2007 @ 2:43 am
Anyhow, I come from New Zealand, and there our Maori heritage tells us that the great god Maui pulled New Zealand out of the ocean at the end of a fishing line.
So there. Now you know the true story. Spread the word.
Comment by Richard Gibbs — April 4, 2007 @ 2:45 am
How effective does your state teach Evolution?
This gives the breakdown of all 50 states and their effectiveness to pass along the message. Not sure on its accuracy, but my state of NJ seemed okay to me. :)
Trackback by coRank — April 4, 2007 @ 3:00 am
people a few thousand years ago just needed something to believe in to explain everything. so they came up with gods. it answered everything that they couldnt explain.
like if someone asked, “who made the world”? they would say “god did.”
SO, the big bang and evolution make sense. America believes in god cause theyre god fearing.
btw, scientists have proof of evolution (it is real)…, the theory of evolution is what theyre debating
Comment by yutaka — April 4, 2007 @ 3:06 am
[...] This is why I live in California. [...]
Pingback by Just Another Level of Indirection » Blog Archive » Now I remember…. — April 4, 2007 @ 3:31 am
That’s funny considering that nearly all serious historians consider Jesus to be an actual historical person.
Comment by FraudWasteAbuse — April 4, 2007 @ 3:58 am
“If you give me a good science to doubt evolution, then I will happily accept that. If you give me “I can’t imagine we evolved, therefore evolution must be wrong” or ignoring the fact that most humans being are non-God believers, then I will have problems with you” (h3nry).
– Thank you h3nry. Make that billions + 1 that believe that evolution makes sense. I am not, like most reasonable believers of evolution, shooting down anyone’s faith in God or religion, but rather accepting the theory that evolution is real – a theory that, although may not be factually proven (yet), is at least backed by scientific proof. Where is the scientific backing that God created humans, the earth, and all its wonders? I may sound outrageous to a large majority of you non-evolution-believers, but give me physics, mathematical probability, and science any day of the week versus your theory of God’s miracles and I guarantee I’ll sound more realistic in almost any case (I say almost any case because there is a little thing called freak occurrences or situations that boggle common thought that science nor religion can answer… they are situations that beat even scientific probability!).
- Kurt
Comment by Kurtis — April 4, 2007 @ 4:05 am
its funny because in my high school Bio class this year we got the hell beat out of us with four chapters of evolutionary theory, with 4 chapters in a row on it… and i live in Florida
Comment by jesse s — April 4, 2007 @ 4:06 am
For those wondering about possible evolutionary reasons for “Love, Guilt, Happiness, Sadness, Passion, Self-Control”, etc., I shall go into each of these one at a time. Note that these are pretty much my own ideas on the subject mixed with those of scientists that I’ve read on, and should not be taken as definitely correct or as full explanations. In short, they are hypotheses that fit the evidence I’ve seen, and not theories that others have examined as well. ;)
Love: Human infants are FAR more likely to survive infancy with more than one parent caring for them. Love, being a combination of emotional attachment and sexual attraction, provides this likelihood by giving the parents a reason to stick by each other and raise the child together.
Guilt: Humans are social animals. The survival of our species depended on cooperation, else, we’d have died out long before we ever figured out fire (as you may have noticed, physically-speaking, humans are fairly weak and vulnerable compared to other animals). Feelings of guilt when you have harmed another member of your tribe would provide you an internal reason not to do so, and they provide the same check against others harming you. Hence, guilt makes perfect sense to have evolved in a species that relies on cooperation (dogs and primates show forms of guilt, for instance), and it is very much absent from the species that don’t (cats, for instance).
Happiness/Sadness: Happiness is a pleasant sensation when things are going well for you, sadness an unpleasant sensation when they’re going badly. Obviously, you want to be happy, because being sad sucks. So this is another internal motivation to manipulate external events to favor you. Happiness and sadness, like guilt, are far from exclusively human emotions, as many mammals also display these sensations.
Passion: Personally, I feel this one should require no explaining. In any sexually reproducing species, anything that encourages members of that species to have more sex is favorable to their survival.
Self-Control: I feel like this one also should need no explaining. Self-control is an extremely useful ability for any species. It’s what gives a tiger the patience to hide and wait for that gazelle herd to get just a bit closer, making him just that much more likely to eat that day. It stops us from doing all manner of actions that we recognize as bad ideas, such as killing someone for a minor infraction (remember, cooperation is extremely important for humans). That certain people are born without this internal control is strong evidence in favor of evolution.
I’d like to know where the “thing” that was around for evolution work came from. What I mean by “thing” is the tiny spec that the big bang exploded from. Or the single celled organism that all life sprang from. How did those or that thing get here to begin with? And don’t tell me it always was because that is less believable than a God existing that actually had a purpose and created everything.
Simple answer? We don’t know. Not a single person on Earth has that information. There are many ideas, ranging from a deist’s god to a multiverse, but at the moment, it’s impossible for us to draw solid conclusions. But I have to ask… why is it more believable to you to think that an infinitely complex being existed before anything else than an extremely simple chunk of matter/energy? In nature, complexity rises from simplicity, not the other way around.
Comment by Pali — April 4, 2007 @ 4:09 am
Did you uh… switch Ohio and Indiana? Because I’m really shocked by this.
Comment by IU Student — April 4, 2007 @ 4:20 am
Yes, the majority of scholars believe Jesus to be a real historical figure, although there are those that think he is a compilation of prophets of the time (like King Author is a compilation of several actual kings). However, once you allow yourself to be skeptical, and all fantastic claims shuld be approached with skepticism, there are serious questions to be asked. Try here for some interesting reading: http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm
Then there are those that talk of Jesus being married and having children – but when you accept only what you’re told to accept as truth, and ignore everything else, life is so much easier.
Comment by atheist_guy — April 4, 2007 @ 4:20 am
I tend to disagree with some of the assignments on the map. I grew up in Wyoming and attended public school and received an exemplary presentation of evolution at various levels, from grade school to high school. Moreover I lived in South Dakota, and was informed by parents that public education there presented evolution in clear and understandable terms.
Comment by Telemachus — April 4, 2007 @ 4:26 am
“God” is a man-made creation and cannot be dealt with on scientific terms, if you cease to exist, God ceases to exist too.
“They-you-know-who” created Creationism to place one more barrier to rational logic and give their Theist theory an “éssence scientifique”, but alas!
If only you can read me…
You have a great blog here StrangeMaps!
Comment by roidis — April 4, 2007 @ 4:29 am
[...] Filed under: Creationism, Evolution, Community, Education Once again, I’ve been drawn into debate with creationists, and it got me thinking about how I understand evolution. While some of my opponents have suggested [...]
Pingback by Laelaps — April 4, 2007 @ 4:31 am
[...] 4th, 2007 Reading through the comments on this thread on evolution, I am struck by a familiar sense of logical fallacy: For one, incredible things [...]
Pingback by Fundamentalists and the Flat Logic « Fitness for the Occasion — April 4, 2007 @ 4:33 am
Wow. Ignorance always amazes me. The arguments people like Chad Stroh have put forth are so far from being effective or accurate. While you can successfully argue a creationist position, don’t use Chad’s points as an example. You only make yourself look foolish. Of course, most people who try to present a factual creationist point of view ARE foolish.
Evolution does happen. This is not a theory. It is a fact. You can see it in a lab or in nature today. There is ZERO doubt that species evolve. However, the ‘theory’ part comes about when trying to decide if homosapians have evolved.
Of course, if the religious idiots ran things, they would still be teaching that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe. As of today, religion has a consistent losing record for explaining anything.
Comment by Doulbe Blind — April 4, 2007 @ 4:35 am
Except historians primarily believe Jesus, like Buddha was just a person who believed the direction of their religions were going the wrong way and missing the point. They both dedicated their lives towards helping people. After their deaths they were sanctified by their followers and the entire direction of the teachers changed to suit those still living.
Comment by Matt — April 4, 2007 @ 4:36 am
You heathens! You will all boil in a pot of spaghetti sauce!
The TRUE creator is the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! Bow before him and be touched by his noodly appendage!
Comment by Pastafarian — April 4, 2007 @ 4:43 am
@tipman:
It is foolish to categorically assert that the timeframe set for the creation of the world, set forth in Genesis (which I believe to be circa 6,000 years ago) is wrong, without at the same time denying the concept of God the Creator. Time is an aspect of our universe – thus, if one asserts that God created the universe, he also created time, i.e. He is not bound by the linear progression of time that we are. Therefore, it is quite possible that He did create the universe in six days, six thousand years ago, simply by creating the past (at that point) while simultaneously creating the present and future at that point. (The concept may be confusing, partly because the English language is not equipped to treat time non-linearly).
Of course, you are free to deny the existance of God the Creator, and if you wish to tear down the Genesis Creation idea this must logically be your starting point – however the non-existance of God is an unprovable assertion.
Furthermore, you make a referrence to the fallacy of believing in a geocentric universe, asserting that this concept is proven false. Though I am not thoroughly versed in astronomy, it is my understanding that it is not even known if the bounds of the universe are finite, nor if it even HAS a center – you are certainly correct to assert that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, nor of our galaxy – but since we no nothing of the center of the universe (if indeed such a center exists) it cannot be said with certainty that the Earth is not, in fact, said center.
Comment by one-post Johnny — April 4, 2007 @ 4:45 am
Creationists and christians love to question science when it interferes with their own world view but you won’t see them questioning all the technology that that same science has provided them. They still ride in airplanes, use advanced medicine when they are sick, watch tv…USE COMPUTERS [shudder]. Of course they would respond to this by saying that religion has provided us a lot as well–all the “good works”, “God works through people” etc You can’t win with these people. I almost wish there was a God so he could tell them after they die what complete fools they were, that even though he exists they would have had no way of knowing that…
Comment by lamp — April 4, 2007 @ 4:48 am
I am saddened to see so many people disputing religion.
A few things to ponder :
1. God does not need to defend himself, he created us. And he can do with us whatever he pleases.
2. He gives us an options, believe in him and you shall have eternal live. The greatest give possible.
Lets say that evolution is correct , and you die. Then nothing happens and we are all in the same boat so to speak.
But just to go in another direction, lets say evolution is wrong and God did create everything and all who believed in him would have eternal live and all who rebelled against him would be damned. Then you would be damned for ETERNITY(please try to grasp how long eternity is) for believing in a false THEORY for 80 years of your live.
I am not saying that all people who believe evolution are damned ,because some christians believe in evolution , but they believe in all the important and true things in our religion(jesus is the son of God , he died for our sins etc). But evolution drives a lot of people away from Christ and they i feel sorry for.
As for that the earth and some fossils are Millions and Billions of years old. This is crap. Carbon dating has been proved to be inaccurate, you are welcome to google it. And i know that every new method they find to “prove” that objects are millions of years old , will also be disproved in future.
Please people, i am not saying that people must be driven to christ out of fear of being damned. I am just saying , please think for yourself, see evolution as the incaccurate THEORY that it is.
We are not monkeys, we are special.
i thank you for your time.
Comment by codemonkey — April 4, 2007 @ 5:00 am
@athiest_guy
It is meaningless to ask where God “came from,” who “created Him,” or even to assert that he has “always been.”
All these statements (I say statements because your questions were rhetorical) combine the concept of God and the concept of temporality. Time is part of God’s creation; He exists outside of time.
You are of course free to reject the concept of God, and thus the conclusion that He exists independantly of time; but then, again, your statements are meaningless.
Comment by one-post Johnny — April 4, 2007 @ 5:00 am
i mean ABSOLUTELY no agression whatsoever with my post. I just cannot believe how such a technologycally advanced country as the US is having this dilemma. How can so many ppl (i mean the ones in the decision making jobs, not the common citizen -kids- which are victims of the system) believe in such a medieval concept overruled by hundreds of years of progress. I (personally) think they just cannot stand the fact that we are no more than inteligent monkeys… a narcisistic wound i would call it.
I am from a much less developed country in many aspects, but there is no question wether evolution is a fact or fantasy… it just IS… i only need to see a chimp picture to realize that.
What´s next? Denying gravity? We could switch it for GED (Godly Energy Downward)
Anyways, seems that the issue is much more bigger than us and we could argue all week long without coming to an agreement but i couldn´t resist posting something (i sometimes feel ashamed of humans (all of us), seems we have a thing against progress and change (that´s what evolution is about)
Best regards to all of you and once again, i mean no agression at all
Comment by Fer — April 4, 2007 @ 5:02 am
Stupid, gullible, stubborn, bigoted creationist fools. I’m sorry if that seems harsh, but it makes me very sad that a race of “intelligent” people can really hold onto beliefs which were forged by words written by man over a thousand years ago.
MAN wrote the bible. MAN tried to account for what he couldn’t understand by making things up. I’d even be so generous as to call creationism a “theory” which was created centuries ago, but has since been disproven by modern scientific method.
WAKE UP AMERICA. It honestly frightens me that a country that has such overwhelming influence over the rest of the world is dominated by a childish, fanciful belief such as creationism.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 5:05 am
[...] This is a map of how and where evolution is taught in school. Some traditionally conservative states do very well while some liberal states don’t do well. [...]
Pingback by EvilCON » Evolution in Education: Not Quite a Blue versus Red Situation — April 4, 2007 @ 5:07 am
And to those who refuse to entertain the idea that both sides are correct…. have you even considered the possibility that evolution is 100% correct, but that the original constituents of the universe (dating all the way back to the Big Bang) were created by a deity?
No. Of course you haven’t. I’m sure there are plenty of scientists who would give the nod to that theory, stating that it is at least possible. But ask a Christian to ponder a truth that contradicts the bible, and you get a bunch of confrontational, self-reinforcing rhetoric.
BRAVO CHRISTIANITY.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 5:09 am
I’m just happy to see my home state, South Carolina, so high on the list compared with the rest of the nation. I thank our emphasis on marine biology on the coast and agricultural classes inland. Thank you, Charleston!
Comment by Carson — April 4, 2007 @ 5:09 am
@lamp
It saddens me to see people, such as yourself, who seem to feel that science and religion must necessarily be in diametric opposition to each other.
The two subjects concern two fields of the human experience which are generally distinct – and in those areas of overlap, conflict does not occur unless one seeks such conflict.
There is nothing wrong with embracing one of these fields, and neglecting the other, if that is what satisfies a person – but there is no conflict in embracing both, either.
Comment by one-post Johnny — April 4, 2007 @ 5:11 am
@Johnny:
I totally agree. I don’t see science and religion as being totally at odds. Personally I don’t have any problem believing that God exists. History has taught us a thousand times that things which we view as simply impossible are in fact real and possible.
It’s the stubbornness of mainstream religion that makes me sad. Science is all about investigating possibilities, and learning new truths from new evidence, and discarding old beliefs as a result. Religion opposes that, and uses fear (i.e. the concept of “hell”) to prevent proponents from questioning the various aspects of their faith.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 5:17 am
Science works from hypothesis. People who say that “science works from facts” obviously have forgotten where the facts come from. We start with an idea and do a systematic analysis to prove or disprove it. Just because we haven’t “proven” evolution — at least human evolution, which seems to be an issue, because change under pressure has been demonstrated in much smaller organisms and especially in microorganisms — doesn’t mean there is no evidence.
The evidence for human evolution isn’t complete, but does that somehow disprove it as a theory? We have skeletons that seemingly show a connection and growth with an older ancestor, with a gap. Evolution would be a preferred treatment to simply assigning coincidence to what evidence to do have — if it turns out there is no connection and humans ultimately come from, say, a magic rock in the Andes, then so be it — science can adapt to that unusual bit of fact, just like it has with all other unusual facts about the world.
To paraphrase: after removing what is false, what remains, however absurd, must be the truth. Religion is not a method of finding knowledge. It cannot be used in conjunction of science, unless it uses a hypothesis based method that can be proven or disproven in the lab.
Comment by Carson — April 4, 2007 @ 5:18 am
Religion should deal with what cannot be handled by science, that which cannot be addressed with hypothesis and which lies outside of instrumental detection, at least for now.
For me, God is basically a variable in our knowledge as people. The less you know about the world, the more you ascribe to a higher power to explain it. Until we can dissect the brain and predict why we think as we do and when, then God shall remain as the X in our thoughts and our perception of reality, not to mention how we construe it and what it is that we perceive it as.
Comment by Carson — April 4, 2007 @ 5:22 am
i would simply like to point out that human emotions and feelings can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.
emotions are survival mechanisms. humans are complex and social creatures. so many of our emotions help us fit in with the pack. we feel guilt when we lie or steal because that is socially unacceptable, and unless you’re a psychopath who lacks these emotions, it is your imperative to fit in with the group
people want to be accepted, because being accepted will facillitate them getting their basic needs, food shelter and sex.
another example: jealousy – another individual is threatening to take away your breeding stock, now you must become jealous to give you the drive to flaunt your own genetic superiority and crush the competition.
almost every emotion can be explained in this way.
and how did they evolve? well the individuals who didn’t get scared when they heard a tiger, or didn’t get angry when someone stole their food, were killedor starved to death, and were unable to pass on their genetic coding.
Comment by cara — April 4, 2007 @ 5:24 am
@Richard:
Your attacks on Christians serve only to demonstrate your own bigotry.
You make broad, sweeping generalizations about an enormous group of people, label them bigoted and ignorant, while you yourself are shown to be both prejudiced against such people, and ignorant of the logical implications of thier beliefs.
Creationism has not been disproven, as it cannot be disproven. It is not a theory, but a belief – one wholly compatible with the various theories of eevolution, insofar as those theories are consistent. Yes, even the literal interpretation of Genesis is logically consistent with evolution, once you understand that God is not bounded by a linear experience of temporality.
Comment by one-post Johnny — April 4, 2007 @ 5:31 am
Emotion is something that can be seen, in rudimentary forms, in lesser animals. I just think our basic instinctive emotions have that extra layer of communication and deeper interaction piled on them. That, and we’re sort of leading the pack on intelligent beings with emotions, so there’s not exactly a control to work from in theorizing about us.
Comment by Carson — April 4, 2007 @ 5:32 am
@pali
sorry i somehowmissed your post
and of course ID is POSSIBLE in the sense that anything is possible, imean someone could give birth to a toaster, or my whole life could’ve been a dream….possible but very very unlikely in any testable sense.
Comment by cara — April 4, 2007 @ 5:35 am
@Johnny
The only issue with interpreting the Bible from a scientific standpoint is that you begin to take more and more passages as metaphors and allusions in order to make it fit in with what has been proven scientifically…
…at what point are you left with a flawed book that reflects so little about reality, that its actual validity is in question? The Bible says a lot about faith, but it also has a lot of blatant statements about the world, many of which I would venture to say have been proven false or are looked down on as pseudo-scientific. This leads to people trying to find Arks in the mountains and imagining dinosaurs and humans living together in peace.
Comment by Carson — April 4, 2007 @ 5:36 am
@cari
The problem with taking a “possibilities” approach to the world is that everything can be a dream and you end up waking up to your “dead” husband showering, just like the bad episode of Dallas. That or everything is a snowglobe.
Comment by Carson — April 4, 2007 @ 5:37 am
unfortunatly it seems in most cases this arguement is a moot point.
ID requires faith and that of course is something that cannot be proven either way. looking at evidence there is little room for doubt that evolution is the only way. many of the arguements stating that creationism ispossible are specious and weak at best. ID is not based on instinct or observation and it is mostly dogmatic in nature.
Comment by cara — April 4, 2007 @ 5:40 am
Johnny,
HOW DO YOU KNOW that God is not bounded by temporality? This is what I find laughably absurd…. religious proponents stubbornly refuse to allow any room for error in their beliefs, and refuse to provide any “proof”, labeling it as against God’s will or whatever, and yet expect science to bow down and move out of the way…. because they claim there’s no proof that science is correct!!!
I see more evidence day after day that the scientific theories of evolution are correct, yet absolutely not one single shred of religious evidence that isn’t in some way self-reinforcing. FIND ME AN ANGEL SKELETON. If you want to convince the world that such-and-such religious concept is a reality, then do not even consider just pointing us to Book of X, Chapter Y, Verse Z because I will just laugh in your face. SELF-REINFORCEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE.
I make sweeping generalisations only about those people who refuse to regard anything in the bible as possible fiction…. especially those who ban certain scientific teachings from their states curriculum to satisfy their “beliefs”, at the expense of the education of a fresh generation of young minds who have a chance to work for the advancement of humanity.
There is overwhelming evidence validating the theory of evolution….. fine, I’ll concede that there is not solid “proof” because as I so vehemently stated, history has taught us that everything is possible…. but there is not one shred of evidence supporting creationism that isn’t self-reinforcing. Just because “the bible says so”, doesn’t mean it is evidence….. the bible, like every single scientific theory in history, was written by MAN. Don’t kid yourself.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 5:41 am
@Richard:
I see again that you fail to understand that which you attack.
Theology is not a static thing. You say that religion discourages questioning matters of faith – this is not entirely true.
It is true that the laymen are told to have faith that they are being taught correctly by their clergy. This does not mean that theologians are opposed to re-working their ideas – it’s just that such re-working is left to the experts, much in the same way that your average Joe doesn’t question what his physics or chemistry teacher told him in high-school – that’s left to the Ph.D.’s.
Sometimes religious beliefs are in opposition to scientific knowledge. However, if your goal is to convince, rather than to berate, you’d do well to learn about where your fellow man is coming from, rather than to be overtly offensive to people of faith.
Comment by one-post Johnny — April 4, 2007 @ 5:41 am
@Johhny:
My intention is not to be overtly offensive to people of faith. It is merely to point out the fatal, often extremely dangerous flaws in adhering to self-reinforcing “evidence” of the validity of the bible.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 5:43 am
[...] where evolution is taught in schools Filed under: Uncategorized — recar @ 5:42 am Map that shows where evolution is taught in schools Wow! It’s like the whole Red-State vs. Blue-State thing all over again.[general sciences] [...]
Pingback by Map that shows where evolution is taught in schools « News Coctail — April 4, 2007 @ 5:44 am
[...] answer, surprising as it is can be found on this map which reviews the status of evolution in science classrooms across the [...]
Pingback by I don't want my kids learnin' evolution! Where should I go? « Eight Parts — April 4, 2007 @ 5:46 am
the theory of evolution is always changing, as any developing theory should. but this shows that it is not set in stone. When discussing something that isn’t proven and contrary to what was stated on this website, it is not generally supported, it is only partially supported and constantly discussed, one needs to provide the other sides. if the Bible and creationists are so horribly wrong then there shouldn’t be a problem teaching both sides fairly.
by not teaching both sides you are raising a bunch of un-knowledgeable
supporters who can’t defend what they believe or support because they’ve only been raised to know one truth.
Comment by fir3ball — April 4, 2007 @ 5:46 am
one last note….i forgot tomention this earlier but it was bothering me.
the idea that you should believe in creationism because of the slimchance that the christians got it right is laughable, i mean under that logic shouldn’t be worshipping every possible diety, ans subscribingto every religion…..justin case?
Comment by cara — April 4, 2007 @ 5:47 am
My wholehearted belief (now there’s a loaded word in this discussion) is that religion was never meant to be a unified theory on the history of the world. It is, and always was, intended to be a guideline by which to lead our lives, and by which to treat our fellow men and women so that we may better serve our species.
Only now it is used as a form of control. And that also makes me sad.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 5:47 am
Cara makes the single best point made on this page so far…. by stating that Christianity is the absolute right, you’ve just insulted a few billion people with alternative religious beliefs. Bravo.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 5:50 am
To those who say God can do whatever he/she/it wants, who exists outside of time, who can make us live in eternity and so on – so can the gods of ancient Greeks, ancient Egyptians, Hindu, and Flying Spaghetti Monster and so on. If you can present one convincing evidence or argument that the God we talk about exists, then I am more than happy to follow you. But you can’t. The problem is, all your arguments can be applied to many other religions and deities and nonsenses. Give me something convincing.
codemonkey, your problem is this: because you believe evolution drives people to become god-less, therefore you choose to combat evolution. And that is the problem with creationists and the like, they cannot accept evolution not because of the science, it is because of the blind beliefs.
codemonkey, what would God do to all those who have no concept of God – those infants that die young, or tribal people in the jungle of Amazon, or the 99% population in Japan?
codemonkey, who are you to point out the problems of carbon dating or any other scientific methods? Using your way of arguing, I can say go and do a google, and you will find that there is NO problem with these dating methods as you would suggest.
I don’t have problems with religious beliefs – but I do have problems when these beliefs leads to inaccurate education, wars, conflicts and terrorism.
Comment by h3nry — April 4, 2007 @ 6:00 am
@Richard:
The concept of God being unbounded by temporality is inherant in the concept of His creating the universe – time is an aspect of that creation.
If you do not believe in God the Creator, that is your prerogative – but assuming for the sake of argument the existance of a Creator necessitates that He must exist independantly of His creation. Either God does not exist, or He is unbounded by temporality.
As to angel bones – angels are non-corporeal beings, thus could not be said to posess bones.
I was raised as an agnostic, and came upon my faith independantly and purely by chance – thus, I do not attempt to convert others. You’ll never hear me asserting the Holy Bible as evidence in a non-theological debate.
As to proof – all proof is, in essence, subjective in the end – objective evidence of a claim is useless if one is unable to understand it. On the other hand, subjective proof can exist independant of any objective evidence – I have all the proof I shall ever need that God exists, and that the Gospels are truthful, but it is a subjective proof independant of objective evidence.
I don’t expect you to accept this, but from my point of view, it is your loss. I assume you are satisfied with your view of life. My own life has been enriched enormously by my faith. Why can’t you leave it at that?
Comment by one-post Johnny — April 4, 2007 @ 6:00 am
A false dichotomy is being propped up between being spiritual and believing in Evolution.
I am a devout Hindu which has its own set of creation myths but no Hindu I know of takes it so seriously. We all study Darwin in school and watch in National Geographic. In fact I became aware of Evolution as a political issue only thru US media.
My need to share my life with a personal God stems from my own spiritual need and the relief I get from Praying to Her.
I am an Electronic Engineer and have never found my religion (or Christianity for that matter, I have done Bible Study out of interest) at odds with the facts of daily life or of science which is daily life on a huger scale.
Comment by wowmir — April 4, 2007 @ 6:02 am
Folks, for starters can we all get on the same page? It’s ridiculous for ANYONE to engage in this discussion without understanding the ENORMOUS difference between scientific theory and an everyday “theory.”
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It’s not possible, end of the story. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science.
Unless, however, you created some new pseudo-science, but then it still wouldn’t be comparable to Evolution (comparable in the apples to oranges sense).
At the most basic level, you should understand that Evolution has been tested (and can be tested) and universally upheld by the scientific evidence. Creationism cannot be tested, thus it can’t be scientific. If so, please demonstrate the test for confirming a man can be created within an instant. Moreover, create a method for testing how one flood can cut the Grand Canyon. When you’re done with your tests, they need to be peer reviewed and re-tested & improved…over and over. Then you will have a scientific theory.
Does that mean you can’t have religion? No. Religion is a personal choice. Does it mean there isn’t some “higher” power? Nope. There are a ton of things we can’t explain. It’s your right, by the Constitution on the United States, to believe whatever you choose. However, it defies our Constitution to teach religion as science in schools. Therefore, you are being extremely un-patriotic to infer creationism should be included as scientific curriculum.
Should religion be studied in school? I think so. Informative exposure to a number of religions, not scientifically, would be good. The more informed we are as a society the better.
Comment by What happened to America? — April 4, 2007 @ 6:15 am
@Johnny,
I agree… “proof” is indeed very subjective because one’s perception of such evidence relies on a foundation of prior supporting beliefs. I can accept the fact that different people embrace different beliefs, but I think it’s wrong to deny an entire generation access to theories that contradict ID, just as it is wrong to wage wars and impose influence behind the thin veil of “religious beliefs” – as I stated earlier, my idea of the purpose of religion is to provide guidelines for one to lead a just and righteous existence in the interest of humanity as a whole. It is NOT meant to be a means by which to control or subjugate, which is exactly how it is being used in our society today, or at least that is certainly my perception.
I have nothing personal against religious proponents. I only have a very harsh personal vendetta against those who would impose their beliefs on others, and that includes children in the education system who need to be given a fair chance to make up their own minds, and that means being presented with theories from both sides of the fence.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 6:16 am
It is very sad when religion prevents the teaching of science. It is like living in the dark ages.
Comment by Chet — April 4, 2007 @ 6:21 am
Evolution is the science of how we humans came to be. To not understand the science of evolution is to not understand who we are as humans. How sad that people do no allow the teaching of who we are and where we came from.
Comment by Leo — April 4, 2007 @ 6:23 am
all of you evolutionsists are freaking idiots.
First of all, neither is a theory. Neither is science. Check your scientific method. In order for it to be science, or a theory, it must be able to achive the scientific method. that last couple of steps are replicate and test. Neither creation nor evelotion can be replicated or tested.
Monkeyboy, you are a moron. Gravity is not a theory, its a law. go back to school and retake some of your basic science classes.
The cold hard fact is evelution makes no sense. Creation is a fact. like it or not, thats the way it is. its called faith. You evelutionists have none.
Where are the half evolved species. if mutation and evelution is benficial, then why do all those species with genetic mutations not adapt to their surrondings. Why are humans who have a mutation constantly suffering and and at a constant disadvantage. What made humans the top of the chain, why aren’t we still changing?
Evelution does NOT explain feelings and emotions. I don’t care what any of you say.
My last point is, you are all morons if you believe in something that even the creator himself denied. Darwin is the creator of evelution. He “discovered” it. But do any of you realize that he denied it when he died? He said it was all a hoax, he never expected people to belive it.
Comment by rapter — April 4, 2007 @ 6:25 am
How can anyone negate evolution when the chances are they do not even have a comprehensive understanding tof the Theory itself??? For example… one common misconception or misinformed component to the theory is that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. This is COMPLETELY not par of the theory of evolution. The theory states that apes/monkeys and humans have a common ancestor and there was a split somewhere along the line created by environmental factors. I wish Creationists ans (some) Evolutionist would get the facts straight before delving into complete choas.
Secondly, Who cares really… we should all be working together to try to preserve ourselves as a race and the earth we inherited regardless of who or where we and all things came from. Live in the future – die in the past.
Comment by TruthBtold — April 4, 2007 @ 6:27 am
The Theory of Evolution is just that – a theory. Species cannot be cross-bred – Why, if they are all descended from the same source?
Comment by 1066richard — April 4, 2007 @ 6:31 am
correction: species can be cross-bred: Varying plant species for example.
Comment by TruthBtold — April 4, 2007 @ 6:34 am
For God sake, Yankees cannot come from monkey dna by evolution. Even they are not stupid enough. They have to be Gods cruel joke for rest of the world.
Comment by Tee — April 4, 2007 @ 6:38 am
post 143 – read post 141. The theory of Evolution does not state that humans came from monkey DNA. You should READ the theory. Common ancestor – get your facts dtraight before you attempt to use them in making a weak insult.
Comment by TruthBtold — April 4, 2007 @ 6:40 am
Hahahahahha
Whenever i come across comments like those ive read above i laugh a lot.
Americans are getting stupider and stupider every year.
Makes the work for us Chinese (and the Indians) much easier.
Superpower status here we come
Comment by bolo121 — April 4, 2007 @ 6:41 am
Species cannot be cross-bred – Why, if they are all created from the same source?
Comment by h3nry — April 4, 2007 @ 6:41 am
I fail to see how religion can manage to hold a place in the educational system. It is ludacris and unrealistic to say that the earth just “popped” out of nowhere.
Comment by Danthor — April 4, 2007 @ 6:41 am
I really think this debate (if you can call it that) is a war between the educated and the over-emotional, urban hating, uninformed.
Comment by TruthBtold — April 4, 2007 @ 6:42 am
H3nry –
Unfortunatly it is our blind beliefs that guide us. It is something that most evolutionists will never understand. The bible says that we must become like children in the faith. Which means believing without seeing. And it is those people which will be saved.
As for infants who die , and the amazon people who have never heard of Christ. I do not know all the answers, but i do know that God will be just in whatever he decided to do with them.
And your attempt to dodge my carbon dating statement was pathetic. Do a search please. here are a few sites which supply reasons for the inaccuracies of carbon dating:
1.http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results
2.http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm
3.http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
I just picked the first few hits. There are a few thousand other links as well.
thanks:)
Comment by codemonkey — April 4, 2007 @ 6:43 am
[...] http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/97-%e2%80%93-where-and-how-evolution-is-taught-in-the-us... [...]
Pingback by Thought this might interest and amuse you « funding: zoos; aquaria; nature sites — April 4, 2007 @ 6:43 am
@rapter
“why aren’t we still changing?”
We are. Evolution is a slow process. There is no way we will witness any remarkable change in human beings in our time.
Oh, and perhaps you should learn how to spell properly before trying to belittle intelligent people.
To me, I find it far easier to believe that various species on this earth adapt to their environments slowly and painfully over hundreds of generations, than to believe that some omniscient being created the planet and everything on it in 6 days and then took a breather on the 7th.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 6:49 am
@rapter
Gravity is a theory that is yet subject to modifications!!! the gravity stuff they teach in school is just an initial approximation arrived at by Newton.
And we are changing we are yet evolving, the only reason it is not pronounced is because there is no elimination anymore. And also the time scales evolution works over are so large that it would not be pronounced anyway!!
But anyway one cannot win an argument against someone bigoted.
Also one thing i have always wondered about where do you put the other religions which have a different take on the origin of the world.
Comment by evolved — April 4, 2007 @ 6:56 am
Sigh.
1) The theory of evolution does not explain how life began (abiogenesis).
2) Evolution is observable in nature. Example: banana fly through gains through mutation a resistance to pesticide. This is a real, observed fact that even most creationists do not deny. Microevolution. Happens every day.
3) There is no mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating and eventually creating more complex structures (like a new limb, for example). Macroevolution.
4) Can’t believe I have to write this… humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and other primates that exist today have a common ancestor. The people who thougth of this argument (200 years ago!) were ignorant, you should know better.
The creationis position is basically GODDIDIT. Please go argue with the millions of other people who believe that it was their god that created the world, and all others are wrong. In the mean time science will move on no matter how much you stomp your foot. We will all die one day – there’s better ways to deal with it than believing that all your loved ones are waiting somewhere sitting on a cloud. Make your life count.
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 7:08 am
J1 – You articulated this better than I… nicely done.
Comment by TruthBtold — April 4, 2007 @ 7:13 am
One more thing. Because of 1) evolution is not incompatible with religion. The problems only arise when ignorant people interpret the Bible (why it’s usually just christians) literally. It’s basically impossible to have a discussion with people who believe that a collection of tribal beliefs of that contradicts itself on almost every page is infallible.
There are a lot of moderate people who accept the theory of evolution but also have some religious beliefs.
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 7:28 am
CA – well organised? crime?
Comment by Acronyms — April 4, 2007 @ 7:28 am
Please Jl give us 10 examples of where the bible contradicts itself. If there is one on every page , this should be easy to find.
The bible is the truth, if something is perceived as a contradiction , you havent studied it carefully enough.
thanks:)
Comment by codemonkey — April 4, 2007 @ 7:36 am
People that haven’t taken a course in genetics (molecular, developmental, or even *gasp* behavioral) shouldn’t try to disprove evolution. Their views on how the theory of evolution works is usually misguided. It’s annoying to read these rebuttals on how evolution is supposed to explain why a junkyard can’t become an airplane by chance or why great grandmother wasn’t an ape.
The field of genetics is so deeply rooted in the theory of evolution that to take it away would place us back to square one. Many modern advances in fields that are directly affected by genetic research (eg. medicine) are built around the theory of evolution. Without Darwin’s theory, many modern technologies that we depend on wouldn’t exist because we wouldn’t even know how to approach the problem.
HOWEVER, people that don’t believe in creationism shouldn’t bash on other people’s beliefs because they think they’re wrong. Who are you to attack one’s beliefs if those very beliefs help the believers live their lives? Even if your intentions are good, don’t tell others how to live unless there is a probability of harm if you don’t. Let them believe; it’s ok.
Educate yourselves before making fools of yourselves. Don’t blindly follow the crowd. Don’t be ignorant. Think for yourself. Most importantly: DON’T BE A DICK.
Evolution is a theory, and theories can be improved upon or even completely discarded if new, conflicting evidence arises. We aren’t saying we’re right; we just need an explanation for our findings. What bugs me is when someone says they’re right, and their conclusion cannot be altered in anyway. This inhibits progress of humanity as a whole and is the worst consequence of this kind of thinking.
BTW, the statement that Darwin recanted his theory of evolution is purely speculation. No one really knows what he said. Some even believe that this story is a fabrication.
Comment by Kiwimaster — April 4, 2007 @ 7:47 am
Can anyone explain to me why it only seems to be in America that this is even a debate? OK, there are religious dogmatists and people who can only appeal to faith rather than rational inquiry all over the place – but they don’t seem to have the ear of policy-makers and the entrenchment in the political culture anywhere except the good ol’ U. S. of A. Even if you don’t believe in evolution, the arguments for Creationism are far, far weaker. If the only starting point we need is the committment to apportion our belief in proportion to the available evidence we might well reject both, but we would reject Creationism first. At least the naturalists are amenable to the force of the stronger argument. The only states that seem to come close to the preponderence of vehement religiously minded intolerance of other views are radically Muslim, aren’t they?
Comment by blackthumb — April 4, 2007 @ 7:50 am
@Codemonkey
You sound like a broken record.
“but the bible is truth!!! Coz it just is!!”
As has been pointed out over and over again, what do you have to say to the followers of other religions who follow their own beliefs without question? Are they wrong? Would you believe that they think you’re wrong?
Are you willing to accept the fact that by stating that the Christian bible is the absolute truth, you are insulting the followers of every other religion that hold their own beliefs?
Anyone who takes the bible literally and uses it as a tome of pure truth, you are delusional. To those who are devoutly religious but who view the teachings in the bible as a set of principals by which to live your lives….. I applaud you, for you recognise the real meaning of the bible.
I can’t say this enough… the bible is NOT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. It presents meaning and principal, not facts and history.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 7:59 am
@kiwimaster
I really like how you say “Evolution is a theory, and theories can be improved upon or even completely discarded if new, conflicting evidence arises. We aren’t saying we’re right; we just need an explanation for our findings.”
I completly agree with that , most probably evolution is accurate , but even the proponents have to remember that nothing ever is set and inflexible, everything should be open to a second view ,to a different look. For without that no progress is possible. Even gravity which was to be completely understood, showed that there was a lot more to it. Fixing our minds on one thing is the worst thing possible.
Comment by evolved — April 4, 2007 @ 7:59 am
Hello everyone, I really love reading this blog. This is incredible. I love the discussion. I’ve got some things you guys should look at. Instead of deriding creationism and believers, and pretty much attributing every wicked act of murder and war to them, actually try to hear what they’re saying. Here’s a link to a great group of people who I’ve had a chance to serve with. They’ll answer a lot of questions to the best of there ability without deriding you for asking them. They know you’re intelligent and they are too. So calm down.
I also wanted to answer another question that came up. Why should anyone believe in Christianity versus other religions? First off, one should examine some criteria for answering that question.
1) Does the religion CLAIM to be a religion? If not, it’s not a religion, hence, smart people like us can easily discard it as nonsense, because without a definitive truth claim, it’s not valid.
2) Does the religion claim exclusivity? The theory that all streams lead to the same ocean is post-modern bunk, steeped in intellectual nonsense.
3) Is there a reason to actually believe that a particular religion has validity based on it’s claims that regard the physical realm? i.e., historically accurate.
There is more criteria, of course, but these are just some of them. With just these three, people can easily navigate to the basic 4 or 5 mainstream religions, and can exclude undercurrent movements and occults. So, the choice of which religion is the right one is less hazy now for some, I hope.
Also, another sidenote, just because there are many creation myths out there, does NOT mean that there isn’t a definitive creation account that is accurate. I read some guy that said something to that affect.
I’ll have more to post later. Peace.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:00 am
@Philip: Your argument that new information cannot form in DNA is faulty. Random sequencing and mutation are crucial components of reproduction; it’s why any two siblings will not be the same mixture between mom and dad, unless they split from the same cell. It’s why people are born with mutations like dwarfism, downs syndrome, even cancer. The theory of evolution simply shows that one in a million of those mutations survives and propogates; eventually, these changes accumulate and change a species enough that it can no longer breed with its original version. This creates a new species altogether. The creationist implications elude me, frankly. Why would God (as the Bible so literally suggests) materialize everything whole? That’s like trying to build a tree in a factory when you can simply let it grow itself. It is so much more elegant to believe that he set the first Domino in motion at the beginning of time, and the universe has since been functional enough not to require any messy tinkering.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 8:04 am
Hi codemonkey. I really hoped that someone would take the bait because I *have* read my bible, which according to studies most christians have not done.
You asked me to give examples where the Bible contradicts itself. Let’s start from the beginning. Please tell me which, according to Bible were created first 1) animals or 2) humans?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:08 am
There is no problem with teaching both evolution and creationism. Just teach them in their proper venues: science class and philosophy/religion class. The science of evolution assumes creation and makes no attempt to explain it. Creationism states the obvious: that creation occurred, but it is not science.
Creationists who want their subject taught as science, spend all of their time attacking evolution instead of doing any science. The only evidence they ever present that actually “supports” creationism is: “I read it in a book that somebody told me is the Word of God and I believe them.” Well, creationists, I read about evolution in a book and somebody told me that it is the mechanism that God set up to keep things going and I believe them. What makes your book and your somebody more authoritative than my book and my somebody?
Comment by {DvT}Hex — April 4, 2007 @ 8:12 am
Sorry, wrong question. What I meant to ask was whcih were created first 1) plants or 2) humans?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:13 am
Ooops, I didn’t actually give the answer to my question, LOL. Also, sorry for the grammar.
Anyways, Christianity is the best pick of the litter, so to speak for a lot of reasons. 1). It’s 100% historically accurate. People, places, and locations are 100% intact. It’s been proven. There is some discussion as to the logistics, but that’s because of the confusion of languages and other factors that easily understandable. 2) It’s not made by one author or one scribe. It’s made by 40-44 authors (some theologians argue about who wrote what), stretched over 66 books spanning 3000 years (give or take). In many of these books, there is something known as prophecy. The author predicts something, or in the writing there is a prediction that comes 1000 or so years before the prediction comes true. This demonstrates a divine nature behind the writing. 3) The Bible and it’s adherents, have withstood persecution of the likes no evolutionist will ever undergo and they have still remained faithful until there dying breath. To make the statement that that happens with atheists is laughable. They’d give up there beliefs, and that’s exactly what they are, in a heartbeat if you tried to nail them to a cross. Later.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:15 am
Richard-
You are quick to say that the bible is not historically accurate. How so , please explain. I would like to hear more.
People babble on and on about things they probably know nothing about. We are all like that to a certain degree.
I agree with Willis , try to find the religion that makes real and honest sense to you. For me christianity makes sense. Evolution is most certainly a type of religion , but it makes no sense. I am very happy that i do not believe in evolution otherwise i would have killed myself long ago since there is aboslutely no point to living.
Unfortunatly you cannot be a true christian if you don’t see the bible as the truth. You cannot say you believe one part of the bible but not the other part.
Just ask yourself. Does my religion make sense? Where did the matter originate that was compressed and caused the big bang? who created it? where did the first living cell originate from , who created it.? Or is your answer to these questions ” it was just there?”. I believe my belief in creation is more believable than that.
thanks:)
Comment by codemonkey — April 4, 2007 @ 8:16 am
“Sorry, wrong question. What I meant to ask was whcih were created first 1) plants or 2) humans?”
….Plants…..and?
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:17 am
Genesis 1:11-13, 27-31
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so …. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them …. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 2:4-7
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth … And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:21 am
Ok… please spot the contradiction for me, I’m just a simple-minded person…..
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:22 am
And my first question, which were created first: animals or human.
Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind … And God said, Let us make man … So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.
Anyone see a trend here?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Willis, that’s just two examples. Do you really want more? I can continue for the whole day, and it doesn’t change the _fact_ that evolution can be observed in nature.
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:27 am
As someone who is currently in the California education system, I can honestly say that’s a load of crap.
We were indeed taught evolution, but never were we even allowed to discuss human evolution in biology class. I would have loved to have talked about human evolution, and to have seen the bible thumping religion nuts sweat in their chairs, but alas, we were never allowed to.
Many teachers now a days are deathly afraid of mentioning anything that could be construed as even remotely religious.
It’s quite sad that our education system has gone so far down the drain, that topics which are prevelant in society, issues that are happening today, and debates that are going on, are completely skipped over due to some crack pot idea that some teacher is going to force feed me his bible.
I remember saying, rather exclaiming, jesus christ in class the other day, I thought my math teacher was going to have a heart attack, it was quite pathetic.
Seperation of church and state?
That’s a load of bullshit.
Sorry for any typos, I’ve got a brace on my wrist for tendinitis, makes it hard to type.
Comment by Richard James — April 4, 2007 @ 8:28 am
i would say that most christians do not disagree with “evolution” it is more of how it all got started. most find it hard to beleive that everything come from nothing, or the big bang. this is where the junkyard to airplane or even full functioning life comes in. if you through all the atoms together and then, give it enough time, it should create life. also most think that going from one speics to another in not proven. there are many gaps as well as leaps that scientist must make in evolution. thats just my small 2 cents.
Comment by annon — April 4, 2007 @ 8:31 am
[...] Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US Fifth Graders Arrested For Having Sex In Class [...]
Pingback by News Links for 4.3.07 >> The National Chronicle — April 4, 2007 @ 8:32 am
Ok, J1, or whatever you name is, WHERE’S THE CONTRADICTION IN WHAT THE BIBLE IS SAYING IN THOSE VERSES!!! Here’s a definition of what a contradiction is:
A. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
B. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:32 am
Do I see a trend? Yep, it’s called consistency.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:34 am
The theory of evolution does not claim to tell how life started (abiogenesis). How many times that has to be explained?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:34 am
“The theory of evolution does not claim to tell how life started (abiogenesis). How many times that has to be explained?”
No, it doesn’t, but it stands on what is known as a presupposition. A thought, that one presupposes to be true.
By the way, thanks for ignoring my other comments, I know you can’t answer your silly allegations against the Bible.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:37 am
LOL, if bible first says that cattle was created and then man, and later says that man was created and then cattle? That’s not a contradiction???
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:37 am
It’s consistency all righ. Consistently inconsistent. And this is the friggin first chapter. The whole book is riddled with holes like that. :)
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:38 am
YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!!! YOU PURPOSELY MISQUOTED THAT VERSE!!
19 Now the LORD God HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
Stop lying!
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:40 am
It was a reference to what He had done previously. Then when Adam was made, THEN Adam named the animals. You pathetic liar.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:42 am
I’m from texas and we were taught human evolution. I should know since I failed biology 3 times. Not because I’m stupid but because I’m lazy. Yeah that could still mean I’m stupid. Point is that I learned that shit.
Comment by rene — April 4, 2007 @ 8:42 am
-Jl
Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind … And God said, Let us make man … So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.
There is absolutely no contradiction. it is just a list of all the stuff GOD made , order is not important. I hope this is not the best you can do.
thanks:)
Comment by codemonkey — April 4, 2007 @ 8:44 am
No need to shout now? :) You can check all the infallible editions at http://bible.cc/genesis/2-19.htm
You know there are several editions of the bible? Which one is correct if the Bible is 100% correct. :)
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:45 am
@Rapter: Evolution is an unrelated topic to human emotions or souls. Using similar logic, one could argue that evolution can’t explain why the sky is blue, or why you can’t turn lead into gold. No kidding, they have nothing to do with each other. You can argue that God gave us the spiritual gifts of emotions (and there’s no way to prove or disprove it), but you can’t deny that in our physical reality, emotions are expressed and experienced by the body as chemical reactions. Religion and spirituality serve the purpose of explaining the meaning of life, not the nature of life. It is when the two are confused that people start yelling at each other.
Furthermore, Darwin did not “create” evolution. He based his work on the findings of several scientists before him, along with his own observations. He just has the distinction of being the first whose work was presented to the general public. Like all scientific advances, it was an idea that was contributed to by many over time. Whether or not he “recanted” his findings is not particularly relevant; his work speaks for itself. Any argument against it should also be based on fact, evidence and observation, not idle speculation.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Thank you codemonkey, but there is distinctly a time issue here. “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Then He says, “Now the Lord God HAD formed..” This is definitely a past tense Hebrew understanding, that stood to illustrate the context again of what was going on. In other words, He made animals, then man, then brought them to Adam to name. I too, second your last comment. JI, Is this the best you got?
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Yes, of course. The order is not important when it suits you, but in every other case the bible has to be understood 100% literally even though there are hundreds of different versions and translations.
Still, how does any of this discredit the theory of evolution?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Semantics. People get so worked up over semantics.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 8:51 am
No one’s arguing against the many different translations. So? There’s different translations. What fundamental Christians and conservative scholars hold, is that the original manuscripts (Hebrew and Greek) are inspired, not the translations thereafter. Get your facts right.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:52 am
“Fact” is such a subjective word right now, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 8:53 am
“how does any of this discredit the theory of evolution?”
None of things that we were talking about do. YOU were trying to disprove creationism. What I was doing, and what codemonkey was doing, was trying to rebut you. Get it right.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Yes, of course we have all read the original manuscripts like you? How can you call something 100% accurate if you at the same time call me a liar for quoting a verse from one version of the bible that you just don’t happent to have.
http://bible.cc/genesis/2-19.htm
In any cas, back to evolution? How does any of this change the fact that we can observe evolution in nature?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:55 am
thats what I’m saying, evolution happens, but it is tied to the theory of the big bang, and also changing from one species to another hasn’t been proven. there has been life that look close to or similar to human, but thats to be expected all life is not that different. the genes of all life are surprisingly similar, you may think that this proves evolution but i say it proves “why mess with success”. God created us using the same building blocks. all planes are similar in many ways, just like all life is, but there are also very important diffences, same in life. at least this is the way i see it.
Comment by annon — April 4, 2007 @ 8:56 am
Eran -
Nope, it’s subjective to those who don’t know the truth or want to hear it. Bible versions has nothing to do with creationism. The account does not stand to contradiction or any other fallacy you may want to throw at it. thanks for trying though.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:56 am
America appears to have a problem with Christianity. It has gotten out of hand. Just as the middle east and parts of Asia has problems with Islam.
The problem as I see it is that stupid people get sucked into religion fairly easily, and smart people don’t think carefully enough about it and are swayed by the masses. It wouldn’t be a problem, but Christianity does more harm than good.
Comment by Daniel — April 4, 2007 @ 8:56 am
Umm, why does creationism take a standpoint that it was a christian god who created everything? Why not any other god then?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 8:57 am
J1, please, for the love of everything, don’t ask silly questions like that, I was beginning to think you were half-way intelligent. Why does CHRISTianity presuppose a CHRISTian God made everything? Are you kidding me?
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:00 am
“Nope, it’s subjective to those who don’t know the truth or want to hear it. Bible versions has nothing to do with creationism. The account does not stand to contradiction or any other fallacy you may want to throw at it. thanks for trying though.”
Says the person who just called me a liar and accused me of misquoting the bible. Didn’t you want to hear the truth in that verse?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Willis- I know. I was trying to lighten the mood.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Daniel, if you’re so intelligent, please reason in some way with the following:
* 1. The “unmoved mover” argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a “first mover,” which is God.
* 2. The “nothing is caused by itself” argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
* 3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
* 4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
* 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer’s directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:01 am
“J1, please, for the love of everything, don’t ask silly questions like that, I was beginning to think you were half-way intelligent. Why does CHRISTianity presuppose a CHRISTian God made everything? Are you kidding me?”
Learn to quote.
I said: Umm, why does _creationism_ take a standpoint that it was a christian god who created everything? Why not any other god then?
Comment by J1 — April 4, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Sorry then Eran. :)
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:02 am
yep cuz the redcross and the salvation army are horrible, sorry had to say it. i agree that religion can be used for ill and has, but i would say that religion was “used”, not the cause. people who have used religion would have used some other thing if religion wasn’t used. i think religion can be a scape goat like video games cause people to shoot others and kill hookers.
Comment by annon — April 4, 2007 @ 9:03 am
One can assume that any document written, distributed and interpreted by man will be subject to the fallibilities of man.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:03 am
Sorry bout that J1, my bad. I think I was answering that earlier on another post about why Christianity is the right religion out of the litter. Anyways, you think Allah could have made this?
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:03 am
So I thought we were discussion the truthfulness of evolution or creationism. Can someone explain a couple of these questions:
* 1. The “unmoved mover” argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a “first mover,” which is God.
* 2. The “nothing is caused by itself” argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
* 3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
* 4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
* 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer’s directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Annon- You have a point there. Religion as an intangible set of texts and interpretations is rather different from religion, when used as justification for X action or event. Any ideology is insane when taken to extremes.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:08 am
My bad, nevermind number 5. I think one needs to presuppose the existence of God to accept that supposition.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Eran, I like what you said. I don’t think one can take Christianity, true Christianity to an extreme. How can they? Do not lust, Do not hate, Do not lie, Do not covet, Love all, Love the Lord your God, etc. How can one truly be an extremist (at least, in the bad sense) with those mandates?
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Willis- (I’m not completely clear whether these are your arguments or just examples.) What’s wrong with infinity? Each of those arguments is grounded in the need to have a comfortable beginning and end to things. This is more of a betrayal of human insecurity (needing to believe that we are important) than a true argument for creationism. There’s no logical explanation for why infinity isn’t feasible. Granted, I personally believe that our universe began at the “big bang,” but there’s also no telling whether there was another universe there before it. There’s also no telling whether there are other universes floating around at this moment.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:16 am
J1,
“Says the person who just called me a liar and accused me of misquoting the bible. Didn’t you want to hear the truth in that verse?”
I did hear it. There’s no TWO ways about it. There’s one or the other. You can’t possibly believe that both what you said and what I said can both be true? What nonsense. It’s easily understandable if you know how to interpret which is what we all do when we read or study something, we interpret it. No scholar, or reputable person will espouse what you said as being legitamate. You can’t just go to some website and get crap off of it and say you’ve studied your facts. You haven’t.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Willis- In all the ways that matter, most religions seem to agree with one another. Love thy neighbor, do no harm, respect thy mother and father, do not become attached to worldly possessions. That sort of thing. Sometimes I wish people would use this sort of core wisdom as a compass, rather than relying on the texts as a roadmap.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Eran, thanks for the response, I appreciate it. By the way, those weren’t actually written by me, those were from Thomas Acquinas, from the 13th century. I’ve studied those before and I found them again. You seem to be actually thinking about what you’re talking about and not espousing a bunch of nonsense. As a Christian, I really appreciate that.
