Menu Bar
Trouble viewing the video? Try reloading this page.
Needs Plugin: Flash | Not Working?
GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Evolution? Three Republicans in debate don't believe in it.
May 4, 2007 12:45 PM
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
In the next debate, can they please ask who believes in gravity?
By: bryan
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Holy shit why are so many replies striked out? Seeming a little totalitarian there huh M&C? At least explain to me why.
By: cheezsteak
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
I was wondering exactly the same thing...
Anyway, I thought 3 was a relatively large number of people who don't believe in evolution...And it made me giggle a bit.
Anyway, I thought 3 was a relatively large number of people who don't believe in evolution...And it made me giggle a bit.
By: LaChilenita
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Only an idiot would ask a question like "Do you believe in evolution?" and only an idiot would go further to ask for only a "'Yes' or 'No'" answer.
There are so many different takes on evolution, so many different theories, and so many different extents.
For instance, solid scientific provable fact with no firm evidence against it clearly states that creates can change their genes and adapt to their surroundings, often even changing species.
However, there's quite a lot of evidence against and some shaky evidence for the fact that all species alive on the face of the earth have evolved over millions of years (can't give you an exact number as they change it several years, mostly due to the fact that the numbers are made up so that the processes have time to work) from a single group of simple microorganisms.
There are so many different takes on evolution, so many different theories, and so many different extents.
For instance, solid scientific provable fact with no firm evidence against it clearly states that creates can change their genes and adapt to their surroundings, often even changing species.
However, there's quite a lot of evidence against and some shaky evidence for the fact that all species alive on the face of the earth have evolved over millions of years (can't give you an exact number as they change it several years, mostly due to the fact that the numbers are made up so that the processes have time to work) from a single group of simple microorganisms.
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Sorry buddy, but evolution is a fact. Plain and simple. No worthwhile biologist would dare deny it.
The creationists, on the other hand, have invented something called Intelligent Design (which is basically a euphemism for creationism) and made it look like there is some kind of rift or controversy in the scientific community.
Time to get it straight. There is no controversy. Evolution is a fact. If you can't accept that, then maybe you need to reexamine your own belief system.
The creationists, on the other hand, have invented something called Intelligent Design (which is basically a euphemism for creationism) and made it look like there is some kind of rift or controversy in the scientific community.
Time to get it straight. There is no controversy. Evolution is a fact. If you can't accept that, then maybe you need to reexamine your own belief system.
By: chronomitch
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Sorry buddy, it is still a theory. Until every single aspect of evolution has been accounted for and proven, it is still a theory and my guess is, it will always be a theory. Our science and technology can only tell us so much about the past, no matter how advanced you think the human species is, we are still very stupid creatures with limited understanding... we only use a very small fraction of our brains...
Sorry you see things the way you do, if the creationists are wrong they have nothing to lose, if you are wrong, your screwed... but at least got to stand for what you believe in, right?
Sorry you see things the way you do, if the creationists are wrong they have nothing to lose, if you are wrong, your screwed... but at least got to stand for what you believe in, right?
By: jtraik
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Do you really understand what a scientific theory is? You obviously failed Science 101.
From wikipedia:
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
Saying evolution is false is like saying gravity is false.
From wikipedia:
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
Saying evolution is false is like saying gravity is false.
By: chronomitch
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Yes, true men of science reference wikipedia...
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of theory.
Theory
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
So just because your beliefs are generally accepted to be true, doesn't mean they are true. So obviously you have never taken a university level calculus course which is full of theories that are very difficult to prove... then you would understand.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of theory.
Theory
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
So just because your beliefs are generally accepted to be true, doesn't mean they are true. So obviously you have never taken a university level calculus course which is full of theories that are very difficult to prove... then you would understand.
By: jtraik
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
You're equivocating on the word theory. The word "theory" does not mean all six of those definitions at the same time. If I give an explanation of why I think the Yankees signed Clemens, and I end it with "... But that's just a theory," that "theory" has a completely different meaning than the "theory" in the "theory of non-contradiction." The "theory" in "theory of evolution" falls into the latter category.
Your last comment seems to be casting more doubt on mathematical theory than evolutionary theory. I myself am a philosophy/mathematics major, and bringing mathematical theory into this conversation does nothing but confound things even more.
Your last comment seems to be casting more doubt on mathematical theory than evolutionary theory. I myself am a philosophy/mathematics major, and bringing mathematical theory into this conversation does nothing but confound things even more.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
While it obviously doesnt mean all those definitions at once, each one of the definitions conveys the general message that a theory is not a law, fact or proof... that does not change in any area of study, even biology!
By: jtraik
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
lolz sorry buddy but intelligent design has as much credibility as saying that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. While evolution can be easily shown by looking at how eugenics has been able to create the different breeds of dogs.
Im so sorry that you are too scared that god will send you to hell(nice god eh?) if you dont believe in him that you believe in ID :(
Im so sorry that you are too scared that god will send you to hell(nice god eh?) if you dont believe in him that you believe in ID :(
By: Eddo321
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Congrats on using a Dawkin's analogy. Try creating your own next time.
I'd just like to point out the stupidity of assuming that just because organisms can change on a species level, they can evolve to the extent proposed by the "history of evolution".
You may note that while they've been able to create many new breeds of dogs, they're still all dogs.
That would be like assuming that just because I can jump three feet, given enough time, I could jump a dozen. (That's a really crappy analogy, I know, so don't feel like you have to point that out.)
I'd just like to point out the stupidity of assuming that just because organisms can change on a species level, they can evolve to the extent proposed by the "history of evolution".
You may note that while they've been able to create many new breeds of dogs, they're still all dogs.
That would be like assuming that just because I can jump three feet, given enough time, I could jump a dozen. (That's a really crappy analogy, I know, so don't feel like you have to point that out.)
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
You're an awfully snide individual. And Dawkins has nothing to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Check out http://www.venganza.org if you care to actually find out. And try not to be such a dick when you debate. All of your posts reek of high school teenage angst.
I don't see why that assumption is stupid. If evolution on the micro level can occur in less than a century, why can't evolution on a macro level occur over billions of years?
I don't see why that assumption is stupid. If evolution on the micro level can occur in less than a century, why can't evolution on a macro level occur over billions of years?
By: i8ursandwich
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
I'm "snide" because, quite frankly, I'm fed up with not being able to post an opinion on a several day old link without dozens of people jumping all over the place squealing about it.
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
"...we only use a very small fraction of our brains..."
That's a myth. We actually use 100% of our brains. Well... some more than others.
That's a myth. We actually use 100% of our brains. Well... some more than others.
By: Overmann
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
"Well... some more than others."
Brilliant. xD
Brilliant. xD
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Its a myth that humans only use a fraction
of their brain...
of their brain...
By: Crabjuice
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Whoops, didn't see the previous post on this one.
By: Crabjuice
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Did you even read my post?
Apparently you read it as "OMG! I CAN'T ACCEPT EVOLUTION!".
Does it hurt your brain to accept that, despite every angle of an area being taught as solidly proven fact in your little middle school class, the many theories behind what you sum up into the word "evolution" (which is actually simply a creature's ability to change to adapt to its surroundings, debatable to what extent) are still widely argued even among these "worthwhile biologists" you adore? Not even Darwin could entirely agree on most of his ideas.
Before responding (freaking out inevitably), please actually read my post for once. Instantly assuming I "don't accept" something as fact and dragging "Intelligent Design" into a conversation despite me never mentioning it, makes you look kinda stupid.
On an unrelated note, I'd like to point out how amusing it is that this link only had one comment for quite some time, and then within an hour of me adding one, you people have this place crowded.
I know it makes you all feel "intelligent" to wave around your flags saying "Evolution (and everything related, even what the scientists are still deciding upon) is fact" and calling anyone who even states their opinion on a question relating to evolution a "creationist" (because the term instantly makes you feel as if you are triumphant over a person, regardless of whether they are or not), but seriously, guys, you just look like whiny kids who really have no idea what they're talking about, but are ready to fetch a page from Wikipedia to back up their "claims" without even knowing what they are. Oh, and let's not forget quoting your hero Dawkins at every turn.
Apparently you read it as "OMG! I CAN'T ACCEPT EVOLUTION!".
Does it hurt your brain to accept that, despite every angle of an area being taught as solidly proven fact in your little middle school class, the many theories behind what you sum up into the word "evolution" (which is actually simply a creature's ability to change to adapt to its surroundings, debatable to what extent) are still widely argued even among these "worthwhile biologists" you adore? Not even Darwin could entirely agree on most of his ideas.
Before responding (freaking out inevitably), please actually read my post for once. Instantly assuming I "don't accept" something as fact and dragging "Intelligent Design" into a conversation despite me never mentioning it, makes you look kinda stupid.
On an unrelated note, I'd like to point out how amusing it is that this link only had one comment for quite some time, and then within an hour of me adding one, you people have this place crowded.
I know it makes you all feel "intelligent" to wave around your flags saying "Evolution (and everything related, even what the scientists are still deciding upon) is fact" and calling anyone who even states their opinion on a question relating to evolution a "creationist" (because the term instantly makes you feel as if you are triumphant over a person, regardless of whether they are or not), but seriously, guys, you just look like whiny kids who really have no idea what they're talking about, but are ready to fetch a page from Wikipedia to back up their "claims" without even knowing what they are. Oh, and let's not forget quoting your hero Dawkins at every turn.
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
It doesn't look like I'm the one freaking out.
I apologize if I have grouped you in with Creationists/IDs, but most of what you have said thus far seems quite similar to the arguments given by such people. Saying things like "evolution is just a theory" and "there is a lot of evidence against evolution" just proves my point.
And while scientists rightly question the smaller elements of evolution (we should never be afraid to question), the fact remains that it is a perfectly rational explanation for the variety of life on this planet which is supported by multitudes of evidence. Even if we didn't have fossil records, we could still look to things like DNA to support the theory.
If evolution were a murder case, it would be similar to saying that we have the knife with the killer's fingerprints on it along with the dead body, as well as the victim's blood on the killer's clothes. And with more and more research, we are continuing to find more evidence to build the case against the killer - it didn't stop with Darwin. Do we really need a security tape that shows the killer murdering the victim frame by frame to accept the fact that the killer is guilty?
Millions of people in other developed countries have already accepted the truth, and while the number of people who believe in it does not matter, we have ample evidence for these beliefs. It is time to move on from beliefs without evidence (Creationism, ID, religion, etc) and recognize that such things have been built on foundations of sand.
I apologize if I have grouped you in with Creationists/IDs, but most of what you have said thus far seems quite similar to the arguments given by such people. Saying things like "evolution is just a theory" and "there is a lot of evidence against evolution" just proves my point.
And while scientists rightly question the smaller elements of evolution (we should never be afraid to question), the fact remains that it is a perfectly rational explanation for the variety of life on this planet which is supported by multitudes of evidence. Even if we didn't have fossil records, we could still look to things like DNA to support the theory.
If evolution were a murder case, it would be similar to saying that we have the knife with the killer's fingerprints on it along with the dead body, as well as the victim's blood on the killer's clothes. And with more and more research, we are continuing to find more evidence to build the case against the killer - it didn't stop with Darwin. Do we really need a security tape that shows the killer murdering the victim frame by frame to accept the fact that the killer is guilty?
Millions of people in other developed countries have already accepted the truth, and while the number of people who believe in it does not matter, we have ample evidence for these beliefs. It is time to move on from beliefs without evidence (Creationism, ID, religion, etc) and recognize that such things have been built on foundations of sand.
By: chronomitch
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
You're mixing up my posts with all these other guys'.
I hate it when that happens.
Anyway, I'm not dragging this one out. That's happened too many times around here, and it just ends with everyone repeating themselves. Nobody's going to change their mind over an argument in the MilkandCookies links comments.
I wasn't looking for a "debate", people. I just was posting an opinion on a several day old link.
So, you all think my opinion is stupid, but I don't see several scores of comments spawning from other stupid opinions on different links.
Why is mine any different to you?
I hate it when that happens.
Anyway, I'm not dragging this one out. That's happened too many times around here, and it just ends with everyone repeating themselves. Nobody's going to change their mind over an argument in the MilkandCookies links comments.
I wasn't looking for a "debate", people. I just was posting an opinion on a several day old link.
So, you all think my opinion is stupid, but I don't see several scores of comments spawning from other stupid opinions on different links.
Why is mine any different to you?
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Seriously, stop confusing evolution with natural selection. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory. Feel free to disagree with how evolution works, but be warned, you'll have to read and you'll have to understand things first.
By: opus01
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common
Biological evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. These traits are encoded as genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction.
The extent of evolution possible by organisms is disputed.
The history of evolution is the "record" of all changes in species over "millions of years" assumed by most scientists based on the idea "because they look similar, they must be related" contrived from structural homology, occurrences in fossil record, and seriously shaken up by molecular biology (which really contradicts the ideas brought forth from structural homology).
The term 'evolution' is often used to refer to not only biological evolution, but the history of evolution and most Darwinian theories/hypotheses and other related theories/hypotheses.
This (and the extent of evolution) is the problem that arises whenever someone asks a question like "Do you believe in evolution?")
So what are you talking about?
Biological evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. These traits are encoded as genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction.
The extent of evolution possible by organisms is disputed.
The history of evolution is the "record" of all changes in species over "millions of years" assumed by most scientists based on the idea "because they look similar, they must be related" contrived from structural homology, occurrences in fossil record, and seriously shaken up by molecular biology (which really contradicts the ideas brought forth from structural homology).
The term 'evolution' is often used to refer to not only biological evolution, but the history of evolution and most Darwinian theories/hypotheses and other related theories/hypotheses.
This (and the extent of evolution) is the problem that arises whenever someone asks a question like "Do you believe in evolution?")
So what are you talking about?
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
You, sir, are a fraud. The next time half of your post is copied and pasted from someone else's intellectual property, cite your source. And no, http://www.wikipedia.org does not count as a scholarly source.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Hey, wait a second. You tried to sneak in a sentence of your own!
Biological evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. These traits are encoded as genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction.
The extent of evolution possible by organisms is disputed.
If you wikipedia "biological evolution," you find everything but what I have italicized. Nowhere in the article is anything like that even mentioned.
Biological evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. These traits are encoded as genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction.
The extent of evolution possible by organisms is disputed.
If you wikipedia "biological evolution," you find everything but what I have italicized. Nowhere in the article is anything like that even mentioned.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Ooh, I'm a fraud because I grabbed some definitions off of Wikipedia that were pretty solid definitions just to ask the guy what he meant?
I know you think you're all "cool and intelligent debater", but this is MilkandCookies for crying out loud.
I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE HERE.
I posted an opinion and tons of people attacked it. Go find some other "stupid" opinion to mock, if you feel the need to.
In this case, I was just asking the guy what he meant by "evolution".
And for the record, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
I was hardly stealing someone else's "intellectual property". It's all open and free for use.
And all this I wrote, as I couldn't find a decent summary on Wikipedia:
"The extent of evolution possible by organisms is disputed.
The history of evolution is the "record" of all changes in species over "millions of years" assumed by most scientists based on the idea "because they look similar, they must be related" contrived from structural homology, occurrences in fossil record, and seriously shaken up by molecular biology (which really contradicts the ideas brought forth from structural homology).
The term 'evolution' is often used to refer to not only biological evolution, but the history of evolution and most Darwinian theories/hypotheses and other related theories/hypotheses.
This (and the extent of evolution) is the problem that arises whenever someone asks a question like "Do you believe in evolution?")"
So congrats on making yourself look like a horse's rear end, man.
And before you try to argue again, I am not interested in a debate today.
Go start your own somewhere else if you're so desperate.
I know you think you're all "cool and intelligent debater", but this is MilkandCookies for crying out loud.
I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE HERE.
I posted an opinion and tons of people attacked it. Go find some other "stupid" opinion to mock, if you feel the need to.
In this case, I was just asking the guy what he meant by "evolution".
And for the record, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
I was hardly stealing someone else's "intellectual property". It's all open and free for use.
And all this I wrote, as I couldn't find a decent summary on Wikipedia:
"The extent of evolution possible by organisms is disputed.
The history of evolution is the "record" of all changes in species over "millions of years" assumed by most scientists based on the idea "because they look similar, they must be related" contrived from structural homology, occurrences in fossil record, and seriously shaken up by molecular biology (which really contradicts the ideas brought forth from structural homology).
The term 'evolution' is often used to refer to not only biological evolution, but the history of evolution and most Darwinian theories/hypotheses and other related theories/hypotheses.
This (and the extent of evolution) is the problem that arises whenever someone asks a question like "Do you believe in evolution?")"
So congrats on making yourself look like a horse's rear end, man.
And before you try to argue again, I am not interested in a debate today.
Go start your own somewhere else if you're so desperate.
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
What, are you serious? You don't want to argue? Then what the hell are you responding to? I wasn't arguing with you. I stated a fact, that you lifted half of your post from wikipedia and presented it as your own. I said nothing about my own opinion on evolution. After seeing how you behave, there's not a chance that I'd waste my time debating with you.
It's not like we're trying to persecute you or something. Quit being a fucking crybaby.
It's not like we're trying to persecute you or something. Quit being a fucking crybaby.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Yes, and many studies into population genetics and related ideas show that selective breeding and matting are also factors in shaping the genotypes, phenotypes, and allele frequencies of a population.
Time and again we see that the best theories are the ones that synthesize all the polarized smaller theories on the subject. From Dictionary.com, evolution is the "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." It's a combination of things. There are different takes, but they all describe this phenomenon. To deny evolution is to say that organisms haven't gradually experienced dramatic differentiation over the course of hundreds of millions of years. It happens - the only question is how. So only an idiot would say "No."
And you mention that scientists make up the dates. It's not perfect, it's the only way. The biggest point is that, pitted against evolution, even with all of its assumptions and presumptions, creationism fails miserably. You see, both Creationism and Evolution make assumptions and draw conclusions. Neither really knows anything for certain. Having established these equal circumstances, Creationism's assumptions just don't synthesize the observations as well as Evolution. Evolution is the most elegant and parsimonious of available theories describing the current state of organic matter, so it wins in the arena of plain decision making. Note that those people who deny evolution outright have reasonless reservations about change in general. Sorry.
But not to totally deny you anything, the questions could be phrased much more scientifically, particularly as such, "Do you believe in evolution, Yes, No, I don't know, or Only for the time being?" Anyone who doesn't answer with the latter shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for large groups of people.
Time and again we see that the best theories are the ones that synthesize all the polarized smaller theories on the subject. From Dictionary.com, evolution is the "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." It's a combination of things. There are different takes, but they all describe this phenomenon. To deny evolution is to say that organisms haven't gradually experienced dramatic differentiation over the course of hundreds of millions of years. It happens - the only question is how. So only an idiot would say "No."
And you mention that scientists make up the dates. It's not perfect, it's the only way. The biggest point is that, pitted against evolution, even with all of its assumptions and presumptions, creationism fails miserably. You see, both Creationism and Evolution make assumptions and draw conclusions. Neither really knows anything for certain. Having established these equal circumstances, Creationism's assumptions just don't synthesize the observations as well as Evolution. Evolution is the most elegant and parsimonious of available theories describing the current state of organic matter, so it wins in the arena of plain decision making. Note that those people who deny evolution outright have reasonless reservations about change in general. Sorry.
But not to totally deny you anything, the questions could be phrased much more scientifically, particularly as such, "Do you believe in evolution, Yes, No, I don't know, or Only for the time being?" Anyone who doesn't answer with the latter shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for large groups of people.
By: Wondahboy
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
I apologize. You didn't mention creationism anywhere. I relfexively attacked Creationism. Bleh, I feel gross. What I meant to say was that Evolution is undeniable, the only question is how it happens. Therefore anyone who says "No" is just denying something that our eyes give to us, like gravity and the rotation of the earth around the sun. Here it is in our lap, now science has to deal with it. Anyone who denies evolution has something wrong with them and shouldn't lead people. It represents a childish flaw in their thinking, if in fact they really deny the existence of gradual genetic change.
Not only that, but the only reason this question was asked is because of the current conflict over what's taught in our schools. The power of change is largely in the politician's hands, and any politician bold enough to answer "No" to this question is more likely to unfairly undermine Evolution in the classroom.
To be honest, I wouldn't care that Creationism be taught alongside Evolution, so long as it's done objectively. I actually hope for it, since that would be the first step in completely getting rid of religion and its inexorable load of shit. Showing children these two ideas side by side only helps them view religion and science equally, to judge them with the same intuition, and weigh them against the same evidence. I wouldn't even mind people believing in a God, so long as they didn't start putting words in this stranger's mouth, saying he wanted things a certain way, then getting violent and stupid over it. God doesn't really give a crap about anything for all we know, it's religion that does.
So really, I don't give a shit about what some hokey ass politicians think about evolution, or what they do with education, so long as evolution remains in textbooks and isn't slighted. Sorry for wasting your time.
Not only that, but the only reason this question was asked is because of the current conflict over what's taught in our schools. The power of change is largely in the politician's hands, and any politician bold enough to answer "No" to this question is more likely to unfairly undermine Evolution in the classroom.
To be honest, I wouldn't care that Creationism be taught alongside Evolution, so long as it's done objectively. I actually hope for it, since that would be the first step in completely getting rid of religion and its inexorable load of shit. Showing children these two ideas side by side only helps them view religion and science equally, to judge them with the same intuition, and weigh them against the same evidence. I wouldn't even mind people believing in a God, so long as they didn't start putting words in this stranger's mouth, saying he wanted things a certain way, then getting violent and stupid over it. God doesn't really give a crap about anything for all we know, it's religion that does.
So really, I don't give a shit about what some hokey ass politicians think about evolution, or what they do with education, so long as evolution remains in textbooks and isn't slighted. Sorry for wasting your time.
By: Wondahboy
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
I find I agree with most of what you said, however I think that were Creationism and Evolution taught side-by-side, even given the vast amount of evidence in favor of the latter and the mere conjucture upon which the former is based, children would still favor Creationism, due largely in part because it is what some have always known to be true via their parents.
I'd love to think the newer generation is more inclined towards rationality and fair decision-making, but frankly I doubt they could care either way.
I'd love to think the newer generation is more inclined towards rationality and fair decision-making, but frankly I doubt they could care either way.
By: Overmann
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
I don't think any religious teachings should be taught in the public school system (at the same time, private schools and homeschoolers have every right to do so).
Why should it be kept out of the public schools? Because the Constitution states that there shall be no laws respecting any establishment of religion. Were we to teach one account of the beginning of the world, we would have to teach every account, and, while that's great for a class that's specifically studying philosophy, religion, or perhaps some more advanced class that has begun its own research studies on the beginning of the world, it would not be beneficial to have these kids learning all this stuff for their science classes. The beginning of the world doesn't apply that much to modern science and its application. Allow the children to learn what is necessary to compete in modern science.
Secondly, I also believe that you'd have huge problems if you tried to teach "creationism", both from the creationists and from the opposition. Why? Because, among all the many different Christian denominations and creationists groups, there is quite some disagreement on what exactly happened at Creation and all the little details. Were the government to standardize one curriculum, one textbook, they would have to favor one opinion over another.
If parents want their children to learn certain things, they should quit relying on the school system to teach them, and actually take time to do it themselves.
I have more reasons, but I don't feel like stating them now.
As I said, I'm not wanting a massive debate.
But, seeing how this doesn't actually have to do with the "fact" behind "evolution", I thought I'd comment.
Why should it be kept out of the public schools? Because the Constitution states that there shall be no laws respecting any establishment of religion. Were we to teach one account of the beginning of the world, we would have to teach every account, and, while that's great for a class that's specifically studying philosophy, religion, or perhaps some more advanced class that has begun its own research studies on the beginning of the world, it would not be beneficial to have these kids learning all this stuff for their science classes. The beginning of the world doesn't apply that much to modern science and its application. Allow the children to learn what is necessary to compete in modern science.
Secondly, I also believe that you'd have huge problems if you tried to teach "creationism", both from the creationists and from the opposition. Why? Because, among all the many different Christian denominations and creationists groups, there is quite some disagreement on what exactly happened at Creation and all the little details. Were the government to standardize one curriculum, one textbook, they would have to favor one opinion over another.
If parents want their children to learn certain things, they should quit relying on the school system to teach them, and actually take time to do it themselves.
I have more reasons, but I don't feel like stating them now.
As I said, I'm not wanting a massive debate.
But, seeing how this doesn't actually have to do with the "fact" behind "evolution", I thought I'd comment.
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
We don't necessarily have to incorporate all of the alternative ideas concerning the origin or nature of life into public education, only the two most subscribed to, namely Creationism and Evolution. Students are free to come to their own conclusions over which, if any, is more accurate, of course, though these two especially should at least be subjected into the public consciousness simply because they are so polarizing and deserve informative exposition of their perceived qualities.
"Because the Constitution states that there shall be no laws respecting any establishment of religion."
I should emphasize that describing Creationism and its merits, if any, in a classroom setting is not necessarily teaching it. In fact nothing else need be said about it in a classroom aside from its contrasts to solid science, a direction my Historical GeologyChemistry instructor chose to pursue. Besides, we can target Creationism specifically in a science classroom through its masquerading twin, Intelligent Design (ID). It is precisely because the powers that be wish to include ID in the science cirriculum that science classes should address how ID is not science at all but merely disguised religious tenets.
"Because the Constitution states that there shall be no laws respecting any establishment of religion."
