digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at arstechnica.com

Intelligent design battle resurfaces in court, school boards

arstechnica.com — The Texas Education Agency's Director of Science is forced out over a lack of neutrality over the issue of teaching evolution in schools, while a creationist sues his former employer after losing his job as an evolutionary biologist.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gbarberi, on 12/09/2007, -73/+27Add to that an Assisstant Professor in a physics department is claiming he was fired due to his beliefs in creationism. We need to stop asking/caring what our teachers/professors believe in unless it interferes with their instruction. We don't allow for a test of religion for political office, stop allowing it for the academic community. When did the academic community stop debating and just start banning/censoring people/resources (see the debate over the wiki too). They should be embarrassed at their sudden closed-mindness.
    • robbh66, on 12/09/2007, -28/+19Why are you guys digging him down? "We need to stop asking/caring what our teachers/professors believe in unless it interferes with their instruction."

      You fire all the educators who are religious but don't let it interfere with their instruction and this country is going to be in more of an educational problem then we're already in. ***** I attended a Episcopalian school (I.E. Diet Catholic) for 7 years and besides a stupid service once a week they never tried to shove their religion on me at all.

      The moral of the story is: let people believe in what they want as long as it doesn't affect you.
      • sorrow, on 12/09/2007, -3/+19So similarly speaking, if a teacher vehemently believes that the Earth is flat -- but they know they MUST teach the earth is round, you expect them *not* to slip at least some amount of bias into their teaching?

        If Scientology had something even resembling truth and credible sources, maybe I would agree that they should not be censored -- but I've yet to see and proof on their end.
        • insomniacal, on 12/09/2007, -12/+3Buddy, _every_ teacher slips some amount of bias into their teaching. The Republican teachers do, the homophobic teachers do, the chauvinist pigs do, the Ron Paul fanboys do.

          I hope you're not suggesting we dig into every aspect of every teacher's beliefs in order to fire those you find repulsive -- we're not going to have any left.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+18...and how does all your examples affect their ability to teach FACTs. If a history teacher claims that Geroge Washington is a nazi and teaches that as fact to our kids, then we have a problem. If an ID or Cretionist teaches their lies to kids, they deserve to be fired for teaching lies.
          • oneoverzero, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2math teachers don't.
          • Smills, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1@ oneoverzero
            Pi is EXACTLY 3!
      • Anzat, on 12/09/2007, -4/+29It reflects on understanding. If someone considers intelligent design to be science, that means he doesn't understand what science is. That's an awfully important thing for a science professor to know.

        It's like a physics prof not knowing F=ma in Newtonian mechanics. Sure, he can believe F=mv if he wants to. But he would be a moron. The Constitution does not guarantee the freedom to keep a job at which you're a moron.
        • kennethyu, on 12/09/2007, -29/+1Believing in intelligent design is not unscientific or illogical.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+33Give me one single Intelligent Design Hypothesis that can be tested and is reproducible. Give me one use for it.
            Beliving in Intelligent Design is believing in something with absolutely no evidence and in contradiction to modern biology. It is nothing more than pseudo-science and is the epitomy of illogical.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6Isn't that nice. Your statement is irrelevant and false since it HAS been observed in simple organism by using the same selection pressure to select for specific traits.

            Now, how about providing evidence for YOUR pet theory instead of attempting to attack a theory that actually works,
          • imperium2000, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3False again. Evolution is a theory that explain genetic diversity and changes in gene traits. BTW we have developed new species of bacteria and insects in labs and have observed new species come to existance in nature.

            More overwhelming evidence is available, which you seem to ignore, shows how life has changed thru the many years. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

            Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, that is abiogenesis/panspermia etc.
      • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -1/+19Letting people believe what they want as long as it doesn't effect you is fair enough. This is a different situation though. Teaching creationism to impressionable children is not education, its indoctrination. Any religion that teaches "faith" in terms of unquestioning belief, is permanently damaging childrens ability to think critically and make sensible decisions. If you want to let people believe what they want then leave religion out of education - and creationism is religion, not science.
    • jmpeagle, on 12/09/2007, -7/+14as much as I feel creationists are retarded, I agree with you. Academia often takes solace in consensus.

      Freedom of expression/freedom of ideas doesn't mean anything unless it is given to those who think differently.
      • BenElMagnifico, on 12/09/2007, -2/+27It's a science teacher's job to teach science. Creationism is not science. If you're not doing your job, you deserve to be fired.
        • saintdesy, on 12/09/2007, -7/+2What if you are teaching science but you personally don't believe any of it? Should be still be fired?
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4Irrelevant argument. If you want to be cutting edge, get a PhD. and teach and do research in a University. You don't get to dictact science education in public high school.
          • onestrawplz, on 12/09/2007, -0/+9why would you become a science teacher if you didn't believe any of it? wouldn't that seriously impede on your ability to teach?
      • insomniacal, on 12/09/2007, -9/+2It says a lot about Digg that your comment was standing at only +3 when I found it.
      • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -2/+11There is a crucial difference between freedom of expression/ideas and freedom to teach ideas that are based solely on faith. If creationists really want this taught then the class has to be religiously orientated.
    • lotsa1s, on 12/09/2007, -25/+6Dugg, gbarberi. Its a shame some Digg users are so close minded and hateful that they cant even accept people with different private beliefs in educational positions.
      • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+20Private? Then keep it out of Public Schools and stop attempting to push this religious junk into school boards.
    • cmdrNacho, on 12/09/2007, -3/+24Scientology is a religion do you want these people teaching anything
    • Versipellis42, on 12/09/2007, -1/+15Actually, in Texas, you can't hold public office without believing in a higher power. It doesn't have to be God, and you can believe in more than one, but it can't be zero.
      • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -2/+16Really? Thats insane.
      • hplasm, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7So you just have to believe in non-Texans?

        *ducks*
      • nomadofthehills, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4You also can't be an eagle scout, anywhere in the world. But, as all good eagle scouts do, we lie, and make eagle ;)
    • BenElMagnifico, on 12/09/2007, -3/+35It's a science teacher's job to teach science. Creationism is not science. If you're not doing your job, you deserve to be fired. End of story.
    • JigoroKano, on 12/09/2007, -0/+24If you believe in Creationism then you fail as a physicist period. There is a lot of physics that says the Earth and universe is much older than 6000 years.
      • Meatetarian, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3There are a lot of Christians who say the Earth and the universe are much older than 6,000 years.
        • iamafatguy, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2But they're not creationists....
        • Sporky023, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Well then they're not good Christians, because the Bible says in no uncertain terms that the earth is 6000 years old.
    • JoeVet, on 12/09/2007, -0/+11If science teachers can't teach science they should be fired. The bible is not science and creationism is religion not science. We should be teaching the fact based belief system in schools and leave the silliness to the churches.
    • SupaFurry, on 01/23/2008, -0/+11**Read the article*** The creationist "would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work". His belief seriously affected his ability to perform his duties in his position.

      It's like being a physicist and refusing to discuss quantum mechanics in any paper because you believe in magic instead.
    • PunkRampant, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1I don't think it's a big deal if the science teacher believes in creationism or flying monkeys. As long as it doesn't affect his lessons, what difference does it make?
      • Sporky023, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3You'd feel less lucky, Punk, if you read the comment immediately preceding your own.
    • RCourtney, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Furthermore, when your beliefs directly contradict your job description and you outright say that it will, there is a huge issue. Would a Hindu working at McDonalds not be fired if they refused to serve hamburgers on the basis that they believe cows are sacred? It's not a matter of their religious beliefs that would get them fired but plainly and simply the fact that they cannot and will not do the job they were hired for to begin with.
  • addictist, on 12/09/2007, -10/+54Jesus Christ!
  • nicktx, on 12/09/2007, -11/+202The science of intelligent design nonsense is making part of our scientific community a laughing stock around the world. Believe what you will, just don't try to pass it as science and teach it in public schools. Our founding fathers intended to keep state and church separate but some people are working really hard to undermine that. Anyone whose salary is paid by the state should be fired if they try to teach religion in schools in my opinion.
    • BeefBaron, on 12/09/2007, -1/+50"while a creationist sues his former employer after losing his job as an evolutionary biologist."

      A years worth of wages says he only held the position so he could say "there is no proof of evolution, I should know, I'm an evolutionary biologist!"
    • LosingTheFight, on 12/09/2007, -63/+5Unlike Evolution... which has no verifiable proof and cannot be readily observed (hence can't really be called a science).

