Just After Darwin Day...
14/2/11 09:15![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYou 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 14/2/11 10:32 (UTC)Ok, point taken . I would agree that people have the right to be wrong, and I would also accept that many people in the USA , and also in Europe, sincerely believe that Kent Hovind is a real scientist, who makes valid points about human origins and the world we live in.
this does nothing , however , to address the fact that duane gish continues to make claims that other people have previously refutedin debates with him - there is a technical term for this in Evolution centred discussions "a PRATT - Point Refuted A Thousand Times".
The People who run the Creationist Websites, write the books and make the videos and DVDs do it for money. they make no real contribution to science, but merely cherry pick through real scientist's original work for 'evidence' that they can then sell to a gullible section of the public.
People who care about the quality of public life, about our childrens education and about things like honesty and tax fraud should be challenging the likes of kent hovind at every opportunity and point out real and relevant facts. Hence I make this post. as I said in my Op, people have the right to be wrong if they choose, but snake oil salespeople like Hovind, Gish and Ham have no right to evade paying taxes and no right to live off of people's ignorance, or complain whenmore enlightened people call foul on their deliiberate fraud and money making rackets.
About the Dover Trial...
Date: 14/2/11 12:01 (UTC)I agree, and am curious to know how the verdict of the Dover trail will affect this issue. i am not an expert on American law or the US VConstitution , but I understand that seperation of Church and State is one of it's provisions.
Scientists point out that none of the creationists wanted to show up and be cross examined at the dover trail, whereas people like Kenneth Miller took the stand as expert witnesses.
Creationist apologists called foul on the judge not allowing their statements to be read as this would mean they could present without being cross examined - and this led to him being accused of 'being too political' in the judgement he handed down.
Given that Judge Jones was a conservative Christian , I would have thought that he was going strictly by the book in making such a verdict - but maybe someoen else can elaborate here on how things really are, in terms of what is and isn't constitutionally allowed in the USA.
Re: About the Dover Trial...
Date: 14/2/11 16:03 (UTC)The specific clause is that lawmakers are prohibited from establishing a state religion. Which obviously leaves some wiggle room.
As for the trial, there are pretty firm rules regarding evidence and testimony. If you want to call a witness he/she must be made available for the opposing attorney to interview. Now there are provisions for allowing this to happen "behind closed doors" (usually in cases where testifying may put the whitness at risk) but refusing to be cross-examined is a legal non-starter.
Re: About the Dover Trial...
Date: 14/2/11 23:18 (UTC)As i understand it, Ken Miller spoke from the witness box, but his opposite numbers from the creationists side never showed up.
The whole thing is fraught with claim and counterclaim and needs to be cleared up.