A revolution for evolution - Intelligent design must not replace hard science in classrooms.

Minneapolis Star/Tribune (aka The Red Star) ^ | 11/11/05 | Editorial Staff

[MplsSteve]

Citizens in Dover, Pa, did the right thing this week by voting out most of its school board for its anti-science, pro-intelligent design stand. Voters there rejected a school leadership group that had tried to discredit the theory of evolution and teach students intelligent design (ID), the notion that lifeforms are so complex that a higher being must have designed them.

Under the leadership of the current board, Dover schools became the first in the nation to require that attention be paid to ID.

[From many - one.]

Evolution has no more to say about God than astronomy.

The arguments against Evolution are remarkably similar to the arguments against Galileo's heliocentric solar system.

[From many - one.]

They don't.

Most opposition to evolution is based on a wrong idea about what it is.

To repeat: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

[From many - one.]

Evolution does not address the origin of life.

I am thinking of creating a list of those who were specifically told this so as not to have to deal with having to repeat it too many times.

[From many - one.]

Whave you read about the Wedge Project?

[From many - one.]

There is no scientific evidence discrediting evolution.

There is wishful thinkng and, in some cases, blatant dishonesty at Creationist websites.

[taxesareforever]

There is no scientific evidence discrediting evolution. In contrast there is no scientific evidence supporting evolution. Only theories. The last time I checked theories are not facts.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a wish, and neither you nor anyone cannot prove it

Absolutely no theory in science can be proven. Gravitational theory cannot be proven. Atomic theory cannot be proven. Germ theory cannot be proven. Objecting to evolution as science because it cannot be proven only demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of how science works.

[Dimensio]

Who is lying about evilution theology having nothing to do with origins of life again?

You are. The origin of life is a subject in biology, as is evolution, and both are of interest to a subset of life scientists. That does not mean that the origin of life is a part of the theory of evolution itself. And calling it a "religion" is another of your lies.

But then it's obvious that you don't care about facts. You've already decided that you don't like evolution. The facts aren't on your side, though, so you have to use lies to support your agenda.

[Dimensio]

In contrast there is no scientific evidence supporting evolution. Only theories.

You have been told before what "theory" means in the context of science. That you continue to play semantic games with the word after being told what it means and what is required for an explanation to be termed "theory" only confirms that you are a shameless liar using any dishonest means you can concieve when facts are not on your side.

[taxesareforever]

You have been told before what "theory" means in the context of science.

I like to keep hearing it. I'm sure it makes the provider of such info feel so much better.

[Dimensio]

I like to keep hearing it.

Yes, so you can disregard it and make up your own definitions. I understand why you lie. It's so much easier for you to win arguments when you ignore reality.

Do you really think that you are morally justified when you have to resort to blatant lies about science terminology to support your claims? Do you honestly think that you expose a weakness in evolution when you deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent the definition of the word "theory"?

[jonno]

bump

[From many - one.]

The facts (data) support the theory of evolution.

No facts (data) support ID.

[blowfish]

Luckily, ID is spared any such issues, since there's no pesky physical evidence to get in the way of the theory!

[shuckmaster]

Whether those factors include divine intervention, or an extraterrestrial "ark", or something else entirely, is pure speculation.

And this pure speculation is what you want taught in science class???

[Lexinom]

No, I'm not "ignorant" of the scientific method, and I find ad hominums like this to be a common theme among those sharing your viewpoint.

[JCEccles]

teach students intelligent design (ID), the notion that lifeforms are so complex that a higher being must have designed them.

Again, a misstatement of the central idea behind intelligent design. ID postulates that some structures essential to life could not have arisen by random forces acting on inanimate matter. Rather, the most logicially coherent inference is that intelligence plays a role. The question of who or what this intelligence is, is not essential to ID theory.

[Tench_Coxe]

One of the beauties of Free Republic is that there is a thread history where subjects just don't disappear into the 'memory hole'.

I despise intellectual dishonesty. To deny that there is not a push to tie these things together is reprehensible. It would be nice to give these folks their own little home here on FR that does not detract from the purpose of this forum ( um, politics ).

[Tench_Coxe]

But even more importantly, is this VERY important article....

[hosepipe]

Evolution = The soup of life creating the eater of the soup.. digesting it, producing a result.. The scat being studied to provide funding for many Universitys.. and a buttload of true believers forming the Church of the Scatological Enabled.. which they vociferiously deny as hate speech..