[Spheric Harlot]

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6822028/

A follow-up to that absurd episode posted here earlier.

Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers
Disclaimer questioning theory ruled unconstitutional

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:27 p.m. ET Jan. 13, 2005


ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution �a theory, not a fact,� saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

�By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,� U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

The stickers were put inside the books� front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: �This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.�

[d4nth3m4n]

i was happy to hear this yesterday on NPR. i think this was just a matter of time. from what i gathered though, 2000 something parents proposed the stickers and only a handful wanted them out.

and to cobb county. McMansions as far as the eye can see.

[TheBadgerHunter]

No shock. The difference between theory and fact varies so much to make any effort to label theory as non-fact idiotic. Theory could be totally unproven with very little evidence to something with a large amount of empirical evidence yet unproven.

As far as credibility goes both are roughly equal.

[Shaddim]

Damn, that's stupid. What in the hell is wrong with informing people that evolution is a theory? I suppose it's bad to let kids make their own decisions... about as bad as teaching strict creationism.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Damn, that's stupid. What in the hell is wrong with informing people that evolution is a theory? I suppose it's bad to let kids make their own decisions... about as bad as teaching strict creationism.

Indeed.

[strictlyplaid]

Why are the Poli/War threads spilling over into the normal lounge more and more now? Is this some sort of sinister plot to take over the Lounge... and then, the world?

[zerostar]

[demograph68]

Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
Why are the Poli/War threads spilling over into the normal lounge more and more now? Is this some sort of sinister plot to take over the Lounge... and then, the world?

It's a conspiracy.

[Zimphire]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Damn, that's stupid. What in the hell is wrong with informing people that evolution is a theory? I suppose it's bad to let kids make their own decisions... about as bad as teaching strict creationism.

Because part of what science class is about is teaching people like you what the scientific term "theory" actually means:

I.e.: "To be taken as fact until anybody finds circumstances where current theory is inapplicable and needs to be expanded/adjusted."

That is entirely contrary to the colloquial usage of the word "theory".

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Because part of what science class is about is teaching people like you what the scientific term "theory" actually means:

I.e.: "To be taken as fact until anybody finds circumstances where current theory is inapplicable and needs to be expanded/adjusted."

That is entirely contrary to the colloquial usage of the word "theory".

and considering how often evolution is "expanded/adjusted", I see nothing wrong with the label. We don't know yet, and until we do we shouldn't treat what we know now as absolute fact.

[CreepingDeth]

What kind of idiot judge made this decision. I love how he words it. �By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,�

Firstly, labeling the theory of evolution as a theory is not denigrating. Duh. It's a theory and saying it is a theory is fact.

Second, the label, in summary, says that evolution is not yet proven and should not be viewed as the absolute truth.

Third, saying "evolution is fact" is intolerant of others' views on science and religion. We can't be exclusive in our society. We must not question anyone's beliefs.

For the record, I believe God has created the earth and the universe, but the Earth did not form 6,000 years ago, which has been false because geological evidence. Hell, moon rocks are around 4.6 billion years old. However, I don't think "6,000 years ago" is in any part of the Old Testament.

Also, on some level, there is evolution, but might be considered small changes to the human body or its build, etc. I don't believe that we evolved from apes. That's improbable.

[dialo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What in the hell is wrong with informing people that evolution is a theory?

Because it singles out evolution. Everything in science is a theory, so there is no legitimate reason to point just to evolution. Since the whole point of a biology class is to teach the students the background of the theories and the details of the observations that have led to them, the sticker is completely unnecessary.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by dialo:
Because it singles out evolution. Everything in science is a theory, so there is no legitimate reason to point just to evolution. Since the whole point of a biology class is to teach the students the background of the theories and the details of the observations that have led to them, the sticker is completely unnecessary.

Point taken. But in the end, there are a many many people who believe in some form of creationism, and the theory of evolution conflicts with those views. If anything, teaching a subject that is in direct conflict with a widely held religious view, especially one that is unproven. Isn't it more denigrating to kids who believe in creationism to hear the exact opposite presented as fact?

[spacefreak]

Yet another example of some judge overriding the democratic process to instill their own personal agenda.

School boards are elected bodies. If the parents of that community have such a problem with the sticker, they can elect new board members.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by zerostar:

ha ha, awesome

[Mastrap]

If you call evolution a theory, then using the same logic you will have to call gravity and electricity a theory. So next time you switch on the lights in your living room I suggest reading a sticker first, advising you to approach the switch with an open mind,

Evolution is a close to a fact as anything can be. Believing anything different puts you on par with the kind of people who insisted in believing that the earth was flat after Copernicus had suggested otherwise.

[MacGorilla]

Evolution is a close to a fact as anything can be. Believing anything different puts you on par with the kind of people who insisted in believing that the earth was flat after Copernicus had suggested otherwise.

It isn't????

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
If you call evolution a theory, then using the same logic you will have to call gravity and electricity a theory. So next time you switch on the lights in your living room I suggest reading a sticker first, advising you to approach the switch with an open mind,

Evolution is a close to a fact as anything can be. Believing anything different puts you on par with the kind of people who insisted in believing that the earth was flat after Copernicus had suggested otherwise.

You drag out that crap again? What you mentioned are things we know exist, things that we deal with every second of our lives.

And sorry to correct you, but a certain Greek philosopher whom is very famous said the earth was round hundreds of years before Copernicus was even conceived. Are you referring to a heliocentric universe?

But since Evolutionary theory has become secular dogma in the last century, one might make a comparison to another famous scientist who was ostracized for his beliefs. *winkwink*

Evolution has many many holes in it.

But creationism is equally unproven and nearly unproven due to the tiny little fact that belief in an almighty God requires a little bit of faith. Creationism and evolutionary theory are unproven. Period. This conversation will only end in dogma (Evolution), and counter-dogma (Creationism). It is pointless, really. And especially since we're debating, given the fact that evolution is teached and creationism is not, whether it is right to remove stickers.

[d4nth3m4n]

it was a science text. not a philosophy text.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:

Evolution has many many holes in it.

Not more than the theories on how electricity and gravity work. Both of these are constantly being updated, yet still most people accept them as fact.
If you'd bothered to do so you could observe evolution in action as easily as you can see a bulb lighting up the second you hit a switch.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
You drag out that crap again? What you mentioned are things we know exist, things that we deal with every second of our lives.

Tell me, what holes does evolution have? (<------ Edit I said hoes.. hahaha)

Evolution exists, we deal with it every day of our lives. Some call it mocro and macro, some call it adaptation.

Evolution proposes on thing... a change in an organisim over time. That is fact.

Evolution does not just propose common decent.
Evolution does not propose the origins of life.
Evolution does not propose the origins of the universe.
Evolution does not propose the existance or non-existance of God.

Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by zerostar:
1. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in.

2. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.

3. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Thank you. (Edited your text for emphasis)

This should be tattooed onto the forehead of everybody who, in this day and age, still argues against evolution. In mirror writing, so they'll have to read it every morning whilst shaving.

[CreepingDeth]

Condescending. Such blind faith in science is not good. I also find it interesting that those of us who don't put our faith so blindly in evolution are supposed to be mocked, while the post you agree with says "nothing is 100% certain". So, aren't you equally open toward mocking, since the theory you support is not proven either? Hell, you could be some kind of Deconstructionist like Jacques Derrida, where absolutely nothing is fact.

Anyways, the whole discussion really is offtopic. We've had about 10 of these threads in one month, and one big ol thread in the PL.
We're supposed to be arguing wether this is a misinterpretation or not, etc. Not the evolution argument.

[hyperb0le]

Finally!

I go to a Cobb County high school, and I cannot tell you how happy I was to hear this! And to the person who said that Cobb County is full of "McMansions," that's simply not true. About 1/3 - 1/2 of the kids I go to school with come from very poor families in bad neighborhoods. If you're ever in the area, try looking into the East Cobb area. There is a small cluster of mansions, along with some normal-sized houses, but on the other side of the area, there are some pretty low-quality, dangerous apartment complexes.

Anyway, before anyone figures this out for themselves, yes, this is the same county that had the "poisoned cake" episode a few months ago. The school was right across the street from mine :/

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Firstly, labeling the theory of evolution as a theory is not denigrating. Duh. It's a theory and saying it is a theory is fact.

The sticker is trying to say that theory &ne; fact. This is incorrect, which is why the sticker should be removed. Like others have pointed out, electricity is also a theory. Everything in science is theory. That's just the way science is. It doesn't mean that there are no facts in science.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Condescending. Such blind faith in science is not good. I also find it interesting that those of us who don't put our faith so blindly in evolution

'Blindly' in evolution? What are you talking about? You can observe evolution. Just like you can observe, (I know, broken record) gravity. It's not blind faith in science, it's faith in what can be seen.

Your argument isn't one.

[TheBadgerHunter]

In my opinion stickers aren't needed, but it still should be shown as fact when its not. I don't care if its evolution or gravity stating something as fact when its theory may be technically correct but science isn't about being technically correct.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
'Blindly' in evolution? What are you talking about? You can observe evolution. Just like you can observe, (I know, broken record) gravity. It's not blind faith in science, it's faith in what can be seen.

Your argument isn't one.

No, you can't. Not on a large scale.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
In my opinion stickers aren't needed, but it still should be shown as fact when its not. I don't care if its evolution or gravity stating something as fact when its theory may be technically correct but science isn't about being technically correct.

Chapter 4: Gravity

DISCLAIMER: Gravity is only a theory, not a fact! Remember to approach it with an open mind!

The force of gravity was first discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, and is represented by the formula F = G*m1*m2/r^2, and represents the attractive force between two objects that...

Chapter 5: Electromagnetism

DISCLAIMER: Electromagnetism is only a theory, not a fact! Remember to approach it with an open mind!

Another very important field force is electromagnetism, which is represented by the formula...

Chapter 6: Relativity

DISCLAIMER: Relativity is only a theory, not a fact! Remember to approach it with an open mind!

etc.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Chapter 4: Gravity

DISCLAIMER: Gravity is only a theory, not a fact! Remember to approach it with an open mind!

The force of gravity was first discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, and is represented by the formula F = G*m1*m2/r^2, and represents the attractive force between two objects that...

Chapter 5: Electromagnetism

DISCLAIMER: Electromagnetism is only a theory, not a fact! Remember to approach it with an open mind!

Another very important field force is electromagnetism, which is represented by the formula...

Chapter 6: Relativity

DISCLAIMER: Relativity is only a theory, not a fact! Remember to approach it with an open mind!

etc.

Yes, stickers are stupid and unnecessary. Unfortunately evolution just steps on a lot more toes. Still all textbooks should note that it is theory and subject to change.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Yes, stickers are stupid and unnecessary. Unfortunately evolution just steps on a lot more toes. Still all textbooks should note that it is theory and subject to change.

Uh, adding a note to every little thing is exactly what would make it look like my example above.

Besides, the large picture of evolution itself is not likely to change. The mechanisms may, but that should be common sense, really, because everything is like that.

Oh, and as for stepping on toes - Copernicus's theory (yep, it's a theory too!) of the heliocentric solar system stepped on a lot of toes when it came out. Tough. So did the round Earth, back in whatever time in the early Middle Ages that the Europeans started adopting that pagan Greek belief (oh no!).

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Uh, adding a note to every little thing is exactly what would make it look like my example above.

Besides, the large picture of evolution itself is not likely to change. The mechanisms may, but that should be common sense, really, because everything is like that.

Oh, and as for stepping on toes - Copernicus's theory (yep, it's a theory too!) of the heliocentric solar system stepped on a lot of toes when it came out. Tough. So did the round Earth, back in whatever time in the early Middle Ages that the Europeans started adopting that pagan Greek belief (oh no!).

From what I've heard these were mostly middle and high school books. I don't see how bad a short note on exactly what a theory is and is not. The stickers were just trying to convince people to be extra skeptical not recognize the fluidity of scientific theory.

True but then again there is a lot we don't know. Do you really think there is that much common sense out there when people need stickers telling them to be skeptical?

All of these things stepped on the biggest toe of all; religion. I myself think science and religion and be at peace for the most part. It's when people start mixing them that it gets dicey.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
From what I've heard these were mostly middle and high school books. I don't see how bad a short note on exactly what a theory is and is not. The stickers were just trying to convince people to be extra skeptical not recognize the fluidity of scientific theory.

True but then again there is a lot we don't know. Do you really think there is that much common sense out there when people need stickers telling them to be skeptical?

Obviously there are morons out there - hence the reason I know of one town where there are road signs every mile or so on the Interstate which say "No parking any time." If you have a description of what a theory is in an opening chapter of a science book, then that's fine, as long as you actually give an accurate description. None of this "a theory is not a fact, and shouldn't be trusted" BS. And those stickers were clearly singling out evolution in order to further certain agendas, which anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out.

All of these things stepped on the biggest toe of all; religion. I myself think science and religion and be at peace for the most part. It's when people start mixing them that it gets dicey.

Well, well! I agree with this. This is why these stickers are a ridiculous idea, and why "creation science" is sheer stupidity. The only reason these things exist is because some people can't accept that religion and science can be separate, and that the Bible isn't a science book.

[xenu]

Evolution deserves its place in the scientific community. Creationism deserves its place with the garbage.

Creationists know this, hence the stickers - trying to throw mud at a theory that is far closer to the truth than creationism.

Creationists really need to give up - they lost the fight when Darwin published.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by xenu:
Evolution deserves its place in the scientific community. Creationism deserves its place with the garbage.

Creationists know this, hence the stickers - trying to throw mud at a theory that is far closer to the truth than creationism.

Creationists really need to give up - they lost the fight when Darwin published.

This is an incredibly stupid view. Creationists don't care about truth based on evidence. Their beliefs are based on faith, faith that requires unconditional belief. Of course many hang back and refute evolution. Others try to accept evolution apart from their beliefs. Bottom line is that christianity should never be about trying to prove the "bad guys" are wrong or disproving other explanations.

[xenu]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
This is an incredibly stupid view. Creationists don't care about truth based on evidence. Their beliefs are based on faith, faith that requires unconditional belief. Of course many hang back and refute evolution. Others try to accept evolution apart from their beliefs. Bottom line is that christianity should never be about trying to prove the "bad guys" are wrong or disproving other explanations.

It is a completely accurate view.

The creationists trying to refute evolution (via creationism) and/or make creation a 'science' have brought this upon themselves.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
No, you can't. Not on a large scale.

Yes yes you can, no not directly because the very basis of evolution is time. Lots of time...
(Cue some creationists claming the old "time is now God" argument)

We observer exactly what we can expect to observer as an onlooker.

Do you question wether a 10,000 year old tree grew from a seed? No of course not, the facts are there and the mechanisims work, so you can deduce the conclusion without direct observation. Only thing is we can observe, say a tree growing (at least in part). We can observe oil forming from dead Dino's etc., (at least in part) the latter may not seem like it is happening, but rest assured it is.

The sun is changing to its next stage, WE here reading this will NEVER see it change... will you dispute the fact that it is changing? Of course not, but we can look at evidence, look at other stages of stars, see what radiation is depleting and what color shifts are happening and deduce form there what is going on.

Now back on topic for a minute: The problem here is science should be taught properly, students should know how science operates (on non-absolutes) they should be taught to test the theories presented and accept nothing blindly when it comes to science.

The singling out of evolution is wrong, either everything in science should get a sticker, or students should be taught properly.

You wouldn't believe how many people say "where did life come from then?" when I diuscuss evolution with them. It is apparent they were either not taught correctly or they choose not to be taught. If you are properly schooled you should know that is not a question for evoultion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The question isn't whether anyone needed a sticker to tell them that the theory of evolution is a theory or not. The question is whether the the insertion of the statement that evolution is a state endorsement of religion that contravenes the First Amendment establishment clause.

I haven't read the opinion, and I probably won't bother to do so. But it seems to me that the judge overstepped the logical bounds of the establishment clause. The statement that evolution is a theory is correct, and uncontrovertible. It seems to me that kind of like in libel law, truth should be a compete defense. In addition, the stickers didn't promote religion in any way. It seems the judge is relying on an unspoken idea from society as a whole that he feels is being drawn upon. But the sticker doesn't say that, and we can't pretend that schools are completely divorced from the outside world, and it is wrong to attempt to make them so.

I'd think of it this way: If you make the statement that Christianity isn't the only world religion, is that an endorsement of, say, Islam? It may be that some people might jump to that conclusion, but the statement itself is simply accurate in and of itself. It doesn't endorse anything. It is neutral. That the reader of the sticker might not be neutral and might add context doesn't to my mind supply state endorsement.

From the snippets I have seen, it seems that this judge thinks that simply anything that doesn't promote secularism is ipso facto a promotion of religion. Even though I personally don't believe in creationism, I think that goes too far. The establishment clause is not designed to promote secularism at the expense of religion. It is supposed to promote state neutrality on the whole issue. The First Amendment, after all, is there to protect freedom of religion, not attack it.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
No, you can't. Not on a large scale.

Oh yes, you can and oh yes, we have.
You can watch evolution in action in the laboratory, you can watch it in nature. Just like you can observe a light bulb, just like you can observe an apple falling from a tree.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Point taken. But in the end, there are a many many people who believe in some form of creationism, and the theory of evolution conflicts with those views. If anything, teaching a subject that is in direct conflict with a widely held religious view, especially one that is unproven. Isn't it more denigrating to kids who believe in creationism to hear the exact opposite presented as fact?

That organic life will select it's best genetic traits for survival as it's environment changes and that genetic mutations can aid and speed up this process is fact. That the factual process of evolution can be used to trace all life on Earth back to single celled organisms is theory.

Hearing that life evolves in response to adversity should not be denigrating to children who believe in creationism. If anything, it should validate their beliefs by showing how versatile the life created by their god is.

Extrapolating the process of evolution back to the origin of life on Earth might be denigrating to those who believe in creationism and should be identified as theory when presented. Although, it should still be presented so that kids will be able to make their own decisions (to paraphrase MacNStein)

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That organic life will select it's best genetic traits for survival as it's environment changes and that genetic mutations can aid and speed up this process is fact. That the factual process of evolution can be used to trace all life on Earth back to single celled organisms is theory.
Hearing that life evolves in response to adversity should not be denigrating to children who believe in creationism. If anything, it should validate their beliefs by showing how versatile the life created by their god is.
Extrapolating the process of evolution back to the origin of life on Earth might be denigrating to those who believe in creationism and should be identified as theory when presented. Although, it should still be presented so that kids will be able to make their own decisions (to paraphrase MacNStein)

EUREKA Wiskedjak; we agree!!!

This judge has used his bench to judge 'against' a sect of people, regardless of the sticker they presented. No religion was specifed or implied in the least bit whatsoever. He made this judgement based solely on the people behind the movement, proving in fact he is fearful of what open eyes and ears and critical study might provide! i.e. a differing view than his own!

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
But since Evolutionary theory has become secular dogma in the last century, one might make a comparison to another famous scientist who was ostracized for his beliefs. *winkwink*

Evolution has many many holes in it.

But creationism is equally unproven and nearly unproven due to the tiny little fact that belief in an almighty God requires a little bit of faith. Creationism and evolutionary theory are unproven. Period.

That's where the creationists' logic falls apart. (Well, one of the many places).

You don't "unprove" something. You can't compare one theory to another based on what is "unproven." You compare theories based on what you can prove.

Now you can disprove something. But to do that you have to use actual science - i.e. experiements and proven facts- something creationists seem to want to ignore. Feel free to attempt to disprove evolution - show us evolution can not exist.

There is a mountain of evidence to support evolution exists. Many creationists just don't accept it or don't understand it. Evolution can be observed today. You can't say it's "unproven" because it can be shown to you. Whether or not you understand what is shown is a different story.

