November 18, 2004

• The Libs don't need the support of Family First to pass their Bills in the Senate. I wouldn't worry too much about what these nuts think. To think that the ALP preferenced these people in Victoria! The DLP's not dead! /disgusted
• If domestic politics in New Zealand are anything to go by, Wolof, these guys will be getting serious $$$ and advice poured in by American organisations.
• Hmm. Cheery thought.
• In the school I attended (in TX, yes, yes...), biology teachers were required to teach evolution and creation as "equally plausible scientific theories." Yeah. My bio II teacher (who self-identified as Christian, but thought that creationism was bad science) got around this by staging a debate in class. 1/3 of us were required to argue for creationism, 1/3 for evolution, and 1/3 were "devil's advocates" who argued against everyone. In the end, we all decided that evolution won. I thought this was cool. It shot down creationism while teaching us debate skills and keeping her job safe. Best of a ridiculous situation.
• that's very cool, meredithea, and one to keep in mind for my teacher friends. I do know that outfits such as Answers in Genesis run seminars and events in Australia (Ringwood Church of Christ, November 20) and that there is at least one (religious)school here in Melbourne that teaches 'Intelligent Design' rather than evolution. With the new focus on evangelical Christianity here and overseas, and the new and flashy tricks these advocates are trying, what is to be done?
• The people who push this kind of thing should have to sign an oath saying that if they get seriously ill, they will depend on faith healers and prayer rather than the mainstream medical establishment or proven-effective alternative medical procedures such as accupuncture.
• If heaven is so fucking great, shouldn't we be happy for people when they die?
• Mene mene tekel upharsin...
• and in that night was belshaaaa-aa-aa-aaa-a-a-AAA-zar the king slain! ... .. . slain! /me ceases channeling year 10 choir...
• america. already acknowledged a nationalist, socialist state.creationism replaces thought. australia. wannabe nationalist, socialist state. lacks thought, attracted to creationism.
• america. already acknowledged a nationalist, socialist state. Socialist?
• what is to be done? Short circuit the debate. Creation 'science' is not science - and that must be the start and end point of your response. There is no debate; do not be suckered into a false argument by a pathetic attempt to coopt the straightforward meaning of the word science. Creationism is a religious opinion. Religious opinions are not generally taught in school, specifically so that no one particular religion's opinion is the one chosen to be taught. There is to be no favoritism amongst religions. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific fact. It is not theory, it is a fact. Any farmer can provide the evidence that evolution is a fact. There is no debate to be had. You might as well argue the sky is green. Whether a God created the world, and whether he did so in 6 days five thousand years ago, or 1 billion years, four billion years ago is entirely open to differences in opinion.
• I'm with Nal.
• No, the age of the Earth isn't "open to differences in opinion" that encompass young Earth creationism, which is just as big a pile of shit as the idea that evolution doesn't happen. (It's also almost entirely unsupported by the Bible, for people who care about that stuff).
• The age of the Earth is open to differences of opinion for people who wish to believe incredibly tortured explanations for the fossil record, astronomical observations, carbon dating etc. If they can't see it happen, they won't believe it. To pretend such opinions don't exist is in itself a denial of current reality. They're out there, c'est la vie. Evolution, on the other hand, can be proven well within the time scale of an individual's lifetime.
• Unfortunately (& I hasted to add I am in no way a supporter of creationism) Evolution can *not* be proven within the time scale of an individual's lifetime. This is why it hasn't been. There are ways to prove microevolution, such as the adaption of microorganisms' resistance to antibiotics, over a short period of time, but Evolution on a grander scale remains an unproven theory.. it just happens to be the best one based on the evidence we have. The actual details of processes of evolution are somewhat argued within zoology & related fields, but it boils down to a fine-point issue, rather than (as crazy religoids would have us believe) a disagreement about the validity of the idea itself. I would love for there to be a final, absolute proof of evolution as a theory, because it would put paid to shit such as we are discussing here, but we haven't yet got it. Nearly, but not quite.
• What would a "proof of evolution" be? I don't quite understand (he asks respectfully).
• I think Nal wins.
• I don't think this will get anywhere in Australia - it only seems to be in the USA that evolution is really controversial. Perhaps the US is just more religious than the rest of us (I believe church attendance rates are much higher there than in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, or pretty well any other 'advanced' country) or perhaps it's some other quirk of the national character (perhaps Prohibition was another manifestation of the same sort of piety run amok?), but in any case I don't think creationism can be exported successfully, however much money may be spent on it.
• Evolution and creation myths belong to two different arenas. Evolution is a science. Creation myths are superstition. Anyone who thinks any differently - even polititians - is speaking out of their arse, whether Australian, American, or whatever.
• I'm not with Nal: God doesn't exist. God did not create the world at all. And, Nostril, what's the difference between micro- and macro evolution? Nothing but the time-scale. The process is the same, whether it happens in a billion years or in fifteen generations of a particular kind of bacteria. If so called micro evolution takes place, there is no reason to think the process will stop after we stop looking.
