Nobel Prize winner Sir Dr. Harold Kroto (yes, he’s a sir, having been knighted) is the focus of this Herald Tribune article.
TALLAHASSEE — His mess of white hair rising with the wind, Nobel laureate Harold Kroto delivered what has become his standard speech on evolution:
Humans and fruit flies share the same genes.
“You may not like that but it’s not my fault,” Kroto, 68, said in front of the state Capitol on Monday.
“It’s the way it actually is.”
…
It is the most absurd thing Kroto has heard since moving to Florida in 2004 to teach at Florida State University. His friends back home in England, where he was a professor in Sussex, have been sending him e-mails asking why he stays, he said.
“We’re the laughingstock of the enlightened world,” Kroto said.
…
To Kroto, and mainstream scientists like him, the idea that humans evolved from the world’s earliest life forms is as obvious as the laws of gravity.
“The bedrock of all biology,” Kroto calls it. “It’s beautiful.”
…
He fears the recent debate over evolution is a sign science is becoming irrelevant.
“As far as I’m concerned, it’s an abuse of position not to teach science correctly to children,” Kroto said. “Today they don’t need to know how anything works. The technology is so good if something breaks they get it fixed. There’s a large number of kids probably prepared to accept something without being too careful.”
Also see articles in the Tallahassee Democrat and WWSB.
It is agreed that children should learn how things work and they should be taught how to examine evidence and make proper conclusions. Science has its place and proper analytical thought should be developed. However if a theory is being taught as fact, then critical thinking should be allowed to take place. If the theory is true then the espousers should delight to entertain those critics. This then would be an opportunity for them to test their analysis and if it still stands up then they would be verified and if not then they should be willing to alter their conclusions. If a matter is truly a fact, then it always should welcome testing. It is interesting to note that if there is a fear of opposing views then the confidence of the proponent should reveal whether he really believes in his conclusions or hope them to be so. Most discoveries are made by those who think outside the box. They are willing to explore the truth where ever it leads. They are willing to humble themselves and acknowledge that there may be something they haven’t seen then submit their intellect to this evidence. This would be an honest scientist. You hold on to a view but are open to change of this view in the light of new evidence or evidence previously discounted, if that evidence is culled out of previously discarded data (retrieving the baby from the disposed of bathwater). If one has an opposing view – why not entertain it for discussion – if it doesn’t hold water then all may see. But if it does hold water why fight against the truth ? A true scientist is emotionally detached from the outcome of evidence. He is submissive to where the evidence leads. He is not afraid of criticism or even philosophy which plays into the overall decision making process of the human being. But to state as fact a conclusion which limit’s the evidence gathering ability of the total human makeup to a few human senses may lead to a false appraisal of a matter. Intuition and a man’s conscience are indeed other human abilities which must not be neglected in evaluating information. Without these evaluators a paradigm shift which opens a world to new discovery rarely will take place. When you limit yourself to your closed system of observations then you may be left behind in your “fenced in†reality. This is not to go to the other side and say that all scientific observations are not truthful, however all conclusions may not all be correct without further “outside the box†input .
I fully support this statement.
“The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established BEYOND DOUBT.
Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.
Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection – and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.
Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.”
Ideas that the Earth was divinely created is just an attempt by creationists to gain acceptance for what they misrepresent in public as evidence for thier views.There are no other scientific explanations that could be construde as scientifically valid.
Belief that features of the universe and of living things are better explained as the direct result of action by an intelligent cause than by natural processes represent a trespass upon the domain of science.
You’re about a hundred years late.
The Scientific theory of Evolution has ALREADY been tested, re-tested, re-re-tested, and has passed all tests it has been subjected to. Its predictions have all borne out. It is supported by literally millions of pages of scientifically-verified data and observations, as well as millions MORE data points from multiple, cross-confirming disciplines, such as physics and geology.
The “criticisms” the proponents of this amendment wish for have absolutely nothing to do with “improving the science”. Instead, this whole thing is REALLY about wedging religious belief into public schools, there to be tought as if it is on an equal footing with science. Not just any religious belief, either…nearly EVERY group pushing this “academic freedom” crap is composed of evangelical Protestant Christians. Their whole objection to the SToE is based entirely on the fact that it (as well as most other science) produces results that conflict with their interpretation of the Bible.
