I’m getting emails that Florida is now sliding off the face of reality along with Texas (and South Carolina, and and and).
Each state has teaching standards, a set of guidelines for teachers that set benchmarks for what students should learn in various disciplines. In general, state standards get reviewed every few years to make sure they reflect the best understanding we have of what kids should learn. Also in general, that’s a good thing. However, of course, standards about evolution get attacked by the usual suspects, and it so happens that sometimes the people in charge of changing the standards have an aversion to reality.
And now, thanks to state education reporter Ron Matus, we have learned that Florida has at least one such person.
A most remarkable editorial has appeared in the Florida Baptist Witness, a newspaper with an obvious slant. The editorial raises the very tired (and long debunked) creationist concerns about teaching standards that include educating students about "Darwinism". The usual nonsense ensues (they even quote the Disco ‘tute!) , and would be unremarkable except for the following passage:
At least one member of the State Board of Education (SBOE) is concerned about the new science standards. Donna Callaway, in an e-mail interview with me, explained why she will vote against the new standards, as currently written, when the matter is put to the seven-member board in January.
“I agree completely that evolution should be taught with all of the research and study that has occurred. However, I believe it should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life,†Callaway told me.
Oh dear, the dreaded "teach the controversy" garbage! Let me be plain: there are no other theories of life. Biologists know evolution to be true, and to be not only the best theory going for how life got to be where it is, but consider it a fact. Obviously, Ms. Callaway clearly means Intelligent Design, which is not a theory. It’s garbage.
Evolution “is like no other subject we teach. Therefore, it is of supreme importance,†she said. “This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is. This strikes to the meaning, the value, and the core of life itself. I firmly believe that a child can deal with the proof of science along with a personal belief in God as the Creator of the universe at the same time. The classroom should allow him, openly, that opportunity.
No, it shouldn’t. What is it about the First Amendment these folks find so hard to understand? If they want their kids to learn about the nonsense of creationism, then teach them at home or in church. School is where they learn about reality.
A longtime, active member of First Baptist Church in Tallahassee, Callaway added, “My hope is that there will be times of prayer throughout Christian homes and churches directed toward this issue. As a SBOE member, I want those prayers. I want God to be part of this. Isn’t that ironic?â€
Ironic? No, not really. Par for the course, it seems like. Let me be clear: she can ask folks to pray; that’s her right… but she needs to understand that this sort of thing needs to stay out of the schools. It sounds to me like she’s confusing her own beliefs with what is, y’know, Constitutional.
Those of us familiar with creationist tactics have seen this kind of rhetoric time and again. That doesn’t make it ineffective, though. Only a tiny fraction of Americans read the web, and can find the real information behind this evil movement. I imagine a large fraction of the people who get info on these topics get it through organs like the Florida Baptist Witness.
So, if you live in Florida, you need to make your voice heard! Call your State reps and tell them that teaching religion in school is illegal, and that is what these folks are trying to do. Remind them that Kansas and Dover were humiliated, and most importantly remind them that millions of taxpayers dollars were wasted fighting reality. Write editorials to the newspapers. Call your local TV reporters. Get heard.
As has been shown time and time again, teaching creationism, or its Trojan Horse Intelligent Design, is illegal in public schools. The law is quite clear on this, but clearly many people in positions of power are not.
Floridians, you still have time to save yourself a whole peck of woe. Get on it.
Hat tip to the many folks who alerted me about this situation.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
God Still Loves Us - eventhough teaching relgion in school is illegal.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Phil, thanks for keeping us up to date on all these happenings, but…. geez, this is getting depressing. It’s like some twisted version of whack-a-mole…
December 4th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
“We will win in court” is the only hypothesis the cdesign proponentists have bothered to actually test so far. The results are consistently negative. It’s about the closest thing to a science they’ve got, and I think it should be taught.
“I firmly believe that a child can deal with the proof of science along with a personal belief in God as the Creator of the universe at the same time.”
It must really burn the asses of those cdes. props. who repeatedly swear under oath that ID is science and not religion to have the Callaways of the world repeatedly opening their mouths and exposing it as perjury.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Phil -
There is something which I don’t really understand here. I wrote a post about it in my blog (shameless plug): http://depletedcranium.com/?p=241
You cannot teach creationism in school. You can’t. You cannot teach creation science. The Supreme Court struck that BS down with Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. It’s not constitutional.
The “Intelligent Design” bull was taken before the federal courts in 2005. The federal judge ruled that “intelligent Design” was just a front for creationism and religious rhetoric and was equally unconstitutional: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
That’s it. That’s the law of the land. The decision stands unless a higher court agrees to an appeal and reverses the decision. Until that happens (which it may not) the decision remains binding. It’s unconstitutional.
There is no controversy. They can’t teach ID. The policy of Florida is that ID is religion and cannot be taught. That is their policy whether they like it or not because federal law supersedes state law. As a state in the US, they are bound by the US constitution as reviewed by the federal courts.
End of story. There’s no controversy. YOU CANT TEACH IT. If they do, they’re violating a direct decision by a federal judge and therefore the US constitution.
Attempting to discredit the constitution and undermine the authority of the federal system is high treason. It’s a crime punishable by death. Also, it is a crime which does not require a standard trial, because they are by definition enemy forces operating within the borders of the US and therefore invaders. They should and can be taken before a military tribunal, given an opportunity for defense and then sentenced and taken before a firing squad in short order.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
My cat’s called ‘Disco’. Also- you use that cat doomed pic.
Most unfair to my cat.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
So let me ponder something…if the baptists do indeed pray for this issue, as she’s said she wants, and the standards which reflect reality are indeed applied, does that mean that god clearly doesn’t want religion/ID/cdesign pro. ideologies taught in school? I mean, I thought he was already quite clear about this with Dover. Who in the world is she to question his will?
Clearly, there is a lack of faith on her part if she can’t clearly see the will of god.
/ironic rant
December 4th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Richard: No. It never means that. They can twist it however they want. What it means is that God has decided he wants them to crusade for it on their own and has thrown this in their way because he is trying to make them stronger by making them fight hard. Or maybe he’s testing their faith by making them fight the courts and the country as a whole.
It’s obvious a “challenge” to their faith or commitment. That’s what it always is when S**t happens. So it just proves that god is watching and they have to work harder. see how that works?
December 4th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
This is not surprising coming from a state that puts forth resolutions to call for a day of prayer to ward off hurricanes. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/data/session/2007/Senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s3084.pdf
I’m so glad I moved to the West.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
If they start teaching creationism in school, then maybe we should go into churches and sing hymns about natural selection.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Please remember that this does not just affect the states where this is occurring. The big states drive what the textbook companies do.
If several big states require ID in their texts, all those states who don’t have the buying power will either have to make-do with old texts or take what the big boys ordered.
The textbook companies do not do a cafeteria selection. Well, that is, not without requiring exorbitant fees.
Gary
December 4th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Floridians, run, don’t walk, to Florida Citizens for Science: http://www.flascience.org/ and get involved!
December 4th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
[…] How many doomed states can we have? Florida gets in line.By The Bad AstronomerHowever, of course, standards about evolution get attacked by the usual suspects, and it so happens that sometimes the people in charge of changing the standards have an aversion to reality. And now, thanks to state education reporter …Bad Astronomy Blog - http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog […]
December 4th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
[…] How many doomed states can we have? Florida gets in line.By The Bad AstronomerEvolution “is like no other subject we teach. Therefore, it is of supreme importance,” she said. “This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is. This strikes to the meaning, the value, …Bad Astronomy Blog - http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog […]
December 4th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
[…] How many doomed states can we have? Florida gets in line.By The Bad AstronomerLet me be plain: there are no other theories of life. Biologists know evolution to be true, and to be not only the best theory going for how life got to be where it is, but consider it a fact. Obviously, Ms. …Bad Astronomy Blog - http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog […]
December 4th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Man, about the only defense of Florida that I can give is an example from my own education here.
My high school had a brilliant record for students passing Advanced Placement exams, which count as college credit at most American colleges. Essentially, you give a high school student two semesters, and if they pass a test, they are given a semester’s credit at a college.
One of the most outstanding instructors was a Mr. Hall, who taught AP Biology. Now, since this course was held to real life, grown-up standards, we learned enough about evoloutionary theory to pass a hypothetical college course in biology. We were taught evoloution, given outstanding examples of evoloution, and presented with modern scholorship showing this.
During one of the off days between taking the AP test and the dregs of the school year, our teacher spent a day answering any questions that we students should put to him. One student asked what one question the teacher would like God to answer when the teacher reached Heaven.
The man who had taught us unmitigated biology for an entire year responded by saying, “I would ask why He put all those fossils in the ground to confuse us”.
Before anyone sends off a response shouting about how this teacher is an example of what is wrong, recall that he spent years of his life dutifully teaching science, even though he seems to have had obvious conflicts with it. He did his job, regardless of his faiths.
That takes courage and commitment.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“Let me be plain: there are no other theories of life. Biologists know evolution to be true, and to be not only the best theory going for how life got to be where it is, but consider it a fact.”
Wow, very strong statement. The problem is that the origin of life is not nearly as settled. Evolution only describes how a living organism can increase in complexity.
How the first organisms ‘turned on’, we don’t really know. We have never been able to mix a few bugs up in a lab under perfect conditions - let alone the conditions that must have existed on earth ~3.85 billion years ago.
ID will have less to talk about when scientists can create repeatable experiments that test a theory explaining how life originated. Right now it’s faith in natural processes vs. faith in God.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
As someone who lives in the north but goes down south quite often (that sounds wrong but we’re not children), I know which state is next: Kentucky. It’s been far too long coming. In fact, despite the clear rulings in Kansas and Dover, people in this area are lobbying to teach creationism in schools. I visit this one local site that is often times more liberal than conservative, and even it seems to like polling people with a creationism-leaning bias. That’s perfectly within their right to do, and I’ll not try to stop them no matter how much I disagree with it, but once they make steps to actually institute this train of thought into our public schools, I’m stepping up to the plate and challenging them. As a once-Christian now-Atheist, I’m proud of my true origins and won’t have anything unscientific in school. I’m probably the most outspoken critic of the new movement.
However, a problem still exists that I’m afraid won’t be duly noticed until it’s too late. I can’t specify, because she could get into trouble (corrupt school board and what-not), but my mom works at an elementary school in the east of this state and says that evolution is not taught in school at all. I never heard anything about it in middle school either, so that’s really up for debate too. It’s very alarming, and more so is that, like the Dover case, many of the teachers give a disclaimer when they do have to do a presentation on evolutionary theory. The difference here is that it’s willful. I.E.: “My faith says this is wrong”, and that is something I’m very ashamed of. I know it’s probably more commonplace than it seems, though.
I’m really tired of America and American politics, and I believe that I’ll be hitting Canada, Sweden, or Japan for college, and probably life. Really, you don’t have to deal with this - yet - in those places. When I’m gone, America can go to… Its imaginary hell (can I say that?)… For all I care. Let’s go back to the dark ages, guys…
All sarcasm, ranting, stupidity, and et cetera out of the way, I believe your doomed poster needs to stop including individual states and just be America, because it’s true.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
my first visit to this site have I walked into the wrong room? I thought the subject matter would have been of a different ilk. ID does not even warrant the time and effort you put in. Religion of any kind is man made nonsense put together with dried peas for brains. Do not upset yourselves those with only a couple of firing neurons in the cranial cavity are no threat to science. D…
December 5th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Sorry Denny,
You’re wrong. Religion is important to people. It is a hugely persuasive factor. You cannot just ignore it and pass if off as a couple of neurons. If you do, you have not taken a critical look at theology nor have you had a critical discussion with a theologian.
