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.
So which religious denomination has the monopoly on knowing the "truth" about what God says?
Is it the Catholics? Southern Baptists? Methodists or Christian Scientists? Mormons, Jews, Islamists?
Which one of these denominations that study many of the same Bible stories has claim to "truth" about what God actually says?
My point is that perhaps God isn't a liar. But that perhaps you are a mere human being and perhaps have not interpreted God's word perfectly with regard to how God created the Earth and it's species.
Or are you claiming perfection?
Again: you're not providing arguments against design, you're simply saying that you would have designed things differently.
The problem with that point of view is that, at root, it validates the idea that a designer is a viable explanation for what we see, even if it's only to claim for yourself the mantle of "better engineer."
So if we can really detect design by intuition, we should be able to describe a rational process for detecting it.
Oh? Can you describe for us the means by which scientists could detect human fingerprints on the splicing of jellyfish genes onto monkey DNA? Would scientists be able to tell the difference between "natural evolutionary processes" and the fact that humans were in fact responsible for it?
Look closely at the 'design', and very little of it makes sense.
It is not valid to use one's own ignorance as an argument against design.
That is, BTW, the reason why I don't accept the separateness of ID and creationism.
That's your own private bias, then. It's not a statement of science, but of personal opinion. Your opinion ignores, however, the undeniable fact that humans are even now engaged in Intelligent Design. And, given that Intelligent Design is quite obviously possible, how can you possibly state that there is no way it played any role in life on Earth?
God is absolutely not falsifiable by the very nature of God. Any observation could be explained as being due to God's will. You look at this as a good thing, but it is actually a weakness of an idea if it is unfalsifiable. Which is more convincing, an idea that can never be falsified, no matter what actual observations are seen or an idea that could be falsified, but never actually has been? This is why any idea that invokes God is not science. It is precisely because God is unfalsifiable and ideas in science are.
Thank you. What you call "bigotry" is better termed "discernment." And, as for what you call "willful ignorance," investigating lies after my eyes have been opened to the truth would be like continuing to search for my car keys after I've found them. There's no point.
So, who created the aliens (a subtle form of the "who created the creator" argument)?
I'm still waiting for observable evidence of a beneficial mutational step toward a new species
The problem is that we know that intelligent design (in a general sense) is not false, because we know that humans actually practice it. Which is why I'm asking you for a better definition of what precisely it is that can be "falsified."
So you're saying evolution does not allow for life on other planets?
This is just a rehash of Pascal's Wager. There are two problems with this approach. How does one know which is the right god to believe in. If Islam or Judaism is correct, then you're screwed.
Secondly, accepting Christ is not a hell avoiding bargain. God will see right through that at judgment.
Reminds me of how socialism and environmentalism are supposedly not equivalent. That's an example of the concept of "front movement" which actually fooled me for a time. I once thought I was pro-environment. Sometime in my twenties I realized that every environmental organization around was promoting socialism.
I hope your kids don't get any beneficial mutations.
Now what about an observable selective fact.
OK, if you want to split hairs, I will modify my statement to "If you find an organism ON EARTH that does not have nucleic acids as its genetic material, then evolution is false." Better?
The opposite can be observed. Most liberals think the world is overpopulated, humans are evil, and therefore have abortions or practice good birth control.
Thus, there are fewer little liberals being raised and the human race is improved.
Ain't Evolution great!
But you still can't provide a hypothetical observation that would conclusively show that no intelligent designer ever interfered with the historical development of life on earth. That is, "If I were to observe X, then I would reasonably conclude that life evolved completely without intelligent intervention." Nobody is arguing that intelligent design is impossible. People are arguing that either life evolved without any intervention from an intelligent designer or in my case that the idea of intelligent intervention in life is not scientific.
Actually, if such a creature were found, it would only argue for multiple beginnings of life, rather than a singular beginning.
[A "singular" common ancestor is actually an argument for Biblical Creationism, which unfortunatly religious people reject because it then acknowleges the evil "E" word]
Also, certianly an argument could be made that extreemly early life split into two major forms and the common early ancestor is no longer in evidence.
What would you consider to be a beneficial mutation, then? What type of mutation would meet your standards? X-Ray vision, perhaps?
If you don't know how evolution works, you don't know that it's wrong. You don't know how it works.
I like it!
Hindus have looked at the facts and determined that their religion is the correct one. What makes them wrong?
And, as for what you call "willful ignorance," investigating lies after my eyes have been opened to the truth would be like continuing to search for my car keys after I've found them.
Osama Bin Laden would certainly agree with you.
All I know is what the Bible says about it. I seem to recall seeing where others have ventured to explain it. Perhaps they did a good job of doing so. I trust you'll check it out if it interests you.
If you're going to have some hyper-litteral interpretation of the early parts of Genesis, then you're going to have to explain some things.
I don't have to explain anything. Lacking any curiosity about the "how," I haven't bothered to delve into it. I'm content to be satisfied that it's true. Thankfully, I've left behind those days of my youth when I considered myself the final arbiter in what is true or good.
On the other hand, if you can say that these were merely parables, like the ones that Jesus told, then Evolution fits into Genesis just fine.
The obvious difference is, Jesus (God the Son) told us when He was speaking in parables. I hope I never dismiss as parable anything in the Bible simply because I can't explain it.
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.