Judge orders removal of "evolution disclaimer" stickers in Georgia, USA

by seattleniceguy 72 Replies latest social current

• 

  TD

  CJW:

  I agree completely - but would consider this adaptation - not evolution. And in this case you are talking of a completed product - a puppy. MY TROUBLE is that I can't get through the part of evolution which gets me to a completed puppy.

  I don't have a stong opinion on the origin of life myself, but as long as we're dealing with existing life, isn't inheritable adaptation the very essence of evolution?

  Life does change over time. In isolated breeding groups, this divergence continues until you have very different animal populations.

  You don't have to go back very far at all in geological time to reach a point where the majority of mammals we are familiar with today didn't exist. Here in North American we had mastodons, American camals, glyptodonts, saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths, beavers the size of black bears and short-faced bears bigger than Mini Coopers.
• 

  AlanF

  confusedjw:

  You said to SNG:

  : I agree completely - but would consider this adaptation - not evolution.

  How far do you think that adaptation can go? What are its limits? What evidence do you have in favor of your opinions? How far can adaptation go without it being evolution? What constitutes the boundary between species? Are horses and asses the same species, since they can sort of reproduce together?

  : And in this case you are talking of a completed product - a puppy.

  We're always talking about completed life forms. Incomplete life forms are dead.

  : MY TROUBLE is that I can't get through the part of evolution which gets me to a completed puppy. Thus hard to accept.

  You simply haven't educated yourself enough about the issues. That's evident to me just by the form of your questions. Evolution is always working with complete life forms. What do you think an incomplete life form would be? Evolution doesn't produce a new structure from scratch. Natural selection always uses existing structures and modifies them according to which structures allow the best survival of the organism.

  : Especially the hole in the heart healing before you die.

  A good example. During the evolution of early hominids from apelike creatures, hominids wouldn't just suddenly have developed a hole in the heart that had to close upon birth. The structure and function would have long been there. I don't know nearly enough about comparative biology to say this for certain, but I suspect that if you do some research, you'll find that what I've said is true. So your conundrum would not be due to a real problem, but only due to your own lack of knowledge.

  You said to me:

  :: I disagree. From many years of looking at the debates, it's evident to me that the ONLY reason people question evolution is because of religious prejudices. Religious people might claim that their objections have nothing to do with religion, but I've seen that they're either lying or fooling themselves.

  : Alan - for me this isn't true. I was very agnostic at best growing up, but it was the very issue of thinking of evolution vs. creation that inclined me to think that design and creation must be lesser of two impossible thoughts.

  Before I can comment, I need some more information: Just when did you begin thinking this way? Before or after becoming a JW? And be honest: how much did religious ideas actually influence your thinking?

  Of course, it's possible that some people might question evolution based purely on scientific grounds, but they'll be extremely rare. And of course, no one grows up in a vacuum, so even people growing up in atheistic or agnostic environments are exposed to religious ideas.

  : So for me I find that a "Spark of life" in some primordial soup flowing into a systematic series of chances leading to intelligent life impossible to believe.

  I have trouble with that, too. But please note, as I've stated in earlier posts: you're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution per se. You're confusing the one with the other.

  : And I find the idea of some Supreme being creating this impossible to believe as well.

  I don't find it impossible, but I don find it impossible that a God worthy of respect, much less worship, could do so.

  : Is there a third theory? I'm ripe for one.

  I don't know of any. That's why I'm agnostic.

  AlanF
• 

  seattleniceguy

  TD:

  Very interesting points. I never thought of it in specifically that way, but the implications are very interesting. I mean, everyone recognizes that in the past there lived millions of animals that no longer exist today. So, either evolution is true, or the earth started with a butt-load of animals, and the ranks have merely been thinning over the years.

  Of course, there are other problems with choice two, such as the fact that there is no evidence that many present species existed in the distant past. But that is an interesting point - how does someone who does not accept evolution deal with the continual arisal of new species throughout geologic time?

  DY:

  Actually, creation does not qualify as a scientific theory. In science, this word has a specific meaning. Check out this link:
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

  SNG
• 

  TD

  As long as we're dealing with puppies, consider divergence within the dog family. Family Canidae is composed of 34 species divided into 14 different genera. Even based upon external morphology alone, it is obvious that all are related.

  For example:

  Coyote (Canis lantrans)

  Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)

  Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus)

  Despite the fact that they are related by ancestry, they have diverged to the point where they're no longer really "puppies." The second two examples, the Red Fox and Maned Wolf don't even have the same number of chromosomes as the domestic dog resulting in what is probably true reproductive isolation.
• 

  confusedjw

  AlanF:

  Evolution is always working with complete life forms.

  Well I didn't know that. I thought that evolution dealt with how we came from non-living matter, to proteins, to simple organisms to then complex creatures.

