Don't let this be you! Embrace rationality now!
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.
Narby, I think you make a good point. When I heard about those theories I automatically questioned them (as I do almost everything) so I begna to do research on the subject. I guess it is just the rebel in me.
So, I like your argument. Perhaps we do not need that debate in class--perhaps we do. I would like to give it some more thought--but I do think you make an excellent point.
Also, I will say though that the case just up the road in Atlanta is that the text will say "evolution is a theory." And that wording is being contested in court as being a seperation between church and state.
Let me sleep on your argument though.
I already answered that question at about 2 pm today. I don't feel like typing it all up again or searching though the 600 posts to find it.
Maybe tomorrow when I am not so tired.
This is visible.
The Bible says that Adam and Eve were created perfectly and that the whole world was 'very good'. ID makes the claim that in the beginning everything was perfect. When Adam and Eve sinned, it introduce the concept of death into the world and a continual spiral of degradation which is still occurring today. It doesn't matter what you look at, it's degrading. Can you name one thing that's not? In a nutshell, you asked what ID predicts - Genesis 3:3 'But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' - so I guess that I could say that ID predicts that lots of fossils of plants and animals that are healthier than what we have today would be found (which is certainly the case if size can be equated to health). You know the story - Adam and Eve disobeyed and the observational data shows the prediction of death to be true and that everything dies.
Oztrich Boy wrote:
Before we get to your smoke and mirrors, let's table your postion on
By the way, Darwin personally refuted many of his own claims later in life.
...........................................................
I have already tabled that one. It was a mistake to bring it up, since I have agreed that it was unfounded and heresay.
placemarker of last resort
I'll grant you that your jigsaw puzzle and caption are humorous. :-)
Meanwhile, an evolutionist would look at that jigsaw puzzle and say, "Damn, I wonder when random chance will fill in the rest of those spaces!"
Remember, just because you can't find the pieces, that doesn't mean they never existed. Who knows which couch cushion they might turn up under? ;)
LOL! :-)
No more than you can "show observations" that the world is older than the day you were born.
#653. LOL! Great cartoon.
Is that jigsaw puzzle an accurate depiction of the issue at hand? I mean, I've never seen fossils cut that way.
( P ) Pronunciation Key (m
t
-fôr
, -fr)Whatever. Your metaphor does little to advance either discussion or understanding of the issue at hand.
100+ years isn't quite as long as the 1,000,000,000+ years that it takes single-celled organisms to evolve into new things.
Huh? These six values contradict every value system except Judeo-Christian values. The secular humanists on this thread are more in agreement with John Kerry on values than the Founding Fathers.
1. I guarantee you not one of the evolutionists on this thread believes they are as dumb as the creationists on this thread. (Higher authority makes equal)
2. I guarantee you not one of the evolutionists on this thread feel that Creationism should be taught in schools. (Peaceably persuade others)
3. I guarantee you not one of the evolutionists on this thread believe there should be a drug war in our country. Many disagree with the use of our military to stop evil in the world. (Call bad values, bad and evil, evil to perpetuate good citizenry)
4. I guarantee you not one of the evolutionists on this thread would intentionally go to a college that only taught creationism. (Couldn't spend their quality time with a neighbor they passionately disagreed with)
5. I guarantee you not many evolutionist on this thread humbles themselves publically by admitting their understanding of reality is woefully small. (Character matters)
6. I guarantee you not one evolutionist on this thread would want to move to an area where the entire neighborhood was fundamentalist Christians with a heavy evangelical bent. (Their way or the highway)
Socially liberal and fiscally conservative make not a conservative. Who has issues staying in the conservative GOP. You guys won't be flocking to the Bible belt if there is a schism in our country. Hug Hillary for me.
P.S. I live in California with the fruits and the flakes because they need to be more persuaded about Jesus Christ than my friends in the Bible belt.
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.