Support NeoGAF

[jiggle]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6463091/

Earlier this year, science teachers howled when state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox proposed a new science curriculum that dropped the word “evolution” in favor of “changes over time.”

That plan was quickly dropped, but comic Jimmy Fallon still cracked wise on “Saturday Night Live”: “As a compromise, dinosaurs are now called ‘Jesus Horses.’”


:lol

 

[videogamer]

They can't even use the word "theory" in the proper manner.

 

[Hitokage]

Other "theories" that nobody takes seriously include the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of General Relativity, and Quantum Theory.

 

[JackFrost2012]

Other "theories" that nobody takes seriously include the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of General Relativity, and Quantum Theory.

What about the Theory of Gravity? YOU CAN'T PROVE IT! IT'S A THEORY!

 

[Mama Smurf]

That plan was quickly dropped, but comic Jimmy Fallon still cracked wise on “Saturday Night Live”: “As a compromise, dinosaurs are now called ‘Jesus Horses.’"

:lol :lol

 

[Mermandala]

Maybe they have a point, maybe in Georgia evolution didn't occur. Maybe Georgians should be called Jesus Monkeys or the Eek-Eek Folk. One thing Science has proven through extensive harmonic testing is that the Devil went down to Georgia, he was looking for a soul to steal. Therefore: monkeys have souls.

 

[Manabanana]

Maybe they have a point, maybe in Georgia evolution didn't occur. Maybe Georgians should be called Jesus Monkeys or the Eek-Eek Folk. One thing Science has proven through extensive harmonic testing is that the Devil went down to Georgia, he was looking for a soul to steal. Therefore: monkeys have souls.

:lol :lol

Awesome

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I'm currently working on a project related to this; quite a catharsis. I'm basically taking the Jehovah's Witness book Life-- How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? and responding to specific segments as if it was a post made here... though perhaps a bit nicer. I know there are already well-done responses to it online, but I'm not actually doing any research for mine, so I'm just trying to make points using common sense and knowledge. I'm calling it Life-- How did it get here? Paper or plastic?

 

[Loki]

Maybe they have a point, maybe in Georgia evolution didn't occur.

:lol

The rest of the post veered off in a different direction, but that line made me laugh out loud before I read the rest of the post (which was also funny, but not as funny as the thought that somehow evolution just stopped at some point in Georgia, which is what I initially thought you were saying). :lol

 

[Chony]

I'm currently working on a project related to this; quite a catharsis. I'm basically taking the Jehovah's Witness book Life-- How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? and responding to specific segments as if it was a post made here... though perhaps a bit nicer. I know there are already well-done responses to it online, but I'm not actually doing any research for mine, so I'm just trying to make points using common sense and knowledge. I'm calling it Life-- How did it get here? Paper or plastic?

My dad is hardcore Jehovah's Witness, so I always argue with him. Humans have been around for longer than 6008 years, not every number in the bible is literal (or humans would be 4.5 billion years old). Etc. You can't argue with faith, dont even try, you will either offend someone or get nowhere.

 

[karasu]

Personally I think it's good that people argue against evolution. Maybe it is wrong, maybe a better theory will present itself in the next twenty years. It's not like it'd be the first time. You don't acept shit just because people tell you too. That's almost like what the Christians expect.

 

[explodet]

The way I see it, arguing against evolution is okay, but only using creationism to argue against evolution will make you look foolish in the eyes of the scientific community.

 

[Mermandala]

Ok Loki, but you better not be implying that the Devil didn't go down to Georgia, I won't cotton to that kinda talk. Don't let philosophy cloud reason, no fiddle, even a GOLD one is worth your immortal soul. Crystal Xbox?, get back to me.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

My dad is hardcore Jehovah's Witness, so I always argue with him. Humans have been around for longer than 6008 years, not every number in the bible is literal (or humans would be 4.5 billion years old). Etc. You can't argue with faith, dont even try, you will either offend someone or get nowhere.

The book actually points that out about the Bible not always meaning precisely what it seems to say, while defending Genesis as a "scientifically sound document". :lol My brother's a Witness and we argue all the time, so mostly it's him I'll try to get to read this, though I don't anticipate it'll do anything but just be another step in our path of brotherly arguments.

Personally I think it's good that people argue against evolution. Maybe it is wrong, maybe a better theory will present itself in the next twenty years. It's not like it'd be the first time. You don't acept shit just because people tell you too. That's almost like what the Christians expect.

It's perfectly possible a better theory could present itself. However, for now it's the theory that fits most soundly with the facts as we know them today, and that's how it deserves to be presented.

