Evolution a theory, father says
Longtime Las Vegan Steve Brown does not oppose the teaching of evolutionary theory in the public schools. Nor does he support teaching alternative views such as intelligent design or creationism.
But Brown, a masonry contractor who has lived in Las Vegas for more than 30 years, does want the schools to teach the theory of evolution in what he calls the right way, which means acknowledging that much of the theory is just that — theory.
To get the attention of public schoolteachers, textbook writers and adherents of Darwinian theory, Brown has filed the Truth in Science initiative petition with the secretary of state’s office to amend the constitution to require a broader approach to teaching evolution in public schools. Brown must collect 83,184 signatures by June 20 to get the proposal on the November ballot.
“Does intelligent design have some validity?” he said. “Sure. But it’s not going to be taught in the classroom. Until the folks promoting intelligent design get more evidence, they are not going to win.”
Brown said his proposal and intelligent design are two separate issues.
“You have to tell the truth about evolution,” he said.
Telling someone they don’t have the facts to back up a statement is one thing. Telling them to shut up is a reflection on your character, not their lack of facts.
You know what it is? I am tired of giving equal time to people who don’t know what they are talking about. If you let ignorant people force their beliefs on others simply because they have an opinion, you end up with anarchy. I am not interested in your religious beliefs. Keep those to yourself. If you want to discuss science, you have to understand it. If I was talking nonsense, I’d expect to be told I am full of sh*t. I don’t see why we have to pussyfoot around people who don’t have a firm grasp on reality. Its not my fault that they believe in superstitions over facts. I am not going to suffer their ignorance and treat them as if anything that comes out of their mouths should be considered and respected.
Alex, I agree: Liberals tend to hold on to some odd beliefs.
After all, they do think of political ideology, religious ideology, and scientific ideology as one in the same.
Anthony,
RE: ID’s statistical odds argument
The argument that life could not have happened naturally because it is too statisically remote is entirely without scientific merit for a couple of reasons.
First, it presumes complete knowledge of all factors and their statistical probability of occurrence in the given the conditions at the time. However, as we know, information about the exact conditions and thus our ability to form an accurate statistical analysis will never be complete. It is like arguing that finding a rock in the shape of a sphere could only happen if someone intentionally shaped it. Yet, it is possible for such a rock to occur naturally and thus without clear evidence of a shaper, we must accept that it occurred naturally. What are the odds that a species on some planet would develop technical skills such that at this exact moment in time one member of that species would compose these exact words in this exact order directed towards this exact source? The odds are so astronomical it could not have happened.
Secondly, the ID ideology does more than claim that the scientific theories that describe the fact of evolution (a.k.a. “theories of evolution”) are false. They also claim that it was created by some intelligent being. The first aspect is an attempt to disprove the scientific theories that explain the fact of evolution purely through statistical trickery rather than through empirical evidence. The second makes a positive claim for which no evidence is provided.
Based on the available evidence, If [your deity here] designed the world, It did so through evolution.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
If you can say without any dought, that there is no possibility that someone created something at some point (e.g., the universe, the planet, the life on the planet, etc.) then don’t worry what some bricklayer in Vegas thinks.
I believe he is trying to say that evolution should be taught in a way that also discusses lapses in the theory and notable “facts” used to establish the theory. For example, when Lucy’s bones were discovered proving the upright hominid. It’s okay to point out that the key knee joint was discovered 100 ft lower in the strata and almost a mile away from the rest of the bones. Even Johanson admitted that (but not until he was asked).
Don’t view this a religion-nonreligion argument because by ignoring these possibilities, you are losing your scientific argument. In other words, you are ignorant and full of s**t (hey, you said it).
If this was a double post, I appologize. My back-arrow evolved into an enter key.
Give me a theory that better explains reality and that can be tested and I’ll entertain it. Don’t come to me with legends and superstitions and expect me to respect your ignorance. If you are spouting ignorance, I will tell you to shut up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And, being the ignorant fool that I am I will probably pop you in the jaw, just for the *unscientific* reason that I find you to be an ass!!!
Unlike you Alex, I’m very interested in what people have to say, and why they say what they do……it’s called *learning*…….If all I want is validation of what I have already decided is the *truth* according to me or a group(ie: scientists, politicians etc.), then I would just talk to myself in the mirror.
With your attitude you don’t give a person a chance to back up or try to prove what they have stated. I think your much closer to be the *ignorant* one than the person you tell to *shut the f**k up*.
But, thats just my ingnorant opinion.
joshua says:
“scientists admit and everyone knows that science is *guesswork* many times.”
No they don’t.
Guys, please try to keep the asterisks down and civil communications predominant. We don’t want this to devolve [no pun] into usenet.
It’s kind of included in the Comment Guidelines.
OK. Have at it!
Hey Ed, I’m staying out of this one.
Joshua, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by revealing the truth too harshly but it is not right to turn your anger at being wrong towards me. It is not my fault if you have been fooled by superstition. Instead of insulting me, you should try to come up with a cogent argument. Again, please remember that saying some mysterious agent “did it” simply doesn’t wash. I may be arrogant and obnoxious, but I rely on facts and reality. If a better theory to explain the origin of species arises, I’ll be happy to examine it. You cannot ignore the facts and say that god did it, that isn’t science, its religion. All I want is for science to be taught in science class. Keep religion in church where it belongs. Come up with a valid scientific argument or keep your uninformed opinion to yourself.
Macro-Evolution is a religious theory preached by secular humanist. Only science should be taught in science class. It is obvious that most of these post are by people who don’t understand evolution (and don’t understand there is ZERO evidence for it) or are just anti anything that may suspose that their is a God and thus consequences.
Secular Humanism = The New Fundementalism
Who makes the disission of what opinions are informed and uninformed untill they are made. You have to let people make them then you judge them. You then say that person is an idot who has no clue or they have some good points and at least knows something. Scinetific discovery has been fuled by people who at the time were viewed as uninformed idiots. We all know that the Earth is not the center of the universe. But when Galliao first said it he was ridiculed. Later after his death the evidance became overwelming to support his position.
So what should be taught in science class if not science? Would we be arguing about teaching basket weaving in Math class? There is a place for religion, your home and your church. Why is it so hard to understand that science and only science should be taught in science class?
The reason why evolution and science are not fundamentalism is because they rely on observable facts that can be tested not fantasy, legend, superstition or fairy tales. You do have to have a minimum understanding of science to understand how and why evolution has been proven, just like gravitation, magnetism and relativity theories have.
If you want to teach alternatives to evolution in science class, they have to be based in science and the scientific method. If you can do that to the satisfaction of actual scientists, you can teach whatever alternatives you can come up with. Until such a time, please keep your fantasies, legends and superstitions to yourself and don’t inflict them on innocent children.
Galileo was ridiculed and jailed by religious people and the church not by scientists. Go read a book aside from the bible and become informed, then you can avoid embarassing yourself in public.
When someone makes a point that is worth considering, I’ll entertain it. But you have to back it up with facts.
Jonny Cox: There is massive evidence for evolution both macro and micro, a quick google can show you that.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=macro-evolution&btnG=Search&meta=
And Josh the evidence was overwhelming when Galileo was alive.
Wayne, You think?