Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[PatrickHenry]

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?

You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.

[Dimensio]

The first idea one must accept if one presupposes that "matter is all there is" is that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter by natural random process.

The theory of evolution does not presuppose that "matter is all there is", thus your premise for claiming that abiogenesis is a part of the theory is false.

[Dimensio]

The religion of secular humanism openly declares the meaning/purpose of life: "Man is so intelligent and has evolved so far, that he should direct his future evolution."

I have looked at the Wikipedia entry on secular humanism, but it does not list that quote or a similar sentiment in its description. From where did you derive taht quote? Moreover, do you believe that the quote is evidence against the theory of evolution? If so, you are mistaken.

[atlaw]

There's dozens of summaries around at the beginning or ending of lots of long tomes of documents. I just prefer to let others choose or write which ones to use.

With dozens floating around, it should be pretty easy for you to cite one.

Odd you'd make it a big deal.

Odder still that you consider the actual content of a course on ID unimportant.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a fundamental doctrine of secular humanism. Evolution is essential to the faith of secular humanism. About every 10th line in the either Humanist Manifesto I or II is evidence of that.

The word "evolution" or a variant thereof occurs twice in the Humanist Manifesto II and never occurs in Humanist Manifesto I. Humanist Manifesto I does state that humans emerged from "natural processes", but the majority of the document is an affirmation of lack of belief in the supernatural. It does not seem that the theory of evolution is "essential" to such a declaration. Humanist Manifesto II is primarily a declaration of social and economic beliefs. I see no need for the theory of evolution in the declaration of their stated principles.

Humanist Manifesto III, the successor to the Humanist Manifesto, mentions evolution exactly once, with the rest of the document focused upon stating the moral and social beliefs of the writers. That particular document appears to have a socialistic bent, but the theory of evolution is not required for any of the expressed socialistic views.

[FreedomProtector]

"Why are these good arguments ending up in the Smokey Backroom continually, rather than having those posts that are truly Backroom material deleted?"

Perhaps some of the posts do not meet the criteria expected of a post on FreeRepublic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708986/replies?c=134

[SoldierDad]

Excellent question, wolf.

[Liberal Classic]

This thread was started in the Smoky Backroom. It wasn't moved here by the moderators.

[tomzz]

There's one other consideration which most ignore, i.e. that the ark did not have to move under sail, but only had to float. Similarly, Korean floating fortresses in wars against Japan back around 700 AD if memory serves were enormous compared to any western wooden ship. As to Zheng He's ships, China was in the habit of doing a number of things on a much larger scale than other nations did in the middle ages, the wall being one such. China used more steel in the 1100s than England ever did until the middle of the 1800s as I've read it.

[Coyoteman]

You can say whatever you want about hominids, we are not related to any of them. The problem is at the top of the chain and not lower. DNA evidence has eliminated the neanderthal as a human ancestor(too far away genetically) and all other hominids are much further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. Trying to claim, as evos do, that we AND the neanderthal are descended from some more remote ancestor is like claiming that dogs could not be descended from wolves, and must therefore be descended directly from fish.

I think I corrected you on this once before.

The only hominid for which we have DNA is Neanderthal, and it shows we are not closely related. But the lack of DNA does not eliminate other specimens as being in our ancestral line.

For the other hominids we have to rely on morphology. There is no problem with inferring relationships with several of the archaic humans, and from there on back.

This is one of the interesting specimens:

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[editor-surveyor]

"Why are these good arguments ending up in the Smokey Backroom continually, rather than having those posts that are truly Backroom material deleted?"

Simple:
Because the moderators would get accused of bias for only deleting Balrog666, js1138, Jaguarbhzrd, Dimensio, freedumb2003, atlaw, and b_sharp posts. These are the ones that mount the shrill, crazed, and relentless attacks on a particular individual, in an attempt to get them to post something that will get the victim banned. This has gone on for 8 years here, and the only answer to it has been the "smokey back room."

[RightWhale]

Each user of the term uses it in a different context each time he uses it and thereby shows transparently that the meaning is different in each use. The meaning differs from user to user and for one user at different times. It will be impossible to reduce the meaning of the term to a single simple fundamental sense. The shotgun compilation of a few meanings will not lead to any conclusion except that meaning is uncertain. It might be possible for a single author to write a monograph and nail down a meaning in a context.

[atlaw]

For some reason, you failed to ping me to this piece of slanderous nonsense. I wonder why? Perhaps you would like to offer an example where I have posted "shrill, crazed, and relentless attacks on a particular individual, in an attempt to get them to post something that will get the victim banned."

[js1138]

Oddly enough, even with the smokey backroom, the overwhelming majority of banned posters have been creationists. Many of them were banned for claiming that the site owner plays favorites.

One of them even threatened to sue JR.

[Dimensio]

Did you not realise that this discussion was originally posted into the Smokey Backroom? It would appear that -- like your claims that ascorbic acid is not Vitamin C and that the cheaters of the previous, independently run, poll on evolution were 'pro-evo' -- you have drawn conclusions that bear no resemblance reality.

[editor-surveyor]

"One of them even threatened to sue JR."

You have such a loose grip on the facts.

It was RightWingProfessor, an Evo, that threatened to sue, and it was related to a personal battle that he started months before it climaxed.

[Quix]

Relatively unimportant.

The broad basic points are not great in number and are reasonably well known. It's just not a priority of mine to bother about them given other priorities. Others would do that better than I. Happy to leave it to them.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes, I realize that this particular thread did start in SBR, but the question that I was responding to was more general than that.

If you wish to continue to make a fool of yourself on the vitamin C issue, go right ahead. Even the articles that you linked made the same point that I did: Ascorbic acid does none of the things that vitamin C is credited with doing; vitamin C complex, which includes all the polyphenols and bioflavinoids present in the natural fruit is the only thing that works.

If you want to continue your clown show, go right ahead.

[editor-surveyor]

My apologies for missing your handle in the ping line.

[dragonblustar]

My Comments


Well, seems like everything I learned in science class has changed over the years. So, this is my view of things.

I just think that in every school book there should be a huge disclaimer..... Something like this.. "The facts in this book are correct until proven otherwise and are subject to change depending upon the social climate or newly discovered findings."

[Dimensio]

If you wish to continue to make a fool of yourself on the vitamin C issue, go right ahead. Even the articles that you linked made the same point that I did: Ascorbic acid does none of the things that vitamin C is credited with doing; vitamin C complex, which includes all the polyphenols and bioflavinoids present in the natural fruit is the only thing that works.

"Vitamin C Complex" is not "Vitamin C". Vitamin C is defined as being ascorbic acid. You have also made the unsupported assertion that synthetic bioflavovoids will never work and you made the demonstratably false claim that "synthetic" Vitamin C has no effect at all.