Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Republic Poll on Evolution
Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?
You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; id
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: Coyoteman

Now that certainly sidesteps the issue.


1,121 posted on 09/26/2006 7:03:51 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1120 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Now that certainly sidesteps the issue.

I try not to post high-flying opinions in subjects on which I am not well studied.

Got a problem with that?

1,122 posted on 09/26/2006 7:05:36 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1121 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The subject was the discussion of fictional and/or disproven theories in the pages of a textbook about a "hard" science.

I will accept that you claim no expertise in the matter.

1,123 posted on 09/26/2006 7:10:48 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1122 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The subject was the discussion of fictional and/or disproven theories in the pages of a textbook about a "hard" science.

I will accept that you claim no expertise in the matter.

The subject of your troll to me was Lamarckianism in biology texts. Go troll elsewhere.

1,124 posted on 09/26/2006 7:15:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1123 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Misuse of the word "troll" will gain you no sympathy here.


1,125 posted on 09/26/2006 7:20:07 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1124 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; unlearner
You have cited a single text.

Not a single text. Several different texts written by differnt authors sometimes in different languages. Just because they were placed together in one text for convenience does not make them all one source and invalidate them any more than a scientist writing a research paper invalidates the paper by including different sources together for convenience sake.

1,126 posted on 09/26/2006 7:31:25 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 967 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; bboop
"rigorous academic standards" and "public high school" are NOT synonymous.
1,127 posted on 09/26/2006 7:34:43 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Misuse of the word "troll" will gain you no sympathy here.

From a google search: "define:troll" (the first definition):

Definitions of troll on the Web:

From the fishing term. As a noun, synonymous with flamebait. As a verb, to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to provoke flames.

1,128 posted on 09/26/2006 7:38:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1125 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
By so doing, you are telling them their minds, their reasoning ability is superfluous. You are instructing them that just saying the right mantras will get you ahead in life....

Exactly what happened in my sone Bio class last year. They spent some time on evolution, less than a week, and as they covered it, the teacher told them that he was going to teach them what they needed to know to pass the regents test. He told them that he didn't care if it made sense to them or not or whether they thought it was right or not, if the kids didn't put down these answers, they would get marked wrong on the test. So the point was, don't think for yourself, it'll only get you in trouble with your grade on the regents if you reach a different conclusion from the results that they want to hear.

1,129 posted on 09/26/2006 7:55:28 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1095 | View Replies]

To: metmom; bboop

sone=son's *sigh* long day.


1,130 posted on 09/26/2006 7:58:59 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1129 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; atlaw
[ Ha! It is the seeming dearth of rigorous academic standards of which I complain! ]

Most college students in America have no idea that socialism is Slavery by Goverment.. double that amount for URP'ean students.. Sadly many republicans are clueless too..

1,131 posted on 09/26/2006 8:25:25 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 988 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
To explain the Noachian flood they create a large water canopy without explaining the mechanism preventing the canopy from descending until needed, then ignore the heat generated by that amount of water falling in 40 days.

Certainly beats "It all happened because of a Big Bang". I wonder if someone with a bong was the initiator of this smoke in my eyes scenario and it was mistakenly named "Big Bang" instead of "Big Bong".

1,132 posted on 09/26/2006 8:27:47 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1073 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
I suspect that you are trying to claim that science requires evidence to be direct and tactile before it is acceptable.

Isn't that what you and the evos require of creationists? But you can't come up with evidence but you have the almighty peer(I'll agree with you on that if you agree with me on this) review. Try reading some of Lee Strobel's books if you don't want anything from creation scientists. As you do, notice all the "peer" reviews he has in them in regards to the Case for Creation, etc.

1,133 posted on 09/26/2006 8:32:47 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1102 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
To explain the Noachian flood they create a large water canopy without explaining the mechanism preventing the canopy from descending until needed, then ignore the heat generated by that amount of water falling in 40 days.

Certainly beats "It all happened because of a Big Bang". I wonder if someone with a bong was the initiator of this smoke in my eyes scenario and it was mistakenly named "Big Bang" instead of "Big Bong".

Take a look at this site. This should keep the hands waving for weeks (if you actually read anything, which I very strongly doubt):

Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak.

It just didn't happen! All the evidence points to that conclusion, including some I found myself. Ask me about it, if you dare. Warning: the creationist websites have no rebuttal to this evidence.

1,134 posted on 09/26/2006 8:37:15 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
A theory is an explanation for the existence or state of the fact, or more often the relationship between a number of different facts.

I like this definiton of theory a whole lot better. Of course you were being selective when you fed me the other definition. "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

1,135 posted on 09/26/2006 8:38:47 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1102 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
"By the way, could you mail me some of that Big Bang material? I'd like to compare it to what is in my septic tank. I suspect you wouldn't understand much of it (and no I do not claim to understand all of it).

Let me tell ya, I understand everything in my septic tank. If you also did, you would see how close it resembles evolutionistic ideas.

1,136 posted on 09/26/2006 8:41:39 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1104 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
A theory is an explanation for the existence or state of the fact, or more often the relationship between a number of different facts.

I like this definiton of theory a whole lot better. Of course you were being selective when you fed me the other definition. "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

What, don't you like my definition of "theory"? Haven't I posted it often enough, or what?

Here it is again:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.


1,137 posted on 09/26/2006 8:48:04 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1135 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Take a look at this site

What a joke! You don't want us to utilize creationist sites but you demand that we put up with the garbage from evo sites, such as this that evos claim as fact. Talk about one track minds.

1,138 posted on 09/26/2006 8:54:33 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Don't like mine? Well here it is again:

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."


1,139 posted on 09/26/2006 8:56:39 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1137 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Don't like mine [definition of theory]? Well here it is again:

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Pathetic. A simple google search "define:conjecture" reveals the following (which I have now added to my list of defintions):

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

It you will notice, this is not even close to the definitions for "theory:"

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hint: Stick to apologetics, and leave science alone.
1,140 posted on 09/26/2006 9:04:42 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 1,621-1,636 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson