Bob Mercer is reporting today that now that the fight over common core standards for Math and English are over for the year with the departure of the legislators from Pierre, we get to start fighting over standards for science curriculum:
Osmundson described climate change and evolution as “fringe ideas” but suggested there could be ways to hold classroom discussions about them without the school system advocating for or against the
Another opponent, Catherine Billion, of Sioux Falls, tied the standards movement to UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — and its Agenda 21 plan for sustainable development that was adopted at an international conference in 1992.
Billion said many South Dakota families have values that don’t match the school standards as proposed. “And that pits school against parents,” she said.
The state board could adopt the science standards at the May 18 meeting or direct the department to further revise them for possible final approval at the board’s July 27 meeting in Rapid City.
Ugh. Why are they lumping ‘climate change,’ which isn’t settled by any means, with evolution, which has been accepted science for oh, over a century? Regardless, welcome to the next legislative session’s big fight, which could make the battle over algebra and diagramming sentences look tame.
What do you think?
Macro evolution is a myth and not science. It requires more faith to believe that a monkey can be changed into a human than it does to believe there is a God who designed and created us.
Even Senator Thune admits climate change is real. The debate is about whether it’s caused by human activity.
On the other hand, every scientifically observed genetic mutation in history has resulted in a net decrease in genetic information. None has ever resulted in an increase in genetic information. Mutations don’t build DNA any more than tornadoes build houses.
A couple of years ago CNN interviewed Ph.D. astrophysicist Jason Lisle for his reaction to Congressman Paul Broun’s defense of young-earth creationism. Google “jason lisle the rest of the story” for Lisle’s interesting exposé of media censorship in the creation-evolution debate.
If that gets your attention, you may want to track down a copy of “The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present, and Future,” a 2007 book by Ph.D. geologist John Morris.
If Thune actually believes climate change is real, despite all the recent evidence to dispute it, then theres one more good reason not to re-elect him.
Here is a FACT that virtually nobody disputes: The climate is changing.
Over the Ages the much of the Earth was covered in Ice and then hotter than today.
Over millennia, areas formerly that got rain are now deserts and vice versa.
Over centuries, the earth warms and then cools.
Over decades, there are periods of above normal rainfall and then below normal rainfall.
Year-to-year we have warm winters and then cold winters.
Yesterday was warm, today is cooler.
Earlier today it was breezy, now it is calm.
Give me one bit of evidence that the climate isn’t constantly changing both short-term and in the long-term.
As that poster said, the question is whether man has any material impact and Thune’s position is it is negligible at most.
So, it’s changing back and forth little by little just as it always has. What can we do about it? Next to nothing, Next to nothing, although some in government “secretly” are trying with chemtrails.
steve sibson nails it. macro evolution is unproven at best – but since genetic adaptation mutations are now called “evolution” we won’t have a clear discussion about what that word used to mean. what, we shouldn’t teach the facts of adaptation and mutation? you have to actually bring macro-evolution into the classroom in order to revive it and then debunk it. it’s a timewasting debate at this point, even to striving for the proper use of the term ‘evolution’ and what it used to imply.
Why can’t we all agree and greatly appreciate that God was behind the Big Bang and evolution and move on to other issues we face in our state?
Because if there were millions of years of death and decay and disease and extinction before Adam and Eve then the New Testament is wrong when it says death entered the world through Adam and the Fall. If Genesis isn’t true, there would be no need for Jesus. It’s a big deal.
If you resent I veared off into religion I’d retort evolution is entirely faith based where trust is placed in impossible odds to do miraculous things. And, our origins have always been a religious matter. Science however is catching up with Genesis.
It’s ludicrous to me that we teach our kids with a straight face they are just the next random mutation in an unguided evolutionary process. I marvel that we tell kids bullying and racism is wrong yet we teach then survival of the fittest is the rule of life and hold up Darwin’s Origin of the Species of the FAVORED RACES….
It’s given us eugenics, planned parenthood and genocide.
I don’t know what Bible you have been reading but MINE says that death existed BUT eating the fruit from the Tree of Life prevented it. Expulsion from Eden cut off access to the Tree of Life.
Site that reference.
re: the garden of eden – the serpent lured eve to the one tree that was forbidden, and eating of the fruit would bring knowledge of good and evil. once eve and adam knew ‘evil’ by disobeying the order not to eat the fruit, god expelled them from the easy life of the garden and blocked all access to the so-called “tree of life” which would have given immortality. death was not the inescapable fate of all life until that expulsion, or so i’m told. man and woman were created as beings with free will and choice. eating the forbidden fruit was the most certain initial sign that the creation was successful in that regard.
Anne, the Bible indicates very clearly in multiple passages that death entered the world through Adam’s sin, and I’m not sure how what you’ve written above is supposed to contradict that.
Rep Hickey,
I don’t resent you bringing religion into the discussion but can those teachings be done at one’s place of worship, private school, bible school or privacy of one’s home and leave it out of the public school system to respect everyone’s various faiths and interpretations?
Actually, no. Origins is conversation that involves a variety of the disciplines; philosophy and religion, science, math, history, etc. Kids should be brought into the fullness of the discussion not fed faith-based evolutionary theory alone.
Besides science that backs up evolution and genetic findings wouldn’t injecting religious beliefs create conflict? I look at our government and the separations of church and state. Think about the citizens of the United States and the various backgrounds they have in relations to their religious faiths they may have such as Native Americans, Hindu, Buddhist, Judaism, Muslim and others besides those that are Atheist. Then you have divisions of interpretation among those faiths that claim to be a part of Christianity. Injecting religion into our public school system seems to be a recipe for division and conflict.
Their is not enough scientific proof, if any, that there was a Big Bang. How can God be responsible for what did not happen?
The most pressing issue regarding our state is teacher pay. Instead of increasing taxes, we should eliminate unfounded and unnecessary education programs, the standards that used to control teachers, and the testing that documents who is following the desired agenda. You can add 21 to that agenda too.
I was comforted recently by reading a Bible trivia fact sheet that pointed out there is no mention of cats in the Bible.
This means there are no such things as cats, crazy cat ladies, or too many cats.
Anne. I might have to disagree. This is definitely a Biblical themed cat.
That is one cool laid back cat Pat! 🙂
Pat, it took you only eleven minutes to put that together?
Oh my no. I’m not a cat person.
I can see evolution taught in public schools but whatever that student’s religious beliefs in evolution should be taught outside of our public school system. It’s why parents have the opportunity to send their kids to CCD, a private religious school or bible study to teach their faith and compliment their educational experience.
Secular humanism is a religion. Add a little Yoga to the classrooms and you have cosmic humanism, also a religion. What is the result…New Age Theocrats like Cory Heidelberger.
I wish that the secularists would agree that vouchers should be allowed to those who want their children to obtain an education that follows the parents beliefs. The Christian schools I’ve been associated with do it as well or better and for cheaper than the public schools; I guess they resent the competition.
Anonymous 9:05:
I have no problem with Evolution THEORY taught as a possible explanation of how we became to be as we are. But, if no other theory is presented along side, it becomes more than a theory (potential explanation).
Because evolution is scientifically no more supportable than intelligent design, it is incongruous that one is permitted to be taught in schools and the other must be restricted to only be taught and discussed in a church setting. We don’t do it with the Golden Rule or do not steal/murder.
I do think it hilarious there is such atheist/liberal opposition to school yard fights over a girlfriend yet non-critical blind adherence to evolution. By the principle of natural selection, how is a girl to pick the boy who can best insure propagation and improvement of the species? Or claim homosexuality is natural when it violates the principle of natural selection (is it a form of Planned Parenthoods support for eugenics and ultimately eliminating “bad mutation” from our race?). Pretty intellectually and philosophically inconsistent.
Note: I think plausible God may have “taken His time” for us to develop before infusing us with a soul as He is God, His ways are His prerogative and He outside time and space.
Troy,
I’m commenter 9:05 am. Can evolution be a theory and supplemented by a person’s personal religious faith as part of a whole educational experience? Wouldn’t that aid in critical thinking? Maybe my memory is incorrect with time but I remember attending religion class at a Catholic school where we briefly covered other faiths, toured their houses of worship where available and had a religious service exchange program. We didn’t have to time go real deep but it was an introduction that planted seeds in some of us that could not only better appreciate their faiths but our own.
Anonymous 9:05 and 9:56,
As a good Catholic boy, I had learned the Creation story and it was all I knew until I got into 6th grade. My science teacher was excellent as I recall so many things from that year yet to this day. (Sidenote: Science teacher was an atheist/agnostic if that is relevant).
