Creation vs. Evolution

[Liquid]

So why do men have nipples?

On men, they're part of the body's thermoregulatory system, just like they are on women.
On men, they're the apex of lactation, just like they are on women.

I blame popular culture for that too, because when people say "I have a hypothesis." they always mean "I have an hypothesis.".

Bloody language drift. I blame American television.

A hypothesis is correct, with the typical pronunciation of the word. If the pronunciation was with a silent H, then an hypothesis would be correct. But as far as I know, the H is pronounced, therefore just A is needed.

 

[Famine]

Nnnnnnnnnnnup. Depending on their origin, words with a proximal "h", even when specifically pronounced, can be preceded by "an", not "a". We're drifting away from it and towards the American, but it's all the fault of the French, you see.

Many words in French that begin with an "h" ("ash" to them, "aitch" to us) don't have it pronounced. Such words that have migrated into the English language have been subject to hypercorrection, where the proximal "h" is pronounced as "huh" instead of being silent, but retained the indefinite "an". Quick examples include:

Hotel/Hotel - "oh-tel" in French, "hoh-tel" in English; An hotel
Historic/Historique - "ees-tor-eek" in French, "hiss-tor-ik" in English; An historic*

However, words we didn't get from them don't have an equivalent:

House - "Maison" in French; A house
Husband - Mari" in French; A husband

I think those two are Germanic - and related, since I recall "husband" derives from Norse for "house dweller". There's more complex ones where the French, English and American English can't agree...

Herb/Herb/Herbe; "err-be" in French, "herb" in English, "erb" in American English; Uhhh... Don't know.


Hypothesis is in the French list ("hypothese" - ee-po-thay-say), so it gets an "an". It's archaic, I grant you - but I like archaic and I'd send modernists to gaol.


Anyway, why did Adam have a navel?

*Most newsreaders will still use "an historic occasion", thankfully.

 

[Liquid]

The principle is, is that if one pronounces the haitch, then it is just "a", regardless of your well-versed etymological background information. If you actually say 'istoric or 'ypothesis, much like hour is pronounced 'our and honour is 'onour, then I could understand the use of "an". It is the pronunciation that is the key. An historic or an hypothesis are simply not correct. They're hypercorrection of hypercorrection. I always write a historic but I do say "an 'istoric" due to my non-rhotic, lazy accent. But I never say "an 'ypothesis", so I should not ever write an hypothesis. Again, it's the sound of the word that is the critical factor, and we Saxons and anglicised Celts made the mistake of pronouncing the haitches.

The argument here is that we should really maintain the native pronunciations of loanwords, because it leads to ambiguity. 16th-18th century illiteracy also contributed greatly to this mix up.

For the record I too send people to gaol, I don't believe in faeries and still use the term foetus even though it's a corruption and fetus is correct.

---

Why did Adam have a navel? Because the rest of us were going to have them, of course!

It's consistency.

 

[Famine]

The principle is, is that if one pronounces the haitch

"Haitch"? Thaaaat's a paddlin'.

then it is just "a", regardless of your well-versed etymological background information. If you actually say 'istoric or 'ypothesis, much like hour is pronounced 'our and honour is 'onour, then I could understand the use of "an". It is the pronunciation that is the key. An historic or an hypothesis are simply not correct. They're hypercorrection of hypercorrection. I always write a historic but I do say "an 'istoric" due to my non-rhotic, lazy accent. But I never say "an 'ypothesis", so I should not ever write an hypothesis. Again, it's the sound of the word that is the critical factor, and we Saxons and anglicised Celts made the mistake of pronouncing the haitches.

You're right that it's the pronunciation that's the key, but it's the pronunciation of the "h" that was the original error.

I have no idea where this came about... I'd guess that the Germanic "h" was rooted in the language and Anglo-Saxons would read Norman French texts with the proximal "h" but speak them without them as the Normans would, making mutated, quasi-portmanteau words.

The argument here is that we should really maintain the native pronunciations of loanwords, because it leads to ambiguity.

Retaining the native pronunciations wouldn't suit. After all, they're French.

But the smooshing of French and Middle English made modern English what it is - and "an historic" is a shining example of this. It's also the correct term in Queen's English and RP.

For the record I too send people to gaol, I don't believe in faeries and still use the term foetus even though it's a corruption and fetus is correct.

And "-ise"?

Why did Adam have a navel? Because the rest of us were going to have them, of course!

It's consistency.

If Adam was made in God's image, God had a navel too...

Meaning he was... born.

DUN DUN DUUUUN!

 

[Liquid]

But the smooshing of French and Middle English made modern English what it is - and "an historic" is a shining example of this. It's also the correct term in Queen's English and RP.

Queen's English and RP don't apply in "Cambria" and shouldn't apply in Jorvikshire!

And "-ise"?

Civilization aside, of course.

If Adam was made in God's image, God had a navel too...

Meaning he was... born.

DUN DUN DUUUUN!

Uh-oh. I think we may be seeing a few flaws in this whole creation malarkey.

Do you have any alternate theories? (!)

 

[niky]

I was reading the news last night when this topic came to mind, as I saw them use "an historic" in the text.

At this point, it's all whether you follow tradition or simply reassert English rules to suit modern language. Not that English doesn't have thousands of idiosyncrasies that make it difficult for non-native speakers to learn, already...

And Adam has a navel because that's where God reached in to pull out the rib. Eve had a navel because God didn't want Adam to feel bad about it.

-

Of course, outies are the work of Satan.

 

[Liquid]

And Adam has a navel because that's where God reached in to pull out the rib. Eve had a navel because God didn't want Adam to feel bad about it.

So he reached in and then upwards?

Effort.

 

[Sureboss]

Pervert.

 

[niky]

What they don't tell you in the Bible was that the 13th rib was lower than the rest of them. Just above the hip. And the hole is small because he used tweezers.

Or are you implying that God was too lazy to physically extract a rib from a tiny glob of clay and instead took the easy way out and made Eve from a fresh batch?

 

[Famine]

Of course, outies are the work of Satan.

I don't think there's anyone who can disagree with this.

 

[Liquid]

If Adam had 13 ribs originally, why don't we have 13 too?

 

[Dennisch]

If Adam had 13 ribs originally, why don't we have 13 too?

Our wives took 'em.

 

[niky]

If Adam had 13 ribs originally, why don't we have 13 too?

Lamarckist heredity, of course. . Adam passed on the lack of ribs to his off-spring.

 

[wfooshee]

An advantageous trait, obviously.

 

[Tesla]

So we've just started our Evolution unit in science. From what I can tell, it's law for them to teach evolution as an alternative theory as creationism. While I completely support the right for religious kids to express their religion and hold their beliefs to be valid, why must evolution - a falsifiable theory - be held to the same standard as creationism in a class that promotes critical thinking?

 

[Carbonox]

So we've just started our Evolution unit in science. From what I can tell, it's law for them to teach evolution as an alternative theory as creationism. While I completely support the right for religious kids to express their religion and hold their beliefs to be valid, why must evolution - a falsifiable theory - be held to the same standard as creationism in a class that promotes critical thinking?

Because equality.

My view is pretty much plain and simple - creationists' arguments are full of logical fallacies and they're unable to prove their "theory" without citing their "holy book" written 2000 years ago, when people had no means to scientifically explain natural phenomena.

 

[wfooshee]

Evolution as an alternative theory?

How about evolution in science class, and creationism in religion class. Why is that so hard?

My stepdaughter went to a parochial school for high school. They "presented" evolution in their textbooks. The books went out of their way to present it as a fallacy, and to show how each and every part of it was wrong, because it went against the Truth of the Word of God. This can be done in an accredited school??!??!?!

 

[Tesla]

I don't know. This is in a public school, we also had the same unit last year (at a different public school) and it was presented in a similar fashion. You can tell some of the teachers feel somewhat uncomfortable teaching, as it's obviously a very touchy subject for some students.

 

[Brett]

I am glad I had a very good biology teacher when I was finally introduced to evolution in high school. It went a long way to a small, better understanding of the subject.

 

[Touring Mars]

From what I can tell, it's law for them to teach evolution as an alternative theory as creationism.

I'm very surprised by this - I guess it must depend on which state you are in, but generally speaking I thought Australian public schools were pretty firm on not allowing creationism to be taught in science class... apparently not as firm as they ought to be.

The phrase 'evolution as an alternative theory as creationism' implies that creationism is a scientific theory, which it most certainly is not - hence why it should not be a part of any self-respecting school's science curriculum. Evolution theory may be just one explanation for the origin of species - but it differs from the others, including the biblical creation hypothesis, by virtue of the fact that it is an actual scientific theory, whereas the 'alternatives' are hypotheses that have long since been discredited by the discovery of contradictory evidence.

