Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
It should be noted that the judge said that the theory of
evolution was imperfect. Why this imperfect theory has
become the bedrock of all of biological/geological/physical
theory is strange. No?
I was taught the theory of evolution is true. It was when
I saw principles of evolution being used to explain one
phenomena, and then downplayed when another phenomena
couldn't be explained that I saw that there was selective
explanations, and there was no "unifying" or standard
reason.
Big example.
I was told that organism developed meiosis because by the
mixing of their genes they had a better chance of survival.
Yet, the most successful organism (and longest lived) uses
mitosis(i.e. bacteria) generally during reproduction.
What is the driving force that would force a simple(well, not
really simple) reproductive system to become a much more
complex, cumbersome, energy sucking system? It is shown that
meiosis is NOT needed for survival and transmission of
DNA. So in one case, meiosis is needed to ensure survival,
but in the bacterial case, well it's not needed, cause
it survives perfectly well without it. Huh?
What weather system,
toxin, predator, chemical environment, etc.has been known to
permanently alter the reproductive system of any organism
in a way that makes it more complicated macromolecularly and
biochemical in its operation? If nothing can be found,
then what is driving these change? If "randomness" is
invoked, I would say the workings of science is to explain
"randomness" not use it as a crutch.
You are correct. The Constitution has been badly misinterpreted in the last 60 years regarding religion.
But IDers didn't attack the bogus court decisions regarding religion, they attacked firmly established science. That was a stupid move, that wasted money, time, and cost them political capital and credibility.
Evolution is fact, and the sooner culture warriors stop attacking it, the sooner they can make changes that really matter, like abortion, etc.
Well hello, guess what, I'm not a scientist. This is a political forum, so words do not have to conform to "scientific standards"... When I use the word theory, that is the definition I am attaching to your belief system.
- plewis1250
Pat Buchanan wrote a fantastic article on this matter over the weeknd... check it out!
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47973
Emperical science? Do you operation science? Evolution is "origin science." Origin science studies past singularities, rather than present normalities, and looks at how things began, not how they work. This is different from operation science which deals with the way things normally operate. Origin science studies things that only happened once and, by their nature, don't happen again.
Now, in case you missed that one, number 6 is the definition I am implying when I state "it is a theory". However, if I have to sit and give you the DEFINITION for each word since your "evolved" mind cannot handle inference, I will if that is what you want of me.
On to the differences between beliefs and theories. Beliefs are those in which there is a mental conviction of the truth and validity of a particular set of something. Theories are qualifiers for beliefs. If you have the belief God created the heavens and the earth, you believe in the theory of creationism. If you believe we came from pond scum, you believe in the theory of evolution.
Why is this such a hard concept for all of you? Why is it that you cannot grasp the "big picture" of an argument and have to resort to semantics in order to "dismiss" one person's "theory"? Makes little sense to me...
>sigh<
Surely you realize that a standard dictionary definition doesn't necessarily apply when a word is used in a technical sense? And that, in such context, not all definitions of the word are applicable?
It isn't semantics to remind you that "words mean things." It isn't semantics to remind you that a theory isn't a theory unless it has evidence to back it up. It isn't semantics to remind you that evolution has lots of evidence to support it.
That is a Hindu Religious belief.
The "first thing" to be subject to evolution was the first living thing which was able to (i) reproduce itself (ii) without each copy being perfectly identical to the original.
The Theory of Evolution does not address where that "first thing" came from (just as, say, the theory of gravity doesn't address where matter came from). But Darwin wrote, in the last paragraph of On the Origin of Species, that it was "breathed by the Creator." Which, incidentally, is what I believe-- God is who created us, evolution is how.
You don't have a clue as to what ID really is, do you? I see you suffer from the same ignorance as Judge Jones.
Here - let me help you out:
Evolution occured, as demonstrated by massive amounts of evidence, irregardless of how the first life arose.
You can believe that God placed the first life here, whatever you want. But after that, the evidence says that evolution is how the species, including man, came to be.
Many religious people think that evolution was God tool. I'd suggest you think along those lines, because the evidence we find in Gods creation tells us that.
No, and that is why I am telling you what definition I am applying to the word "theory"... They do have meanings, you are right... Webster's is right there for you to see... but maybe you are attaching your own, made up meaning?
- plewis1250
Evolution should be referred to correctly in the government schools. As a theory.
Intelligent Design has much more evidence than this Islamic theory.
In a world history class, one learns of the world's most popular religions. But in our science classes, the nation is so concerned with labeling Intelligent design as simply something found in only religious texts, that they ignore the fact that it has quite alot of proof and refuse to recognize another popular theory.
I prefer to place my trust in the ongoing scientific search for knowledge that some creation myth which has no basis in fact other than some ancient religious texts.
Job 38
The LORD Speaks
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
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.