Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists

[Grace]

Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists


Friday, January 14, 2005 Posted: 10:51 AM EST (1551 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."

"What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution," said Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, who with Joseph S. Levine has authored three texts for high schoolers.

On Thursday, Miller -- along with fellow teachers and scientists -- cheered a federal judge's ruling that ordered the Cobb County school board to immediately remove the stickers and never again hand them out in any form.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/14/evolution.stickers.ap/index.html

 

[Evo]

It is encouraging to see that there is still some sanity in this world.

 

[Moonbear]

As I recall, the stickers in question said more than just "evolution is a theory not a fact" that made it even clearer what the bias of the board of education was when they placed them in the textbooks. The parents in that district should take it a step further and protest the waste of their tax money to print those stickers and put them in textbooks, not to mention the legal costs the board of ed probably absorbed for this case! Make the board of ed reimburse the district out of their own pockets for this. Makes me mad that there are school districts that can't afford to even buy current textbooks for their students, or even replace the books that are falling apart, and there's a district throwing away money on stupid stickers for books.

 

[Curious3141]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

 

[Moonbear]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

Excellent!

 

[Gokul43201]

When I saw this in the news, a couple of days ago, I didn't know whether to be happy or sad.

Isn't it sad that it takes a Federal Judge (rather than the local schoool board) to have to determine what needs to go into textbooks ?

I think it's quite pathetic that things have come to a stage where there is such a large disconnect between people and science. Education is just not able to keep pace with research, and the population is being left in the dust. Or is there something else to blame - perhaps a resistance to change that is being encouraged ?

 

[polyb]

Hey maybe they should put a sticker on all of the schools saying:

"The Cobb County Board of Education and many residents of Cobb County do NOT have much of an education which proves that your education is not as important as often stated. This is not a THEORY but a FACT as demonstrated by the lack of distinguishing between hypothesis, thesis, and fact.

In order to preserve the integrity of the current system you are hereby notified that a sizable monetary contribution will be necessary for appropriate accreditation. Those not willing or able to meet these standards need not apply except at your local fast food franchise."

 

[franznietzsche]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

Beat me too it. Dang it.

Actually i was going to say they had to have another sticker: "God is just a theoru" if they wanted that one.

Have i mentioned how much i can't stand fundamentalists yet today? Well now i ahve.

 

[Chrono]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

I would be content with that as well.

 

[tumor]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

Blasphemy !

 

[Grace]

Calling evolution a theory is an attempt to discredit it (a means that has been used since Darwin's time). The fact is evolution is not a theory but an observable natural phenomenon like gravity or any such thing. The neo-Darwinian synthesis is the scientific theory that best describes the natural, observable, and phenomenon evolution. If data were to show, tomorrow for instance, that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is incorrect (something that will not happen... the synthesis is probably the most tested and most confirmed scientific explanation we have), evolution would not stop (just as gravity did not cease when Newtonian gravitational theory gave way to Einsteinian theory). Evolution, unbeknownst to most Americans... including our President, is not at issue; the issue is how evolution takes place (via: natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, chance, and meiotic drive with natural selection being the only creative force of the five). By banning the teaching of evolution in schools, we might as well ban the teaching of sciences in general. Finally, does evolution have anything to say about the possible existence of God or gods? The answer is of course not. It does indicate, however, that those who take religious texts literally are incorrect.

 

[Gokul43201]

It does indicate, however, that those who take religious texts literally are incorrect.

This demographic constitutes a shockingly large chunk of the population in this country.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

[FulhamFan3]

I'd be fine with the sticker if it was applied to all theories. If they have one for special relativity, quantum theory, chemical kinetics, etc. If they have one for every theory. Showing that it is only for evolution is obvious what intent they have.

 

[Grace]

I believe in separation of church and state.

The church can teach creationism and school teaches evolution, period.

It is a good thing (very positive) that progressives want to keep schools a neutral ground, and allow for individuals to pursue their faiths in churches, temples and synagogues.

That is the only way religion should be pursued. But that's just me. It has no place in the public sphere (school, government, etc.).

You can't discount 4.6 million years of evolutionary proof.

And who, in their right mind would believe God created Adam and Eve only six thousand years ago, when the entire Asian and African cultures can be traced back to ten to fifteen thousand years and more? And let's face it; men do NOT have one fewer ribs than women.

I believe there's some sort of "Higher Power" at work, somewhere. Where do our souls come from? How is everything given its life?

But as science has proven, everything that grows, lives, and breathes, can be traced back with scientific proof. Can the same be said of Creationism?

It's the soul of us animals that get one wondering about higher powers. What force causes each animal, whatever the species, to have individual feelings, thoughts, and actions? Something is breathing that uniqueness into all of us.

Kinda gets your mind working overtime, doesn't it?

 

[Evo]

I believe there's some sort of "Higher Power" at work, somewhere. Where do our souls come from? How is everything given its life?

There is no proof that "souls" exist. It's another myth. I was brought up to believe in all this, I no longer do since there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite.

 

[Tsu]

Is there evidence to prove that souls do NOT exist?

 

[franznietzsche]

Is there evidence to prove that souls do NOT exist?

Doesn't matter. It is the burden of those making a claim to provide evidence and proof.

 

[Entropy]

There is no proof that "souls" exist.

In actuality the word "soul," in respect to the Bible, is synonymise with "body" or "being," not some glowing essences that gives life to something.

And let's face it; men do NOT have one fewer ribs than women.

The rib was taken from Adam, not from every man.

You can't discount 4.6 million years of evolutionary proof.

Proof of what? There are no fossiles of an animal inbetween a human-like ape and a human or any fossiles that show the progression of one species into another for that matter.

The fact is evolution is not a theory but an observable natural phenomenon like gravity or any such thing.

How exactly have we observed all species originating from a common ancestor? Natural selection is observable, not evolution. There is a big difference.

But as science has proven, everything that grows, lives, and breathes, can be traced back with scientific proof. Can the same be said of Creationism?

What? Traced back to..? Also it's good to remember that all "proofs" are really just assumptions or are based on assumptions.

It is a good thing (very positive) that progressives want to keep schools a neutral ground

I disagree. People need to learn that tolerating other beliefs and ideals is part of life and stop complaining about it all the time. It's obvious that schools on "neutral grounds" aren't that neutral because they're offending a hell of a lot of people. Just accept the fact that you can't sadisfy everyone and teach what the majority wants to be taught. When you try to sadisfy everyone you end up sadisfying no one.

 

[Tsu]

Well, I thought when Evo said "there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite" that she was making a claim that souls DON'T exist. And she called souls a 'myth'. I'm just saying, if there is no evidence to PROVE that they do not exist, the soul should not be called a 'myth'. While there may be no evidence to prove that souls do exist, it is my understanding that there is also no proof that they do NOT. While some may decide to NOT believe something because of lack of proof, I thoroughly enjoy the 'mystery' of life and am willing to believe that anything - and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING - is possible.

 

[Curious3141]

Well, I thought when Evo said "there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite" that she was making a claim that souls DON'T exist. And she called souls a 'myth'. I'm just saying, if there is no evidence to PROVE that they do not exist, the soul should not be called a 'myth'. While there may be no evidence to prove that souls do exist, it is my understanding that there is also no proof that they do NOT. While some may decide to NOT believe something because of lack of proof, I thoroughly enjoy the 'mystery' of life and am willing to believe that anything - and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING - is possible.

What evidence is there to PROVE that a great big pink unicorn is not residing in the center of the Sun at this very moment ?

 

[Curious3141]

Proof of what? There are no fossiles of an animal inbetween a human-like ape and a human or any fossiles that show the progression of one species into another for that matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

How exactly have we observed all species originating from a common ancestor? Natural selection is observable, not evolution. There is a big difference.

How is natural selection observable and not evolution ? The former is the accepted mechanism for bringing about the latter.

I observe bacteria evolving in the lab everyday. Acquired antibiotic resistance would not exist without evolution.

I disagree. People need to learn that tolerating other beliefs and ideals is part of life and stop complaining about it all the time. It's obvious that schools on "neutral grounds" aren't that neutral because they're offending a hell of a lot of people. Just accept the fact that you can't sadisfy everyone and teach what the majority wants to be taught. When you try to sadisfy everyone you end up sadisfying no one.

The school is a place for teaching maths, science, language and other academic subjects, not to ply religious dogma. Noone is saying "do away with Sunday school". Imagine if I went to Sunday school and insisted on teaching evolution !

 

[Tsu]

What evidence is there to PROVE that a great big pink unicorn is not residing in the center of the Sun at this very moment ?

Absolutely NONE. (Do you think there is one there? )

 

[Curious3141]

Absolutely NONE. (Do you think there is one there? )

No, but *I* don't think we have immaterial "souls" either.

 

[franznietzsche]

Well, I thought when Evo said "there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite" that she was making a claim that souls DON'T exist. And she called souls a 'myth'. I'm just saying, if there is no evidence to PROVE that they do not exist, the soul should not be called a 'myth'. While there may be no evidence to prove that souls do exist, it is my understanding that there is also no proof that they do NOT. While some may decide to NOT believe something because of lack of proof, I thoroughly enjoy the 'mystery' of life and am willing to believe that anything - and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING - is possible.

There is no evidence to prove that zeus does not run around boning every mortal woman in sight either. But we call that a myth.

Again, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You cannot prove nonexistence. You can prove imposibility, under given conditions, but you cannot prove nonexistence. Nonexistence is assumed until existence is proven. Its basic scientific method.

 

[gerben]

Beat me too it. Dang it.

Actually i was going to say they had to have another sticker: "God is just a theory" if they wanted that one.

Have i mentioned how much i can't stand fundamentalists yet today? Well now i have.

I think that is way to considerate. It should be: "God is not even a theory".

_______________________________________________________
"Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?"
F.W. Nietzsche

 

[Gokul43201]

How exactly have we observed all species originating from a common ancestor? Natural selection is observable, not evolution. There is a big difference.

Microbial mutations happen over a lifetime of a few years and have been observed very closely. Someone more familiar with the area might be able to say more, but that's irrelevant.

You don't need to have an observation, because that's not how science works. Quantum Mechanics, for example says (and this is one of the pillars of QM) that an unperturbed particle exists in a superposition of states. This has never been observed and can never be, because observation involves a perturbation. However, this doesn't prevent us from accepting Quantum Mechanics as an extremely accurate science. And it surely doesn't prevent us from building computers, superconducting magnets, spintronic devices, MRI machines and other such stuff, nor does it prevent them from working.

Evolution, on the other hand is not intrinsically unobservable. What makes it hard is the timescale of the changes.

 

[Tsu]

No, but *I* don't think we have immaterial "souls" either.

Love, hate, fear... are also immaterial. They must not exist, either.

Just because they cannot be proved by the scientific method doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I'm done here. You kids have fun duking it out. Let me know who 'wins'.

 

[Curious3141]

I'm done here. You kids have fun duking it out. Let me know who 'wins'.

What does it matter ? From your tone, you think you've already won.

Just to address the reasonable part of your post :

Love, hate, fear... are also immaterial. They must not exist, either.

Just because they cannot be proved by the scientific method doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Those are emotions. Emotions have subjective manifestations that we can describe and we find that different individuals are in broad agreement about them. There are objective correlates to each of those emotions too (heart rate, pupillary dilatation, diaphoresis, etc.) They have consequences (seeking behaviour in the case of love, aggression and avoidance behavior in the case of hate and fear). All of these can be studied in repeatable controlled experiments with animal models that mimic human emotions closely.

We can even find physical correlates for each of those emotions (brain centers like the limbic "cortex" and neurotransmitter levels).

No one has even come close to describing what the soul is, let alone what its function might be and how one would experience it. Note that the soul is NOT the same as the consciouness, which does have a brain center associated with it. The soul will never be amenable to scientific enquiry until it is better defined, but that's not going to happen because it is just so much nebulous nonsense in the minds of the wishful thinkers and the illucid.

 

[Nereid]

Well, when one of those who favour using those stickers comes into us (imagine we are heartless doctors) and presents with an antibiotic resistant bacterial infection, we could always say something like "since you believe evolution is just a theory, not a fact, I will treat you with the same anti-biotic as I treated your grandmother, for the same bacterial infection, 50 years ago ... after all, you would surely agree that according to creationism - the theory that you believe in - bacteria do not evolve, so there is no need for me to prescribe you an expensive new antibiotic."

 

[Gokul43201]

How is it that we are discssing the soul without first defining it ? Are we in agreement upon some accepted definition ? I'm not aware of one.

Perhaps we should backtrack, define 'soul', and then go on to discuss it.