  To say that because something has changed over time like a horse also proves that the birth process could also have gradually evolved are apples and oranges to me. We can breed a characterist in and out of a dog or create a scenario that only very tall dogs survive so after some time all dogs in that scenario are tall - but all of that is very different than convincing me that from the simplex organism we end up with women birthing children.

  : Especially the hole in the heart healing before you die.

  A good example. During the evolution of early hominids from apelike creatures, hominids wouldn't just suddenly have developed a hole in the heart that had to close upon birth. The structure and function would have long been there. I don't know nearly enough about comparative biology to say this for certain, but I suspect that if you do some research, you'll find that what I've said is true. So your conundrum would not be due to a real problem, but only due to your own lack of knowledge.

  Okay, some just educate me on how via the mechanics of gradual adaptation through genetic pooling or genetic selection that some creature was able to develope womb while at the same time what it was to be carrying developed a system in which it's breathing and feeding depended on the womb and that moments after expulsion from the womb the heart healed to work in a self contained manner.

  Before I can comment, I need some more information: Just when did you begin thinking this way? Before or after becoming a JW? And be honest: how much did religious ideas actually influence your thinking?

  Long before becoming a JW. I had almost no religious contact before leaving High School. I was a ridiculer of religion for the most part and felt that when you died you were dead. Heaven was for the emotional and Hell for the stupid and God for the weak. My religious interests developed after 1.) Thinking that if all of this wasn't by "chance" I would want to know about this God. 2.) I saw my brother improve as a person after becoming a witness. Stopped smoking, stealing, swearing. He became a better person in general.

  SNG:

  With regard to the hole in the heart thing, it sounds like you're going down the path of irreducible complexity. Michael Behe introduced this concept in 1996. It says that: An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism)
  by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

  Doesn't this support my point not yours? Just because someone recognizes the problem and gives it a label doesn't make the problem go away. I'm not being combative, if someone can give me a reasonable explaination of the birth process and evolution I will likely be forced to accept it. It's not that I'm emotionally or morally opposed to evolution, I just can't see how it could have happened.

  Which doesn't mean I don't recognize how a working complex system changes to a limited degree with time.

  Cows use their tails today for the purpose of swatting flies. Did their tails evolve for that purpose? Or is the cow merely using a pre-evolved feature for a different use?

  But cows can live and exist with or without tails. Thus their having them or not doesn't enlighten or confuse me.

  My problem is that evolutionists use TIME the same way religionists use FAITH. Enough TIME or enough FAITH and all is possible, but not explainable.
• 

  confusedjw

  TD

  As long as we're dealing with puppies, consider divergence within the dog family. Family Canidae is composed of 34 species divided into 14 different genera. Even based upon external morphology alone, it is obvious that all are related.

  I agree 100%, but tell me how the dog or any other complex creature with a birthing and thinking process got to be so from a simplex organism.

  If you would do that I would then "get it"

  And please don't tell me it's just a matter of as that doesn't solve the problem. Just show me the steps if possible.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  confused:

  Doesn't this support my point not yours?

  I quoted Behe to give you the crux of his argument, in his words, not to support my argument. Behe invented this concept as a supposed problem with evolution, but, as the link I provided points out, there are many problems with his concept. You might want to take a look at the resource.

  With regard to the cow example, yes, it's true that a cow can exist without its tail. Now let's think of a scenario in which a cow would not be able to survive effectively without its tail. Let's say that a new population of flies begins taking over the Midwest of the United States. These flies like to eat cow feces, and if possible, they try to get it straight from the source - hot off the press, if you will.

  Unfortunately for our bovine friends, these flies carry a powerful poison that kills a large percentage of the cows it affects. Suddenly, the environment favors cows that have strong, nimble tails, since they can effectively fight off the flies. The cows with weak tails die off. After thousands of generations, the tails have adapted to where they are remarkably good at fending off the fly attacks. Take away a cow's tail, and she's as good as dead.

  So now what we have is a feature which was not originally "designed" for a purpose, becoming co-opted for that purpose. Then, later, when it became a survival matter, it was honed toward that new purpose. Suddenly, the cow has a feature that it absolutely cannot live without!

  To take this a step further, imagine that these cows are so good at defending their rumps that the poisonous flies die off. Now the tails are no longer necessary for survival. Humans come along and discover the tails and wonder why cows are so incredibly good at fending off stupid houseflies. Surely, God must have designed the cow with this marvelous feature as a convenience to the cow. Right?

  Obviously, this is just a fictional example, but I think it illustrates how changing needs can create features that a creature "cannot live without." Hope that helps.

  SNG
• 

  czarofmischief

  ALANF!

  : the sticker in and of itself does not contradict anything we know to be true;

  Yes, it does. As Narkissos pointed out, the sticker explicitly read "a theory, not a fact". This gives the false impression that facts and theories are mutually exclusive, which is simply not so. Gravity is a good example.

  Yes. A theory regarding the "origins of life," not the development of it. Abiogenesis, which even you admit is a highly debated theory regarding the mechanisms.

  : besides, without knowing what is IN the textbook, it is hard to know whether it is necessary to leave a "door" of critical thinking open.

  Not really. The sticker in and of itself is misleading, and therefore ought not to be pasted on any textbook.

  How is it misleading? Who does it mislead and about what? The students should be aware of the debate that exists, even within the "scientific community" which is only a minor part of the community as a whole. Why try to silence the opposition, if education regarding the facts would do? Are you trying to "protect" students from ideas, even as the fundie side did when evolution started being taught? HA! Good luck with THAT. You'd do better for your cause to let the other side have its moment and then argue it into submission. If the textbook is a good one, then the sticker will make no difference to the student.

  : Some textbooks include abiogenesis as part of the "fact" of evolution. Some even use outmoded understandings of evolutionary processes! Should these be presented as the "facts" on which a student can build a life?

  No. Such textbooks shouldn't be used, since they don't properly present science.

  But they do and are. So the sticker is appropriate for that kind of textbook. I assure you, my experience of high school includes Miller's experiment being presented as current, and the "branching tree" of Darwin. More skepticism from the get-go would help students find such sites as talkorigins, etc. so that they can find the current idea.

  : Or should they be presented as possibilities, with greater or lesser bodies of evidence which can be weighed - and leaves the decision of belief in the lap of those who should make the choice, ie. the students themselves? After all, they have to live with the consequences of their choices.

  You're making the classic mistake of viewing biological evolution versus creation as if it were merely a philosophical difference of opinion. It is not. Evolution is science. It is the consensus among tens of thousands of scientists who study the basic material every day. Besides, there is nothing at all preventing students from getting sectarian opinions from any number of other sources, including their parents and churches.

  Ah. You remind me of Christians who differ about Jesus life, activities, and role - but insist that he is still central to eternal salvation. Evolutionists argue about the origins, the mechanisms, and the purposes of evolutionary processes, but they insist that "God wasn't involved." Simply because they prefer it that way.

  The point here is that the people who lobbied for the sticker did so for political purposes, which means that they were trying to insert their religious misgivings about evolution into the science curriculum.

  EVERYTHING is politics, including the wave of evolutionary science being taught in school. It isn't being pushed for altruistic purposes. Given the ever-changing, incoherent, incomplete theories of evolution, I think the sticker had a point that hit closer to home than certain politically minded folks liked; hence the panic.

  : And the sticker doesn't reference the Bible at all, Simon.

  Not directly. But certainly indirectly, given who promoted it.

  Nazis and Communists believe in and promote evolution. Doesn't mean I should ignore evolutionary arguments, right? Or oppose the teaching of evolution is school, since look at the bad fruitage of this theory! The argument for evolution (and creation) can either stand or fall on its own merit, regardless of the messenger. In essence, that is an ad hominem attack, and beneath your status on this board, my friend.

  : Besides, most people wind up making up their own minds about what to believe, evidence or no, stickers or none...

  True enough. But a lot of braindeadly religious fanatics would never get the facts without a science curriculum free of sectarian religious influences.

  What? No faith in truth to prevail? No faith in human reason to reach correct conclusions despite obstacles? You astound me! Such cynicism in such a young man ! Seriously, we escaped the dubs, right? The Internet is out there for those who want to research. There are libraries, there are universities, etc. etc. etc. If evolution is true, then the sticker won't dissuade anybody; save those who want to be dissuaded, and then no textbook would help you in your cause. (For it IS a cause, my friend, admit it or no, truth and how we see it is always the only cause. The trick is admitting that no amount of control will persuade anybody in any meaningful way. God knows this, too ).

  CZAR
• 

  TD

  Hi CJW,

  Darwinian evolution starts with the special theory which simply posits that small changes combine to produce speciation events. Even most creationists hardly bother to argue with this anymore. Some will even go so far as to acknowledge that creatures like the bear, raccon and dog had a common ancestor for example.

  Out of this springs the general theory which proposes that the special theory is responsible for all the diversity of life on earth. This is where many people start to have problems, especially when they try to gulp down the whole camal at once. It leads to questions like; "Tell me how a protozoan could have evolved into a mammal!" or "Tell be how a fish and orange could be related!"

