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?

[Nyril]

Nevermind that according to over 30 scientists, including 25 from Georgia

Argument from authority. I can present you with 513 scientists named steve that support evolution.

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.

Nevermind that a major supporter of intelligent design thinks that intelligent design will overtake evolution? Before that happens, we'll need something approaching a hypothesis here.

Nevermind that Intelligent Design isn't creationism (For more on that, check out this and this, for starters). None of that matters.

It is. Even though specific entities are unnamed (It could be space aliens, evil bunnies, etc...) its somewhat obvious that the designer you put in there is god.

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.

You're off a few years, several hundred. You're thinking of the time when the Church imprisoned people for coming up with ideas that were offensive to Theocracy. If you can disprove a theory, go for it, and you'll be given awards beyond mention for disproving an old theory.

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

They don't really bother me, they can stay.

[Simon]

First of all, arguments from authority are only fallacious when the claimed-authority isn't an authority in the area. All other times they are perfectly acceptable. In fact, a ton of what we believe is based on arguments from authority. I dunno why/how the medicine my doctor prescribed works to cure my illness but I take his word for it.. because he's an authority. I hate it when people start naming off the titles of fallacies of logic as if that answers questions raised in the preceding post. That's moronic.

At any rate, you said you could cite scientists who support evolution.. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. These scientists are saying we need to approach this with open minds... they were not making an argument against evolution.

Intelligent Design is not creationism.. that's the position taken in the sources I cited. Simply to say, "it is" is childish. Maybe you can provide detail with your commentary next time.

Regarding your "few hundred years comment", congratulations on being consistently weak. Why don't you try addressing the issues instead of saying, "HE STARTED IT!"

[The Hungry Atheist]

First of all, arguments from authority are only fallacious when the claimed-authority isn't an authority in the area.

I think Nyril's point was that, although the few dozen scientists you mentioned may support the teaching of 'alternative possibilities' to evolution, many more scientists espouse evolution as the most likely theory and maintain that Creationism should be kept to religious studies classes. This 'argument from authority' can work both ways, but the numbers would be in evolution's favour.

Regarding your "few hundred years comment", congratulations on being consistently weak. Why don't you try addressing the issues instead of saying, "HE STARTED IT!"

I'm pretty sure this wasn't what Nyril was saying at all. His point was that scientists don't have a problem with theories being challenged - in fact they tend to do so themselves all the time, if they're practising their craft appropriately - but that Creationism or Intelligent Design ideas should only be given serious consideration in science if there is a genuine challenge to evolution. Most scientists, I believe, do not consider this to be the case. (I don't mean to put words in Nyril's mouth, so do feel free to clarify further if you feel I'm misrepresenting the point you were trying to make here.)

These scientists are saying we need to approach this with open minds... they were not making an argument against evolution.

See, here's the thing. The message on the sticker reads, in part, as quoted above by Simon: This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. On the surface, all this seems to be saying is that criticism of this scientific theory should be permitted, even encouraged, and any new evidence or ideas which seem to support an alternative should be encouraged.

However, if we're going to approach the world with any logical attitude at all, surely this idea should apply to everything. Nothing should be taken absolutely for granted, no theories should be assumed to be a cast-iron guarantee, and anything that better explains our observations should always be considered as a potentially more realistic scenario, whatever the field.

While I agree with the sticker's direct message, I'm not sure that there aren't distinct undertones of pandering to Creationists here. If evolution, one of the subjects of education that's most controversial among certain religious groups, is being singled out in this way, then it doesn't seem to be something that's done simply in the spirit of critical thinking. It seems to be a watered-down version of saying something along the lines of, "You don't have to believe any of this, Genesis could still be true, biologists are only guessing most of this stuff," or whatever the Creationists want to hear.

[perfessor]

“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.”

My problem with this "warning label" is that it manages to make so many mistakes in just one sentence (the second).

Evolution is a theory and not a fact

Wrong. 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. Would we say that gravity is a theory not a fact? Electromagnetism is a theory not a fact? Here's a fact: we know more about how evolution works than we do about either gravity or electromagnetism.

...regarding the origin of living things.

Wrong again. Evolution describes the processes by which species change and develop. Abiogenesis concerns the study of the origin of life. They are different subjects. Much less is known about how life originated on earth - but evolution doesn't cover that.

So I give the sticker a 'D'. Make it accurate, and more comprehensive (for example, listing all natural phenomena about which our knowlege is less than perfect) and like HungryAthiest, I'll lose my objections.

[The Hungry Atheist]

I hadn't even noticed the "regarding the origin of living things" mistake, but perfessor's right on that point. Whether you want to consider it a "fact" is something I'm less bothered by, but classifying it as "just a theory", in the way that many people wish to, seems to relegate the value of a theory almost to vague guesswork and hypothesising. Just because it's a theory, doesn't mean we're not pretty gosh-darn certain about it.

[Nyril]

First of all, arguments from authority are only fallacious when the claimed-authority isn't an authority in the area.

I suppose my last post was a bit hasty, as much as I like to blame real life things, I'll see if I can phrase this better.

Your statement is both correct and incorrect, arguments from authority are those arguments that you would like people to accept on the basis of someone else (either famous or with a presumed degree) accepting them. In this instance you're using the number of scientists, so it is really between argument from authoirty and argument from numbers. However lets examine this on several levels

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example:

"The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a noticeable deterrent effect. To suggest that it doesn't in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous."

First, what field are those scientists in? You're the one that brought up. Does it particularly bother me if a mechanical engineer doesn't believe in evolution? Does it matter in the slightest if a civil engineer doesn't believe in it?

Second, that's very nice that you can provide me with 30 scientists that dislike evolution. Here's 513 named Steve.
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/ar ... 6_2003.asp

I don't expect you to read it because I myself honestly don't read anything people don't care enough to provide a summary of. But the general idea is that the list was made in a half-joking manner, for use in situations where creationists try and summon a list of scientists on their side in order to convince us that evolution is a theory in crisis.

In fact, a ton of what we believe is based on arguments from authority. I dunno why/how the medicine my doctor prescribed works to cure my illness but I take his word for it.. because he's an authority. I hate it when people start naming off the titles of fallacies of logic as if that answers questions raised in the preceding post. That's moronic.

But that doesn't make those arguments right. Simply because your doctor believes that this particular pill is the illness to your cure, does not indeed make it the cure to your illness. Your argument that because a doctor said so it must be true, does not really hold well in reality. Well, my doctor says that your doctor is wrong.

At any rate, you said you could cite scientists who support evolution.. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

Then why even bother citing them in your argument?

These scientists are saying we need to approach this with open minds... they were not making an argument against evolution.

With an open mind...They do, they have, and they will. What you want is an open mind, so long as the conclusion is Intelligent Design. Scientists have approached it with an open mind, and when past parts of the Theory were proven wrong (it was written before we'd discovered DNA for Steve's sake), those parts have been discarded and the Theory has evolved.

Intelligent Design is not creationism.. that's the position taken in the sources I cited. Simply to say, "it is" is childish. Maybe you can provide detail with your commentary next time.

Lets try it again. Ignore anything I've said regarding ID and creationism.

ID should not be taught in science classes because as a theory, it presents no hypothesis that can be checked, tested, or measured. No standards are established for what could lead us to conclude through a double-blind test which things were created and which things were designed, and the entirety of the evidence I have seen for it is not evidence for ID, but rather arguments against evolution.

I think it should stay out of the classrooms because it is not science, not because of anything you can attach to it.

How's that?

[Jose]

Intelligent Design is not creationism.. that's the position taken in the sources I cited. Simply to say, "it is" is childish. Maybe you can provide detail with your commentary next time.

Perhaps it would help if we quoted from the main proponents of Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute (boldface is mine):

excerpts
- The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.

- a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.

- The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

- Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

- Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

I find it very difficult to read this, and conclude that ID is anything but creationism. It seeks to replace science with the Christian view that we were created by God. They come right out and say so.

It is, therefore, pretty clear than the disclaimers are put into textbooks by creationists for the sole purpose of undermining scientific information and advancing one particular religious agenda. This is clearly wrong.

It is also particularly telling, as perfessor has pointed out, that the disclaimers are inaccurate and misleading. They intentionally treat the term "theory" in the way that it is used colloquially--roughly synonymous with "guess"--with the intent to mislead readers into thinking that evolution is a guess rather than one of the most strongly-supported theories in science. They intentionally claim that it deals with the origin of life, when it does not. It seems to me that, if there is to be a disclaimer, it should be at least correctly written, accurate, and not an embarassing display of ignorance.

As for the validity of evolution itself, and whether so-called alternatives should be taught in science classrooms, there is a thread for this debate. It might be good to move some of this discussion to that thread, and consider the positive features of creationism that can be taught scientifically, rather than argue about whose argument is more fallacious and why.

[Simon]

Atheists and Agnostics would much prefer that this is an issue about creationism. Unfortunately for you, it is not. You’re ignoring the issues.

I think Nyril's point was that, although the few dozen scientists you mentioned may support the teaching of 'alternative possibilities' to evolution, many more scientists espouse evolution as the most likely theory and maintain that Creationism should be kept to religious studies classes.

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. 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.

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.

Second, that's very nice that you can provide me with 30 scientists that dislike evolution.

Listen, I didn’t provide you with 30 scientists who dislike evolution. You’re blinded by your made-up-mind about this issue. Wake up. The 30 scientists are not opposing evolution. Read the articles again. (As a side not, many ID proponents do no “oppose” evolution per se. In fact, Michael Behe, one of the leading proponents.. is a hard core evolutionist.)

But that doesn't make those arguments right. Simply because your doctor believes that this particular pill is the illness to your cure, does not indeed make it the cure to your illness. Your argument that because a doctor said so it must be true, does not really hold well in reality. Well, my doctor says that your doctor is wrong.

(First of all, if you choose to converse with me in the future, don’t misrepresent my statements. 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.) 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.

]ID should not be taught in science classes because as a theory, it presents no hypothesis that can be checked, tested, or measured. No standards are established for what could lead us to conclude through a double-blind test which things were created and which things were designed, and the entirety of the evidence I have seen for it is not evidence for ID, but rather arguments against evolution. I think it should stay out of the classrooms because it is not science, not because of anything you can attach to it.

The reason you believe this about ID, is because you have not read and understood about ID. Read books by Behe, Dembski, and read everything you can at sites like http://www.iscid.org/ http://www.discovery.org/csc/ and http://www.reasons.org 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.


Jose, what are you quoting? Provide a source. I don’t see that quote as representing ID theory – maybe with some a certain group of ID proponents, and I certainly don’t see it linking ID with creationism. I can find some quote from a group of proponents of evolution that says something like, “all black people should be killed because they are inferior biologically” but that would not discredit the theory of evolution.


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? Yes or no? Forget about the stickers.. I don’t think the stickers are of any value per se (I think there are some biology textbooks that ought to be thrown out altogether – and many evolutions agree with that 100%).. but the stickers, I think, were used as a tool to raise a larger issue. Do you think what is in a biology textbook should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered? Answer the question.

[perfessor]

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.

Whoa - settle down there, friend. Did I attack you? No - just the wording of the warning label. So don't take it personally. I'm at work now, but when I get home I'll reference my sources, and maybe you can call even more people names.

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? Yes or no? Forget about the stickers.. I don’t think the stickers are of any value per se (I think there are some biology textbooks that ought to be thrown out altogether – and many evolutions agree with that 100%).. but the stickers, I think, were used as a tool to raise a larger issue. Do you think what is in a biology textbook should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered? Answer the question.

Yes - which is why the sticker is completely unnecessary.