Challenge: Evolution Debate in the US settled

[NHBL]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

but the correctness of evolution vs creation science isn't the question that was posed. The original question was what it would take to put the issue to rest in the US school systems.
Personally, I doubt that it can be put to rest--many (not all, but many, IMHO,) won't be put off of their attempts to put their religion into the schools by anything so trivial as facts, no matter what should come out in the future.

 

[Adamanteus]

but the correctness of evolution vs creation science isn't the question that was posed. The original question was what it would take to put the issue to rest in the US school systems.
Personally, I doubt that it can be put to rest--many (not all, but many, IMHO,) won't be put off of their attempts to put their religion into the schools by anything so trivial as facts, no matter what should come out in the future.

I've just run through all the responses and found that only a couple of them actually answer my original question. It seems that a disturbingly large number of people (for this website) actually have bought into Creationist propaganda.

Let me be more explicit. Only in the US is creationism a significant political force. There is a good reason for this, and I'd like to know why. Let me also add that creationism has no scientific merit. It is purely a religious movement, with a political interest in subverting public education.

In the US, creationists have virtually no voice in university science departments. They only have power in public schools, where the decisions of curriculum are concluded by school boards, who are often either politically appointed, or are elected directly. In some communities, there are a vocal minority of parents who make a big fuss over this (usually at the prompting of either a local minister or an organization like the ICR), and school boards get scared that the parents will take it further. They don't want any trouble, and want to keep their jobs, so they just cave in.

So perhaps it's true what one poster said. Remove the states from the responsibility of school curricula and make it a federal responsibility.

 

[DuQuense]

Grand Tour

Jehovah Returns from his Grand Tour of the Galixcy, to see what his Toys are up to. Seeing the debate -Jehovah annonuces in a booming voice heard around the world, That Yes he had Built the Toy House.

 

[MerryPrankster]

"So perhaps it's true what one poster said. Remove the states from the responsibility of school curricula and make it a federal responsibility."

That would probably be unconstitutional. Plus, the potential for abuse grows the more centralized ANY governmental system becomes.

I'd rather have a few places teaching dubious scientific theories than the federal government dictating the content of schoolbooks down to the local-local-local level and possibly using that for totalitarian ends.

Remember, "power corrupts." Do you want any US President removing a predecessor from history books all over the country (just like Stalin cut Trotsky and others out)? Would you trust him (or her) with that kind of capability?

 

[Max Sinister]

Do you think such a president could actually be elected in the US without 1) anybody noticing what he's up to (who could warn the people) and 2) the Supreme Court or others stopping him? If yes, I'd say the state of democracy in the US ain't too good...

I feel sorry for the kids in Kansas whose chance to have a scientific career is spoiled because some wackos want it that way.

 

[Melvin Loh]

'Monkey Trial' 1925

WI the 'Monkey Trial' in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925 between William Jennings Bryan representing the Biblical Creationism side and Clarence Darrow representing the ACLU and entertaining the Evolutionary side, had developed more conclusively for 1 side or the other ? WI esp Bryans hadn't fallen into Darrow's trap, when the former was on the witness stand, of allowing for the possibility of 'millions of yrs' in interpreting the Bible, and WI bryan had managed to deliver the powerful Evolution-demolishing closing address he'd drafted, instead of being prevented from doing so by Darrow's waiving of his right to a closing address ?

 

[Max Sinister]

What is this "powerful evolution-damaging closing address" supposed to be?

 

[Melvin Loh]

Apparently, Bryan had prepared a very well thought-out close addressing each and every major Evolutionist argt- I haven't read it myself, this is according to an episode of THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE I saw last wk. He actually had this closing address published as a short book some time after the trial of John Scopes (for teaching Evolution and using textbooks advocating Evolution in contravention of Tennessee law) concluded.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

It is an interesting question because the fact that this controversy doesn't happen in many non US nations might indicate a real flaw in the US educational system which should be addressed. What it really is I can't guess because I know very little of non-US educational systems.

What I think might work would be a recognized standards organization for curriculums and textbooks. Sort of like the Accreditation Board for Schools or like the United Laboratories. This would be composed like all of them are and have the standard safeguards against corruption (i.e. pretty much even representation of all relevant interests and sponsorship by several large institutions who do business on their integrity). It would examine and approve or not approve curriculums and textbooks, it might or might not suggest changes, but would not write either curriculums or textbooks

(I think that there was some controversy involving creationism being taught as a viable alternative, and the Accreditation Board removing their accreditation from one or another school system but I may be wrong here. In any case the AB is not working if prevention of this controversy is one of its functions)

The hard part would be in getting people to accept it. A hallmark of such organizations is that the requirement that they be used is pretty much voluntary. Its mainly enforced by the public's belief in, and industry requirement of, their approval.

I can see the religous/rightist interests calling them a "left-wing secular humanist, conspiracy of communist professors," etc. but remember "against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain"

 

[Dunash]

Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism as an explanation of origins are science in the sense that neither has ever been observed actually taking place. Contrary to myth, no true evolution - not Darwinian, not Neo-Darwinian, not Lamarckian, not Macro,not Micro, not Gradualist, not Punctualist, not Convergent, not Dawkinsian etc - has
ever been observed. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a scientific fact are great con-men, and the story they tell is the greatest hoax ever. They do not have one iota of fact" (Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Director, US Atomic Energy Commission).

 

[Raymann]

I say creationism is wrong, but what is even more wrong is having the federal government force its beliefs on the states and parents. Why should someone in Washington have anything to say about how parents what their children taught in Florida? Whether or not is right is irreverent, its not their choice and should never be.

 

[David Howery]

Dunash> that's all true, and it should be presented as a theory... the most likely theory, but a theory. Of course, the same is true for a lot of science... we think we know about space, atomic physics, electricity, etc., but a lot of it is theorizing because we can't directly observe it. For that matter, a lot of history is conjecture as well, especially ancient history... a lot of this depends on a handful of written records or oral history that was written years or centuries after the fact... that's hardly absolute fact, but it's all there is to go on. I suppose a lot of what is taught should be prefaced with "We think this is what happened..."

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism as an explanation of origins are science in the sense that neither has ever been observed actually taking place. Contrary to myth, no true evolution - not Darwinian, not Neo-Darwinian, not Lamarckian, not Macro,not Micro, not Gradualist, not Punctualist, not Convergent, not Dawkinsian etc - has
ever been observed. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a scientific fact are great con-men, and the story they tell is the greatest hoax ever. They do not have one iota of fact" (Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Director, US Atomic Energy Commission).

Then how do you explain diseases becoming resistant to antibiotics?

 

[Dunash]

Antibiotic resistant diseases are not examples of evolution.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm

 

[Michael E Johnson]

---Jehovah Returns from his Grand Tour of the Galixcy, to see what his Toys are up to. Seeing the debate -Jehovah annonuces in a booming voice heard around the world, That Yes he had Built the Toy House.----


Wow we have a Deist here.Seriously,speaking as a recovering Baptist, the real reason that evolution is so resisted by theists is that it flys in the face of their belief of an "activist" god thats involved in everything. If evoultion is true,then if their god is real, hes indifferent at best and asleep at the wheel at the worst.Personally, I think the best evidence for a "god" thats not involved is recorded human history.If god is out there and cares for his "creation" he has done a piss-poor job with showing it.And please dont blame it on Satan-which as gods creation cant do anything that god doesnt let him do. Accepting creationism as truth despite all the evidence against it cant be done without turning off a part of your brain.It's one of the main reasons ( of many reasons) that many Christians,myself included,leave that faith. However as long as the United States remains the bastion of fundamentalism it is this will still continue to be a "debate".


PS- do the Muslims also teach a form of creationism? I wouldnt be surprised.Speaking of god screwing you over-once againn 100's of Muslim pilgrims were killed in a stampede during their Hajj ritual in Mecca where they symbolically stone the devil.This is nearly a yearly occurrance!! "God" usually lets these 3rd world types die from starvation,disease,war or natural diasters-but from stoning the devil? Jehovah you got alot of splannin' to do

 

[MerryPrankster]

"Do you think such a president could actually be elected in the US without 1) anybody noticing what he's up to (who could warn the people) and 2) the Supreme Court or others stopping him?"

Nixon and Clinton both used the IRS as a political weapon, plus Clinton had Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the episode with Elian Gonzalez, as well as unconstitutional wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

"If yes, I'd say the state of democracy in the US ain't too good..."

50% voter turnout is considered "high." Now we haven't gotten to the point where (like in many European states), expressing certain views is criminal ("anti-hate"), but with the Patriot Acts (#1 AND #2) and various other shenanigans, it looks like it CAN happen here.

Bush isn't Hitler, but he could very well be a Paul Von Hindenberg, setting the stage for someone far WORSE to come along later.

"do the Muslims also teach a form of creationism"

I think every religious faith has some notion of how the world came to be. The Greco-Roman religion apparently held that the universe was eternal and that the universe in fact created the gods, but that's a minority view (there are only a few Greco-Roman believers in the world).

 

[DominusNovus]

---Jehovah Returns from his Grand Tour of the Galixcy, to see what his Toys are up to. Seeing the debate -Jehovah annonuces in a booming voice heard around the world, That Yes he had Built the Toy House.----


Wow we have a Deist here.Seriously,speaking as a recovering Baptist, the real reason that evolution is so resisted by theists is that it flys in the face of their belief of an "activist" god thats involved in everything. If evoultion is true,then if their god is real, hes indifferent at best and asleep at the wheel at the worst.Personally, I think the best evidence for a "god" thats not involved is recorded human history.If god is out there and cares for his "creation" he has done a piss-poor job with showing it.And please dont blame it on Satan-which as gods creation cant do anything that god doesnt let him do. Accepting creationism as truth despite all the evidence against it cant be done without turning off a part of your brain.It's one of the main reasons ( of many reasons) that many Christians,myself included,leave that faith. However as long as the United States remains the bastion of fundamentalism it is this will still continue to be a "debate".


PS- do the Muslims also teach a form of creationism? I wouldnt be surprised.Speaking of god screwing you over-once againn 100's of Muslim pilgrims were killed in a stampede during their Hajj ritual in Mecca where they symbolically stone the devil.This is nearly a yearly occurrance!! "God" usually lets these 3rd world types die from starvation,disease,war or natural diasters-but from stoning the devil? Jehovah you got alot of splannin' to do

Yeah, the idea of an activist God never fit with me. My opinion is He's (not the God has a gender, but I'm not gonna call the Creator of the Universe an it) a kinda Wu Wei guy, you know, lazy fair. Gives me an excuse to sit on my ass all day.

Muslims definately believe in creationism. Hell, the extremists probably have evolution on their list of why the US is the "Great Satan".

 

[MerryPrankster]

"Hell, the extremists probably have evolution on their list of why the US is the "Great Satan"."

bin Laden sent an "open letter" to the West (that few in the US have read; I found it in a British paper) denouncing us for, in addition to the more well-known grievances like US troops in Saudi Arabia, homosexuality, lending at interest, "licentious" women (probably voting, driving cars, and not wearing tents), allowing men, not God, to determine laws (basically not being a theocracy), and various other things that we would need to give up to avoid war with "the Islamic nation." Evolution could be there, though I'll have to go find the letter again to see what exactly he said.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Antibiotic resistant diseases are not examples of evolution.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm

As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
So apparently, evolution does not exist unless a new species is introduced by every change?? Even Darwin didn't say that, evolution is the sum product of many small changes over time

Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance.
No argument here, this is, as I understand it, the process of natural selection. However, please note that the previous words also say this resistance is a GAINED trait
Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic.
Now its a lost trait, oh well, half empty or half full
No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
Please explain how the previous words imply anyone knows that the mentioned resistance to antibiotics involves the loss of genetic material. While you're at it please explain how this proves/disproves evolution. Evolution can't involve the loss of things?? So snakes losing their legs disproves evolution??

A new line of research has produced tantalizing results.Oh God!! Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress.
Please do an Internet seach on Lysenko and/or Lysenkoism
This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place,
Evolution is the changing of one species into another throught the culmination of "minor changes" over time. You've admitted the process exists but eliminated time from the equation. Since we dont have lifespans in excess of 10000 years we must extrapolate. If you're going to say that this means noone has ever observed evolution changing a microbe into a frog then I guess you're right. Please, however, do a search on Robert Occham
but not true evolution.

 

[Mark]

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, many conservative American Christians had little problem with an old Earth or evolution of existing life. The problem was how to get the first organisms and whether the evolution is directed. During the Fundamentalist-Modernist battles, evolution became a test of belief. One way to reduce the influence of creationist (and here I mean the strict forms, not God-directed evolution) thought would be to have something else become the litmus test for the Fundamentalists. Perhaps psychology (or one of the schools therein).

One note - referencing professors/PhDs/MDs as against or for evolution without giving their backgrounds is simply calling on their authority and has NO scientific value. An atomic scientist will generally have as much right to authoritatively pronounce on evolution as a paleontologist has to authoritatively pronounce on nuclear processes.