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.
Sorry but I'm not up on the debate issues concerning the fine-line distinctions between ID and creationism. On the surface, to me, ID simply means intelligent design implying an intelligent designer - creationism implies that it was created through the will of a designer as opposed to happening by chance. Sounds like the same thing to me but perhaps you can enlighten me as to what the commonly held distinctions are and what the protests are about that you referred to. Does a 'God-directed' form of evolution fall under the umbrella of ID? If so, I'm not persuaded by any of those arguments. With regards to my comment on 'health', I as referring primarily to the issue of size - not necessarily the best indicator of 'health'. However, if you see a big fish and a little fish (and they are exactly the same species), one would normally make the assumption that the larger one was more 'healthy'. The fossil record consistently shows that plants and animals that existed long ago were much larger than they are today. I think most people would make the connection that this implies a degradation of some sort has occurred since then.
Actually, being a scientific theory, Darwin's theory never said anything one way or another about God. God is outside the realm of science. It is fundamentalist religious people and atheists who interpret evolution as being inconsistent with God. Atheists already do not believe in God, so evolution really hasn't done anything but confirm that belief. I fail to see why fundamentalists are so threatened by a theory which makes no mention of God. If you built a robot which was designed to build a machine that produced an inovative new product, did you not invent something? Who deserves the patent? The robot? The machine? I don't think you could argue anything other than that you invented the new product. Similarly, if God created the universe using the big bang as a tool and then allowed it to proceed according to the laws of nature He established, then who created the universe? The big bang? No, God did. Similarly, if the universe proceeded in such a way as to make inevitable the development of life and then life evolved according to the theory of evolution, who created humans? Evolution? No, again God is the creator. It is even possible to reconcile the six day timeline in Genesis with the big bang theory and evolution given a proper understanding of the nature of time. Time is a relative quantity. The duration measured by an observer depends on the reference frame of that observer. It is entirely possible that a duration of six 24-hour days measured from the reference frame of the universe immediately after the big bang is equivalent to a duration of tens of billions of years as measured from our current reference frame. So which is the correct time? Both! That's what relatvity tells us. The first thing God created in the Genesis account is light. The only thing present in the milliseconds after the big bang was light. There are other parallels, but I am not enough of an expert on the science or the Scripture to fully deal with them. The point is that there is no threat to a belief in God coming from science.
The "theory" than man has an ancestral relationship with apes does not make any predictions. It is merely an assumption based on similarities in the present record. As such it does not qualify as science in the strict sense, but as speculation based upon unobserved, unrecorded phenomena. To the extent such theories exceed the bounds of the observable and the testable they hold no more intellectual credibility than the proposition that all things were created by an almighty God and are currently sustained by the same.
Sure it does. And?
It could also cause the fruit flies to become extinct. There is no guarantee that the species will evolve the necessary variation.
You may be confusing the theory of evolution with the ideas that Darwin had. Darwin had ideas that go beyond evolution, including speculations on the origin of life. Modern evolutionary theory, however, does not deal with the origin of life. (BTW, what makes you think the modern theory of evolution is absolutely identical to what Darwin wrote 150 years ago? Science doesn't work that way. Modifications are made to a theory as new evidence is found.)
Then I demand that the Great Green Arkleseizure theory also be given equal time. What about Last Thursdayism? How about Native American creationism? What will Thor and Odin think if they don't get equal time? If you have another competing SCIENTIFIC theory, then great, give it equal time in science class. If not, well then evolution is the only scientific theory there is.
No I think that scientists on this thread are arguing that ideas such as intervention by an intelligent designer are not science, not that they couldn't possibly have occurred. Furthermore, I think many are waiting to see evidence that an intelligent intervention did in fact occur during the process of devolpment from single-celled organisms to modern life. If such evidence is given, it will be considered. This means positive evidence, not argument from ignorance or statements such as "you can't prove that there's no design." You need to show that there is design.
No, if there were silicon life forms on another planet that used silicon oxides as genetic material, and then on that planet a DNA-based organism were found evolution would also be falsified. Since the alien planet scenario is completely hypothetical, however, let's deal with what we can observe, namely life on earth. It is certainly theoretically possible to falsify evolution based on earthly observations. Just find that silicon-based creature. Or that pre-cambrian rabbit fossil.
If your satisfied with that 'explanation', you're easily pleased.
So then, if you found a fossil of an organism that is smaller than a similar modern organism, would you conclude that your idea of creationism is false? If not, then the prediction you gave is not a falsification of creationism and you've failed to prove that it is science. I have never argued that creationism (or ID, like you I see them as basically the same idea) is false. I have argued that it is not science and thus should not be taught as science. I personally happen to believe that God created the universe using the big bang as a mechanism. He then allowed it to proceed according to the design He set up for it, which we call the laws of nature. Evolution occurred as part of this process, leading to all the life on earth. BTW, many people who profess to believe in ID will protest that it is not creationism in an attempt to make it scientific. That is the protesting that I referred to. I never intended to imply that you were protesting anything; I was making a point about ID in general.
If you think the 'gaps' are filling in, you're way out of date. Read: "Evolution, a theory in crisis", Denton.
And another thing....where can I find fossil beds forming now?
The idea that man has an ancestral relationship with apes is a part of a much larger and more inclusive theory that does make testable predictions and is falsifiable. If we were to find an organism with silicon oxides as its genetic material, I would be the first one to say that evolution must be wrong. If you found a large mammalian fossil in a precambrian rock layer, I would similarly conclude that the theory of evolution is wrong. Your example is only one prediction of the theory of evolution. Admittedly it is one that has not been fully tested, but every prediction of evolution that holds true lends increasing weight to the predictions of evolution that haven't been tested. I am not a biologist, so I am unable to provide more predictions of evolution, but they are present in the theory. Now tell me, what predictions are made by creationism? What observation would lead you to conclude that creationism is false? If you can't provide at least one observation that would cause you to stop believing in your idea of creationism, then it is not science. (Not necessarily implying that it isn't true, however.)
Nope. I personally think it would be a waste of time. But fruitflies have been experimented on for hundreds of years. I'm sure that some evolutionist must have tried this. The fact that there's not a whole lot of fruitflies turning into something other than fruitflies should speak volumes.
In all probability that will be the outcome. The odds against anything else happening are so small as to be non-existent. Yet evolution postulates that it happened trillions of times as countless minor or major alterations in various complex systems among millions of animals.
My point is that it's highly improbable that your experiment would work. That's not proof that evolution did not occur, however. It's also highly improbable that I will win the Powerball drawing if I buy a ticket. It's not proof that I won't win, however.
Yup. And no it doesn't make a difference...at least as far as fruitflies turning into something other than fruitflies.
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.