In my opinion, the evolutionists presented a very silly, shallow argument. They were arguing that evolution should be taught solely, without any teaching about other theories. In this way, they were really arguing that only their way of thinking should be taught. This is not a principle that this nation was built on. This nation is known for having an open mind to numerous ideas new, and old. Many of the evolutionists consider this theory their religion. This being said, they really do not understand the Constitution if they think that it says that science can be solely taught, but religion can never be taught, because they have made this theory into their religion. In so many schools today evolution is taught as if it were a religion, and since no other religions are discussed, children must choose between this seeming “religion of science” versus their personal religion. So really, it is the evolutionists that are confusing children. Also, Haught’s comment about idolatry being supported when we attempt to understand God through nature is completely absurd. Observing nature and attempting to understand God through nature can only enhance our understanding of His magnificence. The only way we would be limiting God is if we actually understood everything about nature. But since we definitely do not – since there is always something to study, always something we can learn more about, God cannot possibly be limited. He cannot be limited by His limitless Creation.
The defendants had very good comebacks to each of the arguments set against them, and they were much more open-minded. They were not arguing that only Creationism or any certain religion should be taught, but that other theories about the origin of the world should be taught alongside evolution. Then the students can come to their own educated conclusions about science vs. religion. Plus, the science of evolution and religion really do not have any conflicts with each other. These conflicts are opened up by scientists who do not understand any other religion, and fundamentalists who do not truly understand science. The two really can be reconciled, there is little need for these arguments from die-hards who are not rounded in their education, and are not open to new ideas and different opinions. Such arguments only dig deeper holes; they have little benefit for our students’ education.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
That is a silly and shallow argument, but it is not the one that evolutionists make. Their argument is that modern evolutionary theory is the ONLY valid SCIENTIFIC theory. It is the only one that has:
(1) A large body of scientific literature in support.
(2) Made verifiable predictions which have been confirmed
(3) Continues to be a successful paradigm for guiding research question.
No form of creationism can make any of those claims. Since they can't they are not valid scientific theories and therefore do not belong in a science class.
If you want a shallow and silly argument, let's look at the creationist argument (and, yes, despite protests otherwise, Intelligent Design is creationism):
The creationists claim that just because evolution can't be demonstrated to their satisfaction (although ALL their protests have been dismissed by the vast majority of scientists), creationism should be taught even though it has absolutely no evidence for it.
Well, DUH!! Their way of thinking is called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. We are talking science classes here.
This nation was built by competence. It was not built by credulously accepting inane and arguments based on religious prejudice. But even that is not the issue. The issue is science. In science you are to keep an open mind but not to the extent that your brain falls out. Name one testable prediction made by ID that would set it appart from modern evolutionary theory. I'll bet you can't do it.
Talk about shallow and silly!! No scientist has modern evolutionary theory as a religion.
But then again no scientist says that religion cannot be taught. They say that religion SHOULDN'T be taught in a SCIENCE class. The first amendment of the Constitution says:
That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to establish a barrier between religion and state. In Lemon v Kurtzman the Supreme Court established criteria by which to judge if a legislation regarding religion falls within a permissible area with respect to the 1st amendment. That is generally referred to as the "Lemon Test". It is a 3-pronged test:
Promotion of creationism in school science classes fails that test miserably.
Er ... no its not. What deity is being advocated? What tithes are one expected to give? What ritualistic ceremonies are prescribed? You seem to have a very shallow and silly idea of what religion is.
The only person here who is confused is YOU and I don't think that came from evolutionists.
But that was John Haught, the Christian speaking ... not John Haught the evolutionist. I think I know better than you do as to what he meant, since I have read some of his writings and you have only read what Larry Witham, a Discovery Inst. lackey and Liar-for-Jesus, had to say. But I am an atheist and I am not overly enamored with Haught either. So I wont waste my time defending him here.
Whenever I hear sophmoric crap like this, I am reminded of the Monty Python song, All Things Dull and Ugly:
All Things Dull And Ugly Lyrics
The point being that if you are going to look at only the amazingly neat things in nature and give God credit for that then you should also look at the amazingly nasty things in nature and give God credit for that too. And when you do then "God's magnificence" is a little underwhelming.
But here is another little tidbit for you to think about ... Scientists who DO study nature in great detail, are the one group of people who are most likely to be atheists. How do you explain that?
So how do you explain wisdom teeth?
So then, why did creationists lose every court case in which they have tried to use legislation to insert their shallow and silly argument into science class? Could it be that Witham is not presenting a true picture?
