Archive for the 'evolution' Category
Do the laws on what to teach vary state by state? If so, is there a state whose laws ban the teaching of evolution?
Since the public schools are under federal authority it has mandated that creationism cannot legally be mandated to be taught by the schools. However teachers can voluntarily speak on the issue of creationism in most states but often face legal opposition from anticreation groups and are shut down or censured by the school boards.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed by Congress a few years ago included an amendment that basically states that concerning the teaching of subjects like biology where subjects like evolution are taught controversial views should be taught as well. This law by Congress which is the highest law of the land allows the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as an alternate scientific theory to evolution. However, once again, the courts are being used to prevent schools from teaching ID. One federal court ruled that in the Dover school district, ID was creationism and prevented it from being taught. That judge went against the Congress' NCLB act. perhaps it's going to take a case that goes to the Supreme Court to backup the existing congressional law allowing an alternate view of evolution to be taught by the government schools.
Often people opposed to ID will say that the NCLB Act amendment is not a law but a guideline which is foolish or else that that admendment was dropped from the legislation. The truth is that the admendment was revised and is more clearer on the subject than the first draft and is still apart of the NCLB Act. A half truth is often used to mislead people.
The other thing to be aware is that most people including scientists have not seen a sound view of ID. ID is based on total scientific evidences such as Irriducible Complexity, Design Theory and Information Theory. The point is that people can disagree with these evidences but they are scientific evidences subject to testing as good science should be and should not be censured because of personal beliefs.
November 19 2008 | evolution | 2 Comments »
A. Natural selection does not always lead to evolution B. A population may evolve in ways other than through natural selection C. Natural selection is just a theory, while evolution has been proven D. The two are exactly the same and may be used interchangeably E. Darwin coined the term natural selection, but not evolution.
Of the choices, I would think that A.) or B.) is your best answer possibilities.
A. Natural selection does not always lead to evolution:
This is true. While nature may set the conditions for evolution to occur, there is an element of random chance involved as well. For example, a random point mutation may occur in an organism's genome that leads to phenotypic change, which is independent of environmental conditions.
B. A population may evolve in ways other than through natural selection.
Which is basically the same as question A, but less correct.
C. is wrong.
D. The two are exactly the same and may be used interchangeably.
Natural selection is blind to evolution as evolution is blind to natural selection. It is only by chance alone that the two parameters actually interact in a way that results in change to the organism. Natural selection cannot be used to mean evolution, as evolution alone cannot be used to mean natural selection.
E. I'm pretty sure this is wrong as well.
I think that your best answer is A.) Natural selection does not always lead to evolution.
November 19 2008 | evolution | 1 Comment »
I mean time in the sense of existence. Here's a paradox for you. Evolution can only exist because of time correct? Evolution being the constant progression of chemical fusion and adaptation etc., But what then exactly is time? Time means (ultimately) a beginning and an end. If you start with something (in our case, the big bang) wouldn't ultimate "evolution" or "totality" end with "god"? But then why do individual elements exist and not just one "entity" or existence in the first place? In this case, time is our biggest mystery. Your thoughts?
If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being.
Someone may argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause; who created God?” The answer is, everything that has a beginning has a cause; God, unlike the universe, did not have a beginning. Time is linked to matter and space (as we can see from Einstein’s general relativity). If God created the universe, then He created time along with matter and space. If God created time, then He is outside of time and doesn’t need a beginning.
What is more absurd, to believe that God Created everything out of nothing or that nothing turned itself into everything? The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect. There must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. The only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.
November 19 2008 | evolution | 10 Comments »
A. Natural selection does not always lead to evolution B. A population may evolve in ways other than through natural selection C. Natural selection is just a theory, while evolution has been proven D. The two are exactly the same and may be used interchangeably E. Darwin coined the term natural selection, but not evolution.
Of the choices, I would think that A.) or B.) is your best answer possibilities.
A. Natural selection does not always lead to evolution:
This is true. While nature may set the conditions for evolution to occur, there is an element of random chance involved as well. For example, a random point mutation may occur in an organism's genome that leads to phenotypic change, which is independent of environmental conditions.
B. A population may evolve in ways other than through natural selection.
Which is basically the same as question A, but less correct.
C. is wrong.
D. The two are exactly the same and may be used interchangeably.
Natural selection is blind to evolution as evolution is blind to natural selection. It is only by chance alone that the two parameters actually interact in a way that results in change to the organism. Natural selection cannot be used to mean evolution, as evolution alone cannot be used to mean natural selection.
E. I'm pretty sure this is wrong as well.
I think that your best answer is A.) Natural selection does not always lead to evolution.
November 19 2008 | evolution | 1 Comment »
Do the laws on what to teach vary state by state? If so, is there a state whose laws ban the teaching of evolution?
Since the public schools are under federal authority it has mandated that creationism cannot legally be mandated to be taught by the schools. However teachers can voluntarily speak on the issue of creationism in most states but often face legal opposition from anticreation groups and are shut down or censured by the school boards.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed by Congress a few years ago included an amendment that basically states that concerning the teaching of subjects like biology where subjects like evolution are taught controversial views should be taught as well. This law by Congress which is the highest law of the land allows the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as an alternate scientific theory to evolution. However, once again, the courts are being used to prevent schools from teaching ID. One federal court ruled that in the Dover school district, ID was creationism and prevented it from being taught. That judge went against the Congress' NCLB act. perhaps it's going to take a case that goes to the Supreme Court to backup the existing congressional law allowing an alternate view of evolution to be taught by the government schools.
Often people opposed to ID will say that the NCLB Act amendment is not a law but a guideline which is foolish or else that that admendment was dropped from the legislation. The truth is that the admendment was revised and is more clearer on the subject than the first draft and is still apart of the NCLB Act. A half truth is often used to mislead people.
The other thing to be aware is that most people including scientists have not seen a sound view of ID. ID is based on total scientific evidences such as Irriducible Complexity, Design Theory and Information Theory. The point is that people can disagree with these evidences but they are scientific evidences subject to testing as good science should be and should not be censured because of personal beliefs.
November 19 2008 | evolution | 2 Comments »
The Discovery Channel presents an overview of the remarkable developments in aircraft design in this documentary. Then, after the history lesson, the program takes a look at the way in which the U.S. Air Force has deployed aircraft during the war in Afghanistan.
continue reading »
November 17 2008 | evolution | No Comments »
This episode of the documentary/mini-series serves mostly as a guide for teachers when applying the theories and rules that are involved in the evolutionary process. Seven segments on evolving ideas and four segments on selected case studies are included.
continue reading »
November 17 2008 | evolution | No Comments »
Narrated by actor Liam Neeson (SCHINDLER’S LIST), the documentary series EVOLUTION focuses on the biological origin of species. This program compiles all seven episodes of the show, including “The Evolutionary Arms Race,” “Why Sex?” and “What About God?” The second scientific documentary included in this compilation, JUDGMENT DAY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL, examines the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case, in which concerned parents argued that the school’s introduction of intelligent design in their curriculum was a violation of the First Amendment.
continue reading »
November 17 2008 | evolution | No Comments »
The genius, torment, and secrets of Charles Darwin are documented in this study of his theory and why it is so relevant in today’s society as well as the future. Through dramatized sequences and footage of scientific research today, Darwinism is brought to the forefront.
continue reading »
November 17 2008 | evolution | No Comments »
« Prev - Next »
