So you want a refresher in bio 101, let's go. Evolution, that is the change of a specie's gene sequence over time is witnessed almost every year. This can be seen in the fact that the flu changes every year or the fact that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics over time. These are all seen effects. The theory portion of the "theory of evolution" does not stem from the changes in the genome, rather why they change. Some deduce random error, others survival of the fittest and others say hand of God. The why in the theory of evolution is up for suspect, but changes in genes do occur over time. The problem with your dead sea scrolls argument is that the notion of creation is not subsidized by fact, only that it is subsidized that someone at one point in time believed it was fact. Now the whole argument that this form of man lead to another to another and finally ended with homosapian sapian is pure theory based on correlations. I think that form of evolution does not need to be addressed nearly as much as the notion of what evolution is, where random errors can occur, so on and so forth. The problem with how evolution is taught is that it examines more of the why evolution occurs and not proofs of it occurring. I do agree that if creationism is to be rejected so should the why of evolution should be rejected as well. The problem is, religious people who reject "human evolution" also reject evolution as a whole (which is obviously a logical fallacy). Brian_Chapman believes we came from apes and that's why he rejects it. That is a gross simplification of a complicated theory. What I believe personally is that evolution only tells a small snippet of what is truly there. I think people who close their eyes to science because it disagrees with their religion are fools, just as much as I think people who reject God for science are fools. The two operate on different realms, have different proofs, and neither will ever validate or invalidate the other. The movie Religulousis an outstanding show of how the two can live in harmony. When Mahr was talking to the Catholic Preists who are also scientists it gave light to a type of people who are often covered: believers who accept ideals of both practices. I believe that people are too literal with religious texts because they are scared. It is easier to live in a world with misconceptions about reality than to live in one with doubt. The bible is a great place to get guidance and advice but to use it as a literal road map to heaven is a joke. Creationism for the most part should be taken figuratively and not literally. Heck, most people who believe in the Adam and Eve sequence of events don't know that their were two trees that Adam and Eve were supposed to eat from, not just one. Literal interpretations and strict belief is wrong no matter if it be the realm of science or religion. In addressing the topic at hand, Oberman is calling out the people who are so intent on their beliefs that they can reject another belief system rooted in scientific fact. That is not the cornerstone of an advanced intelligent society, in fact it is the cornerstone of an ignorant back water society. In the end, that will be the downfall. Look at Islam. Islam had a lot of roots in science and still satisfied the religious aspects. As the religious conservatives gained more power science was pushed aside and then their followers were engulfed in turmoil. It wasn't until recently that science is finding it's way back into their society. What I find to be funny is that most Americans have a perception of Iranians being religious wierdos with nukes. Iran has been doing stem cell research and has successfully made a rat with a severed spinal cord move it's lower limbs again. Who sanctioned these experiments you ask? It was a fatwa by Kholmeni. Religion and science can coexist, but if they are at odds society is doomed.
While i do think they can...or at the very least, they can have respect for eachother, like most things people from either side's of the aisle with throw poo at eachother. But, it is refreshing to find people who can balance both in a sane and rational matter. You just won't find that many here
why is he singling out texas? 38% of texans believe the earth is less than 10k 44% of americans believe the earth is less than 10k texas is more 'evolved' than the united states as a whole - olbermann's whole premise is flawed - i think this is another case of someone trying to attack texas just b/c george w. bush pretends he is from here. as far as im concerned, one of the most egregious things that piece of garbage did was attach himself to our state the way he did - it just made us all look bad.
actually most people, especially abroad, have a real affinity for texas - especially in europe - they really dig texas mythology/culture - i seemed much more interesting to people once they found out i was texan. i lost count of how many people i had to chide for calling junior a texan though. its really offensive to me, as a real texan.
If 38% of Texans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago, then 38% of Texans are stupid. I'm not going to beat around the bush any more or "accept" that belief as a possibility.
It's true, when I worked at the airport, the French people told me they disliked Americans but LOVED Texans...I have no idea why the affinity but it's true.
then you would have to say that 44% of americans are stupid, which makes texas less-stupid than america overall. suck it olbermann!
Dude, "don't mess with Texas" is not that. It is a way of life. Look, there are lots of things that I don't like about the state, but I still love it. Don't mess with it. I swear...
Actually, "dude," that's exactly what it is. Anyone who lived there long enough would know that, without even thinking about it.