The truth is, these people have produced absolutely NO scientifically valid “criticisms” of the SToE. They have done no research, lab work, or field work to support their own claims…instead, they push discredited fallacies, strawmen, and outright lies about science.
Their hypocrisy on this issue is galling. To suddenly beg for “academic freedom”, when for YEARS they have opposed academic freedom in such other areas as sex education (“abstinence ONLY”, anyone?) and literature selections (“Harry Potter”) is the height of chutzpah. Given half a chance, they would continue to push until they banned ANY science lesson they felt conflicted with the KJ Bible.
ID/Creationism had its shot. It has failed, in every respect, to be supported by actual, real-world science and observations. This is reality; ID/Creationism has no place in science classes because it is a FAILED hypothesis. It serves only as an example of poor reasoning. To pretend otherwise is to wrongfully call into doubt nearly two centuries’ worth of scientific research and results.
You seem to be reactionary Ivy. You should rejoice then if you think you have the truth. But the point being made is that all of human decisions are not based on the “scientific method” or maybe you do. You then leave out other influential attributes of human observation. If you did this and truly believed that humans developed from lower forms of life, then you would have to evaluate how to deal out punishment to individuals who have not been “fully developed” , maybe the “human species” has not all developed uniformly. So the law should not hold those accountable for crimes because one just hasn’t developed as far as others. Why should one be punished for stealing or killing someone else – its just a natural instinct based on the lower nature. Responsibility then cannot be uniform. Then who will deal out justice ? Or should we ? If one “acts like a monkey” then its not his fault for robbing one of his goods when he is hungry. Humans have a conscience and an awareness of what is right and wrong. No other animal has this. Where did this develop in the evolutionary chain ? Does this not lead to the mentality of those who do not care for human life beyond the selfish pleasures , and then tend to devalue human life ? As a result abortion , euthanasia, etc, permeates a society. Maybe one is not as developed as another and not to be a “drag†on society should be eliminated. So the mentality of looking at everything through the prism of “scientific method†will not only lead to the devaluation of humankind but the elimination of moral standards of right and wrong. Thus confusing a society that then will have no more basis to maintain justice for those who do what is right and for those who do what is wrong.
Jonathan,
For you to know without any doubt that the planet earth was formed 4560 million years ago, is such a “leap of faith” it is truly amazing. Its a sad day when you merely conjecture these things through many models of intellectual leaps to make these conclusions. It has not been proven to be so – you have no eye witness accounts you make a conclusion ahead of time then shape your “knowledge” to support it. It’s truly amazing to see.
Dr. Slavos,
Just to clarify where you’re coming from – would you say that the universe was created in six days about 6,000 years ago?
Dr. Slavos
No ““leap of faith†required for the age of the earth,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Indirect evidence : evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred.
So now, please answer James F question?
I will ask you a question. Does a man have a soul and spirit besides his material body ?
As for Jonathan,
Your reference relies on radiometric dating. If I were to show you a verifiable recently formed rock (from volcanic activity) and show a radiometric dating report showing that the rock was formed millions of years ago, what would you say ?
Dr. Slavos Says:
“I will ask you a question. Does a man have a soul and spirit besides his material body?”
If you are asking me if a human being (a bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens, in the family Hominidae ,the great apes),has a soul or a spirit,my answer would be.
I have not seen any evidence for it, but,I must remain agnostic on the point.No one should make claims about which we can not possibly know the answers(there is a god, humans have souls,Jesus was born of a virgin)
These are positions if faith not science.
So now go ahead and answer the question James F asked you
Is your answer is a yes or no ?
I will answer your question if you can give me a yes or no to mine.
“No one should make claims about which we can not possibly know the answers”
I agree.
“Your reference relies on radiometric dating. If I were to show you a verifiable recently formed rock (from volcanic activity) and show a radiometric dating report showing that the rock was formed millions of years ago, what would you say ?”
I, personally, would refer you to this…
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
…and advise you to use more current, and reliable, sources. Oh, and to read some books on radiometric dating and its procedures before you hand-wave it away. Bluntly, it completely devastates the “young Earth” myth.
So you rely soley on radiometric dating ? Is that your sole foundation ?
Interesing article by the way, I havent seen that one before.
I have given you my answer.So, would you say that the universe was created in six days about 6,000 years ago? yes or no?
You wrote:
“Your reference relies on radiometric dating. If I were to show you a verifiable recently formed rock (from volcanic activity) and show a radiometric dating report showing that the rock was formed millions of years ago, what would you say ?”
I would say:Go and write your paper,have it peer reviewed (by an accredited educational institution) then have it published and accepted by the majority of the scientific community,then I will give it my interest.
I’d highly recommend both of these articles…
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
…as a miniscule sample of the evidence for the SToE, and a refutation of creationism. Read both, thouroughly. It’ll take you a week or so, at least. If you’re going to argue against one of the most well-founded theories in science, you should at least know what you really are up against.
I’m fairly confident that most of the arguments you’d like to use are already covered by both of these.
“So you rely soley on radiometric dating ? Is that your sole foundation ?”
Actually, no. But even by itself, it destroys young-Earth creationism. However, the is much, much more than that, as the two links above show.
Jonathan, You said you were agnostic (without knowledge) to the subject. You will remain then without knowledge to how old the earth is then.
“Dr.” Slavos –
If you did this and truly believed that humans developed from lower forms of life, then you would have to evaluate how to deal out punishment to individuals who have not been “fully developed†, maybe the “human species†has not all developed uniformly. So the law should not hold those accountable for crimes because one just hasn’t developed as far as others.
That argument is asinine. In society, humans are held to a higher standard than other forms of life. No scientific theory is going to change this, nor should we make certain discoveries, such as evolution, taboo because they might affect philosophy. Philosophy is outside of the realm of science, and law is based on philosophy, not science.
You will remain then without knowledge to how old the earth is then.
How does that work, “Dr.”?
“That argument is asinine. In society, humans are held to a higher standard than other forms of life. No scientific theory is going to change this, nor should we make certain discoveries, such as evolution, taboo because they might affect philosophy. Philosophy is outside of the realm of science, and law is based on philosophy, not science.”
Why should we hold humans to a higher standard than other forms of life ? If you base all of your knowledge on the the scientific method, please explain your statement through that grid please. In other words what is it that you have discovered through this method to draw your conclusion that one form of life is superior than another ?
You make the admission that (scientific) discovery might affect philosophy. A extordinary admission ! Are you implying that one’s philosophy should take back seat to “scientific discoveries” ? By this you are implying that all of law (which is based on philosophy) should take a back seat to so called scientific theory. Why then should not your “findings” take precedent over moral judgements ?
Your statement “In society, humans are held to a higher standard than other forms of life.” Why should this be then ? Is that your infusion of philosophy ? Why shouldn’t a dog have the same rights then as other animals. Even have a right to be supported by the state ? After all they are not as capable of looking after themselves as humans can. Why not cows or pigs or what about plant life ? Should we infringe upon them our beliefs ? Why do you suppose humans are held to a higher standard ?
Jonathan, You said you were agnostic (without knowledge) to the subject. You will remain then without knowledge to how old the earth is then.
Oh dear,do I have to reaaly explain this to you or are you just being intentionally disingenuous ?
ag·nos·tic: : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
unknowable,the view that any ultimate reality is probably unknowable.
I am agnostic to many things (gobblins ghosts ESP) and I have knowledge of them,but any evidence for their exisence is small to say the least.
How does any of that relate to the scientific evidence to the age of the earth?
Pc Bash sorry you came in late in the game. You must take some of these statements in context.
Never the less, You cannot be consistent with your thoughts then. You want one to believe that humans have evolved from apes and yet humans are of a special status. According to your theory, evolution must have some transitional species between ape and man. Where do you draw the line then to which one is superior than the other ? Which one has special treatment and the other doesn’t ?
Agnostic (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnÅsis, knowledge). The true definition. You must go back to the root of the meaning. Or you don’t believe that either ?
Dr S, you keep making so many silly mistakes here is another one
“Humans evolved from apes”
Humans did not evolve from apes Humans are closely related to modern apes , but we didn’t evolve from apes. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists have found this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
Ok now?
Its clear that you don’t understand what that has to do with the age of the earth. Because you of this “lack” of understanding in the area of a mans soul and spirit you will not understand my answer. You have not sought out any increased understanding is this area. Until you do you won’t undersatnd the answer.
