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.
Rest assured that the evos will vote their little hearts out then. vote:
So how come the ToE correctly told the paleontologists where to dig to find Tiktaalik? Just a lucky guess? Hmmm ... It does seem to be having a 150-year run of pretty good luck ...
Where did the anti-evolution activists, the creationists and ID-ists, say to dig to find a fish-amphibian transitional? Why didn't they beat the normal scientists to the discovery?
Do you think they ever will?
My vote is in there somewhere. I voted a while back.
Now that's a narrow group.
spunkets only votes once. It's a matter of honor.
This is a hot topic, and tempers flare. I may have been short with you, and if I have, I'm sorry. I hope we haven't gotten off on the wrong foot.
What I don't want to see is new folks like you getting roped in with some of these kooks. On this thread we have people who think western medicine is a fraud and the face on mars is real. Please, take what some of these people say with a grain of salt. Maybe a whole salt lick.
Evolutionary science is well established, and for good reason. It is a useful model, and it has applications beyond biology and medicine to such distant fields as computer science and oil exploration.
No one, and I mean no one is asking you to abandon your faith in the Lord. There are many, many people working in the sciences, including evolutionary biology, who are people of faith. Many people I know personally from biology and geosciences are church (or synagogue) going people and most have some measure of religious faith.
The people who say that evolution is the religion of socialism or Hitlerism are wrong. Those folks have an axe to grind. My purpose in these threads is to advocate in favor of science, and also the point of view that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Frankly, there's a lot of BS in these threads, and I hate the idea of it being associated with conservative politics. I'm not the only one, either.
That's because by then everything and everybody will have been subjected to engineered changes.
We'll wonder how we ever did without it too!
Creationism, the "science" of Islam.
ID, the "science" of Scientology.
I'm game.
(but I promise to shower in the morning)
Thank God it is the prevalant one.
Else we would be teaching prayers as a way to make planes fly.
Oh man -- use that Phisoderm stuff they give the doctors.
Really? How does DNA prevent evolution? Please explain.
" There are already DNA markers that point us clearly at a common origin to many animals."
That is an opinion advanced only by those whose minds are so warped that they can't see the use of modular design by our creator. Why would he not use the same method to do the same job in most of his creatures? Your statement is utterly anti-god at it's foundation.
That would be nice.
I have posted evidence of transitional fossils.
Your belief system prohibits you from recognizing the evidence I posted. Not much more that I can do.
Except maybe quote Heinlein:
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
We wouldn't bother to observe if we weren't confident it could get us anything or anywhere. There is no mystery here, b_sharp.
You wrote: "...observation is that when we perform tests, even such basic tests as starting your car in the morning, the results are consistently and reliably the same."
To which all I can say is: You have more confidence in your car than I have in mine, these days. :^)
There is no universal law that says your car must start up when you turn the ignition key. And when it comes to cars not starting up in the morning, may your "regularity and predictability" be damned!!!
IOW: There is no certainty in this world, all your theories and expectations notwithstanding!
Capice???
Note that Hitler, Rosemberg, etc., also were against Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals, and other supposedly lower forms of life.
Thanks very much for your reply...and thanks for all the information...I can see why you so cherish Steensen, and I would agree, it is a shame that he is little known outside the Danish language...
I am glad that you explained about your tagline...the original quote, the full quote, is really quite grand...
I appreciate you taking the time to reply...
Thanks so much...ah, this opens up the door to more research about Steensen, and who knows, maybe I can find even more about him..if I do, I will let you know what my search has turned up...keep your fingers crossed, new things pop up online all the time...
Thank you ever so much for posting this information about Steensen (Steno), Luka_Brazi!
Once you do that you may apply a simple test ~ was he referring to the hierarchy of the Catholic church as "Jews" or was he referring to "Jews" as "Jews"?
You'll quickly find that Luther, like many other Protestant reformers, found themselves living in little countries where the head of state had a brother, sister, or other close relative in a religious order, or maybe even had a relative who was of high rank in the hierarchy.
In those cases they could find their heads lopped off for speaking ill of their local prince's family.
Sometimes the local ruler was of 2 or more minds about the Reformation, so it was best to speak ill of "Jews" (even if there were none in the kingdom) than to risk serious political problems.
In particular where a reformer speaks ill of the way Jews conduct the mass, I'd be leery of pronouncing such a statement as "antisemitic" ~ more likely it's political.
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.