Evolution on "trial" in Kansas

[RACooper]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
I find it very interesting that so many Initiated Creation stories are so similar.

Actually the variation of creation stories, even amongst the same cultural/linguistic groups is what I find most facinating...
while at the same time the marked similiarity in specfic stories also raise some interesting questions as well.

For example the we have the Bibilical version where God willed the universe into existance - and made us out of clay... the Babylonians also believe that man and animals where shaped in clay and had life breathed into them. Whereas next door the Eygptians have a more "racy" version, where one of the gods was feeling randy... and uh took matters into his own hands so to speak... and we are what the towel missed

As for similarities though I find it interesting how many cultures along the Eastern Medditerrainan have "flood" myths or stories... I'm of the opinion of some archaeologists and geologists that this may stem from the Black Sea deluge... when the Medditerrainan broke through into the Black Sea basin, and the water level rose a hundred or more feet, obstensively drowning whole villiages or proto-states. An event of this magnitude would easily become a major aspect of oral tradition.

[Tom Earp]

The Bible, not as We know it, but, from the some what Originals, Seem to prove out things that were passed down via word of Mouth in Lore.

The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to profess much of what was passed down.

There seems to be many studies going on that prove this everyday.

Last I heard from GC, there are no members who were there.

How long was a day? What was the 7 th Day for rest?


Is there really an Ark that is on Arrafat Mt?

So is the Bible a Historical Reckoning vit Lore/More's of what did happen?

I dont know, but not sure if I was a Toad before I walked!

Nessie, I love You Honey, I hope Ya really are there and never found!

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
The problem is that the same evidence that supports macroevolution/microevolution supports creation/adaptation. We have to remember that this line of study is fairly recent in the whole scheme of things. It's not that people before us were gullible idiots...

I find it very interesting that so many Initiated Creation stories are so similar.

Wait... What is creation/adaptation? I've heard of creation... I've not heard of adaptation out of context from evolution...

Adaptation to me is when an organism finds itself in a new environment and either "sinks or swims"... It actually is the restructuring of DNA, maybe by mutation.

Humans are infected with all kinds of microbes that fail to cause symptoms... If you do away with all microbes, you have to live in a plastic bubble--it is called severe combined immunodeficiency--SCID...

However, today, I just read about a gene therapy for X-chromosome linked SCID--but the children are still dying from some rare cancer...

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Wait... What is creation/adaptation? I've heard of creation... I've not heard of adaptation out of context from evolution...

Adaptation to me is when an organism finds itself in a new environment and either "sinks or swims"... It actually is the restructuring of DNA, maybe by mutation.

Humans are infected with all kinds of microbes that fail to cause symptoms... If you do away with all microbes, you have to live in a plastic bubble--it is called severe combined immunodeficiency--SCID...

However, today, I just read about a gene therapy for X-chromosome linked SCID--but the children are still dying from some rare cancer...

Creationists do not deny that adaptation occurs. Otherwise, how could people have gotten taller over the past few hundred years? Or, how would common viruses (cold/flu/etc.) change forms so quickly? Creationists are not anti-science as I've said before.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Wait... What is creation/adaptation? I've heard of creation... I've not heard of adaptation out of context from evolution...

Adaptation to me is when an organism finds itself in a new environment and either "sinks or swims"... It actually is the restructuring of DNA, maybe by mutation.

The Creationist version of adaptaion does not include the concept of speciation (adaptation to the point of becoming a new species for the non-scientifically inclined out there)... for to admit that adaptation can lead to the development of a new species would then admit to a primary principle of Evolutionary Theory.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
Creationists do not deny that adaptation occurs. Otherwise, how could people have gotten taller over the past few hundred years? Or, how would common viruses (cold/flu/etc.) change forms so quickly? Creationists are not anti-science as I've said before.

May be you are not anti-science But some folks here are...

Like I said awhile ago, some folks around here probably flunked the most basic bonehead under 100 level junior high school introduction survey of science class...

It is well established in the medical community that folks have become taller because of improved nutrition and adding vitamins A and D for healthier bones in foodsources, i.e. milk and orange juice for growing children in the United States...