It is even more important to address topics of religion when they interfere with the educational system. Politics does not favor the reasonable. Science and science education are regulated by politics.
Do not tell anyone that superstitious thinking is not a threat.
And now, to digress to the land of logical fallacies for a moment,
Writing your name as one letter is incredibly pretentious.
In my humble opinion of course.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Aww, where’s the “DOOMED” pic?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:02 am
@ Jordan:
Amen, Brother!
Although His sacred word is not allowed within US schools, and His followers are oppressed, He bares us no grudge. His blessings still fall upon us!
December 5th, 2007 at 3:06 am
[Correction: I messed up a link, so I’m re-posting]
@ Jordan:
Amen, Brother!
Although His sacred word is not allowed within US schools, and His followers are oppressed, He bares us no grudge. His blessings still fall upon us!
December 5th, 2007 at 3:11 am
My simple rule for life: if where you live has more churches than bookstores, museums, and libraries, then you need to leave. I left the South many years ago for the Pacific Northwest and am happy, happy, happy.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:28 am
To be fair to Callaway, she’s talking “origin of life” which evolution does not address per se. Sounds to me like she’s in the ‘theistic evolution’ camp, possibly a ‘God made the Big Bang and set the laws, and then stepped back to watch his creation unfold according to those laws’. To those folks, evolution is real, but one of God’s tools. Maybe she just doesn’t want the “evolution = atheism” paradigm taught; it’s hard to tell from her quotes.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Evolution is neither atheist, agnostic, deist, or theist.
It just doesn’t deal with those issues.
Science tries to uncover natural causes for natural events.
And that’s it.
I’m sure scientists of faith carry on happily in the knowledge that the deity wouldn’t be mean enough to switch the pieces around when they are not looking.
This is a concept that creationists don’t seem to be able to understand.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:16 am
“Evolution is neither atheist, agnostic, deist, or theist.
It just doesn’t deal with those issues.”
Ah, somebody said it before me. And that is evolution’s main problem - not it’s so called “flaws” but the fact that it is by too many people conflated with atheism. Hence the “teach all points of view” nonsense. The general public it seems seriously needs to know that:
1 - Evolution is nothing to do with atheism.
2 - God is nothing to do with science.
3 - God is illegal to teach in public schools, period - unless ALL religions are taught equally.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:57 am
DrBuzz, you bring up excellent points in your first post.
If only this information was far more commonly known, or adhered to, then this type of issue wouldn’t come up, and I wouldn’t be embarassed to be living in this state.
It does make me glad that I’m no longer subject to what public schools teach, and that evolution (at least biological evolution) isn’t a subject at the technical school I’m attending now (the subject is marine engines, for those that are curious).
- “ID will have less to talk about when scientists can create repeatable experiments that test a theory explaining how life originated. Right now it’s faith in natural processes vs. faith in God.”
No, Mike R, that’s not how it works.
First off, nothing explains why only one god amongst the other gods created since civilization began is given credit for life’s origin. If the claim was that it was Zeus that did it, it’d make more sense as to why there’s little intervention into human affairs.
Second, “faith in god” doesn’t explain anything. You might as well claim that “faith in the Tooth Fairy” is an alternative explaination.
While science isn’t 100% certain as to the origin of life, the current theory is the best there is. Details have to be worked out for sure, but that’s how science works; a theory is made, with continuing research that either supports it or disproves it.
Bringing in faith to explain something is no better than the thinking of the Middle Ages.
We’re in the 21rst century now. Let’s act like it.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
“ID will have less to talk about when scientists can create repeatable experiments that test a theory explaining how life originated. Right now it’s faith in natural processes vs. faith in God.” Mike R
No, ID has nothing to talk about unless they can come up with testable ideas. All the evidence leads to current life forms having evolved from a simple ancestor.
Do we know exactly how life began? No, but we know a lot about it. We know the necessary organic chemicals exist in profusion in the universe and we even know how they came about through nuclear reactions in super-novas. Scientists are working on life’s origins and are making discoveries all the time. Already working viruses have been produced from chemicals available on the internet. This is not a matter of faith it is a matter of mystery and discovery. In the meantime what to you discover from believing “god did it?” Absolutely nothing.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Evolution “is like no other subject we teach. Therefore, it is of supreme importance,†she said. “This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is.
What a crock! Evolution is exactly like any other science subject, and has (or at least should have) no bearing whatsoever on anyone’s personal sense of identity. Assuming you’ve got a personal sense of identity, rather than a purely tribal one.
I really am me. How I got here doesn’t change that one iota.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:03 am
She better explain up why evolution is such a different subject. It’s like maths - it’s the observable truth, like 1+1 = 2.
You can’t just say that 1+1 = 3 because 2 goes against a religion.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:26 am
I’m in graduate school to become a teacher. Last year, I did a short paper on this topic. In my research, I came across a small report on a research study where two groups of high school students from the same school were surveyed about their beliefs in evolution and in ID. Then for one quarter, one group was taught evolution only. The other group was taught evolution and ID. The important part is that the group being taught both was encouraged to use the scientific method to evaluate the evidence for each.
At the end of the quarter, the two groups were surveyed on their opinions again. The group taught evolution only didn’t really change their opinions at all. The group taught both became more in favor of evolution. By using the science method to compare the two “theories,” they found for themselves that ID doesn’t hold up.
Unfortunately, in most cases ID would just be taught as an “option” rather than putting kids through the exercise of USING the scientific method to compare and contrast. But if teachers could let students find the answers for themselves, rather than just doing “data-dumps” into their brains, this problem would solve itself.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Texas is still more doomed, though. Lifted directly from the pages of the NewsOfTheWierd.com:
“This is a college education that I can use,” said sophomore Emily Felts, 19, as she praised the homemaking curriculum of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas (which leads to a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities). Men and women may be equal, the school says, but they have different roles, and for women, that includes “how to set tables, sew buttons and sustain lively dinnertime conversation,” or how to use the Internet to track grocery coupons, according to an October dispatch in the Los Angeles Times. Felts said she enjoys the work (except vacuuming), but it “doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what the Bible says.” [Los Angeles Times, 10-11-07]
December 5th, 2007 at 7:45 am
” If they want their kids to learn about the nonsense of creationism, then teach them at home or in church. School is where they learn about reality.”