(1) Modern evolutionary theory only deals with the origin of DIVERSITY among living creatures. It does not deal with the origin of the world ... that is astronomy; It does not deal with the origin of the universe ... that is cosmology; It does not deal with the origin of life ... that is origin-of-life research.
(2) So should we teach that Pan Gu took an axe and broke out of his cosmic egg to form the universe? It has just as much evidence supporting it as does the biblical account of creation.
(3) Name a scientific theory of the origin of the world that has ANY present day scientific support for it that isn't being taught.
Science class should be to learn about science. Religion should be learned in Sunday School or wherever it is deemed appropriate. But SCIENCE class is not that place.
While there are scientists (such as Ken Miller whom you referred to ... John Haught is a philosopher and not a scientist) who are able to accept religious beliefs and science; and there are numerous clergy who are able to do the same thing, I tend to think there are
Or perhaps they are real.
Of course they are reconcilable. All you have to do is make words not mean what they say. Then they can mean anything, and if that is the case then you can reconcile anything. But, perhaps that is not a valid thing to do. Perhaps there really are conflicts between the two.
It depends upon the forum, doesn't it? Teaching religion in an science class is inappropriate no matter how you look at it. But I would not object to a class on religion if it were taught in a truly objective manner ... but I doubt if you religious types would allow that.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Personally, I think it pretty "silly and shallow" to suggest that scientifically minded people consider the Theory of Evolution to be a religious belief, or much less to suggest that their grounded understanding of that Theory is similar to a baseless belief in supernatural beings and forces. As for understanding the Constitution, I think that it is you who lacks understanding of the relevance that this document plays in a discussion of these issues. Our Supreme Court and their lower designates are granted by our Constitution the authority to interpret that document, and to apply its provisions to conflicts in public policy through a process of Judicial Review. Currently, there is an overwhelming body of precedent in those Courts which utterly reject the scenario you propose. Before you continue with your fruitless tirade about what you think the Constitution means, I would suggest that you read the following...
Tennessee vs. Scopes (1927) - The most famous evolution vs. creationism case of all time.
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) - The SCOTUS struck down an Alabama law prohibiting the teaching of evolution because the State was advocating religion rather than science.
McClean v. Arkansas (1981) - Federal Court ruled that a law requiring that creationism be given "balanced treatment" in science classes was unconstitutional.
Segraves v. California (1981) - A State Court ruled that teaching evolution in public school science classes does not infringe on the religious rights of any student or parent, simply because the prevailing scientific theory contradicts their beliefs.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) - The SCOTUS struck down Louisiana's "Creationism Act," ruling that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Webster v. New Lenox (1990) - A Federal Court ruled that public school boards may prohibit the teaching of creationism because such lessons constitute an unconstiutitonal expression of religious advocacy.
Peloza v. Capistrano (1994) - A Federal Court ruled that public school teachers do not have to teach creationism, that "evolutionism" is not a religious belief, and that the government may restrict the speech of employees (i.e. teachers) while they are on the job.
Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1999) - A Federal Court ruled that anti-evolution/pro-religious "disclaimers" are unconstitutional.
LeVake v. Independent School District (2001) - A federal court ruled that a school may remove a biology teacher who is a creationist fails to adequately teach evolutionary theory.
Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) - Probably the most famous recent case relating to this issue. A Federal Court ruled that "intelligent design" is for all practical purposes just a dressed up re-presentation of creationism, and that this repackaged "theory" is bound by all of the precedents that have been previously issued regarding creationism.
I will leave the actual scientific arguments rejecting your position to Darwin's Beagle (who is infinitely more well-versed in those arguments than I), and simply note that specifically from constitutional a point-of-view that your arguments are woefully misinformed, and completely without legal merit.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I am very interested in reading the cases you have posted on this blog. But until I have time to do that and time to formulate responses to both of your posts, I just wanted to point a few things out about my blog. I thank you both for your posts because I enjoy reading what others have to say, but I just want to make sure that you both understand that I was writing about a specific article that I read. And I didn't appreciate the "personal jabs."
For instance, you two definitely overused and misinterpreted the "silly and shallow" phrase. I was not saying that evolutionists' arguments are silly and shallow in general. I was only referring to the argument presented in that specific article.
And in regards to evolution becoming a religion for some scientists, I know for a fact that it can and does. But again, I am NOT saying that that is how it is for all scientists, or even for most. That was discussed in the article and so I brought it up in the summary of the article.
My point about them not understanding the Constitution was made because, in the article, the evolutionists were basically arguing that their way is the only way and that there is no room for evolution and creationism to coexist. The concept behind this is what I was saying was not right - our Constitution was not based on a single right way to do things. It allows for an openminded country. Plus, I was not even arguing about the Constitution at all so your comment about my "fruitless tirade" was irrelevant.
