Don't drink the Kool-Aid of Creationism!
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.
…Hitler was a creationist… .
-patrickhenry
Need to use that when the Creationists try the "guilt by association" arguments like Piltdown, etc.
oh, the hypocrisy! so sad...
I welcome hitting the abuse button. I likewise shall do the same with your threats.
…Jonestown = creationism… .
-patrickhenry
Are you trying to imply that statment is incorrect?? Why do you continue to lie for the lord?
Oh the webs we weave. :)
Nope and I'm not going to bother - lots of people lots more competent than me have already done that. I've read the books on both sides, listened to the evolution-creation debates and attended the lectures, followed the threads here as they come up. To 'support the assertion' means what? Produce my own book on the subject and be prepared to spend the next day/week/year defending it? Don't have the time. Supply one unbeatable 'proof'? People are always looking at 2 plus 2 and making all kinds of concessions to logic to come up with 5 - the willingly ignorant. Sorry but I've weighed lots of evidence produced by both sides and evolution was found to be wanting - and the evolutionists squirming at all kinds of questions that give the creationists no problem. And every day more evidence arises - did you see the thread here the other day about halos? It would appear that members on both sides have already made their minds up and nothing much will change them anyway - and if you want to say 'sounds like you fall into that category too' I will say yup, tis true. I do know of a number of evolutionists like Gary Parker that became creationists - none that went in the other direction. You can let me know if you know any. I will only say that it seems that every day I notice something that tells me the earth is much younger than the evolutionists try to tell me - and degrading very rapidly at a rate that doesn't compute with any billions of years theory.
'Ban both evolutionary and creation teaching from the public classroom.' Great idea. Ban the teaching of evolution, because it makes people uncomfortable!
Nope, ban the teaching of evolution because it's nonsense and can't be supported. Can you name one thing you know for sure about what you believe about evolution? Here let me offer a slightly different challenge to you. I believe in the creation account because the Bible has consistently proved itself to be absolutely error-free in all areas which lend themselves to being proven or disproven. Since it has proved to be absolutely true (in those areas which lend themselves), why shouldn't I believe it for those areas which don't lend themselves? Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period. You see, if you can prove that, you really have something because a single error means that nothing else can be trusted either including the creation account (because the Bible claims to be inspired by God and therefore is infallible). Should be easy, right? Good luck in your travels.
I'm sorry, but I do hope that you're not serious, because that is truly one of the more disgusting sentiments that I've heard in these discussions.
Of course I'm serious and just so that I'm clear about where you are coming from, could you be more specific about why you think it's such a disgusting sentiment? Let me ask you - the next time you go to your eye doctor, are you going to insist on knowing if he/she is an evolutionist or a creationist? Gee, based on your response, I would assume that you think it's something very important to figuring out whether your optometrist is competent. Clearly there are some branches of science where dealing with origins is necessary - but that doesn't take away from my assertion that for about 99% of science, it's totally irrelevant.
The force of gravity is invisible.
Mithraism Predates Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras
Mithras was the central savior god of Mithraism, a syncretic Hellenistic mystery religion of male initiates that developed in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC and was practiced in the Roman Empire from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD. Parthian coins and documents bear a double date with a 64 year interval that represents Mithra's ascension to heaven, traditionally given as the equivalent of 208 BC, 64 years after his birth.
Nekkid quarks are invisible
I consider evolution (Darwin's Origin of Species) to be a theory about how the families of species came to be. It is not my religion. The trouble I have with Intel Design, is that - while it proposes that there is an alternative to natural selection and evolution to explain this mystery, ID doesn't tell us what it is in a way that can be understood by science. The theory of evolution may only be part of the solution, but I'm sure one day we'll know more.
It's because of where you're setting the bar. To stop being fruit flies, a population would have to speciate, genus-ate, and then family-ate.
common name for any of the flies of the families Tephritidae and Drosophilidae.It might have to actually go a taxon higher than that (order), since the term "fruit fly" encompasses two families now. Speciations have been observed. That's more than what creationists usually admit as possible.
Shhhhh!!! ; )
Don't waste your time there...
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.