Posted on 08/02/2008 8:44:19 AM PDT by Soliton
don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
Hatred for all things ‘Biblical’ defines the modern Democrat party and their hardcore evolutionist allies.
Both of these groups hate American historical values, and both of these groups worship the Big Government public school monopoly.
The hardcore evolutionist on FR who claim to be small government libertarians are the worst liars of all.
The FR hardcore evolutionists worship Big Government at its very worst (public school monopoly) but claim libertarianism as a convenient, dishonest excuse for the extreme moral liberalism they spew on this conservative forum.
They are all liars of the worst kind.
Now pay attention. I said that Darwinism doesn't explain the origin of life. I didn't say that natural selection didn't. Darwin deliberately avoided origins of life. We do not at this time know how life originated. There is growing evidence in support of the RNA world hypothesis though. Natural selection would have played a role regardless.
There is no evidence for a Biblical kind of creation though.
You mean the results of the combination of a single sperm cell of millions and egg cell of hundreds is pre-determined?
You are a fine opponent,but I must go for now.
Seeya
Not absolutely, but it does follow the laws of physics and is an excellent example of natural selection in progress. See you later!
Yeah, I hate those guys too!
So I am assuming that you are of the belief that there is no philosophy in science......... and I would beg to differ with you ... I have seen no evidence of your so called evidence... to merely state that the existence of genes and the evidence of natural selection means that evolution exists is quite a feeble attempt at best.........
I must admit that I am quite too poor to pay attention; however, you are arguing the point that evolution explains how life exists...correct?
I understand that there is philosophy in science. I just reject philosophical arguments as a waste of time. Atomists and anti-atomists argued for a thousand years before science came up with the proof that answered the question. Both sides had compelling philosophical positions.
Prove it.
I am probably a "hardcore evolutionist" -- at least I did six years of graduate school, with about half of my time devoted to fossil man, evolution, osteology and related fields.
Now show me the evidence that I either claim to be a small government libertarian, or that I am not one.
Or retract your nonsensical, unsupported, and incorrect statement.
About as much as the hardcore left does, I am sure.
To the extent that the science has proceded thus far, yes
So riddle me this how can evolution explain how life exists without explaining how life came to be?????
The FR hardcore evolutionists usually avoid specifically defining where they stand politically, then almost always end up claiming libertarianism to justify their liberal presence on a conservative forum.
There is a prevailing perception that those who believe in evolution are atheists and liberals.
Some probably are but many are not. There are countless Christian conservatives who recognize evolution to be the mechanism which best explains nature and the origin of species.
Believing in evolution doesn’t automatically make you anything else other than someone is willing to let the evidence lead to a conclusion.
Feeling guilty? Old Landmarks made not such overt claim about you. He identified a certain class of individuals and then stated that they were liars of severe extent. Only you have placed yourself in that class by implication. You have admitted to being a hardcore evolutionist and this is Freerepublic, so do you claim to be a small government libertarian? If not, your tirade is misplaced.
Had Old Landmarks stated instead "The hardcore evolutionists on FR, all of whom claim to be small government libertarians, are the worst liars of all.", you might have justification for your accusation.
It does here on FR. It makes some reach for the barbecue sauce and others call us Nazis.
And all of the evidence we post is just hand-waved away.
We don't know how life came to be, but evolution took place in chemicals prior to creating the complex organic chemicals of life. Evolution took place immediatly once a living organism arose. Current science is exploring RNA as the border chemical between life and not life. The hypothesis is that RNA arose naturally and began to replicate.
You got it. The pattern remains the same from the hardcore evolutionist liberals since this forum began. They played it even closer to the vest ten years ago until several of them blew their cover and left FR.
You are still spouting nonsense.
I voted for Reagan four times! And I went to see him speak in 1965-1966. Beat that.
And lets have an apology for your runaway mouth.
Actually the first amendment says nothing about public schools being neutral on the subject of religion. The public schools are creatures of the states and the first amendment applies only to Congress. The fourteenth amendment had been ruled, mistakenly I believe, to say that the states cannot "establish a religion not prohibit the free exercise thereof," in extending the first amendment to the states. But this hardly means that the public schools cannot teach about religion and religious topics.
It is extremely important that children should be taught what large groups of people believe. Lots of people believe that Mary is the mother of G-d; that G-d created the heavens and the earth; and/or that infidels should be beheaded. Large groups of adults act upon these beliefs and ignorance of them leads to overall ignorance, unfortunately.
ML/NJ
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.