Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
Yeah, there was that, too. I figured that if he was so confused as to think that the Big Bang somehow contradicts evolution, the matter of who actually came up with the theory was a much less important topic.
um, yes, it would be called the Big Bang Theory.
Ok, if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then this whole arguemnt does not matter!! The writer of the article was saying that "creation" should not be thought because we have evolution!!! That was the original point.
If evolution has nothing to do with life's beginnings, you need to argue with the writer of the story, not me.
Maybe I can say all kinds of dumb stuff about the Bible that you can correct. And then I can say is "Believers argument in a NUTshell 'the Bible is not about (fill in the blank)'".
I think it's funny.......
TYPO ALERT: In my post, "led over" should be "led over time to"
I had no idea there is a singular "theory of evolution." Would you please explain what it is? I would also like to know, since it is apparently a "theory," what part of it is open to question.
> The Bible claims God as its author.
So does the Koran.
You are joking? Aren't you?
Lewis is one of the greatest thinkers of our time
and its always Winter but never Christmas on these threads
You really need to learn what the theory of evolution actually says before you start criticizing it. The theory of evolution actually only deals with how the gene pool of populations of organisms changes as a result of differential reproductive capacity. There can be no gene pool, no populations, and no reproduction, let alone differential reproductive capacity before life began. Your (and other creationists') argument that evolution must deal with the origin of life is equivalent to saying that meteorology must deal with the origin of the earth's atmosphere. Just as it is unnecessary to understand where the atmosphere came from to understand meteorology, it is unnecessary to understand where life came from to understand the process of evolution. It is true that evolution is compatible with creationism, and I personally have espoused this belief on other threads. I also have stated that creationism is definitely not science and should not be taught in science classes. There are scientific hypotheses about the origin of life. If we must teach where life came from in science, these would be the appropriate ideas to teach. It would be appropriate to point out the speculative nature of these hypotheses. However, if we taught scientific method properly, it would be unnecessary to do so, however, as students would understand what is meant by theory, hypothesis, etc.
It's possible that you misunderstood my point, which is simply that we humans (designers ourselves) tend to think of things in terms of how we might design them.
What is certain, however, is that I don't understand your question.
And when you're done, explain to me why the putative designer so often made completely independent designs for functionally very similar parts in different groups of animals, while simultaneously using similar designs for functionally very different parts within the same group.
You probably make things, right? If so, haven't you ever achieved the same functionality with a different design? I know I have. Likewise, I have also used a similar design feature to perform very different tasks -- just as you probably have.
At root, your questions reduce to quibbles about design choices, rather than an argument against the possibility of a designer.
This is confusng 'mutation' with 'evolutionary changes'. Evolution is mutation followed by natural selction; it is not merely mutation.
Natural selection explains why creatures become extinct, not how they allegedly evolve.
Natural selction most certainly explains why bacterial populations develop antibiotic resistance.
We observe extinction occuring all the time, but never observe evolution.
It will be ironic if you happen to contract a multiply-resistant bacterial infection, because you'll have been killed by what you claim has never been observed.
MRSA
I had no idea there was a singular "Creator". If the Intellegent Design Theory gains any traction, they'll soon have to figure out if the fish designer was different from the bacteria designer and the virus designer......
Which one did Zeus design???
I am curious. What observation would actually DISPROVE intelligent design?
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.