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.
Pretty good. The idea I was trying to point out to Andy was the passage he quoted shot down the creationist idea of special creation and falsified their take on the Bible.
In other words, his argument made the Bible look bad, made God look bad and makes Christians look like fools. That is the whole problem with Bible literalism. It is why it is important to understand the reasoning behind these quotes:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Shubi, what is your opinion on the use of the Darwin fish symbol by so many militant atheists and, in some cases, ferocious haters of God? Just drive down any busy street and you'll eventually spot a car with a Darwin fish bumper sticker, usually accompanied by assorted leftist and anti-Christian bumper stickers. It seems that for many on the kooky left, Darwinian evolution is a religion in and of itself. It's a substitute for the Christianity they so despise.
I am a Christian and do not consider the Darwin fish to be a big affront to my christianity, since I know that God used evolution to continue his creation.
I do think the Darwin fish and all its itterations are funny. They mock Bible literalists. That is the whole point of making sure that Bible interpretation meets reality of science.
Who would want to join a group that is ignorant?
####I do think the Darwin fish and all its itterations are funny.####
Perhaps! But surely you would have to admit that the logo showing a Christian fish devouring the Darwin fish ("survival of the fittest") is also pretty witty!
####They mock Bible literalists. That is the whole point of making sure that Bible interpretation meets reality of science.####
Something tells me you aren't quite getting the point those people sporting Darwin logos are trying to make. They're essentially shouting to the world that God doesn't exist. I think the American Atheists group (Madeline Murray O'Haire's group) even sells those Darwin fish stickers, buttons, T-shirts, etc.
####Who would want to join a group that is ignorant?####
Not me, I'm a conservative Christian Republican! :-)
Do you think it is right for a Christian to mock an atheist with a Darwin fish swallowing a smaller fish?
Just check out the site below. Click on the shopping link:
http://www.atheists.org/
#####Do you think it is right for a Christian to mock an atheist with a Darwin fish swallowing a smaller fish?#####
I think it's well within the bounds of political satire! I have no problem with someone putting such a sticker on their car, wearing a T-shirt with such a logo, etc. Actually, as a 1st Amendment supporter I have no problem with atheists donning the Darwin fish logo, just as I support the right of Kerry supporters to express their preferences, even though I may disagree with them.
I tend to agree with you.
But evolution is a fact and it does not contradict the Bible. Thus, the so-called Christians that are in the creationist cult are wrong to mock atheists and the atheists who think Darwin contradicts the bible are wrong.
Truth will out.
Again, I say to you that you are WRONG!! OK, go study some biology and get back to me in a few years, if I haven't died of frustation from trying to teach creationists about science.
"The complexity of life is great, which means that the probability is small."
This is simply the fallacy of personal incredulity. If you are truly a scientist, you will study the science until you understand. Speciation has been observed. The processes for how a single cell can turn into "complex" organisms is understood in some detail.(I say "complex" because a single celled organism is pretty darn complex.)
How can I put this so you won't be offended?
You are wrong. ;-)
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.