Posted on 09/23/2008 9:09:38 AM PDT by thinkingIsPresuppositional
The theory of Darwinian evolution is one of the least rigorous scientific theories in modern memory.
The record of Darwinian science is also rife with hoaxes, including
And yet, if you deviate in any way from belief in this theory, you put yourself at grave risk. Even scientists who merely approach the question with scientific skepticism are at risk. You can lose your job, your funding, be denied tenure, have your career ruined or be sued by the ACLU.
But how about if you are a scientist who SUPPORTS the theory of evolution yourself, but suggest that maybe it would be okay if kids in a classroom were allowed to ask challenging questions?
Nope.
Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution
This week, in Britain, we have had the highest profile proof that even a hint that your views on evolution might differ from those of the scientific establishment is enough to force you out. Prof. Michael Reiss, an evolutionist and the Royal Society’s director of education, resigned under pressure (given the push) within a couple of days of merely suggesting that creationism and ID could be discussed in classrooms—even if it was in order to explain why they were, in his view, wrong.
Immediately, atheistic scientists called for him to be ousted, claiming he was wanting creationism to be taught as an alternative to evolution. This was not his position, so he was not pushed out because of what he actually said, but because other people misrepresented what he had said. The Royal Society should have defended Reiss against those who were twisting his words, but instead they gave in, thus saving their own reputation for evolutionary orthodoxy.
Note, at the risk of repetition, that Reiss is an evolutionist himself. He was simply saying it was OK for pupils to express their own opinions. He said, ‘There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have—hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching—and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion.’
You don't have to be a six-day creationist, or any kind of creationist at all, or even a believer in God to see that at least some of the believers in Darwinian evolution are members of a self-created orwellian cult.
//You don’t have to be a six-day creationist, or any kind of creationist at all, or even a believer in God to see that at least some of the believers in Darwinian evolution are members of a self-created orwellian cult.//
Bttt
Science without dissent is not science.
Which version is permissible? The Catholic? The Mormon, The Hindu? The Islamist? Native American?
Why do ID Christians want an exception to the First Amendment to help establish a state religion. Are they losing members in the flock?
but but evolution is a FACT!
The only ones who don’t believe the FACT are those narrow-minded, unenlightened simpletons who are bitterly clinging to their religion...and guns (the premier tools of survival for the fittest).
...like me.
BTW...excellent snapshot summary of the myriad of probelms for the evo THEORY...AKA as creation worship. Thanks for posting it!
It is a sad day when discussion of a topic = establishment of a religion. Only a radical leftwing justice with an anti-God agenda could make that stretch. Too bad the court is full of those, and the scientific community for that matter.
Why are Darwinites so intent on stifling any discussion on the merits of his theory?
This story is merely one more example of the silencing of any discussion, even one that would disprove ID or Creationism in UK schools, not US Schools.
It troubles me that debate or even polite discussion can so easily be silenced.
Most Christians have no problem with evo being taught in schools, as little humor is a good thing in every place of learning, they just want ALL theories taught with equal weight.
Science without science is not science.
On the larger issue of teaching creationism in the UK schools you should note that despite Reiss being a Christian most of the pressure to do this is coming from Muslims. It's part of the slow, creeping Shariah-fication of the UK and the realization of this fact was one of the motivations of the opposition (the other being scientific).
ID and creationism are not scientific theories. They do not even amount to hypotheses.
They are religious beliefs masquerading as science, and doing a very poor job of it.
Why should science welcome with open arms such beliefs when all of the scientific evidence found to date contradicts them and the debate on these subjects was concluded in the 1800s?
Then debunk them in fair and open debate, if they are so offbase, and Darwinism is so airtight, then what is there to fear from such a discussion?
Why do you want to teach in science class that God is dead?
How about any or all.
Why do ID Christians want an exception to the First Amendment to help establish a state religion
What part of the first amendment would be violated?
(If you deem it to be appropriate to do so, please ping the usual crew...)
You have not studied quantum mechanics.
In quantum mechanics, if something can occur, IT ABSOLUTELY WILL OCCUR, given enough time.
for example, if you hold a uranium 238 atom in your hand, it is not going to be radiactive. If you hold it in your hand for about 4 billion years, you have a 50% chance it will decay.
it is the same with evolution, just because something is extremely unlikely to happen, does not mean it won’t.
After studying QM, and given 4 billion years and billions, maybe trillions of life forms, it is almost a certainty evolution does take place on a grand scale.
Its been done, but creationists just refuse to accept the answers science comes up with because their beliefs are not based on evidence.
Just look in the scientific journals. That is where scientific debate takes place, not on internet chat rooms. The evidence has been accumulating in those journals for a couple of hundred years.
But creationists, having lost in the realm of science, are now pushing their ideas in the world of public opinion. They are trying to impose their views through school boards and state legislatures. Look at how many lawyers and PR flacks the Discovery Institute has on staff, as opposed to working scientists. Look at their PR budget vs. their research budget. How many laboratories do they have in their little Seattle office vs. how many lawyers blogging from their cubicles?
So sooner or later there will be a God and he will create everything, or maybe he already has!!!!
Evolution is a pillar of Marxism and Aethiesm.
Thinking conservatives are making a mistake when they fail to examine the evidence themselves and reach their own conclusions.
You make a great point, but without recognizing its ramifications. The nature of scientific dissent is to produce an experiment with conclusions that contradict the prevailing view. It is how science is furthered.
So, when the creationists and the IDers produce such an experiment, they will be welcomed into the fold with open arms - because they are playing the same game.
The creationists and IDers have yet to do so, so wouldn't allowing creationism and ID into science class amount to affirmative action for a belief system that cannot make it into science class on its own merits?
Just a thought.
Related thread:
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:30:07 -0400
From: “Ted Davis” TDavis@messiah.edu
Subject: [asa] Michael Reiss and Royal Society: Shame on them
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/
I was shocked by the way in which Michael Reiss was forced out of his
position at the Royal Society this week. If you haven’t caught up with this
yet, do a google search for “michael reiss royal society” and you’ll see
what I am referring to.
Michael is an important member of our sister organization, Christians in
Science, and a highly competent expert in medical ethics and science
education. His comments about responding seriously to creationists in
science classes are IMO absolutely on target. The comments from some
leading scientists in the RS who oppose what he said, it seems to me,
reflect both ignorance of the origins controversy (with which we here in the
US have much more experience than our friends across the pond) and arrogance
about science education itself (on that score we can match the Brits). What
Michael was calling for, apparently, was some serious talk about how science
works and what science is, and why creationism fails to qualify as science.
Why distinguished scientists would not want that to happen in science
classes is beyond me: shame on them.
I am thinking of writing a pointed letter to the RS about this. I urge
like-minded ASA members to do likewise.
~ Ted
Those interested in the ID subject might want to follow along on this thread:
[asa] Invitation to conversation with Timaeus (Re: Intelligent Design, etc.)
From: Ted Davis Date: Mon Sep 22 2008 - 14:24:26 EDT
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/0408.html
Read the initial thread and follow it by clicking “replies” - beginning at the above link, or from here (refresh browser for latest replies):
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/
NOTE: The thread moves on to this title: [asa] Rejoinder 1 from Timaeus: to ....
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/0436.html
(There may be related titles, such as, “Rejoinder 2..”, etc., as the conversation progresses)
I see nothing wrong with any of the things you mentioned just let’s not close our minds to any of the possibilities.
Also you failed to answer any of the questions you were asked.
You then proceeded to rant about ID and creationism.
You where so desirous to post an ‘religion isn't science’ screed that you forgot the question to be answered.
What experiment was conducted that proves that evolution took place?
Then why force this man to resign?
There are holes in Dawinian theory so much so that there are new theories that have been propogated, yet any deviation from the idea is treated as some sort of “Barabarians at the Gate”.
As the initial post points out, those things that were listed are pretty much true, and they are decent questions.
For myself, I see Evolution as the Dominant Theory, not neccessarily the most complete theory, ID is a Theory that is looking for proof, Evolution does not labor under that standard so IMO it should be taught, but it’s flaws should be pointed out along the way...
Creationists: IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS A WHINE. WHINE. WHINE. WHINE.
So anyone having done what you suggest above and concludes that evolution is an appropriate belief system is not really a 'thinking conservative'?
The notion that modern, thinking conservatism requires a strictly Christian, creationist worldview diminishes conservatism to being a subset of a religious, specifically Christian, worldview.
To quote Bob Ehrlich, that's bunk.
Your genome differs from that of your parents. That is a fact.
The theory of evolution seeks to explain that fact, along with hundreds of millions of other facts.
The current evidence (facts) support the theory of evolution. That is the way science works, not through proof.
See my FR home page for some definitions, and note the definitions of "theory" and "proof."
Evolution means change in the gene pool of a population over time.
There are countless experiments that show such changes, typically in response to a change in the population’s environment. For example, exposing a population of bacteria to a drug effective against it results in the evolution of new strains of drug-resistant bacteria.
Evolution happens. It is both a fact and a theory.
I'm not that progressive. To show you how close minded I am, I would take sex education out of Kindergarten, and out of the first ... twelfth grades, and kick the gay-straight alliance out of school.
I would like to see time spent on math, reading, writing, geography, history, and accepted science.
No what he said is that if you do that and come to a reasonable conclusion then you have thought it out. But' if someone else reaches a different conclusion does not mean he has not put just as much thought into it.
Quantum mechanics is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It isn't even relevant for drawing the analogy you're trying to make. Quantum probability has nothing to say about evolution, which by its very nature (even at the molecular level) would occur on a scale too large to even talk about QM. Your argument makes about as much sense as if I were to argue that, contrary to the laws of gravity, I might just float out of my chair and hit my head on the ceiling, if I were only to sit in this chair for a few billion years. I could sit in this chair for a few septillion years, and that would absolutely not happen.
Bait and trap techniques work on children and wild animals. I'm not either. You know full well that hundreds and thousands of experiments have taken place which lead scientists to believe that the evolution happens. It is not a fact, it is not proven, because science operates differently than that.
Here is a link to coyoteman's FR homepage - he is way smarter than I, and if you are really interested, look at his posts in forum, he routinely links to exactly the kinds of things you are asking about.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~coyoteman/
The Theory of Intelligent Design has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. The most important essays on the subject have been peer reviewed. In other words they are scientific papers. Intelligent design deals with the origin of DNA and the sudden appearance of the higher taxa.
The arguments of the best minds on the subject are compelling. If you want to get better acquainted with the subject on an intellectual level, you can start with a paper by Stephan Meyer.
http://www.discovery.org/a/200
For six thousand years accepted science was that the earth was created. With as many holes that evolution has it is just a matter of time before it to will bow to another theory. It is entirely possible that none of the above is entirely correct. Or maybe they are both correct.
Reading the entire First Amendment is highly recommended before one makes such dumb@$$ statements about it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that the Amendment does not end with
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion",
...as you, apparently think, believe -- or wish -- it does.
It continues with:
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;",
before it continues on to address freedoms of speech, press, assembly and petition...
~~~~~~~~~~~
(For those of you in Rio Linda and Massachussets, that's "Read the First Amendment"!)
And, while you're at it, Read the Article, as well...
You will find that it is about a scientist tho was fired for suggesting that free expression of differing views might be appropriate. Oh, the setting was Great Britain -- where our Constitution does not apply.
IOW, your half@$$#d, ACLU-agenda comment is totally inappropriate for this thread. Take it to Daily KOS or DU -- where it better fits the leftist agenda and the lying liberal half-truth morality.
The Commies didn't like ‘The theory of Evolution through Natural Selection’ because it smacked too much of capitalism with unequal distribution of resources and the focus on the individual.
The Communists preferred Lamarckian evolution and sent anyone who advocated chromosomes, genes, or evolution through natural selection to Siberia, banned them from teaching, or executed them.
Heck no. They'll be executed. The largest single cult of anti-evolution is militant Islam.
1. the peppered moths
Peppered moths and their related cousins are still considered as evidence for evolution. A scientist who reviewed a study invalidated some of the methods employed but validated the conclusions.
2. the existence of a computer simulation of the development of the eye
This refers to an experiment done by Nilsson and Pelger that showed that a functioning eye could develop from a light sensitive spot in only a few thousand years. It was published in a scientific journal and is considered valid by the scientific community today. A guy named Berlinski wrote a critique in a commentary magazine and focused on the fact that some people who referenced the initial article referred to it as a computer simulation when it was not one.
3. archaeoraptor
Archaeoraptor is considered a fake. It is made up of bird and reptile fossils combined together. The fake was exposed by scientists. Archaeopteryx, on the other hand, fills the space that archaeoraptor tried to claim. There are at least 10 known specimens, none of which are considered fakes.
4. Earnst Haeckel’s woodcuts of embryonic development
Haeckel faked data to support his theory that embryos demonstrated evolutionary development. He was discredited by other evolutionary scientists.
5. piltdown man
Piltdown man was one of the greatest hoaxes in scientific history. It was debunked by scientists in 1949 — Fluorine content test established that Piltdown man was a relatively recent fabrication. It had zero impact on mainstream evolution theory.
6. Ardepithecus(sic) ramidus
Ardipithecus ramidus isn’t a hoax. there are more than one specimen and they are considered genuine. This is probably an entry here because James Perloff wrote a WorldNetDaily.com article in 2001 that criticized some conclusions in a Time Magazine article. He used the same misspelling.
never said any such thing. Did I? Creative, albeit weak attempt at the twisting my words though.
However, telling of the evo theories can be quite amusing! I mean to hear that some folks actually believe they evolved from lower life forms...that some ancestors of thiers were primates? Rather humorous. Just because the creation worshipers believe there is no God does not mean that to listen to their silly theory means that Christians believe their nonsense!
The Bible is full of stories about foolish people believing foolish theories and worshiping idols and false gods. To tell their story is informative and illuminates their foolishness.
Now, back to the topic of the thread...
Why do YOU think that it is ok to shut up the voices of those who hold different views than evo? Ar eyou really that scared of the scrutiny like this article excellently sumarizes? Or is it the fear that someobdy might laugh at your theories that you beleive your ancestors were primates?
You have admitted what I have been saying in that hundreds of experiments have taken place which lead scientist to believe that it happens not prove it.
It is not a fact, it is not proven, because science operates differently than that.
Don't let any of your evolution buddies hear you admit this. I could not agree more with any of these two statements.
“The Theory of Intelligent Design has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. The most important essays on the subject have been peer reviewed. In other words they are scientific papers.”
Can you name some of the leading researchers in the field along with their academic credentials. I’m interested in the topic but so far it sounds like creationsim with a philosophical twist.
No doubt you would *not* consider creationsists to be scientists right?
Oooh its the tautology power play.
I guess this debate is over— like far too many in the “science” community.
Science should be scientific— wow— good.
never said any such thing. Did I? Creative, albeit weak attempt at the twisting my words though.
So you don't want to teach ID in the science class? Yes or No?
Huh?!? "Establish a state religion".
Who in Congress is working on a Constitutional Amendment for the establishment of a 'Church of the United States of America'?
Because that's what the establishment clause in the first amendment means and prohibits. The Founders didn't want to mimic Great Britain and the 'Church of England'.
Evolution means change in the gene pool of a population over time.
Great!...It's always good to know wha tthe other side is doing! Besides we could use a stand-up comedian as a warmup act to the sermon and Bible study.
While we're at it, while our kids are required to be stundents at the government mandated attendance shcools, we'll also be passing the offering plate in civics class, beginning each morning's announcments with a prayer in Jesus' name, singing praise to Jesus in band practice, forcing all students to choir practice to sing hymns and through the neighborhoods at Christmas for the mandated "community service" hours (AKA state mandated slavery hours), we'll set up a manger scene in front of the admin offices, a blood stained Cross outside the princpal’s office (could be a great deterrent!), teach the ABC's out of the Westminster Chatecism, and require everyone to wear a robe with a Crusader's Cross on the front and back as the new school uniform. I'm all for it! Your kid's school first! And bring the travelign EVO comedy act to my church first! We'd be happy to provide the first reviews for the entertainment section of the Friday paper!
What is observable in nature is multiple nested hierarchies, in the fossil record and in ERV scars in the genomes of living things. ID has no explanation for why humans inherit the same ERV insertions as Apes, and why you can make a nested hierarchy of such insertions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.