(The result of a single mutated allele)
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.
And natural science doesn't stand up to Scripture and God. Just been in a discussion where somebody ignorant of scripture was actually trying to defend the notion that there is no conflict between evolution and Scripture. Desperation... sheesh.
No one has yet to demonstrate with any verity a gradual change from ape to humans. And so I will posit the same questions asked in #834: Has any evolutionist demonstrated under strict scientific conditions the transition from an ape to anything slightly closer to human? Has any evolutionist proposed at what point the ape becomes human as opposed to ape?
How many do you want?
Scientists and other PhD's are no less subject to the zeitgeist than anyone else.
Didn't the American Psychological Association change their stance on homosexuality after political pressure from homosexual activists? I believe that's so. In 1960, you'd have probably been hard pressed to find a psychologist who thought homosexuality was normal. Today, any psychologist who says it's abnormal would likely say it to you in a whisper, lest his career be destroyed. He would at the very least be looked down upon by his "enlightened" colleagues. As for the future, we can safely assume young psychology students are being taught by professors who are nearly 100% of the opinion that homosexuality is normal (leftist control of the universities assures that) and are learning from textbooks that spout the gay agenda.
Anyone brave enough to call homosexuality abnormal in an academic setting today will be smugly pounced upon with the fact that the APA has deemed homosexuality to be perfectly normal.
Something tells me the theory of evolution advanced in a somewhat similar manner. The political left fell in love with it, and they've "zeitgeisted" it into an ideologically protected position. Scientists who object to the theory have long since been weeded out or marginalized. Disagreement with the theory is declared to be either stupid or "religious in nature". Either way, disagreement can't be permitted. All the textbooks teach evolution. Almost all the professors do as well, and most who disagree do so in a whisper. Imagine a biology professor trying to get tenure after questioning the theory of evolution. He'd have about as much chance as a psychology professor who wrote a journal article calling homosexuality abnormal, assuming such as article could get published in the first place.
poppycock
Ah. Now we have to define "ape" and "human" in such a way as to know the difference between the two. Obviously, we'll have to discard the contemporary definition of "ape", since nobody asserts that modern members of the ape family led to humans.
As far as I know that's already been done.
Obviously, we'll have to discard the contemporary definition of "ape", since nobody asserts that modern members of the ape family led to humans.
Not sure how that follows, but I'll grant that you've avoided my latest questions.
Wow, that was a very intriguing article V-A. Thanks.
It would of course be senseless to base anything on one fossil (singular) because that would include the possibility of comparing an adult modern organism with a baby fossilized organism - hardly a fair test. However, what is apparent from the fossil record is that organisms that existed sometime in the past were much bigger than ones we have today. We may not have any idea where these organisms were in their life cycle before they were fossilized but in many (perhaps most) instances, they were much bigger than anything seen on the current earth (speaking of the same species of course) - a comparison of what would be have to considered a random sample at a stage of unknown development (fossil) to a trophy (current). I was mentioning on a previous post that this past weekend I happened to attend a lecture by John Mackay - an Australian who heads up a organization called Creation Research. He organizes digs in all sorts of places. Anyway, he was showing photos of some of the fossils they have unearthed. The ones that stuck in my memory were the horsetail plant that must have been 30 feet high, the dragonfly with wingspan of almost a metre, shark's teeth that dwarf anything today and so on.
...and you've failed to prove that it is science.I have never argued that creationism (or ID, like you I see them as basically the same idea) is false. I have argued that it is not science and thus should not be taught as science.
And by this I assume that you mean the usual steps of observation, the ability to test and the repeatability of results? Of course it's not science - but then, neither is any theory of evolution. Both have to be accepted on faith. I think you are absolutely correct that it shouldn't be taught as science - so does that mean you agree with the position I've taken concerning how the subject should be dealt with in the classroom as explained on my posts 40 and 651?
I of course don't agree with you on your thoughts that God used a big bang as part of his MO.
Perfect means without flaws and won't die. However, man failed to live up to his part of the bargain and that was the end of perfection - and the introduction of death into the picture. Don't you know anything about Genesis?
I'd like to know on what evidence you base that assumption -- beyond that of a 3000+ year-old religious story. I can look up the creation myths of popular religions on my own.
As I said, there is none - that world has been destroyed. I believe it because the Bible has proved itself to be an absolutely trustworthy and consistent record. By the way, I didn't hear a peep out of you as to accepting my challenge (in post 651) on how creation can easily be disproved.
Okay. Present some of this evidence, as it would likely turn a number of sciences on their heads.
Sure well you can easily approach John Mackay on your own - his website is http://www.creationresearch.net/ and he seems like quite an approachable fellow.
Of course, you left the realm of science by introducing a divine element into the mix in the first place, admitting up front that your version of ID has absolutely no place in school science classrooms.
Exactly, I have no problem with creation science or ID or whatever you would like to call it having no place in the classroom. I just happen to think that no other faith based junk 'science' like evolution has a place in the classroom either. It's not even a good theory since it can't come close to passing the scientific test.
Good of you to be open-minded. Of course, conveniently, the means to conclusively refute the idea of macro-evolution is no more available than that required to absolutely prove it. You see, the problem is not so much that a creationist view is not rational. It's that it doesn't conform to the pyramid of presuppositions on which so much of evolutionary theory is based.
If the creationist view is true, then saying that it is unscientific is no different than a primitive ascribing an internal combustion engine to the workings of magic or alchemy. You don't understand the mechanism, so you dismiss it in favor of a collection of postulates that are mutually supportive within a specific closed system of your own definition. Rather than being open to expanding your system to embrace another concept, you prefer to define the alternative as invalid, ignoring or rationalizing the internal philosophical and/or scientific contradictions and inconsistencies that exist within your theory.
It would seem that the very simplicity of a model that postulates an intelligent creator doesn't satisfy the need to accomplish the unraveling of the universe through the exercise of intellect. Or perhaps it's simply a question of ego. Possibly you have a strong need to believe that the human mind is the apex of intellect; and, while time and space can be accepted as infinite, the idea of an infinite mind/personality is offensive.
Cheers
Until science has fully explained what are time, space, light, and energy, I shall give only skeptical attention to its attempts in explaining what is history.
The Miao have no written records, but they have many legends in verse, which they learn to repeat and sing. The Hei Miao (or Black Miao, so called from their dark chocolate-colored clothes) treasure poetical legends of the creation and of a deluge. These are composed in lines of five syllables, in stanzas of unequal length, one interrogative and one responsive. They are sung or recited by two persons or two groups at feasts and festivals, often by a group of youths and a group of maidens. The legend of the creation commences:
Who made heaven and earth?
Who made insects?
Who made men?
Made male and made female?
I who speak don't know.
Heavenly King made heaven and earth,
Ziene made insects,
Ziene made men and demons,
Made male and made female.
How is it you don't know?
How made heaven and earth?
How made insects?
How made men and demons?
Made male and made female?
I who speak don't know.
Heavenly King was intelligent,
Spat a lot of spittle into his hand,
Clapped his hands with a noise,
Produced heaven and earth,
Tall grass made insects,
Stories made men and demons,
Made men and demons,
Made male and made female.
How is it you don't know?
The legend proceeds to state how and by whom the heavens were propped up and how the sun was made and fixed in its place.
The legend of the flood tells of a great deluge. It commences:
Who came to the bad disposition,
To send fire and burn the hill?
Who came to the bad disposition,
To send water and destroy the earth?
I who sing don't know.
Zie did. Zie was of bad disposition,
Zie sent fire and burned the hill;
Thunder did. Thunder was of bad disposition,
Thunder sent water and destroyed the earth.
Why don't you know?
In this story of the flood only two persons were saved in a large bottle gourd used as a boat, and these were A-Zie and his sister. After the flood the brother wished his sister to become his wife, but she objected to this as not being proper. At length she proposed that one should take the upper and one the lower millstone, and going to opposite hills should set the stones rolling to the valley between. If these should be found in the valley properly adjusted on above the other, she would be his wife, but not if they came to rest apart.
The young man, considering it unlikely that two stones thus rolled down from opposite hills would be found in the valley, one upon another, while pretending to accept the test suggested, secretly placed two other stones in the valley, one upon the other. The stones rolled from the hills were lost in the tall wild grass, and on descending into the valley, A-Zie called his sister to come and see the stones he had placed.
She, however, was not satisfied, and suggested as another test that each should take a knife from a double sheath and, going again to the opposite hilltops, hurl them into the valley below. If both these knives were found in the sheath in the valley, she would marry him, but if the knives were found apart, they would live apart.
Again the brother surreptitiously placed two knives in the sheath, and, the experiment ending as A-Zie wished, his sister became his wife. They had one child, a misshapen thing without arms or legs, which A-Zie in great anger killed and cut to pieces. He threw the pieces all over the hill, and next morning, on awakening, he found these pieces transformed into men and women. Thus the earth was re-peopled.
The explanation below might move us beyond the " belief in TOE is the same as belief in God" notion. The differences between science and creationism are clear when viewed under the real scientific terms, rather than the vernacular understanding of creationists. "God did it" explains all phenomenon, but it has no data supporting it and is untestable.
Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.
A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.
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?
This is somewhat different from the experiment you tried, but here's an interesting published abstract from here:
Experimental evolution of learning ability in fruit flies
Frederic Mery * and Tadeusz J. Kawecki (2002)
The presence of genetic variation for learning ability in animals opens the way for experiments asking how and under what ecological circumstances improved learning ability should evolve. Here we report experimental evolution of learning ability in Drosophila melanogaster. We exposed experimental populations for 51 generations to conditions that we expected to favor associative learning with regard to oviposition substrate choice. Flies that learned to associate a chemical cue (quinine) with a particular substrate, and still avoided this substrate several hours after the cue had been removed, were expected to contribute more alleles to the next generation. From about generation 15 on, the experimental populations showed marked ability to avoid oviposition substrates that several hours earlier had contained the chemical cue. The improved response to conditioning was also expressed when the flies were faced with a choice of novel media. We demonstrate that these behavioral changes are caused by the evolution of both a higher learning rate and a better memory.
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.