Creationism vs. Evolution: Kansas in Spotlight Again

[Provost Harrison]

I expect that once one wheel is discovered (can be utilised in the wheelbarrow of course), the rest just fell into place pretty quickly...ie fire and cooking things on it, obviously after a few painful initial experiments

[Immortal Wombat]

Not only is the glass half empty, but there's a big-ass crack in the bottom of it, and the liquid within it is souring.

[Q Classic]

Don't forget, it's also the knock-off, not the real stuff that's in the glass.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Hueij

Well, 5000 years of civilisation and look how far we've got. The only thing we learned is how to destroy us all with a push on a button. Progress

Bull****. it takes 10 button presses and four synchronized key turns.

[Shi Huangdi]

If Evolution is the truth, which I believe it to be, it should stand up to scrutiny, and they shouldn't be afraid to debate. Those scientific groups mentioned in the article shouldn't boycott. Let them present their arguments and let their truth shine through.

[DaShi]

Justice is blind, therefore it never sees the truth.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I believe in evolutoin, but what is the problem with having a debate over it?

The Panda's Thumb has a good running coverage of this whole thing.

As for the "dabate," it was aptly classified as a kangaroo court. Just look at the people who were going to attend - the usual suspects such as Michael Bebe, etc.

Nothing's new here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
If Evolution is the truth, which I believe it to be, it should stand up to scrutiny, and they shouldn't be afraid to debate. Those scientific groups mentioned in the article shouldn't boycott. Let them present their arguments and let their truth shine through.

As UR pointed out, it's a sham court. There's no reason reputable scientists should give a shred of credibility to this farce. Doing so is degrading to science, and will just make the quacks on the KS schoolboard look legitimate.

[Agathon]

As UR pointed out, it's a sham court. There's no reason reputable scientists should give a shred of credibility to this farce. Doing so is degrading to science, and will just make the quacks on the KS schoolboard look legitimate.

Maybe not. The Scopes trial was a big win for reason in the end.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon

As UR pointed out, it's a sham court. There's no reason reputable scientists should give a shred of credibility to this farce. Doing so is degrading to science, and will just make the quacks on the KS schoolboard look legitimate.

Maybe not. The Scopes trial was a big win for reason in the end.

The Scopes trial was different. For starters, a debate is an extremely poor forum for presenting evidence for evolution: there simply isn't sufficient time. It is good for presenting sound bites.

There used to be a great many debates on the same issue, usually started by one creationist or another. They love these debates because their arguments can be presented easily in such a fashion. That's also why now there are very few of these debates, since evolutionists found out how bad they are for them.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You want to know what to teach in physics you ask a physicist. You want to know what to teach in the life sciences you ask a biologist.

You don't ask a room filled with people with little or no relevant scientific background and an axe to grind.

Gatekeeper, how do you stand it?

I let off steam now and then, such as I did in the opening of this thread. But most of the time, believe it or not, I have faith: Faith that there's more going on than we can ever realize in a single lifetime, and faith in humanity.

It's not easy. I become downright enraged from time to time. My faith weakens. But then I see something — a newborn babe, a gorgeous waterfall, a beautiful night sky, somebody doing something *nice* just because — and my faith is restored.

There's room in this world for faith *and* science. Always has been, always will be. But right now, certain religious elements have, as I said earlier, control issues.

Gatekeeper

[DeathByTheSword]

insert 90% of gatekeepers rant here

[Berzerker]

Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray who has agreed to defend evolution as valid science

Git back below the damn border, Pedrooo



What I find disgusting is the waste of money on this stupid issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Scopes trial was different. For starters, a debate is an extremely poor forum for presenting evidence for evolution: there simply isn't sufficient time. It is good for presenting sound bites.

There used to be a great many debates on the same issue, usually started by one creationist or another. They love these debates because their arguments can be presented easily in such a fashion. That's also why now there are very few of these debates, since evolutionists found out how bad they are for them.

So what you are saying that if the argument can be presented in a clear and logical fashion so that most people can understand, it must be less true than a more complicated argument that cannot?

Seems backwards to me.

I would think that had the arguments for evolution been stronger you would be citing the debates as proof in their superiority.

[DeathByTheSword]

the general idea of evolution is already proven with bacteria. heck i did it when i was at high school. the only thing not proven yet is the beginning and the precise steps from there to here. which will be very hard to prove (but that is why we call it a theory of evolution dont we )