Yet another reason why I would never live in Texas.
I'll give you another reason:
I predicted nothing but doom and shame for the BoE this year, and it brings me no joy at all to say I was right. McLeroy’s latest antic — though I would call it the first shot fired in a war, a war on reality — was over, of all things, the English standards. According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, teachers and experts had worked for two and a half to three years on new standards for English. So what did McLeroy do? He ignored all that work entirely, and let "social conservatives" on the board draft a new set overnight. ..... And if you’re not tired of guessing, then guess what discipline comes up next for review? Science!
We know where McLeroy stands there. Texas is actually and seriously looking down a cliff of educational repression that will doom the children there for the next decade. I really can’t be more serious about this. If I were a parent of a young child in Texas right now, I’d move out rather than let her be educated there.
I live in Austria a country were about 70% of the population is roman-catholic, and most of the people who aren't live either in the three large centers of population (Vienna, Graz and Salzburg) or at the borders. The Austrian school system employs a mandatory religion class in all grades all catholic students have to attend. However, at least in the schools I went to, those classes more or less were simply time to slack off.
Yet another reason why I would never live in Texas.
I'll give you another reason:
I predicted nothing but doom and shame for the BoE this year, and it brings me no joy at all to say I was right. McLeroy’s latest antic — though I would call it the first shot fired in a war, a war on reality — was over, of all things, the English standards. According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, teachers and experts had worked for two and a half to three years on new standards for English. So what did McLeroy do? He ignored all that work entirely, and let "social conservatives" on the board draft a new set overnight. ..... And if you’re not tired of guessing, then guess what discipline comes up next for review? Science!
We know where McLeroy stands there. Texas is actually and seriously looking down a cliff of educational repression that will doom the children there for the next decade. I really can’t be more serious about this. If I were a parent of a young child in Texas right now, I’d move out rather than let her be educated there.
I guess the old guard wins again.
They'll have to work within the national framework if they want to remain a part of the United States, but Texas can do what Texans want, and should do what Texans want (assuming that this is indeed an example of something that your average Texan wants, and not a minority pushing through special-interest legislation). Part of the point behind having states is so that the people living there can live in a way that suits their own needs.
Here in Finland we have mandatory religion classes and I really think that's good thing. At least we learn that those things about God creating everything in 6 days is a part of religious belief, something that was made up before there was good science to tell how things really are. I think that there are some small groups who would like to get some ID or creationism in here too, but there hasn't been any real talk about that and I believe that it will stay on the religion class where it belongs.
Here in Finland we have mandatory religion classes and I really think that's good thing. At least we learn that those things about God creating everything in 6 days is a part of religious belief, something that was made up before there was good science to tell how things really are. I think that there are some small groups who would like to get some ID or creationism in here too, but there hasn't been any real talk about that and I believe that it will stay on the religion class where it belongs.
My mistake, I had forgotten all about that. I haven't really know people who have taken that class and haven't ever thought about that so much. Even tough I am somewhat of a atheist I have no problem of someone telling me stuff from bible as long as it isn't told as a science.
I live in Canada and luckily this ID craze hasn't jumped the border. I could see it maybe going uncontested in little farm towns but as soon as it got anywhere near medium sized city it be shot down. Or at least I hope it would be. Hmmm....I wonder if our increasing dollar correlates with Americas increasing crazy.
They'll have to work within the national framework if they want to remain a part of the United States, but Texas can do what Texans want, and should do what Texans want (assuming that this is indeed an example of something that your average Texan wants, and not a minority pushing through special-interest legislation). Part of the point behind having states is so that the people living there can live in a way that suits their own needs.
So there are people out there who need a bad education? Give me a break. Oh, and by the way, you assume wrong. More people voted against Rick Perry (who appointed this guy to enforce his views on education) for governor than voted for, but because they voted for independents, they split the vote and let him win. Also, this wasn't legislation. This was in the Texas Education Agency, which is under the governor's control.
They'll have to work within the national framework if they want to remain a part of the United States, but Texas can do what Texans want, and should do what Texans want (assuming that this is indeed an example of something that your average Texan wants, and not a minority pushing through special-interest legislation). Part of the point behind having states is so that the people living there can live in a way that suits their own needs.
So there are people out there who need a bad education? Give me a break. Oh, and by the way, you assume wrong. More people voted against Rick Perry (who appointed this guy to enforce his views on education) for governor than voted for, but because they voted for independents, they split the vote and let him win. Also, this wasn't legislation. This was in the Texas Education Agency, which is under the governor's control.
If this is a partisan move, then shame on the governor. He does a disservice to all Texans, and I hope the people of Texas will bring all of their political authority around to resist any sort of shenanigans on his part.
As for educational standards in general, different people value different types of education. If they can pursue that education without endangering their right to be part of the United States, then why not allow them to? As an example, the Amish don't have to send their kids to school beyond the 8th grade. If I had kids, I'd prefer for them to get more of an education than that, but the Amish can do as they please as far as I'm concerned.
We used to think the world was flat. Who's to say that either Creationism or Evolution is right? Creationism is pretty out there, but evolution just hasn't been directly observed in the way it has been suggested.
We used to think the world was flat. Who's to say that either Creationism or Evolution is right? Creationism is pretty out there, but evolution just hasn't been directly observed in the way it has been suggested.
They should teach both objectively.
I don't think that's the point the video is trying to make...
Who's to say that either Creationism or Evolution is right?
In the strictest philosophical sense, no one should say that evolution is "right." Rather, we must assume it to be true until someone disproves it, meaning that every action we take should be on the grounds that it is true, which is as "right" as something can get. I definitely think that faith is a doctrine opposed to science, faith would say something is absolutely "right," while science allows for us to correct our previous mistakes and misconceptions.
As for evolution in schools, (and I've mentioned this before) I live in New York and attend what would be considered the best public science high school in the city or even the state. My biology teacher last year made it clear that she did not believe in evolution, even as she answered people's questions about it.
We used to think the world was flat. Who's to say that either Creationism or Evolution is right?
Fine, what evidence do you have for another explanation as to why we notice changes in allele frequency over time in living organisms that can also answer the questions we don't know?
All in all, this video had several misconceptions about Evolution. First of all, Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life originated, just how it has changed over time. Secondly, he creates a straw man argument when he discusses how evolution has never been observed. I suppose what he is trying to get at is that "macroevolution" never actually has been observed and therefore it doesn't exist. Evolution does not dictate that major changes will occur within extremely small amounts of time "Moths to bees or birds". This is a huge misrepresentation of Evolution. It takes place in small steps and often changes don't result in an instant reclassification of a new species. However, this doesn't mean that the process isn't occurring. It is only after enough time that enough of these small changes have created enough of a divergence from a previous form that we can call it a new species. Lastly, Evolution says nothing about creatures always evolving into "higher" life forms. What does it mean to be a "higher" life-form anyways? Evolution says nothing of the sort. Humans are no more further evolved than a fruit fly or a bacterium. The Theory doesn't dictate change from less complex to more complex either, just that change occurs. He also states "We aren't counting any of the little stuff either." Well, if you don't count the little stuff, you will never get to the big changes! "Macroevolution" occurs exactly the same way "Microevolution" occurs, so if you admit that Micro occurs then you must also admit that Macro occurs as well! They use the same processes.
Also, Dawkins isn't the sole authority on Evolution so just because you can take a couple qoutes to try and make Evolution look bad, that doesn't mean it's wrong. This is just seems like anti-science propaganda anyways. To say something is beyond the reach of science is to say that it is unanswerable and I fully believe that he is wrong. Just because we can't be 100% certain doesn't mean we can't make guesses and test our ideas. We can a very robust explanation as to how our world and universe work. We test our ideas and they work out just as we predict. He closes with a statement saying that if Evolution was put through the rigors of ID that it wouldn't pass the test. Well he may be surprised to know that it has been and it has been through so much more rigor than ID has even had a glimpse of.
Go back and listen to the "Burden of Proof" episode of Geeknights.
Also, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians worked out that the world was round and even measured the size of the earth to a remarkable accuracy. To say we used to think the world was flat is pushing it a bit when we knew it was round before 2500. Anyone who knows about the writing of the bible will know that is roughly the time when Genesis was redacted. In other words, humans probably knew the earth was round BEFORE the people of Judah settled on the creation myth we read in the bible today.
flat. Who's to say that either Creationism or Evolution is right?
Science.
Creationism is pretty out there, but evolution just hasn't been directly observed in the way it has been suggested.