About your objection. I don’t need a comfortable beginning or end. In fact, what I believe makes me uncomfortable in a weird sort of way, about infinity. That there is no beginning of infinity and no end to it. The first mover argument is a way to posit a physics question of sorts. We had to have been set into motion. Because, scientifically, we see motion in our universe and indeed, everything. A bang, or the Big Bang, had to have originated from somewhere. Something doesn’t come out of nothing. Except, obviously, there had been something Ever Living. Which is the paradox that every Christian is presented with, which is not easy to accept.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:25 am
personally I believe in evolution, but I don’t think its fair to knock down someone elses beliefs just because you don’t agree with it. It’s one thing to debate, but completely another to just slander.
Comment by Live TV — April 4, 2007 @ 9:25 am
[...] theory in the US school system 4 04 2007 Just saw this posting. I wonder how this map would look like in The Netherlands, since we’ve got a strong Bible [...]
Pingback by Evolution theory in the US school system « The Smokin’ Gun — April 4, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Eran, it is a roadmap. Because if I believe in evolution there is absolutely no REASON for me to do anything but aggrandize my selfish person. Also, for what it counts, people (i’m not sure about other religions, but for Christianity, at least) will pay for using Christianity for a weapon. They’re worse than any unbeliever could ever hope to be. Eternally speaking. I hope you understand, God is just in what He does, and He will get His, when it comes to the TV preachers and liars of this world. That’s why He values a spoken word like He does.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Willis: I try to leave emotions at the door in a debate. Thank you.
Examining the mover argument like that, it makes more sense. Speculating about what came before the universe (if there was anything at all) is difficult, if only because the entire concept of nothingness is difficult to swallow. Even time itself is woven into the fabric of space. Which means that time expanded and changed shape along with space, in the beginning. Perhaps it is this compression that the bible talks about in its creationism statements.
The laws of cause and effect are only relevant in a universe- any universe. Without that universe, perhaps the effect caused itself.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Eran, I understand that emotion clouds our judgment as fallible human beings. I hope you didn’t think I was being emotional with you in a bad way. I do care about what you’re saying. I was mad at J1 though. Not you at all, except that one time, but that was just me, not getting it. Sorry for that.
I believe there is some issue with what you’re saying. Let me expound further…
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Willis: I still maintain that evolution does not conflict (or even coincide) with fate, the meaning of life or the beginning of the universe. But one could argue that evolution DOES provide an incentive for self-sacrifice; the needs of the species always outweigh the needs of the individual. I’m agnostic, but I believe that my life’s worth is measured by my contributions to my species, to my planet. There’s no need to abandon hope or compassion.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Willis- Lol, relax, I wasn’t implying that you were being emotional. I was just thanking you.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Some of the wording in the Genesis 1 account refers to a shapeless mass, or void, in which God began His creative act. So, in a way, there is a small amount of similtude of what we’re talking about. Astronomers have looked at what the galaxy is like and how galaxies, stars, nebulas, etc. are formed and thought it was from a Big Bang or some such thing that put the galaxies into motion. I believe, that the Creation account explains some of the interesting phenomena we see in the galaxies. I think God formed everything like a beautiful painting (I know, it sounds corny and too idealistic, but you understand). I don’t know if that helps.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Sorry bout that. :) That’s good, I didn’t want you to think that I was angry. Ok, my last post was odd, and I dont think it helped at all, so.. About hope and compassion. I’m curious, and I’m not being sarcastic, what do you hope for? Why is there a need to be compassionate? thanks
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:45 am
And it is beautiful. I’m curious, which phenomena are you referring to? “Dark matter” and that sort of thing?
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:47 am
I might be from a different country, but this is still a pretty terrifying thing to see. A so-called super-power that doesn’t know how to educate its kids properly or how to look after its sick, sure doesn’t seem like a country in any sort of position to go around telling others how to live their lives. Shame on you America, shame on you.
Comment by Jim — April 4, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Hope, in that we wonder whether our lives matter in any way. Compassion, in that our lives are relevant to the world, and not just ourselves. Do I matter? Do I matter to anyone else?
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Yeah, stuff like that. Here’s a cool link, there’s a bunch of cool stuff that happens in the universe.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:50 am
You know, I was listening to a song by Breaking Benjamin. They sing this kind of melancholy rock song about “I want to live forever” or some such thing. I thought about that. We, as humans, have this innate nature to want to live forever. I have that hope. I want everyone to have that hope as well. My God is good and nothing like Pat Robertson or Falwell, and I can list a bunch more. Anyways, He wants to give everyone that choice, to have eternity or not.
Compassion… I am compassionate to all mankind that doesn’t have what I have (and I might add, that I don’t have any compassion for those who have it and make a mockery of my God). I don’t mean that in a condescending way. I mean that in love.
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:55 am
By the way, did you read the thing about the horizon problem? Hmmm… :)
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Interesting link. Still going through it. The horizons thing is intriguing. All of the mysteries mentioned in the article are interesting; however, I’m more inclined to believe that our understanding of the universe is incomplete than to believe that God is poking around and causing mischief.
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 10:04 am
No no no. He doesn’t poke around and cause mischief. What do you mean?
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 10:07 am
I meant that in a joking way. Also, I’m not thinking straight, because it’s about 4am where I am. So I’m going to say good night. Thank you for the intelligent debate, Willis. =)
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Thank you. Its like 6Am here, LOL. Here’s my email, if you want to discuss it further: willbeeler@gmail.com
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Mine is eran.cantrell@gmail.com. Good night. =)
Comment by Eran — April 4, 2007 @ 10:11 am
cool. :) Night
Comment by Willis — April 4, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Chad -
Evolution by natural selection does not necessarily mean organisms become ‘better’ than their ancestors – it means that they are more survivable than their ancestors.
Comment by Sasha — April 4, 2007 @ 10:28 am
As a RI native, I am not suprised to see RI rated as ‘excellent’, but that MA is only ‘good’. I went to Catholic schools for grammar/high, and I was taught evolution the whole time.
Comment by Mike — April 4, 2007 @ 10:48 am
[...] article and full map here. evolution» News and World» politics» religion» [...]
Pingback by What a Weenie! » whataweenie.com archive » Politics: Map Showing Where (and How) Evolution is Taught in Schools — April 4, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Religion is a mental illness.
Comment by Simon — April 4, 2007 @ 11:27 am
[...] post, featured as Blog of the Minute on the WordPress home page, provides a commentary on the map – and [...]
Pingback by Map of Teachings of Evolution in the US « On Evolution — April 4, 2007 @ 11:35 am
stupid question…but how do you measure whether evolution is taught well or not?
what do you think? I hate this whole debate anyway…if you have time have a look at my page ‘genesis confusion’ for some further thoughts…
http://timmaundrell.wordpress.com/
cheers
Comment by Tim Maundrell — April 4, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Gee, I didn’t know so many states were so bad at teaching evolution. Damn religious zealots.
Comment by Greyhawk — April 4, 2007 @ 11:49 am
It’s so hard to understand all that fuss from Europe. One day creationism will just vanish, I know.
best regards to all, regardless of creed
Comment by gabrielbcn — April 4, 2007 @ 11:50 am
To anyone suggesting both evolution and creationism be taught as theories and let the kids decide. Would you let Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, or other religion (assuming you are Christian) be taught to your kids and let them decide which to follow? No, really, why? Flip the evolution/creationism in schools debate and let’s make it religion/aethism in the churches. I bet that goes over well in the religious communities.
Comment by Jeffrey — April 4, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
@codemonkey:
You paste some text from the bible, written hundreds and hundreds of years ago by men, as claim it as conclusive incontrovertible proof that evolution is flawed.
I’ve given up trying to point out where you’ve completely lost the plot.
Have a nice life, and when God greets you in heaven, slaps you over the head and says “idiot, I didn’t create the earth in 7 days, are you nuts??” just think of me, ok?
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
You godless people should be ashamed of yourselves. Every right thinking person in America knows that humankind didn’t evolve from monkeys.
What an affront to human decency.
Comment by Elias Mazzina — April 4, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
In Ohio I learned of evolution in grade school, middle school and in high school… The only schools in my area (NE Ohio) that didn’t teach evolution were Catholic schools (and even still, I knew of quite a few that did)
Comment by ths — April 4, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
“To anyone suggesting both evolution and creationism be taught as theories and let the kids decide. Would you let Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, or other religion (assuming you are Christian) be taught to your kids and let them decide which to follow?”
I believe education should always be such that the individual could realise their fullest potential as a human being. Putting religious studies into schools to reinforce certain ideologies is like using education as a slave/tool for propagating agendas.
Anyway, let science be taught purely as science. Do we want to include all other theories of how the world come into being? That would be such a headache.
Comment by Bootleg — April 4, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
2 words = Flu shot
If all you people who [don't] believe in evolution get a flu shot, may I ask why? Since life doesn’t evolve, than the flu should be the same every year. Correct?
Let me guess, God created endless different flu viruses, just to fuck with us… or was it the “devil”?
(Not to mention cold viruses aswell.)
http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm
Comment by nothingbutbullshit — April 4, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
[...] 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « strange maps A map of states where “creationsim is taught” (aka, Jesus rode on the back of a dinosaur). (tags: fundagelicals fundies evangelicals creationism intelligentdesign) [...]
Pingback by Akkam’s Razor — April 4, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
400 years ago a great scientist was imprisoned because he observed that the earth revolved around the sun. The scientist as Galileo and he scientific had proof. But his proof was based on “new” sciences, from a telescope, by observing the solar system and it contradicted everything the church had said about our universe. The arguments of the church at the time (from the historical record) sound familiar to the arguments creationists are using today.
Creationists are fighting a losing battle, just as the church fought and lost the battle against Galileo. No one remembers the name of the Pope who arrested Galileo, but we all remember the scientist who opened up the heavens to humanity. 400 years from now Darwin’s name will be remembered, and creationism will be classified as theology as it should be.
I believe in God and I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior. But I also believe that I have a brain on my shoulders to think and analyze things logically with. Today, new sciences are putting more and more weight on the validity of evolution. Stop forcing creationism on everyone and let us finally step out of a world of ignorance.
Comment by Anex001 — April 4, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Evolution is very good politics. There are the true believers and then the doubters. Because of its divisiveness, it’s very instrumental for few controlling many. Evolution is also great religion seeing it’s something believed. All people of faith have some empirical support for their beliefs, but like evolution there is only partial or limited evidence. If you doubt that supposedly scientific evolution is not the religion of liberals, just read Humanist Manifesto I & II. Then consider how much of its credo has been accepted by American culture, politics, sciences, etc. And, if there is still doubt, read the list of signators and notice that almost every one was a member of the Unitarian Church–not certain if John Dewey was or not.
Comment by Daniel — April 4, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they need do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, because today they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about the contents of the so-called ’simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago, ‘according to the evolutionists,’ and having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Comment by Jim — April 4, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
This is a reply to Jim:
Do some research in the medical journals, scientists have combined inanimate amino acids and have successfully produced proteins. They have already done what you have asked.
Comment by Anex001 — April 4, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
I’m a high school senior from Ohio. I (thankfully) been taught evolution every year of public high school and once in middle school….there seem to be some inaccuracies here.
Comment by Luke — April 4, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
As a resident of Indiana, I am proud to see that we fall in the category of ‘Very good/Excellent’. However, this does not explain why our new license plates have “In God we Trust” emblazoned in large type next to the plate number.
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=19174 (for picture)
Comment by Justin — April 4, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Such a map should be interresting for the whole world.
I have spent all my scolarity in a catholic school in France (fron 3 years old to 22 years old) and I never meet any creationnist …
Comment by f — April 4, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
This is not completely accurate. Mississippi doesn’t have a state standard. As a college graduate and an evolution supportor, i have to say that i had the best and open minded education on the subject in mississippi. From my experiences, Texas is far more closed minded on the subject yet receive a higher score.
I would like to see the supporting evidence behind this map. I have a feeling it might be based on either someone’s personal opinion. Who are the quotes from?
Comment by Christopher — April 4, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
I don’t know where you get your information but Evolution is taught in Wisconsin. We really are not that conservative of a state.
Comment by Mitch — April 4, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
CORRECTION TO MAP:
I attended a public school in OHIO (western suburb of Cleveland) in 1996-1998) and in the 9th grade biology class evolution/natural selection definitely WAS taught (without much controversy, I might add). The community was relatively religious (most were Catholic or Protestant Christian and attended church regularly). The teacher of the class said straight out at the beginning of the year that evolution would be taught and other theories would be left for church, home, or elsewhere.
I agree with comment 260 that this map is most likely based on opinion – and the comments appended to each state have no source and seem to bias the results. It would be better to show information sources and possibly percentage of schools within the state that teach evolution – because it is clearly obvious that every school in a state doesn’t teach in the same way (and sometimes within the same school there can be differences).
Comment by jhodges — April 4, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Jim, you are missing the point. Let me mirror your argument and say how about we get all the physicists together and build a simple-something like molecules/mini-planet or whatever, and with all their brilliant intelligence and knowledge, they would end all arguments and uncertainties in physics once for all?
Comment by h3nry — April 4, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
“Mississippi seems determined to keep evolution outside its borders”
The above quote makes this map completely worthless to me. I went to school in South Mississippi and we studied The Theory of Evolution in ninth grade. Sometime I think that people just make this stuff up based on their opinion of the state or region.
Comment by kbo — April 4, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
I find it amusing that people use statements like “i dont believe this or that could be possible without divine intervention” or “i cant comprehend how this happened if not the will of some higher power”.
Really, humanity as a race just exudes so much arrogance at times I feel I could drown in it. To believe because you don’t understand something or cant comprehend something then it has to be magic/wizardry/divine. Arrogance.
You dont understand because your feeble brain just isnt capable of it. Its as simple as that. We have not evolved to the state where we can understand all this universe has to offer. We are not that intelligent yet. There are so many more mysteries in life. If we were to take the bible literally, then this would be it. This would be as good as it gets.
Well lets thank all the scientists through time that refused to accept this so called reality according to one religion. They believed there was more to life and they persued it and were rewarded. Society advanced because if it.
On another note, Id like to point out a rather glaring omission to the whole creationist standpoint. The Bible was written by people. Fallible people. As far as I’m concerned there is no argument here.
But carry on if you wish. Even if evolution isnt accurate its still an educated guess which is more then you can say for any sort of religious dogmatic drivel.
Comment by Alain — April 4, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
What about the accuracy argument? What was the criteria for making the five year old map? I attended high school in one of the “Red” states and was taught about evolution in several biology classes.
Comment by Bob — April 4, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
There is as much proof the Christian ‘god’ created everything as the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
All praise his noodly appendage!
It seems many creationists don’t understand the basic concepts about evolution.
Here are a few notes for the Creationists out there:
1. Evolution does NOT try to explain the origin (i.e. creation) of life.
2. Evolution does NOT argue humans are decedents of monkeys.
3. READ #2 again.
4. Evolution happens every day. Even the most hard-core Christian clone can watch it in action.
If you don’t understand the above notes, please don’t post anything. You don’t have a basic understanding of evolution. You cannot begin to comment on it intelligently.
Comment by Pastafarian — April 4, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
[...] Where ( and how ) Evolution is taught in the U.S. [...]
Pingback by Morning Quick Picks « oldephartteintraining — April 4, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
The radical evolutionist starts with the assumption that God has little, if any, part in creating the amazing diversity of life we all know. This assumption must, by definition, lead to all of the self-reinforcing conclusions we experience while ignoring the mountains of evidence that speak against their “truth”. Arguably the creationist can do the same thing. However most are open the reality of “what is” while the evolutionist often is not.
Comment by Waldean Wall — April 4, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Man, that map goes a long way toward providing reason for some of the ignorant comments left here in regard to evolution. Those who determine the curricula in some of these schools must be mighty pleased. After all, mission accomplished.
People are welcome to believe whatever crap they want but they should at least learn the fundamentals of an opposing side’s arguments. To believe in something only because of wilful ignorance is ridiculous; certainly reason enough to improve the state of education in this country.
Here’s a quote from an article regarding the standard of education in the US: “At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.”
Good job, USA.
Believe whatever you want to believe re: the theory evolution – that’s not the issue – it’s the fact that so many people’s beliefs are the product of total ignorance, rather than their being well-informed and making assessments of the information they’ve been given.
Comment by Steve — April 4, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
I also went to HS in Cleveland, OH – St. Ignatius (Catholic) – and evolution was taught vigorously. There was no debate whatsoever. The case was the same in my Catholic grade school, and at the University of Dayton (yet another Catholic institution). Not that I am Catholic, but evolution is accepted by the Vatican is the best description of the story of life that we have.
In all parts of Ohio, creationism is widely viewed as a ludicrously backward theory. There may be some state mandate to avoid the use of the word “evolution” in public schools, but I’ve certainly seen no support for the opposing theory.
Comment by Dale — April 4, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
As a teacher, who has taught it, evolution is taught in Virginia. In the 9th grade. YES!!!!
Comment by kmkellner — April 4, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
I’m tired of you christians and your “anti-monkey” agenda. You call us evolutionists monkeys as if it was such a bad thing. Monkeys are pretty damn smart, thank you very much, so let’s stop being so speciesist. How would you like it if monkeys called each other “christians” as an insult? Monkeys would never stoop so low!
Comment by nate — April 4, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Every time I read a link or see a documentary about the Evolution vs. ID/Creationism debate in the States there is a part of me that wonders if it’s all a giant April Fools’ Day Hoax!
That one of the largest superpowers in the world today can allow this sort of nonsense and jeopordaize its own progeny’s future in this way is baffling to me.
I grew up and was educated in “Holy Catholic” IRELAND and I was still taught evolution in school, a school run by nuns at that.
Allowing American schools to teach Creationism is Freedom of Speech gone mad.
No other country in the developed world would allow a religious movement such a stranglehold on it’s education system.
It is quite frankly, a disgrace.
Comment by TalkingSense — April 4, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
[...] Semi-useful map of where and how evolution is taught in the US « strange maps [...]
Pingback by Citadel of the Blogs » Blog Archive » Where and How Evolution Is Taught In the US — April 4, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
In regards to the notion that “no other country in the developed world would allow a religious movement such a stranglehold on it’s (sic) education system”. Are you aware that schools in Great Britian are removing any references to the Holocaust for fear of offending the delicate sensitivites of Muslim students? This clash between religion and secular society isn’t unique to the U.S.
Comment by Praecipitis — April 4, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
@Walden Wall:
You have it backwards.
1. Evolution does not argue about the ‘creation’ of life.
2. Why insert a divine being when none is needed?
3. Your position supports the concept of aliens creating the diversity of life as well.
4. Creationists are only concerned about “what is” if it is *their* particular divine being. An evolutionist will immediately alter their thoery when sufficient evidence is presented. Of course, I do agree that the bind evolutionist is a wrong as a creationist.
Comment by God's bitch — April 4, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
If you refer back to my post, I said “SUCH a stranglehold”, not that the education system in any other country was completely devoid of religious vs. secular issues.
It is the extent of the problem that I was remarking upon.
We have had our own issues in Ireland with the separation of Church and State, and indeed, there is still a ways to go. The current proposed changes to legislation that deals with marriage are a prime example of the hangover from the Church being overly influential when our constitution was written.
But to go as far as teaching Creation Mythology as FACT in a classroom in the year 2007…? That’s a whole different ballgame.
Comment by TalkingSense — April 4, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
I’ve not seen anything indicating that the teaching of Biblical creationism as “fact” is a widespread phenomenon in U.S. schools. Are you aware of evidence to the contrary?
Comment by Praecipitis — April 4, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Yes I am. I watched a documentary recently about a case where there was a court ruling outlawing the teaching of Evolution in some town in the Bible Belt. I would have to look it up on Google or somesuch but there is evidence to the contrary, yes.
If you will excuse me I will rejoin the debate later this evening.
Comment by TalkingSense — April 4, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Certainly you would admit that “some town in the Bible Belt” is not evidence of a widespread problem.
Comment by Praecipitis — April 4, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
there are alot of comments here, but I haven’t seen anyone suggest the idea that God created evolution. but i’m guessing that if it’s not literally written in the bible, it’s not possible for those believers. this begs the old addage “for those who believe, no explanation is necessary. for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” rigid bible interpreters/believers allow no opening for authentic answers to life’s great questions and now they seem closed to any real questions as well. those people who are OPEN to questions and answers may still look to the Bible for guidance, but they often find themselves in a place where rigidity doesn’t genuinely serve their quest(and i imagine those are the people that have found that ‘the bible’ has many variations and many interpretations, and who have found ways to reconcile their Faith with their Reason). regardless of where you seek answers, sorting out the questions of evolution, creation and God requires and demands that people be INDEPENDENT THINKERS not inexorable followers of a single text. and why argue so vehemently over the variety of answers that humans can/have come up with? face it, if either evolution or creationism were THE answer to ‘where did we come from and where are we going’ wouldn’t there be some global consensus by now? both ideas have certainly had plenty of time to ‘win the argument’ as it were. finally, the discussion about the junkyard and plane really is quite hilarious. i’m not sure how someone could claim they are actualy ‘thinking’ and make the giant leap from a biological/creation context to manmade/built context. that really is sort of ‘out there’!
Comment by itzallrelativ — April 4, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
evolved-
you can’t win an argument with someone who is right. and you can’t win against God. I hope for your sake you realize that someday
and big deal of evolution works on a large scale of time. why are there no half evolved animals from two million years ago?
Pastafarian and all others who do it- God is the one and true God, he deserves to be called such. this little g crap is insulting.
Comment by rapter — April 4, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
I find it difficult to believe that Kansas is listed under the “Satisfactory” heading; I’m a Kansas resident and all I ever hear about is how detrimental it is to even think of teaching evolution theory to the youth of tomorrow and how it undermine’s God’s authority. I know that the school system here has actively and openly resisted teaching evolution for years. So either something has changed in the school system without affecting the public outcry or the makers of this particular map mislabelled a state.
Comment by Jeremy R — April 4, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
[...] policies of evolution mapped Strange Maps has an interesting overview of how each of the 50 states handle the issue of evolution being taught [...]
Pingback by State policies of evolution mapped « The Flying Fascist — April 4, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
i’m gonna take the politically incorrect route here and say this:
i wish someone would do some sort of study on the correlation between iq and belief in evolution since one of the things you hear alot from creationists is this:
i dont’ understand evolution, i don’t get it, i’m not a monkey therefore god.
yeah.
Comment by me — April 4, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
what i don’t understand here is why this is even an issue? no way creation should be taught in science class.
since when does science accept theories proposed by annonymous sources who are long since dead, and whose original statements have been mistranslated, dilliberatly altered, and misinterpreted.
i mean we’ve all laughed at the silly subtitles and translation problems in japanese movies right?
languages don’t all match up. and you know how many times the bible has been changed? seriously people be reasonable.
think for yourselves.
Comment by me — April 4, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
What’s missing from this image is the list of states who point out that there are holes in evolution as a definition for creation, and that students are given information and allowed to use their own logic and reasoning to draw their own conclusions.
We all know evolution exists. Dogs have evolved, horses have evolved, people have evolved. But evolution by itself still doesn’t prove (yet) that people evolved from single cell organisms. I’m pretty tired of my children coming home from school being taught that evolution is 100% the answer.
That teaches them two things… 1) they no longer have to think for themselves, and 2) theory’s no longer need proof.
Comment by Jeff — April 4, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Ok, All I need to convert is this…
I need to see scientists create a universe. Nothing to large (lets keep it simple), but a closed system. And by the way, you are given no tools to work with, you must create this universe from nothing. Also I need several systems working in conjunction in order to maintain this system and its various parts. It must self heal and be able to sustain life. But scientists cant think too much about it or it would be considered intelligent design.
That’s all i need for science to get my vote on this matter.
Comment by Chris — April 4, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
As far as im aware the universe burst into being from nothing. This does not mean I have to make up a deity (a much more complex entity im sure) bursting into existence from nothing for the sole purpose of creating a universe which is creating itself quite well, without having to take an absurd step beck into the magical.
Comment by Cali_K — April 4, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
I’ll try to throw my two cents in regarding a reading list…
For anyone interested in understanding many of the common misconceptions I’ve seen here about evolution, I suggest reading “Full House” by Stephen J. Gould.
He does a wonderful job at correcting the general impression that evolution is “upward” as in Chad’s “junkyard into an airplane” example (itself misunderstood) or even the grand march toward upright humanity you see in many exhibits down at your local natural science museum.
Beyond simple, local adaption, our understanding of DNA dictates a statistically inevitable march toward *complexity*, with a world dominated in the beginning AND today by blue-green algae with a few statistical freaks out on the fringe that we call primates and humans.
His simplest example is the “drunkard’s walk”. Imagine pointing Paris Hilton down a sidewalk and giving her a little push on the backside. She’ll stagger randomly in small steps from the left to the right, but inevitably she’ll fall in the street. If it wasn’t obvious, the shop windows are the bounds of simplicity (a single-cell organism), the street is a complex human being, with the Jello shooters Paris did off some guy’s stomach standing in for mutation. If you can understand a bell curve, you’ll understand his book.
Also, I see a lot of talk here against evolution, but not much against DNA. If you don’t see the two as inseparable then you really have a lot of reading to do. If your faith is unshaken by scientists who can grow a human ear on a mouse’s back or fuse a goat with a spider and make material stronger than Kevlar from its milk, I suspect you won’t be swayed by evidence.
Comment by Jeff — April 4, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
If it takes a smart intellect to make another thing? And if we were made by God. Who made God? Was he made like a theory as the big bang where he just went Poof and was created by nothing?
Comment by Mark — April 4, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
[...] Even Indiana is better than us! It’s a good thing Illinois doesn’t believe in natural selection… [...]
Pingback by I Like Parentheses (so get used to ‘em) » Lagging behind the Quaker state — April 4, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
I would disagree fundamentally about the role of logic in this discussion. Logic or science is not pure in form or without bias. Because it is done by humans it is tainted by the motivation of the will. The one who seeks to gain or lose by his/her findings will research and present them accordingly. That is why the subject should be entirely open in the school system but not taught by the professor or teacher. Our minds are slaves to our hearts whether scientist or pastor. If God is not than accountability and justice are not.
Comment by happilywetwo — April 4, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Come on, Chris…didn’t God make the scientists? Didn’t God give us this natural world to learn from? Didn’t God give us free will to think for ourselves, decide for ourselves, even if it’s to our own detriment? Science doesn’t need your vote, neither does God, for that matter.
Scientists aren’t saying they formed the Earth…evolution doesn’t claim that a group of paleontologists got together and started mixing species up like Mr. Potato heads.
Your argument is witty, but it lacks the logical progression needed to prove your point.
Thanks, laelaps, for such organized and well-sourced comments. I’m looking forward to reading your blog. I wish all your time and thoughtfulness wasn’t wasted on many of readers here. I certainly appreciate your effort.
Comment by moxymedia — April 4, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
#58/ simplifyx3 said Thoreau.The mighty primordeal energy was called God by many thinkers, and much later given names like YHWH, ParaBrhmam.The energy was a soul as we now think we know.Many doubts are there to define ‘Life’.Life is the capacity to build high energy bonds in the cell by the cell nuclear material. and so on we go deeper and deeper in thot.we are evolved from some common ancient beings, but we are descended from our own ancestor species. The zygote took 280days, not instantns, to form the baby built from each molecule sent to it thru the mother by nature from the sun’s energy, again derived from the primeval. Look at the skies. OK Please yourselves that all the skies vast firmaments were created in a sidereal day.Does it matter?look deep into your minds depths. Do we have to squabble over these isues like the brabdingagians?[sp?].WE HAVE HUGE ISSUES , THE DYING POSITIVES GONE INTO AIDS. The miserables. The innocent positive progeny, waiting to die.The helpless Negative orphaned offspring anxious hoping in vain for foster parents. And we are pretending wisdom if creation or evolution. What is it to you oh 100 year mortal? Even the seventh grade angels are laughing at us. i sign off.
Comment by dr george pradhan,mbbs/1950 — April 4, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Oops, please correct my Paris Hilton post to read as follows “to the left or the right” and not “from the left to the right”. Doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
Comment by Jeff — April 4, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Strictly speaking, abiogenesis (how life was formed) is not evolution. The theory of evolution is how populations of organisms, over time, adapt to their environment, becoming more “fit” as the less fit organisms die out and only the fit organisms are left to reproduce. As a result, the next generation is fitter. That’s natural selection, and that’s what Darwin proposed. Microevolution has been observed. The archetypal case is bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. As far as macroevolution, new species are formed when a population splits into two and over time, these two populations do not breed with each other. As a result, they evolve differently. They are considered a different “species” once an individual from one population can no longer breed with an individual from another. By no means is a “species” set in stone.
Comment by Peter — April 4, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
“Evolution does happen. This is not a theory. It is a fact. You can see it in a lab or in nature today. There is ZERO doubt that species evolve. However, the ‘theory’ part comes about when trying to decide if homosapians have evolved.”
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Umm… no. That would be the “bloated ego” part. The theory part is in trying to explain HOW species evolve. What is the mechanism? How fast does it happen, what causes it? That is where you find theories.
Real scientists do not debate whether humans evolved from “lower” life forms. We have found transition species. We have not find humanoid fossils from before a certain time period. Therefore, we evolved on this earth.
Comment by Woody — April 4, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
“Lets say that evolution is correct , and you die. Then nothing happens and we are all in the same boat so to speak.
But just to go in another direction, lets say evolution is wrong and God did create everything and all who believed in him would have eternal live and all who rebelled against him would be damned. Then you would be damned for ETERNITY(please try to grasp how long eternity is) for believing in a false THEORY for 80 years of your live.” – codemonkey
Wow, so your entire faith is based on the concept of hedging your bets? Strong position there, monkeyboy. And despite your followup position, it IS true that this approach to conversion is simple fearmongering, as routinely performed by at least the Catholic church.
Comment by Woody — April 4, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Somebody up in this thread asked for the following. I can’t vouch for the credibility of the researchers:
Religiosity vs. IQ
Comment by Woody — April 4, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
When I first saw this argument, I thought I would have to swoop down with a big long, thought out rant and presentation of supporting material, but fortunately this was covered in comment #42. For all those arguing against evolution, and god vs. science please review the material present in this argument.
Now I offer up the following steps to those on the creationist side of the argument:
1. Please have a sound understanding of of the difference between hypothosis and theory.
2. Please read material on the evolution side of the argument before stating you know evolution is “wrong” or “inaccurate”. And by material I mean peer reviewed journals, books by authorities on the subject, that sort of thing. Wikipedia.com does not count.
3. Do not write off scientists arguing for evolution as an attack on your faith. 9 times out of 10 (Richard Dawkins withstanding) most scientists have no issue with faith, spirituality or the belief in a diety.
Comment by antje23 — April 4, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
@ Praecipitous
I’ll concede that one is example is not evidence of a widespread problem.
But perhaps I ought to draw your attention to the map at the beginning of the post, and indeed this entire thread of debate.
There is clearly a widespread problem!
Having been engaged with similar debates on other fora heavily populated with young Americans, it is clear to me that the teaching of Creationism is rife in the US.
Whether or not it is strictly being presented as “fact” where these people go to school is more a question of semantics than anything else. The end result is that you still have an alarming number of people leaving the US education system believing the Christian Creation Myth as fact.
And that is inarguably disgraceful.
Christianity might be the predominant faith system in many parts of the US but religous dogma of any creed being offered up in the SCIENCE classroom is wrong.
No ifs, buts or ands.
Religion has, in my opinion, no place in the any classroom but the Comparitive Religious Studies one.
People are entitled to believe whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes / places of worship, provided they do no harm unto others, but to openly foist religious dogma on innocent young minds is nothing short of reprehensible.
Comment by TalkingSense — April 4, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
How is it that if my family commits incest we get retard babies but Adam and Eve went from 2 to 6 billion people without any horrid horrid malformations?
If God has a plan for everyone then he had a plan for Hitler. Thusly you condone what Hitler has done as he had a solidified fate given to him by God. To go “oh, oh, that was satan” when something bad happens is a cop-out. If god is all powerful and omnipresent then preventing Satan from doing bad things should be nothing.
Comment by DME — April 4, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Dumb all over and a little ugly on the side.
Comment by Frank Zappa — April 4, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
For those that don’t know it, the use of the word ‘Theory’ is used by scientists to describe any system of sufficient complexity.
Unlike everyday English, it has NO bearing on the factual nature of the system being described or its liklihood, believability, or evidence.
Evolution is a fact that is as well known and understood as the vast majority of scientific ideas that everybody takes for granted (the nature of gravity or the science of drug effects on humans for example).
There is no amount of further proof or evidence that will turn that word “Theory” into a “Law”. They are used differently in science.
Comment by Ekstra — April 4, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
[...] personal favourite so far is the Evolution Teaching Standards in America map, because at some point, we all like to feel a little superior to the Americans. It’s [...]
Pingback by Hooray, Maps! « The Patch — April 4, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
@raptor:
Your quote:
“God is the one and true God, he deserves to be called such. this little g crap is insulting.”
No. The ‘big’ g crap is insulting.
Why are you insulted that I don’t believe in your god? There is no “one true god.” Just because your particular religion forces (yes, forces you) to belive in “one tru god” does not make it so. No more than the church wishing for teh world to be flat.
There have been hundreds (if not thousands) of gods. Why does yours deserve particular reverence? You have no more claim on that position than any other.
Below is a brief list of some of the gods of my home country (Australia). Please, indicate why your god has particular status over any of mine?
Adnoartina, Alchera, Almudj, Altjira,
Bagadjimbiri, Baiame, Bamapana, Bell Bird Brothers, Bellin Bellin, Biame, Bildjiwuaroju, Binbeal, Birrahgnooloo, Bobbi Bobbi, Bunbulama, Bunjil, Bunyip,
Daramulum, Darana, Dhakhan, Dilga, Djanggawul, Dreamtime, Dreamtime Snake,
Eingana, Einganu, Erathipa,Gnowee, Goanna, Gunapipi, Gurumukas,
Ipilya,Julana, Julunggul, Junkgowa Sisters, Jurawadbad,
Kalseru, Karora, Kidili, Kidilli, Kultana, Kunapipi, Kurukadi, Kutjara,
Lumaluma, Lungkata,Mamaragan, Mamu, Mangar Kunjer Kunja, Mar’rallang, Marrallang, Mimi, Minawara, Miralalou, Mita, Mokoi, Mokpoi, Mopaditis, Mudungkala, Multultu, Mumba,Nadubi, Namorodo, Ngalyod, Ngurunderi, Njirana, Nurundere,Papang, Pilirin,Rainbow Snake,Tatji, Tjinimin,Ulanji, Uluru,Waang, Walaganda, Wallungunder, Wandjina, Wapiya, Waramurungundi, Waramurungundju, Wati Kutjara, Wawalag, Wawalug, Widjingara, Wondjina, Wuluwait, Wuraka, Wurugag,Yalungur, Yara Ma Yha Who, Yhi, Yingarna, Yrlunggur, Yurlungur.
Enjoy.
Comment by Pastafarian — April 4, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
[...] Link to 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « strange maps This entry is filed under Misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Prev/Next Posts « Animated TV Station Logo Haters of the World | Home Leave a Reply [...]
Pingback by STUFFLEUFAGUS - “A true friend stabs you in the front” - Oscar Wilde » 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « strange maps — April 4, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
I was taught evolution in no uncertain terms. By a monk. Of course, that was in New Jersey. A green state.
Comment by Darwin — April 4, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
The map giving rise to this debate doesn’t really tell us anything about the actual number of U.S. students supposedly being taught Biblical creationism as “fact”. It’s not entirely clear how the characterizations indicated on the map were arrived at but I suspect they represent subjective interpretation as much as they do objective, quantifiable fact.
From my perspective, the U.S. doesn’t have a widespread problem when it comes to public schools teaching Biblical creationism as “fact”. It perhaps has a problem in that many students choose to ignore what they’re being taught when those teachings happen to contradict their religious beliefs.
I disagree with the assertion that education concerning religion should be relegated to comparative studies or classes which focus specifically upon religion. The topic of religion is highly relevant to numerous academic subjects including history, ethics, philosophy and sociology, to name but a few. Religious proselyting has no place in public education but that’s not to say that the study of religion itself likewise is antithetical to a sound secular education.
Fortunately for us here in the U.S., we are permitted to believe what we will not only in the privacy of our own homes, but also in public as well. As an added bonus, we are also permitted to share our beliefs with whomever we choose, including children.
Comment by Praecipitis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
holy crap, not often you see indiana on a list as an “exemplary educator”
Comment by A. Hoosier — April 4, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
There is some difficulty for the less eloquent of us scientists in describing the overwhelming certainty of evolution and the weakness of the straw arguments engineered to provoke doubt in the public consciousness.
A singular exception is the writers at Scientific American who both have and understand the wealth of supporting evidence as well as have the writing skill to refute the common nonsense cogently.
Check it out for yourself here:
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
Comment by Ekstra — April 4, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Is it fair to say that the majority of people in the US don’t really have time for Creationism, and it’s just a religious minority with a loud voice that keeps shouting? I’m sure it depends on which part of the country we’re talking about. The fact that this kind of pre-Enlightenment rubbish even gets a foothold in such an apparently developed country is both unsettling and mystifying.
Comment by blackthumb — April 4, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
I’ve seen different studies over the years indicating that a majority of U.S. citizens believe in the process of evolution, even if some believe that God initiated and/or guides the process.
And the admittedly substantial minority that subscribes to the notion of Biblical creationism doesn’t warrant our fear, ridicule or condemnation.
Comment by Praecipitis — April 4, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
No one was there when God created the world. (Well, maybe Adam would have technically seen creation in action when God created Eve). It takes FAITH to believe. Yet I can see the fingerprint of an intellegent designer all around me in life itself and the complexity living organisms. Life which man may be able to clone in a test tube, but has never created from scratch, nor explained the origins thereof.
No one was there when life supposedly came about by random chance through evolution. Again, it takes FAITH to believe this. Yet I fail to see any transitional species running around, nor have any transitional species been found in the fossil record. Furthermore everyday we are at the end of another supposed million year epoch. Why aren’t there new species crawling out of the swamps on a daily basis? Even if it is a gradual thing that occurs over millions of years, tomorrow is the end of another million years for some new critter. But instead we see mass extinctions of phenomenal, fully developed creatures in the fossil records.
Yet, given the faith it takes to believe in either of these theories, one is taught as scientific fact by our public schools and universities . Often those same institutions will encourage students to be “open minded”, “question everything”, “analyze all points of view”. I know, I work at a college, I hear it all the time. Yet, they refuse to hear any other theories regarding origins (and other topics). So, what they are basically saying is: “analyze all points of view, as long as it doesn’t disagree with your own”… “question everything, but accept the THEORY of evolution as scientific law”.
This is the type of “open mindedness” you can expect from our failing public schools and universities. This is also why I homeschool my children. That way they can hear ALL points of view. I cover the theory of evolution as well as the theory of intellegent design.
The irony of it all is that when I presented the theory of evolution to my children as stated in one of the many books which I read to them: simple creatures became fish [with scales], then amphibians [without scales], then reptiles [with scales], then small rodent-like mammals [without scales, but with hair and warm blood]… one of my children asked, “can’t they make up their minds?!”
The inconsistencies of what is being taught as scientific law in our schools are obvious to them.
Comment by dghblog — April 4, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
Of course the sad fact is that there is no debate regarding evolution. Scientists accept this explanation because the EVIDENCE, not just some of the evidence but ALL the evidence points in this solution. To believe in intelligent design is something like watching The Flintstones as a documentary. Will someone just shut-up!
Comment by Roger — April 4, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Very interesting post!
Science certainly isn’t infallible, but what do Creationists think of techniques such as carbon dating? Just curious – I’m not intimately familiar with the specifics of their point of view. And what about the possibility of evolution and creation coexisting?
Science, to me, has a history of pulling and tugging at contemporary religious views until they break…after all, we no longer believe the world is flat or that vaccines are for pagans. The overwhelming evidence on the side of science, as compared to creation, makes it hard for me to believe that this issue will escape that fate for long…but to me, that also doesn’t diminish any of my belief that there is a God.
Comment by Bonnie — April 4, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
MORE BROKEN RECORDS!!!
I’m gonna point out a few very simple ideas, starting with argument numero uno that religious right-wingers use to debunk evolution….
1: NO-ONE IS SUGGESTING WE DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS. If you actually do your homework, evolution presents the theory that apes and humans have a common ancestor somewhere way in the past, in the order of hundreds of thousands of years ago…. the “missing link” as it’s so commonly referred to. No-one is suggesting that a pack of chimpanzees fell out of the trees and built cities and starting writing books.
2: The bible presents some historically accurate facts, in that people and places have been documented in multiple texts. Jesus Christ was in fact a real, actual person. But a huge amount of the bible is speculation and THEORY, that has unfortunately been taken literally. Fanciful stories about the world being created in 7 days and everyone being descended from just 2 people (which means there was incest somewhere along the line, and doesn’t God abhor that? Isn’t it a mortal sin, a hell-worthy trespass? Whoops, we see a contradiction here).
3: Religion was never intended as a means of control or presentation of incontrovertible fact – it is a set of moral principals intended to give some direction to how we lead our lives and how we treat our fellow person, for the betterment of humankind.
4: Just about every major religion on earth is going to claim that they are correct, and everybody else are just a bunch of godless heathens destined to burn in hell or serve the “righteous” in Paradise, or whatever. Blah blah blah, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Stop being so bloody arrogant as to insist that you, and only you, are right and that everyone else is wrong and going to hell.
That’s why evolution is presented as a THEORY – it BEGS to be proven wrong, or amended, corrected, altered, enhanced, debated, etc…. however so far, no one has presented any solid, credible evidence to the contrary that isn’t in some way self-reinforcing (bible, I’m looking at you.)
Science is open to debate and question and thrives upon correction and having its theories debunked and disproven, just as much as it thrives upon theories being built on such strong foundations that we stake our very lives on technology that is based on strong “theory”.
To paraphrase Kevin Smiths excellent film “Dogma”, having ideas is the way to go. Having beliefs is more dangerous, because they’re harder to change.
Countless people have died over the centuries because somebody else thought their religion was better. The crusades, the Muslim slaughter of the Buddhist monks, the very terrorism that is now being perpetrated in the name of Islam, and the reckless, harmful televangelism and rhetoric that goes on in the name of Christianity, all the way down to banning of certain scientific method from schools in favour of Intelligent Design….. it’s all the same.
I have no trouble making a leap of faith and entertaining the IDEA that God exists. However I flatly refuse to subscribe to any modern organised religion for the very reasons outlined above. They are nothing more than a means of control and subjugation.
Comment by Richard — April 4, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Umm I grew up in Maine and was taught evolution….. unless things have changed drastically in the last ten years.
Comment by andrew — April 4, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
[...] 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US [...]
Pingback by WordPress Wednesday: New Security Release, Updated WordPressMU, More WordPress Plugins, and Time to Get Naked at The Blog Herald — April 4, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
This kind of debate has to be one of the most sterile, but it´s Holy Week, so what the heck.
First, I don´t think there´s anybody whacky enough to think God doesn´t exist because I don´t know anybody else who´s old enough to prove that. I mean realy, if you mean to say that the only reason to say people beleive in God is because they like to beleive and by tradition, then by the same token, you must admit that if people have been talking about God all these thousands of years, you must also beleive in the evolution of the faith, because otherwise, how would have been able to continue all these years if it didn´t exist to begin with?
Secondly, to paraphrase some people who say man wasn´t created by God but inversely and who say that man descended from the ape wouldn´t that be like the argument of the creator of “The Planet of The Apes”? Because for a man to create a God would be a pretty neat trick! Why not then instead beleive that the ape descends from man? If you´ll then say that no man has been able to create a living being, well then at least give God the credit for creating all, if you can´t do any better.
Another thing that I find pretty disturbing about you evolutionists is that you are always using the words “good” and “bad”. Good and bad can only come from one source, and they are theological terms,so you´d be wearing an attire that isn´t entirely yours.
Comment by allendale2 — April 4, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
dghblog:
“The irony of it all is that when I presented the theory of evolution to my children as stated in one of the many books which I read to them: simple creatures became fish [with scales], then amphibians [without scales], then reptiles [with scales], then small rodent-like mammals [without scales, but with hair and warm blood]…
The inconsistencies of what is being taught as scientific law in our schools are obvious to them.”
I rather believe it is your description of scientific ‘fact’ that is in error. You have it wrong. How sadly typical.
You did not describe evolution to your children. Further, it is clear you have a poor grasp of the scientific method and evolution in general. I suggest you educate yourself BEFORE you feed your spawn incorrect information.
Comment by Darwin's Whore — April 4, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
allendale2:
“First, I don´t think there´s anybody whacky enough to think God doesn´t exist because I don´t know anybody else who´s old enough to prove that.”
Do you realize how illogical that statement is? Please find me someone “old enough” to prove aliens created us as a poor chemistry experiment and are not controlling all of our behaviors.
Try basic logic first…them come with your creationist nonsense. At least you’ll make logical sense.
Further, you clearly don’t understand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does NOT propose humans evolved form apes. Why can’t creationists get that through their heads? It’s a basic concept.
I’m continually amazed at how creationists try to counter the evolution argument when they don’t understand it. Maybe they are ignorant…. I’ve tried to avoid that assumption, but they continue to prove it correct.
Comment by Darwin's Whore — April 4, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
[...] interesting, though dated, map from strangemaps on the teaching of evolution. It’s from the March 2002 issue of Scientific [...]
Pingback by Notes of Intelligence» Blog Archive » Teaching Evolution In the US — April 4, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
“First, I don´t think there´s anybody whacky enough to think God doesn´t exist because I don´t know anybody else who´s old enough to prove that.”
This is got to be the worse quote by far in this post.
Comment by h3nry — April 4, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Did I create this discussion, or did it just evolve on its own?
Comment by strangemaps — April 4, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
go to http://www.cheatsandmore.wordpress.com
Comment by cheatsandmore — April 5, 2007 @ 12:02 am
[...] get decent traffic and thus become “blog of the minute”, like the current champion, Strange Maps. I would have never discovered that excellent and unique blog had it not been for [...]
Pingback by Hey, you there in the corner! You should be our next featured blogger...right? « Neomeme — April 5, 2007 @ 12:15 am
[...] Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US « strange maps – Science vs. faith in the US [...]
Pingback by holotone.net — April 5, 2007 @ 12:35 am
A little perspective on the map – I went to high school in Mississippi (graduated in 2000), and thanks to my wonderful 10th-grade biology teacher, I was very much taught evolution. The basics, at least, if not a direct proclamation that we descended from apes.
Frankly, the whole topic of “teaching evolution” is kind of misleading – I doubt any biology class could get away with ignoring natural selection. They’d have to completely skip the entire concepts of species and genetics.
Comment by joeljkp — April 5, 2007 @ 1:04 am
@Roger:
Evidence? Give me a break! If anything, the evidence is against evolution, not for it. Take the fossil record. Sure, we’d like to believe that it supports evolution, but ask any educated Darwinist and they will admit that the prevalent characteristic in the fossil record is stasis. Or how about Kettlewell’s moth experiment? Yes, the population of moths varied. So what? At the end of it all, they were still moths. There was nothing in that study which suggested that speciation by random genetic variations is possible. It’s at best a glorified demographic study.
And sure, technically new species have been bred in laboratories. But Darwinism isn’t just about evolving, it’s about NATURALISTIC evolving, alias evolution without an intelligent creative force behind it. So either the breeders aren’t intelligent beings, or evolution requires an intelligent creator.
Evidence is exactly what evolutionists need. The truth is that any “evidence” which disproves evolution is thrown out, and isolated cases such as Archaeopteryx are glorified as triumphs of Darwin.
Comment by Philip — April 5, 2007 @ 1:22 am
[...] April 4th, 2007 Over at Strange Maps, one of the most interesting blogs I’ve yet to come across, there’s a map showing the state of evolution education in America. [...]
Pingback by Red, Yellow, Green « The Opinion Mill — April 5, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Why is Alabama red? I learned evolution in Biology, and am pretty sure that my public-schooled counterparts learned the same. The “Alabama-edition” doesn’t cut those pages out.
Comment by philip — April 5, 2007 @ 1:42 am
Evolution in theory would be a form of intelligent design. Which means no matter what side your on, a God exists. This map is exactly what people shouldn’t see. “Marred by creationist Jargon”…..give me a break..whoever made this map obviously cares more about their agenda than the argument itself
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 5, 2007 @ 1:44 am
If God created the world, what created God?
Comment by torkel — April 5, 2007 @ 1:48 am
[...] An article I recently browsed here on WordPress rekindled my interest in Darwinism. And by reading through the abundance of [...]
Pingback by Real Evolution « To Whom It May Concern… — April 5, 2007 @ 1:52 am
“Evolution in theory would be a form of intelligent design.”
“Which means no matter what side your on, a God exists.”
What do they mean exactly?
Mate, explain and expand on these two sweepingly ignorant statements. Point me to a strong body of evidence and scholarly arguments.
Comment by h3nry — April 5, 2007 @ 1:52 am
Explain to me how Moses knew that boys must be circumsized on the 8th day … yet scientists did not discover WHY until recently — it is because God told Moses what to say and record. These folks who say the Bible has not read it … that’s one tiny example … the Bible is full of scientific and medical information that scientists have only recently discovered … what about fulfilled prophecies? Even Darwin questioned his THEORIES about evolution … which is why it remains THEORIES — yet it was taught in my school as being fact. Those who are anti-God, anti-Christian … they want TOLERANCE from Christians, yet they won’t give tolerance to Christians. Sick of their dumb attitudes. As for who created God? don’t know … the Bible does not tell … but just because God did not explain that does not invalidate everythign he did explain.
Comment by RobyLee — April 5, 2007 @ 2:01 am
It is a known fact among all people who live in deserts that circumcising a boy is a pretty good thing to do to avoid getting sand caught under the foreskin. It has been practcied by the Arabs, the Jews, several Aboriginal tribes and many other groups of people who live in desert areas, regardless of if they were told to do so by a Judeo-Christian God or not.
Comment by torkel — April 5, 2007 @ 2:07 am
God is not religion and religion is not God … recognize that and you are well on your way to understanding the truth. Read your bible and you will find that God does not promote religion, in fact despises those who take comfort in religion rather than Him.
Comment by RobyLee — April 5, 2007 @ 2:07 am
Apparently Torkel, you are unaware that on the 8th day the blood clots quicker than on any other day of a boys entire life … the question is meant for folks like you to ask a doctor. Then tell me how it was already known back when Moses shared the info!
Comment by RobyLee — April 5, 2007 @ 2:09 am
RobyLee – explain to me, for example, how the ancient Chinese people (and native Indians etc etc) knew all sorts of herbal and natural treatment to diseases – yet scientists have not validated most of the seemingly working ones even today? It is not because God, it is because general human experiences we built after evolving for millions of years.
Regarding theories – go and read the other comments posted here to realise what “theory” means – do you have the same problem with “theory” of relativity or quantum “theory”?
Most of us here are not anti-God nor anti-Christian – we are anti-ignorance. If you had religious-based bias with quantum theory (whatever the religion), then we will have problem with you too.
Comment by h3nry — April 5, 2007 @ 2:09 am
Explain to me how Hammurabi knew that hands needed to be chopped off to prevent disease … yet scientists did not discover WHY until recently; is it because God told him to? Your example holds absolutely no bearing. Yes, Abraham (NOT MOSES) did start a tradition of genital mutilation that happens slow the spread of HIV. I’m sure that removing breasts as some historical kings have done would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer.
Comment by philip — April 5, 2007 @ 2:14 am
RobyLee
Evolution, mate… :)
They learned from experience thart you get the best result when you chop of the foreskin on the 8th day.
As for its legendary advantage of circumcision the potential benefits (some level of protection against AIDS, which was NOT around then) can be offset by the number of mistakes made with the knife.
Even so, if God really had meant for men NOT to have a foreskin, why on Easth did he create them like that?
Comment by torkel — April 5, 2007 @ 2:15 am
[...] Ocasionalmente uno se pregunta como los gringos pueden ser la potencia dominante. Hay un post popular por estos días, en el que se habla sobre como es la enseñanza de la evolución en los Estados [...]
Pingback by El creacionismo « Micro-bichología — April 5, 2007 @ 3:00 am
Last time I checked, clerics from any religion were not teaching any form of science in their churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, or any other house of worship. Why? Because the teaching of science to young students is properly conducted in educational institutions.
So why is it that creationists demand with near-jihadist fervor that religious principles be taught to these young minds in such educational institutions when such tenets properly, and solely, should be taught in houses of worship or their representatives in *parochial* schools.
I am a pretty religious person. I certainly believe in God. But I as certainly believe in evolution.
Evolution is a *secular* theory taught in a *secular* environment. Creationism, by its very definition, is a *religious* doctrine (some might even call it sectarian) that has no place being taught in a secular environment.
If evolution is a secular theory that is presented as such, i.e., a theory, to students, exactly what is it that prevents creationists from providing their children with the parochial *”truth”* of creationism so as to dissuade them from believing the “false, unsupportable” *theory* of evolution? Why do they insist on cramming their *parochial* notions down the throats of those in a *sectarian* environment?
The one sure indication that creationists are more about promoting their own religion than they are about “debunking” the theory of evolution is the fact that the *only* story of creationism that they will permit to be taught if they are successful in having it brought into the public schools is the Judeo-Christian version. Show me *one* creationist who would also permit the Sioux, Druidic, Buddhist, Aboriginal, Hindu, Islamic and/or any other religion’s creationism story, and I’ll show you a liar of the worst kind. Show me five and I’ll show you the starting lineup for the Belleview Psychiatric Hospital basketball team. Why? Because there’s no such thing as an American creationist, Christian or otherwise, who would accept the notion that any other story might actually be correct.
Creationists consistently commit the cardinal sin in logic of tautology when they blindly repeat, “The bible is the correct story because the bible is accurate.” There are a billion Hindus and Muslims who have been around just as long and who would sorely beg to differ.
All of this is why you will never hear a creationist offer a logical, valid reason 1) why creationism cannot simply be taught at home, religious school, or a house of worship; or 2) why no other creationism stories ought to be included with their own.
Finally, just as a seed of thought: Who says the two notions cannot coexist? My personal belief is that God (or an “intelligent designer” if you prefer) did in fact create the universe. And then he set it in motion to evolve on its own…exactly the way scientists have been able to create artificial “life” on a computer that evolves in accordance with certain sets of rules that are first programmed and then left to execute and literally evolve. That’d explain a hell of a lot if you ask me. But, since no one did, I’ll sit and wait to see how long it takes before a creationist flames me because, apparently from the previous posts, that’s what a creationist does when they disagree with you but cannot respond to your arguments or questions directly.
