Posted on 02/19/2015 12:10:25 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The 2016 presidential campaign is already upon us and the debate is heating up over an unexpected issue -- the theory of evolution. Of course, in an ideal world, evolution would never really become a campaign issue. But the anti-science wing of the Republican Party continues to voice skepticism. Apologists for this wing would dearly like to distract the media and the voting public from what is, frankly, a national if not a global embarrassment.
In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate. For the federal government has an important role to play and it is a role that will only grow larger and more complex in the next president's term. It has been a century since the theory of evolution has become settled, incontrovertible science. To doubt evolution at this late date is to reveal oneself to be willfully, invincibly ignorant of basic scientific principles. And there is no room in the Oval Office -- none -- for the scientifically illiterate.
Just consider some of the issues the federal government has recently addressed and is likely to address in the next few years. Let's begin with some recent history -- the Human Genome Project. In 1990, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and some international groups and organizations commenced work on mapping the human genome -- the intricately-wrought genetic pattern that we all inherit from our ancestors and that makes human life possible. In 2003, the Project was brought to successful completion....
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
For sure an expert on biology ...
That really is a mistaken belief. “Theory” in science doesn’t mean what “theory” means in everyday parlance.
However, the real question is, if the theory is so well established, why does it matter if anyone believes in it or not? Do we go around quizzing people as to whether they believe in the theory of electromagnetism or the laws of thermodynamics? If it’s a true description of nature, then it doesn’t matter whether non-scientists believe it or not. Belief only matters if you are trying to promote a belief system.
Excellent point.
The science is settled when the liberal realizes he’s losing and starts screaming about science deniers.
Nothing is ever settled in science. A theory is a scientific model with some supporting evidence. Darwin’s Origin of Species is really an hypothesis - an educated guess based observation forming a scientific question. Those who pretend that evolution is “settled” science are really revolting against the Christian religion and moral culture.
Homosexuality and evolution cannot be reconciled. You can have one or the other, but you can’t have both. So I think the Left has to pick which fallacy it is going to support.
They forget that God was the first scientist. He’s got them all beat.
But there definitely are
Islam Terrorism deniers!
If the Middle Ages ever return, this is the lawyer you’ll want:
Charles Reid, Jr.
http://www.stthomas.edu/law/facultystaff/faculty/reidcharles/
The “logic” goes like this:
If you were smart enough, you’d believe the same things I do.
“the debate is heating up over an unexpected issue — the theory of evolution.”
Because this is the most pressing issue facing the nation today, right?
Those who pretend that evolution is “settled” science are really revolting against the Christian religion and moral culture.
Ka-chow!
A convenient strawman argument has been concocted to oppose Republican candidates.
Only the GOP gets asked religious questions in the debates.
Barack Obama wasn't made to answer matters of faith in the debates. "Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and walks among men?"
Why is it called the "theory" of flight? Or the "theory" of gravity?
His field of expertise is Law.
Not biology.
They'd much rather just send those with whom they disagree to gulags.
God help us when these people achieve full control.
The toughest thing for evolutionists to explain is how an abstraction like the genetic code came into being without an intelligence to assign meaning to its components. No one would seriously try to argue that our 26-letter alphabet is the result of random chance, yet it is infinitely less complex than DNA. And without intelligence to assign meaning and rules of use to what we identify as a “letter A”, for example, the shapes that we call letters within our alphabet would be powerless to convey information. They would be meaningless blobs.
The same goes for DNA and it’s incredibly complex system to encode, store, and decode information as well as its built-in error correction mechanisms. Alleged evolution of the chemical components of DNA is one thing (though still impossible), but evolution of the information that rides upon them and the rules for applying that information to do work can only originate from a superior intelligence.
The problem with that is that Ted Cruz would have to be in a coma, get a lobotomy, buy an extra chromosome, get hit on the head with a wrecking ball, develop encephalitis and drink like a fish just to get within 100 points of this guy’s IQ.
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.