FREE TAPATALK APP

Skeptical Greg · 27th January 2005, 06:42 AM

Surfing in the wake of a recent ruling to have Georgia's Cobb County remove " Theory of Evolution " disclaimer stickers from textbooks, Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges is introducing a bill would that allow for broader approaches when schools teach the origin of life..

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ha...y.asp?ID=88634

Quote:

The measure would allow theories other than evolution to be taught in science classes, as long as those other theories are -- quote -- ``scientific.''

Who is going to tell this idiot that there are no other Scientific theories about the origin of life?

Who is going to explain to this idiot, who has the power to affect the passing of laws in the state of Georgia, what a theory is?

steenkh · 27th January 2005, 06:49 AM

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of the origiin of life. There are other theories that cover this aspect, but none have the kind of supporting evidence that Evolution has in its area.

drkitten · 27th January 2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally quoted by Diogenes
Surfing in the wake of a recent ruling to have Georgia's Cobb County remove " Theory of Evolution " disclaimer stickers from textbooks, Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges is introducing a bill would that allow for broader approaches when schools teach the origin of life..

Quote:

The measure would allow theories other than evolution to be taught in science classes, as long as those other theories are -- quote -- ``scientific.''

Superficially, I'm perfectly happy with this, but I rather wonder what his misunderstanding is that makes him feel that this measure is necessary. There is no bar to teaching any "scientific" theory in science classes, to the best of my knowledge. (And, of course, if there were scientific evidence supporting anything other than evolution, it would already be being presented.)

So it's obviously a camel's-nose-in-the-tent sort of thing, but I wonder vaguely what he thinks he's enabling....

Skeptical Greg · 27th January 2005, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by new drkitten

..... but I wonder vaguely what he thinks he's enabling....

Actually, now that I have thought about it, he's not the the idiot I first suggested he was.. He's just courting the religious voting block.. They do not know it's not against the law to teach science in Georgia schools, despite what the test scores may indicate..

CurtC · 27th January 2005, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by steenkh
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of the origiin of life. There are other theories that cover this aspect, but none have the kind of supporting evidence that Evolution has in its area.

You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience.

steenkh · 27th January 2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience.

I have seen several webpages with their arguments, and they usually take evolution right back to start and find it ridiculous that life should have "evolved" from inanimate matter. I think it is important to point out that crtitique of abiogenesis is a strawman argument when you are discussing evolution.

SGT · 28th January 2005, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes

Who is going to tell this idiot that there are no other Scientific theories about the origin of life?

May be he refers to Creation Science. Do you think legislators can make a distinction between Creation Science and real science?

Psi Baba · 1st February 2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steenkh

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience.

I have seen several webpages with their arguments, and they usually take evolution right back to start and find it ridiculous that life should have "evolved" from inanimate matter. I think it is important to point out that crtitique of abiogenesis is a strawman argument when you are discussing evolution.

I have to agree with steenkh on this one. I see what you're saying, Curt, but it always riles me the way creationists refer to everything as evolution. When they try to claim the Grand Canyon was formed in six days, they say evolution has it wrong. They never even use the word geology. I don't think it is nitpicking to point out how ignorant these people are. Steenkh is correct in that these people usually criticize evolution by claiming it purports to explain something that it does not even address.

iain · 2nd February 2005, 05:25 AM

I saw an interesting creationist piece the other day on these lines. It used the standard techniques : taking misleading and out-of-context quotations along with things that are just plain wrong to make its case.

The logic went like this :
1. The creation of life can be looked at as a sort of evolution where life evolved from non-life.
2. We don't understand this pre-life evolution very well.
3. Therefore we don't understand evolution very well.
4. Therefore evolution is probably a load of nonsense.

SGT · 2nd February 2005, 05:36 AM

Some creationists include stellar and planetary formation and even the Big Bang as pertaining to the Theory of Evolution.

