Phil Doubts it!

On 24 Jan 2004 17:32:48 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Donald L Ferrt) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

However, I have my doubts about the
President's motivations. He has not been exactly a big supporter of
science (read about his stance on creationism, for example).

And his "stance on creationism" would be?

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jan 2004 17:32:48 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Donald L Ferrt) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

However, I have my doubts about the
President's motivations. He has not been exactly a big supporter of
science (read about his stance on creationism, for example).

And his "stance on creationism" would be?

Presidential candidates weigh in on evolution debate
By Bruce Morton/CNN

August 27, 1999
Web posted at: 6:52 p.m. EDT (2252 GMT)


WASHINGTON -- Is evolution a political issue?

Should presidential candidates be arguing over whether the planet is 4
billion years old, or whether was it made in six days 10,000 years
ago, or if men and dinosaurs coexisted?

It all started when a spokesman for Vice President Al Gore announced
that the vice president "favors the teaching of evolution in the
public schools," adding the decision should be local and "localities
should be free to teach creationism as well."

But Louisiana passed a law to give creationism equal teaching time and
the Supreme Court struck it down as endorsing religion.

The Gore spokesman then said Gore supported teaching creationism in
certain contexts, such as in a religion class, which has not been
ruled unconstitutional.

Gore's boss, President Bill Clinton, agrees that local control of
schools is proper.

"I think the president believes the curriculum is by law and by all
common practice left to local school boards," White House Press
Secretary Joe Lockhart said. "I think the president believes, that the
local school boards, though, are bound by the law of the land and the
Supreme Court has spoken very clearly on this issue."

What do the Republican presidential hopefuls say about evolution?

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both
evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.

"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to
decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.

On 25 Jan 2004 01:35:25 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Donald L Ferrt) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It all started when a spokesman for Vice President Al Gore announced
that the vice president "favors the teaching of evolution in the
public schools," adding the decision should be local and "localities
should be free to teach creationism as well."

But Louisiana passed a law to give creationism equal teaching time and
the Supreme Court struck it down as endorsing religion.

The Gore spokesman then said Gore supported teaching creationism in
certain contexts, such as in a religion class, which has not been
ruled unconstitutional.

Gore's boss, President Bill Clinton, agrees that local control of
schools is proper.

"I think the president believes the curriculum is by law and by all
common practice left to local school boards," White House Press
Secretary Joe Lockhart said. "I think the president believes, that the
local school boards, though, are bound by the law of the land and the
Supreme Court has spoken very clearly on this issue."

What do the Republican presidential hopefuls say about evolution?

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both
evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.

"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to
decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.

Yes, I knew that. I thought you meant something like he didn't
believe in evolution.

So how does his position differ from that of Al Gore? There's
certainly not enough information here to see any significant
difference.

On 25 Jan 2004 01:35:25 -0800, (Donald L
Ferrt) wrote:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both
evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.
"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to
decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.

Ummm... this isn't his opinion on Creationism itself, but whether
it should be introduced to young minds as a *theory*. How can
allowing people to make up their own minds about the subject be BAD?
:-)

Len Lekx wrote in message . ..
On 25 Jan 2004 01:35:25 -0800, (Donald L
Ferrt) wrote:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both
evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.
"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to
decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.

Ummm... this isn't his opinion on Creationism itself, but whether
it should be introduced to young minds as a *theory*. How can
allowing people to make up their own minds about the subject be BAD?
:-)

Creationism is a disproved theory. Evolution is a
proved theory. Nobody teaches the phlogiston
theory in schools, except as an example of wrong
headed theories which can be disproved.

On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher M. Jones) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Len Lekx wrote in message . ..
On 25 Jan 2004 01:35:25 -0800, (Donald L
Ferrt) wrote:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both
evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.
"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to
decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.

Ummm... this isn't his opinion on Creationism itself, but whether
it should be introduced to young minds as a *theory*. How can
allowing people to make up their own minds about the subject be BAD?
:-)

Creationism is a disproved theory.

No, Creationism is a non-disprovable theory, which is why it doesn't
belong in science classes (which is not to say that it doesn't
necessarily belong in schools).

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher M. Jones) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Creationism is a disproved theory.

No, Creationism is a non-disprovable theory, which is why it doesn't
belong in science classes (which is not to say that it doesn't
necessarily belong in schools).

Creationism has both empirical aspects and non-empirical aspects.
The empirical aspects are disprovable and have been done so
beyond a reasonable doubt - sufficiently to remove creationism
from the realm of viable empirical scientific theories. The non-empirical
aspects can't be either "proven" or "disproven" - and certainly have no
place in a biology class.
All this, however, is entirely off-topic for sci.space.policy and should
really be followed up elsewhere.

On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Creationism is a disproved theory. Evolution is a
proved theory. Nobody teaches the phlogiston

You can't "prove" or "disprove" these kinds of theories. We have
evidence suggesting the idea that organisms adapt, but that's a far
cry from proving the mechanism by which it happens.

theory in schools, except as an example of wrong
headed theories which can be disproved.

And you don't think that, a hundred or so years from now,
scientists may revisit the phlogiston theory with new insights... and
say "DAMN! They had it right all along!" ;-)

Len Lekx wrote:
On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Creationism is a disproved theory. Evolution is a
proved theory. Nobody teaches the phlogiston

You can't "prove" or "disprove" these kinds of theories. We have
evidence suggesting the idea that organisms adapt, but that's a far
cry from proving the mechanism by which it happens.

You can very easily disprove the majority of creationism - except
possibly the question whetever life was created or evolved from inorganics -
by simply asking the proponents to provide any real concrete evidence.
If they consistemtly fail and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary,
then there is in fact no reason to assume it might be true.

And of course, organisms adapting is not just something evidence suggests,
there is loads of first-hand evidence of it hapenning.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:12:12 GMT, Len Lekx
wrote:

On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Creationism is a disproved theory. Evolution is a
proved theory. Nobody teaches the phlogiston

You can't "prove" or "disprove" these kinds of theories. We have
evidence suggesting the idea that organisms adapt, but that's a far
cry from proving the mechanism by which it happens.

theory in schools, except as an example of wrong
headed theories which can be disproved.

And you don't think that, a hundred or so years from now,
scientists may revisit the phlogiston theory with new insights... and
say "DAMN! They had it right all along!" ;-)

I wish people would understand the difference between the "Theory of
Evolution" (i.e. species change over time) which is an everyday
observable fact and "Natural Selection" which is the theory that
postulates how evolution can lead to what we see today.

Go to any university fruit fly lab and you will be able to directly
observe evolution in action, it is as much as observed fact as fire is
hot, things fall down, if you warm up ice it will melt. Evolution is
about as solid as science gets

Natural selection is the process that is thought to drive evolution in
a manner that will lead towards species that have a greater chance of
reproduction in the evironment that they live in, and that this may
account for the production of complex animals from single cells
organisms over a 3.5 billion year timeframe.

All evidence points to natural selection as being the most likely
explanation for this, but there is still discussion as to how natural
selection operates in complex environments, what impact evironmental
changes has on natural selection, and how quickly natural selection
operates. The controversy in the scientific commmunity isn't about
evolution, and its really not even about natural selection, but about
the specifics of how natural selection works.