Skip to comments.Academic freedom for creation explanation
Posted on 03/19/2009 10:26:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As a freshman, I haven't been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don't take very long to notice.
In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.
I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections. But I have learned that if I'm not an evolutionist, my questions don't get credited, or even heard.
When I ask why theories such as intelligent design are discredited so off-handedly, I typically hear, "Because intelligent design involves metaphysics, but evolution is based only on facts." Well, I am not so sure.
Obviously, Darwin observed mutation and selection processes within the finch species of the Galapagos. But was he really seeing the extreme mutation and selection that would be required to make a bird out of a dinosaur?
It seems to me Darwin's idea of increasingly specialized life descending from simple, single-celled creatures, was entirely conjectural.
The theory might have had its roots in meticulous observation, but considering what we now know, the theory no longer seems to adequately explain such things as biodiversity and the origins of life. Never mind that paleontologists have yet to uncover the majority of "common ancestors."
Never mind that textbooks must be rewritten every time a greater understanding of genetics tells us that birds are actually reptilians; that humans are closer kin to sand dollars than ants or bees.
Never mind the leap of faith required to explain how incredibly complex single-celled life could have possibly developed from a floating mass of random proteins and minerals.
The scientific community assures me that evolution will undoubtedly produce answers to all these problems. But in the meantime, nobody else is allowed to say anything. If you ask me, this isn't academic freedom. True academic freedom would look like a variety of scientists, with differing opinions, having open and respectful debates about their ideas.
It would look like evolutionists actually being willing to learn what intelligent design advocates think, instead of dismissing them off-hand as religious fanatics or Creationists.
On April 6, a non-religious, non-political student organization will be hosting Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" on campus.
If you are an evolutionist, I encourage you to come and see it and prove that reason, respect, and open minds still factor into today's science.
Of course evolution is a theory. I refer you to post 17, an excellent side-by-side comparison of evolution (science) and creation (faith). Both coexist beautifully. To blindly diminish science in the name of faith exposes a terribly weak faith. The majority of Christians (myself included) suffer from no such weakness.
Of course you miss the point that a 'theory' supported by logical fallacies is, in fact, faith.
"I refer you to post 17, an excellent side-by-side comparison of evolution (science) and creation (faith). Both coexist beautifully."
I refer you again to the fact that any theory supported by fallacy is not science, but faith. Opposing faiths do not 'coexist beautifully' except in the thoughts of the double-minded.
"To blindly diminish science in the name of faith exposes a terribly weak faith."
To blindly refuse to recognize that the fallacy of affirming the consequent and the fallacy of false cause (non sequitur) are the foundation of your appeal to 'science' after the point was made directly to you is astounding. It appears to result from a near absence of critical-thinking ability.
"The majority of Christians (myself included) suffer from no such weakness."
Adding the fallacy of appeal to popularity to the previously identified fallacies does not strengthen your position.
Thanks God creationism is not taught in public school science classes. Unfortunately, the creationist’s tortured, weak-in-faith defense of his position is presented by the media as representative of the viewpoint of all Christians. The majority of us, therefore, appear feeble-minded by association, and we don’t like it.
Yes, I'm sure that's why our public schools have such excellent results in international comparisons on science education, and why so many of our students go on to higher education in physics, chemistry, and biology.
You thank God that philosophical naturalism is taught in public school science classes even after you know that it is based on multiple, logical fallacies?
"Unfortunately, the creationists tortured, weak-in-faith defense of his position is presented by the media as representative of the viewpoint of all Christians."
Unfortunately, it appears that you haven't understood a single point about the multiple logical fallacies underlying the theory of evolution and apparently can't recognize a complete lack of critical-thinking skills either. And accepting the media's definition of a position is typically not consistent with the reality of the position.
"The majority of us, therefore, appear feeble-minded by association, and we dont like it."
I note your repeat of the fallacy of appeal to popularity after having it explained to you. While I tend to agree with your conclusion, I don't think the association is the problem...
Wow—what a stretch! If creationism were taught as science, do you really believe that US students would be better prepared?
“You thank God that philosophical naturalism is taught in public school science classes even after you know that it is based on multiple, logical fallacies? “
The point is that it is NOT based on the fallacies that you assert.
“Unfortunately, it appears that you haven’t understood a single point about the multiple logical fallacies underlying the theory of evolution...”
Unfortunately, I don’t believe that you know what a “logical fallacy” is. Just because you disagree with a point doesn’t make it fallacious.
Really, stop taking talking points from answersingenesis.com.
Whining Creationist Echochamber Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........bump........bump........bump........bump........bump.........ump...........ump.........mp.......p................
I believe that both creation and evolution are irrelevant - particularly at the public school level - to the vast majority of successful science education, which involves the memorization and use of verifiable facts as well as MATH.
Please join another political party, or start your own. Anti-evolutionists, literal bible creationists, and young-earthers give the pubbie party a deserved black eye, and subject it to ridicule.
Like it or not, The pubbie party gets mocked (rightly so, IMHO) for being against science because of these Art Bell maroons.
Flame away. See tagline.
And Noah Webster invented modern English orthography, but you seem to consider yourself an exception.
Please explain how 'logic' evolved from dead, inorganic matter. Please explain how 'reason' evolved as a result of Darwinism.
I have no argument with you on that!
It’s impossible to argue with a poet, so I won’t even try!
Check out creationscience.com. Dr. Walt Brown has made his creation book available for free online. 3 parts w/ the 1st dedicated to what is proven (micro-evolution) and what isn’t (macro-evolution or species evolving into higher life forms).
Dr. Browns online book details his hydroplate theory (part II) regarding the cataclismic movement of the continents. Dr. Brown originally worked as an evolutionary scientist. His credentials are impeccable and his book provides references to most everything he asserts even though it is mostly presented in laymans terms.
He also includes much of the math involved in his estimates. Part 3 is a question and answer section. It is the most complete and highly detailed/researched for any creation science reference.
That's unusual. Many seem to think that Darwinian orthodoxy is all a "science" student needs, while calculus and the periodic table are just distractions.
“If Darwin says one species changes into another, why don’t we ever see a creature that is half cockroach, half mouse?”
I beg to differ. Take a tour of Congress and you will see plenty of them, although I don’t think it is fair to blame Darwin.
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.