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 think you might have added that last sentence.
I don't see why deleterious mutations in individuals would be a worry to a prolific species like Drosophila.
Remember, evolution works in populations. It doesn't care about the individual. So, if you are a mutant, tough luck. LOL Have a wonderful Sabath.
Thank you for your response!
Can I assume you believe DNA was created and did not evolve? In other words, that these original single-celled creatures were created by God with a DNA program?
Something tells me that won't go over well with many evolutionists, despite the assertion that the theory of evolution doesn't address the original creation of life.
Shubi, aren't the changes we see in speciation among fruit flies the result of reshuffling of pre-existing traits (four wings instead of two) or loss of a trait (mating capacity) rather than evolution of new traits? Isn't that the debate about speciation? That it's not evolution but the sharpening of an existing trait (such as when average speed increases in an environment where that's an advantage), or a reshuffling or loss of a trait.
Those are processes, currently active, currently capable of study. Theories of evolution have no such thing to offer. They can merely look at a static record and make inferences. Big difference.
"In a few years at best?" I'm fairly certain it took longer than that. The "size of a state" is minuscule when compared to the rest of the planet. The Grand Canyon represents only a tiny fraction of the geologic column. I'll have to read up on hydrologic processes before I can answer your question. I'm sure you won't change the subject as I look for an answer, will you? You know. That little "bait & switcheroo" thingy you are so fond of baiting and switching to?
Meanwhile, I've also posed a question several times that never seems to get answered: How do theories of evolution demonstrate the process of evolution itself?
Pseudoscience loves this stuff.
I knew you didn't read. I now know you can't find a URL or you would know I did not add anything. And you still don't understand science. The authors' subject was "Compensated Deleterious Mutations in Insect Genomes" for a reason. The article was published for a reason. And that reason was not due to some run-of-the-mill event.
Sabbath was yesterday. This is Sunday. But thank you, and have a blessed third day.
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.
Minor nitpick: the term "fruit fly" is used to refer to all of the species within the genus Drosophila, which includes things like Drosophila melanogaster (the species typically used in research).
You're referring to the abiogenesis hypothesis, not evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is interesting in its own right, but since we don't have any sort of record from anywhere near that time period, and we haven't yet been able to completely recreate primordial life in laboratory conditions, it remains very much a hypothesis. It's a complement to evolutionary theory, not a part of the theory itself.
Memory, n. Faculty of remembering; this in an individual, as a good, bad, ~ (convenient or accommodating ~, that retains only what it is to one’s interest to remember); recollection; information storage device in computer; in ~ of, as a record of, to keep alive the ~ of; posthumous repute, as his ~ has been censured, of blessed, happy, etc., ~ (used esp. of deceased princes etc.); length of time over which ~ extends, as beyond, within, the ~ of men, within living ~. [ME f. OF memorie, memoire f. L memoria f. memor mindful ]
No. We don't know whether God "designed" DNA directly or used His rules to design it without intervention. It doesn't matter. If you have faith, you know that God created everything somehow. A God that completely revealed how He did everything and why, wouldn't be much of a God.
The nice thing about God is He reveals enough about himself to allow us to continue to feed our populations with new discoveries and begin to understand some of His amazing works.
Biologists don't care where DNA came from, they just work with what they have. However, several scientists have proposed that DNA evolved from clay. This would be in line with Scripture, wouldn't you say?
The rest of the evolution of the cosmos arguments from creationists do not concern biologists. There, your fight is with cosmologists, physicists, astronomers et. al.
One of the rhetorical tricks of people like Ken Ham and Henry Morris is to jumble together a variety of different sciences and accuse "evolutionists" of "believing" in them, making scientists look foolish out of their fields. The irony is that Ham and Morris don't have a clue about any science field and have less knowledge of Scripture.
"Evolutionists" don't care whether there is a God or not.
Get over it. They can do science without knowing.
If you think God designed every particular "kind" you see, there is no scientific evidence to support that assertion. If you want to have scientists join your church, you should take a more enlightened view of Scripture than believing Noah literally.
Sunday is my Sabbath.
I really don't see much significance to the article you are so enamored of. I don't think you understand populations in genetics.
"1. Non-living things gave rise to living material. Spontaneous generation. "
ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! First cause of life is not in the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains the facts on how life changed over millions of years. Stop combining hypotheses with the Theory of Evolution.
It is a nasty rhetorical trick that makes Christians who understand science, embarrassed to have you calling yourself a Christian.
Over 100 observed speciations are on the record. Evolution is going on as we speak. You may be a deleterious mutation that will be discarded in the fossil record and anthropologists will study you, but my family is adding to the positive genes that will build intellect in future generations.
There is only one Theory of Evolution in biology.
What are you talking about?
We are on to your little game, Brew. Heheheheh
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.