Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.
Your self portrait perhaps?
Note Chapters XIX and XX. Not only has male selection shaped the female, but female selection has shaped the male.
There is nothing wrong with making the observations, recording them, and coming up with words like "natural selection" to describe what is happening. It just does not rise to the level of hard, empirical science, and it does not necessarily lead toward the wider conclusion some are inclined to draw that the history of life is best depicted as a gradual progression from simple to more complex biological entities.
I would even go further and say there is nothing necessarily "wrong" with positing this latter idea for biological history in an academic context. But it strikes me as stupendously arrogant to posit it as if it is beyond question or challenge, and to employ the legal system of the United States or any country to squelch views that may be contrary.
You said it's OK in an academic context. In fact, it's the overwhelming consensus of people who have made a career of biology.
So shouldn't it be presented to high schoolers as the consensus view of scientists, subject to challenge once the student has learned enough to challenge it?
This is the case in all the sciences. You have to master the status quo before you know enough to make a meaningful challenge.
Some CRIDers have likened the ToE to an unstable house of cards, the slightest disturbance will bring ti down.
I think a better analogy would be to a banyan tree, with multiple trunks supporting it.
BTW, the legal system was used to squelch lying to a captive audience.
The claim that there is serious opposition to the ToE among biologists is false. (see Project Steve)
The claim that ID is scientific is false (Behe's testimony)
The claim that ID is anything more than a Trojan horse for creationism is also false. (Wedge doc, Panda book editing)
The drug-addicted liars (check thir testimony) on the school board wanted to tell these lies to the students. First the judge and then the voters stopped them.
Only when people use it as such.
"Only when people use it as such."
I'm just quoting it. You cannot escape the fact that you have directly attacked holy scripture, or at least have aided and abeited one who did. You have overstepped the bounds of polite speech.
You need to understand that there are lines one should never cross.
What is YOUR problem with freedom of though?
When Martin quoted scripture to prove that the sun revolves around the earth, he was using scripture to lie. Same with anyone who quotes scripture to prove untruths. Such people are the ones that defile scripture.
Make that Martin Luther.
Creationism IS science!!!
"Make that Martin Luther."
Besides the original apostles, Martin Luther (although far from perfect) is one of the greatest men in the history of Christianity. God used him to save Christianity from a perversion called "the church" that was masquerading as Christianity. Sola Scriptura, Sola Gracia, Sola Christo, Sola Fide, and Sola Deo Gloria.
Luther is was far from being perfect, he would be the first to state so. However, God used this man at the right time and right place. God used men like Luther, Calvin, and latter the English puritans to restore Christianity. That is, of course, my opinion.
I'm not going to respond in kind.
Because you wouldn't be able to make it stick.
However, you really need to learn how to play nicely with the other children on the playground.
I play nice with those who discuss things both civily and honestly. But I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were a child on a playground. If I had realized, I'd have made allowances.
I'm actually surprised you took the time to respond.
I generally like to correct blatant falsehoods, so you shouldn't be surprised.
Do you enjoy denigrating holy scripture by referring to it a an explicative deletive?
No, which is why I haven't done that. Do you enjoy saying blatantly false things about what I actually said?
Clue for the clueless: You wrote that five distinct sets of genomes would "ensure sufficient genetic diversity to account for all current races and ethnic groups." No, it wouldn't, not even close. You said this without any actual knowledge of whether it was true or not, you just confidently posted your wild presumption as if it were fact. Under the circumstances, I was rather kind to you. People who do that sort of thing generally need to get rhetorically smacked, if for no other reason than to get them to think twice before doing it again in the future.
I called this false claim of yours "utter bull***t", and it is. I made no denigration of "holy scripture". Learn to read.
Since when???
I'm not discussing Martin luther in any other context except the one in which he quoted scripture to prove that a new scientific theory was untrue. He was wrong.
Religious people have a long history of quoting scripture to prove scientific ideas are wrong. It is a misuse of the Bible, and it is counterproductive. It turns people away from the Bible.
Where did he do that, exactly?
You have overstepped the bounds of polite speech. You need to understand that there are lines one should never cross.
"Never"? Or what, you'll burn us at the stake like this guy?
Creationism is religious in nature, not scientific.
...so says the guy who just a few minutes later obliquely denounced certain Christian faiths as "a perversion"...
That does it, I'm putting some popcorn in the microwave.
This is a key bit of info from the MOS source;
Source: Casts of original fossil
The original peer reviewed scientific article with actual photos of the fossils would be nice.
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.