Well Jonathan others here have made this claim either through specific statement or through the website references they posted. Its hard to carry on a conversation when many of you at the same time, because each believe in evolution with varying degrees of theory.
Now that I know where you come from, the question does not change. What makes us more superior in law than other forms of life ?
Actually the question was for PC but you can answer if you will.
I see that Dr. Slavos must be a YEC and that he is embarrassed about it.
How sad to be too embarrassed to state his position. 🙁
(Hmmnn, embarrassed by the church … scratching my head in confusion )
Etymology: Greek agnÅstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnÅstos known, from gignÅskein to know.
You can have knowledge of a subject but you cannot say absolutly if it is true or false.You are just “splitting hairs If you are trying to make me cry uncle on the point,I will repeat my previous post I do not see the evidence for a soul or spirit.
Good try Jonathan. Your trying to teach a Greek about Greek. You are trying to be clever and I understand it. If your interested about finding out knowledge about this subject I would direct you to some sources you may find interesting. But only if you are interested. It appears that no one is honest about wanting to know the truth at this site. I came here cordially and tried to have an honest discussion. But from the first, insults were being hurled instead of an open and honest talk. I came as a friend but not as an enemy. The belittling of those here seems more like a schoolyard bully than a frank discussion. I was honest asking some questions to try and provoke a good and fruitful discussion. But I guess this isn’t a place for it. I will find another site for an honest discussion. Instead of answers you sound like lawyers trying to protect a wayward client. Take care and I hope you can learn some manners in public discourse or your attitude will scare away those who you try and convince.
Now that I know where you come from, the question does not change. What makes us more superior in law than other forms of life ?
Simple. We have laws, other forms of life (as far as we know!) do not.
You are attempting to make a ridiculous argument that since science does not answer (or even try to answer!) every question, that we should inject religious dogma into science. You are attempting to get me to admit that we use things other than science to create laws and morality (sadly, none of these are religion, except in backwards theocracies), when I honestly don’t care. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Instead of answers you sound like lawyers trying to protect a wayward client.
Interesting… seeing that you have dodged several questions here.
I recommend stopping all the correspondence with a plant from the ID sect! Dr. Slavos is obviously a plant from the other side. He can’t use correct grammar – your should have been you’re! Where are his credentials?
They all come as friends and not enemies but screw us in the end!
You all need to stop debating with long answers to his stuff – one long answer does not prove that you are more knowledgeable then he is!!
Get on with what’s important for kids in your state – EVOLUTION REVOLUTION
Oh my, that wasscally wadiometwic dating again! Funny how Christians can ignore even their own in this regard.
I’m having a hard time keeping up. Are the goal-posts still on the field?
What makes us more superior in law than other forms of life ?
Nothing. It’s called antrocentric bias. Same bias that is behind the hubris of human superiority. For a cockroach, the world was made for cockroaches and only cockroach rules matter to them. For a lion, the world was made for lions and only lion rules matter to them. For humans, the world was made for humans and only human rules matter to them.
You can do this all day.
Arrrgh! No preview to see if linky worky! Drat!
Try this:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Ms. Stone said, “He can’t use correct grammar”
“You all need to stop debating with long answers to his stuff – one long answer does not prove that you are more knowledgeable then he is!! ”
The pot calling the kettle – is it then or than ? Who needs a spell check, Ms. Stone ?
Wow, Did you hear what Spirula said ? He said “the world was made” three times ! Welcome aboard Spirula !
Tom –
Do you have anything not completely inane to say?
Quote-miner Tom,
Thanks for reminding everyone that creationist bring nothing more to the table than distortions and misrepresentations. Who needs evidence when you’ve got that winning strategy of argumentation?
It warms the cockles of my heart to see that current creationists are still incapable of formulating anything remotely resembling a convincing, evidentiary argument. I see they have remained stubbornly ignorant and obtuse, just like they were back in my creationist day.
Oh, and grammar-police Tom, I didn’t “say” anything, so you couldn’t have “heard” me. I did write something that you may have read (though the comprehension seems to have escaped you). But, hey, maybe you did hear something. I mean, if you believe “Magic-Man Diddit”, there’s no telling what goes on in a mind as atrophied as that.
