Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
Maybe *you* don't, but *we* certainly do. We've looked at the evidence.
It's simply an assumption. An interesting one, I'll grant you, but nothing more than one.
Uh huh... And where exactly did you "learn" this bit of nonsense?
I could take you into any well-stocked research library and quite literally *bury* you in journal articles detailing the supporting evidence for evolution. That makes it quite a bit more than "simply an assumption", son.
Well since you don't ask me for a definition, maybe you will answer some questions for me. How is the evolution of a lung with respect to a swim bladder taught in school? How is the evolution of a tetrapod with respect to a lobe-finned fish taught in the same class?
Evolution and creation are both theories....nither can be proven or disproven without a shadow of a doubt, and both should be given equal footing. I am saying this as someone who does not concider himself religious.
By thousands of paleontologists working hand-in-hand with thousands of biologists, geologists and physicists, locating, dating and cataloging hundreds of thousands of fossils over a couple of centuries.
Just like they might operate without the hand of a designer. Why introduce something that isn't needed? You'll need to come up with something stronger to inject a designer into the process.
Evolution does not violate either the first or second LoT because the Earth is not a closed system. By your lights, the formation of snowflakes would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Something does not come from nothing...
I've bet you've heard of zero-point energy.
... and the organized tends toward disorganization.
In the overall system. However, greater local organization is possible as long as the disorganization in the overall system increases.
[Thunderous applause!] The geological column article by Morton is now added to the list-o-links.
As a tabletop wargamer, I have to agree, although my preferred genre is Victorian Science Fiction.
Elwood, the surviving Blues Brother...
Evolution is a theory (in the scientific sense, not in the common usage of the word). Creationism doesn't even rise to the level of a testable hypothesis.
And basketball is played by basketball players. That does not tell me how the game differs from football. I asked how the sequence was determined.
I've been getting into wargaming lately. What's your favorite system? I've been working into it by playing some of the space games (Battlefleet Gothic, Babylon 5 Wars, etc). A friend of mine is trying to push me into the money suck that is Warhammer, and so far, I've successfully resisted.
I'm sure you'll adopt tinfoil theory you want; someone who could believe creationism could give credence to anything, In my experience, however, most scientists in the field of NMR don't even know Damadian's a creationist. They know (and mostly dislike) him for his 25 year campaign to try to steal credit for NMR imaging from its inventors.
Of course, when I tell 'em he's also a creationist, after the initial REALLY!?, they don't seem shocked at all.
"Similarly, if God created the universe using the big bang as a tool and then allowed it to proceed according to the laws of nature He established, then who created the universe?
I don't have a problem with calling God's action the "Big Bang."
"The "organized tends toward disorganization" seems to
suggest the myriad possible changes of natural selection."
Natural selection only suggests survival of the fittest, not species jumping as one of the "myriad possible change."
"Also, species boundaries are changed through evolution.
Reproduction outside of a species doesn't occur because
the species is redefined by the successful changes it
adapts and absorbs."
Seems like a catch-22, is there a species boundary window that opens and closes?
"since "Creation" is the most extreme example possible of "something coming from nothing", and "organization" coming from "disorganization", how the HECK do you conclude that "Creation is more in line with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics than evolution"?"
That is why He is the Creator, He is outside of the laws that govern this universe.
If you see no sense or design in the fossil record I really don't see why you would want to call it a "cornerstone" of evolution theory.
Forensic science deals with current evidence and events. Evolution theory makes assertions stretching back into the unrecorded and unobservable. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that any assertions based on such things is merely positing reasonable conjecture. It should not be treated as a matter of fact.
As far as criminal justice is concerned, there is always an element of uncertainty, as the prospect of false and unreliable witness is all but certain.
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.