Kansas Undoing Sex-Ed Damage
Our nuts in Montgomery County threatened to take over the school board and failed a couple of years ago. The ones in Kansas actually got into office and embarrassed the state until the next election, when the people put some more reasonable candidates into office.
Now their new school board is going through, trying to un-do the damage.
I think our new MoCo curriculum would be described as "abstinence plus." It encourages abstinence and also teaches what to do when you finally decide not to abstain, which may be years after high school but at least students will know some things when they get there. Also, our opt-in requirement is similar to the one that Kansas is throwing out. In our county, parents have to ask the school to let their child take the sex-ed classes; in Kansas, it's now up to the schools to decide how to handle that.
Yay! A new slogan -- "self control over birth control."
If only it worked.
Yes, they had a real mess on their hands. The people of Kansas let this slip out of control before they realized what was going on.
Look, slogans like "self control over birth control" make great talking points. You can't be against self control, right?
That kind of sloganeering works, it seems to me, under two circumstances. One, it works when people aren't paying attention. Two, it works with stupid people. And by that, I don't mean people with a low I.Q., I mean people who believe what they're told without thinking about it. Sorry, but if you're paying attention, and you're thinking criticially and skeptically about what's going on, a sound-bite like "self control over birth control" will send up a red flag. You will stop and think about how well self-control works in real life -- what does a real, sweaty, amped-up teenager do in the back seat when the time comes to choose whether to go for it or stop? Self-control? Sometimes, yes, but those are some powerful emotions, and sometimes the little devil on your shoulder wins. Then what? If your schools taught abstinence-only, then you've got a couple of teenagers who know what they've heard on the playground, or what they got in "The Talk," and you've got teen pregnancy and STDs out of control.
All civilized people believe in personal restraint, in personal accountability, in self-control. There's no argument there, we're all against crime, we all love the children, there are some things you won't find opposition to. But we know that there is crime, we know that some people do abuse the children, and we know that teenagers sometimes fail when it comes to exercising self-control. It's one thing to encourage self-control, it's another to act like it's always going to happen.
Good for Kansas for getting back on their feet. Let's be thankful we didn't let it get that far in Montgomery County.
Now their new school board is going through, trying to un-do the damage.
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- The Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday repealed sex education policies enacted last year, the latest move by the moderate majority to undo efforts by conservatives when they dominated the board.
One rescinded policy recommended that schools stress abstinence until marriage, while the other urged school districts to get parental permission before students could attend human sexuality classes.
On a 6-3 vote, the board replaced the policies with one that recommends "abstinence plus" sex education programs and leaves it up to the state's 296 school districts to decide whether to get parental permission.
The "abstinence plus" program stresses abstinence before marriage, while also urging schools to give students information about birth control and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
"It's a matter of emphasis," said chairman Bill Wagnon.
Wagnon said the goal was "to describe the curriculum standards in terms of 'it's more than just simply an encouragement of abstinence,' but we want a balance and comprehensive educational program about sex." Kansas Board of Ed. repeals conservative sex ed policies
I think our new MoCo curriculum would be described as "abstinence plus." It encourages abstinence and also teaches what to do when you finally decide not to abstain, which may be years after high school but at least students will know some things when they get there. Also, our opt-in requirement is similar to the one that Kansas is throwing out. In our county, parents have to ask the school to let their child take the sex-ed classes; in Kansas, it's now up to the schools to decide how to handle that.
But conservative member Kathy Martin said most parents want the standards enacted last year.
"Abstinence until marriage is the best message we can give our children," Martin said.
She said the old standards "emphasized self-control over birth control," and the new standards "fail to give a true picture."
Yay! A new slogan -- "self control over birth control."
If only it worked.
It was the second major change for the 6-4 moderate bloc since taking control in January. Wagnon said the final major change could come Wednesday if the board hires a new education commissioner to replace Bob Corkins, hired by conservatives in 2005. His hiring touched off criticism because he had no experience as a school administrator, and he resigned in November after the new board was elected.
In February, the board repealed science standards backed by social conservatives and switched to ones that treat evolution as well-supported by research. The standards, which take effect next school year, are used to develop tests to measure how well students learn science.
The old standards, endorsed by supporters of "intelligent design," questioned the theory of evolution.
Yes, they had a real mess on their hands. The people of Kansas let this slip out of control before they realized what was going on.
Look, slogans like "self control over birth control" make great talking points. You can't be against self control, right?
That kind of sloganeering works, it seems to me, under two circumstances. One, it works when people aren't paying attention. Two, it works with stupid people. And by that, I don't mean people with a low I.Q., I mean people who believe what they're told without thinking about it. Sorry, but if you're paying attention, and you're thinking criticially and skeptically about what's going on, a sound-bite like "self control over birth control" will send up a red flag. You will stop and think about how well self-control works in real life -- what does a real, sweaty, amped-up teenager do in the back seat when the time comes to choose whether to go for it or stop? Self-control? Sometimes, yes, but those are some powerful emotions, and sometimes the little devil on your shoulder wins. Then what? If your schools taught abstinence-only, then you've got a couple of teenagers who know what they've heard on the playground, or what they got in "The Talk," and you've got teen pregnancy and STDs out of control.
All civilized people believe in personal restraint, in personal accountability, in self-control. There's no argument there, we're all against crime, we all love the children, there are some things you won't find opposition to. But we know that there is crime, we know that some people do abuse the children, and we know that teenagers sometimes fail when it comes to exercising self-control. It's one thing to encourage self-control, it's another to act like it's always going to happen.
Good for Kansas for getting back on their feet. Let's be thankful we didn't let it get that far in Montgomery County.
posted by JimK at 3:32 AM
55 Comments:
"You will stop and think about how well self-control works in real life -- what does a real, sweaty, amped-up teenager do in the back seat when the time comes to choose whether to go for it or stop? Self-control? Sometimes, yes, but those are some powerful emotions, and sometimes the little devil on your shoulder wins. Then what?"
Well, when the little devil wins, he rarely cares about doing the safe and prudent thing. The teens are unlikely to interupt their momentum to fumble around in the dark with a condom.
"If your schools taught abstinence-only, then you've got a couple of teenagers who know what they've heard on the playground,"
Actually, studies show that most teens, regardless of what sex ed programs they've been through, are perfectly aware of condoms. The rates of usage are the same across the board.
Why, then, conduct a program where we lead kids to believe that we expect them to lose self-control?
If neither approach seems to work, can we, at least, help bolster the self-esteem of kids who choose self-control instead of trying to imply that they're not normal?
Anon said ...can we, at least, help bolster the self-esteem of kids...
old anon said ...kids can't be convinced to forgo self-indulgence for the sake of self-esteem...
April 14, 2007 2:49 PM http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/04/equipoise-not.html
Looks like our pro-CRC Anons disagree on the usefulness of boosting self-esteem in teens.
Anon said instead of trying to imply that they're not normal?
Please explain how you think the curriculum makes abstinent kids feel they are not normal.
"Looks like our pro-CRC Anons disagree on the usefulness of boosting self-esteem in teens."
Not a contradiction, PTA. The kids whose self-esteem might need a boost are those who have already made up their mind. Abstinence programs based solely on boosting self-esteem won't change minds but they can help kids who've made good decisions. Programs that portray premarital sex as something that "cool" kids do should be avoided.
The point is, neither ab esteem or comp programs seem to affect behavior.
Want to actually do that?
Introduce programs that emphasize societal norms.
I was saving that for my punchline and you're ruining it for me.
"bolster the self-esteem of kids"
Dear anonybot:
What do you think of the implication of APA policy, that "reparative" therapy, with its assumption that it is undesirable to be lgbt, necessarily does not "bolster the self-exteem of kids."
Schools in Virginia, rather than allowing groups such as PFOX to distribute fliers which may harm students, instead do not allow any non-profits to distribute fliers through their homerooms. PFOX and ADF seeks to overturn these polcies by hunting for activist judges.
Robert
I looked at the CRC website just now. Their first post, with instructions for parents to read it, is a letter from a GSA sponsor to PFOX, objecting to their homophobia (has PFOX distributed fliers at more schools?).
It's clearly unwise to email PFOX; years ago, I shared some personal information with Ms. Griggs, which last year was posted on the CRC forum.
I suspect they do this in an attempt to get parents to complain to the principal of the school, and endanger the teacher's job. It may be legal for PFOX and CRC to intimidate educators in this way, but it is certainly disreputable. Would Jesus publish emails sent to him?
I remember when Concerned Women for America described me on their website as a "homosexual activist teacher", and published my principal's phone number. She was puzzled and asked me why people from Alaska were calling her to advise her to fire me.
Disreputable, dishonest, cruel; these are not the actions of religious people, but of bigots.
Robert
Here's an article on the effect on HIV transmission in sero-discordant heterosexual couples of condom use. It reports that consistent condom use is completely effective, in both vaginal and anal intercourse. Completely. Shouldn't we teach students about this?
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/6/341?ijkey=95a7e690738baafe3b93d2844c707bf31cf0aaa3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
rrjr
Here's the abstract:
Volume 331:341-346 August 11, 1994 Number 6
Next
A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners
Isabelle De Vincenzi, for The European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV
Full Text
Letters
Add to Personal Archive
Add to Citation Manager
Notify a Friend
E-mail When Cited
Find Similar Articles
PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT
Background Worldwide, the predominant mode of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission is heterosexual intercourse, but the risk of heterosexual transmission and the effectiveness of measures to prevent it are not well defined.
Methods We conducted a prospective study of HIV-negative subjects whose only risk of HIV infection was a stable heterosexual relationship with an HIV-infected partner. Every six months the subjects were interviewed, tested for HIV, and counseled about safe sexual practices.
Results A total of 304 HIV-negative subjects (196 women and 108 men) were followed for an average of 20 months. During the study, 130 couples (42.8 percent) ended their sexual relationships, most often because of the HIV-infected partner's illness or death. Of the 256 couples who continued to have sexual relations for more than three months after enrollment in the study, only 124 (48.4 percent) used condoms consistently for vaginal and anal intercourse. Among these couples, none of the seronegative partners became infected with HIV, despite a total of about 15,000 episodes of intercourse. Among the 121 couples who used condoms inconsistently, the rate of seroconversion was 4.8 per 100 person-years (95 percent confidence interval, 2.5 to 8.4). Eleven couples refused to answer questions about condom use. The risk of transmission increased with advanced stages of HIV infection in the index partners (P<0.02) and with genital infection in the HIV-negative partners (P<0.04). Withdrawal to avoid ejaculation in the vagina had a protective effect in uninfected women (P<0.02).
Conclusions Consistent use of condoms for heterosexual intercourse is highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV. Among couples not using condoms regularly, the risk of HIV transmission varies widely. .
Anonymous said "Actually, studies show that most teens, regardless of what sex ed programs they've been through, are perfectly aware of condoms. The rates of usage are the same across the board."
And what studies would those be?
Anonymous said "Programs that portray premarital sex as something that "cool" kids do should be avoided.".
Comprehensive sex ed programs most certainly do not portray premarital sex as "something that "cool" kids do". They emphasize the possibility of disease and unwanted pregnancy - things that are most assuredly uncool.
Anon said Introduce programs that emphasize societal norms.
I was saving that for my punchline and you're ruining it for me.
Punch lines lose their power once people have encountered them multiple times. Just to remind the Anon with the fixations, you've told us you delivered your punch line multiple times before.
old anon said
...As we've discussed numerous times here, abstinence programs based on self-esteem aren't effective. The successful programs are based on societal norms.
In short, kids can't be convinced to forgo self-indulgence for the sake of self-esteem but they often can if they are convinced they are part of a larger societal structure. It's the story of our times.
April 14, 2007 2:49 PM
Anonymous (PTA) replied...
So old anon, do us all a favor and name one such abstinence-only sex education program based on societal norms that has been used in American public schools. Then cite the study that found that program was effective at reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates while increasing success at abstinence.
April 14, 2007 3:25 PM
So what's the name of the program and where's the study proving it works?
Quite frankly Robert, I don’t know what your point is with respect to the posting of the teacher’s letter. Are you agreeing that he should or shouldn’t have written this bullying, threating and hateful letter. Think about it, if the letter was written and it was directed towards homosexuals, would you be saying the same thing?
Dear anonymous,
I knew you would say that about the letter (BTW, I assume you are aware that referring to my people as "homosexuals" is considered old-fashioned and moderately insulting, much as are "negro" or "colored"; a preferred term is "LGBT people. Whatever your thoughts are on this matter, you should know that when you say things like that, I am necessarily insulted).
CRCs publishing of a letter not even sent to them is a clear attempt to cause problems for this teacher at work. I'm sure that he knew what he was doing when he wrote the email, so I'm not all that concerned about him.
But I do think CRC's intent to harass an LGBT teacher is dispicable. It's base, it's mean, it is intensely unchristian. Trying to cause someone problems at work is just not cool.
I, over the years, have received a number of communications from volunteers for PFOX, and employees of Concerned Women for America, and have not published them.
There remains sufficient prejudice against LGBT people that gay teachers remain vulnerable to complaints from parents, even if they work for the most enlightened of administrators (and believe me, not all administrators are welcoming). CRCs publishing of this letter was just wrong.
I don't expect you to acknowledge this, though. You would do the same thing, I suspect, given your moral code.
Robert
Andrea- not anon said:
This letter, like the letters and phone calls that CRC directed to the homes of parents of students in MCPs schools is one more example, that anon won't accept, of the HTT nature of CRC/PFOX. Of course, they know better than the PTSA about the use of directories- despite what the PTSa has said twice. Like Jamison's(a prized member of CRC) demands for books to be removed from schools(and what a number there are- she is truly a sister of the New Mexico book burners) because she knows better than parents and teachers what students should be allowed to read. Anon, you think what you want - I see the HTT and phoniness of CRC and PFOX in so much and you see it in nothing. So what- we don't agree- we never will.
It's wonderful that Kansas's newly elected school board officials are taking positive steps to replace the scientific rigor in their school system that the last school board wontonly abandoned when they insisted that religious views of human sexuality and the origins of human beings be taught.
Happy Mother's Day to all those Kansas mothers who can now rest better assured that their public school students will receive solid academic presentations rather than religious dogma at school.
Happy Mother's Day to the rest of you mom's out there too.
"This letter, like the letters and phone calls that CRC directed to the homes of parents of students in MCPs schools is one more example, that anon won't accept, of the HTT nature of CRC/PFOX. Of course, they know better than the PTSA about the use of directories- despite what the PTSa has said twice."
Andrea, the only thing you mean by HTT is that someone doesn't acknowledge the same beliefs as you.
To be truly HTT, one has to believe they are morally superior to others. Pick any random day the last two years and check out any TTF post talking about how morally horrid are the CRC leaders and how innocent and pure are the TTF faithful.
TTF epitomizes HTT.
"It's wonderful that Kansas's newly elected school board officials are taking positive steps to replace the scientific rigor in their school system that the last school board wontonly abandoned when they insisted that religious views of human sexuality and the origins of human beings be taught."
A truly rigorous curriculum would acknowlege the obvious- science offers no explanation at all for how DNA appeared on our planet other than the ridiculous notion that this incredibly complex set of instructions randomly fell together.
While adaption to the environment within species is an interesting theory and has a certain logic, there is little evidence that it explains the diverse speciation we see on our planet.
If a curriculum doesn't teach the problems with thr theory of evolution, it gives kids half an education in this area.
Anon, when you reply to a comment about human origins by talking about how DNA appeared on our planet, it makes the reader suspect that either you are trying to draw an analogy between evolutionary theory and ... something about how DNA appeared on our planet, or you think that that has something to do with evolution already.
This makes it a little hard to discuss the topic with you.
If your religious faith requires you to deny the evidence that science finds compelling, that's up to you. But don't bother trying to pretend there is a reasonable argument to make. You can say "my faith tells me otherwise," but you only defeat yourself complaining about facts that you don't know anything about.
If your faith is that strong, be proud, rely on it, don't try to disguise it as reason. Call it what it is: faith. You're not ashamed of that, are you?
JimK
Anonymous said "A truly rigorous curriculum would acknowlege the obvious- science offers no explanation at all for how DNA appeared on our planet other than the ridiculous notion that this incredibly complex set of instructions randomly fell together.".
Anonymous, the majority of DNA in any organism is non-functional junk which has been mindlessly copied and passed on. The existence of this junk DNA is clear evidence that organisms were developed by bottom up mindless tinkering, not by a top down designer. Clearly, the idea that "god did it" is absurd - no intelligent designer would have created an organism where the majority of DNA doesn't code for anything at all.
Anonymous said "While adaption to the environment within species is an interesting theory and has a certain logic, there is little evidence that it explains the diverse speciation we see on our planet.".
You couldn't be more wrong about that. The fossil record clearly shows the developement of species over time and their interrelatedness. The vast majority of scientists are in total agreement that evolution is the only possible explanation for the interrrelatedness of fossils that have been discovered to date. Recently the field of genetics has backed up the findings related to evolution by showing the interrelatedness of organisms at the genetic level and the pathways from one species to another are clearly showin in this field.
The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for a 'god' and science increasingly explains things that people once attributed to gods, like disease, and the weather. As science marches on its clear that more and more things we once assumed could only be explained by the supernatural in fact have ordinary everyday explanations. The trend is obvious - there is no god and no supernatural. Face it, god doesn't exist and therefore no one loves you.
"If your religious faith requires you to deny the evidence that science finds compelling, that's up to you. But don't bother trying to pretend there is a reasonable argument to make."
People more qualified than you have made the argument that you believe is unreasonable.
At least I think they have. It's hard to say since you didn't say what resonable argument I was pretending existed.
Don't believe it if you don't want to, but the origin of species doesn't appear to be what you came to believe as a a child.
"the majority of DNA in any organism is non-functional junk which has been mindlessly copied and passed on"
You don't know that.
"The fossil record clearly shows the developement of species over time and their interrelatedness."
No, it doesn't. It seems to show changes within species over time, perhaps in response to the environment.
Darwin said if the fossil record didn't show a clear progressive path from species to species, his theory would be wrong. Despite the millions of fossils found since, there is no fossil record that shows a clear path from one species to another. And large categories, like reptiles and mammals appear to come into existence at about the same time.
"But don't bother trying to pretend there is a reasonable argument to make."
If you're talking about ID, it is as well reasoned as evolutionary theory according to estimable thinkers.
Anonymous said ""the majority of DNA in any organism is non-functional junk which has been mindlessly copied and passed on"
You don't know that.".
LOL, absolutely I know that. Its a well established fact that most DNA in an organism is non-functional junk.
Anonymous said ""The fossil record clearly shows the developement of species over time and their interrelatedness."
No, it doesn't. It seems to show changes within species over time, perhaps in response to the environment.".
Absolutely it does. There are similarities in the morphology of different species that vary proportionately to how related they are. For example, whales have foot bones in their fins and other features which shows the interrelatedness they have to an amphibious predator which has even more similarites to a large wolf-like creature they originally evolved from. Clearly the existence of foot bones in whales shows their interrelatedness to land animals.
Anonymous said "Darwin said if the fossil record didn't show a clear progressive path from species to species, his theory would be wrong. Despite the millions of fossils found since, there is no fossil record that shows a clear path from one species to another. And large categories, like reptiles and mammals appear to come into existence at about the same time.".
You're hilarious. The fossil record clearly shows reptiles existed long before mammals. You are hopelessly ill-informed about the fossil record, although that's not a big surprise. And Darwin never said anything about the fossil record showing an unbroken progressive path from species to species - its obvious and inevitable from the nature of fossilization that the vast majority of individuals won't be fossilized and the vast majority of fossils won't be found and this means there will be gaps in the record. Despite these gaps there are more than enough fossils showing intermediate stages and interrelatedness between species that its clear that evolution is the only viable explanation for what's been found. For example, there are similarities in the skeletons of dinosaurs and modern birds that don't exist between dinosaurs and mammals thus showing that birds and dinosaurs are related but dinosaurs and mammals are much less so.
Anonymous said "If you're talking about ID, it is as well reasoned as evolutionary theory according to estimable thinkers.".
There's no evidence to support this magical idea. The theory of evolution accounts for what's seen without needing the additional step of magic. Therefore there's no reason to believe the magical step is required. That's Occam's razor, any steps which aren't required to explain what's found are not likely to be part of the actual process that occured.
Randi said "The fossil record clearly shows the developement of species over time and their interrelatedness."
Anon replied No, it doesn't. It seems to show changes within species over time, perhaps in response to the environment.
Darwin said if the fossil record didn't show a clear progressive path from species to species, his theory would be wrong. Despite the millions of fossils found since, there is no fossil record that shows a clear path from one species to another. And large categories, like reptiles and mammals appear to come into existence at about the same time.
Last September, I had the good fortune to attend a presentation at the National Institutes of Health by Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University. It was almost exactly a year to the day after Dr. Miller had been the first witness for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, the "intelligent design vs. evolution" case. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html
Dr. Miller told us that Discovery Institute believers often claim the fossil record is incomplete, but it's not. He told us about a paleontologist colleague who had just returned from a research seminar on newly discovered fossils. When he asked her how it went, she reported that most of the time was spent trying to reach consensus on how best to categorize various newly discovered fossils. They were attempting to place these fossils into the most appropriate category among such groups as:
-amphibian like fish
-fish like amphibians
-reptile like amphibians
-amphibian like reptiles
-mammal like reptiles
-reptile like mammals
Then he shared the following information from the National Academy of Sciences.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066
Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin's time, but many of the important gaps that existed then have been filled by subsequent paleontological research. Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains. Undisturbed strata with simple unicellular organisms predate those with multicellular organisms, and invertebrates precede vertebrates; nowhere has this sequence been found inverted. Fossils from adjacent strata are more similar than fossils from temporally distant strata. Pages 20-21
"So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.
The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time—of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found.
Page 14
"Large categories like reptiles and mammals" did not come into existance at about the same time. Reptiles first appeared 310,000,000 years ago and mammals first appeared 200,000,000 years ago.
Thanks Christine, that explains it much better than I could have.
""Large categories like reptiles and mammals" did not come into existance at about the same time."
Actually, they did, but that's what not what I meant to say.
Sorry for the grammatical error.
""Large categories like reptiles and mammals" did not come into existance at about the same time."
Actually, they did
No they didn't. Reptiles and mammals came into existence approximately 110,000,000 years apart in time.
Why do you say that?
"Actually, they did."
I think you're thinking about mammals and dinosaurs. Small mammals are found in the same strata as dinosaurs. I think.
rrjr
Anonymous said "Anonymous said "Why do you say that?".
Because that's what the evidence shows according to the best scientific experts available. No other explanation fits the evidence.
"No other explanation fits the evidence."
Actually, the creation story in Genesis fits the evidence. God created one man. He filled the seas with life. Unlikely that we'd find Adam but not surprising that we found the most widespread life.
He also charged man with having dominion over nature but didn't say it would happen overnight.
According to the NAS, the following life forms appeared in the order shown below. Each life form is listed along with the approximate number of millions of years since its first known appearance in the fossil record.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=13
"Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000
First multicellular animals 670
Shell-bearing animals 540
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490
Amphibians 350
Reptiles 310
Mammals 200
Nonhuman primates 60
Earliest apes 25
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 5
Modern humans 0.15 (150,000 years)"
NAS lists when discovered fossils of this kind dated to.
This is not inconsistent with the fact that the simplest forms were most widespread at creation and complex forms rare.
Rare is not the same as non-existent.
"This is not inconsistent with the fact that the simplest forms were most widespread at creation and complex forms rare."
This is like manipulating the data to fit the conclusions. On Jeapardy, you're given the answer and have to formulate the question. Same is true with creationism and ID, and the Family Research Institute
Not science.
"This is like manipulating the data to fit the conclusions. On Jeapardy, you're given the answer and have to formulate the question. Same is true with creationism and ID, and the Family Research Institute
Not science."
Not at all, Robert. I didn't say there is empirical evidence verifying the creation story in Genesis.
I was responding to Randi's remark that "no other explanation fits the evidence."
The evidence, while not conclusive, fits the creation story in Genesis.
This is not inconsistent with the fact that the simplest forms were most widespread at creation and complex forms rare.
Complex forms have never been found with the simplest forms. It's not rare; it's NEVER.
"Complex forms have never been found with the simplest forms. It's not rare; it's NEVER."
This is again the idiotic rhetoric that is so common to TTF. Go back and read the posts again. No one said complex forms have been FOUND with simple forms. IF they existed, they haven't been FOUND because they were RARE. The Genesis account says they were rare. It says the seas and skies and land were FILLED with life BEFORE one SOLITARY human family was created.
Pay attention.
Anonymous said "Actually, the creation story in Genesis fits the evidence".
Don't be absurd. The evidence shows the gradual development of life over 3 or 4 billion years. The creation story in Genesis is directly contradicted by the evidence. If it wasn't all scientists would be in agreement that Genesis best explains what we see, obviously the vast majority of scientists don't agree with that.
Anonymous said "No one said complex forms have been FOUND with simple forms. IF they existed, they haven't been FOUND because they were RARE. The Genesis account says they were rare. It says the seas and skies and land were FILLED with life BEFORE one SOLITARY human family was created.".
Nonsense. Complex forms are not rare, many fossils have been found of them, but none of them found in the same layers as the simplest of forms. The layers show these species were seperated by millions of years. According to the myths in Genesis all these forms were created within 6 days which would have put the simple and complex forms in the same layer. The are not because they didn't arise at remotely the same time.
Even taking into account that Genesis says there were only two humans at the beginning a couple of thousand years later there were millions of humans according to the biblical accounts and that is on a geological time scale still the same period and humans still should be found in the same layer as the earliest of life forms. Once again they are not because the Genesis myth is just that, a myth.
The only "proof" you have to support the Genesis story is words on paper, the same situation as with all the other religions. Rationally you have no more reason to believe the genesis is true than to believe the Hindu account of the world being created on the back of a gigantic turtle is true. Its the nature of religions to be made up and you have no reason to believe yours is any different than all the rest.
Dear Anonymous:
You say:
"This is again the idiotic rhetoric that is so common to TTF."
We've spoken about manners. You just told a whole bunch of people that they are idiots. It is in fact possible to make your point without being rude.
As to your point; a basic premise of science and modern knowledge is that that which hasn't been explained before can be explained without resorting to the supernatural (though there are limits, as Godel's theorem demonstrates; in much the same way, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle sets limits around statistical predictability at the quantum level).
Intelligent Design (and its intellectual predecessor, Creation Science), say that, where science is incomplete, we fall back on God (at least Unitarians do; Trinitarians have options, as do polytheists). Science and modern knowledge tell us that where science is incomplete, we do more science.
In the modern world, science will always fail to prove religion, by its very nature.
I'll have to go and read both creation stories in Genesis and see if there really is anything contradictory to modern science. The whole "man out of clay" idea seems contradictory to the fossil record to me, if you read Genesis concretely.
rrjr
Pay attention. Here's your exact quote:
"This is not inconsistent with the fact that the simplest forms were most widespread at creation and complex forms rare."
Followed by:
The Genesis account says they were rare. It says the seas and skies and land were FILLED with life BEFORE one SOLITARY human family was created.
Humans are not the only "complex form" -- a bird is a complex form, so is a cow, and a snake. The FACT is that complex forms didn't evolve until many hundreds of million years after the simplest forms (procaryotic and eucaryotic cells) existed.
"The FACT is that complex forms didn't evolve until many hundreds of million years after the simplest forms (procaryotic and eucaryotic cells) existed."
You don't know that. You assume the fossil record is complete enough to say that but complex forms may have been around, albeit rare, from the beginning. There is no proof that they weren't.
And there's no proof that little green creatures from outer space or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (ramen) didn't place humans on Earth either.
Anon, you are a true CRC supporter. Why it's like you are now touting the CRC position on creationism: Unfound covert fossils disprove evolution.
The Cambrian is the earliest period in whose rocks are found numerous large, distinctly fossilizable multicellular organisms that are more complex than sponges or medusoids. During this time, roughly fifty separate major groups of organisms or "phyla" emerged suddenly, in most cases WITHOUT EVIDENT PRECURSORS.
Anonymous May 16, 2007 4:41 PM
And what religious source did you get that from? It certainly didn't come from a respected scientific source.
It's a blurb from Wikipedia, Randi. Look under Cambrian Period.
If you haven't heard of this, you're not too knowledgable. Even Jim's heard of it.
The truth is, if you swallow the fact that the fossil record is complete enough to draw the sweeping conclusions you've been making today, you have to accept that, coincidentally, what we think of as complex life appeared in myriad forms around the same time. It's mind-boggling really.
Oh, they've got their theories. But when you decide what answer you want and try to fit the facts to prove it, what is that called?
I've told you my theory. Can't prove it but I have reason to believe it and it's no more implausible than what is commonly accepted by the evolution crowd.
Here's some more Wikipedia information about fossils that predate the Cambrian, which began 542 million years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion) that Anon didn't mention, apparently because it doesn't fit with his theory.
Taken as a whole, the Doushantuo Formation ranges from about 590 Ma at its base to about 565 Ma at its top, predating by perhaps five million years (Ma) the earliest of the 'classical' Ediacaran faunas from Mistaken Point, Newfoundland, and recording conditions a good forty to fifty million years before the Cambrian explosion...
The richest finds (the lagerstätte itself) lie at the bottom of the middle stratum, with a date about 570 Ma.
Doushantuo fossils are all marine, microscopic, and highly preserved....
The discovery was made when the rich phosphate deposits were being mined, and was first reported in 1998. The finds offer direct evidence that confirms expectations that major evolutionary diversification of animals already had occurred before the onset of the Cambrian period...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doushantuo_Formation
Well, anonymous, assuming that's the case, your genesis myth still doesn't account for all the fossils since then which clearly show the transistion from species to species. Archaeopteryx for example. The geological record alone discounts genesis completely, the time period is in billions of years, totally contradicting the silly idea of a 6000 year old earth.
"Well, anonymous, assuming that's the case, your genesis myth still doesn't account for all the fossils since then which clearly show the transistion from species to species. Archaeopteryx for example."
Genesis doesn't preclude change. It involves how it all got started. And, it seems to say, that man was created intact.
Genesis also mentions, btw, another humanoid race that could interbreed with humans back in those days.
"The geological record alone discounts genesis completely, the time period is in billions of years, totally contradicting the silly idea of a 6000 year old earth."
A lot of assumptions are made in dating methods that go further back than the half-life of carbon. Assuming science has it right though, the word translated as day in Genesis can have many meanings and is actually used several times in the first three chapters of Genesis to clearly mean a period other than twenty-four hours.
Oh B.S. it says day, it means day. If it meant another period it would say so. And the rate of change clearly shows significant evolution doesn't occurr in the period of 6000 years, a blink in geographical time. If the Genesis myth was the best explanation for the fossil and geographical evidence obviously the vast majority of scientists would accept Genesis as valid. They don't because it isn't.
"Oh B.S. it says day, it means day. If it meant another period it would say so."
What a sophisticated and lovely comment, Randi!
As I said, Genesis uses the exact same Hebrew word, which has multiple meanings, many times in the first three chapters. It's translated differently in those verse. Translation can be tricky. You sometimes have to surmise what the writer intended and it's not always obvious from the context.
When you think about, we do the same thing in English. We may talk of the Day of the Dinosaur or someone in their golden years may say, "back in my day."
"And the rate of change clearly shows significant evolution doesn't occurr in the period of 6000 years, a blink in geographical time."
If you're talking about observed mutation rates in modern living things, running computer simulations shows we should only be up to about an amoeba given the age scientists think the Earth is.
If you mean adaption to environmental change, it can happen virtually overnight.
If you mean emergence of a new species. Never been observed in complex forms.
We're not even sure how many gunmen fired at JFK. We've got it on film. How can we be so sure what happened millions of years ago by looking at layers of mud?
"If the Genesis myth was the best explanation for the fossil and geographical evidence obviously the vast majority of scientists would accept Genesis as valid. They don't because it isn't."
Oh yeah, I forgot about that!
It can't be true if all the scientists disagree.
Did you know that when the Big Bang theory was first developed, most scientists rejected it because they thought it sounded too much like Genesis?
The same thing is now taking place about Brandon Carter's Anthropic Principle.
Science will come around to the truth. It won't start with the "majority" though. It never has.
To the majority, everything from black holes to dinosaur-killing comets was originally considered "little green creatures from outer space or the Flying Spaghetti Monster".
Yeah, right.
You stick with your 2000 year old myths. But don't worry. Others will proceed with reason and scientific inquiry, benefiting all of society whether believers or not.
"You stick with your 2000 year old myths. But don't worry. Others will proceed with reason and scientific inquiry, benefiting all of society whether believers or not."
Randi
Use scientific inquiry and you'll find IT is possible.
Use reason and you'll find it's the only possibility.
Proceed.
I am not Randi.
You are confusing "reason" with "faith." Reason does not lead to belief that anything "supernatural" exists or created anything. Scientific inquiry cannot measure things that some believe exist "beyond the visible observable universe."
Main Entry: rea·son
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 're-z & n
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Old French raison, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification (gave reasons that were quite satisfactory) b : a rational ground or motive (a good reason to act soon) c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact (the reasons behind her client's action) d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE (the reason for earthquakes) (the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene)
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
Main Entry: faith
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths/'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
"actually used several times in the first three chapters of Genesis to clearly mean a period other than twenty-four hours."
This is not the reading of Genesis and the understanding of creationism in the Southern Baptist and independent Baptist churches I have belonged to. To those congregations, day meant sunset to sunset, approximately 24 hours. You're using a metaphorical reading of Genesis.
rrjr
Yes, but a literal metaphorical reading.
Anonymous said "If you're talking about observed mutation rates in modern living things, running computer simulations shows we should only be up to about an amoeba given the age scientists think the Earth is."
Computer simulations aren't the real world. In the real world observation of the genetic mutations within species shows rates of change consistent with accepted evolutionary theory
Anonymous said "If you mean adaption to environmental change, it can happen virtually overnight."
In geological time "virtually overnight" is 100,000 years, not 6000 years. Its estimated that modern man appeared 100,000 to 150,000 years ago.
Anonymous said "If you mean emergence of a new species. Never been observed in complex forms."
Of course not, science has only been looking at evolution for a little over 100 years, far too short a time period for it to occur and be observed But the fossil record clearly shows the transition from species to species. The fossil record shows a clear chain from the earliest ape-like hominids to modern man over a period of 4 million years.
Anonymous said "How can we be so sure what happened millions of years ago by looking at layers of mud?".
We can't be sure about every specific detail, but by now the general trend is undeniable according to the experts.
Anonymous said "It can't be true if all the scientists disagree.".
LOL, that's absurd - of course it can. Scientists once disagreed that the earth revolved around the sun and despite the disagreement clearly that's true.
Anonymous said "Science will come around to the truth. It won't start with the "majority" though. It never has.".
Science has come around to the truth. At first the majority didn't believe in evolution and over time more and more have until now virtually all scientists are in agreement about it. The trend is the opposite of what needs to happen if you think science is going to accept Genesis. In fact, I've never heard of even a religious scientist that doesn't accept evolution - its pretty well unanimous.
Anonymous said "Use scientific inquiry and you'll find IT is possible."
Ridiculous, only people who ignore scientific inquiry believe in Genesis. Scietific inquiry has ruled out the Genesis myth
Anonymous said "Use reason and you'll find it's the only possibility".
You couldn't be more delusional. The antibiotic resistence of germs shows evolution is happening. The selective breeding of animals into wildly different forms shows natural selection must be doing the same thing over a much longer time period.
Anonymous said "When you think about, we do the same thing in English. We may talk of the Day of the Dinosaur or someone in their golden years may say, "back in my day."
When people are talking about metaphorical days they never actually count them. People only count days when they are talking about literal days. Genesis talks about the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days - its talking about literal days. This is indisputably the case because the geneologies going back to Adam listed elsewhere in the bible show generations that would have taken 6000 years to occur. This is how religionists determined the world "is" 6000 years old. No matter how you try and put lipstick on that pig and claim it says something it doesn't you're stuck with it and its 6000 year old earth.
Post a Comment
<< Home