@Dr J Broam. Excellent points, but you also missed the other ones, that it was the Muslims who kept science and medical research going through the Dark Ages. Honestly, I have no faith in Western Dogmatic Propoganda, I mean religion, but at the time, they had the money, and were willing to let people do the research. Mind you, a lot of the human anatomy stuff was funded during the Inqusition to implement more effective torture techniques, but still, you are definitely right.

However since you obviously think it is an inadequate explanation of the diversity of life here on Earth, may I ask then what scientific alternative do you propose?

Thanks in advance.

OK, I’ll bite.

Give us a good reason to suppose that you:
A. Know what (biological) evolution is; and
B. Know what science is.

If you can give credible answers to these points, then go on to explain – in detail, with references to the scientific literature where relevant – exactly why you think evolution is not science.

If you can do this and make a reasonable argument that is supported by positive evidence, I will change my mind about evolution and agree with you. If you cannot, then you have been duped by creationist propaganda. If you choose not to, you are a mere ignorant troll.

And pink unicorns use their horns to push up the tulips in the spring.

I realize that — “What does fair have to do with teaching science?” was simply a good line to lead into my point that deliberately teaching a child to deliberately think fallaciously was child abuse — there is no excuse.

I realize you’re one of the good guys.

……………………………………..

@11. Steve Says: “but our HS football coaches continue to make good money, and the playing fields and stadiums are all updated with modern score boards, turf, etc.”

Your politicians are simply following the model put forth by Roman emperers such as Vespasian; keep the plebs entertained within extravagant stadiums (colosseum) and you can pretty much do whatever you want.

But I am not convinced that you understand it. And the “almost” in your last sentence is telling.

Indeed. I would ask the good doctor which parts of the Theory of Evolution (caps sic) he does not almost completely believe in….and why not.

8. Larian LeQuella Says:

‘…most of that knowledge comes from our understanding of Evolution…’

It doesn’t though, does it?

It depends what you cherry-pick, I guess.

Penicllin – to with Evo.? No.

The initial discovery was not, but the fact that we still have antibiotics that are even vaguely reliable is down to out understanding of evolution. And the fact that Penicillium makes and secretes penicillin is purely down to the evolutionary arms race between the mold and bacteria.

Paracetamol – to do with Evo.? No

Again, it depends on how deeply you look. I’m not conversant with any of the details of the discovery of paracetamol (acetaminophen in the USA or, to give it its full name para-acetamidoyl phenol), but if it was a natural product (say, a secondary metabolite like acetyl salicylic acid), its existence is due to the evolution of whatever plant produced it.

Anasthetic – to do with Evo.? No.

Well, if you consider an anaesthetic to be a chemical cudgel like diethyl ether, then no. But modern anaesthesia is far more sophisticated than that, and our susceptibility to anaesthesia – in fact, that of all mammals – is a result of our evolutionary history. Morphine, for example, is a powerful painkiller because it mimics the action of endorphins (and, yes, I know that morphine is not an anaesthetic per se but it is a tool in the arsenal of the modern anaesthetist). Without an evolutionary advantage to possessing endorphin receptors, we would not be receptive to such forms of analgesia.

The understanding of human physiology – especially the internal workings – to do with Evo.? No.

True, from a limited perspective. However, without evolution, none of it makes any sense. And, without evolution, we cannot liken the physiology of one mammal with another except as some weird coincidence (so, for instance, toxicology studies in animals only have applicability to humans because of our shared physiology and biochemistry – and where animals differ from humans, we can only understand these differences through evolution, which is necessary to understanding the limitations of such a study).

Where most of this knowledge comes from is….wait for it…Christian men experimenting. The further developement of this was often funded by the richest people at the time – the Churches.

Only initially. And apart from those Islamic men who recorded much wisdom while Europe was still recovering from the collapse of the Roman Empire. After – very roughly – the middle of the 19th century, science was a calling in and of itself.

Don’t invent things on which you have no knowledge to suit your argument.

Erm, yes, quite. And don’t cherry-pick to suit your preconceptions.

