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.
Yeah, pretty impressive I'd say! The number of posts just goes to show what a hot topic this issue still is.
After thousands of years, some people still do not believe in God, while others do. It's the same old story.
Neutrinos got detected in the late '40s or early '50s. We knew to look for them because some kind of missing "little neutral thing" was needed to account for the variable energy sum of the then-detectable particles (proton and electron) coming out of neutron decay. One neutron being like another, conservation of energy demanded that the sum of the energies should be a constant and it wasn't. Thus there had to be another product, something hard to detect.
Although most neutrinos pass through the Earth without interacting with anything, some few will hit. We now detect supernova events like SN1987A from the spike in neutrinos.
I disagree completly. I do not think that the science profession considers the subject of God, until Creationists show up and demand to teach something completly different to what science has discovered. And Creationists do this, not through the system of science itself, by discovering contrary evidence, but through political force.
If scientists came into a church and demanded to teach something that was counter to church doctrine, church officials would rightly object to their utmost ability just on the principle of the thing.
Same with science.
If Creationists want to teach their subject as part of the religion studies, fine. Just don't try to push aside genuine science to teach it and expect science to just roll over.
This is the issue, and it isn't science that needs to back off. It's Creationists that need to put their subject in the proper classroom.
Are you going to do the bidding of a foreign King? Are you at His beck and call? Do you attend Him in His throne room to receive your orders?
A prayer of George Washington:
O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly and carelessly, that my prayers are become my sin and stand in need of pardon. I have heard thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer, so that, O Lord, tho' I have done thy work, yet it hath been so negligently that I may rather expect a curse than a blessing from thee. But, O God, who art rich in mercy and plenteous in redemption, mark not, I beseech thee, what I have done amiss; remember that i am but dust, and remit my transgressions, negligences & ignorances, and cover them all with the absolute obedience of thy dear Son, that those sacrifices which I have offered may be accepted by thee, in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life.
You can't learn anything making bad models and waving them around. Then, not learning anything was the idea.
Not at all. We are observing phenomena that give rise to the theory that there was such thing as a "Big Bang." It is certainly a plausible theory, but like theories of evolution, no more "provable" than the existence of God, and thus no more worthy of consideration in the marketplace of ideas.
And only one correct step off square one, etc.
No, we're observing the effects of the big bang, most directly through the expansion of the universe, and the detection of the CMB, and deducing through Occam's Razor a likely theoretical result. It's not our fault that there isn't any data that's come out against it. :-)
Nor is it anybody's fault that not enough data have come out to prove it.
Narby, here's a question for you or any other evolution proponent. Why is there so much resistance to evolution from conservatives? Liberals are generally the ones driven by emotion. They generally are the ones lacking in logic and/or common sense. They're likely the ones who keep psychic hotlines in business. Yet they're the least likely to question evolution. Every liberal I've ever discussed this with takes evolution as a given.
Might it be that us straight-thinking, common sense-driven logical Red Staters see the holes in evolutionary theory? :-)
Both political sides have their emotional issues. Emotion drives all politics, otherwise people wouldn't be motivated to vote.
One of the most "rational" people I know get's all hyped up when you bring up 2nd amendment and Constitutional issues. He's technically and legally right on these issues. But he can't recognize that there are practical political limitations to everything that must be done in government.
Also on the Evolution issue, it's not a given that Creationists vote Republican and vice versa. There are a considerable number of Dem Creationists and Rep Evolutionists, although there are more Creationists in the Rep party than Dem.
Apparently I didn't share my vision enough. In my experiment, the flies are contained in a large tank. The tank has plenty of water, air, food and whatever else is needed to make a wonderful fruitfly habitat. Also contained in the tank is water. The food is slowly moved into the water, over generations of fruit flies. Each step along the way would require the fruit fly to evolve a little more.
For example, food at the surface of the water would kill off the fruitflies who were stupid enough to land on the water. If the food were just below the surface, then fruitflies who could dunk their little fruit fly heads in the water and eat would have the advanatage.
Theoretically, after thousands of generations of fruit files, and if evolution of species is true, then eventually the fittest fruit flies will have evolved to be able to swim to the bottom of the tank and get the food.
It would be a graudual process for sure, but it should be easily demonstrated. I wonder if evolutionists have tried it yet. If not, why?
Actually, we both got it wrong, it's:
It's not our fault that we can't come up with a theory that explains the data better.
This shows the quality of scientists in the ID movement if they are so confused about the theory of evolution. Evolution does not address the origin of life - it only addresses how life adapts and new species originate due to these adaptations. That is where the title "origin of species" comes from. Otherwise, it would have been named "origin of life".
Scientists do have theories about the origin of life on earth but its not the same thing as the theory of evolution. I will admit that high school teachers often don't know the difference and blur the issue.
Unless you can conduct this experiment over millions of years, it won't work. In fact, it won't work even if you do conduct it over millions of years. But that's evolution's dirty little secret! :-)
Practicing Christians tend to be conservatives, so it makes it seem like conservatives as a whole resist evolution. Like Narby said, this is just a overall trend and not very indicative. Even in red states like Georgia, Kerry still got 40% of the vote.
When I said that I have not heard a scientist who made that claim, I meant in the entire field, not among IDists. And if you question the quality of the scientists in the field I can list you a pretty extensive list of them. Heck, go to your local book store and you will see volumes of books written by those who suggest ID.
Also, if you can tell me the difference in life and in species, you know more about the subject than I--because I don't think there is a difference in the two. Without species there is no life, without life there is no species. The two are hand in hand.
Are you trying to tell me that evolution says nothing on the subject of the very first species coming to life? Are you trying to say that Darwin does not theorize on how life began or begins?
If you are, I suggest you go back and re-read his books.
Let's say the average fruit fly lives a week...from egg to fly. In one year, in one experiment, we can go through 52 generations of fruit flies. Let's say we run the experiment 20 years. That's 20 x 52 or 1040 generations of fruit flies. I don't think evolutionists base their beliefs on time, but rather on generations. Humans have supposedly made great evolutionary leaps over say, the last million years. If a generation of humans is 50 years, then that's only 20,000 generations.
Now surely in 1040 generations of fruitflies it seems highly likely that we should see great evolutionary leaps in our fruit flies who are being force to get food in progressively deeper water. We can even conduct multiple experiments, thousands and thousands, at the same time.
Now surely, in an environment specifically optimized and tuned to favor evolution we should see evolution. After all, it supposedly happens completely by chance in the real world.
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.