How anti-evolution bills evolve An evolutionary biologist has analyzed political opposition to evolution and found it has evolved Date: December 17, 2015 Source: Australian National University http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217151641.htm Summary: An evolutionary biologist has analyzed political opposition to evolution and found it has evolved. The researcher analyzed the text in anti-evolution legislation using software for building genetic family trees. He found the different bills presented in different legislatures shared traits and relationships in a similar way to plants and animals. Dr Matzke analysed 65 bills proposed since 2004, the year the landmark Kitzmiller versus Dover case began; in 2005 the court ruled that teaching intelligent design in schools violated the United States Constitution. He traced how the lines of argument were copied and modified in successive anti-evolution campaigns. "Creationism is getting stealthier in the wake of legal defeats, but techniques from the study of evolution reveal how creationist legislation is evolving," Dr Matzke said. ...
Is that from The Onion CC?
Is that from The Onion CC?The Onion is funny because the ludicrousness of its articles are often only slightly removed from actual happenings. In this case, despite the almost incredible irony of creationism, itself, "evolving", I did not suspect it to be satire.
And so, they get stealthier...good to know. Get in front of it. Perhaps this model has some predictive properties to show how the creationists are creating it...It said in the article that they copied old lines of arguments and presented them in alternate contexts.
A difference between creationists and evolutionists: Creationists believe the chicken came first, then the egg inside them ready to fertilize and hatch. Evolutionists believe the egg came first with a new breed of bird evolving out of each of them, one step or permutation at a time to survive.I recall some time ago posting on this forum "Which Came First" where I explained how the egg came first (with some sense of pride that I had come up with a definitive answer to the age old question). Now you tell me that all evolutionists already knew that. Darn.
Is that from The Onion CC?The Onion is funny because the ludicrousness of its articles are often only slightly removed from actual happenings. In this case, despite the almost incredible irony of creationism, itself, "evolving", I did not suspect it to be satire. Evolutionists evolve, creationists devolve. To bad they couldn't put all that wasted effort into learning something valid.
I recall some time ago posting on this forum "Which Came First" where I explained how the egg came first (with some sense of pride that I had come up with a definitive answer to the age old question). Now you tell me that all evolutionists already knew that. Darn.At least you can rest assured that great minds do think alike.