[ Poll ] Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist		39.1%	[ 1116 ]
Protestant		17.0%	[ 484 ]
Catholic		14.0%	[ 401 ]
Hindu		1.3%	[ 37 ]
Muslim		1.8%	[ 52 ]
Jew		2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist		5.2%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox		0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan		14.2%	[ 406 ]
Egyptian		4.3%	[ 122 ]

Total Votes: 2855

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Jaaten Syric

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Jaaten Syric

Celeblin Galadeneryn

I must obligatorally point out that ID isn't the only 'alternative', so the point in just teaching that in science is moot until they agree to tell kids that Odhinn made the world out of a giant's body as well.

True, but I know of no organized efforts to get the Norse account of creation accepted into the curriculum and (Dark Master forgive me for even bringing this tired one hit wonder of a joke up...) given the results of actual efforts to have Pastafarisnism taught as an alternative, I don't hold out much hop for the fourteenth amendment actually being upheld here. sweatdrop

Every effort to shove the stupidity back in their faces though. ninja

And you want to know why the Norse aren't? Because besides some allegorical giant slaying, the creation story of the universe is that essential elements came together and important s**t was created where they met.

Sound like anything you know?

Right up until the point where men and women are shaped from trees, yes. ninja

If by trees you mean logs, and/or wood meant for carving if you take Voluspa over Gylfaginning, then yes.

[Jaaten Syric]

Oh now you're just being difficult talk2hand

(You and your multiple potential interpretations/sources for events. I'm on to you... stare )

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Jaaten Syric

Oh now you're just being difficult talk2hand

(You and your multiple potential interpretations/sources for events. I'm on to you... stare )

Is this where I go into a turtle spinning in an ocean of milk? Is it?

[Jaaten Syric]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Jaaten Syric

Oh now you're just being difficult talk2hand

(You and your multiple potential interpretations/sources for events. I'm on to you... stare )

Is this where I go into a turtle spinning in an ocean of milk? Is it?

I'd hope not! gonk Not until Kurma gets here anyway. Damn avatars. Always running late... stare

[Minori Hime]

Jaaten Syric

Minori Hime

Then what have you got to lose?

The short answer? Everything. Absolutely everything. Listen, I can understand the allure of a 'teach the controversy' position, as it seems rational on the surface, but it doesn't work that way. Can you imagine a parent seriously suggesting that we teach both geocentrism and heliocentrism in a class and let kids decide for themselves? How about Astrology vs astronomy? Alchemy v chemistry? Flat earth v spherical? Now, I do not remember having any dealings with you in the past, but so far you seem like a fairly rational person to me, so shall assume that you would reject these out of hand for exactly the same reason why I would reject the creationists/IDiots. To teach something, even in passing is to legitimize it, at least in the minds of a few (this is precisely why many scientists will not 'debate' evolution with a creationist; they see the mere act of agreeing to a 'debate' as ammunition the creationists can use against them, after all, one cannot debate somethign if there is no [real] controversy, right?)

Add to that, given the stated agenda of many of the groups now pushing for this (specifically the Discovery Institute) I can't say I like the prospects of this staying within the bounds of evolution. I would bet everything I own that, should a proposition like this come to pass, the 'controversy' behind radiometric dating and the big bang being forced into class would not be far behind.

Lastly there is the issue of how difficult it is to get teachers in the country to simply teach evolution in many areas. adding something like this to the mix will only make things worse, as now teachers can simply devote the majority of the time defending creationism and defaming evolution while staying within the letter of the law. Listen, it was bad enough having to finish up my high-school overview of evolution under an avowed creationist, I cannot imagine how badly that may have turned out if some of these suggestions were put in place, nor how much of the good work done by my original teacher would have been neatly tucked away in favor of dishonest rhetoric. Am I being alarmist and pessimistic when it comes to this issue? Probably, but I do not think that education ought to be something we leave up to fourteen year olds. This sounds like a great lead back down the path to the dark ages, and I see no reason why we shouldn't fight it tooth and nail. The only time I want to see creationism in a class is when the teacher is outlining exactly why and how badly it fails both as a hypothesis and when compared to observed reality. That is all it deserves, and hopefully, that is all it shall receive.

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

I see what you're saying, and I even agree in many respects. You're very right. I would reject many of those hypothetical teachings you mentioned. Especially in the context of a science classroom. But I'm not suggesting that a teaching on creationism take place in a science classroom. I'm not in favor of such a thing. Nor am I in favor of creationism being put into any sort of curriculum.

What I am in favor of is allowing discussion to take place. Views on the origins of life of all sorts, even the one that Celeblin Galadeneryn said about Odin, should be allowed to be discussed. If someone brings it up and asks about it, I don't see why not. I don't feel that the discussion should be about CREATION VS EVOLUTION, like a debate. I feel it should be objective (strictly about what it is) and not represented as fact or fiction. In the same way, if someone asks about alchemy in a class, I don't see why alchemy couldn't be talked about.

I don't see it as being any different from my school days, when an Muslim speaker came to tell us about Islam. I don't feel like speaking about those things makes them what you should believe or come to understand as fact. But speaking about them does create awareness and promote understanding.

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

[Jaaten Syric]

Minori Hime

I see what you're saying, and I even agree in many respects. You're very right. I would reject many of those hypothetical teachings you mentioned. Especially in the context of a science classroom. But I'm not suggesting that a teaching on creationism take place in a science classroom. I'm not in favor of such a thing. Nor am I in favor of creationism being put into any sort of curriculum.

What I am in favor of is allowing discussion to take place. Views on the origins of life of all sorts, even the one that Celeblin Galadeneryn said about Odin, should be allowed to be discussed.

I'm not asking anything different. However, I don't think this is viable (especially in a [non-elective] high school setting). I don't have serious issues with creationism (and other creation myths that are generally not banded about as being legitimate science) being discussed in a social-studies, humanities, or religious studies class, my only issue there is the (potential, and slight) possibility that they be taught as fact. There is also the issue of limited class time which I think could be better spent.

Quote:

If someone brings it up and asks about it, I don't see why not. I don't feel that the discussion should be about CREATION VS EVOLUTION, like a debate.

That...raises other issues. Especially in regards to what you say in a few sentences. I don't think it's possible to talk about creationism, at least not without stepping or some toes, and this is assuming the teacher knows enough about the subject to actually lead/moderate the discussion.

Quote:

I feel it should be objective (strictly about what it is) and not represented as fact or fiction. In the same way, if someone asks about alchemy in a class, I don't see why alchemy couldn't be talked about.

Let me put it like this; As a man whose primary career ambition is to teach High School history (and possibly humanities) the closest I can come to an 'objective' account of creationism is 'an intellectually bankrupt collection of long refuted pseudo-hypotheses based primarily, if not solely onChristian dogma that has shown itself to be in direct opposition to observed reality on each and every issue it makes involving empirical claims.' And that's probably going to get me fired.

Quote:

I don't see it as being any different from my school days, when an Muslim speaker came to tell us about Islam. I don't feel like speaking about those things makes them what you should believe or come to understand as fact. But speaking about them does create awareness and promote understanding.

I do. Inviting speakers from different cultures/religious backgrounds in to discuss and explain their beliefs is very different form inviting someone in to lecture on one aspect of their belief, who will almost assuredly state it as fact, and in a forum where no one is likely qualified to refute them. It's the difference between bringing in a Hindu speaker and a man who simply wants to lecture on how the universe is cyclical and hundreds of billions of years old.

[Minori Hime]

Jaaten Syric

Minori Hime

I see what you're saying, and I even agree in many respects. You're very right. I would reject many of those hypothetical teachings you mentioned. Especially in the context of a science classroom. But I'm not suggesting that a teaching on creationism take place in a science classroom. I'm not in favor of such a thing. Nor am I in favor of creationism being put into any sort of curriculum.

What I am in favor of is allowing discussion to take place. Views on the origins of life of all sorts, even the one that Celeblin Galadeneryn said about Odin, should be allowed to be discussed.

I'm not asking anything different. However, I don't think this is viable (especially in a [non-elective] high school setting). I don't have serious issues with creationism (and other creation myths that are generally not banded about as being legitimate science) being discussed in a social-studies, humanities, or religious studies class, my only issue there is the (potential, and slight) possibility that they be taught as fact. There is also the issue of limited class time which I think could be better spent.

Quote:

If someone brings it up and asks about it, I don't see why not. I don't feel that the discussion should be about CREATION VS EVOLUTION, like a debate.

That...raises other issues. Especially in regards to what you say in a few sentences. I don't think it's possible to talk about creationism, at least not without stepping or some toes, and this is assuming the teacher knows enough about the subject to actually lead/moderate the discussion.

Quote:

I feel it should be objective (strictly about what it is) and not represented as fact or fiction. In the same way, if someone asks about alchemy in a class, I don't see why alchemy couldn't be talked about.

Let me put it like this; As a man whose primary career ambition is to teach High School history (and possibly humanities) the closest I can come to an 'objective' account of creationism is 'an intellectually bankrupt collection of long refuted pseudo-hypotheses based primarily, if not solely onChristian dogma that has shown itself to be in direct opposition to observed reality on each and every issue it makes involving empirical claims.' And that's probably going to get me fired.

Quote:

I don't see it as being any different from my school days, when an Muslim speaker came to tell us about Islam. I don't feel like speaking about those things makes them what you should believe or come to understand as fact. But speaking about them does create awareness and promote understanding.

I do. Inviting speakers from different cultures/religious backgrounds in to discuss and explain their beliefs is very different form inviting someone in to lecture on one aspect of their belief, who will almost assuredly state it as fact, and in a forum where no one is likely qualified to refute them. It's the difference between bringing in a Hindu speaker and a man who simply wants to lecture on how the universe is cyclical and hundreds of billions of years old.

I'm Gonna Make You Smile...

I typed up this really awesome reply, but my browser ate it. So you get this instead:



I'll try to get on and re-type it tomorrow. Er... Later today, I mean. Coz I've been awake all night and it's about 6am here. And that's just plain insomnitastic. D:

But basically, it said "fair enough" to most of it.

Rainbow Kisses and Ice Cream Dreams

[John Calvin]

Jaaten Syric

John Calvin

Evolution is obviously fiction. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gorillas.

Oh Calvin, must you stir the hornets nest of 'people who don't know you well enough to disregard that statement'? neutral

No, I mustn't. razz

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

John Calvin

Jaaten Syric

John Calvin

Evolution is obviously fiction. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gorillas.

Oh Calvin, must you stir the hornets nest of 'people who don't know you well enough to disregard that statement'? neutral

No, I mustn't. razz

Where's that popcorn?

[atisa dimari]

xX Behold the Arctopus Xx

Bibbly

Mutations are Real=Evolution is Real

I hope you know what mutations are.

Mutations are changes in coding within the DNA. Every mutation ever recorded has not helped the subject. Yes, there were some mutations that, say, gave the subject amazing strength, but it also either shortened the lifespan or caused a severe sickness or some other thing that counteracted and/or overpowered the benificial mutation.

Mutations do occur, yes... but they are not good. So if "Mutations are Real=Evolution is Real" then if "Evolution is Real=Evolution is Bad".

evolution isn't always bad. do you think blue eyes are bad???? thats a mutation in human DNA. evolutions are not always bad they are often what helps animals survive especially when it comes to natural selection. i understand how you get that mutations are bad since a common example most hear is a mutation in a virus like lets say the flu. but if you think about it in the virus' point of view then its actually a good thing. the virus finds hosts easier and can reproduce better unfortunatly for humans we happen to be the hosts and we die. a difference in perspective.

[dragonmatt5]

atisa dimari

xX Behold the Arctopus Xx

Bibbly

Mutations are Real=Evolution is Real

I hope you know what mutations are.

Mutations are changes in coding within the DNA. Every mutation ever recorded has not helped the subject. Yes, there were some mutations that, say, gave the subject amazing strength, but it also either shortened the lifespan or caused a severe sickness or some other thing that counteracted and/or overpowered the benificial mutation.

Mutations do occur, yes... but they are not good. So if "Mutations are Real=Evolution is Real" then if "Evolution is Real=Evolution is Bad".

evolution isn't always bad. do you think blue eyes are bad???? thats a mutation in human DNA. evolutions are not always bad they are often what helps animals survive especially when it comes to natural selection. i understand how you get that mutations are bad since a common example most hear is a mutation in a virus like lets say the flu. but if you think about it in the virus' point of view then its actually a good thing. the virus finds hosts easier and can reproduce better unfortunatly for humans we happen to be the hosts and we die. a difference in perspective.

Well what behold doesn't know or doesn't care about is his being utterly wrong in every conceivable way. Mutations are mostly neutral, not harmless nor beneficial. His idea that mutations have a negative aspect for any positive is also so full of holes and so disproven by scientific study, it literally insults the intelligence of everyone who reads it.

As for evolution, there is a little more to it then just mutation. It is mutations affect on survivability that induces evolution. Otherwise you just have increasingly mutated animals.
There has to be a relation on the mutation either helping the creature adapt to a changing environment or allowing it to breed more effectively or something.

[Blairnensha]

I was just watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos: episode 2.... and it occurred to me. Looking at pictures of dinosaurs, imagining them going to mate...and realizing those might have been my great-great-great[x~1000000] grandparents

[xX Behold the Arctopus Xx]

dragonmatt5

atisa dimari

xX Behold the Arctopus Xx

Bibbly

Mutations are Real=Evolution is Real

I hope you know what mutations are.

Mutations are changes in coding within the DNA. Every mutation ever recorded has not helped the subject. Yes, there were some mutations that, say, gave the subject amazing strength, but it also either shortened the lifespan or caused a severe sickness or some other thing that counteracted and/or overpowered the benificial mutation.

Mutations do occur, yes... but they are not good. So if "Mutations are Real=Evolution is Real" then if "Evolution is Real=Evolution is Bad".

evolution isn't always bad. do you think blue eyes are bad???? thats a mutation in human DNA. evolutions are not always bad they are often what helps animals survive especially when it comes to natural selection. i understand how you get that mutations are bad since a common example most hear is a mutation in a virus like lets say the flu. but if you think about it in the virus' point of view then its actually a good thing. the virus finds hosts easier and can reproduce better unfortunatly for humans we happen to be the hosts and we die. a difference in perspective.

Well what behold doesn't know or doesn't care about is his being utterly wrong in every conceivable way. Mutations are mostly neutral, not harmless nor beneficial. His idea that mutations have a negative aspect for any positive is also so full of holes and so disproven by scientific study, it literally insults the intelligence of everyone who reads it.

As for evolution, there is a little more to it then just mutation. It is mutations affect on survivability that induces evolution. Otherwise you just have increasingly mutated animals.
There has to be a relation on the mutation either helping the creature adapt to a changing environment or allowing it to breed more effectively or something.

Name 3 mutations that are beneficial to the animal kingdom...
if you are thinking of Adaptation then you are correct where it has positive effects... but virtually all observed Mutations have been with a Loss of information. There have been rare occurrences where an animal has lost information to create - say a wing on a beetle who lives on a windy island - and therefore was not blown out to sea. This was beneficial but it was still a loss of information in the genetic code.

[Fluffz0rs the Wise]

Why is atheism listed in the poll as a religion? Honestly, what the hell? That's retarded. =/