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 imagine he was quoted now and then. And studied in German schools
Whatever Hitler's personal views, he knew how to present a winning platform to the German people. Anti-semitism was part of it, and Luther is the patron saint of anti-semites. (Not that it was unheard of in Catholic Bavaria and Austria; think of Adolf H. as ecumenical). Luther may have used "Jew" as a code word for "Catholic", but I wonder how many people quoting him knew that. (I certainly never heard it before) And sometimes "Jew" meant "Jew".
More precisely, Darwinism is the state religion, foisted on us by the ACLU in violation of the First Amendment.
"Archaeopteryx is a transitional along the sequence of dinosaur to bird.
Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon are transitionals along the sequence of Artiodactyl to Cetacean. This sequence is also backed up by molecular and morphological evidence."
They are not evidence for common decent because no-one has discovered any transitionals between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx (or the others you listed). One day there was a dinosaur, then hundreds of thousands of years (or millions) later this dinosaur became a Archaeopteryx. Where are the transitional formations which logically should be found between these two events? Did the caveman hide them? Did Captain Kirk beam them off the planet? Your evidence is based, yet again, on conjecture and supposition (guess work). Someone came up with this little theory, and then went about trying to prove it in ways that provide no proof. DNA, geneology, strata, etc. Of course DNA exists in common - they all lived on the same planet in which the same genetic codes were used to create all life, but placed in different configurations. If one were to "create" life, why reinvent the wheel? Why not use the same substance already once used, but configure it differently for a different animal structure? Really, this is not rocket science.
As usual, the evo/crevo 'discussion' is being framed as either/or, innately hostile and contentious.
I'd have thought that FR might have offered an alternative that does NOT reek of Muslim/Christian 'choose or die' logic;
How about asking (a) whether or not evolution and intelligent design are both hypotheticals?
And, (b)Is it possible to frame the study in a manner that might prove or disprove that the two could exist side by side?
(Meaning, identify Darwin's observations and identify what they do NOT state, ignore gospels and dogma except as an acknowledged influence along with the counter arguments of atheism, and allow structured discussion regarding what Darwin does NOT explain and what ID might explain, along with what might disprove ID within the framework of observed evolution and devolution of species, how evolution appears now to be a two way street, Etc.
There might be the odd chance that such an approach might actually advance knowledge.
Before you mock God regarding ascorbic acid, you better know ALL of its usage conditions in the human body (hint: including the brain).
I won't wait for an answer. I doubt you'd look it up. You are too busy mocking your Creator.
Like that evil "Physics" and "Astronomy" and "Mathematics" and... *gasp* Gravitism!!
How DARE the State allow this heresy and keep out the "Angels hold airplanes aloft" and the "Hopi Creation Story" and other important concepts that the 1st Amendment INSISTS on!!
(and we wonder why the USA is getting our butts kicked in academics).
Thankfully I will already have returned to God's home.
"I have posted evidence of transitional fossils.
Your belief system prohibits you from recognizing the evidence I posted. Not much more that I can do.
Except maybe quote Heinlein:
Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973"
Funny on how your quote applies to you.
What about using the coercive powers of government to snuff it out? Is that the same thing?
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. Repetition of a falsehood will not make it true.
Thanks betty! Have a good night.
It happens here lots on the creation/evolution threads and someone inevitably gets banned over it when they get too hot on the topic.
You sure do fail a lot. Are you doing ok?
Not using science, no. ID explains how Creationists would like how things to happen. It meets virtually no scientific criteria and certainly is not a "theory."
But thanks for the flowery language. It is always fun to see roses put on garlic plants.
There might be the odd chance that such an approach might actually advance knowledge.
Philsophical knowledge perhaps. And maybe "high flying" thought may open new avenues of inquiry, but unless and until such avenues are part of the scientific process (how can you falsify a Divine Being?) they must properly remain as part of philosophy.
If you can point out where and how it's being snuffed out, go right ahead. I don't see that it is. The 1st Amend forbids it in any case.
If you're going to include claims that creationism and ID are valid science, then I've already addressed that on the thread. They are not.
I am exceedingly greatful for your #466 post, and I have taken no offense from your earlier remarks. I am quite aware that I'm ignorant of many things. The further I went in my education, the more I learned that the less I knew. I have been able to adjust my "Faith" with respect to the concept of "Evolution" (not exactly they way I want to state this, but I believe you understand my meaning). I in no way meant to claim that evolution is not a viable construct, but was inquiring as to where in the fossil record exists those transitionals which would fully explain the theory.
I paid no attention to those who would equate evolution with socialism or Hitlerism. Evolution is an legitimate attempt to explain much that is as yet unexplainable in full, and I realize this. I also know there are people who make their living in the "sciences" who also have a "Faith in the Lord". One of my Professors is in that mold. He explained his position on both, which included an acknowledgement that evolution as a theory has many flaws as well as validity. It is not a complete theory, and perhaps will never be. I have no axe to grind, and an interested in learning new things. But people who put before me that which I've already been exposed to and say "see, there it is" aren't very convincing when I wasn't convinced the first time around (in the courses I took). When my Prof was unable to agree with the evols that there is evidence of one animal becoming a different animal based on the current fossil record, well, then how am I to say it is so? Reason suggests that the fossil record would have more transitionals than what has presently been found that would show more of the evolutionary changes from one to another subspecies or species. But, no-one has found those transitionals as yet. When they do, then I'll have more evidence to derive a different perspective.
You do not make a valid point by taking my words out of context.
My comments to you regarding post 466 stand. I won't change what I say because of some comment I don't like.
Didn't need to be fixed in the first place.
Too bad. I'm having too much fun with the stimulating exchanges to become too hot about any comments.
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.