Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I have argued all along that "species" is somewhat of an arbitrary, human created concept. Life exists in a continuum of variation, and somewhere along that continuum, we say it's different enough to classify it differently. I would have no issue with classifying a teacup poodle and a great dane as a separate species.
Still waiting for a better theory than evolution. It must be scientific; that is, it must generate predictions that if found to be untrue, would render it false. What other theory is there that does better?
The logic -- not to mention the "origin of life" researchers -- would beg to differ with you on that.
Perhaps you could offer up such an assumption?
I've offered several on this thread.
Still waiting for that observation that would make you give up creationism. If there isn't one, (and I believe there isn't), then it isn't science. I don't maintain that science has all the answers, but when we teach kids science, we should stick to science.
Well, yes. Obviously, that could be a picture of anything. For one thing, it's not a picture of a flag but just a picture of a jigsaw puzzle of something and with such glaring gaps in it it would take a lot of nerve to make a GUESS what it is.
</creo_mode>
Wow, there are so many misstatements of fact and false leaps of logic in your reply, I don't have time to address them all without being late for work.
I'll focus on one, however. You claim that the processes involved in microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same. Nonsense. Microevolution, as observed without the "intelligent design" interference of manipulation by researchers, occurs within our lifetime and does not demonstrate favorable mutations, but rather a process of natural selection of traits that are already built into the genetic code of a species, generally asserting themselves based on environmental factors. Macroevolution PRESUPPOSES favorable mutations that are not accompanied by sterility and which occur so swiftly that their developmental process does not impede the very survival of the species.
When you defend your position by citing 150 years worth of data, I have to laugh. That time frame is so minute compared to the eons necessitated by your model, that to stake out such an intransigent position is beyond absurd. For one to depend on the readings from an instrument, one must be able to calibrate the instrument. How, pray tell, do you calibrate an instrument for which there is no verifiable data with which to compare it? The very length of time required for the macroevolutionary theory to play itself out is the very thing that works against you, as it is exponentially likely that over the ages there are multiple factors you haven't even been capable of considering. I have no beef with macroevolution as speculation based on what science has learned. What annoys the hell out of me is the arrogance -- the utter lack of humility -- that prevents people like you from saying something as simple as "Well, maybe you're right. I'm just not convinced." No, you feel obligated to denigrate those who haven't bought into your scenario.
And, by the way, logical inference is considered valid legal argumentation, so to say that there is no evidence for the idea that "God did it" is another of your blind spots.
Oh yeah, I learned about that "circle of life" thing on Lion King... or was it that government channel on TV?
Some biologist may secretly think of themselves as an animal, but they are reluctant to say it in mixed company. :^)
The problem is that the definition we use for science doesn't allow for the supernatural. I fully understand why that is so. We can't measure the supernatural, put it to tests, etc.
However, that also puts us into a quagmire. What if a supernatural explanation is true? If it is, then that means our current definition of science puts it at odds with the truth. This is why so many of us see the theory of evolution as an attack on God. If God did create life on earth, and if each creature was created whole, meaning no evolution from one species to another occurred, then our current definition of science would require us to pretend that didn't happen and still teach evolution, because evolution is the best thing anyone can come up with in the absence of God.
This strikes me as similar to the church-state controversies we often see. Christian moral values can't be legislated, we're told, because they're religious. But non-religious moral values can be legislated. Thus, we can't restrict abortion, but we can force Christians to subsidize them. We can't ban sodomy, but we can force the Boy Scouts to accept sodomites. We can fund a crucifix dropped in urine, but we can't have a Nativity scene in the town square.
Christians are told to stay in the closet. Our children can't be taught intelligent design by their teacher, because that's "religion", but they can be taught evolution, because it explains how life of earth blossomed without God.
But do we know for sure God doesn't exist? No, we don't. Yet, we've defined science in such a way that it must always pretend He doesn't.
I'll repeat that. If God exists, we have created a definition of science that must always pretend He doesn't. You asked me to come up with a theory to explain the development of life that is scientific as so defined, that is better than evolution. But how is that possible?
It's why this is an endless debate. Science has been defined so as to exclude the possibility of God. Now, I know there are those who will say it doesn't. That we can still have our religion classes at Catholic schools, or whatever. Or that we can fantasize in our minds that God was controlling evolution when it occurred. But none of that really clicks, for lack of a better word. Ultimately, what we're being told is that the real world must exclude God. And that's true EVEN if He exists. After all, if Jesus Christ rose from the dead right in front of you, by the current definitions of science we'd have to pretend it didn't happen, or fashion some evolution-type explanation for it (e.g., there exists some previously unobserved physical condition which allows people to survive deadly wounds, lie in suspended animation for three days, then get up and walk off).
Intelligent design fits the available evidence as well as evolution. In fact, it fits it better since the fossil record doesn't show things evolving from one species to another. It just shows things appearing. Yet, intelligent design can't be considered because it requires a designer and our current definition of science requires everything to have "just sort of happened".
So we have an unhittable ball and an unmissable baseball bat when discussing religion and science. I don't pretend to know all the answers. I just think that to exclude the possibility of God so cavalierly from the discussion of something as fundamental as where we came from is a disservice to tens of millions of Americans, particularly when the alternative, evolution, is such a weak, unobservable, and unfalsifiable theory.
No, I mean a human is an animal and a chordate and a vertebrate and a mammal and a primate and a relatively smart, unhairy ape.
It's a commentary on the creationist ignorance/amnesia bludgeon. I'm not surprised you didn't get it.
What annoys the hell out of me is the arrogance -- the utter lack of humility -- that prevents people like you from saying something as simple as "Well, maybe you're right. I'm just not convinced."
Additionally, their inability to provide research showing their theory to be valid should be a concern. On another thread, maybe even this one, the evo's were asked to provide a cite to an experiment that showed DATA from a speciation event caused by RMNS -- none was offered. Where's the science? Where are the cites to the successful experiments?
You are only partially correct about science. In actual fact, science does not assume that God exists. Science says nothing about God either way. I will admit that if the truth is that God created everything via miraculous acts, then science cannot arrive at the truth. The difference between your analogy and this issue is that we allow elected leaders to make value decisions for society and that's all there is. There is no other way for anyone to impose their values on society as a whole. In the case of the search for truth, science is not all there is. There is philosophy, theology, revalation, etc. in addition to science. If science were to fail to find the truth, then hopefully one of these other ways will do so. It still won't stop evolution from being the theory that is accepted by science, though. I think our mistake as a society is that somehow we have equated science with truth. There is a mindset among many people that if it's science it must be true and if it's true it must be science. I think that's the main motivating factor behind the drive to try to make creationism scientific. ID and creationism are not science, but that's okay. I don't have a problem with teaching them. Just don't do so in science class.
I just noticed your tag line. I take it you're Lawful Good.
Additionally, their inability to provide research showing their theory to be valid should be a concern.
You have been presented times without number with the evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, just for the best one-source summary. You wave hands, wish it away, then return dumb as a stump saying nobody ever shows you anything.
Nicely put.
And I've never been a baseball fan -- the game is too boring to watch, but it was lots of fun to play (when I was much younger).
The Crevo Game on FR is lots of fun to watch for some reason, but rather tiresome to play...
You darwinites always want to talk about God. Have you checked the updated horse evolution theory?
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.