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.
Islam became stultified and stagnant when religious dogma squelched free enquiry. The Soviet Union became stultified and stagnant when ideological dogma squelched free enquiry. Western civilization experienced a Renaissance when free enquiry gained a foothold.
There is a lesson in there somewhere.
Allowing a GOVERNMENT school to present a particular interpretation of a religious creation story alongside a scientific theory with considerable physical evidence is an invitation for students to discusss whether God exists at all.
Just as that question has been brought up in this very thread.
Having young people make up their minds in a public school environment whether God exists is a stupid thing for Christians to ask for. Young people generally believe what they've been taught for a lifetime. Many of these children will never be open to hear about God's word once this discussion occurs.
However, if the interpretation is taught by religious people that Genesis is merely a collection of parables, similar to those Jesus told. Then there is no conflict with Evolution, and those young people might someday be open to God.
Teaching rigid Creationism in public schools is a stupid thing for religious people to ask for.
If I were an athiest, such an opportunity would be golden.
Not really, we simply have different priorities. Mechanisms are nice to debate but the origin is the brass ring which is why I asked you if God is falsifiable. You seem reticent to answer. No problem.
What you are actually saying is that GOD, Himself, is a liar. Thanks, but I'll trust GOD and His perspective---anytime---over a human and their perspective!
Afterall, if you are right and I am wrong, neither of us has anything to lose. You believe what you believe and I beleive what I believe and we both end up in the same place.
But I am right and you are wrong, I would hate to be in your position.
If GOD is right, those who believe in GOD and His Saviour Son, Jesus, have nothing to worry about in eternity. But those who do not believe in GOD and Jesus will literally have hell to pay. With those outcomes, I'll choose GOD and Jesus EVERY TIME!!!
> God cannot lie.
Izzat so? Hmm.
2 Thessalonians, Chapter 2: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"
How did you get so lucky to be right, and they are so unfortunate to be wrong?
Sure, I'm ignorant about Evolutionism. Likewise, I don't know jack about Buddhism or Hinduism or Wiccanism or Paganism or ... etc. Thus far, I have zero interest in the minutia of such lies. For now, I need to learn more about the truth. Granted, some Christians are called to know all about one or more of your cults, probably to more effectively evangelize to them.
When I was in grade school, I was quite fascinated by the whole evolution thing and how the Leakys were finding the remains of our prehistoric ancestors in Africa. Decades later, God used that interest to show me the truth. So, as it turned out, He used National Geographic and the Leakys to give me eternal life. What a deal!
Creationists make real Christians look bad
Oh, so there are no truly intelligent "creationists."
Your "real" Christians don't believe God's word is true. Their god either lied when he said he created the universe in six days, or he is unable to preserve the truth of his word. So, any or all of their beliefs are subject to change if something more palatable comes down the pike. That's the bottom line.
the Christian God's qualities are manifestly NOT "clearly seen."
On the contrary, just as it says, they ARE clearly seen. You see the evidence of the Creator all around you but, you refuse to believe. You would rather believe anything than consider there is a Creator you must and will answer to someday.
Most people look at the world and don't come away Christian.
God's word says it will be that way. Here's a news flash for you: The majority is sometimes wrong.
most also retain the religious faith of their upbringing.
So what? No one has to. A lot of us didn't.
Ooh, ooh, let me guess! "Dr. Yakob" is Jewish? :o)
Organisms are all related genetically according to the theory of evolution (common descent). Since all organisms are descended from a common ancestor, they must share the same basic genetic material. This is predicted by evolution. ID would certainly not have such a requirement. By ID I am referring to the notion that an intelligent designer actually did intervene in the development of the variety of species seen on earth. From discussing this with you, I get the feeling that we really agree on the issue of evolution, ie that evolution actually is the mechanism for the change observed in organisms. I also agree with you that it is possible that some intelligence did in fact direct this process. Where I believe we disagree is in whether this is a scientific theory or not. I don't think that there is any observation that would cause a reasonable person to say "since I observed this, there's no way that an intelligent being could ever have intervened in the process of the development of life." That's why I asked you to provide me with such an observation. It doesn't have to be something that has actually been observed. (Such as my example of an organism with something other than nucleic acids as its genetic material which has never been observed.) If there's no way to show that an idea is false, it is not science.
You make a mistake when you equate human interpretation with the word of God.
No, I never said that. Nor have I ever hinted at it. What I'm saying now, as I look at that accusation of yours, is that you -- yes, you -- are a liar. Well, in fairness, perhaps you are merely deranged. Your posts certainly look like ransom notes. Now then, show that I'm wrong by posting, accurately, a reference to anything I've said on this website that says God is a liar. Go ahead, do it. Or have the decency to retract your accusation. You do have some decency, don't you?
Because evolution maintains that all organisms share a common ancestor. That common ancestor must have had the same genetic material as all organisms do now. Otherwise, how would the genes of the ancestral organism be passed down to all of its descendant organisms?
I don't really get this argument. Elephants are a quite succesful species. Once they reach adulthood, they have no predators (other than man). They are long-lived, intelligent, social animals. They fill their niche quite nicely.
Yet, at every step along the way, increased complexity decreases fitness. Single celled organisms, our supposed starting point, are still going strong and can reproduce easily simply by splitting, yet they "evolved" into creatures that have to track down mates to survive, gestate their offspring, nurture their offspring, etc.,
The point you miss is that species evolve as a result of environmental pressures. One of the reasons multi-celled species survived was probably because larger species can eat smaller species more readily. So, in an environment where almost all the living things are unicellular, a mutation that leads to a multicellular being would be an evolutionary advantage.
Similarly, a large animal such as an elephant is well-suited for its environment for no other reason than because it can stomp on a lion without breaking a sweat.
When I point my bony finger at someone else (at the creationists), I have four pointed back at me. The evolutionists forget that their THEORY is also a THEORY--one which is marred by great disagreement among its adherents and a history of fraud and error which they refuse to admit to. It also includes some very bad science, some of which is based on faulty foundations and simplistic 19th century scientific belief. The intelligent design theory is not just creationism revisited...it doesn't necessarily imply God as the creator; some folks acknowledge an alien life form as creator. It does, however, recognize that there is amazing intelligence and knowledge embedded within every single part of the creation and all its parts, together, are perfectly synchronized and balanced.
For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure, the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" [3].The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote MinesIn response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent.
Granted, some Christians are called to know all about one or more of your cults
Wow. Willful ignorance combined with religious bigotry all in one post.
Kudos.
But what does ID itself predict? (BTW, nowhere in the theory of evolution is it implied that evolution is non directional.) For example evolution predicts that you won't ever find a rabbit fossil in a billion year old rock layer because evolution says that creatures as complex as rabbits took long periods of time to evolve. Observation of a rabbit fossil that was actually billions of years old would falsify evolution. What hypothetical observation would falsify ID?
He will help them believe a lie. That's not Him doing the lying. (Nice try, though.)
By all means, keep reading: "...that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
Those who refuse to believe the truth and have pleasure in unrighteousness will someday lose the ability to discern the truth. Like it or not, that's perfect justice.
That would not surprise me.
Thankfully, the NOI is so whacky that mainstream Muslims do not really consider them to be of the same religion, so there has been little or no involvement by members of the NOI in Muslim terrorism.
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.