Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Grace
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary
A federal judge's ruling in Cobb County, Georgia, has garnered support from scientists and educators by mandating the removal of warning stickers in biology textbooks that labeled evolution as "a theory, not a fact." This decision was celebrated by Dr. Kenneth Miller and others who argue that such disclaimers undermine scientific education. Critics of the stickers expressed frustration over the misuse of public funds for legal battles and the promotion of anti-science sentiments in education. The discussion highlighted a broader concern about the disconnect between scientific understanding and public perception, particularly regarding evolution and its acceptance in schools. Participants debated the implications of teaching evolution versus creationism, emphasizing the need for a secular educational environment that prioritizes scientific evidence over religious beliefs. The conversation also touched on the challenges of reconciling scientific theories with personal beliefs, particularly regarding the existence of a higher power or soul, and the importance of evidence in supporting claims about the natural world.
  • #31
Nereid said:
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."
That's a good one! :biggrin:

Tsu, I got no rythym and I got no soul. :wink: I would like to believe that some part of me would continue to exist after I die because I need to look after the Evo child. :frown: I just have come to the conclusion that this is probably it for us humans, we've got this one shot and we need to make the best of it. Of course being raised Catholic I do have my scapular as a backup (just incase) "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire." :-p
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo said:
Of course being raised Catholic I do have my scapular as a backup (just incase) "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire." :-p

Is that what those things are for? I don't even know if I still have mine (that probably means no). Nobody ever explained what it was for, they just handed them out in CCD one day. Looked like some cheap piece of crap, a picture of some saint on cardboard tied together with some red string. Who knew a picture on cardboard would protect me from eternal fire? I might need that if I get around to meeting tribdog! :smile:

I still have my scapula on me though (both of them), does that count? :biggrin:

What I find so funny about the arguments made by Christians trying to rebut science is when referring to the origin of the universe. You can take any of the theories...let's say we go with the Big Bang and that the whole universe began from a singularity. They'll argue that it still doesn't explain where the singularity came from, so there must be a God who created it...it never seems to bother them that by their same argument, it doesn't explain where God came from!
 
  • #33
Moonbear said:
They'll argue that it still doesn't explain where the singularity came from, so there must be a God who created it...it never seems to bother them that by their same argument, it doesn't explain where God came from!

You may question science, but you may NOT question God !

The only reason that Evolution and Cosmogenesis get special attention, is because they are more blatantly God-unfriendly. Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory, Algorithmic Information Theory, Game Theory, Axiomatic Set Theory, Extreme Value Theory, and even Ladder Theory are supposedly not harmful theories to teach people, because they do not have their results refuted by the Book.
 
  • #34
The problem with the scapular is that it doesn't say how long you will suffer hell fire, just that it won't be eternal. What, I only have to spend 80 trillion years in hell? :mad:

Moonbear, you can shop for redemption online now, you don't even have to go near a church store. Kind of like when the Medici Pope sent priests out to sell those redemption certificates to the populace after he bankrupted the Vatican with all of his lavish spending. :rolleyes:
 
  • #35
Evo said:
The problem with the scapular is that it doesn't say how long you will suffer hell fire, just that it won't be eternal. What, I only have to spend 80 trillion years in hell? :mad:

What are you complaining about ? You're just spoilt !

\lim _{T \rightarrow \infty}~ \frac {t}{T} = 0~, ~for~any~finite~t
...even t= 80 trillion. :devil:
 
  • #36
Gokul43201 said:
What are you complaining about ? You're just spoilt !

\lim _{T \rightarrow \infty}~ \frac {t}{T} = 0~, ~for~any~finite~t
...even t= 80 trillion. :devil:
:biggrin: Hey, for my $10 I want a defined amount of time, like 2 weeks.

But I'm such an o:) I guess that I have nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:
 
  • #37
Evo said:
Moonbear, you can shop for redemption online now, you don't even have to go near a church store. Kind of like when the Medici Pope sent priests out to sell those redemption certificates to the populace after he bankrupted the Vatican with all of his lavish spending. :rolleyes:

LOL! I left the church for good after my father died and I learned what mass cards were. The thought that you had to pay to have masses given for someone sounded an awful lot like buying your way into heaven. I guess the church viewed it that if you can't take it with you, leave it with the church. :mad:
 
  • #38
Excellent arguments, Entropy & Evo, but it only proves that everything that is proven or unproven, is questionable!

If you live in Manhattan, or visit there, go to the Museum of Natural History; they have an excellent exhibition that shows the evolution of Homo Sapiens.

No one has proven, or CAN prove how souls come to exist, or how our souls are made, but they exist, too… perhaps some sort of "higher power," gives them to us? Who knows? It a debate that has been going on for ages, and will continue for ages to come.
 
  • #39
Grace said:
No one has proven, or CAN prove how souls come to exist, or how our souls are made, but they exist, too… perhaps some sort of "higher power," gives them to us? Who knows? It a debate that has been going on for ages, and will continue for ages to come.
No one even knows IF there is such a thing as a soul. You can't move into the debate of "how something came into existence" when you don't even know if it exists in the first place. You might as well ask "how did pink unicorns come into existence? Did a "higher power" create them?
 
  • #40
Evo said:
No one even knows IF there is such a thing as a soul. You can't move into the debate of "how something came into existence" when you don't even know if it exists in the first place. You might as well ask "how did pink unicorns come into existence? Did a "higher power" create them?


Of course he did, from the rib of the white unicorn...
 
  • #41
franznietzsche said:
Of course he did, from the rib of the white unicorn...
:smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #42
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1a.html

Thats not accurate. Take this for example:

[PLAIN said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1a.html]These[/PLAIN] species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found.

Unmistakable to who? This statement is an opinion not a fact. The tone of the whole article shows that it is opinion based. They seem to be referring to two similar looking species and assuming the two have a common ancestor. We have similar looking species today so finding ones that are exstict doesn't do anything.

[PLAIN said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1a.html]This[/PLAIN] is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another.

Then why doesn't the author cite some? Maybe because it's not as "obvious" as he claims? I believe in evolution and natural selection to an extent, but the fact is there is no proof of evolution.

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.

Thats natural selection. Not evolution. The theory of evolution says that every organism can be traced back to a common ancestor. Again, there is a difference.

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.

As I said before. All proofs are based on assumptions. Yes, you do need observations. QM just says that you can only learn position and momentum with limited accuracy. So instead of a true "proof" you are left with the probablity of something being true. Whether or not the probablity that evolution is true is high enough to assume it is true is a matter of opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Entropy said:
As I said before. All proofs are based on assumptions. Yes, you do need observations.
Yes, you need observations. But you don't need an observation of X to be confident of the validity of X. If X is an essential part of a framework that explains and predicts phenomena to an acceptable degree of accuracy, then X must be true.

QM just says that you can only learn position and momentum with limited accuracy. So instead of a true "proof" you are left with the probablity of something being true.
Who says you can't have true "proof" of a probabilistic theory. Anyway, this has nothing to do with what I'm saying. QM says an electron (in the double slit experiment, say) exists in a superposition of eigenstates that can be calculated by some prescribed method. You would have to say that QM is wrong about the nature of the electron because no one has seen this superposition.

Whether or not the probablity that evolution is true is high enough to assume it is true is a matter of opinion.

This probability is completely different from the probability that one encounters in QM. You're getting confused because of a bunch of vaguely formed ideas about QM.

Yes, there is a good chance that the theory of evolution is wrong - but only in the details. And besides, the theory is the only one (among the three) that is developed through a scientific process.

Really, I wish you told Dalton he was wrong about atoms because no one had observed them. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #44
http://www.dworldonline.com/unicorn/shield.jpg ?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Entropy said:
Thats natural selection. Not evolution. The theory of evolution says that every organism can be traced back to a common ancestor. Again, there is a difference.

No the theory of evolution does not state that organism can be track down to a common ancestor. The theory of evolution only state that change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool will occur and may result in speciation. You, on the other hand, are referring to the theory of common descent which is derive from the theory of evolution.
 
  • #46
Entropy said:
Thats not accurate. Take this for example:



Unmistakable to who? This statement is an opinion not a fact. The tone of the whole article shows that it is opinion based. They seem to be referring to two similar looking species and assuming the two have a common ancestor. We have similar looking species today so finding ones that are exstict doesn't do anything.

Unmistakable to archaeo-taxonomists who've spent their whole careers studying this stuff. Unmistakable to any open-minded intelligent individual who bothers with learning the principles of taxonomy and then looks at the evidence.

What's wrong with looking at skeletal structure and drawing deductions about phylogeny ? We do have a strong basis for going from physical structure to genetic relatedness, because such a relationship is borne out by modern molecular studies of organisms. We're physically very closely related to lower primates like the chimp, and our DNA bears this out, so isn't it a perfectly logical conclusion that we share common ancestry ?

Opinion vs fact : "The Sun will rise in the East tomorrow" : is THAT opinion or fact ? A crank could argue till the sun dies out that it's just opinion, but most people would regard it as fact. Same thing with evolution, the evidence is so strong for it, that to regard it as anything but fact, is crankery.

Then why doesn't the author cite some? Maybe because it's not as "obvious" as he claims? I believe in evolution and natural selection to an extent, but the fact is there is no proof of evolution.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the FAQ ? That was just the preamble page, the data comes later. Lots of it. Knock yourself out.

Thats natural selection. Not evolution. The theory of evolution says that every organism can be traced back to a common ancestor. Again, there is a difference.

You do not understand what you are talking about. Evolution talks about the change in allelic frequency from generation to generation. Natural selection posits a mechanism whereby this happens. Common ancestry theorises that we can trace diverse organisms back to a common progenitor. There is a difference, a subtle one, but it's obvious that you've totally missed the mark in your definitions even.

As I said before. All proofs are based on assumptions. Yes, you do need observations. QM just says that you can only learn position and momentum with limited accuracy. So instead of a true "proof" you are left with the probablity of something being true. Whether or not the probablity that evolution is true is high enough to assume it is true is a matter of opinion.

Please read more about the scientific method. By trying to analogise a specific result in QM to the general philosophy of science, you come off as completely ignorant.
 
  • #47
Originally Posted by Evo
No one even knows IF there is such a thing as a soul. You can't move into the debate of "how something came into existence" when you don't even know if it exists in the first place. You might as well ask "how did pink unicorns come into existence? Did a "higher power" create them?
That settles it, then. None of us exists, including the Boards, according to your statement above. We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?

Funny, that cast iron frying pan (that doesn't exist) sure hurt like hell, when I dropped it on my toes this morning… must have been my imagination.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
  • #48
Grace said:
That settles it, then. None of us exists, including the Boards, according to your statement above. We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?

Funny, that cast iron frying pan (that doesn't exist) sure hurt like hell, when I dropped it on my toes this morning… must have been my imagination.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What is a soul? Surely, you are not referring to a conscience or being sentient.

I think people throw words like 'soul' and 'spirit' around too much, without even defining what they are. Usually, if you ask someone what a spirit or a soul is they can't give you straight answer, and will usually related it back to some faith tale of their's or relate it with having a conscience and being sentient.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
You would have to say that QM is wrong about the nature of the electron because no one has seen this superposition.

Really, I wish you told Dalton he was wrong about atoms because no one had observed them.

That doesn't mean it's wrong. I never said evolution was wrong because we haven't seen the complete fossile record. In fact I never once said evolution is wrong. I do believe in evolution (to a degree), but it is still an unproven theory no matter how much I want it to be other wise. I'm just providing a healthy amount of dought.

No the theory of evolution does not state that organism can be track down to a common ancestor. The theory of evolution only state that change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool will occur and may result in speciation. You, on the other hand, are referring to the theory of common descent which is derive from the theory of evolution.

I read other wise some where else on the forum and no one seemed to argue against it. But I'll take your word for it. I was wrong.

This probability is completely different from the probability that one encounters in QM. You're getting confused because of a bunch of vaguely formed ideas about QM.

Okay. I thought probability was the chance of some event happening or being true. Can you explain what it means in QM for me? Or give me a site so I can learn about it?

We're physically very closely related to lower primates like the chimp, and our DNA bears this out, so isn't it a perfectly logical conclusion that we share common ancestry ?

Yes it is a very logical possiblity.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the FAQ ? That was just the preamble page, the data comes later. Lots of it. Knock yourself out.

The cites don't prove species-to-species transitions. The fossiles only prove that there are animals that are similar to each other. There are many animals that are similar to each other today.

Please read more about the scientific method. By trying to analogise a specific result in QM to the general philosophy of science, you come off as completely ignorant.

It's not just limited to QM. You can't know anything with complete certainty, that's my point. I'm trying to get some of you people to understand that it's reasonable to be doughtful of evolution and you should quit fussing so much when some people do dought it.

We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?

Yes you are, that is until I take my pills.
 
  • #50
Grace said:
That settles it, then. None of us exists, including the Boards, according to your statement above. We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?
No. I'm tangible, I can be seen, touched, heard and smelled, just for starters. Last time I checked no one had ever seen, touched, heard or smelled a soul. There is no evidence that a soul exists. You're not making any sense.
 
  • #51
Evo said:
No. I'm tangible, I can be seen, touched, heard and smelled, just for starters. Last time I checked no one had ever seen, touched, heard or smelled a soul. There is no evidence that a soul exists.

[slight sidetrack]
Perhaps this is all due to perception of what the 'soul' really is. If we follow the traditional Cartesian Dualism that the mind and body are completely seperate, then I see what you are getting at. I myself find it rather farfetched to be 'attached' to my body, but that is besides the point.
[/slight sidetrack]
 
  • #52
Entropy said:
That doesn't mean it's wrong. I never said evolution was wrong because we haven't seen the complete fossile record. In fact I never once said evolution is wrong. I do believe in evolution (to a degree), but it is still an unproven theory no matter how much I want it to be other wise. I'm just providing a healthy amount of dought.

You can doubt anything if you put your mind to it. :smile: No theory can be 100 % proven, but if the evidence for a theory is very, very strong, it can be accepted as true until some compelling evidence to the contrary comes along. That evidence is not yet here (the bible doesn't count, it's just mythology).

Yes it is a very logical possiblity.

The most logical one in fact.


The cites don't prove species-to-species transitions. The fossiles only prove that there are animals that are similar to each other. There are many animals that are similar to each other today.

This again. Do you understand how an inference arises from an observation ?

If I see a car suddenly appearing around a blind curve in a road on an incline, that is an observation.

From that observation I can draw a number of inferences. Here are two competing theories :

1) The car was traveling on the road before it was in my sight, but the way in which light behaves did not enable me to see the car. Only when it came into my line of sight did I see the car.

2) The car had never existed prior to the moment I saw the car. It materialised instantaenously, traveling at speed at that very point in the road.

One observation, two inferences. Without access to a body of "common sense" built on prior experience, one cannot decide between the two. However, any fool who's lived on Earth for a while will point to 1) as the more likely explanation by far.

Same thing with the fossils. You see these blocks of stone, which can all be quite precisely dated using well founded physical theory, and which show a variety of structures. Using the time data from dating, you classify the fossils into their existence at various time eras. As you dig deeper and find older fossils, you find simpler forms that fit in with the notion of an ancestral progenitor. You've just drawn an evolutionary inference from the fossil data.

Of course, you could draw another inference, like : all those organisms existed contemporaneously and carbon dating is completely flawed. That would negate quite a few closely connected theories in Physics, too. All the scientists who contributed to the techniques used are dismissed as being off their rocker.

But I ask you, is this inference a reasonable one ? Most would say NO.

It's not just limited to QM. You can't know anything with complete certainty, that's my point. I'm trying to get some of you people to understand that it's reasonable to be doughtful of evolution and you should quit fussing so much when some people do dought it.

I don't fuss when people bring up reasonable doubts, but I do fuss when people don't really know what they're talking about. Your trying to tie up QM with the philosophy of skepticism in scientific inquiry fell into that category.
 
  • #53
What is a soul? Surely, you are not referring to a conscience or being sentient.

I think people throw words like 'soul' and 'spirit' around too much, without even defining what they are. Usually, if you ask someone what a spirit or a soul is they can't give you straight answer, and will usually related it back to some faith tale of their's or relate it with having a conscience and being sentient.
No. I'm tangible, I can be seen, touched, heard and smelled, just for starters. Last time I checked no one had ever seen, touched, heard or smelled a soul. There is no evidence that a soul exists. You're not making any sense.
Evo et al,

You are not your body. Your soul is that which occupies your body. A soul is what is called life. It is your essence. It is that which allows you to think. If one were to be in a coma, yet still being kept alive, by means of medical machinery, simply means that the soul has left the body. Should the body die, and then the soul has decided to no longer continue in that form. It will move to another dimension. Your body is merely a house for your soul, a package, if you will. Evidence of this can easily be obtained by dying, if you must have physical evidence.

There is plenty of literature that covers this particular subject; one only needs to have the will to find it. If one truly seeks an answer, it will be made available. It is ones decision, whether or not to recognize it when it appears.

Too much time is wasted on arguing over issues that are irrelevant to one's existence. Quieting the mind, and listening to the inner voice that flows within all of us, can be quite helpful. It is difficult to do, however. There's too much noise going on around us, which clutters the mind. Thoughts are constantly entering every second of our conscience wake.

Okay, I'm carrying on here, but why does one come here? Is it because of boredom? To get away from the everyday grind? Or argue about the existence of a soul? :confused:
 
  • #54
Grace said:
Evo et al,

You are not your body. Your soul is that which occupies your body. A soul is what is called life. It is your essence. It is that which allows you to think. If one were to be in a coma, yet still being kept alive, by means of medical machinery, simply means that the soul has left the body. Should the body die, and then the soul has decided to no longer continue in that form. It will move to another dimension. Your body is merely a house for your soul, a package, if you will. Evidence of this can easily be obtained by dying, if you must have physical evidence.

There is plenty of literature that covers this particular subject; one only needs to have the will to find it. If one truly seeks an answer, it will be made available. It is ones decision, whether or not to recognize it when it appears.

Too much time is wasted on arguing over issues that are irrelevant to one's existence. Quieting the mind, and listening to the inner voice that flows within all of us, can be quite helpful. It is difficult to do, however. There's too much noise going on around us, which clutters the mind. Thoughts are constantly entering every second of our conscience wake.

Okay, I'm carrying on here, but why does one come here? Is it because of boredom? To get away from the everyday grind? Or argue about the existence of a soul? :confused:

That is not a soul. The examples you stated are examples of a conscience and being sentient. There's plenty of documentation on that, as well. Stray away from this metaphysical garbage, and take a look at Artifical Intelligence (specifically, cellular automata). I just recognized that I'm actually referring to things that do have a scentific basis, whereas a soul does not.

Please recognize that you still have not defined what a soul is. Defining is not stating examples.

You should look into being a poet.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
The soul is what the aether was.

In the 19th century, people could not conceive of a mechanism for the propagation of light that did not involve some kind of medium. So the aether was conjured up. Later, as people better understood the complex thing that is 'light', they were able to shed the idea of an aether, and gladly too. But at least the aether was well defined.

The soul is the giant turtle (tortoise?) that held up the earth.

The soul is the demon that inhabited (past tense ?) the body of the diseased.

The soul is the sea monster, whose breathing caused the tides.


In truth, unless you can make available a simple scientific explanation for things like death, thought and memory, that is accessible to the masses, people will fall back upon something like a 'soul' to explain the unexplained. That there are some basic things which are very hard to understand, and that research in such areas is still pretty young, is not something that will satisfy the masses.

Unless the soul is vanquished, it will live on.
 
  • #56
Soul -- difficult to define, but unmistakable when present. Look into a person's eyes, and you can see their
soul. Look into a dead person's eyes, or any dead animal's eyes for that matter, and you can see its lack of
soul, or life. Your soul IS your life.
 
  • #57
When a person dies, (s)he usually stops blinking. That's not what you're talking about, is it ? :biggrin:

On a more serious note, blood stops traveling to the eyes once the heart stops beating. The loss of blood makes the eyes look just a little different. There are also other second order effects like the death of the cone photoreceptors or the loss of oxygen, that may play a role in this effect.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Gokul43201 said:
When a person dies, he usually stops blinking. That's not what you're talking about, is it ? :biggrin:

LOL! And the pupils dilate, and the eyes dry out and look dull, and long enough after death, the eyes get cloudy too. :biggrin:

Seriously though, I can't tell the difference between dead and alive just by looking into eyes, not right at the time of death.

Grace, if you can't define what a soul is, how can you be so certain it exists? You seem to be using it synonymously with life.
 
  • #59
No, Gokul43201 & Moonbear. Watch someone die someday, and you will actually see the life in them leave their eyes. If you haven't ever witnessed that phenomenon, you'll never know what I mean. It's eerie, but at the same time, extremely fascinating. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who fears death, though; it'll scar them, and haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Now you have it! Look it up in your dictionary, and that's exactly how it's defined (one of many definitions, however).
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Grace said:
No, Gokul43201 & Moonbear. Watch someone die someday, and you will actually see the life in them leave their eyes. If you haven't ever witnessed that phenomenon, you'll never know what I mean. It's eerie, but at the same time, extremely fascinating. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who fears death, though; it'll scar them, and haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Grace, I have seen people die, and I have seen many animals die too. There is nothing in the eyes that indicates that death has actually occurred (however you define death). The fixed stare is the same as you'd see under anesthesia. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not there is a soul. I'm only debating that there is nothing in the way the eyes look that conveys death. I can't debate with you the soul argument because I don't believe in any such thing and unless you can provide a good working definition, we have no common ground to start from there.