Any Opposition to Evolution is STUPID

[Simon]

The sticker was meant to be a harmless reminder. All it said was simply: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory and not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Apparently, open-mindedness in Georgia is against the law. Placing those stickers inside the front covers of Cobb county biology textbooks is evidently a crime, according to U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper.

Six parents have sued the Georgia school board over the stickers, claiming that they advance a religious agenda. Judge Cooper agreed with the claim, stating that the labels did not have a “secular purpose,” and therefore were an unconstitutional violation of separation of church and state. An Associated Press (A.P.) news report noted: “A federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit against a school district’s practice of posting disclaimers inside science textbooks saying evolution is ‘a theory, not a fact’” (see “Georgia Evolution…,” 2004). Michael Manely, the attorney who represents the six Cobb county parents, said: “We’re very excited about this.” As well he should be. Only in America can we find a judicial system that would hear such a pathetic argument trumped up under the guise of “separation of church and state.”

The A.P. report goes on to note: “The lawsuit argues that the disclaimer restricts the teaching of evolution, promotes and requires the teaching of creationism and discriminates against particular religions.” With that in mind, let’s revisit exactly what the sticker says:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

And exactly what part of that was discussing religion? Exactly where did it mention creationism? In explaining why he made this ridiculous decision, the judge “noted that while the disclaimer has no biblical reference, it encourages students to consider alternatives other than evolution” Source

Can you believe this? This is amazing. I shoudn't be amazed.. because Phillip Johnson has been saying that this is what naturalists have been doing all along. They're saying that any challenge.. ANY challenge to evolution is eo ipso STUPID.

Nevermind that according to over 30 scientists, including 25 from Georgia, who have submitted a legal brief to the US District Court in the Northern District of Georgia, the courts should not prevent educators from encouraging students to approach the study of evolution with an open mind. (Source) That doesn't matter. Nevermind that many scientists and philosophers (for instance, William Dembski) are predicting that Intelligent Design will overtake Darwinian Evolution as the theory of choice among scientist within the next few years. That doesn't matter. Nevermind that Intelligent Design isn't creationism (For more on that, check out this and this, for starters). None of that matters.

What matters, aparently, is that in America we can sue for anything.. even the right to legislate the idea that the current reigning scientific theory about origins CANNOT BE CHALLENGED - that, in fact, we SHOULD NOT APPROACH IT WITH AN OPEN MIND - that, in fact, to do so is RELIGIOUS, CREATIONIST, PROPAGANDA.

Losers.

Debate topic: should the stickers be removed, why or why not?

[Piper Plexed]

You’re a liar. You’re just an outright liar.

If you can stop doing this, then don’t open your mouth to talk to me. I don’t have time for people like that.

Of course, I don’t really expect you to. You’re obviously one of those people who has little knowledge, and has with that little knowledge already made up his mind.

All three of these comments violate the following rules...
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
13. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.
Rules

[perfessor]

Evolution has not been observed. We have never observed one species evolving into another. Nor have do we find it in the fossil record. Gradualism is wholly unsupported by the fossil record.

Simon, I would like to debate this issue, but in a different thread since it exceeds the bounds of the current thread. Your objections have been discussed in this forum thread. Or, we can start a new one.

If you wish, you can familiarise yourself with some of the information I used for my earlier post:
Regarding observed evolution:go here.
Regarding transitionals:go here.
Regarding gradualism:go here.

[Nyril]

These scientists did not file a brief that said alternatives should be taught. They filed a brief that says student should be taught to approach the study of evolution with an open mind, to think critically and deeply.

I don't think you'll find a scientist on the planet that will disagree with that.

There are many interesting problems of evolutionary theory that are never even thought of being talked about in the classroom – and that is due to stupidity on the part of teachers and administrations.

This is where the problem comes in. All the lists of problems that I've seen, have simply been misunderstandings of science (2nd law of Therm), or outright deceptions (probability calculations). If they would honestly submit these problems and have them peer-reviewed, then I would have no problem with it, but I don't see that happening.

This is an outright lie. Evolution has not been observed. We have never observed one species evolving into another. Nor have do we find it in the fossil record.

Incorrect.

New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; Byrne and Nichols 1999]

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread. [Van Valen and Maiorana 1991]

Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) [de Wet 1971]. One example is Primula kewensis [Newton and Pellew 1929].

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more-or-less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.)

Examples of ring species are:
the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the USA. They form a ring around California's Central Valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi don't interbreed. [Brown n.d.; Wake 1997]
the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but don't interbreed in that part of their range. [Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2001]
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over 50 subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides [Mayr 1942, 182-183]
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta. [Mayr 1963, 510]
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi [Nevo 1999]

Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms which exist only in environments that didn't exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago.
In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water [Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151]
Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Lake Malawi in particular originated in the 19th century and has about 200 cichlid species [Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176].
A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 [Macnair 1989].

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Now, we all take our prescriptions from our doctor and get them filled, because we know that our doctors are experts in their field. We rely on their authority. That’s my point. And you have not refuted that. Instead, you have tried to say that I made an argument that whatever and expert says about something in his field is true. But obviously, that’s not what I did.

We get them filled because we believe them, indeed. We get them filled because we rely on their authority as an expert in their field, indeed. But simply because we rely on that authority, doesn't mean that it has any basis in reality. Our belief in that person doesn't mean that they can't give us something that would kill us in a matter of seconds.

But all you people are completely off the topic. The question is, do you think what is in a biology textbook should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered?

