Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection
Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution; unintelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,841-1,857 next last
To: RadioAstronomer

> Which creation stories do you want left out? Odin?

You dare not leave out Odin from Creationism. How would you defend yourself when you stand before him in Valhalla?


61 posted on 11/29/2004 7:34:43 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Nice post. But like my links, I fear it may go un-read by those who could benefit the most. Whatcha gonna do?


62 posted on 11/29/2004 7:34:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
They're already teaching one such story as if it were fact (evolution). Might as well put the other theory on the table, too.

Nope. Evolution is a scientific theory, the other is not. Pretty simple really.

63 posted on 11/29/2004 7:35:19 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

What irritates me about this issue is that both sides are acting as if science ONLY EVER discusses the origins of the earth. Why can the teachers simply not focus on teaching the scientific method? Is there truly an unwillingness amongst the creationists to accept the Linnean classification system? Is it really necessary for the advancement of technology to insist upon a secular view of the earth? Why is it that science itself has become a political game rather than a pure method of study? I think this is what has cause the most problems. Both sides are guilty of forgetting what science is in the first place. A pox on both your houses!


64 posted on 11/29/2004 7:36:33 AM PST by Alkhin ("Oh! Oh!" cried my idiot crew. "It's a woman! We are doomed!" - - Jack Aubrey, M&C series)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts,

Not true. See my post #60

65 posted on 11/29/2004 7:36:47 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
And I suppose you know all there is to know in the entire universe and can there for empircally discount religion as silly?

I see your ignorance showing.

66 posted on 11/29/2004 7:37:58 AM PST by UseYourHead (Smith & Wesson: The original point-and-click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Whatcha gonna do?

Keep trying to educate. :-)

67 posted on 11/29/2004 7:38:03 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

> They're already teaching one such story as if it were fact (evolution). Might as well put the other theory on the table, too.

Which "the other theory?"
1) The Raelians: Aliens put us here
2) Scientologists: Aliens put us here (sorta, I think...)
3) The Hindus: Ummmm....
4) The Nation of Islam: White People were Intelligently Designed by a mad scientist
5) The Great Green Arkleseizure: The universe was sneezed out his nose.
6) Communists: Lamarkian selection
7) Spiritualists: We're degraded forms from the Golden Age
8) Christians: Poofism


There seem to be a LOT of "theories" to rate alongside Creationism. Of course, only Natural Selection fits the standards of science, being verifiable, disprovable and observable, while all the rest are faith-based handwaving, but hey... so long as we're gonna teach one form of Creationism, why not teach them all?

What can you possibly be afraid of?


68 posted on 11/29/2004 7:40:33 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page
69 posted on 11/29/2004 7:40:37 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. Anthropology, The Immense Journey, Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199
70 posted on 11/29/2004 7:41:31 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

Excuse me but many scientists question evolution. I wouldn't consider them ignorant. With as complicated and intricate life is and all that must sustain it, I find it much harder to believe it just happened on its own. Evolution requires more faith than I have.


71 posted on 11/29/2004 7:41:54 AM PST by imskylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups."

Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, J. Rostand, "LaMonde et la Vie," October 1963, p. 31 from V. Long, "Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Adults," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol 78 (1978), no. 7, pp. 27-32
72 posted on 11/29/2004 7:42:16 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981
73 posted on 11/29/2004 7:43:44 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Nor is the existence of God, and thus, neither is "Intelligent Design"

Although I can see how you might reason your way to such a statement, it is not logically supportable. The existence of God is not a logical prerequisite for theories stating that "Intelligent Design" is responsible for at least some of what we can observe of life on Earth.

If you're honest, you'll see that your statement relies on seceral Very Big Assumptions, including the following:

1. There is no life in the universe, except on Earth. (Otherwise, you'd admit the possibility that species from other planets could have played a role in creating life on Earth)

2. Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive processes (this is a poor assumption -- a theory of "assisted evolution" easily combines the two, and helps to explain the fossil record)

3. God is the only possible intelligent designer (provably false: humans have demonstrated the ability to do it)

I think what you're really aiming at here is a global statement about the origin of life in the universe -- and you're claiming it sprang up randomly, and not through the actions of God. But you cannot apply such a theory to life on Earth.

74 posted on 11/29/2004 7:43:53 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Oooooh! The babbling of a psychologist. And from 1983. How very authoritative.


75 posted on 11/29/2004 7:43:57 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The conversation in any classroom is worthless without full discussion of all these concepts and I hate to see either side trying to eliminate the other.

When I was in school, this was pretty easily handled by my teachers... that science can perhaps explain 'what happened' in the history of the world, but in no way can address who might have made it happen or why. Science and theology are not asking the same question, and the answers are understandably not interchangeable.

76 posted on 11/29/2004 7:44:05 AM PST by HairOfTheDog (<<<loves her hubbit and the horse he rode in on :~D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UseYourHead

"And I suppose you know all there is to know in the entire universe"


That is correct.


77 posted on 11/29/2004 7:44:34 AM PST by Blzbba (Conservative Republican - Less gov't, less spending, less intrusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data."

Dr David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45.
78 posted on 11/29/2004 7:44:41 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: imskylark

"Evolution requires more faith than I have."


I respect that. Creationism and ID require far more faith than I have!


79 posted on 11/29/2004 7:45:08 AM PST by Blzbba (Conservative Republican - Less gov't, less spending, less intrusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

ALL written by subjective beings who are typically wrong more often than right and who use less than 10% of their brains to understand very nearly nothing about the universe. These articles prove nothing other than the fact that I can find plenty of things to prove my point. A house of cards may be intricate, beautiful and well desinged but it will still fall.


80 posted on 11/29/2004 7:46:23 AM PST by UseYourHead (Smith & Wesson: The original point-and-click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,841-1,857 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson