House Bill 179 Concerning Evolution

House Bill 179 Concerning Evolution

Is it possible to comply with this law? Is there factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or no supporting the theory of evolution? I'm not aware of any. If there is some I'd like to see it. Someone please meme it.

House Bill 179 Concerning Evolution

Is it possible to comply with this law? Is there factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or no supporting the theory of evolution? I'm not aware of any. If there is some I'd like to see it. Someone please meme it.

[ I did some searching and couldn't find anything compelling, which is to say, I found a lot of sites spouting the same sciency-sounding "proofs" against evolution. we've all probably heard a lot of them (no transitional fossil forms, gaps in the fossil record, nickel accumulation in the ocean and geomagnetic field strength measurements indicate a young earth, it's impossible for something to give rise to something more complex than itself, evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics). None of what i found appeared to present and defend any of these points consistently, and most devolved into using quotations from theologians or the bible before the halfway mark.

The primary argument the anti-evolutionists seem to use is that because evolution hasn't been proved, and can't be applied in every case, because there are animals whose evolutionary history isn't clear, that the whole thing is bunk. Essentially, they misunderstand the concept of a theory. Any scientist should happily admit that of course evolution is a theory, and those who don't only hedge because they know they're about to get railroaded with "So it could be completely false!" attacks. That stuff is a deliberate attempt to misinform people about what a scientific theory truly is, what supporting evidence truly is, and how those things relate to evolution.

Additionally, it's always seemed a little strange for the extremely religious anti-evolution folks to use the "prove it! show me!" line of attack. The misunderstanding i mention above is obvious in this context, because otherwise the cognitive dissonance between believing in God and requiring categorical proof of everything else would surely cause problems. It is only by completely misrepresenting the concept of "evidence" that those two attitudes can square. -k

p.s. i did find one site that may be able to offer both sides, though it clearly tends to debunk the anti's. anyway, http://www.talkorigins.org/ ]