I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
Presumably the “you” refers to Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale.
Don’t you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof? After all, unlike black holes, God, and evolution, this is one theory that we should have the answer to sooner or later, and frankly, it doesn’t look good for genetics.
My wife and I recently let our membership in the CBLDF expire, we’re broke due to a new baby, but with my next paycheck I’m rejoining.
I’m just awed that in this “enlightened age” there can still be so much hate.
Peace,
Doug
Does that mean that we have to “prove” that so-called white holes (theroretical counterpart to black holes) exist before we can include them in books available in public libraries? Is the Bible going to be banned under this law? By some accunts, the relationship between David and Jonathan had a homosexual aspect to it.
And where is the PROOF that God exists? Is it a matter of fact, or faith? For that matter, evolution is still just a theory. You can’t prove it happens, you can just make some observations and draw a conclusions. Black holes are a little more fact than theory, but are still based on observations, and not direct proof.
Part of me actually wants to see this law get passed, and then see the uproar when the Bible gets banned by it.
As stupid and backwards as this law is, I do not see it as a free speech issue. Free speech is only violated if the government bans the possession or sale of an item based on content. Setting procurement policies based on content is not unconstitutional, just usually silly. CBLDF is wasting their time with this.
As for saying that homosexuality is not strongly influenced by genetics, you must be reading something that I’m not.
I’m with eclark1849, the law is half-right (the half-right portion being that there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait.)
>>Does that mean that we have to “prove” that so-called white holes (theroretical counterpart to black holes) exist before we can include them in books available in public libraries?
Fiction or non-fiction? Do they “theoretically exist” due to observation or consequences of the mathematics behind current astronomical physics?
>>Is the Bible going to be banned under this law?
It should get the axe.
>>For that matter, evolution is still just a theory.
We celebrate the centennial of the *THEORY* of Special Relativity next year. In about twenty years, we’ll celebrate the *THEORY* of General Relativity which repealed the LAW OF GRAVITY! Discounting evolution merely because science has it labled as a theory is an ignorant action.
I think saying that it’s not about free speech but about a procurement policy is precisely the thin end of the wedge that the legislator is trying to use. And once people try to circumvent the spirit of the law by using the letter of the law then they might as well ignore the letter as well.
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing? What is this obsession with homosexuality with being the most immoral act that anyone can possibly contemplate?
Ok, I’m a conservative, and I disagree strongly with this moron. I think most people do. I expect this won’t pass, even in Alabama. We’ll see I guess.
I just hope people get as upset when some group starts suing because schools or public libraries have books that “promote religion” in any way, because it’s going to happen.
There’s never, ever, ever, ever, ever any reason to ban a book from a public library. At the most, you might control access (through parental permisions of some sort) for certain adult books.
Now when you get to textbooks, that’s a whole nother problem, which is a pretty sticky issue. What should and should not be taught/discussed in schools will never be an easy answer.
Don’t you think that science should first be able to prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait before we start teaching it as proof?
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot “prove” anything. That ain’t how the process works.
Second, I frankly have yet to see any textbooks simply assert that homosexuality is purely genetic, so your argument has a fair bit of straw sticking out of it. (It’s also looking at only a tiny piece of the law rather than the entire law, but that’s another issue.)
The way I’m reading that portion of the law is that textbooks can’t even acknowledge the *possibility* that homosexuality has a genetic component, and that steadfast a denial flies so far in the face of most studies that it’s laughable.
And speaking of textbooks and laughable … someone at Swarthmore has made a bunch of other “warning labels” for textbooks in light of the Cobb County, GA decision to put warning stickers on books teaching evolution. Worth a look and a chuckle.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/
TWL
I’m just awed that in this “enlightened age” there can still be so much hate.
No, the only “enlightenment” these days is what god has to say about this and that.
This country is moving in full reverse.
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing? What is this obsession with homosexuality with being the most immoral act that anyone can possibly contemplate?
That’s a question I would like someone to answer. The Bible condemns a whole host of behaviors. Setting aside those things that are common practice today, like wearing clothes made from two different kinds of cloth or mixing your meat and dairy (cheeseburger, anyone?), there are still very strong condemnations for murder, rape, theft, etc, throughout the book. Homosexuality rates only two explicit mentions: One in Leviticus and one in Romans.
So, let’s accept for a moment that homosexuality is a sin, what makes it the absolute worse sin imaginable these days?
