Texas Creationist Museum Facing Extinction 824
gattaca writes "A small Texas museum that teaches creationism is counting on the auction of a prehistoric mastodon skull to stave off extinction. The founder and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, which rejects evolution and claims that man and dinosaurs coexisted, said it will close unless the Volkswagen-sized skull finds a generous bidder. 'If it sells, well, then we can come another day,' Joe Taylor said. 'This is very important to our continuing.'" Meanwhile, the much larger Creation Museum in Kentucky that we discussed and toured when it opened last year seems to be thriving.
Creationism in Europe? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they may seem deluded and misguided by people who aren't a part of their scene, but that's really not their problem.
If someone ever got in my face about religion, which has never happened (and I know some hard core religious peop
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.harunyahya.com/ [harunyahya.com]
This organization is litteraly sending thousands of books (called Atlas of Creation) to schools around Europe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15857761/ [msn.com]
Nobody clearly understands where their funds come from...But they are "huge".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One interesting thing about the Atlas of Creation is that it uses photos of fishing lures as examples of life to compare to fossils to show a lack of evolution.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/well_fly_fishing_is_a_science.php [scienceblogs.com]
Fishing lures.
Yeah, this is something I can believe in...
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean the cleaners and janitors? Most likely, but is there anyone influential there who believes that a big beardy man buried dinosaur skeletons to fuck with our minds?
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:4, Interesting)
One view supports evolution. The other does not. However both are Creationist views.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's an interesting definition of creationism you're using. It's not most people's, nor does it fit with the dictionary [reference.com]:
creationism:
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
It sounds like you're thinking of theistic evolution [wikipedia.org], which is different fro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, let's get this out of the way: the whole point of Creationism/ID is to put the Christian God in the (science) classroom. While the theoretical underpinnings are vague, not falsifiable and largely refuted, the motivations and the religious backgrounds of their founders and supports are absolutely not.
Rejection of evolution is a problem on multiple level
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
The church in many European countries is busy trying to show that if the Bible is read like it is supposed to (i.e. not taken literally) it really does correspond with the scientific findings. 7 days for god is obviously some billion years for man they tell you and they take it from there, showing how through metaphors the scientific facts known to us were hidden in the text.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As an American living in California I'd like to go on record and say that I've only met these "fundies" when I was visiting the 'Southern' states. Though I've been told they exists in some large numbers in the mid-western states as well. In the north-eastern and western United States (where the bulk of the population lives) you don't seem to see a lot of them.
I felt that needed to be said for all the people who don't actually live in the US. I don't want you thinking the entire country is religious zealots
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While certainly true, it's equally true that the British (in particular, and Europeans in general) are not immune to a widespread acceptance of stupidity [bbc.co.uk] that appears to be a problem that is uniquely "common" to their society. I think we are in danger of viewing this problem too narrowly and thus asserting some sort of absu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about the others but Scotland is not the home of creationism - certainly not in the 1600s as we were in the middle of the reformation [wikipedia.org]. Although Calvinism [wikipedia.org] was particularly prevelant amongst those who set sale for the New World, Scottish colonization was notoriously unsuccessful (especially the Darien scheme [wikipedia.org] that arguably bankrupted Scotland forcing the act of union with England). So to say it came from Scotland is unlikely.
Given your dates, you may also want to check out the Scottish Enlightenm
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they didn't. The modern, and very flawed, Evangelical movement was kicked into high gear by some power-hungry madmen by the names of Dwight L. Moody and Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. Moody had a big effect on the British and Irish, actually, promoting their crazed movement there, too.
* I'm a Protestant-leaning Christian, but definitely not of the Evangelical nature. Sadly, most of my friends and family are still under the sway of the madness called the modern Evangelical movement. I also have a soon-to-be-published book (electronic as well) that I'd love to share with slashdot readers who are interested in why it is time for Christianity to take a new direction.
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Creationism in Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
Pope Benedict believes in evolution [dailymail.co.uk].
Re:Insecure much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately, no.