The Theory of Evolution is pretty-much 100% proven. It's predictive and has never produced contrary examples. There is no rational person on this earth who disputes any but the most minute of details within it.
They should teach both objectively.
The only way to teach "Creationism" objectively is to teach it as the archaic mystical , now-disproven beliefs of an uneducated age.
The only way to teach "Creationism" objectively is to teach it as the archaic mystical , now-disproven beliefs of an uneducated age.
Hey, that's not objective at all! I'm not saying we should believe in Creationism, but there is an objective way to teach it.
To say we used to think the world was flat is pushing it a bit when we knew it was round before 2500.
Some of us did, but most of us didn't. Same thing with the planets revolving around Earth; it made sense to people at the time, since it explained the rotation of all of the other planets.
The Theory of Evolution is pretty-much 100% proven. It's predictive and has never produced contrary examples. There is no rational person on this earth who disputes any but the most minute of details within it.
I wholeheartedly agree that it does have some sort of measurable and predictive effect on live over long periods of time. The question is, how much? Are there other unknown factors involved? Why did we evolve so much faster than everything else?
It takes place in small steps and often changes don't result in an instant reclassification of a new species.
See, I understand the "small steps" thing. If being tall is a good thing, people who are tall will naturally be better off over time. I completely believe that. But how then did certain vital organs such as the heart evolve? The entire change would've had to be made at once; you need veins and arteries and capillaries, not to mention lungs (did they evolve simultaneously?) and brain functions necessary to synchronize heart activities (i.e., telling it to beat). Or in the case of other functions like feeling, you need a complete brain able to accept inputs from nerves (another piece) and you must be able to understand what these electrical signals mean and recognize them as good or bad for touch to even be useful and...
My point is that I don't think evolution alone could evolve a creature with as complex systems as a human from bacteria, even given billions of years. At the same time, I don't believe in the Creationist view too much either.
I completely believe that. But how then did certain vital organs such as the heart evolve? The entire change would've had to be made at once; you need veins and arteries and capillaries, not to mention lungs (did they evolve simultaneously?) and brain functions necessary to synchronize heart activities (i.e., telling it to beat). Or in the case of other functions like feeling, you need a complete brain able to accept inputs from nerves (another piece) and you must be able to understand what these electrical signals mean and recognize them as good or bad for touch to even be useful and...
Ahhh, the good old argument of "Oooh it's too complex for me to understand so it must be wrong." Irreducible complexity fails because if one can show that previous organs or body parts had different uses other than the ones they currently have, then it's not irreducible. Here is a good article on why the irreducible complexity argument fails. Here is a good example using the eye:
The question is, how much? Are there other unknown factors involved? Why did we evolve so much faster than everything else?
We didn't evolve "faster." Like I said before, there is no such thing has "higher" life form when it comes to Evolution, just different life forms. We are no more evolved than any other creature. Also, Evolution does not always produce beneficial traits, it can work backwards as well.
Hey, that's not objective at all! I'm not saying we should believe in Creationism, but there is an objective way to teach it.
What would be your lesson plan in teaching it? Please leave out any references to Evolution and why you think it's wrong.
My point is that I don't think evolution alone could evolve a creature with as complex systems as a human from bacteria, even given billions of years. At the same time, I don't believe in the Creationist view too much either.
It doesn't really matter what you think unless you are a published and peer reviewed biologist.
Irreducible complexity fails because if one can show that previous organs or body parts had different uses other than the ones they currently have, then it's not irreducible.
Show me then.
We are no more evolved than any other creature.
Why are we so dominant then?
What would be your lesson plan in teaching it? Please leave out any references to Evolution and why you think it's wrong.
Being a dominant species has nothing to do with evolution. We just know how to manipulate our environment very well. I would like to know exactly what you mean by "more evolved".
But how then did certain vital organs such as the heart evolve?
Article from the American Museum of Natural History on the topic.
Or in the case of other functions like feeling, you need a complete brain able to accept inputs from nerves (another piece) and you must be able to understand what these electrical signals mean and recognize them as good or bad for touch to even be useful and...
Found this on Little Green Footballs (a conservative blog). It's an amazing speech and Q&A; session by Ken Miller about the introduction of Creationism into school systems under the guise of "Intelligent Design." The speaker is a cellular biologist who wrote textbooks on Biology that you might have used in high school. I know I did. One of his books is the one that Cobb County, GA (where I reside) placed its infamous anti-Evolution warning stickers. It's a 45-50 minute lecture with a 1 hr Q&A.; Long, but entertaining as well as informative.
Oh, and he covers the myths of Intelligent Design including "irreducible complexity" using the example of an amoebic flagellum and blood clotting. If you're not interested in watching the really smart guy talk, I'll sum up: Irreducible complexity is:
a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
according to author and scientist[sic] Michael Behe. According to Behe and other of his ilk, a bacteria flagellum is made up of parts that have no other function, nor did they other and if separated, they would cease to function. Well, Miller points out that if you take 10 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, they make up an entirely different functioning organ. Watch the vid for technical speak. I'm a musician, not a biologist. On blood clotting, the idea is that we have twelve factors in our blood. Without any one of them, blood wouldn't clot. Therefore, according to Behe, irreducible complexity. Well, without one of those proteins, we'd bleed out. But dolphins and whales are missing one of those proteins and they clot just fine. Puffer fish clot missing two or three.
Well worth the watching. If I had taken his bio class in college, I might have actually enjoyed it.
So...God did it? Real objective. How do you explain all the evidence we have for Evolution today?
Well obviously it was place there by Satan and his minions to trick the unbelievers, because we all know that science doesn't prove anything.
Just explain that there are conflicting views about the origins of humanity, and explain evolution and creationism separately under the pretext "Some people believe x and some believe y, and a couple people believe z". Go over some arguments for the different sides; for evolution, go over the idea of natural selection and mutations, for creationism, go over the idea of the seven days of creation according to the Bible and maybe the idea of intelligent design. It's not hard to do, people are just so sure they're right that they skew the opposing sides. Note that I'm not saying that I'm not the same way.
I'm just accepting what the clear majority of scientists have agreed upon. You, on the other hand, are not.
I'm not saying what I think means anything to anyone else; I'm playing devil's advocate in a way. I'm not saying the clear majority of scientists are wrong, I'm just saying they're not necessarily right, and that we can't just assume they're right with as much dissent as we have now. There seems to be some element of appeal to both sides, or else one side would've just given in to the other. It just always irks me how both sides are completely convinced they're right; they never seem to consider the possibility of being wrong. That's why I think they should teach both in schools. The problem seems to be in the human component of teaching it. Your example on irreducibly complex systems is good, and it seems perfectly valid. However, and I'm just asking this objectively, what about the steps required to advance from one stage to the next? Did all of the components of each stage evolve simultaneously over long periods of time, or was there a sudden mutation? After all, each step involved changing other things, like nerves and the ability of the brain to interpret those electrical signals, right?
Just explain that there are conflicting views about the origins of humanity, and explain evolution and creationism separately under the pretext "Some people believe x and some believe y, and a couple people believe z". Go over some arguments for the different sides; for evolution, go over the idea of natural selection and mutations, for creationism, go over the idea of the seven days of creation according to the Bible and maybe the idea of intelligent design. It's not hard to do, people are just so sure they're right that they skew the opposing sides. Note that I'm not saying that I'm not the same way.
This would be great for a Philosophy class, but certainly not for a science or biology class. Saying that two sides should get equal time when in reality they are not on equal footing is disingenuous.
I'm not saying the clear majority of scientists are wrong, I'm just saying they're not necessarily right, and that we can't just assume they're right with as much dissent as we have now.
There is no real debate over Evolution, it is manufactured by people who have ulterior motives. These people are not interested in finding the truth, only instilling their own beliefs into our schools. There are debates in the biological world but it's not whether Evolution happened or not, it's over the specific processes of how it occurs. If you want to learn about a real debate in Evolution, look into Richard Dawkins' and Stephen Jay Gould's arguments over Punctuated equilibrium.
There seems to be some element of appeal to both sides, or else one side would've just given in to the other.
False. Religion doesn't concede it's beliefs. Well, at least when it comes to fundamentalist religious groups. The Vatican has actually accepted Evolution.
It just always irks me how both sides are completely convinced they're right; they never seem to consider the possibility of being wrong.
There has been plenty of debate into whether or not Evolution has wrong. The subject has been going on for decades. However, we have come to a conclusion and we acknowledge that there is significant evidence to support the hypothesis. This is why it's called a theory now.
That's why I think they should teach both in schools.
Fine, teach both. Just don't teach them in the same class. Evolution belongs in Science class, Creationism belongs in philosophy/religion class.
However, and I'm just asking this objectively, what about the steps required to advance from one stage to the next? Did all of the components of each stage evolve simultaneously over long periods of time, or was there a sudden mutation? After all, each step involved changing other things, like nerves and the ability of the brain to interpret those electrical signals, right?
Perfectly valid question. I suggest looking into the debate above surrounding Punctuated Equilibrium and Cladogenesis. I'm not quite sure what the correct answer is so let me know if you find out.
Just explain that there are conflicting views about the origins of humanity, and explain evolution and creationism separately under the pretext "Some people believe x and some believe y, and a couple people believe z".
And so we should teach everything that is believed by "some people"? Should we teach that some people actually believe the Earth is flat?
God is not science. 'Intelligent design', boiled down, is god. It should not be taught in a classroom that's goal is to teach science. The main reason for that is I.D. does not provide evidence or use the scientific method for anything, and anyone who says otherwise is lying through their teeth. I.D.'s sole purpose is to try and prove science wrong, which it can't since science proves itself. I.D. is entirely based on a negative argument, and provides no actual evidence for itself.
Also, when getting my master's degree, I studied the textbook industry. Some pretty shocking revelations, especially about Texas and how they essentially print whatever the fuck they want in history and science books. An older example had a history textbook being widely used that basically said that the U.S. won Vietnam. I've pretty much written off the entire state's educational system as run by religious morons who care more about Jesus then education.
Another issue is the false dichotomy presented that religion and science are diametric opposites. You can't "believe" or "disbelieve" in evolution. It's science. It doesn't require faith or belief. It's like telling people you don't "believe" in gravity because it's never been observed. You don't have to believe in science. No, strike that, you don't believe in science. Belief shouldn't enter the world of science. There are not conflicting scientifically valid theories (theory in the scientific sense) about the origins of complex life. There are no other valid scientific theories that belong in a science classroom.
And, if you include creationism in a "some people believe this" argument, you better be ready to include every single creation myth. Every one. The FSM, the Raelians, old Norse myths, whatever. Hiding religion in scientific terms doesn't make it science.
Personally, I'm with the Vatican (go fig). Evolution and natural selection do not have anything to say about a creator in either way. It is science and science is our way of understanding God's creation. Just because we can show transition and evolutionary process doesn't negate the idea of a creator.
Also, when getting my master's degree, I studied the textbook industry. Some pretty shocking revelations, especially about Texas and how they essentially print whatever the fuck they want in history and science books. An older example had a history textbook being widely used that basically said that the U.S. won Vietnam. I've pretty much written off the entire state's educational system as run by religious morons who care more about Jesus then education.
That didn't matter in the school district I attended. Few classes used textbooks. Apparently, the teachers didn't need help lying through their teeth. I only knew of one genuinely good teacher who taught my sophomore English class. It was known that he supported evolution and apparently spoke out so much on this subject that he was pushed out. Of course, the high school stated a different reason.
Here is the problem: How do we determine the curriculum in public schools when it is determined by a vote via democracy? The majority will always control what will be taught, even if it is mysticism.
Comments
As for educational standards in general, different people value different types of education. If they can pursue that education without endangering their right to be part of the United States, then why not allow them to? As an example, the Amish don't have to send their kids to school beyond the 8th grade. If I had kids, I'd prefer for them to get more of an education than that, but the Amish can do as they please as far as I'm concerned.
We used to think the world was flat. Who's to say that either Creationism or Evolution is right? Creationism is pretty out there, but evolution just hasn't been directly observed in the way it has been suggested.
They should teach both objectively.
As for evolution in schools, (and I've mentioned this before) I live in New York and attend what would be considered the best public science high school in the city or even the state. My biology teacher last year made it clear that she did not believe in evolution, even as she answered people's questions about it.
