ZDNet Education

Christopher Dawson

13% of US biology teachers advocate creationism: Welcome to 2011

By | January 29, 2011, 10:54pm PST

Summary: What happened to curricular standards? And why the heck are Creationists biology teachers?

My jaw hit the floor with a painful thud when I saw the headlines surrounding a Science article published Friday. A full 13% of surveyed US biology teachers were actively promoting Creationism, while the majority of the 900 surveyed taught evolution either ineffectively or in such a wishy-washy manner as to send students mixed messages and fail to teach a core tennet within modern biology.

Believe what you want. I don’t care. That’s entirely your business. But when your business is also to teach biology, then you had better not only be teaching to your state’s standards but also be teaching a concept critical to our understanding of virtually every aspect of biology, human and otherwise. To know that less than one third of the biology teachers surveyed actually managed to teach the subject effectively is like hearing that only a small percentage of elementary teachers cover fraction manipulation well. Oh, wait…

There are plenty of school committee members and parents out there screaming for intelligent design to at least be taught, if not full-on Adam=Dust, Eve=Adam’s rib, and Adam+Eve=Human Race, as a compromise between what we know of science and their Christian beliefs. However, by not teaching students directly and clearly about what we know of evolution and natural selection (and we know quite a little bit, thank you very much, Charles Darwin, and the generations of biologists who came after you), we rob them of a fundamental understanding of life and prevent them from learning the foundation for most biological sciences.

I’m not here to argue fundamentalist doctrines versus science. I’m here to argue for the education of our children in a manner consistent with massive bodies of knowledge and real, validated, widely accepted scientific facts and principals.

My wife would disagree adamantly with me. She’s an Adam-and-Eve sort of girl and I don’t hold that against her. Our minister takes a more flexible approach and I like hearing what he has to say most weekends. My mom was the first to introduce me to the idea that “maybe God guided evolution…After all, 6 days of God’s time could be millions of years in ours.” Yes, I still remember that conversation.

But guess what? Not one of those three people is, should be, or ever will teach biology. One of the first things we teach our students (in science and elsewhere) is the difference between fact and opinion, belief and theory, rigorous research and pseudoscience. We don’t call it pseudoscience in the third grade. But the average third grader should be able to tell you a little bit about the scientific method.

And the average high schooler should be able to tell you in detail about the roles of natural selection and random mutations in various ecosystems and in the evolution of species. Here’s what Science had to say about this:

Just over 5 years ago, the scientific community turned its attention to a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Eleven parents sued their Dover, Pennsylvania, school board to overturn a policy explicitly legitimizing intelligent design creationism. The case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, followed a familiar script: Local citizens wanted their religious values validated by the science curriculum; prominent academics testified to the scientific consensus on evolution; and creationists lost decisively. Intelligent design was not science, held the court, but rather an effort to advance a religious view via public schools, a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause…Many scientists cheered the decision…We suggest that the cheering was premature and the victory incomplete.

The teaching of evolution infringes on nobody’s rights. We have overwhelming scientific evidence in its favor. Parents and religious leaders can find their own ways to reconcile or refute the evidence based on their beliefs. However, teaching Creationism in our public schools not only violates the US Constitution, but infringes on a student’s right to learn objective, research-based, state-of-the-art science from state-of-the-art teachers in state-of-the-art schools.

This is 2011 and their counterparts around the world with whom they will be competing in a few short years are decidedly not learning Creationism in their biology classes.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Chris Dawson is a freelance writer and consultant with years of experience in educational technology and web-based systems. In 2011, he became the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., a virtual classroom and learning network SaaS provider.

Disclosure

Christopher Dawson

Christopher Dawson is the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., by day and a freelance writer and educational technology consultant by night. Well, most of his colleagues at WizIQ are based in India, so really he's working with them whenever he can stay awake. He has worked for his local school district as a teacher and technology director, for the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, and for Biogen, Inc. (now Biogen-IDEC, Inc.). He has also consulted with STATNet and Cytyc Corporation and retains close ties with X2 Development Corporation (now owned by Follett Software, the supplier of the student information system he administered for several years). Follett is paying him a monthly honorarium to act as a presenter for their "SIS Voices for Student Achievement" community (he produces occasional blog posts and hosts a monthly webinar on the use of student information systems to inform data-driven instruction and school-wide change. He regularly purchases and/or recommends Dell hardware. This is because Dell makes good hardware and has truly committed itself to education in innovative ways, particularly with their "Connected Classroom" initiative. It isn't because he has dealings with the company through his role at WizIQ (which he does) or because they have provided him with long-term loans of a variety of equipment for in-depth testing (which they have). Intel (reference designer for the Classmate PCs he has implemented in his local schools) has provided him with long-term loans of Classmate PCs for testing, as have Dell and Lenovo with their educational offerings. He may report on any of these companies as his experiences with them have direct bearing on educational technology; positive reports are not necessarily an endorsement and he receives no direct financial compensation from these companies or any others. Intel paid all expenses for his attendance at the 2009 Intel Classmate PC Ecosystem Summit which he attended as the sole representative of the technology press. He was invited to attend in 2010 but his wife would have killed him if he spent 3 days in Vegas geeking out and left her home alone with a new baby. Acer provided him with a 50% discount on an Aspire One netbook in early 2009 after he tested it for 30 days through their educational seed program. He liked the netbook at the time but it has since broken and sits unused in his office. Canonical sent him Ubuntu lanyards, t-shirts, and mousepads for his kids. He stole one of the lanyards and proudly hangs his keys from it and occasionally features his 8-year old wearing an oversized Ubuntu t-shirt on his Facebook profile. Gunnar Optiks sent him a pair of computer glasses to evaluate for a holiday gift guide. He is wearing them now as he types this because they never asked for them back and they rock out loud. Seriously - they work brilliantly and make it much easier to spend 20 hours a day staring at an LCD. If they ever asked for them back, he would fork over the $99 and buy a pair. Microsoft gave him 2 free copies of Office 2010 professional, a desktop clock, and a useless book on Office 2010 when he attended the launch of Office/Sharepoint 2010. He occasionally uses the SharePoint lanyard they gave him instead of the Ubuntu lanyard for his keys, but feels dirty afterwards. Adobe provided him with a pre-release version of the CS5 Master Collection for evaluation and ultimately provided a full, licensed copy for ongoing testing of educational applications of this admittedly expensive software. Like the Gunnars, if the license expires or they come out with CS6, he'd actually go out and buy it himself. Which is saying something, because he's actually pretty cheap. Any other companies wishing to send him cool things to evaluate, wear, or otherwise adorn his kids are more than welcome to; he promises to disclose it here if he keeps any of the stuff. Finally, because WizIQ is a virtual classroom and learning network provider, Chris, as VP of Marketing, frequently interacts with, seeks out deals with, and directly or indirectly competes with a whole lot of LMS, SIS, and other Education 2.0 companies. In general, he'll limit his reporting about these companies to news that does not impact his relationship with them or with WizIQ. If he reports on them, it's because what they are doing is newsworthy or worth the attention of his readers and not because he's trying to broker some deal, damage competition, or otherwise advance his position in his day job. LMS and SIS companies, along with other online learning communities, are a pretty important part of Ed Tech. If he stops reporting on them completely, there won't be a whole lot left. He'll be sure to call out any overt conflicts of interest if they are unavoidable. Finally, Follett Software Company pays him a little tiny honorarium every month to present on their SIS Voices webinars and to write the occasional blog or discussion thread for them. Since Follett recently bought X2 (maker of an awesome web-based SIS that Chris just happened to have used, served in advisory groups for, and frequently reported on), this is probably also worth disclosing.

Biography

Christopher Dawson

Christopher Dawson grew up in Seattle, back in the days of pre-antitrust Microsoft, coffeeshops owned by something other than Starbucks, and really loud, inarticulate music. He escaped to the right coast in the early 90's and received a degree in Information Systems from Johns Hopkins University. While there, he began a career in health and educational information systems, with a focus on clinical trials and related statistical programming and database modeling. This focus led him to several positions at Johns Hopkins, a couple-year stint in private industry, teaching high school math and technology, and 2 years as the technology director for his local school district. Most recently, he started his own consulting business and is now the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., a virtual classroom and learning network provider. He lives with his wife, five kids (yes, 5), 2 dogs, and a hateful cat in a small town in north-central Massachusetts. Although he is no longer teaching, his roles with WizIQ and ZDNet allow him to continue helping students and teachers add value to education with technology rather than merely adding to the bottom line.
387
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Teach evolution, but nothing wrong with brief mention of intel design
hgeiger 28th Nov
Why can't biology teachers just teach evolution, but briefly mention that some people believe that intelligent design guides it? I don't think biology teachers should discuss intelligent design at length, as it is not their place to be discussing religion in a science class. But a quick disclaimer of, "Some people also believe that a higher power, like God, guides the process of evolution, or that the creation story in the Bible can be interpreted to make sense with a scientific understanding of the world" would not necessarily be the worst thing, and the "some people believe" part would prevent any claims of church vs. state infringement. This could also help calm parents who are religious and don't want their kids to stop believing in God when they learn about evolution. Of course, there will still be some fundamentalist parents who don't even like the idea of intelligent design or interpreting the Bible anything but 100% literally, so this strategy isn't foolproof. I still have no idea what to do with the kids whose parents want them to think that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and that the world was created in exactly 6 days. But if a brief mention of intelligent design could get more kids to be able to get the scientific knowledge that they should without their parents getting up in arms about said science supposedly being against their faith, it would be a start.
0 Votes
+ -
evolution is only a theory
zhoro35 29th Jan 2011
I am not sure if you are aware, Chris, that evolution is yet to be proved. Scientists cannot agree on the certainty of evolution.

Teching about Adam and Eve - well, if it is true, why not? I certainly do not want my kid to be taught a lie, just because it sounds more reliable than the crazy truth.
@zhoro35 while there is ZERO evidence of creationism?

One theory is based on measurable facts, while the other is base of tall tails of superstition created by religious bureaucrats trying to control the masses with fear.
@wackoae Bull ****! The Bacterial Flagellum is an organism that disproves Evolution by Darwin's own claim...

Darwin admitted that if such a complex organism did exist his theory would be blown apart.

Also, it isn't creationism as the moronic author referred to it, it is Intelligent Design which says there was intelligence behind the design of Creation and that it was not all an accident...

The theory of ID never once pins itself to Adam and Eve!
@Petter Perry

Just the opposite. There are have been multiple findings of Bacterial Flagellum and different components. The amazing thing is, they have been able to piece together the "evolution" and generation of Bacterial Flagellum from simple to complex.

The amazing thing that the whakos don't get is that a trait can change its function while getting more complex. A simple Bacterial Flagellum might only act as a simple "stinger" while a more complex one might include a protein to induce rotation. Now it is a propeller.

Cool. no?

Bet you are too weak in your faith to learn as well. Might explain your love of Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
@bruizer you cannot take multiple varieties of Bacteria and claim they evolved from each other... That's not realistic and outlines another flaw in the theory... To take away pieces of the flagellum removes the function that it previously had regardless of the proteins perform a different function... Thus it is irreversibly complex (seriously, just because a chair and a car might have nuts and bolts does not make them evolutionary products even if the car has a seat).

Dawkins was asked to show evidence of just one such example of such an evolutionary product and he made the person conducting the interview shut off the recorder then later came back and skirted the issue saying, it doesn't work like that, the things around us now are our cousins and yet we supposedly evolved from Monkeys so, why do we still have Monkeys? Speaking of which, where is the missing link.

And you're a Mac fan because you like it when authoritarian types tell you what to believe. Now go think with your collective...

As for Windows, I use it because all my software works in it and did not directly port to Linux or Mac but I use Linux as well for other tests and such.
0 Votes
+ -
"take multiple varieties of Bacteria and claim they evolved from each other..."

That is exactly what you do. That is the basis of evolutionary theory. To take different species and show a related trend of change.

"To take away pieces of the flagellum removes the function that it previously had regardless of the proteins perform a different function..."

Again, that is exactly right. But taking away the original function does not change the fact that they different function can prove useful for survival. In short, the concept of "irreducible complexity" is based on the fact that no intermediate function can be useful. That has been proven to be 100% incorrect. By the vary nature of science, Behe's work has been soundly dis-proved.

What Behe, and his worshipers like you fail to realize, is that it is perfectly acceptable to repurpose a unit, like the Flagellum, to do something else that is beneficial to survival. This was demonstrated exceptionally well in the Dover case and is one of the reasons the Judge, a highly conservative Bush appointe, ruled in favor of science and intelligence.

So again, posting Behe and evidence that Evolution is "flawed" shows complete lack of thought or research into the debate. His conclusions have been firmly debunked as junk science in the greatest way.
@wackoae,

There is no definitive proof of evolution, and the lack of transitional species around us and in fossils, outright disproves the theory. As for proof that God exists, if you look at the cross section of things and efforts produced by man, animals, plants and micro-organisms, you see the pattern that for things increasingly sophisticated to be established, you need increasing amounts of intelligence and capacity to muster resources in order to make them happen. Now the reasonable thing is to believe that this pattern which we see, exists everywhere and extends to all things. This would mean that there is intelligence behind the establishment of all things, and only beings consistent with the description of God, could have created our universe - because it requires beings having the requisite intelligence and resources in order to do so.

Instead of accepting the above line of reasoning, atheists frantically promote the idea that our universe arose without the hand of intelligence, and can provide no evidence for their claim.

Now all systems of explanations where you don't exhaustively know their underpinnings are belief systems. That would make all systems of explanations, including science and evolution belief systems as well. Also any lack of understanding of all things, or a misalignment with such understanding, virtually guarantees your understanding of things in this world to be overall wrong. Given that man's understanding of things fit the above description, it follows that science, evolution, and all other efforts by man to understand our universe, can only be deficient. Therefore science and evolution are not accurate, and can never be, and the only chance man has to know the truth about his world, is if such a being consistent with the omniscient God exists, and man is aligned with Him.

Therefore it is a misnomer to say that science gets at the truth of our existence. Science is only capable of creating inherently flawed models of our world. The models may be useful, but they are anything but accurate. The only shot man has at knowing the truth about his existence, is if a good, omniscient God exists, and if man's understanding is aligned with His.
0 Votes
+ -
@wackoae
There are no 'measurable facts' that can stack up against the bible.
The evolution theory should be banned in public schools as an anti christian ploy promoted by brain washing liberals.
Let's hope that the next conservative congress and president will see to it, once and for all!
These liberals should tout their monkey ancestors only in their basement, not in public places!
  • Flagged
@wackoae ...except for one unavoidable fact: information can only be subtracted from the genome. Never added.

Ever.

This means only one thing. The entire code had to be complete from the beginning because once assembled it has to have all the information needed and can only deteriorate from there.
0 Votes
+ -
They're both just theories - no one was there
richardschwarz 31st Jan 2011
I'm sure that the most of the threads on this post will be flammable... but. I am a Christian, and a teacher, and I fail to see why both can't be taught as separate possible ways for discussing how life came to be. In fact, if science is about looking at *all* the hypothesises out there, and then using testing and evidence to decide, then why are we doing our students a disservice by only promoting ONE of the possible methods. Yes, evolution has some 'evidence' to support it, but similar levels of 'evidence' to support Intelligent Design (I use '' to demonstrate that there are questionable elements to both sets of evidence). Surely, if we expect our children to be discerning adults (and, for example, not just buy an iPad because everyone else is) then surely we should be trusting them to make a judgment?
@wackoae It is amazing how fast you ID folks can come out in defense; what? not confident. Also, Peter Perry -- I am not aware that "recorders" existed during Darwin's time!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
You don't teach Algebra in a Sociology class, why would you teach religion in a science class?

Creationism/Intelligent Design have no place in a science classroom, they're different subjects. If you want to learn about Intelligent Design, learn it in a religious studies or some other elective course.

Science operates on the principle of discovery and falsifiability through the scientific process. When developing a scientific theory (keep in context, this is not a "theory" as in conjecture or a guess, scientific theory has a specific meaning) it is not a measurement of right and wrong, it's a measurement of probability.

Falsifiability is perhaps one of the most important aspects of testing a scientific theory. If the results are not what you expected, it is important that someone can demonstrate why the results were not as expected.

Evolution is supported by evidence. Measuring radioactive decay in organic and inorganic minerals tell us how old things are. Fossils demonstrate a clear path of species changing. Direct observation of controlled experiments have demonstrated the evolutionary process in effect.

Also, it is important to understand that The Origin of Species does not refer to the creation of life itself, which is what creationism/intelligent design to try to explain. The phrase "species" is in reference to specation, or the development of diversity. The origins of life on our planet is a different topic of discussion.

Intelligent Design is impossible to test and is not falsifiable, that is why it is not a scientific theory. In the words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, it's not even wrong.
Yeah... I say what richardschwarz is saying.
At the end of the day both are two differing BELIEFS.
While each have their own sources of "evidence", it's ultimately up to us "end-users" to decide on our own what we feel the best choice is.
As for the teachers, I agree that they need to teach what their respective states REQUIRE (not "want" or "prefer") them to. End of story.
0 Votes
+ -
"I am a Christian, and a teacher, and I fail to see why both can't be taught as separate possible ways for discussing how life came to be."

Evolutionary Theory is derived via scientific method, so it should be taught in a science classroom. Intelligent Design is derived by conjecture and hearsay, so it should be taught in a religious studies, philosophy, or other elective.

No one is saying you can't teach your religion in a classroom (frankly, it's up to the State), it just doesn't belong in a science class. I hope you understand the important difference.

"In fact, if science is about looking at *all* the hypothesises out there, and then using testing and evidence to decide, then why are we doing our students a disservice by only promoting ONE of the possible methods."

Correct, however, you can not test Intelligent Design. The foundation of Intelligent Design is an untestable, unknown variable. This isn't philosophy, it's science.

"Yes, evolution has some 'evidence' to support it, but similar levels of 'evidence' to support Intelligent Design (I use '' to demonstrate that there are questionable elements to both sets of evidence)."

I don't mean this as to offend you, but you're completely off the mark; and I mean by orders of magnitude wrong.

It is also important to note that all major objections to evolutionary theory made by intelligent design proponents have been demonstrated to be false. Intelligent Design lends zero credibility to itself and does not stand up to the rigors of scientific theory.

Simply put, there is zero evidence that supports Intelligent Design.

"Surely, if we expect our children to be discerning adults (and, for example, not just buy an iPad because everyone else is) then surely we should be trusting them to make a judgment?"

We have grown adults that can not discern the difference between scientific theory and conjecture. Adults that take talking points they read on the internet and assume it is fact, somehow comparing them to over a hundred years of scientific scrutiny.

Children are not adults, they are still learning. I find it despicable the adults who should know better are taking advantage of their position as board members and teachers so they can enforce their religious views and teach them as fact.
0 Votes
+ -
@linux geek There are no 'measurable facts' that can stack up against the bible.

Hmmm... Galileo was ex-communicated from the Church for promoting the idea of a sun-centered solar system that was contrary to the bible. Do you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the Sun revolves around the earth? A heliocentric (sorry for the big scientific word, look it up if you have to) solar system was a revolutionary idea that unfortunately took centuries for the bible thumpers to accept. You may argue that we can't "prove" that the Earth revolves around the Sun because we haven't gone that far out into space to observe it, just as creationists want to argue that evolution cant be proven just because we cant see it (although we have seen it - read "Beak of the Finch"), the overwhelming evidence is there. Gregor Mendel was also criticized for his theories of genetics, yet they are now a cornerstone of genetic heredity.

Why isnt the bible used as a text for geology? For history? For astronomy? For physics? Because it was written over 2000 years ago, when the masses looked to their religious leaders for answers to those difficult questions. Why are we here? What are those blinking lights in the night sky? Why do some people have different skin color? Why do some people speak a different language? The bible was written to try to explain those things, and was based on knowledge available at the time, which wasn't much, scientifically.

Hopefully, it won't take 400 years for the creationists to come to their senses and accept evolution as a valid scientific principle. Just as a helio-centric solar systen is not a slap to the bible, neither is evolution a slap to the bible. Look to the bible for spirituality, for guidance as to how to be a good person, to learn forgiveness, not for the answers for everything else, wether it be evolution, genetics, or a heliocentric solar system.
@Bruizer that is not how it works... in the counter arguments by evolution supporters they stated that removing 15 proteins left them with something resembling Ecoli but the propeller functionality was removed thus the motor is not reversible.

Going further, Ecoli exists today and Dawkins stated such evolutionary products do not exist at the same time...

Basically, there are no links between species so you are left to speculate that said species evolved right? No thanks, Science has controls in place but the end result is very loose interpretation.

Let's take eczema for example... A study showed a significant amount of Epileptics developed Eczema so the conclusion was that Eczema is a nervous system disorder... that may have some basis in fact but the data isn't there for more than a loose hypothesis. These same scenarios exist with Evolution.
0 Votes
+ -
WHAT created everything, hmm? ...
BlazingEagle 5th Feb 2011
@wackoae

Even the THEORY of evolution doesn't explain who or what the ultimate creator of all of creation is.
@zhoro35

"I am not sure if you are aware, Chris, that evolution is yet to be proved."

You appear to be laboring under a number of very serious misconceptions when it comes to understanding what science is, and how it works:

1. The word "theory" in the context of "scientific theory" does not mean "a guess" or "an idea". A scientific theory is a model of some aspect of reality. It is a model which is made up of facts, a model which is tested by comparing what the model says we should observe against what we actually *do* observe in reality.

2. No scientific theory is ever proven true. Ever. They can't be, not even in principle. Instead, scientific theories are tested, repeatedly, and those which are tested and not shown to be false are considered to be true... *provisionally*, with the understanding that in the future some new observation or experimental outcome could show that theory to be false.

3. Evolutionary theory is one of the best supported, most tested scientific theories we have. There is an astounding amount of evidence supporting it.

4. Evolutionary theory has been tested and refined for over 150 years. There is no serious debate as to whether or not it is true that all life on this planet evolved from simple common ancestors. The fact that you can find some people who disbelieve this is no more significant than the fact that you can find people who believe the Apollo moon landings were faked. When it comes to the scientific community, there is no serious debate as to the validity of evolutionary theory. None. Anyone who tells you differently is telling you something that just isn't true.

"Scientists cannot agree on the certainty of evolution."

It's one of the most supported, most agreed upon theories in science. It's as close to "truth" as science gets or can get.

"Teching about Adam and Eve - well, if it is true, why not?"

It's not true. The evidence we get from genetics, fossils, and even geology contradict that Adam & Eve myth.

You don't want us to teach false things to our children, do you?

"I certainly do not want my kid to be taught a lie, just because it sounds more reliable than the crazy truth."

Excellent! Then you, like me, support the teaching of modern evolutionary theory as a key subject of biology.
@MikeAlt Yep, and we are telling you it has been refuted but those pushing the Theory refuse to see it... See for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@MikeAlt

Even his "findings" on the complexities of single celled organisms have been disproven. What you miss is that you can take away pieces of a complex part and that part does not become useless. In fact, that more simple part can take on a different purpose. Repurposing as it were.

What I love, is ID is simply Creationism pinned with a different name. There were even search and replace errors in the first book where Creationism was incorrectly replaced with Intelligent Design.

ID is linked at the hip with Adam and Eve. Its primary text, Of Panda and People, has been shown to be so incredibly wrong and out of date (as in using 1930's based fossil data) as to be laughable.
0 Votes
+ -
evolution is an hypothesis intended to explain something (speciation) which cannot be specifically measured. Now, in the world of real science (physics or chemistry), if I were to write a paper claiming an explanation for something I couldn't even consistently measure, I'd be laughed out of the community as a crackpot.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe God created Evolution
prof123 Updated - 31st Jan 2011
@MikeAlt Why do the religious whackos insist that the Earth is 6000 years old and the stories of the bible are 100% true. I figured it out when I was about 12. The story of the flood tells us that Noah put a pair of each animal on the Ark. There are millions of species of animals and plants that would not survive the flood. The Galapagos islands alone has thousands of species found nowhere else. There are 4 million insect species around the world. How the heck did Noah do it?

Perhaps there is a Creator who set the laws of the universe in motion, but evolution was definitely part of the plan...
@MikeAlt These folks believe there are only jews-christians-muslims in the world, and if you don't believe in the myths in their holly books you are wrong. People without the shackles imposed by their 'spiritual leaders' can easily see how the scientific method works and how theories are constantly refined and improved to better explain something about ourselves and the environment we live.
In MHO, people should get their spiritual education in their churches and leave science alone, and let their children to be educated in the same conditions to compete in the world we live. If that is not acceptable, they can go back to the dark age and forget about science. People are very selective on their interpretation of their traditional written and quickly forgot the lessons from the middle age and how many innocents were burnt alive just because they believed the Earth orbits around the Sun and it is not the center of the Universe.
@prof123

Insects = Eggs = Insects?

It is easy to find flaws in material you do not understand by using a closed, predetermined, and limited mindset. However, that limitation always leads to incorrect conclusions. Imagine using only a subset of all available commands or instructions that lacks key functions to develop an application or administer a database or an entire system?

Do you freely give away your hard-earned lessons to those you consider unworthy? Few would.

I believe all mythologies and legends are based on and incorporate truth. As such, they are metaphors and anecdotes coded by persons who learned the truths encoded through experience, which was sometimes harshly earned. The encoding was for the wise to understand the fallacies recounted and grasp the truth revealed to those "who have eyes to 'see' [or the wisdom to understand]." The foolish (those lacking understanding and the temerity to expend the effort to find the wisdom encoded there) stumble blindly on in their ignorance. (Thus the warning to "not cast your pearls before swine.")

This introduces the reason for the ancient "Mysteries" and "Mystery Religions." Only approved initiates who were found worthy to earn them were gradually given the "keys" to understand the truths encoded by the "wise ones." This explains why there are still Egyptian, Israelite, Persian, Greek, Eleusinian, Roman, Goth, Norse, etcetera mysteries that remain locked and undecipherable--because their keys were given only verbally to initiates and not left lying around for posterity (us) to use without the ancients' approval.

Thus, Los Biblos (the Judeo and Christian Bibles) are historical records. Those things written in them are both clear historical accounts and encoded wisdoms for the initiated to learn their meanings.

Did our creator encode the capabilities for organisms to adapt through mutations or modifications that enable the organisms to survive in whatever environment they are located? I have no doubt about that.