There are many intelligent, smart, wise people who believe in God. Thing is, for them faith always gives up to reason, never in opposite direction. You believe in things you don't know, you aren't certain. If science explains something, you adapt your faith to accept the fact, you don't deny it to keep that part of faith running.
You may believe that the first string of DNA that created the first living cell was created by an intelligent being. Thing is there's a lot of ways to mix bases of DNA code, just like slamming on the keyboard randomly, but getting a working self-replicating program by slamming on the keyboard randomly, well, that's a lot of slamming and what is more likely, that it happened randomly, or that it was created? We can't estimate the chance of random creation of such a string within several orders of magnitude, so it leaves room for faith: it might have been created this way. If you look at the amazing properties of electromagnetic waves, how simple rules create such amazing results, you think 'How could such rules come to be? Why is electromagnetism the way it is, so possiblity-rich and yet so simple in its essence?' and you think it would take quite a wise mind to invent such a thing... if it could be invented. Again, room for faith, never certainty, but elements of unknown.
But if you hear bones of dinosaurs were dug into the ground some 4000 years ago to confuse us, sorry. No matter how much you believe in God, with a bit of criticism, you say "bullshit".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But there's almost nothing that can be literately speaking there. And speaking figuratively, pi=3 for certain values of pi.
(the meaning can be changed entirely, or even reversed given enough 'interpretation'.)
The bible is supposed to be understood but it doesn't mean that people understand it.
And great most of people believe they do, while they don't. Likely including you.
If there ever was a greater truth to the Bible (which I doubt), it's been long
Quick.... (Score:5, Funny)
Texas and Kentucky... (Score:4, Funny)
The Market Speaks! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't even begin to count the billions of hours wasted by Christians in living life in ways completely counter to what our God teaches us. Look at the battle over the 10 Commandments, laws of the Israelites' God that have been countermanded by Christ's teaching to a much more simpler set of rules (completely love God first, completely love others second). And yet, when we dig deeper into the "Why" of modern Christian thought, we come up against the same problem that I see in those who are pro-government: we need "leaders" and we need "rules" and we need "penalties" to keep us in line.
What has happened to the powerful individual in today's society? Evolution versus creationism is a debate that strikes at the heart of my question: why is it that we need "teacher-leaders" to stick to a specific standard, rather than what the individual kid in a unique place in their specific city/society needs to be taught? I can't even understand why science is taught to ALL children, along with higher level maths, when the kids today can barely count, let alone read or speak properly. I had a 20-something in my town use a calculator at a checkout line 2 weeks ago when I gave her $21.01 for a $6.06 charge. Unbelievable.
Creationism and evolution are both articles of faith, and really have no purpose for MOST students. Then again, I truly believe that even High School is worthless for 70% of society considering what it is churning out.
Re:The Market Speaks! (Score:5, Insightful)
You start off sounding like a very reasonable person, and then end with that.
You have faith in something you cannot prove. Like the existence of a god.
There is tons of evidence for evolution and none against it so no "faith" is required. Or is gravity an article of faith too, because you never know, one day something might fall upwards?!
Re:The Market Speaks! (Score:5, Insightful)
the biologist, all views are open for debate and can be overturned
at any time. All it takes is for a "better idea" to come along.
You are attempting to conflate "faith" with "trust".
Faith is based on wishful thinking where as trust is based on experience.
Clinging to your religious view in the face of the current scientific
consensus is the perfect example of this distinction.
Creationism simply isn't that "better idea". Infact, it is what Evolution
REPLACED when it originally came along as the "better idea". It's history.
It belongs alongside the idea that you grow mice by combining scraps of
clothing and grains of wheat.
Re:The Market Speaks! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's more than just math skill while manning a checkout and giving proper change. Lots of other things to be worrying about, not the least of which people like you who assume any problems calculating it are due to being an idiot, which just makes using a calculator all the more desirable. Being able to do quick, accurate mental arithmetic while under pressure is a skil
Re:The Market Speaks! (Score:4, Insightful)
To start with: I'm not a Christian, but I find some theological topics like this interesting.