I realize that creationism and evolution may not be able to co-exist in the science classroom. But I think that they can certainly co-exist in everyday life which is where these things are applicable anyway. Also, I never argued that creationism and intelligent design are different. In my mind they are the same, so I didn't need you to try to convince me of that. The only real difference is that Intelligent Design clearly allows for it to be any religion's Supreme Being that did the creating, whereas creationism, is often referring more solely to Christians (not always though).
Finally, I want to remind you that the theory of evolution is just that - a THEORY. Yes, it is the most scientifically advanced theory we have, but in Darwin's time, the word "theory" had the connotation of a "hypothesis," not a "fact."
~Until next time...
Congrats, this is the most articulate I've ever seen you.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Purity Balls: For the White, Christian, and (Slightly) Perverted
(1) Concerning "silly and shallow"
You were NOT responding to the evolutionists arguments because you don't know what those arguments were. The ONLY thing you know is what Larry Witham says they are ... and Larry Witham is a dishonest Intelligent Design advocate. The fact that you decided to accept his version hook-line-and-sinker does not bode well for you.
(2) Concerning you knowing for a FACT that evolution is a religion to some scientists:
I don't believe you. You are going to have to substantiate that accusation.
(3) Concerning the Constitution
You claimed that the evolutionists were ignorant concerning the Constitution. Therefore, your argument DID concern the Constitution. Furthermore, you are either outright wrong or you are being misleading when you say
The Constitution IS the law of the land. If any law conflicts with it, then that law is by definition unconstitutional. Therefore, with regard to the law of the land ... The Constitution is the single right way to do things.
(4) Concerning creationism and evolution coexisting in "everyday life":
Er... nobody has EVER suggested that you can't believe in creationism. The only thing that is of concern is the TEACHING of it in a science class.
(5) Concerning THEORY
I actually thought you had an inkling of what the term meant. You said it more or less correctly in one of your posts, but you have it screwed up to the max here.
In science a THEORY is a WELL SUPPORTED EXPLANATORY MECHANISM. What do we mean by that? Let's divide that statement up into two phrases, (1) The adjectival phrase "WELL SUPPORTED", and (2) the noun phrase "EXPLANATORY MECHANISM".
Let's look at the noun phrase first. In science we collect facts. We call that "data". If the science is done properly these are objectve and can be repeated by anyone willing to replicate the study. But facts by themselves are useless. It is the making sense of the facts that is important. By EXPLANATORY MECHANISM, I mean something by which facts can be placed in context in order to make sense of them.
Let's look at an example: There exists retroviruses. HIV is an example of one, but there are others. Retroviruses insert themselves into the host's genome. Usually this is done in somatic cells but occasionally it can happen in germ cells such as eggs and sperm. Retroviruses that happen to insert themselves into germ cells can be passed from generation to generation. Occasionally they become fixed in the population ... that means that all members of the population have them.
Here is a fact ... Humans and chimpanzees share 20+ identical endogenous retroviruses. They share them in the same place in the genome. They are inactivated by the same mutations. They are identical.
What does that fact mean? If one uses modern evolutionary theory as the explanatory mechanism, then it means that humans and chimps almost certainly shared a recent common ancestor who also had these 20+ endogenous retroviruses.
But it is conceivable that you could use some other explanatory mechanism. For chuckles we will use intelligent design. Intelligent design might say we share the identical endogenous retroviruses because the intelligent designer saw a need to do it that way.
So which one is right? That brings us to the adjectival phrase "WELL SUPPORTED". Scientific theories not only need to explain data, they need to make verifiable predictions as well.
So let's try to come up with some predictions modern evolutionary theory might make. To recap modern evolutionary theory says that we shared a recent common ancestor with chimps. If that is so then our genome should be very similar to theirs. Well it is:
H = Human Chromosome
C = Chimp Chromosome
Notice the similarity in banding between homologous chromosomes.
But if you look carefully, you will see a hitch. Right there at Chromosome 2. There are TWO CHIMP CHROMOSOMES aligned with it. What's the deal here?
Well humans have 23 pairs of chromosome, chimps have 24. If humans and chimps shared a recent common ancestor then one of two things had to have happened:
(1) Somewhere along the human line of descent two chromosomes must have fused together, or
(2) Somewhere along the chimp line fo descent a chromosome must have split in two.
Can we determine which it is? Yes, we can. Gorillas and Orangutans have 24 pairs of chromosomes just like chimps, so the correct answer would have to be (1) above ... somewhere along the human line of descent two chromosomes must have fused together.
