Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection
Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution; unintelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,161-1,1801,181-1,2001,201-1,220 ... 1,841-1,857 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew

"I tend to get suspicious when results confirm hypotheses."

I hope you don't intend to make your living as a scientist.;-)


1,181 posted on 12/02/2004 7:48:05 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. This isn't one of them.

It isn't? I think you are very mistaken. I'll give you one more chance. What does evolution "predict" about lungs and lobe-fins? It made a "prediction" about mesonychus and whales. It then changed it to a "prediction" about pakicetus and whales. I know that a "prediction" has been made concerning lungs and lobe-fins. I am certain that it is taught in classes.

Lecture 26: Getting some backbone or the origin of vertebrates

Lobe-finned fish



IMPORTANT TERMS AND CONCEPTS FROM THIS LECTURE
Synapomorphies of Chordata or chordates
Earliest appearance of vertebrates in the fossil record
Mineralogy of most vertebrate skeletons and why it might be beneficial
Devonian diversification of fish
Earliest fish were jawless, meaning jaws are a syanapomorphy of later fish and all other vertebrates
Differences between chondrichthans and the bony fish (ray-finned and lobe-finned fish)
Main groups of lobe-finned fish, their relationships
To which group of lobe-finned fish do you belong?

Tetrapods: Fossil Record

Tetrapods, whose closest living relatives are lungfish,

You deny that and what the "prediction" is. Why?

1,182 posted on 12/02/2004 8:27:01 PM PST by AndrewC (New Senate rule -- Must vote on all Presidential appointments period certain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1179 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

There is a great deal more evidence for a global flood than for evolution. If the amount of time, money, passion spent on shoving evolution down everyone's throat since the mid 1800's, were spent on uncovering and publishing evidence of a global flood--we all would be ROFL our guts out at the stupid theory of evolution. Instead, we've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. God bless Mr. Johnson for exposing the centuries old lie. He is a courgeous, fabulous scientist--who has dared to declare that the world is round.


1,183 posted on 12/02/2004 8:44:07 PM PST by spitlana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: spitlana
God bless Mr. Johnson for exposing the centuries old lie. He is a courgeous, fabulous scientist...

"Mr. Johnson"?

1,184 posted on 12/02/2004 10:35:50 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1183 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I hope you don't intend to make your living as a scientist.;-)

When it comes to science I am a skeptic. I demand clean, hard facts. Where evolutionists are concerned they should make a living as theologians, for they have more faith than a Bible Belt Christian, albeit totally misplaced.

1,185 posted on 12/03/2004 4:09:20 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Please enumerate the laws of Physics.

If I thought they were finite and had a reference as such I might give it a try. As it stands, I prefer not to give an incomplete list as if it would satisfy your penchant for story telling. I would be confident, however, that throughout recorded history the laws of physics have applied themselves consistently, just as God intended when He established the universe.

Since you are somewhat of a specialist in unrecorded history I'll leave it to you to convince the world otherwise.

1,186 posted on 12/03/2004 4:16:01 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"I demand clean, hard facts."

LOL Uh huh. Here are some clean, hard facts for you to chew on.

Someone questioned the technical reasons for translating day in Genesis 1 as indefinite period of time. I thought you would be interested in one of the reasons:

The key to understanding the series of Yoms in Genesis is in Genesis 2:4 where it says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,;

The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ge 2:4). Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Yom in the first chapter also means an indefinite period of time, for God did not make everything in ONE day according to Gen 1. He made it in seven "days". Yet in verse four of Gen 2 the Bible contradicts itself if you insist on a one day (24 hr day)translation. I choose not to have the Bible contradict itself, but to be consistent.

I choose to believe that my God is smarter than I am and everyone else. I think God would not make such a simple mistake from one moment to the next. So the only translation that can be made, if one believes in God, is to translate each "day" as a period of time.

Then when the summary comes in verse Gen2:4 it translates as "in the period God made", referring to the seven periods previously mentioned. If Genesis first seven "days" were really days, then Genesis 2:4 would have had to say days and not day (yomim not yom). This is only one of several reasons the only conclusion that can be drawn without making God inconsistent or a "liar" is that YOM MEANS PERIOD in this context.


1,187 posted on 12/03/2004 4:16:22 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"I trust the laws of physics continue to perform as God established them from the beginning."

shubi: Please enumerate the laws of Physics.

"If I thought they were finite and had a reference as such I might give it a try. "

shubi: BUSTED!!! I doubt if Brew will understand why he no longer has any credibility. ;-)




1,188 posted on 12/03/2004 4:21:03 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1186 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Man. Leave it to someone devoted to pure scientific inquiry to start quoting the Bible for clean, hard facts.


1,189 posted on 12/03/2004 4:21:06 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: spitlana

"There is a great deal more evidence for a global flood than for evolution."

Oh really? Please enumerate that evidence.

"God bless Mr. Johnson for exposing the centuries old lie. He is a courgeous, fabulous scientist"

Johnson is a lawyer. Sigh...


1,190 posted on 12/03/2004 4:23:16 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1183 | View Replies]

To: shubi
BUSTED!!!

Not until you provide a finite list enumerating the Laws of Physics. Go ahead. Give it a try. As for myself, I will contend no such list exists, not only because not all scientists are aware of one anothers work, but also because certain laws of physics are yet to be discovered. Guess that makes me more of a scientist than you.

1,191 posted on 12/03/2004 4:24:40 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1188 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

You don't like it when science and the Bible work together?

Don't you believe God created science, too?


1,192 posted on 12/03/2004 4:25:04 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1189 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

BUSTED!!!
"Not until you provide a finite list enumerating the Laws of Physics. Go ahead. Give it a try. As for myself, I will contend no such list exists, not only because not all scientists are aware of one anothers work, but also because certain laws of physics are yet to be discovered. Guess that makes me more of a scientist than you."

You said you could enumerate the Laws of Physics. I did not. I am a biologist and a minister of Christ.

I love it when yall trap yourself with your own words. You should study Proverbs a bit more. ;-)


1,193 posted on 12/03/2004 4:27:42 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"On the contrary. Present experience in viewing the status quo testifies that the larger and smaller things can be juxtaposed WRT the law of gravity depending on the environment. As far as I know the world has never demonstrated bigger things always to be higher and smaller things lower. It's not as though the Law of Gravity has been the only operative factor in history. "

I am getting a vision. It is two letters. Yes I see them now.

BBBBBBBBB SSSSSSSSS


1,194 posted on 12/03/2004 4:32:00 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

What proof do you have that forty days and forty nights of rain would produce the interpretation of the Bible you espouse? (I say proof because he keeps asking us to prove stuff)

How come you keep citing the laws of Physics, when you obviously don't know what they are? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm...


1,195 posted on 12/03/2004 4:34:33 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1155 | View Replies]

To: shubi
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Yom in the first chapter also means an indefinite period of time . . .

I do not see that as the only conclusion. Even the English language often uses the same word with different meanings dependent upon the context. The Biblical account of the six days of creation attache the word "one" to the word "day," where in 2:4 the word "one" is absent, much as when we say "back in the day" we do not mean a singular day, but an indefinite period of time.

So there is more than one conclusion to be drawn here. Frankly, mine makes more sense in light of the fact that it can be demonstrated from the history of language that the same word can often be used with different meanings depending on context.

You must be truly confused if you think the same word must have the same meaning every time it occurs in the Bible.

1,196 posted on 12/03/2004 4:34:53 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

"My request is that those of us who think we'll end up with fruit flies no matter how long we breed them not be ridiculed as religious fanatics!"

I wouldn't ridicule you for that belief if you had one iota of evidence that you have a right to believe it based on some evidence. Lacking any evidence at all, you make yourself a "religious fanatic", as you base everything on faith, faith in a silly Bible interpretation NOT FAITH IN GOD.

If you had any faith in God, you would know his Word does not need defense with inane literalism.


1,197 posted on 12/03/2004 4:39:12 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1158 | View Replies]

To: shubi
What proof do you have that forty days and forty nights of rain would produce the interpretation of the Bible you espouse?

I don't. I never claimed the Bible to be provable in a scientific sense. But as for asserting some agreement between the Bible and science WRT forty days and forty nights of torrential rains, it would be much easier to set up a microcosmic test based on a historic record than it would be to set up test based on periods of time that have never been observed or recorded but only imagined.

1,198 posted on 12/03/2004 4:40:05 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1195 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"Thus I would expect to find a preponderance of tiny, amoeba-type fossils in the lower strata."

How old would these fossils be?

Please refer us to some links where we can see the amoeba fossils.


1,199 posted on 12/03/2004 4:41:05 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1156 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Obviously our Heavenly Father knew some of his children would not believe what is written. He even had Peter address this ignorance in IIPeter 3, the whole chapter. Peter tells us that "one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".

Peter is specific about the subject matter cause in verse 4 he says "from the beginning of the creation".


1,200 posted on 12/03/2004 4:42:46 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,161-1,1801,181-1,2001,201-1,220 ... 1,841-1,857 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson