Just After Darwin Day...

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

You really have to feel sorry for kids living in the world's last remaining superpower, don't you?

I mean, it is not their fault that they get fed on junk food from Macdonalds that gives them an obesity problem, is it?
And now, people who are old enough to know better want to bring in legislation that will ' teach the controversy' in schools, and develope their 'critical thinking'... yeah, right !!!

Oh, before I forget, have a link:-
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/02/11/%E2%80%98science-guy%E2%80%99-speaks-out-bill-nye-says-nay-to-anti-evolution-crusade-as-bills-pop-up-in-the-states/

Now, the obligatory opinion....

The fact is, there is no controversy regarding biological Evolution in science. Scientists are people who go into the field and into the lab and do their own original research and make their own discoveries and publish the findings for peer review among people well qualified in the same and in related fields, and the consensus among the scientific community is that the Earth is billions of years old and that our species has been around for a lot longer than the 6,000 years allowed for by a literal reading of the book of Genesis.

OTOH, Craetionists turn out overwhelmingly to be people who quotemine and misrepresent the findings of others, and then go on to copypaste the claims on Creationist websites. Rather than doing original research and making ground breaking discoveries like 'Lucy', the big names in Creationism, people like Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and Ken Ham simply sell their books and videos to make money off of a gullible audience. These websites, and the related books and videos advertsied thereon, are packed with misrepresentations and inaccuracies - and sadly, this is what some adult Americans actually believe to be true.

In a recent discussion on Facebook, the following comment was made-
Marcus Clark What they don't tell you is that "Lucy" is not only a compilation of bone fragments of multiple bodies but likely of multiple species. These bone fragments were also collected over a rather large area. By doing a little "digging" you'll find that "Lucy" is a total farce.

And this was cited as ' evidence'

Marcus Clark
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0714_lucy_fails_test.html
and
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0825lawrence.asp
...and
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/truthlucy.pdf
just to show a few.See more

However, as this crushing refutal shows, the original claim was misrepresentation - nobody claimed that the 1973 find was part of the Lucy skeleton, (except the creationists , of course) and the guy who discovered Lucy was quite clear that the knee joint find was from another individual, albeit of the same species - A aferensis.

Go take a look -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
Saturday at 12:53

Now, if this ever comes up in class, how many teachers of the creationist persuasion are going to show both sides of the case, and how many are going to do a good job in demolishing guys like Hovind, Ham and Gish? How many Creationists are actually honest?

It does not bode well for the future of the USA when an agenda driven by the Religious Right gets taught as fact in the classroom. I hope that American kids will get a good deal for once and that this legislation will be rejected for what it is, a cunning plot to bring Creationism into class - but I am a realist. I know how many Americans believe in Creationism, and that many of these will sit on School boards, and have a vote in State politics. People do have a right to be wrong if they choose, it goes with the turf in a democratic nation. However, I don't thiink that these people are making a choice that willbe good for their kids or their country's future if they allow Creationism into the class room.

Comments

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that you are defending the Democratic principle more than Creationism itself, but iif these states do enact these laws, then of course, we cannot complain and say that they should not be allowed.

However, before the vote takes place, we should be aware of what is actually involved here. We should be aware that one creationist website - Answers in Genesis takes the view that

"No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

This is putting the cart before the horse. How far can a teacher go , if they are to use this method?

Sure, a teacher can point out that the muscles on the back of the neck leave lesions on the skull where they attach to the bone, and that the lesions are short in humans and long in shimps and gorrillas. but is it ok to point to Lucy's lesions/ to point out that this indicates that she walked upright?
Ture science allows any interpretation to be offered, and then discussed.

RT Kendall's Westminster Chapel in London did not allow cross examination of Duayne Gish if it was too challenging , and niether will the AiG. If these people want to talk to schoolkids about their beliefs, if AiG material is presented in schools, is it going to be pointed out that critical peer review is not part of the process? Will 'critical thinking' be allowed to run freely over Creationist claims?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

One thing I will caution you on though, and it is something that Europeans often need reminding of, the U.S. is a nation of 50 nations.

So the "United" in United States has been canceled?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, we're one nation with an extremely powerful and vocal fundamentalist minority that's attempting to pervert the system against itself.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

So at the end of the day, why are you defending creationists?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

People's willful attempts to keep themselves ignorant has never stopped boggling me.

