Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Origin of Species To Be Given For Free, With FUD

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the evolution-pains dept.

Idle 48

PhrostyMcByte writes "November 24th will mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the pivotal work that helped bring the theory of evolution through natural selection into popularity. Around this same time, Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron is spearheading a plan to pass out 50,000 free copies at universities around the country. The catch? Each copy will be altered to include creationist propaganda and FUD targeting evolution and Darwin himself."

cancel ×

48 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is actually a good thing (1)

NervousWreck (1399445) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048136)

If anyone who receives a free copy can't separate the science from the pseudo-science they deserve to look like idiots when they say "God created the world in six days because Darwin said so."

56 Mentions of God (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049346)

If memory serves me, On the Origin of Species mentions God 56 times and ever since the second addition affirms that evolution is a miracle of God. So I was left wondering how they could tie more God into the book. After a search on the net, I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049686)

If only I could get a hold of 1000 of those, do you people realise how expensive firewood is these days?

Re:56 Mentions of God (0, Troll)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050154)

I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.

Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought....

I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts. I'm not trolling. I'm not even accusing evolution of being wrong or false or whatever. I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought. Improvements come from lots of breeding/procreation -> must be going on today -> there must be "inferior" races currently alive -> why not help evolution along and get rid of these inferior races.

Re:56 Mentions of God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051756)

People use any convenient at-hand excuse in order to justify genocide.. religion is used quite often too, so even if evolution is used as the reason (which I'm sure it has been at least once), what's your point? That evolution is invalid because someone used it to justify evil?

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30052128)

His point was that it's a valid point of discussion, just as it's valid to discuss terrorism when referring to Islam, the Crusades when referring to Catholicism/Christianity, etc.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30052406)

Precisely. OP seemed to imply that evolution and Nazi/Racist thought had nothing in common and thus including that discussion or opinion or whatever it is was stupid. I think they definitely do.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30054918)

I was surprised is all. I don't keep up with Kirk Cameron, which is my fault (maybe his); however, the last thing I would have expected was Nazis. I had an Indiana Jones moment there. Again with the Nazis...

To me the book is a very creationist-centric take on evolution. I honestly expected some sort of enhancement of the ideas that creationism and evolution were not mutually exclusive ideas. I thought maybe he was making a reach out to the scientific community that says, "Hey, you can believe in evolution and God at the same time, it's okay". I could not have been more wrong and it made me laugh.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30062634)

I had an Indiana Jones moment there. Again with the Nazis...

My first experience with Indiana Jones was pretty much the LucasArts Adventure Pack, which had The Last Crusade in it. I watched the movie 15 years later and that was a strange experience, as the game pretty much got everything right, hehe.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30056698)

a valid point of discussion, just as it's valid to discuss terrorism when referring to Islam, the Crusades when referring to Catholicism/Christianity,

Just in case you've been living inside a cave (or womb) for the last 40 years, I'll just sharpen the point by re-arranging it :
"it's valid to discuss terrorism when referring to Catholicism/Christianity, the Crusades when referring to Islam,"
Obviously I speak from a country where Christian bombings have been the norm for most of my life (as a consequence of the Catholic/ Protestant insanity), and I write in a time when the 14th (approx) Crusade is soon to start on it's second decade.
Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose.That's what religions are for - making excuses to kill people instead of doing something useful.

Re:56 Mentions of God (3, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30053766)

I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.

Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought.... I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts.

Eugenics requires evolution. Evolution does not require eugenics. Cybersex requires a computer. But computers do not require cybersex. You can write a motherboard manual without mentioning cybersex anywhere. In fact, cybersex tips would be out of place in a motherboard manual. A book on Nazis would probably include eugenics and evolution, but there is no reason that a book on evolution would need to mention Nazis or eugenics.

I'm saying that eugenics ... seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought.

I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.

why not help evolution along and get rid of these inferior races.

If they really believed what they were saying, it seems more likely that they would let evolution run its course.

Cybersex (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30054774)

Speak for yourself. Cybersex requires a computer. But computers do not require cybersex

My computer is salient and lonely - it NEEDS cybersex, you ignorant clod!

Inferior genes aren't necessarily selected out out in the evolutionary model. As long as it doesn't prevent reproduction and the host themselves surviving long enough to reproduce, it's going to stay in the gene pool. Example - if there was a gene that caused the host to drop dead at 50 in 100% of cases- that's not going to be weeded out. Heck, in certain scenarios, it could be helpful by reducing competitive pressure for resources wrt the next generation.

People with blue eyes are more often nearsighted, which put them at a competitive disadvantage, but we still see blue-eyed people.

My point is twofold: that the definition of "inferior gene" is plastic and can change wrt circumstances, and that the evolutionary process doesn't select out all types of genes - just those that affect the odds of successfully breeding another generation.

As for eugenics, we practice it all the time. We choose our mating partners based in part on how desirable we perceive them to be. Given a choice, most people want someone who they are attracted to; their kids will probably look better than the ugly people who hooked up because of the beer-bottom goggles.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#30061888)

I'm saying that eugenics ... seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought.

I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.

When you're running a government, it is absolutely a logical choice. What would be more preferable between suffering the damage caused by allowing the natural course of things or taking measurable action towards a given result? If you need a local example, look at the meddling our own governments do in the economy. This too would work itself out in time, and yet we meddle, because that is what people want out of a government.

This is why I wouldn't personally object to this point being made in the preface to this particular book. The salient point is simply that employing scientific logic in decisions without any attaching any form of belief system can lead to immoral situations. This point should be obvious, but really it isn't. Far too many are holding science itself up as the belief system, using studies and the like as oracles.

In my own world view, science is a source of information. An excellent one, indeed, but not any sort of moral compass at all.

Re:56 Mentions of God (0, Flamebait)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30062734)

Eugenics requires evolution. Evolution does not require eugenics.

Good point. Evolution certainly does not require eugenics. I argue still, though, that evolution will lead to eugenics. Perhaps not inevitably, but it seems that it an evolutionary worldview would certainly lend itself to the practice of eugenics. IMO, an evolutionary worldview does not logically lead to a practice of environmental preservation. I said that below though, so I guess I'm repeating myself. And writing my comment from the bottom up, ha. :)

I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.

Fair enough.

If they really believed what they were saying, it seems more likely that they would let evolution run its course.

The same could be said about climate change/environmental activists. Humans are just another animal, we're no different from the rest of the animal kingdom except we're farther along teh evolutionary path... so what we are doing to the environment is completely natural and instinctive and we should just let us run our course, even if that leads to extinction. Or... should we intervene and save "ourselves"? Most people, at this point, seem to make an interesting break in their view of how the world works/runs and say that we do need to be responsible and not let ourselves run off and do whatever we want to the environment (as opposed to the rest of the ecosystem, where if something gets out of balance from an outside force, bad things happen). Hitler's reasoning seems to not be too far off from this line of reasoning - we should clean up the race before we get beyond hope (and I choose my race to be the best! ... heh).

Re:56 Mentions of God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30068628)

I argue still, though, that evolution will lead to eugenics. Perhaps not inevitably, but it seems that it an evolutionary worldview would certainly lend itself to the practice of eugenics.

You are a complete and utter fucktard who has absolutely zero knowledge of science, human psychology, or history.

Re:56 Mentions of God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30078036)

But then, by your logic, religion will lead to genocide.

Religion
-> People who are our religion and people who aren't
-> People who aren't are wrong
-> Wrong people tell us wrong things
-> Wrong things are harmful to us
-> People who aren't our religion want to harm us (why else would they persist in being wrong)
-> We need to remove the sources of things that do us harm
-> kill or convert everyone who isn't us
-> they refuse to be converted (because they are following the same logic chain)
-> we'll just have to kill them all

The only reason that it isn't done these days is that killing everyone else is frowned upon; if you try it someone or multiple someones will kill you back. That, and most people value their lives and their comfort far above what some sky wizard will do to them once they are dead.

As an aside, if the Nazis had really believed in evolution -> eugenics, surely they would have topped everyone who wasn't blonde with blue eyes. Can't have that filthy brown hair in the gene pool.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30055722)

I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought.