• my apologies to monkey pals down under. let's hope this issue isn't something we yanks "export" to other countries. BTW, my grandfather was taught in his grade school in zion, illinois, that the world is flat. that was in the 1920s or so. sad.
• "..what's the difference between micro- and macro evolution? Nothing but the time-scale. The process is the same" -- I agree, Skrik, but biologists, zoologists, et al, sadly do not. Nor do Creationists. Don't blame me for this nitpicky bullshit, for I did not make it up; people's whole careers are actually devoted to this one. No luck, there, I'm afraid. "What would a "proof of evolution" be?" Fossilised unambiguous transitional forms.
• First genetic evidence uncovered of how major changes in body shapes occured during the early animal evolution
• nostril: science article. proof of evolution from a professor in my department. bacteria have a generation cycle of 20 minutes in active culture - you can go through a hell of a lot of generations really fast and see some cool stuff if you select for superior growth in different microclimates. some do well at the top of a flask but suffer at the bottom, and vice versa, from identical (meaning single clone) origins. proof enough for you?
• oh, nostril: didn't see that last post by you. how about this pdf with unambiguous transitional whale fossils? there have been lots of fossil whales found recently, with legs. and tons of new birds and proto-birds have been turning up in china. the problem is that folks who refuse to believe in evolution won't accept it as proof, because they've internalized the "god made everything" thing to the point that accepting evolution is tantamount to rejecting their religion, the core pillar of their being. then they start babbling about "kind" rather than "species" because at this point they can't count on a word with a clear definition to help them. i think the only way you can get a fundamentalist to accept evolution would be to have a duck lay an egg and have them watch a puppy crawl out of the shell. that's seriously what they think evolution is, a sudden complete change from one thing to another. can't possibly expect them to take the time to understand it well enough to even try to debunk it, which is why crap like "kind" is still an issue with them, and the fact that creationists like michael behe don't keep current with the new fossil evidence (instead they keep harping on old stuff, sometimes with theories proved wrong 50 to 100 years ago!) never mind that a lot of these bible-belt types don't reject science when it helps them, say, have 7 babies at once, but do call on god when asked why they didn't reduce the number of kids for the health of the others. oh yes, god didn't want those extra babies to die. (but you spit in god's eye and call in the fertility doctor when god quite clearly tells you "you can't have any more kids"? nice.)
• It's proof enough FOR ME but not for others. That's what I'm saying. This professor is just some guy at MSU (I'm not dissing him, this is just what doubters will say), he's not writing the important books in the field, plus again it's micro vs macro. I've made these exact same arguments many, many times with both biologists & hardcore religious types, believe me, there were always holes. Please, don't single me out as a doubter, I'M NOT for fuck's sake. I'm just saying that these arguments aren't enough for some people. Yes, they're idiots. I agree. But we gotta have something totally unambiguous. I mean, my way of thinking, if the Galapagos finches weren't enough, nothing will be.
• Stop attacking the messenger, please live frogs, I'm on YOUR SIDE. Those transitional fossils are too new to have made much impact on the argument. Can't say I've looked at the data yet, but I gather they aren't unambiguous. I'm telling you, that getting this shit thru' to the religioids is gonna take some work. I've talked to them, they are hard to pin down & always thinking of some justification for their superstition.
• oh forgot to add - nostril, as a card-carrying zoologist (really, i have a laminated copy of my diploma in my wallet) i have to let you in on a secret: macroevolution isn't anything folks in the biology field disagree on. mostly we disagree on the speed or driving force behind it. the scientists you hear arguing against it are generally molecular biologists, physicists, or chemists, generally with some kind of ID agenda they want to push. there really are no real, respected, and adequately-educated (meaning real degree from real research institution, not mail-order or say Bob Jones University) scientists out there who think this doesn't happen, although there are a few who disagree on the pace. the ones who make a big fuss about the "disagreement" are generally the ones who get their funding from the fundies and/or don't actually have any real, solid background in organismal biology.
• not singling you out there nostril - just trying to single out the answers folks need to give when the doubters (well, hell, call 'em what they are - unbelievers) throw this shit up. it's bull. you were playing devil's advocate - well, i'm playing your opposition. (seriously, if i thought you were a real creationist, i probably wouldn't have answered - it's like trying to teach a horse to rollerskate. it just makes your head hurt, and pisses off the horse.)
• and i gotta get better at this "preview" thingy...
• It's proof enough FOR ME but not for others. That's what I'm saying. Oh right I get ya.
• Fossilized unabmiguous transitional forms would prove nothing. If I believe in a God that has created everything and knows all at some point, then why in the world couldn't that same God plant clues like those fossils which would really be tests of our faith? So God could have created the world five thousand years ago and put into it false evidence of an older earth. After all, the creation of an adult Adam and Eve included false evidence that the earth was at least 15-20 years old. Or God could have created he world this morning and placed false evidence all around us that the earth is older than one day and placed false memories inside of us to support that evidence.
• What, all my memories of hot butt sex with teen celebs are FAKE? Fuck YOU, Jebus!
• "then why in the world couldn't that same God plant clues like those fossils which would really be tests of our faith?" 'Cos he'd be a psycho. Most of the major fundies I've spoken to are leery of that explanation, because it makes God out to be a trickster, which is not in the basic belief-system. The more favoured explanation is that SATAN put the fossils there to fool us. See. God doesn't fuck with our heads. (Just ignore the book of Job & all the other parts where he does psycho things)
• Congratulations - we lost the debate! We got bogged down in details arguing amongst ourselves that evolution is valid science, something all of us (non-Creationists) already agreed on in some form, and thus allowed the burden of the debate to shift onto us. In comparison, the Creationists seem well organized and straightforward. Why shouldn't they get some time in the classroom too? The point is not to argue evolution. No serious Creationist will ever be convinced, we already know that. The audience is everyone in between and the topic is public education, not bringing them over to an evolution only point of view. The point is that Creationism, which may be a fine thing, is not science and thus has no place in a science classroom. Any more than sex ed belongs in maths. Keep the debate on the fact that Creationism is religious opinion, and thus has belongs in religion class, which in most western public schools belongs in church. That said, thanks everyone for some interesting posts on evolution.

• If they can't see it happen, they won't believe it. To pretend such opinions don't exist is in itself a denial of current reality.

  I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying they have all the value of preferring to believe lightning is the wrath of Zeus to a result of atmospheric phenomena.
• "What would a "proof of evolution" be?" Fossilised unambiguous transitional forms. Creationists: "Well, HELL."
• Of course, if I remember my Christian theology correctly, claiming Satan planted the fossils is also an incorrect argument because Satan cannot create new things, only pervert God's works. (exceptions are in Catholic theology, but generally under only limited circumstances, and even then, IIRC Catholicism doesn't have a problem with evolution being a devine method) What it really boils down to is insecurity. A lot of "Christians" (and every other religion) can no longer just BELIEVE in God. They have to have something they can cling to, like the supposed infallibility of the Bible. (a claim, incidentally, that it makes nowhere) They attack things like Evolution not because it makes any kind of theological sense, but because they, in fact, have very little actual FAITH at all. Here's a hint: If your belief in God is dependent on the existance of a book, then you don't really believe in God at all. Just the book. And that's what terrifies these people. They can't separate the two. So they blindly lash out at anything they see attacking their lack of faith.
• Perhaps the US is just more religious than the rest of us Excuse me, I think you meant to say "the chosen country." Puh-leez!
• I think creationism, a religious belief, shouldn't be taught in schools. Evolution is a science and should be taught in schools. That is just my opinion. I think that if a parent has a problem with evolution being taught then the counteraction would be to teach the child creationism at home or at church. This seems to be the only fair thing to do. I did not want anything with a religious overtone taught to my children when in public school. Religious opinion, theory and dogma should stay out of our schools. I feel that religious teaching is not something that should be in the public domain, by this I mean made mandatory. Taught in our public schools, written into our laws etc. Religion is personal and means different things to different people. I did not want anyone teaching my childern about religion, that was my job, no one elses. I think this holds true for many people be they religious or not.
• InnocentBystander: I agree completely. I was brought up in a liberal Baptist church (yes, those used to exist in the American South) that became a fundamentalist church. A small minority of people came into the church and took over with the craziness. We went from fighting for poor people and civil rights to gay-bashing and barring women from positions of authority. These are deeply frightened and bigoted people who have been convinced that mainstream culture and science hate them. I left the Baptist Church when Jimmy Carter did.
• These are deeply frightened and bigoted people who have been convinced that mainstream culture and science hate them. Is it possible that this fear and thrashing is the death rattle of such outdated belief systems, or at least the bigoted/old-earth version of them? I have friends who believe so, that the fundies are thrashing like a whale caught in shallow water--still capable of massive damage, but ultimately doomed. I'm not so sure--it seems that it just keeps getting deeper...
• TanaciousPettle: It would be nice to think the trapped whale metaphor was sound, but when Christianity took over from the Roman Empire in Western Europe and sank it a pit of anti-reason sentiment it didn't begin to pull out of until Aquinas, the Islamic world was one of the high points of human civilisation until that point. These days, much of the descendent Islamic world in North Africa and the Middle East is (sadly) mired in exactly the same hatred of learning as the West was. There are no guarantees of progress for humanity from generation to generation. I increasingly feel things pretty much started turning to shit with the formation of the UN, one of the earliest substantive acts of which was to endorse the creation of a state based in large part on promises made in religious documents.