Automatically filling the blank spots that still remain here and there in our knowledge about many things - with a deity of some sorts - reminds me of the fairy tales we often tell our very young kids whenever they ask "daddy, where did I come from?" Then we start talking about bees and birds and everything is all right. Funny, many people choose to remain in eternal childhood forever. It would've remained just funny-full-stop, unless entire groups of those eventually started pushing their ignorant agenda onto the rest of society and make turn this into a political issue, now that's where things turn ugly.

Teach the controversy is a nice way to move the goalposts of free speech into a slippery area. By the same logic, why not teach Astrology in class? Many people trust it, don't they?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

It isn't just biology or Evolution that gets contaminated, though.
word is that people who write geology text books in the USa have to be careful that they don't write anything about oil formation that may upset Fundie sensitivity, and that the way that the grand canyon is presented to visitors is suffering from the impact of fundamentalist thinking.

In short, Americans are being kept from the truth in many areas, because those who favour a literal reading of Genesis say they ' want to teach the controversy' but are unwilling to allow anything to be said if it challenges their own belief system.

Go on Wikipedia and search 'Australopithecus', and you get a whole page, with links to 'Lucy', and several other entries. You get maps, detailed discussion of anatomy, and a whole trove of data.

Go to Conservipedia and hit the same word, and there is an entry of two lines, one of them saying that two of them went into Noah's Ark! No, Conservipedia did not link or even know about Lucy, one of the most famous fossil finds on the 20th century.

Is this the sort of education you want for your children ? many Americans would answer "yes"...

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Automatically filling the blank spots that still remain here and there in our knowledge about many things - with a deity of some sorts - reminds me of..."

This isn't what's going on here. The Creationist and ID crowd don't argue that because of limits in our knowledge we should invoke God. They rather argue that the mainstream scientific views on these issues are demonstrably incorrect.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

There's nothing inherently non-nutritious about fast food.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Oh, no one said it's not nutritious. In fact it's often super-duper-hyper-ultra-mega nutritious, in a very bad way.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Don't tell the hippie "omg GMO food is giving my unborn babies a third nipple!!" crowd, they might stop feeling so special and smarter than everyone else. :P

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Except Taco Bell's fast "food".

Would you like sand with that?

[404.livejournal.com]

The key word for fast-food is that it is eaten in moderation.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how you're using the term, but non-nutritious actually would be a fairly good description. Its a lot of calories and not a lot of other things you need. Humans need calories sure, but you need like a hamburger for a full day but other things with it. That's why its much more nutritious to get those same calories from other sources.

The worst part is the soda. The fries aint great.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

What, are you going to be partisan even on a topic like nutrition?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

http://www.mnn.com/family/family-activities/blogs/jamie-oliver-shows-kids-whats-in-a-chicken-nugget

[drcruel.livejournal.com]

>>Now, if this ever comes up in class, how many teachers of the creationist persuasion are going to show both sides of the case

This has always been my beef with the idea of "teach the controversy." Forgiving, of course, the fact that there isn't a controversy outside of the handful of willfully ignorant individuals who reject the broad findings of the entire scientific community.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Separation of church and state, baby. Religion has no place in public schools. Period.

Besides, a "scientific" theory entirely constructed around the purpose of denying another theory is a very bad idea, not to mention how little it has to do with science of any sorts.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Separation of church and state, baby. Religion has no place in public schools. Period."

Well religion has the rather obvious place that someone uneducated about religion isn't prepared to be an informed member of a democracy.

"Besides, a "scientific" theory entirely constructed around the purpose of denying another theory is a very bad idea, not to mention how little it has to do with science of any sorts."

What makes you say that? If the creationist critics were right that (neo-darwinian theories of) evolution were factually incorrect, this would be an entirely relevant and indeed deeply important scientific claim. The problem is not that such would be "a very bad idea" or have "little [..] to do with science" but rather simply that the creationist critics aren't right about this.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

1. Of the three states I've lived in, two are heavily Fundamentalist, each seeing precisely this kind of Creationism vs. Evolution drama played out in the schools. It's ridiculous and offensive both to anyone with common sense, anyone who believes in the separation of Church and State, and anyone who has had the privilege of a college education.

2, However, as panookah already said, the United States doesn't have a monolithic, homogeneous socioreligious culture, which is something I think non-North Americans largely misunderstand. It's like the UK headline I remember seeing after the 2004 elections, "how can 62 million people be so dumb?" or some such, which wholly ignored the 60 million people who didn't vote for Bush. If you traveled to Arkansas and Massachusetts, you'd see widely variant prevailing religious and political cultures, but the world media seems happy to portray America as being some monolithic, Texas cowboy/Fundamentalist Christian stereotype.

This Catholic, bisexual, politically moderate, evolution-supporting American in the Deep South says we're more diverse than you think, and most of us aren't crazy Darwin-bashing morons. The morons merely scream the loudest. Thus, you hear about the school boards that try to impose idiotic ideas, but I don't see much about the vast majority of school boards that don't. Sure, I know, non-controversial, sane activity isn't newsworthy...but that just makes the news less useful.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Good point about the heterogeneity of America. I hope you'll now see why any European hearing how the whole of "Erap" is suddenly lumped into one whole bit would tend to either cringe or smirk.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I've always wanted to visit the Creation Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum). Must be something like Sun City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City,_South_Africa), i.e. - fun! :D

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

'Cept for the roulettes!

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

What this world needs, now more than at any time in our history, is an unstoppable Zombie Stephen Jay Gould.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Or George Carlin.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ironically Creationism's own premise has two problems: it tries to conflate biology with physics and astronomy because like the rest of that particularly US mutation of Christianity it cannot tolerate one break in the system or the rotten structure comes tumbling down. When even Answers in Genesis admits that distant starlight seen 1 billion or more light years away *has to actually be* 1 billion or more light years away, that's a sign that the YEC crowd cannot support their own arguments without reverting to gabbling about nonsense.

Not to mention that Creationism in the schools is little different than teaching geocentrism or that the Earth and the Stars are supported by cosmic pillars, with stars living beings traveling in divinely-ordained courses through the Heavens, which is itself all revolving around the Earth in pre-determined epicycles, while North and South America and Australia and Antarctica cannot exist.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

These are other problems with taking a 3,000 year old book as a science or history textbook:

The earliest problem is that there is absolutely no historical evidence for an Exodus or a Conquest. Historical evidence is that the Israelites were a cultural mutation of existing Canaanite culture, no more and no less. Their religion had a lot of similar overtones to the other ones, and their monotheism arguably did not fully exist, to judge by what history actually *shows* until the post-Exilic era.

The second problem is that there is evidence of a House of David that ruled in Jerusalem, but no evidence there was ever a singular Israelite monarchy that ruled the domain King Solomon was said to have ruled. The United Monarchy, particularly at the extent the Bible says it existed, is as mythical as the super-Armenia seen on Wikipedia in the early Classical Era.

The Bible also claims that Philistines were wearing the kind of Hoplite Armor seen by the Hellenistic era. There was not the infrastructure in those city-states to create that kind of armor, and the gigantic plate armor Goliath was said to have worn makes sense only in the slow, cumbersome formations that made them famous, which were difficult for the Hellenes to maintain and beyond the power of any of the Philistine cities to do.

Far bigger problems are 1) the Bible claims Nebuchadnezzar must destroy all of Tyre such that it can never be rebuilt. Not only did it take a 13 year failed siege for him to merely destroy the landward part (when all literally meant ALL), but Tyre was rebuilt and sacked many times in the succeeding Graeco-Roman through Medieval eras. It still exists and is habitable today. AND the Biblical type of destruction was not seen until centuries later when Alexander made the city come to him by literally building a bridge to Tyre so he could get there.

2) The Bible acknowledges that this was in fact a prophecy that did not occur, but then claims that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer the Egyptians to the extent that Egypt would be uninhabitable for the next 40 years by human beings. Instead the 26th Dynasty was still able to worry about its own civil war without Nebs even getting there in the first place and was conquered by the Achaemaenids under Cambyses II, with Egypt becoming one of the breadbaskets of the first superpower.

[montanaisaleg.livejournal.com]

The good thing about our system is that laws have to follow the Constitution. The idea that creationism should be taught as science in public schools has already been thoroughly ground to pieces by a federal judge's ruling (Kitzmiller v. Dover School District). That's a fantastic precedent to have in the first case testing whether creationism should be taught as science in public schools.

If you haven't seen it already, the NOVA episode (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html) about the Dover case is great.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I will watch it - but it is a two hr special it says.
Can I ask you to comment on the allegations that Judge Jones allowed Evolutionary Scientists to offer testimony without taking the stand in person , but denied this option to the creationist advocates?
Is this true?
Was it ever justified if it is? if so, on what grounds?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Gah, I am sick to death of this.

Seriously, wasn't this settled in 1925?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I think Darwin settled it in about 1850 myself - but not to everyone's satisfaction it seems :)