 

[karasu]

That's true, but you really can't expect people to easily throw away what they believe in just because of the current model being worked under.. Fifty years from now evolution could be seen as childish, much like religon.

 

[Chony]

That's true, but you really can't expect people to easily throw away what they believe in just because of the current model being worked under.. Fifty years from now evolution could be seen as childish, much like religon.

I don't disregard either. I believe in God and science. Natural Selection makes sense, logically anyways. One species jumping to another is a little harder to swallow. The universe is so ultimately complex, we will never understand it all anyways.

 

[Loki]

Ok Loki, but you better not be implying that the Devil didn't go down to Georgia, I won't cotton to that kinda talk. Don't let philosophy cloud reason, no fiddle, even a GOLD one is worth your immortal soul. Crystal Xbox?, get back to me.

:lol

 

[jett]

People need to understand that the Old Testament is an awesome book. An awesome fiction book.

 

[explodet]

Careful there dude, or you'll offend the Great Queen Spider.

 

[soundwave05]

Damn, Georgia isn't even in the 20th century yet. That's just embarrassing.

Even if evolution as a theory is refined as we gain more knowledge, there's really little doubt that the planet Earth is several billion years old, which in itself blows a hole in the basic creationist theory.

But when/if they eventually find life (even microscopic) on planets like Mars, then the sh-t will really hit the fan.

 

[BigJonsson]

Oy vey

 

[cvxfreak]

::rollseyes::

This thread is too funny. :lol

 

[Hitokage]

Personally I think it's good that people argue against evolution. Maybe it is wrong, maybe a better theory will present itself in the next twenty years. It's not like it'd be the first time. You don't acept shit just because people tell you too. That's almost like what the Christians expect.

Of course, it's so easy to say this when you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Even if evolution as a theory is refined as we gain more knowledge, there's really little doubt that the planet Earth is several million years old, which in itself blows a hole in the basic creationist theory.

I think you mean billion.

 

[maharg]

That's true, but you really can't expect people to easily throw away what they believe in just because of the current model being worked under.. Fifty years from now evolution could be seen as childish, much like religon.

And if the people still clinging to evolution will look foolish then, how will the people still clinging to creationism then look?

I don't find this a compelling argument. It's one thing to point out flaws in a current theory, it's quite another to use those flaws as a basis for a complete dismissal of all scientific advancement over the last few centuries.

 

[Hitokage]

karasu isn't actually bringing up any point or flaw. He's dismissively saying that since other ideas have gone by the wayside, evolution will too.

 

[Zaptruder]

All current evidence points towards the world been around.

When will it be disproved?

 

[karasu]

Uh, that's not what I'm saying. There's no reason for the hyper defensive schtick. I'm saying I understand why people are slow to give up on beliefs they may have had their entire lives. Nowhere did I say or insinuate that evolution is wrong. I'm saying that just like creationist look idiotic to a measure of evolutionist now, evolutionist may look idiotic to another brand of scientist tomorrow. So the whole "you're stupid if you don't believe" stuff is ridiculous, on all sides. I'm not saying anything WILL happen, that's why I used words like "could" and "maybe" to denote possibility!

 

[soundwave05]

Sorry meant billions (fixed it), that's a typo. Either way creationism doesn't hold water.

 

[Chony]

All current evidence points towards the world been around.

When will it be disproved?

WTF?

 

[Chipopo]

Well hey, people thought the earth was flat and that was disproved, so logically, the earth being round will be disproved soon enough as well. DUH!

 

[paul777]

All of this stems from the dogmaticism that pervades much of science nowadays. When you teach a scientific theory as if it was incorrigible fact you are just asking to be confronted by other forms of dogma.

 

[maharg]

I agree with you, people who would cling to a belief in evolution if a better more comprehensive theory came around would indeed look stupid.

So.... what? I really don't get your point.

 

[paul777]

Clinging to an unfounded belief isn't necessarily stupid. People cling to unfounded beliefs every single day. What crosses the line, and what makes an outcry against "scientific" dogmaticism all the more justifiable in my eyes, is when you consider your unfounded beliefs as utter fact and somehow superior to other unfounded beliefs.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Well hey, people thought the earth was flat and that was disproved, so logically, the earth being round will be disproved soon enough as well. DUH!

Well, there's some truth to that. People went from thinking of the Earth as a 2 dimensional plane, to thinking of it as a 3 dimensional objects, and more and more we come to think of it as truly being in a higher set of dimensions.

paul777:

Clinging to an unfounded belief isn't stupid. People cling to unfounded beliefs every single day. What crosses the line, and what makes an outcry against "scientific" dogmaticism all the more justifiable in my eyes, is when you consider your unfounded beliefs as utter fact and somehow superior to other unfounded beliefs.

