Posted on 06/10/2006 4:33:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Gentle FReepers, herewith I present a few conclusions I have reached after uncounted creation/evolution debates:
1. Creationism is a religious doctrine. This is not, as many claim, the arbitrary result of ACLU-inspired Supreme Court decisions like Epperson v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard. Rather, those court decisions are inevitable, given the faith-based nature of creationism.
Is creationism really faith-based? Of course it is. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing scientific about it either. Imagine a competent scientist from Japan or India or some other place where no one studied the creation account in Genesis (or its Islamic counterpart). If he were to honestly and systematically consider the objectively verifiable evidence in reaching scientific conclusions, then:
a. it would never occur to him that the world is only 6,000 years old [How Old is the Earth];
b. it would never occur to him that there had been a miles-deep global flood about 3,000 years ago [The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood];
c. it would never occur to him that all species lived at the same time [The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"]; and
d. he would inevitably conclude that all species are related by common descent, and that the relationships are becoming more clear all the time [Tree of Life Web Project ].
2. Regardless of the claims of some, creationism isn't the same thing as Christianity. Why do we say this?
a. First, because not all Christians are creationists, and therefore -- obviously -- creationism isn't essential to their conception of Christianity. We are very much aware that some denominations teach otherwise, and this essay isn't intended to be a debate among denominations. Further, this essay doesn't pretend to be a learned discourse about theology. It is unfortunate that we have a denominational (not scientific) dispute about evolution, but it exists.
In stating that creationism isn't essential, we are relying entirely on the statements of thousands of Christian clergy, e.g., The Clergy Letter Project, a strong, pro-evolution statement signed by over 10,000 Christian clergymen; Statements from Religious Organizations, a list of Christian and Jewish denominations, including Roman Catholics, that accept (or at least don't dispute) evolution; and the recent statement opposing creationism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.
Clergymen are usually not scientists; therefore their opinions (whether pro or con) have no special significance regarding the scientific validity of evolution. What the above-referenced opinions do indicate is that for all of these clergymen and their denominations, evolution is compatible with their religion.
b. Second, because not all creationists are Christians. To begin with, there are the Raelians, a sect based entirely on ID.
There are also a billion followers Islam. See: Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.
The Hare Krishnas also reject Darwinian evolution. Their website has this article: The Intelligent Designer.
There is also the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. One of Moon's followers, Jonathan Wells, is a leading intellectual in the ID movement. He is the author of Icons of Evolution, and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wells has written movingly about how Rev. Moon motivated his career in ID: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
2. Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. This is quoted from the Dover decision:
[After a page of references to expert testimony] It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.
[snip]
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
3. ID is creationism. Consider the ID text, Of Pandas and People, which is favorably regarded by ID advocates such as the Discovery Institute, as indicated by their link to this article: A Report on the ASA Conference Debate on Pandas and People Textbook. This is the book that the Dover school board recommended and made available to science students, with these results:
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..
4. There is no virtually dispute about evolution in scientific circles. Therefore there is no "controversy" that needs to be taught in science classes.
As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.
The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]
In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. The Steves being about 1% of the population represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The actual comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution and a mere 154 who are "skeptical."
These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.
For more information, see The List-O-Links.
Further in so doing, in that very same mocking reply of yours, you forbade him to refer to what is -- in any court -- put at the same level of weighing as direct evidence. That is, of the reliable sworn testimony of reliable witnesses.
The fact your arsenal is full of nothing but BS provides you no high ground. You are the one out of your league here, sonny boy. You need to understand science before you can comment on it.
Don't ever deign to talk to me that way again. Ever.
Or what? You gonna report me? Your 4-year old style threat holds no water here. You are the one who is out of line. I suggest you not attack me or anyone again. And I suggest you lay off the booze before posting.
Says who? Prove using direct evidence it is God's word. Please show me where you can link the Bible to God. Please provide supporting evidence. Please leave "belief" out of it, since it cannot be proven.
Give me scientific proof of God. And your "dumbs**t" would get you kicked out of the forum if you posted it on the Religion forum.
Provide one.
LOL!!!
Moreover, in most courts today the "swearing in" of a witness is done with hand upon a Holy Scripture. What do you say about that?
Have one come on the forum. Let them post. Let them directly "testify." Writing hundreds or thousands of years after said prophets have died are at best rank heresay. Your assertion cannot be proved.