Anyway, after hearing the Evolution story, I was perplexed so i went home and told my mom that God didn’t create us but we grew out of amoeba’s. As a teacher herself, she patiently explained things, said how things exactly happened is likely unknowable, and I can be confident that whatever happened it was God’s doing.
So, its the next day, the science teacher goes back to teaching more about evolution and I impetuously raise my hand and ask how he knows this is true. My teachers response was “it is either evolution or we got dropped here from space.”
Wholly inappropriately and for which I had to stay after school and got in more trouble at home, I laughed out loud and said “That is really stupid.”
My point is that evolution is the only plausible explanation for a non-believer so they convert an unprovable theory into fact and demand it be taught as fact. True critical thinking and pursuit of truth REQUIRES presentation of other theories along side their view. Prohibiting multiple theories is essentially a from of Luddite-ism, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism.
Troy, I’d point out…
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115
I gave all my kids permission and actually urged them to stand up and very politely let their science teacher blathering any nonsense humans came from apes that certainly if Mr. ______ wishes to believe he came from apes he may do so but the Hoffman’s absolutely did not. (Mom begged them to not ever do this and they never had to-the teacher and I laugh about it today) One of the reasons I was certain of this came from genetic profiling done in the early 90’s proving every human being on earth came from one woman and one man around 30,000 years ago. The only argument arose where that happened. North or South Africa. The other reason is I believe the story concerning Adam and Eve in the Bible.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/did-science-prove-we-were-all-descended-from-a-single-woman
I also believe that dino’s were God’s experiment with genetics ran wild which he obviously did not think very highly of. Boom! They were gone.
actually, with dinosaurs, god initially thought birds should be flightless and very big, until he saw what they did to his newly planted garden.
Charlie,
That statement regarding dinosaurs is so ignorant I can’t believe you said it. Dinosaurs were made to be the inspiration for toys so that I would have something to play with in the dirt while left with my dad when he mowed the yard. No dinosaurs and I’d have run into the street and got hit by the milk truck. Sheesh.
Troy, perhaps you and Charlie will recall that the “big bang” math was first worked out and presented to the scientific community by a Jesuit priest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Just goes to show that there’s nothing wrong or inherently evil about being a smart Catholic who embraces science. 😉
“Einstein rejected Lemaître to his face, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories and that “your physics is abominable” and your conclusions unjustifiable.”
http://cosmology.net/BigBang.html
Enquirer this is why Dynamite started the first longstanding universally recognized award given out every year to entrepreneurs. The Big Bang was only used to fool guys like Einstein while Alfred got it perfect as the game changer!
Troy; Tonka was the King of my mud hole!!
Pat and Bill,
Based on what I know, I have no problem with the Big Bang and all theories that flow out of it including intelligent design evolution and think this is the most rational scientific combination of theories. In fact, I find the Big Bang inspiring and evidential of God’s love for us. Rather than just going poof and we are here, God took the time to form the universe with his “hands” placing each star and planet in its place so we could gaze and have a sense of his absolute majesty.
And while I’m comfortable with teaching of evolution as a theory in science class along with other equally plausible theories, I do find the theory that is as likely as a infinite number of monkeys typing randomly on a computer (with spell check) where one ultimately types out War and Peace to be the predominant theory a bit ludicrous.
Yes, that would be ludicrous. It’s also not what Natural Selection is all about. There’s actually very little that’s truly “random” in physics, nor by extension, chemestry, biochemistry, etc. It’s all pretty much “by the numbers” which I would think should appeal to a numbers guy like you, Troy.
The long and short of it is that’s far more of a miracle that were here by evolution than it would be if some all powerful being from wherever just went “poof” on some kind of cosmically capricious whim. It’s also fairly impressive that the laws of physics are so strict that it appears even God has decided to follow them. 😉
Troy, the Pope is using the ecumenical ploy to create a one-world religion, which will convince many that the one-world government will not be a problem. Then all hell will break loose.
Warning to all, the Pope is misleading you on Genesis. You should understand that once you read Revelation, unless you have ears and can’t hear and eyes but cannot see.
