Comments on: Five Reasons Anti-Evolution Measures are a Bad Idea

By: Do the Evolution « Flux in, Flux out with Gemma Sidney

Do the Evolution « Flux in, Flux out with Gemma Sidney — Tue, 17 May 2011 10:40:34 +0000

[...] teachers presenting intelligent design and creationism alongside evolutionary theory in classrooms. Smithsonian.com give five pretty good reasons why anti-evolution measures are a bad idea. Here’s a [...]

By: Why Scientific Ignorance Can Kill You | Surprising Science

Why Scientific Ignorance Can Kill You | Surprising Science — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:27:10 +0000

[...] This is just one more reason why everyone needs a solid base in science, and one more reason to worry when reading stories about how science education is being neglected or actively undermined. [...]

By: einar

einar — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:17:27 +0000

In response to Budd, who says: “Maybe a magical God doesn’t sound scientific, but neither does nothingness suddenly blowing up and creating somethingness.”

Isn’t it just as strange that an allmighty God appeared from nothingness? Perhaps the creation of God is not discussable?

By: Mike Naughton

Mike Naughton — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 02:59:12 +0000

I think creationism is more of a philosophy than anything else. The fact that evolution occurs is indisputable; it happens in EVERYTHING, not just biological structures. The cause of that evolution might be disputable (random versus preordained), but evolution itself is not. So I agree. Teach the God stuff in philosophy and teach about the evolutionary process in biology.

By: WilliamB

WilliamB — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:54:23 +0000

I think the Evolutionists are missing a trick. They’re lettin the anti-science groups set the agenda. The Creationists and Alternate Theoryists say, in essence, “Look at all these things wrong with Evolution, [insert long list]. Instead let’s believe in Creationism.”

I have yet to see Creationism subjected to the same scrutiny: “Look at all these things wrong with Creationism [insert long list, such as - doesn't explain the world without a lot of handwavium, doesn't hold up to repeated experiment, etc].”

By: Amy Fink

Amy Fink — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:05:54 +0000

I teach this topic to my science writing students. We examine and “argue” rhetorically –both poits of view using scientific articles of substance. The consensus? Darwinism is a paradigm shift. –af

By: Budd

Budd — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:08:40 +0000

Not sure how/when science and religion became enemies, but I don’t see the two as being exclusive at all. In fact, God would have had a system (science) to create the world. Science needs an ignition (God) for the creation of something where there once was nothing. Maybe a magical God doesn’t sound scientific, but neither does nothingness suddenly blowing up and creating somethingness.

By: Catherine Shteynberg

Catherine Shteynberg — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 15:24:35 +0000

Great blog post, and I’m in agreement with all of your points.

I did want to point out though, that the photo you use to illustrate your post is actually in the Smithsonian Institution Archives’ collections (also posted to the Wikimedia Commons). If you and your readers want to check out more photos of the famous trial from the Archives’ collections, check out our Smithsonian Flickr Commons set here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/sets/72157607580371997

Cheers,
Catherine Shteynberg
Smithsonian Institution Archives