Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by 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.
Thanks for your kind words, Quix!
I didn't ping you to this, but it's my response to the "high dudgeon" that js1138 and Freedumb2003 seem have got themselves so worked up with:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=299#299
Looks like we've got a bar fight shaping up. :^) I have such charming correspondents!
No, just ignorance and religion (as "science" -- as philosophy religion is fine and SHOULD be taught).
So we should teach nothing because we don't know everything? We clearly teach TToE as a theory that meets all the scientific criteria (in fact it is one of the most mature theories we have). A new "fad" idea (thank you for properly using the correct term of hypothesis), shouldn't be taught as part of the core curriculum/a. At least not to school children.
And, of course, new scientific hypothesis based on observations are quite different than the philosophical constructs of religion.
That is to say, we are IGNORANT in the most extreme degree concerning this item which we cannot measure, observe or manipulate.
What we don't know doesn't necessarily undermine what we do know.
You would keep "dark energy" out of the classroom.
I love strawmen. I actually like to drip gasoline on them when I light them. They light the night and keep me warm for a few seconds and provide a great source of heat for hot dogs on coat hangers and S'mores (MMmmm).
I am sure anyone and everyone could use Google to find some new cutting edge science that is still in the H0 stage and then suggest that C0 (Creation) is somehow equivalent.
The H0 of Dark Matter doesn't affect TToE. Nor does it rely on religion as a foundation.
So, here's a better idea ~ why don't we get the government out of the classroom ~ then, you can keep speculative science, as well as religion, out of your classrooms, and I will ordain a new order of enlightenment to take place in my classrooms.
When we get vouchers we might. But we need national standards and those standards need to exclude religion as science (although as philosophy and so many other studies, religion is great).
Or else if you live in Deeper Indiana and you move to Montana your children might be left behind since he/she would not be up on the TToE in biology class.
My apologies for entering the discussion late.
BB, here you are using the term 'faith' equivocally. I would be very interested in how many Christians here would consider their 'faith' in God to be as pedestrian as the trust we have that common events will occur consistently.
By reducing the Christian (or other religion's) concept of 'faith' to be equivalent with the 'faith' we have that our car will start in the morning is to rob it of all significance in the hearts and minds of spiritually centred people.
Instead of rendering religious faith to be equivalent with the common trust of repeatability, simply to enable you to claim science as just one more religion, perhaps you should separate the two and present scientific 'faith' for what it is - the observation that specific events produce specific effects consistently enough to be used in the prediction of future events/effects, and present religious 'faith' for what it is - the God given intuitional realization of his existence and power despite and beyond what the consistencies of the physical world provide?
I'm sure you didn't mean to make your and other Christian's faith as mundane as 'God does stuff often and reliably enough for us to believe in him'.
But I don't have a problem "admitting" to "common descent." The problem is, common descent from what?
But I'm a "critic," not a "debunker" -- if you can draw that distinction, js1138.
Well, duh! It's here already, isn't it?
He is saying his scientific theory is independent of it; which is a very good thing, because it is "undecidable" or "unknowable" anyway.
With insufficient data and no testable hypothesis at the time, well, gee, isn't that science is supposed to say? Did you think you had a point here?
Anyway, it's not at all relevant to today when chemical abiogenesis is being vigorously pursued and will be even less relevant in the days to come.
Bohr's consideration says no more than if you disassemble a machine, it no longer works. The important point to note in this regard is that the components of the machine can be all noted, along with their configuration. A simple thought experiment, where the components are assembled mentally into the same configuration, results in an object that can only be found to be identical to the original. Thus it is the same life as the original. Bohr should have noted that his dissection was reversible.
Blaming the Holocaust on Charles Darwin is the rhetorical equivalent to smashing a bottle on someone's head from behind.
Of course, they were followed by the Geeks
(that's me a little to the right).
"those throwing rocks at faith fail utterly to realize how immobilized and lifeless they'd be without it. "
I find it interesting that you are using the term 'faith' equivocally and aren't aware of it.
Unless of course you are claiming that your faith in God is nothing special but is simply the observation that God is consistent enough in his actions that you can safely believe in him.
Debunkers need evidence?
"Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence."
Hmmmmm. Sounds like science to me.
I not only can, but often do.
As for your question, "from what," how would you propose solving the problem?
I have often compared biogenesis to the problem of how the pyramids were built. We don't "know" in any absolute sense, but only a handful suggest that the pyramids were the result of a miracle or were built by space aliens.
Rational way to attack the problem is to examine the tools we know were available and see if they were sufficient. By trying them out.
In the same way we can examine the chemistry on non-living things, and by trying, see if there is a path from non-life to life.
This is not a task for the impatient. Science is not for the impatient. Hundreds of years elapsed between Copernicus and Einstein, and we still have not completely solved the puzzle of gravity.
Evidently,
CHRONICALLY POOR ASSUMPTIONS about evolution
are consistent with
outrageously incorrect assumptions about me! LOL. No surprise there.
Can't and
WON'T are different words with different meanings. It might be useful to refresh one's self with their differences in meaning.
No sweat.
I do enough stuff on my own without being accused falsely! LOL.
Perhaps a different microscope or binoculars or telescope is required?
Oh, dear! And it does get so wearying!
Will try and check it out.
LUB
LOL.
Has the line formed for the steamed crow? Or is it Bar-B-Q'd crow?
Nah, they'd starve first. LOL.
You assert with no evidence. You have yet to support your previous assertions (which supports my contentions of your inability to deal with the subject at hand).
You make a multiple pint post full of assertions and then, when asked to support them, say "you're not the boss of me."
Who in the world would want you influencing educational policy?
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.