Evolutionary biologists have analyzed political opposition to evolution and found it has evolved

December 17, 2015, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis
A photograph of teachers at a workshop learn tips for teaching evolution. A new study reveals strategies used in state lawmaking to influence the teaching of evolution in public schools. Credit: NIMBioS

Organized opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools in the United States began in the 1920s, leading to the famous Scopes Monkey trial. It continues today, but has evolved significantly from the outright bans.

In a new study from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS), the evolutionary history of antievolution efforts in state legislatures is statistically reconstructed in a to reveal the genealogical relationships among lawmaking efforts over the past decade.

The study sheds light on the strategies used by creationists to influence the way biology is taught in the classroom.

While US courts have consistently ruled that teaching explicitly religious alternatives to evolution, such as creation science or intelligent design, violates the US Constitution, creationists have continued to fight legal and political battles to undermine the teaching of evolution.

The study, published today in the journal Science, shows the detailed 'family relationships' of antievolution legislation in the US from 2004 to the present. The phylogenetic analysis tracks the copying and modification of the text of the legislative proposals over the last ten years, which total 65 bills.

In 2004, antievolutionist legislation began to shift tactics due to likely challenges to the constitutionality of 'intelligent design.' In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, a federal court held that teaching in the was unconstitutional, and afterwards, policies encouraging 'critical analyses' of evolution and other topics became dominant.

Evolutionary history of some key traits in antievolution bills. Fifteen traits are presented; slide 14 corresponds to Figure 1 of the main paper, and slide 15 shows the U.S. state for each policy. The raw data for these trait maps (and also character maps for 400+ characters) is available in the paper's Supplementary Data. Credit: Nicholas J. Matzke

The study shows the origin of this now-common tactic of urging a critical approach in antievolutionist language in the bills.

"The strategy of encouraging 'critical analysis' of not just evolution and origin-of-life studies, but also of human cloning and global warming was essentially invented in a 2006 school board policy passed in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. This combination proved popular, and legislative bills using this tactic have since been proposed in many states, and were passed in Louisiana and Tennessee," explained lead author Nick Matzke, a former NIMBioS postdoctoral fellow and now a fellow at the Australian National University.

The study also found that antievolution bills show evidence of 'descent with modification,' suggesting that anti-evolutionist legislators copy bills recently proposed or passed, rather than writing new bills from scratch. In addition, although the antievolution bills usually avoid mentioning creationism, most could be tied directly to creationism through statements in the legislation or by the bills' sponsors.

"Creationism is getting stealthier in the wake of legal defeats, but techniques from the study of evolution reveal how creationist legislation evolves," Matzke said.

Explore further: Tennessee seeks to question evolution in bill

More information: "The evolution of antievolution policies after Kitzmiller v. Dover ," www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.aad4057

Related Stories

Tennessee seeks to question evolution in bill

April 9, 2012

US conservative Christians and science advocates are clashing again, this time in Tennessee over a bill that would allow debate in public schools over theories like evolution.

Teaching evolution: Legal victories aren't enough

May 20, 2008

In many ways, much has changed since the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. In recent years, US courts have consistently ruled that teaching explicitly religious alternatives to evolution in public schools is a violation ...

Recommended for you

Study casts doubt on traditional view of pterosaur flight

May 22, 2018

Most renderings and reconstructions of pterodactyls and other extinct flying reptiles show a flight pose much like that of bats, which fly with their hind limbs splayed wide apart. But a new method for inferring how ancient ...

Experts disclose new details about 300-year-old shipwreck

May 22, 2018

A Spanish galleon laden with gold that sank to the bottom of the Caribbean off the coast of Colombia more than 300 years ago was found three years ago with the help of an underwater autonomous vehicle operated by the Woods ...

First violins imitated human voices: study

May 22, 2018

Music historians have long suspected that the inventors of the violin wanted to imitate the human voice, and a study out Monday shows how 16th to 18th century luthiers in Italy did it.

93 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1.6 / 5 (26) Dec 17, 2015
This article is instructive. Self proclaimed evolutionary biologists are attacking religion and their complaint against religion is that religion is attacking science.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (27) Dec 17, 2015
They are not attacking religion, they are protecting science from creationists trying to skirt the Constitution.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (20) Dec 17, 2015
Vietvet,

How, precisely, are they protecting science?

Science has a protected status already.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (25) Dec 17, 2015
Show me one sentence in the article where they attacked religion. They tracked how creationist and their reincarnation as proponents of intelligent design are attempting to chip away at the teaching of evolution.

Creationists are anti-science.
dogbert
2 / 5 (21) Dec 17, 2015
Vietvet,

Creationists are anti-science.


That is simply not true. There are some fringe fundamentalists who do not believe evolution, but most people who believe in creation are not anti-science in the least.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (21) Dec 17, 2015
Creation science is an oxymoron.

If creationists followed the science they wouldn't be creationists

@dogbert

Do you accept the science for evolution?.
TabulaMentis
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2015
God is a product of evolution.
viko_mx
Dec 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
Dec 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
Dec 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TabulaMentis
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
""God is a product of evolution.""

No. God is ever existed.

Says who?
viko_mx
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 17, 2015
First think, then ask such questions.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2015
Vietvet,
Creation science is an oxymoron.

Shoving two words together which pertain to different things does not produce an oxymoron. It just produces a meaningless sentence.
If creationists followed the science they wouldn't be creationists

Simply wrong. Many scientists are religious. The claim that science and religion are incompatible is a red herring.
Do you accept the science for evolution?.

I accept and encourage use of the scientific method in examining any physical process.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2015

Do you accept the science for evolution?.

I accept and encourage use of the scientific method in examining any physical process.


That must mean you approve of teaching evolution in schools.

My father and sister were devout Christians and both accepted evolution and thought it was nuts not to teach evolution. Faith based beliefs belong in the home and in church, not in school.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
My father and sister were devout Christians and both accepted evolution and thought it was nuts not to teach evolution.


Reasonable.

Faith based beliefs belong in the home and in church, not in school.


But then you ruin your reasonable position by attacking religion.

People do not put on and pull off their understanding of reality -- their belief systems. You don't believe in evolution and then stop believing in it when you are not in a class room. Neither should you expect anyone else to put away their beliefs.
cgsperling
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
God of the gaps is having to find ever-diminishing corners in which to hide.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
Organized opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools in the United States began in the 1920s, leading to the famous Scopes Monkey trial. It continues today, but has evolved significantly from the outright bans.


Don't let facts get in the way of a good story...texts promoting eugenics are still to this day banned from schools. The book in question, Civic Biology, taught the inferiority of the Negro races and other Eugenic theory. One of the arguments against the book was that, according to the Bible, all people are born equal.

Thus the book was and still is banned, not because of its evolutionary content but because of its eugenic theories. Scopes was wrong and would, if he taught from the same book today, lose a court battle.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2015
Aussies who think they know American history should check their facts before commenting.

While Civic Biology covered eugenics Scopes volunteered to be charged with violating the Butler Act, the law banning the teaching evolution. The law said nothing about "the inferiority of the negro", considering the time place that wouldn't have been controversial.

The trail was about evolution and I while reading the trail transcripts I never saw a reference to
either eugenics nor racial superiority.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2015
My father and sister were devout Christians and both accepted evolution and thought it was nuts not to teach evolution.


Reasonable.



But then you ruin your reasonable position by attacking religion.

My position is the one that has been repeatedly held by the courts.

Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2015
You don't believe in evolution and then stop believing in it when you are not in a class room
@dog
this is because evolution (unlike religion) is based upon evidence, not a "faith" or unsubstantiated belief in something that can't or isn't proven (religion)

the key issue WRT science and faith is evidence: a faith is a belief WITHOUT evidence, whereas science ignores belief and REQUIRES evidence proving something (in colloquial and legal terms)

this is the reason that you can't mix religion and science
scientists who are religious do NOT mix the two... and those that DO mix them are not scientists
(the scientific method goes through great lengths to remove bias from results and experiments, etc, which is the antithesis of religion)

and "creation science" IS an oxymoron as it is a figure of speech that juxtaposes elements that appear to be contradictory
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2015
@dog cont'd
Neither should you expect ... to put away their beliefs
no one said that anyone should put away their beliefs...

the problem lies in the religious supporters attempts to promote and politically force their perspective (a subjective set of beliefs that are NOT supported by evidence) onto a youthful crowd that is impressionable and attempt to lend legitimacy to their "belief"

this is essentially attempting to force the argument/belief as legitimate without evidence to support their claims

Would you allow a rapist to also spread their own personal belief that the opposite sex (or their target of choice) is sub-human? that rape is OK?
it has all the same legitimacy as a religious argument: the rapist has a personal belief that is NOT shared nor supported by evidence... so should it be TAUGHT in school as scientific or equivalent to science?

it's bad enough religion teaches children to accept delusion over reality
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2015
Captain Stumpy,

You always use a lot of words to say that you despise God and to promote, incorrectly, that there is no evidence for God.

A simple "I hate God" would suffice.
viko_mx
Dec 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
modithorsson
5 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2015
@dogbert

I read Stumpys comments and what he said was perfectly fine and reasonable.

The fact is people like you want to put the bible into a science class to give it legitimacy it doesn't have.

As far as science is concerned all religions hold the same status - belief without evidence.

As far as I am concerned there would be no difference in teaching the Christian creation myth which holds no factual based evidence in science to teaching the Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Minoan, Babylon or Celtic creation myths.

None of them belong in a science class. History or Religious Ed, where there is no attempt at recruiting, would be fine, but not science.

However you don't want Genesis - Cristian creation myth - taught in Religious Ed as it wouldn't work as a recruitment tool and you'd be put on the same level as all other religions.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2015
Scopes Monkey trial

Just read up on this. That is the weirdest trial, ever.

The study shows the origin of this now-common tactic of urging a critical approach in antievolutionist language in the bills.

The really bizarre thing, here, is: The theory of evolution IS the result of the critical approach....and that this critical approach could never have been made if the antievolutionists had their way.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2015
modithorsdon,

Don't put words in my mouth. Keep your own bias to yourself. And there is plenty of evidence for the God of Abraham.

You and Stumpy are representative of the people who wrote this article. You attack attack religion and God claiming that religion is attacking science when that is not the case.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
The irony that the science work discussed answers all the creationist questions is of course wasted on them. They don't think, they don't read, they don't care about science, meanwhile all others think, open the first encyclopedia and read with care about science and society:

"Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science, based on evidence not just from the biological sciences but also from anthropology, psychology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, as well as behavioral and social sciences.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
[ctd]

Understanding of evolution has made significant contributions to humanity, including the prevention and treatment of human disease, new agricultural products, industrial innovations, a subfield of computer science, and rapid advances in life sciences.[23][24][25] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just in the traditional branches of biology but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., biological anthropology and evolutionary psychology) and in society at large.[26][27]"

[ https://en.wikipe...volution ]

Simple as that. Science is biased, biased for facts and against errors like religious magic.
¨

@dogbert: Your unsupported lie is wasted. No religious magic has hold up under test for many millenniums. On the contrary, starting with thermodynamics ~ 200 years ago scientists started to reject magic action as acting (existing) in the universe or on it. I.e. we now know that the universe is the result of a physical process.
gkam
3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
"And there is plenty of evidence for the God of Abraham."
---------------------------------------

Produce it, please. I contend it was done by The Aten. Prove it was not.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2015
This article is instructive. Self proclaimed evolutionary biologists are attacking religion and their complaint against religion is that religion is attacking science.

Do you, perhaps, live in Bizarro World, and are really communicating with us through an intergalactic wormhole? That would explain why the positions you take always seem to run counter to established fact. It would also be good for you, because it would mean that you are not the delusional buffoon you appear to be by making such demonstrably false claims.

Also, the discovery of intergalactic wormholes would be fantastic. Please tell me you actually live in Bizarro world. I am ready.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2015
Vietvet,

Creationists are anti-science.


That is simply not true. There are some fringe fundamentalists who do not believe evolution, but most people who believe in creation are not anti-science in the least.

If you don't believe evolution, then you accept the overwhelming record of fossils clearly showing the continuous evolution of simple organisms to present day animals. You also don't accept genetics. If you are a young earth creationist, you also don't accept radiometric dating, dendrochronology, ice-core sampling, or any of the other myriad methods, all consistent with each other, that modern science has developed to determine age. If you don't accept any of these things, you don't accept the laws of nature as have been observed so far. If you don't accept the laws of nature that have been observed, then you are anti-science.

Please acquire some self-awareness.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2015
Information always is product of intellect. The carrier of information is different of the source of information.

viko_mx, several times, now, I have explained to you how
1) you confuse information with order.
2) order arises from thermodynamic systems with constraints

I have done this here:
http://phys.org/n...ive.html
and here:
http://phys.org/n...ans.html

And yet, you persist in making the same, silly argument. Information relies on knowing which microstates are valid in a system (the constraints). For example, two electrons in the same orbital with the same spin is a microstate, but not a valid one. Constraints LEAD to order. No intelligence is necessary.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
thefurlong,
Does pontificating make you feel better while you attack God?

I also bored that there are fringe groups who do not believe the science, such as the young earth creationists. There are always groups of people who believe odd things. There are people who believe the earth is flat and people who believe the moon landing were fake. But claiming that everyone who does not believe precisely as you is stupid is a narcissistic and condescending attitude.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
Does pontificating make you feel better while you attack God?

What's 'pontificating' about his statements? He's just enumerating facts and pointing out that people who do not understand scientific concepts (like information and order) should not try to use them in an argument.
Seems to me a rather straightforward way to lead (and win) an arguement.
tw60407
5 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2015
How about this... provide evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Evolutionary scientists provide alot of scientific data (peer reviewed studies) to support their statements. If creationists has a claim to the truth then back it up with data that supports their view. I have yet to see any creationist produce a scientific paper detailing evidence of how adam ate an apple from a woman created from his rib. Put forward evidence of SOMETHING or just go away. Religion belongs at home and not in schools as schools are where you go to LEARN and challenge the status quo not be told what to believe.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
And there is plenty of evidence for the God of Abraham
@dog
yeah? where? LMFAO
if there was "evidence" then it wouldn't be a religion, it would be more scientific
You attack attack religion and God
actually, No
1- re: god - i am agnostic and apathetic
IF you can provide empirical evidence proving "g" exists, then i will be willing to accept it (problem is- your idea of "evidence" is simply to accept things on faith, which is not evidence)

2- religion promotes delusional beliefs as they require, for inclusion in the peer group/clique, the acceptance of something non-provable based upon faith (not evidence)

by definition, religion requires a person to prejudge based upon a random (non-evidenciary) set of criteria and then utilise pressures or punishments to keep people in line - and you think that is rational?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2015
Does pontificating make you feel better while you attack God?

Just because your version of God conflicts with what has been found by science, it does not mean that science attacks God. Other people do fine both believing in God and accepting what has been empirically demonstrated.
There are always groups of people who believe odd things.

Yes, like that empirically demonstrated things can be supplanted by stories from an ancient book of stories. I see your point.
There are people who believe the earth is flat and people who believe the moon landing were fake.

And people who think that stating empirically demonstrated facts amounts to attacking God? I know, right? You are so on point!
But claiming that everyone who does not believe precisely as you is stupid is a narcissistic and condescending attitude.

We aren't. We are claiming that you are stupid because you don't accept what has been EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRATED.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2015
""God is a product of evolution.""

No. God is ever existed.


Says who ?
SuperThunder
3.8 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2015
Greenonions, don't forget humans rode around on dinosaurs and the last dinosaur was killed by Saint George a few hundred years ago. Oh, and aliens are demons and a packet of cherry koolaid is the blood of christ (televangelists sent a friend of mine's mother some when she was uberchristian and trying to buy her way into heaven, said the koolaid powder was dried godblood).

USA Christianity is amazingly fun when you forget they're heavily armed and out to conquer the world.
modithorsson
5 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2015
@dog

> And there is plenty of evidence for the God of Abraham.

Oh really? Then please show me the peer reviewed and published papers from a reputable journal. Retold and altered bronze age myths passed down without any verifiable data isn't evidence. The same goes for 'miracles' btw. Neither is stuff by the likes of Ken Ham allowed, I want a non-biased source.

There is the same level of evidence for your god as there is for Cyclops, Centaurs, Elves, Dwarves and Kitsune.

if a Kitsune turned up in Tokyo and stayed around for data to be collected and verified then I'd say that yes Kitsune exist. Same with any God or Goddess. However that will never happen, they are fables - just like your god.

When you try to undermine the scientific method by trying to introduce stories and fables based on belief then you are attacking science as you're attacking the foundation that science is built on - testable, repeatable, verifiable, peer reviewed evidence.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2015
modthornson,

The science you love was nuilt on the work of Christian scientists.

Your desire to the contrary, God and science are not incompatible.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
The science you love was nuilt on the work of Christian scientists
[sic]
@dog
and your "infallible god" says that you are a monkey and only the Jewish people are "created in his image", or didn't you get that?

this is the biggest problem of religion, period
your religion claims to be all encompassing and an infinite omniscient deity who is the "true" deity... but so do all the others
worse yet, your source material is heavily flawed and your logical ASSumptions about the natural world are also deeply flawed

and then you make statements like the above which are misleading...
because science is about evidence, not about the religion of the person doing the science UNLESS said person can't differentiate between science and their delusional beliefs
God and science are not incompatible
no they're not incompatible... but religion IS incompatible, even with a faith or belief
because a religion requires dedication to the dogma [tenets] over the faith

julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Among other things, note,for all the emphasis on observation and proof in "science", Darwin never actually saw an entirely new species arise and never actually proved that one species could turn into another! In the view of "science", his book was solely conjecture, but they won't call it that. In fact, none of them has seen a new species arise by natural selection. Darwin only saw animals that fit their environment, which can also be explained by God designing them for where they lived. The "rule" for "scientists" is a depraved variant of Occam's Razor, "If, by ignoring bulks of facts that contradict your lie, and keeping them from the public, or misinterpreting them so they appear to agree, you can successfully promote a lie to a plurality if not the majority". "Science" condemns accepting the presence of God without proof, even though He encompasses all, even outside logic, yet they embrace Darwin even though "evolution" was never seen to occur.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Note the pernicious nature of the initiative described by the "courts". They forbid any promoting of Intelligent Design as an attempt to introduce religion. Indeed, anything that invokes God as a part of explanation is disallowed on the basis of "separation of church and state". But God is present and, as such, is a part of every explanation of everything. The "courts", refuse to permit the truth because it involves something they declare politically wrong. Truth by edict! The "courts" declare that they have absolute awareness that God is not present, that God, therefore, can never be a part of any explanation, and are demanding that all explanations of everything invoke other than God! Just like they declare that humanness does not reside in embryos or fetuses! The orangutans in "Planet of the Apes" said all science had to abide by religion, the "courts" are saying "science" is not allowed to invoke ideas involving God, even though they are true!
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
modthornson,

The science you love was nuilt on the work of Christian scientists.

Your desire to the contrary, God and science are not incompatible.


No it was not. That is a lie.
syndicate_51
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2015
If the theory is robust regardless of what theory it is, it should easily stand up to critical analysis.

To claim critical analysis is the problem (if you do) strikes me as rather... Orwellian.
chalalabamlabababambam
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2015
This article is instructive. Self proclaimed evolutionary biologists are attacking religion and their complaint against religion is that religion is attacking science.

Science is not complaining or attacking anything.

Science is studying animal stupidity.
chalalabamlabababambam
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2015
God is a product of evolution.

It evolved from simple carbohidrates to a full tangle of spaghetti.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2015
You god-deniers are pissing off Baal!
viko_mx
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
"viko_mx, several times, now, I have explained to you how

1) you confuse information with order."

No, I do not confuse information with order because they are equivalent.

""2) order arises from thermodynamic systems with constraints"

Try to say something more meaningful next time.

"If you don't believe evolution, then you accept the overwhelming record of fossils clearly showing the continuous evolution of simple organisms to present day animals. "

In fact the fossils are great evidence for the flood.

viko_mx
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
I guess you heard that radioisotope dating methods are useless. The reason is simple. There is no way to know the date at which the isotopic clock is started or in other words what it was prior quantitative ratio between isotopes in a particular sample. We can not know what was the influence of the physical factors of the environment on the specific sample in the actual period of its existence. This makes these isotopic methods useless. If you are throwing dice you can guess more accurately.
viko_mx
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
"Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science, based on evidence not just from the biological sciences but also from anthropology, psychology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, as well as behavioral and social sciences."

Save your emotional tirades and just give an example of a natural process, which without ideas, will and actions of intelligent being, may lead to an increase in the order (information) in a certain physical system. Just one example but thing very well on the subject.
There is no need of Shakespeare dramatization.

My advice to you is forget imaginary world in which you are trying to live and go in real physical world. It is more rational. So do serious men.
viko_mx
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
It is not surprise that from so many ardent defenders of evolutionary mythology (in fact defenders of sin), no even one can give an example of a natural process in nature, that can cause a willfully increase of information in one physical system. Obviously there is full lack of ideas in their ranks. Vote system remains the only one emotional vent for them.
Willfully increase of information in one physical system means spontaneous change of physical laws, fundamental forces or constants, which must preserve originally established order at least. Something which is never observed.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2015
(in fact defenders of sin)
how so?
i proved you are a liar who ignores your own ten commandments!
so... which is worse?
those who believe what can be proven with evidence?
or those who promote a delusional belief with "rules" that they absolutely IGNORE, but then attempt to use to denigrate and judge others by?

your bible gives you rules/commandments - you ignore them, but you want to judge others by them????
... hypocrisy at its finest
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
@go
Who said that religion is not falsifiable? A baby can falsify it.
my2cts
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
"Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science, based on evidence not just from the biological sciences but also from anthropology, psychology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, as well as behavioral and social sciences."

Save your emotional tirades and ... /q]
Viko you are a disgrace to the human race.
SuperThunder
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
I prayed last night and God sent an acute angel to my dreams to talk to me. It made a booming declaration in the voice of trumpets...

"Super Thunder, worry not about the world, for God hath wrought evolution so humanity needs humanity to survive. Though the stupid vex ye, know that they have cast out the Kingdom, and will die starving in a wasteland trying to pray hatred from the dirt for their sustenance and companionship. God hath forged the human mind to attain all kingdoms, and those who hold back this ascension will pass like animals from the face of time, its skin used for shelter, its meat for sustenance, its skull for cereal bowls, its memory forgotten... blah blah blah so on and so forth ye verily..."

You see, I wasn't listening by the end, I had started dreaming about an all Beefeater motorcycle gang lead by Admiral Nelson on a parade float and, well, that's distracting.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
No, I do not confuse information with order because they are equivalent.

Well, no, they aren't. Information is the negative log of the probability of configuration.

Order is the negative log of the probability of a configuration IF ALL MICROSTATES ARE VALID.

In most physical systems, the majority of microstates are INVALID.

"2) order arises from thermodynamic systems with constraints"

Try to say something more meaningful next time.

What don't you understand?

A thermodynamic system with constraints is a physical system that follows the laws of thermodynamics with constraints. A constraint means that certain microstates aren't available.

In fact the fossils are great evidence for the flood.

Try again.
https://www.lhup....lood.htm
Look for "Fossil Sequence" section.
my2cts
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015

In fact the fossils are great evidence for the flood.

Most fossils are from extinct species. The flood story can not explain mass extinction.
Noah would have prevented that by taking a couple of Tyrannosaurs on his boat.
It does not have to, as it is intended for ignorant fools like you that are easy to con.
SuperThunder
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
The flood story can not explain mass extinction.

I bet Noah was surrounded by climate change deniers, got tired of yelling at them about the flood, and just said "screw it" and saved the humans and animals he cared about.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2015

Personally, I think that people who believe in evolution are uninformed. It does not belong in a science forum.

@BartV

You copied and pasted that comment from another thread. I'll respond in kind.

Has anyone else noticed that verkle has been reincarnated as BartV?

"Personally, I think that people who believe in evolution are blind and uninformed. It does not belong in a science forum."

That's a statement right from verkle and deserves all the scorn and ridicule and banishment that comes with it.

Reported.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

malapropism
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2015
@SuperThunder
I prayed last night and ... You see, I wasn't listening by the end...

Have a 5 for sheer comedic brilliance. I haven't laughed so hard at a creationist joke for a long time.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2015
I wrote,
Order is the negative log of the probability of a configuration IF ALL MICROSTATES ARE VALID.

A thermodynamic system with constraints is a physical system that follows the laws of thermodynamics with constraints. A constraint means that certain microstates aren't available.

But that isn't quite right. First, order is the negative log of the probability of a configuration if all microstates are EQUALLY valid.

Second, a constraint on a thermodynamic system means that the microstates do not share equal probability. In practice, this usually means that certain microstates are FAR likelier than others to as to render certain microstates, for all practical purposes invalid.

For example, gravity is a constraint on gravitational systems, and makes it far more likely for a microstate in a certain mass regime to contain oblate spheriod than not.

I am sure that none of this will matter to viko_mx, as he likely doesn't understand basic probability.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2015
@Greenonions.

BartV/verkle's problem isn't a lack of understanding, it's adhering to a fundamentalists religious dogma. No amount of scientific evidence is going to overcome his blind believe in young earth creationism as depicted in the bible.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
I welcome true debate on all subject matters
@bartV
ok: in the following free journal paper - ( here: http://www.jstor....contents ) you can find 67 validated references (scientific evidence proving the point)
- feel free to offer equivalent refute for all 67 references studies (which would be the minimum required just for the macroevolution point)

it is but one of the links found here: http://www.talkor...comdesc/

you can feel free to offer evidence of "It cannot be tested, therefore it is not science" but you will fail

there is plenty of evidence supporting Evolution, including, but not limited to: Lenski, Extavour, Whittaker and many other scientists

so repeating a lie and hiding behind a fanatical religious dogma isn't going to make it all go away
it is fact
it is proven/validated
unlike your religious claims or anti-science BS rant above
I Have Questions
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Why are the evolution deniers the same people as the climate change deniers?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Why are the evolution deniers the same people as the climate change deniers?

They're just a group of people called 'contrarians'. Whenever someone tells them something they just automatically respond with "aint' so" (be it their parents, teachers, government, betters, scientists, ..whatever) . They think they are the sole source of knowledge/wisdom and that therefore anything they don't understand immediately/intuitively has to be automatically wrong.

(Note how many of them are religious. Which basically epitomizes this "what I feel must be right and everyone else must be wrong" attitude. But on a deeper level it's just a way of getting away with an "I am lazy" attitude because they never want to put in the effort to check whether what they think is true actually is)
Zzzzzzzz
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
Why are the evolution deniers the same people as the climate change deniers?


Both positions are symptomatic of the same delusional psychosis.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
Both positions are symptomatic of the same delusional psychosis
&
Note how many of them are religious
@Zzz and @AA_P
the question we must now ask is: are they religious "because" they're contrarian or are they contrarian because they're religious?

their dogma (religion) will not allow them to challenge those closely guarded tenets and this is acceptable to them... so when a leader of the church states "it aint so" they're all for jumping on the bandwagon (see Westboro Baptist)... and having no critical thinking skills with which to assess the situation on their own due to the forced compliance and pressures of religion, they can't challenge or assert anything else (lest they be ostracized for their blasphemy)
thus they blindly follow the sociopath at the top leading them

another vicious circle of delusion and lack of critical thinking lead by frauds seeking only power and control
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
are they religious "because" they're contrarian or are they contrarian because they're religious?

I hypothesize it stems from the same underlying causes: Path of least resistance and the psychological need keep the feeling of ignorance, impotence (in the non-sexual meaning), and unimportance at bay.

At heart almost all people need to preserve a sense of self-worth at any cost - or fall into depression.
And when that cannot be gained by external means (e.g. by appreciation of peers/friends/family or objectively measurable accomplishments) they have to find it internally.

Which in turns means redefining reality inside their own heads to the point where they can drag up a value system where they have some worth (I totally agree with Zzzzzzzz on this. It's nothing but a delusional psychosis)
This is something that applies to our local cranks with their supposed ToEs, too.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
At heart almost all people need to preserve a sense of self-worth at any cost - or fall into depression
Exactly... because delusions can be effective even though they're not real... like the boxer who psyches themselves up to fight, they must believe they are superior

this is the underlying cause of many a problem we have in society, and it manifest itself in many ways, from violent tendencies to delusional ToE rants or pseudoscience acceptance

problem is, it can also be a "LEARNED" trait, and religion is one means of teaching a person to be delusional and accept the conditioning based upon the "rules" of said religion

religion literally creates a docile crowd unwilling to challenge the leadership

it is the sociopath seeking to take control of a crowd that creates friction in religion, and why we have so many different religions (especially of the "same thing", like abrahamic religions)
viko_mx
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2015
""greenonions4.6 / 5 (9) 19 hours ago
viko
no even one can give an example of a natural process in nature, that can cause a willfully increase of information in one physical system."

I did exactly that. Can't you read?""

You are joking.Try again but think more carefully before. Frankly I doubt in your success but you can try yet.
viko_mx
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2015
@thefurlong

The order is a restriction of degrees of freedom in one physical system. Restrictions (constraints) as you noted previously
viko_mx
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2015
"I welcome true debate on all subject matters. Judging from many of the evolutionists' comments above, it sounds like a lot of them don't agree with me. They are quick to call you all kinds of dreadful names and try to attack your character, religion, whatever. Basic point: they don't act like scientists."

Evolution defender have no scientific knowledge and arguments. So they replace arguments with declarations and organized voting in formation. Their impolite attitude towards people with a different opinion shows their weak position due to inability to offer scientific arguments in defense of their thesis.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
like the boxer who psyches themselves up to fight

At least it can be shown that psyching oneself up before attempting a real/testable task (like boxing) does produce objectively better results.

problem is, it can also be a "LEARNED" trait, and religion is one means of teaching a person to be delusional and accept the conditioning based upon the "rules" of said religion

I'd add that religion is a way for people who share this psychological problem to come together and find some perceived external validation. It leads to the issue that if many other people have the same issue then at some point people come to the (erroneus) conclusion that their disorder isn't a problem. Redefining a problem as "not a problem", however, does not make it so*

*Note this behavior isn't limited to religion. Patriotism, nationalism or idealisms of various flavors can have the same effect. Religion is just the easiest one because it panders to the lowest common denominator (the 'meek')
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
@thefurlong

The order is a restriction of degrees of freedom in one physical system. Restrictions (constraints) as you noted previously

No, that is not order. That is a constraint. There's a big difference.

Order is the same as information when a system has NO CONSTRAINTS. It is not the same when there ARE constraints.

I keep going back to gravity. If you were unaware of the effects of gravity, you might think that planets are spherical because something intelligent made them that shape. However, we know, now, that matter under the mutual influence of gravitational forces, clumps into states of hydrostatic equilibrium (spheres).

Gravity provides the constraints that lead to matter being more ordered, despite the fact that entropy continues to increase over time.

Entropy, BTW, is just the average information of all possible microstates that give you your macrostate.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2015
Evolution defender have no scientific knowledge and arguments.

What do you think we've been doing this entire time, by directing you to the fossil record, and using thermodynamic arguments to show you that you are mistaken?
Their impolite attitude towards people with a different opinion shows their weak position due to inability to offer scientific arguments in defense of their thesis.

Nope! This is not about opinion. We are not debating whether Episode I of Star Wars was the weakest of the franchise. We are talking about a falsifiable claim that has been demonstrated empirically OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

It's all here:
http://evolution....ic_id=14

For example, creationists often protest that we can't see evolution happening. However, the following link proves that wrong:
http://evolution....eciation
humy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2015
Vietvet,
Many scientists are religious.


-and, in this modern world, many more are atheist. Why do you think that is? Its because smart people can see that religion and science don't mix.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015

"I welcome true debate on all subject matters. Judging from many of the evolutionists' comments above, it sounds like a lot of them don't agree with me. "
viko_mx

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that the reason why sometimes other people disagree with you just might be because you are wrong?

thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2015
disregard this comment
humy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2015
thefurlong

"..Try again. Atheism is a religion.."

look up atheist in the dictionary and come back to us.
( I note that you have now deleted that comment )
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
We are not debating whether Episode I of Star Wars was the weakest of the franchise.

Bad example. That ain't a matter of opinion, either
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
We are not debating whether Episode I of Star Wars was the weakest of the franchise.

Bad example. That ain't a matter of opinion, either

Haha. Well, there is at least one person who proves you wrong, Josh L:
http://www.rotten...ype=user

thefurlong

"..Try again. Atheism is a religion.."

look up atheist in the dictionary and come back to us.
( I note that you have now deleted that comment )

Well, I left that comment because I thought you were saying that Atheism is a religion. I "deleted" it once I realized I was mistaken. There is no need for hostility.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
@antialias_physorg
Also, personally, I think that episode III was the weakest of the franchise, but this is getting OT.

@viko_mx
You would do well to learn about Gibbs Entropy, which is the general entropy we use when talking about classical systems: https://en.wikipe..._Formula

THAT is the entropy we say increases over time.

On the contrary, Creationists, like you, love to use Boltzman entropy (https://en.wikipe...ormula), but that really only applies to ideal gases.

Finally, it might also help to learn about Shannon Entropy, which is related, and defines information, in general:
https://en.wikipe..._theory)

Here is a tutorial about the basic concepts with very little math:
https://moultano....g4467-7/
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
""greenonions4.6 / 5 (9) 19 hours ago
viko
no even one can give an example of a natural process in nature, that can cause a willfully increase of information in one physical system."

I did exactly that. Can't you read?""

You are joking.Try again but think more carefully before. Frankly I doubt in your success but you can try yet.

He's not joking.
You can't read.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
@thefurlong

The order is a restriction of degrees of freedom in one physical system. Restrictions (constraints) as you noted previously

You just make it up as you go along and you have no clue what you are talking about.
Stupidity and ignorance are your intellectual crutches.
my2cts
4 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2015
Hey viko, you fool, here's quote from your favourite book:
1 Samuel 2:3 :
Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

So the "lord" is with knowledge, like evolution, and against the arrogance and ignorance represented by you.
my2cts
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2015
"I welcome true debate on all subject matters. Judging from many of the evolutionists' comments above, it sounds like a lot of them don't agree with me. They are quick to call you all kinds of dreadful names and try to attack your character, religion, whatever. Basic point: they don't act like scientists."

Evolution defender have no scientific knowledge and arguments. So they replace arguments with declarations and organized voting in formation. Their impolite attitude towards people with a different opinion shows their weak position due to inability to offer scientific arguments in defense of their thesis.

You deserve ridicule because you combine ignorance and arrogance.
Multivac jr_
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2015
I'd like to hear what the creationists think about Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis (among others). Or what they think about what was found in Chauvet Cave.

And while we're at it, what's up with our various vestigial organs, aka "Lucifer's chaff?"
my2cts
4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2015
@multivac
Anything they can not encapsulate in their delusion they will simply deny.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
@multivac
Anything they can not encapsulate in their delusion they will simply deny.
...or blame it on another unseen entity (like satan or lucifer) and then state it is a "test" put there to challenge their "faith"

or some such bullsh*t circular reasoning that makes as much sense as having horseshoes made of jell-o
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2015
@greenonions

Are you able to explain the principles of radioisotope methods and show their weakest here in the forum? if you are not able to explain this here, your faith in them is false. An intelligent person knows objective reasons to believe in something and can explain it.
I am personally interested in the facts instead of the theories the vain philosophers.
my2cts
4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2015
viko
You are just asking this to annoy GO.
Nobody can explain you physics, as it does not fit in your belief system.
You are not intelligent yourself by your own definition.
Consider the possibility in front of a mirror that you are blind and stupid.
Repeat this exercise 6 times a day.
You don't belong on this forum. Go back to your bible club.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.