Since I have never heard of one specie crossing the bounds of their family or genus and only occasionally their specihood in extremely near-DNA interbreeding (i.e. horse + donkey = generally sterile mule), I can only question the reasonable validity of the attempts of evolutionists to fit known facts into an anti-Creator or anti-Intelligent Design hypothesis.
@zhoro35 I am not sure if you are aware that evolution has been technically "proven." A theory is a hypothesis(es) that has been verified and accepted to be true. The fundamental concepts of gravity and planetary revolution are commonly referenced examples of other theoretical frameworks that are often taken for granted as fact. However, anti-evolutionists and most creationists like you use these tenuous and revealingly ignorant counterarguments to try and make evolution appear as if it were tentative and questionable. The scientific community has agreed on the certainty of evolution through legitimate and rigorous scientific testing and while there is still a lot more to be discovered regarding evolution, the basic tenets have been proven by extensive and varied factual scientific evidence.
0 Votes
+ -
NOT!!!
Peter Perry 30th Jan 2011
  • Flagged
@Peter Perry That is the pseudoscientific argument of irreducible complexity, which has a lack of authentic scientific evidence and is considered to be an example of an argument from ignorance.
@Peter Perry

No matter how many times you link to this YouTube video, it's still not based on observable reality.
0 Votes
+ -
@abstruse
frgough 31st Jan 2011
irreducible complexity exists in mathematics: Prime numbers. It exists in Chemistry: atomic elements. It exists in physics: neutrons. It is common in engineering. Yet you're trying to tell us the only place it doesn't exist is biology?
0 Votes
+ -
@frgough What in hell are you talking about?
olePigeon Updated - 3rd Feb 2011
"irreducible complexity exists in mathematics: Prime numbers. It exists in Chemistry: atomic elements. It exists in physics: neutrons. It is common in engineering. Yet you're trying to tell us the only place it doesn't exist is biology?"

What in hell are you talking about? You don't even understand your own argument. Irreducible complexity insists that some things are so complex, that to remove any part of it would render it useless; somehow proving that that's the reason it was created and not evolved.

Ignoring that irreducible complexity is demonstrably wrong, how does it even apply to prime numbers, atomic elements (do you mean atomic mass?), and neutrons?

So are you saying math was created by God? It has absolutely no relevance on whether or not this universe and its known laws function. I tell you 2+2=4, you tell me God invented math. Who cares? That doesn't change that 2+2=4.

Incidentally, atomic weight can change in many elements, and neutrons are composed of subatomic particles called quarks.
@zhoro35

If Adam and Eve were created by God from a pile of rocks I would still believe it since God can do ANYTHING.
Even the Bible says that God has the ability to create children from rocks. (Luke 3:8) If He created the universe from nothing then He really can do anything.
0 Votes
+ -
The bible is evolving too
guihombre 30th Jan 2011
You understand that the Bible is a collection of translated folk stories collected added to and edited over the years to form a book.

Even the version you read now doesn't date back that far.

In a sense the Bible evolves too, as new sections are added and new prophets push new ideas.

Hence the New Testament was added to the Hebrew bible to form (plus or minus some revisions) the book you treat today as definitive!
0 Votes
+ -
@guihombre Nice try but the stories haven't been added to the collection in nearly 2000 years.

2000+ years ago signified the completion of the Salvation Story and there are more documents supporting its authenticity as translated than any other book or collection of works on the planet!

You should really research what you think before you speak because the book has not evolved at all...

As for the Translations, a lot of languages do not have word for word translations and the KJV was looser with some translations than they should have been or the word that better fit was not yet created when the KJV was translated. All of this explains why we have multiple translations but for the most part they do not contradict each other on the hypothesis.

Also, You would believe in the Iliad and the story of Troy but any stories about King David is a myth.

Oh and there's a lot of archeological evidence for most of the stories in the Bible.
0 Votes
+ -
It is interesting to read the different translations. Very similar but different. They have evolved. And prior to being put to paper 2000+ years ago, they were told word of mouth and evolved at every telling.
@ffinder-cy,
"Nice try but the stories haven't been added to the collection in nearly 2000 years"

Well that's a positive thing, you accept it's not the literal word of god. Yet you quote it as if it is the literal word of god, as if god said he could create people from rocks, rather than some bloke saying that God can create people from rocks?

If you're interested in the evolution of the Bible (which covers many of the more recent changes):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

No doubt it will evolve to cover evolution, if the US Taliban gets its way, they'll write it with their prejudices and a few stories of God designing 'upgrades' to his creatures will be added.

Beck v13: "And God looked at the Mammoth, and decided it was tooo hairy, and a little too big, so he designed the Elephant..."
@bruiser, no there is a difference, the languages evolved, there is a difference, the ideas have been conveyed.
0 Votes
+ -
@guihombre, you are taking Catholicism with Christianity and that is not 100% accurate... In fact, if you read any of Lee Stroebels stuff you will see, he very much takes into account the changes that Catholics tried to introduce into the Bible...

Also, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered it also brought to light some of the claims and debunked them... Isaiah was translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls and was proven to have something like 3 errors in the whole book and those errors were more of spelling than actually influencing the story.

As for the Bible, there are Translations and Transliterations the difference being that books like the NIV were done based on the idea that you cannot correctly translate word for word so you translate idea for idea to keep the stories meaning in tact.

The NASB was done more from a word for word translation so it is similar to the KJV without the Catholic reference.

What kills me though, this stuff Changed the world and you really cannot argue that the events 2000 years ago didn't transpire because everything has changed since then.

Now let me make this clear, I am not telling you what to believe but when people want to act like there is no intelligence in the design of this planet, universe, galaxy or whatever else you can think... I think they're really arguing for the dumbing down of our genetics which honestly, things can be controllably altered so there has to be some intelligent design there.
0 Votes
+ -
50 current bibles, 51, 52
guihombre 30th Jan 2011
@Peter Perry,

Things certainly have changed since 2000 years ago, for one thing we've evolved to be significantly taller than the people from 2000 years ago, Jesus as a middle east Jew from 2000 years ago would have been about 5 foot tall.

There are some 50 current major variations of the Bible and the difference are not confined to transliteration errors, or 'Catholic' changes (or Protestant changes for that matter).

The New Testament isn't 2000 years old of course, it was added much later and evolved quite a bit since and will continue to evolve.

And of course it says nothing about evolution... yet... because it's too new.
@ffinder-cy
Some book I read says I can blow up cars with my mind. Is this also true?
@ffinder-cy - and the bible says that you're permitted to stone your wife to death if you believe she's comitted adultery. Great source from which to derive your moral compass.

Also, consider that the Hebrew word "almah" means post-pubsecent unmrried girl. Mary was described in the Hebrew and Sumeric texts as "almah", not "betula" (virgin). When the bible was translated into latin, the "young girl" was transliterated into "virgin".

Many argue that this was a deliberate transliteration to enhance the story's "magical quality" in order to appeal more to the uneducated and illiterate masses.

This error in translation and the mytholgy surrounding it was was subsequently carried into the KJV and other translations and thus into most flavors of Christianity.

One question to give you pause for thought: If Jesus (or was it "Isaiah"?) truly was the Son of some all-powerful deity, why is it that he is almost never mentioned in any texts written during his lifetime?

Who we refer to as Jesus was unlikely to be an individual. "Jesus" was, in fact, most likely synthesized from a number of folk tales passed on orally and significantly amplified, mutated and altered through frequent repetitions.
0 Votes
+ -
Reading most of the....
Economister Updated - 30th Jan 2011
@zhoro35

creationists' posts here, it is rather obvious to me why America is in deep trouble and will continue to slide. Man has always used faith and superstition to explain phenomena and events he did not understand. When man is ignorant, that is all he is capable of. Faith does not need a rational explanation. Ignorance and faith go hand in hand. It was the Enlightenment that finally allowed the West to progress, but many people are unfortunately still not enlightened.

It is rather striking to me how fundamentally similar currant religious beliefs are to most forms of worship over the past several thousand years. The gods may have changed. The ignorance of the faithful has not.

My son went to a Catholic elementary school for the first 4 years or so of his schooling. My wife and I are not religious. In grade 5 we pulled him out and started home schooling him. He had already become brain washed into being fearful of not praying. We had to convince him that nothing bad would happen to him if he stopped praying.

The vast majority of the faithful have similarly been brainwashed during childhood into fearing God. In this day and age, this is an absolute tragedy.
0 Votes
+ -
What I always find most amusing
LiquidLearner 30th Jan 2011
@Economister

is that the stories people accept as fact in the Bible would be treated as a completely insane story today. Moses talking to a burning bush? Christians accept that this happened, as fact, and don't really question it. However if someone came up to one of those Christians today and claimed they spoke to a burning bush that was the voice of God and He told them something important that person would be laughed and ridiculed right out of the church. There are so many wild stories in the Bible it's funny the entire book is accepted as fact by so many worldwide.

Are there references to actual historic events in the Bible? Sure there are. I'm sure King Solomon existed. I'm sure the Jews were enslaved by Egyptians and managed to escape. I'm even sure they spent many, many years in the desert, probably encamped for a generation or two to rebuild numbers and grow an army. I'm also positive they were incredibly ruthless and brutal and wiped out many other civilizations in the name of "God". They murdered women, children and warriors. They razed entire cities. Moses was very likely raised the way a Pharoah's son would have been, as a general and warrior. Which means he knew Egyptian tactics inside and out and was probably an excellent general.

Do I believe Moses through his staff down and it turned into a snake? Nope, not at all. Do I believe the water turned red? Sure, there is scientific evidence to support that, caused by a volcanic eruption in the region. These are things they couldn't have explained then so religion was used to explain it. God must have done it because there isn't any other logical explanation at the time. Do I think it's possible that there were locust swarms? Yes, those happen naturally and are usually followed by a plague of frogs because frogs eat locusts. It makes sense.

The truly funny thing is that religious fanatics will mock a start-up cult when, the only difference, is their cult has been around for 2000 years and has a billion people following. It still doesn't make it all real.
0 Votes
+ -
@Economister

I can't understand what creationists are doing in a tech column, but then I have some of the same feelings about Linux fanbois

I congratulate you for removing your child from a dangerous cult. I became a bad catholic at 16, once I realised that my science fiction reading was more reasonable than the bible. The whole business is a con. Essentially it's there to allow some people to live off the proceeds of others. They may be called priests, witchdoctors, gurus, evangelists, saints or whatever, but essentially their function is parasitic rather than symbiotic.

For every priest, nun or cult worker that does good, there are centuries of corruption preceeding them from monks selling plenary indulgences to the three popes of Rome. Anyone doing serious Bible study, knows our current Bible is the descendant of essentially a political document put together at various times by the church from a variety of sources. It may also suprise the faithful, that the Bethelem story was a late addition and there were no eye witness accounts in the "New" testament, with the first Gospels being written a minimum of 80 years after the "death" of Jesus (and no besides one mention in a Roman report, there is no actual evidence of Jesus).

Now if the creationists have assimilated this, I have some further bad news about Santa, the Easter bunny and the Tooth Fairy
@Economister - Dawkins presents the opinion that many Christian churches' brainwashing of children to believe that if they do not submit entirely to the rules defined by that church, then they'll spend the rest of eternity in hell (of some kind or another) is nothing more than child abuse.

I wholeheartedly agree with him.
0 Votes
+ -
You're giving Exodus too much credit.
Lester Young 4th Feb 2011
@LiquidLearner

Most of the archaeological "evidence" for biblical events was interpreted by those looking for evidence - always a dangerous practice in the sciences. A more rigorous view of the time between the purported Exodus and the establishment of the Hebrew kingdoms presents some fundamental problems for the Exodus story. Migrations on the scale and time period told of in Exodus leave a large archaeological footprint. There is no evidence of such a migration across Sinai into Palestine during that period. It's looking like Exodus was made up in service of some Hebrew warlords in the first millennium BCE. The probable motive was to bolster the identity of a warlord-driven society with a heroic tale. There is also no distinctive footprint of Hebrew society until well into the first millennium BCE, as indicated by the evidence of livestock composition associated with Hebrew settlements.

The other big historical weenie Biblical literalists have to deal with is a lack of corroborating evidence in the written record for the existence of Jesus. None in Hebrew records and none in Roman records. The Romans kept meticulous records of executions. There is no Roman record of a crucifixion of a Jesus of Nazareth or anyone else important enough to have been received by Pontius Pilate. The Jesus story seems to have originated as a personification of the teachings of the Essene rabbis. The Essene movement fused Hebrew moral teachings with Greek humanism, which the Hebrew scholars became aware of in the Hellenistic period. They were reformists focused on the morally relevant portions of Hebrew teachings and were seen as a threat by both the Hebrew and Roman power structures
0 Votes
+ -
Gravity is a theory.
Bruizer 30th Jan 2011
@zhoro35

You are the perfect example of the poor quality of science found in the World. My bet right here in the US.

Evolution is a theory and as a theory it should make predictions. In fact, it does and Darwin made dozens of predictions that could be used to prove the theory wrong if this evidence was never found.

For example, Precambrian fossils. Darwin had issues that no fossils from the Precambrian period had been found and if they were never found, that would be a strong point pointing against evolution. Strong enough to dis-prove the theory. Guess what, the fossils were eventually found but they are small. Like tiny. Lots of them but they are just small.

Predictions include a mechanism to share genetic information. This turned out to be DNA.

Prediction include loss of flight by birds on isolated islands. Turns out to be true.

The list goes on and on and on. Trouble is, there are many fundamentalists that are simply too scared to even look at the data or even think about it.

Instead, they show their stupidity and say things like "Evolution is only a theory". My guess, you are too fragile in your own faith to actually go and learn the truth. To weak of faith to actually open your eyes to read a book and expand your knowledge.
The LAW of gravity is F=GM1M2/R^2.

The THEORY of gravity is an attempt to explain the law. There are several competing theories right now. You see, because in physics, we don't generally discriminate against a theory based on our hatred of religion.
0 Votes
+ -
You have it backwards
Zogg Updated - 31st Jan 2011
@frgough
F = GM1M2/R^2 is Newton's theory of gravity, and it is known to be incomplete because it cannot account for Mercury's orbit around the Sun. Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) is a better theory of gravity than Newton's because GR can account for Mercury's orbit. However, GR cannot be a complete theory either because it does not account for Quantum Physics.

The "Law of Gravity" is neither Newton's nor Einstein's theory, but is the objective reality that everyone is trying to model.
@zhoro35
For all of pop culture mixing up theory and hypothesis, there's a huge difference between them. A hypothesis is a series of suppositions made to try and explain something. In order to elevate it to a theory it has to show it can be critically tested well beyond the basic details of explanation.

In simpler terms, Scientists have used evolution to correctly make many predictions about biology and the fossile record. Creationism or Intelligent design will be accepted as having scientific validity when it can be used to make accurate predictions as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Incorrect.
frgough 31st Jan 2011
Evolutionary theory has never made any predictions about the fossil record. But is has been invoked to explain completely contradictory evidence. Some years ago, biologists came to the conclusion that most DNA was "junk." It was cited as a prediction of evolution, since evolution would leave DNA fragments all over the place. During the next few years, biologists discovered that DNA actually was more complex than what we thought and that there really wasn't junk DNA after all. This was cited as a prediction of evolution, since evolution would tend to eliminate non-productive DNA.

It was at that point that I realized evolutionary theory was nothing more than a tautology wrapped up in a cloak of science to give it respectability.
Why can't biology teachers just teach evolution, but briefly mention that some people believe that intelligent design guides it? I don't think biology teachers should discuss intelligent design at length, as it is not their place to be discussing religion in a science class. But a quick disclaimer of, "Some people also believe that a higher power, like God, guides the process of evolution, or that the creation story in the Bible can be interpreted to make sense with a scientific understanding of the world" would not necessarily be the worst thing, and the "some people believe" part would prevent any claims of church vs. state infringement. This could also help calm parents who are religious and don't want their kids to stop believing in God when they learn about evolution. Of course, there will still be some fundamentalist parents who don't even like the idea of intelligent design or interpreting the Bible anything but 100% literally, so this strategy isn't foolproof. I still have no idea what to do with the kids whose parents want them to think that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and that the world was created in exactly 6 days. But if a brief mention of intelligent design could get more kids to be able to get the scientific knowledge that they should without their parents getting up in arms about said science supposedly being against their faith, it would be a start.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix