I just read something that made me want to rant so here goes!

"Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact."-April 5, 2005 OP-ED COLUMNIST An Academic Question By PAUL KRUGMAN

It seems that Repubiclans, in general, are too stupid to understand evolution and going by the examples provided in this post, somel are too stupid to understand very much at all.

Tom Delay has said that teaching evolution caused the Columbine massacre. Bush has said that the jury is still out on evolution and that the Bible should be taught as if it were an alternative scientific theory to evolution.

I know Repubiclans who, on paper, have a solid backround in science and who aren't religious who go along with teaching the Bible as if it were a scientific theory.

What is it about Republicans that makes them, in general, too stupid to understand anything about the theory of evolution?

It's ironic, but they evolved to be that way, it's in their genes.

I'm don't think they were born too stupid to know what a fact is. I think some sort of indoctrination must be involved.

Effin stupid generalizations.
Some humans have sacraficed their children to Baal therefore all humans must sacrafice their children to Baal.

No, not stupid, just born with a compulsion to believe in something, probably the first things they are told, like a chick bonding to the first thing it sees.

I was careful not to say "all" Repubiclans. You don't see any Democrats insisting on it being illegal to tell the truth in biology classes do you?

The theocratic wing of the Republican party is the dominant wing.

like a chick bonding to the first thing it sees.

A bunch of sheep with theocratic tendencies.....even many agnostic Republicans are getting all theocratic these days.

Haha.

And if these conservative students are to have their way, that isn't 'academic totalitarianism'?

that isn't 'academic totalitarianism'?

I think it's safe to say that Professors being barred from telling obvious truths about their subject is academic totalitarianism.

"If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose."-April 5, 2005 OP-ED COLUMNIST An Academic question
By PAUL KRUGMAN

His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact."

Bush has said that the jury is still out on evolution and that the Bible should be taught as if it were an alternative scientific theory to evolution.
someone needs to have their bible shoved where the sun dont shine and read here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

So much for a society that believes in free speech.

Hi Scorpius,

Talkorigins is a great website for those of us that like to debate evolution. I once posted about 50 examples of speciation with references to a nice honest fundamentalist and he replied: "Oh....I see".

So much for a society that believes in free speech.

It's a sad state of affairs. We've got people who insist on going back to before the time of the age of enlightment where if a lot of people thought the earth was flat it was considered to be flat.

I suppose there is some encouragement in the fact that our leaders only want to go back to about 1500 AD as opposed to those in the Middle East who want to go back to about 1500 BCE.

Instead of going to a place like talkorigins.org which after all is designed specifically to counter Creationism, I believe it's much more compelling to post something like this:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dait/cross-species/page5.htm

Here are extracts, you don't need to read closely, just skim it and get the idea:
Coronaviruses have a high mutation rate and a very high recombination rate. They mutate at a rate of about 1 in 10,000 nucleotides, which translates to an average of about three mutations per genome. Furthermore, they can recombine with different strains and, rarely, acquire features from other viruses, such as HE from influenza C virus. Thus, the replication of coronaviruses gives rise to multiple viral quasi-species, with different biological properties.
[...]
Dr. Baric spoke on Molecular and Evolutionary Mechanisms of Virus Cross-Species Transmission. Coronavirus replication is characterized by high mutation (10-4) and RNA recombination frequencies (about 20 percent), suggesting that these viruses are well positioned to adapt rapidly to a changing ecological niche. Because species specificity in this family of viruses is almost exclusively mediated at the level of entry, coronaviruses are good model systems to study receptor molecule lineages that regulate virus cross-species transmission.
[...]
MHVH2 could also replicate efficiently in human cell lines, demonstrating that virus mutants could emerge with broad host range specificity from mixed cell populations.
[...]
MHVR is a member of the highly homologous carcinoembryonic (CEA) gene family. Humans are known to have about 22 different genes in this family in their genome, including the biliary glycoprotein homologue of MHVR. Although it is unclear exactly which human CEA glycoprotein family member functions as a receptor for MHVH2 entry into human cells, antiserum against the human CEA glycoproteins blocks virus replication, suggesting that phylogenetic homologues of the normal receptor function as natural conduits of virus cross-species transmission in mixed cell cultures.
[...]
The evolutionary mechanisms by which viruses adapt to mixed host cell populations have been a matter of intense investigation. Neutral allele theory proposes that "most mutations are deleterious, that advantageous mutations are very rare, that deleterious mutations are removed by purifying selection, and that less important portions of molecules evolve faster than more important portions of molecules." This model supports the concept of a constant molecular clock that applies nearly equivalent mutational pressure over time to yield phylogenic variation patterns.

Now, not a great deal of that made much sense to me in terms of actually understanding what it all means. But I'm more interested in what it represents. Nobody is having any arguments about God. No-one is thinking of the philosophical implications of an aimless, directionless Universe. They're just getting on with dealing with the causes and implications of virus evolution.

Creationists frequently claim that there is no more evidence for evolution than there is for the Biblical view. Looking at the debate from an unbiased (and relatively uninformed) point of view, this may superficially have some force. After all, I personally have no direct experience of evolution; of geology; of palaeontology; of genetics. I read it all in books myself, so where's the difference between that and Creationists reading about life's origins in Genesis?

But in that case, what are all these people doing? The page is a report from some symposium or other where virus mutation and evolution came up as an important subject. If evolution were a chimera, why would all these intelligent and highly qualified people be wasting their time in a non-"Creation Debate" setting simply talking about evolution as though it were a totally unquestioned fact?

The reason is that it matters. It's important. Evolution, like it or not, is the means by which AIDS and SARS have come into the world, and it is crucial to the combatting of those and other diseases to understand how they appear, develop and propagate.

Evolution, they say, is "just a theory". There are ways of looking at it in which that could be said to be true. But even "just theories" are useful if they provide answers to problems, answers that actually work. Genesis 1 does not, I'm afraid, provide those answers.

Some random ramblings on this subject based on stuff in my mind at the moment. Last night I saw the second half of the classic Michael Crighton medical horror Coma. At one point, the doctor in charge of the organ harvesting talked about American spending on health, and it struck me that the number he quoted was at least in the tens of billions of dollars - in 1977! Even leaving aside inflation, the amount almost thirty years later must have multiplied many fold as the United States becomes increasingly aware of the passage of time and the encroachments of mortality. And yet the government actively encourages the suppression of the education that is supposed to help create the doctors of tomorrow. Secondly, this morning I heard on the radio that here in the UK there is a lot of concern about science courses at universities are closing through lack of funding, and someone said "we're not making enough scientists for our future needs". And it struck me that the Government - any Government - ought to know the numbers of scientists and doctors it is going to need to educate. Again, the state and federal US governments appear to be quite happy to sabotage what is increasingly a major contribution to the nation's economic health.

