digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Evolution: Read All About It!

nap.edu — The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Institute of Medicine today released an 88-page booklet —-intended for wide dissemination—-that explains why evolution is science and creationism is not. An electronic version of the booklet is available here for free.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gbarberi, on 01/06/2008, -9/+82It took 88 pages to explain that!?
    • chaosium, on 01/06/2008, -7/+65The problem is that they have to respond to every single argument from ignorance that the Creationists throw out.

      "HEH WELL EVILUTION IS A LIE BECAUSE IT HAS THESE HOLES" (proceeds to list things long debunked, things never stated, and things that were declared as hoaxes in 1900)
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/06/2008, -3/+49I'm sorry, but they did not demonstrate how the banana doesn't prove that God exists.

        /I'm depressed that I feel obligated to point out that this was a joke.
        • Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -2/+18For anyone who doesn't get it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I
          • mrogi, on 01/06/2008, -17/+2There is no way for a man to eat a banana without looking like a fag.
          • Dumbledorito, on 01/06/2008, -1/+10Wow, mroqi, you must have had a really bad blowjob experience from someone. How many stitches did you need?
          • Tanath, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1mroqi, that says more about you than it says about anyone eating bananas. ;)
        • lee1199, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4You mad fool!! you could have started your own religion, in a few years you'd have hundreds of people who think your god, then start your own TV channel telling the masses to donate money or burn in hell-fire. But now you've given it all away, you must be a decent person who believes in evolution.
    • sanman, on 01/06/2008, -4/+8I was just reading in the Papal Observatory thread that Ratzinger favors Intelligent Design. Is that true? Is he really that dumb?
      • sophiaperennis, on 01/06/2008, -4/+13No, he's not dumb. He favors I.D. to keep his institution going, regardless of it being a horrendous approach from the Vatican towards science. Instead of engaging WITH the field of science, they are trying to hijack it. Very futile.
        • 911ducktail, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5no he's dumb and has done a flip flop from previous popes beliefs...

          "In an 22 October 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Church's openness to the theory of evolution:

          "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#The ...
        • sophiaperennis, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Ratzinger seems to be a more orthodox doctrinal pope, with a more rigorous interpretation of canon law and theological doctrine. It is his way of attempting to protect the institution called Roman Catholic Church.
        • tech42er, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2He's a much more conservative pope, so it's unsurprising he'd hold this view, even though the majority of Catholics and even the previous pope (John Paul II) believe in evolution.
      • ostracize, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Well, wouldn't a Christian who believes in evolution HAVE to believe in I.D.?
      • Isidore, on 01/06/2008, -0/+4RTFA
        From the National Academy of Science's description:

        "How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

        "... explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.

        "... Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource. "

        Sadly Fundamentalists - whether Religious or Atheist just don't want to go beyond stereotypes - as demonstrated by the predictable standard of Digg comments on this type of topic.
    • Dumbledorito, on 01/06/2008, -5/+30"God did it," while shorter, is a tad scant on details, observable phenomena, testable or predictive theories, or supportive data.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/06/2008, -7/+20What God?

        Done.
      • mikerand, on 01/06/2008, -15/+7But the thing is, if the Christian God did it, it wouldn't matter to science. And it shouldn't. God operates outside of the natural world and science operates within it. God is not subject to natural laws, we are. I think the problem is that science claims the scientific method as the only source of truth in the world. Christianity claims there are more sources of truth (God, the Bible and nature). I propose that I.D. proponents and creationists are more open minded because they allow for a broader range of explanations for phenomena. Many of our greatest scientists where Christians.
        • StarlessKnight, on 01/06/2008, -2/+10The scientific method is just a method, it is not a truth, it is not a theory, it is not a hypothesis. It is a means to propose an idea, investigate the idea, modify that idea or take that idea to the next round of observations and data gathering. It is a process that continues through many different, independent groups of scientists until the idea has acquire sufficient data to be adopted as a Scientific Theory, remains in a constant study state, or is disproven and a new idea fashioned to explain prior data and the data that contradicted the old hypothesis. It is only a methodology.

          As for God... if God were to create a world that has an intricate, logical design that is capable of being rationally understood and studied by its inhabitants, then it falls in line with the idea that God is an entity that does not make it self obviously known because it wishes that we, its creation, would come to it with open arms and not be mindless drones designed to worship him with little to no creativity or diversity, seeing as how we cannot think of ideas or concepts that reside outside the existence of God. God exists, therefore what use is there in thinking of what if God did not exist? He does. End of discussion.

          No, that is what free will is for. We make choices that are of our own design. God may not be the watchmaker that set the world up to run without God ever touching it again, but he does not force the world to conform to his plan in any way that we, as more limited creatures, can comprehend and, therefore, his existence (if he does touch upon the world directly) remains wholly in our realm to accept or decline.

          God would not have made the world outside of natural law, because he would then leave behind evidence that the natural world was created by an obvious, external force that would warrant the title "God." Now, if you propose he created a natural world that has evidence inherently built into it that points to a time pre-creation suggesting a way that the world came about without obvious, direct divine intervention, that would be more plausible as a modus operandi that God would take, in my opinion.

          I propose that the method that we comprehend God as having interacted in our world (aka the Christian God, and Christian History) is incorrect. But, then, I've steadily become more agnostic than Christian any more.

          Atheists are just as capable of explaining phenomena as Theists, by the way. The world is a natural world, and science is designed (or modifies itself) to study the natural world. The supernatural plays no part in studying natural phenomena, and I have seen no evidence suggesting that God has acted in any way that cannot be logically explained. I don't think God would step out from behind the curtain and strip away any chance that we, as his creation, have at contemplating a world without God and what that would mean. God is capable of taking care of himself, he doesn't need all of us to bow down and revere him. He won't suddenly vanish if the entire world stopped believing in him. God is God, whatever that inevitably means or form he takes.
          • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3"God exists, so why argue if god exists"

            Wow, world class logic dude. End of discussion.
          • chaosium, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1"The scientific method is just a method, it is not a truth"

            God is neither.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1The expression "Open Minded" refers to nothing.

          It means absolutely nothing. It's what wrong people accuse people who are right when they refuse to accept reality.

          There's only one reality. Therefore, there's only one point of view that can be correct for every situation. The rest are just wrong. They are worth nothing. A false idea is more wrong than nothingness. Nothingness implies a lack of action, a false idea implies negative action.
        • tech42er, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Science does not claim that. It simply does not address that. Unscientific ideas (such as religion) are outside the scope of science and do not belong in a science class.
        • sonoran, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0The problem is that what creationists and ID umm "enthusiasts" propose that it's not science. It has faith to support it not the results of repeatable experiments. Evolution has an incredible amount of evidence to support it, it is one of the most tested theories in science, and while minor changes have been made Darwin's orignal ideas have proven incredibly resilient.
          Darwin was a Christian by the way and intended to become a minister. Most scientists were Christians in Darwin's time and his theory intitially caused a firestorm of dissent in scientific circles. In the intervening years the scientific community has come to be one of the dominant ideas in biological science simply on the power of it's ability to predict phenonmena, a stand up to every experimental challenge.
          Evolution is in the perview of science, ID and creationism are not.
    • masterm1nd, on 01/06/2008, -22/+7Nine OCD comments in a row. I guess anti religion isn't very different from religion. Why wouldn't a god be capable of evolution again?
      I wouldn't personally rely on the logical fallacy of evolution proving the nonexistence of a "god". Unless you can actually prove god does not exist; you have to have equal "faith" to say a god does not exist. "Safe than sorry"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination .
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism .
      • daggah, on 01/06/2008, -3/+12You can't prove a negative, and it's up to those who claim that god DOES exist to prove it. There's no reason a religious person can't accept evolution too.
        • masterm1nd, on 01/06/2008, -8/+5I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm questioning how anyone knows either way. The first nine comments I refereed to seemed to know with infallibility a god does not exist, and they seemed to be relying on evolution for that proof. Please read my links and think about what I said. Science doesn't mean much without logic behind it.
          • Rammsteined, on 01/06/2008, -2/+5Nobody has to prove that god doesn't exist, that's a given since there is no evidence to suggest such.
          • masterm1nd, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3You missed my point. My point is that no one can prove either way. The mentality of a proof contest... Wouldn't you like proof personally, to actually know? Not to prove it to others but so you actually know? Admitting you have no idea is what I think is reasonable. I just don't like how you guys arrogantly think you have proof when you don't. The religious admit they have faith, why won't you admit it.
      • masterm1nd, on 01/06/2008, -5/+1In this case of the origin of the universe and life, it's more important to know what you don't know then what you do know.
      • Dumbledorito, on 01/06/2008, -2/+5Then please decry those who claim there are no dragons, pink unicorns, Norse thunder gods, elves, or three-headed dogs that guard an entrance to the underworld.

        The evidence for evolution is years of archaeological finds, laboratory tests, observed phenomena, and results based on the way the mechanism of evolution is proposed to work. The argument in opposition (the Christian God did it) is mythological text with no other corroborating sources. This text is also in opposition to a hundred other creation myths, which I'm assuming you outright reject as invalid (in stark contrast to your "we just can't know!" thesis).
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 01/06/2008, -3/+22Unfortunately, most of the people who believe in creationism won't take the time to read this book.
      • masterm1nd, on 01/06/2008, -7/+2(Evolution !=) != god.
        • S1ngular1ty1, on 01/06/2008, -4/+8Who said that it did? You can believe in a God and in evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
          • blaze03, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3Yes they are. Unless you have some sort of magical explanation for how the creation story isn't meant to be taken literally but the Adam and Eve story is.
          • nepawoods, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5@blaze03
            How does the existence of a God depend on "the Adam and Eve story" being taken literally? (just asking, since you're suggesting it)
        • masterm1nd, on 01/06/2008, -4/+2That's what I am saying! That was my exact point! I guess there was some inference on my part but made some fairly obvious implications, this is what you said...

          "Unfortunately, most of the people who believe in creationism won't take the time to read this book."
      • bsmang, on 01/06/2008, -3/+6Or simply can't read.
    • sherifffruitfly, on 01/06/2008, -3/+2It does, to idiots.
    • Falldog, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4To be fair it's only 54 pages.
      • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -0/+0And there are a lot of non-text pages - foreword, blanks, references, recommended reading, pictures, etc.
        All in all, you could probably distill it down to about 15-20 single spaces pages. Exclude the religious discussions and I bet the whole thing would fit on 10 pages. You could make it a pamphlet easily.
    • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 01/06/2008, -5/+3i still believe in creationism, but am still open-minded. i'll give it a thorough read. (yes i read the God Deluison)
      • Twelvevolts, on 01/06/2008, -2/+8So open minded your brains have fallen out
      • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4i can't help but hold the opinion that all atheists are pretentious assholes. woe to me for not being smart enough to be one myself. -_-
        • Headphonesguy, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4Then i can't help but hold the opinion that all theists are delusion *****, that are so incredulous they believe anything that they read from their magic books or hear preached without question.

          Religion is a hindrance to science and the overall progress of human kind, and until the majority of people realize that then they can go worship whatever skydaddy makes them feel better, and accept whatever answers take the least thinking.
        • Tanath, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1As an (implicit/strong) atheist who may sometimes come off as pretentious, I'd like to point out that it took me years of thought, learning, and careful deliberation to get to where I am now. I have looked into the matter and can now finally state that I am satisfied that have ascertained the truth, for many reasons. This very fact, confidently believing something contrary to popular opinion, can in itself make one appear to be pretentious, and getting upset in debate about the matter could certainly make things worse... It can actually be difficult to avoid coming off the wrong way given the circumstances (though I'd like to think I do a good job). Just wanted to point this out. It is a common perception. I'd also like to point out that what the people who hold a belief are like has no bearing on whether it's true or not, so don't dismiss it out of hand.
      • castevens, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3Well then please give the read a chance. As a scientist, I normally have as many conversations as possible with people who do not believe, and normally it's because they either hold VERY strong beliefs that they refuse to get rid of, or they are not aware of the actual facts. Give it a read and you'll either be "enlightened" or you will remain with your (likely) religious beliefs. It's okay to believe in religious creationism. Personally I do not. I do think that there is a higher being, but I think that scientifically the evidence for evolution is overwhelming -- so I choose to believe that God put the original matter in the universe.
  • pintomp3, on 01/06/2008, -14/+204someone should send copies to mike huckabee and ron paul.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 01/06/2008, -4/+52I get what you're saying, but we both know it would have exactly 0-effect.
      • whorunbartertwn, on 01/06/2008, -26/+3Yup! How silly to judge the wisdom of a man from him having utterly asinine beliefs about things... and how silly to pick a leader based on his wisdom.
        • mdoerr, on 01/06/2008, -1/+21What, then, should we decide a leader based upon then? The suits he/she wears?
        • MacEnvy, on 01/06/2008, -0/+15What an interestingly contradictory statement.
        • nullx42, on 01/06/2008, -1/+13YES! Because ***** forbid our leaders have some sort of rational thinking that wasn't wasted away to make room for fairy tails about arks and animals and resurrections and the such. I want my leader to be one that thinks anyone whom disagrees is not part of the nation that he or she runs. I'm voting for Huckabee, and if he wins, I'm moving to canada.
    • mdoerr, on 01/06/2008, -15/+6RP doesn't believe in evolution? Who can confirm this? Uh oh.......
      • fowleryo, on 01/06/2008, -0/+31RP himself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
        • mdoerr, on 01/06/2008, -4/+5That is definitely disappointing (although he did answer very well), but certainly does not change his other qualifications.
      • Kohaxx, on 01/06/2008, -17/+2Really doesn't change anything, personal beliefs of a candidate shouldn't discredit their stances on important issues. You should've seen the storm on digg of atheist Ron Paul supporters who freaked out and gave up on him after hearing that.
        • noahhoward, on 01/06/2008, -5/+5Their personal beliefs should never be mentioned so long as they keep their beliefs and policy separate.
          • yakski, on 01/06/2008, -0/+10You have got to be kidding... personal beliefs should be ignored when selecting a President????.. Get OUT!!! You are kidding right.... Unintelligent beliefs are the very basis for deciding on who is even qualified to be running... It should be the basis for eliminating those that are incapable of logical thinking.
        • bacon_skoda, on 01/06/2008, -1/+18Bush. Stem Cells.
    • NeoCortex, on 01/06/2008, -3/+28and don't forget Chuck Norris.
      • surian, on 01/06/2008, -4/+15Evolution doesn't exist... Chuck Norris just round-house kicks animals until they become a new species.
        • Aensland, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5...ditto extinction.
        • Euler2718, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3I tried that with my dog. All I got was a dead dog and a court date.
      • rossnixon, on 01/06/2008, -6/+4Chuck Norris for president!
    • lee1199, on 01/06/2008, -1/+15They'd believe the "devil" sent them.
      • BevansDesign, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6I believe the devil sent Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.
    • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -25/+4Ron Paul went to medical school. Why do people keep saying he doesn't believe in evolution? Of course he does. When has he ever said otherwise?
      • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -11/+7Answering myself:
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

