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.
By the way, Darwin personally refuted many of his own claims later in life.
As far as I know, if your dealing with unobservable phenomena (i.e. what happened "millions of years ago), it ain't science.
People witnessing events in history can falsify "original" records much easier scientific evidence can be falsified that can be reviewed with secondary opionions over and over. Therefore I believe scientific evidence represented by fossils over human "history" any day.
As far as a difference between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", the only real difference is time. There is no Creationist theory even attempts to explain how mutations stop at some arbitrary "species" boundary. There is no Creationist theory on what exactly differentiates one species from another.
I suppose that's to be expected, since Creationists do no real scientific work on their own. They merely research traditional science done by others and attempt to poke holes in it.
The Creationism gig reminds me of the french guy who claims that 9/11 was a CIA plot, and he "proves" it by poking holes in evidence collected about 9/11. Kennedy assasination plots are similar. Finding "missing links" to gripe about about gun firing speed, etc.
That one, and the one you just posted (smooth transitions) are now in the List-O-Links.
#####Certainly a species will adapt to it's environment, but one species does not turn into, nor evolve into another species. And wasn't there evidence just released that there were several spontaneous eruptions of different species over time?#####
The punctuated equilibria theory popularized by Gould argues that evolution occurs in sudden dramatic bursts rather than over long periods of gradualism. That theory was put forth to try to explain the failure of the fossil record to demonstrate traditional Darwinian evolution.
#####As far as a difference between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", the only real difference is time. There is no Creationist theory even attempts to explain how mutations stop at some arbitrary "species" boundary. There is no Creationist theory on what exactly differentiates one species from another.#####
There areobservable species boundaries. That's why we can breed dogs down to the size of a Chihuahua but not down to the size of a flea. It's why we can breed dogs up to the size of a Great Dane but not the size of an elephant. It's why we can breed dogs with a variety of features, but wings aren't one of them.
That's an interesting comment coming from someone who is obviously starting these threads as a trolling expedition. It isn't funny, it doesn't make either the initial post or the respondants appear anything more than juvenile, and should really be discussed in a back room. This is a forum for politics.
Not at all. You've basically said that since it doesn't make sense to you it must not be designed. That's not an argument against design, though -- it's simply an argument from personal ignorance.
Until you can show me some system that works, but whose principles are beyond the power of contemporary rational analysis, that's an unproven and decidedly mystical claim,
Human technology is a sufficient example. Modern electronics would have been incomprehensible to people even 100 years ago, and certainly to people 1000 years ago. (They're still incomprehensible to most people, including me, even today.) The technology of 100 or 1000 years hence may well be equally incomprehensible to us. Would it be "mysticism" to claim that future technology could achieve things (including the creation of life) that is not comprehensible to us now? Not at all -- it's just a fact of life. And thus we see that you've once again, unintentionally, stumbled back to an argument from personal ignorance.
From the link I posted earlier (453):
Boxhorn is saying that two fruit flies which he asserts are different species, successfully mate and produce offspring (thereby proving conclusively that they are not different species but the same species.) He calls the offspring 'hybrids' in an attempt to smuggle their 'different' species status in by the back door. Later some of the offspring exhibit 'behavioural isolation' (like Chihuahuas and Great Danes) but this is irrelevant as a sign of species status. So where, in all this, is there an instance of speciation -- or one species turning into another?
Believe it or not, this is a political discussion, at least in part -- or don't you read the news? And given that you've been here for 5+ years, you should know by now that FR is not just a forum for political discussion, though it is certainly that, too.
Well, Mithras was the son of god (Zoroaster) born of a virgin; he was worshipped on Sunday with a meal of bread and wine; he died and rose from the dead and he was prophesied to return and judge the world. His cult arose at roughly the same time as Christianity, and there is strong evidence that early Christians changed the day of worship from the Jewish sabbath to Sunday to accommodate and attract converts from Mithraism. It is widely accepted that Christianity did coopt the Dec. 25th birthday of Mithras.
>Evolutionists insist that evolution be taught in schools. What they fail to insist on is that it be taught as a theory (rather than a scientific law), and that the weaknesses of/holes in/scientific arguments against the theory of evolution be taught along with the theory.
In other words, evolutionists want to be sure that our kids are indoctrinated into the religion of evolution.
So where's the "species" boundary? You mentioned size limitations, but what is the specific reason why no "dog" can be larger than a great dane? There is no "capilary" action, as what controls tree size. I would suspect merely that not enough time has elapsed to breed dogs larger and smaller within human history. That, and occasional cross-breeding of simliar dogs that keep the species relativly close.
And what of a possible Great Dane and Chihuahua mix? Would that be possible?
If your "species boundary" mechanisim that you cannot describe (you merely describe the existing bounds of one species, not the mechanism involved) is defined as two creatures that cannot successfully interbreed, then I'd say that Great Dane and Chihuahua might be defined as different species. Would a Chihuahua female survive the large puppies? Would a Chihuahua male successfully mate with the Great Dane?
Perhaps under human help, this could work. But since you have apparently acknowledged that micro-evolution could occur, it is theoretical that Great Danes could have Evolved in one part of the world and Chihuahuas in another. And without any human help, there would be no cross-offspring.
Thus, two species. Arguably, these "dog" breeds came about through human "ID", but since "micro-Evolution" is acknowledged here, they could have evolved on their own.
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.