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.
  • #61
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:

HUh? What are you talking about? No one said we don't exist, they said souls don't exist.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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:


I'd like to take this time to rant about the failure of the education system to produce people with anything resembling the ability for scientific thought.

A good scientist is someone who is not afraid to doubt. Someone who accepts nothing simply because he was told to, even if god himself came down and said it.

A scientist is someone who is always looking to understand what he sees around him, never accepting a handwaving argument, or some rhetoritician's metaphysical spiel, regardless of how "logical" it may seem without evidence.

Richard Feynman said:
Science is: "the result of discovery that is worthwhile rechecking by direct experience and not trusting the race experience of the past"

Which is to say that we do not accept what those who went before us tell us simply because they tell us. No we go out and see it for ourselves.

Then consider the religious mindset, which so thoroughly permeates our culture, and i don't just mean christianity, i mean all brands of superstition. That mind, is an obedient mind it does what it is told by its master, be it god, nature, or whatever. It is a slave mind, herd animal mentality.

Just look at all the people, even here, who butcher science for their own purposes. IN politics too. Its ridiculous. The average person is unable to think scientifically. To think in the pattern that everything is false until reasonably shown to be true, not by hand waving arguments, but by concrete evidence, and proof derived from that evidence. By one's own experience. You don't assume something is true until that something is necessary to explain the phenomenon you see.

A soul is not necessary. There is no way to prove that a soul is necessary for us to live. Therefore, the scientific conclusion is that unless evidence of its existence is presented, it does not exist, because there is no need for it too. We don't need a soul to explain anything. WE don't need god to explain anything. Does that mean they don't exist, no. But there is no need for them(psychological insecurity of unscientific minds aside), no evidence for them, no reason for them.

In this country at least, public educations are basically mandatory to a certain age. And in my experience i have met, a few good professors aside (all with science degrees) i ahve not met a single person who was capable of scientific thought. This is the most important thing for the education system to instill, because a scientific mind insists upon learning. Learning and analysis are hard-wired into the most basic thought processes. They bemoan the failure of the schools on test scores, they need to stop teaching test material and start showing students how to think scientifically. UNfortunately most teachers are poorly qualified at best, and i feel there is little hope.



This message brought to you by an angry jaded misanthrope. Thank you for reading.
 
  • #63
Grace said:
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.
This is well stated.

Grace said in a later post that she has seen a change in the eyes during death in humans and animals. I have never seen a human die, but I had a dog put to sleep, he had bone cancer and could not move. I will never forget the look change in his eyes as he died. I could tell the instant of death, weather or not this was soul, I can't say, but I distinctly saw it.

There are plenty of miracles that occur medically and otherwise that cannot be explained by science. Doctors are baffled by a patients' recoveries everyday. That of course does not prove the existence of God, but then again even the power of the human mind to cure the body is not fully understood.

The benefits of a belief in God should not be discounted simply because some misguided persons choose to extend this belief to disbelief of science. These two subjects should not be mixed, as this forum attempts to separate them and as the point this post intended that the school board ws wrong to place those stickers in those books. It does nothing to raise belief in God it merely stirs up the age old fight between science and God.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Artman said:
The benefits of a belief in God should not be discounted simply because some misguided persons choose to extend this belief to disbelief of science.

Not a big God-person, but I agree with this.

But as long as the belief system is based entirely upon an ancient text, taught to be the "word of God" (and hence the absolute truth), this conflict between science and faith will not die.
 
  • #65
Gokul43201 said:
Not a big God-person, but I agree with this.

But as long as the belief system is based entirely upon an ancient text, taught to be the "word of God" (and hence the absolute truth), this conflict between science and faith will not die.
Sad, but true. Personally, I have an inquizative mind and I have no problem believing scientific explanations and a belief in God gives me peace and hope. The two live very happily in me, but I do understand this is not the case in many.
 
  • #66
You can doubt anything if you put your mind to it. No theory can be 100 % proven, but if the evidence for a theory is very, very strong

Okay, I'll just sum up my thoughts and we can put this to rest. The way I see it the fossile record only shows that there are some species that are similar, just like there are modern species with similarities. It doesn't show that they evoluted from one another. Some people may just conclude that God created lots of species, and some he created similar to others. The problems with this argument of course is the mechanics behind the genesis of the organisms (how can you explain it scientifically) and the delima of having all the species that ever existed all existing at one point in time. If some people want to believe that, just let them, that doesn't mean you can call them stupid or insane. Thats all I was agruing.

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.

A soul is just a person. His body and mind. A being. It's not a glowing aura that floats up to heaven and give you life. In Biblical beliefs "life force" is what gives people and animals life, but it isn't their consious selves. When you die that life force returns to God, when one is resurected that life force returns to the person. Life force is like the will of God that animates you. According to the Bible the mind and body are one, that sum is a soul. You can't have one without the other. This is the Biblical concept of a soul.

But as long as the belief system is based entirely upon an ancient text, taught to be the "word of God" (and hence the absolute truth), this conflict between science and faith will not die.

Well you could just follow the old philosphy: "God is truth, so to seek the truth is to seek God." Just something to think about. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Artman said:
The benefits of a belief in God should not be discounted simply because some misguided persons choose to extend this belief to disbelief of science. These two subjects should not be mixed, as this forum attempts to separate them and as the point this post intended that the school board ws wrong to place those stickers in those books. It does nothing to raise belief in God it merely stirs up the age old fight between science and God.
Excellent points and back to what the thread topic is about.

Religion should not be taught in public schools and religious groups should not be allowed to determine what is taught in these schools based on their personal religious beliefs.
 
  • #68
Setting aside the issue of religious education, I'm all for reading such books in English Langauge lessons.

Let's face it, the Old Testament has some fegging good stories in it.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Moonbear
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.
Then this discussion is over because we'll never agree on what a soul is, but the fact that we do disagree, and can continue to disagree, proves, without a doubt that we have souls.

http://www.photoshopforums.com/images/avatars/83730987641cdc86783d71.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
Grace said:
Then this discussion is over because we'll never agree on what a soul is, but the fact that we do disagree, and can continue to disagree, proves, without a doubt that we have souls.

http://www.photoshopforums.com/images/avatars/83730987641cdc86783d71.jpg

That's purely an opinion and not based on any scientific evidence. The fact that we disagree in our opinion of whether or not something exists does not in any way prove its existence. You might do well to spend some time visiting the logic forum to learn a bit more about drawing valid conclusions from the premises of an argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
I think we've beaten this to death.
 
  • #72
I don't know about the rest of you, but I just saw the life pass from the eyes of this thread.

- Warren