Georgia resuscitates the Scopes Monkey T rial

“Evolution comments irk scientists

Gov. Sonny Perdue says he wants a "balanced" classroom approach to teaching evolution with an emphasis on its standing as "academic theory."

State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox says her proposed biology curriculum will allow teachers to present other scientific theories about evolution and specifically mentions "intelligent design."

Across Georgia, scientists cringed at the statements.

Sarah Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University, said Sunday that the public comments reveal an ignorance of science and mimic the arguments used by people who rebut evolution. Her views were shared by other biologists.

"He wants to insert religion into the science curriculum," Pallas said of Perdue's call for balanced instruction. "If there were other scientific theories about the diversity of life, scientists would be inserting them in class. That's our job."

Taking a position in the controversy for the first time, Perdue said Saturday that the word "evolution" should remain in Georgia's proposed science standards and not be replaced with the phrase proposed by Cox: "biological changes over time."

Nevertheless, the governor also seemed to express support for teaching alternate theories to evolution. A spokesman on Sunday refused to elaborate on the governor's statement.

"What concerns me is that many times you'll have teachers in the classroom with impressionable students who go beyond that and teach [evolution] as a proven fact, and then go beyond that and ridicule students who would believe anything other than the theory of evolution," Perdue said. "I think we need to have academic freedom, but we need academic balance as well."

continued...”

“What a damn flake.”

“"Intelligent Design" is not scientific theory, its wishful thinking based not on science but on unprovable belief.”

“Didn't I just have to endure this debate in Kentucky a few years ago? What a bunch of crap.”

“H. L. Menken's account of the trail and local events is funny as hell.”

“Ah, boldly advancing into the 19th Century!”

“Right on!

And lets balance the whole theory of gravity and the solar system with the the one about the Earth sitting on the back of an elephant riding on a giant sea turtle.”

“evolution is a FACT, not theory. it is not debatable. those who believe the world was created in 6 days can go sit at the table with those who think the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and the bigfoot and nessie convention. natural selection is the theory of how evolution works. creationism is superstition. genesis was written, what, 3 or 4 thousand years ago? and you believe it? o wait? its the word of god you say? o really? and how do you know the bible is the word of god? because the bible says it is. o well that makes perfect sense. no conflict of interest there.”

“boy, do we sound smug or what?”

“Sounds like Gov. Perdue is playing both sides of the fence (as a politician is likely to do)”

“Holy cow!!! At first, I thought Fiddler pulled this shyte off The Onion. Unbelieveable! And I thought Alabama was backward...”

“Jimmy Carter speaks out...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/”

“Evolution is theory. There are no facts, just theories.

BTW - before anyone attacks, I work in biologics and believe in evolution.”

“I'm glad bearmagnet pointed out that it is, in fact a theory. Most of the info in higher physics is theory. Heck, Einstein's theory of relativity is even giving bad results now in certain circumstances. The only folks who think this stuff is totally black and white is the folks that don't have a science background. Yes, I believe in evolution. I also believe in Creation.

I haven't read the Carter link yet, but heard some of his comments and what I heard was good. Most folks don't realize that Carter was a nuclear engineer. That folksy, aw shucks, appearance hides a pretty smart dude.”

“So your theory is that engineers are smart?”

“I read the article. Good for Jimmy.

I should clarify my black and white comment. I mean that the folks who see science in purely black and white and folks that might not fully understand science. I think my engineering education basically prepared me for shades of grey.”

“My theory is that by the time you get out of what is considered one of the hardest curriculums on any campus that you're probably smarter than the average bear.”

“That water is composed of H20 is an old theory. the current theory is that H20 is in an equilibrium state with OH & H3O. Unless this has also been replaced?

Everything is a theory.

People mis interpret this to mean it's no less valid to believe in creation. However, I don't ascribe to that theory”

“I actually believe the two can co-exist.

What happens when you combine R2D2 and C3PO?

chemistry was never my strong suit.”

“I envy you. I wish I could believe.

r2d2 + c3po = 2(rd) + p + c2po”

“What are your thoughts about how they oppose?

I may be simplistic, but I think that Creation occured and evolution occured from that point. Sort of like a wind up toy that first had to be wound.

I'm reading a book by CS Lewis right now that talks about this issue in a way I hadn't thought before. I can type any of it for you if interested.”

“Don't think they oppose each other. I'm a skeptic and have never heard a convincing argument for creation nor have I seen any evidence that would convince me creation might have occured”

“Who says that creation and evolution have to be opposing or event different factors?”

“No need to give me the thoughts of CS Lewis but thanks for the offer.

I could counter with the Book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins as one of the most compelling defenses of evolution and a criticism of creation”

“Technically, evolution is not even a true "theory". It is not testable nor repeatable, as by it's very definition it is random and has no purpose.

Many folks think that horizontal variation and adaptation are evolution, when in fact they aren't.

There are many Christians who believe in evolution, so it's not a matter of religion or not.

As for Intelligent Design, it is not a religious theory as it is in no way trying determine who/what in the intelligence is behind nature, but merely recognizing things in nature that are beyond odds. This is already used in many areas of science, such as archeologists looking for patterns in nature that suggest older civilizations, etc. Looking at the Great Pyramids of Egypt, one can conlude that there is good reason to suggest they aren't natural occurences. Heck, even look at backpacking... allz it takes is three small rocks piled on top of each other such as to indicate a cairn, which was made by intelligence, and hence we know something intelligent passed this way, most likely a hiker noting a cross-country path. How much greater are the odds that certain things came together in nature than a simple cairn, or even the Great Pyramids of Egypt.

Intelligent Design is not a way to identify any god or gods or alien-seeds or starry councils or whatever, and it is certainly not suggesting anyone would uphold any religious precepts of this "intelligence", it is merely, through science and using the scientific method analyzing data and coming to different conclusions than random chance.

The SETI project is an example of this, and these scientists are looking for intelligence in the name of science, but it has no religious goals, just science.

Also, Intelligent Design does not want evolution discarded or to be restrained. It merely wants students to look at the facts presented, and the ideas on origins discussed based on science, and make up their own minds. If evolution is such a strong theory it should have nothing to worry about. Actually many leading scientists who believe in Intelligent Design also believe in evolution, but not random evolution. We should let the science speak for itself.

It's also rather ironic that the very case referred to in the title of this thread that allowed evolution to be taught in schools, the Scopes Trial, was fought and won by providing conclusive "proof" of evolution via Nebraska Man. Funny thing, Nebraska Man was later shown to be fabricated from a mere pig's tooth. See what kind of "scientific fact" is needed to persuade people?”

“"Evolution is not testable nor repeatable"
Buck

Are you sure? All we need is to show one organism that has evolved in our lifetime, no? For the sake of argument, lets say your right, for now. In the future it may be tested. The Big Bang is not testable or repeatable, yet. But it is a theory, no?

Can you expand on your thoughts in regard to horizontal variation and adaptation?”

“Hi bearmagnet! Evolution is not testable nor repeatable (evolutionists would admit this) because it is based on random chance and two outcomes would differ even if given the same criteria. According to the "theory", a fish cannot say, "I want legs to walk on land so I think I'll grow them" There is no foresight and purpose, things just happen through mutations and adaptation. It cannot be predicted what and when and where a mutation would occur, and if it will be viable or not, and if it would multiply or not. We have millions of species that came from the same environmental constraints and if it started all over from scratch again, we cannot say we'd have the same species today. We cannot test these things in laboratory and observe this process nor repeat nor predict them. And even if we did do this in a laboratory, guess what? Intelligence manipulated the occurence.

As for horizontal variation/adaptation, those are natural occurences in the environment that even a literal 6-day creationist would argue for, as they would say God allows species to adjust and adapt, although no "new" viable reproducing species would come of this adaptation.”

“hmmmmmmm, I think I need to think more about this. Let me try a simple defense:

You are arguing that the results can not be duplicated exactly? I am saying that the results don't have to be duplicated, only the general mechanism has to be "proved"

I am going home now to read Dawkins and Asimov, maybe Gibbons, and hope for some help. :)”

“You are arguing that the results can not be duplicated exactly? I am saying that the results don't have to be duplicated, only the general mechanism has to be "proved"


The general mechanism cannot be proved, as evolutionist don't know the "mechanism" behind nature. Evolution cannot even explain the existence of matter, much less the mechanism.

Also, a theory has to have testable and repeatable "outcomes". If you know a "process", then you will know its "results", at least staying within the realm of science.

One cannot call evolution a "fact" because even evolutionists can't explain all the processes and there are many differing thoughts within evolution itself. When the fossil record never coughed up any true missing WMDs, ooops, wrong discussion, I mean missing links, despite the billions of fossils on record, evolutionists changed to "puncuated equilibrium", which means species didn't gradually evolve, they did so in quick jumps so no transitionary fossils were left behind. That seems rather convenient and requires quite a bit of faith, especially since there is nothing on record to prove this. Allz I'm saying is that evolution is by no means based on proof as evolutionists would otherwise want us to believe, and I think open and honest scientific discussions on origins should be welcomed.”

“dang - Am I trolling in open sight? I got you two boys wound up.”

“i guess i should have clarified by separating evolution from natural selection. they are not the same thing. when i say "evolution", i mean the progression of species and their slow change over time. things did evolve. "natural selection" is the idea, theory, WHATEVER that this occurred completely randomly by chance mutations that just happened to benefit the organism. evolution is what happened. intelligent design and natural selection are the two main competing theories to explain evolution. evolution and intelligent design are not mutually incompatible, but natural selection and intelligent design more or less are.”

“and just for the record, i have never believed in creation, but was never wholly convinced by natural selection, either. for that reason, i find the intelligent design theory, which seems a hybrid of two seemingly incompatible ideas, as highly intriguing.”

“Who is behind the "intelligent design" movement?

Follow the money.”

“Buck --- evidence of evolution gone wrong, LOL”

“i dont know, marko. you tell me. i dont have a science background, im just a layman, so for all i know, natural selection is correct.”

“"The general mechanism cannot be proved, as evolutionist don't know the "mechanism" behind nature. Evolution cannot even explain the existence of matter, much less the mechanism."

And I will repeat: Yet. We seem to be arguing semantics, only. Evolution is/is not a theory. So?

As for Intelligent design: I will go on the record as saying that is completely incompatible. For a defense I must reference, once again, Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker."”

“"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


link”

“i would pay big money to see a frog turned into a cow”

“Cue up Merlin the Magician!

StormBringer, if one were to scratch the surface of the "intelligent design" movement one might just find elements of the loonie toon fundie movement.”

“maybe. just playing devils advocate here, but just because something is espoused by loonies doesnt mean its wrong.”

“Hmmmmm, I'll ponder that one.




I'm crazy about certain India Pale Ales.
And THEY are good!”

“Phaedrus - Is there a way I can contact you the next time I stumble through a debate?”

“One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years.

Hi Phaedrus, like I said in my first post (perhaps you missed it), this is not evolution as in one species changing into another. Things like the fruit fly and peppered moth and all kinds of things supposed to show "proof" of evolution simply because it adapts to changes in the environment is simply horizontal variation. No new species is ever generated. These are genetically built-in traits to adapt to the environment. These do no result in new species.

What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

That's where your "faith" comes in to play, as this is simply not true nor can it be shown to be true. It can be believed, but not prooved.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild.

Phaedrus, no species has been observed to morph into another category of species, period. This is simply not true. If it were true, then there would be no debate on origins.

Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

Phaed, I don't have time today to get into another one of these full-blown discussions on this issue. I do this frequently, and statements like you just made above are simply not true. Evolution by it's very definition is unpredictable. Can you predict what humans will evolve into next? No. Can you predict what/where/when a particular bird species will morph into? No. Scientists have bombarded species in laboratories trying to "force" evolution to no avail, and even if they did succeed, aren't scientists "intelligent" and manipulating biology? That goes right back to intelligent design.

The fossil record is the most damning evidence AGAINST evolution, as there are billions of fossils on record. None point conclusively to evolution. You think there'd be millions and millions of examples of transitionary species, but there aren't. Which is why they had to scramble and go with punctuated equilibrium, which states evolution did NOT occur slowly over time, but species JUMPED rapidly from one another, too quicly to leave fossils. That's fine if you wanna believe that, but don't call it "fact" when there's nothing to conclusively back it up.

Again, Intelligent Design is not seeking to oust evolution, but to merely be discussed along with it, based on scientific data. Why so many want to censure this is quite intriguing.”

“1 800 MONKEY

It's the business line.”

“Stormbring and MarkO, do you realize the respected PhD's behind intelligent design? Hardly your fundamenalist Bible thumpers! Ha!”

“"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994”

“"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)”

“Natural selection - the notion underlying evolution can be observed, and can be falsified. This can be done in the lab or through a natural experiment (for example the development of resistance in bacteria or viruses, the changing colors of moths when polution increases, and through predictions of what will be found in the fossil record). I'd be interested to hear of one falsifiable claim made by proponents of intelligent design.

I do think creation and evolution can co-exist as theories. Why would got not create a life which evolved and changed? When human create things, they make use of natural forces - why wouldn't evolution be part of God's plan? Furthermore, how could we say or prove that God never intervened in evolution? Faith and belief in evolution can easily co-exist.

Prove to me that belief in divine creation, or intelligent design is falsifiable - and then I'm ready to talk about it having a significant place in science classes.

A great deal of advances in many fields have been based on natural selection and evolution. Evolutionary biology, sociobiology, and other fields have produced highly useful and insights based on natural selection and evolution.”

“Those are the relevent portions of the link I provided. I, too, have had this particular debate more than once, and find that the misconceptions people have about the concept of evolution are the only things allowing arguments to be made against it with any real degree of persuasiveness.

You don't want to believe in it, that's fine, but it's not an opinion supported by the overwhelming facts.”

“What's a "respected Ph.D"?”