Moreover, in most courts today the "swearing in" of a witness is done with hand upon a Holy Scripture. What do you say about that?
"So Help Me God" has been a term that is used out of practice. It has no legal weight. A Muslim who is sworn to lie if it fathers his cause or an atheist/hindu/buddhist/etc who feels that the Christian Bible has no sway over them certainly is not morally bound by that act. That is why we have perjury laws.
Actually, my statement was to point out that if you can't even get the most elementary legal position right, with someone who purports to be an attorney as your director and source, how can you get the difficult scientific stuff right? Maybe DI's scientists are much more intelligent than their attorneys? But in the legal world, juries are instructed that, if a witness is lying about one thing, the jury is entitled to disregard their entire testimony. Based on the DI's complete misrepresentation of the the trial and subsequent events and the previous misrepresentations of science, I disbelieve everything they say. They will say anything to promote their agenda.
Haggis actually made me $10,000 once.
I had the opportunity to visit an old uncle on the occasion of his 93rd birthday. He suffered from some variation of hypertensive dementia and rarely talked or did most things.
My cousin is one of those really vegetarians and fixed us dinner. I nibble at some brown veggie gunk and look around and there's my uncle feeding himself. I say "Look he's feeding himself and it looks like he really likes the haggis". A few seconds we thought he was choking and all got up. He spit out his food and said "She told me it was chicken". And he starts laughing - just is belly shook and his eyes teared. Every time he looked at me he'd mumble "haggis" and start giggling.
Well I though little about it and about a year later he died from the second law of thermodynamics. I called my cousin and talked to her and she said his last word was "haggis" with a belly shake.
About a year later I get a cashier's check for $10,000 from his estate. So I called my cousin with "What's this all about?" She said that he laughed regularly his last year and he sau my name or haggis. She didn't understand the joke, but wanted to leave me this money.
Poor woman. She doesn't understand what haggis is, how bad her cooking is or the (mostly deserved) awful reputation haggis has.
Sometimes you say the right thing at the right time. I'm glad he had a laugh at his daughter's expense and that he found humor in his last days.
They had perjury laws in those days too. Falsely tesitifying and falsely prophecing were capital offences. We also have a long trustworthy chain of custody for the recorded testimony.
Still, you haven't addressed your own insistence that the good poster to whom you mockingly replied accept your proffer of accepting as given fact your selected interpretation of indirect evidence of events that transpired billions of years ago. You see it is not just indirect evidence you have asked to be accepted, it is one particular interpretation of that evidence that you are asking to be accepted. Yet you deny his use of reliable sworn testimony from older hearings, older but certainly much less old than billions of years, mind you.
There are three problems with that statement. One, the impact science had on the origin of western culture was less at that time than currently, and two, the scientists of the day were the ones that insisted their science be kept separate from their beliefs. The third problem is in your use of a genetic fallacy, that the belief system commonly held several hundred years ago should determine how we proceed today.
The Christians of the past who were also practicing scientists were well aware of the need to divorce belief from practice. Why do creationists of today insist on changing that practice?
What *do* you think of ID, then? And how is that opinion formed for you, by you?
Now, theres a great story...and you wound up being 10K richer...thanks...
How about that you have exposed yourself as a dumbs**t. Again.
Anyone can choose to use a Koran or affirm on nothing at all.
That is a distinct possibility. Fully 1/4 of my heritage are haggis eating Scots. Of my grandfather's 5 brothers, 3 were missionaries to Africa. My grandfather was the family's first agnostic/deist (depends on who you ask).
Oh, and please remember that I am only talking about the POST-trial comments, papers and the huge scientific/atheistic conspiracy (/sarc) that the DI believes in. They called for evolutionists to be placed under oath and placed in front of a jury. When it actually happened and they were about to be placed under the gun, they ran for the hills and left Dover to a big legal bill.
I, for one, do not welcome the brutal.
It is not a hard question to answer, is it? What is your opinion of ID?
What is the difference between one of the 'prophets' in the Bible and any one of the staring characters in Homer's Iliad?
"Moreover, in most courts today the "swearing in" of a witness is done with hand upon a Holy Scripture. What do you say about that?
Putting a hand on the Bible was an attempt to frighten the witness into telling the truth. Unfortunately it has been a dismal failure.
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.