“Keep your mind open, kids, it is possible that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. It could be the other way around!” Can you imagine any teacher saying this in a public school classroom? As ridiculous as it sounds, it is as inappropriate as saying, “Keep your mind open kids, it is possible that the theory of evolution is wrong. We could be the product of creationism!”
Although one’s religion may determine whether or not they believe in evolution, it is a theory that needs to be taught in public schools as it is a fundamental of basic scientific knowledge. There are currently two bills in New Hampshire that seek to require teachers to teach the theory of evolution as more of a philosophy than as a science. They would also allow school boards to require the teaching of creationism. They are House Bill 1148 and 1457, the first of which would “require evolution to be taught in public schools of [New Hampshire] as a theory, including the theorists’ political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism.” On the other hand, HB 1457 does not directly mention evolution, but it states that it would “require science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes.”
The theory of evolution is as scientifically supported as the heliocentric theory of the earth (that the earth revolves around the sun). The reason that evolution is opposed is because some religious conservatives say that it contradicts the Biblical belief of creationism. If the Bible said anything about the sun revolving around the earth, maybe public schools would receive opposition for teaching heliocentrism. But, one might argue, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is much more apparent than evolution. Observations and measurements of the angles of the stars, including the sun, have shown strong evidence that the earth does in fact revolve around the sun. It is a very well supported theory and almost no one will argue that it’s false. Regarding evolution, there are a lot more claims that the theory is wrong. In reality, we have just as much evidence that the earth is heliocentric than that the theory of evolution is real.
Another reason why people are misled regarding the theory of evolution is because of what they understand ‘theory’ to mean. In everyday use, if one were to use the word ‘theory,’ its synonym could be ‘guess,’ ‘idea,’ or ‘hunch.’ In science, a theory is none of these things. It is a “well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.” It ties together all the facts about something and provides an explanation that fits all the observations. This can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, as it is the explanation of something, as opposed to a law, which only describes. A theory is as close to proven as anything in science can be. Therefore, the theory of evolution is not ‘just a theory.’ It is, as notjustatheory.com says, “triumphantly a theory.”
Even if, after being properly educated on the theory of evolution, a creationist still does not believe in it, that should not affect the state. Church and state, constitutionally, are separated. A public school is regulated by the state, and any religious beliefs, such as creationism, need not be brought into science. Creationism should be taught as a philosophy, which it is, while evolution should be taught as a science. Creationism is only supported by the Bible while evolution is supported by countless evidence and is a scientific theory. Religion is taught as a philosophy, and as creationism is religious, it, by default, should be taught as a philosophy. Teaching the well-supported evolutionary theory as a philosophy is just as ridiculous as teaching most other sciences as a philosophy. Maybe New Hampshire public schools will end up telling their students to not commit to the theory that there are 13 protons in Aluminum, or that our genetic information isn’t coded in our DNA.
Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous that the issue of teaching evolution in schools is brought up again. This has not been an issue for about 20 years, when it was ruled that evolution is taught as a part of science. Now, a religious Indiana state senator is bringing it up again. I can’t imagine that either bill will actually be passed, but if either one is, I will be quite disappointed in the American people.
I’m sure many others will be, too. If evolution is taught as a philosophy, every scientist across the nation will be disappointed.
Annabella Palopoli can be reached at annabella.palopoli@spartans.ut.edu.
Theo seems determined to ignore the data. Observed instances of speciation (such as with polyploidy) prove macroevolution, since speciation IS macroevolution, by definition. You probably ate some food made from polyploids this week, you should learn more about what you eat.
The fossil record and the genetic data provide the evidence. Someone already kindly provided you with a few of the transitional hominid fossils. I’d also suggest looking at the transitional whale fossils, especially since someone else already noted some facts about living whales that support evolution.
The DNA of nearly all of the organisms sequenced to date that are not proprietary or weaponizable are typically available at NCBI’s GenBank via the Entrez browser. You can compare gene families for yourself and find the specific mutations that have occurred in the various lineages of organisms. The same kind of analysis that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that someone’s DNA is present in rape or murder evidence, or reveals who your real daddy is, shows that all known organisms are descended from a common genetic ancestor. It also shows that you are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. If you can’t be bothered to read the scientific literature, and prefer to be spoonfed the data and evidence on a comment thread, here’s a video of 1 of the millions of pieces of evidence to get you started, presented by Dr. Ken Miller, regarding evidence of evolution from human chromosome 2 and the corresponding chromosomes in other great apes:
To the many who have responsed to my comments and especially to Matthew Garvin, many thanks.
I am being flooded with loads of stuff to read; which I find a bit distrurbing but I will give it a go. Michael Dowd pointed me to a Wikipedia article which looks pretty substantive. I did look at that same article in 2009 but it is no much more substantial now, so I will have another look.
My reluctancy is based on my experience that evolunionist’s flippantly point me to websites or other resources which contain loads and loads of irrelevant detail. It is obviously a tactic to fob me off and intimidate me into submission. If anything this only increases my resolve the challenge the evolutionary myth.
When I described flaws in the Wikipedia articles, evolutionists belittled me for using unreputable sources. I analysed the National Acadamy of Sciences publications – the evidence supporting Darwinian/macro evolution in those documents is woeful by my analysis. I am not surprised that you have not pointed me to them.
I have seen many debates where evolution was the topic and it is clear to me that when evolution is scrutized at a deep level IT CRUMBLES. I note that Dawkins is refusing to debate William Lane-Craig (Evolution doubter). Dawkin’s assert’s that Craig is not famous enough – but it sounds like cowardice to me.
To prove Darwinian/Macro evolution you must understand what you are trying to prove. Just sumbittng impressive but irrelevant details about nature etc – proves nothing. Evolutionists need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your great….. great grandfather was self replicating molecule. The transition from a molecule to a man IS HUGE. The flipant and silly assertions that I get in droves are silly.
Again I would commend to you the Kansas school board – evolutionary hearings. You can get highlights on YOuTube or you can get the complete audio recordings from audible.com. THEY ARE EYE OPENING.
In Ernst Chain’s (co founder of penicillin ) biography it states:
“Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution” and that “evolution was not really part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation – and he was and is, by no means alone in this view”.
As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, “a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.”
And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, “I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation”
Can I also point you to http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/, this site contains a public letter of scientits who dissent from Darwinism; the document is currently 20 pages long and growing.
Also go to Drdino.com and see some debates. The one between Kent Hovind and Dr William Moore is really eye opening.
Changed my mind. It’s not a controversy.
To Theo-
It’s more about the flow of money than scientific evidence. And since perspective is subjective, we could all argue about this until we are blue in the face. If you do not want to see evolution, then you just aren’t going to see it. Let’s move on.
Want to check out something interesting? Read up on epigenetics, also did you know that just last year geneticists discovered that all non-African humans have an average of 2.5% Neanderthal DNA, oh and people from New Guinea do not have Neanderthal DNA, but they have some little know DNA in them from a group being called the Denisovans?
Well, I read this article over a year ago, so I don’t really remember it, but it was titled something like, “Proof of Evolution” and it was about this breed of lizard that they had been monitoring for many generations and they actually have proof of an evolutionary environmental adaptation. And actually, there is tons of proof out there.
But neither I nor anyone else need convince you of this. Evolution via natural selection is anytime you have selection, variation, and heredity. You get epigenetic evolution via environmental and personal factors. And you learn how to act like your version of a human being based on the same process of selection, variation and heredity. But those are a result of imitating your elders and your peers and you do this through your extensive mirror neuron network. So you just seem to vibe with the idea of creationism better because that’s how you’ve composed yourself and have been composed. I vibe with the idea of evolution because that is how I’ve composed myself, and we can live side by side, and we should probably teach the argument of evolution vs. creationism in our science classes to give our children a better perspective of the world in conflict in which we live.
Theo, you are misinformed. Google “BEST EVOLUTION RESOURCES”. My resource page will be the first thing that comes up. Also, Google “Evolutionary Christianity” and listen to a few of my interviews with the world’s most esteemed Christian theologians and scientists who wholeheartedly embrace a mainstream scientific view of evolution.
“For over 5 years now I have been searching diligently for evidence which actually supports Darwinian/Macro evolution.”
Well I have been looking for evidence of a creation event for almost twenty years and I am truly disgusted that creationism was allowed to go on for as long as it did. Thank God Darwin put a stop to all that nonsense. And my 20 beats your piddling 5.
And Sanford is a nutjob I am afraid to inform you (even if he was an impressive inventor). As I said, millions of scientists versus a looney few.
“WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION IS TRUE?”
There is tons and tons and tons, but I like to hominid fossil record most. The evidence so incredibly compelling.
Look at the many hominid fossils and you cannot dispute our origin from other species of apes. Sahelanthropos dates to around 6 million years and closely resembles many of the apes we see today. Ardipithecus dates to around 4.5 million years ago and looks very much like an australopithcine, but is poor at being bipedal and was allocated to a different genus. Australopithecus anamensis is our oldest dated austrlopithecine (around 4 million years) and is clearly more human like than Ardipthecus, but is still somewhat transitional and has many similarities with older fossil apes (being far the most ape like of the australopithecines). Australopithecus afarensis is a typical bipedal australopithecine. Not yet walking upright, but clearly good at walking. It dates to between 3 and 4 million years ago.
Many different australopithecine lineages existed and clearly not all of them could be our ancestor. Most palaeontologists believe that Australopithecus africanus is a good candidate for our ancestor, especially as many of the later forms of this species almost seamlessly blend into early Homo or other species of australopithecus that also look extremely similar to Homo. The generic division is an arbitrary one that had to be made somewhere to fit with the zoological code on nomenclature. Anyway, A. africanus dates to between 3 and 2 million years ago. I emphasize that early Homo looks very similar to the most recent australopithecines. Please look this up if you don’t believe me.
Homo habilis (dating to around 2 million years) overlaps both the austrlopithecines and later species of Homo in terms of brain size. Homo ergaster and Homo erectus (around 1.5 to just under a half million years ago) are clearly even more human and have brain sizes that are getting close to ours. These fossils show much more upright skeletons and skulls that are clearly much less ape like, but with some residual features. Early erectus has a brain size of 900 cc whereas later ones are close to 1100 cc.
The most primitive Homo sapiens arrived on the scene around half a million years ago, but some other species of Homo are extremely similar in appearance to them. Homo ancessor dates to around 700,000 years ago and have some very human features, possibly enough to put it in with our own species. Therefore the dividing line between the humans that most closely resemble our own and the ones that we call our own is a highly arbitray one, but needs to be made in accordance to our classification system. The earliest “true” homo sapiens are therefore clearly very similar to the other species of Homo, even more so than us. They now have brain sizes averaging in the 1200 cc region (e.g. Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, which dates to between 500 thousand and 200 thousand years ago). Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) originated around 200 thousand years ago and have brain sizes averaging 1350 cc.
The evidence is there for all to see. Go to a museum. The dating techniques are radiometric and robust. They complement many other dating techniques. In other words, their reliability is testified by the fact that they converge on similar dates.
The point is that if God created all of these organisms separate he did it so that he made one extinct and then replaced it with another that was very similar, but ever so slightly more human like. He did this many many times so that we get a nice chronological sequence that complements the morphological sequence beautifully. You cannot hope for better data to support evolution and if creationists are not convinced by this then they never will be, they’re just sticking their heads in the sand. There clearly are no more missing links, although that does not mean we cannot find ever so slightly more intermediate forms (although it is getting much more difficult). So if God created all life on earth, he wants us to believe in evolution. Why disobey him?
Theo, I think you have quite a misunderstanding of evolution guided by your obvious bias. Evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of life on Earth but, the mass amount of evidence supporting it DOES help us understand the variety and diversity of life on Earth. In response to your #2 statement on your first comment – Obviously, there is no such evidence that everything did come into existence by an “intelligent designer” and evidence in support of evolution does not require the work of a “choreographer.”
I have to say that if you really have looked at legitimate resources concerning evolution, specifically in the realms of speciation and macroevolution, your comment about no one providing a compelling argument that macroevolution is nothing more than a “fairytale” is pure ignorance. So, this intelligent designer decided to place millions upon millions of species on this planet and allowed approximately 98%-99% go extinct? Macro-evolution does not have to be observed in real time. Rather, scientists and logical people will make well reasoned inferences by looking at detailed observations and the vast amount of evidence in regards to geographical distribution, molecular genetic evidence (such as double helix breaking/bonding), the fossil record, vestigial parts and atavisms, etc….. Macroevolution is simply the product of alot of microevolution. Microevolution has been demonstrated in experiments with guppies, Richard Lenski’s long term evolution experiment with E. Coli and in the natural world, such as the lizards on the Croatian islands of Pod Mrcaru and Pod Kopiste. I think you’re seriously underestimating the amount of time life has been on Earth for these things to lead to things such as speciation.
Also, Ernst Haeckel’s “biogenetic law”, know as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, is not COMPLETELY untrue. Species DO show some forms of recapitulation and this only can make sense in the light of evolution. Vertebrates do start development looking like embryonic fish, such as the disappearance of organs, vessels and gill slits. Mammals at one stage of development have a reptilian like circulatory system, but it is not evident the other way around. Embryonic whales and dolphins form hindlimb buds that are reabsorbed…in marine mammals these form rear legs. A note on whales; they do also have pelvic bones embedded in their thick tissue, which are remnants of their ancestors on land. I could go on and on about much more like pseudogenes, human chromosome 2 and whatnot but, I don’t have the time.
Many thanks to those who responded to my initial comment, especially to Ediacaran who elaborated on the Crick quotation.
After due consideration of your comments my response is as follows:
1) I STAND BY MY COMMENTS
– No-one has provided a compelling arguement that Darwinian/Macro evolution is nothing but an assumed fairytale
– It is arrogant to discard all the scientists who were witnesses at the Kansas School Board Evolution hearings as religious nutcases.
– The scientific arguments they put forward were strong and convincing, eg Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said:
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
2) PROPOGATION BY DECEPTION
– Most people accept “evolution” by assumption because it is thrust upon us by the education system and by the mass media. BUT VERY FEW ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME TO ANALYSE THE ISSUE.
– Many movies and TV shows are built on the presumption that evolution is true – but movies does not make scientific truth.
3) WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE PROVING DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION?
– For over 5 years now I have been searching diligently for evidence which actually supports Darwinian/Macro evolution.
– Time and time again I have been disgusted by what I have discovered.
– The number of exaggerations, deceptions and outright frauds promoting Evolution is huge. One classic example is Erst Haeckels “ontogeny recapitulates phylogely” bull. It has been proven fraudulent for decades but it is still in the textbooks today. I am amazed that there is not an outcry about this.
– My challenge to all of you is:
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION IS TRUE?
4) DECEPTION BY DEFINITION
– It is really poor science that the word “evolution” is so vaguely defined that it could mean a variety of things from:
– “change over time” – this is stating the obvious
– “change in response to the environment” = micro evolution; this is also obvious
– Macro evolution which asserts that your great…. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
Macro evolution has not been observed, is not measureable, is not repeatable, YET IT IS ASSERTED THAT IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
This is POOR SCIENCE.
I suspect that the vague definition is there by design to make it easier to defend.
Sorry for being a bit obstinant, but science does not go forward by people just agreeing with the prevailing theories; especially if those theories and ideas have fundamental, scientific problems.
I feel a bit like the boy who said “The emperor has no clothes on!”
Theo Tsourdalakis, there are no real credible scientists presenting powerful arguments to debunk evolution. There are a tiny minority of scientists with deeply religious backgrounds and a strong agenda. Most of them know that their abilities and credentials are not sufficient to get them noticed amongst the scientific community. So instead they tow a line that will get them heaps of funding from fundamentalist church organizations.
I suspect many of them don’t even believe in creationism, they are just mediocre and lazy scientists who value opportunism over integrity. Their arguments have been torn apart time and time again. If this happened on actual scientific terrain where money is awarded on the basis of scientific merit and data their funds would have completely dried up due to total lack of credibility. But church organizations and creationist charities see to it that these tiny minority of nut cases have a very loud voice and can carry on as long as they keep on regurgitating the same old arguments. I suspect the number of creationist scientists barely exceeds 1000 worldwide. What is worse is that only a handful have actual credentials in natural history (many are engineers and applied scientists). But there are literally millions of scientists who believe in evolution. That means less than 0.1 percent of scientists believe in creationism.
So think about what you say when you argue that the battle is between Darwinism and science. In the scientific world the battle does not actually exist. What debate that exists is purely down to funding from non-scientific organizations that look all the more stupid when they have spent their precious dollars on getting a few opportunistic idiots with a couple of credentials to spew out the same old ludicrous arguments time and time again.
Thank you Theo Tsourdalakis for providing such an excellenct example of the cliché nonsense creationists (ID-iots) keep spewing. You really managed to capture the willfull ignorance these people display. Good job.
Theo, why are you quoting Crick out of context? Compare the passage with your selectively edited version, to see what context you omitted:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.” — Francis Crick
If you would read his writings instead of quoting passages out of context, it is clear that Crick (like nearly all other Nobel Laureate scientists) accepted the fact of evolution. Evolution happens, regardless of how life got started. Observed instances of macroevolution (for example, polyploidy) refute your claims.
The statement “The theory of evolution is as scientifically supported as the heliocentric theory of the earth (that the earth revolves around the sun). ” is provably false.
“Evolution” is a vague word.
Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested. The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro evolution which asserts that:
1) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
The co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick admitted,
“The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle,
so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
The battle is frequently misrepresented as science against religion – this is bull. The real battle is between science and Darwinism.
Your Wildy Mistaken. There is no proof of Evolution in the fossil record, all the above pictures are not examples of evolution, and Darwin said himself, that there should be countless, loads full of transitional fossils, mostly transitional fossils. But there isn’t. Its all carbon copies of what we have today, from fish to humans, to leaves to foxes.
http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/
Look it over. Its written in stone. FACT.
The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.
The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Moses”, which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis. The truth has been available for more than 18 years. Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God’s Word.
For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years. The “male and female” in Genesis chapter one was not “Adam & Eve”. Has modern science discovered that yet?
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no valid “supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” that false theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.
Creationism can’t be taught in science class, ONLY BECAUSE there is no one in any school system that is qualified to teach Biblical Creation. The doctrines of current Creationism are both false (old earth), and foolish (young Earth). Both creationist views misrepresent the Genesis text, and should not be part of any curriculum. The point I’m making is that part of the subject matter in biology science class is the advent and extinction of past life forms on Earth, which Creationism does not address. But without offering an opposing view, schools are brainwashing students with the tenets of Atheism, which is both unconstitutional to be state sponsored, and evil.
Current Creationism is ignorant of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists foolishly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded.
The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Moses”. It properly conveys what God was showing Moses, and explains the text of Genesis chapter one.
Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com
http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
In 1999 Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, said on CNN: “I think we should teach a lot about evolution. In fact, I think we should teach more than the evolutionary science teachers want the students to know. The problem is what we’re getting is a philosophy that’s claimed to be scientific fact, a lot of distortion in the textbooks, and all the difficult problems left out, because they don’t want people to ask tough questions.”
But in the ensuing dozen years, how much has really changed in science classrooms?