27th January 2005, 06:42 AM	#1
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,894	Other Theories of How Life Came to Be? Surfing in the wake of a recent ruling to have Georgia's Cobb County remove " Theory of Evolution " disclaimer stickers from textbooks, Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges is introducing a bill would that allow for broader approaches when schools teach the origin of life.. http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ha...y.asp?ID=88634 Quote: The measure would allow theories other than evolution to be taught in science classes, as long as those other theories are -- quote -- ``scientific.'' Who is going to tell this idiot that there are no other Scientific theories about the origin of life? Who is going to explain to this idiot, who has the power to affect the passing of laws in the state of Georgia, what a theory is?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

27th January 2005, 06:49 AM	#2
steenkh Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 3,512	The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of the origiin of life. There are other theories that cover this aspect, but none have the kind of supporting evidence that Evolution has in its area.
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

27th January 2005, 06:58 AM	#3
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Re: Other Theories of How Life Came to Be? Quote: Originally quoted by Diogenes Surfing in the wake of a recent ruling to have Georgia's Cobb County remove " Theory of Evolution " disclaimer stickers from textbooks, Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges is introducing a bill would that allow for broader approaches when schools teach the origin of life.. Quote: The measure would allow theories other than evolution to be taught in science classes, as long as those other theories are -- quote -- ``scientific.'' Superficially, I'm perfectly happy with this, but I rather wonder what his misunderstanding is that makes him feel that this measure is necessary. There is no bar to teaching any "scientific" theory in science classes, to the best of my knowledge. (And, of course, if there were scientific evidence supporting anything other than evolution, it would already be being presented.) So it's obviously a camel's-nose-in-the-tent sort of thing, but I wonder vaguely what he thinks he's enabling....

27th January 2005, 07:12 AM	#4
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,894	Re: Re: Other Theories of How Life Came to Be? Quote: Originally posted by new drkitten ..... but I wonder vaguely what he thinks he's enabling.... Actually, now that I have thought about it, he's not the the idiot I first suggested he was.. He's just courting the religious voting block.. They do not know it's not against the law to teach science in Georgia schools, despite what the test scores may indicate..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

27th January 2005, 09:19 AM	#6
steenkh Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 3,512	Quote: Originally posted by CurtC You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience. I have seen several webpages with their arguments, and they usually take evolution right back to start and find it ridiculous that life should have "evolved" from inanimate matter. I think it is important to point out that crtitique of abiogenesis is a strawman argument when you are discussing evolution.
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

27th January 2005, 08:14 AM	#5
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,761	Quote: Originally posted by steenkh The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of the origiin of life. There are other theories that cover this aspect, but none have the kind of supporting evidence that Evolution has in its area. You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience.

28th January 2005, 06:46 AM	#7
SGT Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 345	Re: Other Theories of How Life Came to Be? Quote: Originally posted by Diogenes Who is going to tell this idiot that there are no other Scientific theories about the origin of life? May be he refers to Creation Science. Do you think legislators can make a distinction between Creation Science and real science?
	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor Heaven, n. A place where the wicked cease from troubling you with talk of their personal affairs, and the good listen with attention while you expound on your own. A. Bierce

1st February 2005, 12:06 PM	#8
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,209	Quote: Originally posted by steenkh Quote: Originally posted by CurtC You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience. I have seen several webpages with their arguments, and they usually take evolution right back to start and find it ridiculous that life should have "evolved" from inanimate matter. I think it is important to point out that crtitique of abiogenesis is a strawman argument when you are discussing evolution. I have to agree with steenkh on this one. I see what you're saying, Curt, but it always riles me the way creationists refer to everything as evolution. When they try to claim the Grand Canyon was formed in six days, they say evolution has it wrong. They never even use the word geology. I don't think it is nitpicking to point out how ignorant these people are. Steenkh is correct in that these people usually criticize evolution by claiming it purports to explain something that it does not even address.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

2nd February 2005, 05:25 AM	#9
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	I saw an interesting creationist piece the other day on these lines. It used the standard techniques : taking misleading and out-of-context quotations along with things that are just plain wrong to make its case. The logic went like this : 1. The creation of life can be looked at as a sort of evolution where life evolved from non-life. 2. We don't understand this pre-life evolution very well. 3. Therefore we don't understand evolution very well. 4. Therefore evolution is probably a load of nonsense.
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	__________________ "Mathematicians have discovered a new whole number between 27 and 28." - On the Hour

2nd February 2005, 05:36 AM	#10
SGT Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 345	Some creationists include stellar and planetary formation and even the Big Bang as pertaining to the Theory of Evolution.
	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor Heaven, n. A place where the wicked cease from troubling you with talk of their personal affairs, and the good listen with attention while you expound on your own. A. Bierce