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.
Stalin & Lysenko believed in a different variation of evolution, essentially Lamarckism. They believed creatures evolved not through random accumulated mutations in life forms, but through physical action by the creatures themselves. Below is a passage from the link you provided:
#####According to Lamarck, evolution occurs because organisms can inherit traits which have been acquired by their ancestors. For example, giraffes find themselves in a changing environment in which they can only survive by eating leaves high up on trees. So, they stretch their necks to reach the leaves and this stretching and the desire to stretch gets passed on to later generations. As a result, a species of animal which originally had short necks evolved into a species with long necks.#####
So, the Stalinists believed in a different version of evolution that the Darwinists. They also believed in a different form of communism than the Maoists.
As for the ICR link you provided, if you read it thoroughly, you'll see it's referring to natural selection, not evolution. I have no problem with natural selection, and agree that it can exist quite comfortably with good ol' capitalism. Natural selection is not evolution.
Ruthless placemarker
But if all species are specially created, what is natural selection's function?
Did you read the book?
How about doing that. That is what essentially this thread is about.
You know, you can go out with the prejudice that God does NOT exist and use science (Even if forcing it to fit the mold) to try to prove your point. On the other hand, if there is scientific data refuting evolution, this is junk science according to you. Having a closed mind, going out with the intent to verify a preconceived idea using science and never really testing the theory itself is NOT science. That was not science when the church forced the idea of all bodies going around the earth or when evolution is taught as a fact and indisputable. It’s a THEORY, not a fact. There is information out there which contradicts this theory. This theory is based on some pretty heavy (big) assumptions (Dam near miracles). In the past there have been lies and aspects about this theory proven wrong.
While I do not know what the answer is, I am willing to accept more options than “God is dead and we can under no circumstance admit that something like creationism happened”. Evolution gives an explanation as to the why and how all this is. It even was used to explain why certain races were intellectually inferior in college texts. Evolution is poison to some because it contradicts the bible, makes life unholy and because of many other angles. The fact that some schools recognize that evolution is no more than a theory is credit to their open mind since it is a theory, no more. There are other ideas out there. The inconsistencies, assumptions of evolution SHOULD be taught. The intent is not to discredit evolution, but to show the “whole” picture and not brainwash, which is the alternative that you obviously support. Historically, evolution is taught as a fact. No mention is made of the past lies, the aspects proven wrong or the 7 major assumptions it is entirely based upon (Without them there is no evolution). Obviously though, you know something which even the biggest advocates of evolution don’t know since these assumptions (Do you know what they are? Or are you only loaded with one sided quick and snappy comments for a fast little session in polemics?) make no mention and obviously are no issue to you.
Because an alternative theory is consistent with the teachings of the bible it is not automatically wrong. Your committing a fallacy in your argument. Read what I wrote. I did not say this made it right, but this also does not make it wrong. But you kind of tip your hand with your comments.
It’s 2 in the morning, at 0530 I head to work, sorry I must sleep. Good night.
Red6
#####The degree of certainty to which it is put forward is based on the fact that it has acheived the level of theory.#####
Or has it become ideologically entrenched? A psychology professor who calls homosexuality abnormal likely won't get tenure. Ditto for a biology professor who questions evolution. Scientists are no less subject to the zeitgeist than anyone else.
#####Could you state a "competing" theory?#####
Intelligent design, for one. But since science is defined in such a way as to exclude it, that one has no chance to pass through the filter. Feel free to offer evolution as a theory, but don't expect people to necessarily swallow it.
Really? So exactly *how* does it work? You have a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can give a good answer to that question. We await your revelations on this subject.
Bonus points if your "how gravity works" can provide answers to such basic questions as, does gravity propagate instantly, or at the speed of light, or at some other speed? Does anti-matter produce anti-gravity, or regular gravity? Does gravity work by graviton particles, or by some other method? Can gravity be unified with electromagnetism? What, if anything, is quantum gravity?
#####But if all species are specially created, what is natural selection's function?#####
That's a very good question! :-)
It strengthens a species to weed out the weaker members. It can, of course, also lead to the extinction of entire species. Why does that occur? From a naturalistic point of view, I suppose we could just say "that's the way it goes". From the point of view of Christian theology, it's the consequence of death and deterioration entering the world as the result of sin. But I'm not here to preach to you! Just to ask you to understand why so many of us don't buy evolution as a theory.
To be a theory, it has to make predictions and be falsifiable. What theories does ID make that evolution does not? How would one falsify "that's just the way God did it?"
#####Really? So exactly *how* does it work? You have a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can give a good answer to that question. We await your revelations on this subject.#####
Cute! Perhaps I made a bad choice of words. But the scientific community dows know enough about gravity to make calculations about space probes and such.
How would one falsify "that's just the way millions of years did it?"
That mutation is called an allele. Being ignorant of what an allele is, creationists will misunderstand how evolution works every time.
They know *that* it works, and by how much. They know next to nothing about *how* it works.
Evolution, meanwhile, is on immensely firmer footing. We know *that* it works, *and* how it works. Most of what remains is reconstructing the details of individual events in life's history, which is akin to figuring out which rocks in an avalanche took what path down the mountain, and not learning more about the effects of gravity, friction, or impact dynamics.
Bwaaaahaaaahaaaaa This guy kills me!
Yes. But does that mean that, over time, as the process of natural selection plays its role, we should end up with a species that is much stronger (or faster, or something) than its distant ancestors?
#####To be a theory, it has to make predictions and be falsifiable. What theories does ID make that evolution does not? How would one falsify "that's just the way God did it?"#####
I agree, and evolutionists can always just say, "things were different back then". Neither ID nor evolution is actually observable or falsifiable. There is literally nothing that would cause evolutionists to abandon the theory. Prove that nothing is evolving now and they'll just say things were different back then. Find no gradual transitions in the fossils and they'll shout "punctuated equilibria".
Evolution's an interesting theory. It's within the realm of possibility, I suppose, that it's even correct. But it isn't Holy Writ and shouldn't be treated as anything more than a lot of conjecture based on a materialistic worldview that carries a ton of ideological baggage and is enshrined more because of its political appeal than its evidence.
By finding fossils out of place -- a fossil rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, for example.
Actually, they can't. Evolution makes certain predictions (that fossils will be found in a specific sequence, for example). Creationists are the ones renowned for the "things were different back then." For example, creationists are always going on about the speed of light being faster in the past, or radioactive decay having been accelerated shortly after God created the Earth.
s; 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; And did you notice the way you went from stating that the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes are exactly the same to pointing out the differences between them without missing a beat? Nice footwork.
They ARE exactly the same process. Try to read for comprehension.
Macro is simply more accumulation of alleles that result in enough divergence to classify the "daughter" population as a new species. Remember, in the biological classification system, species is the smallest difference and the one with the tightest definition. You would probably not be able to tell the difference between two species of most animals or plants.
Also, remember that Darwin's book was "Origin of Species" not "Origin of life". Thats where you guys run off the track.
#####They know *that* it works, and by how much. They know next to nothing about *how* it works.#####
I know, I know....I made a bad choice of words in using the word "how". Guilty as charged!
#####Evolution, meanwhile, is on immensely firmer footing. We know *that* it works, *and* how it works. Most of what remains is reconstructing the details of individual events in life's history, which is akin to figuring out which rocks in an avalanche took what path down the mountain, and not learning more about the effects of gravity, friction, or impact dynamics.#####
We know that variation occurs within kind, but we don't at all know that evolution occurs. It's simply an assumption. An interesting one, I'll grant you, but nothing more than one.
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.