Archive for Friday, September 14, 2007
Kansas vs. Darwin
Documentary examines local school board case that evolved into national controversy
September 14, 2007
Advertisement
The “Kansas vs. Darwin” crew interviews school board member Connie Morris at the hearings on evolution in Topeka in 2005.
‘Kansas vs. Darwin’ premiere
With: The Kansas International Film Festival
When: 7:40 p.m. Monday
Where: Glenwood Arts Theatre, 9575 Metcalf Ave.
Tickets: $8.50
More info: (913) 642-4404
In the beginning, God created controversy.
And filmmaker Jeff Tamblyn was there to cover it.
To clarify, this particular “beginning” took place in 2005 when three members of the Kansas State Board of Education — Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin and Connie Morris — conducted controversial hearings to debate where God belonged in the classroom. Specifically, in what ratio should evolution and intelligent design be implemented into the state’s school science standards?
Tamblyn’s upcoming documentary, “Kansas vs. Darwin,” examines this modern-day Scopes trial from beginning to end.
“When we started the project and began to talk about it, the reception we got was chilly,” says Tamblyn, who directed, produced and co-wrote the enterprise.
“One of the first things that everybody asked us was, ‘Which side are you on?’ In fact, that may eventually become a tagline for the movie.”
The subject proved no mere paper vs. plastic debate. The filmmakers became submerged in a core issue as culturally divisive as abortion or the invasion of Iraq.
“Even within families you see these big splits. I think some people can grasp evolution and it doesn’t bother them. But almost everybody I talk to who doesn’t like evolution, they just don’t cotton to the idea that they come from a lower form of life. For some people it might indicate that they are not special,” Tamblyn says.
More than 135 hours of footage later, Tamblyn started assembling the film with the help of co-writer/editor Mark von Schlemmer.
“It was a long process,” von Schlemmer recalls. “We had to figure out what the real story was. The charm of documentary filmmaking is that you can’t really know for sure what you’re going to get until you get out there, interview everyone and then look at what you shot to figure out what they’re saying.”
That long process turned out to run even longer.
“We thought we were done with the film a little over a year ago,” Tamblyn says. “We sent it out to some festivals like Toronto and Telluride, and it didn’t get in. But this prompted me to take another look at the story. I felt like we could make a better movie.”
The first editing revision turned out to be a metaphor for what sparked the initial controversy.
“We took out a lot of the science,” Tamblyn explains.
“There was a lot of stuff in there about cells and molecular biology. It was over people’s heads, and they were going to sleep. Instead, we really zeroed in on the politics and the politics of faith.”
Nearly a year and a half since the first festival edit floundered, “Kansas vs. Darwin” is making its official premiere Monday at the Kansas International Film Festival.
Heroes and villains
“Each year I find that the one subject that I think, ‘Who cares?’ or ‘I’ve already heard enough about this’ winds up being a film that is so well-made and interesting, it overcomes my initial skepticism,” says Dotty Hamilton, vice president of programming at the Kansas International Film Festival. “Last year we had an entry about asparagus. I thought it sounded stupid, but it wound up being one of my favorite films of the festival. It was also one of the highest ranked by the audience.
“The audience ultimately decides which films they want to see. Based on advance individual ticket sales, right now ‘Kansas vs. Darwin’ is leading the pack in audience interest.”
Part of the appeal is that for being such a quintessentially Kansas event, the three-day hearing courted national interest.
Journalists from all over the world kept tabs on the melee that pitted John Calvert, director of the Shawnee-based Intelligent Design Network, and Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka attorney who supported pro-evolution science standards.
Although the religious side was in full force during the hearings, the Kansas Citizens for Science decided to stage a boycott. Their reasoning was that science is not something that can be determined in the courtroom.
“The average viewer may see the movie as filled with heroes and villains. But my viewpoint is it’s filled with human beings,” says Tamblyn, a 27-year veteran of corporate film and video production.
“Some people — depending on their viewpoints — might find Connie (Morris) really detestable. I didn’t think she was detestable, I just thought she was trying too hard. I would say the same thing about most of the people involved in this. They’re scurrying and bellowing to make their point because they’re afraid the other side is going to get ahead of them.”
