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.
Absent dots, a God-of-the-Gaps must needs obtain.
Semantics. Yes. I told you what I meant by "story telling," namely fabrications of the imagination, so that you would not confuse the issue. Criminal justice is carried out in the present day with evidence to support a representation of history as best understood by the same. Evolutionist propositions depending upon "millions of years" have NO eyewitness testimony, let alone a human record, and thus may be treated as stories that are plausible at best . . unlike the great flood.
"Why am I lurking here?" Placemarker
"I lurk; therefore, I am."
"To spam is human; to lurk, divine."
"Better to have lurked and lost, than to never have lurked at all."
"He posted in a lurky-jerky fashion...."
"Does your lurking lose its flavor on the cyber-bedpost overnight?"
I defintely know you have only some notion of how heavy elements are created by supernovas because neither you, nor anyone else was there to observe it.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of flash flooding like the kind that has been documented by human voice and hand over generations since the time of recorded history. A much more reliable source than the imagination, to be sure.
So...your big evidence here--which you distinguish from a "story" is that someone told someone who told someone who told someone...? Of course there are lots of ancient flood stories--there were lots of ancient floods. An ice chunk a mile high was melting off the Northern Hemisphere. You got a story about how this, all-at-once flood pressed these Grand Canyon fossils into a solid rock about 1/2 the size of 4 states, with a mile deep gash in it?
Who wants to put faith in a story and call it science.
Just scientists, apparently.
My request is that those self-same non-fanatics keep their cotton pickin' hands to themselves at such public institutions as allow everyone to pick everyone else's pocket thru tgaxation, such as school board meetings and legislative sessions, otherwise, it needs to be made clear, at every such public opportunity, what their theory's actual standing is in the court of scientific reasoning, and why.
...and by the way, if you want to be treated with dainty old-world courteously by scientists, you might consider refraining from promulgating the massive conspiracy theory of evolution. If there were a hole in evolutionary theory big enough to drive a stake into it's heart, someone would be collecting their Nobel prize for it as we speak.
######...and by the way, if you want to be treated with dainty old-world courteously by scientists, you might consider refraining from promulgating the massive conspiracy theory of evolution.#####
Not so much a conspiracy as the usual herding/hiving behavior we see on the left. The same system that leads to the overwhelming majority of profs at prestige schools being leftists.
Hehe. I would think you would have inferred that I don't even have the slightest notion.
So...your big evidence here--which you distinguish from a "story" is that someone told someone who told someone who told someone...?
Well, yes. It is a historical narrative maintained with unusual care. I fail to see how anyone in their right mind would fabricate such a story. Perhaps you could explain since you appear to be an arbiter of sanity. To see that the great flood narrative spread from generation to generation without any serious questioning until the Enlightenment makes it that much more believeable. The fossil record also seems to agree with a world covered by forty days worth of heavy precipitation.
You got a story about how this, all-at-once flood pressed these Grand Canyon fossils into a solid rock about 1/2 the size of 4 states, with a mile deep gash in it?
Why confine things to the Grand Canyon? Get back to me when you figure out what percentage of the earth's surface that has been mined for evidence related to the geological column. (Hint: it's really, really small.) For my part I will predict that, if/when it's mined completely, the evidence will fit in nicely with a worldwide flood that began approximately 7,150 years, 6 months, 3 days, 2 hours, 20 minutes, 18 seconds ago, give or take 40 days.
Take your argument up with the Smithsonian. That was a quote from their article, but you might be a little cautious at charging Damadian with attempted theft. His machine is in the Smithsonian, not your hero's. And he has won his case before the U.S. Supreme Court, so have at it. The mere creationist has done quite a bit more for humanity than you have or probably ever will.
Isn't evolution supposed to make "predictions"? It appears as if it doesn't. Which then leads to how a fossil sequence can mean anything to evolution.
You'd better move away,Apologies to Waylon Jennings.
You're standin' too close to the flame.
Once I mess with your mind,
Your little heart won't beat the same.
Lord, I'm a lurkin' man,
Don't mess around with any ol' lurkin' man.
WEll, once again, this is quite a stretch, the sciences are hardly a hotbed of leftist sentiment. And, regardless, your opinion of the mental mushiness and herd mentality of the serious scientist--a trained professional cynic engaged in a lifelong race for recognition in a distinctly differentiating manner--is a little on the naive side.
Excellent post.
There are a handful of people on this thread that jump all over anyone that questions Evolution. I keep wondering, "Why are they so afraid of Evolution being disproved?"
Of course, I know what the answer is, but they deny it emphatically and keep pointing to anyone who disagrees with them as being stupid or blind sheep. Your opener is perfect. The argument has become B-O-R-I-N-G because, while most Creationists are willing to weigh the evidence of Evolution and even concede to Evolution within the species, they refuse to move an inch from their 'sacred ground.'
Hehe. I would think you would have inferred that I don't even have the slightest notion.
Ok, so we are bagging physical astronomy, as well. I suppose geology is next in your sights. What are we going to be left with after your grand sweepup--taxidermy and homeopathy?
So...your big evidence here--which you distinguish from a "story" is that someone told someone who told someone who told someone...?
Well, yes. It is a historical narrative maintained with unusual care.
Then I guess I can rest my case at this point.
The fossil record also seems to agree with a world covered by forty days worth of heavy precipitation.
Say it long enough, and loud enough, and before long, 10% of the world will swear that the sun shines black. Kindly take up my challenge and explain the hydrological principles by which a 40 day flood lays down the colorado plateau and cuts the grand canyon through it.
Why confine things to the Grand Canyon? Get back to me when you figure out...................
I thought not.
figure out what percentage of the earth's surface that has been mined for evidence related to the geological column. (Hint: it's really, really small.) For my part I will predict that, if/when it's mined completely, the evidence will fit in nicely with a worldwide flood that began approximately 7,150 years, 6 months, 3 days, 2 hours, 20 minutes, 18 seconds ago, give or take 40 days
Aha, but when you make up a totally nonsensical story that conflicts with where the fraction of evidence that is available is pointing, why, that's airtight induction.
This is such errant total nonsense that even most creationists twinge and duck when someone like you comes along. No matter what fraction of the available evidence the Grand Canyon represents, there is no possible way for a flood to carve it, short of God coming down and tending to it personally with a sluce hose the size of Mercury, and army of trained rock-polishing angels.
You could if your theory had so much as a hint of recollection on the part of humankind, let alone the capcity for direct observation. As it stands, you don't even have a case.
Good points all the way around. Thanks.
FYI, each of the reactions that astrophysicists hypothesize to occur in supernovae have been seen in fusion reactions here on earth. Not only that, the by-products of the reactions are seen, right down to the flavors of neutrinos expected in each reaction.
I tend to get suspicious when results confirm hypotheses. I get really suspicious when it is claimed things on earth replicate what is happening in outer space. Playing with atoms is a healthy pursuit where an understanding of creation is concerned. I trust the laws of physics continue to perform as God established them from the beginning.
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. This isn't one of them. What is your point? That you fail to understand what evolutionary theory says?
Please enumerate the laws of Physics.
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.