Posted on 05/27/2004 8:16:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Why is it that they want to teach religion in the public schools? As I hear of the debate going on about teaching evolution or intelligent design, I have to protest. There are those who want to teach creationism from Genesis. No one wants this, as this is not science. Let's leave history to the historians, religion to those trained in theology and science to scientists. I do not want my child being taught religion, of any sort, by anyone but a member of the clergy -- one whom I have approved of. My neighbor may pick someone else. This is as it should be.
When it comes to science, we assume that our children are being taught the scientific method, from the development of a hypothesis, to the gathering of evidence to the formulation of a working theory. Science knows that most things cannot be established as absolute fact. It works with reasonable theories that more often than not hold true under scrutiny. So far, science.
This is the problem: Our children are being taught that evolution is a fact. There simply is not enough evidence to even make it a theory. At best it is a hypothesis. This is fine, but this is not how it is presented. Anyone remember the TV show Cosmos? Carl Sagan said that evolution is a fact. By saying this, he was telling us about his faith and belief, but not science.
Intelligent design is science. Let's take it out and away from Genesis and leave it there so that we can explore scientifically a body of evidence. Even many scientists have decided that life here on Earth was seeded by an alien race, as the data just does not support Darwinian evolution. Not one link to bridge any species-to-species jump has turned up.
Intelligent design is based on information theory. Information theory states that the least bit of randomness introduced to an information system creates chaos and destroys that system. It will never lead to positive change.
Our DNA is an information system, and all life has it. Mathematics sides with design rather than chance. The probability for chance to create such great diversity of life, let alone one strand of DNA, on this planet is very close to impossible. Design, on the other hand, is most highly probable.
All this is science and ought to be taught. Just because it requires a super-intelligence is of no concern to science. There are many things we have discovered that are bigger than we are. Not all things can be known.
I wish humanity would get off this arrogant kick that it can get its little finite and mortal brain around everything.
Why can't there be something far bigger and superior in the universe (or outside it) that we never can explain? Let's deal with what we do have and look at it scientifically.
Evolution has simply become a religion -- the opiate of the masses. It takes faith to believe in something that lacks so much in evidence to support it. Let it become extinct with the dinosaur. We have invested so much time and money into it, but it is time to be honest and let it go. As a great society that leads the world in its information technology, we ought to turn this talent to good use. The wonders of life have the imprint of a great mind, which we ought to be thrilled to investigate.
Thanks for the daily installment 0f - 'As ID Turns', or 'let's redefine science'.
I guess this is the ultimate straw-man setup. I'm 55 years old, I grew up among six-day Creationists. I've known, literally thousands of them. I never heard a creationist say the dinosaurs didn't exist. I'm sure, if you look hard enough, that's possible ---but you'd have to be a man on a mission.
That's correct, the DNA of a living organism is vastly more complicated.
You'll soon discover that some believe that America has freedom of religion, as long as that religion is a flavor of Christianity.
You're quite welcome. Exciting times we live in.
I guess you should just go tell all those people at MIT that they're wasting their time trying to make computers out of DNA because DNA and computers have nothing in common.
I'm sure all those PhDs will slap their heads at their stupidity once you, with your blinding intellect, inform them of their ignorance.
Evolutionist Strawman #15: Misrepresent how people view the bible to discredit a theory that has nothing to do with the Bible in the first place.
It's okay to take off your burqua, Mr. 666...you're among friends here at FR.
Well that depends on the organism involved, the size of the computer database, and the precise meaning of "complicated". The "amount" of data contained in the human genome is around 800 megabytes(~3.2 billion base pairs).
This is very true. We haven't found any evidence that UFOs routinely land in Roswell, NM, but, of course, that doesn't mean they don't.
You see, the problem is, evolutionary theory predicts that the fossil record should be FULL of these sorts of bridges. The fact that we haven't found one despite having unearthed literally millions of fossils IS evidence. Evidence that the prediction is WRONG. Therefore the theory needs to be modified.
This is a known problem in the community, which is why Punctuated Equilibrium is resurrected every few years.
You mean like the Big Bang people who pretty much shrug their shoulders and say: You know, we just don't know and never really will know what came before the Big Bang.
Probably? Wait a minute, I thought we are looking for certainties here. And dragons? Isn't that concept rather "heathen" and therefore not reliable.
As for the Leviathan, Jonah refers to them as whales.
Evolutionist strawman #43: Take the experimentally established and verified principle of microevolution (variation within a species) and equate it with macroevolution (change into new species) and use it as proof that macroevolution is fact.
I found that out a long time ago. As a Christian, it goes against my religion.....;^)
"Getting by" has nothing to do with evolution. If a case can be made that three hands would give mothers an advantage in sucessfully rearing children, then selection pressures would push toward mothers with three hands.
In fact, this points out another flaw in the theory. Since ALL life undergoes a steady, random mutation rate over time, the theory predicts that there shouldn't be ANY life forms still existing in the same form for 600 million years. Sharks violate a prediction made by evolutionary theory.
This is also known in the community and is another reason that punctuated equilibrium continually rears it's head.
Here is another example; brussel sprouts. They have evolved via selective breeding (as opposed to natural selection). Please tell us, exactly what species do brussel sprouts belong to? And will they cross pollenate within that species?
You obviously never met my mother.
She's given in an accepted that they did exist, but I remember as a child being told that they never existed on this planet.
A picture worth a thousand words. There are those who belive a Christian cannot act like a Muslim Fundamental. They are wrong. What would John Brown have done with a nuclear bomb?
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.