there is a great article in the January or February Nat. Geo (i forget wich one because i got them both the same day) on Darwin. He was hired as the ships naturalist.

A lighthearted look at evolution. This is how I feel sometimes. 8-)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/...15a223ee_o.jpg

Thanks, I'll have to look for that. It's interesting that Darwin was an eminent geologist in his time prior to his work on evolution. It was his geology work that landed him on the Beagle where he developed his interest as a naturalist. Feburary 12th marks the 200th aniversary of his birth.

He also destined for preisthood in the angalican church had he not accepted the job on HMS Beagle.

He struggled greatly with what his findings would mean to the theology of the day. He changed wording in 'On the Origin of Species' immediately before publication that he thought would somewhat placate the church.

You should pick up that issue. You'd enjoy the article. It talks about his rush to publish it when it became apparent that another scientist was coming to the same conclusions. That scientist was written about in an issue late last year.

The other scientist was Alfred Wallace, who independently came to the same conclusions on how biological forms evolve. They published their findings jointly. Incredible how they both studied living organisms in far different parts of the world and came to the same conclusions on evolution. They are actually regarded as co-discoverers of how natural selection explains evolution. I'll look up the article as soon as I can.

Given his birthday is next month I'll bet it is the Feb. issue then. It may not be on newsstands yet. not sure when they are sold, i get them in the mail. ususally 10-15 days before the start of the month.

I have yet to finish it as i have had studies that i needed to get out of the way. as well as sick kids.

Bet you're right. I used to get National Geo, but don't anymore. I'll look for it on the news stands.

My three children have all been sick within the last month. It's going around.

A thought provoking artical from George Will hit the newspapers today. I'm a long time fan of his columns and opinions. Interesting how he melds evolution and politics.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - How Congress Trumps Darwin

For anyone who cares to read. An artical on speciation. Compliments of the University of Florida.

University of Florida News - Near Darwin’s bicentennial, UF researchers help reveal hidden aspect of evolutionary theory

I was going to say you cannot trust anything out of Gainesville but then I read and saw the study had a credible University involved. :razz::razz:

Who says the Fighting Irish and Gators can't work together!

certainly not Urban Meyer. ;-)

You're a bad bad man test. :smile:

Happy Birthday Mr. Charles Darwin

Yes Happy Birthday.

I just ordered the E. Janet Browne two volume biography from Amazon. Looking forward to reading them. I figure what a great year to learn more about this eminent scientist.

Charles Darwin: Voyaging
Charles Darwin: The Power of Place

I dont think he heard you telling him Happy Birthday since he is just buried acording to you all.

He's probably evolved into cricket by now.

Oops, wait, that would be devolve. Whatever. Wrong belief.

Nope, not at all Dawg. Just recognising an anniversary of sorts. It's 200 years since his birth and 150 years since he wrote On the Origin of Species. Which offered a theory that has been accepted as the foundation of all life sciences. I think that warrents a little recognition.

Dead organisms don't evolve, they degrade.

Hey, that's a good one, even though (as I stated above) a belief in evolution does not necessarily preclude a belief in a god. I know that you don't believe that, but...

Happy Birthday Savannah Georgia! I'm pretty sure it isn't buried.

But, do those two probably do go hand-in-hand?

You are correct sir I do not believe that.

In my very unscientific assessment:

- Many are believers in both
- Some are believers in evolution but not in a god
- Some fewer are believers in god but not evolution
- Some fewer yet are believers in neither

Note that I suspect that the modal category is believer in both.

There is no way that you can believe in the one true God and Evolution.

And that is where your OPIINION and those of many others diverge very strongly. But then I doubt that you have studied much philosophy of science.

No, I have not. Nor do I need to. But I have studied theology in depth. If you were to ask 90% of all Christians you would find out that they do not believe in evolution. There is NO way you can believe in Christ and believe in evolution. It is impossible.

You are wrong, and that is due to the limits of your studies.

I guess you haven't asked many Catholics, have you? Your 90 percent is WAY off.

Sorry, djm2, you just don't know enough about evangelical Christianity to understand the difference.

The two are diametrically opposing views. Sure, there are those who do believe the Bible is a errant, historical document. And they may pick and choose from the Bible what and what not they wish to believe. And they may consider themselves Christian. That is fine. If it is in the Bible, I will believe it as the true word of God. If it is a grey area in the Bible, I will seek counsel on it.

But that is all really beside the point when asked the question, "Do you believe Christ died on the cross for you and that you are saved for eternity by His giving his life for you?" The answer to that question is all that really matters.

Thomas Kuhn described what he called paradigm shifts in the gathering of scientific information. That is the phenomenon of a sudden shift in scientific understanding. According to Kuhn, there are stages in which this occurs. Stated simply, the science of evolution passed through these stages thanks to scholars such as Darwin and Huxley. Trust me, the Theory of Evolution was refuted by many, successfully by none. Because of this multipronged approach at refutation, a framework of ideas came into existence. The scientists that continue this study in areas such as evolutionary development continue to build on this framework of ideas such that it can now be called a Theory (read back several pages for a description of what scientific theory actually means before you say 'it's just a theory'). You can read how this occurs in a brilliantly written book by Kuhn titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

It still gets down to the original post. Do I want science taught in my children's science class. Scientists have overwhelmingly proven that evolution occurs and it is written into scientific law. Until such time that there is credible scientific evidence to support creationism, then teach it in philosophy class. I'm still waiting for someone to provide credible scientific information that supports creationism.

Whether you like it or not, this is still philosophy. It is not science. There is no basis in scientific thought. So how does this make it in the science classroom? I really have no problem with teaching theology in Sunday school or in any other classes. But it is still not science. And won't be until it passes rigorous testing. Of which that is not possible.

And as you stated earlier that is your opinion. My beliefs that are given to me by God tell me right from wrong and you sir are the one wrong.

And as far as Catholics go, I wont get in to deep on that subject. All I will say about Catholism is I don't have but one earthly father and he passed away in December. I dont have to go visit my priest to tell him my prayers thats between me and God. I don't do what a Man in funny hats say. I do what the Bible tells me as thats what God tells me to do.

So in answer to your statment about asking Catholics no I haven't asked any of them. I do how ever know many of them that have become recent Christians.

Im still waiting on someone to prove evolution to me. Until then I don't want it taught to my children in public school or atleast teach it as it is THEORY.. Have you ever personally witnessed something evolve?

Yes. This thread. Great stuff.

Oh, and yes, I saw myself evolve over night. I swear the morning after I turned 35 about 25 grey hairs appeared on my head where there were none the night before.

Wow, I never though a simple birthday wish would evolve (for the lack of a better word) into such a debate.

In your lifetime, many organisms have evolved. Ever heard of drug resistant viruses? Evolution has been proven time and time again. You just choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence. And yes, yet again, it is a Scientific Theory which means that there is a body of evidence to support the theory beyond all doubt. Look up what scientific theory means, or go back a page or two in this thread and see for yourself. One more question, if they don't teach evolution in science class, what should they teach? Just let me get this straight. Because you don't beleive in evolution, then creationism should be taught in science class? This is a very important question and I'd like your straight answer.

To disagree with something necessitates an understanding of what you are disagreeing with. I don't see that as the case here Dawg. You obviously have never studied evolution and the science behind it. You just simply disagree.

Oh great. So now I'm not a Christian because I'm Catholic? (n) Really Dawg.

Jump on in jsconyers! If you have children and they go to public school, should evoultion be taught in science class? Come on man, no fence sitting in this thread! 8-)

Do you pray to God or to his Mother? If you chose his mother then No I do not believe you are a Christian. Have you gotten down on your knees and confessed your Sins to Christ (Not a Priest) and asked him to come in to your heart as your personal Savior. Were you Baptized or sprinkled. Baptized to me is total submersion after you accept Christ as your Savior. This is how the Bible tells us to become a Christian.

I have been to many Catholic Churches and I have never once seen a Holy Bible in the hands of the members. Everything is read by the Priest. Not to say its not a beautiful ceremony but I went away feeling empty. I didn't receive any spiritual nourishment.

The Bible tells me I can go straight to God with my troubles I don't have to pray to his mother and have her ask Jesus to forgive me for my sins.

The Vatican is held higher than the local church and to me that is wrong every church is the house of God or should be. Now that I know you are Catholic I understand why you can believe in both.

To me God is non denominational as long as you believe in Him and that only he can save you. Then you are a Christian. Christianity and Religion are not the same thing. There are many religions in the world but only one Christianity.

Well, I'm not even going to go there Dawg. Afraid of what I might say. You have a very warped sense of what Catholocism is. My Mother and Father (may they rest in peace) would be shocked and horrified at what you have written and they were devout Catholics.

And this is a thread about evolution so I'll stick to that.

No problem, as I said I didn't want to voice my opinion but you continued the subject.

Just as a side note: See you said they were devout Catholics not Christians.

I am a Christian not a Baptist, Methodist or other denomination.

No sitting on the fence? This is a pretty heated debate. Having said that, I will throw my opinion out there. I would consider myself agnostic at this point. I believe there is a God, I just have too many questions to fully believe in any ONE religion. There are too many gray areas in my mind.

I do believe in evolution to a degree. As stated, there is too much proven evidence to denounce it's existence. I would never denounce anyones beliefs or religion. That is one of the greatest freedoms in the country, IMO.

To answer the original question, should evolution be taught in school? I am not one for religion of any sort to be pushed onto someone. Should evolution be taught in science class? Sure. It has scientific proof to back it up. I believe they should present the material in a manner where it is not forced upon the students. I don't think it should be presented in a manner that denounces others beliefs as well.

If they are to teach creatism in school as a belief, I think they should teach all forms of creatism, as well as evolution.

My $0.02

Wirelessly posted

Dawg, Catholocism is a Christian religion. I didn't think something so obvious needed to be stated.

I am not religious. Religion is what keeps a lot of people out of Heaven.

I attended one of the Largest Evangelical Christian Colleges and had plenty of Catholic friends there. There is conflict amongst all the branches of Christianity, nothing special about the Evangelicals and the Catholics. To say that Catholics are any less Christian than anyone else is simply ignorant or completely biased.

when you understand both views you see that the core is the same.

also to believe on evolution does not make one a non-believer, plenty of people who are Christians believe in different thing, again its the core beliefs that remain the same.

Yes I have. Generations of fruit flies, for one. Also have developed different plant flower variations through selective cross-breeding.

Sorry, I certainly do know enough about the evangelicals to explicitly reject that belief system for myself. If it works for you, great, but we do in this country still have a separation of church and state, and I will stoutly reject any efforts to implant specific theological concepts as substitutes for science.

Furthermore, I'd encourage you to think carefully about even wanting to do that, because tides turn and the next thing you know another group with vastly different views might become ascendent, and they would inject their theology into the schools once precedent has been established.

Ah, there is your mistake. Only that the state shall not impose a religion on the people is a protected right. The remainder is your (poor) interpretation of that, and your wish to impose your will on the people.

See, that wasn't so hard was it? :smile:

But I get back to my position, stated many times in this thread, that creationism is theology, not science. And that evolution has been proven beyond doubt. And if one actually studies the Theory of Evolution, that understanding can become very clear. So that's the science. Teach that in science class. Don't try to teach the 'problems' with the theory, all those supposed problems (put forth mostly by the Discovery Institute) have been debunked. And every futue 'problem' with the the Theory of Evolution will be debunked as well. Just teach the science.

This is causing an irony overload......

It is exactly that. He doesn't want all beliefs taught, he wishes (in the great liberal fanaticism of the day) to censure other thought.

I was thinking just the opposite. That you want your (religious) beliefs taught in a public school system and have other ideas excluded.

Well, I too am struck with the irony. I think I've just added some new questions to my hiring interview guides.

Hey Mriff, I too love Kuhn's book. But isn't Karl Popper and his discussion of falsifiability also germane to this discussion -- perhaps even central to the core?

LOL! Ah yes, it would be.

Whoop! Read it again. You're referring to djm2.

I know you hate it, but that is what he advocates, in the same style of other failed socialist regimes.

So show me the link between me and animals. If it can be proven with out doubt. If it is proven then why is it theory?

And I have studied Evolution maybe not as indepth as you have but I have spoken to many who have studied it and they say its debunked also.

I saw the sun come up this morning and it was simply marvelous only God himself could create something of this magnitude.

There is no way on earth that you can be a christian and believe anything else. We all just keep saying the same thing. You believe your religion (Theory) and I believe my God. I am done. No sense and continuing with the nonsense.

See ya. I tried Dawg, I really did. I presented evidence. And references. You choose not to read or understand those references. All you can do is spout the nonsense that comes out of the Discovery Institute.

Edit: Dawg, you are Young Earth Creationist. You believe that the earth and all things on it were created 6 to 10,000 years ago. You don't believe in carbon dating. You don't believe that the dinosaurs walked the earth a hundred million years ago. You don't believe that biological forms can evolve over time. So really, there's nothing else I can say to you to try to convince you otherwise.

Wow. Someone has really been drinking the kool aid.

Hahaha, yes. You follow a strict pattern in your demand to impose your will on others.

You are just too myopic in your views to recognize it.

I can't help myself. Ok, how about the fact that the DNA in your cells are not similar, but EXACT copies of those found in animals. How about the fact that most of the genes found in your body are not similar, but EXACT copies of what is found throughout the animal kingdom? If that doesn't prove a link, what will? What about the fossil record clearly showing transitional forms over the last several million years?

Reposting what a scientific theory actually is, since obviously Dawg has forgotten or chose not to read the earlier post. I get so sick and tired of the 'it's just a theory' comment. This comment only comes from non-scientists.


Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

Can't we all just get along? Maybe we should just teach nothing and avoid the problem.

I'm still for allowing people to make their own decisions no matter how rational or irrational they may seem.

True democracy would allow school districts to vote on what should be taught. If the results are stupid kids coming from one area then so be it.

We don't live in a democracy, why should we allow it to be voted on?

You should know that.

Or is that just something you also believe? :-(

is there something wrong with beliefs? I do see yours thrown throughout this thread....

certainly not evidence.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dxxx275;mokratia, from dxxx275;mos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges


Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

I'm sensing some sarcasm here. :smile: I trust you don't really believe this. It's this kind of thinking that is dropping the United States ever lower in the Math and Science skills needed to generate useful technology. The US has always been in the forefront of scientific discoveries. Which is amazing given our short history.

Don't worry mriff, we'll just find out who is smart and import them.

Lol. That's self limiting though. We really need a strong science and technology base in our schools and colleges. I'm not saying that the rest of the globe is behind us, as there are important advances in science from many developed countries. We just don't want to get too far behind. The fact that we are even having an argument over whether or not to teach evolution in school makes us look stupid.

I was being somewhat sarcastic but you know I like the idea of all ideas being presented. If you present all ideas then the ones with evidence and science to go with it will certainly be given more time and emphasis. - my own perfect world.

mriff the consequences could be a set back when it comes to math and science but if you allow power to the people (per the definition above) then bad choices will sometimes be made. even evolution makes bad choices sometimes.
Kind of like the Palestinians voting Hamas, French electing Robespierre or even Illinois electing the hair idiot.

but there is no doubt the our rankings in science will fall if we were to remove evolution from schools, but I think that people are fully capable to make that decision.

Check with the person who started this thread and debate here.

Whoop! :shock::razz::oops:;-)

Your contributions to the thread are for the most part, meaningless. Which is strange to me JSanders, as you seem like a very bright guy. But you have contributed absolutely nothing to the debate. Except gibberish.

One must strive for excellence test. The global demand for advances in technology demand it. Your methods will only lead to mediocrity.

Just another little piece of the ever unfolding puzzle.

Draft of Neanderthal's genetic blueprint revealed - USATODAY.com

Passionate debates and discussions are a good thing, provided that it remains civil and you come to some sort of conclusion, closure, or agreement. Even if it's to agree to disagree.

But to argue just for the sake of arguing is not productive. As it is said, a dog returns to his own vomit, So a fool repeats his folly.

Sadly, narcissism and entitlement run rampant these days, especially in the younger generations. Humility is a very rare thing today. The scientific community is no exception. We should never see ourselves as wise in our own eyes. There will always be some undiscovered truth or knowledge in life that eludes us. We would be foolish to think otherwise.

Regardless of what you believe, in the end, when you die, the truth shall be revealed. Someone will be wrong, and someone will be right. One of them will have much more to regret than the other.

This about somes it up for me. DAWG and I share a lot of the same beliefs. If I am wrong in my faith, in the end, I know I won't have anything to regret.

This, my friend, is what drives science. And you are the recipient, daily, of the advances made by scientists.
As has been stated many times in this thread, believing in God and understanding evolution to be true are not mutually exclusive.

And really, there's no arguing with YEC's. I can't say anything or do anything or show you any reference that you will not immediatly run from. You study evolution not to understand, only to undermine. Albeit unsuccessfully. You don't trust that biologists do anything right. You don't trust the very foundation of all life sciences. Yet you still go to the doctor asking for antibiotics. Makes no sense to me.

But I'm always curious about the dinosaur thing. Just how do you explain it?

that justification is dangerous though, its a slippery slope in most cases.

amen, to remain civil is the key to any good debate. in these issues people very rarely change their beliefs so its in the way you present your opinion that matters.

Wirelessly posted

I'd say it's a slippery slope in very very few cases.

when it comes to religion & science the emotions can make it that way I think. Granted its usually the Religious people killing the scientists but it could go both ways.

That is what drives science -- to be able to uncover the next set of fundamental axioms that take existing knowledge and explains it, but all the while adding the unique twist that takes scientific exploration to an entirely new level. Much like the Theory of Relativity explains all of Newtonian Physics as an ancillary proposition but adds new dimensions to explore.

It is also relevant to point out that the undiscovered truths -- and humility in the face of those truths -- is where the scientists that I know who profess great faith resolve the conflict that some assume exists between science and faith.

So true.

For that reason alone, erring on the side of caution is wise. I'll be there.

Just wow. So rude.

Well, after all you did start this thread.

For one who goes to such great lengths for others to notice your great intelligence, you simply do have very little tolerance for others' beliefs and principles. To reduce my few posts in this thread to "gibberish" and "meaningless" is just intolerant (I'm not surprised).

intolerance on both sides really.

Adn 2 Samuel 22 & JSanders - regret after death implies that the person thinks that there is something after death. Its hard to have regret if there is no afterlife. I do agree though its better to be on the safe side but thats hardly a good basis for one's faith.

but all this is based on one's faith which is different for every person.

Oh, it is certainly not the reason for me, it just might be a just reasoning for others.

I could go back and collect all your contributions. I certainly don't have a corner on rudeness in this thead. Go back yourself and you'll see that you have been quite rude on occasion.

And I have all the tolerance in the world. Just bring something to the debate that I can review. That's all I'm asking.

And forgive me, I really don't know what this means. Did I study my ass of in college in life sciences? Yes, I did. I know a little about the subject. And enjoy the debate. I just didn't know I was going to great lengths to show it.

I guess if you consider being reminded that you are a liberal and being told you are intolerant, rude, then yes I have been rude. Perhaps you should look in the mirror and both get some thicker skin.

But, no, I don't humility is your greatst asset.

Liberal I'm not. I'm not sure where you get that. I really don't.

And I think you mean perhaps we should look in the mirror.

Anyway, sorry to you JSanders if I've offended. This is a topic that I've spent a lot of time studying. I do enjoy debating this topic. But it is a topic that can get sidetracked very quickly as has been shown in this thread many times.

It's interesting that you say this. If we met for beers and spoke for a while, you would understand that this is not true. In most of my endeavors in life, humility is central. For instance, if we were to debate the inner workings of a blackberry? You would kick my ass. :smile: If we were to debate what it takes to start and maintain a business? You would again kick my ass. I'm not good at a lot of things. I'm good at a couple. That has served me well so far.

believing in science has nothing at all with being Liberal or Conservative.

Jsanders, you really shouldn't throw stones....if you know the saying.

Obama giving some love to science and Charles Darwin. Goes along with the the original post.

YouTube - Barack Obama On Science And Charles Darwin

FORA.tv - Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Pluto Files

good and relevant video of a speech by Neil deGrasse Tyson about Scientific funding.

The local NPR affiliate just did a replay of a show from this week on Darwin and evolution. Good stuff and discussion.