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.
I'm the one who says BB made up her Darwin quote. I've already pinged her and am eagerly awaiting a reply.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, well . . .
Betty Boop has my undying admiration and respect. She's top flight.
This could be fun. I should make popcorn.
BTW, has it become the custom around here for . . . gnats to joust with elephants? Or am I in an alternate reality in some other galactic cluster?
Well then King, why hasn't this been done yet? (Though you seem to have effectively done so in your fine post here). You let Marxists like Lewontin (and presumably Dawkins, others) use the theory to support their view of a sociopolitical order that seeks the very opposite of a liberal, just, free society.
Jeepers, I've heard Richard Dawkins wax poetic over the splendors of the ant heap via-a-vis the sort of social order that Western man has historically considered natural and normative. There are individuals in an ant heap too, ya know. But they are not "individuals" in the way we usually think of human beings.
Notwithstanding those quibbles, let me congratulate you on a great post, King Prout! Thank you.
The idea probably came from Plato, the first advocate of compulsory eugenics. He recommended state-supervised selective breeding of children.
"What has "how the earth got here" to do with the theory of evolution?"
The topic of the thread is:
"Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?"
Creationism = how the earth got here
I don't *let* Leftists use corrupted strawman variants of the SToE any more than I *let* creationists and neoPlatonists do so.
it is *beyond my power* to stop them from doing so.
had I that power, rest assured I would use it with great finality.
Did you even read my post, Coyoteman? Had you done so, you would have noticed how scrupulously I draw the line between the two? while at the same time recognizing that both are essential to a scientifically and culturally literate high school student? And that I don't think religion should be taught in biology class?
Get the wax out of your ears, kiddo! :^)
Thanks for writing.
Make a lot. The quote was made up. There will be no response.
Everyone involved in biology is working toward better mathematical models. What relevance they have to a week or two of high school biology devoted to evolution, I have difficulty. Kind of like stuffing quantum mechanics into two weeks of high school physics.
But let's not kid ourselves. The issue under protest is not abstruse mathematical models; it is common descent.
In all the years I've been on these threads, I've only seen two evolution critics admit to accepting common descent.
IMhO,
You're far too bright to expect reason and truth to reign on the EVO threads! LOL.
Plato has his uses. But the modern world is attributable to Aristotle -- who was Plato's finest work, actually.
"There are quite a few religious creation stories that do not address the origin of the earth itself."
ok...........
BTW, the gnat wins. Look it up.
Sure it is, Freedumb2003. Faith is foundational in any exercise of reason. You've got to have faith in something or reason has nothing to do, and no way to do it. For instance, how could science be done without confidence that there are things to be learned and logic and valid natural laws by which they may be known? The word "confidence" = "with + faith."
I'm not quibbling here either. Faith has apparently become so disreputable to you that you have forgotten how central it is to your even being able to get out of bed in the morning, and to orient yourself in the world of man and nature.
Science believes all the time: It believes in the importance of the questions it is asking, it believes that the design of the experiment to test the proposition is suitable, it believes that the evidence it gathers and qualifies in the prosecution of finding the answer to the question is appropriate.... It believes in the power of reason and logic. It believes in "objective" physical laws that can be faithfully applied to problems to get valid answers. Science believes all the time, at every step; and so, I imagine, do you -- though you apparently do not recognize it....
I'd only wish to add that it was exclusively within the Western civilizational orbit -- which is traditionally classical and JudeoChristian in belief -- that systematic science even got started in the first place. And nowhere else. I'll leave it up to you to discover why that is. It really is an "interesting problem!"
Anyhoot, my two cents for whatever they're worth to you. Thanks for writing!
Nah.
Not my priority.
It's always so funny . . .
those throwing rocks at faith fail utterly to realize how immobilized and lifeless they'd be without it.
. . . at stop lights . . .
. . . at the MD's . . .
. . . at the food counters . . . especially when contemplating spinich! LOL . . .
. . . in close relationships
. . . in the Papal encyclicals proffered by the High Priests of the religion of science . . . many of which have been proven to be hoaxed, fudged etc. . . .
. . . that their car will start on cold mornings . . . wellll . . . that some cars will . . .
. . . that their spouses or significant other's will come home again day after tomorrow.
. . . that chance plus time makes sense . . .
. . . the list is virtually endless.
And here I thought this thread couldn't get any worse. ;^)
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.