To me, it would make sense to say that the fall is as literal as Adam. The fall comes hand in hand with free will; if free will appeared as a gradual process through evolution, then so too was the fall a gradual process.
This makes sense from other perspectives as well -- we treat young children as innocent, even if their actions by an informed party would be wrong. As they grow older, they become more responsible for their actions, and so (if you're the type who believes in "sin") more capable of sin. It's not an instant process; we'll be more lenient with a 10-year-old than a 20-year-old, but we still expect them to understand right and wrong for the most part. If you're willing to take other parts of the Bible as metaphorical, I see no contradiction in taking the fall and original sin and the Eden story as allegorical for slow processes that came with the evolution of free will.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole point of the idea of the Fall is that once you achieve knowledge, then you are responsible for yourself and will need to work out a way to survive and eventually be embraced by the grace of God. Before achieving God-like status by means of knowloedge, man was not responsible for himself, had no free will and was taken care of by God. After that, he had to adapt his ways of life quite a bit
Re:The Market Speaks! (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I look at it, the "fall" was not a one-time event that blighted the rest of us. It was, and is, and will continue to be, an over-and-over event that blights each of us individually. "Adam" is not an historical figure, but an allegorical one, a representative of our human nature.
We are human, and fallible. Not one of us makes it through life (or probably even through the day) without making some serious error of judgment that wounds another person, whether deliberately or thoughtlessly. Those errors are the things we need to atone for: our deliberately hurtful deeds, our thoughtlessness. No one is immune from this; it is a necessary consequence of our free will.
And in most cases, I think we cannot really make up for the wrong we have done. The errors create wounds that are beyond our power to heal. Yet in a just universe, evil requires an expiation.
As I see it, Christ's death provided that expiation. The salvation of Jesus is offered freely, as a pure gift -- nothing expected of us in return, except to say, "I accept." Without that acceptance, the expiation for the evil I have done then falls on myself.
(DISCLAIMER: Please understand, it's not my intent to proselytize or start a debate. I only expressed my view because the parent asked for an answer. I'm not saying that this is THE answer. I'm saying that this is AN answer, and one that I can live with. If your life, logic, and understanding have led you to a different conclusion about the world -- a different relationship with God, a different God or set of Gods, or no God at all -- and so long as you are harming no others, I won't presume to say that your view should be the same as mine. Go in peace.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The definition of literacy has dropped in scope, so today's "literacy" is merely a function of using phonics to read versus being able to comprehend what one has read, and being able to dictate an understanding of what they've read.
Ask any English teacher over the age of 50 what they think of today's literacy rates. They'll generally tell you that kids today are idiots, and most can't comprehend Shakespeare let alone the newspaper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask any person, over the age of fity, at any time in the last 1000 years any question about "today's youth" and you will get the exact same answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's true that languages evolve, and that Shakespeare's English was very different from our own. There were tens of thousands of words used back then
God will... (Score:3, Funny)
The KY Creation museum (Score:4, Interesting)
Illogical, insane, and institutionalized... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do understand the religious issues that fuel these kinds of organizations. But it has always seemed to me that since "truth" is central to any religious belief, that an attempt to derail truth through ignorance or outright deception was a horrible "sin".
With the way organizations like this adhere to biblical writing, one might be able to accuse them of having a book as "god" rather than the apparently supernatural "God of the Gaps" most people seem to engage in their spirituality.
The inerrancy of God seems plausible to me. The in inerrancy of a book seems like sheer insanity.
Teh funnay (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously a fake. (Score:5, Funny)
I've been to it. (Score:4, Informative)
Difficult Decision (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you:
a) Purchase the mastodon skull to preserve an excellent fossil and put it on display for educational value, including its true age?
b) Allow this absurdity and insult to rational intelligence that is a Creation Museum die?
Re:Difficult Decision (Score:4, Funny)
Creationism silly, science disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, what I cannot understand is why you would want to invoke a much more ridiculous hypothesis like creationism. It's not even a hypothesis. It's not science. It's not falsifiable. Ok, so it's certain and unchanging. I can understand that. But there's no objective evidence for it. Or at least, the evidence there is does not point in the direction of creation than any other alternative, so choosing creationism is arbitrary. So, when it comes down to it, many people probably choose creationism for two reasons: (1) tradition, and (2) because the scientists leave them feeling like a chump who trusted them, just to be betrayed when the scientist changed his mind (while being completely apologetic about having been wrong).
See, scientists are role models. Yes, I realize that they're just presenting the hypothesis that best fits the evidence (sometimes; sometimes they have personal or political agendas), but they need to be damn careful about how they present their theory and explain better their uncertainties and alternative explanations.
Oh, and the scientists who try to use evolution to disprove God are just as screwed up as the creationists who try to use God to prove evolution. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists tend to make bold fact-like statements about science that should never be stated that way, because they just fucking don't know! It's no wonder people think scientists are arrogant. They make bold statements and think they're right. Then they change their minds and think they're right. Scientists are never wrong! Isn't that convenient.
And that's exactly the strength of Science as opposed to Faith. Scientists will adjust their beliefs when confronted by new observations or a demonstrably better theory. That's the only way that knowledge - and our ability to use it - can improve over time.
As far as scientists being arrogant... Well, you haven't read any scientific papers, or listened to any real scientists being interviewed about their work, have you? For the most part, they qualify just about everything they say and are quick to acknowle
Do they really expect much money from the sale? (Score:3, Funny)
if they become extinct, ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Informative)
Some resemblence to the facts we can find in nature.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexuality. Other religions.
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Funny)
And don't forget world 36 on Super Mario Brothers. That one can be pretty tricky if you don't know what to expect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:4, Insightful)
Logic?
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:4, Funny)
English
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The English language, as far as I know, generally misses two things:
- A pluralised second person (Several latin languages have them. See: Spanish, with -ais)
- A non-genitive third person pronoun (as "it" tends to be something of an insult when used with regard to people)
"Y'all" merrily fills one of those voids, yet is generally despised by those who fail to see its utility. Not only that, but with the apostrophe, it's technically correct.
There is "you all" and a few other multi-word
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think part of it is that people don't know how it's supposed to be used. Fake southerners/Texans in the media often use it incorrectly in place of the singular 'you'. This turns it into just an excuse to laugh at a group for being different.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But they save their strongest hate for evolution. The problem with the theory is exclusive to Christianity because it strikes to the core of the religion. The theology is straightforward: Christ died as a means to offer salvation from Hell. But the sticking point isn't that Genesis has a different account of the origin of the universe, it's that Ch
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, no problems with any of those. There's nothing factual, based solely on empirical evidence in any of these fields that conclusively proves macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is undeniable -- species are constantly changing. But the jump from a new breed of dog to man evolving from a single-celled organism is just a bit too much for me, given any time frame. There's no interemediary reliable fossil record, even though we've gone through enough rock to have seen that by now (geology), no proof that just b
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, interesting that you bring up gravity. Last time I checked, we *still* have no clue what the heck gravity is. How it acts at such great distances and such. We can describe it mathematically (G m1 m2 / d^2), but we don't really know the reason for it. Why is it that this works? How can it act apparently instantly across great distances that even photons can't reach as quickly?
Perhaps your smart-ass answer isn't far off - it's God's will. Whatever it is, we do not thoroughly understand it. All we can do is take advantage of it (through mathematics).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but we don't really know the reason for it
IANAP (I am not a physicist), but my understanding of general relativity is that all objects with mass tend to curve spacetime and curved spacetime is directly responsible for what we perceive as "gravity". The Wikipedia gravity well [wikipedia.org] article has a decent picture that might do a better job of explaining this concept then words do.
How can it act apparently instantly across great distances that even photons can't reach as quickly?
