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.
Did you realize you got sucked into reading a "cattle mutilation" tale in the middle of a discussion (supposed) of some internal polling results?
Well, it's still early. Think I'll go drop some chicken embryos from a great height, and mutilate some pig parts.
I can't imagine a four year degree in "evolutionary biology". What a waste of a life. At some point, St. Peter is going to ask that dude what he did with the brains and talent he was given, and that's not going to be much of an answer.
Again, the answer to the basic question, "Should religion be put on an equal footing with evolution in the classroom?" is "Only if the religion you choose is the RIGHT one, so as to have an apples to apples comparison." i.e. it has to be a religion which works on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, i.e. evolution vs voodoo or evolution vs rastafari. That's almost an insult to the rastas, but it's the closest there is.
If you don't mention these things to the kids in the right environment they are going to grow up holding to unchallenged beliefs they picked up here and there.
You're going to have to go a fur piece with your explanation of how archaeologists are supporting evolution ~ remember, they are NOT paleontologists and work with a far shorter period of time ~ and keep themselves focused on "material evidence" of human development ~ e.g. tools, buildings, etc.
I've always found randomly screaming at people helps to further my arguments as well.
I've always found randomly screaming at people helps to further my arguments as well.
= = =
Maybe I should try it sometime.
I used to be pretty good at it, IIRC.
LOL.
Evidence?
No idea ~ you might look it up. I can't believe that removing Creationism and other "non-evolution" type material from the biology curriculum would leave Lamarckianism intact, can you?
Thanks for your very moving post and example. Thanks tons.
A curiosity as a shrink . . . did the missionary to China speak some Chinese longer than English when languages started to go?
They were highly likely to be at least slightly different areas of the brain involved . . . so possibly one would go before the other. Maybe not, though.
Has long been a curiosity of mine.
I've also wondered how long folks early diagnosed with Alzheimer's who'd learn some basic non-known language vocabuleary--such as Spanish or German or Chinese . . .
such as "No," "yes," "higher," "lower," "more," "less,"
1234567890, cold, hot, hard to breathe, hard to swallow, toilet
etc.
Would the MORE RECENTLY LEARNED foreign language vocabulary and conscioiusness last longer than the older English brain pathways? Would they afford longer facility at SOME communication as things began to really shut down mentally?
I don't know. Couldn't get my dad to do it with my mother soon enough and I wasn't around then. Then, too, her English was somewhat functional right up to the end. She died of a heart attack on the toilet as he held her there. Very touching.
Certainly we know that brains have a surprising ability to build new neural connections--evidently our whole lives. And, newer connections supposedly would have less of the plaque causing Alzheimer's. Anyway--if anyone knows of a study shedding light on such a question, please let me know.
EARLY THEORIES OF EVOLUTIONSource: Biology: A Study of Life (1990)Objectives:
1. Outline Lamarck's theory of evolution.
2. Describe Weismann's experiment to show that acquired characteristics are not inherited.
3. Explain the principle of natural selection.
4. List the six main points of Darwin's theory of evolution.
5. State the chief weakness of Darwin's theory. 6. Explain the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Up to this point in the chapter you have read some of the scientific evidence for believing that organic evolution did occur. However, the evidence for evolution does not explain how or why it occurred. The remainder of the chapter deals with theories of how evolutionary change is brought about.
28-9 Lamarck's Theory of Evolution
One of the first theories of evolution was presented by the French biologist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck in 1809. From his studies of animals, Lamarck became convinced that species were not constant, but evolved from preexisting species. He believed that evolutionary changes in animals were caused by their need to adapt to changes in the environment.According to Lamarck's theory, evolution involved two principles. The first was his law of use and disuse.
According to this principle, the more an animal uses a particular part of its body, the stronger and better developed that part becomes. Also, the less a part is used, the weaker and less developed it becomes. An athlete, for example, develops the strength of certain muscles by constant use. On the other hand, muscles that are not used tend to become smaller and weaker by disuse. The second part of Lamarck's theory was the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lamarck made the assumption that the characteristics an organism developed through use and disuse of various parts of its body could be passed on to its offspring.
According to Lamarck, the long neck of the giraffe would have evolved in the following way (see Figure 28-11). The ancestors of modern giraffes had short necks and fed on grasses and shrubs close to the ground. As the supply of food near the ground decreased, the giraffes had to stretch their necks to reach leaves higher off the ground. Their necks then became longer from stretching, and this trait was...
Excellent points.
Oh, I think it's great fun, on occasion,
to highlight the "KOOK LABELERS, KOOK FLINGERS, . . . "
and their rank double-standard hypocrisies . . . just for kicks.
But, hey, call me whatever you wish. It will highlight more pointedly your future educational enlightenments, when they arrive. Kind of a kick-in-the-pants punctuation sort of function.
Should be interesting. Very interesting in a sad, shallow sort of way.
Oh, dear!
Reasonable facts on a CREVO thread?
Won't wonders never cease!
Wise post. Thanks.
You mean you expect a reasonably consistent standard, criteria on reasonably similar issues to be applied in public school settings by EVO's?
Must take a LOT of faith! LOL.
Admit it, you are selective.
= = = =
Selective perception is an interesting psychological phenomena. . . . not unlike a mule with blinders on.
Speaking of mules with blinders on . . .
The big push between the Creationists and the Evolutionists is of more recent vintage.
Seriously, I suspect Lamarckianism has been dropped from the biology texts by the publishers simply to avoid risk of loss of sales as state laws on the matter are "reinterpreted".
We have some Freepers with experience in the textbook business. They might know. I just did a quick google.com search and didn't find anything one way or the other although it has popped up in some of the discussions concerning banning of either Creation stories or Evolution (both having been banned at different times by different folks for various reasons).
Actually, my perspective is that there's tons more hard, scientific, court-room level proof of God and His priorities as outlined in The Bible
than there is for TToE.
And, that TToE requires a LOT more groundless, blind faith.
Of course, I wouldn't expect an EVO to be ABLE to see such a truth unless & until God gives them something similar to a Damascus road experience. Stubbornness is functionally a very powerful set of blinders.
LOL.
It was rather fun.
Basically you have had your ass handed to you, and you are acting like the frat boys in "Animal House."
"Thank you sir, may I have another?"
I don't have a more recent high school text at home, but I'll be back.
When you have some solid evidence, something that you can literally put your hands on, like a fossil
Yes, I can literally put my hands on evidence of the Big bang, just as I can literally put my hands on the evidence for the theory of evolution.
No you can't.
Don't forget other inconvenient scientific theories like relativity, string theory, gravitation, strong and weak molecular forces, black holes,... There's a whole plethora of things science investigates that cannot be held in ones hand and research papers, pictures, and graphs are not the same as an actual physical object.
I can literally put my hands on the measurements, on the pictures, on the peer reviewed reports by scientists.
If those things are adequate evidence for scientists, the the written testimony of people who lived with Jesus and talked to Him is adequate to use as hard evidence that He lived and died and is everything He said He was, so when He said that God created the heavens and the earth, it has all the weight of the scientific peer reviewed research papers that scientists put their faith in.
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.