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.
Like the vote in Cuba or Iran or Iraq under Sodom.
Nancy Pearcey documented in Total Truth some leading evolutionists looking for a consensus rather than truth or even factual information. Sounds like postmodern science to me.
I forgot the </creationist mode> tag on that post.
A lack of myostatin is not evolutionary progression, would you really call this beneficial?
The creation of matter, energy and the laws of physics from nothing.
Yes, but where was Gomorrah in all this?
Would you have the same belief if you were born in China? Or perhaps in an African tribe?
Be honest now.
Assuming your answer is "no", then how come you were so lucky to have been born in a place where the "truth" was taught, while those other people are wrong?
I agree with you that there might have been intervention by an intelligent designer. I have always maintained that evolution is in no way incompatible with creationism or ID. (Just with certain interpretations of the Bible) Science has no way of showing that there has been (indeed nor that there has not been) any such intervention, however. This is outside the realm of science and should not be taught as science. If schools want to teach ideas such as this in a comparitive religion or some other appropriate setting, I have no problem with that.
PatrickHenry wrote:
... , but they have been genetically engineered by humans. (oop, could this be a case of evidence for intelligent design?).
Ah yes, that silly ol' argument. It goes like this:
1. All lab experiments are designed by humans.
2. Therefore ... the case for ID is proven!
I think that sums up your case. If I left out any steps, please feel free to let me know.
......................................................
Show me the definitive evidence of the process of one species "evolving" into another. You and Darwin could never do this. Thus the "missing link" theory in this evolution myth. Yes their are many instances of extinct species with similarities with existing species, but no definitive evidence of a link. Until there is, it remains a theory with as much validity IMHO as creationism.
Nor is the existence of God, and thus, neither is "Intelligent Design"
So I take it you missed that whole resurrection from the dead thing that permanently changed mankind for the past 2000 years.
Jesus doesn't force people to believe in Him, He persuades them. Guess why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.
Where did you think these guys got the ideas?
Primary Source Documents Pertaining to Early American History
Bump
"May appear to" in some phenotypes is pretty thin gruel fo a big hearty FACT like evolution. How about a new organ or something? Maybe how a two way reptile lung became a one way bird lung?
While I certainly understand why an ardent evolutionist sees a connection between creationism and ID, it makes no logical sense why they would rule out design a priori. The one and only reason for ruling out a Creator or ID's designer is that the naturalistic assumptions of evolution would be refuted. Therefore evolutionism must abandon objectivity and deny what we observe rather than explain it.
How so? Doesn't the Bible teach that God created everything from nothing. Thus that supports ID, rather than falsifying it. (Unless God is not an intelligent designer).
I am very fortunate to live in a country where Christianity is allowed. You are correct. And sure, people in China or Africa (althougth there are now a good portion of Christians in these areas) may have a different belief than me, but that does not make their opinion valid.
I believe every word that Christ said. So yes, it is my opinion, but...
No. Numerous mutations over many generations make a new species.
Stick a fork in him; he's done!
So how was it that Noah got all those animals into the Ark? And how was it that all those dry land plants survived that Noah didn't bring with him?
If you're going to have some hyper-litteral interpretation of the early parts of Genesis, then you're going to have to explain some things.
On the other hand, if you can say that these were merely parables, like the ones that Jesus told, then Evolution fits into Genesis just fine.
Well, I'm glad that you have no problem with Intellegent Design being taught in the schools. That is all I was ever trying to say. I have no problem with evolution also being taught, but for it to be presented as "the way that life began" is not right.
As far as intellegent design being taught in science classes, I would disagree that it is not "scientific." Biology may not really deal with the issue, but phyics and chemistry certainly do.
In conclusion, there is alot of "science" in the theory of intellegent design.
Great, and you are entitled to hold to whatever beliefs and opinions you wish. However, that is not how science works. Science looks at observed data and tries to explain how things got to be that way. It then comes up with an explanation for it. That explanation is tested to see if it is consistent with the observations. If it is, it becomes a theory. Good theories inevitably make predictions about things that haven't yet been observed. When more observations are made, either they are consistent with the predictions of the theory, in which case the theory is strengthened, or they are inconsistent, in which case the theory is modified or abandoned. An idea for which the primary evidence is "it says so in the Bible" or "look around and the work of God is obvious" may be absolutely true, but they are not science and should not be taught to students in a science class.
Fine. I demand equal time for the Nation of Islam's creation myth.
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.