Posted on 11/29/2012 7:56:08 PM PST by kathsua
The new standard for teaching science in public schools should prohibit teaching religious beliefs like evolution as if they were the equivalent of scientific theories.
Science should be defined as using experimentation and observation to discover information about physical reality. Explanations of what happened in the ancient past cannot be verified using experimentation and observation.
----------advertisement-----------
Contrary to a popular myth pushed by those who want to make science a substitute for religion, science has yet to produce a new explanation for the development of life or the origin of the universe.
The idea that the universe came out of a black hole (the "Big Bang" theory) became popular in the 20th century, but it is hardly a new explanation. An account attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch (Noah's great-grandfather) first described an event in which "all of creation" came out of an invisible object with a fiery light inside (i.e., a black hole) thousands of years ago. Many cultures use the word "egg" to describe the object the universe came out of.
The idea of one species changing to another, particularly the idea of humans being related to apes, was around long before Charles Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species." Darwin was reluctant to say we are a monkey's grandchildren, so he just suggested that we are distant cousins. The ancient Tibetan religion had no such inhibitions and claims that we are descended from monkeys.
Evolutionists ignore the fact that humans use gradual changes to develop complex equipment. Development of biological life through gradual changes implies that an Intelligence developed life.
I know that Darwin’s theory of natural selection of genetic variation is the best explanation for how life has changed and how it continues to change. I know that it is a useful model.
I also know that creationism is useless.
Creationism may be rooted in order and reason. Scientific it is not. It would help itself most by not pretending to be. But then it would erase its reason for being, which is to supplant what it sees as the cold and artificial mechanistic worldview not started by yet greatly empowered by Darwinism.
I would suggest it retreat back into metaphysics and not threaten Darwinists on their own turf, because there’s more than one way to supplant them. Consider instead of you conquering them and occupying their turf their population spontaneously migrating over to yours.
Different time scale, although these days Western Europeans seem hell bent on eliminating themselves from the gene pool. A little nudge from the Caliphate and they're history.
Having said that, if evolution is still working should not other species show changes in social structures, use of tools, language development, physical improvements, &c, &c? Where are the "other" intelligent species that should have evolved along with Homo Erectus? Or did our ancestors completely obliterate the competition so that not even a fossil record remains (the missing link is still missing!).
Regards,
GtG
That's silly. People didn't need government funding to ask questions like, Why do really old rocks have fossils that don't look like anything living today while younger rocks have fossils that look kind of recognizable? Why do some fish have eyes but are blind? Why do some sea-dwelling animals breathe air while most don't? Why do reptiles and birds lay eggs but people and horses don't? Why are there animals in Australia that don't exist anywhere else?
People didn't need government funding to come up with the theory of evolution as an elegant way to answer all of those questions in a consistent fashion. And because it does, it doesn't need government support to dominate the scientific landscape.
I’ve always had a tough time accepting “computer science” as science. Either it’s an applied science, in which case it’s really a special branch of engineering, or it’s more of a philosophy, i.e. concerned with logic and abstract mathematics. The way you talk about proofs sounds more like geometry, for instance, than anything to do with the scientific method as ar know it.
At best it’s a deductive rather than empirical science. On the bright side that means it escapes the infamous problem of induction.
There is no natural tendency for apes to become more human like - any more than there is a natural tendency for wolves to become more dog like.
So you way as well have asked - “if dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?”.
Australopithocine are missing? Homo habilis is missing? Homo erectus is missing? Where did they go?
... which means you're delusional.
So... I put to you a clear, simple question...
Do you know that Darwinism is responsible for the history of life which developed on this planet?
This is the third try at this. I know you can do this!
To clarify, it would be perfectly fine to use the term “computer science” in the early days of the enlightenment, back when “science” still denoted knowledge purely and simply, and applied to all the branches of learning, including philosophy, for instance. Since then, in part thanks to the undeniable practical achievements of the empirical scientific method, it has attached itself more exclusively to what used to be called “natural science,” or knowledge of the rules governing the natural or created world.
Computer science seems to me a holdover from the older meaning, ignoring the applied side.
“science by consensus - which by the way flys directly in the face of every major scientific breakthrough/paradigm shift”
There isn’t any other way for science to work but by consensus, unless science lives only in the heart of the individual and the rest is anarchy. Really it’s a whole third of the scientific method. First you have a theory, then you test it, then your results are reproduced by others. You wouldn’t be able to have a breakthrough or shift the paradigm unless others began accepting your new theory over the old one.
Evolution isn’t science.
The whole theory is based on forensic evidence and extrapolation.
The whole theory is based on interpreting the forensic evidence through base assumptions and then extrapolating to conclude that which was assumed and used to interpret the forensic evidence that was extrapolated....
:)
Where they get a better education than any public school indoctrinated drone.
Microbes adapt, which is not the same as what evolutionists claim happened for species to evolve.
What is “Darwinism”? Is there also “Newtonism” or “Mendelism”?
Sorry if I don't play your silly game the way you want it played, (strike three? really? grow up!) but I reject the ignorant premise of the question.
But if you asked me if I KNEW the Bohr model of the atom was correct - as a scientist I could only tell you that it is a USEFUL model that helps to explain and predict facts. Currently it is the most useful and predictive model. If I said I KNEW it was correct, that would be to betray the scientific principle that theories are provisional based upon the evidence. If new evidence came in, and a new theory derived that was more useful and predictive - I would abandon the Bohr model of the atom.
Similarly, the theory of natural selection of genetic variation is the most useful and predictive model for explaining and predicting facts about the history (and future) of living things on Earth.
Meanwhile creationism is useless.
Now cry some more about how I am not playing fair! It amuses me!
Yeah, those public school kids don't stand a chance at getting any of the good jobs so that'll be all that's left for them.
SAT/ACT homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp
Standardized test scores homeschoolers:
This link explains what BM is talking about.
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts
If a terrorist can be president, evolution can be science; its all in how you cover your eyes.
>> “But if you asked me if I KNEW the Bohr model of the atom was correct - as a scientist I could only tell you...” <<
.
If you’re a scientist, my butt is solid 24K gold.
Oh wait! You really believe that it does! LOL!!!! Oh the hilarity that ensues when a creationist geocentrist tries to discuss science.
Like a primitive discussing fire with barely articulate grunts! They don't know what it is, they know it might be useful, but they hate it and fear it!
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.