        Hmm. But that seems like a pretty ambiguous answer anyway. He doesn't rule it out at least. Pandering to the crowd, I expect. Disappointing but I'm sure he actually does know better.
        • bacon_skoda, on 01/06/2008, -2/+16you are just hoping.
          • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -1/+5No, actually I'm not. It's a pretty safe bet that he knows better. He's a doctor, not a preacher or a truck driver.
          • AeonTorpor, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5As a doctor you have to know why you're prescribing something such as an anti-biotic. You would then know to explain to the patient that they should take the full recommended dosage until it's all gone. And that they would do this because if they didn't there's a possibility of developing a resistant strain. This would only be possible because of natural selection and evolutionary diversity. To not accept evolution as a doctor makes absolutely no sense and I'm sure to a degree he knows that, which is why it may have seemed he answered in such an ambiguous manner.
          • tech42er, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1But when was he in medical school? I'm sure the curriculum has changed.
      • OneLess, on 01/06/2008, -3/+15Using pure scientific ignorance to pander to a crowd. What a man of principles.
    • netengineer10, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4Listen to what he actually said, this is the real video, unedited. For the most part, he says that its ridiculous for evolution to even be an issue for a presidential candidate, and that he doesn't agree with the question at a presidential debate.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g
      • funkywood, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2Maybe he's just trying to stay on the right side of the evangelical dogmatists.
  • geeshock, on 01/06/2008, -32/+1I cba to "sign in" to download it - torrent anyone? Yes I am lazy.
  • Pitofdoom, on 01/06/2008, -61/+6"Scientific explanations. In every active area of science, many questions remain unanswered".
    Vast stretches of science balances of supposition, which become belief or faith.
    • theexitwound, on 01/06/2008, -3/+22Faith is belief in spite of evidence. The lack of evidence is just a placeholder until science fills in the gaps. Belief is essential to this process, yes, as scientists work to prove their hypostheses. If they end up barking up the wrong tree, they tweak their hypotheses and try again. It's the belief in their work they're falling behind, not belief in the unknown.
    • Dumbledorito, on 01/06/2008, -1/+18Look, we're sorry that science has that "please show your work" thing, but like proving you know what you're talking about when doing long division, it's necessary.
    • Pitofdoom, on 01/06/2008, -6/+1Science is not a god, it's a process of "exploration".
      What is it about science that disproves caesars believe that "we the people"
      are his slaves to do with as and when he wishes ?
    • Pitofdoom, on 01/07/2008, -3/+2I'm a little amazed and maybe shocked to see a -50 with more to follow,
      when the first line of my comment is directly out of the presented materials.
      And my second line only extrapolates.
      So I guess the neg. is that unanswered questions don't lead to belief or faith in the overall presentation of science theories ?
  • vervalsing, on 01/06/2008, -7/+46Hopefully this will explain the issue better to people who are still undecided. I know quite a few people who say they don't believe in evolution because they don't understand it, so maybe this will clear things up. I doubt that the hard-core creationists/ID-ers will care, though.
    • ZooCoug, on 01/06/2008, -3/+17No amount of information or evidence will ever sway the hardcore ID proponents. But this will at least help those who don't know much about it make an informed opinion.
    • sougly, on 01/06/2008, -5/+4Don't get your hopes up. They won't read it. They've had all the access to informations on it, but they still haven't read it -- what makes you think this will make any difference? Most people are too stubborn to read something intelligent and engaging with an open mind knowing that what they are reading is arguing against their beliefs.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 01/06/2008, -1/+13The FAQ section is great.

      My favorite part so far.

      Isn’t belief in evolution also a matter of faith?

      Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief. Scientists’ confidence
      about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming
      amount of supporting evidence gathered from many aspects of the natural
      world. To be accepted, scientific knowledge has to withstand the scrutiny
      of testing, retesting, and experimentation. Evolution is accepted within the
      scientific community because the concept has withstood extensive testing by
      many thousands of scientists for more than a century. As a 2006 “Statement
      on the Teaching of Evolution” from the Interacademy Panel on International
      Issues, a global network of national science academies, said, “Evidence-based
      facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet
      have been established by numerous observations and independently derived
      experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines” (emphasis in
      original). (See http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6 ...
      Evolution%20statement.pdf.)
      Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural
      world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith,
      which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical
      evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions
      on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing
      against observations. Thus, scientists do not “believe” in evolution in the
      same way that someone believes in God.
      • TopherD, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0"Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and 'independently' derived experimental results..." sir have you read this sentence fully how can you observe the past. I know the argument will probably be, we can look at the fossil record and they have dating methods to find the age of rocks, but is not observing the past. That is observing the evidence, and evidence can easily be interpreted different ways by different people.
        As far as, "Scientists do not 'believe' in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God." I'm sorry, but they do. The bible starts, "In the beginning God created..." The evolutionists "bible" per say would start, "In the beginning dirt and gas..." If you were to ask a creationist where did God come from they would honestly answer, "I don't know" or "He has always been there." The evolutionist will jump on that on say, "That's not a scientific answer! It provides supernatural interference!" Well I now propose a question, Where did the first dust/dirt and gas come from? The answer again, honestly, is we don't know. It takes faith to believe that as well. My point really, is that I agree that science class is for science. So lets take out the 'religious' beliefs that are required for evolution and get back to science. I am all for natural selection and adaptation because those are observable and happen no one can claim they don't and expect to be considered intelligent. However, They do not prove molecule to man evolution or the origin of the universe, just that the species on earth have the ability to adapt and slight changes to survive in their environment.
      • sonoran, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0The "dirt and gas" beginning has nothing to do with Evolution, that's a cosmological theory. The creationists two answers: "I don't know" and "He has always been there" are vastly different. "He has always been there" is very much a statement that there can exists things that have no beginning... yes that would be supernatural, and something that is just "said" no one has evidence of it and no experiment can confirm it. It's extrapolated from the writings of bronze age Jewish tribesmen, it's "true" 'cause someone wrote it down a long time ago.
  • baldgye, on 01/06/2008, -22/+1this is news?
    • orenshk, on 01/06/2008, -1/+8A. the book just came out. So Yes.
      B. Considering that there is never enough popularized science books and that, astoundingly, evolution is not standard in most states' education system, I'd say hell yeah this is news.
      • baldgye, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3"evolution is not standard in most states' education system"

        thats a whole new level of ***** up
      • SLuM, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Why are you lying orenshk? Evolution must be taught at most states in biology class during High School. Really you are no better than the spin zone.
    • Totalchaos02, on 01/06/2008, -0/+4This would pretty much the definition of news, it is a current event.
  • sleeknerve, on 01/06/2008, -13/+73i still cant believe the people that dont believe in evolution. I know some really smart people, but for some reason, they just cant believe in evolution. Its like they've been brainwashed, its sad really.
    • robocop1, on 01/06/2008, -35/+6Some people just have faith in a higher power,whats wrong with that? It's nothing to bash.
      • Ramble, on 01/06/2008, -4/+19Nothing, some of my very closest friends do, and one who also studies science, and they accept evolution.
      • theexitwound, on 01/06/2008, -7/+9The only reason to believe in a higher power is to make themselves feel more important on the bigger scale. While there's nothing fundamentally wrong with thinking this, pushing this view on others is what makes it a problem. Believe what YOU want...and keep it to yourself. Let science be science and your beliefs stay just that, personal beliefs of importance.
        • zezerik, on 01/06/2008, -10/+4you were beat up by a jew at one point in time, weren't you?
        • TopherD, on 01/10/2008, -2/+0There are thousands of well educated scientists in almost all fields of science that discount evolution as highly improbable, and believe in creation and/or a young earth because of solid evidence for a young earth, but that is being censored in the classrooms because of the "religious background" and arguments like yours. I agree that personal beliefs are personal beliefs, and science should be science, so why can't SCIENTIFIC evidence for a young earth be taught in science class without a reference to God? Just show both sides of the coin to the students. Isn't that true science? Exploring all evidence and all theories to arrive at scientific truth? Most evolutionist argue that if a young earth is taught that students will be directed to Creation, and thus comes to religion, and then its back to religion in the class and pushing personal views on the students, which is a long road traveled. But here's a question, we have no true scientific evidence for the origin of the universe for neither, "In the beginning God," nor "In the beginning dirt," so by teaching either in the classrooms wouldn't both be pushing a personal belief on the students? I think that's an argument to explore. The reason to believe in a higher power is that life is so complex that mutations and RANDOM processes cant possibly account for it, my higher power is the God of the Bible, an evolutionists higher power is an unknown force that drives these mutations and random processes, The reason for believing in my God actually makes me hold an opposite view of what you think. Does God view me as important, yes, so much that he died for me. Its not even that "I" feel I'm important, as that by believing that I was created as God says "for such a time as this," gives me purpose. He created me for a reason. By believing in evolution, that we came from molecules and by random chance for no rhyme or reason, how can we have a purpose, if in a sense, we came from mistake, after mistake, after mistake. That is not to say that an evolutionist does not have a purpose. Some would say their purpose is to rid humanity of religious fanatics and religion itself. Maybe it would be better to say I can feel a sense of meaning because of my belief in God I was created for a reason. I'm not a mistake! The fullness and completion that I have is really not describable. It's not something to think about and talk about, it's something to experience.
      • heavyd14, on 01/06/2008, -4/+10Evolution and a Higher being are not mutually exclusive.
        • Intangible360, on 01/06/2008, -0/+6No they're not, but it does remove a key component in a long list of components that used to be God's domain. In fact, life's complexity used to be one of the strongest arguments for belief in a higher power.
    • gnatgirl, on 01/06/2008, -3/+21There's a lot wrong with it when said faith in a higher power affects things like policy decisions and science research funding.
    • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -23/+5Very smart people who don't believe in evolution. Perhaps you should ask them why. There are very good reasons why one wouldn't believe in evolution. It's worth your time to investigate.
      • sleeknerve, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6ok, give me one, or even more and i guarantee it will be proven scientifically wrong by the diggers here.
        • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -6/+0I love your sarcasm; "scientifically"... funny!
        • Shadic, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3As compared to Creationism? Yeah, you can sure explain THAT with science..
      • yakski, on 01/06/2008, -1/+5By definition those that do not believe are NOT smart people. There are NO good scientific or logical arguments against evolution.... NONE .. ZILCH. This does not mean anything about the existence of God. period.. nor does it mean anything about religion. The 2 are completely unrelated unless you are crazy enough to believe without question the extreme view that the ONLY truth comes from the bible or the torah or the -insert your personal document from a higher power here- concept. And then you have to also believe that YOUR interpretation or your higher religious authority's interpretation is the ONLY interpretation that is correct and all those others who also use your religious book are wrong.
        • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -6/+1I guess you've got all the answers.
          • nullifidian0, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1You don't need to have all the answers to know that 1+1 is not a green bison.
        • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -2/+0Sorry but the simple fact is that smart people, just like everyone else, can be deluded. Smart != correct. As much as I'd like to think so.
    • heavyd14, on 01/06/2008, -8/+1They don't bother me as much as young earth people do.
    • lee1199, on 01/06/2008, -4/+8Their parents spoon-fed them fairy stories as a child, probably scaring them *****-less that they'd burn in hell-fire if they upset the benevolent one
    • brstilson, on 01/06/2008, -1/+11I can. Evolutionary education in America is poor at best. Textbooks are purposely dumbed down to avoid controversy. When I was in high school, my parents actually opted me out of the evolution section in biology class. I was excused from class to go to the library, so I didn't learn it.
      • theexitwound, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5..and how do you feel about it now?
      • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -10/+3It is a pity you didn't learn about it. It's important to know about, because the more one knows the more obvious its deficiencies become.

        I am fully supportive of an honest teaching of General Evolution, as well as the various, competing theories of Intelligent Design. Layout an honest case for both, provide the supportive and destructive evidence, and then let the student use his/her brain to process the information and formulate an opinion. After all, no theory of origins can ever progress beyond the theory stage; any view on the topic is purely opinion and faith-based.
        • Immij, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2What is "General Evolution" as opposed to (I assume) Specific Evolution?
          • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -6/+0Special Evolution is adaptation - creatures adapt to gain advantages for their own survival; e.g. selective breeding.

            General Evolution says that creatures give rise to entirely new creatures, e.g. a dog becomes something other than a dog.

            No matter how many breeds of dog there are, or what they look like, they're still dogs, and their DNA is the same. This is Special Evolution.

            General Evolution says that physical characteristics change, as must the DNA structures.
          • Immij, on 01/06/2008, -0/+6Oh right, so it's a repackaged version of the old canard of microevolution and macroevolution, a distinction that exists solely in the minds of creationists. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, evolution occurs at the population level, not at the individual 'creature' level.
          • johnnysaucepn, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Are you saying that the accumulation of adaptive advantages in a genetic line doesn't produce any change in the DNA? Are you saying that if you sequence the genomes of a chihuaha and a wolf, you wouldn't find any difference? Are you saying that something other than DNA contains those differences?
            Are you aware of what a species is - that it's a useful taxonomical classification for humans, something that DNA doesn't give a jot about?
        • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2When ID actually comes to the table with a theory, perhaps we can talk, but the plain fact is that evolution is about as unassailable as any science discipline gets. That evidence will have to be overwhelming before ID or any other kook notions, have a chance.
          • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -5/+0Perhaps you should look into the matter. There are quite a few Intelligent Design theories. It's quite a lively field of study. And no, Intelligent Design scientists aren't all "bible thumpin'" Christians.
          • johnnysaucepn, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2No, there are quite a few wild hypotheses, mostly centred on 'here's what we see as a single fault in evolution, therefore it can only be explained by design'. The closest ID comes to a testable model is an attempt at calculating probabilities based on numbers pulled out of thin air. No verification of facts, no model that fits the existing data, no falsifiable tests, no predictions of future findings. No science.
      • bsmang, on 01/06/2008, -0/+7That is horrible. I hope you've since told your parents what's up.
    • macdaddyx1, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1I always thought of evolution a 'means to' intellegent design. It seems Scientists love and relish the inconclusive; helps keep them employed.
      "God" is a played out term. People are sick of hearing it. But if you think, at the beginning of anything manifested is a thought. And when whatever materialized fades away, the thought still remains, somewhere. That somewhere is the 'end to the means' and the Creator's home address. Knock on the door!
      • johnnysaucepn, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1I've always thought that the most intelligent design is to design something capable of redesigning itself to suit the situations it finds itself in.
        • macdaddyx1, on 01/07/2008, -2/+0so where's the fun in that? That 'Intellegence' has a personality just like you and enjoys a good laugh from time to time. Ever have fun with an avatar? Ever played Tekken? Face it you're a SIM!
  • FluffyWolf, on 01/06/2008, -25/+20Occam's razor says that the simplest possible solution is more often correct.
    "God created man in his image" is only six words vs. a booklet consisting of 88 pages...

    (Just kidding =)
    • merper, on 01/06/2008, -3/+24No you're right. That's pretty much why people are creationist. Sadly, an 88 pg factual report is going to have very little impact on that demographic.
      • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -22/+4Your assuming it is "factual". If I were a bettin' man, I'd lay big odds that the facts set forth are tortured into a support of the conclusion of General Evolution.
        • screensnot, on 01/06/2008, -2/+9Good thing you aren't a betting man.
    • rebotfc, on 01/06/2008, -2/+11Occam's razor doesn't say that but I guess you already know that.
    • skeen07, on 01/06/2008, -1/+9All things being equal... something you just make up, and a sound scientific theory are not equal. If there was one scientific theory against another...then...yes.
      • TopherD, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0There's plenty of science and evidence that point toward a young earth, however I will admit that if we show this evidence the only plausible explanation thus far is a 'creation' and that would indeed point people back to the God of the Bible.
    • cw1925, on 01/06/2008, -2/+5But... I'd still take an-88 page book over a Bible anyday. Have you seen how big the ***** Bible is? It's huge, man.
      • Ramble, on 01/06/2008, -5/+3They're useful as hell though. If I never need a block I'll just steal a bible and use it as a door stopper or to prop something up.
      • Lazymoon, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1You can also cut out a small hole and stash your booze or condoms in there. Talk about irony!
    • DickyT83, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Who was it who said that everything in creation is far too complex to be justified by Occam's Razor? I forget, but I like it.
  • xirtap, on 01/06/2008, -21/+6It's a surprising amount of people who believe in evolution, but don't understand it.
    A thumb of rule, does it get you laid you win(That's really evolution 101).
    • FluffyWolf, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3Close, but no cigar...if it gets your offspring laid you win. (They have to get old enough and so on, you know. Just sex is not enough.)
      • xirtap, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1I know, but only humans and dolphins have sex for fun, so when you think about it. Sex == offspring. In most cases that means you win.
        • duddles, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2Don't forget the bonobos and their penis fencing.
        • brstilson, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Chimps, too.
        • wakananda, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Are you saying that animals other than those mentioned are having sex because they have the deliberate intention to reproduce? We're talking neuroendocrine imperatives here, across the board. You recognize penis fencing as "fun" because there's not much genetic difference between us and chimps. None of us care about our legacy when we're sticking it in (or taking it in). Our thoughts are - elsewhere. If, in your case, they're not, then you're just not doing it right.
      • sethisastud, on 01/06/2008, -1/+5I love that you referenced evolutionary fitness. A lot of people don't get what I mean when I say that it doesn't matter if you can make babies, but rather if they're viable.

        I'm sad to say that while home for Christmas my whole family had an evolution debate (talk really), and they were saying that monkeys don't turn into humans and walk out of the zoo as their proof...I didn't feel inclined to reply since it was tense as they all just realized I'm into dudes and the gay+evolutionist thing would have caused quite the scene.

        My parents wonder why I'm uncomfortable around the rest of the fam too.
        • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -4/+0You SHOULD be uncomfortable in normal society.
      • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -4/+0The fact that you feel shame means that you're not so far gone as to be fully debased. Those who don't feel shame are most unlikely to seek redemption.
    • Totalchaos02, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2Actually its more about surviving to get laid... and its rule of thumb....
    • TwilightXaos, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2This is incorrect. It ignores the fundamentals required for evolution.
      It is not evolution 101.

      I know you were trying to simplify things. But just sex, or even
      offspring, or even offspring that survive are meaningless to evolution
      without heritable variation. Evolution is the natural result of three
      factors:

      Variation, that is not all members of a species are the same.
      Variation being heritable, some of the differences are passed from one
      generation to the next.
      Differential reproductive success based on heritable variation. That
      is some of the differences make individuals more or less likely to
      survive.
      • xirtap, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2No. There is no such thing as a requirement for evolution. It's all about surviving and generating offspring. If you have a bigger odds of generating offspring duo to some variation in your genes then you have a bigger success rate, but it's no requirement. Evolution isn't about trying to be the best of the best, it's about having offspring which again have offspring and so on(Which arguably means you are the best of the best).
        • Ajnabee4U, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1NO NO...there is no one definition for Evolution. Wut u r describing is natural selection that is a part of biological evolution, which basically means descent with modification. Where changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next and large-scale evolution the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations. But there are other definitions but if you had to pick one Biological evolution would apply to this discussion.
          • TopherD, on 01/17/2008, -0/+0What do you mean there is no definition for evolution? Okay lets take your definition of biological evolution, descent with modification. First, in order for molecule to man evolution to occur in biological evolution, organisms would constantly have to change and add information to produce new species and new groups. If the starters of a gene population have specific genes, for example a pair of octopus, and they have kids, the children can receive any of the genes which their parents carry, and any information contained in those genes. The parents genes may not all be passed on to the kids though, some may be left out of the children's genes. But the children will never have genes that neither of the parents have. The octopus parents don't have information or genes to grow feathers and wings, and neither would the children. In fact the opposite of evolution would occur. Information would be lost through time not gained. This is the exact opposite of a necessary component for molecule to man evolution to occur. But if this is how it works, that means that change like that is based solely on conjecture which has no support for that belief.
        • TopherD, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0Think about it for just a second, evolution is change. If you have offspring but their genes aren't any different than yours than there wont be change from generation to generation, If they do have genes that have changed (which there is no scientific evidence that a child can get any other genes other than the ones their parents carry) the change would have to be beneficial to survival of that offspring. That is a rule of evolution. Its not like a list of 10 commandments of evolution, but yes there has to be certain things that occur for evolution to be a fact. Natural selection does not prove even slightly that macro-evolution occurs. All 'evidence there is shows us micro-evolution which is small variations within a population that have never produced anything other than the original population. Another term for micro-evolution is adaptation.
  • freebot, on 01/06/2008, -3/+8While there are at it, I would suggest they should, also, have people read Martin Brookes book "Fly | The Unsung Hero of 20th - Century Science" that explains how much of the evolution was proven to be fact in the field, along with methodologies of how science is conducted. The title does make the book sound dull, but it is surprisingly humorous and easy to follow.
    • lee1199, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3These people are too scared to believe
  • jiaoziren, on 01/06/2008, -9/+3Jesus Christ! it's real!
  • banmaster, on 01/06/2008, -12/+64*****! 88 pages. It cam be summed up VERY simply:

    Science and evolution = questions that might never be answered!
    Religion and creationism = answers that MUST never be questioned!
    • robocop1, on 01/06/2008, -23/+3Same difference.
      • banmaster, on 01/06/2008, -1/+8Same difference?
        One starts with propositions and hypotheses and attempts to prove or disprove them in order to get to the truth, the other starts off with "God did it" and tries to force all available evidence to fit, even it it means totally misrepresenting the evidence, making it up if none exists and destroying the facts which can't be made to fit.
      • nycmac247, on 01/06/2008, -1/+7wow you really don't get it
        • robocop1, on 01/06/2008, -12/+1How about i rape you and SHOW you the power and grace of Allah!
    • lee1199, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4Well put
    • terminal157, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4That would've worked better without the emphasis on "must". Just some constructive criticism, I'm not trying to be a dick.
    • Haishuva, on 01/06/2008, -4/+3Science and evolution = questions that will never be answered.
      Relision and creationism = answers that do not need questioning.
    • DemDude, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3Science and evolution = questions that stand to be answered!
      Religion and creationism = answers that will never stand questioning!
    • kindwarrior, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2If that were so then it would stand to reason that you would have questioned the validity of Darwinian evolution; You would know who coined the term evolution; you would know specifically what elements of the Darwinian model are being challenged. If this were true, you would have an understanding of why otherwise gifted thinkers have ended their careers trying to point out the flaws in the Darwinian model; You would be well versed on the controversy concerning the existence of Ribose; You would be well versed on the probabilities not only of transferring and translating individual gnomes (which has been understood since Mendel's time) but the probabilities involved in the mutations of Base pairs; You would know why base pair mutation is essential to the Darwinian model and how the astronomical improbability of a non-lethal base pair mutation rules out a strictly random evolutionary model except in populations larger than our estimated viral counts and in time frames larger than any estimated age of the universe; You would be aware of the alternate models that have been proposed to resolve these issues from Virologists and chemists (if not from those wacky theologians). At that point you could intelligently discuss this issue with those of us so ideologically blinded by our religion that we cannot understand how after several papers demonstrating these issues (from such wacko religious institutions as the University of Chicago's math department) you still cling to math that just simply doesn't work. You can explain why you haven't explored constraints to the probability domain that must be necessary for purely random base pair mutations to work; you can explain, or at least speculate on what introns are.

      On the odd chance that you can do none of the above, perhaps it means that it is the Darwinian evolutionists who have the religion that cannot be questioned. Then the interesting question becomes: what is behind the promulgation of this religion? I wish you had the integrity to explore this but, the fact that your here giving yourselves at-a-boys for being on the "right" side of an issue you are as blind to as any sycophant could possibly be, probably means you lack that integrity.
  • sillyjoobs, on 01/06/2008, -55/+3Don't you idiots ever get ashamed of yourselves?

    Every single day there are 20 front page stories about evolution/creationism.

    We get it already. You guys are the smartest people on the planet and you don't understand how anyone can believe in creationism. Good job. Not stop bringing it up. You aren't changing anyone's mind here.
    • nblsavage, on 01/06/2008, -2/+30Then kindly refrain from trying to get your superstitious drivel in PUBLIC schools. You've already got a place for it, it's called a church.
    • thesonofdarwin, on 01/06/2008, -1/+14There shouldn't be anything TO convince people about. Fact is fact.

      At least we know what it must have felt like with all of the other major scientific discoveries... earth is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the universe that everything else revolves around, the existence of chromosomes, biological microuniverse, the existence of elements, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. (etc.)

      It's like beating one's head against a brick wall for people to understand evidence and fact. Thankfully science keeps moving on and is not entirely halted by the ignorance of the masses.
    • Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -1/+12If we're not educating the stupid we're not doing our job as the more intelligent. That's not to say that every biochemist should be out teaching the minute details of DNA and stuff, I mean more general things like separating scientific fact from ***** fantasy. Would you prefer eugenics?
    • MJG2007, on 01/06/2008, -1/+13Wow....that sounded remarkably like it should have ended with "LEAVE CREATIONISM ALONE!!!!"
    • sillyjoobs, on 01/06/2008, -20/+1Look at you retards. You automatically assume I'm some sort of evangelical who is on the school board of all of your municipalities.

      Answer me this: What are you accomplishing by bringing up these stories and writing the same ***** over and over again besides mental masturbation?
      • 0ddity, on 01/06/2008, -1/+19Some idiot might learn something.
      • JoeVet, on 01/06/2008, -1/+15Actually its to keep the subject in the forefront of everyones mind so it will be harder for the fundamentalist fanatics to introduce their religious tenets into science class. Some one reading Digg will realize that there are many people opposed to the perversion of science and will be more likely to lead the opposition. The fundamentalists are organized and have an agenda. If they go unopposed we will all suffer. So we will continue to fight back as long as our schools are under attack.
        • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -8/+1Sounds like you're frightened of opposing views. You've made up your mind, and the subject is closed. Next thing you know you'll be burning Bibles and throwing Christians to lions. Maybe you don't recognize that The Renaissance came about through Biblical enlightenment.
          • 0ddity, on 01/06/2008, -1/+5No that was the dark ages.
          • nullifidian0, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1To quote Holly Near: "I ain't afraid of your Yahweh, I ain't afraid of your Allah, I ain't afraid of your Jesus, I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God.".
          • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -0/+0The Renaissance (French for "rebirth"; Italian: Rinascimento), was a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th through the 17th century, beginning in Italy in the late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe. It encompassed the revival of learning based on classical sources, the rise of courtly and papal patronage, the development of perspective in painting, and advancements in science.[1] The Renaissance had wide-ranging consequences in all intellectual pursuits, but is perhaps best known for its artistic aspect and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who have inspired the term "Renaissance men".[2][3]

            There is a consensus, though not a unanimous one, that the Renaissance began in Florence in the fourteenth century.[4] Various theories have been proposed to explain its origin and characteristics, focusing on an assortment of factors, including the social and civic peculiarities of Florence at this time including its political structure and the patronage of its dominant family, the Medici.

            The Renaissance has a long and complex historiography, and there has always been debate among historians as to the usefulness of the Renaissance as a term and as a historical age.[1] Some have called into question whether the Renaissance really was a cultural "advance" from the Middle Ages, instead seeing it as a period of pessimism and nostalgia for the classical age.[5] While nineteenth-century historians were keen to emphasise that the Renaissance represented a clear "break" from Medieval thought and practice, some modern historians have instead focused on the continuity between the two eras.[6] Indeed, it is now usually considered incorrect to classify any historical period as "better" or "worse", leading some to call for an end to the use of the term, which they see as a product of presentism.[7] The word Renaissance has also been used to describe other historical and cultural movements, such as the Carolingian Renaissance and the Byzantine Renaissance.

            The Age of Enlightenment (French: Siècle des Lumières; German: Aufklärung) was an eighteenth century movement in European and American philosophy — some classifications also include 17th century philosophy (usually called the Age of Reason).

            The term can more narrowly refer to the intellectual movement of The Enlightenment, which advocated reason as the primary basis of authority. Developed in France, Britain and Germany, it influenced the whole of Europe including Russia and Scandinavia. The era is marked politically by governmental consolidation, nation creation, greater rights for the common people, and a decline in the influence of authoritarian institutions such as the nobility and Church.

            Typically, The Enlightenment is said to end around the year 1800 at the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars (1804–15).

            Thank you Wilipedia!
          • sonoran, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0That's Slick Wilipedia!
    • terminal157, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4Their minds would be changed if they could be changed. Most of them simply can't be changed, which just emphasizes that such people are not rational. They can believe whatever they want and follow whatever religious teachings they want, but irrational attacks on rational subjects, like science and politics, should always be mercilessly ripped apart and exposed for what they are.
      • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -4/+1You're talking about Evolutionists?
        • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1troll
          • pjr12345, on 01/07/2008, -0/+0Your source neglects to mention the importance of a little something called movable type (thanks Herr Gutenberg). This invention allowed the mass distribution for the education of people in their own languages. The reason for the invention? To ensure that the Bible could be in the hands of the average person. Yes, the Bible was the first printed book, and remains the most printed book in all of history.
            Sources like yours (and so many others) tend to leave off the impact of Christianity on this world. Consider the subject matter of the artists and architects of the Renaissance... it wasn't "diversity".
    • bsmang, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2Like someone on digg once pointed out... if we keep telling you that you're stupid, over and over and over again, then maybe one day you will finally begin to question the wisdom of your beliefs and then you may see the light.
  • exomni, on 01/06/2008, -4/+11Can you order a box full of these pamphlets somewhere?
    • davidkeithjones, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5Xerox machine?
    • heavyd14, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6Did you look at the page? Its right at the bottom. And its more of a book than a pamphlet at 88 pp
    • sdcrym, on 01/06/2008, -0/+6You can click the "Buy Book" button shown at the top of the page being dugg. Then update the quantity to an amount you consider a box full.

      I feel like I'm obligated to make a Darwin joke here, but it's so easy I'd get no enjoyment out of it.
    • tian2992, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1why not print them yourself...
  • davidkeithjones, on 01/06/2008, -12/+41Cool booklet, to bad creationists only read one book.
    • Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -3/+14The vast majority I've come across don't.
      • schrutefan, on 01/06/2008, -8/+6A lot of them can't read. That makes this booklet pretty much useless.
        • UniqPhoeniX, on 01/06/2008, -3/+4It's not useless, it helps people who don't know which is true to decide. So less creationists in the future. And hopefully none further in the future. THAT's evolution.
        • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -7/+1There will always be more creationists. We don't kill our babies.
          • Zarokima, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4Atheists don't kill their babies either. What's your point?
          • Lazymoon, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Nah 'course not, you let God do that with a plague or two. Well done.
          • TopherD, on 01/11/2008, -1/+0zarokima- well i guess there are no abortions Christians don't kill their babies and atheists don't kill theirs who does? I'm sorry but true Christians value life at conception and don't consider abortion as an option we consider it murder. Whether you agree with this point or not you will agree that it is our view. Abortion HAS to be not only an option but a normal process of evolution. They are doing the research on the gay gene, and down syndrome and other defects that might cause the child within to be 'not fit' and by evolution code, so to speak, this would make abortion perfectly alright. It's the whole, survival of the fittest, thing. If the kids not gonna make it or is "defective" why should we keep 'it' lets save everyone the time and not let 'it' reproduce that would be harmful and since 'it' would be inferior and not fit, even if 'it' had offspring they too would most likely receive the harmful genes. This logic can easily continue and I think may not be at the forefront of the thoughts but is certainly an underlying one.
    • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -5/+1At leeest we's cann spill
  • exomni, on 01/06/2008, -3/+7You can download a copy without signing up, the "sign in" link just takes you to a page you enter your email in and answer two survey questions.

    So go ahead and download this to your HD! Burn a few copies to CD's!
  • someone173406, on 01/06/2008, -4/+18Time to start mass distributing it.
  • bomber91, on 01/06/2008, -17/+19i come to digg all the time and i often see stories about evolution or creationism on here and im just wondering, out of curiosity, how come so many of the responses and comments to these types of stories are so negative and seem so angry toward creationism or people who follow a religion. i understand completely that there are alot of people out there who make religion seem very unappealing but thats only a small minority. you can't judge an entire religion based on a few, unfortunately very public, peoples actions. im totally fine with everyone having their own opinion and im not here to try and change anyones mind but it just seems like there's alot of unnecessarily angry or purposefully mean comments towards religion. again, i have my own personal views and im grateful to live somewhere where everyone is able to have their own views and im not trying to tell anyone what is right or wrong, im just curious as to why so many people seem to be so upset with a worldview..
    • mdoerr, on 01/06/2008, -4/+28Because denial of science and blind reliance on dogmatic principles opens the door for ignorance in other arenas and the blockage of important scientific progress (particularly stem cell research) and other social issues (abortion, gay marriage) over which religion should have no influence whatsoever.

      If religion was more of a "don't tread on me" type of thing, we could deal, but the nature of religion is to "evangelize" other people and either get them to believe you or to get in the way of the way they live their lives i.e. Terri Shiavo or by overturning Roe v. Wade.
      • Esstee, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I agree, religion has been stricken with a bad rap. And... for good reason. It's just to bad people can't control themselves.
    • incendiarylvr, on 01/06/2008, -7/+15Personally, I disdain chosen ignorance. Creationism is the decision to ignore rationality in lieu of a magical children's tale.

      In addition I see all of the evil that organized religion causes in the world. Perhaps if you people decided to think for yourselves and entertain scientific hypothesis you wouldn't be so eager to pass judgment on those that dont live or think like you.
      • bomber91, on 01/06/2008, -1/+111. this is the exact anger and cruel aspect i was talking about and 2. did you even read what i wrote? "eager to pass judgment on those that dont live or think like you." i said that i am not here to change anyones views in any way. how am i passing judgment. it seems to me like most of these people are just as uneducated about religion as you accuse me of being about evolution.
        • sodade, on 01/06/2008, -1/+2Correction:L eager to pass judgment on people who don't think. Period. You people screwed us all by voting for bush TWICE!
      • manitoba98xp, on 01/06/2008, -1/+8Personally, I disdain condescension. Haughtiness is the decision to ignore tolerance in lieu of pushing one's own beliefs on others.

