I’ve learned to put a filter on the attitude and get to the meat. There’s a lot of meat there, and it would be silly to disregard it simply because one doesn’t care for the chef’s personality.

As far as karma, it’s merely a way for people to express a “hear, hear!” or a “boo”. It’s not censorship by any stretch of the imagination… it’s an extension of free expression of diverse opinions.

If I only wanted one sided sites I’d go see the nutballs at Daily Kos or (I guess I don’t know an equivalent one the right that is as loony as Daily Kos).

I may try ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’ as I’ve heard it suggested before … but again, I want as ‘objective’ of a scientist as possible … if I dont’ see that once I start to read it, I see no point in continuing. Just like it’s insulting for the news media to believe that any of them are unbiased, the same is also true of scientists …. everyone is a human being with their own biases.

Golly.

It always helps to have your vocabulary down before trying to build an argument in a complex field. And I don’t say that with any intention to condescend. It is simply fact that a person without the proper knowledge will remain incapable of understanding, much less arguing, complicated matters. It’s why I stay out of discussions of, say, philosophy – at least not on the level of Heidegger or Nietzsche – not being well-read enough in the basics, I am not prepared for a competent discussion.

With that in mind, I suggest you start with “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson. It’s a fun read, but serious, and it will introduce you to some of the basic scientific principles which you seem to be missing.

Then, I suggest some reading from Richard Dawkins who, although not the end-all be-all of evolutionary biology (I have colleagues who disagree with him on certain points), he nevertheless has an excellent handle on communicating the principles behind the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Start with “The Blind Watchmaker”, which is a wonderfully accessible read, but scientifically sound – although his concept of The Selfish Gene is not quite perfect. I say this as an over-trained, over-educated scientist… when I read it, I didn’t feel as though it was somehow beneath me.

Then, when you’re ready to take a bigger bite, read “The Ancestor’s Tale”. This one is taking me a while to get through, as it is rather dry, but it is nevertheless fascinating and would surely be enlightening to someone who questions how this could possibly work.

Hope this helps.

I said before that I’m not trying to convince anyone of creationism (or ID of some sort) … it IS religion. I’m purely talking about evolution.

Edintally’s response is a joke … a wolf/dog/coyote is still basically the same creature there … that’s ‘variation’ not evolution …. nothing was ‘gained’ in domesticating dogs?

We agree about education … it shouldn’t be state-funded but we will probably never get away from that in my lifetime unfortunately.

I have no problem with discussion of religion in schools. I have no problem with people having a discussion on their own time. What I have trouble with is saying that this debate should be discussed during class time.

Science class is for teaching science, nothing more, nothing less. If a student asks questions regarding evolution, then by all means, answer the questions.

But if a student keeps insisting that there is a some sort of “debate” about the existence of evolution…..that’s just wrong. That’s like me insisting to a history professor that the American Civil War didn’t end in 1865, it ended in 1923 with the signing of the treaty of Versailles.

The truth is, outside of the Discovery Institute nuts, there is not a single evolutionary biologist who thinks there is a debate that there is evolution.

Yes, scientists debate the mechanics of evolution, but scientists are also debating the mechanics of gravity. That doesn’t mean that gravity doesn’t exist.

If a student tries to hijack a science class discussion over evolution by claiming that there is a debate to its existence, a teacher should rightly shut it down, just like the history student in my above example should be shut down. There’s a time and a place to discuss religion and biology class ain’t it. If a student wants to form an ID club after school, then go for it. If they want to talk about the debate during a religious class, go for it.

But not. During. Science class. Saying that there shouldn’t be a prohibition if it comes up in class is the same thing as saying that a history teacher should allow discussions of whether or not the Holocaust really happened(GODWIN!), or saying that an English teacher should allow discussions over whether or not Hamlet is about a Danish prince.

Therefore, when Palin says such a thing, I take it the only way I can: that she wants to have the “debate” in a science classroom, and if the fundie child brings it up, then all class must stop so that we can examine the “flaws” in evolutionary theory.

As for the poster who wants to have a debate on the existence of evolution….I’m a lawyer, not a biologist. I can’t answer the “questions” about evolution you have. Yes, I’ve read it all, and the facts are there, but I’m not a scientist, and I wouldn’t want to talk about something if I couldn’t get it all absolutely correct.

So I’ll let the National Center for Science Education do it for me.

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp

That being said, I’m not here to debate evolution. I’m debating the office-worthiness of a candidate who thinks there is a debate that should be held in schools.

Oh, and an ad hominem attack would be to personally call you a name. Saying that the idea that “evolution is a religion” is wrong, because one has testable hypotheses and one does not is not an ad hominem attack. It would behoove you to learn the difference.

Either way, I’m done in this thread.

You would garner mush more respect and a lot less animosity if you just admitted what you truly feel. Nobody said it better than a female 30-something during a street interview:

“I don’t know about evolution. It’s really hard to understand. Creationism is easy so I believe in that.”

More power to her. I envy her simplistic view of the world, but I can no more stop questioning than she can start thinking. And the world turns round and round.

James D: (#70) So again, what proof was it that you have for evolution? … Sorry, evolution exists purely as an alternative to ID, it’s not truly science.

Millions of fossils. DNA. The congruence of isolation with speciation in contemporary organisms (e.g., Galapagos). Etc.. Like I said, you can hold a fossil in your hand. You can look at a blot of a DNA sample and reproduce it in a lab thousands of miles away. You can independently perform your own phylogenetic matrix analysis, and compare your results to that of others.

That is using hard evidence. That is testing and retesting. That is rejecting previously held beliefs when new evidence contradicts them. That is the application of reason to draw conclusions. If that isn’t science, then what is science?

Creationism, on the other hand, offers no hard evidence. It defies reason in deference to faith. As Laplace told Bonaparte, there is no need for the hypothesis of a creator to explain the universe.

I’ll keep my religion out of the classroom, can you keep out yours

I have no religion and no regard for faith. But your request is quite reasonable, once you drop the presumption that there should be “the classroom.” Remove government from education and no one gets to force any ideas on the children of other people. Then, it’s “my children’s classroom” and “your children’s classroom,” and there is no conflict.

““Z looks a little like A but we can’t show you B through Y … just believe us that they did exist’.”

I haven’t the slightest clue what this means.

It’s one I’d like a ‘logical’ answer to.

The ‘fossil record’ everyone loves to quote has no ‘partial-creatures’.

And I wasn’t pushing ‘propaganda’ or purporting that the earth is 6000 years old – there just isn’t necessarily any proof of what age it is. If I’m willing to believe in a timeless deity, then ‘time’ isn’t really that important is it? There’s some good arguments for why the first 3 sentences of Genesis might cover billions of years too.

I’m not trying to ‘convert’ anyone …. just point out that evolution just might not be the theory we all have been brainwashed to think it was.

“The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.”

There’s no such thing as a “law of entropy.” There is however a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which is what this has to refer to) which basically says that it’s impossible to have a perfect conversion of energy to work. This has absolutely nothing to with how long material can exist. Is this anti-big bang, pro-big bang, or just off the wall?

Everything else in the article has too many logical fallacies to find a starting point.

Salvo,

You have a problem with the “‘teaching the debate’”, as do I, but Palin said, “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class.” I think there’s an important distinction. The first is a shady way (like ID) to push a political agenda. The second is a reasonable response to people who want to keep all religious discussion out of public schools. Maybe you agree with those peope, and that’s fine, but to me they’re just as objectionable as those who can’t distinguish between banning teacher led prayers during school hours and banning prayer in schools altogher. Like most social issues, 75% of the country is in lockstep and it’s the fringe element that is incapable of associating with those of different ideologies.

” that Marduk is in each and every one of us.”

If you have a connect, quit being a bitch and pill me up.