|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 08/20/2004 : 08:44:13
|
Personally im sick of creationists saying that evolution is not widely accepted by scientists, that and their claim that 'its just a theory' used against us like their are valid competing theories.
What we need is a clear, well-worded and spin proof statement which can be signed by all of the top biologists, zoologists, palentologists, evolutionary scientists etc. (folks who actually work in evolutionary related fields. The creationists can keep the engineers for their arguement.)
Something along the lines of,
We the signatories would like to officially recognize the overwhelmingly voluminous evidence supporting evolution as the driving force in all known speciation. Futhermore it should be noted that evolutionary theory is not currently challenged by any competing scientific theories.(translated into dumbass of course)
Not sure about that last line, it will be used against us im sure.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 11:05:02 [Permalink]
|
I love the idea, but I think that it needs to ignore creationism altogether and not make it clearly an us vs them issue. Really what I want is a statement that says 'this is the way it is' not 'our way is better than 'this' way. Why even acknowledge them as they have no bering on whether evolution is valid or not.
Personally I think we must use thier dirty tricks against them, because we are getting nowhere fast. (possibly going backward slowly even.)
sighs |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 11:23:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I love the idea, but I think that it needs to ignore creationism altogether and not make it clearly an us vs them issue. Really what I want is a statement that says 'this is the way it is' not 'our way is better than 'this' way. Why even acknowledge them as they have no bering on whether evolution is valid or not.
But isn't that what's done in classrooms across the country every day? I know my science teachers didn't mention "creationism".
Plus, most scientists are interested in doing science, not debating. That's why flashy and charming creationists win debates. |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
| Edited by - SciFi Chick on 08/20/2004 11:24:46 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 11:46:29 [Permalink]
|
I didn't quite find statistics, but I found this:
quote:
Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationist continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationist than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/evolution_debate.htm
And I found this (from the same source) very interesting:
quote:
Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that: 97% do not believe the world was created in six days. 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.
Has there ever been global statistics done?
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 12:04:44 [Permalink]
|
I went to public school in Michigan and we learned absolutely nothing about evolution. The biology class I took did not cover it at all.
quote:
But isn't that what's done in classrooms across the country every day? I know my science teachers didn't mention "creationism".
Mine didnt mention evolution either.
That and my statement was in regards to the other linked petition thing not public school ciriculum. They rightfully ignore creation already. (cough, cough, in most places) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 12:19:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I went to public school in Michigan and we learned absolutely nothing about evolution. The biology class I took did not cover it at all.
quote:
But isn't that what's done in classrooms across the country every day? I know my science teachers didn't mention "creationism".
Mine didnt mention evolution either.
 Dear me. That's awful.
quote:
That and my statement was in regards to the other linked petition thing not public school ciriculum. They rightfully ignore creation already. (cough, cough, in most places)
Oh. Sorry. |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2004 : 01:01:23 [Permalink]
|
Have no fear, the genetic sciences will soon do away with the creation nonsense all together. No longer are we piecing together the fossil record, we have the molecular trail and it is fairly complete.
Love that Steve project ,Dave. It's great.
BTW, you commented in another thread that evolution wasn't explaining the beginning of life. Actually, genetic science of evolution is pretty close and does include the initial events from which the first life arose. A lot of research is looking at RNA as the first molecules in the process. RNA sequences can arise out of inorganic molecules and can reproduce copies. See stuff by Joyce from the Scripps Institute for some examples. http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/publications.html
I do think we need to fight religious stupidism though. Religious stupidism is the movement to ignore science in favor of Biblical text. (I do not mean folks who wish to believe in religion are stupid, so please don't take offense.) |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2004 : 21:07:59 [Permalink]
|
| I'm unclear what distinction is being made between the first life to begin the evolutionary process and the evolutionary process itself. Perhaps if you elaborate on your reasoning I'll have a better idea what your are talking about when you say they are two separate things. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 00:11:00 [Permalink]
|
Evolution requires two things: "entities" (not necessarily anything more complicated than a molecule) which can reproduce themselves, and a method of selection. Ignoring the possibility of panspermia, there was a time on Earth when evolution could not take place, due to the lack of one or the other of the requirements.
One self-replicating molecule is fine and dandy, but if it replicates perfectly, there can't be any selection, and thus no evolution. At some point in time, a self-replicating molecule arose which could still make copies of itself even if imperfectly copied, and those different copies had either a varying likelihood of self-replicating, or a varying speed of self-replicating, either of which could be a mechanism of selection.