"They haven't heard about the day we created evolution."

You don't think that genetic change over time (evolution) occurs? Mountains of scientific evidence have no effect on you?

I believe it's much more compelling to post something like this:

I like that stuff. I used to have my head burried in molecular biology books and spent a bit of time on virology as well. Talkorigins is convenient as it would take a long time to find all those examples of speciation the "old fashioned way" (going to a biology library).

Creationists frequently claim that there is no more evidence for evolution than there is for the Biblical view.

They are harking back to the time before the age of reason when they do that. They yearn for a simpler time when one idea was as good as another and evidence had no bearing on the matter.

Secondly, this morning I heard on the radio that here in the UK there is a lot of concern about science courses at universities are closing through lack of funding, and someone said "we're not making enough scientists for our future needs".

I heard a news piece on the radio about that a couple of months ago. It's a tragedy for philosophical and practical reasons.

Again, the state and federal US governments appear to be quite happy to sabotage what is increasingly a major contribution to the nation's economic health.

Thanks for pointing that out. Our leaders are stupid beyond belief. In many cases they have attended the finest educational institutions in the land and yet their philosophical goals seem to involve taking us back to before the age of Greek science/philosophy.

I'm a huge fan of the Bible. In this day and age one needs to love it for what it is.......ancient mysticism and wisdom, rather than state of the art reasoning.

Monotheists often seem unable to go beyond their primitive ancient Near Eastern roots I suppose.

we created genetic change.

You are extremely ignorant. Why are you discussing a topic that you know absolutely nothing about?

Garry, there is a concept that may interest you - its called communication. Why not try it out in one of your posts.

Whether evolution occurred some thousand years ago is not a fact. We do not have hundred-percent certainty. Of course, a professor can still say it's a fact; they must have different meaning, though.

Whether evolution occurred some thousand years ago is not a fact.

There is irrefutable evidence that genetic change over time occurs. There isn't any evidence to suggest it didn't occur thousands of years ago and there are mountains of evidence that show that it did.

We do not have hundred-percent certainty.

There isn't any such thing as 100% certainty. To ignore mountains of solid evidence based on that is silly.

Whether evolution occurred some thousand years ago is not a fact. We do not have hundred-percent certainty. Of course, a professor can still say it's a fact; they must have different meaning, though.It is occuring right now. If you have ever had influenza you have been the 'beneficiary' of the process.

There is irrefutable evidence that genetic change over time occurs.

You cannot have both irrefutable evidence and lack of 100% proof. Creationists could argue any number of notions for why the bones are there.


It is occuring right now. If you have ever had influenza you have been the 'beneficiary' of the process.

Creationism doesn't depend on what's happening now.

So you accept that evolution is happening now, but deny it occured in the past? Do I understand your position correctly?

You cannot have both irrefutable evidence and lack of 100% proof.

Strangely enough you can. There are all sorts of ideas that can't be refuted that lack "100% proof".......E=MC^2.......stuff like that. Evidence and 100% proof aren't quite the same thing even though they can be almost the same thing.

There is no reason to think that genetic change over time didn't occur 1000's of years ago and there is good reason to think that it did.

A brief PS

Creationists could argue any number of notions for why the bones are there.

The evololutionary arguments have the most and the best evidence to support them. The creationist arguments are very weak and many of them are full of lies. "They are the bones of extinct species that died during the flood" is an example.

"Teaching evolution in schools is why we're behind so many countries in tests of knowledge" is another example of lies told in the name of creatonism.

So you accept that evolution is happening now, but deny it occured in the past? Do I understand your position correctly?

Ophiolite, no, that's not what I believe but what creationists might say.


Strangely enough you can. There are all sorts of ideas that can't be refuted that lack "100% proof".......E=MC^2.......stuff like that. Evidence and 100% proof aren't quite the same thing even though they can be almost the same thing.

Throckmorton, no, for human beings it's possible that some idea cannot be refuted because of lack of information. But that's different from irrefutable, which, acording to webster, means imposible to refute. Just because I cannot refute something, doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone.

Ohh well. Depressing, wouldn't you say? No teaching anything of reason. Just indoctrinate all of us teenagers with whatever religious paranoia is going on at the time, I mean, surely we'll ignore it and be good leaders of society anyways!

As I was saying. I mean, teenagers already know how to be reasonable, they'll know to avoid religious paranoia. Sarcasm off. I cannot believe it. You can't teach teenagers whatever religion deems appropriate(especially the ones I see every single day), because they will believe it if you tell them enough times. It is the reasonable few that have kept religion from controlling everything, and republicans/conservatives against teaching evolution are doing a good job of wiping out the next batch of the reasonable few. The seperation of church and state is what is supposed to prevent this from happening. Yet, we are teaching religion by not teaching evolution(either that, or you avoid the entire subject and leave it to the parents:)). What will we think of next? The seperation of reason and state? The seperation of science and state?

Okinrus, what is your opinion on the Genesis of life on earth in relation to evolution?

What will we think of next? The seperation of reason and state? The seperation of science and state?

We have now the separation of reason and religion.

imposible to refute

E=MC^2 for all practicle purposes is impossible to refute as there is a whole lot of solid evidence that shows that it occurs and no good evidence that it doesn't occur.

That doesn't mean that all the predictions of E=MC^2 can be "proven 100%".

"Irrefutable" in the way I was using it means "impossible to refute with scientific evidence" by the way.

This stuff is somewhat difficult to get across. We're discussing small but important points here aren't we?

The seperation of reason and state?

Do you mean Bush's economic policies?

I mean 9/10th of anyones policies.

We may have a seperation between religion and reason, but it is the reason being seperated from the religion, and religion is given free reign. They are seperated, but it appears that the religious half of the seperation is the half that's winning over the schools.

it appears that the religious half of the seperation is the half that's winning over the schools.

In too many cases that is true. I attribute it to a minority of Christians with a strong desire to cram their religion down the throats of others. Unfortunately there are many in the media who are behind this nonsense who have their propaganda machines running at full tilt.....I'm talking about Limbaugh, Hannity, and other right wing media liars.

These right wing media morons have convinced many that anything short of religious indoctrination in schools amounts to Christian persecution.

everything results in christian persecution. You should know that. I haven't listened to Limbaugh since forever ago. Maybe I should try again, see how much he pisses me off. O'Reilly is(was anyways) better than those two, but not great.

What about Savage? Savage is very low on the list too. ack.

Okinrus, what is your opinion on the Genesis of life on earth in relation to evolution?

Southstar, the early chapters of Genesis, I believe, are composed of a number of early stories, some of which predate Abraham. Not every portion of Genesis happended in as a literal fashion, but somehow or other there's a one-to-one correspondence between the figuative events in Genesis and the real world, I believe.


"Irrefutable" in the way I was using it means "impossible to refute with scientific evidence" by the way.

Throckmorton, you said, however, that evolution was impossible to refute. But so is creationism. Who knows? Maybe carbon's half-life over millions of years is different from it's observed half-life. Maybe the Devil really did plant bones and other evidence to create the illusion of evolution. In any case, evolution, while from a scientific perspective is likely irrefutable, is not necessarily irrefutable from all perspectives. After all, if someone accepts the Bible as literally true, and accepts it as a premise, then whatever the scientific evidence says, they will still believe evolution is disproved by the Bible.


In too many cases that is true. I attribute it to a minority of Christians with a strong desire to cram their religion down the throats of others. Unfortunately there are many in the media who are behind this nonsense who have their propaganda machines running at full tilt.....I'm talking about Limbaugh, Hannity, and other right wing media liars.

I occasionally listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. I rarely hear them talk about evolution or creationism. Overall, though, I'd approach the issue on terms of whether the student's religious rights have been violated.

Religious rights? WE ARE STUDENTS(we have rights?)!! Also. Religious rights? It violates our rights to teach us evolution? It violates our rights to teach us FACT over FICTION? The question of schools isn't about our rights being violated, it's about whether they teach us the truth or not. It may violate someones religious right for them to teach that you don't get sent to jail(in social studies/law class)for having sex before you get married. It's not about rights, it's about facts. You can't bend reason/nature/logic to fit the dominant religious views.

Greetings Ophiolite,

What would you like to communicate about?

YHWHIt was an appeal that you include discernible meaning in your posts, as you have on this occasion. All your earlier posts made no sense at all to me. I am assuming that you are posting in order to inform or entertain. Your earlier posts, in my view, failed to do either (or much of anything.) I would be interested in knowing what you were trying to say so that I can agree, or disagree, or be informed, or entertained.

Savage is very low on the list too. ack.

I don't listen to him much. I heard him screaming over and over that "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND THE ACLU" on one show. The guy is extremely stupid.

But so is creationism.

Many of the tenents of creationism are extremely easy to refute. There isn't any evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old or that there was a global flood the covered "all the high mountains of the earth".

while from a scientific perspective is likely irrefutable, is not necessarily irrefutable from all perspectives.

In a science class these "other perspectives" have no relevance.

they will still believe evolution is disproved by the Bible.

A fair amount of stupidity is required in order to assume that the Bible is a source of scientific evidence.

I'd approach the issue on terms of whether the student's religious rights have been violated.

I approach the issue in terms of one's choice of religion being no business of the government's. Religious indoctrination shouldn't on the curiculuum in public schools as it's not the government's business.

He was talking about how everyone has religion once. What was he saying... Ohh yeah. He said-All primitive nations have a religion. People in(insert phillipine island name)are very indigenous, and although they let the children "play"(he intended you to draw the assumptions. He may have said it clearer, I cannot remmeber)with each other, but the adults would never think of touching the children.

GREAT! Let's base our morals on some indigenous tribe living on some island or another! Sounds brilliant. Maybe we could even draft a new gov. after them!

Yes, God was used to explain morals in ancient times, but the Greeks changed that. They did not have a heaven or hell, just a place you winded up when you died, lasted forever, not particularly exciting. therefore, they realized they must do stuff while they were living(a rather short period of time back then), so they set up morals based upon man making the most out of his life. No Gods helping. And, after a thousand+ years of there fall, religion ruled EVERYTHING, and see where it got them(I am reffering to the dark/middle ages). Then, we ahd a couple of awakenings, revolutions, and we set up an American gov. Without God. Now, we're putting Him back in. Look what happened the last time people put Gods as the establishers of morals.

Okay, I realize that was all rather pointless to the thread, but I posted it anyways. Just wanted to rant and bash Savage at the same time. His talk show has a very creative name. The savage nation. Whoa, the creativity. It aptly describes the way he depicts our nation though.

they set up morals based upon man making the most out of his life. No Gods helping.

Some of the great Greek philosophers credited gods/religion with being responsible for morals. Some Greek philosophers got in trouble for leaving gods out of their reasoning.

Look what happened the last time people put Gods as the establishers of morals.

Sectarian slaughter was what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Using ancient Near Eastern barbaric laws (The Koran and the OT) is a recipe for repression.

It aptly describes the way he depicts our nation though.

He's one of many on the right who think that everybody who disagrees with him is an enemy of the State. It's odd how the right wingnuts worship Reagan who was guilty of Treason (selling arms to enemies is treason as defined by the Constitution). The right doesn't seem to believe in personal accountability on the part of those they agree with.

Okay, yes gods helped in Greek society. However, it was minimal, and it waned off the farther the Greek civilization got. The older the Greece civilization, the more the gods took part. Eventually, they were more or less "just there", maybe desiring some worship.

okrinus, there is no difference between the certainty of evolution and the certainty of any other well-attested scientific fact, the consequences of which we live with every single day of our lives.

Take the atomic theory. It is well known that all matter is made up of atoms, each of which consists of a fixed number of protons determining the element, with a number of neutrons which help maintain stability, but where different numbers of neutrons create different isotopes of the same element with varying levels of stability. To provide eletrical neutrality this nucleus is surrounded by orbiting electrons in varying numbers of shells, which electon shells provide the chemical characteristics of each element.

How certain are we of this atomic theory? Have we ever seen an atom? Have we observed the electrons in orbit? Subsequent theory has shown that in fact it is impossible even to do so. But the "circumstantial evidence" from which the atomic theory has been derived is unimpeachable. And the theory works because it made predictions of subatomic particle behaviour which was subsequently shown to match experimental evidence. So the theory fits the facts, and then subsequent facts you find out confirm the confidence in the theory.

When Darwin propounded the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, he didn't know about genetics. Among the objections he himself raised against his own theory was that even he could not see how inherited effects would not be "diluted" as the blood got mixed down the generations. Gregor Mendel's experiments with peas, however, later showed that genetic inheritance is digital - that is that genetic information comes in chunks which are preserved whole in the next generation, or not at all. The genetic information is not mixed together like paints, but more like lego bricks, where each brick has a 50/50 chance of being duplicated in the next generation. So the theory of evolution propounded by Darwin was not dismissed by the next level of scientific knowledge, but enhanced by it.

In the same way, okrinus, you have stated that there is nothing in evolution theory that confirms the existence of creatures for thousands, if not millions, of years. But evolution theory derived from examination of fossils which show the development of species across measurable time frames in geological strata. It is the consideration of the development of life across millennia and thousands of millennia that gave us the clues of what to look for in virus mutations a century and a half after the theory was developed. The theory depends on that early work relying on fossil evidence as much as it does indirect observation of viruses today. And if no theory of evolution had arisen in previous times, but was deduced from watching viruses, in the best traditions of science it would be seen as retrospecitvely applying to the development of early life, seeing as it fits it so perfectly.

Also, to say more about Silas's last paragraph. It does not necessarily take millions of years for evolution, more, millions of generations. That's why we can see new strains of bacteria emerging very often. They are merely evolved, more competent forms of previous bacteria that were almost killed off by antibiotics. Those that are left, are resistant, and eventually, if enough resistances develop, it can become an entirely different bacteria, or a significantly "better" one. That is evolution, on a smaller, much more noticeable scale. But, it is still proven as you look millions of years back at other animals(such as the evolution of the horse or camel), and at humans.

The point about extending back millions of years, is of course to emphasise that scientific evidence conclusively denies the Genesis account of a 6,000 year old earth.

Eventually, they were more or less "just there", maybe desiring some worship.

From what I understand the Greek philosophers tended to give a "nod to the gods" but they tended to base their morality on reason.

It's odd that at one time philosophers were considered too secular by Greek fundamentalists. What's odd about that is that those who considered them too secular were Dionysis worshipers. This meant that it was the fundamentalists who insisted on drunken orgies while the philosophers recomended austerity.

Dionysis. Was it Kant or Marx that had the analogy, between Apollo and Dionysis? The whole theme was that Dionysis was better, emotion should rule, reason is unnecessary.

You have a point. That was Dionysis-The God of drunken orgies/emotion. Of course it would be his followers that would find any way to bash the reason of most of the philosophers.

It's odd to think of fundamentalists insisting that god's purpose for us is to drink wine and fornicate in groups......"Not that there's anything wrong with it".

Religious rights? WE ARE STUDENTS(we have rights?)!! Also. Religious rights? It violates our rights to teach us evolution? It violates our rights to teach us FACT over FICTION?

I didn't say teaching evolution violates a student's rights. If a teacher forced a student to believe in evolution, then I'd believe that does violate a student's right. But if a teacher appropriately asks questions where the expectation is not whether the answer cooresponds to fact but to the theory, then students rights aren't violated. Of coures, I don't have a problem if a teacher believes evolution is a fact and says so. But it's not. To force students to believe it's a fact, breaches their religious rights.


The question of schools isn't about our rights being violated, it's about whether they teach us the truth or not.

The truth? Are you saying evolution has 100% proof? If it doesn't, then why should teachers teach evolution as if it does have 100% proof.


It may violate someones religious right for them to teach that you don't get sent to jail(in social studies/law class)for having sex before you get married.

To some degree definitions of what is religion are decided by society. How mankind was created is considered by many people a religious question.


It's not about rights, it's about facts. You can't bend reason/nature/logic to fit the dominant religious views.

I'm not following you here. When people decide the origins of how mankind was created, they bring a series of premises. Some of them will decide mankind was created by evolution, because they assume, in this situation, that the natural is more likely than the supernatural. Others will bring a literal interpretation of the Bible, and will decidely believe evolution never happened, likely assuming some supernatural explanation for the fossils. Both are logically consistent when the premises are made clear.


From what I understand the Greek philosophers tended to give a "nod to the gods" but they tended to base their morality on reason.

Throckmorton, many of their gods were unethical.


What's odd about that is that those who considered them too secular were Dionysis worshipers. This meant that it was the fundamentalists who insisted on drunken orgies while the philosophers recomended austerity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "too secular".


okrinus, there is no difference between the certainty of evolution and the certainty of any other well-attested scientific fact, the consequences of which we live with every single day of our lives.

Silas, evolution is different because, for some creationists, it's a reliigous belief.


How certain are we of this atomic theory? Have we ever seen an atom? Have we observed the electrons in orbit? Subsequent theory has shown that in fact it is impossible even to do so. But the "circumstantial evidence" from which the atomic theory has been derived is unimpeachable.

Again, like evolution, your logical reasoning here is based upon a number of premises.

To force students to believe it's a fact, breaches their religious rights.

Is it a breach of student's rights to insist that pi is not a rational number (as calculations in the Bible imply)?

Is it a breach of student's rights to insist that pi is not a rational number (as calculations in the Bible imply)?

Any form of ancient construction would involve estimates. The ancient Isrealites couldn't have create perfectly round circle.

Any form of ancient construction would involve estimates. The ancient Isrealites couldn't have create perfectly round circle.

That's fine and dandy, but would it be a breach of students rights?

***

Secondly, if a Geology teacher insisted the earth was not flat (as the Bible implies), would that too be a breach of rights?

Ohh man.

Evolution is very well backed. Sure, it has some points that need more evidence, but so does the bible.

To teach creationism alongside evolution is an insult. Sure, if you were to depict the way the ENTIRE universe BEGAN, creationism may be necessary. However, with the issue of humans, and our Earth in recent years(as in, several million, but not quite a few billion), creationism falls short. Student's aren't asked there opinions on pi, pythagorean theorem, or atoms. Yet, we ask for it on evolution, letting them decide which to follow.

You had one fatal statement, which brought the whole thing down on your head(to me). You said(and I quote)"Some of them will decide mankind was created by evolution, because they assume, in this situation, that the natural is more likely than the supernatural'. But, of course it is, there is no rational basis for the supernatural(if there is a supernatural)in this instance.

That's fine and dandy, but would it be a breach of students rights?

The majority's consensus is that PI isn't a religious question but a mathematical question, I think.


Secondly, if a Geology teacher insisted the earth was not flat (as the Bible implies), would that too be a breach of rights?

The Bible doesn't imply the earth is flat. What the Bible does is use terminology. Much like we say the sun rises and sets, the Bible can use the same terminology. It doesn't mean the sun literally rises and sets, but that the sun rises and sets according to our perspective. Again, whether the earth is flat or not isn't a religious question.


Student's aren't asked there opinions on pi, pythagorean theorem, or atoms. Yet, we ask for it on evolution, letting them decide which to follow.

John Galt, it's a matter of what's practical. A student is likely to find pythagorean theorem practically useful, but teaching the theory without the proof and restrictions is useless, I think. With atoms and evolution, you'll never have a mathematical proof; so why not teach students about the evidence, leaving them to decide whether it's true or not? Why would a teacher teach evolution as fact when it's just a theory based upon evidence?

As I have said time and time again, okrinus, they teach evolution because knowledge of evolution is crucial and essential to understanding the world today, the world in which we are trying to eliminate cancer and feed the world using our knowledge of evolutionary genetics.

Teachers teach evolution as fact because it's as much fact as what happens when you switch lights on. They teach the atomic theory which explains why the light bulb reacts in the way that it does, and why the computer you are using to read this works the way that it does. But the atomic theory is no more (nor less) 100% certain than the theory of evolution.

Teachers teach evolution for the same reason they teach the atomic theory and indeed any scientific fact. Because it is by educating the young in all aspects of scientific knowledge that a nation's economic future is secured. The United States of America (the only Western democracy where this is even an issue) is being rather short sighted if it does not recognise this importance, since it is America which is most intent on pursuing healthcare in all its forms, which spends the most money on it, and has the most to lose by not using the right sort of education.

The majority's consensus is that PI isn't a religious question but a mathematical question, I think.

It's almost quite amusing how you refuse to simply answer either this or the next question. If you indeed have some authority to speak for the 'majority', then I would like to see some substantiation of that claim. Just where did you hear that 'consensus' from the 'majority' of fundamentalists?

It really would be simple if you would just answer.

The Bible doesn't imply the earth is flat. What the Bible does is use terminology. Much like we say the sun rises and sets, the Bible can use the same terminology. It doesn't mean the sun literally rises and sets, but that the sun rises and sets according to our perspective. Again, whether the earth is flat or not isn't a religious question.

I implore you to show me the context of any verse related to 'flat earth' which indicates that the Biblical writer means to use 'the same terminology' "much like we say the sun rises and sets." I have found no such indication in the Bible and if you are unable to provide any textual substantiation, I would advise you to keep this as a personal interpretation. But here I speak of the theist who sees the Bible's unequivocal statements as truth. Are his rights breached in class for this reason?

It's almost quite amusing how you refuse to simply answer either this or the next question. If you indeed have some authority to speak for the 'majority', then I would like to see some substantiation of that claim. Just where did you hear that 'consensus' from the 'majority' of fundamentalists?

What we call religion is decided among ourselves. Most people would say how mankind was created is religious question. Christians and Jews believe in some type of Adam and Eve interpretation. Muslims believe in another interpretation. Hindus perhaps believe in some other kind of creation story. Point is, what we call religion is often decided only by popular opinion, often only by the religions themselves.


I implore you to show me the context of any verse related to 'flat earth' which indicates that the Biblical writer means to use 'the same terminology' "much like we say the sun rises and sets." I have found no such indication in the Bible and if you are unable to provide any textual substantiation

The authors purpose is to convey prophesy. If they started to use a model of the earth unfamilar with his readers, would this convey the prophesy better than using a well understood idiom? Second, you cannot show any textual evidence to indicate the author didn't want to use the idiom. Even in English, "four corners" is an idiom with a meaning quite different from implying a flat earth. OK, so did the Israelites and Greeks also use this same idiom? I think so. As you know, this series of words appears more than once in the Bible; therefore, it's likely the author wanted to convey a map-like picture rather than the true physical depiction. Last of all, the earth isn't even a true sphere. Where is the equivalent and accurate expression to "four corners"? I doubt you can find a version as poetic.


But here I speak of the theist who sees the Bible's unequivocal statements as truth. Are his rights breached in class for this reason?

I don't see any reason for forcing a student to believe the earth is round. Of course, there's a lot of evidence for the earth being round. If a student wishes to disregard the evidence, then that his problem.

Sorry to butt in okinrus,

But,

The majority's consensus is that PI isn't a religious question but a mathematical question, I think.

Evolution is not a religious question either, but a biological one.

Also,

I don't see any reason for forcing a student to believe the earth is round.

Interesting analogy, but I think it falls down some around the fact that a student would have to have a preconceived notion that the world was flat in order to be forced to believe something else. The reason the student would not have this preconceived notion is because his parents would have been too stupid to reproduce to be able to confer their belief that the world was flat onto their offspring.

I think the situation is somewhat similar to that of religion and evolution. I was not taught religiousness as a boy, but when I started to learn about it, it was around the same time that I started to learn about evolution. Needless to say, I found one completely lacking, and the other totally amazing, no guesses for which or why. My position was fairly unique, and one I feel privileged to have experienced.

staples

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45303-2005Apr11.html
Title: "Backward Evolution"
Date: April 12, 2005

Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post:

The tortoise we wanted to see, Lonesome George, so-called because he is apparently the last of his subspecies, was in hiding. In a sense, that's appropriate, because almost half of the United States cannot see any of the Galapagos for what they are: the home office of evolution. This is where Charles Darwin got his bright idea ....

.... It is odd to amble around the Galapagos and see the handiwork of evolution yet at the same time bear in mind that many Americans do not accept evolution at all. It is belittled as a mere "theory," which is a misunderstanding of the scientific term, and even in some places where it is grudgingly accepted, it is supposed to share the curriculum with creationism, as if that is an alternative theory ....

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45303-2005Apr11.html)

Okay, just a little more:

Back in 1999 Bush was asked whether he was "a creationist," and he responded by not responding: "I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." In other words, it's all the same: evolution, creationism and maybe something else from another religious tradition. This proves you can go to Yale University and learn nothing--not about evolution, mind you, but about intellectual integrity.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45303-2005Apr11.html)

Something strikes a familiar chord there. It's reasonable to expect in the near future to see me repeat a phrase I've bludgeoned before, "It's all the same". Equivocation. Generalization. Simplicity. I'll leave it at that, for now, since it spills far and wide and into irrelevance to the current topic, but Cohen has tapped a very important theme.
____________________

Notes:

Cohen, Richard. "Backward Evolution". Washington Post. April 12, 2005; page A21. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45303-2005Apr11.html

To force students to believe it's a fact, breaches their religious rights.

Would you say the same about atomic theory? The Pythagorean theorum?

How mankind was created is considered by many people a religious question.

You think science classes should make exceptions for anything that anybody considers to be religious?

Throckmorton, many of their gods were unethical.

The God of the Bible is extremely unethical at times. He causes people to sin and then punishes other people for that sin. (2Samuel 24 and several other places as well) According to Revelation God slays most of the people on the planet and sentences them to eternal torment......how unethical can you get?

I'm not sure what you mean by "too secular".

What the Greek fundamentalists meant was ethics based on reasoning rather than religion.

The majority's consensus is that PI isn't a religious question but a mathematical question, I think.

All sorts of things can be construed as religious questions but teaching science should be based on science rather than whether people consider it to be religious.

Again, whether the earth is flat or not isn't a religious question.

There was a court case in the 1920's (I think it was the 1920's, I can look it up) where the judge decided that it was wrong to teach that the earth is round because, according to the judge, the Bible says the earth is flat.

Why would a teacher teach evolution as fact when it's just a theory based upon evidence?

Do you think atomic theory should be taught as fact?

Evolution is apparent in bacteria, birds(such as those found in the Galapagos)horses, camels, and just about every other animal.

It is apparent in humans. Australeopithecus, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, and several different sub stages and intermediate stages of humans have been found. You cannot claim that those didn't exist-there is fossil evidence. Now, how did one stage of human proceed on to the next? It wasn't just a sudden, random change. It wasn't that one died out and then another was formed. How? Evolution. Now, even if God did create the most primitive man, something had to make it advance. Evolution. Either that, or God created the first stage, wiped it out, created the second, wiped it out, created the third, and so on.

Evolution does not imply that we are decendants of monkeys(even though primitive man was very, very similar), but rather there is a common ancestor. Either is possible. BUt do not defeat it on the first premise.

Evolution is not a religious question either, but a biological one.

Depends. If you were to say Evolution is an absolutely fact, then Evolution clearly is a belief on par with religion. If, however, Evolution is taught as a scientific theory with evidence, then it's not.


You think science classes should make exceptions for anything that anybody considers to be religious?

No, the truth is Evolution doesn't have 100% proof. Accordingly, teachers should be mindful that others might not belief Evolution occurred.


What the Greek fundamentalists meant was ethics based on reasoning rather than religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Greek fundamentalist". Fundamentalism is a new concept in religion. What fundamentalist oppose is complex, allegorical theology. That said, you can't have an ethics based on reasoning. Reasoning to what end? Evil, good. Sure, from some type of principles, reasoning can extend those principles; but then those principles would become the base of the ethical system.



The God of the Bible is extremely unethical at times. He causes people to sin and then punishes other people for that sin. (2Samuel 24 and several other places as well) According to Revelation God slays most of the people on the planet and sentences them to eternal torment......how unethical can you get?

God doesn't cause people to sin. Without Him people sin; so when God leaves people, their hearts have hardned.


Would you say the same about atomic theory? The Pythagorean theorum?

Throckmorton, Pythagorean's theorem is a case in point because it makes no real predictions. Spatial distances could be made up of discrete elements. It might be impossible to have a flat space. Furthermore, for a student to reject Pythagorean's theorem, he'd have to question logic itself; for the premises are explicity Euclid's axioms. On the other hand, atomic theory, like Evolution, is a theory that fits observable evidence. It too shouldn't be taught as fact; it isn't fact.


Evolution is apparent in bacteria, birds(such as those found in the Galapagos)horses, camels, and just about every other animal.

John Galt, the best you can say is that descendents share common physical makeup, and so, overtime, those descendents who have favorable traits will live while others will die out. Whether you accept the fossil evidence, however, depends on your premises. If for one of your premises you believe the Devil will go to great lengths to plant evidence and God will allow him, then the fossil evidence isn't really evidence.

Accordingly, teachers should be mindful that others might not belief Evolution occurred.

You're saying that science teachers should be mindful anytime someone doesn't believe a scientific theory? Would that apply to quantum theory?

Teaching science should involve just that. You wouldn't recomend a teacher being "mindful" of students who don't believe that 0.3 squared=0.09 would you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Greek fundamentalist".

I wasn't the one who first used the term. I read it in Will Durant's "The Life of Greece". I assume Durant meant "One who attacks any deviation from certain doctrines and practices he considers essential (as to a religious, political, or educational system)"-Websters

That said, you can't have an ethics based on reasoning.

Yes you can.

God doesn't cause people to sin.

According to the Bible he does. (2Samuel 24, Ezekiel 20:25-26, Ezekiel14:9) The Bible says so in so many words.

It too shouldn't be taught as fact; it isn't fact.

You don't think that students should be taught that molecules are made of atoms in certain fixed proportions. Do you think that 100 level Chemistry students should be encouraged to make up their own mind about what molecules consist of? Are you saying that all those PhD chemistry professors I studied under were wrong telling me that molecules are made of atoms in certain fixed proportions?

If for one of your premises you believe the Devil will go to great lengths to plant evidence and God will allow him, then the fossil evidence isn't really evidence.

Your "Devil premise" isn't based on any evidence whatsoever. There is abundant evidence that shows that the fossil record depicts evolution.

okinrus,

Depends. If you were to say Evolution is an absolutely fact, then Evolution clearly is a belief on par with religion. If, however, Evolution is taught as a scientific theory with evidence, then it's not.

Actually, no it doesn't depend. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Religious people make evolution about religion. People who aren't religious just use evolution as yet another nail in the coffin of religion.

Another mistake is your belief that religion is 100% fact, to which the fact of evolution should be compared. It is the other way around. Evolution is by far the more realistic, real world explanation as to why we are here- not even going into the MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting evolution.

It has nothing to do with 'belief'.

Religion has the onus of proof upon it. Evolution shouldn't be compared to religion, religion should be compared to evolution.

staples

Further to my point in response to this:Why would a teacher teach evolution as fact when it's just a theory based upon evidence? The great immunologist Maurice Hilleman died on Monday aged 85. I quote from his Daily Telegraph obituary.Over a 40-year career, Helliman developed some three dozen vaccines, probably saving more lives than any other scientist in the 20th century.Emphasis mine. Further down are details of Hilleman's early life:Surrounded by farm animals, Hilleman took an early interest in biology, but his efforts to broaden his knowledge were regarded with suspicion by the fundamentalist Missouri Synod Luthern Chuch to which his family belonged. One Sunday he was caught reaading Darwin's Origin of Speices by the minister, who tried to take the book away. Hilleman told him it belonged to the public library and threateaned to notify the authorities if he confiscated it.okrinus, this is why evolution is taught. Because the teaching of solid science leads to new achievement. Hilleman was no great genius, to be sure. He was in the right place at the right time. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else. But whoever it was would have had their interest in biology sparked by the beauties of the theory of evolution, not by a firm belief solely in Genesis. Genesis, as a biological theory, doesn't get you anywhere. It doesn't teach you anything useful about biology. To learn something useful about biology, you have to study and experiement with actual animals and plants, and what you learn ultimately conflicts with Genesis. You are then left with rejecting Genesis as a biological text book, in which role it was never intended in any case. Genesis just isn't a viable "alternative theory" to evolution and there's an end to it. It simply does not belong in biology classes.

Should Genesis be taught in schools? Of course it should! It's a major part of the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage.

Most people would say how mankind was created is religious question. .Absolutely correct. Accurately expressed. However, how man evolved is decidedly not a religious question, but a scientific one.

