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.
So you admit that God created everything in seven indefinite periods of time (long periods) and not in seven 24 hour days?
I have not been "citing" the laws of physics. I've been asserting that I believe whatever laws of physics are in existence today were applying themselves throughout recorded history. Is is alright with you if I use words in a general sense, or do we have to break out encyclopediea and dictionaries for each word and concept? Or do you think the laws of physics would cease applying themselves if I did not know how to enumerate and cite them all? Give me a break.
"I don't. I never claimed the Bible to be provable in a scientific sense."
Then why do you want to insert your silly literalist interpretation in biology classes?
" 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"
"A microcosmic test"? I am getting that vision again. lol
The only imagined periods we are dealing with in this argument is the 7 24hr days you insist is the translation of Genesis, when I have given you facts that show it is erroneous.
"Obviously our Heavenly Father knew some of his children would not believe what is written"
Yeah, but God didn't tell you to believe what is NOT written. The 7 24 hr days, the 6000 years, the hydraulic sorting-not in God's Word.
"YOM MEANS PERIOD in this context" is my conclusion. Yet you say:
"Even the English language often uses the same word with different meanings dependent upon the context."
Does morality ever enter into a creationist argument?
"I have not been "citing" the laws of physics."
Everyone reading these posts has seen you do it.
Does the word "lie" have any meaning for you?
Lauterbur's original sample was lost. I know; I looked for it. Lauterbur's experiment was done with a simple NMR spectrometer. You don't need a 'machine' to prove and implement the concept. As for the patent dispute; the point of contention on that wasn't the invention of NMR imaging as Lauterbur, Mansfield and Ernst conceived it.
Have Damadian/Fonar benefitted humankind? Debatable. By the time they got in on the act, several major instrument companies were building imagers. Damadian got a lot richer off it; but he contributed nothing of substance.
Damadian can do his worst.He's shown he's willing to use his millions to bully anyone who won't acquiesce to his ridiculous claims. You clearly think that's OK. Nice guys, both of you.
Apparently you don't know me from Adam.
The only imagined periods we are dealing with in this argument is the 7 24hr days you insist is the translation of Genesis, when I have given you facts that show it is erroneous.
No. Millions of years ago is an imagined period, unobserved by human eye and unrecorded in human history, and it is very much part of the argument. Meanwhile you have hardly given any facts to show 7 24 hr days to be anything more than what the Bible says. The verses even preface the use of "day" with the words, "and there was evening and there was morning." How much more explicit can the words be? They certainly don't beg the reader to take them as anything more than what they say on the surface.
Yes. It is fundamental to life as human beings. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that the same word can have a different meaning depending upon the context in which it is used. Nor is there anything wrong with assertion that your conclusion in this case is erroneous.
You are confusing the word "cite" with "make casual reference to." It is you who claimed I am "citing" the laws of physics, which I have never attempted to do here. I would be happy to see you point out any place in this entire forum where I have "cited" a single law of physics.
But why the red herring? Is there something irrational about assuming the laws of physics have been consistently operative throughout recorded history?
Teach both then debate it.
Yes. It could be applied very well to your accusation that I have been "citing" laws of physics here. It could also be applied in many other ways, both germane and not, to this discussion.
I did no such thing. You requested, for reasons unrelated to the argument at hand, that I enumerate the laws of physics. I declined on the basis that no such definitive list exists.
Prophets of Baal tend to get those things from time to time, too. But then, it might just be gas.
Hey. I'm only answering a fool according to his folly.
So, basically what you are saying is that no observation in the fossil record would convince you that your idea is not correct. This again, therefore, is not a scientific theory. If I am wrong, then please tell me what observation would make you conclude that you are wrong.
The unfalsifiability factor applies to all parties concerned, since none were present to observe the fossil record as it was laid down. The plausibility factor weighs in favor of creationists because they have a written record handed down through history that attests to a catastrophic event that could very well have resulted in the creation of the fossil record.
Of course it will because any evidence will support the idea of a worldwide flood. It's not a scientific theory. Give an example of a piece of evidence that would refute the flood idea if I am wrong.
The complete absence of a fossil record.
Why? Couldn't God have made a flood in which everything died, but then "cleaned up the mess" afterward so that there weren't any fossils?
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.