…And compare the raw time they are under direct control of their parents and in Church vs the time they are taking one part of one unit of one class at school.
We should develop an equation to describe the degree of insecurity in one’s own beliefs as a function of the proportion of time one demands absolute control over what one’s child experiences in the world.
Any mathamaticians in the house?
December 5th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Michelle, I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you. 1+1 does NOT = 2.
1+1=10
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who do not.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:57 am
*sigh* One would think that after all this time people would figure out that, to paraphrase Morbo, “SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!” by definition and definition alone. Suggesting that science take into account supernatural forces is like suggesting an atheistic Christian theology–it’s an absurdity by definition.
What we have here, clearly, is a failure to communicate. Communication consists of speaking and listening, and unfortunately, we can’t do much if people refuse to listen. I guess the trick is to make them want to listen without compromising the truth of science.
> You can’t just say that 1+1 = 3 because 2 goes against a religion.
You can, however, say that pi is equal to three because some description in the Bible describes a (theoretically) circular cauldron’s dimensions that suggests that it is.
Oh, wait, the Bible isn’t a math textbook either?
> homemaking curriculum of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas (which leads to a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities)
A course that leads to a BA in… homemaking? Holy carp, that’s even more useless than secular degrees in communications. Underwater basket weaving degrees ahoy. In Texas’ defense, though, that is a seminary and it’s pretty obvious that young sophomore does not exactly fit the idiom of the modern liberated woman. When secular state-funded schools start having BAs in Home Economics, then it’s time to go about cracking metaphorical heads.
> If they start teaching creationism in school, then maybe we should go into churches and sing hymns about natural selection.
You know, I like this idea.
“All things bright and bea-u-ti-ful,
“All things great and small,
“All things wise and wonderful,
“From goo they did e-volve.”
Okay, it requires some slant rhyming but who’s keeping track.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Thanks for the plug, RBH! Yes, Florida Citizens for Science is neck deep in this fight. We were the first to break the story on our blog about Callaway: http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=331
We’ve been working behind the scenes, too, to get the word out about this. It looks like the mainstream media is finally catching on.
Stop by our blog whenever you have the chance!
December 5th, 2007 at 8:07 am
[…] on this news brief. And, as can be predicted, the reader comments are in flames. Phil at the Bad Astronomy Blog takes note of the fun and […]
December 5th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Am I the only one who thinks these people should be brought before a military tribunal and sent to a firing squad on the grounds of high treason and being enemy forces who have invaded and occupied the US with the intention of undermining the constitution?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:31 am
And the hits keep on coming. Now a Florida state representative comes out against evolution and for intelligent design. Sheesh!
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=335
December 5th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Perhaps we should take up an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” stance. (Okay, that assumes you believe we can’t beat ‘em.) Call all of your Pastafarian friends and have them join these groups calling for “teach the controversy”. The more controversy the better, I say!
What’s that you say? The ID’ers only want you to teach _their_ version of this “controversy”? Heresy, I say! As least the Church of the FSM has hard evidence — they even have charts and graphs! Anyone can write a book, but you can’t argue with charts and graphs, can you?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:48 am
ID will have less to talk about when scientists can create repeatable experiments that test a theory explaining how life originated. Right now it’s faith in natural processes vs. faith in God.
No, they will have even more to talk about. If, right now, I went to the kitchen and whipped up a batch of inorganic stuff, fondling it in just the right way, and proved conclusively that there were now brand new living organisms in the mix where there was just inorganic, non-living, stuff before, three things would happen:
1. It would be immediately doubted by the scientific community, and others would attempt to duplicate my efforts based on whatever notes or stories I could tell.
2. It would be picked up by the Weekly World News as some kind of Illuminati attempt to overthrow the world
3. The DI would issue a press release that says “the creator” must have mixed all the right materials in just the right proportions with just the right fondling because it is far to complex a thing to have just happened.
You can’t just say that 1+1 = 3 because 2 goes against a religion.
You sure can and people do it all the time. How many buildings count the floors thus: … 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, … just because 13 is “naughty”. Right now, my office is suite 1400, but it should be 1300.
I’m surprised that Christians don’t actually declare 1+1=3. After all, the slang for 2 is “deuce”, and “deuce” is also slang for the devil, so 2 is Satan’s number. This little gem forms the bulk of the reason that $2 bank notes are comparatively rare and unwanted in the USA.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:51 am
To Autumn:
Maybe your teacher who said:
“I would ask why He put all those fossils in the ground to confuse usâ€. Was just being ironic or a wisea**. Maybe he did not really believe that god put those fossils in the ground to confuse us but was attempting to make a joke. Did you ever think of that?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:09 am
What a crock! Evolution is exactly like any other science subject, and has (or at least should have) no bearing whatsoever on anyone’s personal sense of identity
True, it shouldn’t. Except that Xians (especially fundies) consider humans to be special, separate from and above animals. Modern Evolutionary Theory shoots that idea down. So it has a huge bearing on their sense of identity.
Rather than reassess their beliefs, they just claim that MET must be wrong.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:12 am
@ Dr. Buzzo
Firing squad is a bit much, I think. You don’t want to feed that religious persecution complex any more than you have to.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
> Am I the only one who thinks these people should be brought before a military tribunal and sent to a firing squad on the grounds of high treason and being enemy forces who have invaded and occupied the US with the intention of undermining the constitution?
No, as they are not uniformed military personnel and thus the UCMJ articles concerning treason do not apply to them. Civilian codes for treason are much, much less severe. Also, if they’re foreign invaders and occupiers, then they can’t be traitors.