All in all, this video had several misconceptions about Evolution. First of all, Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life originated, just how it has changed over time. Secondly, he creates a straw man argument when he discusses how evolution has never been observed. I suppose what he is trying to get at is that "macroevolution" never actually has been observed and therefore it doesn't exist. Evolution does not dictate that major changes will occur within extremely small amounts of time "Moths to bees or birds". This is a huge misrepresentation of Evolution. It takes place in small steps and often changes don't result in an instant reclassification of a new species. However, this doesn't mean that the process isn't occurring. It is only after enough time that enough of these small changes have created enough of a divergence from a previous form that we can call it a new species. Lastly, Evolution says nothing about creatures always evolving into "higher" life forms. What does it mean to be a "higher" life-form anyways? Evolution says nothing of the sort. Humans are no more further evolved than a fruit fly or a bacterium. The Theory doesn't dictate change from less complex to more complex either, just that change occurs. He also states "We aren't counting any of the little stuff either." Well, if you don't count the little stuff, you will never get to the big changes! "Macroevolution" occurs exactly the same way "Microevolution" occurs, so if you admit that Micro occurs then you must also admit that Macro occurs as well! They use the same processes.
Also, Dawkins isn't the sole authority on Evolution so just because you can take a couple qoutes to try and make Evolution look bad, that doesn't mean it's wrong. This is just seems like anti-science propaganda anyways. To say something is beyond the reach of science is to say that it is unanswerable and I fully believe that he is wrong. Just because we can't be 100% certain doesn't mean we can't make guesses and test our ideas. We can a very robust explanation as to how our world and universe work. We test our ideas and they work out just as we predict. He closes with a statement saying that if Evolution was put through the rigors of ID that it wouldn't pass the test. Well he may be surprised to know that it has been and it has been through so much more rigor than ID has even had a glimpse of.
Also, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians worked out that the world was round and even measured the size of the earth to a remarkable accuracy. To say we used to think the world was flat is pushing it a bit when we knew it was round before 2500. Anyone who knows about the writing of the bible will know that is roughly the time when Genesis was redacted. In other words, humans probably knew the earth was round BEFORE the people of Judah settled on the creation myth we read in the bible today.
My point is that I don't think evolution alone could evolve a creature with as complex systems as a human from bacteria, even given billions of years. At the same time, I don't believe in the Creationist view too much either.
Here is a good example using the eye:
Found this on Little Green Footballs (a conservative blog). It's an amazing speech and Q&A; session by Ken Miller about the introduction of Creationism into school systems under the guise of "Intelligent Design." The speaker is a cellular biologist who wrote textbooks on Biology that you might have used in high school. I know I did. One of his books is the one that Cobb County, GA (where I reside) placed its infamous anti-Evolution warning stickers. It's a 45-50 minute lecture with a 1 hr Q&A.; Long, but entertaining as well as informative.
Oh, and he covers the myths of Intelligent Design including "irreducible complexity" using the example of an amoebic flagellum and blood clotting. If you're not interested in watching the really smart guy talk, I'll sum up: Irreducible complexity is:according to author and scientist[sic] Michael Behe. According to Behe and other of his ilk, a bacteria flagellum is made up of parts that have no other function, nor did they other and if separated, they would cease to function. Well, Miller points out that if you take 10 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, they make up an entirely different functioning organ. Watch the vid for technical speak. I'm a musician, not a biologist. On blood clotting, the idea is that we have twelve factors in our blood. Without any one of them, blood wouldn't clot. Therefore, according to Behe, irreducible complexity. Well, without one of those proteins, we'd bleed out. But dolphins and whales are missing one of those proteins and they clot just fine. Puffer fish clot missing two or three.
Well worth the watching. If I had taken his bio class in college, I might have actually enjoyed it.
Also, when getting my master's degree, I studied the textbook industry. Some pretty shocking revelations, especially about Texas and how they essentially print whatever the fuck they want in history and science books. An older example had a history textbook being widely used that basically said that the U.S. won Vietnam. I've pretty much written off the entire state's educational system as run by religious morons who care more about Jesus then education.
And, if you include creationism in a "some people believe this" argument, you better be ready to include every single creation myth. Every one. The FSM, the Raelians, old Norse myths, whatever. Hiding religion in scientific terms doesn't make it science.
Personally, I'm with the Vatican (go fig). Evolution and natural selection do not have anything to say about a creator in either way. It is science and science is our way of understanding God's creation. Just because we can show transition and evolutionary process doesn't negate the idea of a creator.