Now we have glossed over the selective breeding programs and eugenics of the 3rd Reich. And alot of what they found is bull. And I am not supporting their science--mainly because they grounded it on skewed principles of belief, religiousity, etc. and not hardcore scientific data and facts with multiple retesting. I think the concern from many "real researchers" in academia is that they are "freaked out" about creationism because this is exactly what happened during the rise of Nazism...

And viruses change forms quickly because of multiple mechanisms. Viruses are like parasites, they need a host to survive. When they are infecting a host, their genetic material can be susceptible to a whole range of environmental factors, namely ultraviolet light, chemical mutagens and heat/cold shock. When one of these events occurs, viruses rapidly adapt to these changes by mutating their genetic code. How viruses adapt is under intense investigation. Why they adapt very quickly, only God knows...

[Honeykiss1974]

All this over the simple fact that Kansas wants to change its standards that include teaching students that there IS controversy over evolution.

Instead of reacting from a blip in the paper or when you see/hear the word "God", conservative, of whatever, has anyone ever thought to check out the Kansas BOE's website to see what the change actually is.

You'd be surprised what you will find. Like how the media can inflate things.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
All this over the simple fact that Kansas wants to change its standards that include teaching students that there IS controversy over evolution.

There is NO CONTROVERSY over evolution, except among a ridiculously small minority. The largest sects of Christianity accept it. Some evangelicals do not - why should they be able to create a controversy where there is none?

Once again - can anyone provide any scientific evidence against human evolution?

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Instead of reacting from a blip in the paper or when you see/hear the word "God", conservative, of whatever, has anyone ever thought to check out the Kansas BOE's website to see what the change actually is.

You'd be surprised what you will find. Like how the media can inflate things.

I have. The original article has not blown anything out of proportion - the conversation has drifted from there, and your comment, ironically, denotes a lack of r->c->p.

You are correct in that the changes are moderate - however, I am not comfortable with claiming there are other 'viable' options past human evolution. What exactly denotes 'viable'? What are these options? Is there any support for them?

Isn't this just euphemistic language to support so-called 'intelligent design' or Creationist theories, which are primarily Christian?

[Honeykiss1974]

KSig RC,

Please save the sarcasm for someone else that wishes to play those games.

If you did in fact read the science standards, you would know that the change is merely the fact that evolution is a theory. And that's it. The purpose IS to present other theories, explore them - after all it is called science But please continue to point out the Christian conspiracy that secretly exist to convert everyone. LOL

ETA: If you have questions as to what is to be considered "viable", on KS BOE Science Standard Introduction document, it addresses that.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
If you did in fact read the science standards, you would know that the change is merely the fact that evolution is a theory. And that's it. The purpose IS to present other theories, explore them - after all it is called science.

You are correct - after all, it is called science.

The reason why it is called 'science' is because it follows methodology. Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc - none of these are actually scientific theories. These are conceptualizations of 'how things came to be' - but they are NOT theories. They do not follow the dialectic methodology required to 'prove' and refine a theory.

Only Evolutionary Theory has performed these methods, and only Evolution passes them - thus, in science, evolution is without peer. It is at best disingenuous, and at worst dishonest, to claim that other conceptualizations are on par with evolution in a science class. Other theories do not have the scientific basis, support, and testing that evolution does. It is truly without peer, and to teach any competing ideology or concept as its peer is simply poor science and poor teaching.

I openly support introduction of a wide variety of creation mythology and other such beliefs as part of humanities classes, for reasons similar to those honeychile has stated.

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
IBut please continue to point out the Christian conspiracy that secretly exist to convert everyone. LOL

Come now, this is non sequitur and unfair.

At no point did I make this a 'conversion' issue - this is a science issue, pure and simple.

However, that said - you've seen the Kansas Dept Of Eductation website, slogged through to the BOE section, you've read the proceedings, you've done your homework . . . what group instigated the proceedings? What confluence of events got them the hearing? What religious groups are these folks affiliated with?

It's not evidence of anything larger, and I've never claimed that. It's evidence of this exact situation - but is that better for your point, or worse?

It's also obviously not part of some 'larger goal', as almost every major Christian church supports the concept of evolution and isn't looking to do any sort of tempering of the accepted theory with convoluted crap.

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
IETA: If you have questions as to what is to be considered "viable", on KS BOE Science Standard Introduction document, it addresses that.

No - I'm asking you specifically.

