While there is no controversy in the scientific community over the basic facts of evolution, advocates of creationism continue to challenge the teaching of evolution in U.S. schools. Do you believe in natural evolution as a fundamental biological process? Would you advocate keeping creationism in its various incarnations, including intelligent design, out of public school classes?
Gravel is quoted by LiveScience as stating that creationism should not be taught in schools:
“We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial … My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they’ve got a mental problem....That ends the story as far as I’m concerned.”
“We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial … My God". Wow, that isn't ironic. Coming from someone who wishes to promote open ideas and free thinking he is certainly closing himself off to a possibility. To be honest things haven't changed since Darwin came out with his theory. At the time it was culturally unacceptable, now its the other way around. Science is always changing and nothing is concrete. The "Elite" should bear that in mind before making so a bold statement.
Science isn't always changing in the sense of flip-flopping. Science is always being refined. The scientific evidence supporting evolution is much stronger than it was in Darwin's time. Darwin didn't know about genetics, for example, he only knew about morphology. But today we know that genetics provides even stronger evidence for evolution than morphology.
It's pretty hypocritical to come down on Gravel for supposedly being closed minded when you yourself have closed your mind so completely.
Patrick said, "Coming from someone who wishes to promote open ideas and free thinking he is certainly closing himself off to a possibility."
Possibility of what? There is no competing theory that explains biological diversity in nature other than the theory of evolution. If possibility includes creationism, you are simply degrading science to become anarchic.
"At the time it was culturally unacceptable, now its the other way around."
You can question the theory of evolution, all you want, but what you are doing is question what is in fact, a fact. Evolution is a fact. It is simply a change in inheritable trait over time. This is as established as the notion of gravity.
You really need to look up the definition of scientific theory, Pat.
Just because science is hard doesn't mean it's better to make up an explanation for it.
And science is 'always changing and nothing is concrete'? That's why it works. Unlike religious stories and fairy tales, anything submitted to the world of science is subject by intense scrutiny, criticism, skepticism, and testing before it is accepted. A notion is only considered 'true' when it is able to encompass more or less ALL of the factual observations that scientists have gathered over the entire course of history.
And religion doesn't 'change'? A few generations ago religious folk were still saying that the world was flat. Science is hard, folks, but it's based on a lot more thinking than religion ever will be. If it means religion will cease to become relevant, than so be it.
Wrong Patrick, things HAVE changed since Darwin's day. We have found tens of thousands of archaeological, genetic, geological, physiological, and biological pieces of evidence that confirm evolution. Science IS always changing; it is constantly perfecting itself. Get your facts straight and open a textbook for once in your life before you come on here and make a fool of your self.
"So bold a statement?" "Closing himself off to a possibility?" What in the world are you talking about? Evolution is an established fact so Gravel isn't saying anything new. The science has been solidly established for over a century. End of story.
this is 2008, not the dark ages. while creationism may have been socially acceptable in 1492, today it is a belief whose time is past. If you cannot look around you and see the fallacy of your belief, then you need to have your vision checked.
"... he is certainly closing himself off to a possibility"
Indeed! Just as I have closed myself off to the possibility that the universe was created by a flying haggis. I'd believe it - if there was any evidence!
NO what is ironic is that in this case "my God" is a linguistic device used to display a disbelief in something.
To be honest, if you think that the world of evolution hasn't changed since Darwin's day then you have mental problems, to borrow a phrase from Gravel.
Science is always changing - that is the nature of science, if you don't understand that then you need to go back to primary school. Theories get refined, forwardly replaced and updated. They do not get replaced with backward ideas such as Creationism.
Emphasizing the word "thinking" in the phrase "free thinking", it is easy to imagine Mr. Gravel having considered any number of ideas and subsequently rejecting them. Progress is as much letting go of our misconceptions as it is discovering the truth. There most certainly are concrete, scientifically proven facts, of which evolution is one.
Being indoctrinated from birth on to believe something created earth, the skies and the universe is the main reason why people simply don't look any further.
Infants are the most susceptible to such stories and it is hard to make them think otherwise afterwards, even if the evidence is staring them in the face.
The book was written a long time ago, you have to see the stories in their original context. Before Christianity there were numerous other religions, but no one believes in multiple gods anymore unless you are Indian ;-)
Ever wonder why God created the heaven and the earth and stuck dinosaur bones in the soil? Why did he make humans so extremely difficult chemical bodies.. How come some lower life forms have the same reproduction cycles humans do..
There are numerous examples of such questions that can be asked: why make those things so darn difficult and not just simple.
If you don't believe in creationism like i, a lot of things are easier to accept although many people just simply refuse to believe that their life is a meaningless cycle of maintaining the species.
I have not seen any prosperity come from religion, only fear and wars.
If 'Elite' means; people who use their brains, fine we are elite. Evolution is a 'Fact' in the language of the average person, it is normal to call it a Theory in the scientific community, the Elite, as there can always be refinement when something new is learned. So the Elite is always open to new facts that will assist in such refinement.
With respect Patrick, give us a break. Evolution is the best and only serious theory on the planet.
Students still learn Newton's theories in schools even though as you put it 'Science has changed'. Newton's theories are a worse approximation than Einstein's but they are still taught because they are still very good. Newton's 'wrong' theories are good enough to organise a trip to the moon with.
