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 ... 861-880881-900901-920 ... 1,841-1,857 next last
To: NJ_gent

I don't want to look in another imaginary darwinite fantasyland....where...?


881 posted on 12/01/2004 9:04:20 AM PST by metacognative (expecting exculpation?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5

Bump for later read.

Pasen's theorum: The number of posts on the evolution/creationism debate on FR are inversely proportional to the number of interesting news happenings at the time of the posting.


882 posted on 12/01/2004 9:04:37 AM PST by JusPasenThru (If you want to get it movin' you must learn to doof da bouven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 879 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Still waiting for that observation that would make you give up creationism.

You must be mistaking me for a proponent of creation teaching injected into scientific disciplines. Bringing creation into science is no more necessary than bringing in evolution. These only serve to muddy the discipline of observing and testing the given universe. Both viewpoints exceed the bounds of science in the strict sense when they rely upon the unobservable. If they want to incorporate notions of history into their explanations, fine, but don't call it "science" in the strict sense.

883 posted on 12/01/2004 9:08:56 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 865 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I just noticed your tag line. I take it you're Lawful Good.

Nah, I am to comfortable around messed up people. More like Chaotic Good.

I would discribe it as being headed in the want to be good direction, but bumping on the lines in my lane regularly. ;-)

884 posted on 12/01/2004 9:08:59 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
Have you checked the updated horse evolution theory?

Have you checked the dates on your pamphlet material?

885 posted on 12/01/2004 9:11:07 AM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 880 | View Replies]

To: metacognative

Tar pits, caves, and lake beds are not imaginary. Or are you claiming that all fossils we've recovered thus far are fakes? Perhaps part of some grand conspiracy?


886 posted on 12/01/2004 9:12:24 AM PST by NJ_gent (Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Their confidence in TOE is unfounded and wrong.

...Dick Morris could explain it better.

887 posted on 12/01/2004 9:13:07 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Seriously -- if x-great-grandchildren can produce viable offspring, why does that not suggest "same-species" to you?

Why, it does...provided you can actually show me a case where the divergence lasts for, say, 1,000,000 years, so that the teapot dog becauses about the size of the Great Dane's spermatazoa and then converges again when they are respecively upsized and downsized. Darwin and the DNA mutational clock sez--not a snowball's chance in hell. Creationists say, "of course". Neither side is putting up a slamdunk demonstration, but Darwinists do have those three annoying trees of evidence, from the geological column, the DNA clock and the continuity of fossil morphology, and a thriving micro-biology insdustry to point to, whereas creationists can proudly point to God-did-it, with, of course, no possiblility of any trail of evidence to follow backwards from that event.

As for your other examples, I'm not going to address them

I wouldn't want to either, if I were you.

, except to point out that those near-relative species do in fact exist, and can mate to produce live, if not fertile, offspring. Obviously they got that way somehow. Beyond that I will say no more, except to point you to my previous comments on this thread.

Yea, they got there somehow--byh the gradual divergence of functionally, or geographically isolated hybrids, as suggested should be the case by Darwin's theory.

888 posted on 12/01/2004 9:31:16 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: william clark
And, by the way, logical inference is considered valid legal argumentation,

Which is, of course, by itself, no garantee whatsoever as to its value, accuracy, or relevance.

very length of time required for the macroevolutionary theory to play itself out is the very thing that works against you,

For a proponent of induction, you are off on a very strange tact here. Do you think stellar astrononmy is also invalid, because it makes inferential conjectures about events that took place millions of years ago? What scientist has actually detected the production of heavy elements in a supernova?

889 posted on 12/01/2004 9:45:45 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 868 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

Ok, I'm going to look for piles of fossils-in-progress on a lake bed...thanks


890 posted on 12/01/2004 10:12:30 AM PST by metacognative (expecting exculpation?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

You mean like Gould's work? [I mean theorizing?]


891 posted on 12/01/2004 10:17:11 AM PST by metacognative (expecting exculpation?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 885 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Since it makes predictions that are testable, evolution is science in the strictest sense. There are observations that would cause the modern theory of evolution to be found false and either modified or abandoned. I assume when you refer to science in its strict sense, you mean that it must be concerned only with what is directly observable. If that's the case, then the heliocentric model of the solar system, the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, the standard model of subatomic particles and various other scientific ideas must not be science in the strict sense. If I have assumed incorrectly, then please define what you mean by science in the strict sense.


892 posted on 12/01/2004 10:26:10 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 883 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

What is your definition of "species"?

Also, is "species" an attribute of an individual entity?


893 posted on 12/01/2004 10:57:40 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
What is your definition of "species"?

I was using the generic "produces fertile offspring" definition.

Also, is "species" an attribute of an individual entity?

Heck no -- individuals are members of a species, which is almost by definition a group thing.

It does bring up an interesting question, though: if species are separated by an inability produce fertile offspring, is it possible to be "the first of a new species?" If so, then it's not clear to me how that new species could possibly propagate beyond the first member.....

894 posted on 12/01/2004 11:12:38 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 893 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Note that under your definition, the ends of a "ring species" are different species. "Produces fertile offspring" (a reasonable definition) is not a transitive relation. It's possible that members of subclasses A and B can interbreed as can members of subclasses B and C, whereas subclasses A and C cannot. Were members of subclass B deleted (volcano, virus, grey wolves, fire ants, other disasters), A and C would now be separate under your proposed definition.


895 posted on 12/01/2004 11:20:49 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Since it makes predictions that are testable, evolution is science in the strictest sense.

To the extent theories of evolution make testable predictions they are no different from any other science. I hardly think this is the issue. The issue is when evolution theories overstep their bounds to indulge in fanciful notions of history apart from any observation or testing whatsoever.

896 posted on 12/01/2004 11:50:19 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 892 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Good comment.


897 posted on 12/01/2004 11:51:39 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: shubi
856 posted on 12/01/2004 2:12:31 AM CST by shubi

This was an excellent post on the subject of objectivity. Anyone on this thread should read it regardless of your position on this matter. I for one am neither a believer in creation nor do I subscribe to evolution. Why? Both have fallacies that IMO far outweigh the "evidence and research." Scientists, or at least those who try to advance the evolution theory, have consistently been caught creating their own evidence and therefore invalidating proper findings. I realize the same can be said for those who believe in creation, but their fallacy is also their fact therefore it is a circular argument.

I am for objective and open minded research into how and why things exist, but I also have seen too many "scientists" show their behind by manufacturing most of their evidence.
898 posted on 12/01/2004 12:05:12 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

So then, theories of star development and continental drift theory are not science? They too deal with historical events without any direct method of testing. I am interested in what you think defines science.


899 posted on 12/01/2004 12:09:25 PM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies]

To: donh

donh wrote:

Well, actually, teacup size poodles have been around for about 40 years. Think it could mate with a Great Dane in the wild, unassisted by pippettes and microscopes? You guys are a tough audience--what, exactly, does a mammal need to do to be considered a separate species?

............................................

Well actually using domesticated dogs as an example is not good since they are all members of the same species regardless of the consequences of their mating. If the teacup were to survive being mated with a Great Dane, then it is absolutely possible for it to bear a pup. It would be a mutt, and the teacup may not survive the birth, but it does not invalidate the fact that they could possibly bear an offspring.


900 posted on 12/01/2004 12:12:26 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880881-900901-920 ... 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