Comment by Thraxus Gremwulf — April 5, 2007 @ 3:01 am
from the following dotpoints, I believe it may be adduced that it could be considered that I am in broad agreement with the positions which would be aspoused to them that are in broad agreement with positions which may be attributed to followers of Richard Dawkins, if it were to be the case that as such Dawkins had any “followers”. qua qua
//doctrines of religion irk the modern secular mind.
//superstition should be named as such.
//doctrines of infallibility are pernicious.
//doctrinaires are deluded and dangerous.
//tolerance should be observed.
xxxx
Comment by tryoutfrom — April 5, 2007 @ 3:27 am
Please ask any missionaries working in malarial countries what medicine they are taking to avoid getting the disease and I bet you they all believe in evolution at the paracite level but not on more complex beings! Oh the irony.
Damon
Comment by sungypsy — April 5, 2007 @ 3:35 am
I am in 9th Grade right now, so being closer to education than a lot of other “adults” in this forum. I personally think that students can no longer think for themselves. What we learn in school ,for some, is FACT. Absolutly no questioning. This is a wrong way to teach. I also do not beleive that our founding fathers meant by seperation of church and stae meant no talking about religion at all.
Comment by David — April 5, 2007 @ 4:52 am
I am in 9th Grade right now, so being closer to education than a lot of other “adults” in this forum. I personally think that students can no longer think for themselves. What we learn in school ,for some, is FACT. Absolutly no questioning. This is a wrong way to teach. I also do not beleive that our founding fathers meant by seperation of church and stae meant no talking about religion at all.
I believe in God and I respect when people beleive in evolution.
But think about something, the only things animals adapt to are caused by humans, if that long ago you believe that we slowly adapted into what we are today, you have to see theres a blank spot for what caused this adaptation. So please tell me what cause that adaptation (not rhetorical) and Ill listen to you. The whole idea of survivial of the fittest is true, but if we came from wanting to be the fittest, then compassion and mercy would make absolutly no sense. How does compassion help you survive, if this person has already proven to be weaker than you how will sparing them help you.
Just some ramblings, probably some errors(Im a noob) so please responed, oppose, describe why im utterly wrong and an idiot.
-David M.
Comment by David — April 5, 2007 @ 5:01 am
Sorry about the double post, my bad
Comment by David — April 5, 2007 @ 5:01 am
There is a difference between mutation and selection. This difference does not seem to be clear to most people. Mutation is random and happens on the individiual. Selection is anything but random. Selection is the process in which mutation which will live on in future generations. In the long run only beneficial mutations will be selected by evolution to be passed on through reproduction to the next generation. The selction process is very picky. Occasionally a negative mutation or a neutral mutation will be passed on to the next generation because it piggy-backs on a beneficial mutation, but in the long run those mutations are not be so lucky. Eventually they get flushed out. What matters in selection is that you live long enough to pass on your genes to the next generation, and in the long run you are more likely to od that if you are lucky enough to carr positive rather then negative mutations. For the species as a whole, the benefit is that each gain of positive selction builds upon the previous one, similair to climbing a ladder, ie, you don’t jump to the top every time, you use one step at a time
I am not sure if I undersatasnd David’s question, but I will attempt to answer it anyway.
If you ask why a species like Homo Sapiens show compassion to other species, the simple answer could be that most people would not like to go out with, marry and produce children with those who are mean to other living things which show emotions like ours. Hence those who have thye genetic predisposition to be cruel to animals will not get the chance to reproduce and thus their genetic predisposition to be cruel will not live on in the species.
If you ask why a species like Homo Sapiens show compassion towards other humans, then the answer is that it is highly beneficial for a socity for people to be compassionate agaoinst others in their own spociety, hence again the argument from above applies.
If you mean why an indivdual member of Homo Sapiens shows compassion to other humans, then that is not an immediate question for evolution as evolution only works on the species and not the individual, but once the process of the selection of those with the genetic predisposition for showing compassion has started to spread in the species there will be fewer and fewer left who do now have this genetic predisposition.
After all of that you might womnder why there still are evil peopel in the weorld and that is due to that we do not get our personalities purely from our genetic code, vbut to a large extend do our personalities form through nurtue and experiences.
In short, in virtually all species where the members live in social structures, they tend to show compassion towards eachotehr because it is good for the survival of because the species. In species which are solitary there seme to be far less compaqssion around because in those species there is more of a cut throat approcah to trhe daily strive for survival.
I hope this is a starting point to understand how the cumulative power of evolution works. If it has not answered or at least addressed your quetsion, please let me know.
Also, let me point out critisicing creationism is not a criticism of religion.
Comment by torkel — April 5, 2007 @ 5:39 am
Sorry for my atrocious spelling, but English is not my native tongue and I am using an old laptop in the dark with a bad keyboard.
If you like it reposted with corrected spelling and grammar, please let me know.
Comment by torkel — April 5, 2007 @ 7:32 am
Creationism as taught by Christians is ridiculous as I understand it, but when taught by Muslims it’s just “different”!
How come?
Comment by harryflaker — April 5, 2007 @ 8:24 am
i was just thinking, does it necessarily have to be Evolution OR God? Can’t it be both? hmmm tis a quandary. And also, why can’t the Theory of Evolution be taught as what it is, a ‘theory’, I mean there are many scientists with a great deal of pretty note worthy evidence against it, and there is some evidence for it, maybe it should be taught in a way to let the kids themselves decide or maybe it should be taught so that they are encouraged to research into it further??? I dont actually know the Islamic position on it, apart from the fact that Muslims believe God created all things. But i can direct, for those of you who may be interested, to a sight by prominent writer Harun Yahya who has written several books on Evolution and it can be read for free on the net http://www.harunyahya.com
Comment by everythingiseventual — April 5, 2007 @ 9:26 am
It seems to me that the evolution-creation debate is “all about Religion”. Atheism vs Christianity. It is impossible to keep religion out of the debate. The only way “Creation” could take place is if God does exist.
On problem with this debate is that we cannot prove that God does exist. Nor can we prove the opposite.
The problem with evolutionary science, in my opinion, is that it does not allow for anything supernatural. Therefore, you completely eliminate any potential evidence that involves “Creation” before you even start.
On the other hand, Creation is only possible with supernatural events. Can you prove the supernatural world exists?
How will we ever draw an honest conclusion when we have our minds made up before we even begin.
Both sides have valid points if we are only willing to listen to each other. We can all learn a thing or two if we chose too.
I personally have no problem with hearing either side of the argument. I just wish the debate were more honest. Neither side has the silver bullet. However, we can weigh the evidence and use our better judgment. But at least be honest enough to separate “facts” and “theories”.
If it matters, I am a Christian who happens to believe the Bible is true. If you disagree, that’s fine. I don’t think any less of you. I hope you can respect my beliefs, too.
Comment by makemoneywithjason — April 5, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Creationism as taught by anyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Dogon, Aborigine, believer in Nordic Mythology etc… is ridicolous, not just “different”.
The debate regarding creationism vs. evolution is not at all about religion. It is about two (out of many) theories pitched against eachother. There is a wealth of supportive evidence in the real world for evolution and there is the Bible/Koran/etc.. for creationism.
Evolution might have difficulty explaining certains aspects of evolution, but creationism doesn’t either give an appropriate answer.
If the question is regarding what is more likely to have happened. Evolution through cumulative selection or God made it, then I favour evolution on the basis of existing evidence and probability. After all, if God was responsible for the creation, where did God come from, ie, who created God?
I am quite willing to listen to balanced views and informed opinions, but I can not take the Bible/Koran/etc as the truth without supportive evidence.
It there tomorrow was overwhelming an compelling evidence for creationism, I would happily change side. But as such evidence is non-existant (as is the evidence that there are fairies living in the bottom of my garden. Although I can not rule it out, it is highly unlikely).
I will respect any person as an individual, but that does not mean that I have to respect their opinions about every aspect of the world.
To quote Douglas Adams: “If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’.”
I will respect creationism in the same way as I respect you when you say that your wife/husband is the most beautiful in the world and that you children are the most intelligent, ie, politely. I’ll respect you as a person, but that doe snot mean I have to respect creationism as a theory of how to explain the Universe.
Evolution can explain many, if not virtually all, aspects our existance without invoking supernatural beings, and that is its strength. If evolution required a supernatural being then I would dismiss it too.
Comment by Torkel — April 5, 2007 @ 11:10 am
1. the bible as someone here pointed out is a representational tome, ie. mythology, philosophy, allegory are a part of it,
2. the reason religion has a grip on us is bcos its convenient for the ignorant
3. unlike buddhism that places the responsibility for ur life squarely on ur shoulders, christianity nad all other ” Abrahamic religions ” let you trade in responsibility for ritual,
4. we dont even need to go into argument for or against god, just speak to a pastor or mullah or rabbi respected by a wide cross-section of humanity and they will tell you that these books are NOT to be taken literally, they are to be LEARNED figuratively
5. but the ignorant cloak truth in their own ignorance and then teach such nonsense like god made eve from adams rib ie. stuff that makes no rational sense
6. for all of you ranting about the bible – the current pope is on record as having said that god never wants us to be irrational, he wants us to love him rationally
7. how old is the universe ? how far is it to the end / edge of the world ?
8. if we were ´nt so befuddled by our own trivial, rhetorical nonsenses wed be able to nip assholes like ahemdinejad and hitler or polpot while they were still in the bud
and
9. BTW- chrisitanity is so famous cos it sells sanctuary, a nice heaven, loving father, no famine or war, peace love, the works – to a crowd that is told repeatedly that they are no good (read up on how christianity took europe over, it wasnt all mother teresa ´s and compassion)
how tough is it to rule a people selling hope after u have scared the wits out of them ?not very, kim il jong and the cunts in burma are doing it rather well it appears
to sum up – christianity, islam, judaism, even buddhism when practised by idiots will OBVIOUSLY look and sound stupid –
the problem here is that christianity attempts to be every thing to every one within 66 books
i prefer buddhism – says clearly
BE YOUR OWN GUIDE
as for this ” debate ” on ” god or evolution ”
wake up … before the bible was conveniently created around 400 years ago or before mohammed received his vision about 1400 what was god, on holiday ?
as man EVOLVED from the monkeys his or her brain grew increasingly complex and capable of increasingly complex and abstract CONCEPTION
god is one such CONCEPTION, the epistomological root of word “conception” is CONCEIVE ie. to give life to
thus god is man created, in order to symbolically try and explain the cosmos, not vice versa
Amen.
Comment by abrahamatul — April 5, 2007 @ 11:38 am
heh heh, wow… 359 comments. Must’ve struck a nerve. Put it in perspective, and look at all the options.
1) If evolution is correct, creationism probably eventually die out. Maybe 200 years maybe 500 years. The only thing to really worry about is your own personal stake in the matter, which, in light of a 5.1 billion year time line, is pretty insignificant.
2) If evolution is correct, but creationism wins, – “survival of the fittest” baby. Be consistent and don’t complain. Besides, someone will come up with the idea again, eventually.
3) Creationism must win the debate eventually, if it’s true, because of the God claim. So creationists can afford to relax a little too. If you are right, your time will come.
In each case the truth eventually becomes apparent, or evolution’s main principle is reafirmed. No worries guys!
Comment by Tim — April 5, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
[...] 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US [...]
Pingback by my contemplations — April 5, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
If evolution isn’t possible, can somebody explain the Labradoodle to me?
That’s evolution right before your eyes, happening in our lifetime.
And the thing that makes me laugh, is if creationists laugh that the big bang is ridiculous, because it can’t all come from nothing, please tell me how God came into being. It’s exactly the same thing. Saying “he’s just always there” is a 4-year olds argument.
Comment by Nej — April 5, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Of those 360 comments Tim, I have to go all the way back to #4 to find my favorite where Mark wrote:
As scientific rigor and critical thinking don’t seem to be in high demand these days, let’s fragment outselves into even smaller groups. We can let the Darwin School Trilobites take on the Hammers over at the School of Thor and they can settle the matter on the soccer field. Trouble is, I can’t decide whether I’m serious or joking.
Comment by JeffG — April 5, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I live in Beavercreek, Ohio, and my children learn about evolution in their public schools all the time. The “e-word” is taught, not avoided. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this portrayal of Ohio, regardless of how much some Bible-bashing liberals might want it to be true, is simply wishful thinking.
Comment by Frank Baird — April 5, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Hi! Excelent blog, you can visit my blog:
http://conmotion.wordpress.com/
Conmotion
Technology, art & enterteinments.
Bye, best wishes from Argentina
Comment by Lucas — April 5, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Ice cubes that wonder how they were frozen melt faster (and are probably eventually frozen to wonder again).
Comment by Peter Ghazarian — April 5, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
@Frank:
“Sorry to burst your bubble, but this portrayal of Ohio, regardless of how much some Bible-bashing liberals might want it to be true, is simply wishful thinking.”
I guess the Bible-humping ‘wingers believe a single data point (your spawn’s education) makes anything true. How sadly typical.
Comment by Pastafarian — April 5, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Both evolution and creation are theories of origin.
As such neither can be proven as they deal with the past.
I cannot prove to you what I ate for breakfast.
We need to look at the evidence and decide which theory is most consistent with the evidence.
This is clearly a subjective choice by each individual but what we can hope for is that the evidence will be sufficient to make us rethink our presuppositions.
Even if God came down and create a human being now that would not prove He did so 10000 years ago, by the same token, if we could prove that abiogenesis could occur in a test tube, this would not prove our origins.
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Regarding comment #14 (I wonder what sort of conversations Creationists have with farmers:
Farmer: “I’m trying to breed a new strain of cows that produce low-fat milk.”
Creationist: “You can’t do that, it’s against God’s plan!”
Farmer: “B-but my family has been breeding livestock selectively for centuries. It’s common practice.”
Creationist: “You Godless Commie Darwinist, you!”
(*SATIRE*)
Comment by A.R.Yngve )–
Breeding and the science of genetics was begun my Mendel, a Catholic monk. Don’t assume.
Comment by Joy — April 5, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
[...] Evolution in the US [...]
Pingback by I Heart BBQ Sauce « Face Down — April 5, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
The evolution theory has two driving pistons.
1) Random mutations
2) Natural selection
We definitely see living being adapting to their environment and some would herald this as proof for evolution but once again this is an interpretation.
It may be even more fair to say that the living beings are designed with the ability to adapt to their environment. We are now trying to create computer systems that are self-healing and and can adapt to their current situations. So finding an adaptive system could well posit an intelligent designer.
The question with random mutations are, are they beneficial?
Observed mutations are nearly always negative and put the organism at a disadvantage.
The other problem is that many mechanisms have a number of required parts – all of which are necessary for success. The flagellum motor of even a microscopic organism, requires 15 different parts to be in place to make it work. If only some of the parts appear by random change, the creature will be at a disadvantage and die out.
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
Regarding natural selection, it has a weakness that it requires propagation to the next generation.
I remember being in the waiting room for my son’s open heart surgery. I was speaking to the mother of a child who was having his eighth open heart surgery. Apparently when the heart was being formed, the great vessels were transposed, meaning that oxygenated blood would never get back to the body. However the foetus seemed to sense this and grew some blood vessels to shunt blood from one ventricle of the heart to the other . This was sufficient to give the child a few hours of life, so they could operate on it.
Now my question is this? How could this ability to grow these compensating vessels have evolved through natural selection, since up until this generation the child would have died within hours and not had the opportunity to pass on this beneficial mutation?
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
We have the SETI project in New Mexico listening for non-random signals from space as proof of intelligence. Wouldn’t the existence of non-random information in our DNA be proof of an intelligent transmitter of that huge volumne of information?
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
There are many problems with evolution.
For example: convergent evolution.
Take flight for example. mammals (bats), birds, reptiles(pterodactyl), amphibians have all evolved the ability to fly. But they have no common ancestor.
Evolution would have to say that flight accidentally evolved in each of the different non-related flying species.
The same is true of timber wolves and tasmanian wolves that are marsupials. Either they share a dog ancestor and the marsupial (carrying the baby in the pouch) trait just re-evolved for the tasmanian wolf, or the tasmanian wolf has a marsupial ancestor and just happened to reevolve dog like characteristics.
There are many, many more examples
The human eye’s similarity to the squid eye, etc.
Again, borrowing from computer science. When we see a good pattern for solving a problem, we reuse it in different contexts. The reused designs fit much better with an intelligent designer than random evolution.
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
seek4truth:
You don’t understand the theory of evolution. It does NOT argue that traits develop by ‘accident.’ In fact, it says the opposite.
If, in fact, ‘god’ is the intelligent designer, he sucks as an engineer.
His designs are so amazingly flawed, I’m amazed anyone claims it is ‘intelligent’ design.
Comment by Pastafarian — April 5, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Evolution requires long periods of time in order for random mutations to have a chance at creating something complex.
There are a number of chronometers (clocks) that point to a far shorter period of time than the purported billions of years.
1) the shape of our galaxy – the center is spinning faster than the outside, so eventually the arms will be indistinguishable. This would have happened long ago given evolutionary time scales
2) the amount of silt and salt in the ocean, is far less than what should have accumulated in that time frame
3) the distance of the moon, is increasing every year. If it was much closer, its magnetic effects would interfere with our ability to live.
etc.
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Mr Pastafarian
Please educate me on the theory of evolution.
Are mutations not random?
Are they ‘guided’ in some way.
I understand the survival of the fittest provided a non-random selection of which mutation is passed on. But the source of the mutation itself is pure chance.
Again, please enlighten me, if I am misunderstanding
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Dear Pastafarian
Any objective observer of natural ecosystems, human bodies, animal abilities cannot fail to be amazed at all of the abilities and intricate balance.
From the jellyfish to the human eye, engineering marvels abound.
So I fail to understand what flaws you are referring to.
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
It is true that the second law of thermodynamics is showing itself in genetics as well as physics.
It seems that we have a limited amount of genetic information and as we go forward, we have more corruption and disease to deal with.
All of this fits better with a biblical account of the consequences of sin, than an evolutionary account of things going from simple to complex which is directly in conflict with establish scientific law.
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
I am utterly curious as to how this blog manages to stay “blog of the minute for several days! Please tell me either what sort of code you use, or who you have to pay off to get this kind of treatment.
-David
Comment by bringongoliath — April 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
@seek4truth:
Nice attempt at combining Dembski, Behe and Paley’s arguments. Unfortunately, you must understand the argument for it to work.
A couple of points:
1. You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution. First, the theory does NOT state traits appear “accidentally.” Second, the theory does not say anything about the origin of life. Third, the strength (not weakness) of the theory requires propagation to the next generation. You have it backwards.
In your last post, you are using the classic irreducible complexity argument. I suggest you try using examples that have not already been ripped apart by science. Neither he flagellum or the eye are irreducibly complex. I suggest you actually examine the argument before you simply copy what others have written. You give yourself away by stating that the flagellum ‘motor requires 15 different parts to be in place to make it work.” That is incorrect. In fact, it’s off my more than 2/3 of the real number. Try again.
The ironic part of your post is the fact that the flagellum is now the classic example of how ‘intelligent design’ and the irreducible argument are incorrect. The fact that you even use this example show you don’t really understand this argument.
Comment by Flagellum — April 5, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
seek:
1. “amazement” does not equal proof.
2. The source fo mutation may be chance, it the
3. In post #379 you confuse organization with complexity. Further, evolutionary theory does not argue things must go from “simple to complex.”
4. If you cannot see flaws in life systems, you cannot even begin to have this conversation. Look at genetics, respatory systems, disease propagation, the amazing amount of inefficiency, etc. God sucks at design.
5. “that flight accidentally evolved” is a totally incorrect statement. The theory of evolution does NOT, in any way, suggest flight, or any other trait, evolved “accidentally.” This is opposite evolution, and a common misconception it seems many creationists have. If you don’t understand why this is a contradiction, I suggest you review the theory.
Comment by Pastafarian — April 5, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Live and learn they say.
1) If mutations do not appear by pure chance, then what is the cause. I still have not heard an answer.
2) You state that evolution does not say anything about the origin of life. If evolution does not presuppose abiogenesis, and the primordial soup as the origin of life, then what does it presuppose. I guess you could say that an intelligent source created the first single cell and evolution took it from there. But it would be pretty weak. If the intelligent source could create a single source, why not have it create everything. But fine, we can debate the origin of life and evolution separately, I can agree to those rules.
3) My point was that the adaptation of a foetus growing blood vessels to compensate for a heart defect is not something that can be explained by natural selection since it could not have been propagated to following generations. Therefore natural selection can not account for it. Can anyone address this?
4) I admit to not looking up the latest on the irreducible complexity argument. Thanks for pointing me at some more research. After all we are all looking for truth, right?
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
[...] What states do a good job of teaching evolution and which ones don’t? Take a look at a map; you might be surprised (as I [...]
Pingback by Easter Thursday 2007: Variety « blueollie — April 5, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
pasta:
1. As stated in my first post #368, proof is not possible when dealing with past events. We simply look for which theory is most consistent with the evidence.
2. I think you did not finish your sentence. Evolution postulates that time+chance has produced complexity. Without an intelligent guiding force, what other alternative do you have?
3. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that things go from order to chaos. Evolution postulates that things go from non-living chemicals to single celled creatures, to successively more complex beings based on random mutation and natural selection.
4. As I stated in post #379 we see death, disease and decay affecting biological systems. From my worldview this is completely in harmony with the biblical creation and subsequent fall. But as to God being a poor designer, I don’t think we have been able to produce life, reach the data compression rates of DNA, or have self-healing , resilient systems that even come close to what the natural worlds has.
5. Pasta, I think you and I are missing something here. If evolution does not suggest any trait evolved through pure chance. Then how did new traits appear on the scene? Evolution has not other mechanism for producing new traits. That is one of its major limitations. I am patient and intelligent, help me understand what you think is causing new traits to appear?
Comment by seek4truth — April 5, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
[...] check out this graph of how and where evolution is taught in schools around the United States. Spread the Word: These [...]
Pingback by Is this thing on? » Oh Sweet Jesus — April 5, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
An Excellent site for the Creation/Evolution debate is http://www.apologeticspress.org It has a lot of articles that pertain to Evolution from a scientific and well-researched standpoint.
Comment by Braden — April 5, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Let me just add that if a “Darwin´s Whore´s” own self esteem is poor enough to beleive he could might as well been created by aliens in a chemistry experiment that went ape and that they forgot to monitor his behavior, then how could I even start
to explain him that God loves him, which is better?
Comment by allendale2 — April 5, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
What a lot of interesting posts! But let me make this easy… evolution is real, and creation is a myth. Grow up! This is the 21st century. Thank God (lol) I live in Canada.
Comment by teemac — April 5, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
In my judgment, all one has to do is study the mechanism of protein synthesis to see the unlikelihood that life evolved without intelligent design. (Very simple explanation of protein synthesis at http://regentsprep.org/Regents/biology/units/heredity/synthesis.cfm, among many other sites.) According to evolutionary theory, complex systems or organisms have to evolve in stages (caused by random mutations), and each stage must have survival value in order to persist in significant numbers. Protein synthesis is a vastly complex mechanism which sure as heck LOOKS intelligently designed, and I’d really like to hear someone explain how it could have arisen in discrete and independently useful stages. Take one aspect out, and you’ve got nothing.
On the other hand, I think it’s fairly obvious that birds evolved from dinosaurs and so on. And my attitude towards that is, “big deal.” Doesn’t say anything one way or another as to whether God exists. No reason why an intelligent Creator couldn’t design a system subject to evolutionary principles.
Just my two cents — I don’t really care whether anyone agrees with me . . .
Comment by skywhale — April 5, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
The entire “airplane from a junkyard” statement is a strawman argument. There is nothing to it. First of all, evolution is not about creating life from nothing, that is abiogenises, a whole different science.
Second, the idea of randomness in evolution is often wrongly presented by believers. Evolution is a process of change where successful changes propogate and unsuccessful changes die out. Most mutations are useless and often deadly to an organism. But occasionally there is a random change that effects the ability of an organism to benefit over those around it and it passes that characteristic on. THAT is evolution. This happens EVERY DAY and is a crucial process scientists use to combat mutating disease and sickness. It is not a conglomeration of random materials to form a new organism.
Thirdly, the word “theory” does not mean that evolution is not fact. It is fact. Evolution happens. It’s that simple. The “theory” is simply our best understanding of how evolution works – just like “The theory of Gravity” is our best understanding of how gravity works. Regardless if our understanding of it is right, wrong, or close does not dispell the notion that gravity is a fact. The same holds true for evolution. We may have the theory entirely wrong but that does not invalidate that it DOES HAPPEN DAILY.
Fourthly. Science has facts, theory, evidence, and proof to back it up. Religion has theory and faith. The very book that religion (using Christianity as an example, but all religions work the same) follows is filled with error and is proven and KNOWN to have been edited, changed, misrecorded, altered, purposefully added and subtracted to by men. Religion has absolutely no foundation to support the claims made by it other than pure stubborn blind faith or a book that is questionable at best and quite horrific if actually read and viewed with a critical eye.
And finally, when was the last time that religion made any sort of breakthrough, discovery, invention, or advancement for mankind? Science does this daily. Even when science is wrong, it admits it, learns from its mistakes, and becomes stonger from it. When was the last time you heard religion admit or declare that it was wrong about something? It does not because to admit that any one part of it is wrong makes an admission that any part of it can be wrong. And that simply cannot be when one is dealing with something like a god.
Comment by mtdew — April 5, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
[...] a cartographic reminder of where what is taught here in the US. Whenever you were eventually interested not to get [...]
Pingback by No ID, but still amazing... « Seeds Aside — April 6, 2007 @ 12:47 am
I finally made it to the bottom!
Even taking notes on my way down, I sort of lost track of who said what…
Suffice it to say that I’ve seen so many different terms in these posts and different definitions for those terms that I’m not sure what was even being discussed (a bit of everything I guess).
The post/map at the top portrays EVOLUTION as opposed to CREATION…
So this is an origin of man debate, and on that I have to aggree with dhblog (#316). (mostly)
Nature proves that things do “evolve/adapt”, (those terms are commonly used interchangeably) but that offers no proof that this is how life began.
Furthermore, nature also proves that everything is steadily DEGRADING – NOT improving.
#352 said: “And the thing that makes me laugh, is if creationists laugh that the big bang is ridiculous, because it can’t all come from nothing, please tell me how God came into being.
[listen closely - this is the important part:] “It’s exactly the same thing. Saying “he’s just always there” is a 4-year olds argument.”
WELL SAID!
Ergo: teaching “big-bang” as fact is just as “4-ish”! Big-bangers are just as naive as they claim we Christians are for believing in something the other considers “incredulous”.
#368 makes a good point, but…
“We need to look at the evidence and decide which theory is most consistent with the evidence.
This is clearly a subjective choice by each individual but what we can hope for is that the evidence will be sufficient to make us rethink our presuppositions.”
…assumes we will be PRESENTED with ALL the evidence available – and we all know (especially x-files fans) that evidence is often suppressed when it does not support the view of those in charge of presenting it.
Add the fact that the media can (and does) slant all information depending on what they think will/should sell, and you have a formula for a debate that goes no where with no positive proof at all.
SUM IT UP—-
BOTH ORIGIN arguments REQUIRE SHEER FAITH, and “science” provides many “proofs” for each side therefore…
NEITHER one should be taught in schools that we are funding with our tax dollars because we don’t ALL agree on which to BELIEVE IN!
Thanks to everyone for the links to other cool info and articles.