  At this point we're no longer dealing with evolutionary therory in its pure form, we're dealing with it's larger implications. I think that usually when people ask these questions, they have a specific issue in mind and aren't really asking for a dissertation they probably realize would take hundreds of pages and would better be obtained from a library than an internet forum. The popular notion that evolution can even be represented as a series of improvements from simple cells, through more complex life forms and ultimately to humans is a misconception in and of itself.
• 

  AlanF

  confusedjw said:

  :: Evolution is always working with complete life forms.

  : Well I didn't know that.

  Well now you do. This is easy to see: do you know of any incomplete life forms?

  : I thought that evolution dealt with how we came from non-living matter, to proteins, to simple organisms to then complex creatures.

  I already explained that there are two separate fields here: abiogenesis, which deals with "how we came from non-living matter, to proteins, to simple organisms"; and evolution per se, which deals with evolution from the simplest of reproducing organisms to the most complex.

  : To say that because something has changed over time like a horse also proves that the birth process could also have gradually evolved are apples and oranges to me.

  Once again, for you to say that proves that you really don't understand enough about evolution to formulate proper questions. The fact that the fossil record shows that life forms evolve different structures, such as number of toes, shape of limbs, and so forth, also indicates that all other aspects of creatures can evolve. If you accept that horse characteristics can evolve, why would you make an exception for the birth process? Remember that there are a number of different birth processes today, and the fossil record certainly indicates that those processes worked pretty much the same way in extinct life forms. Different species within the same overall "kind", to use an unscientific term, sometimes use quite different birth processes.

  For example, some sharks lay eggs that are attached to plants or buried in sediment, and hatch in the usual manner. Most sharks develop internal eggs that hatch inside the mother, so the mother bears live young. There are several basic kinds of internal development: the young retain an attached yolk sac and are nourished by it; the young devour newly ovulated eggs, less developed embryos or siblings; the young are nourished by a placental connection similar to that in mammals or by a secretion called uterine milk.

  Snakes also either lay eggs or bear live young. Frogs all lay eggs, but do all manner of sometimes wierd things with them before they hatch.

  Mammals reproduce in three different ways: monotremes lay eggs; marsupials have no placenta but bear live young that are nourished by milk from mammary glands in the mother's pouch; placentals bear live young that are nourished by mammary glands.

  What the above examples show is that there is no difference between the evolution of birth structures and processes, and any other strutures and processes in organisms. Think about the sharks in relation to your conundrum: how can they have three basically different birth processes?

  : We can breed a characterist in and out of a dog or create a scenario that only very tall dogs survive so after some time all dogs in that scenario are tall - but all of that is very different than convincing me that from the simplex organism we end up with women birthing children.

  Given the above examples, can you see why your example doesn't show a good understanding of evolution?

  ::: Especially the hole in the heart healing before you die.

  :: A good example. During the evolution of early hominids from apelike creatures, hominids wouldn't just suddenly have developed a hole in the heart that had to close upon birth. The structure and function would have long been there. I don't know nearly enough about comparative biology to say this for certain, but I suspect that if you do some research, you'll find that what I've said is true. So your conundrum would not be due to a real problem, but only due to your own lack of knowledge.

  : Okay, some just educate me on how via the mechanics of gradual adaptation through genetic pooling or genetic selection that some creature was able to develope womb while at the same time what it was to be carrying developed a system in which it's breathing and feeding depended on the womb and that moments after expulsion from the womb the heart healed to work in a self contained manner.

  How can sharks reproduce in three quite different ways? Why does one lay eggs while another contains a "womb" of sorts? Why are there three different reproductive schemes in mammals? Read up on mammalian reproduction; you'll find that there's good fossil evidence that early mammals all reproduced in the same way and then different branches gradually developed the three schemes.

  Again, I'm not a biologist, so if you really want more detailed answers, and are not just looking to throw stones at evolution, you'll have to do a lot of your own legwork.

  :: Before I can comment, I need some more information: Just when did you begin thinking this way? Before or after becoming a JW? And be honest: how much did religious ideas actually influence your thinking?

  : Long before becoming a JW. I had almost no religious contact before leaving High School. I was a ridiculer of religion for the most part and felt that when you died you were dead. Heaven was for the emotional and Hell for the stupid and God for the weak. My religious interests developed after 1.) Thinking that if all of this wasn't by "chance" I would want to know about this God.

  Well that proves my point! In order to "want to know about this God", you'd already had exposure to the notion of "God" and creation, and so when questions arose in your mind you looked at the only alternative. I don't see that you've said anything about non-religiously motivated objections to evolution.

  : 2.) I saw my brother improve as a person after becoming a witness. Stopped smoking, stealing, swearing. He became a better person in general.

  That also proves my point: your objections to evolution had nothing whatsoever to do with paleontology and such, but everything to do with religion. You observed that a religion could produce "a better person" and then, illogically, concluded that the religion that produced that "better person" must teach the truth about everything else, including the evolution/creation question.

  AlanF