I should emphasize that describing Creationism and its merits, if any, in a classroom setting is not necessarily teaching it. In fact nothing else need be said about it in a classroom aside from its contrasts to solid science, a direction my Historical GeologyChemistry instructor chose to pursue. Besides, we can target Creationism specifically in a science classroom through its masquerading twin, Intelligent Design (ID). It is precisely because the powers that be wish to include ID in the science cirriculum that science classes should address how ID is not science at all but merely disguised religious tenets.
By: Overmann
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
As I said, even among "creationists" there are still quite a few disputes on what is actually solid "fact" and what is not.
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
You have a lot of good points, Wondahboy, and approached this more intelligently than most people did.
I'm not going to comment on them all though, as I'm trying to wrap all this up (I didn't want a debate in the first place), so "i8ursandwich"'s "evolution war" that he so desires, doesn't happen.
I'm not going to comment on them all though, as I'm trying to wrap all this up (I didn't want a debate in the first place), so "i8ursandwich"'s "evolution war" that he so desires, doesn't happen.
By: squeakytoad
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Are you kidding me? You were the main contender! Look at your ridiculous conversation with Eddo321! I didn't waste my time reading past the first few comments, but I can only imagine the mudslinging that went on there. Simply beautiful. Thanks for your participation.
Evolution War II, coming soon.
Evolution War II, coming soon.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah, this is ridiculous. No use arguing about this subject because it isn't going to get anywhere especially on the internet, on "milkandcookies.com"
The scary thing about this video is that there are people who are running this country that pass laws with a religious bias in how they handle things. Not everyone has the same beliefs and definately does not want to be governed by someone who imposes laws upon them that were based in religious belief.
Anyone thinking that their belief is better than others is wrong and should not impose them on anyone else via any means. The is a reason why there is supposed to be a seperation between church and state.
To each their own, lets all go drink some beer and party cause it is issues of religion that are going to tear the world apart.
The scary thing about this video is that there are people who are running this country that pass laws with a religious bias in how they handle things. Not everyone has the same beliefs and definately does not want to be governed by someone who imposes laws upon them that were based in religious belief.
Anyone thinking that their belief is better than others is wrong and should not impose them on anyone else via any means. The is a reason why there is supposed to be a seperation between church and state.
To each their own, lets all go drink some beer and party cause it is issues of religion that are going to tear the world apart.
By: frankiethefish15
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Uhh yeah thats why we do something called VOTE, candidates freely express their religious preference and preferences for everything else, then the people pick which one they want and a candidate is chosen. If the people pick a candidate with preferences you don't agree with, sorry thats democracy.
By: jtraik
Re: GOP Debate: Evolution, Yes or No?
Democracy is not just simply "representative democracy". If you are referring to the US Democratic system. It's largely "liberal democracy" which in addition to representative democracy comes with protection of minorities.
A non-liberal democracy is dangerous for obvious reasons.
A non-liberal democracy is dangerous for obvious reasons.
By: dunielz
Facts and theories for the uninitiated.
Evolution is a theory. It will always be a theory and will never be a fact.
Scientific theories are way more interesting than facts. Facts are a dime a dozen. It's the theories that try to make sense of those facts. Facts pile up. Theories explain those facts.
For instance, before Newton's theory of gravity, there were countless observations of things falling down, and countless observations of heavenly bodies moving around. After Newton, we had a pretty decent explanation that united these two seemingly unrelated sets of facts. Einstein's general relativity basically overturned Newton's theory, but since the math comes out about the same in most normal situations, people still use Newton's simpler equations. General relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanical theory, despite the fact that both are exceedingly accurate in their respective problem domains. This means that either or both of these theories are also slightly wrongish. Yet all these theories have extreme value in explaining the world.
Evolution will never become just another fact. Nor will *any* scientific theory. Facts are just data. Theories are explanations.
Scientific theories are way more interesting than facts. Facts are a dime a dozen. It's the theories that try to make sense of those facts. Facts pile up. Theories explain those facts.
For instance, before Newton's theory of gravity, there were countless observations of things falling down, and countless observations of heavenly bodies moving around. After Newton, we had a pretty decent explanation that united these two seemingly unrelated sets of facts. Einstein's general relativity basically overturned Newton's theory, but since the math comes out about the same in most normal situations, people still use Newton's simpler equations. General relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanical theory, despite the fact that both are exceedingly accurate in their respective problem domains. This means that either or both of these theories are also slightly wrongish. Yet all these theories have extreme value in explaining the world.
Evolution will never become just another fact. Nor will *any* scientific theory. Facts are just data. Theories are explanations.
By: loqi
