evolution update

A county in Georgia is following a court order to “remove evolution ‘disclaimers’ from science textbooks”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052400285.html . I’m glad to hear that, because it indicates that someone, somewhere is being a bit more reasonable about this.

For those looking for more science ammo in this fight, Scientific American has an excellent list of “answers to creationist nonsense”:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF. It answers the most common creationist (or “Intelligent Design”) misconceptions in a clear, decisive fashion. Yay, science!

*UPDATE*: Scientific American seems to have moved the article behind their Wall of Subscription, so here are a couple “alternate”:http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html “links”:http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf if you’re still interested in reading the whole thing.

2 thoughts on “evolution update

  1. Well as a scientist it would seem that your info is wrong. Science proves that a Intelligent Design is more likely then before, also you must of never had it explain to you in a intelligent fashion. I was once like you but someone explain it to me in a what he termed “Out of the human box.” As intelligent people it hard to think out of what we see as intelligence. If anyone wants to hear this guy explanation email me and I will post your email to him. Also he’s not a preacher or minister, nothing like that just a person that might show you something I thought could never be shown. Thanks Dr. G

  2. Dr. G, please take the time to read the article. You might find it even more enlightening than your persuasive friend. If you still find points that are worth arguing, please do post them here (or have your friend do so.)

    I understand that there is more in heaven and earth that is dreamt of in our philosophy, but we’re talking about science here. Science, more than any other discipline, has specific rules about how to determine the accuracy of a hypothesis or the usefulness of a theoretical framework. Shifting from a scientific argument to historical (“it has always been thus”), anecdotal (“I once heard that…”), or rhetorical (“how could that possibly be?”) arguments doesn’t arrive at better science.

Comments are closed.