firstpusk

WHEELIE you have a very shallow understanding of the issues that you discuss. You sound like soundbite journalism or if you will the ancient version a Sophist. You have nothing to add to the scouting program. While you grouse about something that you don't understand, good scouters will help young men become good citizens and leaders for the future.

A skeleton walks into a bar. He says to the bartender, "Gimme a beer and a mop."

WHEELER, You seem to like quotations, so I will give you three. Why would the BSA have a merit badge for Citizenship in the World? No man is an island, entire of itself every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee. -- John Donne Concerning your quote barrages, that often show only the most feeble understanding of the topic at hand. It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.-- Mark Twain I have been a scoutmaster for many years and a counselor for Citizenship in the World. It would be difficult to misconstrue the badge more completely than you do. When I consider the value that I put on your opinions, especially with respect to the program of the BSA, only T.R. can express my opinion. It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. -- Theodore Roosevelt

Quid pro quo, Buddy, quid pro quo. I have little regard for getting stars. Blame my early Catholic education. I get a kick out of who it is that rates the post. Doesn't take to much imagination to figure out who is giving the thumbs down. Of course, they don't have the imagination, guts or capability to effectively challenge the post you wrote. I think it frustrates them and I feel that is my gift to them.

The French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting in a cafe when a waitress approached him: "Can I get you something to drink, Monsieur Sartre?" Sartre replied, "Yes, I'd like a cup of coffee with sugar, but no cream". Nodding agreement, the waitress walked off to fill the order and Sartre returned to working. A few minutes later, however, the waitress returned and said, "I'm sorry, Monsieur Sartre, we are all out of cream -- how about with no milk?"

"I think this is a highly intelligent person who is lost and loves to show off his/her/its superior knowledge!" Ed, I think you are being quite charitable on several counts. However, I do agree with you on the lost part.

"I don't want to slay the messenger, but I do expect messengers, especially self-annointed ones to be accurate and precise." No need to worry, he commits intellectual suicide each time he tries to express his ideas. ;^)

Ed, the book is also known as Ecclesiasticus and is one of the deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible. The imfamous WHEELIE can't even spell the name of his favorite goldslinger McAlvany correctly. McAlvany is popular in the survivalist community. Looks like he found a kindred soul to quote for his fearful fantasies. BTW, McAlvany, Donald S. (1998). The Y2k Tidal Wave: Year 2000 Economic Survival Phoenix: Western Pacific Publishing Co. can be picked up used on Amazon for 29 cents. When will his publications drop to their actual value - less than the paper on which they are printed.

Descartes walks into a caf and sits down ready to order. A waiter comes up to him and asks, "Do you need a menu?" Descartes replies, "I think not," and he disappears!

"Creation is an historical event. It did happen. Creation does not dismiss dinosaurs and the fossil record. All life came from God though. We have the same DNA as animals because God created them all." Creation may not dismiss dinosaurs, if you disregard the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, we have no record of dinosaurs in the Bible. It doesn't explain anything about their existence or their extinction. The discovery of dinosaurs did cause quite a stir in the early 1800's. It did not fit their creationist perspective. Since then, creationism has evolved (pun intended) to try to fit the science when it could not be denied. I do not deny God or his power. It is simply clear that His creative efforts had to have used evolution over vast periods of time. Your DNA argument goes to the heart of your problem. You say DNA is as it is because God created it that way. That explains nothing nor is there any reason to accept that explanation besides it being comforting to you. If you look at the evolutionary perspective, the similarity of the chimp and human DNAactually makes sense. Animals that were found to be related on the basis of morphology, behavior and intellectual capacityare also very similar in the DNA sequences. "Philosophy, which is a science, proves the story of Creation. You disregard the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you disregard the God who made the scriptures." You claimed that philosophy proves the story of Genesis, from your first post onward. You have yet to make any case whatsoever. In fact, you seem to have admitted that speciation does occur and has been observed. You have also seem to have admitted that the story of creation must be accepted on faith not in God but in your particular literalistic reading of Genesis. Now you accuse me of disregarding God. When all else fails, poison the well. Is that the best you have? I am not impressed. The only thing you have proven is you fear honestly examining the issue and you don't understand evolution. "Life begats life. All living things came from a direct creation of God. Speciation did not make apes into humans Sorry." Life does beget life. You have accepted that evolution occurs. You have admitted that you have no scientific evidence for the creation story. You don't want to believe that humans and apes share a common anscestor, that we ARE apes. Here is a nice timeline from the PBS Evolution site. It provides pictures of the fossils hominid, where it appears on the timeline, where it was found and information about the species. The fossils go back a lot farther than a few thousand years. You can see the change from apelike characteristics to more human over time.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

"Philosophy proves the creation story true?" That was the question I asked myself when you wrote, "Philosophy debunks evolution and Philosophy supports Creationism." I'm still wondering where is the beef. "No man has seen quarks but they are there. No man can see atoms but they are there and the very name atom comes from the Greek thinkers, WHO THRU LOGIC, saw that things are made up of smaller units." Yep, and these same ancients came up with evolution "THRU(sic) LOGIC". "Look how philosophy of the Greeks came up with atoms. Not exact but the concept of them." But philosophy can only take you so far with logic. Both atomic and evolutionary theory could not be fleshed out with the methods the Greeks were using. They needed the scientific method to develop what modern scientists have achieved. There method did not even produce a meaningful hypothesis because they could not effectively test their ideas. "If the mind is intelligent, isn't it intelligent enough to communicate with us?" Not sure what you are getting at here. "To Firstpusk, Truth does not contradict truth. Scriptural truth is in harmony with physical truth. Both were created thru the Logos of God." Nice little sound bite, truth does not contradict truth. What is the translation, WHEELER is right and firstpusk is wrong - PERIOD, NO BACKS! The problem you have is that you have painted yourself into a corner by denying that any idea or fact that denies a literal reading of Genesis is somehow wrong. There is powerful truth in the creation story that cuts to the heart of what it is to be human. The power of these passages is not that there is historical or scientific accuracy there. "God is wiser than me, I will believe God." Faith in God does not require the denial of evolution. If your literal reading is true, why would God salt the earth with fossil and geological evidence of an ancient earth and billions of years of the history of evolution? God is indeed wise, but we are created in his image with a mind and spirit that seek truth and knowledge. We can not turn back and go back to a time before we sought understanding. The mind that God has given us is like the talents granted the sevant - we must use it to seek truth and deepen our understanding. In that way, Darwin was a good and faithful servant.

"I have to disagree Firstpusk. After discussing creation, Wheeler than stated, "Human reasoning can not know this; only divine revelation, 'revealed' it to us. " Seems to me he acknowledges creation as described in the Bible is not science but faith and cannot be proven. SA" Hey, its a free country, so disagree if you want to. Go back to his initial post. He made claims that he could refute evolution and establish creationism as more scientific using philosophy with one hand tied behind his back. He started this, not me. He has already admitted that species evolved in an earlier post. In this one, he seems to admit that it is some form of divine knowledge that gives him insight into creationism. It seems that he has no scientific basis for his belief in creationism. That is fine with me. His personal beliefs are of no concern to me. If he wants to say it is science, that is another matter.

"I did not descend from an ape nor did I descend from a common ancestor that produced apes and man." Denying reality does not change who your relatives are whether you like it or not. I am an ape you aree an ape and your parents are apes. A recent analysis of chimp and human DNA found it was nearly 99% the same. We are the most intellectually capable animals on earth our close relatives are next. We have a rich history of our anscestors. What were these creatures? How do you explain that they much like us yet the further we go back in time the more ape-like characteristics they have? "I am a creation of God. God made a form from the mud, and BREATHED into it spirit. All men are reproductions of this first man. We have differentiated into races but we are all created." So it appears that you accept the creation story in Genesis chapter 2. What scientific evidence do you have to support your view that this is historically and scientifically correct? May I also take it that you then believe that the account in Genesis chapter 1 is not accurate? What scientific evidence do you have to support this conclusion? "Human reasoning can not know this; only divine revelation, 'revealed' it to us." Actually, human reasoning does perfectly fine when applied to the problem of our origins. It seems that many fear truly examining the evidence. They like you seem to fear that existence of God is dependent on a slavish adherence to Biblical Literalism and Inerrency. God doesn't need to be protected from the truth. "Modern day understanding of evolution is that we descended from animals. And those animals from the sea. Wrong." How do you know that. The fossil record is quite clear. Life on earth is 3 billion years old, not 6-10 thousand. The development of life shows that forms evolved in the seas first and populated the land much later. Can you enlighten me about the scientific evidence for your position? "God made every primary form breathed life into it and from there every specific form differentiated." Did this happen all at the same time or did God stretch this out over, say, 3 billion years? It is clear that this did not happen at the same time if you look at the evidence. Just how old do you think the world is? "Life begats life. Only something living can produce something living. Dead material can not produce living material." And you have now been told three times, this is not evolution. This is: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 "All life is organization. Organization comes about thru intelligence. Every life form has been planned and executed. God is a potter. This is the key though, if we are created by God then we belong to Him. If we evolutionized, then we are our own God. That is why the THEORY of evolution is the basis of every socialism. Socialism is the rebellion from God." Argument by analogy courtesy of the prophet Isaiah. Listen, accepting evolution has nothing to do with the denial of God. We do not know everything about how God created the world or the life on it. However, we do know that although the creation stories in Genesis are compelling and beautiful they should not be taken as historically or scientifically accurate. If they are God's explanation of exactly how things happened, why did God allow two to be put into Genesis with one in chapter 1 and another different one in chapter two? There are wonderful moral lessons in these stories just not any science. This is the level of understanding these folks had. We are blest by having this tremendous brain that allows us to understand and describe this beautiful creation. BTW, your comments on evolution, creation and socialism shows you have the same depth of understanding of politics you have of evolution and philosophy.

"I understand differentiation. I read about the alleles in Scientific America. I understand how species get developed." Actually, I don't think you do understand the development of species. We have evidence of speciation that have been observed. That is why I gave you the link in the first post I wrote. In each case, the evolution of a new species was documented. That IS evolution in action. "When people speak of evolution, they mean land animals crawled out of the sea. And sea animals mysteriously formed out the mud of the earth and the bottom of some lagoon?" That is rather imprecise for the philosopher that you fancy yourself, now isn't it. I gave you a more precise definition. If you choose to muddy the waters with such as this, how am I to help you to understand. The history of life goes back more than 3 billion years. Land animals - insects, amphibians, reptiles and mammals all come from earlier life in the sea. That is definitely part of the story. But the engine that drives that story is descent with modification through natural selection. The theory that Darwin proposed in 1859. As time has passed, our understanding of this critical process and the evidence that supports it has only grown. "Nothing you said in your first post said where life came from. Where did the first species come from? Where did the first cell come from?" That is a good question. As I stated in the first post, the ultimate origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution, that is abiogenesis. By 3 billion years ago, the story of life had already started. The first traces of life we find in the fossil record are not the original species. We do, however, see certain things that help us to understand something about the origin. All life shares a common code, DNA, that defines all life that carries it. Species that share a common history in the fossil record also share a tremendous amount of common genes, i.e., us and chimps are more closely related than chimps and orangs. The history of life starts with single cell creatures that only grow more complicated after vast amounts of time - around two and a half billion years. "I understand that one can make 50,000 different species of bacteria from a single bacteria form. But after 50,000 changes, the bacteria is still a SINGLE cell life form. It didn't change into a two cell living organism. So how do you suppose, one cell grew into a mamoth whale?" So you agree that we have seen speciation. Good, you are making progress. You have admitted that evolution occurs. It is exactly this process of one species branching into others that portrays the history of life on earth that evolution explains. One cell the zygote produces this huge creature. That is the only time that "one cell grows into a whale". Yes, it did come through countless millions of generations from those single celled precursors, as did we. For an understanding of the more recent ancestors of whales, check out this link. http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

"Yet with using Aristotelian philosophy I can completely refute evolution theory. It has nothing to do with religion." Perhaps this is possible, but you would have to figure out what actually is evolution. Your initial post on this subject indicates that you currently lack this understanding. In order to properly apply the Aristotelian method one must correctly categorize the problem. I pointed to a few of the problems in your intitial post. You don't seem to really have an interest in actually learning about evolution. Instead you seek to improperly apply the method of Aristotle to a straw man of your own making. You said that truth is timeless. That might be, but I am not sure exactly what you were trying to say. The one thing I do know is that our understanding of the world DOES change. In your initial post on this thread you said that philosophy says that like produces like. In a way, that is true. My sons and daughter have much in common with me in terms of trait and temperment. Yet they are different each is unique. The difference in individuals within a species is the basis for the power of evolution to produce change. Take a look at this link, I think it can help you to understand the notion I am talking about. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/species.html

Philosophy says, Like produces Like. Evolution says dirt, which is dead produced life. How can something dead produce something living? "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 Note that the definition of evolutionsays nothing about dead dirt producing life or the origin of life for that matter. Instead, evolution addresses the development and diversity of life over the history of the planet. Speciation happens. Read about instances of obseved speciation at: If you want the story that talks about life coming from dead dirt, try the Bible - Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. As for the Catholic Church, I suggest that you read the statement by Pope John Paul II Evolution says that humans descended from apes. Evolution indicates that apes and man share a common ancestor. This is confirmed by morphology, genetics, the fossil record, biochemistry and behavior. Apes do not have the potentiality to produce humans. Since in terms of taxonomy, humans ARE apes, the statement is more than a little silly. Evolution says Animals souls produced humans souls. Evolution does not address the quetion of the soul. It is a perfectly valid question for theology or philosophy, but not for science. It is not testable or objectively observable, hence not addressed by science. Talk with your minister, priest or rabbi about it. Aristotle disproves evolution in his book of Metaphysics. It is this Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy that is taught in all Roman Catholic Seminaries. Read the statements from the Pope. I dont think he agrees with your assessment of evolution. I receivedmy undergraduatefrom a Catholic university, funny I was taught evolution and Thomist philosophy. Philosophy says Form comes first. The chicken comes before the egg. The egg is the reproduction of the form. Evolution says the egg came first. If the egg is a reproduction , how can it exist before the thing (form) it reproduces? And placentas came before humans, big whoop. Eggs are and have been used by a myriad of species as a means of reproduction. Obviously, chickens share a common ancestor with amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals and yes, even humans. The egg is the form use to pass on genes by the species utilizing sexual reproduction. Evolution is all based on chance. Mutations are random. Natural Selection is not. Those individuals that are best adapted to their environment survive to reproduce. Those that are not will not have their genes passed on to the next generation. No Church Father upheld evolution. All of the church fathers you site did not have the benefit of the science and the evidence you do. They have an excuse for denying the truth of the Theory of Evolution, you dont. Augustine did not support preaching ignorance as the basis of scripture and faith. He scolded the likes of you in the early days of the church. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. The Literal Meaning of Genesis St. Augustine, 390 AD Spontaneous Generation I thought was disproved in the 18th Century. Evolution is just this, Spontaneous Generation a billion years ago. Evolution is not spontaneous generation. I gave the definition of evolution earlier in this post. The foundation of Socialism and Nazism come more from Mathus and Nietche respectively. Accepting evolution does not deny the importance religion, the Bible or the fallen nature of man. Religious faith is a separate issue. (This message has been edited by firstpusk)(This message has been edited by firstpusk)(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

North was at the center of policies that promoted torture, terrorism, assassination and mass murder. There is strong evidence that the operation was involved in extensive drug trafficking. For the life of me, I can not understand any scouter supporting this man speaking at a scout function.

Teaching that people believed the world was flat is in no way necessary to teach geography. The ancients proved the earth was round. The educated understood that the world was not flat. The same is true for creationism. I do agree with you that there are children that refuse to accept the theory of evolution. I think it has a lot more to do with the willingness of creationist to promote any lie, regardless how vile if they think it will help their case. The conspiracy theory you mentioned is just such a lie that is wildly asserted by many creationists, even many of the more respectable intelligent design variety. These children are told that you can not believe in God and accept evolution. They are given simplistic mantras to repeat when confronted with evidence for evolution like, "Were you there?" These lies cause many young people a crisis in faith when they realize that their parents, pastors and youth ministers have all lied to them. I have seen this in some of my scouts. Yes, a teacher can introduce creationist ideas into public school science classes. It happens every school day in this country. But is it science? No, it is religious indoctrination and has nothing of value to add to the class. Beyond that, such "harmless" background material is exactly the kind of cover I have seen unethical teachers use to promote creationism. You may feel that my opposition is unreasonable. You may be right. However, I do not want tax dollars to support religious ideas of a specific faith as science, especially when there is no evidence to support the position.

"It doesn't really matter if it is a science class or a comparitive cultures class. The teachers are still agents of the government. They are both limited by the exact same constitutional provisions. Therefore if it is legal for one to do it is legal for the other to do. (Though state and local law on curriculum requirments might change that from place to place. I am focusing on the federal constitutional argument.)" I agree let's just focus on the federal arguments. The quote on the lemon test I gave you was from a federal court decision striking down the "balanced treatment" law in the state of Arkansas. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html "There is nothing false about teaching that some people believe that something happened according to such and such theory." Implying that creationism was a scientific theory is problematic. There are also folks that believe that the world is flat, but we don't teach that as science. "If teaching what some groups of people believe was illegal comparitive religions classes would be illegal. Most philosophy, culture, and history classes would also be illegal. There is nothing in the federal constitution that prevents a math teacher from spending class time on geography. Similarly there is nothing that prevents the science teacher from talking about creationist views within the proper context of being what some people believe. Teaching it in place of evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as being backed by the same scientific evidence as evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as an alternitive quasi-scientific belief held by certain people would be perfectly legal. Now if the science teacher were to teach that all faithful Christians or Jews or Muslims believe creationism that would be a illegal." When the science teacher introduce "ideas that some people believe", he implies that there is some scientific standing for these ideas. "There is very carefully made distinction between teaching some belief, theory, or viewpoint as truth and teaching it as one alternative within a comparitive context. The fact that creationism is so commonly held in place of evolution would perhaps be a good reason to compare and contrast the arguments for each. Otherwise those students not exposed to the debate could easily be convinced later that they were taught lies when they are presented with evidence for some alternative view. In fact I have known a couple of people that have in fact been convinced that the entire goverment is trying to destroy religion because of the way evolution and the big bang are sometimes taught. I personally think that is a bit of a stretch, but then again I don't really have complete faith in the goverment either (though not for those reasons)." It is not "a bit of a stretch. That view is wholly irrational and baseless. "If you can make a reasonable argument that teaching creationism in the form of an alternative belief that some people hold I will listen. However, I think you will have a hard time doing so. Certainly there are a wealth of court cases on the issue, but most are relating to cases where creationism was taught as truth, as the leading scientific theory, as simply what the Bible says about creation, or given equal time without regard to the volume of evidence for each. I suspect a case cannot be found where creationism was ruled illegal when it was taught within what I would define as an appropriate context. (That context, I think, may be found by examing the various posts on this subject that I have made.) However, even if a court case is found on the issue that does not prove that creation is illegal. It would certainly lend strength and support to the argument, but it is not proof." The situation in Missourri and Georgia are both efforts to teach creationism as science. Clearly that has been found a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. I am not sure how someone would justify teaching a non-scientific, religious "theory" of the diversity of life without claiming a factual or truth basis. As I said earlier, the fact that someone, somewhere believes the world is flat does not mean that we should teach that in either geography, earth science or astronomy.

Those that are seeking to teach creationism or intelligent design do not want it taught in some kind of comparative cultures class. They want to give it equal footing as a scientific explanation for the development of the diversity of life. This position is not a scientific explanation. It is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, it is a religious belief. I have spent nearly twenty-five years studying this issue. My brother in law brought it to my attention soon after his conversion to a fundamentalist sect. I have been polite with him and other creationists. I have never refused to consider an argument or read an article, pamphlet or book they have brought me. My study has led me to the conclusion that there is not a single tenable scientific argument in favor of creationism. This issue has been to the US Supreme court. They have rule that teaching creationism in science classrooms violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment because it fails the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) which states: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion ...; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." [ Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. at 40.]" McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Judge Wm. R. Overton People still believe that the earth is flat, the Holocaust didn't happen and that the KKK is an organization of good Christian men. Any public school teacher that gave credence to any of these views would be abusing there authority as an agent of the government. So to with science teachers arguing that creationism has some validity. By the way, as much as I would like it if biology teachers savaged position creationist in class, they to would be violating the Establishment Clause because they would be inhibitting religion. (This message has been edited by firstpusk)

"Evolution on the micro scale can be proven quite easily. However, on the macro scale it has not, and likely can not be proven." Science is tentative. Theories are never proven. They are either accepted, rejected or revised. The macro/micro thing is a long standing creationist ploy. They can't deny that populations change over time in response to their environment. The examples are too numerous and too strong. Instead, they try to say that adaptation is true, but the fruit fly that changed so drastically in the lab is still a fruit fly. They claim that there is some limitation on the changes that won't allow for macroevolution. Check out this link that documents 29 evidences for macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ "So while we can prove that there are changes within a species from one generation to another, we can not prove that humans evolved from some single celled thing in the primordial ooze." There are multiple cases of observed speciation as noted in these two articles. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html The theory of evolution does not claim that humans evolved from a single celled thing out of the primordial ooze. The initial start of life on earth happened billions of years ago and the geological record leaves scant clues. Primordial ooze is a separate issue, that of abiogenesis or the origin of life. Evolution is the change of life over time. We did evolve but not out of the ooze or from single celled organism, but from a hominid that looked alot like us. "Teaching creationism is also not necessarily illegal. Teaching it as absolute fact quite likely would be illegal. Also, teaching it as the leading scientific theory would perhaps be illegal. It would certainly be illegal to teach it as the only acceptable religous view on the origin of the universe and/or the origins of life. However creationism can very easily be taught in the form of, "and then there are some people that believe that this is how life originated" followed by a lengthy teaching about what those people believe, why they believe it, and what evidence there is to back up the belief. That might not be a very good way to teach science, but it wouldn't be illegal." The teacher is acting as an agent of the government. As such, they are not to promote religion or to teach a specific religion. Creationism of any stripe is based on the religious beliefs of specific kinds of evangelical Christianity. The courts have been quite consistent about indicating that teaching creationism is teaching religion. The teachers I have come across trying to promote it have changed there tune pronto when informed of the legal implications. Teaching creationism is illegal in the public school science classrooms of the United States.

Proud Eagle, I agree that teaching creationism is not going to fly as an official policy. However, it is frequently taught in public school classrooms. I know of several instances where teachers have dismissed evolution and taught creationist arguments to my child. Interestingly enough, it was not in science but in math class. He was coaching the fundamentalist kids on arguments to use in biology class. It is quite common for local preachers or youth ministers to do the same. Parents will also press teachers so that they feel a need to accomodate such beliefs. Teachers that I know have been faced with intimidation, i.e., loss of tenure, shunning and late night obscene phone calls for not being creation friendly. Teachers understand that many of their students fell threatened by evolution, yet their job is to teach them the science they will need to cope with the world they will live in. Evolution has occurred and continues. That is a fact that cannot be disputed unless one willfully ignores the evidence. However, the truth of evolution does not deny the existence of God. I have been called a pagan by anti-evolution activists because I defend the teaching of science only in public school classrooms. I have been called a liar by scouters on this board because I accept the truth of evolution and defend it and my belief in God. Teaching intelligent design is only the first step toward removing evolution from the classroom. Those behind the campaigns in MO and GA have tried to do the same in my home state of Minnesota. It looks like we may stop them this time. But they don't ever seem to quit, even though teaching creationism in public school science classrooms is illegal.

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Charles Darwin The Origin of Species

I read the article from the Post-Dispatch. acco40, I wouldn't feel to bad about this attempt in Missouri. Similar efforts have been made in many states. They lost trying to ban evolution. They lost on creation science and equal time. They have lost all the way to the US Supreme Court - more than once. They now come out with intelligent design a negative argument that could mean space aliens or any supernatural power you want to pick created the world and all the life on it. Don't ask when or how, they won't be pinned down. If they tell you what they actually believe, they have to make a positive argument which they cannot and never will be able to support. Make no mistake, this is a religious movement using political power to confuse students about what actually is and is not science.

Bats right Throws right Writes right Shoots left (ice hockey) Paddles left