Texas joins the science debate

[Hemidakota]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/education/22texas.html?th&emc=th

So far, science is winning this battle. The State Board of Education held an initial vote on Thursday, and the result was in favor of removing the controversial wording (article). There's still more discussion taking place though, and a final vote will be held in March.

In the past, conservatives have lost the science debate in almost every part of the country where the issue has come up. Personally, I have no problem with students being allowed to ask tough questions about evolution, nor do I object to the valid weaknesses in Darwinism being taught. Like all scientific theories, Darwinism has its flaws. However, it has been the dominant theory for over a hundred years and modern science continues to validate it in ways that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of.

I'm particularly troubled by the fact that one of the leaders of the conservative movement here in Texas appears to be a Young-Earth Creationist (YEC), a position rejected by most ID supporters. While I respect the right of educators to hold their own personal religious views, these views should stay out of the classroom. Religious freedom is a great thing, but this shouldn't be an issue of religious freedom. Religion and science are two seperate things, and they should be treated as such.

No matter the speculation, I rather ask about it from the source who is the author of creation vice the wisdom of men. Let me be the first to tell you, there were no pre-Adamites, cavemen, or any other non-human version of men/women prior to Adam. As you already seen, they cannot even bring forth a complete human skeleton.

It is really sad to see our LDS professors teach this nonsense in the halls of the church own education.

[Hemidakota]

Physics and biology are two very different fields. Things like genetic patterns, fossil records, and simple observation of ecosystems all provide solid evidence to favor evolution. Theories in physics are somewhat harder to provide material evidence for. Yes, Darwinism is still a theory. It always will be, just like germ theory will always be a theory. Science consists of theories and theories alone. There are no absolute truths about the world we live in. There are only hypotheses and evidence to support them. The scientific community is constantly scrutinizing theories in order to determine whether or not a different answer might be necessary. A few scientists have decided that the theory of evolution needs to be reconsidered and possibly even discarded, yet they have failed to provide any evidence to support a worthy alternative.

Actually that is not correct. There is not enough evidence to prove evolution or even ID as 100-percent legitimate fact. We need to ensure that what is taught academically is just assumption or speculation of that field of study only.

I am still laughing from Darwin's own admissions of humans evolved from Apes. I still see the Apes running amok on the earth. Perhaps, this is why we have the DARWIN AWARD.

[Guest Godless]

Actually that is not correct. There is not enough evidence to prove evolution or even ID as 100-percent legitimate fact. We need to ensure that what is taught academically is just assumption or speculation of that field of study only.

There is no such thing as 100% legitimate fact in regard to scientific theories. You're dealing with hypotheses and evidence, and that's it. No theory is perfect. However, many theories, like evolution, have enough evidence to make it nearly indisputable. Evolution is far from being definitively proven, but it does have an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it, which is why it's favored by most academics, including many at BYU.

I am still laughing from Darwin's own admissions of humans evolved from Apes. I still see the Apes running amok on the earth. Perhaps, this is why we have the DARWIN AWARD.

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. The beauty of modern science is that it's allowed us to correct many of the errors in his theories. Darwin could never have dreamed of the discoveries we've made in genetics and paleontology. He probably would've given his right hand just to have a brief look at the fossil record that we have today (admittedly, still quite incomplete). Of course, we now know that humans didn't evolve from chimps, which is the common mischaracterization. Humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor.

[Hemidakota]

Now, from what ancestor did this theory claim we evolve from? Does the common man really know what happen? No. Can we know of creation and what did transpire? Yes. I do know few of those professors, who teachings I would not even bother sending my children to learn.

Now what is true, there are partial truths within the evolution theory but that itself was known as we read Genesis, first two chapters.

[Guest Godless]

Now, from what ancestor did this theory claim we evolve from? Does the common man really know what happen? No. Can we know of creation and what did transpire? Yes. I do know few of those professors, who teachings I would not even bother sending my children to learn.

Now what is true, there are partial truths within the evolution theory but that itself was known as we read Genesis, first two chapters.

See, in my view, there are no absolute truths about the world we live in. Not in science, nor in Genesis. However, we know enough in the scientific realm to get a decent picture of where we came from. Modern biology gives a far more satisfactory explanation to the "how" of our existence than theology does. Yes, there are things we still don't know, but there's nothing wrong with that. Having all of the answers would take all of the fun out of making new discoveries and testing new hypotheses. I think it's important to keep an open mind about these things. A hole in knowledge doesn't equate to untruth. It just means that we have more work to do.

This site has a good amount of information about the evolution of hominids.

[Hemidakota]

Theology as you stated is wrong? Not the case. Not only it was not completed in what was seen for a wiser purpose, it was witnessed by several people who seen the same. Have any men from any science community witnessed for themselves? Why not?

Again, there was no pre-Adamites. I rather not speculate on something that can be had without price, without merit of glory ourselves, and know the surety that the universe is operating by great men. They can press the world with speculation but the truth remains in that state.

[LittleWyvern]

You may both be right. Moses 1:34 is the scripture Hemidakota is probably referring to, which states that Adam was "the first man of all men." Does this mean that Adam was the first man as a concept, or man as a species? Without further revelation, I don't think we can know for sure either way, so this is probably one of the many "unsolved mysteries" of the LDS faith.

*hums the "Unsolved Mysteries" theme to himself*

[Traveler]

I would like to point to one very glaring flaw that many religionist have in rejection scientific principles discovered from experiments and observations in evolution.

When we observe myosis in a single living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind its DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human. It is not just a theory but an observable event. Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation which results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways. The second is integration; this is when the cells form symbiosis relationships with each other which will define a higher life form.

From a single cell of a single kind or type will come enormous numbers of different KINDS of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human being. This process is evolution pure and simple and it exists and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture. To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation. To say the evolution process exist to this, the arbitrary point defined by men as that of the species and then no longer occurs, is to me a mockery of what little knowledge the Almighty grants us. How silly are we to assume that the Almighty deceives us in what he shows us in nature or that we can make up in our own ignorant minds to a better understanding of that which he openly displays to all that will look upon his wonders.

I would like to ask a question from all those that reject evolution as a possibility to explain G-d’s creation of man. As I have explained – evolution is a process that is observable in the creation of every human to have been born. Please explain to me how you have come to believe that Adam and Eve are the only humans created by G-d or that Adam and Eve were created in some other manner different for all other humans. Do you believe that you were not created by G-d or that you were created by some other process? Please note that the scriptures speak of G-d creating man (meaning all of mankind) and there is no scripture that differentiates the creation of Adam and Eve from the rest of us. Are you a creation of G-d? Please indicate to me where in scripture you derived the notion that G-d has altered his methods of creation?

The Traveler

Edited January 26, 2009 by Traveler

[Traveler]

You may both be right. Moses 1:34 is the scripture Hemidakota is probably referring to, which states that Adam was "the first man of all men." Does this mean that Adam was the first man as a concept, or man as a species? Without further revelation, I don't think we can know for sure either way, so this is probably one of the many "unsolved mysteries" of the LDS faith.

*hums the "Unsolved Mysteries" theme to himself*

Seldom in ancient scriptures did "first" have the singular meaning of the beginning in temporal order. Usually "first" meant of highest or most noble value. To say this scripture in Moses is unlike all other scripture and has no meaning beyond the temporal I believe is more apt to be misleading than accurate.

The Traveler

[Guest HEthePrimate]

I liked the essay in which Stephen Jay Gould talks about the "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) of science and religion. Religion and science ask and attempt to answer different questions. I always roll my eyes when people want to teach creationism (or one of its variants) in science classes. I figure you may as well combine PE and history--they're different subjects!

HEP