97 – Where (and How) Evolution Is Taught In the US
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 @
…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 @
@ 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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
[...] Check out this map: Where (and How) Evolution is taught in the US [...]
Pingback by PorkBanana » Blog Archive » Evolution? — April 3, 2007 @
Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.
Comment by bevets — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
“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 @
If you understand evolution, you would know that it fully explains things like emotions, ego, etc.
Comment by ml — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
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 @
@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 @
@ 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 @
@Kevin
Things that are created by the same Creator tend to have similarities.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
Apologies for my spelling/grammatical errors; I was so aggravated that I didn’t proofread (d’oh!)
Comment by laelaps — April 3, 2007 @
The world was created 5 minutes ago. Prove me wrong.
Comment by Anonymous — April 3, 2007 @
Great post. Talk about a conversation starter!
Comment by rlwilliams — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
@ 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 @
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 @
I agree completely, Dayne.
Comment by Jarod — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
Ok, ok… so that wasn’t so brief, hah
Comment by laelaps — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
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 @
Sorry Jarrod, that churches comment was meant to be directed to Chad.
Comment by monkeyboy — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
D. Pahn,
When most people are on their deathbed, they ask for a Bible.
Comment by Chad Stroh — April 3, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
[...] 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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
…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 @
[...] about those crazy Creationists! You so [...]
Pingback by Back From Vacation « The Sound of EmCeeKhan — April 4, 2007 @
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 @
@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 @
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 @
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 @
… 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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] Where (and How) Evolution is Taught in the U.S. [...]
Pingback by blog.rightreading.com » Are We Evolving? — April 4, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] This is why I live in California. [...]
Pingback by Just Another Level of Indirection » Blog Archive » Now I remember…. — April 4, 2007 @
That’s funny considering that nearly all serious historians consider Jesus to be an actual historical person.
Comment by FraudWasteAbuse — April 4, 2007 @
“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 @
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 @
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 @
Did you uh… switch Ohio and Indiana? Because I’m really shocked by this.
Comment by IU Student — April 4, 2007 @
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 @
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 @
“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 @
[...] 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 @
[...] 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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
@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 @
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 @
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 @
@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 @
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 @
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 @
[...] 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 @
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 @
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 @
@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 @
@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 @
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 @
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 @
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 @
@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 @
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 @
@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 @
@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 @
@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 @
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 @
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 @
@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 @
@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 @
[...] 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 @
[...] 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 do