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.
What biological experiments?
There's a couple of interesting examples in the recent issue of Microbiology Today.
This page discusses some experiments in evolving fruit flies in conditions which involve specific learning tasks. Here's an overview of their research from New Scientist.
First of all, I doubt there is as much agreement as you imply. I haven't seen it myself. I don't trust textbooks written by folks who go at their exploration with a particular outcome in view. Hence, like most scientists, I remain a skeptic until the evidence is presented in its fulness.
Second, the size of the earth makes the number of samples taken to date more or less insignificant. Is it not a mathematical fact that, the bigger the deck of cards and choices, the lower the probability? The sheer volume of geological data most likely makes for probability akin to a singal individual winning all the lotteries on the same day.
Lastly, since evolution theories have adopted an arbitrary process that will fit the evidence no matter how it turns up, they have no more credibility in describing objective reality than simple declarations such as "God did it."
How many times have you seen the sun rise? I would suspect that it is a tiny percentage of all the times that the sun rose. You still believe it's going to rise tommorrow, right? We believe in a geological column because, even though we haven't explored a significant percentage of it, every place that is explored shows the same basic record. Whether you dig in Africa, China, Colorado, or Argentina (or any other place that we've dug so far), the basic record is the same. Since we've seen the same thing everywhere, so far, we assume that there must be a regularity in the fossil record. Without evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to assume that the worldwide geological column is similar everywhere. If we dig somewhere and see something completely different, then science will modify this belief.
Suppose I could prove to your satisfaction that there is currently not enough water on earth to have caused the great flood. Why should this make you give up creationism? Couldn't God have produced the necessary water to cause the flood and then caused it to disappear when the flood ended? When you can invoke an omnipotent God, no observation constitutes a falsification. That is why creationism is not science.
Brew uses a typical creationcrapsite rhetorical trick, thinking it is not transparent to us.
It might have been well stated, but it was totally in error. Don't you guys EVER give up defending your cult from reality?
Science is not belief.
"Lastly, since evolution theories have adopted an arbitrary process that will fit the evidence no matter how it turns up, they have no more credibility in describing objective reality than simple declarations such as "God did it.""
First, evolution has NOT adopted an "arbitrary" process. It uses scientific method and peer review just like all science.
Lastly, if you see that claiming "God did it" is not credible in matters of science, why do you continue to do it?
I'm sorry but you are quoting Darwin out of context. If you did not understand my post explaining that, that is scientific evidence that you did not understand what Darwin said in the first place.
I think you are proof-texting the way your cult uses the Bible to promote crap, but using Darwin this time. Darwin is not the Bible. There are some errors in Origin, but I doubt if you can find the real errors. When are you going to stop lying to defend your cult?
He never cited this quote, but did for another one, which turned out to be taken completely out of context. In fact, the passage was making the complete opposite point Andy said he thought it did (I really think Andy is trying to fool people into believing creationist nonsense).
LOL, arguing with Brew is like debating a random word generator.
It's called theistic evolution, and it isn't all that uncommon. It is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, for example.
sTell me what an allele is.
Andy:Look it up yourself, Mr false biology teacher. You don't know how to read so you might have a difficult time.
Why this great emotion when you are asked a simple science question? If you can't answer what an allele is, I will gladly explain it to you. Just raise your hand and say, "I don't understand what an allele is Dr. shubi." The concept of allele is fundamental to understanding how evolution works over millions of years and how the tree of life can be so diverse from single cell organisms to elephants.
We all can tell by now that you don't know much about biology or science in general. You do seem to have a good memory for creationcrapsite propaganda, though.
That is the whole point. You don't have to believe creationistcrapsite cultish nonsense to be a Christian.
They try to force their belief down the throats of Christians and unbelievers, by threatening everyone with Hell if they don't believe the nonsense. It is a form of terrorism.
Hypotheses of abiogenesis are absolutely NOT part of evolution. There may be abiogenesis hypotheses in biology books because that is the explanation science has to offer. These, unlike evolution, are not theories, however, but hypotheses. The idea that God created the first life forms is outside the realm of science. Even if God did create the first life forms, it causes absolutely no problems for the theory of evolution, which only describes what happened to life after it began.
The words "the same" are loaded. How much the same? Just like "it is written" in college textbooks?
Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong. Overturning, overthrust faulting, or landsliding are frequently maintained as disrupting the order. In some locations such structural changes can be supported by physical evidence while elsewhere physical evidence of the disruption may be lacking and special pleading may be required using fossils or radiometric dating. -Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. The notion that the earth's crust has on "onion skin" structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete.
In short, a quantitative analysis of current geologic data indicates far less is known about the earth's history than theories of evolution imply. Even with the small amount of exploration accomplished to date, it is only scratching the surface. According to this author, the surface has not been consistent.
To be fair, I have not personally observed any of this data, so I must simply say, there does not appear agreement between those who study the geologic record.
Ever heard of "natural selection?"
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.