Because its consensual.
I like Gaiman’s question about whether or not libraries would be able to stock books in series with gay characters from before the character was revealed to be gay. I immediately thought of Buffy books written or set during Seasons 1-3 (and part of 4) and X-Men trades collecting the early appearances of Alpha Flight.
Tim Lynch wrote…
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot “prove” anything. That ain’t how the process works.
Quoted for truth…some people really need to do some research into what science is before they start flapping their jaws.
Den, I think homosexuality is just a “good target” for religious conservatives who want to legislate morality/religion.
On the other hand, passages from the Bible (and I apologize, I’m not one able to cite chapter and verse, but I’ve read it) speak about a man laying with another man as he does with a woman as “abomination to God.” Or something like that. So while Murder, Rape, theft, gluttony, are all sins in the eyes of God and to be avoided, something that is an abomination might actually rank higher in terms of things you want to avoid.
Which might explain why religious conservatives are spending so much energy on aboloshing tolerance for homosexuality.
I dunno…I’m usually one who’s good for finding justifications for things (you should hear some of the things I’ve come up with to explain “science” in Star Trek), but this is the best I can do. Someone else want to take a stab?
From Jeff Lawson “”Tim Lynch wrote…
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot “prove” anything. That ain’t how the process works.
Quoted for truth…some people really need to do some research into what science is before they start flapping their jaws.”
There’s a difference between what science has proved, and the facts used to reach that conclusion. Something is often accepted as proven before it is actually scientifically proved. Black holes are a good example. Our observational evidence strongly suggests they exist. But just 10 years ago, it was accepted as fact (and thus proven) that nothing escaped from a black hole…not light, not mass, not anything. Yet now we observe that, in fact, black holes give off radiation.
The point being that people ofte accept scientific proofs, at least until some new fact arrives that changes the theory.
Wow, that seems a lot more convoluted that I thought it would seem….my head’s starting to hurt again…
So while Murder, Rape, theft, gluttony, are all sins in the eyes of God and to be avoided, something that is an abomination might actually rank higher in terms of things you want to avoid.
I don’t know that simply using the word “abomination” qualifies as making it a worse sin. That then opens up the question about the other things in Leviticus that are also “abominations” like a man shaving his beard or the various dietary laws.
Well, yeah, I fully expect a rider attached to that proposed bill banning books that depict men shaving…
Which, of course, just goes to show you how far I was reaching in trying to come up with a rationale for targeting homosexuality.
Maybe it’s just good political coin? Sections of the voting public seem to be in a mindset to restrict the rights and tolerance of homosexual acts, so why not test how far they can push it?
There’s never, ever, ever, ever, ever any reason to ban a book from a public library. At the most, you might control access (through parental permisions of some sort) for certain adult books.
As I understand it, this is not an issue of a “public” library, but a school library. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say you would only include books a student can check out.
I am a strong conservative. I think homosexuality is not genetic and it is wrong. But I think the proposed law is ridiculous. Banning something only results in turning it into a “forbidden fruit.”
I think there should be a little more restraint in regards to age appropriate materials. “Heather Has Two Mommies” being read to a First grader is propoganda (if done against a parents wishes) because the kid is not old enough to deal with these concepts. Whether you agree with the parent or not, there is no doubt that you are interfering at a stage when a child cannot fully understand an issue.
A book with active gay characters for a ninth grader is a totally different matter. Then it becomes a matter of whether it is sexually explicit or not. We don’t put copies of Playboy or Playgirl in the school library, nor should we put in the literary equivalent. But to say a book that portrays a gay character in a good light be banned is pointless and absurd.
What I find fascinating is that a type of banning is already taking place. A high school student was not allowed to read “Pilgrims Progress” for a book report. I am not talking about it being required for the whole class. I am talking about it being banned for an individual student who was choosing to read the book. A Thanksgiving poem an elementary student wrote had the word “God” removed from it before it was posted on the wall (the class had voted it as the best).
Other than for some common sense, age appropriate issues, I think book banning is always a bad idea. If for no other reason, it is because it cuts both ways. If a book with a “gay” character is banned, a book with a positive “Christian” character may be banned next. If a book suggesting being gay “is” genetic is banned, then a book suggesting being gay “is not” genetic could later be banned when opponents gain the upper hand.
One final thought: This was proposed by one lawmaker. I am not suggesting you ignore it, but keep it in perspective. There are a lot of weird, stupid, and absurd ideas thrown out there. I suspect this won’t even get off of the ground. Don’t ignore it, but there are a very large number of conservative Christians who do not agree with this approach.
Jim in Iowa
kingbobb wrote…
Something is often accepted as proven before it is actually scientifically proved.
But what I’m trying to say is that nothing can be proven by science. Nothing ever has been, and nothing ever will be, because that’s not what science is all about.
Thus, attacking something on the grounds that there is no “scientific proof” to back it up is a pointless excercise.
That’s a question I would like someone to answer. The Bible condemns a whole host of behaviors. Setting aside those things that are common practice today, like wearing clothes made from two different kinds of cloth or mixing your meat and dairy (cheeseburger, anyone?), there are still very strong condemnations for murder, rape, theft, etc, throughout the book. Homosexuality rates only two explicit mentions: One in Leviticus and one in Romans.
So, let’s accept for a moment that homosexuality is a sin, what makes it the absolute worse sin imaginable these days?
As with all groups, you have extremes. The extreme part of conservative Christians do treat this as the worst sin imaginable. However, I would suggest that they are not alone in this. I have run into many who are in no way Christian or religious who truly hate gay people (as well as hating Christians). For most of the extreme, they find any excuse they can to hate something, it is not really founded on a well thought out religious foundation.
In regards to most conservative Christians, while there is not the hatred for gays, it is true that this “sin” is often more focused on than others. I would suggest two reasons. James Dobson is an example of the first: We (since I am part of this group) see it as destroying families and the traiditonal value of marriage. Out of this group you will find marriage seminars, and a strong condemnation of divorce. This goes beyond just the “gay” issue. This has to do with a conviction that the family is the foundation of a society. It is where children are raised and values are taught. The opposition to gay marriage is based on a belief that any alternative to one man and one woman being married for life is harmful to the very fabric of society. Living together before marriage, teen sex, etc., are all also talked about and defined as wrong.
The second reason is based in a belief that the authority of the Bible is being attacked. (While I agree it is, I do not agree with how the mainstream of this group reacts). Since the Bible says homosexual practices are an abomination, then some in this group almost feel compelled that they have to scream this at anyone who will listen. I don’t agree with that practice, but clearly there are some who do.
One final note: There are some commands in the Bible that were only given to the Jews, not to all of mankind. They were given for specific reasons, primarily to set them apart to play a specific role in the world of that day. Other commands were clearly given to all of the world. When you read the Old Testament, God never judges Israel’s neighbors for “eating a cheeseburger” or for wearing clothes with two different fabrics. He does condemn Irsael’s neighbors (and Israel, when they were guilty) for rape, murder, and for killing children as a sacrifice to an idol. It is important when reading the Bible to study it and understand what it is saying, just as you would with any book you would read. Because homosexuality is condemned in a variety of settings and passages, I believe the condemnation is universal and not tied to one specific context.
Jim in Iowa
Jeff Lawson…
Yes, I was trying to get to that, but in my long-windedness, I missed the point.
Science can only prove something based on known facts. Take the Law of Gravity. Proven by science…until some new fact comes along that changes what the Law is.
See also: World is Flat, Sun revolves around the earth, Coke is Better than Pepsi, and asbestos is good…I mean bad…I mean good….
Jim in Iowa,
From what I have read on Mr. Gaiman’s blog as well as the newspaper article that he links to (with quotes by Rep. Allen), it is not only school libraries that would be subject to this ban, but all public libraries that receive state funds. What public library does not receive funds from the state? Also, not only fictional books that portrayed homosexuals with “in a positive light” would be subject to the laws restrictions, but books with any homosexual characters.
I’d guess that is what prompted the comments about the Bible being banned by this law. I dunno. Anyone know if there are any people in the Bible aknowledged as homesexuals, with good or bad portrayal?
Jeff wrote: But what I’m trying to say is that nothing can be proven by science. Nothing ever has been, and nothing ever will be, because that’s not what science is all about.
What then is science about? Please define what you mean because in a practical way what you say makes no sense. For example, we *do* know that someone has brown eyes because of their DNA. In fact, it is at least possible that someday we can go in and change that DNA so someone is born with green eyes. If homosexuality is genetic, then it is at least theoretically possible to go in one day and change the DNA to eliminate it.
From a practical standpoint, it should be possible to one day *demonstrate* (if you don’t like the word “prove”) whether being gay is truly genetic. As one poster said above, the evidence does not yet demonstrate that it is.
Jim in Iowa
Why don’t they just make a law that bans stupid people?
I would say that “because it is consensual” as a reason to go after homosexuality vs murder/rape/theft is the -worst- reason from both a practical and theological reason. Two people engaging in a mutual sin can work it out with the Maker when they report for judgement. That poor fellow getting clocked in the head with a brick would probably appreciate a little more timely intervention.
Anyone know if there are any people in the Bible aknowledged as homesexuals, with good or bad portrayal?
The short answer is no. There are no portrayls in narrative form of a single gay person. A few have suggested that David & Jonathan, or Jesus & John, were gay. Such suggestions have absolutely no foundation within what is actually written in the biblical text. (Since the Bible goes to great lenghts to tell of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and its consequences, it is absurd to suggest that David was gay and the Bible says nothing about it. If you think we are homophobic today, it was even more so then. These suggestions are just desperate attempts to find an example in the Bible.)
The only other mentions of homosexual actions (in the books of the Law and in Paul’s letters) are all negative.
Jim in Iowa
MP –
“As stupid and backwards as this law is, I do not see it as a free speech issue. Free speech is only violated if the government bans the possession or sale of an item based on content. Setting procurement policies based on content is not unconstitutional, just usually silly. CBLDF is wasting their time with this.”
It is a free speech issue.
1) The proposed law doesn’t say that libraries cannot buy the books, It says that libraries cannot OFFER the books. Which means that if someone was to buy the books from their own money & donate them to the libraries, they wouldn’t be allowed to accept the books because the law doesn’t allow the libraries to offer them.
2) One of the reasons that public libraries came into existance was because few people can afford to buy all the books they want to read, so libraries allow people to borrow them. If libraries are not allowed to carry books because of they express a viewpoint, then people who have to borrow the books they cannot afford are being restricted (at least in part) from taking part in that viewpoint.
Jim in Iowa
Some interpretations of David and Jonathon do suggest that the language supports a gay/bisexual aspect to David. The part where they lay down in the field together and wept, until David expired or succumbed or various other interpretations suggest that they in fact engaged in sex.
I’m not up on all the various translations, but it’s out there.
Although as far as I know, that’s the only place where the Bible can be said to even come close to describing a homosexual/bi-sexual relationship. And you need to be able to do some scriptural acrobatics to get there.
Personally I think we need more lawmakers like this. This proposal is just so stupid, that even if it passes thru some miracle, it will end up being struck down by the courts. Then, maybe, we can get some legislatures in place that worry more about the correct way to spend our money and enact laws that actually help us.
Sometimes you gotta let the idiots get up and say things, so we know who they are.
MP said “Because its consensual.”
Was that in rersponse to Den’s “So, let’s accept for a moment that homosexuality is a sin, what makes it the absolute worse sin imaginable these days?”
Because if it was, please go kill yourself, you’re saying that a homosexual that rapes someone is less of a sinner than two consenting adults of the same gender…
Luckily there is no god and all this “sin” crap is moot anyway
When you read the Old Testament, God never judges Israel’s neighbors for “eating a cheeseburger” or for wearing clothes with two different fabrics. He does condemn Irsael’s neighbors (and Israel, when they were guilty) for rape, murder, and for killing children as a sacrifice to an idol. It is important when reading the Bible to study it and understand what it is saying, just as you would with any book you would read. Because homosexuality is condemned in a variety of settings and passages, I believe the condemnation is universal and not tied to one specific context.
That maybe so, but it does not explain why so many conservatives like Fred Phelps (and I am aware that intolerance of gays is not only practiced by conservative Christians) openly state that homosexuality is *worse* that murder or rape.
It is a free speech issue.
1) The proposed law doesn’t say that libraries cannot buy the books, It says that libraries cannot OFFER the books. Which means that if someone was to buy the books from their own money & donate them to the libraries, they wouldn’t be allowed to accept the books because the law doesn’t allow the libraries to offer them.
The law goes even further than that, as it would prevent even university libraries from offering books that discussed homosexuality or even offer them for discussion in a class. Also, university theater groups would be banned from putting plays like “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”
So, whether or not you think that the issue of homosexuality is appropriate for K-12 public school kids, how many think that college students aren’t able to handle a frank discussion about homosexuality?
That maybe so, but it does not explain why so many conservatives like Fred Phelps (and I am aware that intolerance of gays is not only practiced by conservative Christians) openly state that homosexuality is *worse* that murder or rape.