None of these alternatives are scientifically viable on the level of evolutionary theory - this is my hypothesis. I invite you to disprove it. Go forth.

[Honeykiss1974]

I am not here nor do I even care to disprove YOUR own hypothesis.

As I've said before, all the information you seek since YOU'VE done your homework about the Kansas case (which is what my post are SPECIFICALLY about) is there for you. Happy researching.

In any case, it is expected that the board will approve the changes in standards anyway, which again is the basic logic that evolution is not a hardcore, iirefutable fact. We do this in other disciples of education (and there are people who are just as passionate/methodolgical as some of you about how factual their theory is) so why would calling evolution a theory be any different?

Case in point, economic models/theories (such as the classical or keynesian economic theory).

[Tom Earp]

Kansas, got to love it. Like no place in the USA.

We are not totaly backward, it just seems to be to some!

WE are Leaders of Course!



There was a Lady who had a hatchet and made proibition. The Great American Experiment!

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
I am not here nor do I even care to disprove YOUR own hypothesis.

As I've said before, all the information you seek since YOU'VE done your homework about the Kansas case (which is what my post are SPECIFICALLY about) is there for you. Happy researching.

This is fair, but I cannot fathom supporting the decision in Kansas until you can answer my question first. But that is neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
In any case, it is expected that the board will approve the changes in standards anyway, which again is the basic logic that evolution is not a hardcore, iirefutable fact. We do this in other disciples of education (and there are people who are just as passionate/methodolgical as some of you about how factual their theory is) so why would calling evolution a theory be any different?

Here, you're inching close to concepts I fully support - it is vital that evolution be taught under the complete understanding of how theories are presented, tested, and refined. It is even more important that the facts of evolution come forth as the 'most well supported current answer' - which is actually how the process of theory works in 'hard' sciences. This is not what I've read from the KS BOE.

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Case in point, economic models/theories (such as the classical or keynesian economic theory).

... and this comparison is the reason why the description of 'scientific theory' in hard sciences is so vital. Perhaps others care to elucidate, but I feel this is the point of impasse for the entirety of this debate, both on greekchat and on the whole.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
I am not here nor do I even care to disprove YOUR own hypothesis.

As I've said before, all the information you seek since YOU'VE done your homework about the Kansas case (which is what my post are SPECIFICALLY about) is there for you. Happy researching.

In any case, it is expected that the board will approve the changes in standards anyway, which again is the basic logic that evolution is not a hardcore, iirefutable fact. We do this in other disciples of education (and there are people who are just as passionate/methodolgical as some of you about how factual their theory is) so why would calling evolution a theory be any different?

Case in point, economic models/theories (such as the classical or keynesian economic theory).

See herein lies the problem. Evolution is not based on a belief system. You cannot feel it and it seems right for you... But you see it, you can test it out, it can be measured over time and changes can be calculated. That is the nature of the scientific industry.

I am not prepared to tell kids that DNA was formulated by God in the B-form in eukaryotes opposed to the Archeabacterium Pyrococcos sp. Z-form and expound upon the way why God did it...

But I am prepared to present that several forms of DNA EVOLVED and currently exist: A, B, and Z forms. Which one is first is not an accurate question to answer... Genetic material may have started off with RNA... Thereby making a double stranded helical nature formed on the basis of it nucleic acid atomics and its hydrogen bonding...

Besides, nucleic acids are very liable to any kind of attack, be it chemical, photometric or mechanical shearing...

I know I'm not an expert teacher or genius by any stretch of the imagination, but hear me out. What is being taught or what you are teaching is not always what you believe or think is correct. When I went to Catholic high school, for example, I obviously did not agree with most of what was being taught in religion class, but I, for the most part, kept my mouth shut and just did what was asked of me. When questions such as, "who was the first pope" were asked, I would say, "the Catholic Church believes that Peter was the first pope. Ok, so my answer is correct, but I'm not affirming that belief. The same with teaching. I don't know that approaching a subject like evolution would be so hard to teach if I did it from the stand point of "Scientists have concluded that such and such happened this many years ago and blah blah blah." That's not giving any affirmation to it, yet I would be teaching what was required of me. I don't think this problem will ever be answered and as I have said before, now that religion is out of schools, I don't want just anybody bringing it back in. I don't know if any of that makes sense but that's my mid morning .02.