Scopes Monkey Trial, Round 2: "Evolution is going on trial in Kansas."

School board member Sue Gamble, who describes herself as a moderate, said she will not attend the hearings, which she calls "a farce." She said the argument over evolution is part of a larger agenda by Christian conservatives to gradually alter the legal and social landscape in the United States.

"I think it is a desire by a minority... to establish a theocracy, both within Kansas and growing to a national level," Gamble said.

xpost

S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

read one karl popper. or thomas kuhn.

(Eisbar don't bother)

Darwinism is falsifiable. Religions' claims are not. Which is why the former is scientific and the latter ain't.

i wouldn't go this far maybe.

xpost:

yeah, many of them are philosophers to a degree. however, it is in their use of it which is the deciding factor here.

The idea that only naturalistic means of creation are valid is not considered falsifiable by many scientists. Physics Today requires only use of naturalistic means for submissions to be considered.

so what's the implication here??

as Jim Wallis pointed out, the Moral Majority-types were/are a political movement, not a religious one. they were a very particular strain of conservatism that decided to employ their own form of Protestantism as a crowbar to either pry or hammer their ideas into place.

that's not to say that none of 'em believe in any of this, but to remember that everything they do has just as much to do with winning elections/controlling the governments/gaining more funding as it does with acting from any particular belief.

If every scientist in the world happened to share the same religion and philosophy regarding life, the universe and everything, then there'd be something to that. As it happens, they don't.

A lot of the new evidence has gone away from Darwins original theories

Kinda what I was trying to say, but if I was unclear, let me restate -- anyone claiming to say that Darwin figured it all out I would look at with surprise and suspicion, precisely because of what has been learned that he didn't and in many ways couldn't know. Anyone obsessing over Darwin as the figure to trump and the person whose theories must be proved 'wrong' in order to conclusively demonstrate that a creationist view must be right I'd look at with equal surprise and suspicion.

Yes, microevolution. Please also consider macroevolution which does not work remarkably well and has never been verified.

(as usual, nairn can't keep his concepts or terminology straight, and instead derails thread into a morass of unintelligible gibberish).

please keep your concepts strait. I am talking about the philosopy/science of Darwinism (macroeveolution) or whatever name is best (As I questioned above).

you don't know what words mean, do you?

Darwin said that lack of fossil evidence is the biggest problem for his Theory. As Ned Science should move beyond this and find new ways to acount for this. The idea of "punk eek" is one of these, but too has no verification.

not really. actually it would make things much worse. remember, these fuckheads retain and accumulate power by trolling and putting forth these really asshole statement/bills/laws, and when the rejection comes, switch to the persecuted/defensive role and tell their followers "you see, they attack our ways of life, our beliefs, since i of course represent all of you. this only proves our/your/my righteousness."

as George Lakoff once put it, to attack their framing head-on with the same methods they keep it in place(culture war, yelling on talk shows, etc) will only re-inforce it. or, put another way, "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," as MLK said.

ok. i was thinking in terms of kuhnian paradigms--they do all share the system "science" though and can verify or falsify within the rules set up by that community. there is nothing that places "science" above anything else tho.

(am totally pro-evolution in this wider debate, btw)

Textbook makers using these points as examples, even with knowlede of the faults in them, makes it seem like they have some agenda they are trying make students believe.

the ONLY way to combat them is to do head-on. there's more of us than there are of them, even in the red states and among the religious.

actually, this is not an issue of terrorism.

I assume you mean "temporary evolution" - but even so, what does this term mean? Did you just make that up?

" (like beaks, and viruses)"

Uh, what? These are two completely different frames of reference.

"return to previous state when conditions that cause mutation are removed."

this is 100% not true. Once a form has been evolved, it does not revert to a previous form generations later.

...The United States is also a country whose culture is shaped by the mores and conventions of its overwhelmingly Christian majority. This culture makes it not only acceptable, but often popular and advantageous for Christians to be outspoken and public with their professions of faith. By culture and convention, Christians in America enjoy privileges and power that their coreligionists in other countries could never dream of. When or where in history was it ever easier to profess Christianity in whatever form you might choose?