As stated above, there are extemes on any position. Fred Phelps is very much in the extreme camp. I went to some very conservative Christian schools and am very much aware of the mainstream of conservative Christian thinking and writings on these issues. They would strongly disagree with Phelps. While I believe accepting homosexuality will harm society, there is absolutely no question that an act of rape or murder is far more immediate and harmful.
At every church I have been a part of (both Baptist and non-denominational), someone who is gay could attend. We would tell them they were sinning and needed to change, but we would not treat them as a criminal. If someone was guilty of murder, rape, child abuse, etc., we would turn them in to the authorities and tell them they were not welcome unless they repented and changed. This is the norm from most churches. The example you give is the exception.
Jim in Iowa
So, whether or not you think that the issue of homosexuality is appropriate for K-12 public school kids, how many think that college students aren’t able to handle a frank discussion about homosexuality?
I agree. If that is the law being suggested, it is wrong and should be defeated. I think that, other than sexually explicit materials, that even high schoolers are capable of handling the issue.
Jim in Iowa
Go state rights. Don’t worry about pìššìņg øff New Yorkers and Europeans.
Glenn Hauman: I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters…
Luigi Novi: I was confused by this wording until I looked below and saw that it wasn
“Personally I think we need more lawmakers like this. This proposal is just so stupid, that even if it passes thru some miracle, it will end up being struck down by the courts. Then, maybe, we can get some legislatures in place that worry more about the correct way to spend our money and enact laws that actually help us.”
Actually what we would get is people screaming about “activist judges”, and judges, suers, etc. bypassing the legislative process. Then the idiot legislators will ride that wave to re-election.
*sigh*
What then is science about? Please define what you mean because in a practical way what you say makes no sense. For example, we *do* know that someone has brown eyes because of their DNA. In fact, it is at least possible that someday we can go in and change that DNA so someone is born with green eyes. If homosexuality is genetic, then it is at least theoretically possible to go in one day and change the DNA to eliminate it.
Science is about collection data through observation and experimentation and then drawing rational conclusions based on the best available evidence. Scientists in general avoid stating that anything is “proven” conclusively. Instead, they say things like “the data supports this conclusion.”
Theories are basically interpretive models that best fit the available evidence.
Theories change over time as new data is collected that contradicts previous assumptions. If you look at the theory of atom structure in the early 1900s, everyone believed that atoms (Greek for “inseparable”) were the smallest particle of matter and nothing could exist that was smaller than an atom. Then the electron was discovered and later, the proton and neutron and even smaller, still, quarks. Our modern picture of what atoms “look” like is very different today than it was a century ago.
Laws, on the other hand, are principles in which the underlying assumptions are considered “settled.” Newtons Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravity today are considered special cases in the theories of Special and General Relativity, respectively, but nobody challenges their underlying assumptions. Very few things in science are considered Laws and nearly all of them were discovered centuries ago.
People who say that evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools because it’s “just a theory” are displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of these basic scientific terms. 90% of everything taught in science classes today are “just theories,” but they’re theories that have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community. They have been tested through experimentation and observation and have held up.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, despite what many of its supporters claim. Creationism starts with a conclusion (God created the world 6000 years ago) and then tries to tailor observations to fit that conclusion. That is the cardinal sin (excuse the phrase) of the scientific method. Read scientists accept that their theories may be overturned by new data that contradicts their previsiously held assumptions. Could some new observations that contradicts evolution be found? Sure, but given that 99% of our current understanding of biology and genetics is based on the assumption that evolution is a process by which species find ways to adapt to a changing environmental, such an observation would be equivalent to conclusive proof that the world is indeed flat.
Jim in Iowa wrote…
What then is science about? Please define what you mean because in a practical way what you say makes no sense.
Happy to. The definition of “science” is “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”
The key word here is “theoretical.” Science is fluid, and what most people consider to be “proof” is merely the theory that has the most empirical support. A cornerstone of the scientific method is that no hypothesis or theory can be proven; it can only be disproven.
Basically, a scientific theory only holds up until someone proves it wrong, in which case it must be revised or discarded. You can never “prove” a scientific theory – at best you can fail to disprove it.
To take your example, there is plenty of evidence that eye colour is related to DNA – it’s about as close to “proven” as science can get. But the fact is, a discovery could be made any time that eye colour is not 100% determined by genetics, and a new theory would have to come forward.
Hope that makes sense, and I also hope that it’s not interpreted as a criticism of science, as I’m scientifically trained myself and am a big believer in it.
I’m Christian, and I do believe that homosexuality is wrong. I don’t believe that it’s worse than rape or murder. What I think is one of the reasons there is such a reaction to it is the fact that it’s becoming so accepted. People would be acting the same way if rape was becoming more accepted, though I think rejecting it would be a lot more universally embraced.
As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under. It is spoken against in Romans, and that is the basis of what Christians use (or should use) for our stance against homosexuality.
I also don’t think it matters if homosexuality is genetic. People enjoy having sex, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right to have it outside of marriage. If a husband find someone other than his wife attractive, it would still be wrong for him to have sex with her, regardless of what his genetics tell him.
“The part where they lay down in the field together and wept, until David expired or succumbed or various other interpretations suggest that they in fact engaged in sex.”
Well,apparently I’ve been doing it wrong all these years since all of my partners are still alive and breathing. Traumatized perhaps, questioning their committment to heterosexuality, sure, but still breathing.
What I find fascinating is that a type of banning is already taking place. A high school student was not allowed to read “Pilgrims Progress” for a book report. I am not talking about it being required for the whole class. I am talking about it being banned for an individual student who was choosing to read the book. A Thanksgiving poem an elementary student wrote had the word “God” removed from it before it was posted on the wall (the class had voted it as the best).
Jim, I agree that these actions of censorship are wrong and I would support these students if they wanted to argue that Pilgrim’s Progress should be read for a book report or that a student’s poem should displayed uncensored.
Yeah, it’s true, both liberals and conservatives have engaged in censorship. That’s a shocking bit of news and one of the many reasons why I remain a registered independent.
What I would like to know is, why do so many conservatives preach the magic of the market place as the solution to health care funding, environmental cleanup, and social security and yet turn around and want the government to censor TV and radio and like Mr. Allen in Alabama, want to censor public libraries and universities? Why preach about limited government in the boardroom but call for more government in the bedroom?
Luigi Novi
What defines a scientific fact? And what is evolution that has been proven? Is it evolution in the sense that species adapt to changes in their ennvironment over time, and those species that are able to make the best adaptations succeed, while those that do not fail and fall into extinction? Or is it simply the idea that species respond to their environment in various ways, including social, physical, and physiological ways, to adapt to changing conditions?
In what way is this a fact? A fact is something like this: A train hits a car. The car gets smashed. It’s caught on tape. It is a FACT, that the train hit the car, and smashed it.
Here’s a theory: We see a wrecked train and a smashed car. The car bears evidence that it was struck by the train. But no one saw it, there’s no tape. The facts are that we have a wrecked train and a smashed car. The THEORY is that the train hit the car and smashed it. Backed up by facts, supported by evidence, but not proven. It will always be a theory.
Evolution is like the second example. The evidence strongly supports the theory that species evolve over time. But we can’t for a fact say that they do. Or that the most well-adapted species is the one that succeeds.
Science can only prove something based on known facts.
Sorry, kingbobb, but this is on some level still missing the point.
Science cannot prove anything to be 100% correct. Ever. Our given level of understanding — be it Newtonian mechanics, Darwinian evolution, general relativity, what have you — is always understood to be “correct until demonstrated to be otherwise”, but not proven. “Proven” implies a level of permanence that is unverifiable.
As a result, calling something “just a theory” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works (and I know you didn’t, but lots of people do, including Luigi just recently in this thread). Calling X a “theory”, scientifically, is the highest level anything’s gonna reach. A theory is a working model that explains the observations in question, and predicts about the outcomes of future tests.
A theory’s the closest approximation any explanation can get to being factual — it’s essentially classified as “factual so far as we know.”
Newtonian mechanics is a theory, and a dámņëd good one. When special and general relativity came along, they didn’t so much say Newton was wrong as that he was incomplete: at normal everyday levels, both theories make the same predictions, and they only diverge significantly under conditions Newton hadn’t been able to envision or to test (speeds approaching c and/or intense gravitational fields). That’s how the process works — every theory is “the state of current understanding”, and it’s always understood that the theory can and will be modified in the face of future tests.
Thus, Luigi’s right that calling evolution “just a theory” is silly — but not for his reasons.