Evolution has had almost no bearing on everyday medicine.

It is true that evolution, in the sense of a grand theory, has little bearing on many of the individual discoveries that have contributed to modern medicine. However, at least some avenues of research that have themselves led to medical discoveries were only opened up by an understanding of evolution and genetics. Without these disciplines, for example, cancer research is mere stamp-collecting and trial-and-error.

What you are doing is exactly the same as these Creationists – pushing your own unfounded opinions onto the masses.

Projection much?

Just so you don’t all come down like a tonne of bricks – I’m a medical Doctor in the UK and an athiest who believes almost completely in the Theory of Evolution.

But I am not convinced that you understand it. And the “almost” in your last sentence is telling. If you really understood evolution, you would not need to believe it – instead you would find the evidence and reasoning on which it rests compelling.

@truthspeaker – Thanks. Silly of me. Our incumbents know they have only one parliamentary term so they’re doing as much as they can in the limited time available. By the end, we expect that unemployment will have pretty much doubled and that the number of millionaires in the cabinet shall rise from the current 16 to, umm, all of them. Not that they’re corrupt of course. Like the scorpion, they just can’t help it, bless their cotton socks.

‘…most of that knowledge comes from our understanding of Evolution…’

It doesn’t though, does it?

Penicllin – to with Evo.? No.

Paracetamol – to do with Evo.? No

Anasthetic – to do with Evo.? No.

The understanding of human physiology – especially the internal workings – to do with Evo.? No.

Where most of this knowledge comes from is….wait for it…Christian men experimenting. The further developement of this was often funded by the richest people at the time – the Churches.

Don’t invent things on which you have no knowledge to suit your argument. Evolution has had almost no bearing on everyday medicine. What you are doing is exactly the same as these Creationists – pushing your own unfounded opinions onto the masses.

Just so you don’t all come down like a tonne of bricks – I’m a medical Doctor in the UK and an athiest who believes almost completely in the Theory of Evolution.

Other Paul Says:
January 24th, 2011 at 11:32 am

Should we – in foreign lands, with competing capitalist economies – not rejoice in the fact that your future workforce will be horribly mis-educated and thus disadvantaged? Texas is _good_ news for us isn’t it?

Seriously though, do your politicos not understood how they may be shooting themselves in the foot and doing themselves potentially severe economic damage in the future?

I bolded the source of your confusion. The only future politicians are concerned with is the next election.

@Snowshoe the Canuck: Ditto to you.
Might I nominate Ken Cuccinelli? You’re right, though, Ken Hamm is a good one. Hmm, Kent Hovind… I’m making a mental note not to name my kid anything starting with ‘K’.

Has anyone come up with sort of an anti-Nobel prize in science? For people who’ve done their best to drag us kicking and screaming back into the dark ages? If not, I say we do it. We’ll have no shortage of potential nominees…

@26 Other Paul: Now it’s my turn to not be sure if my sarcasm detector is working. I certainly hope you’re not serious about the “sacrificing one school generation” bit. It sounds quite “A Modest Proposal”-ish. I’m sure that’s what it is, but it’s late and I’m uncaffeinated

But gah, “Standing up to the Experts” indeed. Whose idea was it to put these chuckleheads in charge of educating anyone? Would it be too extreme to ask for a few scientists to hash out the science curriculum? Maybe a couple of historians to decide on how to teach history? These are really off-the-wall concepts, I know…

We could call it the True Church Of Science of Later in the Day Geniuses (service starts at a decent time on Sunday, say after the football game).

God, I really dislike rabid religionists.(no, that’s not an oxymoron).

Why can’t atheists and agnostics get the same tax benefits as churches? Is it just because we’re not organized??? I hear these same nut jobs describing atheism and agnosticism as a “belief system”, like their favorite religion, so if that’s what they believe about us then we should all get the same tax breaks.

Oh. Right. We have no dogmatic description of god. I can fix that;

1) God is me.

2) but I’m agnostic

3) therefore god is agnostic

3b) because I told me so(Prove me a liar)

There’s your dogma. Now give me tax exemptions.

Gary 7