        Frankly, I don't like it when either side claims that they're right, and that the others are (pick any of stupid, sinful, evil, naive, or rebellious). As for all the "evil" organized religion causes, yes, religion has the potential to inspire hatred. But also acts of great compassion. Did you know that it was because of religion that literacy spread in Europe? Or that it was usually the Church that ran schools and hospitals? It's a double-edged sword which can be used for good or twisted for evil. Science is the same. I'm not the most pious person you'll meet, but everyone is free to believe whatever they want, and you have no right to slander them. Oh, and on that last sentence....wow, what irony.
        • Esstee, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Sad fact of life.
          It would seem as though people as whole are simply incapable of living with indifference. Since when do we openly decriminate and utter messages of hate onto others based on beliefs? The situation only deteriorates over the fact that the entire fiasco is bound by unsubstantiated information. The hard facts are no one person on this planet can prove anything to the effect of the big question.

          The worlds is filled with mislead, ill-informed, misguided and unfortunate people. Are we going to call them down and cast stones at them? This sounds absurd doesn't it! but history has clearly shown that though that though humanity has worked hard to instill moral and productive ethics towards others, we continue to struggle with the same primitive characteristics which have tarnished our species into shame to begin with.

          So people are misguided into refuting scientific knowledge! BIG DEAL!
          Take a moment and look in the mirror! there is a bigger problem staring you right in the face here.
        • TopherD, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0Many people have done horrible things in the name of Christ, but also many people have done horrific things in the name of evolution. Hitler and Stalin based there actions strictly on the works of Darwin and Huxley. Evolution after all is not much more than survival of the fittest. The strong beat out the week. Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of people to try and eliminate "inferior" races and they tried to create the Ultimate race. Also, slave owners used to justify slavery through verses in the Bible, but again evolutionists used the theory of inferior races to okay slaver. Both religions have there problems. I hope everyone agrees that both viewpoints are polar opposites and don't mix.
          • nullifidian0, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1You have no idea what the hell you're talking about, do you?
          • sonoran, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0That's such a ridiculous characterization of Evolution. Hitler and Stalin saw in evolution justification for their crimes... not because it was there, it isn't, but because they wanted to see it. Evolution describes a gradual diversivification and broadening of life, after all a central idea is that the first organisms were small one-celled or even viral entities. It is NOT the crushing of one species by another superior one. Superiority as defined in evolution is conditional, it depends on the current environment. What may be more adaptive and thus superior in an ice age, may be a huge disadvantage in a later warmer period. There is no "master race" described in evolution, and most genetically determined advantages are transient over long streches of time.
      • Makaras, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Wow incendiarylvr I wonder how much self righteous ether you had to huff to squeeze out that one brief statement of concentrated *****. When you make such large one sided overstatements like you just did, you become no better than the self-righteous douche bags who press their one-sided religious based explanations on us all. It seems to me (and even is present in your argument) that the goal of expanding the idea of why evolution is important (if only at very least as a principle to be understood) is the goal of this argument, then why do you immediately derail the goal of your statements. Instead here I see that you have little care for the understanding of evolution, in fact all you care about is bashing religion. You only point out the evils within it, and fail to even slightly consider that positives of religions as here you have been blinded by your anti-religious zealotry (the same brand of zealotry that is seen in the very people you claim to be so animately against) to call you a hypocrite is a waste of words and to atheists like myself you are a joke next time invest your time and effort into figuring out:

        1) What you dislike?
        2) Why do you dislike it?
        3) To what extent do you not like it?
        4) Does the manner in which you dislike it make you look like a hypocritical douche bag?
    • theexitwound, on 01/06/2008, -2/+10It's not the religion. Its that the religion is often politicized and squeezed into every facet of our lives, breeding a conservative, fundamental goverment who would rather feed its own cycle of beliefs than take care of the bigger issues.
    • TheSpook, on 01/06/2008, -4/+8> i understand completely that there are alot of people out there who make religion seem very unappealing but thats only a small minority.

      It seems to me that the people you mention are the majority. They fight to protect "traditional marriage", but will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to prevent the nativity scene from being placed at the local City Hall. Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
      • bomber91, on 01/06/2008, -4/+2they are not the majority by a long shot. they are the small part of religion that are publicized by the media, like anything. have you ever been to a church or a youth group meeting? out of all the believers i have met, i would say that around 90% are the most accepting and understanding people i have ever met.

        • banmaster, on 01/06/2008, -3/+3They may not be technically the 'majority' but they act like enablers to those that DO give religion a bad name!
          By turning the other way and not immediately condemning and distance themselves from the minority of bigots and lunatics they give their own unspoken support to these nutcases!
          For example, ANY christian who thinks the death penalty should NOT be abolished simply IS NOT a christian. They are NOT following the teachings of Jesus at all! And yet they still have the gall to call themselves 'christians' and think they have the right to preach this bizarre mockery of jesus' message to anyone that will listen, raking in hundreds of thousands from the gullible each week in their sickening tax-free mega-churches.
          If they can't practice what they preach, then they should at least have the guts to preach what they practice instead of hiding behind religion as a shield to their bigotry and intolerance!
        • GGoldberry, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4In a poll from 2005, 51% of Americans did not accept evolution, and said that God had created humans in their present form. This is outstanding and horrifying. I am all for people having freedom of belief and religion, but when you start trying to bring those beliefs into the public schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design" I put my foot down. If you believe in creationism, don't try to make it equal to evolution and call ID science. Call it what it is -- a belief, and keep it out of the schools!

          The link to the poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/ ...
        • sodade, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3They might not be the majority, but they are the reason Bush got elected TWICE! They are the reason that ***** won in Iowa. To the lions.
    • rroberts45, on 01/06/2008, -3/+6I have no problem with whatever religious viewpoint you might want to express. In the US you have the absolute right to believe whatever you like. I have a problem when you want to take what you teach in your church into the public schools. Public, tax supported, schools should teach the facts, not your religious beliefs. Teach creationism and ID in your church, if you want -- of course you won't, because they're just a sham excuse to get your religion into the public schools.
      • TopherD, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0realize that before the scopes trial evolution was against the law to be taught in many classrooms. That was fought for in the 60's but now creation is totally gone and being knocked back. Why is that? Things have gone totally opposite. Surveys have said that less than 10% of Americans believe in only evolution. So why is that 'opinion' being force fed to our nations youth? and on my tax dollars none the less! I have had evolutionists tell me if I don't like it put my kids in private schools, but why should I have to pay for them to teach my kids or any kids for that matter a theory that is shaky at best. and then have to pay again to send my kids to public schools. True science is 'a search for truth.' Shutting out other theories just because you may have a personal vendetta against God shouldn't drive you to cut off the realm of other possibilities.
    • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -8/+2Now that you've seen the responses to your question, I think you should realize that the godless desire to eliminate those of us who believe in God. They view any moral authority as a threat. A moral authority places restrictions on their behavior, and they wish to be their own gods.

      They push evolution so strongly because they want to displace our Creator. They don't care about facts or evidence. They simply want to eliminate anything "God" from society; not just the public square, but from the minds and hearts of all men.
      • Esstee, on 01/06/2008, -3/+2I have always found the insecure stance of none believers to be a very intriguing phenomenon. It's almost as though, those who do not beleive are unable to rest knowing others believe. All in all, it is a very strange and alarming situation for humanity.
        • hplasm, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4I have always found the insecure stance of believers to be a very intriguing phenomenon. It's almost as though, those who believe are unable to rest knowing others do not believe. All in all, it is a very strange and alarming situation for humanity.

          So...
      • quii, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3I dug this up because people should read that

        Not because its right though.

        Why is it necessary to have a "moral authority" these days? Have we not matured enough as a society to have morals, because we are human beings and not because we are scared of death?
        • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -2/+0Without belief in the baby jeebus, we hoomins would be rapin and killin each other.
          So, to stop all that rapin and killin, we have to get rid of those unbelievers. Hangem high!
        • Esstee, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I'm not quite sure the hierarchy cast between God and man was based primarely based on moral authority. Though it did play a part in the overall plan. Also. I think it is quite safe to conclude that we "as humans" are not doing well in the face of independence, contrary to what we would of hoped(look around you). The world is riddled with hate crimes, killing or murders, rape, violence, selfishness and a host of other self defeating behavior which have a significant impact on the survival of our species. While I am aware that it is in our nature to conquer our domain, we should also remain aware that it is also in our nature to live in denial in the face of the unsurmountable. The unsurmountable being the inevitable destruction of our environment and species as a whole.

          Regardless of the consequences or turn of events, we will inevitably die. However, I'm not convinced that death and destruction were the primary forces offered as incentives to live under God's care. Though many religious enterprises would have you believe that.
        • TopherD, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0The message of the Bible is simple God gave us Ten commandments but Jesus summed it up in one, Love your neighbor as yourself. That was Jesus' message He never treated anybody like they were scum because of decisions they made. He realized people have a conscious and He didn't need to condemn them, He loved them. I agree that lots of Christians don't do a good job at that anymore and I apologize to you. If it counts for anything I have been trying to step up and be an example and push other Christians to in a sense be nice. Yes I do admit my "agenda" is to evangelize but not by bashing and name calling. Christians need to evangelize by love and educating. And we cant educate if we don't learn first.
    • captric, on 01/06/2008, -0/+4The strong response against religion is because of religious peoples quest for political power and a special place in society.
  • kyleraine, on 01/06/2008, -26/+2buried, that's like asking me to read about preschool dribble
    • mdoerr, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3What do you mean by pre school dribble? Do elaborate.
      • ZombieSociety, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Pretty sure he meant "drivel." Obviously, not much of an English class drivel fan, either.
  • DanteMN, on 01/06/2008, -23/+6Big surprise. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in a survey conducted in 1998. Whew. Just as long as their lack of faith does not interfere in the science or research. Why does National Academy of Sciences care so much in those who have faith? One word - money. They may need to start looking for non-grant jobs and work for results.

    To quote a movie -- "Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect results." -- Dr Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd in Ghostbusters)
    • sdcrym, on 01/06/2008, -4/+9It would be a creationist that thinks professors of parapsychology are scientists.
      • MrWhite7, on 01/06/2008, -5/+3I'm not a creationist but he does raise an interesting point.
        • sdcrym, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3He kind of meanders through 2 or 3 points without really raising them. Maybe he's implying that disbelief in god leads to a belief in evolution, but I disagree with such a notion. The mindset and thought processes (reason and logic) that lead a scientist to accept the evidence for evolution are the same as those used to be skeptical of a personal god when no evidence suggests one exists.

          As far as the money and results thing, I'm not really sure what he's getting at. Only thing I can think to say: not all areas of science require embracing evolution.
    • TheAkolyte, on 01/06/2008, -2/+7Maybe if you had years of scientific research and a bundle of investment money thrown out because "it's not religiously acceptable" you'd be a little concerned about the beliefs of others.
  • exomni, on 01/06/2008, -7/+10Maybe once we get a democrat in the white house the NAS will get some of its federal respect back.
    • duddles, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3Which candidate will fund the most science research? That's who I will vote for.
      • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Hmm... did you vote for George W. Bush? His administration has funded science more than any previous administration.
        (Not that I'm a fan of unconstitutional government largess, but facts are facts.)
        • Lazymoon, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Wow, talk about a twist no one saw coming.
        • Immij, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1Given your misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what constitutes science in previous comments I'm sceptical of this claim. Do you have a source for it?
  • somespecial, on 01/06/2008, -12/+3They should have first defined what science is. Science is the human effort to understand. Are they implying that only scientists are truly good at understanding things?

    • SupaFurry, on 01/23/2008, -2/+3Wow - check out that logic!
    • dildoolielly, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3The whole idea of a creator simply introduces far more complexity than the notion that we evolved from earlier forms because both arguments require at some point for something to happen that starts the whole process but one results in this all knowing perfect creator and another results in a very simple (by comparison to the 'creator' theory) combination of chemical reactions which are a precursor to life. If a theory (and I am being generous in granting 'creationism' theory status for the sake of argument) doesn't improve our understanding and isn't predictive and testable then it isn't much use. At least with evolutionary theory it describes the evolution we actually see (bearing in mind that evolution itself is known to happen, the theory just describes a mechanism to explain evolution) whereas creationism requires you to believe in something which is simply 'magic' and which tries to explain the fossil record as a 'trick by God' and observable evolution as being 'micro-evolution' as if that is something different from 'macro-evolution' or speciation.

      So, if the creator needs no creator, life also needs no creator, therefore there was no creator. Evolution happens because we see it in the fossil record and we observe it happening in daily life (MRSA for example). The theory of evolution describes our current thoughts on the mechanism. Evolution is not something you can choose not to believe in the same way that you can't not believe in gravity just because the theory of gravity is incomplete.
      • Esstee, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3"So, if the creator needs no creator, life also needs no creator, therefore there was no creator"

        This logic is flawed. I think that the idea is both rushed and grossly simplified and as so you ended up with what seemed like a satisfactory answer. However, without considering the implications of the element of time and realm, it would be inaccurate to conclude that the onset of an entity existing outside the boundaries of time would ultimately not exist. This being that we* in our own existence would be the only life forms to appear from this state to begin with. The philosophy supporting this argument seems circular at best.

        Based on the limited knowledge on such doctrines we have, the entity known as God would exist in a realm outside the boundaries of time and space. He as a collective power within his own realm then created life in a realm with the factors we now live in today.(more or less) Whether or not this concept is acceptable to people is entirely subjective, however, it stands just as well as any other theory under the terms to date and leaves us with nothing more than our own opinions and beliefs to deal with.
        • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1Hmm, an educated reply. Let's see how I can rip open it's underbelly and gnaw on it's entrails.

          Philosophically speaking, you are correct. It is an issue of realms. However positing this "God" entity, being outside our realm, can reach into and influence events in our realm makes about as much sense as us reaching into his realm and messing with his reality. Though there are some that believe that the action of belief or non-belief of beings in our realm do exactly that.

          However, it is completely unrelated to the question of whether evolution is correct or not.

        • TopherD, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0God, not being in our realm, would not be limited to or by our realm. It's a crude analogy but playing world of war craft for example or a video game similar, you, outside the computer are not in the realm of the game but you can control what happens in it, they game characters however are limited and cannot come to our realm or reach into our realm and have an effect here.
      • pjr12345, on 01/06/2008, -5/+1Problem... if there is no Creator, then where did all this "stuff" (matter in space-time) come from? Since Entropy is a proven Law, we know the universe is winding down; therefore it had to have been "wound up". Even Evolutionists require an uncaused First Cause. They just refuse to call it God.

        Also, any increase in order that results in complexity requires purposeful intelligence. Random chance doesn't account for this. When archeologists find ruins of old cities they don't marvel at how such structures happened to form randomly from the surrounding dust. They assume that intelligent beings created them. It makes perfect and rational sense to make the same assumption about other even more complex structures - all life.
        • MrPeach, on 01/06/2008, -1/+0One must accept the truth that the energy that has manifested itself in the reality that surrounds us cannot have popped into existence for the purpose of creating this reality. Our observation that energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely changed in aspect supports this view. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that this energy has always existed and it's current configuration (our "reality") is temporary. Either our reality is some special case (improbable) or it is one among many. To employ an argument that there is some higher order of existence that is responsible for our creation simply begs the question of the origin of that supposed higher plane. It is purest arrogance to suggest that a "creator" is required when all can be explained by the random behavior of a massive energy field.
          Increase in order is not a universal occurrence. As long as additional chaos is occurring elsewhere, limited increase in order in another place is not only accepted, but expected.
          • pjr12345, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1It appears that while you reject Entropy, you accept Conservation of Matter/Energy. However, your idea that the universe is eternal violates Causality. Two out of Three ain't bad, but you've only got One out of Three.
            Consider this: If the universe is eternal, then time is infinite. If this is the case, then there would be no beginning; further, you could never arrive at the present.
            Any mathematician knows that infinity is an abstract idea, and not part of the real, physical world.
          • Esstee, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I could read and discuss such topics forever(if that were possible) :)

            Isn't it interesting that in our own day and age we have the intellectual capacity to conclude that Chaos and Order are the principles behind our existence? I bring this up because I was reading a section on ancient Hebraic scriptures recently which stated that God, was described as the absolute force which brought order to the chaos in the beginning stages of creation. While I had heard such statements in the past by others, it was not until I read it that I finally contemplated the significance of such a statement written over 3000 years ago.
          • TopherD, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0I find no problem with the evidence pointing towards chaos at the beginning that would validate a creationists point of view. you see the Bible says "... and the earth was formless and void." The original Hebrew translation would be best described as chaos. Funny how science really, time and time again confirms what the Bible says.
      • TopherD, on 01/11