Texas- voters to decide on alternative to Darwinism....

[sstein]

AJS- said:

s2art said:

AJS- said:

Sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it actually unscientific to teach Darwinism as truth beyond question? It does afterall leave the unanswered question of how life came to be here in the first place, yet not on other planets in our solar system. Some element of design by some external body is one hypothesis as to how this came about, and it doesn't seem overly burdensome to ask biology teachers to mention this rather than saying "evolution is true and that's that."

It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.

Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.


One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!

Firstly Dawinism is nothing to do with how life got started. Separate field of study.
Secondly, if the design hypothesis had any shred of credibility or evidence then of course it would be worth investigating. So what are biology teachers supposed to do? Teach the best science and then lie about alternative interpretations (creation theory AKA design)?
Why not leave creation theory to the religion class?

Because Evolution is a hypothesis, and it makes sense to at least mention alternatives which have been investigated and at some point believed by some people. Same as learning about Marxism if you study Economics or facism if you study Politics.

Reading around the subject gives you a broader understanding of how it came to be, the context in which the theory was developed and the alternatives against which it was tested. I have no idea how this law is worded, and I doubt if there was any need for it (as I said, playing Devil's Advocate a bit) but it seems to me a good idea to at least mention alternatives when discussing a theory.

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

[s2art]

AJS- said:

s2art said:

AJS- said:

Sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it actually unscientific to teach Darwinism as truth beyond question? It does afterall leave the unanswered question of how life came to be here in the first place, yet not on other planets in our solar system. Some element of design by some external body is one hypothesis as to how this came about, and it doesn't seem overly burdensome to ask biology teachers to mention this rather than saying "evolution is true and that's that."

It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.

Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.


One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!

Firstly Dawinism is nothing to do with how life got started. Separate field of study.
Secondly, if the design hypothesis had any shred of credibility or evidence then of course it would be worth investigating. So what are biology teachers supposed to do? Teach the best science and then lie about alternative interpretations (creation theory AKA design)?
Why not leave creation theory to the religion class?

Because Evolution is a hypothesis, and it makes sense to at least mention alternatives which have been investigated and at some point believed by some people. Same as learning about Marxism if you study Economics or facism if you study Politics.

Reading around the subject gives you a broader understanding of how it came to be, the context in which the theory was developed and the alternatives against which it was tested. I have no idea how this law is worded, and I doubt if there was any need for it (as I said, playing Devil's Advocate a bit) but it seems to me a good idea to at least mention alternatives when discussing a theory.

There are any number of dingbat 'theories' out there. Which ones do you think a biology teacher should be discussing with their pupils? There is only so much time available, and teaching the basics must trump discussing fantasies.
The problem with 'design' is that it is basically 'Goddidit'. Thats a subject for the R.E. teacher.

[AJS-]

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

[sstein]

AJS- said:

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

If the creationists want to propose a conflicting theory to evolution then why don't they do it following the scientific method.

Let them create their hypothesis, perform the research on evolution - it's flaws and come out with their own theory based on logic, reproducible evidence, valid observations and falsifiable predictions and put it in into the peer-review / academic arena for the sharpest minds on the planet to tear to shreds.

If they are so confident in their ideas and beliefs then follow the procedure and see if their ideas hold water and settle the controversy (the controversy that doesn't exist apart from in the creationists warped head).

We all know they wouldn't do it though, they would be torn to shreds, debunked and laughed at while being shown up as being the ignorant, dangerously uneducated morons they are!

What they spectacularly fail to grasp is that by attacking evolution in the manner they are, they are actually attacking the scientific method that has built the western civilisation to the level it is at today. That same scientific understanding and knowledge that keeps them warm, gives them access to clean water and probably stops them from dieing young in a disease infested pool of their own vomit.

To teach this crud in a high school science class would be bordering on child abuse and a huge step backwards!

-

Stuart

Edited by sstein on Monday 23 March 22:23

[AJS-]

That sets up Evolution as the accepted version which Creationists must argue against. Fair enough in a way, but bearing in mind that the idea was considered too shocking to publish only 150 years ago it doesn't seem unreasonable to give mention to the alternative which was dominant before, and still has adherents.

It's also a little disingenious to think that this is an American hick issue. I went to state school in the UK in the late 80s and early 90s and despite being taught the basics of evolution in science lessons, it was a Christian school which in it's assemblies and RE lessons basically put forward the idea of creationism as correct. I actually would have welcomed the biology teachers discussing the two ideas, putting forward the points of contention and letting pupils decide for themselves.

[s2art]

AJS- said:

That sets up Evolution as the accepted version which Creationists must argue against. Fair enough in a way, but bearing in mind that the idea was considered too shocking to publish only 150 years ago it doesn't seem unreasonable to give mention to the alternative which was dominant before, and still has adherents.

It's also a little disingenious to think that this is an American hick issue. I went to state school in the UK in the late 80s and early 90s and despite being taught the basics of evolution in science lessons, it was a Christian school which in it's assemblies and RE lessons basically put forward the idea of creationism as correct. I actually would have welcomed the biology teachers discussing the two ideas, putting forward the points of contention and letting pupils decide for themselves.

Time. Why devote valuable teaching time to discredited non-scientific ideas when that is the job of the R.E teacher? Should the biology teacher spend time on what the ancient Greeks thought too? Might be interesting but its history, not science.
I think the kids can decide for themselves anyway. One is religion the other science.

[tuglet]

I ordered the Tree of Life poster from the BBC web site; it arrived on Saturday. I stuck it on the kitchen wall and my ten year old daughter asked what it was. I did my best to explain the process of evolution, and who Charles Darwin was. When I had finished, she thought for a while before saying simply, "Does that mean there's no god?"

[enioldjoe]

sstein said:

AJS- said:

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

If the creationists want to propose a conflicting theory to evolution then why don't they do it following the scientific method.

Let them create their hypothesis, perform the research on evolution - it's flaws and come out with their own theory based on logic, reproducible evidence, valid observations and falsifiable predictions and put it in into the peer-review / academic arena for the sharpest minds on the planet to tear to shreds.

If they are so confident in their ideas and beliefs then follow the procedure and see if their ideas hold water and settle the controversy (the controversy that doesn't exist apart from in the creationists warped head).

We all know they wouldn't do it though, they would be torn to shreds, debunked and laughed at while being shown up as being the ignorant, dangerously uneducated morons they are!

What they spectacularly fail to grasp is that by attacking evolution in the manner they are, they are actually attacking the scientific method that has built the western civilisation to the level it is at today. That same scientific understanding and knowledge that keeps them warm, gives them access to clean water and probably stops them from dieing young in a disease infested pool of their own vomit.

To teach this crud in a high school science classes would be bordering on child abuse and a huge step backwards!

-

Stuart

They would and actively seek to do so but the media at large don't allow it. I can't think why.....

When was the last time there was an open debate / discussion on the subject on the BBC for example. The last time I heard an item on Radio 4 on this topic, two evolutionists were interviewed!

You give them them the airtime or the platform and they WILL take it.

I find it interesting that Dawkins, for example doesn't like these type of encounters, because, so he says, he doesn't like giving credibility to such people. Or is it because he doesn't like engaging with people like John Lennox ?

[sstein]

AJS- said:

That sets up Evolution as the accepted version which Creationists must argue against. Fair enough in a way, but bearing in mind that the idea was considered too shocking to publish only 150 years ago it doesn't seem unreasonable to give mention to the alternative which was dominant before, and still has adherents.

It's also a little disingenious to think that this is an American hick issue. I went to state school in the UK in the late 80s and early 90s and despite being taught the basics of evolution in science lessons, it was a Christian school which in it's assemblies and RE lessons basically put forward the idea of creationism as correct. I actually would have welcomed the biology teachers discussing the two ideas, putting forward the points of contention and letting pupils decide for themselves.

That's not really the way science works though is it. It's not based on beliefs and you can't have pupils choosing what they believe. Do we also teach them that some idiots believe the earth is flat and let them choose what they believe.

Of course not, that's idiotic!

Why let the advancement of scientist understanding into future generations be distorted to appease some minority of religious idiots who don't have even a basic understanding of the very theories they attempt to destroy. How much of the Discovery Institutes materials have you watched / read. You must know what they produce is garbage aimed at exploiting the lack of knowledge in people.

If they have a problem with evolution. A theory which has been rigorously scrutinized by the brightest minds in the field for decades, then follow the scientific method and put their ideas into the peer-review arena. The fact that do not do this shows they know exactly that they will be debunked and ridiculed.

They don't want this in schools to advance science, they want it in schools so they can brainwash children into their bronze age beliefs.

Like I said, it would be abuse! The schools have a responsibility to the children and this would be failing them massively.

[s2art]

enioldjoe said:

sstein said:

AJS- said:

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

If the creationists want to propose a conflicting theory to evolution then why don't they do it following the scientific method.

