decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
It provides a better explanation | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based dismissal of evolution endangers U.S. science
Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT
Many people who make that sort of claim and others really don't know what theory
means in science. It's looking at the evidence and determining what best
explains the evidence. As more evidence and knowledge come forth, the theory
advances and when necessary, errors corrected. On the other hand, with
creation, you're told the "facts" and are not allowed to challenge
them, even though there's no supporting evidence and plenty that's contrary.

BTW, ever compare the definitions of "faith" and
"delusion"?


---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based dismissal of evolution endangers U.S. science
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Agreed,

I am a Christian and it is my opinion that both the evolutionists and the
"Young Earth" creationists are full of male bovine excrement.

Evolution isn't science because it isn't testable.

Further, nothing in the theory of evolution contridicts the basic idea of a
created universe until you add in abiogenisis (live developing from un-living
materials).

Many evolutionists like to push the idea that you can't understand modern
biology without evolution and yet one of the earliest discoveries of biology as
a science was to prove abiogenisis imposible.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

All of you: Read "On the origin of species" first, or be called ignorant!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT
That is, Origin of Species certainly gives a number of tests of evolution versus
creation, from a very god-fearing Christian author, I might point out. I can
think of more that were not cited, since, at that point, the germ theory of
disease was not widely accepted.

Anyone care to discuss the 20th century domestication of Russian Foxes? Equines
and their near relatives?(google, for example, "zorse")
(Christenson, on his high zorse)(grin)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It provides a better explanation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
Like virtually every other scientific theory, the theory gains popularity, not because it provides a better explanation, but because the advocates of the earlier theory died out.

I've got to push the big red buzzer on this because it is totally untrue. Evolution provides a much better explanation; one consistent with observations from paleontology, astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geology, etc in a way that the "old explanation" was not. We have a mechanism for it and everything. We can look at the DNA changes directly and watch it happening. Denying the reality of evolution at this point is simply not rational.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Evolution has been proven fact already
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
Equally guilty?

False equivalency.

Evolution is falsifiable. It has made predictions which have been proven correct. It has been updated after finding more evidence (like good science does). At this moment, evolution is by far the one theory to explain differentiation of species that better fits all the evidence we have found so far.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ comdesc/

We even understand it better than gravity.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based dismissal of evolution endangers U.S. science
Authored by: bprice on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:38 PM EDT
Whilst Creation Science advocates are guilty of bad science, evolutionists are equally guilty of equally bad science.
[citation required].

You need to support this bald assertion of "equally guilty of equally bad science."

I suggest that you may start with this example: "Creation Science" advocates of the "intelligent design" ilk imagined that flagella were an example of "irreducible complexity", thus could not have been produced by evolutionary processes. This imagining, supporting their faith, was adduced as a conclusive 'scientific' fact and published. The people who know about such things — evolutionists in biology — immediately produced a series of predecessors to flagella-bearing organisms showing an evolutionary process that produced them. This is the only example that I can recall wherein the "Creation Science" people actually dared to attempt anything remotely scientific.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate that evolutionists are "equally guilty" (100% of all cases is what 'equally' means) of "equally bad science" (making unsupported conjectures, contrary to available evidence, claimed as facts).

---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )