With even the Vatican accepting evolution as fact, Kansas voters have taken a step toward being in the same century as the rest of us.
Conservatives lose majority on State Board of Ed
Moderate Republicans scored key primary victories in State Board of Education races, wrestling control from conservatives in a battle shaped by the debate over the teaching of evolution.
Conservative Republicans began Tuesday with a 6-4 board majority. However, one of their incumbents lost, and a pro-evolution moderate won the GOP nomination for a seat held by a retiring conservative.
[…]
Morris, a former teacher, has described evolution as “an age-old fairy tale” and “a nice bedtime story” unsupported by science. She also had drawn criticism for her outspokenness on teaching children of immigrants and sex education.
29 “Declaring the Bible to be true or false has no meaning without specific context”
Way to cut out part of a sentence to make your point. If you’ll notice, the first word was capitalized…..and it was “If”. I already made the point that the opposite applied. Do you just read a part of a sentence, then get your panties in a wad in order to fight?
Finally the moderate Republicans are in charge, I’m glad there’s still enough common sense in that party.
I note that today’s political hacks (and radio hosts) seem to want to apply those labels to every one and every thing, with corresponding levels of evil or good. Us or them. Heaven or Hell. Black or white.
Not so useful to public discourse or greater good, IMO.
Calin
Actually, I picked the most relevant portion of your dribble and pointed out, in the nicest way possible, that it was clear as mud.
First, cutting the word “if” from your quote was an oversight which in no way detracted from my point. Claiming, stating, arguing, something along the lines of “the bible is true” or “people that believe are right or wrong” (lovely tautology by the way) is to talk it generalities that makes no point. I agree with you that arguing whether the “bible is true” is pointless because the statement itself is pointless. However, it is NOT irrelevant to discuss whether portions of the bible are accurate and this leads us back to the discussion at hand. Of the two theories of the origins of life, only one is accurate and valid as a scientific theory and thus should be taught as science. Throwing ones hands up and saying “well, believers could be wrong or they could be right” is to concede the acceptance of bullshit in the most “Yogi Berra” of ways.
Not necessarily. A large section of the Christian population believes large portions of the Old Testament (including the creation story) is allegorical. Therefore, they can believe in the bible, and still not be wrong as far as creation goes. They believe that evolution was directed by a higher being…..can you prove otherwise?
Regardless of how many facts you want to throw out, you cannot prove the bible is not true. Likewise, a “true believer” cannot prove it is. All of your ranting cannot change this fact.
That being said, if you read my previous post, you would see that I agreed with you that evolution should be taught in science class. It is the only current theory that stands up to evidentiary analysis. However, that doesn’t mean that people who believe in the teachings of the bible are wrong. For example, the Catholic Church has embraced evolution and believes it should be taught in science classes. Can you say the Pope doesn’t believe the bible is the truth?
@James Hill:
Comment disregarded due to it’s bigoted idiocy.
Calin,
It is irrelevant to discuss whether “the bible is true” regardless of whether you are a fundamentalist or atheist. The statement has no meaning. It is like arguing whether “the Constitution is true.”
I can unequivocally say that the Pope believes that parts of the Bible are accurate and parts are allegorical. Asking whether the Pope thinks the Bible “is the truth” seems to imply that you are asking whether he thinks the authors intentionally wrote falsehoods. That is entirely different from, for example, asking whether he thinks the entirety of events described in the book occurred in the exact way and for the exact reasons described.
What I’m getting at is that asking whether a document “is true” is a meaningless question because the word “true” can have numerous connotations. Is the document authentic? Are the events accurately portrayed? Are claims made in the book accurate? Do the messages conveyed in the book hold moralistic value? All of these questions can be attributed to the word “true”.
Because of personal nature of religious belief, clarity of expression when dealing with issues where religion and science meet is critical. People should not be told that “the bible is wrong” anymore than they should claim “the bible is true.” Rather, as you and I agree, it should be stated that the Bible is inaccurate when predicting the nature of physical phenomena.
James Hill …….this really isn’t a liberal/conservative or even Republican/ Democrat issue. It’s strictly science versus non-science.
