re: Do deniers of evolution believe in other species of human?

Why do you think?

Think about it for a bit. Let's just say for the sake of argument that you accept evolution as a fact, that humans have been around for approximately the length of time that scientists hypothesize, and we have the amount of people we have.

What would your propose is the reason for that. You don't have to be right, no one will judge you for your hypothesis. Just throw it out there.

Races are different. I thought that was evident by what I wrote.


eta could be missing the sarcasm

quote:

---

Not heard this, and I am Catholic.

---

It's kind of a long story so I'll try and whittle it down as much as I can and provide links if you're interested beyond that.

But back in the 80's there was a court case in Louisiana that was about the teaching of creationism in public schools. Edwards v Aguillard. It ended up going to the Supreme Court where it was ruled that a violation of the concept of separation of church and state, etc. What happened then was sneaky. The organizaion responsible for writing the creationist textbook in question, Of Pandas and People simply through the entire textbook into a word document and did a word search for variations on "creationism" and did a swap with the new less offensive term "design."

This came out in the Kitzmiller v Dover case in the early 2000's. The school board had just selected Ken Miller's biology textbook as the one to use in the areas schools (which emphasized evolution as a fact) and at the same time received a "donation" of around 60 copies of what was now being touted as an "intelligent design" textbook called...Of Pandas and People. The school board passed a resolution allowing it to be taught along side Miller's textbook and several board member resigned in protest. Eventually, it got taught in school and 11 parents filed suit in federal court.

During that court battle, Barbra Forest (of SLU by the way) testified that she was the person who had found the word swap I mentioned earlier. Here is the best example of how blatant is was:





And if you look at the "revised version" you can actually see the mistake where they chopped "creationists" in half and dropped "design proponents" into it. Hilariously bad.

In addition, these graphs show that this dishonest move was a direct result of the earlier Edwards case as the shift in terminology only happens at the exact date of the Supreme Court ruling.





As usual, the creationists lost in court, costing tax payers tons of money and got now where. but...it did make the term "intelligent design" something that got bandied about a bunch for a while and it was s sticky term for many religious people. While most had no idea of its slimy origins, it SOUNDS like something many might believe...sort of a guided evolutionary process by which God is ultimately in charge of every aspect. The problem is...that IS NOT what ID is at all. It's just repackaged, remarketed creationism. So if they would not support creationism, then they ought to be wary of getting behind a term they don't know the origins of.

LINK

NOVA - Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial

The above link is 2 hours long, but if you're at all interested in this case it's a great watch.

quote:

---

Were any of these people Catholic?

---

No. I'm sorry if that's what you took form my original post. I think I must have been unclear.

They are definitely NOT Catholic.

What I was saying was that the term these hacks coined to attempt to circumvent the SC, "intelligent design" gets tossed around now by tons of religious folks, and not just fundamentalists, because the terms SOUNDS like some form of theistic evolution. It's how it gets said out loud in school boards across the country even by non-fundamentalists. Because these people have found comfort in being disingenuous while trying to get allies. They are perfectly happy to confuse people with this term if it means getting their way in classrooms.

If you ever hear someone that's not a known fundamentalist use the term Intelligent Design" you ought to question them on its use. Chances are, they have no clue what it really means and even less about its dubious origins.

I agree, but I get so frustrated with the tactic: state something that is not an evolution tenet, then attack that.

quote:

---

It is pretty disappointing that the usual cast of nutjob characters didn't come to play in this one.

---

There is a bit of nostalgia in that regard, isn't there? But honestly, I waste enough time here already! Not sure I could lose an entire Friday doing this today!

quote:

---

I miss the days of Pinecones and Elephants

---

Yeah, no doubt. I wish I could have the hours back I wasted arguing with those yahoos until 2 in the morning on countless nights, though.

You know, I'm not saying it was BECAUSE of this move, but it was right about the time that these discussion threads were BANNED from the PoliBoard that the PoliBoard became the toiletbowl you see today. Sure, it always leaned far right, but you could actually have a discussion on there and get a point across and even though there would be name calling, it was possible to have a long thread where ideas were exchanged and issues hashed out. That is impossible there now. I sometimes just click over there just to see the headlines and laugh to myself...

Even that chart is BS. It shows a massive dip in world population due to the plague. Yet the plague didn't decimate Asian populations. And Asians make up over half the current world population.

So there is no mathematic formula that can justify the spike in this century, when we know humans have lived to the age of 70 since before Roman rule, and there were triple and quadruple the number of births per family in past generations

Add to that the fact that language, domestication of animals, farming techniques are all traced back to a geographic area in Turkey 8,000 years ago, casts doubt on the ability of random evolution events sprouting a worldwide population from as far back as 50,000 years ago

Science Mag

And it was the same in the 1300s, when the plague 'supposedly' decimated human populations

Human - as in Asians, and Africans too

translation: it didnt