A Mississippi lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require textbooks to include a disclaimer describing evolution as a “controversial theory” and advising students to keep an “open mind” to other explanations for the origin of life.
Rep. Gary Chism introduced the legislation, House Bill 25, earlier this month. The bill has been referred to two committees, Education and Judiciary A.
The proposal, if enacted, would require the State Board of Education to include the 200-word disclaimer on the inside front cover of textbooks that include evolution topics.
“The word ‘theory’ has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles,” the opening paragraph of the bill states. “Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.”
“This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory,” the proposal continues.
Why does the province of Quebec so strongly enforce it’s language laws? Because if you keep the people ignorant and poorly informed they are easier to control. Easier to have them do your bidding. Not a new idea. The rulers have used it for generations through mythology and superstition. Just look at how well it worked over the past 8 years in the USA.
Paddy…as with anything analog there’s always one more possible increment between species that evolve. Your entire argument here is bogus because no matter the depth of the evidence, you’ll always say it’s incomplete but for one more increment.
But note that you’re arguing against evidence while standing upon nothing more than a legend. Good luck with that.
# 64 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “Your entire argument here is bogus because no matter the depth of the evidence, you’ll always say it’s incomplete but for one more increment.
But note that you’re arguing against evidence while standing upon nothing more than a legend. Good luck with that.”
Nope. Just looking for a medium amount of evidence. Out of the millions of pieces that are REQUIRED by the theory there is almost NONE.
What “legend” did I say I was standing on? Please do tell…
#65–Paddy-O-Dumbshit==Darwin’s Theory of Evolution does NOT REQUIRE a single fossil.
You are an idiot.
You really are obtuse. The legend is the alternative “theory.” But to answer you a little more directly I’ll quote from someone a bit more knowledgeable:
…paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds–it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. (your half-whale half-cow)Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
# 66 bobbo said, “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution does NOT REQUIRE a single fossil.”
No, and it doesn’t require a single animal either. That is if you want to just engage in mental masturbation and not actually predict what really happened in the past.
# 67 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “You really are obtuse. The legend is the alternative “theory.””
Answer the question. Where did I say I was standing on anything to do with a legend? WHERE?
Or, were you imagining you saw me state that?
#61 Paddy-trOll,
I must confess I’m having trouble parsing your bad grammar and faulty logic.
You support a theory that demands something to be true that has been to not be true.
That is an assertion on your part. Do you have any support for this? I thought not.
“How do explain the complete absence of what would constitute the other 99.9% of missing fossil record?”
Gee. I thought I did explain that. Most organisms don’t fossilize. Carnivores, scavengers, maggots, and bacteria all do a fine job on most individuals. Even you, if you’re lucky enough to be recycled one day.
The onus is on the proponent and this point.
Proponent of what? Onus to do what? What are you talking about. You made a claim. You have now modified your claim by increasing the number of fossils in the record by 18 orders of magnitude. (I counted, by dropping 18 nines off of your last stupid claim, you have changed the number of fossils in the record by 18 orders of magnitude. Just math, for those who can do math.)
Would you like to try to support your new claim as you did not with your first claim?
As I thought. You have no answer that resurrects the discredited theory.
I’m not even sure you asked a clear and coherent question anywhere in there. So how could I fail to answer?
Let me know when you have a provable answer…
Wow. I thought testable predictions proven to be true were pretty damn good scientific evidence. Silly me.
#71 As I thought. You claim macro evolution is true but lacks the needed supporting evidence.
You sound like those who claim divine creation…
Too funny.
Paddy-O-Doublespeak==if Darwins Theory does not require a single fossil in order to be true, how does not having some number of fossils render it questionable?
Conversly–the existence of just ONE fossil gives great credence to the theory.
So–just exactly what is it you want??? A complete fossil record of specieation showing each and every skeletal change in the link? Do you want one such developmental chain instance–or 10, or 100 or what? What proves what in your fetid imagination?
You really don’t make any sense at all. Dogmatic speech is like that.
Where did that liar Olo Baggins of Bywater run off to?
Paddy-O, I would have inferred that you must be standing on a legend as well, as Mr. Baggins concluded. Kudos to you if you’re not. Only feeble minds would prefer some story whose only evidence is the recorded hearsay from long dead people who claim to have communicated with the creator of the universe.
Ahhhh. So this explains the recent rash of “Inherit the Wind” movies be rerun on the new “This Tv” digital channel. Leave it to Hollywood to come to evolutions’ defense. Wonder why?!
# 75 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, “Paddy-O, I would have inferred that you must be standing on a legend as well, as Mr. Baggins concluded. Kudos to you if you’re not.”
It would be illogical to reject a theory because lack of evidence only to hold to another that also lacks evidence…
#72 – Paddy-O,
#71 As I thought. You claim macro evolution is true but lacks the needed supporting evidence.
You sound like those who claim divine creation…
Too funny.
As I thought, you do not know how to follow links.
Here again are the same two links showing macro evolution, if such a term exists outside of religious circles, does indeed exist and has actually been observed in the wild.
http://tinyurl.com/ynprgx
http://tinyurl.com/6f5ka8
BTW, whenever you question the existence of macro evolution, you do indeed reveal yourself as a fundamentalist, the only group that really makes significant use of the term, since there is little real distinction between micro and macro evolution. Both are in play during speciation, which is the important point. So, when people accuse you of believing a legend, that is the source of confusion.
And, the confusion is on your part, not the person who makes the assumption.
Personally, I can’t recall ever seeing the term in print in any book on evolution. Macro or micro, it’s all just evolution. Speciation is a much more common term among scientists. The only place I had previously read of macro versus micro evolution was in a book on apologetics, i.e. Intelligent Design. (Yes, I did read a book on the subject at the request of a colleague.)
So, if you use the term and deny it exists, expect people to assume that you are a religious fundamentalist and don’t get too offended by it. If you are not, simply correct them and state that despite not being religious, you have a belief that has more in common with the religiose than with scientific community.
Yes, I do acknowledge that there is a wikipedia page for the term and it is valid. I simply rarely hear it from scientists unless they are arguing with or disputing the claims of fundamentalists.
I think it’s quite obvious that to many people, including numerous posters here, science IS a religion. If you dare challenge their beliefs, they attack you like a rabid yorkie.
If science is the religion, government is the church. That’s why they don’t want any competing deities, especially Jesus.
Those who worship the government and their science hate freedom and Jesus. That’s why they legislate both out of America.
Paddy-O, do you have any particular favorites among the various creation “theories” from different cultures, or do you consider them all equally valid and worthy to occupy the same plane as evolution in explaining the existence of species?
#79–I gore Bigots===so in your mind you equate being religious to acting like a rabid yorkie?
You win.
Science zealots = rabid yorkies
Got it now?
Jeez, I have to explain everything twice to these people.
# 80 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, “Paddy-O, do you have any particular favorites among the various creation “theories” from different cultures, or do you consider them all equally valid and worthy to occupy the same plane as evolution in explaining the existence of species?”
I haven’t seen ANY theory that “holds water”.
#82–I Gore Bigots===you clarify by making a totally different statement? Ok.
But now, you lose.
Buy a dictionary===indeed, words have meaning and you cannot legitimately treat them like musical chairs allowing them to occupy any place in a sentence.
I guess, unless you “believe” such things, then all rationality is out–right?
I’ll take you at your first expression as BOTH Religous and Scientific AGREE that Religion is Religious. There is disagreement however on Some Religious think Science is Religious and no Scientific think Science is Religious.
So–the only agreement we have is that Religions are Religious and on that subject YOU analogized being religious to being a rabid yorkie when the beliefs are challenged.
The record is in writing right above you. Good Job.
Don’t forget that God faxed the bile down to earth after he created pedophily, incest and homicide!
He is sooooo great!
#49 Misanthropic Scott. That is hysterical.
If I can’t take my dogs with me then I’m converting to that gosh darn atheist religion.
I have never seen this type of crap in Canada. We have a different code of conduct, usually involving beer.
You folks go ahead and pound the keyboard in anger all you want. I know the truth and I believe it. As I said, when things start happening that science can’t explain or predict, I’ll be breathing easy while lots of you out there are hyperventilating.
Attack my religion all you want. I’m comfortable with it because I am confident in what I have read and studied and have a pretty good idea what is coming and how to deal with it. If you want to see that as boasting, fine, but I’m not.
I am solid in my beliefs and nobody not even bobbo the monkey muffin is going to talk me out of them. I don’t care how illiterate he is. I am praying for you all.
Ivor previously said: “Oh, by the way, when the rapture comes and you see me floating toward heaven, I’ll be sure to wave at you all there stuck on earth.”
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Paddy-O wrote “I haven’t seen ANY theory that ‘holds water’.”
One form of “water” held by evolution that is most notably lacking in creation myths is logical consistency. Scientists seem much more able than creationists to recognize and avoid logical incongruities. Then again, the various creation myths weren’t invented by people who were terribly bright.
For instance, after many years of cultural advancement, the Jewish people still explained birth defects as God’s punishment on sinful parents, so you be the judge of how primitive these people were at the time they were writing their myths.
# 90 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, “One form of “water” held by evolution that is most notably lacking in creation myths is logical consistency.”
Yep. Lack of logical constancy can be used to eliminate bad theories, not validate correct ones.
Paddy-O wrote “Lack of logical constancy can be used to eliminate bad theories, not validate correct ones.”
Sadly, that’s not true in Mississippi, where they’re just itching to start teaching Creationism the way the good Lord intended 😉
#87 – QB,
Glad you enjoyed JesusPets, wish I’d thought of that!
I have never seen this type of crap in Canada. We have a different code of conduct, usually involving beer.
I like the way you
drinkthink.