Angel and others…..there are many moderates amoung the Republican party and they are starting to reassert themselves. 6 years of Bush and the neocons have brought the moderate and traditional conservative wings out of hiding in the GOP…..best thing Bush ever did. Bush just may have been the far right/neocons death knell.(i sure hope so)
I was glad to come in here and see this topic….I was really happy last night to see the ID people had lost their seats.
I see we have had an argument over semantics. Truth, as I was using it, is the reference to the teaching of the Word. In Christianity, the Bible is seen as the ultimate Truth….that it’s lessons are the ultimate lessons. This is not a question of history, or of science….but of philosophy.
In the English sense, truth can be seen as “not a lie”. That does not necessarily mean either correct or incorrect. It could be said that the early Greeks were telling the truth when they taught that the earth was the center of the universe…..but we all know that was incorrect.
I thank you for the posts, and now I see where you are coming from. I offer my apologies on the misunderstanding of your first post on this subject.
“I’m mocking liberals viewing this as a victory, when in fact one group of Republicans defeated another group of Republicans. I agree that the argument is not a straight liberal vs. conservative rift, nor have I said it is”
Who was celebrating it as a liberal victory?… I wasnt Invited!
But really I belive that if you accept Jesus no matter what and repent you’ll make it no crazy belonging to the right sect/denomination nonsense. Still as a catholic i applaud the stance of the vatican and the victory of common sense in the election
I see this as a victory for common sense, not Republican v. Democrat or liberal v. conservative.
Higg, I hope you learn to spell j-u-d-g-m-e-n-t before the alleged Judgment Day occurs.
Any chance Democrats can knock out in their primaries people who think there are no differences between boys and girls?
We all live our lives doing the will of something. The Bible (Gods inspired word) 2 Tim 3, contains the message of life and salvation, the way from earth to heaven. It is your choice to obey it or not. By denial of New Testament teaching, one has made a law unto himself. This actually is a denial of the authority of God’s Word. This is really what it comes down to, is the Bible the inspired word of God? A 2000 year old plan that God has given us, to allow it to undergo corruption as to not achieve its purpose, enabling man to be saved, is the question you have to ask yourself? Who’s will are you living? Matt. 7:21
To do the will of God, you must have knowledge of the New Testament, study it and live it.
It troubles me so when I know many generations of kids have been taught evolution as truth. No wonder we have generations of people with no hope.
What a discussion…
#1: I don’t think that the categories we use to toss our politicians in (such as “left and right”, “republican and democrat”, “liberal and conservative”, “blue or red”, “checkered or striped”) have any meaning or do anything to help us understand things. We do need to attach class lables to things we discuss, but I tink for matters of any complexity, bipolarity is no good.
#2: The bible, true or false? Is Epimenides’ paradoxon true or false? The bible, as most know, consists of two major parts. The old and the new testament. The old testament is full of blood and revenge and an evil god, well, evil to others when protecting and guiding his “chosen people”. It’s the creation myth of the jews. It has been handed down over generations from older religions, it’s roots probably in what today is Iraq. Is it true or false? There are many creation myths in different religions around the world and through time. Most differ greatly. Some seem to contain faint shadows of historical events (such as the great flood in the bible). Are they true or false? They are most probably unsuitable as sources for any science but history. The historical value they have needs to be filtered out and verified with care, as it’s mostly based on ancient oral tradition which isn’t known as the best way to maintain accuracy in information.
The new testament, as far as I know it, is the story of the life of a Prophet called Jesus. His belief system was founded on the roots of the old testament but he was, in many ways, a modern thinker. Unlike the old testament, the new testament talks of forgivenness, peacefulness and other values that we today think as positive. Not being religious at all, I do believe that there’s moral values in the new testament that are worth being tought.
I do not believe that there’s anything in the old testament worth talking about unless you’re doing comparative studies of creation myths. Those, I believe are all equally valuable to understand the world of the people who invented them and useless for most other purposes.
In the light of what I’ve said above, what exactly are “both ideas”? Creation myths belong into the history section.
But while you’re talking about creation myths, why just talk about the one that was originally created somewhere in the old Bable region? Why not talk about the creation myths of the Hindus, of the native Americans, of african tribes, the Maori or the Australian aboriginals? Or, not to go so far in space but back in time, the rather similar belief systems of the ancient Greek, Romans, Celts and Germans? Boy, there are many more than just one creation myth.
Evolution belongs into biology.
In this sense, evolution and mythology of creation are indeed both science. But the belong into different fields of science. Evolution belongs into biology, creation myths belong into cultural anthropology. They can help us better understand those people who lived in early historical times (historical as in “the earliest written records”, not “the times shortly after man has been created”).
pj
44 By denial of New Testament teaching, one has made a law unto himself.
Yep, and there are lots of us: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Confucians, Buddists, Wickans, Atheists, Agnostics…
Is it going to be an eternal fire because it will have so much fuel to burn?
Forget what these people believe. Their curriculum didn’t even include intelligent design. They just didn’t want to accept evolution as fact.
From a scientific standpoint…..I don’t accept evolution as a fact. There are certain problems which evolution does not cover. However, it is currently the best theory we have. In years to come it will either be adapted or abandoned.
#49: do you want to give examples of problems not sufficiently explained by evolution?
pj
Minor stuff to be sure. The lack of evidence of a species developing into a higher life form…….breach of the second law of thermodynamics (of course it’s not a closed system so it has to be taken with a grain of salt). Either way my point is this……evolution is a theory. As a scientific theory it cannot be proven…….ever. It can only be disproved. That being the case there is always a shadow of doubt. It cannot be taken as stock fact. It is strictly the best theory we have currently.
We also have a Theory of Gravity. I wonder where the loonbat brigade is to dispute that? “Nobody has proven gravity exists, its just a theory!”
Actually, they are called Newtons Laws of Gravity for a reason.
However, there are arguments against gravity when in comes to it’s effects on sub-atomic particles. Since they don’t react the way Newtonian laws state they should.
53, Calin, so should we all heed Murphy’s Laws? Many people swear by Murphy too.
It appears you define Theory as conjecture. Science usually defines Theory far more narrowly;
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2) The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
No, I do not define Theory as conjecture. I define it as unprovable…..just like every scientist I know. Conjecture is left behind in the hypothesis phase.
I never said I disagreed with evolution…….read again. I said it is not “fact” as in “proven”. It is simply our current idea that fits the majority of evidence, and as yet unfalsified. Just like every other theory in physical science. All of them are written from the perspective of falsifiability. They are designed to be disproved, not proven. Evolution has yet to be disproved…..but it doesn’t cover every circumstance. Of course, the way it’s going I will guess that parts of the Theory of Evolution will survive far into the foreseeable future. It will be shaped and adapted as more discoveries are made. That doesn’t mean it is fact, that just means it’s our current best explanation. Much like the Theory of Relativity…..parts apply, others may not….only the fullness of time will tell.
> No, I do not define Theory as conjecture. I define it as
> unprovable…..just like every scientist I know. Conjecture
> is left behind in the hypothesis phase.
Not true. A scientific theory can be proven without question because the criteria required for proof is narrowly defined within the initial hypothesis. If a theory accurately predicts the behavior of a given phenomena in question within a specified degree of error, it is consider valid and therefore proven. Scientific theories are more about “how” something works rather than “why” something works. Scientists induce the “why” from the theories that accurately predict the “how”.
I should add that “better” scientific theories are ones that predict a given phenomena with a greater degree of accuracy than the exiting theory. Thus, while it is true that the theory of evolution is not 100% accurate, new theories will simply provide additional accuracy to this theory rather than establish it to be false (it’s too late for that).
“it is consider valid and therefore proven. ”
I disagree, valid does not mean proven. Proven would mean fact beyond any doubts. As I said, Evolution is not proven……but it is valid.
> Proven would mean fact beyond any doubts
To the layman, that might be correct but in science there is no such thing as “beyond any doubts.” For a scientific theory to be “proven”, it means that it predicts the behavior of some phenomena within a sufficient degree of accuracy. Nothing in science is 100%. The term “unproven theory” is a non sequitur in science. It is not possible for a hypothesis to be considered a theory and not be proven.