Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
We're talking about how our Creator made everything. Let's agree that one of our jobs is to study and understand His revealed word. When we study "heaven and earth" (mentioned someplace toward the beginning) wouldn't you think it would be our sacred obligation to actually observe the actual heaven and earth around us so as to better comprehend our scriptures?
My point is that that both observation and reflection are good, even if they don't always happen at the same time.
I'm not that impetuous for new answers, although there are current burning questions in science ("Dark energy?" "Higgs boson?") that I follow with interest. The question for threads like the one we're on is whether we teach the kids the relatively well-established answers, things like evolution.
Not everybody likes the answers we have now. Some of the things which science, based on mountains of evidence, is saying now indicate an origin for man and an age of the Earth which conflict with a hyper-literal reading of Genesis by some people. Still, if the kids are going to learn anything at all useful about biology and geology, the current situation in science needs to be accurately described.
The principles of forensic science are phenomena which can be tested and experimentally verified in the lab. There may be some uncertainty in application of those principles, but the science is not based on a story than no man has ever seen.
You are right, but no man has ever seen advanced kinds of life arising from simple kinds of life over millions of years just as no man has seen the creation of the universe. Neither situation is amenable to the verification of testing that is a part of rational testing.
"The principles of forensic science are phenomena which can be tested and experimentally verified in the lab."
The principles of evolution can be tested against observations such as fossils, and experimentally in the lab via genetic comparisons.
"There may be some uncertainty in application of those principles, but the science is not based on a story than no man has ever seen."
Forensics tells a story of how a person murdered another person when no man was there to see it. This is based on empirical evidence.
Evolution tells a story of how life changed over time when no man was there to see it. This is based on empirical evidence.
Geology tells a story of how the earth has changed over time when no man was there to see it. Also based on empirical evidence.
Same goes for cosmology, and continental drift. Science is not limited to direct observation.
Hey, a simple biology lesson would be "chickens lay eggs". Knowing which came first, the chicken or the egg, is a "why" situation that simply is not necessary to resolve in order for the student to understand who does the laying and what gets laid.
That isnt an explaination though - its an observation. It doesn't explain why chick embryos develop teeth which fade away before they hatch.
I'd say we're on the same page in the hymnal on that one (as it were). IMHO that's the source of this whole brouhaha:
| Post #92: Dr. Kenneth Miller has failed to understand the nature of the evolutionary model, and the Atlanta School Board members failed to explain it. |
Alas, we shall never know why.
(BTW, this is not an absurd argument. As you well know evolutionary theory often confronts the apparant "pre-adaptation" situation ~ evolutionists are then forced to climb through various of their own orifices to come up with the "whys" on that stuff. So, why not a pre-adapted antenna for the time when birds develop radio? The business about many chicks continuing to have "teeth" has to do with turning various genes on and off. Some bird chicks don't ever develop the teeth. Presumably if you have a beak you don't need the teeth, but that could be presumptuous. Maybe birds have pre-adapted to the time when birds will need teeth again, presuming they ever really had them. Think of it this way ~ when birds get radio, and television, they are going to need something better than a beak to crunch Frito chips while watching the Super Bowl. Would be interesting to see if humans have the same beak genes as birds, just that we've turned them off.)
This is a very odd-looking, unsubstantiated assertion. I have no information that Dr. Miller misunderstands evolution. From some of what I've read, he understands it better than most people, including Michael Behe.
Evolution is a unifying theory with many gaps in the puzzle ("the missing link", maybe you've heard of it). Not so other theories.
The hoaxed Piltdown Man was a part of their "proof" in the past. "He" remained for decades.
The movement that singles out abortion for opposition is historically religious as well. Does this mean that any dispute over the origin of life (when does life begin) automatically require that schools deny life begins at conception? There is plenty of bad science being pushed (a fetus is not "alive" is one example).
I have said that I am not for teaching creationism in schools. I would also want any teaching of the Big Bang and evolution preceeded by an explanation that they are theories that are works in progress, some new details will be learned and some old beliefs will be disproven (corrected in the revision). It is a "leading edge" of science as is medical research; should we be teaching that chemical X is a cure for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, etc. or let kids do their own research into the matter on their own time?
We hear how some students after 1969 still had textbooks that said "we may one day go to the moon...". Would we want to teach a theory in progress such that some generations are taught outmoded concepts?
As I say, man began "somewhere" but scientists do not agree on which continent. Read a book on you own time if you want to discover the origins of man with no "grey areas". I have no problem with presenting the biological record (this was found here in this era, this was found here....). Stringing along such concepts (and even saying "these people came from here TO here...) is where a more educated "guess" is made (and sometimes it is wrong). Teach fact, not speculation (or at least identify speculation as a theory in progress).
I also brought "man made" global warming into the discussion. It is relevant because some people are letting their agenda bias their interpretation of findings. Schools do discuss this topic and again, it needs to be exposed as a theory at best (or possibly even an "accusation").
It was Miller that failed to explain the evolutionary model and the School Board that failed to understand it. You could defend Miller saying he explained everything just fine and the board was a bunch of jerks, but Miller was being paid to write a text that could be understood by jerks and if he wasn't up to it he should have said so before he accepted the job. There're plenty of capable text book writers out there eager to take Millers place.
The board screwed up by not approaching the problem scientifically and culturally. They were being paid to bridge the gap between irate parents and the state bureaucrats who selected Miller's book. Plenty of blame to go around--- I also got a problem the federal courts intervening into a local school board matter. I bet they were Clinton appointees.
It would be one thing for the proponents of evolution to say, "Well, there are a lot of gaps in the evidence, and we're really not certain that the variety of species rose according to the classic theory of macro evolution, but it's the best thing we have going," but they don't say that. By and large, most evolutionists are strident in their views, and combative in their articulation of those views. It has nothing to do with "science." I think it has to do with the same reason behind the "DiVinci Code"'s popularity -- evolution gives comfort to people in their unbelief and rebellion against God. Now, having said that, I know of sincere Christians who believe in evolution. But most of them struggle to reconcile what they believe about evolution, and what they believe about God.
I know of what I speak, because at one point in my life (in the midst of my college education), I was an ardent believer in evolution. But I've come to see it as an empty husk of a theory, based not on evidence, but on wishful thinking.
Uh - Scuzce me puhleseeze!! Our great - great - great ancestors were slime mold and segmented worms - get over it.
Uh - Scuzce me puhleseeze!! Our great - great - great ancestors were slime mold and segmented worms - get over it.
Well said. There's a battle going on right now in the West where leftists are trying mightily to undercut people of faith. We've seen an example of this over the past three weeks since the tsunami in south Asia. Why are people who never give God any real thought coming out with editorials and commentaries about how the tsunami proves that if there's a God, he's not a loving God because of 170,000 seemingly indiscriminate deaths from this natural disaster? They're at war with the notion of God, and consequently are at war with people who express faith in God, because such notions and faith stand in the way of their ultimate objective of crowning man (i.e., themselves) as the only true god in this world. Evolutionists, whether intended or not, are allies with these secularists who rage against faith in God.
Points well-made. If one took a poll, I think we'd find that there is a strong correlation or link between those who ardently defend the evolutionary hypothesis of origin, and those who defend the right to abortion.
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.