You know, after posting a long rant on evolution in your first question, you're one of the few people that should be posting that.
(this rant)

Can you believe this? This is amazing. I shoudn't be amazed.. because Phillip Johnson has been saying that this is what naturalists have been doing all along. They're saying that any challenge.. ANY challenge to evolution is eo ipso STUPID.

Nevermind that according to over 30 scientists, including 25 from Georgia, who have submitted a legal brief to the US District Court in the Northern District of Georgia, the courts should not prevent educators from encouraging students to approach the study of evolution with an open mind. (Source) That doesn't matter. Nevermind that many scientists and philosophers (for instance, William Dembski) are predicting that Intelligent Design will overtake Darwinian Evolution as the theory of choice among scientist within the next few years. That doesn't matter. Nevermind that Intelligent Design isn't creationism (For more on that, check out this and this, for starters). None of that matters.

What matters, aparently, is that in America we can sue for anything.. even the right to legislate the idea that the current reigning scientific theory about origins CANNOT BE CHALLENGED - that, in fact, we SHOULD NOT APPROACH IT WITH AN OPEN MIND - that, in fact, to do so is RELIGIOUS, CREATIONIST, PROPAGANDA.

[Simon]

Talking to you guys is like throwing pearls before swine. I'm done.

[Corvus]

Talking to you guys is like throwing pearls before swine.

Even if this is a parting shot, this is your second warning to refrain from incivility towards other members. Further infractions may result in the moderators discussing to decide on what course of action to take. It is not necessary to justify leaving a discussion, especially using such hostile and unforgiving words.

As with all moderator messages, if there is any problem with this, you are to take it up in private message.

Thank you.

[Corvus]

These scientists did not file a brief that said alternatives should be taught. They filed a brief that says student should be taught to approach the study of evolution with an open mind, to think critically and deeply.

I don't think you'll find a scientist on the planet that will disagree with that.

There are many interesting problems of evolutionary theory that are never even thought of being talked about in the classroom – and that is due to stupidity on the part of teachers and administrations.

This is where the problem comes in. All the lists of problems that I've seen, have simply been misunderstandings of science (2nd law of Therm), or outright deceptions (probability calculations). If they would honestly submit these problems and have them peer-reviewed, then I would have no problem with it, but I don't see that happening.

This is an outright lie. Evolution has not been observed. We have never observed one species evolving into another. Nor have do we find it in the fossil record.

Incorrect.

New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; Byrne and Nichols 1999]

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread. [Van Valen and Maiorana 1991]

Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) [de Wet 1971]. One example is Primula kewensis [Newton and Pellew 1929].

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more-or-less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.)

Examples of ring species are:
the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the USA. They form a ring around California's Central Valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi don't interbreed. [Brown n.d.; Wake 1997]
the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but don't interbreed in that part of their range. [Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2001]
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over 50 subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides [Mayr 1942, 182-183]
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta. [Mayr 1963, 510]
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi [Nevo 1999]

Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms which exist only in environments that didn't exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago.
In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water [Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151]
Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Lake Malawi in particular originated in the 19th century and has about 200 cichlid species [Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176].
A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 [Macnair 1989].

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

By the way, Nyril, I know it is difficult to resist the temptation, but try to leave the explaining to the appropriate topic. Perfessor did it very well; he linked to a thread and two sources of information on the topic. Kudos to him.

[Jose]

Evolution is a theory and a fact. Evolution the fact has been observed - mutation, selection, speciation - not just in the fossil record, but in the lab and in the present-day world. Evolution the theory is a comprehensive explanation for the evolution we have observed.

This is an outright lie. Evolution has not been observed. We have never observed one species evolving into another. Nor have do we find it in the fossil record. Gradualism is wholly unsupported by the fossil record. You’re a liar. You’re just an outright liar.

Simon--while you may believe that someone in this forum is lying, please refrain from saying so. Personal attacks are not allowed. We are happy to discuss the evidence for evolution, or the evidence that you may have against it--including your claims that it has never been observed, etc etc etc. But we are not going to tolerate personal attacks. Please rephrase your statements that you made to perfessor, and provide your evidence that they are valid.

[Lucifer]

Evolution is a theory and a fact. Evolution the fact has been observed - mutation, selection, speciation - not just in the fossil record, but in the lab and in the present-day world. Evolution the theory is a comprehensive explanation for the evolution we have observed.

This is an outright lie. Evolution has not been observed. We have never observed one species evolving into another. Nor have do we find it in the fossil record. Gradualism is wholly unsupported by the fossil record. You’re a liar. You’re just an outright liar.

Ad hominem attack alert! Ad hominem attack alert!

Yes, evolution has been observed in short-lived organisms such as certain species of flies. They only live for a day, so we can easily get a few generations in a short period of time. Then all we do is provide a plausible reproductive barrier, wait several generations (ie, a week, as opposed to a few million years for more complex organisms with longer life spans), then try to see if they'll interbreed. If they don't, then they've speciated and become different species. That's just a simple example of it. I don't suppose you've heard of transitional forms, have you? Scientists have defined them clearly, but creationists won't accept their definitions. Remember that natural selection and eventually, evolution act on genetic variation. So if you have a bunch of different organisms that interbreed with each other, the variety of organisms that survive best are more apparent than the other ones, and when environment changes, their frequency also changes. So no, the organisms don't necessarily change, only their frequency does. In certain circumstances, extinction may occur.