Evolution occurs in a laboratory

phattonez wrote:They're not going to care. There is no problem with having creationism and evolution.

Is that what you or what they think?

'cause I'm pretty sure they think differently.

phattonez wrote:I have never once protested teaching evolution in school, so there goes that claim.

Let's go to Wikipedia:

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Thus, creationists are the ones who are protesting the teaching of evolution in school. So there goes your claim.

It says commonly. So what you're saying is that because I believe in God creating the world that I must deny evolution?

Fine, we'll use the term "strict creationists." Does that make everyone happy?

This is just a psychological game. It's easy to gain support from the anti-religion crowd by lumping your opponents in with the religious radicals. So, if you simplify the evolution issue by calling it "evolution vs. creationism" with a small footnote that says "Oh, by 'creationism' we mean any religious opposition to evolution", you've polarized the issue and made your fallacies more fun.

I know many creationists (Southern Baptists, at that) that are willing to accept evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of man, and there's many interpretations of the creation story that could allow it. I agree, and so do my peers, that trying to block the theory of evolution from being taught in a science curriculum is analogous to dropping Revelation from a study of the Bible.

I feel the biggest problem is people who have little scientific background think the wrong thing when they hear "theory", and shame on schoolteachers for not teaching it in this manner. Science acknowledges that evolution may not be the answer to the origin of man or any other species by calling it a theory. However, sometimes in science there are theories that cannot be proved, but observational data provides overwhelming confidence that it's true. Evolution's one of these things: we're several leaps and bounds away from conclusive proof, but there's enough stuff there that to dismiss it entirely is idiotic.

I don't even understand how people think teaching any form of creationism can work outside of a philosophy or theology class. Every religion has a different creation myth; would some of these die-hard Bible-thumpers support the teaching of Hindu and Zoroastrian creation in addition to their Christian creation? I think the answer to that question is pretty much why one can't pretend to believe it makes sense to teach supernatural beliefs in a science classroom. This is one case where I will not take offense to Beldaran's harsh view: if you believe teaching some form of religious creation in a science class makes sense then we may as well start talking about the elements (that's Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water, not the periodic table). I'm not even sure mentioning, "Some people believe in supernatural causes for the creation of the universe and all species." is a good idea. Thumbs up in a philosophy or theology class though.

Science's job is to explain the supernatural and make it natural. Religion's job is to explain the supernatural when science can't provide that explanation. Sometimes they are wholly incompatible and shouldn't be mixed.

Also, I accept this statement with no refutations, and I think it would have made a better first post and tone for the article:

Still, this experiment did destroy one of the cornerstones of creationism; that very complex behavior can't evolve from simple mutations. Clearly, it can.

Make no mistake - for the vast majority of young-earth creationists (strict creationists, whatever you want to call it - Earth was made in 7 days crap), it is not a simple misunderstanding about the definition of "theory." It is part of a growing trend of willfully anti-science, anti-logic, anti-rational attitudes in this country. "Truth" has been replaced with "truthiness," to borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert. It's like, people pride themselves on their ignorance or something. Absolutely crazy.

AtmaWeapon wrote:I always believed that simple probability destroyed this, but hopefully some people will get their heads cleared.

Yeah, that's right. There hasn't been a credible scientific argument against evolution in many years. However, this is some nice visual proof.

The fact that they can "replay" the evolution is interesting. It suggests that all the pieces weren't there at generation 20K (otherwise they'd already be digesting citrate), but that those pieces will inevitably come together from that point on. In other words, the same "random" mutation happens in the generations that follow from that point. But perhaps all the descendants don't develop into Cit+, the article isn't clear on that point.

Anyway, I'll be impressed when they create life, not just "proto-cells", from primordial soup.