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.
Last time I checked the ant population has all the genetic material necessary to reproduce and thrive. It always has. Now, if Orkin had their way it really wouldn't matter much to that popluation, would it?
That would often be inconvenient for them, so it doesn't happen.
If an allele has a beneficial effect early in life, and a detrimental effect late in life, it will still be favoredSome things take more than half a second of thought. Maybe "common sense" is being too shallow in its analysis.
What part of "it will still be favored" means anything less than "beneficial" when it comes to natural selection?
Would it be too inconvenient for you to calculate what percentage of the earth's geological record has been exposed for scientific observation and analysis? How about providing a scientifically accurate definition of time? I see the evolutionists have fallen short in this regard. Maybe it's time for them to forget the past and deal with the present.
Amazing. Populations are a description or a grouping. They are like the forest. The forest is made of real things called trees. Selection works on individuals. Living things die. Populations disappear or become extinct when the all of the things they consist of become something else or die. Gosh you are simply desperate to deny the weaknesses of the theory.
We've been sampling for over 200 years. If all we have is a sampling error, it's the biggest, most utterly incredible sampling error in human history.
Maybe it's time for them to forget the past and deal with the present.
How can you be sure, if you don't know what time is? What you're doing on this thread isn't debate. It's heckling. Little last-wordisms batted out as fast as you can type.
Like you said, some things take less than a half-second of thought.
Beneficial to the genes or beneficial to the individual?
The individual and/or the population.
No, I said some things take more. You're a disgrace to humanity, much less Christianity.
Sampling error doesn't depend on the population size. It only depends on the sample size.
Yeah, as oppossed to the "proven" non-creationist theories. Give me a break - they both take faith. non-creatoinist theories try to hide behind science.
I don't give a rat's behind how long we've been sampling. I want to know how much of the earth we've sampled on a percentage basis.
What you're doing on this thread isn't debate. It's heckling.
I understand the goose and the gander are somehow related. Have you heard about it? The heckling is well-deserved.
At the same time, I'm asking questions, and certain proponents of evolution theories are not giving answers. Dang straight, if I'm going to be accused of being lazy in the argument for not be an expert in every field I won't sit still while my simple questions are avoided.
If you make such sweeping generalizations based upon a simple misquote it is no wonder you are willing extrapolate billions of years out of a so-called geloligic column.
I've mentioned to you before now that you have no postyle other than bludgeoning with your ignorance and unwillingness to understand. So have a few others that I've noticed lately. IOW, I've been sampling you for years. Even this you pretend not to understand.
I'm so glad no one is like you in my real life.
Ignorance is bliss they say. Do you find it so?
At any rate, it took me slightly more than half a second to figure out that "beneficial, neutral, and deleterious" are, at bottom, acccurate words to assess the overall functions where genetic material and natural selection are concerned. If you and the folks whom you trust want to propose all kinds of stages in between that is all the better, as it only adds to the ad hoc appearance of evolution theories.
The good news is I made up a word. The bad news is I didn't mean to.
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.