Persecution complexes aside.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:27 am
We’re pretty doomed here in California, although for entirely different reasons.
Weather’s good, though.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Evolution “is like no other subject we teach. Therefore, it is of supreme importance,†she said. “This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is. This strikes to the meaning, the value, and the core of life itself.
I have an hard time understanding what that person means by “This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is.”. Confirming what or denying what? And how it has anything to do with evolution?
I personally see life as completely meaningless in itself. If you want a meaning, make it yourself, but don’t force that meaning on others. I see myself as a bunch of self-aware atoms, and that vision that might repulse some people actually fills me with an odd sense of awe about the universe. I have absolutely no need for a father in the sky to comfort me by explaining how he’ll burn all those who do not conform.
To me life has much less “meaning” when I see it as a God that “poof!”es me into existance to worship him and when he gets bored un”poof!”es me, and then rewards or burns me depending on how much of a conformist I was; than when I see it as being a so complex arrangement of molecules that I am self-aware. The latter cannot possibly be more open-ended about meaning than that.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:42 am
> The “Intelligent Design†bull was taken before the federal courts in
> 2005. The federal judge ruled that “intelligent Design†was just a front
> for creationism and religious rhetoric and was equally unconstitutional:
>
> That’s it. That’s the law of the land. The decision stands unless a
> higher court agrees to an appeal and reverses the decision. Until
> that happens (which it may not) the decision remains binding. It’s
> unconstitutional.
Well, it’s not quite that simple.
The Dover ruling is indeed the law of the land… in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If the case goes to court in any other district, the Judge must consider rulings made in other districts but is not bound by them. Two district courts ruling differently on the same issue happens not infrequently, and generally results in the case being punted up to the Supremes.
That’s what the DI folks are hoping for: all they need is one fundamentalist judge to rule that ID is science, and they set up a SCOTUS case. I’m not convinced they could win such a case, but they seem to think they have a shot.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Sure, let’s allow ID into skience klasses, after all, we are SO far ahead of other contries in teaching skience:
29th!?
/irony
J/P=?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:57 am
from the Beaumont, Tx Enterprise (12/5/07)
“Chris Castillo Comer, a veteran science teacher and for nine years the TEA’s director of science curriculum, was forced to resign for what seems like the most trivial of offences: forwarding an e-mail announcement to her contacts of an upcoming talk by an author of a book critical of the intelligent design movement.”
Will the bonfires be next?
December 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Fundamentalist Christians are a blight on our otherwise great country.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Quoting drbuzz0
“Am I the only one who thinks these people should be brought before a military tribunal and sent to a firing squad on the grounds of high treason and being enemy forces who have invaded and occupied the US with the intention of undermining the constitution?”
The defenders of the constitution don’t need an inquisition.
What they need is a strategic plan, media access, a clear (and simple) message, political influence, lots of money, and a cracking PR-agency.
And to work in concord.
Use the system just like they do.
But with one major difference.
Never lie.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Hey Phil - re: teaching religion in school, what do you think of Dan Dennett’s idea (from Beyond Belief II) of teaching all religions in a comparative religion course required as part of a state’s curriculum (even for homeschoolers)? Dennett makes the point that this is in line with Enlightenment ideals (more information is better than none; see sex education) - and may actually help squelch off the flow of credulous, gullible graduates coming out of our school systems.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“I have an hard time understanding what that person means by “This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is.â€. Confirming what or denying what? And how it has anything to do with evolution?”
Well, who are you? Are you a child of God, or are you the descendant of a monkey? To nomonkey creationists, this is a deep and burning issue.
Personally, I’d rather claim the monkey as my ancestor. God is far more embarassing as a general rule.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:37 am
— Sure, let’s allow ID into skience klasses, after all, we are SO far ahead of other contries in teaching skience: 29th!?
Well then you need to change the *culture* here in the US, because the religious nutters are not even on the radar when it comes to that problem.
Math and science are simply not considered fashionable by this society, and it reflects in the attitudes of the kids and what’s considered important in schools. People who like science and math are the “geeks” and “nerds”. It’s absolutely pervasive and unrelenting in movies and television.
This is why I rail against the acceptance and usage of these terms by otherwise intelligent people. It may have worked for the word queer and other cases, but it’s not working in this case. Geek and nerd are still used as insults by the population at large, and I say to hell with them (the words, although the population can go there, too).
But you can’t even complain about how, say, sports are given too much emphasis in schools, because the legions of the little brained accuse you of being “jealous” of the jocks. As if.
But you can’t even raise the issue in this country, because sports are the opiate of the masses, and you get shouted down by the peanut gallery.
And we also have the “feel good” approach to schooling here because we can’t give anyone a bad grade! Oh, my, no! Schools are like video game review sites- they claim to have a 1 to 10 scale, but it’s really a 7 to 10 scale in practice.
And then there’s the broken parents, and broken homes, and broken subcultures that simply don’t value education or personal growth.
There’s localized problems like here in Los Angeles. The school district here is face with millions of kids who speak 97 different languages, and many come from a heavily Catholic culture that places education at about 204th in the list of important things in life.
And it is NEVER going to be fixed. EVER. It is impossible. The Start Trek future where you can pick four people at random and get a serviceable string quartet is not going to happen.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:39 am
— Personally, I’d rather claim the monkey as my ancestor.
Which isn’t what evolution says, but, hey, have at it.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:52 am
But you can’t even complain about how, say, sports are given too much emphasis in schools, because the legions of the little brained accuse you of being “jealous†of the jocks. As if.
Not “as if”.
I was the nerdy kid in school… all the way to the end of university. Even among people in my physics and CS program, I was considered *THE* nerd.
And yes, I was envious of the “jocks” to some degree. Envious of the fact that they got cut slack because they could catch a ball or whack a puck. Our university rugby team used to compete 2 leagues below university level (we’re talking high school kids) and still lose, but the rugby players were heroes and afforded every courtesy, such as time off class to prep for a game. But would a nerd get a chance to attend a computer conference, or maybe spend some time at a planetarium? No, that would be too geeky.
Even today, I have a certain amount of envy, although it’s more like contempt, for the idea that there are literally THOUSANDS of people who make obscene amounts of money for playing children’s games like hockey, football, basketball and soccer. They’re thought of as heroes in so many cultures. I can’t help but think that maybe I could have chosen that path… let’s face it - with a few million in the bank, I could retire from sports and pursue a science degree and the bulk of the career I have now, only I wouldn’t have to work as hard because I’d have a few million in the bank.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Peptron: “I have an hard time understanding what that person means by “This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is.â€. Confirming what or denying what? And how it has anything to do with evolution?â€
JediBear: Well, who are you? Are you a child of God, or are you the descendant of a monkey? To nomonkey creationists, this is a deep and burning issue.
Funny… I had completely forgot that aspect. I only thought of the “life only has a meaning if “somebody” decided life to be”.
I mean… if you descent from a random primate… so what? What it has to do at all with who I am or what I do?
Me too, having read the bible, see primates as far preferable to God, as far as morality goes at least.
I once wanted to write a short story about primates in a zoo refusing the theory that humans are their decendents, claiming that humans are way too cruel and immoral to be their descendents; and some primate preacher claiming that it is in fact true that humans descend from primates, but that it is a divine punishment.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:04 am
— Personally, I’d rather claim the monkey as my ancestor.
Quiet_Desperation:Which isn’t what evolution says, but, hey, have at it.
Who are you to deny the american values of freedom and liberty? In America, land of the free, EVERYBODY has the right to choose to believe as he pleases, especially facts. I personally think that the theory of germs is an obvious work of fiction to have me buy more meat to replace the now greenish steak that was basking in the sun for the entire last week. I’ll eat it anyway, because I choose, as a free person, to believe Pasteurism is just a theory that is there to corrupt our youngs and to crush us with materialism and naturalism.
(Note, the preceding text contained sarcasm. It is left as work for the student to detect where it is. There is also subliminal messages about worshiping Satan, long lost brother of Santa.)
December 5th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I mean… if you descent from a random primate… so what? What it has to do at all with who I am or what I do?
If you descended from some random primate, it becomes harder to claim superiority over the world, since it becomes a reasonable counter-argument that “you’re just an ape”. And having superiority over all things is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.
That’s why it’s so important to Christians that the whole concept of evolution be destroyed.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Be careful about actually accomplishiing the intellectual-exercise goals of eliminating religion and team sports worship from our society. If you take friday night lights and sunday morning worship away from the masses of “true believers”, they just may come to realize how empty, random and useless their lives are. Once that happens, if a fascist “iron fist” government doesn’t impose order on them, they will resort to anarchy. Must realize that most people don’t, can’t, or won’t think rationally for themselves, and without a cheerleader or a pastor telling them who to root for or who to worship, all the rules will be meaningless to them.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:45 am
They should show Desmond Morris’ “The Human Animal” on TV.
Three times a day, for a whole year…
(A guy can dream, can’t he…)
We ARE apes, there is no denying it.
*sigh*
At least there is is NUMB3RS.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am
“Let me be plain: there are no other theories of life. ”
I’m confused how you can say this. We wouldn’t even be reading this blog entry if that wasn’t true. There are lots of “theories of life”, however, just because a theory exists does not make it true. At the same time if you’re calling evolution a theory then that suggests you don’t fully believe it is true and factual.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“You can, however, say that pi is equal to three because some description in the Bible describes a (theoretically) circular cauldron’s dimensions that suggests that it is. Oh, wait, the Bible isn’t a math textbook either?”
If all circles were square then pi would be equal to 4 …
December 5th, 2007 at 11:58 am
It seems rather ineffectual to argue from the point of “constitutional” rather than arguing from the point of what is science and what isn’t science.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I got news for ya, Florida has BEEN doomed for decades. It was in a Florida high school where I vowed that no child of mine would attend a Florida public school. By the time I had my boy, homeschooling was legal. My 11-year-old has harder school work than our exchange student who attends an, “A” school and has AP classes. Not only is my boy’s work harder, I do not allow open-book tests, multiple choice, or word banks. 1st day of school, her Trig teacher had the whole class draw and COLOR (yes, with crayons) a circle and the homework was to write what they learned about circles that they didn’t know before that class. The next day the teacher asked them the volume of a doughnut.
When she first arrived she talked about how unfair Germany was because they break the kids into groups. Smarter kids go to a better school than the dumb kids. 2 months after attending an American public school she’s so annoyed that no one can learn anything because of all the dumb kids in class who slow everyone down. She hates it. She wishes they all went to another school, LOL She has better English skills than anyone in her English 2 class. She’s German. How sad is that? High school kids do not know what a verb is. How is that even possible? Can’t find a verb in a sentence. For grins I gave my boy the 8th grade science FCAT test. He only missed 10, which is still a passing grade. Do you know how many 8th graders can’t pass the stupid test? HE’S 11! Plus we certainly didn’t spend a year studying for the test like they do in public school these days!
http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatrelease.asp
Just consider Florida a 3rd world country and write us off, ok?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Evolving Squid: There’s absolutely no reason for any nerd to feel envious of jocks. All we need to do is pump enough iron(a very boring task), to dissuade other males from challenging us. Looking as though you could unscrew someones head means never having to do it,,,also, being really, really loud helps,,,hey, it works for gorillas.
Gary 7
December 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
@ kingthorin: you are falling into the creationist trap of mixing up definitions of “theory”. In science a theory is a tested, well-supported scientific explanation for a set of phenomena. It is the highest rank a scientific idea can achieve. Nothing in science can be proven, but a theory has passed enough test that it is considered a very reliable (although not necessarily true) explanation. Facts and laws are simply descriptions, say what is or quantifying simple cause-and-effect relationships. Theories are explanations for why certain facts and/or laws are how they are. Facts, laws, and theories are all tentative, all open to falsification or revisision. There is no such thing as truth in science, only varying degrees of confidence. When Phil says there is only one theory for the origin of life, he is saying there is only one well-tested scientific explanation. Intelligent design is not a theory because it has not been tested, in fact it is set up in such a way that testing it is impossible, and it is not scientific.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Not surprising this was in the Florida Baptist Witness. This is the same publication that ran this drivel from wingnut Kathrine Harris during her unsuccessful campaign a few years back.
I’m pretty sure its the the votes… But hey, what do I know? She is the one that helped screw up the voting in Florida not too long ago.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
> because God is the one who chooses our rulers.
As much as I don’t like the idea of enfranchisement by accident, I’m pretty sure God wasn’t born here. Neither has he, I think, passed the naturalization test and taken the oath. God doesn’t get to help choose our rulers until He gets a vote, and, given the laws of our gloriously secular (ideally) Republic, He probably can’t.
God Bless America.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Isn’t it true that religon was one of the very first things that we notice with humanoids? Maybe even erectus had religon, certainly Neanthedal.
It would seem foolish to force most people (to whom evolution means squat and would not every help with their lives) to study evolution.
Teach the kids the anatomy of the different animals and mention evolution. Basic Biology without evolution . (And dont give me crap about there is no biology without evolution)
The US public school system is so dismal that most dont even know basic Math..
Are these the kinds of students who should study evolution? The way it is presented is more like a indoctrination than science.
The real problem is the School system in US is HORRIBLE.
All this evolution debate is utter nonsense and totally pointless.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
It’s sad that we know of states with issues but the government doesnt step in and fix them. It’s up to the people to prove the lies. Volunteer at your local voting stations and bring a camera to document any illegal activities.
Ron Paul 2008!
-Diana Moneymaker
December 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
kingthorin: “I’m confused how you can say this. We wouldn’t even be reading this blog entry if that wasn’t true. There are lots of “theories of lifeâ€, however, just because a theory exists does not make it true. At the same time if you’re calling evolution a theory then that suggests you don’t fully believe it is true and factual.”
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/19/just-a-theory/
You’re confusing the scientific use of the word theory (which is how Phil and other science-side people are using it), with the general lay-man’s use of the word.
What you mean is probably “hypothesis” - an idea that needs to be tested. A hyphothesis that has been tested and supported with evidence becomes a theory. This is the page linked from Phil’s entry above that explains - http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Evolution itself isn’t a “theory” - it’s a fact. Evolution happens. There is no “believing” in evolution. In science lingo, Evolution is a “law” - it happens. Just like gravity is a law. We can see it happen. A law is a description of observances. But why does evolution occur?
To quote the site above: “Laws describe things, theories explain them.”
The theory of evolution - what drives it, is what is slightly more up in the air. Natural Selection is the best theory out there, by far, with the most support and evidence to back it up. You could call ID a hypothesis to explain the fact of evolution (you could call anything a hypothesis - you don’t need evidence to call something a hypothesis). You can’t call ID a theory, because there is no evidence yet to support ID, except the Bible and faith.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
observer:
Well, we may as well not teach them anything about the post-heliocentric orbital theory, anything about astronomy, anything about history, anything about higher math, anything at all that may not “[ever] help with their lives.”
Has the thought ever occured that perhaps elementary and high school are intended to just maybe give children an idea of what they want to do with their lives? Of what perhaps they’d like to study in greater depth? That it may have a utility beyond simply producing worker drones for the great social beehive? That, in this case, it is actually a good thing to give children more knowledge than they will ever find useful, in the hope that some portion of it will catch their interest and they’ll be driven to self-improve?
Naw. We don’t need that. We’ll just teach them how to do data entry and count money and then they’ll be able to do most of the entry-level service jobs that are in the most demand. Yeah, a nation of sub-GED Whopper Floppers sounds like an institution of excellence to me.
I’m a proud product of the United States public educational system. You can only blame administration, teachers, and curricula so far–almost every single teacher I had did their damndest with subpar funding, and this is on Department of Defense bases and then later in [i]Northern Kentucky[/i]. We’re not talking much in the way of local tax dollars to fund these places. A good deal does have to do with the motivation of the individual student and, it’s true, the anti-geek culture doesn’t help. However, there are signs of change, even in a backwater like Northern Kentucky.
Sorry, but complex problems generally don’t have simple solutions. We need evolution in schools just like we need anatomy, English, algebra, calculus, humanities, art, shop, and even, yes, home ec in schools. The more knowledge, the better.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I have no problem teaching evolution in schools. It can go something like this:
“Lots of people believe that a supreme being created everything on earth. Scientists don’t.” Followed by an in depth study of creationism and the biological and geological evidence for it.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
As a scientist, I come down soundly on the side of teaching about evolution in schools.
That said, it’s disturbing to me that my fellow supporters on this website are so condescending, self-righteous, self-satisfied, and assured of their own superiority to the “little people”. It makes me sick.
It’s also incredible that so many of you perpetuate the misconception that evolution is a theory on the origin of life.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
> I have no problem teaching evolution in schools. It can go something
> like this:
>“Lots of people believe that a supreme being created everything on
> earth. Scientists don’t.â€
Wrong on several levels. Lots of scientists also happen to be Christians, many of whom personally believe that God did in fact create the universe, using evolution as one of His tools. The point is, that’s a religious belief, not a scientific one. And there’s nothing wrong with having that belief; it’s just not *science* and therefore has no place in a science curriculum.
The debate isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be IMO) Christianity vs atheism. It’s a literal interpretation of Genesis vs empirically-based observation, ie science.
> Followed by an in depth study of
> creationism and the biological and geological evidence for it.
…or the lack thereof. Personally, I would love to see creationism taught as a perfect example of what science is NOT. But can you imagine how the fundamentalists would howl then?
