Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for September 28, 2011

What is geology but looking at a bunch of rocks?

Let me try to forestall DKP (Dunning-Kruger Parrot) by writing a comment for him.“More liberal condescension. Rick Redfern dismisses Intelligent Design as if evolution were scientific fact. Gov. Perry doesn’t waste his time arguing with pointy-headed professors. He just reminds them that they can’t expect taxpayers to bankroll their blatantly political agenda.”Dobrya nochj.

I’m sorry, but that’s (panel 3) not true. All science is still valid and pertinent. While there are some “believers” whose narrow minded and uninformed ideas contradict science, there are many more who actually have a better understanding of what scripture actually says. For example, it does not say that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago. It does not say that Adam was the first human. It is amazing to me how the “unenlightened” viewpoints get all the press.

(1) It’s evilution to his gubernatorial highness.. (2) Maybe it’s time to start flagging some of the more heinous personal attacks, whether or not they come from the parrot.

The belief that the world 6000 years old is based on the Jewish calendar. The first day of the first year of the Jewish calendar is believed by some to be when the earth was created.

Yesterday’s comment re GBT never criticising Democrats.Three observations. Firstly, living in the UK, sometimes I have never heard of these politicians, so I don’t know which party they belong to. However the reaction of some posters makes it clear whom is a Republican! Secondly, Lacey Davenport, long time Doonesbury character, a politician with principles and a Republican. Thirdly, GBT considered using a ‘coin flip’ as an icon for Bill Clinton.To misquote “Methinks you protest too much”Mike G

What GT actually used as an icon for Clinton was a waffle.

If you do not assume that the “creation” of 6,000 years ago was the creation of the universe, but only the creation of (for lack of a better term) this “earth age”* (no, I’m not Adventist), you remove many stumbling blocks. The Earth is as old as science says it is, and that does not contradict my understanding of scripture.Here is one clue: In the beginning of Genesis 1:2, the Earth was not “without form, and void.” It became “without form, and void.”*Or, better yet, the beginning of the conditions, and seed line through which God’s plan for us would come to fruition.

Boy, do I miss being able to space for paragraphs.

Once again Darwin was wrong, the chimp is smarter than we are.

Considering how terribly Perry did at Texas A&M, I truly don’t find this strip all that far-fetched.

Gov. Perry typically sets up a cute school kid on camera ask him if he “believes in evolution” or if he believes evolution should be taught to kids (obviously like him) in school. Perry then has a photo-op of him telling the kid he believes BOTH evolution and scientific creationism should be taught.

Don’t worry too much Rick. Those scientific disciplines (and green technologies too) will continue to exist whether US politicians and population accept the truth of proper science or not. If you guys don’t do it, the products from the industries based on them will continue to flow…. from China, India, Europe. The Lord won’t provide, but the rest of the world will happily pick up the slack (and the profits).

Gov. Perry typically sets up a video-byte in which a carefully selected cute school kid asks him whether evolution or creation science (or scientific creationism or intelligent design) should be taught in public school. His gubernatorial highness then gets to answer that BOTH theories should be taught.Just never you mind that the theory of evolution is scientific to the core and the theory of six-day creationism, six thousand years ago (complete with Noah’s worldwide flood two thousand years later) isn’t scientific at all. The first loser is evidence-based science, and the winner is scientifically-disproven ideology. The second loser is America’s school kids. The third loser — vis-a-vis China, etc. — is the United States of America

Ussher’s chronology provides the following dates for key events in the Biblical history of the world:8

 4004 BC – Creation 

2349-2348 BC – Noah’s Flood 

1921 BC – God’s call to Abraham 

1491 BC – The Exodus from Egypt 

1012 BC – Founding of the Temple in Jerusalem 

588 BC – Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity 

4 BC – Birth of Jesus Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

As I’ve said a number of times on this website, I believe that God created evolution. The book of nature (science) accounts for the where and when and how of evolution; and the book of God (Bible) accounts for the Who and why.

If you don’t read the pokerfaced parrot, you won’t be tempted to reply in kind.

No one is actually working on trying to prove the evolutionary theory. That debate was settled long ago in the scientific community. Nothing is beyond question if someone discovers evidence that points to a different conclusion, but no one has. Today’s research focuses on the whys, hows and whens of evolution, not it’s existence. The primary evidence for creationism would be the existence of a creator, and, so far, that is completely a religious matter. Genesis might be as much of the truth as an ancient audience could handle. Today we know much more. Millions of Christians have accepted Genesis as allegorical. If you accept God’s omnipotence, how can you say a particular means of creation is beyond him? Maybe he decided to use a Big Bang and millions of years of evolution to create us along with the universe we inhabit. It sounds a little more creative than individually molding each of several million species.

Some one does not understand cration science it seems. The science courses would still the same, but the reason behind them would be a little different.

As a wise man has said, you can take the Bible seriously, or you can take it literally, but you can’t do both. Bishop Usher calculated the creation to have taken place in 4004 B.C., by counting the stated age of the patriarchs, etc. Whether his calculations or the rabbis calculations are correct is irrelevant when large swathes of people believe those figures. For millennia is was believed that when God made man in his own image, that meant that God had two legs and two arms and five fingers on each hand, etc. Better informed people these days do not look for truth in quite the same way in the Bible. They look for moral and spiritual truths, which do not necessarily operate by the rules of objective history or physics. The value of the book of Jonah is no more dependent, or of Job, is no more dependent on the literal accuracy of the narrative, than the parable is dependent upon there actually having been a “good Samaritan.” If I were to say that natural selection was the means that God chose to bring about the unfolding of his creation, you could call that “intelligent design”. Biology does not disprove a supernatural agency “behind” it all, and relatively few biologists claim that it does. Darwin was not an atheist. Biology rather asserts that such an agency is unnecessary to explain life as we find it. Intelligent design as it is usually presented today denies that fact, and asserts that life as we find it is evidence for, even proof of, a supernatural agency. Scientific knowledge is of a limited nature, built up from the collection and analysis of data. ID may be true in a sense, but it is not science, and it has no foundation in science, is not a scientific truth. The biography and psychoanalysis of Henry Ford is not part of the field of automotive engineering, and should not be taught in engineering classes. ID has no place in biology classes. I have no objection to religion, and I have no objection to science. I object strongly to those who don’t know the difference between the two.

The Bible is a refection of the world view at the time of the people who wrote the Bible. Thus, for example, the table of nations in Genesis would not include the American Indians because the people who wove the Bible together knew nothing of the Western Hemisphere. Note that the 5,712 year of the creation roughly coincides with the keeping of written records in the middle east.

46 comments already? I think I’ll skip today’s monkey trial.

While both Trudeau and “Doughfoot” sound very well informed and are certainly articulate, neither has a clue. Intelligent Design has been successfully debated for years strictly on the basis of science without mention of (horrors!) the Bible. Ultimately though, neither creationism or evolution is entirely provable since each stands on a foundation of faith. Creationists understand and accept this; evolutionists simply cannot.

The bigger problems with Perry (and people like him) and evolution revolve around issues that have nothing to do with religion:.First, anybody notice that while Governor Goodhair rejects evolution as an explanation for the origin of species, his entire view of human society is pure social Darwinism, right down the line? Darwin himself was concerned that the theory might be misused in this way. I wonder if Perry notices his self-contradiction….Second, any scientific theory worthy of the name enables one to make predictions. Sometimes they’re fairly limited by things like chaos (evolution, being driven primarily by random inputs, is like that), but one can still predict, for example, that over-using antibiotics will hasten the appearance of resistant bacteria. If one has a religious commitment to the Free Market, the ability to make such predictions is a problem, as most reasonably sane people would believe that preserving the usefulness of a life-saving drug is more important than maximizing a drug company’s short term profit.

It’s good to read Doonesbury take on Governor Perry. Why does any group of citizens elect people as stupid as Perry, Representative Bachmann, & Rick Santorum?

Let us make intelligence an important criterion in all elections.

I see I’m late to the usual party that we all go to when evolution gets mentioned. Here we go again. Sigh. Rather than go through all the usual reasons why evolution is real and not just a “theory” in the venacular use of the term, I’d like to make a bigger point. Perry’s (and other Republican candidates’) denial of science is very dangerous for us as a society. Consider what our current world would be like without the scientific method and the knowledge it has generated. A significant proportion of what makes our current existence possible is founded on the fruit of the method. We wouldn’t be communicating on the web without it.For at least the last decade or two, it seems pretty clear there is an element on the Right that wishes the Enlightenment had never happened and would like to roll back the clock to a time when ideological rather than rigorous, evidence-based reasoning is used to make decisions. Anyone who wants to deny major elements of modern science should be thinking very carefully about what that really means. I think most would not find a lot of the changes desirable. I’m also going to apologize for throwing this out there and then largely abandoning the conversation. Today is going to be very busy for me, but I’m sure the very intelligent commenters (who are routinely ignored and reviled by the ideologues) can carry the torch of knowledge in my absence.

The science of Ecology never existed without Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Darwin published in 1859, the word ‘Ecology’ was coined in 1866, with the current science based on how an ecosystem evolves together. As for Genetics, Mendel also published after Darwin, and the science didn’t really flourish until after they proved that DNA was the repository of genetic information in the ’50s So that leaves Biology, which was little better than a medieval Bestiary before DToE, a list of animals and their descriptions. Evolution began to show their relationships. So, ONE whole field existed without the help of Evolution, but not very well.

Coyoty brings up a salient point. The Scopes trial failed to resolve the faith vs. fact explanations in 1925, and here we are 80+ years later attempting to resolve the question again, with the same success.

After clicking around a number of “creationist” web sites, it seems that the beliefs and attitudes of the Flat Earth Society are alive and well.

In 2005 intelligent design went on trial against evolution in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Case No. 04cv2688, Tammy Kitzmiller vs. Dover (PA) Area School District, Judge John Jones presiding. I followed the trial on Talk.Origins. The evolutionary scientists, such as Dr. Kenneth Miller (author of FINDING DARWIN’S GOD) completely dismantled the arguments of the “intelligent design” (ID) scientists, such as Michael Behe (author of DARWIN’S BLACK BOX). I have a copy of Judge Jones’ 139-page decision (2005 Dec. 20) in front of me as I keyboard this in, which I have carefully read, highlighted and annotated. It is a landmark decision. It was not appealed because ID supporters, such as Discovery Institute in Seattle, feared they could not reverse on appeal.  In his Conclusion (pp 136-138) Judge Jones made several rulings. Here is a sampling:  • “In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”  • “[The ID] presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.”  • “[O]ur conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”  • “To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution … we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”  • “… Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment …”.  • “… Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school …”.  —"[Signed Judge] John E. Jones III, U.S. District Judge."

That’s what y’get for getting God out of a book….

My faith is based on my personal religious EXPERIENCE of walking with God every day. Psalm 34:8: “O taste and see that the Lord is Good.” As Judge Jones has observed, "[T]he theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and … in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.”

Science is an undefined religion where faith in a belief is explained with theory and backed up with facts where organized religion is faith explained often with unsubstantiated rumours and stories of what one wants to believe.

Geology is 6,000-year old rocks.

thump, thump thump thumpsure is a lot of bible thumping goin’ on around here today.

But — without a theory to explain evolution (which is a fact not a theory), genetics, ecology, etc have a lot of gaps and conundrums. Natural selection can help explain why we have an appendix. What does Intelligent Design say about this marvelous organ? Ooops?

and, as for paragraph spacing. it’s easy:just hit shift WGAS, then spacebar spacebar; , hit shift ) shift & shift %$now reboot your computer and then left click on the screen three times put your computer in a paper bag and go outside and scream a chicken

The statement “evolution is both a theory and a fact” is often seen in biological literature.1234567 Evolution is a “theory” in the scientific sense of the term “theory”; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences. Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena. 

When scientists say “evolution is a fact”, they are using one of two meanings of the word “fact”. One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. 

Another way “fact” is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) 8 even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms. Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Glad to hear that you have a religion, DKP. That’s a step towards trying to make a civil argument. If you’ll tell me exactly what beliefs you think I’ve “attacked,” maybe we can go on to define and discuss your “policies” and “issues” as well.Or did you mean Rick Perry’s policies? Please clarify.

I have never in my life seen any contradiction between modern empirical evolutionary theory and allegorical Bronze Age creationism.When you’re on your hands and knees digging in the grass, your view of your lawn is entirely different than if you were looking at it from down the street a block away. Neither view is “wrong”.To even debate which is the “correct view” is absurd almost to the point of insanity.

But on the issue of “should creationism be taught in science class” – that issue has been decided.As DTpi mentioned, the Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony was devastatingly conclusive. It is well, well worth watching the whole documentary: online here.

Let Creation/Intelligent Design be taught in the house of worship and Evolution be taught at school in science class. The Bible should only be read in public schools as literature.

really enjoying Doonesbury these last few weeks. I think he’s best when he skewers those who think they;re above it.

So – when does Trudeau do the roasting of our ineffective prez? I’ll be waiting…

Science is based on facts, religion on dogma (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell). What the world really lacks are more atheists.

The whole country needs to study more science. Both (evolution and intelligent design) are THEORIES! Neither will ever be “proved” or “disproved” You can only fail to prove (because you can’t try an infinite number of tests) it. This is not the same as disproving it. You may also fail to disprove (same reason) it, but that IS NOT the same as proving it.What grates on me is that the schools teach evolution as FACT when it is in reality just another theory. It may have failed to be disproved many, many times, but it is still a THEORY! Schools should teach science not bias. Compare them and get the kids to think critically. Have them come up with tests, let them decide which fits their world-view, but get them to agree that BOTH are Theories, not fact.

And this intellectually stagnant moron wishes to be President. The people of Texas actually voted him into office; I say return the state to Mexico. They want to secede anyway, and I’m sure they’ll receive lots of financial assistance from Calderon. Or if not, the republic of Texas can always raise taxes.

There is more than one definition to the word “theory”. Consult any competent dictionary.

As a scientist who was deeply committed to the communion in the Roman Catholic faith, I like to be very careful with my verb choices “think” vs. “feel”. and “know” vs. “believe”. Science is about knowing, and belief about religion. I have faith in my religious beliefs and confidence in the scientific process. Developing the latter was absolutely necessary with dealing with my ADD, beginning in mid-grammar school. I became an autodidact, and I began to use the strengths of religious experience and the scientific method to root out the weaknesses of the other, looking for as much trustworthy guidance as I could find along the way. I was very fortunate to find it while I was in graduate school, and this left me with a very personal view of religion and a strong desire to learn philosophy, comparative religion, and other humanities and social sciences. Right now, I’ve com to the conclusion that fundamentalists of all kinds require some sort of unimpeachable authority to hang their insecurities on as an anchor for their blind faith (and blind fears). Since life is about all kinds of growth, this approach is not for me. An act of faith may call for me to let go of that boulder I am clinging to in the raging river of life, if I am both shrewd and perceptive enough to find the appropriate moment to let go. I won’t get anywhere if I don’t allow myself to make mistakes, taking the development in small steps. Life isn’t always a series of all-or-none choices – we only let it get that way by not being proactive, thus allowing nasty situations to arise for men-of-action, self-appointed heroes their opportunities to take charge. And then we don’t check their credentials very well, lusting to be under their control. We do that with our image of God as well. Do any of these authorities have a cheerful, loving sense of humor? PS: “I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have false gods before me” is actually a Christian koan.

BACK to the actual ’toon: What Perry and others advocate by inference is doing away with Chemistry, Physics, Taxonomy (plant and animal), Astronomy, Geology, Geography, Botany, Zoology, Entomology, MIcrobiology, and ALL science that runs afoul of THEIR theories; economic, social, or religious.

Simple mathematics is beyond their grasp, so why not eliminate ALL science- theology explains it all, right?

Yes, the savings. Think of how many frogs will be saved from dissection!

What are the odds that the writers of “Mallard Fillmore” will draw a series of strips praising the current administration for anything?…yep, You guessed it right. A zero-percent chance. Just an observation, but Doonesbury is a cartoon. There is no mandate to be “fair and balanced” even in the non-ironic sense of that phrase.

Garry Trudeau, why do you even lend the smallest modicum of credence to positions like those Rick Perry has by showcasing them in your comic?

Regardless of the political positions here, that’s probably the best comeback line against evolution I’ve read in a long time.

at last. a game-show host candidate. is the price right? are we in jeopardy yet?

WHAT IS EVOLUTION? 

In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a “theory of origins” about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of fields. The National Center for Science Education is the only national organization devoted to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. This mission is vital because of evolution’s central importance to the conceptual foundations of the modern biomedical, life, and earth sciences. Source: National Center for Science Education http://ncse.com/evolution

Your idiosyncratic definition of hypothesis serves to distinguish it from a theory, NG. But the distinction doesn’t affect Karl Popper’s widely admired definition of a scientific theory as a hypothesis that’s falsifiable. (See KP’s Logic of Scientific Discovery)Think about it. A hypothesis not based on facts can’t be falsified by facts, hence it’s not scientific. (A simple example is the hypothesis that we have immortal souls.)

National Academy of Sciences STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results: 

In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. 

Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so. 

Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends. 

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin. 

Source: National Academy of Sciences 

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

You’re calling him idiosyncratic? In science anything is falsifiable if contrary evidence is find-able. A hypothesis is an idea that you want to explore through observation and/or testing. A theory is what you get after those observations & tests, & an honest scientist isn’t bothered much if the theory contradicts the original hypothesis (unlike a theologian). A law is when it is proven that the theory will always work. Careers have been made by breaking laws. Best evidence rules until better evidence is found. The biggest sin is falsifying evidence, which has given climate change deniers ammunition, much like those claiming to speak for God drive people away from truth. Reality is what exists whether you believe or not.

NSTA Position Statement: THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION: Introduction The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K–12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and many other scientific and educational organizations. NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public’s misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, “creation science,” and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution. Source: National Science Teachers Association http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

@ sammysock “died in the wool?” Was he suffocated by fabric, or just had wool sheets on his deathbed? @SeaDragon You act as if the two are equal in the eyes of science. They are not. ID is not a creation of science, but of religion. That’s why evolution is appropriate for the school, and ID for the church.

NSTA Position Statement: THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION: Introduction: Declarations Within this context, NSTA recommends that  • Science curricula, state science standards, and teachers should emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power.  • Science teachers should not advocate any religious interpretations of nature and should be nonjudgmental about the personal beliefs of students.  • Policy makers and administrators should not mandate policies requiring the teaching of “creation science” or related concepts, such as so-called “intelligent design,” “abrupt appearance,” and “arguments against evolution.” Administrators also should support teachers against pressure to promote nonscientific views or to diminish or eliminate the study of evolution.  • Administrators and school boards should provide support to teachers as they review, adopt, and implement curricula that emphasize evolution. This should include professional development to assist teachers in teaching evolution in a comprehensive and professional manner.  • Parental and community involvement in establishing the goals of science education and the curriculum development process should be encouraged and nurtured in our democratic society. However, the professional responsibility of science teachers and curriculum specialists to provide students with quality science education should not be compromised by censorship, pseudoscience, inconsistencies, faulty scholarship, or unconstitutional mandates.  • Science textbooks shall emphasize evolution as a unifying concept. Publishers should not be required or volunteer to include disclaimers in textbooks that distort or misrepresent the methodology of science and the current body of knowledge concerning the nature and study of evolution. —Adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors July 2003 Source: National Science Teachers Association http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

We might be spared these 100+ comment threads on evolution if people would watch this!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

I would respectfully disagree. Note that the English language is loose, slippery, ever-changing, ever-adapting, etc.

WHY GOV. PERRY IS WRONG AND TRUDEAU IS RIGHT AAAS Joins Leading Texas Scientists and Educators in Urging State Board to Reject Anti-Evolution Amendments Leading members of the Texas scientific community, in collaboration with AAAS, have urged the Texas State Board of Education to reject amendments to the state’s draft science standards that would undermine sound science teaching. And in a commentary published in the San Antonio Express-News online edition, AAAS officials warned that approval of the anti-science amendments could undermine Texas’s reputation as a world engine of scientific discovery and innovation. [3 grafs deleted] In a 23 March letter to Chairman Don McLeroy and the other members of the Texas board, the scientists said certain amendments, introduced and approved during the January 2009 board meeting, “would mislead students should they make it into the final standards.” Among the concerns, the scientists say, is an amendment to the biology standards that attacks one of evolution’s key principles: that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.The amendment says students should “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency and insufficiency of common ancestry.” But scientists say there is no real argument about common ancestry, one of the foundational concepts of evolution.“The scientific consensus is that evolution is the backbone of modern biology and many other fields of science, underlying advances in areas such as agriculture and medicine,” the scientists write. They note that the board “did the students of Texas a great service” when it earlier rejected insertion of language in the science standards that spoke of the “weaknesses” of evolution. [5 grafs deleted] “Science and faith pose no conflict for most believers, including the 12,000 Christian religious leaders—500 of them in Texas—who signed the Clergy Letter Project in support of teaching evolution,” Agre and Leshner write. "But at a time when the nation’s future hinges on research advances, the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas has noted, science classrooms are no place for religious debate. We agree—along with the National Center for Science Education, the Texas Citizens for Science, and the 21st-Century Science Coalition with its 1,400 supporters. “Leveraging science and technology to create new jobs will require properly educating all potential innovators,” they concluded. “It’s time for the Texas State Board of Education to reject misleading amendments to science education standards, once and for all.” Earl Lane and Edward W. Lempinen 24 March 2009 Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0324texas_letter.shtml

Leftwingpatriot, where are you now that we need you?

Or add to?

Perry is free to hold any religious belief, and I will never “attack” him for it. He is not free to insert his religious beliefs into government-financed education, and I will fight against that regardless of who proposes it. This is not about “dodging” other issues. We do find it important to elect a candidate that will govern by logic instead of dogma, but we have and will discuss other aspects of the candidates. So far, Perry’s understanding of economy seems as weak as his grasp of science.

About 99% of all scientists believe the Earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago. Something like 50% of U.S. Christians (I think) believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. Somebody is WAY wrong.

To get a good handle on science and politics and evolution and religion and how we should treat each other, more people should check out Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot” speech online. Sagan was an unbeliever but I think he was a very spiritual man. The world needs more like him.

I don’t think you meant to address me, Parrot. But I commend you all the same for trying to define the issues under debate—-even though your cliche, “Obama’s failed economic policies,” is another lapse into mindlessness.We can’t have a conversation without listening to one another. I never said anything about Perry’s policies—-only that his denying the scientific hypothesis of global warming puts him among the devolutionists who want to return Texas and the rest of us to the “primordial soup.”

sorry but all three have evolution at their very core.

except that his policies are all from his nutjobbery of a religion.

nope thats normal creationist and right wing practice, completely dishonest but normal for you and crooks like them.

People forget that in the Scopes Monkey Trial, it was a teacher that was put on trial, not evolution itself, and the teacher was convicted of teaching science that the state disapproved of. The Republican platform appears to continue that attitude of outlawing inconvenient science.

“religion of evolution” What is that? Do you find that right next to the Church of Gravity? Evolution is pure science, without any elements of religion. Darwin was raised as a Christian in a Christian-dominated world, and dreaded the conflict that would arise after he published. He still put the truth out there, knowing that he would be attacked for it. The Hamlet analogy is not appropriate. It assumes a certain exact result must occur from randomization. Evolution is not so particular. Had something held back the primates, the first fully self-aware life might have been pachyderms that would appear millions of years in the future. While we ourselves are far more complex than Hamlet, the original crude forms that barely deserve the word “life” were much simpler. Trying to stretch the analogy to fit, it’s more akin to a monkey typing a single fairly long word. Once begun, natural selection favored variants with ever-increasing capabilities and complexity.

Perry cut education while building up a slush fund he used to bribe businesses away from other states. That’s a recipe for short-term local gain and long-term second-world status.

How would ID explain dolphins and whales, whose ancestors adapted to land only to return to the sea? The random hand of natural selection has no problem explaining such oddities.

Do we have to assume that whatsoever Rick says, he is repeating GT’s point of view? and therefore the reader must take it on faith? and if so, WHY should we?

Perry is a moron. King Dubya II.

I guess the whales and dolphins tried Texas and decided the ocean was better. If nothing else comes of Perry’s campaign, he’ll at least have shown us the ultimate form that evolution takes in the Lone Star State.Texas is where you can always put down uppity intellectuals by saying “If you’re so smart, how come y’aren’t rich?”

A little quote I found from National Geographic:

“Earth’s largest animals are sometimes born with a leg or two, a startling genetic reminder of the time, 50 million years ago, when their ancestors walked on dry land.”

Scientists do have clear records that show a long-term evolutionary change. These vestigial legs on whales have been matched up to the small limbs of extinct mammals that resemble alligators in shape. The record leads back to ancestors that appear amazingly land adapted, considering that both their ancestors and their descendants would be fully aquatic.

“They never do” is not true. A staggering amount of work has been done placing fossils into niches that show clear progressions across the ages. Google or use any method you choose to investigate whale evolution on your own. It’s just one example of an area that was largely unexplained in Darwin’s day, but science has since filled in the story until only minor details remain unknown.

regarding whale “missing links”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors

I just find it interesting that while the bible stacks up with misinterpreted myths, quantum mechanics fits in quite well with Buddhist teachings, and Buddhist’s accept the “good parts” of what others may teach, and agree to disagree on other points. They don’t insist they have all the answers, and kill those who disagree with them over “religion”.

Simply put, butt backwards. evolution was a theory developed AFTER genetics and genetics has already disproven close human connections with our Cromag and neandert. “ancestors”. In truth, “Real” non-Christian scientists have been raising pertinent questions about Darwinism for years and offered sudden appearance as a non-Christian answer to the lack of evidence of Darwinism. But evolutionist priests can’t let their pulpits be questioned even when there is no evidence BOTH have become religious beliefs.

@ DylanThomas3.14159

This has been one of the most civil debates on this suject.

Actually, genetics has proven that Neanderthals and H. Sapiens interbred, and all non-Africans carry some of our relative’s DNA. It’s another interesting evolutionary twist. Also note that two species capable of producing fertile offspring couldn’t be very far apart genetically, so I’m not sure how the geneticists you speak of came to that conclusion.

Actually, Charles Darwin originated many of the fundamentals of Biology and Genetics. Charles Darwin opened the world of Biology and Genetics as we know it today. Many thought all of the argument about evolution vs. creationism was settled many years ago, but it would appear that is not true, according to a small but very vocal minority.