Steve Jobs in iPhone bitchslap to creationists, Tea Party Steve Jobs' App Store for Apple's famous iOS devices - the iPhone, iPad et al - is no stranger to controversy lately. The company has been happy to take a firm and positive stance on various issues, weeding from its lucrative walled garden any dissenting program. Now, Apple has taken a stance which will upset a lot of …
"There's people on the street getting diseases from monkeys
Yeah that's what I said, their getting diseases from monkeys
Whys this happening, please, whose been touching these monkeys
Leave these poor sick monkeys alone
There sick, they've got problems enough as it is."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEK0UZH4cs
I thought you guys were a little more up to date with this. Perhaps you would like to read The Origin of the species by Charles Darwin which contains the theory of Natural selection first published in 1859
So what stance is Apple taking here? Allowing the publishing of evolution theory as put forth by Charles Darwin. oh tsk tsk naughty Apple
Trust me, Marky W, us americans ( USA folks, more specifically ) find the whole creationist/ID argument more than a little scary. It's downright terrifying to many of us that, in this day and age, we find ourselves having these mid-evil arguments.
Any day I expect the "flat earth" argument to make a comeback.
... for lending some balance here! It seems this debate is more centred around those who are anti- 'any creationist' or anti- 'any evolutionary theory' ... and should not really be a debate except for the press and some populist authors choosing to represent the extreme views as it gets more hits. Full marks to Apple for allowing observable theories to be made public - that in my mind,are a very different issue to pornography which is a moral issue. Still, Saint jobs is a curious fellow as not many corporates even bother with morality unless it is might get them sued.
It is not the case that Darwin still had strong religious beleiefs after the publication of the Origin of Species. His faith was strongly shaken by the deaths of his beloved youngest daughter. He did temper his scepticism in public as his wife was highly religious and this distressed her.
The following extract from his autobiography best expresses his views later in life. It should be noted that some of the wording was changed
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm
The first version of the autobiography was edited (more accurately, censored), to protect the religious feelings of his widow Emma. The original content was restored by his grand daughter in 1958.
It's safe to say that, later in life, whilst Charles Darwin was not an out-and-out fundamentalist atheist in denying the possibility of any god, he was by now means convinced that one existed (or that creation was necessary). After all, at that point in time, there was no real evidence of a Universe with a defined beginning. Consensus on that wasn't reached until the 1950s/60s.
Darwin was born into a religious family, as were most back in the day, he even studied at a seminary and followed religion until later in his life when he found it harder and harder to maintian that religion in the face of all the scientific research he was conducting. Now I'm not saying he didn't believe in God at some point but later in his life he did renounce God and christianity. So to say that he viewed evolution as a process which God started is just not the case.
@mrmond
"Modern evolution theory is as similar to Darwin as an i7 quad core is to Babbage's analytical engine"
We, as a species, progress our technology and our knowledge with each passing generation. I thought that would be obvious.
Yes, but the Register article was merely being heavily sarcastic here, noting that this seemed to be an exception to Apple's usual policy, which seems to be to ban everything which might offend anyone. And, sadly, in the United States, there are a lot of people who take issue with evolution.
Has Apple had any complaints? The article doesn't mention any. Theres no reason to think that creationists would be woefully upset at this app; they just think that Darwinist evolution is wrong rather than being unspeakably horrible. Enough hyperbole for a Tuesday afternoon.
That Darwinian evolution in no way excludes the activities of powerful agencies has failed to penetrate the mind of creationists and ID'ers and means that reason has little to do with their grumpiness. (Of course such spoiling for a fight could have been headed-off had our bronze age ancestors managed to write-up a nice parable or two on the concept of imaginary friends having imaginary powers and imagined histories where time can mean whatever you want... ah well).
Get enough complaints arriving and Apple will ban anything.
Umm... What? Until Apple rejects an app advocating creationism by stating creationism is rubbish, they can't be said to be taking sides. Allowing something into a marketplace is not the same thing as endorsing its contents. Only the stupid think that not wholeheartedly advocating one side means advocating its opposite.
Fundamentalist Christian : Well... God put them there to test our faith.
Bill : I'm glad I'm strapped into this chair coz it looks like God put you here to test my faith dude!!!
Have you ever noticed how all creationists look... unevolved.
Fundamentalist Christian : I believe that god created me in 7 days.
Bill : Yup... it looks like he rushed it.
She did say "masturbation and all other forms of lustful behaviour outside marriage are sinful" but she was at high school when she said it.
I wonder if the proposed free schools will allow children to be taught creationism as science?
Why can't we just have a National Curriculum and make everyone study it. Religion should be something you do at home...like masturbation!
Paris...I'd study her at home.
"She did say "masturbation and all other forms of lustful behaviour outside marriage are sinful" but she was at high school when she said it."
No, she was not at high school at the time. She didn't choose the paths of righteousness until she'd indulged her appetite for the pleasures of the flesh for several years. Rumours that it was because "those beastly fraternity guys never call me in the morning, but the voice in my head does" could not be confirmed at the time of writing.
Paris, O'Donnell - one enjoys sex and the other is a liar.
Having begun it, I felt obliged to read it all the way to the end, simply in order to feel qualified to say that I really must find something more interesting to read, during my coffee breaks.
The actual App, itself - from Penn State University - sounds quite interesting, but apparently the real "IT angle" is that the app store is run by control freaks, and there's a mad American in the US senate. This is 'news', apparently. God I wish I'd got a job in 'news': it looks much more fun than deciphering some long-departed contractors bloody .NET program...
Anyway, before I go back to that, I'm off to read about the app: http://live.psu.edu/story/48526
(I suspect this one will keep Sarah Bee busy - but I rather imagine there's no "'Sarah Bee' in 'Team Register'".)
I'm very disappointed with the reg for publishing non-stories like these. I would use much harsher language, but since about 1 in 10 posts actually get through... Let me just say that some insects shouldn't be allowed in a serious news organization, or a humorous news organization or a news organization or any organization for that matter, because these insects suck the fun of out of it and leave a shallow feeling of fun-less emptiness...
Evolution IS no more than a "theory". But scientifically, that places it at least two rungs higher than creationism or "Intelligent Design" which are both no more than "philosophies".
Specifically, it has been formulated in such a way that can be experimentally and statistically tested (hypothesis), and those tests have shown that it generally agrees with the available observational evidence (theory).
And, lest you believe that this particular mental non sequitur is limited to the States:
http://www.csm.org.uk/
:)
Despite what these types of people might think, "theory" doesn't mean that we're just guessing, it means that this explanation conforms to all of our current understanding of the phenomena.
I always laugh when people say "evolution/gravity/cake is just a theory", because they're right, just not in the way they think.
Evolution is a theory supported by overwhelming evidence and it is also a fact.
Human beings can cause animals to evolve by selective breeding. Wild populations have also been observed to evolve, for example because of predation by introduced animals.
The evidence for evolution is compelling. The only question that remains of creationists is whether they are ignorant or willfully ignorant to disregard it when there is absolutely no evidence of any kind to support creationism. It is a non theory since it predicts nothing or accounts for anything. Claiming "god did it" is the ultimate cop out.
As far as I know, Evolution is about a (factual) PROCESS that starts with ... err 'something'. 'Creation' is about ORIGIN ... that 'somthing'. I should not have to point this out as the words EVOLUTION and CREATION pretty much speak for themselves! (In case this is too challenging, an example: When speaking about how an IT system has evolved to be what it is today, nobody would think that you were talking about the reasons and whyit was put in originally)
The bible was never written as a scientific manual (imagine Moses writing Genesis and trying to explain the Big bang?) ... it is about God as the ultimate creator and our relationship as humans to him and it emphasises that at *some time* in a PROCESS, God intervened and made us different to other animals be giving us a conscience.
Christians who choose to read the bible as a scientific explanation (i.e. 7 days, no dinosaurs mentioned etc.) miss the point. 'Evolutionists' who choose to take issue with this clearly do too!
I really do wonder about the trolling here, in that people can't seam to differentiate between creationist, and the whole young earth old earth debate amongst Christians, there is also some debate in the difference around evolution of a species and evolution within a species. There is a lot of evidence that implies evolution of a species but not proves, and there is proof of evolution within a species. At some point I would like to see the level of thought of some commentators rise above the mentality of the young earth crowd. <sigh>
St Jobs has also given access to a great series of videos called "Facts of Evolution" that can be found on "iTunes U" or from the link below.
http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/vid_courses3.php?Tape_Name=Evolution
The video presents a wide range of scientific evidence that cannot be accounted for by any other mechanism than evolution.
Not that I'm attempting to state a personal viewpoint, but the sentence "The video presents a wide range of scientific evidence that cannot be accounted for by any other mechanism than evolution." is obviously incorrect. Certainly Divine fiat is a mechanism that can explain any and all evidence. It simply explains it in a way that is not satisfying/testable from the point of view of humanity using the scientific method.
and there are a variety of different creationist arguments, the most popular being (in no particular order):
1) young earthers
2) the earth is old but God created it in stages, just long stages, that match Genesis (specifically JWs). This also necessitates that macroevolution does not occur, but many rationalise that evolution occurs within the bounds of 'kinds' (it's woolly at best)
3) the earth is old and everything evolved except humans, which god placed on earth perfectly formed
All of them are very poor arguments in light of the evidence, but they just can't see that.
that the earth was created 5 milliseconds ago, complete with all our memories of the past, just the right mix of radio-isotopes, fossils etc to fool us. The Great Green Argleseizure just happened to sneeze that way, or the <insert creator of choice> has a really strange sense of humor.
It is just not a very useful theory (it is positively begging for a rigorous trim by Occam's razor). There are alway alternative explanations, but it is best to adhere to the simplest theory that explains all (in part for aesthetic reasons).
Having said that, there is very much evidence in favour of the evolution of new species.
Mrs AC used to work in a natural history museum in a regional British city, on the occasional Saturday the Creationalists would turn up (obviously not on Sunday).
En mass they would shout a lot and try and tell the museum's visitors that it was all lies, especially the dinosaurs; eventually security arrived in large enough numbers to throw them out.
the "monkeys" we evolved from are not the monkeys you see in the zoo today. Common mis-understanding going all the way back to deliberate mis-quotation of darwin by creationists: he never claimed we evolved from monkeys, but that we and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. But claiming the "from monkeys" line is better propaganda, as any political manipulator could tell you.
We didn't evolve from present-day monkeys. We evolved from the same "monkey-like" creatures that they have evolved from.
And both groups of species have in turn evolved from small mammals, and before that reptiles, and before that fish, and finally from worms and little blobs like human eggs and sperm..
You can follow the course of evolution from the development of all animals in the womb. TO start with most animals on earth look pretty much the same in the womb. Like fish embryos with gills!
I can understand a movement which wants less government spending and / or taxation if its backed up by some rational arguments. But the Tea Party is anything but rational. A better name would be the Hate party since its members appear to run the spectrum from racists, xenophobes, homophobes, misogynists, zealots to common-or-garden bigots.
What is particularly alarming is the success they are enjoying at least in the Republican party. Scandals seem to be running about 1 per week at the moment and it's like their supporters don't even care. The latest features no less than Christine O'Donnell who espouses the usual religious phooey even though she was just shown on TV confessing to dabbling with witchcraft. Pure hypocrisy.
Most these cretins seem to on latch on to religion as an excuse to cover up their pecadillos. The extreme being the RC priests unable to keep their hands to themselves.
Then there are the Sunday-is-Sacrad-God-Squad who say we should all be in church praising the Lord's name on Sunday and no one should work. Well I tell you what, how about you get all the firemen, police, hospital staff, power-station, santiation and travel workers to spend all day Sunday off work and down the local church. Let's see how long that lasts before we start stringing you up, you bunch of pillocks!
I have no problem with religion, if it helps you get through the day, fair play but it's hypocrisy and the exclusionism I can't stand. 'Don't do that! Don't do that, especially not that! Of course I will be doing it, but do as I say not as I do!'
Balls to the lot of 'em!
Mines the one with a copy of my own bible, The God Delusion in the pocket.
I mean, have you actually read what he said ? Do you understand evolution ?
"In the book, Benedict defended what is known as 'theistic evolution', the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches, that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this."
Thereby quite neatly summarising his complete inability to understand evolution* and the selfish gene. sigh.
*im tempted not to have to explain that - but for the hard of thinking: evolution does not 'result in man' anymore than it results in an ameoba. Perhaps god was happy to wait and see and would have written the bible for ameobas if evolution had played out that way ? personally I think the pope needs to give up trying to make a cat bark.
If Apple get this kind of reaction to Timetree then they should make programs like Timetree factory installed on all American iProducts to finally help drive the evolution message home in America.
The amazing way scientific progress is moving forward, the creationists are going to have their worst century ever in trying to hold back the ever increasing weight of scientific evidence that shows creationists are wrong.
It is however becoming very clear though that the creationists are lining up to fight back against science. They will ultimately fail, but they are becoming a threat of holding progress back like all the creationist propaganda they are trying to put into schools.
So science needs to hammer home the evidence at every opportunity. Science needs to step up the war on Creationism because the Creationists are stepping up their war on science.
Job's has always been a miserable bastard but his bitchiness seems to have reached new highs.
Could his donor's personality, memories or consciousness remain within the tissue of the new set of kidneys and have been passed on to the MOS (Miserable Old Sod)? See: < http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/a-medical-mystery-transferred-organ-donor-consciousness/ >.
Further links: <http://www.google.ca/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=personality+of+organ+donor+transferred&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 >.
KingCrimson250:
"I'm not going to participate in the debate. I'm just observing for now. Sadly I lack the understanding of biology required to have a rational, well-thought out opinion on evolution."
AV1611VET:
"Don't let any lack of knowledge on any given topic stop you though.
I wear my ignorance like a badge!
It's our faith they need to see --- not our knowledge."
I think it speaks for itself.
Lazy journalism... again. Humans and monkeys (broad term for primates) share a common ancestor, which is not the same as saying humans are descended from monkeys.
And as for all those idiotic Americans who believe in Intelligent Design and creationism or whatever they call it, well if god's design is so intelligent, why do you circumcise boys? Why do your girls and women shave their legs and fannies (that's the English fanny, not the American one, although, a lot of women will have that dealt with, too). Why do you shave off your beards (men and women)....
Strikes me that you don't like the way your god had designed the human race...
Arsewits, the lot of you. Greatest nation on earth... I think not. Greatest nation of hypocrites... almost certainly.
Hypocrites, perhaps. We kind of felt that way about the crown in 1776, too. The whole citizen/representation thing. I guess every nation has to go through that whole process to become has-beens. Our country (the U.S.) is unfortunately sliding down toward the abyss in which our Pond counterparts now find themselves.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr Paul Vail, King of the On-Topic Rebuttal.
What the funk does citizenship/representation have to do with the other guy's argument?
What is this "abyss" that the UK now finds itself in?
Vis-a-vis the citizenship thing, when the UK ruled the US they never made any secret of the fact that they were just another one of the colonies and were treated just as badly as any other. They never pretended that the US was of equal stature to the then-mighty UK.
Watching them increasingly tear themselves apart over religion and terrorism would be entertaining if it wasn't so scary. Would be interesting to see what percentage of US citizens subscribe to the >10000 year old Earth 'theory'. However given the dire state of scientific education in the UK it won't be long before we're in the same mess, give it 100 years and we'll be burning people for witchcraft again.
Faith in God is by definition a belief without a proof. Was there a clear, ubeatable proof that God exists it would not be a faith any more, just an acknowledgement of the proof. From the point of view of faith seeking a proof is like not believing.
Drawing directly from the Bible (e.g. Paul's letters), faith is a gift from God to the ones He has chosen. Expecting others to 'start to believe', not to mention forcing them to, is pointless at best, and rude - for sure.
A true Christian should not even try to take sides in the public 'fights for schools' between the so called creationists and the secular society. What a waste of time to be a part of a political agenda of some unscrupulous people posing as 'saviours of traditional values'. History has seen a lot of that before...
This would be big deal if Apple were blocking creationist apps but they are not.
As a Christian I have several bible applications on my iPhone. As a Christian I also believe Apple have done the right thing by allowing this app. All people are entitled to their beliefs and we should always seek to have healthy debates on these topics.
I also recommend iphone bible apps. As an antitheist.
reading and searching for stuff in the bible is a hilarious way to pass the time.
Did you know that it is a sin to eat an owl for example ? Or that women raped in cities who do not cry out should be stoned ? (the inference being that they were clearly asking for it...)
hours of hilarious top tips in there.
it's better than Viz.
"Ever noticed how the people who don't believe in evolution look really unevolved"
Seriously though, what's all this about no pron on the iPad?? I don't have one so someone please set this straight for me. You can still go to your choice websites to have a wank right? Just no pron apps. If so, I don't see a problem and think that apple have made a very good, wipe clean, device.
What these idiots don't grasp, is that that vast majority of our modern technology has come from knowledge gained through the scientific method. That collective knowledge spans a vast range of fields from chemistry, biology, geology, mathematics, physics and archaeology, through to the application of that knowledge in engineering and other applied sciences.
It's all self-supporting and largely (highly?) consistent, but more importantly, _highly_interrelated_ - so you can't just reject a small piece like evolution without bringing into question everything else. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be open to questioning it, just the opposite - healthy skepticism is good. But we also need to accept evidence when its overwhelmingly suggesting something, even if it doesn't match the fairlytales we grew up with.
To ID'ers and creationists: That knowledge, that technology, your iPhone, is all evidence of the success of science. If you don't believe it, hand over your iPhone, trade in your television and the other fruits of scientific endeavour, and phuck off back to living in a hut.
Here's 2 things that I just don't understand...
1) The way the Religulous Right here in the USA can claim that they are making progress into our future, when they are obviously stapled to a 2,000 year old dead horse that they flog viciously when no one is paying attention to them.
2) The way your average net addict can read a story thoroughly, scrutinize the details, and then take the time to criticize it and question its newsworthiness as though their opinion mattered. If an article is, as you say, not worth reading...what does that say about the twit who invests such effort pointing that out???
Whoops...I hear the Conservative stormtroopers coming. Where's that can of pepper spray...?
Contrary to what this Apple app promotes,
Cutting-Edge Science tells us:
"The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings."
For more info, Google:
Creation Doctrine - The Kolbe Center
Umm, sorry but that's not science, cutting-edge or otherwise. Genome complexity *does* increase spontaneously, in several well-understood and evidence-backed ways (e.g. mutation).
If this Kolbe guys want to claim otherwise, they're free to do it, but unless they provide evidence that genome complexity doesn't increase, they don't get to call it "science".
With my learnered colleague H.F. above, brilliantly funny cut and paste, if your get your knowledge from places like this I fell sorry for you, I have no worries about believing in God but when you are then listening to someone say "and God said" well no he didn't a man said actually, I will put my faith in God if he turns up but not man he’s proved to be untrustworthy throughout history.
"Haven't seen anything this stupid for DAYS". You can see much better than his stuff every day if you have a look at talk.origins on USENET. My personal favs remain:
1 the gentleman who claimed that woodpeckers have their tongues anchored in their left nostrils. When someone posted pix of a dissected woodpecker showing rather different physical anatomy, he replied, and I quote: "I don't care how many birds you cut up, I'm still right and so is God."
2 the other gentleman who proposed that the Ark not merely had at least two of each 'kind' of animal (seven of some, the 'clean' ones; exactly how Noah knew which were 'clean' and which 'unclean' when the rules on that would not be laid down until Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, 1500 years after yea alleged Flood, is unclear) but that the animals were
a) juveniles, so as to take up less space and require less food (someone hasn't seen just how much the average juvenile mammal can eat. I refer you to your nearest teenager.)
b) trained to poop on command, and onto a conveyer belt which carried the evidence away and dumped it into the moon pool built into the bottom of the Ark (look up what a moon pool is. Now imagine building a large wooden barge with one.)
c) that conveyer belt and the giant fans in all compartments of the Ark were powered by treadmills, which themselves were powered by all the juvenile animals walking on them, continuously, 24/7, for the over a year that the Ark was allegedly at sea.
d) the Ark was stablised by sea anchors made of stone. (Someone clearly didn't look up 'sea anchor')
e) the Ark, which was made of wood, was preserved for all time by being coated in lava. (Yes, he actually said that molten stone would preserve wood.)
f) the impressive teeth found on T-rex, allosaur, etc., fossils were not there so that the animals in question could eat meat; all animals of the time were vegetarians. Instead, they were there so that Noah could have handy tools to saw planks for the Ark. The canine teeth on sabre-tooth cats were there so that Noah could drill holes in said planks. Before Noah went boat-building, T-rexes etc. used their teeth to strain leaves, nuts, and berries from tree limbs. Yes, folks, a T-rex was a sort of land-going vegetarian baleen whale which transformed itself into a walking chainsaw when needed to build a really big wooden barge...
3 a different gentleman once stated that the P-51 Mustang proved that evolution is false. This same aviation-minded individual insisted that chickens cannot fly. Apparently the chickens which my golden retriever used to chase around the back yard when I was about six were teleported over the fence from their coop in the neighbors' back yard, and also teleported themselves back over said fence. (Yes, chickens can fly. Just not very well.) In other aviation-related news, according to this same person the Face on Mars was carved by Neanderthals who got from the Earth to Mars by going to the tops of magnetic mountains and riding giant eagles through space. (No, I am _NOT_ making this up.)
4 yet one more person swears that MAN IS AS OLD AS COAL!!!! Yes, in all caps, with multiple exclamation points. He is a good friend of the aviation-minded one. He no longer posts on talk.origins. Instead he posts pretty much everywhere else, 'cause the t.o regulars either ignore him or tease the hell out of him. The infamous 'Smithsonian rejection letter' featured in Snopes at <http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithsonian.asp> was allegedly inspired by this person, which should tell you how long he's been at it. The aviation-minded person was active for over 20 years before kinda fading away.
5 yet one more, allegedly a professor of mathematics at a major state university, kept lists of those who particularly irritated him, and couldn't understand why there was competition to post something which would get the poster on one of his lists.
You can't make this stuff up. At least I can't, and I don't have to. Google is your friend...
My sister is currently studying genetics and molecular biology. While my field is physics and engineering, I do manage to glean some occasional understanding of the processes which make life work. One thing that surprised me however, is how un-organized and messy DNA, cells, and proteins are. From an engineering standpoint, the whole thing is held together with duct tape, baling wire and gum.
From this we get my favorite quote from her: "The best argument against intelligent design is to take a good look at the design".
As a computer engineer who's also studied molecular biology, I can confirm that anyone who takes a good look at how life works deep down *cannot* believe in a designer. I still complain about spaghetti code when I have to deal with it - but never when a biologist is in the room.
Ohhh... I thought the I in ID was "Inelegant", in that case why don't I live to 1000, why does food sometimes go down the wrong hole, why did god place a pleasure park next to a sewerage outflow? not to mention the abscence of a built-in jetpack that runs on water, feet that don't smell, bogies etc.
ARRRRgggh. We did NOT descend from a monkey.
We and the monkeys descended from something (more monkey-like than us-like, well, if you stand naked in front of a mirror and such). Good grief -- read Chuckie's work, will ya.
I'm not saying that Palin or ODonnell don't look monkeyish when they speak, or in front of a mirror unclothed -- but here, I digress.
Paris, because that Japanese hotel jail has just got to be worse than the limo ride in Vegas.
re: "he considers himself, like the rest of us, to be descended from monkeys."
Groan .. the article to which this refers specifically says we share the same ancestor as monkeys ... not that we are descended from monkeys. I know it's a common mistake made by people but really ... we share the same ancestor ... monkeys themselves aren't our ancestors.
Got it ?
What is the point of this ill-written article? Where is the link between evolution and porn? Porn and masturbation?
Creationism, what is that Medieval theory doing in school books?
I understand the pope cannot claim he believes in the theory of evolution, like all clerics of all Jewish/Chirstian religions, but the rest?
We all should know that Mary had been unfaithful to Joe and told world+dog that it was the holy ghost, and some cretins believed her. That sums it up, really.
This post has been deleted by its author
Seriously? This was a pretty pathetic article. A completely prosaic app is available for the iphone, therefore the president of apple is attacking the religious right? What? Have you hired someone from The Inquirer and let them have a keyboard?
Yes, I understand it was a joke - unfortunately, it wasn't actually funny. "Jolly good! Here's a way we can make Americans look like idiots! It's a stretch, but it'll go right over the 'merkin heads - they're too busy chowing down Big Macs to notice! I say, old boy, what what!"
Yeeeah... Not so much.
Doesn't make it not funny.
A 2008 Gallup poll said, 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
Now, that, *is* funny (and unfortunately, not a joke), it sets the tone for the application.
...don't find it funny because I live here. But it shouldn't be particularly heartening for you guys that the (for the moment) largest economic and military power in the world - and one of your close allies, with strong ability to shape your foreign policy - is largely held to heel by a group of people cannot (or will not) understand the raw basics of the science that drives the world.
Plus, even if you take it as a given that US citizens' ignorance itself is amusing, the article itself -still- isn't. Just because something could be satirized effectively doesn't mean that any given attempt at it was successful.
This post has been deleted by its author
Charles Darwin didn't actually deal with the origin of new species (in spite of the book's title). It was the evolution of existing species, which isn't incompatible with Creationism.
Relatively recent genetic evidence doesn't actually support the central idea (theory) of Evolution with regard to the origin of new species. i.e the idea of a "tree of life" starting with tiny organisms and evolving into more sophisticated species.
The genetic evidence actually indicates a "web of life" i.e. what you get as a result of hybridisation - if you mate a donkey with a horse you get a mule which is a hybrid. Which no doubt some would say is impossible in a more general sense, as most species can't inter mate, but then creationism isn't considered a possibility either, but if you think how scientists have taken a genetic trait from one species and implanted it in another to create a hybrid, why couldn't God do it?
Of course scientists who have "believed" in the Tree of life idea for so long are reluctant to change their minds in spite of the scientific evidence.
>>Charles Darwin didn't actually deal with the origin of new species (in spite of the book's title). It was the evolution of existing species, which isn't incompatible with Creationism.
He actually said neither "new" nor "existing", he made no such distinction, if you want to infer that because he observed existing species his conclusions were only about existing species then that's your choice, but it is an error to imply it.
>>Relatively recent genetic evidence doesn't actually support the central idea (theory) of Evolution with regard to the origin of new species. i.e the idea of a "tree of life" starting with tiny organisms and evolving into more sophisticated species.
Again you are implying something which is not, that the central idea must be a clean "tree" with distinct "forks", implying somehow that this "tree" is somehow completely different to similar (enough) species interbreeding, this shows a common ignorance of evolution, here's a seed of an idea for you (lets see if you can allow it to grow);
I am human, my parents are human, their parents were human, their parents were human and so on going back thousands of years, but after a while there are some slight differences, maybe it's lifespan, height, go back a few more thousand years, they are shorter still and perhaps have a little more hair, are they still human? the only problem with the fossil record and evolution is the perceved need to define ancestors, ask every successive generation back and they will think that they are the same species as their chldren (and so they are), but make the gaps bigger and you'll have different species down the same bloodline, when did my ancestors cease to be human? but their children looked the same as them (and so on...)
You need to try and understand evolution if you genuinely want to debate it (perhaps read "The greatest show on earth" by Dawkins), or you can continue with your strawmen if you want an easy target.
>>Of course scientists who have "believed" in the Tree of life idea for so long are reluctant to change their minds in spite of the scientific evidence.
All recent evidence, and I would say *all* genetic evendence (period) support evolution and gives a better understanding of the mechanisms, your unrefrenced "evidence" and unnamed "scientists" mean nothing, because you've presented nothing except yet another made up strawman.
Come on, is this really news? I can't imagine any creationsists or Intelligent Design advocates (me included) who would get upset over this. Heck, if we're going to get upset over this, we'd never be able to get out of bed since Evolution and Natural Selection (two different things don'tcha know) are spoken as fact in TV dramas, documentaries, newspapers, magazines, schools, colleges, universities, sunday schools, product packaging, web sites, zoos, interviews with Stephen Fry... everywhere.
This sounds like a 'dog bites man' article. Let's have a 'man bites dog', that's far more newsworthy.
Im sure any who still believe the bible word for word will have enough trouble stringing together a decent reply to this.
Here's a big pointer to think about, Adam and Eve have kids, who do the kids then breed with?
If you believe the Bible then by your own logic, you're inbred
They don't always dodge it, the answer I had once by the evangelical door knockers was, "science shows us inbreeding can cause genetic defects, Adam and Eve were perfect, from them onwards we have been degraded by sin, which explains all pain and suffering". Got to give it to them, slick answer, I replied with another couple of questions, "So, did incest cease to be a sin for a while" and "Did Noah and his familiy go through a similar 'sin is on hold' thing", they shuffled for a bit and said that "God chose for it not to be sinful", so I asked "OK, can you show me where all this is written down" (they said that it's written down as such, then they left).
By the way, don't be tempted by this, even basic blood typing shows changes older than 15k years ago, for example type A is older than the creationsist timeframe.
"The new smartphone app for the iPhone, iPod, and iPad gives anyone the power to explore an area at the forefront of comparative biology and to find his or her place in the timetree of life ... "
.... that the iKit is so easy that even .... a monkey could use it?
One thing I'll give Apple: they specialize in building interfaces which are extremely easy to learn -- once you know how. :-).
Mine's the one w/ my Palm in the pocket please....
I'm inclined to ask those taking the hard-line literal-truth interpretation of Genesis: suppose there was a Big Bang and all the rest. If God can do it in seven days, He can do it in 13 billion years, right? Then all that time passes, our humble species evolves and invents written language. If, then, the Bible comes to be by divine inspiration, is it going to describe all that literally? ("In the beginning there was a superdense cosmic 'egg' of matter which exploded...")
They need to get it that the Bible is not, and does not pretend to be, a scientific text. They are making it one by failing to get it that to allow for the possibility that the account in Genesis is allegorical does not say it's any less true than considering it literally.
That despite having some really bright minds in this country, we have people who still believe -- and try to force others to believe -- in antiquated notions. Back when I lived in San Diego, an area that's heavily Catholic due to the influx of Hispanic immigrants, I could proudly openly exclaim that I am an atheist. No one would really care. But here in the midwest...there are times I think that if I state as such, I might get a lynch mob formed for hinting at it.
I am a little disappointed at El Reg for using the word "monkeys". There's a notion used by Evolution bashers and more that describe evolution as claiming that we're related to monkeys, which is simply not true. Our closest common relative in the modern primate world via evolution are Chimpanzees, not 'monkeys'.
"Christine O'Donnell, has stated that evolution is no more than a "theory""
As someone's no doubt said, so is gravity. So are a lot of things that we take for granted in the world. So is creationism, if you want to get down to it.
I'd be more than happy to allow creationists to teach in classrooms as long as they A) Keep religion out of it (as much as possible, trying to keep a neutral environment in schools) and B) Properly inform students of what it is (a theory, just as much as evolution) and C) Give the facts and evidence of each. Any student who will question and show the slightest shred of critical thinking and logic will pick the obvious choice.
Was Steve Jobs actually personally involved in this? The app is interesting no doubt, I just wonder if they cite references for the links they make, so those of us who do read up on these things can follow through.
Aside from that this is little more than yet another liberal writer's attempt to start a flame war. (I wonder what will happen when they realize not every conservative is a creationist, but never mind).
Rather than keep on drawing links that really aren't there (as in I doubt any of the people named in the article have used the app or even knows it exists) we could have had an interesting article about evolutionary theory and how useful and/or relevant this app would for real research, as opposed to the faux research of most liberals, i.e., "I'm smart because I used this app which told me something I barely understand."
Instead we get juvenile taunting, hope you enjoyed the five minutes of attention.
Oh dear! It used to be that the Americans told us to focus on the actual facts as seen on the ground in order to make correct assessments and decisions. No more. The Bible overrules scientific facts, just as in Copernicus days, and that was in 1543. It seems politically incorrect to even say "scientific fact" about Darwin! Apple should censor apps that don't mentions "theory" and "alternative"! Religious fundamentalism? Not to mention what ideology prescribes. The facts about Iraq where know before the war, but that did not influence decision making; ideologically influenced ideas about how Iraq in theory should have been, did however and the result should be obvious to anyone.
Pick up a copy of "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking to get a fresh view of things!
This is a false debate and we all know it.
Evolution is, by many many order of magnitudes, the best paradigm to explain the whole tree of life we see on Earth, period. End of story. Everything match to the tee, Evolution by natural section corroborate with every field data we can throw at it. The whole body of science agree. What else do you need, god himself opening up the sky and shout ''I'M THE ONE WHO INVENTED EVOLUTION!!!"???
Part of the ''confusion'' in some creationist's minds comes from the inability to distinguish the fundamental differences between the 2 following statements:
""Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor some 30 million years in the past""
AND
"You - and your mom - are descended from monkeys. Steve Jobs says so"
The point is, not only Humans and monkey share a common ancestor, all life you see around you does as well! Isn't it great to realize that all life is interconnected and that we, Humans, are part of it? Absolutely lovely indeed.
Peace,
Ramon
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