You forgot about Exodus-God hardened the pharohs heart. School isn't about teaching heritage-heritage is a school's antithesis. The heritage, say, of America(if you live in America), or Germany(if you live in Germany), should be taught. History should be taught. But, you don't teach heritage. There is no point in studying indians, except that they were wiped out(mostly). Their heritage has nothing to do with it, unless pointing out justifiable reasons for their wiping out. But, this is only my belief.

For those of you looking for an argument of evolutionism vs. creationism, pick up the book What is Creation Science?. Evolutionists beware-it has the most pitiful arguments for evolution you can imagine. It constantly says there is no noticeable evidence of evolution, that you can actually watch. However, they leave out bacteria. They botch up the general process of how evolution occurs also. If you feel up to it, however, it does give incite(can't spell that) as to what creationists are talking about.

Absolutely correct. Accurately expressed. However, how man evolved is decidedly not a religious question, but a scientific one.

Ophiolite, yes, I'm not saying that teachers shouldn't teach evolution, but that they shouldn't say it's absolutely correct. To do so isn't science--it's not even true. Instead of a teaching forcing students to believe, students should know the main premises and logical inferences used to derive the theory--they should be able to derive other facts assuming the theory is true--they also should be able to reject the theory, perhaps if their own premises differ or they don't find the logical inferences compelling.


Another mistake is your belief that religion is 100% fact, to which the fact of evolution should be compared. It is the other way around. Evolution is by far the more realistic, real world explanation as to why we are here- not even going into the MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting evolution.

staples disconnected, no, I never said that religion was 100% fact. What I said was that teaching specific beliefs or theories as if they are 100% fact, requiring others to believe so, can violate another's religious rights. Some of these religious beliefs are premises. Just because I believe a student has the right to believe in creationisms, that is, believing it 100% true, doesn't mean I do. My perspective is that this student's belief is his own premise, his own way of seeing the world. If we had no premises we would remain unable to believe anything, but we do have premises, the normal ones being belief that what we see exists. Others, we'd expect, would have different premises from ourselves. Furthermore, what you call mountains of evidence can be construed by others to be palour trick of the Devil. From a scientific perspective, you can reject such things outright; but from a religious perspective, one for which the Devil is out to deceive, it remains a possilbiity, however remote.


You don't think that students should be taught that molecules are made of atoms in certain fixed proportions. Do you think that 100 level Chemistry students should be encouraged to make up their own mind about what molecules consist of? Are you saying that all those PhD chemistry professors I studied under were wrong telling me that molecules are made of atoms in certain fixed proportions?

Throckmorton, the possilbity exists that they were all wrong. What I mean is, atomic theory holds up under observation, experimentation even, but no one knows absolutely whether atoms coorespond to reality. Even so, if atomic theory is flawed, your knowledge of the subject isn't necessarily obsolete. You may yet even teach history. And, for one thing, you'd still be able to make predictions. Perhaps like Newton's theory of gravity, you'd make pretty accurate predictions most of the time, and do so with sufficiently less wrong than your more complicated but correct theory.

the possilbity exists that they were all wrong.

Do you think that it should be taught in chemistry classes that water is H2O? Should students be taught that water may well be something besides H2O?

they also should be able to reject the theory, perhaps if their own premises differ or they don't find the logical inferences compelling.


You're saying that Med students should be told they should reject the germ theory of disease if they don't "find the logical inferences compelling." You're saying that pilots should be taught to ignore the laws of physics that pertain to flight if they don't find the "logical inferences compelling."

I suppose you'd advocate that pharmacists should be taught not to bother dispensing drugs based on the chemical makeup of the drugs in the prescription as atomic theory is optional in science classes.

Should courts reject DNA evidence if someone in the courtroom doubts the genetic theory of inheritance?

STOP IT! This argument can go on forever on both sides-making it utterly pointless to continue doing so. Find a different argument than "nothing's 100%provable(you can't support either one saying this)" or 'Should they be given an opinion on other things?". Because, although they should have to study one thing, the one more aligned to science, but they're not, and there's an infinite number of arguments for either side of this case. I have realized that most conspiracy theories are taught with their corresponding ones(unless it has already been solved, then only one is), several other theories in Science are taught along with others that are equally as valid, just as unprovable(like the 10,000 different string theories we have. Each one is valid enough, but there is not enough proof to prove ANY of them, and they will not work at all when put with another).

As to it being taught in school-creationism may be allowed IF that is as far as it goes. They say-God created man-and then they stop. No more, hopefully less. And, teach evolution to quite an extent, considering that is what's needed to understand it.

Every creationist book my parents have eventually(sometimes by the end of the first 3 pages)disproves evolutionism by somehow proving God had to create the universe, and therefore man also. WRONG!, and every single book has it. If god created the universe(plausible, as it is neither infinite nor can something come out of nothing), he could have stopped there. He might have started the universe, but then allowed its natural laws to take control-having them form life, not him. No book even considers this a posibility.

Now, as to evolution itself-is it masked traits or random mutations? I was taught that all the traits of a species are present, but some are more dominant and those traits that are dominant are bad, then they get wiped out, leaving the recessive, better traits behind. Or, a direct reaction to the environment(Melanin making darker shades to ward off ultra violent rays). Random mutations was never a taught cause to me. Is it really a considerable part of evolution, or are these books by "credible" evolutionist gone creationist scientists botching the idea?

creationism may be allowed IF that is as far as it goes.

Why should something that isn't science be taught as if it were science? We might as well teach astrology as an "alternative theory" to physics.

Ophiolite, yes, I'm not saying that teachers shouldn't teach evolution, but that they shouldn't say it's absolutely correct. To do so isn't science--it's not even true. Instead of a teaching forcing students to believe, students should know the main premises and logical inferences used to derive the theory--they should be able to derive other facts assuming the theory is true--they also should be able to reject the theory, perhaps if their own premises differ or they don't find the logical inferences compelling.

There isnt too much wrong with this, except that what I've seen over on Pandas thumb, is that a lot of people reject evolution not on scientific grounds, but because they cant see how it could have happened. The problem is their reasoning from disbelief. The starting point is not "This is odd, I wonder whether it is correct or not" but more like" I dont think this is right at all ebcause I cant understand it" or suchlike.

Its also quite nice watching people get all post-modernist about science, when their normal make up seems to be the opposite. For example even Okinrus says "if their own premises differ" which might well suggest that he shoudl stop debating this topic now, since his premises clearly differ from everyone elses here. But ultimately use of the scientific method goes beyond differing premises, to "what works and what doesnt". Thus, a dissenting student who dissents for no good scientific reason will likely be ridiculed.

Or perhaps we should give astrology equal time?