And yet scarcely a day goes by, regardless of whether or not it is "Justice Sunday," in which some group of American Christians does not claim that they are facing "persecution."

They dare to use that word.

This is delusional, pathological. These people are insane. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ -- and the brothers and sisters of those Christians facing actual persecution in the world's forgotten corners -- but they are insane.

When protected, privileged and pampered American Christians claim to be facing persecution they spit on the wounds of their brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world and in history who have known firsthand what religious persecution really is. They mock not only their fellow Christians in this great cloud of witnesses, but also those of other faiths who have suffered or are, now, today, suffering genuine persecution...

what part of the foregoing do the jesus people NOT UNDERSTAND?!?

x-post

(ps. see, making up teleological nonsense is TOTALLY EASY!)

guess what? EVERY CHURCH DOES. there is not a church today practicing "church" as 1st or 2nd century churches did. that doesn't automatically make them heretical.

i suppose the thread needed to be taken off life support... oh no, another controversial topic with no answer!
m.

If you're calling me a wanker, don't bother. I already knew that.

actually, the "conservative christians" thread had worse.

A Nairn, why do you believe in god?
I'm skeptical of anything else, and beliving in god is a reasonable belief. It doesn't force me to go against my nature, everything fits into place under a belief in god.

But what happens when human nature and science _don't_ back up a belief of god? I guess any evidence (no matter how weak) of evolution for example falls into this category.

Evidence for evolution does compliment a belief in God (It's part of how His world works). Evidence for God's noninvolvment in origin and formation of life (which is a kind of evidence that does not exist and is an impossiblity) would not back up a belief in god.

"Wallis writes from a US perspective in which the Right (and the religious Right in particular) trumpets moral values but in reality champions only two, namely abortion and homosexuality (strongly against both, of course)."
"The religious Right, according to Wallis, misses the real essence of Jesus’ moral teaching, and in blindly pursuing its two key issues, actually ends up opposing much of what Jesus said. Hence, they get it wrong."

This "religious right" as used in this context, is wrong and fundamentalistic according to my definition of "fundamentalim" from above:
Beliving the Bible is inerrant is not a "fundamentalistic" belief. Beliving your one interpretation of a matter is correct, even if it's something added to what the bible says and no consideration is made of what the rest of the bible says, is "fundamentalistic."

Why does everyone try to reframe arguments about theism vs. no theism into conservativism vs liberalism. or moreso the worst side of conservativeism vs. the best side of liberalism?

RELIGION IS MAN-MADE TOO
um, this is a poorly formed argument.

i'm interested in how someone like a nairn respond
personally? I've given more money to poor/homeless people than any of my friends (especially the nonreligious ones and materialists). I've fed them meals many times on holidays. I am not wealthy. I don't spend frivolously. In most things I do, I try to do them out of love for my neighbor and god. Yet I am also sinful and will always be, but I strive to not be.

if you recoil at the idea of science being used to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Oh, I totally agree with you in regards to what you say about faith. My wording may have been a little weird. I meant that if science was perfect it would be able to prove God, and it isn't (God didn't intend science to be perfect) and we cannot prove God.

Nairn, show me an Intelligent Design person who didn't START from a belief in God.
I'm pretty sure Dean Kenyon is like that. He first wrote a book about evolutionary biology refuting ID called: "Biochemical Predestination," then changed his views:
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/DETCHE/VIDEO/BIOLOGY/KENYON/Kenyon.html

calling fundamentalism "a Biblical based denomination" = putting lipstick on a pig.
I didn't call fundamentalism a Biblical based denomination. medal of honor called the PCA denomination somewhat fundamentalist, and I said it was not, but instead Biblical (or aims at being). See the way I defined "fundamentalism" above. I dislike "fundamentalistic" tendencies even more then most of you.

not every church that claims to be based on the Bible (special revelation) is biblically based. Some churches go beyond what's in the bible (general revelation)
EVERY CHURCH DOES
Um, msp I agree with you (notice the little pixel difference in the name of that post.) A church is a human institution that is under the effects of "the fall." They do add claims that are not biblical (see my definition of "fundamentalism") But I think your understanding of "general revelation" is off a bit. It is God revealing to man knowledge of nature, human nature, and history (mostly these 3), not man falsely claiming things. There's a difference.

All churches should recognize both forms of revelation, and try to minimize manmade revelation.

This thread is really, really repulsive. I think it might be the most offensive thing I've ever read on ILX.
don't be too hard are them.

(sometimes I do come of as smug. I don't intend it. I'm trying to sound less smug, and be more clear. I'm confident in the reasonableness of Christianity, but not as much in my reasoning ablity.)

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.

Like I said before, I don't know how one can be so skeptical of human mental faculties w/r/t to one area and have complete, er, faith in them in another area, ie you just *know* that God exists, that people don't have this whole religion thing all wrong, that God revealing himself to people isn't a type of delusion/wishful thinking/looking for connections in things that aren't connected/etc.

forget that for a sec. explain to me why you think religion isn't a man-made concept.

hahaha talk about a poorly-formed argument!

All churches should recognize both forms of revelation, and try to minimize manmade revelation.

well, yeah... i knew that wasn't you. that poster said so. the comment just merited reaction, even if it was trollbait.

of course my understanding is off a bit. that's been my consistent point. yet, i'm not as comfortable with and knowledge of the terms like "revelation" that you're using. there are volumes and volumes of various notions regarding revelation and inspiration. enough so i'd just rather not use such loaded terms. even the notion of "manmade" revelation is incredibly undefinable. where does man end and god begin? is everything man does not useful just because it's flawed?

i just have big problems with the "your church is not as biblical as my church" line of junk. sure, many are mature enough to rise above such we're right/you're wrong things, but many are not. and many of those are polite enough to not say it in mixed company, but still think it. many find it their duty to judge their brothers and sisters... not to mention EVERYBODY else.

that's just insanely sad. and not to say that you are implying such a thing. we probably have a lot more in common theologically than not. and i guess i would rather err on the side of "generous orthodoxy". humble unity over whatever the opposite of that is.

that same humility needs to be extended to nonbelievers. hence, not forcing our beliefs into the lawbooks and into the public classroom. if we could spend half the energy we spend trying to be "right" and force what is right on everyone and instead spend that energy actually serving nonbelievers i think christianity would be much more valued by the community as a whole. if we show people love rather than force it upon them, they're probably more likely to agree that we are indeed trying to show them love and respect.

long post. sorry. windbag? guilty. my dad was a preacher, so i learned to be a windbag naturally.
m.

This is a good point. God's existance is a presupposition. It cannot be proven by human mental faculties, it just has to be assumed as a basis. The only way someone can make this presupposition is through God's involvement because of His mercy. This involvment is known as the Holy Spirit. I say I am skeptical of my human mental faculties w/r/t knowing about spiritual things without the Holy Spirit's aid. How do we know when the Holy Spirit is involved? It's not a perfect science, and many people claim to know about spiritual things which they don't really know. That is why the Bible is important, and that is why I disagree with orthodoxy and think when people become Christians they still sin. I understand that trying to think how Christianity is reasonable without the presuppositions is an impossible thing to do. But whatever philosophy you view things under has it's own presuppositions too. I just think it's better to have God make the presuppositions instead of myself or other humans.

i think christianity would be much more valued by the community as a whole. if we show people love rather than force it upon them, they're probably more likely to agree that we are indeed trying to show them love and respect.

The goal of Christianity is not to be valued by the community or have others agree that Christians are trying to be loving and respectful. It's to give glory to God. Man following Christianity will never solve the fallen state of the world. Christianity becomes Humanism when other aspects of it are taken away. Man following Christianity id only to glorify God, and what gives Him glory and why are hard questions for Man to consider or answer.

showing love through christ-like action is giving glory to god.
m.

"That is why the Bible is important, and that is why I disagree with orthodoxy and think when people become Christians they still sin."