      The truth is, regardless of what side of the line you fall, there is no concrete proof either way. I say two classes be required for all students: one in evolution and one in world religions. Let the kids make their own decisions.
      • Francky, on 12/09/2007, -4/+48Damn you are a moron, Evolution is a proven theory, time and time again.

        THE ENTIRE WORLD, except you morons, Know this. Get a clue, read a book (other than the bible)
        • LosingTheFight, on 12/09/2007, -39/+4Fine. Prove it. Where is the missing link? Where is the verifiable evidence? Go ahead and reduce yourself to name calling. I never stated which side of the argument I was on, you just assumed. Regardless, there is NO proof; if there were there wouldn't be an argument.
        • smurfsahoy, on 12/09/2007, -1/+32"Regardless, there is NO proof; if there were there wouldn't be an argument." Are you for real? I'd like to introduce you to two concepts that allow argument to continue despite proof. One is called "ignorance" (of the proof) and the other is called "dogma" (I don't care how much proof you have, because God told me X and that is the best proof of all).

          There's a ridiculous amount of proof of evolution in hundreds of species compared to related living species as well as fossil records. You don't need to see things happen to prove them. Don't be ridiculous. If that were the case, there would be no science of astronomy, geology, or particle physics. They wouldn't teach history in school, either. Evidence comes in many flavors beyond eyewitness perception.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+26@LivingHealthy:
            Great a non-scientist attempting to act like he understands science. You don't even know the basics of evolution and haven't even borthered to look up any of the evidence on it. Your ignornace of the overwhelming evidence is not an excuse.

            By the way, please present a valid scientific and useful alternative to evolution.
          • rarson, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3Wow, the pot is definitely calling the kettle black.

            No wait, I see... you simply confused the two terms. You accidentally said evolution when you really meant creationism.
          • smurfsahoy, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4@ livinghealthy,

            You're right. If evolution is true, then it is not hard to prove.
            It is true.
            Thus, it is easy to prove, which is quite likely the reason why it has been proven pretty easily.

            I don't have the time to go reseach a huge list of examples for you, but here is one particularly good piece of proof for you - at the very least, your rejection of it might clarify what it is you are trying to say, since you've been being pretty vague about why you are saying what you are. Anyway, the example is bacterial drug resistance. Within the last couple hundred years (let alone human history) we have seen countless new strains of antibiotic proof bacteria spring up out of previously vulnerable bacteria of the same type earlier on. This is evolution in action. Many plagues now and earlier on in history, also, have demonstrated evolution in action. The swine flu, for instance, mutating from being able to affect pigs to harming humans. Possibly the avian flu in the very near future, etc.

            So there you go. There's some simple proof in vivo, without even relying on any fossils, etc.

            As for internal contradictions, it is useless for you to claim that without actually listing any of them. How can we defend against contradictions that you haven't bothered to name? Which contradictions do you think exist, and I will explain them for you.
        • tbydal, on 12/09/2007, -0/+21Science does not deal with proof. science deals with evidence. And it just so happens that evolution is one of the best supported (by evidence) scientific theories in all of science.

          And don't come "where's the missing link?" us. There are millions of missing links. There are also thousands of confirmed links. But like the creationists say, every time a missing gap is filled, two more pop up on either side.
        • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -1/+16@Losingthefight -loving the name! So ironic. Smurfsahoy (also great name) has got you though mate. There is tonnes of evidence to support evolution. It is far better understood than many scientific theories. The point he raises to suggest why this argument is still happening are also spot on. The science that goes into making ridiculously small transistors on micro chips inside the computer of every person who sees this thread is much less understood than evolution. But you're happy to use the fruits of scientific endeavor while constantly claiming that science cant prove anything? Strange.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+20@living
            Since evolution HAS been replicated in a lab(which has been shown with bacteria and flies), you're wrong. Since evolution has been observed in nature, you're wrong.

            Using your absurd burden of evidence, you've just invalidated Relativity, Astronomy, Cosmology, Clinical Science, Geology and a multitude of other SCIENCES that has not been replicated in a lab.

            Please give me a valid LABORATORY based alternative to evolution.
          • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -0/+13@Living Come on then mate, lets have an example. I'm a network engineer and I dated an evolutionary biologist for the best part of a decade. I am fascinated by this field and have a read a lot of very in depth discussions on the subject. The fact that you start your comment with "wrong" and then don't substantiate at all is telling. The fact that you can put "very" in caps does not make your lack of argument any more compelling.

            Electrical technicians are not biologists. There may be gaps left in the fossil record ,but then its amazing there is as much as there is. Aside from that natural selection is very well explored, documented and evidentially backed model.

            Try again.
          • sidheru, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5I love how you start an argument with "Wrong," which is so definitive and then follow with a number of vague assertions and a cozy anecdote. It's a good stratedgy to fool a a small child, maybe a pet dog? For us educated folks, we'd like concrete evidence. Darwinism has been explored thoroughly in principle and theory through phylogenetics, the fossil record, and existing species. Natural Selection validated easily, through molecular and classical genetics. Hell, laboratory experiments are capable of proposing valid evidence to the origin of life (Miller-Urey=creation of the first organic molecules, creation of protobionts in the lab, the RNA world->DNA world). Your ignorance shows in your unwillingness to bring up anything solid and your dogma causes your misinformation. Please, educate yourself.
          • rarson, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2"Wrong. NONE of the alleged 'proofs' of evolution can be replicated in the laboratory although there are loads of claims it's been 'proven'."

            IT'S A THEORY. THEORIES, BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION, ARE NOT PROVEN. You don't even know what a theory is, let alone what science is! Clearly, you don't have the education to discuss the topic. You don't have even the most basic idea of how science works.

            You're probably one of those people that says "Well I'm not a scientist, so I don't profess to understanding evolution, but I just can't believe there isn't something more to it than that." You'd be right then, you're not a scientist and you don't understand evolution (mostly because you refuse to educate yourself in the fear that it might make sense, and also to use your ignorance as an excuse for grossly misunderstanding the whole concept). So stop trying to make a scientific argument when you don't know the first thing about it.
          • masterofgrond, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3@Aardvark1878: Apparently you do not understand what a scientific theory is. Something only becomes a theory when it has overwhelming evidence to support it. It does not mean the same as the colloquial definition for a theory, which is more akin to a hypothesis. A scientific theory is how things work to best of our knowledge and right now, our knowledge is pretty damn conclusive to the support of the "theory" of evolution. Gravity is still a theory, but I'm pretty sure we all agree on that one.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+8@Aardvark:
            Wow...how wrong can you be?
            It can't be repeated? What about the multitude of antibiotic and bacteria experiments that show exactly the same selected traits under the same selection pressures?

            It can't be tested?
            You mean the multitude of times where specific transitional fossils are predicted at specific time periods are actually found in specific strata? You mean how evolutionary theory is used to predict genetic changes by epidemiology and genetics?

            It can't be "proven"?
            NOTHING in science can ever be proven 100%. Evidence builds up to an overwhelming point where nothing else makes sense. The overwhelming evidence shows that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. It is now YOUR burden to prove the opposite. So...WHERE DID HUMANS COME FROM?
          • Smills, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1@livinghealthy.
            I can think of several examples of evolution off the top of my head. What about superbugs?
          • imperium2000, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2@aarvark:
            You have self deluded yourself into making an impossible and downright absurd burden of evidence that exist no where else is science. Please use the same criteria for Quantum mechanics or Relativity, economics and a multitude of other sciences and you'll come to the same absurd conclusion.

            AGAIN, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
        • sidheru, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1sorry, double post.
        • SupaFurry, on 01/23/2008, -0/+6LosingTheFight, we are not here to fill in the gaps in your appalling education. Evidence for evolution? I wouldn't know where to start. Look at DNA, look at fossils, look at comparative anatomy, look at geology, look at THE WHOLE OF BIOLOGY. Most importantly, look at the scientific method, because it's clear you don't have the first clue about any of this. Not an insult - an observation.

          The people who have taught you this "fact" that evolution has no "proof" are lying to you.
        • rarson, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7Not to take the side of "intelligent design," but a "proven theory" is an oxymoron, since a theory is not fact and not yet proven. However, there is an enormous amount of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, as has been stated above, so it's generally accepted as fact. Like any scientific idea, it uses all the information we currently have to come up with a model that fits the evidence we have.

          The problem with creationism is that it starts out with a pre-determined model based on nothing but faith, word of mouth, or whatever you want to call it, and then it picks and chooses various pieces of information that are misconstrued as being evidence for creationism. It's not scientific at all, which is why it needs to remain outside science classes.
      • sorrow, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6...or not.
      • xqpnoted, on 12/09/2007, -0/+17Do yourself a favor, sport.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_a ...
        • LosingTheFight, on 12/09/2007, -24/+1Let's assume that evolution is a proven fact. Why has life not been created again? Why can't we see when/if/how two non-living compounds joined together to create life? If "survival of the fittest" is true, wouldn't it more likely that life would have maintained one or a few forms as opposed to countless? Why do humans have no natural defenses (claws, strength, etc) yet are the fittest? Wouldn't self-induced (read: no required partner) reproduction be more beneficiary than requiring a partner?
          These answers have not been provided and can't be conclusively proven.
          • piesforyou, on 12/09/2007, -0/+19Oh dear, I thought it might be worth arguing back to you until I read that. Sorry, you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Try reading up on the matter before posting such ignorant comments.
          • kawahee, on 12/09/2007, -0/+13"Why has life not been created again?"
            Who's to say that it hasn't? We don't have our entire scientific observational force out there looking for life being created. It is also a needle-in-a-haystack type problem, what are we going to look for? Simple cells? They're everywhere, I'm not a scientist but I'd say it's going to be next to impossible to notice when a new one is created. Also, the conditions on Earth now are not the same they were when life was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimen ...

            "Why can't we see when/if/how two non-living compounds joined together to create life?"
            As above, it's not exactly easy to see this empirically. As to when/if/how:
            When: 4.4b years ago
            If: (Assuming evolution is a proven fact) our existence takes the "if" out of it, it's already occurred.
            How: The right conditions are necessary (check out the Miller-Urey experiment)

            "If "survival of the fittest" is true, wouldn't it more likely that life would have maintained one or a few forms as opposed to countless?"
            I'm not a biologist, but I'd think that the process of mutation would explain for this. Just because one species mutates/branches into a "fitter" species doesn't mean the other species is wiped off the face of the planet spontaneously. I'd also assume that once the species has branched that both species continue to evolve/mutate.

            "Why do humans have no natural defenses (claws, strength, etc) yet are the fittest?"
            I can't give a reasonable answer to this but I'd imagine someone qualified in an appropriate field could. As far as I know, us humans do alright with improvisation, downing woolly-mammoths and the like.

            "Wouldn't self-induced (read: no required partner) reproduction be more beneficiary than requiring a partner?"
            Again you'd need someone qualified in the field of evolution to give a more complete response, but I thought mixing/matching the gene pool was always a good thing for evolution...

            "These answers have not been provided and can't be conclusively proven."
            Case in point: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm - Given time I think that what remains that needs to be explained about evolution will be explained and hopefully all those ID bigots will realise that they're LosingTheFight and accept the Earth isn't flat/evolution is real/contraception is good/the Bible is fiction.
          • Benkelly11, on 12/09/2007, -0/+18*Sigh*. I'll just assume you actually want to learn.
            1. Abiogenesis is a completely separate issue to evolution. Evolutionary theory makes no claims as to how life first occurred.
            2. No, it's not more likely only a few forms would've have survived. Life changes and adapts due to ecological niches which have yet to be filled. Since our environment is highly diverse, it makes sense that life changes that is fitter in certain circumstances than it's relatives. Rinse and repeat.
            3. Claws? Super strength? This isn't the X-men. We don't have these adaptations because those niches were already filled. Instead we have handy opposable thumbs, greater cranial capacity and the ability to walk upright. And my favourite; the ability to utilise more than one sexual position.
            4. No. We would never have evolved at the rate we did if we asexually reproduced. Recombining genes and the 'mistakes' that occur during these processes lead to lots of new genetic combinations that speed up the evolutionary process. If sexual reproduction never developed we wouldn't be around.
            I hope I haven't wasted my time.
          • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -0/+12To add to Benkellys comment - Survival of the fittest is a serious dumbing down of the concept of natural selection. That being the process by which organism most suited to an environment rear the most offspring and spread the genes that made them most suited in the first place.

            As for claws and strength (and ignoring the absurdity of this line of reasoning), we dont have them because we have no need for them. We did once. That is why you have canines (your sharp pointy teeth) and fingernails. Your appendix as another exapmple, unless you've had it removed, is now useless as we no longer eat grass when we cant find anything better to eat. So people whose appendix was particularly good at digesting grass no longer have an evolutionary advantage (they dont live and continue to breed while others starve cos they cant eat grass). Thus the appendix is now an evolutionary by product.

            There is a fantastic book by Matt Ridley called the Red Queen, which explains in great detail why sex is necessary fro species survival. The most overwhelmingly obvious reason is this though. If you have "self induced" sex as you put it, the genes of every member of your species are identical. That means if a disease comes alongs that kills one of you, like the bubonic plague, it will wipe out your species. If you were a sexual species your genes would mix and match with your partner and there is a chance that you would happen to get a gene combo that was resistenat to teh plague.

            There is so much info about this on the web, not really surprising as it is common knowledge, accepted scientific fact and taught in every decent school in every land, you could just wiki it.
          • sidheru, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1I'm going to ignore everyone of your points, because most 8 year olds should be able to reason them out, aside from your last. The concept of genetic variability isn't the easiest to get and I've no doubt you're having trouble. Most of your points seem to indicate a static environment, where your dangers and safeties don't change. This is understandable considering what kind of environment you probably live in in an industrialized nation. You need to remember that we are singularly lucky to be living in conditions where we don't have to worry about parasites in our food and water, infections popping up quicker than zits and viruses spreading easily. Two theories explain why sexual reproduction is advisable. It keeps us adaptive. When all our offspring have different strengths and weaknesses, there is a higher chance one or more will survive to reproduce if they all get an infestation of ringworm or malaria or herpes or even the flu. Imagine we had evolved through asexual selection to be absolutely amazing human beings, all of us strong, smart, and amazing longevity. But until we hit perfection, we will always have an achilles heel. Now imagine we all got tendonitis in that tendon and all died. Now imagine if there was sexual reproduction, and we had a few indivduals who were ugly, malformed, and idiots (read: you). Now during that plague of tendonitis, only you would survive (god forbid).
        • jamwithdot, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6LosingTheFight:
          1 < We aren't there yet. 2 < Adapted over countless years to various environmental conditions. 3 < Humans do have "finger nails", "strength", and "etc," we are the "fittest" because we use knowledge to our advantage. 4 < http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin ...
          For the 6,000 years thing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology btw, i won't be checking back, so keep on raging
        • xqpnoted, on 12/09/2007, -0/+10I'm really not in the mood to do a point by point rebuttal for someone who can't be bothered to take the 1 hour a day over two weeks it takes to familiarize oneself with the basic literature on the subject. Please see any introductory anthropology textbook.
          1. Amino acids are readily synthesized in laboratory conditions designed to simulate the possible conditions of a prehistoric earth. The Miller experiment is one of many prominent examples.
          2. See 1.
          3. "Survival of the fittest" is not a term used by evolutionary biologists. It was coined by Herbert Spencer and has little bearing on a discussion of the scientific validity of evolution. I'm going to assume you mean "natural selection", under which the logic behind genetic diversity, speciation and niche-filling is self apparent.
          4. We are remarkably hardy and defensive creatures. If, however, you seek an answer as to what advantage makes humans the "fittest" species (although there is a minor caveat: humans are not necessarily inherently more "fit" from an evolutionary perspective; the cockroach survives just as well as the human, and thus the two species are of equal fitness) you need look no further than the one that allows you to read this text.
          5. By far your most interesting question. The mechanisms which make sexual reproduction advantageous are complex, and would be fairly difficult to explain without delving further into genetics (e.g., there are certain advantages to receiving half of your genetic makeup from your father and half from your mother) but you can find a great explanation of many of the reasons why sexual reproduction is more beneficial than asexual reproduction here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/in ...
          Anyway, the answers have been provided and can be conclusively proven. The fact that you don't understand them (due either to ignorance or stupidity, your call) is no problem of mine. Do yourself a favor and either sit in on an introductory anthropology class.
      • Ramble, on 12/09/2007, -1/+10I guess you should read it then.
        Although, your suggestion is a good idea, here in the UK we have science (where evolution is taught) and Religious Education (where religions are studied).
      • beakerwimp, on 12/09/2007, -1/+24I completely AGREE. Each subject should be taught in two opposing viewpoints and kids should just get to decide. Like in math the close-minded teachers can stick to teaching their old-school "proofs" and "formulas" but there can be a second class in which kids learn that 1+1=4 and division by zero is acceptable since it creates rainbows. This style of education would greatly benefit all of humanity.
    • alvinrod, on 12/09/2007, -18/+2I wouldn't call intelligent design a religion since it really doesn't say anything religious. If this world were a computer simulation (similar to the movie The Matrix) it would be classified as intelligent design.