Let them create their hypothesis, perform the research on evolution - it's flaws and come out with their own theory based on logic, reproducible evidence, valid observations and falsifiable predictions and put it in into the peer-review / academic arena for the sharpest minds on the planet to tear to shreds.

If they are so confident in their ideas and beliefs then follow the procedure and see if their ideas hold water and settle the controversy (the controversy that doesn't exist apart from in the creationists warped head).

We all know they wouldn't do it though, they would be torn to shreds, debunked and laughed at while being shown up as being the ignorant, dangerously uneducated morons they are!

What they spectacularly fail to grasp is that by attacking evolution in the manner they are, they are actually attacking the scientific method that has built the western civilisation to the level it is at today. That same scientific understanding and knowledge that keeps them warm, gives them access to clean water and probably stops them from dieing young in a disease infested pool of their own vomit.

To teach this crud in a high school science classes would be bordering on child abuse and a huge step backwards!

-

Stuart

They would and actively seek to do so but the media at large don't allow it. I can't think why.....

When was the last time there was an open debate / discussion on the subject on the BBC for example. The last time I heard an item on Radio 4 on this topic, two evolutionists were interviewed!

You give them them the airtime or the platform and they WILL take it.

I find it interesting that Dawkins, for example doesn't like these type of encounters, because, so he says, he doesn't like giving credibility to such people. Or is it because he doesn't like engaging with people like John Lennox ?

Actually they did. In a court case in the USA. They got their arses handed to them.

[sstein]

enioldjoe said:

sstein said:

AJS- said:

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

If the creationists want to propose a conflicting theory to evolution then why don't they do it following the scientific method.

Let them create their hypothesis, perform the research on evolution - it's flaws and come out with their own theory based on logic, reproducible evidence, valid observations and falsifiable predictions and put it in into the peer-review / academic arena for the sharpest minds on the planet to tear to shreds.

If they are so confident in their ideas and beliefs then follow the procedure and see if their ideas hold water and settle the controversy (the controversy that doesn't exist apart from in the creationists warped head).

We all know they wouldn't do it though, they would be torn to shreds, debunked and laughed at while being shown up as being the ignorant, dangerously uneducated morons they are!

What they spectacularly fail to grasp is that by attacking evolution in the manner they are, they are actually attacking the scientific method that has built the western civilisation to the level it is at today. That same scientific understanding and knowledge that keeps them warm, gives them access to clean water and probably stops them from dieing young in a disease infested pool of their own vomit.

To teach this crud in a high school science classes would be bordering on child abuse and a huge step backwards!

-

Stuart

They would and actively seek to do so but the media at large don't allow it. I can't think why.....

When was the last time there was an open debate / discussion on the subject on the BBC for example. The last time I heard an item on Radio 4 on this topic, two evolutionists were interviewed!

You give them them the airtime or the platform and they WILL take it.

I find it interesting that Dawkins, for example doesn't like these type of encounters, because, so he says, he doesn't like giving credibility to such people. Or is it because he doesn't like engaging with people like John Lennox ?

Tosh, the academic and peer-review will allow anyone to submit an idea.

There is a difference between having the right to have an idea and submit it (however preposterous) and having the right to be taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously then do the work and earn it. Do the research, gain an understanding and produce verifiable observations and reproducible experiments and evidence.

So far nothing, NOTHING, the discovery institute has produced deserves being taken seriously. It's not based on science, it's based on misinformation at best.

[AJS-]

s2art said:

Should the biology teacher spend time on what the ancient Greeks thought too? Might be interesting but its history, not science.

Yes, if it puts it in a context which makes sense of the current theories and the alternatives.

I actually see this as a Phyrric victory for the Creationists. It will get their theory air time, but that air time will serve to strengthen the better theory by putting it in the context of alternatives which these kids are exposed to in areas beyond the control of their science teachers.

[bi9_jk]

This problem seems to have been resolved at the school I was at

Science stayed in the science classroom, such as Darwinism, which expains the basis of how things came to be.

Religion stayed in the religios education class, such as creationism, alongside other religious stuff which shows what a bunch of backwards people still believe in the face of proven fact.

Problem solved.

Anyway, gaps in Evolution, come on, is there not a few gaps in the bible, a few exaggerations maybe, mistruths.....think people!

[sstein]

s2art said:

enioldjoe said:

sstein said:

AJS- said:

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

If the creationists want to propose a conflicting theory to evolution then why don't they do it following the scientific method.

Let them create their hypothesis, perform the research on evolution - it's flaws and come out with their own theory based on logic, reproducible evidence, valid observations and falsifiable predictions and put it in into the peer-review / academic arena for the sharpest minds on the planet to tear to shreds.

If they are so confident in their ideas and beliefs then follow the procedure and see if their ideas hold water and settle the controversy (the controversy that doesn't exist apart from in the creationists warped head).

We all know they wouldn't do it though, they would be torn to shreds, debunked and laughed at while being shown up as being the ignorant, dangerously uneducated morons they are!

What they spectacularly fail to grasp is that by attacking evolution in the manner they are, they are actually attacking the scientific method that has built the western civilisation to the level it is at today. That same scientific understanding and knowledge that keeps them warm, gives them access to clean water and probably stops them from dieing young in a disease infested pool of their own vomit.

To teach this crud in a high school science classes would be bordering on child abuse and a huge step backwards!

-

Stuart

They would and actively seek to do so but the media at large don't allow it. I can't think why.....

When was the last time there was an open debate / discussion on the subject on the BBC for example. The last time I heard an item on Radio 4 on this topic, two evolutionists were interviewed!

You give them them the airtime or the platform and they WILL take it.

I find it interesting that Dawkins, for example doesn't like these type of encounters, because, so he says, he doesn't like giving credibility to such people. Or is it because he doesn't like engaging with people like John Lennox ?

Actually they did. In a court case in the USA. They got their arses handed to them.

Yes, three of their expert witnesses wouldn't give evidence and two defendants lied under oath and were close to being charged with perjury.

[enioldjoe]

sstein said:

enioldjoe said:

sstein said:

AJS- said:

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

If the creationists want to propose a conflicting theory to evolution then why don't they do it following the scientific method.

Let them create their hypothesis, perform the research on evolution - it's flaws and come out with their own theory based on logic, reproducible evidence, valid observations and falsifiable predictions and put it in into the peer-review / academic arena for the sharpest minds on the planet to tear to shreds.

If they are so confident in their ideas and beliefs then follow the procedure and see if their ideas hold water and settle the controversy (the controversy that doesn't exist apart from in the creationists warped head).

We all know they wouldn't do it though, they would be torn to shreds, debunked and laughed at while being shown up as being the ignorant, dangerously uneducated morons they are!

What they spectacularly fail to grasp is that by attacking evolution in the manner they are, they are actually attacking the scientific method that has built the western civilisation to the level it is at today. That same scientific understanding and knowledge that keeps them warm, gives them access to clean water and probably stops them from dieing young in a disease infested pool of their own vomit.

To teach this crud in a high school science classes would be bordering on child abuse and a huge step backwards!

-

Stuart

They would and actively seek to do so but the media at large don't allow it. I can't think why.....

When was the last time there was an open debate / discussion on the subject on the BBC for example. The last time I heard an item on Radio 4 on this topic, two evolutionists were interviewed!

You give them them the airtime or the platform and they WILL take it.

I find it interesting that Dawkins, for example doesn't like these type of encounters, because, so he says, he doesn't like giving credibility to such people. Or is it because he doesn't like engaging with people like John Lennox ?

Tosh, the academic and peer-review will allow anyone to submit an idea.

There is a difference between having the right to have an idea and submit it (however preposterous) and having the right to be taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously then do the work and earn it. Do the research, gain an understanding and produce verifiable observations and reproducible experiments and evidence.

So far nothing, NOTHING, the discovery institute has produced deserves being taken seriously. It's not based on science, it's based on misinformation at best.

Have you seen Expelled? (It's worth watching just to see the interviews with Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins

Edited by enioldjoe on Monday 23 March 23:01

[s2art]

AJS- said:

s2art said:

Should the biology teacher spend time on what the ancient Greeks thought too? Might be interesting but its history, not science.

Yes, if it puts it in a context which makes sense of the current theories and the alternatives.

I actually see this as a Phyrric victory for the Creationists. It will get their theory air time, but that air time will serve to strengthen the better theory by putting it in the context of alternatives which these kids are exposed to in areas beyond the control of their science teachers.

It doesnt need putting into any particular context other than science. There are no credible (or even remotely sane)alternatives.
My point about greeks was; Where do you stop? If the teacher had to discuss all the non-scientific ideas possibly associated with living things then there would be no time for the basics. Would you want the Hindu world creation view included? The American Indian creation myths? Japanese? African?
All these things come under comparative religions and the like, not biology.

[Wadeski]

s2art said:

7mike said:

im said:

I just find it hilarious that religeous types spout on about flaws in Darwinian Theory...

Because so many of them are the flaws in Darwinian theory.....

I am sure we would all be interested in these flaws, please elucidate.

Whoooooosh!

[AJS-]

My take on that would be as simple as a couple of sentences, something along the lines of "Until the 19th century it was widely believed that life on earth was put in place by a divine creator, while some religious groups still believe this, current scientific orthodoxy points towards evolution..."

[Airbag]

Wadeski said:

s2art said:

7mike said:

im said:

I just find it hilarious that religeous types spout on about flaws in Darwinian Theory...

Because so many of them are the flaws in Darwinian theory.....

I am sure we would all be interested in these flaws, please elucidate.

Whoooooosh!

Damn.

[sstein]

enioldjoe said:

sstein said:

enioldjoe said:

sstein said:

AJS- said:

sstein said:

Theory in science (apart from maths) doesn't mean the same as theory in it's conventional use.

Scientific theory is the most powerful status an explanation for an event can attain. It's based on logic, reproduceable experiments and observation. It certainly doesn't mean it's just an idea.

It isn't just a difference of semantics though. They remain theories as an acknowledgement that while they are the best explanations we can arrive at based on the assumptions we currently make, they are not absolute truth, which is the domain of religion.

If the creationists want to propose a conflicting theory to evolution then why don't they do it following the scientific method.

Let them create their hypothesis, perform the research on evolution - it's flaws and come out with their own theory based on logic, reproducible evidence, valid observations and falsifiable predictions and put it in into the peer-review / academic arena for the sharpest minds on the planet to tear to shreds.

If they are so confident in their ideas and beliefs then follow the procedure and see if their ideas hold water and settle the controversy (the controversy that doesn't exist apart from in the creationists warped head).

We all know they wouldn't do it though, they would be torn to shreds, debunked and laughed at while being shown up as being the ignorant, dangerously uneducated morons they are!

What they spectacularly fail to grasp is that by attacking evolution in the manner they are, they are actually attacking the scientific method that has built the western civilisation to the level it is at today. That same scientific understanding and knowledge that keeps them warm, gives them access to clean water and probably stops them from dieing young in a disease infested pool of their own vomit.

To teach this crud in a high school science classes would be bordering on child abuse and a huge step backwards!

-

Stuart

They would and actively seek to do so but the media at large don't allow it. I can't think why.....

When was the last time there was an open debate / discussion on the subject on the BBC for example. The last time I heard an item on Radio 4 on this topic, two evolutionists were interviewed!

You give them them the airtime or the platform and they WILL take it.

I find it interesting that Dawkins, for example doesn't like these type of encounters, because, so he says, he doesn't like giving credibility to such people. Or is it because he doesn't like engaging with people like John Lennox ?

Tosh, the academic and peer-review will allow anyone to submit an idea.

There is a difference between having the right to have an idea and submit it (however preposterous) and having the right to be taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously then do the work and earn it. Do the research, gain an understanding and produce verifiable observations and reproducible experiments and evidence.

So far nothing, NOTHING, the discovery institute has produced deserves being taken seriously. It's not based on science, it's based on misinformation at best.

Have you seen Expelled?

oh Expelled!

By Ben Stein..

Utter tosh from start to finish.

Example of a few of Ben Steins arguments as to why evolution isn't valid:

1) It doesn't explain the origin of life. --- Well he's right it doesn't, that would be abiogenesis. Saying that evolution is not a valid theory because it doesn't explain a very different set of events is akin to saying that Pythagoras theorem isn't a valid way describe right angled triangles because it doesn't explain fluid dynamics in a vacuum.

2) Evolution says that life started by lightning striking a mud puddle --- *WRONG* *WRONG *WRONG* Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin.

3) Evolution doesn't explain gravity. ** See point 1 above **

4) Says that their has never been observed instances of speciation. ** WRONG **

5) No progress since Darwinism. -- He ignores all scientific advancement since the original theory of evolution.

6) Says it can't be valid because darwin didn't understand the complexity of a cell -- This strengthens the evolution theory as DNA, cells, chemistry, biology all support evolution.

7) It doesn't explain the big bang theory ** AGAIN See point 1 **

8) It doesn't explain how the planet formed ** AGAIN See point 1 **

Ben Stein doesn't get taken seriously, not because he's a threat to the scientific community, but because he's a moron and his film is turgid drivel.

-

Stuart