National release
The filmmakers are hoping “Kansas vs. Darwin,” which was shot on digital video for under $200,000, is strong enough to land a national release.
“We’d love to get theatrical distribution for it. It’s not a flashy film — there are a lot of talking heads. But the content of it is pretty gripping,” says von Schlemmer, a Kansas University doctoral student in film studies.
“The reason I made the movie — to be blunt — was to make some money,” Tamblyn adds. “Of course, I’m real interested in this topic. But through our research we’ve learned the way you make money with a documentary is primarily through DVD sales — unless you’re Michael Moore or you have a lot of penguins in your movie.”
Tamblyn is pleased to finally be debuting the official finished version of the picture at the Kansas International Film Festival, which allows most of the people involved in the story the opportunity to attend.
He says, “There are 10 major characters in the film, and they’ve all been invited to the screening. So far none of the people on the creationist side are coming.”
14 September 2007 at 7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
If you believe in the literal Garden of Eden, then I hope you're a rabid environmentalist, fighting to keep God's creation from being spoiled, like with the SLT or those coal plants in Holcomb.
Otherwise, there's nothing incompatible between Darwin and God, so long as you keep in mind that the Bible and other sacred texts are metaphors and not literal. I believe in both God and Darwin, and looking at a bird or a flower, find both science and sacredness there.
14 September 2007 at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
I predict that there will be heavy bias in this film. Not having seen it, I can't tell you which side it will lean toward, but I predict a one-sided presentation. There hasn't been an objective documentary since Robert Flaherty made “Nanook of the North” in 1922.
14 September 2007 at 8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says…
Haiku:
Do any complete copies of “Nanook” still exist?
I've seen parts of it but never the entire film.
14 September 2007 at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
Too bad they couldn't come up with a different title. Just “Kansas vs. Darwin” is way too inclusive. It makes it sound like all of Kansas. Obviously not all of us are supporters of the so called intelligent design thing. Shouldn't that be called “uninformed design”? How about “Head in the sand design”?
14 September 2007 at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jasonc_22 (Anonymous) says…
hopefully the film will show the “villians” as they really are: the people trying to force the psuedo-science of creationism on unsuspecting Kansas children.
14 September 2007 at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scary_manilow (Anonymous) says…
I hope you're well aware that “Nanook” was completely fabricated, thus rendering it ineligible for continued “documentary” status.
But, for those interested, Criterion put it out on DVD a few years back, and it's still just as weird as ever.
14 September 2007 at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
The ugliness of denying scientific inquiry hits home… Go Jeff… People are fighting back against these “assaults” on reason.
14 September 2007 at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
staff04 (Anonymous) says…
Darwin, in straight sets…
14 September 2007 at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
Marion, Lawrence Public Library carries Nanook. The online catalog shows that it is available.
Scary Manilow, Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember hearing that the scene where the Eskimos struggled to pull a Walrus out of the ocean was staged. Bummer. So much for objectivity.
14 September 2007 at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
This film is about two years too late.
Bad title as well. I agree with Autie. Kansas? Really? How about whacked out crazies that snuck into office for a couple years vs Darwin.
14 September 2007 at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…
Nanook was not an objective documentary. It was all staged for the camera. Yes, there is some truth in it, but completely staged. Entertaining, though. Also, check out Kon Tiki. Another good semi-anthropological documentary.
As for this Darwin thing… people keep missing an important point. Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution. His big contribution to the concept was the idea of evolution by natural selection.
14 September 2007 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mick (Anonymous) says…
Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. So is Evolution Theory.
14 September 2007 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Science is a wonderful tool of discovery.
It's too bad that humans tend to mix their politics and philosophical trash with it, so that it becomes an adulterated mess.
14 September 2007 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jasonc_22 (Anonymous) says…
evolutionary theory isn't pseudoscience, but your absolutely right that intelligent design is.
14 September 2007 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…
Connie Morris had an incredible sense of self-importance and a rectitude not found in this many places this side of the White House. She also thinks she's a great deal smarter than she is, a middling intelligence at best. Like the W.H. crew she's a crook, stealing with one hand and flipping Bible pages with the other.
14 September 2007 at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Connie Morris you say?
Here is a very interesting read (from the Pitch) about what a piece of work she is:
http://www.pitch.com/2005-08-18/news/unn…
==============================================
Oh, and evolution is not pseudoscience.
14 September 2007 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
I wonder if this is the same kind of 'documentary' as Michael Moore's crap. 'Propaganmentary' is more like it. I don't know which side this film will come down on, but it'll come down on one side or the other. I love how they had to throw out the science stuff and just focus on the 'politics' to get people interested.
14 September 2007 at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Intelligent design is religion.
Evolution is science.
One might feel that science is not the best way to understand the natural world, and one might question science and the scientific method. But to call evolution “pseudoscience” is beyond ignorant. It is purposefully deceitful.
14 September 2007 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
Some of you talk like evolution is a fact like 2 plus 2 equals 4.
14 September 2007 at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
Some of you talk like evolution is a fact like 2 plus 2 equals 4.
===========
Certain elements are fact, such as microevolution and changes within a species. Other areas are still being explored though.
14 September 2007 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kawryan (Anonymous) says…
I'll put $50 on Darwin.
14 September 2007 at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…
“But almost everybody I talk to who doesn’t like evolution, they just don’t cotton to the idea that they come from a lower form of life.”
And now its time to play the game “What deadly sin am I?”
14 September 2007 at 2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
filmguru (Anonymous) says…
Kansas vs. Darwin is just one of a host of great films at the Kansas International Film Festival this year. For a complete schedule, visit the KIFF website at: http://www.kansasfilm.com/festival/sched…
14 September 2007 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
Certain elements are fact, such as microevolution and changes within a species. Other areas are still being explored though.
Thanks. I can agree with that 100% Evolution from one species to another is not a fact. I have no problem teaching that Macroevolution is something that some people believe is true just like creation is something that some people believe is true.
14 September 2007 at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“I have no problem teaching that Macroevolution is something that some people believe is true just like creation is something that some people believe is true.”
Evolution is supported by facts, experiments, and observation. Creationism is not. Evolution is science. Creationism is not.
Again, you are free to criticize science as an epistemology and a way of knowing, and you need not accept the findings and conclusions of science.
14 September 2007 at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
Creationism is supported by facts and observation.
The Fact that we live in such an incredibly complex world makes me and others believe that it didn't happen by chance.
And by the way I'm not really sure what an epistemology is. Is that where they cut a woman as she is giving birth?
14 September 2007 at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, methods, limitations, and validity of knowledge and belief.
Aha.
14 September 2007 at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
Slippy, Slappy, Swenson, Swanson,…………..Samsonite! I was way off.
14 September 2007 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
max1 (Anonymous) says…
“I wonder if this is the same kind of 'documentary' as Michael Moore's crap. 'Propaganmentary' is more like it.” -situveux1
“Creationism is supported by facts and observation.” -gogoplata
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0505a/scope…
“Evolution has been proven false. Intelligent Design is science-based and strong in facts.” -Kathy Martin (Kansas State School Board )
Creationism is true — this I know, because the Messiah tells me so.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/k…
Kansas Evolution Hearings
jonathan wells, Ph.D., called as a witness on behalf of the Minority testified as follows: . . .
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/…
Discovery Institute
Dr. Wells is currently working on a book criticizing the over-emphasis on genes in biology and medicine.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl…
From Darwin to Hitler
Ann Coulter is among the experts who appear in the special. Others are Weikart, Lee Strobel, journalist/author of “The Case for a Creator,” Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of Evolution,” and Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins.
Jonathan Wells has been a member of the Discovery Institute since 1996, and as s early as the 1970’s, a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/politi…
Rev. Sun Myung Moon (Owner of the Washington Times), the eccentric and exceedingly wealthy Korean-born businessman, donned a crown in a Senate office building and declared himself the Messiah while members of Congress watched.
14 September 2007 at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
erod0723 (Anonymous) says…
The title of the movie sounds like some Heavyweight title fight or something….
Wait a second, so Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah returned at last? Hallelujah on the highest!
14 September 2007 at 5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“Creationism is supported by facts and observation.”
Please. I have no problem with your self-evident revelation that the universe must have been created because it is complex. However, this is not science. It is religion. You are free to believe what you wish.
Evolution is based on facts and science, the same facts and science that bring you your computer, your automobile, your electricity, and your medicine.