      I wouldn't call intelligent design science either since at this point we have no way of proving or disproving the idea. If anything, I'd file it under philosophy. I wouldn't object to it being taught in public schools, but just not as a science course.
      • xqpnoted, on 12/09/2007, -0/+15Philosophy is not exempt from the demands of logical rigor.
      • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -1/+16There is nothing philosophical about ID. The theory was specifically designed to counter the perceived damage that evolution causes to religious doctrines. We are certainly able to disprove ID to the same extent that we can prove or disprove anything else, in that we can prove that evolution has been and is the driving force behind special change, not design.
        • alvinrod, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1I don't think you quite understand the point I was trying to make. Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily imply that evolution didn't happen. You can spin it that way in which case it does contradict the science that exists. However, it is possible to say that this universe was created by a being at a higher level of existence. Does that really say anything other than what it says? Not in my mind. People can attempt to claim that this being has communicated with us or something along those lines, but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

          I suppose I should have used the movie, The Thirteenth Floor instead of the Matrix since it's better at getting my point across.

          The basic point of intelligent design is that something designed the universe. You can say the being did this by creating a big bang and watching things go from there or by making a few people in a sticking them in a garden in the Middle East.

          You can't disprove ID at that level. You can disprove some creation stories that contradict scientific evidence, but ID really doesn't have to be that specific.

          It's kind of sad that there are some people who believe in evolution but are at the base level just as stupid as the creationists that they rail against. You, sir, are one of those people. You're too busy blinding lashing out at anything that even attempts to be different from what you believe in, just like the religious folks that you loath, that you don't even bother to consider a point and what it says. You're the same as any Muslim, Christian, or Jew that you call ignorant. You just believe in a different god; in this case, none at all.
          • jj101, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Firsty I am not lashing out at all. Your comment was far more aggressive than mine. Also you're missing the point. The crux of ID, which i have read a lot about, is that life on earth is too complicated not to have been designed. To claim that the solution to this conundrum is the existence of an infinitely more complicated being is self defeating. If life is so complex it must have been designed, then surely the God that "created" the universe must be much more complicated and therefore in need of a designer himself.

            There is no evidence for either of those hypotheses. Lastly, while clearly no one is actually fundamentally different from from anyone else, the stance I have on religion is not unchangeable. Religious viewpoints have been unchanged in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The viewpoint of science changes with the addition of more/better/contradictory evidence. Have I considered you're point enough - I have in fact read whole books arguing the point you made and others that pick it apart.
        • imperium2000, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3You are a fool. ID is NOT science. It may be fine as a personal philosophy but as soon as you make ANY claim, you must provide evidence and support your pet claim. ID is *****. It has nothing that can be tested, nothing that it can predict and is not only useless, it is harmful to science.

          I can't disprove the Greek Creation myths but that does not make it even half-assed true, much less ID.

          I am intolerant to garbage. I don't have to tolerate lies and *****. The ID movement is trying subvert science by lies and dishonesty. Go one believing in ID but don't you dare make any claim you can't defend.
      • JigoroKano, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6What kind of philosophy contradicts science?
        Dead philosophies.

        You might as well teach astronomy with platonic solids.
      • sidheru, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1I can understand a little bit of where you're coming from. Philisophy does have some basis in pure intuition and is never completely substantiated. However, generally to be accepted philisophy, ideas need to stand the test of clear and logical progression. The fact that is does not, places it in the realm of flawed philisophy, which deserves a footnote in the pages of history.
      • ozydingo, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1ID is religious by recursion. If the designing intelligence is not supernatural, then it had to be designed according to many of the ID arguments--particularly the absurd "information theory" argument. In fact, I'm not sure why I'm even qualifying which arguments, because ID has no arguments that have not been debunked. If you think I'm wrong, please show me.
    • Anzat, on 12/09/2007, -0/+44I really don't think ID is making our scientific community a laughing stock, nor any part of it. The ID movement isn't part of the scientific community. If anything, the rest of the world sympathizes with American scientists for having to put up with these ***** idiots.
      • Alcor3000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+14I am a Europan scientist and I can tell you that you are absolutely right. We sympathize AND we are worried as well.
        • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -2/+0Worried about what? You're all dead within 200 years, and would have it no other way. Relax, and keep it in perspective.
      • LukasSmith, on 12/09/2007, -5/+0How about instead of bieng upset it has to be dealt with at all you be greatful that in a nation with 90% or more who believe in God that there is a court system that does and has in the past seperated church and state? I can assure you this rampant belief in God doesnt exist in europe so comparing the situations is wrong. And in this country religion is a major part of society. So the fact that we continue to have seperation of church and state is amazing at least to me. Even I recognize this and I come from the few percentage points of population who call themselves athiest.
      • SupaFurry, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4Agreed. Here is the scientific consensus on ID: You can believe in whatever you want, but ID is not science. Try to teach it to my kids as fact, though, and I'll bust ya kneecaps.
    • Ivthypain, on 12/09/2007, -0/+13Agreed. but who is pushing ID in USA? We need to find the root of the problem first. They are teaching Evolution as "law" not a theory in Australia for just this reason that people are too ***** stupid to understand what theory really means. ID is not science it's not even a theory FFS. teaching this ***** is like going back 300+ years.
    • LukasSmith, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3How about instead of bashing one side or the other we be thankful "not to God" that even though 90% or more in the US believe in God that we live in America where we have courts that do and have protected our schools from religious doctrine as the founders intended. Because honestly I dont care what others think as long as they keep it out of state functions such as public schools. Our court system acchieves that brilliantly. Hooray for the USA. ill probably get dugg down for saying that.
      • kittynipples, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0"protected our schools from religious doctrine as the founders intended"
        As Intended? You do realize that prior to the 14th Amendment, the limitations in the Bill or Rights did not also apply to the states?
    • ellecon, on 12/09/2007, -1/+11Faith is belief without evidence. "God exists because the bible says he does and the bible is accurate because God wrote it." How can you use logic against arguments based on logical fallacies?
      • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -4/+1No, it's not. Faith is the precursor to evidence for that individual. At least, to get them out of the habit of claiming evidence isn't evidence unless it's "proof".
        • ellecon, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5Apply the scientific method to religion and see what hard evidence arises.
          • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0Even if "the scientific method" represented the totality of "science", which it doesn't--I have had evidence for myself demonstrated from the methodology given by the religion. That you don't get equivalent results from making the effort to say "gimme proof" is really not my concern.

            Even so, here's a peer-reviewed link: http://mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/dutch_stud ...
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4That was the stupidest statement I've ever read. You are now doing nothing but attempting to define YOUR religious belief as science. You cannot claim something as science without meeting the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

            Your study is complete garbage. I've already read the paper in the Lancet and it was one of the worse studies I've ever read. It was simply terrible and HAS NEVER been repeated.
          • ellecon, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Amen!
      • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -4/+1Speaking of fallacies, that was the most simplistic straw-man argument I've seen in a long time.
        • ellecon, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2No, it was an example of a fallacious argument commonly used by theists.
          • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0No, it was a lie that it was commonly-used, to create a straw-man representing the theistic arguments as a tiny nonrepresentative sample.

            If you say you've actually heard a Christian say the argument you claim, I submit you are lying.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3Lie? Please back up this claim. Faith is a belief in something without evidence of despite of evidence. This the definition used by a multitude of theologians and philosophers as defined by Kant.