Where is the proof for creationism? There is none. Only faith. Even atheists don't have a problem with you putting blind faith into something. But it's when you use that faith to claim that something with so much supporting evidence is false, then it's just insulting to your and our intelligence.

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Such blind faith in science is not good. I also find it interesting that those of us who don't put our faith so blindly in evolution are supposed to be mocked, while the post you agree with says "nothing is 100% certain". So, aren't you equally open toward mocking, since the theory you support is not proven either? Hell, you could be some kind of Deconstructionist like Jacques Derrida, where absolutely nothing is fact.

The phrase "blind faith in science" makes absolutely no sense.

You fail to accept science. Experiments and hard data were used to show evidence of evolution. Lots of it. There's no blind faith - there's an extremely high probability based on what we can observe. It's not science's fault that you assumed that there's no evidence to support evolution, or don't know anything about the subject.

Scientists never put blind faith in anything. Most scientists I've known are egotistical and competitive. They would love nothing more than to disprove a generally accepted theory and come up with their own. Nobody has yet disproved evolution.

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Also, on some level, there is evolution, but might be considered small changes to the human body or its build, etc. I don't believe that we evolved from apes. That's improbable.

That's a common mistatement. We didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from the same animal that was an ape's ancestor, not a modern ape. Given our physical and biological makeup, I can't understand why you would think it's improbable.

[ebuddy]

Now you can disprove something. But to do that you have to use actual science - i.e. experiements and proven facts- something creationists seem to want to ignore. Feel free to attempt to disprove evolution - show us evolution can not exist.

Evolution does exist. Adaptive evolution is beyond testing and hypothesizing, we see it in action in the differing appearances of man kind and numerous animals. The argument is; whether or not I can prove to you that there is a limitation to this adaptation. That a species can evolve against all known scientific laws of probability and entropy to eventually arrive at the current species. We know for certain, that the vast majority of mutations beget less complex organisms and organisms less apt to survive. Well, this is not science in your view. Science is about proving something is true, not proving something is false. You will not acknowledge the difference between micro and macro, but it's not because almost every scientific and medical journal to date does not because they do. The 'faithful' have mistakenly lumped the two together under one convoluted theory. Prove to me, macro-evolution. You can't. The good news is you don't have to even try because you don't acknowledge the difference between micro and macro, but then you might also have a difficult time understanding the scientific evidence that is provided to you.

There is a mountain of evidence to support micro-evolution exists.

*fixed. Thankfully, stickers are allowed in this forum.

Many creationists just don't accept it or don't understand it. Evolution can be observed today. You can't say it's "unproven" because it can be shown to you. Whether or not you understand what is shown is a different story.

I fully understand that limitless adaptation is not observed, rather extinction of species and limitations to it's adaptational ability are. Granted though, it is fun to use our imaginations. There's a great wealth of research grants to be used as well. No amount of experimentation can prove to me that matter can effectively 'break-down' and become more complex to the extent of what we know to exist today. What we don't know is the total number of varying species. We find new ones every day. We try to connect them just as the 'dogmatic' Christian tries to make connections. Afterall, Christians are human too.

[TETENAL]

What I don't understand is why some people think that religion and evolution is mutual exclusive.

I'm a christian agnostic, and I think it's possible that a god created nature including evolution. I also think it's possible that no god created this. So why argue about this? In my opinion science and religion go very well together. In fact I believe that many scientists are motivated by religion. If you believe nature was created by god, discovering nature is a religious act.

No matter what, nature is a wonderful thing.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zerostar:
Tell me, what holes does evolution have?

Where did the energy needed to start the universe come from?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Where did the energy needed to start the universe come from?

That is a question beyond the scope of the evolution theory.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Where did the energy needed to start the universe come from?

Well, TETENAL answered this... you just opened your mouth and showed us how ignorant you are on the subject.

I don't think it is wise to debate a topic when you don't know s hit about it.

You need to ask that question to The Big Bang theory or something similar

If you would stop being on the defensive for just one second, you will see evolution is not EVIL-UTION out to disprove a God or a Higher Power or even begin to debate the beginnings of the universe.

Evolutionary theory simply defines the mechanics of the evolutionary process that we observe.