The problem with teaching creationism in public schools is that it is centered in religion. Nearly every religion has a creation story. What religious creation are we to teach? There isn’t the time to teach every creation story in addition to every scientific theory. There in lies the problem and the solution. As part of the science curriculum in public schools, evolution is taught. Since we have such a wide array of religious beliefs in America, it becomes the parents job to teach according to family beliefs (christian, jewish, islam, etc.). Do you really want some teacher, who may or may not hold the same beliefs as you, teaching your child creationism that may run counter to what you believe and want to instill in your children? I would think that would create even more problems than we have now. If the child has been taught creation and then gets taught evolution in school, is it really necessary for them to make a scene in class? Wouldn’t we rather (as some are asking in this thread) our children get exposed to as many possible theories and make the decision on their own or in accordance with spiritual and family guidance? A combination of both or many perhaps? I just get the impression that there is so much pressure put on public school to teach absolutely everything that we forget the family has to pick up some of the slack of educating as well.
JW, if you follow the conversation above you will understand that the Big Bang theory was based on a position of a Catholic Priest, who Einstein said was using bad math. Do we want kids believing the Big Bang could be true?
Einstein didn’t say the priest’s math was bad. He said his math was impeccable. He said at first he thought the priests physics was bad, but later recanted. Einstein was, for a while, letting his religious beliefs get in the way of his doing proper science.
From the linked article above:
“At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître’s theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable”[13] (“Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.”)”
…
“After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and is supposed to have said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”
…
“By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20] When Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell, the Pope’s science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[22] though he also was of the opinion that these both fields of human experience were not in conflict.
“This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”
Bill, you never liked context, so here it is from you Wiki link:
After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and is supposed to have said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”[17] However there is disagreement over the reporting of this quote in the newspapers of the time, and it may be that Einstein was not actually referring to the theory as a whole but to Lemaître’s proposal that cosmic rays may in fact be the leftover artifacts of the initial “explosion”.
Bill,
It is a miracle we are here. And, I’m grateful. The how is how He chose to do it and I defer to His judgment. And, I agree there is little that is random which I believe speaks to it having been ordered by an intelligent being (God).
Steve,
I accept Christ’s prayer/wish/desire that we all be one. Doesn’t that mean all of one religion? Regarding Einstein’s admonishment, subsequent analysis has refined the math making it plausible (which is all it takes to be a theory) and thus possibly true. Whether it is even knowable in the future is unknowable. Finally, even if the Creation story is literal and not allegorical, in a way, ex nihilio creation is essentially a form of Big Bang. I guess to me this is quibbling about something with little distinction.
JW,
You are correct there are many different creation stories but because of a common thread they can be unified into a coherent theory which I’m comfortable describing in class as potential alternative to the current “factualization” of a theory (which has become its own religion). You mention the merits of being exposed to as many theories as possible and letting one make their own decision yet you resist teaching any theory but one.
In reality, there are three primary theories:
1) Strict literal creationism
2) Strict accidental evolution
3) Intelligent design
Just as a good economics teacher (or philosophy or social science teacher) can describe Marxism, Fascism, Socialism and Capitalism, I believe a good teacher (regardless of their personal view or favorite) can describe present the basic principles of these three theories regarding creation.
In my opinion, so much of the debate is driven by fear. Strict Creationists fear that what isn’t in the Bible. Strict Evolutionists fear even the contemplation there may be a God. Personally, God have me an inquisitive mind searching understanding. If scientific theories or scientific laws give me a glimpse into God, I find that good and honors the gift of my intellect. And, in the end, when I encounter things that take me away from God, I’m confident the Holy Spirit will steer me back on track.
One small quibble, Troy. I don’t think your #1 is a “theory” or even a hypothesis. In fact, don’t think there is anything even remotely “scientific” about it.
If pressed to say what it is, I would call it a poetic metaphor or a “just so” story. More literature than science. More metaphysics than physics.
Not sure it should even be taught in “science” class, because there is no reasoning involved. It’s a story, it’s not going to change, and you can believe it or not believe it. There’s no real scientific work to do one way or the other. No evidence, no experiments, no analysis, etc…
Bill said, “Einstein didn’t say the priest’s math was bad. He said his math was impeccable.”
Einstein said:
Lemaître’s predictions, however, were not born out by observation and Einstein continued to complain that Lemaître’s understanding of physics was “abominable”
Thus the “big bang” is fraudulently promoted as accepted fact by the scientific, political, and media establishment, as it supports their religious beliefs and the Jewish-Christian Bible. Nevertheless, this theory was not only rejected by Einstein, but is refuted by overwhelming scientific evidence.
The theory of the big bang has failed every major test and cannot explain the origin of the “primeval atom” or the “cosmic egg” which supposedly exploded giving rise to the universe. And yet, the theory prevails.
Because it is based on religion, the magical, supernatural theory of the big bang has been deified, and it is not to be questioned or criticized on pain of excommunication by the scientific establishment. However, it is the proponents of this theory who are the true heretics for they are guilty of the biggest fraud in the history of science.
True science requires that a theory make accurate predictions and be constantly tested against observation. As detailed in Part 2, the theory of the big bang has failed this test.
http://cosmology.net/BigBang.html
Steve, you can either study junk science or real science. If you’re interested in the latter, read Brian Greene and Max Tegmark. Both have good new books out on the subject.
p.s. If Einstein’s calculations weren’t right, your geo-locator on your phone wouldn’t work, and you wouldn’t have the job you have, because your computer wouldn’t work either. 😉
Don’t you know the internet is designed for pictures of cats and arguing about religion?
Not all young-earth creationists do legitimate scientific research, but as the post at this link explains, many do:
http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/10/25/the-rest-of-the-story/
Here is another account of Einstein’s view of the Big Bang Theory:
In January 1933, both Lemaitre and Einstein traveled to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” Duncan Aikman covered these seminars for the New York Times Magazine. An article about Lemaitre appeared on February 19, 1933, and featured a large photo of Einstein and Lemaitre standing side by side. The caption read, “They have a profound respect and admiration for each other.”
For his work, Lemaitre was inducted as a member of the Royal Academy of Belgium. An international commission awarded him the Francqui Prize. The archbishop of Malines, Cardinal Josef Van Roey, made Lemaitre a canon of the cathedral in 1935. The next year Pope Pius XI inducted Lemaitre into the Pontifical Academy of Science.
Despite this high praise, there were some problems with Lemaitre’s theory. For one, Lemaitre’s calculated rate of expansion did not work out. If the universe was expanding at a steady rate, the time it had taken to cover its radius was too short to allow for the formation of the stars and planets. Lemaitre solved this problem by expropriating Einstein’s cosmological constant. Where Einstein had used it in an attempt to keep the universe at a steady size, Lemaitre used it to speed up the expansion of the universe over time.
Einstein did not take kindly to Lemaitre’s use of the cosmological constant. He regarded the constant as the worst mistake of his career, and he was upset by Lemaitre’s use of his super-galactic fudge factor.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/a-day-without-yesterday-georges-lemaitre-amp-the-big-bang.html
These days they are calling that constant you mention “dark energy.” The deal with science, Steve, is that the theories are subject to change, given better experiments and subsequent evidence. Your problem could be that you want to call it a “belief system” but in fact, science is more about not believing than believing. Everything is constantly open to question, or it’s not really science.
And there are a great many unknowns, hence lots of work to do.
Your job, by comparison is quite easy. Read one book, believe it, and go on about your business. End of story.
you know, i read all this stuff posted here about einstein during his peak years in the 20’s and 30’s, and i suddenly remember that i need to resume reading my copy of ‘a brief history of time’ by stephen hawking, from where i bogged down in the 2nd chapter. i may well find that whatever is being debated here has been long solved by hawking and others.
It hasn’t. But for a great overview of the possibilities, read this relatively new book by Greene. Don’t worry, Hawking’s in there. 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Reality
i saw him on a pbs special last year explaining how time travel might be possible. my kind of string theory is wondering how my kids busted up the badminton racquets.
No one has figured out infinity, because we are a bunch of zeros. Only God can divide by zero.
How do you prove the universe is expanding if you don’t first find where it ends. And if it ends, what is on the other side? Even nothing has to be something.
Steve I have maintained that God knew mankind needed to know about the Theory of Relativity so he Impregnated Einstein with it.
Nothing else makes sense.
Sibby, do you know much wood a woodchuck would chuck if he could chuck wood?
Funny Charlie.
But lets get back to the point of Pat’s post. If the Big Bang Theory is actually Catholic doctrine, should it be included in the public school’s standards?
Steve –
I don’t believe it’s doctrine, per se, as much as a theory that does not conflict with Dogma. Who are we to know the mind, and particularly the methods of God?
A ‘day’ of God’s, as described in the Book of Genesis, might be millions of years to us.
“A ‘day’ of God’s, as described in the Book of Genesis, might be millions of years to us.”
The Bible quotes God as saying the following when he gave the Ten Commandments to Israel: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God… For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.”
A day in this context clearly isn’t millions of years. Admitting you don’t believe the Bible is true would be better than misrepresenting what it says.
“The creation of the universe, Francis said, was not a singular event, but rather “went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.”
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115
Who says I’m the one misinterpreting?
So should the Pope’s interpretation be allowed in the science standards, but the Biblical Christian worldview left out?
“Who says I’m the one misinterpreting?”
An anonymous commenter at your blog does. Genesis 2 explains the basis for the sabbath: “By the seventh day God COMPLETED [emphasis added] His work …. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work …”
The people of Israel couldn’t possibly have observed the sabbath day as commanded in the passage I quoted yesterday if that “day” were millions of years long. For Pope Francis to admit he doesn’t believe the Bible is true would be better than misrepresenting what it says.
“For Pope Francis to admit he doesn’t believe the Bible is true would be better than misrepresenting what it says.”
The Pope believes he is the Vicar of Christ and has more authority than the Bible:
http://www.letusreason.org/RC24.htm
genesis 1.1 talks about a full creation at the beginning, but genesis 1.2 says ‘the earth was void, without form’ hinting at a big destruction of some sort, prior to the detailed creation of the world we see today in the verses that follow.
portions of the old testament hint at an earlier garden where god and the ‘sons of god’ coexisted, and a huge division among the sons of god between the faithful, and those following lucifer who directly challenge god on whether anyone could have free will, and that resulted in the creation of adam and eve as free moral agents on a planet where god is totally hidden, so that the nature of free will could be examined in a god-free milieu.
does the creation of genesis of genesis 1.1 go back billions of years, while the creation of 1.2 goes back thousands? that’s a debate.
“does the creation of genesis of genesis 1.1 go back billions of years, while the creation of 1.2 goes back thousands?”
Your comment is apparently an attempt to describe the gap theory, which is explained more clearly—and refuted—in the article below:
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/gap-theory/closing-the-gap/
Thune knows it all just ask him I wonder if he will be at the basketball games .If he is there bring your camera fora photo op.
Creationism has no place in a scientific classroom. By it’s very nature it is not falsifiable and cannot be tested in any way. This is the antithesis of science.
we should study deja vu. didn’t this whole debate happen during the story where rep. hickey had a fight with atheists in the capitol building?
Maybe. What really bothers me about all this is that when countervailing evidence is provided against certain parts of scientific theory, i.e. evolution, people think that is a surefire sign that it shouldn’t be taught without creationism. No, you ninnies, the fact that you can even find countervailing evidence is support for teaching it in a science classroom because the damn theory is testable. You 100% cannot do this with creationism. At all. It’s. Not. Science.
Evolution is not testable. Tell me when we have even gotten close to turning monkeys into humans?
You can test mutations and observe the impact across generations in multiple kinds of settings. Your response is absolutely asinine and I have to believe you are trolling.
“You can test mutations and observe the impact across generations in multiple kinds of settings.”
Every scientifically observed genetic mutation in history has resulted in a net decrease in genetic information. None has ever resulted in an increase in genetic information.
Mutations don’t build DNA any more than tornadoes build houses.
And genetic drift introduces more diversity in alleles. What is your point exactly?
On March 18, 2015 at 12:54 pm, “Dicta” asks, “And genetic drift introduces more diversity in alleles. What is your point exactly?”
My point is that mutations don’t build DNA. And your assertion that genetic drift makes alleles more diverse is false.
Over the species, sure. Within subset population, no.
I’ve replied to this comment below (timestamp: March 18, 2015 at 3:45 pm).
Here’s a set of Q&As for Sibby to ponder.
https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/resources-2/understanding-evolution-the-misconceptions/
Bill, we have successfully tested gravity many times. It is a fact. We have not tested evolution successfully. Your link did not produce a laboratory experiment that turned a monkey into a human.
If you know what gravity is, Sibby, you should publish immediately. The scientific world is waiting for your answer. 😉
Dicta,
I get what you are saying when you say its not science. However, no discipline is so pure that other subjects don’t enter into the discussion. For instance, history isn’t purely about the facts (what actually occurred) but it also includes a discussion of the social science context- The Selma march is not only significant by the facts of what occurred but the context in which it occurred and then the societal impact after the event. Same with science. We don’t talk about destruction of the rain forest in science class without including the impact on the aboriginal people who live there.
Thus, I agree there is one purely scientific theory (one that is purely natural and devoid of the supernatural) with regard to how we got here (lightning, amoeba and macro-evolution) but if that is all that is discussed, we get a stilted discussion similar to saying:
In 1965, x number of people marched across the bridge. The police did this. This many people were killed. This many were injured. This many jailed. Period. That is the history. Or should we put it in context of its effect on society (inter-discipline) or only discuss those other aspects in the social science class?
Dicta, personally I think part of the problem is we have two much distinction in our classes/disciplines instead of integration. How can we teach business principles without interweaving ethics, communication, history, science, and social sciences? Isn’t every literature course also a course on human nature and history?
I think it was Kant who asserted that Mathematics and Philosophy were actually the same discipline. Might not science and religion/theology be similarly united where talking of one requires the talking of the other?
I don’t think your analogies hold at all, Troy. First,in your analogy re: history you act as though history would only recount events, but not the after effects, as if those effects were not events themselves. It doesn’t really work.
As to math and philosophy: certainly there is crossover between math and science, particularly in the area of symbolic and axiomatic logic, but both hold true to some underlying principles, that being using logical deduction to explain problems. Notice that when math crosses over into philosophy, it doesn’t attempt to change the fundamental tenets of philosophical discourse, but rather explains mathematical processes in a manner consistent with the logical discourse expected in philosophy.
What you propose is completely different. You want to completely cut out the scientific method, THE defining point of science and what has driven its power as a predictive tool and introduce supernatural into it, all while claiming it is still scientific. No, it isn’t. I don’t think science kills religion, there is still room for god in a scientific world, but there can be no science when you claim creationism as scientific.
“there is still room for god in a scientific world”
That statement makes you the troll. Here is the truth:
So whom would the great Einstein have admired? They must have been incredible scientists for Einstein to have thought highly of them! And they were. Einstein had pictures of his three heroes of science on his study wall.1 They were Isaac Newton2 (1642–1727), Michael Faraday3 (1791–1867), and James Clerk Maxwell4 (1831–1879).
…
But these three men also had another thing in common—they were all Bible-believing creationists.
http://creation.com/einsteins-heroes
Their belief in god does not make creationism scientific and thus something that should be taught in a classroom. You make zero sense and your arguments are atrocious.
Creationism is historical, and a good scientist should understand it. You don’t have to deny God in order to be a scientist. And a good scientist would reject the theory of evolution as unproven today. That is not a position of a troll, it is of one who faces reality.
You and I will never agree on this issue. So perhaps we should agree on the premise that it will be much better for me if I am wrong than it will be for you to be wrong. In other words, logic says a rational person should believe there is a God. And no scientist who says it will take him a million years to convert a monkey into a human, so evolution is scientific fact, should be placed above a God who created everything in 6 days. That would be illogical.
That’s a really odd attempt at Pacal’s wager, but sure. You continue on with your weak grasp about what the theory of evolution actually is, as well as how the scientific method actually works.
“Dicta” wrote, “You continue on with your weak grasp about what the theory of evolution actually is, as well as how the scientific method actually works.”
The scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. The distant past is subject to neither.
No scientifically observed genetic mutation in history has ever resulted in a net increase in genetic information.
President Jefferson put Jesus on the same plane as da Vinci, Galileo and Isaac Newton.
Steve,
Ummmm. You might want to re-think endorsing Newton as a Christian since he considered Jesus to be a great teacher and the mediator between God and man but rejected Christ was God and worshipping Jesus as such Newton considered idolatry.
Since you reject the Big Bang at least partially since the originator of the theory was a Catholic Priest, it would be consistent you would reject Newton’s thoughts because he rejected the divinity of Christ. If you continue this line of ad hominem rejection of all of a person’s ideas because they disagree with you religiously, before long you have few ideas you can endorse.
Or you become a church of one which does that make you a god-man?
You are right Troy, Newton was among the universalists, who did believe in God and creation, but denied the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. Which is something I think the current Pope is trying to pull.
I’d written, “My point is that mutations don’t build DNA. And your assertion that genetic drift makes alleles more diverse is false.”
On March 18, 2015 at 1:50 pm, “Dicta” replied, “Over the species, sure. Within subset population, no.”
Just for clarification, are you claiming genetic drift makes alleles more diverse within a subset population?