That doesn't make sense. The only concept that is required to 'justify' eugenics is that a child inherits traits from his/her parents. I'm pretty sure even the most nutty creationist doesn't dispute this. The fact that this concept pretty much implies that evolution must occur is irrelevant.

Now, if the Nazis had selectively killed off people with skinny, hairless arms with the aim of developing a new human like species with wings, your argument would perhaps be slightly more valid. But seeing as their aim was just to make the population, stronger, smarter, and blonder (traits which are well known to be inherited from parents, even by creationists), a belief in evolution isn't required at all.

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

Jakeva (1429603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30069758)

I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.

Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought....

I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts. I'm not trolling. I'm not even accusing evolution of being wrong or false or whatever. I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought. Improvements come from lots of breeding/procreation -> must be going on today -> there must be "inferior" races currently alive -> why not help evolution along and get rid of these inferior races.

You're totally right, as long as your point is that nazis used evolution as their reasoning. Not trolling either, just pointing out that the nazis were WRONG to try to help evolution along. The reason is that you can't possibly help evolution along. You would have to see the future, and you would have to see millions of years into the future, and along every different timeline created by every different combination of mutations in every species. Where would we be if the ridiculous little mouse hadn't out-survived the dinosaurs?

Re:56 Mentions of God (1)

DEmmons (1538383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30070358)

i suppose the idea of eugenics could have seemed like a natural extension of evolution in earlier times, when people commonly thought of evolution as a process that necessarily makes things superior over time -- starting with some single-celled organism and proceeding to humans or something anthropomorphic, and culminating in, i suppose, gods or something. i always cringe when i hear the term "highly evolved" - it makes sense in certain usages but often is a hallmark of the misunderstanding of evolution. evolution does seem to generate ever more complicated organisms, but the function of natural selection itself is to select the fittest for a certain environment / ecology, not the fittest in some more abstract aesthetic sense. this is why i always laugh at the old illustrations of humanoid dinosaurs that were imagined as what small therapods like troodon might have evolved into if they had survived. in fact, their near relatives did survive as birds, which were more fit despite lacking their fearsome rows of teeth.

in other words, thinking we could help natural selection by killing off those we deem as inferior could only derail evolution - it's artificial selection! I may be a Christian (a missionary, no less!) but i agree with a lot of atheists in that evolution doesn't deny morality - morality is what keeps us fit enough to not wipe ourselves off of this rock, probably. I also agree with them in not needing the Kirk Cameron version of the Origin of Species - the original already contains a better idea: that evolution is a process which God used to create, from one or several original organisms, the vast diversity of life as we know it. Kirk's views seem to be more in line with a very noisy minority belief that the natural world must fit our interpretation of the book of Genesis, science be damned, because there's no possible way we've understood it wrong. glad i jumped off that train.

3 mentions of God- one in the text (1)

Noren (605012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30068070)

The complete text is online [darwin-online.org.uk] , the word God appears only three times, two of which are in a quotation of Bacon on page ii before the title page. The only appearance of the word God in the actual text is:

He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.

... which is not exactly an expression of faith.
Darwin did have deist beliefs at the time of the writing, which is reflected by his frequent references to a Creator, but that Creator is not necessarily theistic God.

"Our" God made everything... (2, Interesting)

tacarat (696339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30052202)

Therefore he made lies and slander. As such, we may use these tools of God to promote our beliefs in him (not her). Anybody found promoting the idea that maybe, just maybe, that evolution was the tool by which God made life and that the 6 days of creation were not literal 24 hour periods will be stoned, as is also mentioned somewhere in the bible, so it must be biblical.

FYI, just because Jesus didn't address the nuances on how we came to be doesn't mean it's not more important than his message of forgiveness and love. Quite the opposite.

Re:"Our" God made everything... (1)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30086024)

FYI, just because Jesus didn't address the nuances on how we came to be doesn't mean it's not more important than his message of forgiveness and love. Quite the opposite.

I doubt it. Jesus focused on grace and forgiveness... he meant *exactly* that those things were more important. He didn't say that origin was unimportant, but in the grand scheme of things, it's in the past and we can get all caught up in it (which is exactly why creationists need to figure out their priorities). We will never understand it as he understands it anyway.

Therefore he made lies and slander.

Just because God creates the ability to sin, and God creates the definition of the sin, does not mean that God condones the sin.

Re:"Our" God made everything... (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090530)

Sorry. I was sarcastically justifying the action of spreading misinformation by those in the article. I thought I laid it on thick enough to be obvious. If you know enough folks like that to take it seriously, you have my condolences.

Shooting down evolution (3, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30054130)

Shooting down evolution doesn't grant victory to Judeo/Christian creationism by default. Given that there are thousands of creation mythologies involving sometimes teams of deities, giant turtles, lumps of clay and supercomputers owned by mice -- I'm not sure what ad hominem attacks on Mr. Darwin will even accomplish.

The real fun will begin when these uneducated nits attempt to rationalize their system over, say, Norse creationism. ( Odin laughs at your puny little Yaweh. )

Re:Shooting down evolution (2, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30054348)

To anyone that has read up on norse creationism. It is WAY more badass than this 7day crap. Seriously, giant cows licking ice, hermaphrodite giants. bone mountains.

Re:Shooting down evolution (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30062790)

So in other words, myths that nobody claims are true are "cool" in comparison to Genesis, which many people do claim is true... and is rather "boring" as far as literature goes. You would almost think that the 7-Day stuff wasn't written from stuff dreamed up by humans.

It's interesting that you bring it up, though. The Biblical account of creation is very different from most religion's accounts of creation-like times. The Biblical account is pretty ... "boring."

Re:Shooting down evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30068720)

The Biblical account of creation is very different from most religion's accounts of creation-like times. The Biblical account is pretty ... "boring."

No I suspect it's only boring to those who are familiar with it. To others it probably sounds utterly preposterous and laughable fantasy. One god? Whatever.... Trust me, only a moron would believe there is only one god, everyone knows there are many. Next why don't you try and explain to everyone how you don't actually have any sort of accent....

Re:Shooting down evolution (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30062816)

The real fun will begin when these uneducated nits attempt to rationalize their system over

There are a lot of highly educated and intellectual "uneducated nits" on that side, both now and in the past.

And incidentally, there are plenty of highly educated and intellectual people making the stupidest decisions today. They're typically in government, it would seem. I'm not sure what good "education" is if you end up making the same stupid decisions anyway...

Einstein (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30054422)

Why must people keep saying Einstein a Catholic? (they do in the clip)

Do they know something that Einstein didn't? I mean he did repeatedly deny his religiousness. Has proof come out that he was high at the time or something?

Re:Einstein (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30054834)

I mean he did repeatedly deny his religiousness.

He also refused to believe in strange effects at a distance, and said that "God doesn't play dice with the universe." and 'Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

IOW, Einstein's religious thinking was a product of his time; he wasn't a hardline atheist. Just goes to show that even a genius can be f*ing stupid where they have a blind spot.

Re:Einstein (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30056396)

I have said the word God in past and used it as a metaphor for the universe, infact physicists today commonly do so. But it doesn't mean I am remotely religious.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

That seems a little more specific. The topic being his religious views rather than what he refers to as metaphor.

Re:Einstein (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30059508)

Fair enough, but take a look at his gut reaction to actions at a distance - both by derisively calling them "spooky actions at a distance" and saying "God does not play dice with the universe."

That second phrase clearly expresses a dichotomy between "god" and "universe" that is a contradiction to the statement you quote, and leads me to believe that, wrt god, Einstein had a nice case of cognitive dissonance going.

I mean, why reject a thesis on the basis of "god".

Also, (and as aside note) the descriptions of human behavior in the bible (god-endorsed genocide, rape (kill the men and take their wives as your own), mysogeny, racism, theft, fraud, scheming, the continual condoning of slavery, cruelty to kids, etc) can hardly be called "honourable"; this would lead me tu suspect Einstein of being a bit politically correct in that particular instance.

Re:Einstein (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30061292)

You're reading far too much into a figure of speech.

I can't be the only atheist to use expressions like "God knows", "God help us" etc.

Re:Einstein (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30067612)

God Dammit!

I'd be pretty impressed if atheists didn't use that one.

