Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[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.

[b_sharp]

and aren't aware of it.
= = = =

"More ASSumptions about me! LOL

"Never noticed you running around loose inside my psyche, heart, spirit. Fact is, I don't think you've ever been close to any such geography. LOL.

So you are admitting that you are purposefully using the term 'faith' equivocally?

Remember you are the one who claimed in post #329 that faith in God is not the same as the other 'faiths' you listed in your previous post #279. This means you did use the term equivocally.

Apparently on purpose.

To what end?

[betty boop]

Patrick, surely you know that neither Plato nor Aristotle worshipped Zeus.

[b_sharp]

"Yeah, the Chinese parents were consistently pretty sharp folks. Easy to love, easy to respect."

Do I detect the misuse of an appeal to authority?

[PatrickHenry]

Getting back to the evolution poll for a moment, I've decided that it makes sense to focus only on registered freepers who have expressed an opinion. That excludes 11% of the "votes" from those who selected "undecided" or "pass."

Currently, 826 feepers voted "Yes" (put creationism into science class), and 445 voted "No." The total of those votes is 1,271.

The percentage of freepers voting "No" is therefore 35%. That's way less than a majority, of course, but it's a significant minority.

[Stultis]

Hitler's racialist policies were undoubtedly justified on "survival of the fittest" grounds, that entailed that people considered to be "less fit" could be expunged.

Actually no. Yeah, Hitler and other Nazis often made rather superficial appeals to evolution, in general though these were in support of militarism, and of the desirability of "struggle," and of the destiny of Aryans to rule over lesser races. But I've yet to find, by any Nazi, any specific elaboration of racial theory -- e.g. why, for instance, Aryans were "natural" militarists, conquers and slave masters -- in terms of any sort of evolutionary theory.

In fact Nazi race theory was based on creationism, although it was admittedly a mystical sort of creationism that wouldn't appeal much to your typical fundamentalist.

Read Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century. This was the most complete statement of Nazi race theory, and was the second most important work in the Nazi cannon after Hitler's Mein Kampf. You can find the full text online, although you might have to go to a racist website to do so. (IOW it remains an important and influential work among ideological racists.)

Rosenberg asserts that the various races were originally created with distinct and very different "race souls". (He appears not to have believed in individual souls.) The Aryan "soul" was, like all race souls, carried in "the blood". It had been diluted by race mixing, which of course was a plot of the Jews who knew that the destiny of the Aryan race was to rule over them and the other races.

The whole point of Nazi race policy was to restore the original created order: to restore the purity of the blood and thereby the purity of the racial soul. This had nothing to do with evolution, but to the extent you can put it in those terms the purpose of the Nazis was not to advance evolution, but to reverse it.

[b_sharp]

"More evolutionists cheekiness, it appears to me.

". . . as well as haughtiness, arrogance, smugness, self-righteousness . . .

"really admirable scientific qualities, those.

You are the one placing your opinion above the training and research of scientists. What makes your uneducated opinion more valid than their informed conclusions?

The evo posters here aren't the ones acting smug, you are.

[SoldierDad]

Since no-one knows what I REALLY believe in except for me, I'll leave that for another time. There is much in science which can be and has been demonstrated though empirical evidence to be "truth". Aircraft going aloft, and fuel calculations would be evidence of this. But, there are areas of science which makes claims which have no empirical evidence to back them up. Then the "best guess" approach is used. Case in point: attempts to relate fossils found in one layer of strata as being related to fossils found in a different layer of strata because there are some micro-structural similarities - ignoring the macro-structural difference. These fossils have hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, which separate each other from the strata in which they were found. Logic would suggest that there should be additional fossils in the record between each of these that would show additional micro-structural changes if one truly evolved into another. Well, this has never been shown to be the case in the fossil record - not anywhere - not with any animal in which the claim is that it became something else. Scientific principals related to chemistry, engineering, etc. does not fall into the same category as evolution.

[balrog666]

Yet the late, great Harvard biologist Gaylord Simpson (among others) has noted that living systems are precisely those systems which are not fully subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

If he said that, he was wrong. But I strongly suspect he never said that.

I suspect that, as usual, you misquoted or misunderstood what an actual scientist said, what he meant, or what he implied in trying to teach his usual set of students. I suggest, you provide us with a link to the actual quote where you believe he stated this nonsense.

[PatrickHenry]

Patrick, surely you know that neither Plato nor Aristotle worshipped Zeus.

True. But theirs was a pagan culture, and paganism permeated their society. Similarly, there are scientists today (like Dawkins) who aren't Christians, yet they exist in a Christian society. Presumably, Dawkins wouldn't give Jesus any credit for his scientific work, just as (I assume) Aristotle wouldn't give any credit to Zeus.

My point was that science began in a pagan culture. Not much doubt about it. It continues in a Christian culture. So what do we learn from this? I think that for scientists -- when they're doing science -- the religion of their society doesn't matter, as long as that society is congenial to science.

[hosepipe]

[ I would only like to point out here that Christianity is a synthesis of both the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the great Greek metaphysicians, principally Plato and Aristotle. The term Logos is a Greek word denoting both "word" and "reason." We find it in the very first line of the Gospel of Saint John: "In the beginning was the Logos; and the Logos was God, and was with God." For the great Greeks, man was "microcosm" -- an image or reflection of the Cosmos itself. Christianity upped the stakes to another category altogether: Man is made in the image of God Himself, the Way and Truth, Who expresses Himself as the Logos, as the reason, or intellect, that constitutes the order of universal reality. Intelligent beings made in his image are therefore able, via the gifts of reason and free will, to "penetrate the mysteries" of the universe. ]

Beautiful thoughts.. Also quite groovey is Gods decision to use Paul(Saul) to take the gospels to the gentiles.. Jesus chose the other apostles, Paul also, I believe.. Paul was educated in latin, greek, and hebrew knowledge and the sematics and dialectic of those cultures.. The other Apostles were hebrew waifs of various occupations, teenagers even.. Paul was uniquely trained to relate to those of other cultures.. and to understand the mischief of the judaizers(Galatians).. He was perfect..

Is Jesus COOL or WHAT?...

[andysandmikesmom]

Betty, I took note of your tagline, and found the quote to be inviting enough, that I would wish to read more from this person, tho I know nothing about him...could you please tell me who this person is, and from which work this quote comes?...I would like to read more....

[freedumb2003]

Since no-one knows what I REALLY believe in except for me, I'll leave that for another time. There is much in science which can be and has been demonstrated though empirical evidence to be "truth".

Seen any gravitons lately? And that pesky "red shift" which the Hubble is having such a great time. My point is that scientific "truth" is input to and results from scientific "theories." I assume you know what a scientific theory is, right?

Aircraft going aloft, and fuel calculations would be evidence of this. But, there are areas of science which makes claims which have no empirical evidence to back them up.

Aircraft going aloft are the results of scientific theories that later were "proven" to be correct more often than not. If they were proved to be true no airplane would ever fall down. The physical world is built on engineering principles built on theories.

Then the "best guess" approach is used.

"Best Guess" is never used. Excruciating research is used and cross-referenced to establish the proper classification of findings.

Case in point: attempts to relate fossils found in one layer of strata as being related to fossils found in a different layer of strata because there are some micro-structural similarities - ignoring the macro-structural difference. These fossils have hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, which separate each other from the strata in which they were found. Logic would suggest that there should be additional fossils in the record between each of these that would show additional micro-structural changes if one truly evolved into another. Well, this has never been shown to be the case in the fossil record - not anywhere - not with any animal in which the claim is that it became something else.

I see you get your thinking points (and "facts") from AnswersInCreation or a similar anti-science site. I invite you to substantiate your interesting, if somewhat specious, "analysis" with peer-reviewed scientific journal findings. "Logic" (guessing) may suggest verticle strata findings but the reality is that life on Earth is sparse (all of the humans on the Earth could fit in the state of Texas). Unscientific bloviating from the Creationist community of "we ought to find so-and-so" don't represent any reasonable or reliable argumentation.

