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.
I see. May I take it, then, that I can understand this to mean that, indeed, we need to dismiss the laws of gravity and entropy as well, since we can't go to absolute zero, or alpha centauri and attach meters to them personally? Are there any other major branches of science you'd like to dismiss?
No, I didn't say that, but I do note the continuation of your intensely annoying, and not teribly forthright habit of baiting&switching the conversation with these lame, rather patronizing segues whenever it looks like you might have to produce a technical response of any relevant specificity. I am still waiting to hear what hydrological principles produced a metamorphic rock the size of a state, filled with monolithically graduated fossil strata and cut the grand canyon smack dab through it. through it. Are you seriously going to rest your case on as-yet-undiscovered laws of physics? We had a technical name for this approach in college rhetoric--proof by poof.
Please, for once, post some scientific evidence for something!! I beg you. If you are a Christian, post some scientific evidence that will support 6000 years old earth, a worldwide flood covering Mt. Everest or even the hill behind my house and that all "kinds" of animals could fit on a wooden boat. Please!
Otherwise we can only conclude that you are a propagandist, not a legitmate participant in a debate.
Creationists can play this game of strawman debate and switching the topic indefinitely. It is how their idolatrous masters have trained them.
####(My answers follow the ####)
Did you read the book?
How about doing that.
You mean the one with the biblical quotes--I'll pass. If you mean Behe or Dempski, I've read them, thanks.
####Wow-You’re at a point where it’s no longer necessary to read the text and know what is said (In regard to at you’re taking about). In a vacuum you place judgement and criticize based on assumptions. Anyone not you OPINION is an idiot. You’re definitely an evolutionist!
You know, you can go out with the prejudice that God does NOT exist and use science (Even if forcing it to fit the mold) to try to prove your point.
I don't have that prejudice, and last I heard, neither did the majority of working scientists. It's just not an issue that's relevant to scientific work, which is, for better or worse, about tangible things about which there is at least a smidgen of detectable evidence to draw inferences about. That doesn't mean we have exhausted the possible explanations for things when we do science, nor do we remotely make any such claim. There is only a pitched battle between Darwinian theory and God in the minds of creationists. Just because you insist on posting God in the boxing ring, doesn't obligate science to put on the gloves.
#####Really? Objective science brought you: Thalidomide, Episiotomies (for a while they did it to practically every woman), electro-shock therapy, Phrenology, Eugenics. By the way, what is better; Margarine or butter? Ever look at the field of Psychology and the crap they put out over the years? Science is driven by preconceived ideas. Men find the answers they are looking for by only exploring certain options, phrasing the questions, polling the right populations and interpreting the data the way they want to get the answer they need to satisfy their position.
####Evolution is in no ring with creationism. Science is based on “Proof” and “Experimentation”. Evolution is in the ring against itself. Something is not right because we have no other explanation which we like. Evolution actually stands on pretty thin ice.
It’s a THEORY, not a fact. There is information out there which contradicts this theory. This theory is based on some pretty heavy (big) assumptions (Dam near miracles).
Behe-ist Nonsense. There are non-miraculous explanations available at every major turning point in the story of life. These stories are often highly conjectural at the moment, but what they do show, is that we aren't painted into a corner where we have to accept that a series of miracles, divine or otherwise, had to occur. Historically, betting on miracles has been a losing proposition for a very long time.
####Yet, the questions posed are valid. Many things seem NOT to be explainable through evolutional theory. Something’s are NO longer divisible. They can not be seen as having gone through any sort of evolution since their components only work in entirety.
In the past there have been lies and aspects about this theory proven wrong.
Exactly as can be said about the many theories of gravity and stellar evolution we have gone through. Natural sciences are human enterprises and they have lots of problems and deadends just like any other complex human enterprise. Big deal--(well, yes, to a creationist).
####However, when it comes to evolution it seems to be the evolutionist who clings to this theory, is reluctant to admit it’s a theory, and in modern times has repeatedly made false claims about discovery reference his theory. Example-Pilt Hoax man, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and many many more. Dr. Wells of UC Berkeley (Micro biologist) has a list of false and deceptive claims made by those who on blind “faith” accept evolution as fact. In fact, a lot of the pictures you see that show man dragging knuckles and then walking around in a suit are pure artist renditions. The fossil evidence DOES NOT EXIST. They are extrapolations based upon a few finds that may not even be related to human origin, can be viewed differently depending on how the bone is placed. Again, science wants to see it a certain way. So the fossils jaw is intentionally pulled forward to give him a more primitive look. However, this is not even mechanically feasible (But it does make him look more Neanderthalish [Or how we think he “should” look like])
(Do you know what they are? Or are you only loaded with one sided quick and snappy comments for a fast little session in polemics?) make no mention and obviously are no issue to you.
What sanctimonious hogwash. Trot your your mysterious 7 problems and lets have a look at them. Like most creationists, you have a problem with the process of induction upon which all scientific reasoning of significant note rests. The evidence for evolutionary theory rests on a much firmer evidentiary foundation than that of any other natural science. It is a laughable conceit that the inevitable anomolies in naturally occuring evidence somehow outweighs the triple-pronged confirming evidence of the geological column, the fossil tree, and the molecular clock. There have been countless opportunities for unambiguous disconfirming evidence in these multi-disiplinary investigations. And in no case has there been disconfirming evidence remotely adequate to call the present paradigm into question. Like most of the creationists we have run into here, you are bluffing with a bust hand--that's why you are being so coy about troting out your 7 deadly pillers to anhilate Darwin.
####No, I just don’t want to rewrite a book you can buy and read. At $10.95 it’s really not that much!
####The assumptions made by evolutionist (Leaps of faith without proof) are
1. Non-living things gave rise to living material. Spontaneous generation.
2. This only happened once.
3. Viruses, plants, animals and bacteria are all related.
4. Protozoa gave rise to metazoan
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
7. Fish gave rise to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals.
Without these ASSUMPTIONS there is no evolution. You do realize that these are assumptions?
There are many holes in evolution. Much of what is stated as fact is assumptions and theory. It is not being irrational when I want it pointed out that this is a theory. It is a theory, taught as a mater of fact to our children. That is not good science or education, it’s brainwashing.
Again, as I said in my first post reference this subject. I do not know the answer. But neither do you, even if you think you do. If you truly believe in evolution, then you do so on “faith”. Then you do believe in miracles all awhile you laugh at those who do not embrace your “THEORY” as ground truth.
Red6
Against my better judgement, I read your response, and I pretty much feel now that giving you cheap shots is far better than you deserve. Where is the evidence you point to for, for example, your claim that we can't create dogs smaller than teacup poodles? What evidence suggests to you that that is the limit? You make claims on limits with far less (namely, none) evidence while railing at the lack of evidence of speciation right under our noses that natural science lays claim to. This is even more rediculous than the the silly flood theories we're dealing with here. Your claims against modern biology are tissue thin, and fundamentally based on a rejection of inductive reasoning in exactly the manner that biology shares with every other natural science. This is misleading nonsense, and you have been given more than the benefit of the doubt to try to demonstrate otherwise. If you respond to this with the amount of text you just made me read, I won't be responding to it. You cannot make your point by repeating it over and over with different words, you have to somehow come to grips with the critical responses to it, or expect to be igonored.
I did. And you stepped all over yourself missing its import. I even gave you another chance to interpret it.
And if you haven't quite got it yet, I will not play your games. I merely got into the deluge discussion because people were making statements that are somewhat contradicted by other "sources"... e.g. Chinese and Egyptian flood myths.
I'll repeat the frequently unanswered question: how did water, in a few years, at best, create a metamorphic rock the size of a state, filled with fossils in and with monolitically graduated strata and cut the Grand Canyon out of the middle of it?
Wrong on two counts--evolutionary theory barely addresses or cares about this issue, and can get along nicely without it. and 2) those few who do care about it, don't offer spontaneous generation of cellular life forms as a solution, since about the turn of the previous century.
2. This only happened once.
Not applicable, and if it were, not an accurate summation of the picure a modern paleo-microbiologist would want to draw.
3. Viruses, plants, animals and bacteria are all related. 4. Protozoa gave rise to metazoan 5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated. 6. Invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
Well now, you got a few right. Why do you think these junctures in life are any more particularly miraculous than any other? Why aren't you concerned that colony ants arose from solitary ants? That seems more miraculous than any of the steps you've listed here.
7. Fish gave rise to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals.
Opps, off the tracks agsin. Paleo-microbiologists do not think that birds gave rise to mammals.
