h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm

" However entertaining the trial in Dayton, Tennessee was, it did not resolve the question of whether the First Amendment permitted states to ban teaching of a theory that contradicted religious beliefs. Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court rule in Epperson vs. Arkansas that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious. The Court used the same rationale in 1987 in Edwards vs Aguillard to strike down a Louisiana law that required biology teachers who taught the theory of evolution to also discuss evidence supporting the theory called "creation science." "

Next!

Ste

"Yeah, I'm an American. I wouldn't know anything about how European schools are run, but I would assume there are large numbers of creationists in europe as well. I know there are large numbers of creationists in the United States."

No, creationists don't make a large section of the population. That'swhy I asked if you were American. We don't have the social history that created something like the Bible Belt where religion is certainly more a part of the people's lives.

Creationism isn't taught in British schools because 1/ Most of us don't believe it and 2/ it doesn't have the science to back it up.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Nice link HPB/Cat/Capt Jack Sparrow! Which name so we use, by the way?

Ste

Most go with HPB.

Actually I was about to apologise for the link because I thought it was a British one. Which it isn't.

*looks again*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/variationandinheritance/3evolutionrev1.shtml

There.

HPB. Ok.

It doesn't get more authoritative than UC Berkeley by the way. I love the way you click through sections then take a little quiz at the end.

On a slightly different note, can you guys access this webpage? I can't tell if it need subscription: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5735/681a

Cheers,
Ste

You need a subscription.

Dammit. Thanks. That was a Science news report to a really cool paper I just read.

I wan't looking for UC Berkeley, I wasn't looking for something that showed the UK school syllabus.

"Of course it does! If something is a scientific fact it gets taught in a science class. Science determines what is true and what is false according to the scientific method. "
Science decides what is true according to science ... do I detect some circular logic there? Science is supposed to operate based on evidence, not according to what "scientists" say. The evidence is contraversial and therefore, inconclusive.

Actually ... I may go back and look at postings I've made on the internet before. I seem to remember advocating once that we keep questions of the origin of life out of science classrooms entirely and focus on how and what things are happening and existing now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
Hasn't conclusively confirmed anything I haven't already acknowledged.
Nerd42

"Science decides what is true according to science ... do I detect some circular logic there? Science is supposed to operate based on evidence, not according to what "scientists" say. The evidence is contraversial and therefore, inconclusive."

Nope. Science is what science is. Simple. Science does operate on evidence, as a part of the scientific method. "Science" also refers to the scientific community as a whole. The community decides on what is real and not real, according to science. This changes over time as new evidence arises. Evolutionary theory has gone through this process in the past and is continuing to today.


"Hasn't conclusively confirmed anything I haven't already acknowledged"

Meaning...


Just to remind you, you said this earlier: "Once again, I do not and have not claimed that creationism is scientific."

So is the debate now on if evolutionary theory is science or not? Let's see what the president of the US National Academy of Science says about science and creation: http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_statement_president_08201999_BA_Kansas_curriculum

"Evolution is not only universally accepted by scientists; it has also been accepted by the leaders of most of the world's major religions."


Ste

Just correcting subject...

"The community decides on what is real and not real, according to science."
Really. Because you see, I was under the impression that science was a system, not a community. One that can be applied by anyone to solve specific problems.

And when I said that the "experimental evolution" mentioned by Wikipedia hasn't conclusively confirmed anything I haven't already acknowledged, I meant that I have learned nothing new by reading it. I don't see the relevence as it has not accomplished the task I mentioned and therefore I stand on my previous arguments. That evolution is not scientific, hasn't been proven, can't be proven and this time I think I'll add something: It shouldn't be taught as science.

And I'm afraid I must repeat myself: Just because the president of the National Academy of Sciences (who obviously agrees with you) says something doesn't mean it isn't contraversial and certainly doesn't mean it's true. The article you linked to contains the phrases "We view" and "has long been an advocate" which is fine so long as one realizes that this is someone's opinion and not objective information.

"Evolution is not only universally accepted by scientists; it has also been accepted by the leaders of most of the world's major religions."
I have already demonstrated that evolution is not universally accepted by scientsts by providing you with a link to a list of scientists. Furthermore, I do not follow the teachings of "the leaders of the world's major religions" and don't see why what they have to say has any relevence as to whether or not the theory of evoultion should be taught in public schools.

Evolution is obviously contraversial, both among scientists and taxpayers. I see no point in further discussion on that question.
Nerd42

"Really. Because you see, I was under the impression that science was a system, not a community. One that can be applied by anyone to solve specific problems."

So you're telling me you've never heard of the "scientific community"? C'mon. And you offer youself up as some kind of expert on what is and isn't science? Please.


"And when I said that the "experimental evolution" mentioned by Wikipedia hasn't conclusively confirmed anything I haven't already acknowledged, I meant that I have learned nothing new by reading it. I don't see the relevence as it has not accomplished the task I mentioned and therefore I stand on my previous arguments."

You previously claimed the evolution was not repeatable in the lab therefore it wasn't science! Experimental evolution is just that. But I guess if you have your Jesus-blinkers on you cannot be helped.


Let's get this clear, ask yourself this question: "What would it take to convince me that evolution happens? What evidence would I need?" 160,000 journal articles is a lot of material to go through, perhaps I can guide you a bit. I am sincerely willing to help you learn.


"Just because the president of the National Academy of Sciences (who obviously agrees with you) says something doesn't mean it isn't contraversial and certainly doesn't mean it's true."

Not for the first time, you clearly missed the point I am making. I'm not saying current evolutionary theory is the absolutely rock-solid truth, the ultimate explanation to all life. I am talking about a within-science thing. ACCORDING TO SCIENCE it is scientific truth. Now, *scientists* think it is *scientifically* true and it has been *scientifically* proved beyond doubt with a TON of evidence accumulated over the years.

Whether you *choose to believe* that evidence or not has absolutely no bearing on the FACT that science see evolution as real. That point is beyond argument and you cannot change their clear conclusion. You can shut your eyes and go "LALALALALA" as much as you want but that fact remains. No amount of imagination on your behalf will change this. You are simply wrong. And that you cannot see this, nor follow simple concepts or even English sentences is frankly alarming.


"Evolution is obviously contraversial, both among scientists and taxpayers. I see no point in further discussion on that question."

It has been demonstrated you are simply wrong. Good day sir. I SAID GOOD DAY.




Ste

If that's the case then I was right about one thing: that I've been over all this before and talking about it with you will only lead in circles.

Only because you are incapable of taking in new ideas.

- You cannot learn what evolution is
- You cannot learn what science is
- You cannot read simple English sentences and respond to what is written
- You redefine any terminology to suit your needs
- You are almost completely ignorant about things you claim to be expert about.

Sad.

Ste

I was just reading the wonderful blog Overheard In New York http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/ and came across this conversation between two New Yorkers:

>>>
Guy: I believe in telepathy. I know everything about psychology.
Girl: Telepathy is not an accepted kind of psychology. My dad's a prominent psychologist.
Guy: Psychologists are torn on telepathy. Take my word as truth...it's real!

--79th & Lexington

Overheard by: Dave
>>>




Ste

Sounds like a parody to me.

You're forgetting once again that I've never said Creationism is scientific. In fact, I've gone so far as to say it isn't. I've also said evolution isn't, for many of the same reasons you claim it is.
Nerd42

The website has been going for a while now. Some of the overheard conversations are really brilliant.

I have recognised that you think creationism is not scientific. I agree with you.

I have demonstrated that evolutionary biology is a science. Your rebuttals are unconvincing to say the least. To disagree, you must be using some previously unknown definition of science. You have previously demonstrated more than once your lack of knowledge of the matter. Perhaps you could clear this up by telling us what *you* think science is?

Also, apologies for the tone of some of my previous posts. I was getting quite frustrated.



Ste

No no, you don't get what I meant by parody - I didn't mean the site, I meant the bits you posted - oh forget it.