If they really believe it's appropriate to question everything then why do they make such a song and dance about people who question evolution? Why invoke the law (the law!) to ensure their worldview is the only one that it's legal to teach in schools? It's hard to believe these people actually believe a single word that comes out of their own mouths - no doubt that's why it's called "the unbelievers".
Nothing wrong with questioning evolution. But if you want to try, you need to have a better theory, with better evidence that better explains the known facts. And, so far, no-one has.
Only because the people who "question evolution" (ie: creationists and IDists) do not, in fact, ask any legitimate questions, and are advancing a (very poorly) hidden religous agenda. And since these bogus "questioners" are thus breaking the law (insofar as this applies to American schools), legal action would seem to be an appropriate response, no?
@Watson I know it's against the law, but how preposterous is that? I mean, if it did turn out that God created life it would still be illegal to teach it and the theory of evolution, even though known to be false, would still have to be taught.
Well, if the creationists or IDists ever actually came up with a scientifically credible theory, then American lawmakers might have some work to do, mightn't they? (Though of course, the IDists would vociferously deny that their work had anything to do with religion, nosirreebob!)
But given the progress to date on that front, that possibility can be safely filed alongside the contingency plans against being defecated upon by aviating porcines....
I mean, if it did turn out that God created life it would still be illegal to teach it and the theory of evolution, even though known to be false, would still have to be taught.
That's hilarious. Inadvertantly you have just summed up the long battle between reason and myth. In just one sentence. It would be more remarkable if you understood this.
@SRM You are of course at liberty to deal with the point. But since you didn't, what's really hilarious is your apparent belief that you know what you're talking about.
And there it is: any objection is derided without any proof of its non-validity: accusation of creationist boilerplate without any reference to creationism in the actual comment. Pure kneejerk ideological bullying. The logic of evolution is merely to accept it regardless of its inability to be proven except tangentially and without actual replicability. Descent is assumed due to circumstantial evidence, not by the use of DNA or other more substantial and falsifiable methods. The falsifiability of early evolution is laughable.
Moreover the idea that a false idea MUST be accepted in the absence of a true idea is also laughable.
Stan: Descent is assumed due to circumstantial evidence, not by the use of DNA or other more substantial and falsifiable methods.
Bullshit. "Not by the use of DNA"? Bullshit. How many times do we have to cite the Douglas Theobald paper? We keep citing that and many other genetic studies.
Somebody, please copy in the Theobald paper citation... for the millionth time...
We've pointed out many times all the DNA evidence. For example: human chromosome 2 resembles a fusion of chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b, with a pseudotelomeric region in the middle, an un-needed pseudo-centromere, the region above the pseudotelomere is syntenous with chimp chromosome 2a, the the region below the pseudotelomere is syntenous with chimp chromosome 2b.
That's one line of evidence, there are many others.
We have the fossils. We have Australopithecus, Homo habilis, early Homo erectus (Dmanisi), later Homo erectus. We know hominid brain size increased gradually and the brain size ranges of different species overlap each other, or very nearly so. We win.
any objection is derided without any proof of its non-validity
Bullshit. There are many websites with vast databases of evidence: Panda's Thumb and obviously, Talk Origins.
Why invoke the law (the law!) to ensure their worldview is the only one that it's legal to teach in schools?
That's not the case. They're invoking the law to protect science education. Bronze Age myths are not science; as such, they can't be taught as science; nor can or should baseless speculation based on current unknowns be used to shoehorn such myths into a science education as an "alternative".
Such "alternatives" can be taught where they belong: in comparative religion classes.
Let's take a different tack. Would you be fine with an "alternative" theory insisting its way into the Sunday schools of your community to suggest to kids that they ought to take into consideration that Jesus MIGHT have been a homosexual since he never got married, had a few female friends he never dated, and hung around with a bunch of other men who don't appear to have been married either? Or would you say that's not the place for that kind of thing?
13 comments :
Nice shots of the Reason Rally towards the end there. I'm the 2387th face back, 184 from the left. You can totally see me.... ;-)
If they really believe it's appropriate to question everything then why do they make such a song and dance about people who question evolution? Why invoke the law (the law!) to ensure their worldview is the only one that it's legal to teach in schools? It's hard to believe these people actually believe a single word that comes out of their own mouths - no doubt that's why it's called "the unbelievers".
Nothing wrong with questioning evolution. But if you want to try, you need to have a better theory, with better evidence that better explains the known facts.
And, so far, no-one has.
Only because the people who "question evolution" (ie: creationists and IDists) do not, in fact, ask any legitimate questions, and are advancing a (very poorly) hidden religous agenda. And since these bogus "questioners" are thus breaking the law (insofar as this applies to American schools), legal action would seem to be an appropriate response, no?
@Watson
I know it's against the law, but how preposterous is that? I mean, if it did turn out that God created life it would still be illegal to teach it and the theory of evolution, even though known to be false, would still have to be taught.
Well, if the creationists or IDists ever actually came up with a scientifically credible theory, then American lawmakers might have some work to do, mightn't they? (Though of course, the IDists would vociferously deny that their work had anything to do with religion, nosirreebob!)
But given the progress to date on that front, that possibility can be safely filed alongside the contingency plans against being defecated upon by aviating porcines....
I mean, if it did turn out that God created life it would still be illegal to teach it and the theory of evolution, even though known to be false, would still have to be taught.
That's hilarious. Inadvertantly you have just summed up the long battle between reason and myth. In just one sentence. It would be more remarkable if you understood this.
@SRM
You are of course at liberty to deal with the point. But since you didn't, what's really hilarious is your apparent belief that you know what you're talking about.
@Watson
I was simply pointing out the absurdity of science's claim to be truth when a dodgy theory has to be protected by law.
No, you were simply spouting creationist boilerplate. And continuing to do so. I'm done wasting time on you.
And there it is: any objection is derided without any proof of its non-validity: accusation of creationist boilerplate without any reference to creationism in the actual comment. Pure kneejerk ideological bullying. The logic of evolution is merely to accept it regardless of its inability to be proven except tangentially and without actual replicability. Descent is assumed due to circumstantial evidence, not by the use of DNA or other more substantial and falsifiable methods. The falsifiability of early evolution is laughable.
Moreover the idea that a false idea MUST be accepted in the absence of a true idea is also laughable.
Stan: Descent is assumed due to circumstantial evidence, not by the use of DNA or other more substantial and falsifiable methods.
Bullshit. "Not by the use of DNA"? Bullshit. How many times do we have to cite the Douglas Theobald paper? We keep citing that and many other genetic studies.
Somebody, please copy in the Theobald paper citation... for the millionth time...
We've pointed out many times all the DNA evidence. For example: human chromosome 2 resembles a fusion of chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b, with a pseudotelomeric region in the middle, an un-needed pseudo-centromere, the region above the pseudotelomere is syntenous with chimp chromosome 2a, the the region below the pseudotelomere is syntenous with chimp chromosome 2b.
Creationist response: lying, quote-mining, stupidity. See Carl Zimmer demolish Casey Luskin's pathetic chromosome two lies.
That's one line of evidence, there are many others.
We have the fossils. We have Australopithecus, Homo habilis, early Homo erectus (Dmanisi), later Homo erectus. We know hominid brain size increased gradually and the brain size ranges of different species overlap each other, or very nearly so. We win.
any objection is derided without any proof of its non-validity
Bullshit. There are many websites with vast databases of evidence: Panda's Thumb and obviously, Talk Origins.
The Talk Origins Index of Creationist Claims refutes every major claim of creationists, with citations to the scientific literature.
Will Stan take this claim back?
any objection is derided without any proof of its non-validity
No. We know he will not take it back. Go off and read TalkOrigins' refutation of every major claim of creationists, then come back when you're ready to play with the big boys.
Why invoke the law (the law!) to ensure their worldview is the only one that it's legal to teach in schools?
That's not the case. They're invoking the law to protect science education. Bronze Age myths are not science; as such, they can't be taught as science; nor can or should baseless speculation based on current unknowns be used to shoehorn such myths into a science education as an "alternative".
Such "alternatives" can be taught where they belong: in comparative religion classes.
Let's take a different tack. Would you be fine with an "alternative" theory insisting its way into the Sunday schools of your community to suggest to kids that they ought to take into consideration that Jesus MIGHT have been a homosexual since he never got married, had a few female friends he never dated, and hung around with a bunch of other men who don't appear to have been married either? Or would you say that's not the place for that kind of thing?
Post a Comment