Re:Einstein (1)

Sunrun (553558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30158622)

Most of us just use the shorter form, "Dammit". ;)

Re:Einstein (1)

Lakitu (136170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30063096)

Everyone knows Einstein was persecuted for his Catholic ancestry, eventually being forced to leave Nazi Germany because of it.

Should Elmer FUD? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30060308)

With all the hoopla coming from both sides of the evolution argument, who, with no opinion, could see it as a pissing match?
Both have zealots shouting "hooray for our side", pointing out the perceived flaws in the others fanfare. Neither have passed review to enter the magic land of fact.
There is even a minority third party, drowned out by the warchants, prayers, and ancestral epithets; those who see evolution as part of YHVH business model.

          Until such a time as there is some solid proof, the best thing to do is file a " no opinion yet" down at the head office and quit appearing to be complete fools.
We don't know there is God. We don't know there is evolution. We only believe. Belief is different than knowledge. Science relys on knowledge derived from belief.
Until it is distilled to fact it is not science.
          The only thing we KNOW is; there are two (three) camps of belief, and the vast majority of people are devolved morons who will say anything they believe with or without proper analysis if only to drown out the beliefs of their opponents.

            There are infinite undiscovered beliefs yet only a tiny amount of supposed fact that we own. Start behaving like it. Quit quarreling before I bang your heads together.

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30062510)

Maybe you should have paid a little more attention in school, instead of running off at the mouth. Evolution IS a fact. It's the theory describing it that isn't (necessarily) a fact. It's the same as with gravity. You don't dispute gravity, do you? Gravity is the phenomenon being observed, same as evolution. It's the Theory of Gravity that attempts to explain it. As for "beliefs": theories aren't beliefs. Theories are TESTABLE. Beliefs are not. The two "camps" as you call them, aren't even remotely comparable.

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30072280)

Sound, scientific reasoning modded a troll by creationist idiots.

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (1)

anglophobe_0 (1383785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30064004)

Great points, flyneye. Personally, I do believe in literal creation as described in Genesis, but if evolution were proved true beyond doubt (it has a long way to go), it wouldn't do anything to disprove God. As you pointed out, there are plenty (I'd say they're a strong minority) of people who believe in evolution guided by a Creator. Also, as someone pointed out earlier, disproving evolution doesn't do much in itself to help the Christian cause. I really appreciate the writings of C.S. Lewis, in which he doesn't outright argue with Darwinism, but does point out the arrogance, naivete and close-mindedness of scientists and others who act like evolution is a proven, done deal. For my part, I don't necessarily want you guys to quit believing in evolution, I just want you to have the intellectual integrity to admit that you don't know EVERYthing, and stop being such bigots toward anyone who bucks the establishment and thinks there may be another option. We're not stupid, just as you aren't stupid: we just interpret the data differently.

And to any other Christians, for Pete's sake, you know nobody's going to be brought into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ because you prove them wrong. Sure, let the big boys argue with Richard Dawkins (if they can get him to agree to it), but quit trying to use creation/evolution debates as an in to tell people about Jesus. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30067948)

Cool story, bro.

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30068756)

Neither have passed review to enter the magic land of fact.

What?!?!? Evolution *is* a scientific fact. By definition. To reject it is to reject the existence of the computer that you typed that drivel into.

Until such a time as there is some solid proof, the best thing to do is file a " no opinion yet" down at the head office and quit appearing to be complete fools.

We've had proof of evolution for *YEARS*. The only ones appearing foolish are the idiots who don't understand science.

We don't know there is God.

Correct.

We don't know there is evolution.

Yes, we do - because there is no other scientific theory that can even approach explaining the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that exists. If you have another scientific theory that better explains genetics, the fossil record, observed speciation, and countless other parts of biology, please let someone know - your Nobel prize will be a slam-dunk.

We only believe.

No, idiots who don't understand science believe. If you understand science and are willing to learn, evolution requires no belief, no trust, no faith.

Belief is different than knowledge.

Correct.

Science relys on knowledge derived from belief.

***WHAT*** ?!?!?!?! Please do yourself a favour and finish some science classes before you spout idiocy like this - you're just embarrassing yourself.

Until it is distilled to fact it is not science.

Seriously. Science courses. You *REALLY* need them.

The only thing we KNOW is; there are two (three) camps of belief

No, there is one camp of belief, and there is science.

the vast majority of people are devolved morons who will say anything they believe with or without proper analysis

Including you, it would seem.

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30073396)

Dear high blood pressure subscriber,
          Although science is furthered by usable theories( the field of physics is full of them for example) ,there is still no absolute proofs although the theoretical situations work as modules for more research, they remain theoretical for whatever reason.
          The evolution problem lies in lack of witness. The process of forensics no matter how thorough still leaves and even creates more questions. Fact is knowledge without question.
Evolution is workable for research but remains theoretical. Time machines for instance would further its review to fact. Till then, address the quality of your education and or the credentials of those teaching you and take a sedative/laxative cocktail.

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30077762)

WOW, you really need attend some science classes. Seriously.

Re:Should Elmer FUD? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30087266)

What are anon cow and why we keep getting post from it?

Fine. (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 4 years ago | (#30068098)

Hey, that's cool. If he wants to remix a book in the public domain, that's fine- he's well within his rights to do so. Passing it off as the original Origin of Species? Well, that's pretty-freakin'-dubious, especially considering the controversy around this, but I guess he's well within his rights to do that as well. A kind of 'Origin of Species 2.0' with full Christian-theology compatibility, I suppose you could say.

But, of course, evolutionists are free to do the same to the Bible. Let's see how it might look...

1:3 And God said, Let the Universe expand from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continue to expand to this day.
1:4 And God saw the bang, that it was good: and God divided the photons from the.. lack of photons. Not his most crowning achievement, but he thought it profound.
1:5 And God called the light, typically bought upon by a rotation of a planet relative to its axis, Day, and the darkness he called Night. Well- not really. The naming of the day and night cycle will come much later, with the evolution of man and man's languages, but at least he thought of the concept at this point and possibly gave it it a name in his own language. Plus, being a cosmic being who didn't live on any planet the concept of night and day really had no meaning for him, and he hadn't even created any planets at this point and oh I've gone crosseyed. Let's move on. ...
1:8 And God called the firmament Deep Space, wherein he created thousands and millions of other similar solar systems and planets. Inhabited? Perhaps, but that is a secret God will keep until the great revealing (or not. Psyche!). ...
1:10 And God called one particular lump of soil, carbon and hydrogen/oxygen liquid Earth; and on it he planted the seeds of primordial life, which would one day evolve into man: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass eventually, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, with each generation changing very slightly to adapt to its surroundings, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind (slightly changing with each generation, adapting and improving), and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. ...
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creat- wait, no. This came first. Before the grass- at least, according to the most recent scientific theory. So yeah. Disregard what I said earlier, the water stuff came first.
1:21 And God eventually created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and much later every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and adapt, and fill the waters in- wait, no. Don't go back into the water on second thought, that's going backwards again. ...
1:24 And God said, Let the earth eventually bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God eventually made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us eventually make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that have after billions of years creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own imag- wait. This isn't really possible- humans can't survive in the unprotected void of space... at best it would be a superficial appearance of being 'God-like'. Perhaps humans evolved out of God? It doesn't seem possible that a species could 'evolve' itself out of limitless power in one generation, but it could be that God himself was simply one highly mutated strain of humanity. ...
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day- uhh, scratch that. Billion years. ... but an evening and a morning? Perhaps some kind of cataclysmic solar event lasting billions of years that somehow allowed evolution to continue while it was occurring and arg what is this I don't even NO CARRIER

The real problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30068446)

A few creationists actually have a few good points. There are a number of examples where irrelevant fossil fragments created whole "missing links," for example. Listening to them would give evolutionists some healthy skepticism, which would help everyone. However, it seems that the whole ID vs. evolution debate is mostly relegated to a few nuts who hardly understand what they're talking about. Some real dialog between well-educated people on both sides would work wonders.

God only loves the rich (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30069646)

God doesn't love those poor who are unable to afford an ivy league edumication. NOO BOOK 4 U
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?