Creationism is not. It is wishful navel-gazing, feel-good ignorance, and outright denial of scientific reality.
Science can be tough to accept. It's conclusions can be scary (just ask the catholic church). You need not accept science as a means to understand the universe. Apparently, self-evident heel-clicking is good enough for you.
14 September 2007 at 7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mark Andrew (Mark Andrew) says…
So when is that big asteroid suppose to hit the Earth?
14 September 2007 at 7:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
elkwc36 (Anonymous) says…
Science hasn't been able to prove Evolution. If so they would of been present to present their case during the hearings. They have to hide behind lawyers. It is your right to believe what you want but I will believe in the real designer. God Bless you all.
14 September 2007 at 7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moonbat (Anonymous) says…
elkwc36, the pro-science crowd didn't show up at the hearings because they were boycotting it..which I don't blame them. Those hearings made me ashamed of being a Kansan.
Local pro-science advocacy group Kansas Citizens for Science organized a boycott of the hearings by mainstream scientists, who accused it of being a kangaroo court and argued that their participation would lend an undeserved air of legitimacy to the hearings.—Wichita Eagle, “Scientists Right to Boycott Evolution Hearings,” March 30, 2005; “Evolution Hearings Rejected by Scientists,” April 12, 2005.
14 September 2007 at 9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
I worked with Jeff a long time ago. Unfortunately, he has not changed.
14 September 2007 at 11:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Darwin 6:1 by 21 lengths.
15 September 2007 at 1:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mtoplikar (Anonymous) says…
Ok, lets get some things straight. Evolution is a fact. When people talk about Evolutionary Theory, they are talking about all of the main ideas that the leading scientists have about how evolution works. This doesn't mean that evolution is a theory, it just means that there are different theories about evolution. One of them is natural selection.
The best way to understand this is to think of gravity. Gravity is a fact. Gravitational theory used to involve Newtonian theories but now mostly involves Einsteinien theories on gravity. Other theories involve quantum physics. So, there is debate on how gravity works, but not that it's actually happening.
This being said, the main ideas behind natural selection are:
1) There is a variation of traits between and within species.
2) Some traits are passed on during reproduction.
3) In a particular environment, the organisms that are able to reproduce, will be more likely to pass on their traits.
In other words, natural selection has nothing to do with the “fittest” or the “best” species. It only has to do with the passing on of traits. This means that if an asteroid hits the earth and kills many species off, the ones that are able to reproduce are not necessarily better, but they are the ones that can pass on their traits.
So, you don't have to believe that the human species evolved from apes to believe in natural selection. However, natural selection is one of many reasons biologists think that humans evolved from apes. Other reasons come from studying humans and apes that are living today, as well as the fossil record.
15 September 2007 at 2:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
Ok, lets get some things straight. Evolution is a fact.
Your say so doesn't make it a fact.
This doesn't mean that evolution is a theory, it just means that there are different theories about evolution. One of them is natural selection.
This sounds to me like the decision has been made that evolution must be a fact but we are just not sure how it happened. I could have been this or that or maybe this other thing, perhaps it is a combination of these. Human DNA is so similar to an apes that we must have evolved from them.
However, natural selection is one of many reasons biologists THINK that humans evolved from apes. Other reasons come from studying humans and apes that are living today, as well as the fossil record.
“Thinking's not knowing” - Doug Heffernan
I have read the arguments from both sides and I remain unconvinced that Evolution is a fact. There is no getting around the fact that there are people on both sides of this one. What if both are true? Can't there be more than one truth?
15 September 2007 at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“elkwc36 (Anonymous) says…
Science hasn't been able to prove Evolution. If so they would of been present to present their case during the hearings.”
Would you go to a circus trial put together solely by politically motivated people who openly oppose everything you have to say? This is like suggesting those young women in Salem had to have been witches as they didn't turn themselves in to the tribunals. And they have been able to prove evolution, in some spheres of life. As for the one under question, it's supposed to be a process taking hundreds to thousands of years. We've had about a hundred and fifty. Fossil records suggest the truth of claims, but if you want a life, recorded example, you're just going to have to be patient and wait. You've been waiting 2000 years for Jesus to come back, so I know you can be patient when you want to be.
15 September 2007 at 8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…
gogoplata,
You have no clue what you are talking about. Strangely enough, this does not appear to prevent you from thinking you do. Curious.
15 September 2007 at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
max1 (Anonymous) says…
“Fossil records suggest the truth of claims, but if you want a life, recorded example, you're just going to have to be patient and wait.” -jonas
You're overlooking the many facts supporting creationism.
http://creationtruthministries.org/store…
“Petrified” Objects in Two Weeks!
Close-up of a “Petrified” Teddy Bear
http://creationtruthministries.org/image…
These “Petrified” objects took about two weeks to complete.
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaur…
“There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.” —Genesis 7:9. Noah's Ark had plenty of room for the animals. God brought each representative to Noah. This also included the dinosaur, probably a young pair of each main type of dinosaur.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=…
How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile- long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.
Now, however, a book in the park's bookstores tells another story. On sale since last summer, “Grand Canyon: A Different View,” by veteran Colorado River guide Tom Vail, asserts that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Old Testament flood, the one Noah's Ark survived, and can be no older than a few thousand years.
http://www.fixedearth.com/
The Earth Is Not Moving
The Fair Education Foundation, Inc.
Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as “science”.
The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/26…
But David Awbrey, the mouthpiece for the Kansas State Department of Education, is making the news following his comments about science, evolution and religion at a recent public forum… “Anyone see the Big Bang? Anyone see the dinosaurs? These are metaphysical speculations.”
[How many metaphysical dinosaurs does it take to fill an arc?]
15 September 2007 at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
What I am talking about is that evolution is not a fact. It is what some people think is a fact. Seems clear to me.
15 September 2007 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Oh, yeah, right, gogoplata… and Biblical “Creation,” exactly as stated in the Bible, is a “fact?”
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
15 September 2007 at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ibroke (Anonymous) says…
evolution is a fairy tale for adults that people make up to explain away the existance of God
15 September 2007 at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lifelong_Lawrencian (Anonymous) says…
Does evolution necessarily explain away the existence of God or just perhaps the literal interpretation of the bible?
Why is it that creationists tend to restrict their objections of science to evolution? Why not ban textbooks on astonomy, cosmology and physics that state that heavier elements that make up our bodies originated from novas and supernovas. Every branch of science includes theories that are necessary extrapolations of known facts. It is a vital tool that moves technology and scientific understanding forward. Gravity is a good example. The Large Hadron Collider will soon begin operation. It is expected to find the Higgs particle that theory predicts is responsible for gravity. Yet even after this discovery, gravity will remain a theory.
Creationists seem all to accepting or simply choose to remain ignorant of far more esoteric theories, like quantum theory, that has helped to generate discoveries and inventions that have launched the modern electronic age. All these theories have originated from the same scientific method. You cannot choose to attack the method that generated one that you simply don't agree with while happily enjoying the use of your cell phone and computer.
All reasonable scientists agree that there is far more data to support the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity. As with many other exceptions “the church” has had throughout history with science, they will have to adjust, while science and the rest of the world marches forward.
15 September 2007 at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ibroke (Anonymous) says…
I didnt say science such as the study of gravity or astronomy or physics explained away the existance of GOD but when you say that man evolved from slime or ape then that takes God out of the creating loop so by doing that you can live without a conscience and there is now punishment after death
15 September 2007 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“And now its time to play the game “What deadly sin am I?””
––––––––––—
*bzzzzt*
“pride.”
==========================================================
“evolution is a fairy tale for adults that people make up to explain away the existance of God”
––––––––—
Says the person who believes in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that created and watches over space and time without ever leaving a single piece of evidence of his existence—outside of a book written by men (who are sometimes prone to fabricating).
I find it hilarious that you think all science and research that has ever been done regarding random mutation, natural selection, and evolution is part of a huge conspiracy of scientists who are defying their own scientific method to sustain the facade.
As someone mentioned, you are free to criticize the effectiveness of science as an epistemology for understanding the surrounding world, but you cannot call religion (creationism) science. You cannot apply the scientific method to the theory of creationism, so it cannot be considered science, saying nothing to the validity of creationism.