But this is somewhat-founded theory versus people wanting to belittle the theory due to their religious beliefs. I don't see many of us believers in evolution asking that all Bibles have a sticker put on them that says "Christianity is a theory, not a fact."

 

[paul777]

But this is somewhat-founded theory versus people wanting to belittle the theory due to their religious beliefs.

The only logical merit a scientific theory has is falsifiability. That's all that separates it from most other beliefs. Surely, not enough to make it "somewhat-founded."

I don't see many of us believers in evolution asking that all Bibles have a sticker put on them that says "Christianity is a theory, not a fact."

Christianity is not taught in public schools as fact. Scientific theories are.

 

[JackFrost2012]

Christianity is not taught in public schools as fact. Scientific theories are.

Well, since evolution isn't taught in Sunday school, let's call it a draw.

 

[Mike Works]

WTF?

When the world sits around the house, it sits AROUND THE HOUSE!

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The only logical merit a scientific theory has is falsifiability. That's all that separates it from most other beliefs. Surely, not enough to make it "somewhat-founded."

By somewhat-founded I mean there is evidence to support the theory, though as the Witness book I'm reading loves to point out, life from lifelessness has never been shown in a laboratory setting.

Christianity is not taught in public schools as fact. Scientific theories are.

I almost always hear it referred to as the "theory of evolution", rather than the "fact of evolution". Your point about scientific theories in general not being fact is true, but should we put disclaimers about all theories in science texts? Isn't it a given by the word? We don't add "It should be noted that the events in this book did not truly occur." stickers to fiction.

 

[Hitokage]

karasu: Ok, it's 1am and I am NOT in the mood to teach science itself, the history of the theory of evolution, and bring up a litany of reference points. I'll give you the heavily condensed version instead: Newtonian physics was shown to be incomplete by Einstein, Darwinian evolution was shown to be incomplete by Mendel and genetics. Neither are considered fools today.

TO ALL:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

 

[paul777]

By somewhat-founded I mean there is evidence to support the theory, though as the Witness book I'm reading loves to point out, life from lifelessness has never been shown in a laboratory setting.

Evidence doesn't make a belief logical. Which is what I mean by founded. Scientific theories rely on induction, thus its conclusions are illogical from the outset. But this isn't really a bad thing, mind you, as long as science does not purport to be the bringer of truth. Problem is, many people seem to think that science is precisely that.

I almost always hear it referred to as the "theory of evolution", rather than the "fact of evolution". Your point about scientific theories in general not being fact is true, but should we put disclaimers about all theories in science texts? Isn't it a given by the word? We don't add "It should be noted that the events in this book did not truly occur." stickers to fiction.

It should be a given, but it isn't. Like I said in my first post, a spirit of dogmaticism has pervaded much of science in modern days.

 

[karasu]

karasu: Ok, it's 1am and I am NOT in the mood to teach science itself, the history of the theory of evolution, and bring up a litany of reference points. I'll give you the heavily condensed version instead: Newtonian physics was shown to be incomplete by Einstein, Darwinian evolution was shown to be incomplete by Mendel and genetics. Neither are considered fools today.

And again, at 1am, I never said they were wrong or considered fools. I believe it's true for craps sake. What I'm against is the "you're stupid if you don't believe" stuff. @_@

 

[Mandark]

No posting evolution stuff until I read that Futuyma book.

And no using the lol smiley after a Jimmy Fallon quote, even if someone else wrote it for him.

 

[Dilbert]

I'm happy to leave this thead closed, but I had to respond to some sophistry:

Evidence doesn't make a belief logical. Which is what I mean by founded. Scientific theories rely on induction, thus its conclusions are illogical from the outset. But this isn't really a bad thing, mind you, as long as science does not purport to be the bringer of truth. Problem is, many people seem to think that science is precisely that.

Since when is induction "illogical?" I think that's it's pretty well-accepted that inductive logic is a valid form of reasoning. You can discuss whether or not you think that inductive logic produces NECESSARY conclusions (if you're Hume, it doesn't), but to imply that inductively reasoned scientific theories provides no useful value is completely insane.

Every scientist understands that a theory is NOT the same thing as an immutable law of nature, if such a thing even exists. However, I don't see the problem with treating a well-established theory as being "true" for the purposes of colloquial discussion. Anyone who hears any theory as "fact" is making a mistake...but it's THEIR mistake.

It should be a given, but it isn't. Like I said in my first post, a spirit of dogmaticism has pervaded much of science in modern days.

That assertion is utterly unprovable, and therefore meaningless. How the hell would you propose to demonstrate that a "spirit of dogmaticism has pervaded much of science?"