But let's not stop there. Is there any reason to think such a thing is possible? Do chromosomes fuse together. The answer is YES they do ... and it isn't even that rare of an occurrence. The technical term for it, if you want to google it is a "Robertsonian Translocation".
But let's not stop there. Is there any reason to think that a Robertsonian translocation occurred in human chromosome 2? The answer is YES. The human genome has been sequenced. Within chromosomes there is an area called the centromere. Centromeres provide a site where spindle fibers can attach to the chromosomes during cell division (mitosis and meiosis). These areas have a stereotypic sequence. It turns out that within human chromosome 2 there are two centromeric sequences.
Also, the very ends of chromosomes are called telomers. They too have stereotypic sequences. It turns out that between the two centromeric sequences in human chromosome 2 there is an internal telomeric sequence. This is just what you would expect if a Robertsonian translocation had occurred.
This is what I mean by WELL SUPPORTED. Modern evolutionary theory as an EXPLANATORY MECHANISM has made some predictions and which are supported, but (as is often the case in science) we find some unexpected result. Does it explain these unexpected results ... YES.
Now again for chuckles, let's look at intelligent design. It said that humans and chimps share endogenous retroviruses because the intelligent designer decided that was the way to do it. What prediction does THAT make? Perhaps it may make a prediction that if we keep looking we may eventually see a reason for it. But where do we look to find that reason? You can't say. There is no rhyme or reason for it as best as we can tell. Thus, THAT prediction is NOT verifiable.
How does intelligent design explain the chromosome data mentioned above. Pretty much the same way it explains the retrovirus data. For reasons not apparent to us now, the intelligent designer decided to do it that way.
There are thousands and thousands of potential examples I could give in which the data is satisfyingly explained by modern evolutionary theory. I can not find a single example where ID explains anything in a scientifically satisfying manner.
So in science, a THEORY is more than an hypothesis. It is more than a fact even. It is the basis for explaining facts. And this was true even in Darwin's day. To come at the problem from a different direction I will name other scientific theories:
The Germ Theory of Disease: The theory that diseases are caused by microorganisms
The Atomic Theory of Matter: The theory that ordinary matter is composed of atoms
The Theory of General Relativity: The theory that concerns gravity
Quantum Theory: The theory of matter at small scales
The Cell Theory of Organisms: The theory that says organisms are composed of cells
The Heliocentric Theory of Solar System: The theory that the sun is the center of the solar system.
All of these theories have numerous observations in support of them, and they make testable predictions. The same way that modern evolutionary theory does.
So you are wrong to use the term THEORY to imply that there is doubt about whether or not it is true. In the world of science it has overwhelming acceptance. And that acceptance is not going to go away, because of the overwhelming support given it by findings like I mentioned above. It is especially not going to be supplanted by an unscientific theory that makes NO verifiable predictions,
I hope that this gives you a clue of what a scientific theory is really about.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I have not read the specific article to which you (rather vaguely) refer. Would you please provide a link to that article, so that we can read it as well. Doing so would perhaps have better illuminated your intent.
I really can't dredge up much pitty for you, here. The tone of your blog was clearly derisive, and you did frame the blog in your title as an "Evolution Debate."
That certainly was not made clear in your presentation, which more than once referred to "the evolutionists" in a general way. Nothing in this blog led me to interpret your comments to any specific person or narrow sub-group of evolutionary biologists.
How do you "know it for a fact?" Can you cite any objective source that would support such an assertion?
Again...if that was your intent, a link to the original article would perhaps have been helpful in framing your comments.
I disagree. Your specific comment was that "they really do not understand the Constitution if they think that it says that science can be solely taught, but religion can never be taught, because they have made this theory into their religion." This statement demonstrates a rather significant lack of understanding about our Constitution. Based on what I have been able to gather, it appears that the article to which you refer is itself commenting on the arguments raised in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005). That case centered around the insertion of creationist material into a public school science class. And, as the cases I provided for your review consistently establish, the Constitution (and specifically the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) does in fact prohibit religious instruction in public school curriculums. So, it is in fact true that "science can be solely taught, but religion can never be taught" in the context of this argument.
Your comments here seem a little contradictory to your stated purpose, since the article to which you are referring seems to be commenting specifcally on this issue in the arena of public school science education. However, I would respond to your revised position by agreeing that those who understand the Theory of Evolution and those who believe in religious creationism should be able to peaceably co-exist in our society. However, I would also suggest that no rational mind can hold both of these opinions (as they are commonly presented) at the same time, as there are fundamental elements of these ideas that contradict one another. It is my experience that one can only reconcile these beliefs in a single mind by turning a blind eye to these contradictory elements.
I will once again defer to D.B. for his response to your frank misapplication of the the term "THEORY."
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.