Technically speaking, this likely occured long before there was anything close to what we would call "life" (or even RNA), but the idea that evolutionary theories talk about the very start of the process (the "goo to you" theory) is flat-out wrong. That's what I was trying to get across in the other thread, in fewer words. creation88, if I'm not mistaken, once held the belief that the "theory of evolution" covered everything from the Big Bang onwards. It simply is not true. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 11:21:18 [Permalink]
|
Going back to the first post, I don't think a majority of people in this country believe in creationism, however, not long ago we had a heated debate over intelligent design on our board and one youngish advocate insisted we should teach ID along with evolution. ID has taken vogue as the way to counter evolution in school teachings--I hear that term more than creationism, especially in Texas, where school boards want equal time for creationism, but hey, they'll take ID. This argument led me to this site's forum, where I read a killer debate on ID--biologists, et al joined in. I can't find it now without going through scads of archives, but here's the link to the site:http://atheism.about.com/
On the same site, someone posted this recent article:
quote:
Bush policies stir up
scientific debate
Is the White House distorting
the scientific aspect of policymaking?
Controversy rises in election year
Physicist Richard Garwin receives the National Medal of Science from President Bush in November 2003. Months later, Garwin joined with other prominent scientists in signing a statement decrying Bush's handling of scientific issues.
By Matt Crenson
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:08 a.m. ET Aug. 16, 2004
With more than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners, having signed a statement (there's a link there to the statement) opposing the Bush administration's use of scientific advice, this election year is seeing a new development in the uneasy relationship between science and politics.
In the past, individual scientists and science organizations have occasionally piped up to oppose specific federal policies such as Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile defense plan. But this is the first time that a broad spectrum of the scientific community has expressed opposition to a president's overall science policy.
Last November, President Bush gave physicist Richard Garwin a medal for his "valuable scientific advice on important questions of national security." Just three months later, Garwin signed the statement condemning the administration for misusing, suppressing and distorting scientific advice.
SNIP
Politics and policy
Some scientists critical of the Bush administration make no secret that they would like to see the president defeated; in a separate letter (PDF file), four dozen Nobel laureates have endorsed John Kerry for president.
But signers of the declaration include scientists with ties to both Republican and Democratic administrations: Lewis Branscomb, a Harvard University professor, headed the federal Bureau of Standards in the Nixon administration. Russell Train was director of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Nixon and Ford and supported George H. W. Bush during the 1988 presidential campaign. Physicists Neal Lane and John Gibbons were both science advisers to President Clinton.
Full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5722898/
Here is the statment link: Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making
Personally, I find myself weary of the God vs no God argument--it's like flogging a dead horse or I'm just getting old; so, my primary concern lies with keeping God of out government and schools. I have enough ammunition for that. The Bush administration has appointed people who are just flat out regressive in regards to science. Dr. David Hager of the FDA was just one insane, desired appointment. OK, so he just ended up on the reproductive health advisory committee. 
And here's another link:
http://webexhibits.org/bush/17.html
BigPapaSmurf, scientists are making statements about evolution--these battles are fought on the school boards. When creationism or intelligent design does not make it into the classroom or textbook, it's a battle won over the fact that creationism just isn't a valid theory using scientific methods. But here in Texas, they keep pushing for it.... |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 20:05:31 [Permalink]
|
Since my perspective on evolution is heavily weighted with genetic science, I don't see the distinction between evolution and the very first molecular steps in the process. However, I do see where one could technically draw the line at RNA or amino acids or the molecules before amino acids or the elements and so on, so the choice of where to begin evolution and end abiogenesis is somewhat arbitrary. In other words, oh, I see what you are saying.
As to the science of evolution, I've been posting on these forums for years that evolution is a fact and it's time to get over it. Frankly, I think trying to compromise by going the ID route is just as bad science as denying evolution was. The ID believers just want to keep to their Biblical base. But there is no scientific evidence supporting ID any more than there was evidence for creation. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 21:52:01 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
Frankly, I think trying to compromise by going the ID route is just as bad science as denying evolution was. The ID believers just want to keep to their Biblical base. But there is no scientific evidence supporting ID any more than there was evidence for creation.
I've said it before, and I'll likely say it again after this, but ID is a political creation - a tool made specifically to facilitate religion getting a foothold in the public schools, mandated by the State - and like many political entities, it is bad science and bad religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
