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.
Can you please cite your source?
Check the reading level of any of the Federalist Papers and you will find that they were written on a postgraduate level. Do the same thing with most papers today and you will find the result to be much lower.
You are ignoring some very relevant facts:
1. The authors of the Fed Papers were not only the top intellectuals in the country, their paper was not designed to be read by the general populace, many of whom were illiterate. It was aimed at other intellectuals and governments.
2. Current newspapers are specifically written at a low education level to promote circulation. However, I would hazard that the general literacy rate, as well as the percentage of postgraduate literacy, is well above the American 18th century levels.
If you believe that intelligence requires a designer and that the designer is not God, then who or what designed the intelligent designer? Or is an infinite regress of designers an acceptable idea? Additionally, you only address my point that ID implies perfection. You don't address my point that evolution does not imply perfection. That still stands even if my argument about ID is false.
I read that discussion, but did not see how it was dishonest. He had a lot of "whys" about why there isn't a watertight argument, which one would expect. Leaving out all of his explanations of why there are no watertight arguments doesn't change the fact that he agrees that there aren't any.
In fact, the end of his quote is even what many creationists on this board have been trying to point out:
"But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
You might try actually reading the link rather than just posting it.
I always find it funny that evolution advocates dwell on natural selection. Yes, natural selection is real and it does occur. But it isn't evolution.
Natural selection is the process through which evolutionary changes are allegedly preserved, if they occur, but the fact that natural selection occurs doesn't prove evolutionary changes occur.
Natural selection explains why creatures become extinct, not how they allegedly evolve.
There's an old joke about this. A science teacher was pounding his fist, declaring evolution to be an absolute fact. A student asked the teacher to explain how any living creature evolved to what it is today. Specifically, he asked where long haired arctic wolves came from. The teacher replied that the icy arctic cold killed off the wolves with shorter hair, leaving only the long haired ones. With a smirk, he said, "That's how they evolved!"
It's like the famous British peppered moth case. Nothing actually evolved, yet it's cited as evidence, if not proof, of evolution. Yet, nothing evolved.
Just think of all the countless millions of species on earth. Then ask yourself, which occurs faster.....evolution or extinction? If evolution occurs, it would have to occur faster than extinction. To end up with millions of species, it would have to occur a hell of a lot faster than extinction.
If you had a situation where there were 20 species on earth, and everytime a new one evolved, two became extinct, the number of species would drop.
We observe extinction occuring all the time, but never observe evolution.
In addition, why would big things ever evolve? They're LESS fit than small things. Big things become extinct. Dinosaurs are history. Whales and elephants are always endangered. But single celled organisms always survive. Yet, evolution demands that those single cells, through natural selection and evolutionary progress, led over dinosaurs, whales, and elephants, all of which are less fit for survival than an amoeba.
Just a few thoughts!
Clearly what you are implying with this and other quotes here is that one person speaks for an entire group with his statements. Does Arlen Specter speak for the entire Republican Party? Does Ken Ham speak for all of the creationists? You are a walking logical fallacy my friend, and you need to re-evaluate your entire argument, because it suffers from many holes (not just this, but also the fact that you obviously haven't checked your sources). You say you have, but if you had read the talk.origins webpage on Patterson's quote, you would have found it was incorrectly quoted. So did you REALLY check all of your sources? Or was that a lie?
His Phd happens to be in American Studies. Perhaps I am missing how that qualifies his opinions concerning biology. Enlighten me, please.
> But, can you show me a mutation that established a species?
Can you tell me who told you the lie that a single mutation leads to an entirely new species?
> Look all around you at the order in nature, and tell us all how there is no Designer. Since you're so wise, go ahead and thrust your middle finger in the air at Him.
Ah, the religious mindset. Can you explain why a person would thrust his middle finger at a Designer that he doesn't believe is there? Do you daily moon Zeus? Do you send nasty emails to Shiva?
I never cease to be amazed (and often amused) at the sheer illogic of the zealot.
> For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Uh--- yeah. Too bad it's clearly bunk, as most people are not, never were and never will be Christians. Most everybody looks atthe world and see something quite different than what you claim to see.
> Acknowledge your Creator.
Hey, I call my Mom and Dad fairly regularly.
I don't believe in space aliens.
I do not have time right now to totally get into this argument, but Einstein's thoery of "The Big Bang" in many ways goes totally against evolution.
Lewis is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. No, he was not a biologist, but his thoughts and opinions have been considered among the most inlighting and thoughtful of any in the last century.
And you are absolutely wrong if you think "life from non-life" has nothing to do with macro-evolution. "Life" had to evolve!!! according to Darwin.
If life has no purpose (as evolution suggests) then why do humans spend their lives trying to prove its purpose. Look how many people have posted on this very subject. The matter of "origin of life" has been important to humans for 1000's of years--it is no different today.
Certainly you can present a hoax that was at one time touted as "proof" of the theory (even though theories are never proven) by mainstream science.
exactly! objective observation leads one to the inevitable: a self-existent entity.
"So you assert. Can you demonstrate the existence of this "God" and show that this "God" was indeed responsible for the creation of the Bible"
The Bible claims God as its author. The Bible has proven itself reliable through its scientific accuracy, prophetic fulfillment, durability and archeaology.
"I am an animal, and the "pattern" thing is patently absurd. Are you actually saying that the image that an animal views during mating will directly affect the physical appearance of the offspring?"
No, I was kidding with you, were you at the end of the line when Evolution passed out "humor?" Not everything in the Bible is to be take literally.
> The Bible has proven itself reliable through its scientific accuracy... Not everything in the Bible is to be take literally.
WOW. Just.... wow.
>>So who designed the "intelligent designer"?
>exactly! objective observation leads one to the inevitable:
Turtles all the way.
> Einstein's thoery of "The Big Bang"
Ummm...
Never mind.
You are wrong about evolution having nothing to do with the origin of life.
But, if it does not, then the Creation theoy should certainly be taught!!!
If evolution does not explain how life began--only that it "chagned" after it began--then students need to hear the theory of how "life began." Sounds like intellegent design to me.
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.