            I've been in debates by many Christians that use the same argument. So now...are YOU lying or just defaming others?
          • ellecon, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1I didn't say it was a lie, I said it was an example of a fallacious argument. More specifically,circular reasoning or begging the question, where the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premise.
      • fullphaser, on 12/09/2007, -0/+10because Christ Fags love circular logic, its right up there with the persecution card.
    • rarson, on 12/09/2007, -0/+10"The science of intelligent design"

      It's not science at all. That's why it doesn't belong in a science class.
    • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -5/+0Anyone who judges an idea by whether it might make them a "laughingstock", is no scientist at all.
    • diggingaround, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5I think that we should reserve a piece of land here in the US and put all these creationists morons together. They should have they own creationist president, military and economy. Something just like Vatican.
      • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -4/+0Okay, and we'll see how yours is working for you in 200 years. Deal?
        • diggingaround, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1yea... I see.. During the middle ages the human kind really flourished under the iron fist of catholic church...
      • toxicshok, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4its called utah
    • AriaStar, on 12/09/2007, -5/+1While I am atheist now, I went to a Christian school when I was younger that not only taught us creation, but also about evolution and the Big Bang and such. As the school said, we believe in creation due to faith, but others believe in other things based on science, their own faith, etc, and nothing can be 100% conclusively proven in this area. We were free to come to our own conclusions, and some kids DID decide they thought evolution was a better thin to believe, and no one was outcast for it.

      Since evolution is technically a theory anyway that scientists are still trying to prove for sure, I see no problem with teaching all beginning-of-life theories as theories. If nothing else, then kids grow up knowing what others believe as well. True, creation is pretty much solely in the realm of faith, but creation and evolution deal with the same thing in different ways. Just treat is as THEORY.
      • ReverdyBrune, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6Way to show that you've got no idea what "theory" means.
      • zeitgueist, on 12/09/2007, -0/+51. Evolution is not an origin of life theory.

        2. Theory in the scientific sense does not mean what you think it means. Replace it with the word "model" if it makes it easier for you. Technically, it is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is the observed instances of hit happening. The theory is the explanation why. Other things that are both facts and theorys: Gravity. Germs. Plate Tectonics.

        Hope this helps.
  • rupertmorris, on 12/09/2007, -7/+19Kill it with fire?
    • sedek89, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5you can try but evil enjoys that, perhaps drowning?
  • rupertmorris, on 12/09/2007, -4/+60gbarberi: 'debating' with faith-based belief is a waste of time and resources. Science, and believing things regardless of reason and logic, are antithetical.
    • floridiot2, on 12/09/2007, -13/+6Guess how I got this comment here.
    • robbh66, on 12/09/2007, -22/+2I'd just like to point out the irony of someone who points out the pointlessness of debating with people who make up science, is a person who makes up words.
    • kawahee, on 12/09/2007, -3/+4The reply button *****, do you use it?
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Nicely put.
    • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0Actually, no scientific hypotheses would ever be formed by your criterion, as at some point every single one is by definition unsupported by "reason and logic", merely intuition.

      Congratulations, you've just set out criteria by which to destroy scientific progress.

      Pirsig has a lot more on this--"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", good book.
      • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Intuition is nothing more than the START of a scientific hypothesis and is not the end all. Science is not just a guess, you actually have to provide evidence to support it.

        You don't seem to even understand that basic fact.

  • gbarberi, on 12/09/2007, -19/+19Who's talking about teaching ID in school? The professor I mentioned wasn't teaching ID; he was teaching physics. I mentioned "if it interferes with their instruction". Obviously if someone teaching ID in a public school is violating "separation between church and state." I'm not referring to a professor in a public school, though. What about the grad student whose PhD was "in question" because of his belief in ID? Evaluate his dissertation, not his beliefs. I don't believe in ID myself, but why should some teachers be evaluated on their religion? I'm not asking to put religious teachings in public schools; I'm asking for people to not go too far with this.
    • Zarokima, on 12/09/2007, -2/+12I agree with you, though in some rare cases creationists simply cannot be considered equally. The evolutionary biologist is a perfect example: he doesn't believe in his work, so how can we be sure of his results? And to a lesser degree the guy with the PhD: I can't put much faith in the writings of someone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old when he's discussing things that have been extinct for 65 million years. Of course, creationist teachers and such that do their job properly (i.e. not trying to teach creation instead of evolution) should be on equal grounds with non-creationists.
      • saintdesy, on 12/09/2007, -4/+2Just because I don't believe all the stuff I learned doesn't mean I haven't learned it, does it? Let the guy with the Ph.D slide, but you are right on about the evolutionary biologist. It is one thing to learn stuff you don't believe in, it is another thing to experiment with stuff you regard as not real. It is as if I wanted to be a horse breeder yet didn't believe there were such things as horses.
      • geffo, on 12/09/2007, -2/+0Q
      • Sporky023, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1@ Zarokima: How can we be sure of his results?? Test them ourselves. Sheesh
    • kawahee, on 12/09/2007, -12/+1The reply button *****, do you use it?
    • MillionsLivio, on 12/09/2007, -3/+14I find it funny that Creationist playing themselves as the victim here. My mother is highly religious and whenever there is an issue she claims her religion is the victim and it's those evil Atheist (though she doesn't word it like that in my presence). Yet most of the time it's the exact opposite when looking at things more rationally (though not always). But then they will claim that's my own bias. Separation of church and state, teach science, not religion. I agree with gbargeri, as long as it doesn't distort the teaching, their religion does not matter. However, it happens my sociology professor was a Catholic and the idea of Moral Relativism was blasphemy to her and she went on for 15 minutes about how there was a divine law we must abide by.
      • dime, on 12/09/2007, -3/+3"However, it happens my sociology professor was a Catholic and the idea of Moral Relativism was blasphemy to her and she went on for 15 minutes about how there was a divine law we must abide by."

        So? Moral Absolutism has been a philosophical position for thousands of years - spanning all (and no) religions. Perhaps *your own* bias caused you to believe her opinion was solely because of her religion. And really, a whole 15 minutes? You poor soul.

        btw, relativism IS hogwash. When the logical conclusion of a position is that Hitler is no better or worse than Martin Luther King, the argument has become so far removed from reality that it mustn't be taken seriously outside of the realm of intellectual masturbation.
        • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3False. Name one total moral absolute that has not changed for thousands of years.
          You have a very simple view of morality.
          • dime, on 12/09/2007, -4/+1Murder - that is, the killing of someone without just cause. Surely the definition of "just cause" has changed over the years and throughout cultures, but murder has and has always been an absolute Wrong.

            But anyway, it's oh so cosmopolitan of you to think relativism is "complex", but really, it's just an excuse to believe in nothing. Either you believe in the conceptual truths of Right and Wrong or you believe nothing is right and wrong. See, one can surely believe there are absolute Rights and Wrongs while recognizing that cultural perceptions of rights and wrongs change. But those societal constructs are not the absolutes, but merely grades and reflections of them. Conversations like this involve a lot of multidimensional thinking. Try sometime.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5You mean how the Vikings, Aztecs and multitude of OTHER civilizations did not consider sacrificing people as murder? Even the definition of murder has changed and is RELATIVISTIC depending on the civilization. So please give me YOUR definition of murder and tell me how it's the same definition as Christianity through the Roman era, dark ages, middle ages etc.

            Your inability to grasp the basic that morality has changed throughout the ages is either ignorance or just delusional. You are someone who seems to think that reality is black and white. Morality has changed repeatedly through the ages. I don;t believe anything is "right" or "wrong" BUT I believe in harmful or beneficial.
          • LordMiL, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1Telling people they are ignorant or delusional usually indicates that someone is far too close minded to be debating a topic as complex as morality. Having focused on morality specifically in my philosophy studies, let me help you out a little here:
            The vast differences in what societies throughout history have accepted is not evidence that there is no absolute morality. What you have done is started by assuming that your belief is correct - that morality is relative and defined by people - and then gone on to say that since the morals have changed over time and from culture to culture, morality must therefore be relative and defined by people. This is pretty easy to get around: There is absolute morality and over time and across cultures our understanding of it and adherence to it has changed. Some would even say it has generally "improved" over time. We no longer accept sacrificing people, we allow all people to vote and get an education, etc. People who hold this view would liken it to the laws of physics - certainly over time and across cultures people have had widely different views of how the universe works, but that doesn't mean there are no laws of the universe, just that we are still discovering them and better understanding them.
            One last example to drive home the point: Your argument is similar to my stating: "Laws are determined by the actions of people. Because not everyone observes the same speed limit on the interstate, I can be sure there is no law regarding the speed limit." The mistake here is in the definition of the law. If we allow the possibility that the law is external to its observance, this argument becomes moot. Note that all this is not necessarily what I personally believe. An important part of philosophy is being able to step back from a point of view and find the strengths and weaknesses of that view. There are of course a plethora of points against moral absolutes, but I didn't get in to them here as my point wasn't to support a specific view but rather to explain why the difference in what is acceptable across time and cultures is not proof for moral relativism.
          • imperium2000, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3@Lordmil:
            Your argument doesn't really add much.
            You plainly state that OUR definition of morality changes over time but has provided nothing to support that it is an absolute. Since even today, morality continues to change while physics have been refined with objective experiments which adds more detail to how reality works without fundamentally changes how physics works.

            Your second argument concerning law is frankly false. Laws are defined by society. You may not follow it but it is there and defined by society and enforced by society. Laws are also relative and ever changing. It has also nothing to do with my original arguments. Please back up your assertion that any moral 'law' exist since you have yet to support this assertion.
        • reddikilowatt, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2@imperium2000

          Killing children is generally considered bad form, and has been for a long time. That's why in mythology it is used to vilify enemies.
    • Prosequi, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3Here's the thing about that - by allowing a creationist to receive a degree from an institution of learning in the field of evolution, the reputation of the institution is affected for all previous, present and future graduates (regardless of the merits of the work - particularly for vocal proponents of creationism). US colleges are the best in the world - how much of this BS is going to go on before that is not the perception anymore and yours, mine and everyone else's degree (granted by a US institution) is less valuable in the world market? Perhaps more seriously, how long before the most intelligent and skilled foreigners stop coming to the US for college?
      • StormTrooperVII, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2"Perhaps more seriously, how long before the most intelligent and skilled foreigners stop coming to the US for college?"

        Not soon enough. I just graduated from a top-10 engineering university, and seriously 90% of the phd and masters students were foreign, and 10% were american. I would much prefer those numbers to be flipped. More american students need to be going to our schools than foreigners.
        • JoeVet, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5That would seem to indicate that Americans don't prize education as much. With all the religious idiots claiming that education is the mark of the devil its no wonder that only 10% of Americans are smart enough to do Phd work.
        • fullphaser, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1I don't know where anyone got the impression that American Colleges are in any way superior, the only thing is that they have limited who it is that they accept, thus it makes them look like what they are pumping out is intelligent students. This is not true, what they are doing is taking only a base of intelligent students and than proceeding to get them to graduate. They are no better or worse (and for the most part the professors, teaching style, etc.) are all the same no matter where the sheep skin comes from.
          The real problem is perception from a public view.
    • elipabst, on 12/09/2007, -0/+12"What about the grad student whose PhD was "in question" because of his belief in ID"
      You're leaving out some of the details here. First, he was a postdoc, so he already has a PhD and completed his dissertation. Second, as a postdoc, you are essentially being paid to work on some other established investigators project, while you try to get your own grants and professorship position. The crux of the problem is that this guy said that he didn't want to work on a project that had anything to do with evolutionary theory, because he didn't believe in it. However, the people he was working for were researching projects dealing with aspects of evolution. So if the grants that are paying his salary deal with evolution, then he either works on them or finds a new job it's as simple as that. Frankly I have a hard time believing that they would hire him if they had known his moral objections in the first place, which makes me question whether he was upfront with them from the beginning.
    • LittleDas, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7It's as if he said he didn't believe in gravity, or giraffes
      His religious beliefs can be whatever he wants but he said something moronic
      and he was fired for being a moron, a perfectly legitimate reason
  • rupertmorris, on 12/09/2007, -18/+4gbarberi: Ahh. then digg my comment down.
    • kawahee, on 12/09/2007, -5/+11The reply button *****, do you use it?
  • gbarberi, on 12/09/2007, -9/+7rupertmorris: Nah. My first comment may not have been too clear. I just read the article and started getting a little concerned at the end that perhaps we were taking a general rule "separation of church and state" and overapplying it. We need to look at every situation individually. If a belief in ID really affects a person's logical ability and hampers them in the scientific method, then it will show in their work. You don't need to ask about their religion, just observe their research, their lectures, etc.
    In the case of Comer: Texas was wrong for even allowing ID into the public school system. That's what church is for. And then, what about every other religion? Want to let them in to? To not to would be favoritism and the promotion of one religion.
    • jmpeagle, on 12/09/2007, -2/+9woah...buddy...click the reply button
    • banmaster, on 12/09/2007, -2/+9"If a belief in ID really affects a person's logical ability"

      Um, what do you mean 'if'? Anyone who believes in ID has already sold out any kind of logical thinking they might once of had!!
      • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Weird... somehow I continue to make a pretty good salary doing extensive logical thinking in software development.

        Now you'll "logically" tell me I can't, or don't, despite having no information at all, eh?
        • Sporky023, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Being a software developer myself, I can admit it's tempting to see the universe as having its own architect, considering that it works. Perhaps you should take heed of the fact that as processing power increases the ability to evolve solutions to all our software problems will emerge and your job and mine will be obsolete and unnecessary. Just thinking ...
  • GuacamoleSan, on 12/09/2007, -10/+136All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster, blessed be his noodly appendage!
    • goldfenix, on 12/09/2007, -1/+37RAmen.

      And for good measure: YARRRRR
    • xander, on 12/09/2007, -27/+2FSM jokes got old a long time ago, didn't you get the memo?
      • AttackingHobo, on 12/09/2007, -3/+27YOU DARE MOCK THEIR RELIGION!!??!! BLASPHEMY!!!!!
      • marca17, on 12/09/2007, -1/+10Good to see memo jokes are still fashionable.
      • LittleDas, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1That's some intolerant *****
      • JoeVet, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4Almost as stale as the talking snake joke, right?
      • fullphaser, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7Protip: FSM was created in direct response to the above topic, and is overwhelmingly accurate and on topic.
    • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -2/+0So now you approve of ID?
  • floridiot2, on 12/09/2007, -5/+19I think you should be able to have religious classes where you can teach about all the different religions of the world. Just like we do now with greek/roman mythology.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 12/09/2007, -1/+41I'm pretty sure they call that "theology."
      But keep it the hell away from my science classes.
    • nonsequitor, on 12/09/2007, -0/+10They have those classes, they don't call them science, they put religion in the proper context, and they are electives. Science class is not an elective.
    • bowens44, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5Actually you can have classes like that . What you can't have is mythology taught in as if its scientific fact.
    • fullphaser, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Its religions of the world 1010, an elective humanitarians credit almost everywhere
  • kevinmotel, on 12/09/2007, -3/+34No one here knows how to use the comment reply system...
    • cococooky, on 12/09/2007, -1/+8Testing..... 1, 2. Thought it must be broken.
    • goldfenix, on 12/09/2007, -1/+17Oh jeez, how did I end up here? I am not good with these computers! :(
      • bjornski, on 12/09/2007, -9/+2No problem. Get a Mac.
        • kawahee, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3http://www.cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20060513
        • frazw, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3So you're saying that Macs are not computers? You must be talking about raincoats then. Why are you talking about raincoats?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3No, he's saying that Macs were made for stupid people. And they were. Macs attract computer illiterates. It's their main market. That's why the commercials never mention anything remotely technical, they just push the "it's really easy and fool proof" argument.
        • theycallmebubba, on 12/09/2007, -2/+0Yeah, seriously. PCs are far superior in ter- 1001011010100...

          *Windows has experienced a fatal error and will now shut down*
          *reboots*

          Sorry about that. I forgot to defrag my hard drive and run Spybot and AdAware...

          ;) Don't worry. I have a MacBook Pro and a PC as well. I'm only teasing the fanboys.
  • GreatDrok, on 12/09/2007, -7/+106When I was studying Geology, one of the other people in my class was a creationist. She literally believed that the world was only 6000 years old. I asked her why she was studying a field which she didn't believe in. Her answer was that she needed the degree to get the job she wanted in the oil industry. Personally, I couldn't work in a field where my basic core beliefs went against my work. That is why I am a molecular biologist and have also studied palaeontology. Evolution isn't a theory. It shouldn't be debated. It is a fact that I see in all my work from molecules to whole organisms. These people who work in the field but don't believe it are a cancer. Their science is suspect and they are a waste of funding. They cannot be trusted.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 12/09/2007, -2/+29Well, it IS a theory, but "theory" by definition means something that is heavily and clearly supported by empirical evidence.
      • jay0312, on 12/09/2007, -0/+9Evolution is fact. The means by which it occurs, such as Darwin's Natural Selection, is a theory.
    • Mageling, on 12/09/2007, -0/+25Yeah, like thebellmaster1x said.. Evolution is a theory... but a really extremely solid theory with a mountain of evidence that support it. Did you ever ask her how dinosaurs fossils came to be? (or anything else involving modern biology that would contradict her beliefs.. which is like everything.)
      • schlurp, on 12/09/2007, -0/+18The theory of evolution is a theory in the sense you describe above. Evolution itself is not a theory, it's a fact.
      • reddikilowatt, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Asking her to question her faith is a waste of his time. Faith cannot survive in the face of logic, but logic cannot destroy faith. Only the person who believes is able to change, and asking a fellow student to be the conduit for change is assuming a lot, especially when the girl is likely bombarded with authority figures reinforcing her belief.
    • jmpeagle, on 12/09/2007, -19/+2everything is up for debate. Even our existence is up for debate. Do perceptions mirror reality, can anything ever truly be known, etc etc....

      It's one of those annoying consequences of living in a free society....there are those damn loonies who think too different.
      • fasda, on 12/09/2007, -0/+8yes but the debate about evolution should be very technical details which unless its your obscure field of research you wouldn't care about and not about weather it is or is not happening that part of the debate is well settled long long ago
      • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5Did you ever hear of Descartes rock. Its a lonely place mate.

        Everything is debatable and debate is good. Indoctrinating children not to debate ideas but to believe in something without question, and to believe it is a sin to question, is not debate. Debate is constructive. Arguments based on faith are destructive.
        • theycallmebubba, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0So then let's just say the Big Bang really DID happen. And let's also throw in evolution as a fact as well - Natural Selection and all. Rewind to that "universe-generating explosion". The theory says something along the lines of "a teaspoon-sized amount of amazingly-condensed über matter exploded at a phenomenal rate, getting exponentially larger in milliseconds." That explosion formed all the gas clouds, which coalesced into stars, planets and the like which, over the course of billions of years produced the necessary chemicals in the necessary combinations to make bacteria, which increased in complexity through all sorts of favorable mutations, became eventually sentient, etc., and yadda yadda yadda: Here we are. Humans. Did I get that kind of right? Well, in any case, allow me to go back again to that 'spoonful of sugar' - where did IT come from? I mean, forget HUMANS for a second. Forget monkeys, stars, bacteria, dinosaurs - the whole lot of 'em. Where did MATTER come from? As far as I can understand it (which is admittedly limited since I, like you, am only human), it takes far more faith to believe a theory that says matter can just appear out of nowhere (literally, since nothing existed prior to the teaspoonful of universe) without a cause. I know you all want to believe in science as the be-all, end-all of knowledge and truth. But the truth is, the origin of everything is the one subject science cannot touch. Science only works with observable, repeatable circumstances - testable proof, if you will. Come to your own conclusions. I only hope that if you've read all this, you haven't just written me off as 'just another one of THEM'. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about these things... it's a very interesting topic.
          • jj101, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1I agree its an interesting topic. Also you seem to be a smart and reasonable person. I happen to disagree with you on the following points, but then it would be boring if we all thought the same thing!

            The comment that most struck a wrong chord is "But the truth is, the origin of everything is the one subject science cannot touch." For me science is just an explanation of the word around us. We live in a universe that adheres to certain rules, and we calls these rules laws or theories in science. This is indisputable, as otherwise we would not have been able to use these rules, and the understanding they bring, to make computers and the internet etc. Our knowledge of these rules is ever expanding as is our understanding. There is no reason to believe this understanding has to stop somewhere. Anything that exists is by definition in the realm o scientific explanation. We dont have all the answer yet but the whole point of science is to find them. To just assume, without any good reason, that the origin of the universe is any different is illogical. The fact that we don't know something does not mean we will never know it or that we should stop trying to find the answer. It certainly does not mean that we should just invent some other way it could have happened with no proof or even reason to believe that.

            As for BB theory, no scientist will tell you that nothing existed before the big bang, they will tell you the mathematical models they have made mostly breakdown at that point. So we can model the expansion of the universe, clearly with some error, to up to a few milliseconds before the BB. As for it taking more faith to believe there was nothing before or to believe there was a super powerful being who created it all and existed in that nothing and now exists somewhere outside this universe but is able to watch us in it, and has any inclination to do so... I think that takes a lot more faith personally. I can get over the fact that my human brain, evolved to live on an african savanna, is not able to visualize or properly understand what it would be like before the universe existed.

            You also said "Forget monkeys, stars, bacteria, dinosaurs - the whole lot of 'em. Where did MATTER come from?"
            We're all in the same boat here. I don't know, no scientsist knows and you don't know and no religious person knows. The difference is, with all the evidence humanity has gathered, science still says we don't have enough info to say for sure. Religion, while disregarding all the evidence humanity has gathered, claims to have an answer.

      • pintomp3, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3how much time should we devote to debating the flatness of the earth then?
    • GorfTron, on 12/09/2007, -0/+43This creationist who works in the oil business is a living monument to irony itself.
      • jj101, on 12/09/2007, -0/+10Lets get rich on all that decomposed plankton thats been there since before the world existed...

        That kind of denial is bound to drive you nuts eventually.
      • reddikilowatt, on 12/09/2007, -0/+13No, I don't think so. As long as they don't question how the oil got there to begin with, they can still look for it, drill it, sell it, fight wars for it, etc. Just remember that God put it here just for us. And Allah put it over there, but that was just a misunderstanding.
        • karel747, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Oh, it gets better. God and Allah are one in the same. He's ***** with us!
    • GorfTron, on 12/09/2007, -0/+8Really, it is kinda sad...the oil business has given massive money to religious extremists in the middle east and to the ignorant hillbillies that pollute American politics.
    • imakecomments, on 12/09/2007, -0/+13Well, it *is* a theory, but it's not *just* a theory.
      http://www.notjustatheory.com/
      • AceLy, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1That's a great site. It'll save me a lot of time.
    • Zenas, on 12/09/2007, -15/+0Evolution isn't a theory? LMFHO
      • Tippis, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6No.
        Evolution is a fact.
        The *theory* of evoluton is a theory (hence the name): the theory that tries to explain evolution.
    • saintdesy, on 12/09/2007, -1/+13Dude, GRAVITY is a freaking theory. Nothing is so locked in stone that it can't be debated or updated.
      • kabewm, on 12/09/2007, -5/+2Gravity isn't a theory, it's a law. . .
        • Ramble, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5To an extent. a theory is an idea hat explains why something does the thing it does. A law describes what happens.
        • elipabst, on 12/09/2007, -0/+12What most people consider to be the Law of Gravity (ie Newton's Law of Gravitation) is actually wrong. In reality it's a close approximation and gravitational forces are now determined using Einstein's theory of relativity. In fact we have very little understanding of the fundamental nature of what actually causes gravity (e.g the theoretical graviton).
          • kabewm, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I know. It was a poorly executed joke. I was supposed to write "It's the law" but was dead tired when I posted.

            I worked as a Sr Sys Engineer at the LIGO project for Caltech/MIT for a few years. The whole project is dedicated to continuing Einsteins work by looking for the empirical evidence predicted by his theory. We developed technology to detect gravitational waves caused by large gravitational events, such as two stars colliding.

            *Gratuitous Plug* - You can help this project by using Einstein@Home: http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/
      • blindhammer, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Actually, gravity is, more or less, just a theory. You can measure gravity, of course, but that's different than understanding what gravity is. Look no further than supergravity, which generally states that this universe's gravity is the result of the proximity to another universe that has strong gravitational forces.

        Then there's the issue of Dark Matter. I mean, the only reason that dark matter exists is because Einsteins theory predicts it. But no one has found dark matter yet. Anywhere. We think it exists since, without it, our theory of gravity would unravel.

        Some people find this approach to be akin to religion -- blind faith in something we cannot observe. For other people, it's not a big issue.
      • ChimpFlix, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Are you familiar with the term "music theory"? Do you think it means there MAY or MAY NOT be such a thing as music? Am I right?
    • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0And your incredibly anecdotal reasoning makes me have great trust in you.
    • salvnaut, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Oh my. Of course evolution is not under question. But people know 10% maybe of the whole evolution process - everyday we learn something - new RNA combining mechanism, evolution during organism lifetime that passes its experience to off-springs, human evolution speeding up? Transpozones - their activity so high in the past, but not these days (maybe in plants), etc, etc.
      What if somewhere there we find ... an unexplained factor?
      I'd really wish that this discussion was only about being free to believe.
      Science is the process - science is not the answer.
    • ak420, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Evolution is indeed a theory. A theory being something that is falsifiable, makes risky predictions, and where induction is not necessary. The fact is that 'ID' is not a scientific theory and therefore should not be taught in science class. I think that if people want to learn about it, then a class should be offered as an elective.
      • theycallmebubba, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0I do not want to get creationism in public schools. I DO, however, want to see the false information in 'science' textbooks taken out. See, the problem is, every one of the examples of 'evidence for evolution' that are still used to this day were disproved by the scientific community long ago - some as much as 50 years ago: the 'Grand Canyon's explanation', 'peppered moths', 'homologous structures', the 'evolution model of the horse', the 'fossil record', 'gill slits in unborn babies' (Haeckel was convicted of fraud by 6 professors in his own university) and 'natural selection' (it only causes variation - it does not cause evolution), just to name a few.To me, that's inexcusable. Sorry if you disagree, but I do not wish my children to be lied to in a class that is supposed to be equipping them with facts, not invalid, inaccurate lies.
    • Neo31rex31, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0evolution isn't a viable theory let alone a fact as there is absolutly no evidence for it
  • gbarberi, on 12/09/2007, -12/+3Just wanted to let the people know why I don't click the reply button:
    Although when I logout I can actually see the reply button, when I login it is not available. It's not my browser. Not sure if this is a bug in Digg or there are a few of us who are being blocked access to this feature.
    • Zarokima, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6It's not a bug and you're not being blocked, the comment gods just didn't create a reply button for you because you wouldn't have given them credit for it anyway.
      • myfilthyheart, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1i would like to thank the comment gods for allowing me this opportunity
    • MillionsLivio, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1I use Opera and had the same problem when I upgraded to the new Beta. Not sure if you are using it, but if you are go back to 9.24 and everything will work, they have already said they will fix this when they release the next beta update.
    • forgeflow, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I am on the latest version of Firefox. No reply button either. I can only reply to replies. Weird, eh?
    • karbonx, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1if you want to reply to an original comment you have to go all the way to the bottom of that comment's replies, unlike trying to reply to a reply where the reply button is right under the comment. I know it's stupid and confusing.
  • lilmoonee, on 12/09/2007, -2/+36We need a new word for 'theory'. too many people taking it the wrong way.
    • Mageling, on 12/09/2007, -11/+1It's a theory that people will and are taking the word "theory" the wrong way. Got any evidence to back it up? Oh, nm. I read a creationist comment about evolution before.
    • whyufail, on 12/09/2007, -0/+30The word is fine. Not our fault they can't tell the difference between a theory and a hypothesis
      • LittleDas, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1Unfortunately we need to convince them that we are right
        or ship them off to another country

        I vote iraq
    • bjornski, on 12/09/2007, -0/+16No. We need people to open a damned dictionary and look up what it means.

      New word or not, these morons would still use it improperly.
    • imakecomments, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7Just point people to http://www.notjustatheory.com/
    • nicksauce, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6It is amazing how so much twattery can come from semantics, isn't it?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3It's the opposite of semantics. Semantics are decisive and precise: one word, one meaning. Anything else and you need to use another word.

        These people have their own definitions. That's why there's no possible debate. Logic escapes them.
    • Ivthypain, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Agreed. but who is pushing ID in USA? We need to find the root of the problem first. They are teaching Evolution as "law" not a theory in Australia. people here are too ***** stupid to understand what theory really means. ID is not science it's not even a theory FFS. teaching this ***** is like going back 300+ years.
    • fuzzmeister, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Read this piece by Clive Thompson for Wired:
      http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11 ...
  • mCanada, on 12/09/2007, -11/+2Hi I'm trying to reply to gbarberi. OH NOES!
  • banmaster, on 12/09/2007, -6/+134Science - Questions that MIGHT never be answered
    Religion - Answers that MUST never be questioned
    • arcangelgabriel, on 12/09/2007, -0/+21Good one. Really wish I could digg that about a hundred times...
    • issachar, on 12/09/2007, -13/+1Well that doesn't apply to my religion...
      • banmaster, on 12/09/2007, -0/+9Ignorance??
      • Syujinkou, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0That doesn't apply to mine either... ALL HAIL RAPTORJESUS
    • baldgye, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6hahaha its so true
    • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -3/+0Well, simply lie, then. There's a very long history of "questioning" and debate within all religions, by the majority of individuals within it.
    • spartan2, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0Philosophy (Science) - explaining phenomena empirically
      Religion - explaining phenomena supernaturally

      Both mindsets change over time, but a few people tend to get a bit protective of their current interpretation of reality. We are trying to find the absolute forms of the universe but our interpretations fall short. We can always try to seek these infinite forms but we cannot reach them.
  • blaze03, on 12/09/2007, -0/+30http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfait ...
  • DestroyFascism, on 12/09/2007, -5/+18So if intelligent design was the thing, who created the intelligence? Who did he / she / it learn that from? That flying spaghetti monster has friends? a parent? Who created the parent? Flying spaghetti intelligence corporation? Humans are patented design? copying or downloading humans will subject you to AARIA random boiler plate rulings that criminalize sub adults for subversive behavior and leading a rebellion against the almighty.....
    • saintdesy, on 12/09/2007, -0/+5The Creator is supposed to exist outside of time, space, etc. With out those hang-ups you don't need to have a begining. Same thing with the universe though. Of course you would say that the universe started 13+ billion years ago with the big bang, but you'd be wrong. Before that, the universe was a singularity of infinite energy density the size of a sub-atomic particle(or less), but how long was that around? Did that just pop in from nothing? And if so, how without violating the basic laws of reality like mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed? You run into the same sort of unanswerable questions you get with God, except that with God, it is a lot more warm and fuzzy and it sort of feels like there is a freaking point to it all.
      • Ramble, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1It wasn't around for any time. Space cannot exist without time and time cannot exist without space. The two are linked, therefore before the big bang there was no time and so no beginning.
        • KyleGoetz, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3That's a cop out. You still haven't explained where it all came from except for some vigorous hand waving and saying "because time didn't exist, we don't need to explain where it all came from." Fact: there's a ***** of Universe right now. Fact: Before the Big Bang there was Nothing. Even if there was no time before the big bang, we're still looking at a vertical asymptote at (t = 0).
      • reddikilowatt, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2That's one of the problems with early universe theory, string theory, etc. It becomes religion because there is no test to prove/disprove the theory. Just like the people who say we create our own universe, and some of the other strange stuff that sounds like pot smoker physics.
  • sat0ri, on 12/09/2007, -1/+33"In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made School Boards." -Mark Twain
  • CrankyHippo, on 12/09/2007, -4/+13Well Fair is Fair

    *comic*
    http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v82 ...
  • benitojuarez, on 12/09/2007, -3/+17Fired from a job as an evolutionary biologist for being a creationist? Whats the problem there? No reason to sue. It's not like it isn't contradictory in the least.
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4Can't trust his results.
    • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -2/+0How would you propose any advance whatsoever in any of the sciences happen if one may not propose the "contradictory" to the norm?

      Yeah, not like we should have ongoing challenges to theories or anything--that's not how science works! :p
      • fullphaser, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4Usually that is how it works, unless of course your version of science revolves around magical sky wizards.
        • empiric, on 12/09/2007, -3/+0Which it doesn't, but lie on.
          • fullphaser, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3I'm sorry what does it rely on? Oh thats right an intelligent designer, see sky wizard.
  • CrankyHippo, on 12/09/2007, -10/+1Well Fair is Fair *props to suxmonkey for the dig*

    http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v82 ...
  • l00s3r, on 12/09/2007, -20/+4This is a problem that only exists in public schools. Atheists should be able to send their kids to Atheist schools and vice versa. One size does not fit all. And it never will.
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/09/2007, -1/+14Thats why you should spend a day in your RELIGION CLASSES, ie CHURCH. Leave the facts to the schools.
  • DarkRabbit, on 12/09/2007, -17/+2How about every school have it's own version of humanity's beginnings?
    You stay out of their *****, they stay out of yours.
    • zephc, on 12/09/2007, -2/+13No, that would be a terrible idea. How about they just teach science?
  • unclerichard, on 12/09/2007, -4/+9Creationists understand scriptures literally. They need some imagination.
  • zeptobyte, on 12/09/2007, -15/+2