It's not necessarily religion though. Sure, it insists upon God, which is religion, but it also insts upon how the universe was started, science.

Do you think that it should be taught in chemistry classes that water is H2O? Should students be taught that water may well be something besides H2O?

A chemist may define water to be H2O, in which case it's not really up to debate, being a premise. But for other situations, what we call water is basically a chemist's definition of water plus minerals and perhaps salt.



As to it being taught in school-creationism may be allowed IF that is as far as it goes. They say-God created man-and then they stop. No more, hopefully less. And, teach evolution to quite an extent, considering that is what's needed to understand it.

I agree, creationism shouldn't be taught because it's not yet a scientific theory. It's not testable and likely infringes on someone's religious beliefs moreso than Evolution. But just because it's not science doesn't mean it's not true.


You're saying that Med students should be told they should reject the germ theory of disease if they don't "find the logical inferences compelling." You're saying that pilots should be taught to ignore the laws of physics that pertain to flight if they don't find the "logical inferences compelling."

Throckmorton, how many flight simulators use the theory of relativity? Science is just a matter of creating a model that cooresponds to reality, to experimentation. Science never tells us whether a model is absolutely correct. And, even if we knew that a model cooresponds to reality exactly, we still do not know whether the model is reality.

but it also insts upon how the universe was started, science.

Creationionism a religious rather than a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

Religious explanations are way cool but it's silly confuse them with science. It's dishonest to teach religious explanations as if they were science.

it's not really up to debate, being a premise.

It's a fact.....water is H2O.

But just because it's not science doesn't mean it's not true.

All sorts of things are true that have nothing to do with science. I consider the Bible to be full of profound truths but they aren't truths of the scientific sort.

Throckmorton, how many flight simulators use the theory of relativity?

I wasn't refering to relativity. I was thinking in terms of the Bournoulli effect and the fact that air gets less dense as the temperature goes up which decreases lift along with various force equations and whatnot.

we still do not know whether the model is reality.

Good science is about mountains of evidnence rather than absolute truth. H2O is a scientific fact as is genetic change over time (evolution). If one can refer to anything as a "facts" one can refer to those two ideas that way.

It's a fact.....water is H2O.

What a chemist calls water is clearly different from what someone else might. Often, sea water and tap water are called water, even though there're a mixture of H2O, salt, and minerals.


I wasn't refering to relativity. I was thinking in terms of the Bournoulli effect and the fact that air gets less dense as the temperature goes up which decreases lift along with various force equations and whatnot.

I don't know what you mean by air getting less dense. If air is contained within a fixed space, the density won't change because heating the air will change neither the mass nor the volume of the air.

Yes, but the water hasn't actually bonded with the other chemicals, and so the water part of it is still H20.

Now, if you want a petty argument for why religion is science(and why evolution isn't), pick up that book I said, What is Creation Science?.

The both of you can't continue arguing like this, neither of you will get anywhere. Each statement can answer the last, no matter how complicated you make it. But, if you want to keep disputing, go right ahead(please don't).

Now, before I continue, I want to know how evolution works. Is it random mutations or is it masked traits becoming apparent after those that had that trait masked dieing out?

What a chemist calls water is clearly different from what someone else might.

Water is H2O.......That's a fact. Atomic theory is, and should be, taught as fact.

"I don't know what you mean by air getting less dense."

As the air around us heats up the molecules get farther apart due to increased molecular motion. Planes are not allowed to fly above a certain temperature (I think it's 115 or 120 F) because the planes won't be supported by air. Heat is motion!

The both of you can't continue arguing like this, neither of you will get anywhere.

I'm against teaching religion and calling it science. I love religion and a love science but they are different topics.

Teaching creationism as a scientific theory is lying to students about what science is. This lying demeans science and demeans religion. What we have in many science classes is bullshit religion and bullshit science.

Is it random mutations or is it masked traits becoming apparent after those that had that trait masked dieing out?

The short answer is "both". Evolution is defined as genetic change over time.

But, it is not a random series, correct? It is all very definite, is it not? Also, it can't really be random mutations, as evolution effects an entire species(Exception geographic isolation), not just one. The last time I checked, a mutation was an indiviudal attribute.

The last time I checked, a mutation was an indiviudal attribute.

Random mutations can cause the sort of genetic variation that are inheritable.

Sickle Cell anemia is (I think) an example of that.

But, those mutations would be incredibly hard to pass through the entire species(unless the species had very, very limited numbers).

I am not sure, but isn't sickle cell anemia more than merely a mutation? Doesn't some environment effect(nutrition, pollution, activity) the developing of sickle cell anemia(or any anemias)? I realize it is genetic, but can't it be found in a person who has no case of this in their family(no genes to cause it)?

Continuing on-most creationists proport that it is ridiculous things can occur with such odds(especially as to the big bang eventually leading to life. Or, some amoeba becoming a human being). However, it is not random, as has been more or less proven(and discussed in this thread over the last few posts). Therefore, under a structured path, it is inevitable(maybe not, but assuming that there will always be some sort of trouble/hardship) that a superior/intelligent life form should emerge, not chance. Also, an interesting concept-they(creationists) say that science shows a temperature difference of 1 K(elvin) at the time of the big bang would end all possibilites of life. But, the big bang is a REPEATING process-Therefore, if it is the wrong temperature, no life for billions of years, it crunches(big crunch theory), and there is another chance at the appropriate temerature. If the chance is missed, another several billion years pass. So, with one in however many billions chance there is of life(and how creationists that this leads to a God, as this chance is, well, infentessimal), there could have been several billion crunch(or, one series of bang to crunch, bound to bang again with a new seires) attempts, leading to the development of life.

But, those mutations would be incredibly hard to pass through the entire species

That's not necessary for evolution to occur.

Doesn't some environment effect(nutrition, pollution, activity) the developing of sickle cell anemia

Not the way you mean. Low oxygen levels in the bloodstream can trigger a crisis but it's straight dominant recessive inheritance.

I realize it is genetic, but can't it be found in a person who has no case of this in their family(no genes to cause it)?

It's genetic. If I remember my terminology it's recessive dominant or some such.

Or, some amoeba becoming a human being).

??????????

If the chance is missed, another several billion years pass. So, with one in however many billions chance there is of life(and how creationists that this leads to a God, as this chance is, well, infentessimal), there could have been several billion crunch(or, one series of bang to crunch, bound to bang again with a new seires) attempts, leading to the development of life.

How do you know that the Big Crunch doesn't repeat the SAME process during every cycle?

Hmm? I missed what you meant, I apologize.

To Throckmorton-I mean an amoeba(or any one celled life) evolving into all the life we have now, and especially humans.