Scientific principals [sic] related to chemistry, engineering, etc. does [sic] not fall into the same category as evolution.

Yes they do. Unless by that you mean "these things fall into 'things I understand.' Evolution falls into 'things I don't understand.'

[SoldierDad]

"You are the one placing your opinion above the training and research of scientists. What makes your uneducated opinion more valid than their informed conclusions?"

I view the above as placing yourself above others without any knowledge of who they are or what background they bring to the discussion.

A statement in which you accuse someone of having an uneducated opinion without any knowledge of them is the epitome of arrogance, self-righteousness, and extreme smugness.

[freedumb2003]

Hitler's racialist policies were undoubtedly justified on "survival of the fittest" grounds, that entailed that people considered to be "less fit" could be expunged. Peter Singer continues to make that argument today, from the hallowed halls of Princeton. You don't think he got that idea from the Gospel of Saint John, do you?

Betty Betty Betty

Godwin's Law -- *sigh* Non Sequiteur (and such a grand one) *sigh* *sigh*

I had such great hopes for you.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Objection sustained.

[balrog666]

A statement in which you accuse someone of having an uneducated opinion without any knowledge of them is the epitome of arrogance, self-righteousness, and extreme smugness.

Except that we've all seen your posts and therefore know you to be both bigoted and uneducated.

[freedumb2003]

A statement in which you accuse someone of having an uneducated opinion without any knowledge of them is the epitome of arrogance, self-righteousness, and extreme smugness.

We know Quix. We know these to be true.

[b_sharp]

"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.""

"FWIW b_sharp, I am using the word "faith" in precisely the same sense intended by Pope Benedict XVI in his recent, highly controversial Regensburg Inaugural Address. And I find the reaction I'm getting around here from certain quarters to this usage is eerily similar to the reaction the speech got from certain quarters of the Islamist world."

"I'll stick by my usage as the fundamental one. Not least because the Pope does -- who is an extraordinarily brilliant metaphysician and epistemologist as well as superb theologian.

He may very well be brilliant. He may have also come up with a very valid definition for the word. I don't know, I haven't read his definition. Nor do I know that your use is faithful to his interpretation without knowing his version. Perhaps you could explain to me what his definition is?

Aside from that I can only go on what you posted previously. I have reprinted that comment at the top of this post.

You define the term 'confidence' as 'with faith' while describing a situation, the process of methodological naturalism, where confidence is based on observation. Even those natural laws you mention are based on observation. That observation is that when we perform tests, even such basic tests as starting your car in the morning, the results are consistently and reliably the same. Our entire life is spent testing actions and effects. With those that recur regularly and predictably we gain confidence that they will recur reliably in the future.

"My use of the word "faith" is not "equivocal." It is essential.

Unless you are placing your 'faith' in God (which I understand to be a religious faith) within the definition of faith as a learned function of consistent and repeatable effects, you are indeed equivocating.

Since you have yet to define the term 'faith' as you intend it to be understood, I have no idea if it is essential or not.

[Virginia-American]

...But not to a degree that we discover by experience, but only by the second law. Yet the late, great Harvard biologist Gaylord Simpson (among others) has noted that living systems are precisely those systems which are not fully subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Indeed, the fact that they are not so subject is precisely what identifies them as "living" systems. Inorganic, or non-living systems are fully subject. But they are not alive. ...

I don't know what Simpson actually said, but the way you said it is wrong. The 2 LoT applies always and everywhere. Living things accumulate order by harnessing energy from the Sun or food, but this necessarily increases the entropy outside the living thing. Remember that the entropy of a closed system increases, but that living things require stuff from outside them to live. No sun and plants die. No energy-rich sulfur compounds and the microbes around the undersea vents die. No food and we die.