You believe in The Theory of Smoking-Induced Lung Cancer as though it were a fact, but question the reality of the Theory of Evolution, on what grounds?
If our current knowledge of evolution is ever later superseded by better knowledge, it will be as with theories of smoking. Details (of precise health risks or natural selection processes) can change but the broad stuff simply will not change.
The theory of evolution is kept alive and nurtured by ordinary people working all around the world, understanding and colllecting evidence. They are the world's experts and they are on the cause of finding out what is true using their hands and eyes and minds. Why are we plagued so but these ancient rotten tribal texts - believe in all that woo-woo claptrap if you want but don't pretend your tribal 'bible' is any match for modern science on the question of what is and isn't true.
New methods of determining truth have been developed in the last 2000 years and they can be instructive.
Open ideas and free thinking? This isn't suppression of first amendment rights as Ben Stein would have us believe. You are always free to posit new ideas but science requires proof. If your ideas are supported by compelling evidence that has been duplicated by others time and time again and has survived critical analysis then we can begin to accept it. If your ideas can't survive this analysis, it isn't science and is merely opinion. Sorry if your feelings are hurt or your world view upset. If someone is critical of your ideas it doesn't mean that they are suppressing anything. The intelligent design community has never submitted any compelling evidence that has survived critical analysis, therefore it fails as science.
@Patrick McFarland:
I agree with you that Gravel's statement seems to allow for no other possibility than evolution. That said, the evidence that has been found so far supports the theory of evolution. While the evidence does not discount the possibility of an intelligent designer, the evidence doesn't give any reason to believe that an intelligent designer was necessary.
I realize that I am assuming that when you mention "closing himself off to a possibility", that possibility you speak of is intelligent design - creationism in fancy dress. Please forgive me if I am in error.
Sorry previous commenter... the reason creationism isn't up for debate anywhere except various under-educated backwaters in America is that there isn't a shred of evidence for it. It belongs with the flat earth and the medicinal use of leaches.
Oh... and there isn't an "elite".
Yes Patrick, science is open to change. But the amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory is overwhelming, which is why it has become established theory in the scientific community.
Is it possible that it could beome accepted scientific wisdom that the sun goes round the earth as 1 in 4 Americans believe ( see http://www.jefflewis.net/blog/2006/01/public_opinion_polls_as_reason.html )or that the earth is flat as was once believed? Perhaps, but highly unlikely.
It is also highly unlikely that the scientific community will once again return to the notion that all creatures were created just as they are today rather than being a result of evolution over billions of years.
Many Christians accept evolutionary theory. It is accepted by the Catholic church. Perhaps you should read Psalm 90:4, if you feel you must reject science because of your religious beliefs.
Did you really write "Wow"? What, this argument is new to you? Come now Patrick, your circular logic is so transparent to someone that is not under the spell. Lots has changed since Darwin came out with his theory. It has had so many more opportunities to be dis-proven, but instead has been held up and certainly proven, by virtually every branch of study. Take another look, as you are mistaken. And i suspect that you don't even know what the word "theory" means in science. It isn't just some idea. Study, then talk. Otherwise, it is more of the same.
The English word "theory" is a scientific hypothesis. The scientific word "theory" is the English word "fact".
Science always refines theories as new information is integrated.
There is no scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design. Belief is not a basis for science.
That is not elitism, it's rational thought based on evidence.
It's sad that as such a modern, civilized nation so many of our people would rather believe that a sky wizard made the whole world on a whim rather than believe proven, documented science.
It's not close minded to close out the possibility that an invisible ghost made the world five thousand years ago.
Just like it's not closed minded to vehemently believe that Harry Potter isn't real.
Biology is my life, I've studied it far more than the average person in a college environment, and I'm saying right now, things are a whole lot different than when Darwin was around.
To ignore biological evidence is to be fundamental.
We don't want to you stop being Christian or religious, we just want you to accept that our evidence is real, documented, fact.
@Kit Peters
While I agree with the majority of what you said, there are actually medicinal uses for leeches. They help to stimulate blood flow in reattached body parts and skin grafts. (Source: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_leech.html)
The problem is not that the Evangelicals want to teach Creationism, but that they want to teach it in a Science classroom as a legitimate competitor to Evolution. Magic has no place in a Science classroom. Science has a vocabulary and culture. Magic has no place in it's culture.
If the Evangelicals want to have a comparative religion class and teach all the magic based creation stories I see no problem with that.
This might also include my own theory that the world was created this morning at 4 AM.
Here's the original LiveScience story by the way.
Above and beyond the scientific fact of evolution, I like the idea that humans were descended from apes and fishes. It lends us a nobility, of which we are desperately in need.
Patrick McFarland: "... things haven't changed since Darwin came out with his theory ..."
Patrick, you're confusing your ignorance of the subject with fact. 150 years of real, rational, irrefutable, scientific evidence has been added to the 'theory' (a scientific 'theory' is very different to the everyday usage) of evolution.
Do yourself a *big* favor and do some reading on 'evolution'. Also search for 'scientific theory' to understand what really is.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/evolution_in_5_minutes.php
Watching that shows the blatant misunderstanding the general populous has in regards to how evolution works.
It makes the appearance as if change happens within a guided frame, within set constraints, and that it is always positive growth. At the heart of evolution is the opportunity for any change or mutation to occur at any point in the process. Evolution has made little headway since its inception, to think otherwise shows a lack of tenacity in searching out truth.