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.
...and if pigs had wings, they could fly. What if the cross-breeding was intended to produce a near-microscopic dog and a horse size Great Dane, and the program was kept up for 10,000 years?
Undoubtedly Yes -- which suggests (to me) that they're still the same species.
This is not in the least "undoubted". If insisting on filling the fossil gaps is sauce for the goose, it is sauce for the gander. There were once Marsupial wolves in Australia--do you think they could have been mated with timberwolves because they were about the same size?
Do you think horses, zebras and Donkeys are the same species because they can produce offspring when they mate? If you think they are really one species, how do you think they are going to be merging back together, since their mutual offspring are sterile?
Sure. But we'd have to say the same of any micro-evolutionary process, guided or not. After all, the only difference between "natural selection" and "selective breeding" is the method of selection. If evolution is true, then we would have to grant the possibility of re-convergence, as well as divergence. In essence, for speciation to occur, the theory of evolution would seem to rely on strict separation that would prevent such reconvergence.
Now -- if you took an island-full of Great Danes, and a different island-full of Chihuahuas, you'd have a situation where two breeds were on divergent paths. Would you predict that the breeds on each island would regress to some similar "average dog," or would you instead predict continued divergence?
I would predict the latter -- chihuahuas becoming, say, more weasel-like in response to their probable rodent diet; and the morphology of great danes depending on whatever common food source was on their island.
Note, BTW, that this hypothetical is an example of how intelligent intervention and natural processes might combine. Even though it would be human-initiated, it does not seem clear that some future scientist would be able to find "scientific" evidence of that actual fact. Instead, our future scientists could no doubt find all sorts of "natural" (and wrong) explanations for these two different populations.
Seriously -- if x-great-grandchildren can produce viable offspring, why does that not suggest "same-species" to you?
OTOH, I do see your larger point, which is that eventually the two breeding lines should become different species, such that x-great-grandchildren don't produce viable offspring.
This is not in the least "undoubted".
I was referring specifically to the possibility of mating a modern-day teacup poodles, and the crossbreed great-grandchild of a great dane. I hold that that is indeed "undoubted."
As for your other examples, I'm not going to address them, except to point out that those near-relative species do in fact exist, and can mate to produce live, if not fertile, offspring. Obviously they got that way somehow. Beyond that I will say no more, except to point you to my previous comments on this thread.
Excellent. My dictionary defines "ape" as "any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan." Now, why don't you point me to the part of evolutionary theory - heck, any evolutionist will do - that claims that chimpanzees, gorillas, gibbons, or orangutans have ever given birth to a human. That way, we'll know you're objecting to the actual theory itself, and not some junk you just made up.
Festival of the Raging Trolls
What is even more interesting is that a "law" such as the law of gravity is not necessarily correct in all "ways". For instance, the law of gravity assumes instantaneous action at a distance which has been superseded by the theory of relativity.
I just posted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291515/posts
Evolution isn't dogma. Its science. Sigh...
Sounds like you're presuming the two terms to be mutually exclusive. Bearing history in mind, are you sure you want to do that?
No evolutionist would be so brazen as to propose a direct, immediate transition. Millions of years are needed so we "understand" the transition was so gradual no one has ever seen it. Has any evolutionist demonstrated under strict scientific contditions the transition from an ape to anything slightly closer to human? Has any evolutionist proposed at what point the ape becomes human as opposed to ape?
Then why are you asking to see it as "proof" of evolution? I mean, if you're going to invent chimeras and demand to see them as "proof", at least get creative. Ask for a unicorn or a cherub or a leprechaun or something.
I am not asking for proof. I am asserting that evolution cannot, in its widest sense, be scientifically observed and tested. It never has been and it never will be. I am not so dull as to request the impossible of people.
Shall I retrieve the posts where you asked for something you now admit doesn't exist?
Otherwise, theories of evolution must be treated as such: speculation based on unobserved, untestable phenomena.
To: general_reNobody can make you see things you don't want to see.I've always thought one of the primary tenets of real science follows the line "Seeing is believing." I haven't seen an ape beget a human, and neither you nor any scientist will very likely make me. Historic comparisons of genetic material do not a scientific experiment make.
It's not a matter of my personal feelings or beliefs. It is a matter of fact based on my short life in this world. But . . . I'd like to keep an open mind. If you can show me, please do. By that time, however, the resurrection of the dead will have taken place, and your understanding of the bigger picture will have changed somewhat.
691 posted on 11/30/2004 12:53:53 AM EST by Fester ChugabrewTo: Fester ChugabrewIf you can show me, please do.Show you what?
692 posted on 11/30/2004 12:56:07 AM EST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)To: general_reAn ape begetting a human. Heck. You don't even have to show me one in the present day. Just show me some scientific record of such a phenomenon. As long as you confine yourself to recorded history I can believe it.
693 posted on 11/30/2004 1:03:44 AM EST by Fester Chugabrew
So, now - what was that about not asking for the impossible again? How about asking for that which you admit doesn't exist - is that asking for the impossible, wanting to be shown something that doesn't exist?
Really, asking for the impossible as your standard of evidence is a good way of insuring that you're never convinced, of insuring that no matter how good the evidence is, it's just never, ever quite good enough. Of course, one might wonder why the pretense is worth bothering with - just say right up front that nothing anyone ever brings you will ever, ever convince you that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and be done with it. Sure, it'll seem closeminded to some, but who cares? State your piece, stand your ground, and let the chips fall where they may.
Yes, science will discard the Theory of Evolution in a minute, if it is falsified.
If you find some human bones intermixed with dinosaurs in a strata (not buried in a funeral humans) let me know.
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.