Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
I'm not sure what you said is even English. Could yo provide some concrete examples?
I pointed out a known. Harmful mutations were found in a wild species. The unknown conjecture was a conclusion made by the scientists, that these harmful mutations must have been compensated for in a yet to be discovered way. I merely pointed out that harmful mutations were, therefore, fixed in the genome(passed on). That is counter to what Darwin states. I clearly show that with the citations.
What does this mean? "Surviving" and "benefits" are generally regarded as positive things. "Mitigation" is generally regarded as correcting a negative thing.
Those are theories that have a basis in observed processes, and they, too, are still under construction. ID is hardly "lethal to scientific inquiry." It is the very foundation of existence and the ability to inquire intelligently about it. It does not need to assert itself into the foreground and prove itself before we begin to ask questions and test what has been placed before us. It is operative before the observer has a first thought about the whole puzzle. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
To the extent arguments for ID draw attention to themselves they look bad. It's like grabbing a beer out of the refrigerator and then trying to prove "scientifically" to anyone who might be paying attention that it is cold and is about to be consumed.
I'm sure you can cherry pick Darwin. Good for you. Quote mining is neither science nor a productive debate tactic.
From a purely functional standpoint, genes that do not cause a species to go extinct are not harmful, regardless of how a sentimental person might be distressed by the apparent suffering they might cause individuals.
The only meaningful definition of a harmful gene is one that gets selected out.
If you can find an isolated phrase in Darwin that appears to say evolution produces happy individuals, good for you. The only tendency produced by evolution is survival of breeding populations.
I notice you didn't provide the examples I requested.
Have you not yet figured out that that is the goal of these discussions? If you made a rule saying you couldn't make inflammatory statements, most of these folks would never come back.
Not to mention there are genes that are profitable to the individual when young but which limit individual life spans. Most of our aging arises from this (plus accumulated wear-and-tear issues). The early benefit has far more selection weight than the late penalty. If you're living long enough to have a few kids and see them to maturity, you don't matter anymore.
"Mitigate" was a bad choice of wording, as I only meant to refer to its diminuative quality and not anything negative about the thing being diminished. "Lessen" would be a better choice.
|
Cherry pick!!!???? You're stark raving mad. That is a central concept of Darwin. Do a search on "improve" in "Origin of Species".
Look at this point we have all three types of mutations being fixed in the genome, beneficial, neutral, and deleterious. What the heck is selected?
"Good and bad are relative to the environment of the population in question."
This is somewhat true, but when talking about evolution in general I think it is useful to categorize such things relative to increases in complexity and enzyme specificity, for that is ultimately the proposition which evolutionists lay before everyone -- that our DNA became increasingly complex due to environmental factors only, over billions of years turning single-celled organisms into people.
Saying that sickle-cell anemia can be beneficial to a population is like saying that being burned beyond recognition can be beneficial. Sure, a terrorist might have some benefit from it by no longer being recognized at airports, but it hardly does anything to advance the idea of increasing complexity in DNA.
I will try to do that, but, for the sake of maintaining a proper understanding between us, please tell me how you want to use the word "population" in this context, and I'll go at it from there.
At any reat, what I have in mind are certain catastrophic phemenomena that could wipe out a population regardless of its ability to survive in these conditions.
Such is the malady that infects every human heart, including my own. Even St. Peter at one time was convinced of how God is supposed to do things and then told God to His face.
It does not surprise me in the least that evolution theories gained a stronger foothold later in history. What surprises me is that these new comers continue to cling like barnacles to the ship of free inquiry and liberal education without being questioned more rigorously in the public arena.
Very well stated.
That is an oversimplification. Numerous examples have been given of more complex categorizations. You have yet to address any of the examples. Genes can shorten the life of an individual, even prevent individuals from breeding, and still benefit the species. Selection operates on populations.
I take it you understand the agent behind the "because" in this statement to be natural selection. Does natural selection have any laws of its own by which we might predeict, test, and observe its operation, or does it act arbitraily and thus allow us to ascribe some purpose after we see the results?
I've noticed that almost none of the Creationists seem to understand the difference between a population and an individual. One is tempted to suggest these (scientific) sluggards look toward the ant.
What kind of shell game is this, anyways? Think about a gene like the one mentioned above. Is it one you would like to have? Are you unable, on the basis of its general effect, to categorize it as any of the following:
a. beneficial
b. neutral
c. deleterious
Does an operative principle intended to result in a survivable population introduce a gene that shortens life and does not allow for reproduction? To most folks with a little common sense a gene such as this would be considered "deleterious."
It certainly goes against the operating principles of natural selection as an agent opting in favor of beneficial genes so essential to all the progress we've enjoyed for these "billions" of years. Otherwise, if natural selection operates without principle and can be arbitrary, then what is it's value other than pretending it was operative as we describe the past?
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.