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.
Patrick"Primetime"Henry!
A 17th century Placemarker.
Meteorlogial sciences observe processes that are occuring in the here and now. They are documented with some accuracy, and much of it can be confirmed even by the naked eye. Somehow you keep mistaking the word "predictability" for long term results. I am simply requesting the same standard of predictability that attends to any scientific test involving a process is lacking in evolution theories.
Meteorologists are able to set up tests regarding weather patterns and run them. Evolutionists cannot do so when it comes to their beloved tenet of increased biological complexity by virtue of natural seclection.
I repeat: Evolution is a PROCESS that has not been demonstrated by science. If there's any density here it resides in those who cannot distinguish between a dynamic process (which, in order to be confirmed ought to be subject to tests with predictable results) and the static record, which allows for any number of predictions and interpretations.
Yuck. Let me rewrite that:
I am simply requesting that the same standard of predictability that attends to any scientific test involving a process also be applied to evolution theories.
For one thing, you didn't ask me. For another, I've looked it up before. If I can look it up, you can look it up. If you want to know, look it up and stop pretending you earn points for being an idiot. I'm tired of bringing you answers you make such an incredible point of not understanding or remembering.
DODGED: How much of the geologic record has been exposed for scientific observation and study?
You are a damned and damnable liar. I met this head on in post 1522. For a person unwilling to see a micron below the exposed surface, a quality you have not denied being true of you, the percentage of the Earth interior volume which can be said to have been explored is zero. Now rot in Hell.
DODGED: How does Stoke's Law apply to a reptile ascending a river bed?
What are you even babbling about? Look at what Stokes's Law is. What you said about little rocks sinking faster than big rocks is wrong. It was pointed out. You have been given a web site on Stokes's Law. Didn't do much for your education, did it? When you figure out what reptiles(?) ascending a river have to do with anything, you can explain it to the rest of us. I personally don't think it shows anything good about what you're arguing when you depend upon an utter falsehood and must pretend not to understand when your falsehood is pointed out.
DODGED: Where has science observed the PROCESS of evolution?
Why do you need a new flu shot every year?
DODGED: What kind of expiriments would be suitable for testing and observing the PROCESS of evolution?
Molecular biology experiments. It's a thriving discipline. A related area, evolutionary developmental biology or evo-devo. Google them for yourself.
How were laws of nature established and set into motion in the complete absence of intelligence or deisgn?
And how are intelligence and design supposed to exist before there is any lawfulness to nature, numb-nuts?
Well, now, when I started waiting, it was because you said you would get back to me on that, and you didn't want me "bait&switch"ing you in the meantime. Did you address this explanatory post to someone else? Kindly point out what post this is, as I seem to have missed to altogether although I thought I was paying attention to every response you've given me since.
The Creationists remind me of the "Seminar Callers" to radio programs. They ask the same questions over and over, learning nothing and forgetting nothing, without paying any attention to the answers.
Uh Huh LOL I don't think Chuggy has any intention of listening to rational thought.
Yes, you are right. In fact there is a big room down 11 miles with nothing but water in it and the big book of creationistcrapsite nonsense with the wicked witch of the West and four trolls.
To Chuggy-"You are a damned and damnable liar. I met this head on in post 1522. For a person unwilling to see a micron below the exposed surface, a quality you have not denied being true of you, the percentage of the Earth interior volume which can be said to have been explored is zero. Now rot in Hell."
Heehee That post was about cake, not about geological strata. Doh!
I personally don't believe in weather. If God had wanted us to have weather, he wouldn't have made it so variable.
It would be 75 degrees all the time and sunny, even when it rained, which it wouldn't have to do cause water would come from the fountains of the deep.
I could play tennis every day and when I served the sun would never be in my eyes.
There is nothing in this post that I did not already know or agree with. Obviously, you either don't know how to read or just fail to do so.
The question is increasing complexity.
However, with specific regard to my son, it is not exactly as you say. Cytochrome-C oxidase is actually coded from both nuclear and non-nuclear (mitochondrial) DNA. It is unknown whether his disorder is from the mitochondrial DNA or the nuclear DNA. If it is from the mitochondrial DNA it is actually ONLY based on the maternal side.
Do you really enjoy acting like you're the only person in the world who knows anything? Do you really think that creationists don't understand basic mendellian genetics or natural selection? You probably forgot that mendellian genetics was discovered by a creationist :)
Anyway, if you bothered to read and understand what others are saying, you might have better arguments. Just adding words to previous arguments doesn't in itself make a better argument.
Wouldn't you rather request Blue Moon? The band knows that one.
"Evolutionists cannot do so when it comes to their beloved tenet of increased biological complexity by virtue of natural seclection. "
Fester, baby, biological scientists don't have a tenet of increased complexity. You are confusing the idiots like Behe and Ham with scientists. Try to keep up.
We don't have any known examples of mutations which increase complexity. We know of some mutations which are beneficial, but not that increase complexity (which is required to go from single-celled organisms to people). Most mutations are destructive.
We know of many different operations which cause change-over-time for organisms, but all of them except mutation involve genes already in the environment, and we have no evidence that mutation has ever increased complexity within an organism.
"What I said is that any view of evolution has to account for increasing complexity. "
You don't think that evolution has to account for increasing complexity? The Theory of Evolution, if it is to be believed, has us starting out at single-celled creatures, and eventually becoming multicellular, and eventually becoming plants/animals, and eventually becoming us. There is an increase in complexity there, which the theory must account for.
There is nothing in this post that I did not already know or agree with. Obviously, you either don't know how to read or just fail to do so.
ss: yam ony twee yeaws od boohooohooo He taid eye dunt no how to reed.
The question is increasing complexity.
ss: Increasing complexity is a made up piece of nonsense by your creationut masters. No scientist thinks evolution necessarily get more complex as time goes on. If you want "proof" of this (the always want proof but I think they mean poof) study parasites. Parasitic worms, for instance, are missing organs like digestive tracts that other worms have. Oh yeah, God poofed parasites into existence. Why would God make parasites? He must not like us much.
However, with specific regard to my son, it is not exactly as you say. Cytochrome-C oxidase is actually coded from both nuclear and non-nuclear (mitochondrial) DNA. It is unknown whether his disorder is from the mitochondrial DNA or the nuclear DNA. If it is from the mitochondrial DNA it is actually ONLY based on the maternal side.
ss: This should be easy to determine. If your wife has the disease it is mitochondrial. If she doesn't it is nuclear.
Do you really enjoy acting like you're the only person in the world who knows anything? Do you really think that creationists don't understand basic mendellian genetics or natural selection?
ss: Yes
You probably forgot that mendellian genetics was discovered by a creationist :)
ss: I am a creationist in that sense. There is a difference between a theistic evolution rationalist and a creationut, like yourself.
Anyway, if you bothered to read and understand what others are saying, you might have better arguments. Just adding words to previous arguments doesn't in itself make a better argument.
ss: Just making up stuff isn't argument, my friend. I understand what you are saying to the point where you start spouting nonsense, which is just about immediately.
johnny, we still have one celled creatures. Divergence is the principle, not complexity. You and your creationut masters make up strawman arguments and then defeat them.
Similar argument:
If God is love and love is blind, Ray Charles is God.
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.