Actually, I recall reading somewhere that they did a test awhile back and figured out that gravity is limited to C, i.e: if you could make the sun wink out of existence, Ear
Not quite THAT mysterious! (Score:3, Informative)
It cannot. If the sun disappeared this instant the Earth would continue in orbit under its gravitational field for 8 minutes more: the time it takes light to travel from the sun to the Earth. In fact, rather ironically, it is the theory of relativity which, in its general form, explains gravity that also requires that information is never transmitted faster than the speed of light. So far from gravity havi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, one of my old lecturers once asked us to name one "completely closed system" other than the universe (which encompasses everything) and I do not believe that we ever managed to give one that he was unable to refute.
So I put it to Slashdot - Can anyone name
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:4, Insightful)
My take on it? Creationism per se is bunk, and evolution is the best theory I've seen to explein how God went about growing this wonderous universe.
Yes, I know it's heresy to admit being a Christian [kuro5hin.org] at slashdot, where athiesm is the site relgion and its proponents will stone with mod points anyone who dares believe that God exists, so mod me down. Arguing the existance of God with an athiest is like arguing the existance of red with a blind man.
You're an athiest because God wants you to be an athiest. "All we are is dust in the wind" - Kansas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you believe in fate, predisposition and a clockwork universe? To me, that's a far more disturbing world than the one with the bearded old guy in the sky occasionally raining down fire and brimstone.
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Insightful)
I would also suggest that the argument analogy you presented is inaccurate and misleading, as most analogies often are. Such topics cannot be summed up or dumbed down in such simplistic manners. Case in point, the popular "let me explain this as a car" analogy given so often on Slashdot. Your analogy presents a pre-determined supposition that God does indeed exist, which is the point of the argument in the first place, yes?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So then he's sending me to hell simply because he wants to send me to hell? Nothing for me to do about it, eh?
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution makes predictions that are accurate enough to be useful, regardless of whether is it aboslutely true or not. (For the record: It's as true as anything we've ever come up with.)
Creationism makes no predictions. In fact, it prevents them: Why did this happen? God did it. Will it happen again? If God wants it to. Will it stop? If God gets bored. Can we influence it? If God decides to be influenced, yes. In the end, 'God' is unknowable and unexplainable, so by saying God did it we have stopped all thought, inquiry, or prediction on the topic.
Which is probably why it is attractive to some people: They don't want to think.
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point, we may become so advanced, technologically, that there is nothing curently living which is beyond our ability to recreate in a laboratory setting. How would one determine what occurs naturally and what was created? There will be lots of legal issues related to "accident of nature" or "industrial accident" related to when created things go bad, and how to prove they were created versus just having occurred by themselves.
To some extent, this is us "playing God" with nature. Somewhere down the road, a wholly "created" being will gain consciousness, evolve some (if left alone long enough), then wonder where he came from. Then they will have the same argument we are having now.
I'm no fan of ID as having "scientific" merit. But it does have philosophical merit. And some of the thought experiments make my head hurt.
(Posting Anon, because I don't like to discuss my personal politics or religion in public.)
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Informative)
Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.
Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones[1]) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution.
Now, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a "text" being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.
It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue..." - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)
The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees... and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or... common ancestry is actually true.
[1] Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the 'tree' of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life.
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a non-scientist calls a "theory", a scientist calls a hypothesis, and isn't remotely worth of theory status.
1) Evolution is a scientific theory. To achieve theory status in science, you typically have to test something rigorously and show it to hold up well. The theory of evolution has mathematical/statistical models defining it, explains evidence found on earth very well, and can be tested.
2) A law is achieved by one of two methods: a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hate to be the one to break it to y'all, but evolution is pretty much just a theory too. Theory as in, not fact. (My pastor has a really good explanation of this.) What makes it better than proposing Creationism?
This is a strawman argument, and an old one at that. That word "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The closest word to theory in the sense you use (as in 'guess') in the scientific community is 'hypothesis.' An hypothesis is just a guess. Maybe a somewhat educated one based on observation, by still just a guess.