December 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Siduri: “If they start teaching creationism in school, then maybe we should go into churches and sing hymns about natural selection.”
This is one of the most compelling things I’ve read in a long time. Maybe not hymns, per se, but I’m thinking it’s about time we started showing up to church to give our own “witness”.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I’ve always thought it much preferable to “come from monkeys” than come from God. If it’s the former, then we are evolving, getting smarter, getting better, just generally improving ourselves and our lot in life. Who knows to what heights this can lead. If we come from God, then all we’re doing is “devolving” and that future really isn’t pretty.
And for those who’ve said that “where they came from” isn’t nearly as important as who they are, the first I thought of when I read that was this: “My name is Saul Tigh, I am an officer in the Colonial Fleet. Whatever else I am, whatever else it means, that’s the man I want to be. And if I die today, that’s the man I’ll be.”
December 5th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Rev. Chimp, you quoted Ms Harris when she said: “..that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”
If (in her mind) God is the one who chooses the rulers, (something I’ve heard from various sources, including ‘christian’ leaders, talk radio, etc - almost always in reference to GWB)…If they don’t come right out and say that God chooses the rulers, they tend to say things like, “You HAVE to respect the office of the President”, forgetting, of course thier own actions just a few years ago (I’ve heard Hannity objecting to people referring to GWB as ‘Dumbya’, for example, but ‘Slick Willie’ is/was a perfectly acceptable nickname for a sitting President.
How do these people justify their pilloring of Bill Clinton, who was, after all, ‘chosen by God’?
And what is even more amusing is the other question: How will they justify their revulsion/hate if *shudder*(that’s a shudder of the radical right - I haven’t yet decided) Hillary is elected next year (Or perhaps worse, Obama, who is probably one jump from wearing a turban stuffed with C-4 (OK, maybe a jump and a half))..
December 6th, 2007 at 6:44 am
@ stephanie
“Evolution itself isn’t a “theory†- it’s a fact. Evolution happens. There is no “believing†in evolution. In science lingo, Evolution is a “law†- it happens. Just like gravity is a law. We can see it happen. A law is a description of observances. But why does evolution occur?”
That was exactly my point. By calling it a theory (by any definition of the term) Phil indicated that he isn’t/wasn’t 100% sure about it. I completely agree that it could be considered a fact or law. I was simply playing devil’s advocate.
We’ll completely ignore the fact that he said “life” not “evolution”. To-date the best “theory” of live I’ve come across is “42″.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:09 am
It’s also incredible that so many of you perpetuate the misconception that evolution is a theory on the origin of life.
I’ve never noticed anyone but anti-evolution forces, who rear their little block-like heads on occasion, suggesting that evolution is related to abiogenesis in any way.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am
@kingthorin
Are you who I think you are?
In scientific parlance, a “theory” is as close to “proven fact” as you can get. A “law” is lower ranked, and an “hypothesis” is further below that.
Unfortunately, in colloquial use “theory” and “hypothesis” are synonyms. This is the source of a LOT of confusion and serves to fuel creationists who use the argument that evolution is “just a theory”.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:06 am
@ Evolving Squid
Yes you know me
We’re on the same page as far as theory goes. My original statement still stands. Whether you go by the lay-man or scientific interpretation “theory” still leaves some bit of doubt (though it may be infinitely small). As you said yourself:
‘a “theory†is as close to “proven fact†as you can get.’
Theory != fact
I guess there’s also some argument that says there are things we will never be able to fully prove and thus call fact.
It also seems like building a house of cards to suggest that laws are less than theories. If that were the case then the “theory” of relativity is complete junk since it’s based on the “law” of gravity.
What if we consider “theories” like string theory vs the theory of relativity. Maybe those aren’t good comparisons, that’s just off the top of my head…..I’m sure there are mutually exclusive scientific “theories”. In which case, “as close to fact as you can get” depends on which scientists you talk to.
Here’s an interesting bit to throw into the mix:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-20-2005/0004173856&EDATE
“To be called a scientific theory, Intelligent Design must be at the very least, disprovable. Since there is no way for Intelligent Design to be disproved, it fails the simplest test of scientific theory.”
How does one go about disproving evolution?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:38 am
How does one go about disproving evolution?
There are two observations I can think of that would disprove evolution conclusively:
1. a parent generation of species X creating offspring of a totally different species Y - for example, mate a pair of chickens, they lay an egg and hatch a chimpanzee.
2. take a DNA profile of many species, let them reproduce for a large number of generations and take a DNA profile of the offspring in the later generations. If there are no mutations, then the fundamental premise of evolution is highly likely to be false.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Evolved Squid:
You forgot 3. another theory comes up that naturalistically explains everything evolution does and explains some more things that evolution has difficulty with.
Then again, that’s not really proving it wrong so much as proving it not entirely right, like how relativity and quantum mechanics both simplify to Newtonian mechanics when it comes to “real world” scales.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:34 am
@ Evolving Squid
Good examples.
@ The Centipede
Hmmmm I don’t think you’d want to use theory to disprove theory, #3 isn’t really a good example. By that logic, ID must be a valid scientific theory (based on the quote above) because evolution can disprove it. Using a theory to disprove a theory would seem to negate the weight science puts behind theories (them being as close to fact as you can get).
December 7th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Hence “that’s not really proving it wrong so much as proving it not entirely right” and the emphasis on naturalism. ID still isn’t a scientific theory because it’s not naturalistic; however, pre-scientific concepts such as special creation can be considered disproven based on the natural evidence.
Theories are only as close as one can get to the truth at any given point in time, not as close as one can get to the truth in total. If it were the latter, then science wouldn’t move anywhere as there’s nowhere to go.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Good point!
June 25th, 2008 at 12:56 am
You’re confusing the scientific use of the word theory (which is how Phil and other science-side people are using it), with the general lay-man’s use of the word.
=======================================
david
Florida Drug Rehab
Florida Drug Rehab