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.
Nice answer. I guess I'll revert to the same tactic when I'm afraid to present the facts and figures.
I met this head on in post 1522.
No. You told a zero story about cake. You have yet to present a mathematical figure representing the percentage of the geologic record that has been exposed for scientific observation and analysis.
What you said about little rocks sinking faster than big rocks is wrong.
It was either you or your biddies who put those words in my mouth. What I said was smaller grains tend to sift down between larger ones. Try it in an experiment once. You'll see. Meanwhile, are we supposed to pretend Stoke's Law was the only operative factor in the formation of the earth as we know it?
Why do you need a new flu shot every year?
I don't. And even if I did it would no more be evidence of evolutionary advancement than the fact AIDs has developed to supplement other maladies effecting various populations. So?
Molecular biology experiments. It's a thriving discipline.
I'm sure it is, and I am sure it will progress very well on its own without the assistance of a million year "just-so story."
And how are intelligence and design supposed to exist before there is any lawfulness to nature . . .
Laws cannot function without either of those attributes, but on the part of the one who sets them in motion and the one who observes them.
Next!
For the sake of the purists, I should probably ask you to define "complexity", but you are ...
Utterly incorrect. All you have to do is read PH's list of links to see it answered 15 times a month or ask a real molecular biologist (hint: we have several on this thread).
So now it comes back to you, do you really want to know, or, like Dataman the Invincibly Ignorant, is this a question you're going to post on every thread no matter how many answers you might get?
It was back at #1390, mixed in with other paragraphs. Here's a cut and paste exerpt from that post, though I did a few edits to eliminate a redundancy:
As for the hydrological principles in play at the time the Grand Canyon was formed, I would assume deposition and erosion were the two most prevalent and in that order. Sudden plate up thrusts may have opened the gaps, much as what happens in the present day when a pond dries up and one finds a pattern of gaps amidst the dried mud. I would also think the amount of water in play at the time was enormous, though nothing compared to the total amount of water present upon the earth today. The fossil tracks present in the geological record indicate watery conditions at the time they were formed.
If you believe my ideas in this regard to be unsuited to the record at hand, so be it. I'll leave it to you to specify how this understanding is ipso facto incorrect and then back your specifications up with science rather than extrapolations based upon an incomplete, static record.
"ss: This should be easy to determine. If your wife has the disease it is mitochondrial. If she doesn't it is nuclear."
Incorrect. There are multiple ways that it can happen, one of which is a mutation in the egg cells themselves. Another deals with the distribution of a DNA error (i.e., my wife could have it in 1/6 mitochondrion, but the specific egg that made my son may have had it in 5/6 mitochondrion).
Likewise, it's possible that my wife could have it, but yet have a compensatory gene which provides alternate metabolic pathways.
I said it had to _account_ for it, I did not say that it forced increases in complexity. You should really learn to read what people write, rather than just inserting what you think they are writing.
I've looke through the list of links before, but it's rather long for searching for a specific answer to a specific question.
So yes, I'd love a response.
And the sign said: "Welcome to Dodge City."
"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."
So your belief that parasitic worms are a precursor to other worms is based on a specific theological viewpoint, correct? Namely one that can't conceive God making parasites? Or one that involved worms that had digestive tracts having mutational errors which removed their digestive tracts?
The number of assumptions you seem to be relying on as fact in those few sentences is quite immense.
There is a point, even beyond your getting it wrong and lying about it. We do see flood sediments in that geologic column that somehow doesn't exist. One flood = one micro layer. The layers show Stokes's Law sorting--within the layer.
But the column in any one place tends to have lots and lots of these layers, including lots of flood layers interspersed with layers clearly deposited by other means. Such layering often will include heavy, dense flood-washed gravel over fine sandstone, etc. If it had all been formed in one flood, not only would there not be so many layers, but that sand had to have already hardened to sandstone before it could hold up that gravel. The sand AND the gravel cannot have arrived in the same flood or the gravel would be underneath. That and some of the sediments are wind-deposited on dry land, etc.
That's what Sedgwick, an honest creationist, had to admit already in 1831. It can't be all from one flood, period.
A nice Ichneumon post on the subject, using the Grand Canyon as an example. It's long, though, so you can't read it and still reply in 30 seconds. Guess you won't read it.
What's the difference? Meterologists set up tests regarding weather patterns, but they still are ignorant about all of the details...they can't tell you what the exact temperature will be tomorrow, can they? Evolutionists can run tests on critters that they see, and determine what genes are responsible for which changes that they see. Just like the physics of gas dynamics is important for meteorologists to model the upcoming day's weather, the framework described by evolution is important when biologists model evolutionary changes in critters. Just like meteorologists are learning exactly what is making weather in your area and mine tick so that they can accurately predict the weather...biologists use the process of evolution to learn which genetic changes manipulate morphological changes in a given organism. Go to your university library and open up the International Journal of Evolutionary Biology and read a sample article or three, it's all right there...
Biologists don't use evolutionary theory in a predictive fashion currently, but that's not a knock on the process, as it has been extremely effective in determining the hows. The work into understanding ALL of the mechanisms is still going strong, and will probably continue for many lifetimes. You are being dense because you refuse to understand that simple point.
I've already mentioned that the conditions you appear to impose require an answer of zero. If you are allowing any induction at all from exposed surfaces to unexposed volume, please state what these allowances are. I believe that as most of us understand the process, there is very little of the world that has not been geologically surveyed to some non-trivial level of detail or other. There has been no Terra Incognita on the map for some time.
Thanks for the links, although they did not address the local minima issue, they were enlightening. What is notable to me is that there is a fitness penalty to learning. Not quite what you would expect from "benefit".
You are the evident liar. Bluffing doesn't cut it. You are wrong, Mr shubi-dooby-doo.
I do understand it, but I won't play your games. I told you that. You have extreme difficulty with the English language. I suggest you take up French, it befits your attitude.
Such understatement.
They are dead before they reproduce The gene is gone unless it resides in other individuals who aren't killed by the defect. Individuals are selected not populations. You chop down trees. You cannot chop down a forest without chopping down trees.
Until we set up and test all the dynamics involved with a world wide deluge I think it is unwise to assert what can or cannot have happened. As a previous post pointed out, those who have drilled to the deepest depths were surprised to discover that pockets held up where they were not expected, and there was more water than expected.
Stoke's Law has it's place, but it is only one of the thousands of operative factors in the universe as we know it. And if the gist of Stoke's Law is that heavier things fall faster, well, DUH.
Did Sedgwick get to drill a hole 12K deep? I didn't think so.
A few goodies from the ever-growing List-O-Links:
What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?
Problems with a Global Flood.
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood. By a former creationist.
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.