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 ...
The bloodstains no more "proves" my client's guilt than does his flight. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
"A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move."
No evolution over time and no great age needed. So firstly you are wrong about the Hindu creation story. Secondly as a supposed scientst, you should know that your creation story is based on faith whereas evolution is based on the scientific method. It is in no way derived from Hinduism or any other religion. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation.
You can’t sense the metaphysical? Well,the temporal laws of evolution aren’t perfect because natural selection is random.
Tends to cause spiritual obtuseness in some mutations.
Mind you,this is not a shortcomming—mankind owes a lot to those who restrict themselves by accepting only the results of empiracal evidence.
The religion of Scientism has histrically been more a blessing than a curse on the earth.
Resolve:
Scientism,
“Nothing exists until the quantum wave function that carries it’s information collapses upon it’s perception.”
Intelligent Design,
“Seeing is not percieving—knowing is.”
Now this would be a worthy debate in any science class.
Again very circular in its foundation b/c this is just a roundabout way of saying that the ancestor of the first vertebrate was not a vertebrate — which is true by definition -— otherwise the “first” vertebrate would not be the first. Further “Dogs evolved from non-dogs” is a comparable statement; however, after you think about it for a second, this statement conveys no real knowledge..... A logical relationship is dressed up in an empirical claim.
Evolutionists believe that they do know the process that creates similarities, otherwise known as homologies —— if 2 otherwise dissimilar animals have identifiable backbones, for example, then it is said that they share this feature b/c they also shared a common ancestor from whom they inherited that common trait.
To shorten this up a bit.... Darwin took these homologies as evidence of evolution (not the only evidence but an important part of his argument)...
Now these homologies have been used to paint this picture of an enormous family tree of interconnecting species.... alas there is no such chart....all we really have are bones scattered in the mud....therefore, we have no other way of identifying common ancestors than by contemplating homologous structures........
However Houston we have a problem.... there are some remarkable similarities of structure that not even the great Darwinian biologists attribute to common descent. And even when there is a congruent pattern of similarities in different groups, to attribute those similarities to common descent is merely a guess at best..... we do not possess an unbroken chain of fossils leading back to that shared ancestor....
Really, the fact that anyone needs to explain this belies your claim to know anything about science.
Er, actually the snippet posted by Soliton was attempting to argue from the opposite direction - that because of the massive amount of differences in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees, we can somehow argue that this is "evidence" of a common ancestry. If nothing else, the fact that I need to explain this to you shows that your reading skills are subpar, if nothing else.
Further, there is nothing in a prediction of similarity between human and chimpanzee genomes that could not have just as easily been predicted by an IDer on the basis of creation, using a homostructural argument. There really is not. Simply choosing to dismiss it because it is not materialistic is, in and of itself, illegitimate. After all, once again, the simple similarity of genomes between the two is not, itself, suffficient evidence of common origin. To reach that conclusion DEMANDS reliance upon the philosophical assumption of evolutionism.
Proof that ID is creationism in disguise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
The Discovery Institute knowingly lied. They adopted ID to get areound the SCOTUS ruling. The proof is at the link above. You have probably already seen it, but since it contradicts your crusade, you just ignore the truth.
Natural selection isn't random it complies with the laws of physics
Unfortunately for your argument, evolution was known before anyone had discovered genomes. Thus, it is impossible for the former to be a mere assumption invented to explain the latter.
Your position is equivalent to asserting that Heinrich Schliemann wrote the Trojan War mythology to explain his archaeological findings.
No. It's because they can't get your kids to go to church.
No sir you are incorrect it is merely a guess at best....... a circular argument pointing to homologies through the genome... (and I am not even addressing “junk DNA”)...... THERE ARE NO HALF-BATS...........
Of course the quantum wave function existed before.
I mean, really. I could find an equally long and imprssive list of “intellectuals” who think that the 9-11 Massacre was an inside job.
Fixed it for you.
We know where genes come from. Genes are expressed as physical features. We know what the genes are for chimps and for humans. We know that prior to a particular speciation event, our genomes were the same. In other words, our physical bodies were the same. We were once a single species.
HOWEVER, natural selection cannot play ANY ROLE UNTIL self-reproducing organisms ALREADY exist!!!!! As an explanation for the origin of species IT IS A NON-STARTER............
Who'd have expected somebody named "Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus" to be a fervent defender of al-Taqiyya?
Actually, it perfectly explains the origin of species. You may mean that it doesn't explain the origin of life on earth
Apparently, you're unaware that what you're posted about takes place, all across the entirety of the universe, over the period of an entire "Brahma Age", which lasts for 311,040,000,000,000, before being reabsorbed into the primeval divine Substance, so that it can be done all over again?
Secondly as a supposed scientst, you should know that your creation story is based on faith whereas evolution is based on the scientific method.
Oh, I readily admit that my creation story is accepted by faith. But then again, so is yours. I have consistently pointed out that neither creationism nor evolutionism are "science" - both rely upon the a priori acceptance of foundational philosophical worldviews. The only difference between you and me is that I'm honest about it, while you continue with the charade that your belief system is based upon "the scientific method".
Did you see the video I posted?
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.