Interesting Spirula and Ms Stone are the same person. Who is inane ?
I repsond to Ms Stone and Spirula is so self conscious that he or she thinks I’m writing to him or her.
To say man has evolved from lower forms of life is so ridiculous to believe, that its astonishing that anyone in their right mind can believe it. It is laughable. No one can prove it because it is unprovable. Alot of conjured up theories of half wits. Most all of the leading thinkers don’t believe that man evolved from a lower form. One such Giant of our time was Bill Buckley among a vast array of highly intelligent men and woman that are far superior intellect than anyone on this website. You can talk in circles and then when someone disproves one of your underpinnings you change it to something else. You will never see the real truth because truth needs an ability to comprehend a moral determinant, which you have seared. Truth is determined in a man’s spirit because through the spiritual world all things we see were made. So if you do not include this in your thinking you will never understand.
Even to “believe” in your theory you have to admit that there must be a hidden cause that you cannot see that makes things evolve. You are willingly ignorant. You cannot explain love with the scientifc method. So I guess you would say it doesn’t exist. Maybe you don’t know what true love is – what a shame.
Tom,
Please explain the fact that no peer-reviewed scientific research paper in the 17+ million citations indexed at the National Library of Medicine refute evolution, and not a single one provides data for “intelligent design” or “creation science.” Please cite which “leading thinkers” don’t believe in evolution – preferably scientists. Also, please comment on whether these Christian clergy qualify as “spiritual:”
http://www.evolutionsunday.com/
To say man has evolved from lower forms of life is so ridiculous to believe…
Only to one blinded by faith like you.
To say man has evolved from lower forms of life is so ridiculous to believe, that its astonishing that anyone in their right mind can believe it
Yes, but being created from clay is noooo problemo.
fc – LMAO! 🙂
Danke herr S.Scott!
Bitte, but that would be fraulein:-)
Tom
Even to “believe†in your theory you have to admit that there must be a hidden cause that you cannot see that makes things evolve.
Ah beautiful yes, Tom doesn’t know the definition of theory when used in a scientific sense.
I dunno how one would not “believe” in facts. Maybe like one who deosn’t “believe” in the sun?
Bitte, but that would be fraulein:-)
Ach du liebe der fraulein(s)!!!!
That being said, the rest of mine Deutsche is reserved for getting into trouble in areas of ill repute. 🙂
You cannot explain love with the scientifc method.
BZZZZZTTTTT WRONG!!!
As was covered in another thread and I believe it was you who framed it as a question. Yes, it can and has been.
Truth is determined in a man’s spirit because through the spiritual world all things we see were made
Sorry Tom, but “spirit” has no bearing on truth.
Bill Buckley among a vast array of highly intelligent men and woman that are far superior intellect than anyone on this website.
You Tom, are resorting to ad hominem attacks against bloggers on here about whom you have no idea their level of education. Tsk tsk.
Spirula and I (or is it me???) are not the same person! i ( or is it capital I???) am a concerned grandmother of (or is it for) five grandchildren in Florida and Texas. I am concerned regarding the education of my grandchildren who will be educated or is it not educated in the truth – evolution is (or are) great!!! Tom. please help me with my grammer or grammar – you seem (seam) to be the expert!!
This is so stupid! Let’s (or is it lets) get over this and do what’s right (wright) for kids!!!
No more Salvos stuff (stuf)??? Hum?
I believe this web site is here to help all (or is it awl) ADULTS to do what is right ( wright) for students in Florida!!! Get on board the EVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!
I do use spell check before I submit a response – unlike others!!! It works or is it (wrks)???
Goodbye Tom or are you Hal??? Do you know who HAL IS??
FL is laughed at in Europe!!!
Gram (or Grandmother)
To say man has evolved from lower forms of life is so ridiculous to believe, that its astonishing that anyone in their right mind can believe it. It is laughable. No one can prove it because it is unprovable. Alot of conjured up theories of half wits. Most all of the leading thinkers don’t believe that man evolved from a lower form.
Yet, you believe that you were created from clay? Dude, this is non sequitir at its’ best!
And you gave, in the paragraph……
Agruments from…
Foundational bias
Strawman
Personal incredulity
ignorance
Congrats, you hit almost every one of these!