I have no problem teaching creationism as part of a survey of religions course in public schools, because as the Intelligent Design people are fond of saying, they just want equal time devoted to all theories. I agree that all theories deserve equal time, but that time must be within the context of the subject you are studying. For example, the you wouldn't teach Subject/Verb agreement in a Calculus class, even though it is worthy of study. How do you propose to teach Intelligent Design within the context of the Scientific Method? Will the Bible serve as your “observable evidence”?
15 September 2007 at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
ibroke (Anonymous) says…
I didnt say science such as the study of gravity or astronomy or physics explained away the existance of GOD but when you say that man evolved from slime or ape then that takes God out of the creating loop so by doing that you can live without a conscience and there is now punishment after death
__________________________________________________
Right.
Because, as we all know…
God created man.
God created the Earth
But…
God had nothing to do with the creation of either apes or slime.
Since God didn't creat apes… and God didn't create slime… then man couldn't have come from either of these, no matter how “powerful” God might be.
I hope everyone understands this.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
15 September 2007 at 2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
ibroke (Anonymous) says…
“evolution is a fairy tale for adults that people make up to explain away the existance of God”
Actually, creationism is mainly a story for xian fanatics who are too arrogant to think that perhaps God didn't explain everything to them in the Bible: He didn't have to; He's God.
Intelligent Design is simply a re-branding of creationism. It was done in hopes that the second time around, their ideas will become vogue and less connected backwardness we associate with creationism from the Scopes Trial.
The other part of intelligent design that they added as part of the re-branding, is this concept that if something is too complex, there must be a God. What they are really trying to say is that if something is too complicated, don't try any further to figure it out. Just throw your hands up (give up) and say only God could have created it and could an understand it…
There is a God, and he mort likely used evolution (not creationalism) to get us where we are today. But more importantly, it isn't up to Mr/Ms/Mrs Science Teacher to put a face & Name on Him/Her/It The study of Evolution simply opens up the mind to possibilities. The student should decide their own religious views — whether there is a God or NOT, and if they think God exist, they also get to figure out his/Her name.
15 September 2007 at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ibroke (Anonymous) says…
I know you can have faith in either evolution or creationism, it comes down to FAITH believing that God died for your sins on a cross, it is spiritual not physical ,i know that God created the heavens and the earth including man because the holy spirit is living in me, science is physical and fairy tale stuff to me
15 September 2007 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“either evolution or creationism”
“either”… “or”
And there you have it, sports fans!
Even a horse with blinders can see more! :)))
—Ag
P.S. I guess your “God” isn't powerful enough to pull off… “both?” ;)
15 September 2007 at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mtoplikar (Anonymous) says…
Yes some people think it is a fact. These are the same people who think that gravity is a fact or that magnetism is a fact or that atoms are real. Here's one for you: No one has ever seen the earth revolve around the sun, but we still accept it as a fact. No one has seen electrons or protons but we all accept them as being part of our reality. Micro-evolution is pretty impossible to disprove. We can see it happen when viruses mutate, or when we breed dogs and other animals to have certain traits. Macro-evolution is not something that we have necessarily seen, however, the evidence we've seen suggests that it is what's happening.
The difference between science and religion is that science “thinks” and religion “knows”. Where science is always ready to discard old theories if new evidence disproves them, religion does not base what it “knows” on anything but religious text. I studied Intelligent Design (creationism) in college, and though I wouldn't call myself an expert on it there were a few things that I noticed about it.
First off, all of the papers you'll ever read about intelligent design have one aim: to disprove evolution. Now you might say that “science should be willing to accept criticism”, and you'd be right about that, however, you should also realize that there is no other scientific field that ONLY aims at disproving another theory. In other words, Intelligent Design advocates start with the idea that evolution is false and then try to find evidence to prove their theory. This is backwards science. Where Evolutionary Theory was molded from observations, Intelligent Design (creationism) molds it's observations to fit it's theory, throwing out the ones that go against it.
Secondly, the most obvious thing I noticed about Intelligent Design papers were that their arguments were based mostly around rhetoric and deception. These are tactics often used in debates in politics and law or even philosophy, but are pretty unprecedented in science. An example of this that I noticed quite often would be that Intelligent Design writers would quote a respected scientist to back up one of their arguments, but very blatantly leave words like “not” out of the quotation so that the quote would imply the exact opposite of what the scientist was originally saying. Other examples would include Intelligent Design papers stating arguments for evolution that are not actually argued by scientists and then disproving or “debunking” them. These kind of tactics were used by the tobacco industry to try to prove that cigarettes don't actually cause cancer.
So once more, let me just say that evolution is a fact. It is a fact because we can see it happening. Macro-evolution is a theory, but it's a pretty damn good theory because it's based on a ton of evidence.
15 September 2007 at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…
Creationism is likely what all humans believed at one point in our history. But I think one would find that the sheer variety of different creation stories only serves to invalidate creationism as an explanation of existence. Which one is the “right” one? They are all equally important to the peoples who keep them. I think it's funny that biblical creationists will often cite flood stories in non-biblical creation stories as reinforcement for biblical creationism.
15 September 2007 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lifelong_Lawrencian (Anonymous) says…
“…science is physical and fairy tale stuff to me”
–ibroke
And how do you suppose your post appeared on this blog? Fairy tale stuff?
15 September 2007 at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
livingstone (Anonymous) says…
75x55,
“Science is a wonderful tool of discovery. It's too bad that humans tend to mix their politics and philosophical trash with it, so that it becomes an adulterated mess.”
Wrong, scientists rarely get involved in politics. It's the religious leaders that mix religions and politics together than made all these philosophical trash we're seeing and becomes an adulterated mess. I rarely see a scientist becoming extremely involved in politics or running for offices, if they'd, this country will be a better one.
15 September 2007 at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
livingstone (Anonymous) says…
Religion is a set of philosophies on how to behave well for the sake of humanity. God is added into that flavor to entice people to believe further. There isn't much difference between Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. The only difference is that Christianity, Islam and Judaism add a God into the formula and messed up everything when a “pious” man made use of “God” to create a mess around the world. Taking away the formula of God, it will become something like Hinduism, Taoism, and even Confucius, advices on how to live better in your life.
15 September 2007 at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
Macro-evolution is a theory, but it's a pretty damn good theory because it's based on a ton of evidence.
Thank you. Like I said, Evolution is not a fact. Also there are plenty of people writing criticisms of evolution who have no hidden agenda about proving intelligent design. The theory has problems man.
15 September 2007 at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“that takes God out of the creating loop so by doing that you can live without a conscience and there is now punishment after death”
Having a conscience is not requisite on having God in the creating loop or having punishment after death. Truthfully, I think that if you require those things to have a conscience, then you have not progressed far enough along your path as a living human being. Still, I smell in your post a strong whiff of trolling, so I'll refrain from wasting any more time on you.
“Lifelong_Lawrencian (Anonymous) says…
And how do you suppose your post appeared on this blog? Fairy tale stuff?”
The eleventh choir of Angels, the Articulaphem, monitor all posts sent by the sacred wire and intelligently create them on your computer monitor.
15 September 2007 at 7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
livingstone (Anonymous) says…
__________
75x55,
“Science is a wonderful tool of discovery. It's too bad that humans tend to mix their politics and philosophical trash with it, so that it becomes an adulterated mess.”
__________
Wrong, scientists rarely get involved in politics. It's the religious leaders that mix religions and politics together than made all these philosophical trash we're seeing and becomes an adulterated mess. I rarely see a scientist becoming extremely involved in politics or running for offices, if they'd, this country will be a better one.
______________________________________________
livingstone,
I think that's exactly what 75x55 was trying to say. 75x55 *did* say “**humans** tend to mix their politics”…. not “scientists tend to mix…” etc.
—Ag
15 September 2007 at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
purplesage (Anonymous) says…
Darwinism / evolutionary science and creation science / intelligent design are means of addressing the question of origins. They both arise out of world views that are contradictory. Hence, the way of looking at the origin of all things is contradictory. Evolution and creation are incompatible
It is fascinating that a large number of people hold to an evolutionary, non-theistic explanation of from whence they came and still hold to ideas of heaven, eternal life and such. Either God did, or He did not. Your eternity depends on that.
15 September 2007 at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…
“Thank you. Like I said, Evolution is not a fact. Also there are plenty of people writing criticisms of evolution who have no hidden agenda about proving intelligent design. The theory has problems man.”
So, between further demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about and making a completely erroneous and unsupported statement, all that is left is “the theory has problems man”. Well, who can argue with such a thorough statement?