[karajorma]

I'm sure the discovery of the graviton would have made front page news even if most people ddn't know why it was so important

They did recently measure the speed of gravity (Which must therefore be the speed of a graviton) recently though. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

[Descenter]

could be...i'll have to do some research on it....

(Edit)....Yeah your right, as seen here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

[Mefustae]

"We think this is a great development ... for the academic freedom of students," said John West, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design theory

C'mon, how could you oppose something that'll grant more freedom? Are all of you opposed to freedom? How could someone be opposed to something as joyous and totally American as freedom?

In my opinion, we should just leave them to it! If they want to teach Creationalisn in Science Class, let 'em! It'll be a great social experiment for the rest of the world to see, the only downside is that it'll probably end up like the great social experiment Cambodia under Pol Pot became

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
That's not the same situation.  The function of public school is not to persuade, it's to inform.  Thus a religion class should give equal time to the major and minor religions, since it's beneficial to be informed about them.

However people go to church to be persuaded and to be guided along a certain path.  In that case the people have a right to choose which church to attend and to not have different religions preached side-by-side.No, the scientific method is precisely that: make a hypothesis, then find evidence to support it.  Nothing is ever conclusively proven.  Even long-held theories like gravity and motion can sometimes be modified with new ideas like relativity.

There's nothing wrong with teaching two competing theories side-by-side, even if one of them happens to be wrong.  Students are still taught about the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even if hardly anyone nowadays believes it to be true.

Considering that science is a process of discovery, not dogmatic dictation of facts, you could say that preventing the teaching of intelligent design is actually blind bias in favor of Darwinian evolution.

When Intelligent Design is a proper scientific theory formed as the consequence of a weight of evidence, it can be taught as such.  When it is simply a belief formed through religion, as it is, it belongs in the realms of theology, not science.

You seem to be implying that evolution has to be challenged by an alternative theory for 'fairness'; but intelligent design does not have the scientific criteria (both in it's original formatory method, and also in supporting evidence) to be used as an opposing 'theory'.

The truth is, I could probably create a 'theory' that the world was in fact created by me and begun when I was born, and I could probably justify it in the same was the intelligent design argument.  Mainly by trying to attack the accepted, researched (and continuing to be) and evidenced scientific explanation.

It's not bias to teach a single theory when that theory is the only one that viably exists with the current evidence.  All teaching creationism does is seek to undermine an opponent, not for scientific reasons but theological reasons.

Another thing; everything in the bible is designed to make readers follow that particular religion.  Thus, is teaching a theory directly derived from that book not doing the same, and thus breaking seperation of church and state?  Unless you want to teach every creation myth... but, wait - that's what RE is for!

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Even long-held theories like gravity and motion can sometimes be modified with new ideas like relativity.

Modified, yes, but even in light of relativity, newtons laws still work. The same can be said of evolution. Small changes may come along, but the theory is solid, and it's not going away.

Originally posted by Goober5000
There's nothing wrong with teaching two competing theories side-by-side, even if one of them happens to be wrong.  Students are still taught about the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even if hardly anyone nowadays believes it to be true.

That's true, but students are taught it as a part of the history of science, and it is openly stated to be an incorrect theory. If creationism is applied the same way (ie. as an inaccurate belief that people believed a few hundred years ago before we understood evolution, and as a part of the history of science), then I have no problem with it being incorporated into science classes.

Originally posted by Goober5000
Considering that science is a process of discovery, not dogmatic dictation of facts, you could say that preventing the teaching of intelligent design is actually blind bias in favor of Darwinian evolution.

Bias, yes. Blind, no. A blind bias would imply that one or the other was chosen and is now promoted with no eye to the relative merits of either. That is not the case. Evolution has scientific backing, therefore it belongs in science classes. ID does not. There's no scientific controversy about evolution, and there aren't any criticisms of the currently accepted theory that need to be introduced at a high school level (since the issues are esoteric and complex, and related to highly specific details, and requiring a pretty hefty biological knowledge base that students just don't get before Uni, generally not until at least post-grad - I've had a specific interest in evolution for years, and I'm halfway through a biology degree and I still don;t even understand the problems with the theory).

Originally posted by Descenter
I believe that they should teach and debate it in class of what side you think is a better theory and, therefore learning all there is to learn.  Needs to be prover one way or another anyhow, might be a good way to help speed that along.  Course that's my opinion.

I'm going to dumb this down for the non scientists around here - Evolution has been proven. There is no better theory. There is no controversy around it in he scientific communtiy, and nothing that needs to be sped along.

For the scientists (or the non scientific creationists who're going to suddenly switch directions and use the "I thought nothing was proven in science" line) Evolution is one of the best supported theories in modern science, and has more than enough evidence to be accepted as fact, in a general sense. The specifics are, in some cases, still debated, but there is no controversy, and no competing theories.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
There's no scientific controversy about evolution

That's the biggest problem I have with creationists. They claim that there is a big contraversy in scientific circles but the only contraversy is the one they themselves are causing. There isn't a single credible scientific argument against evolution out there.

Every time you ask them for one they come back with the same tired 2nd law of thermodynamics argument that has been debunked several thousand times already.

It's pretty pathetic truth be told. It's like the way the moon hoaxers refuse to listen to explainations and simply repeat their arguments over and over again as if that makes them right. It doesn't. Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to someone explain why you're wrong doesn't magically make you right.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by karajorma
It's pretty pathetic truth be told. It's like the way the moon hoaxers refuse to listen to explainations and simply repeat their arguments over and over again as if that makes them right. It doesn't. Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to someone explain why you're wrong doesn't magically make you right.

NO! THEY'VE GOTTEN TO YOU TOO! I WON'T LISTEN TO THE LIES!!! *puts fingers in ears* LALALAWON'TLISTENLALALAI'MRIGHTLALALALA!!!

[Kazan]

we have SEEN evolution happen - we have CAUSED evolution to happen

doesn't happen my ass.

People are ****ed up.

Kara.. go get them - i haven't the patience for disproving this bullocks for the 10 billionth time

[Deepblue]

Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species. Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.

[Kosh]

This whole arguement makes me so glad that I'm leaving the country, or else I would be sucked into the vacuum of stupidity that seems to have claimed most americans in the country.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species.

so how would you define "radically different" keep in mind how similar many diferent species are, like the diferent butterflys wich can be diferentiated only by counting the number of scales on there wings. this line seems like there is some arbitrary limit that for some reason you think has any bareing on reality.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species. Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.

The human genetic code is 98% identicle to a common house fly. Radically different? Their genes don't appear to be. Granted you obviously can't have children with other animals because the genetics are different enough not to allow it.

[Deepblue]

AKA different enough that viable offspring could not be produced.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species.

 (snipped bottom bit cos not replying)

We've traced it through fossils records, though.  After all, the idea of evolution into different species was prompted by the fossil record itself; genetics also explains (the methodology) it on a low-level.  AFAIK the main arguements against evolution are based on the obvious problems of gaps in the fossil record, which are themselves perfectly explainable due to proven geological processes and simple common sense.  

Even then, AFAIK there's more than enough evidence in support of the basic principle.... what the creationists do, I think, is to use ongoing research into the exact methods (by which evolution occurs) to try and debunk the entire principle.  Which is really quite a stupid way to go about it; I hesitate to use the phrase again, but it's wilfully ignorant.

You could say the development of penecillin resistant strains of bacteria is evidence both of natural selection and evolution, of course.

EDIT; IIRC (in really vague laymans terms) the main difference between genetic codes is which genes are 'switched on'.  I think there's an example of injecting human eye DNA or similar into a lab rat, and the rat growing a perfectly normal rat eye, simply because of how its genes are turned on.

Like I said, horrible laymans terms which I only vaguely remember.  Must read up on it.

[Bobboau]

ok, what about this, animal A can reproduce with animal B, and animal B can reproduce with animal C, but animal A cannot reproduce with animal C, wich animals are of the same speciese?
(by reproduce I mean viable fertile offspring)

what if animal C is the distant offspring of animal B, and animal B is the distant offspring of animal A. obviusly the mateings described would have to be theoretical, as the three animals would never be alive at the same time. this is how specication occurs in evolution, so the arbitrary "not diferent enough" is irrellevent, after enough time a decendent will have gathered enough changes to there genetic structure that they will no longer be capable of produceing an organism capable of life.

[BlackDove]

Blasphemy.

God FTW.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Kosh



The human genetic code is 98% identicle to a common house fly. Radically different? Their genes don't appear to be. Granted you obviously can't have children with other animals because the genetics are different enough not to allow it.

98%? Are you mad?

[aldo_14]

Dunno about 98%, but http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2000/nf20001024_378.htm

[Kosh]

Ok, so 98% was a bit of an exageration. But you get the idea.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species. Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.

Wait a sec. We haven't seen a process that takes thousands of years even with a very heavy selection pressure take place in what, the hundred years or so since Darwin came along?

I guess the fact that we haven't seen a nebula start to spin and form a star is proof that current cosmological theories are wrong too.