Scientists: Creationist President Would Doom U.S.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Yeah, the thing is that the creationists believe there is this raft of difference between bacteria and much more complicated organisms. The system is more complex but the underlying mechanisms are the same. And that fact also makes bacteria far easier to study too...

And it is no surprise. I mean look at complex organs like the eye.
To ordinary people that haven´t studied biology (and maybe aren´t well educated) it must seem impossible that such organs could evolve in a natural way without any creator necessary who godcrafted them.

These people are easy "victims" for creationists, as for them a divine creator writing (or dictating) books in which everything important about the beginnings of mankind is written down, including how he made earth, animals and humans, is much easier to grasp than the concept of evolution.

[Whaleboy]

I suppose that illustrates the importance of teaching evolution as a case study of the idea that simple causes can yield complex outcomes, like the eye.

[Elok]

Originally posted by yaroslav
Lamarckism was also taught also in Spain when I went to the school and high school, but just as part of the "history that brought us to evolution", and was, as you say, a mere tiny fraction of time in Nature Science class.

BTW, just a curiosity, I have found that in the Spanish mainstream near everyone accept evolution, but a lot of them get lamarckism and darwin and wallece´s theory wrong, and they thing that evolution follow Lamarck´s rule. It looks like lamarckism is more "natural" for many people, even if clearly wrong according to all the facts that biologist have been able to collet.

Isn't Lamarckism the idea that, for example, giraffes evolved from horses or some similar animal that tried to stretch out their necks to reach yummy acacia leaves? Each generation's necks got a little longer from the effort to reach the food, and in the end, presto! A giraffe. At least that's how it was explained in my HS bio classes, and we all laughed our asses off at it. The idea that trying to do something can affect your DNA is absurd. Do people actually find that plausible?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Elok


Isn't Lamarckism the idea that, for example, giraffes evolved from horses or some similar animal that tried to stretch out their necks to reach yummy acacia leaves? Each generation's necks got a little longer from the effort to reach the food, and in the end, presto! A giraffe. At least that's how it was explained in my HS bio classes, and we all laughed our asses off at it. The idea that trying to do something can affect your DNA is absurd. Do people actually find that plausible?

I'll give him marks for effort but alas he got it a bit wrong.

[Proteus_MST]

At the time of Lamarck people didn´t have the knowledge about such a thing like DNA.
So I assume it wasn´t too implausible to believe that efforts you make during your current life somehow influence the characteristics of the offspring you father.

[Elok]

Yes, I can picture that, though I thought Mendel's experiments were before that. I was talking about the supposed plausibility of Lamarck today. Not that the general public is necessarily well-versed in genetics (look at all the magic DNA accomplishes in movies, e.g. Spiderman), but just about everyone knows that our traits are to some extent determined by a bunch of chemical compounds found in most of our cells.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Will

You'd be suprised.

Suprise me!

Originally posted by Will

And for lack of a better word, I'm considering Atheism a religion.

Well, strictly-speaking atheism isn't a religion (it's a philosophical stance about the existance of God) though it is religion related.

Given that it's recognized by such entities as the RCC and many other religious groups I don't think evolution can be considered a belief centered around nonbelief in God.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Geronimo
It *is* possible to respect and value and frequently use the scientific method without *always* using it for everything. You keep asking why people would complicate things with a God of the gaps approach that fits God in as a creator anywhere it does not conflict with science but there is in fact nothing wrong with doing so. Whatever floats their boat.

Believing in a God of the gaps is not somehow in conflict with the scientific method it just is not a part of the scientific method. It's like having beliefs about parallel universes. Sure the gaps can shift and disappear with new theories and knowledge but their belief system could be based on the notion that Gods acts of creation began wherever scientific investigation cannot penetrate. If it turns out that something we thought was impossible to investigate can be scientifically probed they'll simply tell themselves that they were mistaken about where exactly the hand of God played it's part in creation.

Well, I'll agree that unscientific viewpoints are certainly okay. I myself hold some (such as a Platonic veiw of Mathematics).

God of the Gaps however is not simply unscientific it's antiscientific! It basicly states "screw the evidence, we don't understand how this one thing fits therefore we can believe whatever we want". The whole point of science is coming up with results even though we cannot test every variation in every instance (inductive logic). God of gaps rejects that system and in doing so rejects science.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, I can picture that, though I thought Mendel's experiments were before that. I was talking about the supposed plausibility of Lamarck today. Not that the general public is necessarily well-versed in genetics (look at all the magic DNA accomplishes in movies, e.g. Spiderman), but just about everyone knows that our traits are to some extent determined by a bunch of chemical compounds found in most of our cells.

It isn’t. He said they mentioned it in their biology class. It was the same here, in primary school we had an hour or two to explain how we got to evolution. The aincent greek idea, Lamarckism, Darwin’s voyage, religious controversy in the 19th century… Interestingly if I look back at the textbook it in fact did have a case example of how the eye could evolve from primitive forms. Then we had another two hours on evolution, and a few more on the specific theories regarding the origin of mammals and humans.

We did another hour or two in High School on it, then about half a semester on the evolution of man.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, I can picture that, though I thought Mendel's experiments were before that. I was talking about the supposed plausibility of Lamarck today. Not that the general public is necessarily well-versed in genetics (look at all the magic DNA accomplishes in movies, e.g. Spiderman), but just about everyone knows that our traits are to some extent determined by a bunch of chemical compounds found in most of our cells.

No, Lamark was before Mendel. Did you know that Lamark was one of the Directors of France before Napoleon took over? At his death there were riots because the king decreed a state funeral for him as a notable scholar. Old shool republicans were outraged at the prospect of royalty pre-empting their hero.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Perfection
Suprise me!

Well, strictly-speaking atheism isn't a religion (it's a philosophical stance about the existance of God) though it is religion related.

Given that it's recognized by such entities as the RCC and many other religious groups I don't think evolution can be considered a belief centered around nonbelief in God.

Even if atheism can't be considered a religon and you there are no religious groups that believe that the big bang and later evolution are the reasons for the universe we have today, condoning religious beliefs in school is just as unconstitutional as supporting them.

Some people here seem to think that it is a student's right to learn evolution so he/she can make a decision about which idea is true. What about the children of atheists who were raised to believe in evolution? Don't they have the right to learn creationism?

[Elok]

Not as a science, because it isn't. Creationism is utterly unscientific. You cannot have a supernatural being in a naturalistic explanation of the universe. It just doesn't work.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Will
Even if atheism can't be considered a religon and you there are no religious groups that believe that the big bang and later evolution are the reasons for the universe we have today, condoning religious beliefs in school is just as unconstitutional as supporting them.

Evolution isn't a religious belief! It's a scientific theory that is recognized by people of all and no faiths. The Vatican even recognizes evolution.

Originally posted by Will
Some people here seem to think that it is a student's right to learn evolution so he/she can make a decision about which idea is true. What about the children of atheists who were raised to believe in evolution? Don't they have the right to learn creationism?

Creationism isn't a scientific theory and clearly a religious viewpoint. I suppose it could be taught in a comparitive religion or philosophy class, but certainly not in biology.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Will
I already said I don't think anything regarding the creation of the world and its species should be taught in school.

I wonder what teh overlap is among teh people who hold this view and those who complain about corporations importing scientists and engineers from abroad

[LordShiva]