OTOH, a theory is something much more substantial than a guess -- it is falsifiable, repeatable, consistent, and verifiable. Gravity is "just" a theory. Evolution and gravity meet thes
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Informative)
From the BioTech Life Science Dictionary: theory definition:"In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments."
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:5, Insightful)
What possible prediction can anyone make from Creationism?
Evolution predicts that since all living things on the planet share DNA, then medical research using animals should produce useful medical procedures for humans.
When you cut someone open, it's not full of clay.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps youshould learn what Theory means? (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution is real, it makes predictions, is falsifiable.
There are warehouses of evidence.
Plus, your pasture should probably actually study the history of the Bible. It becomes very obvious, even at a cursory glance, that Genesis isn't a literal book; Which would explain why Genesis I and II contridict each other about creation.
Gravity is also a Scientific Theory.
Evolution isn't an attack on religion, it's just
Creationists don't understand the word Theory (Score:5, Informative)
(Theory defitition 1): "supposition" or "hunch". This is the use in the sentence "If my theory is correct, then
(Theory definition 2): "a description of a process that explains observed facts". These vary in their degree of supportability, and sometimes, multiple warring theories are supported to different degrees by existing experiment. For example, there are at the moment multiple theories about what process gives matter mass. Examples: The theory that matter is atomic, i.e. not continuously divisible. The theory that natural selection coupled with variation leads to evolution. The theory that particles have mass because of their interaction with the Higgs field.
(Theory definition 3): "a body of knowledge and understanding that supports much other past and future work"; it describes an entire framework of internally consistent principles, understanding and data. Meanings used in this sense:
* Atomic theory (the understanding of the structure of the atom and it's constituent particles and interactions that underlies all of nuclear science and chemistry)
* Evolutionary theory (the understanding of how organisms and species give rise to one another, and the genetic mechanisms thereof that underlies all of biology)
It's instructive to note that evolutionary theory and atomic theory are approximately equivalent in terms of evidentiary support and use in their fields. Both arose as type-2 definitions around the same time (mid 19th-century), supplanting prior theories (matter is continuous, God created all organisms at one time and they have been unchanged since then). Both have since then become into type 3 theories that completely underly the relevant fields (chemistry, biology).
Religious fundamentalists don't understand the difference between these definitions, and they think evolution is a "type 1" theory, more properly called a hypothesis. It is not. Evolution is the entire framework of over a century of biological research. Attempting to understand research in biology while rejection evolution is like attempting to understand chemistry while rejecting the atom. Or attempting to understand higher math while rejecting arithmetic. It's flat-out ludicrous.
(This is a repost of my statement from the last time we had this debate. [slashdot.org] I will keep reposting it, hoping to educate a few people eventually.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, though, Gravity is not a fact. Things falling is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains why things fall. Which theory of gravity do people use? Mostly, Newton's, even though we know that is incorrect. Nobody uses relativity except in special circumstances, because it is a more complex calculation and yields the same results as the 'incorrect' theory of Newton in most circumstances. Newton's theory is 'wrong' bu
Re:Evolution is a theory too (Score:4, Funny)
Re:wha? (Score:5, Funny)
'If it sells, well, then we can come another day,' Come again?
I think that means his wife is cutting him off until he gets that damned thing out of the house.
Re:wha? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ttyl
Re:Definitional clarity, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Typically, they think that "evolution" means that a monkey got pregnant one day and out popped a human baby. They think that a theory in science (as in "just a theory") is an idle speculation that just shot out of some scientist's ass and beat out competing theories in a popularity contest. Their faith requires them to believe without question what they are taught by their parents and religious authorities, and so the notions of reason and sceptical inquiry carry zero weight with them.
There's a multitude of them, they're refractory to reason, and they vote. They are also easily manipulated by unscrupulous politicians who don't give squat about their beliefs but are willing to pander to them to enhance their own power.
This circus is going to go on for a long, long time.