Orthodoxy acknowledges that Christians sin. but Jesus's crucifixion pre-forgave everyone who is willing to repent of their sins (as well as delivered everyone out of hell). there's the assumption, based on the Gospels, that sincere repentance tends to produce the quality of character that sins less egregiously and less often than those who refuse to ask God for forgiveness. that's sort of the crux, as it were, of orthodox christianity. whether genesis is meant to be ready literally or not is an extremely minor issue

The hits just keep coming.

But the Bible was written by man, not God or Jesus (i'm sidestepping the assumption that Jesus is the son of God). Everything we "know" about god(s) comes from man. Without man, there'd be no [concept of] God (and likewise, without "man-of-the-last-2000-years-or-so" there'd be no Christian God).

Liberal Bible-Thumping
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Liberals can confront conservative Christians on their own terms.
Published: May 15, 2005

Even aside from his arguments that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that St. Paul was a self-hating gay, the new book by a former Episcopal bishop of Newark is explosive.

John Shelby Spong, the former bishop, tosses a hand grenade into the cultural wars with "The Sins of Scripture," which examines why the Bible - for all its message of love and charity - has often been used through history to oppose democracy and women's rights, to justify slavery and even mass murder.

It's a provocative question, and Bishop Spong approaches it with gusto. His mission, he says, is "to force the Christian Church to face its own terrifying history that so often has been justified by quotations from 'the Scriptures.' "

This book is long overdue, because one of the biggest mistakes liberals have made has been to forfeit battles in which faith plays a crucial role. Religion has always been a central current of American life, and it is becoming more important in politics because of the new Great Awakening unfolding across the United States.

Yet liberals have tended to stay apart from the fray rather than engaging in it. In fact, when conservatives quote from the Bible to make moral points, they tend to quote very selectively. After all, while Leviticus bans gay sex, it also forbids touching anything made of pigskin (is playing football banned?) - and some biblical passages seem not so much morally uplifting as genocidal.

"Can we really worship the God found in the Bible who sent the angel of death across the land of Egypt to murder the firstborn males in every Egyptian household?" Bishop Spong asks. Or what about 1 Samuel 15, in which God is quoted as issuing orders to wipe out all the Amalekites: "Kill both man and woman, child and infant." Hmmm. Tough love, or war crimes? As for the New Testament, Revelation 19:17 has an angel handing out invitations to a divine dinner of "the flesh of all people."

Bishop Spong, who has also taught at Harvard Divinity School, argues that while Christianity historically tried to block advances by women, Jesus himself treated women with unusual dignity and was probably married to Mary Magdalene.

Christianity may have become unfriendly to women's rights partly because, in its early years, it absorbed an antipathy for sexuality from the Neoplatonists. That led to an emphasis on the perpetual virginity of Mary, with some early Christian thinkers even trying to preserve the Virgin Mary's honor by raising the possibility that Jesus had been born through her ear.

The squeamishness about sexuality led the church into such absurdities as a debate about "prelapsarian sex": the question of whether Adam and Eve might have slept together in the Garden of Eden, at least if they had stayed longer. St. Augustine's dour answer was: Maybe, but they wouldn't have enjoyed it. In modern times, this same discomfort with sex has led some conservative Christians to a hatred of gays and a hostility toward condoms, even to fight AIDS.

Bishop Spong particularly denounces preachers who selectively quote Scripture against homosexuality. He also cites various textual reasons for concluding (not very persuasively) that St. Paul was "a frightened gay man condemning other gay people so that he can keep his own homosexuality inside the rigid discipline of his faith."

The bishop also tries to cast doubt on the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus. He notes that the earliest New Testament writings, of Paul and the source known as Q, don't mention a betrayal by Judas. Bishop Spong contends that after the destruction of Jewish Jerusalem in A.D. 70, early Christians curried favor with Roman gentiles by blaming the Crucifixion on Jewish authorities - nurturing two millennia of anti-Semitism that bigots insisted was biblically sanctioned.

Some of the bishop's ideas strike me as more provocative than persuasive, but at least he's engaged in the debate. When liberals take on conservative Christians, it tends to be with insults - by deriding them as jihadists and fleeing the field. That's a mistake. It's entirely possible to honor Christian conservatives for their first-rate humanitarian work treating the sick in Africa or fighting sex trafficking in Asia, and still do battle with them over issues like gay rights.

Liberals can and should confront Bible-thumping preachers on their own terms, for the scriptural emphasis on justice and compassion gives the left plenty of ammunition. After all, the Bible depicts Jesus as healing lepers, not slashing Medicaid.

What does ID have to do with science class? You can't prove it OR disprove it. It's basically taking the results of scientific investigation and saying "Oh, yeah, and we wouldn't have these results if it wasn't for God." How can you argue for or against that in any setting BUT a religious one? It's not ridiculous, it's just really not something you can give scientific reasoning for one way or another. (You could certainly say "some people believe in a God who created everything" in a philosophy, religion, or even social studies class. I don't think public schools really have the time to require philosophy classes though. It's hard enough to have people graduate with basic math and a little economics and knowledge of how government works, things many won't have the opportunity to learn about after high school, and those things need to be the priority.)

Also, I think the political/religious division in the US is really unhealthy. The equation of Christians with financially and socially conservative Republicans is definitely something that's been created by the conservative Republicans, but it leads to a lot of false assumptions. Christian beliefs on social issues do not actually have to match up with conservative beliefs on fiscal issues. In fact, Christians don't even have to have the same views on all social issues - for instance, there are a few weirdos who are anti-abortion and pro-gay-marriage.

The motivation for most of the Republican Christians I know justifying fiscal conservatism is that they think, "I think that taking care of the poor should be done by individuals and private charities, not the government. I'm not actually disobeying Jesus because of my personal contributions to charity or volunteerism." That's the line of thinking I see, although I think it's wrong because in terms of sheer organization, equitability, and extent the government can do a FAR better job than private charities.

Most people on this thread seem to be against him and yet he comes back time and again to argue his point, and he hasn't really lost his temper.

Also, he's probably getting blamed for a lot of things that other Christians have done and that have little to do with him, which doesn't seem fair.

The Evolution of Creationism

Published: May 17, 2005
The latest struggle over the teaching of evolution in the public schools of Kansas provides striking evidence that evolution is occurring right before our eyes. Every time the critics of Darwinism lose a battle over reshaping the teaching of biology, they evolve into a new form, armed with arguments that sound progressively more benign, while remaining as dangerous as ever.

Students of these battles will recall that in 1999 the Kansas Board of Education, frustrated that the Supreme Court had made it impossible to force creationism into the science curriculum, took the opposite tack and eliminated all mention of evolution from the statewide science standards. That madness was reversed in 2001 after an appalled electorate had rejected several of the conservative board members responsible for the travesty.

Meanwhile, Darwin's critics around the country began pushing a new theory - known as intelligent design - that did not mention God, but simply argued that life is too complex to be explained by the theory of evolution, hence there must be an intelligent designer behind it all.

The political popularity of that theory will be tested today in a school board primary election in Dover, Pa., where the schools require that students be made aware of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. The race pits those who voted last year for that rule against those who oppose it.

Now the anti-evolution campaigners in Kansas, who again have a state school board majority, have scrubbed things even cleaner. They insist that they are not even trying to incorporate intelligent design into state science standards - that all they want is a critical analysis of supposed weaknesses in the theory of evolution. That may be less innocuous than it seems. Although the chief critics say they do not seek to require the teaching of intelligent design, they add the qualifier "at this point in time." Once their foot is in the door, the way will be open.

The state science standards in Kansas are up for revision this year, and a committee of scientists and educators has proposed standards that enshrine evolution as a central concept of modern biology. The ruckus comes about because a committee minority, led by intelligent-design proponents, has issued its own proposals calling for more emphasis on the limitations of evolution theory and the evidence supposedly contradicting it. The minority even seeks to change the definition of science in a way that appears to leave room for supernatural explanations of the origin and evolution of life, not just natural explanations, the usual domain of science.

The fact that all this is wildly inappropriate for a public school curriculum does not in any way suggest that teachers are being forced to take sides against those who feel that the evolution of humanity, in one way or another, was the work of an all-powerful deity. Many empirical scientists believe just that, but also understand that theories about how God interacts with the world are beyond the scope of their discipline.

The Kansas board, which held one-sided hearings this month that were boycotted by mainstream scientists on the grounds that the outcome was preordained, is expected to vote on the standards this summer. One can only hope that the members will come to their senses first.

This passage is very important:

First of all, intelligent design is not what people often assume it is. For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationists—the so-called Young Earthers and scientific creationists—proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator.

The movement’s main positive claim is that there are things in the world, most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to intelligence. Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any natural—or, more precisely, by any mindless—process. Instead, the design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a designer, and one who is very, very smart.

this is the crux: while ID is an inherently pseudoscientific movement,
it's lack of biblical literalism doctrine allows to gain more respect among non-fundamentalists. that is why it is ver very dangerous and must be fought.

Evolution Debate in Kan. Prompts Attacks By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 15, 1:58 PM ET

A discussion about how evolution should be taught in public schools degenerated Wednesday into personal attacks among State Board of Education members.

The board is reviewing proposed standards drafted by three conservative members designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution in the classroom. During the discussion, four board members who want the standards to maintain their existing evolution-friendly tone assailed the proposal.

Bill Wagnon told the three conservative board members they were the "dupes" of intelligent design advocates, who presented what Wagnon said was bad science during public hearings in May.

"It is all based on absolute and total fraud," Wagnon said of the proposal.

But one of the three board members, Connie Morris, lectured the board's four moderates for not attending the public hearings in May, during which witnesses criticized evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes may have created the first building blocks of life, that all life has descended from a common origin and that man and apes share a common ancestor.

"Had you attended, you would have been informed," Morris said. "You would be sitting here as informed individuals and not arrogantly calling us dupes."

Conservatives have a 6-4 majority, so much of what the three members proposed — if not all of it — is likely to survive.

The board didn't make a decision Wednesday about the standards, but it told a committee of educators to review the proposal. Board Chairman Steve Abrams, another one of the three members who drafted the proposal, said he also intended to have a second, external review it in July. That suggests the board won't vote until at least August.

Besides Abrams and Morris, helping draft the latest proposal was board member Kathy Martin.

The ongoing debate over how evolution should be taught has brought international attention to Kansas. The four days of hearings in May attracted journalists from Canada, France, Great Britain and Japan.

The standards determine how fourth-, seventh- and 10th graders are tested on science. They currently describe evolution as a key concept for students to learn before graduating from high school, treating it as the best explanation for how life developed and changed over time.

The proposed standards don't specifically mention intelligent design, except to say the standards don't take a position. But advocates of intelligent design, which says some features of the natural world are so complex and well-ordered that they are best explained by an intelligent cause, organized the case against evolution during the hearings.

Many scientists view intelligent design as a form of creationism, and national and state science groups boycotted the public hearings, saying they were rigged against evolution. As a result, no scientist testified in favor of evolution.

State law requires the board to update its academic standards regularly, setting up this year's debate over evolution.

In 1999, the Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards, bringing international condemnation and ridicule to Kansas. Elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservative Republicans recaptured the board's majority in 2004 elections.

Battles over evolution also have occurred in recent years in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Circulated Monday was a newsletter from Morris, in which she derided evolution as an "age-old fairy tale," sometimes defended with "anti-God contempt and arrogance." She wrote that evolution is "a theory in crisis" and headlined one section of her newsletter "The Evolutionists are in Panic Mode!"

____

On the Net:

State Board of Education: http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us

it was great

http://www.csama.org/safaris/shwks.htm

more like osama.org

Post Rock Quarry Sign is Loaded With Fossils

MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE

haha, i'm trying to imagine what a post-rock quarry would be like

xpost

brainiacs

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article35684450.html