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.
That isn't the quote you mentioned before. Don't you know where that came from? Or did you just fabricate it?
I will get back to you on the new one.
I suppose in a court of law you could make a case. Fortunately, science moves on, even when scientists make statements that turn out to be less than perfectly worded, or even wrong.
But before you gloat, I would like to point out that an individual that benefits its species is "perfect" even if its life is short, miserable, and without offspring.
Sure. But at that point the genetic aspect goes out the window. I'm sure it's happened that a good soldier has given his life for a eunuch. Individuals that do not breed can also benefit species outside their own genetic kinds. Outside the transferral of genetic material from one generation to the next, theories of evolution - at least where biology is concerned - veer into speculation less probable than already engaged.
You do have the ability to latch firmly on to a single tree, ignoring the forest.
Not true. Pay attention.
Oops. The traits that Darwin is discussing in the quote...
Look it up yourself, Mr false biology teacher. You don't know how to read so you might have a difficult time.
I don't use your methods. Read it yourself. You have a link to find it. Strange you don't recognize your father.
Robbed of this pretext, theories of evolution are reduced to mere observations of interrelated shifts toward no particular end. Much as some would disavow Darwin on this point, it is a tenet held dear, and rightly so if one is going to assume a long history of progression, uniform or not. It means more to these folks than the so-called cornerstone of evolution theories, namely, the fossil record. It is beyond comprehension that such pursuits have gained unquestioned status in the classroom under the name of science.
How does it benefit its species? By dying? Well then everything that is not, benefits a species.
"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretel that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection. "
The above is the paragraph from Darwin's Origin with your quote the last sentence. The full context of the paragraph is one of many in this chapter that refutes special creation in favor of natural selection and constant change rather than immutable species.
It is rather funny that the full paragraph includes a sentence saying"no cataclysm has desolated the whole world".
Pretty much destroys the Noah flood literalist idea, eh?
Yes, true. Read the whole post, not just the first sentence.
The forest is made of trees. I address it a tree at a time.
You address only those trees that fit your purpose.
I'm the one discussing science as you try to define it. You are harping on Noah. Well knock yourself out with Noah, just leave me out of it.
Wow! To think that with one sweeping sentence Darwin struck a decisive blow against hundreds of generations of widely accepted fact. Perhaps if he were alive today you would kneel before him in adoration.
The ones you wish to avoid and which point to the flaws in your theories. That is science.
I read the whole post. It is still wrong and non responsive. Non-breeding individuals can benefit the population that passed them the genes responsible for their inability to breed. We are not discussing mutations. We are discusing stable populations carrying genes that survive selection because the group benefits.
You are good at pointing out things that are yet unknown, but unknown things are not disproof of anything. If they were, we would have to reject both relativity and quantum theory, because they cannot both be right across the whole universe of experimental results, nor is there any precise demarcation at which one passes authority to the other.
This is precisely why ID is lethal to scientific inquiry, because it posits permanant blockades wherever naturalistic explanations reach an "under construction" zone.
Yes, and that places the argument for evolution on more tenuous ground than arguments based on the passing of genetic material from one generation to the next, for there are any number of experiential or environmental factors that can mitigate the benefits of surviving selection.
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.