I can understand that individual teachers - and even entire school boards - may seek to placate religious students (and their families, who themselves may be school board members) by allowing creationism a 'fair hearing' whenever the subject of evolution is addressed, and consider teaching both in science class as a 'fair solution'... but that doesn't make it right. Infact, by failing to highlight that one is a valid scientific theory and other 'explanations' are not, teachers are failing in their responsibility to their students to tell the truth, and that will never be right.

One slightly dumb question I would have is this: what is there to teach about creationism anyway? It would appear that teaching creationism is actually more about attempting to discredit science in general (and not just evolution theory) as opposed to learning anything of any real meaning about how a supposed creator might have actually gone about creating anything. The sum total of 'creation theory' seems to be merely to state that the biblical account of creation is true and everything else must be wrong. Also, the biblical account of creation is so brief, it's a wonder that it can take much longer than five minutes to teach it.

 

[DK]

Creationists fascinate me, in the way they have to build a sort of Bizarro World version of science. I remember a radio show I was listening to a few months back, and one of the guests was a physicist-turned-creationist, who used a sort of variation of that old creationist adage, "Oh, God just planted those fossils there to confuse us!" His version was that God sped up the speed of light and the decay of radioactive materials to make the universe look as if it was 13.7 billion years old. What he was doing seemed like "2 + 2 + God = 1 bazillion" to me.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Evolution as an alternative theory?

How about evolution in science class, and creationism in religion class. Why is that so hard?

In Catholic-world it's beyond that, because to every catholic (priests, bishops and popes included) evolution is widely accepted as a scientific theory with great credibility (greater by the day, actually).


Before I replied I went to check - again - if this was the result of me living in a country with an off-the-norm catholic church, but I guess not. These words are from now Pope Emeritus (Benedict XVI), and were taken from a wikipedia article:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

And, before he was Pope

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]

So ... I wonder, how is this working in Catholic Schools within mainly protestant countries (especially USA)? Are catholics over there just as "creationists in denial of scientific evidence" as many protestants seem to be?

 

[Exorcet]

So ... I wonder, how is this working in Catholic Schools within mainly protestant countries (especially USA)? Are catholics over there just as "creationists in denial of scientific evidence" as many protestants seem to be?

Where I was evolution was fact, and that was that.

 

[DK]

So ... I wonder, how is this working in Catholic Schools within mainly protestant countries (especially USA)? Are catholics over there just as "creationists in denial of scientific evidence" as many protestants seem to be?

Well, Rick Santorum is probably more of a hardcore Catholic than the Pope and he's a creationist.

 

[niky]

He's an American. And a Republican, at that. The Republican Party prides itself on finding nice, sound-bite worthy fundamentalists to throw in front of the press.

I live in a predominantly Catholic country and there's no "Creation versus Evolution" debate here. We simply have science on one side and prayers every lunch and that's that.

 

[arora]

I've never seen a controversy here, I think it's something made up by the media and perpetuated by the internet, like in this thread.

 

[wfooshee]

Nope. Fundamentalist religious organizations see evolution, and to some extent any science, and anti-God, therefore evil. It's not made up by the press and perpetuated by the Internet, as the debate raged on well before the Internet. Look up the Scopes trial, staged to fight a law in Tennessee which made it illegal to teach evolution in state-funded schools. Creationism was actually the law of the land!!

 

[Hun200kmh]

Thanks for the answers and comments. Interesting that Santorum guy, however if there's one particular thing about catholicism is that - regardless of political correctness or incorrectness - the Pope is the earthly supreme commander in questions of faith. Of course Evolution is no religious dogma (that would be weird) so the Santorum guy may or may not endorse it. However, what he may NOT is to say that by being a catholic he thinks evolution is contradictory to faith in God. Being catholic has nothing to do with such a (ridiculous IMO) opinion.

One question (put by me) remains and I'm sincerely interested in its answer, even more now because of the "Santorum" case. He is an american catholic, probably he studied in an american catholic school. Does this means american catholic schools teach "creationism" and that the theory of evolution is against their faith??? Can anyone tell me? First hand experience or not, doesn't matter.

 

[Bye Ya]

This article made me think of ND Tyson's position on intelligent design. Here we are, can't defend ourselves against the design where rocks fly through space and wipe us from existence.

Scientists: No Options to Stop Killer Asteroids

 

[arora]

Look up the Scopes trial, staged to fight a law in Tennessee which made it illegal to teach evolution in state-funded schools. Creationism was actually the law of the land!!

I don't need to look it up, I know all about public education fights. Public education is lame and should go away.(but I rant about that way to often)