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 ...
Why would you go back 150 years?
"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution."
The argument is over. Darwin was right.
Sorry, but you rely upon circular reasoning. The only reason genetics is "evidence" for evolution is because evolutionists themselves has a priori declared that there is "common ancestry", and then attempt to mold the evidence to fit the theory, then claim that the evidence supports the theory. That is circular, and it is illogical. Genetics no more "proves" evolution than does homology.
Your response to my previous posts shows me pretty well that you're not capable of carrying on a mature, incisive discussion about these matters.
Please please I would LOVE to hear how genetics has ended this debate....enlighten please..........
As does the SCOTUS and state courts
HTML code and preview are your friends, TQC
Like that means anything. Courts are not arbiters of "science", just of whichever side is able to afford better lawyers.
I wonder what Soliton would say about the courts if, fifty years from now, they had been stacked with Jindal-esque politicians who supported opening the schools to evolution-skepticism and started issuing ruling after ruling that questioning evolution wasn't religion?
As others have pointed out, this is established law, explicitly spelled out by the supreme court.
No. Teaching religion is teaching religion. There is no scientific evidence for ID or creationism and mountains of evidence against it. That is why it can't be tought in public schools.
You must have missed it. Soliton already posted a fine, upstanding example of circular reasoning at post #16!
Man, you know less about Hinduism that you do about science.
Sorry, but the courts argument has zero weight with me (on ANY issue). Sorry to disappoint the trial lawyers, but legal precedence is purely tertiary in importance, AFAIAC. Courts can be changed.
DO you real anything not written by fundamentalists?
That is true enough, considering I am a credentialed, practicing scientist, while my knowledge of Hinduism comes only from the books I've read about it. But tell us - what exactly do you think was wrong (specifically) with the argument? I mean, surely you can do better than hand-waving, right?
Oh, and by the way, what did you say your degree was in again?
The courts didn't make a scientific determination. They caught the Discovery Institute lying about the fact that they used the same definition for ID as they did for creationism in a textbook. Liars for God. What a concept!.
OK, that's one. Where'd they get the other eleven for the OJ jury? ("We didn't see it happen; therefore, he's innocent.")
Good luck on that one. LOL.
I'm waiting for another school booard as stupid as the one in Dover. The ACLU needs the money, and creationists seem to be standing in line to hand it to them.
IIRC, Behe and Dembski are Catholics, and Weikart and Johnson are moderate Evangelicals, and at least the first three are more credentialed and experienced in scientific fields than 99.5% of the bozos here on FR who poo-poo them as "fundamentalists" for writing against evolutionism.
Again, I think you've missed the point, so let me simplify it for you. The "courts" have no credibility to determine what is "science", regardless of the name it goes under.
***BZZZZZTTTT!!!! Wrong.
A testable prediction is made based on the hypothesis of common ancestry (high correlation of genes if the hypothesis is true; chance-level correlation of genes if it the hypothesis is false). Observations are then compared to the predictions (in this case, the observation confirms the truth of the hypothesis).
Really, the fact that anyone needs to explain this belies your claim to know anything about science.
If the glove do not fit, you mus' acquit.
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.