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.
Well, I would like to think observability, testability, and predicability are the greater part of it. You know. All those things that make creation theories so unfit in this regard. Theories of star development and continental drift theory are little more than sophisticated story telling. Sure, they have some basis in the evidence to allow rational assertions, but that's as far as it goes.
That's an answer my question? No, it's another subject change. Let's look at how the little dance has gone so far.
It starts with a chest-thumping, mocking demand for evidence:
"How about half a wing, maybe fossiled. Or an intemediate between cats and dogs..any link!"Evidence was provided, including three pictures and a link,
here in Post 428.Your response? No acknowledgment or explanation, just a shifting of defense lines:
"Why isn't the fossil record one continuous change, instead of entirely separate suddenly appearing 'kinds'?"So now there are not as many transitionals as there really should be. This is a new story, one that must logically begin with "OK, indeed there are SOME..." etc. However, clearly EVEN THIS is not going to be conceded despite it having been demanded and produced.
So many militants are never wrong, even when they're wrong. Here, you implied that some things could not be produced at all and I showed they could, right? When you don't concede the really, really obvious, you look slippery.
I straightforwardly answered the question,... as did PH and others. It's just yet another thing you have wrong. And once again I linked evidence for what I was saying.
Your answer?
"If you think the 'gaps' are filling in, you're way out of date. Read: "Evolution, a theory in crisis", Denton.Wave arms, appeal to authority. (ID-ist Denton.) "I can't answer you directly but Denton did." For the record, Denton cannot possibly have demolished the statement that Darwin himself reconciled his theory to the geologic column. Anyone can recheck what Darwin himself wrote and whether anyone but creationism is imposing unrealistic expectations upon geology. And he certainly can't have rebutted my main point about the gaps.
I zeroed in on your denial (via Denton) that the gaps are filling in at all.How anyone could imagine that Denton is running around undiscovering the evidince which has been linked for you I leave the lurker to figure. That reply included pointing out:
"You darwinites always want to talk about God. Have you checked the updated horse evolution theory?"If anyone's keeping score here, I've provided a lot of evidence. You have repeatedly answered the rebuttal of one misstatement with a change of story--to another misstatement. Now you're down to little more than verbal crucifixes to keep the evolution vampire off. "Denton!" "Horses!" Only now it's "Gould!"
Yes, there are lots of creationist lies about Gould, too. He answered most of them at various times before his death. You have nothing worthy of a science student's attention to take into science class, unless the particular area of study is abnormal psychology.
For some reasonable guy who's just concerned about "the science," you are arguing in an incredibly slippery manner. You have also failed to raise a single reasonable concern.
Oh, really? How big do you think a newborn Great Dane is?
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.
Post Hoc, ergo propter hoc. Let me shave off the extaneous doo-dads in your argument for you: Your assumption is that they are of the same species, therefore, they must have viable offspring, therefore, they must be of the same species. Neatly proved...aside from the lack of available facts to verify your anticedent assumption.
But what you fail to appreciate -- what you wicked evos always fail to appreciate -- is that notwithstanding the ease with which each and every one of the creationists' arguments is rebutted -- the impressively huge number of such arguments is overwhelming, and more than sufficient to carry the day.
</flaming creationoid mode>
w; Wow, there are so many misstatements of fact and false leaps of logic in your reply, I don't have time to address them all without being late for work.
Uh huh, Pot Kettle.
w;I'll focus on one, however. You claim that the processes involved in microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same.
They are exactly the same process. The difference is that microevolution is change in allele frequency that does not result in a new species and macroevolution is accumulated microevolution that does result in a new species.
W; Nonsense. Microevolution, as observed without the "intelligent design" interference of manipulation by researchers, occurs within our lifetime and does not demonstrate favorable mutations, but rather a process of natural selection of traits that are already built into the genetic code of a species, generally asserting themselves based on environmental factors.
The above is total hogwash. Microevolution is change in allele frequency over time. Each allele that forms is a mutation. We can estimate how long a species has been in existence by how many alleles there are at each loci. Since I doubt if you have understood a word of the above, I will quit.
And it's not as if they're ashamed to come back tomorrow or later today with the same stuff, anyway.
What you've provided is a lot of conjecture based on your personal interpretations. It's okay to mix a little fact with fiction, but please don't expect anyone to take your propositions any more seriously than those of Dan Rather.
Why not? When ya got it, ya got it! So why not show it? Besides, one day they might wear you down and save you from the lake of fire.
In sexual organisms, speciation is defined as two similar organisms being unable to breed with each other.
Thank you. Sometimes I feel like I am speaking to the wall.
Technically speaking, two groups are considered to be different species if their members are unable to produce viable offspring with each other. There have indeed been documented cases of fruit fly populations being kept in different labs which have been unable to reproduce with each other.
Now what if one of those populations was in an environment where having 4 wings and better learning abilities was more advantageous than the related costs, and those attributes became ubiquitous in one population and nonexistent in the other?
In other words, you'd have one group of 4-winged intelligent insects, and one group of 2-winged less-intelligent insects, and one group can't mate with the other. Would you then consider those two populations different species?
LOL. I kind of consider myself Chaotic Good.
Thats a great way of putting it.
Both deal with entirely different things.
HAhaahaa! I just said that. You can anything you want to be except a Paladin.
I am going to have to start putting "geek" alerts on my posts if this keeps up ;-)
I'd be very curious to see if any dog breeder has ever tried this before. Certainly somebody, somewhere must have...
As someone who is well aware of the current body of astronomical work, I suspect if you examined the depth of the data involved, you wouldn't call it "sophisticated story telling". Far from it. You would have to reject three quarters of what we know about physics if it were simply "sophisticated story telling". After all, all most astrophysics is taking the physics we have well established on earth and applying it to other areas. Unless you'd like call most of established physics "sophisticated story telling"?
According to the theory of gravity, an object launched from a particular position at a particular velocity would be able to orbit around the planet Mercury. Is it the job of proponents of the theory of gravity to launch such a probe to verify that the theory works in this particular instance, or are they permitted to generalize from the mountains of evidence which suggests that gravity works the way they think it does?
I read the book “The Evolution of a Creationist” By Dr Jobe Martin (ISBN 0-9643665-0-9).
The writer of this article states that teaching kids the other “theory” or assumptions which evolution are based on is a waste of time. In a round about way this author is saying that we should teach only one side and then teach this as the truth and as a matter of fact. Disregard any other information since this would “confuse” the kids.
I think this guy tops the “stupid meter”. Lets not teach another theory which happens to accommodate a religion because “We don’t like anything that gives possible credit to a creator”. We only use science when it gives us the answers we like. Unreal!
The book, if this guy even read it, explains the 7 basic assumptions (Verifiable fact) on which evolution stands. It goes through and explains all the holes and lack of information we have. The extrapolations made and at time the flat out lies that were presented as proof of evolution and attempting to fill those holes. Yes, the book is loaded with quotes from the bible, but this don’t make it wrong.
There are several other books out there that are similar. One is written by a micro biologist and goes into painful detail. He too will surely get a bad review by this guy. After all, he’s not preaching the party line either (evolution=intellectual and educated, creationism=bible thumper and idiot). Is this really a question of science for the writer of that article?
Red6
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.