Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.
The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]
Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.
"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."
Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.
"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."
Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.
Perhaps British astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle (who finds the idea of God creating life distasteful) is more convincing then I when he calculated the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it...
There are other "legitimate" voices, but it is your prerogative to continue clinging to mathematically impossible odds.
Exsqueeze me? Now would be a great time to present some examples. And no, your subsequent "Junk DNA" ramble doesn't qualify. It's an interesting observation on its own, but you fail to link it to your above assertion.
"Junk DNA" was thought to be discarded and useless DNA information no longer needed by the evolutionary process.
No, but thanks for making a major error right off the bat, it lets us know not to waste too much time on the rest of your post. First, evolution does not "discard" DNA "information" in any real sense of that verb. Most "junk DNA" (non-coding DNA, to be more technical) is, however, useless as you say, but you again slip when you call it "no longer needed", which again is a word choice that makes all sorts of improper presumptions about how evolution works.
A more accurate restructuring of your attempted statement would be, "non-coding DNA (which makes up about 95% of the genome) was thought to be unused and superfluous".
Evolutionary researchers gave up trying to explain the origin of these seemingly inactive DNA sequences.
Now this is just flat wrong, sorry. The origin of those sequences is quite well known. They consist of sequences inserted by ancient viruses which infected our ancestors (inserting their genetic code into ours is how viruses *work), and of "stuttered" sequences which result from well-understood repetitions of the DNA-copying process, etc. etc.
Recently researchers in the teleogical-ID camp have discovered that a number of the "junk DNA" sequences are not "junk" after all and perform important cell regulation and repair functions.
Say *WHAT*? Is it truly your position that the few non-coding DNA sequences which have all been found to be involved in some cellular function have been discovered by "intelligent design" believers, and that they found them *because* they were ID subscribers? If so, you're deluding yourself.
This is a clear example of the teleogical-ID camp producing important new scientific knowledge while the evolutionary had created anti-knowledge using the same raw data.
Good lord, you *are* claiming that. Sigh.
No, sorry.
Most scientific classes in high school when discussing biology convey the idea that all science started with Darwin.
What, you've surveyed them all? I doubt that...
*My* experience with science classes not only fails to support your claim, it flatly refutes it. All classes I've taken, and seen taught, start with Hippocrates, Galen, Versalius, Harvey, Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, Linnaeus, Galvani, Jenner...
Come on, admit it, you're just making this stuff up as you go along, aren't you?
This notion is indefensible and ahistorical.
It would be if that's how it were actually taught, but...
Students in secondary school should be allowed to know the absolutely foundational role that teleologists played in the development of science.
Sure, by all means, let's make sure they know that religious extremists opposed the use of anesthetics and lightning rods because they "interfered with God's will" that we suffer and be struck down by lightning...
When the case for evolution is presented evenhandedly it is astonishly weak and would be less likely to believed.
You're hallucinating again.
Bureaucrats at NSF and other publicly funded scientific organizations know that if the public were to come to understand how a thinly disguised propaganda operation has been in place since the Scopes trail to prop up a highly speculative scientific theory that there would be a large backlash against these organizations and their public funding.
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
If ID theory was as ridiculous as its oponents suggest they would have no fear about letting it be taught in schools.
Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that statement sounds? You're actually saying that people should have no objection to having nonsense taught in school? You *believe* that and can say it with a straight face? I give up, you're behind reach.
All well and good, but that entirely misses the point that was being made.
OOK! OOK! OOK!
(My, that *is* easier than thinking after all..)
I vaguely remember the story about the bacteria found in salt deposits. They were 250 million years old, or 125 million, or something in the hundreds-of-millions - not 250 billion. At any rate, the claim was hardly 100% accepted by the scientific community. Contamination by today's bacteria is always a possible explanation. In fact, IIRC, they had claimed that the ancient bacteria were very similar to some strain of current bacteria, which is what made others rather suspicious of their claims.
I remember someone had claimed to find iron oxides as a residue from ancient hemoglobin, but I forget if they said they recovered the hemoglobin itself or what.
Do you have any cites for these stories, so we can grab onto some better facts? (Not that that has ever stopped cre's or evo's before... :-)
At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere was able to recover at least parts of an ancient protein, and even a very old bacteria seems possible. But how old is "old" to you? How long do you think bacteria should be able to lay dormant & still get revived? How long should a protein be able to fend off total breakdown?
You're both wrong, it's "fogey" or "fogy". At least if you belive those dictionary thingies.
Newton revolutionized Physics, but got it wrong, sadly. His theories work more or less on the surface of this planet, but don't work when things get bigger or smaller than that. He was good, for his time, but wrong.
He got it a lot more right than you have here... As RWP already pointed out, even on things the scale of the solar system, Newton's laws work pretty damned well.
And as far as "wrong", well... Asimov wrote a great essay on this, called "the relativity of wrong". He (correctly) explained why refinements in scientific knowledge are sometimes not 100% right, but that hardly makes them 100% "wrong", either.
Newton's laws, for example, can quantitatively be said to be more than "99% right", even taking into account relativity and quantum physics.
Right... "dog is always dog". Well, I guess if you ignore the fact that they *used* to be wolves...
Plenty of Pre-Cambrian // Vendian // fossils! What!!
I've corrected him on two previous threads -- I even pointed him to a website where he could buy pre-cambrian fossils for his very own collection -- but he keeps reverting back to his same old rant nonetheless.
You can lead a creationist to knowledge, but you can't make him think...
Evolution deals with // biological life // -- not tectonic plates. YOU've been shown this! ((On other threads)). That you SPOUT such nonsense -- time and again -- shows you're as incapable of retaining information!!! as you are // at writing a coherent sentence.
*snicker*. Yes it does have many, but they're hardly "scientific".
If they were easy to refute, they would be refuted
Been there, done that.
instead of banned by the Established Religion of Darwinites.
They're not being "banned" -- spew twaddle all you want (I find it entertaining, I'd hate to outlaw it), but we are certainly going to draw the line at being forced to teach such silliness in classrooms as if it deserved serious consideration.
But just for fun, give us you *best* "interesting evidence" for a young earth, and we'll show you why it hardly deserves to be uttered in the same breath as the word "science".
You are mistaken again. Not all ignorant questions deserve an answer. Note I did not answer all of your questions. Some questions are designed only to detract from the issue at hand, as is yours. If the issue is painful, change the subject.
I'm not sure I should attempt an answer to your question because any attempt at an answer casts a shadow on your education. Although I don't intend to belittle your intelligence let me say that any discipline except evolution lays out a path of understanding that includes opposing theories.
Therefore the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms.
The second step is summarizing opposing theories.
The third step is showing the weaknesses of the opposing theories.
The fourth step is to show why your position is superior.
Now that I've helped you understand the solution to the problem, feel free to apologize for the accusation. Feel free also to implement this approach in the public schools. Wait--- maybe that's why you asked?
Congratulations, that's one of the most pompous, long-winded dodges I've seen in quite a while. You must be so proud.
Now, are you going to answer the question or not? I guess "not". What a waste of time, don't you have any better hobbies?
Some of you have well demonstrated an amazing capacity for rejecting truth.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Man, this just keeps getting better and better. Let me get this straight -- because I don't find your three unsupported bumper-stick platitudes terribly convincing, that demonstrates an "amazing capacity for rejecting truth"? Wow -- your arrogance is truly breathtaking. Excuse me for not being thunderstruck by the obvious Truth of your slogans.
Good lord man, get a grip on yourself.
Alan Bloom had a pithy quote about it in The Closing of the American Mind, but I've misplaced my copy.
Just as well, in all honesty, surely it has ended up in the hands of someone more able to be enlightened by it.
In familiar territory.
Gol dang, Junior, that there one's a real knee-slapper, I ain't never done heard nothin' that clever beforin.
If you ever get over your ingrown bitterness, perhaps you might be able to contribute something worthwhile to the debate. So far, all you have is bile and posturing.
I don't know their reasons. I agree with you.
Excellent point. Get 'em when they're young and you have a good chance of keeping them (ignorant) for life.
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.