Sorry for a bit of a rant there — but as a science teacher with (a) a background in cosmology and (b) a wife who’s an evolutionary biologist, my eyeballs tend to ignite in the face of the “just a theory” argument.
(Hey, you think that’s a rant, you should’ve seen what I wrote when TNG’s “The Chase” aired all those years ago. Hoooooooo boy.)
TWL
Isn’t something like this what we’re supposedly fighting to prevent in Iraq?
Geez, looks like Den, Jeff and I all leapt at the same topic there. Well, at least the scientific erudition of the thread just amped up a few notches. 🙂
TWL
First, let me say this: The world definitely needs t-shirts that say “Rule #1: Don’t fûçk with librarians.” Thanks for the idea, Neil!
Second, this law (if it passes) would be funny if it wasn’t so threatening. We have a president who says he’s determined to write discrimination into the Constitution to ban gay marriages; now there’s someone who wants to cut funding for any book that “promotes” homosexuality? Judging by some of the examples listed, “promoting” seems to be “including, but not in a wholly negative light.” This is an attempt to eradicate the very *idea* that homosexuality isn’t evil. And in the (ahem) evolution of any minority group’s rights, a key factor is that of role models, such as these books might have.
(Incidentally, there’s a very strong homosexual feel to one chapter of MOBY ÐÍÇK. Would this be on the chopping block too? Or would they cut out the chapters that are “gayer” than others?)
Also, would this law extend to movies? No movies with a gay best friend (MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING, FRANKIE & JOHNNY), no movies with any hint of homosexuality (the full version of SPARTACUS)… The list goes on.
I’ll laugh about this if it fails. I’ll weep if it passes. (And after the last presidential election, don’t tell me it will never pass.)
“As far as comparing homosexuality to wearing clothes of different cloths and eating a cheeseburger, that was part of the law of Moses, something which Christians are not under.”
Really? Last I checked the Old testament was still part of the bible. The 10 Commandments are still in effect. In fact, if you’ve done any theology at all, you would know that the laws that Jesus presented to his followers were meant to be extensions of existing Mosaic law; that is to say that the Mosaic law was appropriate for a people of a certain social development, and the ‘modern’ people of Jesus’s time were ready for more restrictive laws. The Bible is meant to be a whole, not something that we pick and choose from.
That being said, people generally understand that many of the passages in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally; the point is to help drive the moral compass. This is why most modern Christians don’t have a problem with outright dismissing many of the morality clauses listed in the Bible (other folks have enumerated many of the more absurd ones).
Last I checked, however, the driving force behind the Christian moral code is the 10 commandments and, if you are Catholic, you can add the seven deadly sins. Nowhere on either list does homosexuality appear. Not only isn’t it the worst thing you can do (so much was God not concerned by it that he didn’t bother mentioning it when he explicitly laid down the law to Moses), it doesn’t even make the top 17.
People who are truly concerned about marriage should wage a war against divorce; half of marriages in the US end in divorce. Divorce is something that is strictly and explicitly forbidden in the Bible (what God has joined, let no man tear apart). For that matter, adultery is one of the leading causes (or in the very least one of the most overt symptoms) of a divorce AND it is explicitly forbidden in the 10 Commandments. Why is it, then, that these so-called “moral majority” legislatures aren’t passing laws more strict against adultery? Why are so many of them caught in adulterous acts themselves?
The practice of picking and choosing which (obscure) parts of the Bible to pay attention to, and which you can ignore, is a very, very common practice for bigots. You can listen to many white supremacists who will swear that the Bible tells them to hate Jews (odd considering that Jesus considered himself a pious Jew). Others will use the Bible to support racism in general (which also is odd given that Jesus was middle-eastern and most likely had dark if not black skin despite the anglo-centric images that are so popular today).
This is a hot-button issue that is very popular today, and will likely continue to be popular in the near future. Much larger crimes such as corporate fraud, murder, state-sponsored murder (which, by the way, is also a sin), unjust war, rape, and on and on are largely ignored for the issues that play on the emotions at the surface. Right now, homosexual-fearing bigots are easy targets, and easy targets require less work.
Simple as that.
Phinn
Ahhhh, Tim Lynch, took me a while to see how what I said and what you said were different. Yes, my use of “prove” includes the basic conceit that science only makes conclusions based on known facts and observations.
What’s interesting to me about all of this is the intersection of various studies here: science (Tim Lynch); law (me) and Luigi Novi…who I don’t know enough about to classify as a discipline, but presents good arguments.