What is your opinion on the origin of life on earth? I'm interested to hear what you think, given that you believe in evolution and also are a Christian.
The fruit fly populations referred to here cannot mate with each other so....if you continue your lunkheaded insistence that an arbitrary naming distinction is a binding law of nature, than I have to inform you that the entity produced in the lab is not a fruit fly. It is merely being called a fruit fly as a labeling convenience. It cannot breed with the other fruit flies, and that is the most universally accepted technical quality that it takes to be a fruit fly.
So, lets return to my question. Have the matings of cats, such as, say, a male lion, and a female tiger, ever produced offspring?--ans: yes. How about lion and a housecat? ans. no. So, what is going on here? What is going on when a horse and a donkey mate. They get offspring also, but they are sterile.
The plainly obvious answer, to all but creationists, is that what is going on is gradual speciation. distinct species with distinct boundaries and disctinct names is a human invention: critters do as they please and they can, and when their cross-bred offspring get evolved far enough from their origins, no further crossbreeding occurs. The tangible evidence that there is somehow, a magic limit to this process flies ludicrously in the face of the overwhelmingly available evidence of this very process going on today in freeze-frame snap shot like the donkey-horse-zebra, or the camel-llama or the lion-tiger strained breeding results. There is just about zero evidence to suggest that this process somehow has a natural micro-macro boundary limit, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue. And it packs nonsense on top of nonsense to try to suggest that inductive reasoning about the fossils we do see, and make inference about deep into the past, is fragile, but micro-macro boundaries for which the tangible evidence is extremely strained, are a solid notion.
You wouldn't know scientific evidence if it bit you in the butt.
God did it.
God did it.
Well, shubi, you do have an interesting take on this which is unlike any I've seen before. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but your opinion is that:
**God created life and placed it on earth in the form of single-celled organisms.
**Those organisms evolved via random mutation into all the millions of species we today see on earth, with God having nothing to do with it. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Perhaps you feel that God guided the steps in evolution. I'd like to know which is your belief.
**That it is somehow blasphemous or insulting towards God to not believe in evolution.
Is that a correct, albeit brief, summation of your general opinion on this subject?
Since you also believe that the origin of species is action by a supernatural being, let's just say worrying what you believe of me doesn't keep me up nights.
"evolutionary theory barely addresses or cares about this issue"
You're right, the evolutionist hardly ever addresses the FACT that his THEORY is based on assumptions.
Ever read any school or even college text which made this point clear? Probably not.
However, it is an issue. That is why you had all those experiments where they tried to show that you can make amino acids using a particular atmosphere and current. Without proving that you can spontaneously generate life, evolution is dead. However, even those experiments where amino acids were produced; huge assumptions in that they don’t really know what the atmosphere was like at the time were hand waved away. They have some guesses, but no real certain information and an amino acid is still miles from a living cell. But we would rather just use (interpret) the information based on a test (designed to show what we want to hear) and extrapolate this and say that given this atmosphere and some lightning we’d get life from dead pond scum. When you really break evolution down into its most elemental state. What is it really saying? You end up realizing that this theory is pretty wild, is based on several heavy assumptions, does NOT answer many questions, has had many intentional deceits and misguided efforts to prove its validity, is in some ways contradicting and yet considered the “truth” and an undeniable fact.
I won’t even discuss any further. After a tirade about how there are no assumptions in evolution I list them. Then you arm wave them away. Just the first assumption is a MOUNTAIN.
Red6
You seem to be the expert on not recognizing scientific evidence. You didn't understand a citation from "Science". Here is a reprise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolution Through Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparisons between the previously sequenced genomes of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, and its relative, D. pseudoobscura, have allowed (p. 1553, published online 21 October 2004) to explore the landscape of protein evolution. Amino acid replacements that are harmful in D. melanogaster were often observed as the wild type in D. pseudoobscura. Similar results were seen with the more distantly related mosquito, Anopheles gambiae. Thus, compensating mutations must occur and become fixed very frequently in populations. |
And here for the abstract ... http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/306/5701/1553
See, I was right. And Damadian's equipment is still part of the Smithsonian. Lauterbur has his Nobel. And you are unhappy that Damadian is recognized. Which probably does keep you up at night, and would explain why you take every opportunity to belittle him.
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.