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.
I'm a bit alarmed to see you still believe in Zeus. At any rate, those things are all open to question, as they should be. Why shouldn't theories of evolution be open to question as well? After all, they're only theories.
The reaquaintance of Europe with the Greek philosophers actually began earlier, in the 12th century.
It's not just a random mutation. The presumed manipulated gene would have no close homologs in closely related species - humans, or other monkeys - and it would have close homologs in other Cnidarians. It's not a question of a single base change. An engineered gene doesn't look like any genes in similar species, and it does look like genes in entirely unrelated species. That would really stick out.
They do not address the question of design; rather, they address only your (or my) inadequacy in recognizing and understanding a design.
This simply repeats the previous assertion. You haven't given me any reason why you claim my failure to recognize design is based on ignorance - other than, I suppose, that I fail to recognize evidence of design in nature, which argument is circular.
People do claim there are universal design principles. If you're claiming we can recognize design in nature because it's similar to human design, you can't reasonably then assert that we can't evaluate design in nature by the same principles we use to evaluate human design.
On the one hand, you cite the need for an incredibly powerful and intelligent designer; and then you're apparently claiming that the same results could have occurred as a result of random mutations, with no intelligent interaction.
I am trying to refute the entire argument by reduction to absurdity, by pointing out the contradiction between the intelligent designer and manifest inadequacies of the design. They claim life is much too complex and subtle to have arisen by chance; and that since we certainly can't yet make even a bacterium, the designer must be more powerful and smarter than we are, at least. As far as I know, no IDer is claiming the designer could be inept or bumbling.
Me, I say nature is profoundly chaotic, and I see that as a reflection of the huge influence randomness had on the origin of species. No contradiction.
Received any cites yet? Surely with all of the scientists here one of them should be able to cite ONE experiment.
Evolution, like all scientific theories, are always being questioned. Don't you think that any scientist would love to be the one that disproved a major theory like relativity or evolution. Scientists are questioning and testing the theory of evolution every day.
Creationists, however, don't want to play by scientific method rules. Rather than designing and executing experiments to disprove the theory, they cite bible verses and argue from incredulity.
"The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most documented event in history.
Look into it if you have some time."
Obviously, the concept of "provability" isn't something you're familiar with. The Resurrection is not provable. You'll note that in my other responses to you, I've not denied the life of Jesus. I've only said that his Resurrection is unprovable. Just because lots of people who didn't witness it wrote about it anyways doesn't make it scientific fact.
And since that's unprovable, so is ID.
Well, I do believe in an objective rationality. Irrational isn't irrational to us; it's irrational, period.
See 486.
Yes it does. The macro theory states that species arise from gradual (or not-so-gradual) changes due to mutations in predecessor species, that are selected-for by environmental pressures. As such, the theory of evolution leaves open the possibility that a fruit fly could evolve into something like a whale. Indeed, that is essentially what the theory of evolution does claim.
For starters, not all populations are able to adapt to their environment in a timely manner. This is why species go extinct every day.
That's not "for starters." It is merely an observation that some species go extinct: but the theory of evolution has force precisely because not all species go extinct, but are instead theorized to adapt and diversify. Although we have never observed a fruit fly transition to something beyond another fruit fly, there is nothing about "extinctions" that says the fruit fly could not speciate (over time) into something like a whale.
"You can have your Religion and I can have mine."
OK. Thanks!
Are you suggesting we take on the forms of government and cultures of those you listed?
Our form of government and culture differs from all those you listed.
1. Higher authority makes us equal.
2. Freedom to live and to peaceably persuade others.
3. Family values and perpetuating good citizenry.
4. Charitable and forgiving attitude with those around us.
5. Quality of life based on Character, not power or prestige.
6. The idea to harmoniously blend multiple cultures under one God.
These are uniquely American Values!
Oh, come on, MM, you could cite these yourself, you've seen them often enough.
Are you serious? I'd think the most documented event in history would probably be the last presidential election. So many cameras, so many interviews..... The Apollo 11 Moon landing probably had more TV viewers in 1969 than people who have read the Bible.
Someone like Marilyn Monroe is far more "documented" than Jesus Christ. Sure, there are more copies of the Bible printed than any other document. But that's meaningless. They're just identical copies, not multiple independent documentation of the same person or event.
I'm not trying in any way to degrade Jesus Christ. But the fact is that there is just the words of the Bible, the Koran and their various translations that document Jesus. No pictures. No recordings. Not even any lifetime painting. No remains. And it's been many generations separate us from that time, so documentation on related history is sparse as well.
Relatively speaking, there is very little documentation on Jesus, and that's just a fact.
That comment cuts both ways. Insofar as proponents of evolution theories rely upon "millions of years" of totally unobserved phenomena for support they, too, remain outside the realm of science in the strict sense. They may call themselves "philosophers of history" or some such if they wish, but they kid no one but themselves in trumping up their interpretive arts as "science" worthy of sole hearing in the classroom.
Dataman, you've got to stop using a children's dictionary. Go to dictionary.com and look up 'theory' and you will get grown up definitions. Pay attention to definitions 1 and 2.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution> —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation —the·o·ret·i·cal /"thE-&-'ret-i-k&l, "thi(&)r-'et-/ also the·o·ret·ic /-ik/ adjective —the·o·ret·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb
| Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. |
They've got a whole section on Colin Patterson, a frequent quote-mine victim. It links to here. This post of yours is rebutted specifically by Colin Patterson himself.
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.Even if they didn't have any of your quotes, what you're doing is the activity they're exposing. That, and several people on this thread have found problems with several of your other quotes.
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.