Comment by Dave — April 6, 2007 @ 1:21 am
Whilst ever creationists believe that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old, they’ll never fathom evolution which has occurred over BILLIONS of years. We as individuals are so insignificant in the scheme of things. Have a read of this:
http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/11/how-hubble-killed-god/
Comment by paralleldivergence — April 6, 2007 @ 1:24 am
[...] This obviously comes from Scientific American, but I got it from the always interesting Strange Maps. [...]
Pingback by Homo Sum » Blog Archive » Good Friday, Part 4 — April 6, 2007 @ 3:55 am
PLEASE take a quick look at this before yet another anti-evolution comment is posted. This is a guide – compiled by a reputable Christian website “Answer In Genesis” – of arguments that creationists should NOT use!
This provides a quickly list for all those who do not have enough time to learn.
Comment by h3nry — April 6, 2007 @ 4:00 am
Oops, here is the link again for a Christian-compiled arguments that creationists should not to use:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Comment by h3nry — April 6, 2007 @ 4:02 am
Even though I am a religious person, I frankly have a hard time believing that the complexity that is the human being–and the earth & all its elements as well– was created in a week by a divine being that only faith says exists. I suppose I need something more concrete. As for teaching one or the other in schools, I have always believed that religion is best kept out of schools, government, politics (where they cause the most trouble and tension) and taught in the religious institution and in the home. Be who you are and believe what you believe. If your faith in your beliefs is strong enough, you shouldn’t feel threatened by evolutionary theories.
Comment by eversong — April 6, 2007 @ 4:06 am
Well, since many people above have trotted out the standard anti-evolution mishmash (like how come there are no transition species found yet) here are the answers to those questions by scientific american:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2007 @ 4:30 am
[...] lately I have been spending quite a bit of time reading through some 350 comments posted by readers regarding a map showing the teaching of evolution in the US on a state-by-state basis. Inevitably, the comments [...]
Pingback by Arguments Creationists Should Not Use « On Evolution — April 6, 2007 @ 7:51 am
#58#296:It is sure interesting to scroll down all the 400 jus now.They all entertain and inform, but educate? Immunity is passed down, protein is built up.so the evolutionists simply say that the blocks were built brick by brick, learning on the way, and improving, and changing for the better usually.instaed of saying all the complex components of and for life were made [created?] in a moment.Even that is poss that fast fwd mode. So where is the fight? Do we have to assume that evolutionists are atheists and creationists are true kids of god? It is easy to tolerate the other, esply in such tricky situ as this.
Comment by george pradhan-mbbs — April 6, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
[...] Where (and How) Evolution is Taught in the U.S. It’s a color-coded map of the United States about the quality of each state’s education [...]
Pingback by 04/07: Weekend Reading « Wandering Ink. — April 8, 2007 @ 6:01 am
[...] Map that shows where evolution is taught in schools [...]
Pingback by xocea » This Week In: Science — April 8, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
[...] with this one from the Strange Maps project: [...]
Pingback by Two Maps, One Variable? « tekel — April 8, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
I was educated in Massachusetts. It is generally thought of as a meca for education due to the enormous quantity of colleges around Boston. Even being raised in the western part of the state I believe I received a fairly balanced education. Nothing about creationism was ever taught in any of my schools. It was evolution all the way. Even the congregational church where I attended Sunday school, never tried to over rule scientific fact with religious dogma. We were taught that while some things in the Bible may very well have happened, most likely they are all merely stories only roughly based on fact intended to teach a lesson, like myths and fairy tales. I even had a Sunday school teacher that related the Bible to the game of telephone. If we believed that stories that took place anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000 years ago would remain factually intact than a simple sentence could go around the classroom intact. This of course was not the case.
Comment by mdurwin — April 9, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
[...] 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US [...]
Pingback by WordPress Wednesday: New Security Release, Updated WordPressMU, More WordPress Plugins, and Time to Get Naked » TechAddress — April 9, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Re: Seek4truth
First off, evolution has FOUR driving mechanisms: mutation, selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Living beings being able to (somewhat) adapt to their environments has nothing to do with evolution outside of that ability likely being a result of evolution. If it were ever conclusively demonstrated that we have abilities that could not have arisen through evolution (i.e. there are no other life forms that have such an ability), then evolution would be thrown out the window.
An example of a beneficial mutation in humans: I once met a guy who’s blood is quite literally toxic. The vast majority of people born like this die very quickly as infants, but this guy didn’t. As a result, he’s got natural immunity to most blood parasites. Quite beneficial for him, if you ask me. Were he living in an environment rich in blood parasites, he would have a huge survival advantage compared to other people around him. He’d be more likely then to pass this trait on, and his children would then be more likely to do the same, and so on. Eventually, a large segment of the population will be immune to blood parasites. This is how evolution works, by the accumulation of small changes.
Regarding the case of the infant you mentioned, I would think that any species with the ability to internally alter itself to adjust to damage/”design flaws” would have a huge survival advantage over species that don’t, and that this would manifest quite well in a developing fetus (which is growing it’s circulatory systems at the time anyways) in no way surprises me. While this child would have still died without the benefits of modern medicine, that in no way means that the apparatus that helped him live by growing new blood vessels wouldn’t have helped his ancestors live through less serious but potentially life-threatening conditions.
SETI doesn’t just listen for non-random signals from space, as there are TONS of non-random naturally occurring signals from space. Pulsars, for instance, very regularly spew radio waves at specific intervals. They do this because the physical laws governing their actions create order. Non-random information in our DNA does not necessitate a designer any more than a pulsar sending out radio waves does, and I think you’d find that our DNA has a lot more random junk in it that we don’t use than you might think.
Re: 374
That similar abilities evolved in differing species simply means that those species developed in similar environments. For instance, both bats and dolphins use sonar as their primary means of navigation and gaining information about their immediate surroundings. Bats, being primarily nocturnal and often cave-dwelling, hunt and live in environments without much light. Their ability to use sonar helps them navigate through caves and hunt in complete darkness. A dolphin uses sonar for similar reasons, in that its eyes are insufficient for long-distance examination of its surroundings. That they both have sonar doesn’t mean that they have a (relatively recent) common ancestor, it simply means that their environments are well suited for the development of natural sonar.
Re: 376
1) First, I would love to see some sources that show this. I have my doubts, as the Milky Way is not a solid object where the arms are physically connected to the core, but instead merely held near to it by gravity. Second, quite honestly, you do NOT want to try using astronomy to argue against “evolutionary” time-scales. EVERYTHING in astronomy points to the universe being very, very, very old, from observations of star formation and life cycles to cosmic background radiation.
2) Sources?
3) The moon is moving away from the Earth at a yearly speed of 3.8cm per year. The currently accepted estimate for the age of the solar system is about 4.5 billion years. That translates to the moon having moved 171,000 km further away from the Earth in the last 4.5 billion years, assuming the rate of change to be constant, though it isn’t, it is slowing, and once tidal effects are no longer significant the moon’s orbit will stabilize to be slightly farther out than it is now. Now, 171,000 km is about half the distance between the Earth and the moon, and the currently accepted idea is the giant-impact hypothesis that postulates that a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth early in it’s development and put enough material in orbit to have formed the moon. In this case, it makes sense to me that the moon would be slowly moving away from us, and that it had been at one point moving away faster and gravity slowed it. Additionally, the magnetic field of the moon is about 1/100th that of Earth’s, and not likely to influence it too heavily from a distance. The moon’s gravity, being much closer to on the level with Earth’s, does create regular effects: tides, which many life forms evolved the ability to predict and live with, some in fact basing their lives around them.
Re: 377
Mutations themselves are random, often caused by copying errors from the parent cells, radiation, or other processes. That this is random in no way argues against evolution, and in fact argues more against the idea of a creator that (I would expect, anyways) should’ve been able to create the perfect organisms from the get-go and not need them to change.
Re: 378
If my eye is so marvelously designed, then why did I need a human to design glasses for me to see? If the body is so well designed, why is the human reproductive system far better suited for a non-bipedal organism and why does it cause so many stillbirths and fatalities among the mothers? Why is the lower back badly designed for carrying heavy loads? Why are there fish in completely lightless environments that still have (barely) functioning eyes?
Don’t get me wrong, I get an incredible sense of awe, wonder, and mystery when I look at the world around me. But that awe is simply the awareness that there’s this huge, varied, and interesting universe to explore and understand. The wonder is questioning what is out there, what may be out there, and what the possibilities of life are. The mystery is the unknown. Me having these things in no way points to a designer creating them. You look at the world and see pattern and design, because that is what your mind is trained to see. Our mammalian ancestors long ago evolved to hear a rustle in the bushes and think “Predator!” instead of “Wind!” or “Falling stick!”, because it kept them alive when they were right and didn’t cause them much trouble when they were wrong.
Re: 379
While I recognize this wasn’t your argument, because you mentioned the second law of thermodynamics, I want to cover this quickly as I hear quite often as an objection to evolution that the second law’s prediction of increasing entropy in a system is a problem for evolution. This is not the case. The second law of thermodynamics applies ONLY to closed systems. Earth, which receives constant input of radiation and heat (same thing, really) from the Sun, is in no way a closed system, therefore the tendency towards entropy is reduced. Also, even in a closed system such as (presumably) the universe, the 2nd law predicts that pockets of order will arise, but that the overall trend towards entropy increases.
As to your argument, any study of human history shows that we really aren’t any more or less corrupt than we used to be. Violence, rape, theft… these things have existed since the dawn of civilization. Likewise, diseases also have existed in humans since the dawn of civilization, but the diseases that used to be our primary problems on a whole were mostly chronic long-term illnesses that do not quickly kill off the hosts. Since humans lived in small populations, extremely virulent diseases that spread quickly and killed quickly would destroy themselves by running out of hosts. In today’s higly urbanized world of travelling from America to Africa in a day on a plane ticket, epidemic diseases have a much better foothold, as they can kill off the host and be nearly assured transfer to another one no matter how long they last.
Re: 385
1) I already covered this above, so I’ll skip it.
2) Evolution postulates that time + chance + natural selection produced complexity. Natural selection serves as this guiding force that you seek.
3) Seems that it’s a good thing I went off on my tangent about the 2nd law above… as it’s already covered there, I’ll move on.
4) The problem here is that disease and decay are observed in fossils tens of thousands of years old, long before the supposed fall of Adam and Eve, and are easily explained by the natural world of viruses, bacteria, acids, etc.
5) As I said, traits evolve in populations due to natural selection. The appearance of a trait in an individual is mostly a chance copying error or a strange combination of DNA. It’s natural selection that decides whether or not that trait is useful, and gene flow and genetic drift factor in to decide whether or not that trait is introduced to the main population as a whole, if the trait is lost, or if the trait survives on in a new species.
Hope this answered a few questions for you and anybody else who cares to read it. If you have any more questions, feel free to email me at pali1d@yahoo.com.
Comment by Pali — April 10, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
I’m surprised to see that Kansas is rated at “Good/Satisfactory” – I thought that they had almost completely banned any mention of evolution at their schools!
Comment by Med Bennett — April 11, 2007 @ 12:00 am
This is just next to useless. But giving Kansas a higher rating than most indicates some serious problems in the scientific value of this silly graphic. Such oversimplified nonsense does not contribute knowledge to a serious issue, just another picture with color.
Comment by Melville McLean — April 11, 2007 @ 4:21 am
[...] It’s like the whole Red-State vs. Blue-State thing all over again.read more | digg story April 11th, 2007 | Category: General Sciences [...]
Pingback by General Sciences » Map that shows where evolution is taught in schools — April 11, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
I wonder if I can manage to post the last comment here?
Comment by chocfudgebrownie — April 11, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
#390 Makes a very good point. I am an atheist, but if you do have a belief in a god like power then why can you not accept that evolution is fact but “God” created the beginnings of it. we all know that people use metaphors and stories to teach. Believe acceptable information like someone called Jesus existed, but dont believe that the world was created in a week, its a story trying to teach you something.
Comment by Cali_g — April 11, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
#412 asks, “if you do have a belief in a god like power then why can you not accept that evolution is fact but “God” created the beginnings of it”?
I think in a lot of cases, the reason is that the believer is merely ignorant, not stupid. They understand that accepting the fact of evolution will not end the discussion. Science’s next job is to explain what how evolution REALLY began. So, accepting evolution by saying “God did it” would only be a temporary stopgap measure. In order to preserve their belief forever, they know they need to put their fingers in their ears and start chanting “no no no”. And they may as well begin immediately.
Hilarious, really.
Comment by Jeff Dee — April 11, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
dennett called the daddy-god idea a ladder that can be used and then discarded as a moral instructor, and this likely applies to the current beginning of the universe stuff.
Comment by garth — April 11, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Evolutionary theory is not “one of the extreme positions” in this debate. It is the best account we have that encompasses vast quantities of scientific knowledge and data, much as the proposition that the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun is the best account for vast quantities of astronomical data. The bronze-age myths in Genesis about how life began are not useful to biology, just as the bronze-age myths about the creation of the earth are not useful to geology or astronomy. It is not the business of scientists to “teach the controversy”, but to teach the science.
Comment by Stephen Wells — April 11, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
it’s sad that religious fanatics have successfully eliminated science from our schools.
Comment by kiche — April 11, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Re: Stephen Wells
Well put.
Comment by Pali — April 11, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
It’s sad to see how poorly evolution is being taught (or not taught) in our nation’s schools. The evidence for it is overwhelming; there is no significant debate among biologists about the validity of the theory; and there are no competing scientific theories to explain the diversity of life.
Comment by Leon — April 11, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
First – Pali’s comment #407 really was very good.
I can’t believe this hasn’t come up yet, but for anyone honestly interested in evidence for evolution, especially in the context of evolution vs. creationism, a very good site is TalkOrigins. (A lot of people might find their Index to Creationist Claims very informative.)
One nitpick I have against several of the commenters trying to defend evolution concerns the arguments of humans evolving from monkeys. I realize most are probably trying to counter the old argument – if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys. But if you’re going to say that new world monkeys, old world monkeys, and apes all evolved from a common ancestor, just what do you suppose that ancestor looked like, and how do you think we would classify it if we were somehow able to bring a specimen back to the present day? I’d be willing to bet that most people would call it a monkey, and that most people wouldn’t have a problem calling many of our more recent ancestors apes. Me, I’ve got no problem with that. I actually consider myself (and all humans) as a species of ape, closely related to chimps and bonobos.
Comment by Fatboy — April 11, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
[...] Teaching Evolution in the USPosted by: MichaelA cool map from Strange Maps. There are many other interesting maps there, too! (via PZ Myers) [...]
Pingback by Gay Orbit » Teaching Evolution in the US — April 11, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
What I see daily and generally in the behavior and voiced attitudes of those who believe in a special creation of humans vs those who understand evolution is very basic: those who believe in the special creation of humans by their God are much less likely to take responsibility for their actions: both immediate and long-term results on themselves & others are not as important to them as to people who do not believe in special creation of humans by their God.
Inevitable speculation about why these two groups behave differently: perhaps if one believes that one is specially created, then your God will take care of you no matter what you do; vs the view that one as a human is an integral part of nature and therefore their individual actions collectively will have some effect on their environment: either maintaining it as its always been for humans so far or changing it & thus resulting in unknown positive or negative effects for us.
Thus, people with a special creation belief have a much more optimistic view of life and fewer ethical problems than whose who understand evolution.
Comment by jurymember — April 11, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Re: 419
First, thanks for the compliment. ^_^ I’ve grown a taste in the last year for throwing myself into these evolution/creationism debates that seem to pop up all over the internet constantly, partly for the fun of arguing and partly because I like getting the challenges thrown at me and my pride forcing me to do the research for the answers. For instance, I didn’t know until Seek4Truth asked for sure that the Moon was moving away from the Earth, had no idea what the speed was, and definitely hadn’t done the calculator work. It’s really intellectually satisfying to see that every time, doing the research backs me up instead of the creationists… kinda prideful, but hey, never said I was perfect. ^_~
Second, I believe the current understanding mirrors yours, that bonobos and chimps are our closest surviving relatives, splitting off from our tree about 5-7 million years ago. So, yeah, I’d agree that our most recent ancestor was probably very much like an ape… and that doesn’t bother me either. Apes are pretty sweet.
Comment by Pali — April 12, 2007 @ 3:17 am
[...] not entirely sure what to make of this map.* This tells us that the map came from a 2002 issue of Scientific American, which makes it fairly recent. [...]
Pingback by Pitiful « amaranton — April 12, 2007 @ 3:55 am
Re: 376 (2) “the amount of silt and salt in the ocean, is far less than what should have accumulated in that time frame”.
As a professional geologist, and a published sedimentologist at that, perhaps I can clarify that important point.
Geological time is hard to fathom, since it is simply so long. Perhaps this post might help to gather a feel for just how long it really is.
The age of the earth is 4.6 billion years, give or take a few. But the ocean floors we see today are much, much younger than that.
That fact reflects a pair of the most fundamental observations of plate tectonics.
1. Oceanic crust is constantly being created, at mid-oceanic ridges (generally these are submarine features, but you can also visit one rising above sea-level in Iceland) where new basaltic magma is being erupted all the time.
The Atlantic Ocean is growing wider every single day – and in fact Europe and America are drifting apart with the average rate of spreading at around 1-5mm per year (even if reading this debate it sometimes feels that divergence is moving much faster than that …).
Over time, that very slow conveyor drive is enough to form an ocean. But we don’t need all that much time, and the Atlantic Ocean is less than 200 million years old, whilst the earth is 4600 million.
2. So what’s going on ? Well, the answer comes from our second observation, that whilst hot oceanic crust is being created all the time at Mid-Ocean Ridges, that newly-created ocean crust cools and sinks as it moves outwards, and is constantly being consumed in roughly equal measure at subduction zones (deep ocean trenches) where cold ocean crust is continually sinking beneath the surface and being re-integrated back into the mantle.
That destruction of ocean floor is happening right now, both within the deep oceans (the Marianas Trench, for example) but also along several continental margins, where the western coast of South America shows the classic configuration.
The critical point here is that the modern Atlantic Ocean did not exist until 200 million years ago. Europe, America and Africa formed a huge supercontinent at that time called Pangaea, which slowly split into fragments that then gradually drifted apart.
Even in the Pacific Ocean, there is simply no oceanic crust still surviving anywhere which is older than Jurassic in age. In fact there is no ocean floor on our planet still surviving in place which is more than 200 million years old.
The importance of this is that there has only been 200 million years for silt and sediment to accumulate on our modern ocean floors, rather than 4600 million years as perhaps the poster implied.
Now, of course, it is true to say that a succession of ocean opening, closing and re-opening events have taken place throughout much of Earth history. Evidence for those events lies all around us and in the deformation of the rocks beneath our feet today. And if you find that hard to imagine that an ocean could disappear, just look at today’s Mediterranean. That sea – the cradle of our civilisation and a tiny fragment of the once-great Tethys Ocean which ran from the Himalayas to Morocco (and onwards into Texas) is now being steadily consumed as Africa piles northwards into Europe, whilst building the Alps.
The Mediterranean has been growing steadily narrower over most of the time that the Atlantic has been opening (broadly speaking that’s why there are so many earthquakes and volcanoes all around it), as indeed the Roman philosopher Pliny discovered to his great personal cost at Pompeii in 79 AD.
But that was just a few minutes ago, in geological terms, andn within another 30 million years or so, the Mediterranean simply won’t exist at all. (There’ll be nowhere to go for our Italian Riviera holidays, but the mountain walking should be just great).
So, it’s critical to remember that old ocean floors don’t survive all that long. All that we can see of the older oceans which existed before our modern ones are the scattered remnants of ocean crust which survive here and there within mountain belts, where fragments of ocean crust have been caught up within continental collision and driven high into a mountain belt.
You can find examples of these fossil ocean floors, or ophiolites, all over the world – in Scotland, in Cyprus and in California, too, as well as a whole host of other places.
In many cases we can date the sediments which rest upon these ophiolites and hence the fossil oceans themselves) fairly easily (like the Cyprus example within the Troodos Mountains, or the much younger Scottish example near Girvan, south of Turnberry).
Even in the case of older ophiolites which predate the advent of Cambrian hard-bodied fossils, that dating has largely to rely on radioactive age methods – but those are accurately calibrated, on established physical principles, and demonstrate conclusively that all of the basic building material within our solar system is around 4.6 billion years old.
Meteorites which fall to ground today are of roughly that age. And so indeed is our Earth.
It’s American and international science which has established all of this amazing history, through rigorous study relentlessly-backed up by further studies over more than 200 years.
As a geologist, and a modestly religious one at that, it is just unfathomable to me how anyone can now pretend that none of this has been discovered. How can anyone honestly maintain for any fathomable reason that all this wonderfully enlightening and unifying knowledge is the subject of realistic debate or contention, or for some reason declare that it is unsafe to share with our children ?
That map then, really does serve to highlight one of the great contradictions of the modern America, the most advanced nation on Earth. Or perhaps the divide of the Atlantic Ocean is growing at a rate much faster than we think.
Comment by Roads — April 12, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Sorry, that should have read ‘the much older Scottish example’.
Thanks for listening.
Comment by Roads — April 12, 2007 @ 11:29 am
wow
most of the entire history of modern medicine for the past 300 years is based on common descent …yeah evolution is a fact
the smallpox virus is now extinct beause we were able to vaccinate people with a non-lethal close relative (cowpox)that prevented them from catching and spreading smallpox
orthopedists, endocrinologists cardiologists (for example)do experiments on animals to determine if something is going to work before using humans
humans ARE apes (hominids-using the CURRENT definition)…the living Hominidae are chimps, bonobos, gorillas, humans, and orangutans
that “Common genes, common Creator”, aphorism is just a folk saying….. there’s no EVIDENCE to support it as a fact
there is a lot of evidence for common descent…. so much so that most biologists think of common descent as a simple fact …most as in over 99%
trying to pretend that evolution /common descent doesnt happen is like trying to pretend that the sun isnt behind a cloud …..creationist merely REFUSE to see the evidence …its certainly there ..and a lot of it is online
caveat …creationist ministry organizations mostly
1 outright lie
2 misinterpret data
3 delete (inconvenient to creationism) info
4 misquote scientists
5 used outdated (sometimes by centuries)and or flawed info
6 edit scientists to make it look like they support creationist propaganda
7 make up there own definitions of scientific terminology to DELIBERATELY confuse people
THERE IS NO DEBATE WITHIN THE REAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ABOUT EVOLUTION/COMMON DESCENT …scientists argue about where on the family tree an organism might fit but that animals, fungi, plants, and bacteria are all kinfolks is not in debate
anyone who tells you that theres no evidence for common decent and/or than there are no transitionals is LYING or IGNORANT
and that includes a lot of the posters on this board
Comment by brightmoon — April 12, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
[…]young-earth creationism is perhaps the biggest example of systematic fraud ever perpetrated on the American public” – Nick Matzke
Dr Matzke was one of the people testifying at the Dover Kitzmiller trial
BTW this quote is not edited to change the meaning nor is it taken out of context nor is it outdated
the transcripts of the Dover trial are online …TALKORIGINS.ORG has a copy
Comment by brightmoon — April 12, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
macroevolution is defined under the biological species concept as evolution above the species level …humans, neanderthals & Homo erectus are different species and that is a macroevolutionary change
(there are a lot of dfinitions for species ….its not a simple concept)
Comment by brightmoon — April 12, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
QUOTE Thus, people with a special creation belief have a much more optimistic view of life and fewer ethical problems than whose who understand evolution
i would change that to
Thus, people with a special creation belief have a much more deluded view of life and more ethical problems than whose who understand evolution
Comment by brightmoon — April 12, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
brightmoon: absolutely deluded but it makes them happier because they don’t have to do all that hard thinking; I still think that they have less problems adhering to their simplified ethics than if their ethics included valuing other life forms than humans. That this kind of attitude causes more problems to those who are NOT special creationists is a given.
Comment by jurymember — April 12, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Re: Roads
Thanks for that first post about silt accumulation. I tried a bit of Googling for info when the question was first given, but couldn’t find anything scientific that fit, hence asking him for sources on it. Glad you cleared it up for us.
Comment by Pali — April 12, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Dear poster # 81,
so god just said let there be light and the rest of it just went on like clock work. If you belive that I think you need some serious prayer. If you had a baby, would you leave it to fend for itself the moment it was born? WE ARE NOT PREFECT! the Bible says there is no one righteous, No not one. we were part of a perfect world once, but though our own choosing, we fell into sin. We need the power of a risen lord just as much as we need air to breathe. And saying that God doesn’t bother with us is just plain foolish, beacause the nature of God is love and care. Do you really want some god who doesn’t care two pins about you, like an idol who can’t see or hear? well that’s fine for you but I’ll take the God of the universe who loves me enough to take an intrest in my daily life. And there is lots of proof that Dinosaurs walked the earth with man.
To God Be the Glory
Comment by grobanite90 — April 15, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
christians definitely have to change and open their frickin eyes. the king james translation is four hundred years old, and the original bibles were made wayy before that. im catholic, but a lot of the bible should never be taken literally. i think of the bible as a book with a beginning, middle, and end. i mean cmon, the number 666 corresponds with julius caesar, the devil back then to christians was just the romans. revelations was just a book that was written to scare the romans. if you read it as a roman person back then it would have scared you. in truth, the book of revelations will never happen. no giant earthquake across the whole world. unless its an asteroid that hits the world, but then everyone will be dead in a few months time after that.
creation was just an answer to the question- who created life on the earth- cause back then there was no way to answer that. now there is. its evolution. evolution is the answer to life on earth. to believe in creation is to believe in writings a person made around two thousand years ago
the bible is a book that tells you how to behave in life and stuff like that. and there is never anything in it that says after you die you will go to heaven. every time you see the word heaven in the bible, it just means the sky. it just give you hope
but LOL! to say dinosaurs walked the earth with man is one of the STUPIDEST things to say, unless you’re saying man was an insect or something like that.
btw, religions wont exist till the end of time cause on average, every 100 million years there is a mass extinction. i mean MASS extinction. and it’ll probably have little if any affect on life two hundred years from now. animals would have evolved, proving evolution, and some would have died out. christianity has to change now if it has any chance of surviving in the next few hundred years.
Comment by kamisama — April 15, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
You’re right! The book of Revelations will never happen!
There is, of course, no book of Revelations. Check out the end of your Bible again. No one is served by ignorance.
Comment by Rand — April 18, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
[...] States. I’m not making this shit up. I lived in the South for over ten years. Deal with this creationism-being-taught-in-schools thing, then come back and talk to me. Don’t be insulted if by that time I’m unavailable [...]
Pingback by Great White Snark » Blog Archive » Weekend Plans: Alternative Press Expo and Alternative Familial Funerations — April 19, 2007 @ 6:39 am
[...] astonishing map below featured on strange maps recently, and it shows how the subject of evolution is taught in schools within the United States. [...]
Pingback by 144. East of Eden - evolution and enlightenment « roads of stone — April 19, 2007 @ 8:02 am
[...] 97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US (from Digg) – Scientists generally accept the theory of evolution as the back-story of how animal species (including humans) came into being over a period of several billion years. Religious literalists maintain their belief in creation, as laid down in the Bible: God made the earth and all that is on it (including humans, after His own image) in one week, a couple of thousand years ago. This has a map of what different parts of America is teaching the kids today. [...]
Pingback by Krunk4Ever! » Blog Archive » Random Crap — April 21, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
[...] how they affect our view of the world. I came across it via a link to its post of a map showing where (and how) evolution is taught in the US (one word: yikes), but it won my heart by printing Spitting Image’s Tory Atlas of the World, [...]
Pingback by Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » In Soviet Russia, maps read YOU — April 24, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
I personally don’t mind the bible that much. Its great for what it is. A work of fiction that gives people hope. Just don’t mix it with science.
Comment by Motorcycle Guy — April 24, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
[...] pandangan kurikulum terhadap teori evolusi sebenarnya mendua. Ada yang menganggap teori ini very good atau exellent, misalnya di beberapa negara bagian yang liberal, tapi ada juga yang menilai…. Terbelah !. Berbeda dengan di Indonesia, mengajarkan teori evolusi dan sekaligus tidak menghargai [...]
Pingback by Anti Harun Yahya dan Evolusi ? « Sains-Inreligion — April 28, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
In response to #407’s comment about TalkOrigins. There is a response to TalkOrigin counter-claims to creationism at http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims
Comment by seek4truth — April 30, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
On the flipside of the coin, have a read about the new “Creation Museum” about to open in Petersburg, Kentucky where Evolution is proven not to exist…
http://paralleldivergence.com/2007/04/28/creation-museum-madness/
Comment by paralleldivergence — April 30, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
[...] Check out this map of evolution teaching. [...]
Pingback by Strange Maps « Catholic Sensibility — May 10, 2007 @ 5:55 am
The idea, cited early in the comments, that ‘this is a result of government control of education’ is preposterous. Firstly, the federal government does not set education curricula in the US. These attacks on evolution are the result of local organizations interfereing locally. Second, if there was no state development of curricula, indeed no public education, then this ‘madness’ would be even more widespread. If anything, this idiotic situation where something as basic as evolution isn’t even taught in some states is a strong argument for Federal control of school curricula. (And to be clear, I don’t advocate anything like that. The cure would be worse than the disease, so to speak).
Comment by nygdan — May 12, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
I’m sure one of these other 444 mentioned that you left hawaii off of the libral state green list… I know, they’re so small down there.
Comment by thestupidestthing — May 18, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Unfathomable! Do these creationists realize it is 2007?!
I’ve just returned from Europe — where such heated discussions with so many taking the side of a FAIRY TALE make us a laughing-stock! Quit it! Stop making us look bad — use your head and your logic and not some half-witted myths to lead your life.
Comment by DE/US — May 23, 2007 @ 3:31 am
Welcome home DE.
Your comment sounds so educated and and openminded. (NOT)
Yes we realize the year is 2007 – NOT 2,000,000,007 !!
- 2,007 years since Jesus Christ shed His blood for your sins – a most appropriate way to track the passing of time I think!
I pray that you “billion-eers” will repent.
If you were truly interested in real science (truth based on fact) you would forsake YOUR fairy tale stories of “the-amoeba-that-became-a-man”!
Unfathomable indeed!
Comment by Dave — May 23, 2007 @ 4:29 am
Hmm. I take issue with Ohio being in the red. When I was in high school, evolution was taught. My sister’s graduating this year and has been taught evolution in bio classes. Of course, that’s also in the Cleveland area, one of the state’s three major liberal regions (the others being around Columbus and Akron).
Comment by Van — May 26, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Live Bait, Fishing Worms and a Worm Farm
I got sick of gathering worms from the garden when the tackle shop was out of bait worms… so I started breeding my own fishing worms for use as live bait…. I had no idea worm farming would prove to be quite the interesting hobby in itself and there…
Trackback by Live Bait, Fishing Worms and a Worm Farm — May 28, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Einstein proved with his mathematical theories that our universe is infinite. And in an infinite universe anything and everything is infinitely possible. Therefore it is not only possible but statistically inevitable that cosmically virtual impssibilities become reality.
Comment by Michael — May 30, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
@ Michael,
Theories are not the same as proof. Einstein was clever enough to use higher math to allegedly prove something that cannot be proven and science-so-called swallowed it.
(Has anyone double checked his work by the way?)
Question: If the universe is already infinite, why do they say it is expanding – if something is assumed no limit it cannot get bigger!(I’m sure you can make up some circular reasoning to excuse that, too.)
Dave
Comment by Dave — May 31, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Distance Learning Home Page
Distance learning is a learning environment in which the student is separated from the instructor
Trackback by Distance Learning Home Page — June 11, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
I think most Christians understand the world was not created only a couple thousand years ago, as you stated (perhaps you are simply referring to the birth of Jesus?) We do understand science, fossils and so forth go back millions upon millions of years. Is that really a surprising thought.
Comment by Phoenix Arizona Auto Home Life Insurance — June 29, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Actually there are also Christians who take God at His word that He created the world in 6 days. There are many lines of evidence to support this but the vast majority of scientists head up the wrong tree. I have been through many years of tertiary education with an excellent academic record. Do i say this to boast? No, but to say I know the evolutionary arguments, and at best that is all they are. There are no “proofs” that elevate evolution to the factual realm or event the realm of scientific theory despite protests to the contrary. How can a historical science be falsifiable when it is the only one entertained to explain the facts? Anomalies that contradict the theory are explained away( eg Cambrian explosion, lack of fossil intermediates), or the theory is modified (eg. punctuated equilibrium) to help explain the conflicting points.
Anyway, believe as you will. Understand that only those beliefs that are married with the truth (reality) will hold up in the long haul.
All the best
Comment by Justin — July 8, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Re #454
Well said Justin!
Comment by Edmund Reinhardt — July 24, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Hello, be prepared.
Is not the human so complex as to require intellegance in its design? The only other option is unnintellegant design. Have you ever looked at an ant? That did not come by mere chance. Think it in your heart, you know it to be true. Proverbs 13:14 states “The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life, turning a man from the snares of death.”
Justin is correct.
God created Adam and Eve as adults, could He not have created aged rocks? The Earth is not even one billion years old (not even close). Carbon 14 dating is flawed, saying an alive mollusk was millions of years dead. Evolution was thought up, taught by, and believed by those misguided, and to try and evade responsibility by denying God’s existance (proving Him even more). If you have been taught that evolution is true, it is not. It is also not your fault, you can do research and find the truth. Prove the Bible wrong and you will find it is impossible to do so. I challenge you to find falsity in the Bible, but beware, you will find the truth, if you seek it. You want to know the truth, you want to be right. Don’t gamble with your eternal destination. For any reason you should want to contact me, my e-mail address is invmog@hotmail.com
If the truth is not in you, I’d encourage you to find it. I know not were you stand and what you believe to be true, but for me and my house, our trust is in the Lord, and we hope that you will accept God’s gift.
And now, until another time, I’d very much like to see you in Heaven, for that would mean you were rescued from Hell’s flames,
Goodbye, and thanks for reading.
Comment by Louis — August 11, 2007 @ 3:36 am
[...] related map shows Where (and How) Evolution is Taught in the U.S. It seems that the United States is rather unique in having a high level of education and [...]
Pingback by Map: Religious Adherents in the United States « Atypical Guy — August 11, 2007 @ 4:42 am
[...] 11th, 2007 by The Keyholder This may be the reason that finding a good science text covering evolution is nearly [...]
Pingback by Evolution map « — August 11, 2007 @ 7:16 am
Earth Satelite
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting
Trackback by Earth Satelite — August 13, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
lol. stumbled upon this (somewhat tired and bilaterally misinformed) discussion, and thought I’d throw in my tuppence…
I find it quite hilarious that both sides argue in the face of abject futility. Darwinism (and particularly “natural selection”) has, in fact, been fairly widely debunked, and for it to simply “make sense” to someone shows that they obviously lack critical thinking. There are quite a few examples, but the most glaringly obvious is that “gene pool” theory debunks itself. For an entire species to evolve, no matter what the timeframe, would clearly require quite a number of IDENTICAL MUTATIONS occuring at once. Otherwise any freaks of nature would be cleansed from the gene pool within a generation or two, no matter how beneficial their mutation proved to be. (this is not to mention the xenophobic hurdle that nature so frequently exhibits!)
a rough e.g.- 2000 finches fly around Galapagos. 5 of them have larger beaks, and so they are able to gain more nourishment. They mate with eachother (long finch male& long finch female) they still only have a 50% chance of producing long finch offspring. And so it goes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or evolutionary biologist to do the maths!!!
I could go on all day, but honestly, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biology or maths and a modest thirst for understanding SHOULD be able to figure this by themselves.
I am not saying I have the answers, but Darwin himself admitted potential flaws that science has since been able to confirm!
OPEN MINDED CRITICAL ANALYSIS IS WHERE IT’S AT!
SUGGESTED READ: “Darwin’s Black Box- the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” as well as looking into macro-evolution and quantum evolution before you go expounding your conditioned beliefs, creationists and evolutionists alike!
Comment by FeralBrown — August 19, 2007 @ 2:30 am
Oh- one more thing…
space.com recently had a very interesting article re:the “most likely” origins of life on Earth. Our typically human egotism has long supposed that we developed out of local primordial gunk, or whatever, but, given the vast expanses “out there”, and the supposition that our solar system and planet are one of the more recent ones, it seems pretty probable that one or more (who knows how many more?!) life-forms arrived on meteors.
I understand that this doesn’t really answer any questions, but might go at least a little bit of the way to expanding perspectives!
Comment by FeralBrown — August 19, 2007 @ 3:03 am
Regarding entry 453 stating “I think most Christians understand the world was not created only a couple thousand years ago, as you stated (perhaps you are simply referring to the birth of Jesus?) We do understand science, fossils and so forth go back millions upon millions of years. Is that really a surprising thought.”
I fear many Christians believe this because they have not really looked seriously at the issues. They believe what they read. For example just today CNN published an article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/20/egypt.footprint.reut/index.html
saying the oldest footprint may have been found in Egypt, about 2 millions years old. Sound interesting. Later in the article the author says “it [rocks around the footprint] could date back even further than the renowned 3-million year-old fossil Lucy, the partial skeleton of an ape-man, found in Ethiopia in 1974.” The whole Lucy skeleton and fossil find was shown to be a fraud many years ago. Fraud in that it is not human bones, and also questionable if the bones even came from one skeleton, as many were found in the same area. For more reading: http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=Lucy&site=default_collection#q=Lucy&site=default_collection
Comment by Ed Van Gennip — August 21, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
My balls hurt
Comment by Peter Schmit — September 2, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
DNA mutations are caused by radiation particles. the long process of natural selection is caused by random DNA interaction with cosmic rays. the comet which killed the dinosaurs sent large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere which sparked an increase in biological diversity (not to mention many horrible mutations which didnt make the cut)
today our civilized culture has brought this process to a holt.
this is why we have so many human diseases and deformities; because natural selection can not filter out the healthy.
sorry to go all nazi, but its true…
Comment by Don — September 2, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
I went to school in Houston and we were taught Evolution. I remember the maps on the wall of man slowly erecting upward through time to walk and the facial features changing. We even studied the Neanderthals. I do have a friend who was so brainwashed by creationism that she refused to be taught the evolution theory and was removed from the public school by her parents and put into a private Pentecostal school that taught the creation theory in Texas.
Comment by Cosmo — September 18, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
If you outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve!
Comment by Markus — September 21, 2007 @ 9:15 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
Pingback by Map that shows where evolution is taught in schools « Science Top News — October 10, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
RE: post 161 the “most likely” origins of life on Earth is “out there” This definitely expands our perspectives – just in time, too! DNA studies are closing the gap on time available for evolution on Earth. We’re down to 5800BC now – not much different than 4004BC.
Reference this article:
Human Evolution Speeding Up, Study Says – December 11, 2007
National Geographic News
As for human DNA, “The biggest changes have come since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, which opened up new environments for the quickly expanding human population to grow from millions to billions.” [Ref: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution_2.html
Comment by Peake — December 20, 2007 @ 3:07 am
Christianism, Islam… the same thing!
Comment by Joseph — December 25, 2007 @ 8:42 am
From a previous comment: “…I had to get something said to defend my God, because he is getting his glory robbed from him.”
This is more evidence god makes people stupid. The creationists have this childish fantasy there’s an invisible man in the clouds who make people out of nothing. I can’t imagine a more idiotic idea but millions of morons believe it. The result of this massive stupidity is the map above. That map should be 100% green. If it was a map of europe or japan, it would be 100% green. America is in a race with the Muslim countries for the title of most insane population of the world.
Comment by bobcu — December 25, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
As usual, this discussion about evolution is infested with brainless creationists. They provide information from the usual professional liars like the fake scientist Michael Behe and the subhumans who work for Answers In Genesis. The worst professional liars are the thugs who work for the Discovery Institute. These clowns have never discovered anything. Their job is to constantly spread lies about the hard work of real scientists. They laugh at their gullible creationist customers. What a hopelessly stupid country I live in.
Comment by bobcu — December 25, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
[...] Itse artikkeli on tässä. [...]
Pingback by Annoin itseni Nassakan Jesselle. Nyt hän ei enää soittele minulle. « maailmanmenoa vapaassa maailmassa… — February 27, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
There is a junk yard also across the street from my place. Still waiting, no airplanes, so I don’t think there is god. How on earth someone can use this as an argument against evolution. This argument is against creationism. It would be an act of god if this airplane appeared. Still waiting…
Comment by atheist — February 28, 2008 @ 3:01 am
Atheist:
The argument about the junkyard is quite simple and cannot be turned on its head the way you suggest.
Evolution proposed that random, undirected forces produced the complexity and design that you and your environment demonstrate. If a whirlwind goes through a junkyard which may have many of the components of a car, we would be very surprised to see a working car result. Yet this is a far more probable event than a living cell with its own power plant, propulsion, reproduction, etc. arriving out of a soup of chemicals. The more we understand about the complexity of the single cell, the more improbable its arising out of undirected random forces.
On the other hand, intelligent agents, such as human beings are very capable of creating designed complex things out of raw materials such as those found in your junk yard.
Comment by Seek4Truth — February 28, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
[...] Une carte montrant comment les théories de l’évolution (ou pas) sont enseignées aux USA [...]
Pingback by Guilhem Bertholet » Blog Archive » Toutes les cartes en main… — March 1, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
I just turned it on its head so why was it again that I can’t do it? I would be very surprised if a whirlwind would turn junk into a car like bible and creationists try to suggest. I would start believing in supernatural right away. But if there was a feedback mechanism, like in evolution, of course eventually we could see something coming out of the junk. But there is no feedback mechanism in a junk yard so only god can create a car from random, undirected mess. I don’t see any similarities between steel junk and molecular chemistry. But I see a lot similarities with the junk yard and the stories in the bible.
Of course, I’m being sarcastic since the junk yard can’t prove anything either way. But an intelligent human being would realize that my sarcasm is towards those who are so simple to think that a junk yard somehow proves god (poor god). Of course the same way it can be used to prove the opposite. Even more that way since random, impossible acts are god’s specialty.
Comment by atheist — March 6, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Atheist
The evolutionary mantra is that time +chance + natural selection produced the observed complexity we observe.
Random mutations are undirected. Natural selection cannot work without reproduction. So at the level of molecular chemistry you have no feedback mechanism. In fact abiotic genesis of life goes against scientific laws as the famous “spontaneous generation” experiments showed.
So in conclusion, only God is able to create a functional living being from the raw chemical elements. To believe otherwise requires tremendous faith and incredible odds and goes against sound scientific laws.
Western science got its foundation with many Christians who recognized that a God of order would behave in predictable ways that could methodically be discovered. This is very different than the capricious gods of mythology.
Comment by Seek4Truth — March 10, 2008 @ 3:05 am
Mantra is a word related to religion! So using it as a negative term here, interesting.
Not all atoms stick together forming molecules. Even temperature, pressure etc give feedback in this process.
Mutations cannot be undirected if you believe in god. Quite a jump from mutations and natural selection to your “conclusion”. You lost me there.
There is no scientific law against abiotic genesis. Quite the contrary, there are around dozen theories about it at the moment. “There is no God” is a direct quote from the bible. So I read the bible like you read the science book.
This “my god is better than yours” is always an interesting argument. I assume you are christian. As all studies show chrisitians earn less money than other believers. They also steal more, beat their wives more, are less educated… the list is long. Even their prayers have been shown statistically to hurt sick people.
Comment by atheist — March 11, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Okay, now just take a minute and think. Do you know for sure that there isn’t a god? No. Do you know for sure that there is a god? You say no. Now if you are right and there is no god, then after you die you have no problems.However, if I am right than you spend the rest of eternity burning in unquenchable flames. If you believed in God and got saved, you wouldn’t have anything to worry about. You would either be on your way to heaven, or just cease to exist. If you didn’t believe in God and get saved, you would either burn in hell, or just cease to exist. Which makes sense logically? To know for sure that you are covered, or to run the risk of burning eternally?
Comment by GodIsReal — March 18, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Also, if you say that America is a stupid country for believing in God, what are you doing here?!? America was founded on the Bible. Haven’t you heard the Pledge of Allegiance? It clearly states that America is ‘under God’! If you think America is stupid, go move to some other country.
Comment by GodIsReal — March 18, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
The book of Revelation in the Bible WILL happen! Mark my words, there will be a World War III concerning Israel and her surrounding Muslim countries. You may call me a stupid 13 year old teenager who doesn’t know anything, but MARK MY WORDS World War III WILL come!
Comment by GodIsReal — March 18, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Atheist
In many ways evolution and naturalism are worldviews that are committed to by faith. Although you may not have considered this before, your pre-commitment to the axioms of these worldviews are not based on proof but on your own choice whether to believe them or not.
When I said that mutations are undirected, I was saying it from your atheistic framework. Given your framework there is no intelligent guidance to mutations. Clearly valence electrons, etc. will have an effect, but there is no inherent chemical property that will cause atoms to form amino acids, RNA, DNA, cells, etc. We know that the incredibly dense information content in DNA is a blueprint that directs the creation of these complex proteins and assembles them into such highly functional self-supporting, self-reproducing building blocks of life.
Before DNA, we have no plausible mechanism for organizing this level of complexity and design. DNA is an encoding of information and therefore itself begs the question of what intelligence was transmitting this message through DNA encoding.
From my worldview, there is no need for directed mutations. There is simply an intelligent source for the information encoded in the DNA.
The law of biogenesis is one of the laws of biology that states that life does not come from non-life. Please tell me how I am quoting that out of context.
I appreciate the fact that you are familiar with the Bible. Have you read it yourself?
Comment by Seek4Truth — March 19, 2008 @ 1:09 am
To GodIsReal:
If you’re a 13 year old, I want you to know that I don’t consider you stupid, but rather ignorant. There is a significant difference that I hope you understand.
- Choosing to believe something because it’s the best way of “hedging your bets” may be logical from an egocentric standpoint (”this is what works best for me”), but is not a logical argument to support the correctness of a theory in scientific terms.
- The appeal to “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is a ridiculous claim to support that America was founded on the bible. The pledge of allegiance did not exist when our nation was founded, and the original version that our nation used for more than 50 years did *not* have the words “under God”. (They were later added during the era of McCarthyism)
Comment by Jason — March 19, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
I may have made some mistakes in my comments, but I still hold to what I said in comments one and three. Do you know that the Bible says that there were mountains in the bottom of the sea (Jonah 2:5-6), yet we found it out only this century? Do you know that the Bible said the world is round before we found out for ourself (Isaiah 40:22)2 Peter 3:10 states about atomic fission, and much more is in the Bible before it was proved! There is nothing in the Bible that you can prove is wrong scientifically!
Comment by GodIsReal — March 22, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
Atheist is just my screen name. I don’t know if there is god(s) and I don’t think that is even an interesting question. If there are gods out there they have clearly unable or chosen not to communicate with us. Do we know if god is powerful or evil or good or even intelligent? If god is just a set of physical rules he/she laid out and can’t even break himself then we have to really think that what is our definition of god. The biggest modern day miracles that god has done are Mary shaped mold on a toast and number 19 that comes up so many times in Quran. If I should bet on whether there is god or not I would put my money on no.
If a photon knocks out an electron and causes a change in a chemistry that follows physical rules and then causes a change in a cell that follows code programmed in that molecule I don’t know where the miraculous space daddy part is. If the change would happen on the other side of the world or would alter the color of the sun then there would be a miracle. And DNA didn’t carry all this complex today’s information from day one as some people seem to think. And if god is so powerful it can create life from non-life why he needs DNA? Why aren’t we all born from non-life. To me the mythical believes are not the answer. They raise more questions that they answer.
If someone believes in science/evolution/gravity… like in a religion, shame on them. Science is just a sequence of observations, experiments, trials and errors. Unlike religion that holds the old myths as facts no matter what happens.
I have never read bible. I heard it’s beautiful poetry though. I just used online service to search for that sentence to prove that you can read books the right way and the wrong way. If we don’t know how life started is not a proof of god. That’s how I cannot follow the chain of evidence to the “conclusion”. Scientists often say that “I believe” my theory is right. But we are talking about theory that is open to a public critisism and peer review. The world view is still based on proven. We have shown that the earth orbits around the sun even though some churges still believe the opposite.
It was a revolutionary finding when people discovered that for example there won’t be maggots in meat if it hasn’t been exposed to flies. Before that it was believed that life can start from non-life. That is not the same thing as the start of all life on earth. That is completely out of context.
Comment by atheist — March 24, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Now that I read these other comments: I really enjoy discussing with people like Seek4Truth who is clearly educated, intelligent person. But for the rest of you let me remind you of a joke that you must have heard about this guy who stood on the roof of his half underwater house afer Katrina. The water level is rising and several boats and helicopters etc. ask him if he needs to be rescued. He always refuses and replies that god will rescue him. Then he of course drowns and in heaven he asks god why he didn’t rescue him. And the god says, I sent you boats and helicopters..but you refused.
If there is a place like hell I’m quite sure all these bible/quran people will end down there and they will ask god why me? And the god may say something like I gave you eyes, I gave you brain, I even sent you Galileo, Darwin, Einstein… But you still refused to see the beauty of my creations and insist believing in these fairy tails created by evil people.
I’m so grateful that I have been able to live my childhood without being brainwashed way or the other. I can take a look at the issue from all the perspectives and freely form my opinion. And many of these comments people write here make me so sad; not everybody can be saved from religion.
Comment by atheist — March 24, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Atheist,
In the maggot/flies experiment it was shown that what people had superstitiously believed to be the spontaneous generation of life from non-life was actually just another example of life producing life. This principle of biogenesis is a universally recognized law of biology to which we have no known exception.
Now you happen to believe that life originated on the planet from a non-living source. (If you want to argue that it was brought by extra-terrestrials, this is simply moving the problem to a different planet). Can you not concede therefore that you are holding to this belief out of faith, since we have no evidence for it?
Of course you believe that eventually we will be able to scientifically discover how this happened. But this is again an example of faith.
This tenet of abiogenesis is required for a totally naturalistic worldview, which you have chosen to intellectually commit to at this time.
I am not saying that you do not have evidence that can be interpreted to support this world view, but in the final analysis, you accept it in faith.
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 3, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Dear Atheist,
In the vein of telling stories, here is another one. “A policeman was walking down the street and came across a drunkard fumbling around under a street light. He asked the drunkard what he was doing. The drunk man replied ‘I am looking for my keys.’ ‘Where did you lose them?’ the policeman asked. ‘Oh, over there, but the light is better over here.’ :-)
So in looking for evidence of the supernatural and the spiritual, perhaps we are being as silly as the drunk man in limiting ourselves to the tangible.
The reason why this debate is significant is because our very existence is evidence of a powerful, intelligent and benevolent being. Romans 1:20 states the obvious that the Creator’s attributes are evident in what He has created, so we are without excuse in ignoring Him. The scale of creation speaks to His power. The complexity and design of creation speaks to His intelligence. The aesthetic beauty and goodness speaks to His benevolence. Of course this begs the question of the problem of evil which I will leave for another post.
It would make sense that this God would communicate with us and in the Bible we have recorded many instances where God entered time and space and communicated with His creation. One of the most dramatic being the empty tomb that was celebrated a couple of weeks ago. This year is called 2008 for a reason. The places, times and people in the Bible can be verified with archaeological evidence which is mounting every day.
But since God is not Himself a physical being, we can see the most direct and compelling evidence in the spiritual realm. We can communicate with God personally. There are many people whose lives have been transformed from slavery to their own passions and pride to lives of love and peace. This is a repeatable experiment which you can try for yourself if you wish to discover the truth about God.
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 3, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Great site, everything is useful, everything is helpful, keep up the good work
Comment by ultimate hgh treatments — April 5, 2008 @ 10:52 am
If someone “believes” in abiotic genesis without evidence it is as silly as believing that killing somebody allows us to do sin (the principle of Christianity). This doesn’t mean that scientist couldn’t keep doing what they do best: explore and explain how life and nature works. Science has pretty good track record unlike god. Earth is round, we orbit the sun, maggots come from flies, there is evolution… These are examples where church/god had to admit that they were wrong opposing the science. I can’t even imagine how Christians felt when pope had to admit and apologize for these. Again, you have completely misunderstood science, there are no religious-universal laws there. You cannot apply guide lines of food safety/epidemiology to other fields of science any more you apply rules of tax law to football. It’s still safe to eat unexposed meat, abiotic start of life would be way more complicated and rare incidence. I know many biologist and none of them believe in start of life as any mythology describes it.
I don’t believe in abiogenesis as a religious fact. But I believe that if Christianity has been wrong in every single fact so far it most likely keeps being wrong also in the future. Should I trust (notice not believe) someone who has been systematically lying or the one who has been consistently right? And bible is the one that suggests life started from (was it) clay. How god can create life from non-life if it’s not possible? And if he can who created then god if life/god cannot start without creation?
Many people communicate with god. They also fly planes against sky scrapers or burn their followers alive or just lie about how world is constructed. The history was already recorded 2000 years ago. No miracles were reported. Even older parts of bible describe no miracles. They were added much later. People should be also aware of the canonical problems etc that bible has. Bible is as reliable as any mythological text to explain anything, and there is so many of them. I know religion has helped many drug addicts/murderers/alcoholics and that is good. But using religion to explain something is another thing. I keep looking for the keys no matter how dark it may sometimes be rather than stay in the simplifying beam of light that blinds us from seeing the beauty and complexity of this amazing place we live in.
Comment by atheist — April 7, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
When I look into creationism and see that there are people out there who genuinely believe the world was created in six days a few years ago (six, not seven – I’m not paying for your lunch breaks …), I think to myself “Wow, and I thought Scientologists were crazy …”
Comment by Anonymous — April 14, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Christian creationism, Scientologist space opera or Maori god pulling land out of the ocean with fishing line are all equally crazy. They only make sense if you were taught them as facts as a kid. You would still believe in tooth fairy if your parents hadn’t revealed the truth.
Comment by Anonymous2 — April 14, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Atheist,
You are saying that believing in abiotic genesis without evidence is silly. But yet we do not have any evidence that this occurred or is even possible.
I still maintain that you are “believing” in this hypothesis without evidence because it completes your worldview without referencing the supernatural.
You believe in the theory of evolution. You see certain aspects of it validated in the ability of species to adapt to their environment. It resonates with your values and agendas, therefore you choose to trust what it postulates about the past, even though we have no evidence.
Let’s face it. This is faith.
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 15, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Atheist,
You have been making a number of statements about Christianity. I have been trying to focus on the specific subject at hand, but I think it is time to address them.
Every worldview (including naturalism -the rejection of the supernatural- which I assume you ascribe to) has to answer basic questions for us.
What am I
Where did I come from (the subject of this discussion)
What is my purpose (source of meaning)
What is the basis for right and wrong.
The answers to these questions will drive our decisions and actions.
So if a Muslim believes that he will go to heaven for “killing the infidel”, he will be motivated to fly planes into towers.
If an atheist believes that:
(1) humans are biological machines that have arrived through a process of time and chance and therefore have no inherent value.
(2)the highest purpose is survival and that it is “survival of the fittest”.
They will be motivated to take advantage of/ eliminate the weak for the purpose of enhancing their power and chances of survival. Given this worldview, it is now wonder that Hitler practiced eugenics and Stalin and Mao murdered millions based on their atheistic evolutionary world view.
other atheists may find their actions repulsive, but they have no basis to say that they are wrong. In fact they proceed quite naturally from the axioms of the common world view.
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 15, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Now to address Christianity more particularly. It is a worldview that gives these answers to the questions:
Man is uniquely created by God to be similar to him. God considers each life valuable.
Man’s goal is to aspire to the character qualities of God, such as love, justice, integrity, patience, wisdom etc.
You can see how this worldview gives intrinsic value to each human life (I imagine that you intuitively agree with this principle. You can also see how valuing character traits over power or possessions leads to much more stable society.
Yes there are those who call themselves Christian who do not act consistently with these principles. Just as thankfully you do not act out the logical implications of your belief system. These nominal (in name only) Christians have been influenced by the secular culture to compromise their principles in pursuit of power or pleasure. You too have been influenced by our Judeo-Christian past or even your own intuition to value human life and belief in the concepts of right and wrong, despite your worldview.
This basic framework is intuitively obvious, though not universally accepted. We have more specify insight through the Bible.
The Bible is a unique book in that it is not merely legend such as the Maori creation legend, but rather mentions specific people, times and places and can be historically verified or refuted. Archaeology in the Middle East continues to corroborate the specific events & people recorded in the Bible. Many skeptic has attempted to attack the historicity of the Bible only to realize their error. Even the miraculous accounts in the Bible have support from extra-Biblical historian. (c.f Josephus, etc.)
Man chose to reject God’s guidance and is in a state of rebellion and inability to do what they know is right. God entered time and space in becoming the man, Jesus Christ. He revealed God’s character to us and loved us enough to die in our place. His death and resurrection, not only atoned for the wrongs that we could never pay for, but they also showed a pattern, that in dying to our selfish desires, God will give us a new life with greater moral power. I can personally attest to being unable to attain God’s standards until I could humble myself and accept God’s oversight and empowerment.
Your point that Christianity is about us finding forgiveness through another man’s death is misunderstood reference to this crucial point. Jesus could have chosen to escape at any point, but he chose to endure the agony because He loved you. Through His death, you now have access to forgiveness and a relationship with God. The choice whether to pursue this relationship lies with you.
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 15, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
To address your statement:
Let me go back to your initial story. You have this junkyard across the street, yet you never see an airplane produced. A functional airplane would need more than metal parts in approximately the right shape. (You might on occasion get clouds in the shape of an airplane). But it would need a control system that was designed to produce power and control that power from the cockpit. A functional cell is far more complicated that an airplane (have you ever seen an airplane reproduce itself). But an intelligent God could take the raw material out of the earth and encode instructions into the DNA and form the power plant and reproductive systems etc. given His power and intelligence.
Given the assumption of a supernatural God, it is very plausible that He could, given His assumed intelligence and power, arrange matter into a living being.
Without such intelligence and purpose-driven power, matter is unable to create life out of non-life.
I understand that you struggle with whether God is a valid assumption. But once having assumed God, the rest flows naturally.
Does this not make sense to you?
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 15, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Believing in abiotic genesis without evidence is silly, that’s why I don’t do that. Only religious people do that (bible describes abiotic genesis right?). As a scientist I can see how religiously raised people can go wrong here so let’s be very careful: There are dozen theories about how life could have started abiotically. Scientist who works on his/her theory must have some faith in their own theory. But this faith is more like supporting your football team. You know that you are unlikely the winner. I would say drive is more accurate word than belief. Once experiments, observations and evidence supports one theory you give up your wrong theory because scientist are after the truth. Now, there are dozens of religions on earth and they all contradict each other but still you have to believe in yours because it comes from your family tradition. There is a huge difference here even if Seek4Truth is trying to make science and religion somehow comparable.
Those dozen theories about abiotic genesis may all be wrong. We may never find out how life started. Still, we cannot stop searching for answers (remember this is NOT religion). Maybe we want to know how god started the life, if that expression is more acceptable to religious people? I checked and bible does not describe how life started! Bible does not describe how modern medicine or electronic communication works. Still, religious people use those, although church was first against the principals they are base on. I just don’t understand why religious people are against everything that is based on facts even though history shows that even christians adopt those discoveries eventually.
If science does not know answer to something now does not mean that randomly picked alternative solution must be then automatically right. That is the twisted logic church has been trying to use for centuries.
Evolution is no more a theory and it has never been religion. Even catholic church has admitted that. There are cults in the US that still claim otherwise. Like there is the cult that believes in geocentricism. There are no experiments, observations or evidence against evolution. Information is available. Seek4Truth admitted that the truth (key) is not important but being in the light is the only thing that matters. Is lying a sin?
Comment by Atheist — April 15, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Again the same twisted logic: if Mao was atheist and killed people there must be god. Or not believing in mythical book does not give you moral guidance so there must be god.
Bible does not tell us the meaning of life or source of it. Bible can be read any possible way you want. It teaches intolerance, cruelty, violence and lacks almost all moral values accepted in modern society. Also, the completely opposite can be found too. God is sometimes described as powerful/wise and sometimes he gets tired, angry, changes his mind, regrets… and there is many gods in bible too.
Bible describes some events that really happened but it doesn’t mean that supernatural/spiritual parts of the book are true. Again, very twisted logic. Almost, any movie could be called documentary with this logic.
Luckily we don’t use bible to determine what is right and wrong.
Science does not tell us what is right or wrong either. So, again, let’s draw some conclusions from that…
God created us as logical creatures so being illogical must anger him.
Comment by Atheist — April 15, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
>Through His death, you now have access to forgiveness and a relationship with God.
This is the mantra (this time it really is since it has no explained meaning) of christianity. In 2000 years no church has been able to explain this and bible says nothing. How does this work? Why death of someone makes difference? Is this some kind of law even above gods that by sacrificing your son you can change the rules of the world? I thought god was omnipotent. I thought bible gives answers. I want to see the law that governs gods. God is hiding that from us.
If this mantra makes someone feel good it’s okay. But also heroin makes you feel good. To me both are artificial means to avoid seeing the, sometimes unpleasant, real world. Truth is sometimes painful but I still prefer it over numbness.
Comment by Atheist — April 15, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
>You have been making a number of statements about Christianity. I have been trying to focus on the specific subject at hand, but I think it is time to address them.
If christianity is your proof then it’s quite logical to show how this belief system is wrong.
>Every worldview (including naturalism -the rejection of the supernatural- which I assume you ascribe to) has to answer basic questions for us.
No they don’t, you can’t make any rules here. And no, I don’t ascribe to any religion.
>What am I
Bible really makes me to ask this question. No big surprise that the answer is not there. But there is lots of books about that (biology, physiology, psychology, chemistry…)
>Where did I come from (the subject of this discussion)
Also, bible raises this question without any answer. Luckily we have quite a lot of information about this too.
>What is my purpose (source of meaning)
Why do you think you even have a purpose? Again, outside of bible you have chances of finding some answers.
>What is the basis for right and wrong.
Well, according to you flying planes against sky scrapers is right. Bible gives contradictionary information so anything you do can be good or bad.
>So if a Muslim believes that he will go to heaven for “killing the infidel”, he will be motivated to fly planes into towers.
And how is religion making more stable society again?
>If an atheist believes that:
(1) humans are biological machines that have arrived through a process of time and chance and therefore have no inherent value.
According to bible human life has no value since life never ends. To a nonbeliever life is more valuable.
>(2)the highest purpose is survival and that it is “survival of the fittest”.
They will be motivated to take advantage of/ eliminate the weak for the purpose of enhancing their power and chances of survival.
I have tried to emphasize this but one more time (they must have really brain washed you as a kid): Evolution is not a religion. Evolution is merely an observation how species evolved. It gives no ethical or moral advise to anybody. Atheism and evolution are different things too. Evolution is nowadays taught as part of christianity by major churches.
>Given this worldview, it is now wonder that Hitler practiced eugenics and Stalin and Mao murdered millions based on their atheistic evolutionary world view.
other atheists may find their actions repulsive, but they have no basis to say that they are wrong. In fact they proceed quite naturally from the axioms of the common world view.
What is your basis of saying that destroying world trade center was right and holocaust was not? I’m not aware of any axioms and yes I have basis to say they were wrong.
Comment by Atheist — April 16, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
>Man is uniquely created by God to be similar to him.
Yes, god has many human weaknesses, emotions and even family structure. And no, many parts of bible also describe that god has supernatural powers.
>God considers each life valuable.
Nope. Hitler, Mao, Stalin. God was having a nap or what? Also god tells us to “… go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”
>Man’s goal is to aspire to the character qualities of God, such as love, justice, integrity, patience, wisdom etc.
And also war and violence. “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.”
“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36 ”
God is also very much against women and homosexuals.
>You can see how this worldview gives intrinsic value to each human life (I imagine that you intuitively agree with this principle. You can also see how valuing character traits over power or possessions leads to much more stable society.
Nope, I give human live more value than christianity. In order to build society based on christian values you should kill so many people, ban education, freedom of speech etc. (so called iranian model that christians try to introduce in the US too) Eventually all infrastructure would fail since they are all based on scientific principles.
Also universal lobotomy would create very stable society. If that is god’s goal then he would have created us as sheep.
>Just as thankfully you do not act out the logical implications of your belief system.
I’m not a hypocrite like christians so I always act out my beliefs.
Comment by Atheist — April 16, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
>The Bible is a unique book in that it is not merely legend such as the Maori creation legend, but rather mentions specific people, times and places and can be historically verified or refuted.
Nothing in biblical genesis can be verified. Quite the opposite:
In Genesis 1:1, the earth and “heaven” are created together “in the beginning,” whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.
In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?
The first of two contradictory creation accounts. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19).
This is my first time reading bible and what a disappointment. Ultimate nonsense. I haven’t read the Maori legend but it can’t be worse than this.
Comment by Atheist — April 16, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Atheist,
We certainly seem to have sparked a lively and interesting discussion.
I do not have time to address all your points at this sitting, but let’s begin with the first.
The following points are true
A) You believe abiotic genesis to have happened
B) You have no evidence supporting that belief
Now you may try to get into epistemological questions of how your belief is falsifiable through science and mine are not.
Yes there might be a dozen theories about how this might have occurred. And the scientists commitment a particular theory is tenuous because the theory is falsifiable. But this just about “how” abiotic genesis occurred, not “if”. So even if your favourite theory is put into question, the faith in abiotic genesis leads the scientist to hypothesize another one.
But why should you believe in abiotic genesis to start with, when it goes against everything we observe?
Well it is the only way to answer the question “where do I come from” without postulating a living, intelligent source.
Therefore this belief in abiotic genesis does arise from a naturalistic world view.
We have to be honest, you like any other human have a worldview and this filters/influences what you choose to believe.
Because we are talking about origin which was an unobserved event in the past. Nothing can prove conclusively either evolution or special creation.
If you were to be able to create life in a test tube that would not necessarily prove to me that this is how life originated in the past. It would only be evidence that it was possible.
On the other hand, if God were to thunder out “let there be life” and a frog appeared in front of you. This again would not prove that this is what happened in the beginning. Also your naturalistic presuppositions would make you question your senses.
Another example of filtering based on world view. But you have to at least acknowledge that you are human and that you have to be aware of your own biases in weighing the evidence.
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 17, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
I know, and it may look like I have sometimes way too much time.
No, I know abiotic genesis must have happened. I have never heard anybody even suggesting otherwise. No organic compound could have prevailed in the conditions of early planet earth, let alone the time before planets. This has nothing to do with belief and evidence is quite obvious.
Whether this abiogenesis was aided by god or not is the only question. There is no way to prove way or the other so that is not even an interesting one. But interesting fact is that bible can be shown to be unreliable like also the opinions of christian authorities/church. Same cannot be said about science. So if someone still wants to believe the church that is okay as long as it is private and is not requirement to other people including (especially) the kids. To me, the only interesting question is that why christians still after centuries of defeats still are fighting against everything new? Do they ever learn? Only religious people I respect are amish, they walk the walk. Others just silently accept every scientific discovery after a short fight.
I don’t believe/support in any of the dozen theories since that is not my field. But I would believe in god if he made frog appear in front of me. And that is the problem, god does not do that. Would you believe if scientists showed you that earth orbits the sun? Oh yeah, they did that!!
Scientists do use hypothesis when considering options but they are not allowed to use them when presenting facts. I know from experience how strict the reviewers for scientific publications are. Your paper trail must be flawless. The religious paper trail is flawed. Also, since god does not make frogs (or airplanes) appear we have to only hypothesize about his existence.
My only world view is honesty and truth. If that filters my believes I think that is acceptable.
Comment by Atheist — April 17, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
You have stated that the evidence for abiotic genesis is quite obvious.
Please provide this evidence. I am not aware of any shred of evidence for abiotic genesis beyond the “well we are here, so abiotic genesis must have occurred.”
This is an example of faith.
Every time you millions of people open can’s each day, they are reinforcing the concept that abiotic genesis does not occur. The can of sardines is a far richer mixture than the primordial soup, it contains proteins, dna and intact cell structures which are highly complex. But still no life spontaneously forms.
Similarly if you take a frog and put it into a blender and “disorganize” its components. You do not expect that frog to hop out even if you wait for a million years. It does not matter what energy you subject that very rich organic mixture too, life does not form spontaneously.
Then there is the complexity of a single cell with its own ATP energy power plant. Half of our body’s weight in ATP is produced and consumed every day. This complex spinning motor is beyond our ability to reproduce with all our intelligence and yet a single cell cannot last with out it.
Then there is the requirement for cell’s to reproduce. Clearly natural selection cannot work without reproduction. Making a machine is one thing. Making a machine that can reproduce itself is a whole order of magnitude more complex.
There are many other examples that show the immense faith that it requires to believe in abiotic genesis.
Can we not simply be honest and say that you hold to this tenet by faith?
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 28, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
If you agree that you are alive and you agree that conditions in early universe or earth were too hostile for life then you must agree that life started. Or otherwise you must believe that life was always here. I’m not aware of any religion or science that claims that life has always been here. Very simple. I don’t see any faith part here.
So now we know that life must have started from non-life. I say that I don’t know how life started and you say that you do know how. The burden of evidence is clearly on your side.
I understand your only evidence so far has been that if you don’t understand something there must be a god. If you don’t understand something you can educate yourself instead of listening to some lies from a guy who is supposed to be right only because he is wearing a funny hat. And I have already shown that the guy in the funny hat lies. I know that religious people don’t need evidence and they are supposed to believe everything. And since there is many belief systems on earth we know that they can’t all be right. You just pick one based on where you are born. This must be a troubling thought even for religious people requiring no evidence.
>You do not expect that frog to hop out even if you wait for a million years. It does not matter what energy you subject that very rich organic mixture too, life does not form spontaneously.
Did the guy in the funny hat say that, or where do you get this?
Comment by Atheist — April 28, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Dear atheist, you have clearly demonstrated your faith here.
Your reason for believing in abiotic genesis is “because we are here”. You have no evidence that abiotic genesis is possible. All scientific experiments show the opposite. We demonstrate this millions of times a day. But you wish to ignore the scientific, verifiable, repeatable, tangible evidence due to your philosophic pre-commitment to naturalism that excludes the possibility that God or the supernatural could be involved.
That is undeniable faith that stands in the face of evidence.
Independent of organized religion, an unbiased look at the evidence of design should lead to the logical conclusion that there is a designer.
Your logic is sound. Either matter always was, or life always was. Since matter cannot give rise spontaneously to life, but life can give rise to matter. Therefore it is logical that life always was. The life that always was, must have the intelligence and power to give rise to the complexity and vastness we see.
The obvious conclusion for every unbiased observer is that there was an intelligent living source.
Your bias against religion is because you have seen human nature abuse religion to control others using deceit. Even though this is expressly counter to what that religion teaches.
Using this logic I could disregard all science because I know some scientists are human and follow their biases and not the scientific method.
After all the Galileo controversy was not because the Bible said the sun revolved around the earth but rather because Aristotle did. The scholars were unwilling to abandon their scientific theory in the face of facts.
The right answer is to be honest with ourselves and use all the tools around us to gain knowledge
By not acknowledging your bias and faith, you cannot evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant your faith. You will blindly follow evolution in spite of the facts, just like the dark ages followed Aristotle’s theories in spite of the facts.
Comment by Seek4Truth — April 29, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
You have clearly not read any of the earlier posts. I have demonstrated no faith. Let me go through it the fourth time, really slow: I make no claims about god’s involvement. Life on earth started abiotically, with or without god. Even according to the bible it was abiotic. If there was no life first and then there is life that is the definition of abiotic. Where is the faith?
>Your reason for believing in abiotic genesis is “because we are here”.
No, I know we are here. There is no belief.
>All scientific experiments show the opposite. We demonstrate this millions of times a day.
Can you include your reference? Funny that fundamentalist Christian is telling a scientist how to do science. We are in a loop. Go back couple of posts, we covered this one already. I have noticed that when religious people get to a dead end they go into this “la-la land” and start repeating same meaningless, irrelevant sentences like a broken record.
>But you wish to ignore the scientific, verifiable, repeatable, tangible evidence due to your
Reference please?
>philosophic pre-commitment to naturalism that excludes the possibility that God or the supernatural could be involved.
Not me. I only believe verifiable sources. No philosophy or religion here. Tell me who created god if nothing can start from scratch?
>Independent of organized religion, an unbiased look at the evidence of design should lead to the logical conclusion that there is a designer.
Logic, where?
>Since matter cannot give rise spontaneously to life, but life can give rise to matter
Says who?
>Therefore it is logical that life always was.
Again, so called negative proof (often used to proof impossible and untrue). If you don’t understand something there must be a designer. That is not logic. Also, god is not an organic life form.
>Your bias against religion is because you have seen human nature abuse religion to control others using deceit. Even though this is expressly counter to what that religion teaches.
Religion is what people who believe in it are. What else is it? You are against science because your religious leaders told you to. Bible is not against evolution or science. It is an interpretation by your cult leaders that abuse bible. Jesus was the biggest rebel of all times. He was against every established religious structure at the time. Now Christianity represents exactly what Jesus was against. You are victim of religious abuse yourself. You opposing science and opposing observing the nature around you is not only against human nature but it is against the very spirit of your inspirational character in the bible.
The problem with any religion is that by definition it is right. Since there is so many religions, by definition, some of them must be wrong. I’m against the religious abuse, yes. But I’m also against the original teachings of religion. The bible contradicts itself (yes I can give reference since my words can be verified) in many places. It also gives false information. It also gives no useful or conclusive information about anything (it is perfect source for abusive behavior). Now people who read this book are against people who design bridges, medicine and computers because these are not mentioned in the bible. Are you one of the people who abuse religion to control others?
>After all the Galileo controversy was not because the Bible said the sun revolved around the earth
It was the religious leaders doing exactly same what they are doing now! Bible could say something but god refuses to reveal us anything useful. God knows exactly as much as people at the time when religious texts are written.
>The right answer is to be honest with ourselves and use all the tools around us to gain knowledge
That’s all I’m asking. But that would end religion as explanation of how the world functions. Religion is against gaining knowledge.
>By not acknowledging your bias and faith, you cannot evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant your faith.
Show me the bias and I will correct it. Faith has no part in my life, I’m not religious. I evaluated the evidence and excluded all the faith part. Can you do the same?
>dark ages followed Aristotle’s theories in spite of the facts.
Please, this is not even funny. Are you saying that scientist are trying to take us back to the dark ages, not the religious people (again). The fact is a funny word from a religious person. Think about that word, and read couple of my previous posts too. Religion is about faith not facts. Leave those to science.
Comment by Atheist — April 29, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
And now that you are trying to flip history upside down here is pope’s apology:
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture….
– Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – 4th November,1992
think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture
Comment by Atheist — April 29, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Dear Atheist,
Let me clarify that I am not against science. The scientific method is an excellent way of systematically discovering knowledge about the tangible world. Interestingly, it was invented by Christians like Robert Grosseteste and expanded by Robert Bacon who believed that an orderly God would create a predictable world.
There is no inherent animosity and contradiction between religion and science. I have studied physics at the university level and I am employed in a scientific field and I also believe in God and I find no tension between the two.
As to the final point about Galileo and Aristotle, I do not take the Pope’s word as authoritative (despite his funny hat ;-)
Here is a historical perspective that will help you understand where I am coming from
Galileo history
Now back to the main point. Your faith in abiotic genesis.
The Law of Biogenesis has stood without contradiction since 1870.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Law+of+biogenesis
We have no know exception to this law, just as we have no known exception to the law of gravity.
Do agree that this is a true statement or not? If not, please cite a reference where someone has been able to produce life from non-life.
Despite this biological law, you choose to believe in abiotic genesis by unintelligent, undirected matter and chance. You clearly believe this by faith since you have no evidence to support it.
Comment by Seek4Truth — May 1, 2008 @ 1:17 am
I have replied to these already but I can do it again. Here is the link you refer to:
“Biological term coined in 1870 by English scientist Thomas Henry Huxley to express the hypothesis that living matter always arises out of other similar forms of living matter. It superseded the opposite idea of spontaneous generation or abiogenesis (that is, that living things may arise out of nonliving matter).”
1) If there has not always been similar forms of living organism on earth then they must have started at some point.
2) Conditions on young earth could not support current living organisms.
3) 1) + 2) -> Current form of life has a starting point.
If there are two possibilities (life has always been here or life has started at some point) and we can eliminate one then we know the other one is true. They must have taught you that. I think you are trying to make this something totally different. Life must have had a starting point, that is the only thing I’m saying. If you really disagree with it tell me the number above where you got lost? The faith part comes only if someone says that there was no god or there was god. I didn’t make any claims about that. God is not organic being that breaths ear and eats carbohydrates. If he is then the same harsh conditions would also apply to him. So god cannot be the same form of living matter as we.
>There is no inherent animosity and contradiction between religion and science
If religion tells you to believe something that is not true then that is a contradiction.
>I am employed in a scientific field and I also believe in God and I find no tension between the two.
If you worked e.g. in a souvenir shop in Utah I think you would have quite a tension handling the fossils that don’t exist.
>We have no know exception to this law, just as we have no known exception to the law of gravity
1) In your dictionary reference it is called a hypothesis, it is not law! 2) Wrong, there has been exceptions to law of gravity. Science develops all the time. Newton’s law of gravity does not apply to e.g. planet Mercury (Einstein was the first who was able to explain the orbit). This is exactly why you cannot apply hypothesis from 1870 today to something completely different. You have to look at the current state of science.
>Do agree that this is a true statement or not?
No, that is not correct statement. First, how would you know if life is starting spontaneously somewhere right now? Second, we have extracted dead molecules (DNA) from a cell and started life somewhere that did not contain that life before. The correct statement you are trying to say is: we have not generated life in a laboratory from basic elements. That does not mean it is not possible. You cannot formulate any logical equation from that that proves anything else except that it hasn’t been done in the laboratory. In the same way I can say that since you cannot show that spontaneous life is not starting somewhere right now, it is happening right now. Do you see the fault in your logic?
>you choose to believe in abiotic genesis by unintelligent, undirected matter and chance.
Those are really matters of belief and they have no place in my life.
Comment by Atheist — May 2, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
>Galileo history
I only read the first 10 lines and nothing wrong there. So, why should church repeat the same again and pick a side/belief and then find biblical justification for that and claim it is true no matter what evidence?
Comment by Atheist — May 2, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
I think that our respectful dialogue is making progess.
Obviously you and I are in perfect agreement with the statement that the current form of life had a starting point. Your logic is sound. Where we differ is the mechanism by which that life began.
I believe that it was created by God, you believe that it began by the spontaneous combination of inert chemicals.
Both of these statement are statements of faith, since there is no direct proof. My point with the Law of Biogenesis, is that the current state of science indicates that we know of no mechanism to create life from non-life. In cloning, we are still using life to produce life. So the weight of evidence makes your belief improbable. As you point out, it is not conclusive. Since neither you nor I are omniscient, life may be originating from non-life somewhere in the universe or some future scientist may discover a way of doing this. But it runs against what we currently know and experience.
The same argument of omniscience can be equally applied to the other side. Since you are not omniscient, you cannot conclusively rule out the possibility that God does exist and did create the world.
These beliefs are outside the realm of repeatable experiment since they are statements of the past. We may discover evidence that supports one hypothesis or the other, but they will never be 100% conclusive.
We both have looked at evidence and arrived at different conclusions, but these are rational or emotional decisions that are in no wise infallible.
To have an open and honest conversation, you need to acknowledge that you cannot irrefutable prove this assertion and so you held to it by faith.
>There is no inherent animosity and contradiction between religion and science
If religion tells you to believe something that is not true then that is a contradiction.
>I am employed in a scientific field and I also believe in God and I find no tension between the two.
If you worked e.g. in a souvenir shop in Utah I think you would have quite a tension handling the fossils that don’t exist.
>We have no know exception to this law, just as we have no known exception to the law of gravity
1) In your dictionary reference it is called a hypothesis, it is not law! 2) Wrong, there has been exceptions to law of gravity. Science develops all the time. Newton’s law of gravity does not apply to e.g. planet Mercury (Einstein was the first who was able to explain the orbit). This is exactly why you cannot apply hypothesis from 1870 today to something completely different. You have to look at the current state of science.
>Do agree that this is a true statement or not?
No, that is not correct statement. First, how would you know if life is starting spontaneously somewhere right now? Second, we have extracted dead molecules (DNA) from a cell and started life somewhere that did not contain that life before. The correct statement you are trying to say is: we have not generated life in a laboratory from basic elements. That does not mean it is not possible. You cannot formulate any logical equation from that that proves anything else except that it hasn’t been done in the laboratory. In the same way I can say that since you cannot show that spontaneous life is not starting somewhere right now, it is happening right now. Do you see the fault in your logic?
>you choose to believe in abiotic genesis by unintelligent, undirected matter and chance.
Those are really matters of belief and they have no place in my life.
Comment by Seek4Truth — May 5, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
My apologies, I did not finish editing the post, please disregard anything after my response to your first quote.
Comment by Seek4Truth — May 5, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Let’s look at another simple logical analysis
The cosmos (matter and energy) either had a beginning or it did not.
1) If matter and energy always was, we would have a contradiction with the law of entropy. Since all energy tends toward less useful forms of energy the universe should have experienced heat death.
2) If matter and energy began. Then at some point, there was nothing nothing and then at the next instant, all the matter and energy appeared. This defies the law of conservation of matter and energy.
Clearly there are logical problems with this as well.
The only logical conclusion is that in the beginning there was something or someone capable of creating matter and energy.
Let me know if you agree, or which point of this simple logic you do not follow.
Respectfully yours,
Comment by Seek4Truth — May 5, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
The point with the Galileo story is that unfortunately the scientific establishment which happened to be linked with the church was resisting revising its theories.
We both agree that refusal to be open to truth condemns you to living a lie.
In many ways the theory of evolution is in crisis. Are we objective enough to examine the facts or is there a precommitment to philosophic conclusions (naturalism) that prevents that.
Comment by Seek4Truth — May 5, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
>Let’s look at another simple logical analysis (1)
>Clearly there are logical problems with this as well. (2)
>The only logical conclusion is that in the beginning there was something or someone capable of creating matter and energy. (3