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.
#####Yes. But does that mean that, over time, as the process of natural selection plays its role, we should end up with a species that is much stronger (or faster, or something) than its distant ancestors?#####
Absolutely! Natural selection would reasonably be expected to strengthen some existing species, while leading to the extinction of others.
What does one call a theory which is above challenge?
Law?
Evolution, for many, has become the anti-religion religion. It is a belief system. I'm not sure what you meant by "case closed", but somehow I doubt that will be the case.
No one created God. God created time. I do not know nor can I understand what was before time. This is a very complex issue--I agree. But, think about this. We know there was a beginning to the universe. Someone (GOD) had to have created everything, because there was nothing and now there is something! Were there no God--then there would still be nothing.
You do not get something from nothing--without a Creator.
Your retorts seem unnecessarily condescending.
This does not give the appearance of a confidence in one's beliefs.
Please, ... do try being objective.
Then why is it not the "Law of evolution"?
I have no desire to be " unnecessarily condescending," and I do strive to be objective. That said, in view of your question, I respectfully suggest that you revisit the post I made back at #27, which you recently criticized, at #964. You could truly benefit from that linked article.
Fine. Now ponder this. Suppose a group of animals, who naturally undergo this process, became separated from the main herd (or pack, or whatever). Permanently separated, perhaps by a big earthquake, or something like that. Now you would have two groups, and they no longer mingle. Each undergoes this "strengthening process" as a result of natural selection.
Now, time passes. A thousand generations. Ten thousand generations. Suppose the two groups were to be compared, perhaps by a traveling naturalists. What would he find?
Yeah, got that.
The rhetorical part of my question, fairly, has more to do with the defenders of the "theory" than of the definitions themselves.
The intense reactions of some to the challenges of ID communicate deeply held belief (faith) and in some cases a lack of knowledge or confidence. This is an observation of some, not a claim against theory.
Faith systems don't need a deity.
How about doing that.
You mean the one with the biblical quotes--I'll pass. If you mean Behe or Dempski, I've read them, thanks.
You know, you can go out with the prejudice that God does NOT exist and use science (Even if forcing it to fit the mold) to try to prove your point.
I don't have that prejudice, and last I heard, neither did the majority of working scientists. It's just not an issue that's relevant to scientific work, which is, for better or worse, about tangible things about which there is at least a smidgen of detectable evidence to draw inferences about. That doesn't mean we have exhausted the possible explanations for things when we do science, nor do we remotely make any such claim. There is only a pitched battle between Darwinian theory and God in the minds of creationists. Just because you insist on posting God in the boxing ring, doesn't obligate science to put on the gloves.
It’s a THEORY, not a fact. There is information out there which contradicts this theory. This theory is based on some pretty heavy (big) assumptions (Dam near miracles).
Behe-ist Nonsense. There are non-miraculous explanations available at every major turning point in the story of life. These stories are often highly conjectural at the moment, but what they do show, is that we aren't painted into a corner where we have to accept that a series of miracles, divine or otherwise, had to occur. Historically, betting on miracles has been a losing proposition for a very long time.
In the past there have been lies and aspects about this theory proven wrong.
Exactly as can be said about the many theories of gravity and stellar evolution we have gone through. Natural sciences are human enterprises and they have lots of problems and deadends just like any other complex human enterprise. Big deal--(well, yes, to a creationist).
(Do you know what they are? Or are you only loaded with one sided quick and snappy comments for a fast little session in polemics?) make no mention and obviously are no issue to you.
What sanctimonious hogwash. Trot your your mysterious 7 problems and lets have a look at them. Like most creationists, you have a problem with the process of induction upon which all scientific reasoning of significant note rests. The evidence for evolutionary theory rests on a much firmer evidentiary foundation than that of any other natural science. It is a laughable conceit that the inevitable anomolies in naturally occuring evidence somehow outweighs the triple-pronged confirming evidence of the geological column, the fossil tree, and the molecular clock. There have been countless opportunities for unambiguous disconfirming evidence in these multi-disiplinary investigations. And in no case has there been disconfirming evidence remotely adequate to call the present paradigm into question. Like most of the creationists we have run into here, you are bluffing with a bust hand--that's why you are being so coy about troting out your 7 deadly pillers to anhilate Darwin.
I will do that. Thank you.
It is possiblefor the viewer to read-into text an emotion as well. That being said, I only commented after reading several of your responses to others.
In these threads, I seem to be drawn to the nature of the conversations as much as the content. I find the "respectfully"'s few and far between, and the jabs and splinters quite plentiful. Quite a bit of passion, wouldn't we say, associated with simple scientific nuts and bolts, eh?
"You do not get something from nothing--without a Creator"
I believe the same thing, but as a forestry student you must know that biology does not include the creation event in the Theory of Evolution.
(My son goes to U. of SC)
Nope. Just a theory. Theories, in science, never become laws. Laws are a completely different thingy altogether.
On the contrary. Finding fossils out of place would better serve as evidence for those who adhere to no intelligent design. Adherents of intelligent design would expect to find order in the fossil record from smaller to larger; more waterbound creatures up to those that need air. And so the fossil record testifies.
The fossil record also seems to indicate the Law of Gravity was present and active when it was laid down, just as it is today. Smaller creatures sifted downward with more alacrity than the big critters. I would suspect, if the whole world were immersed in water today the same thing would happen. You would be a fossil on top, and your so called ancestor would be below. Would you predict any differently? If so, why?
Design is a good thing. Especially when it is intelligent and used to good purpose.
Man, you sure do tell a good story. It is as if my own kindergarten teacher accompanied me through puberty into old age.
He would likely find that different pre-existing traits in the groups in question had been maximized. As a possible example, let's say the separation you spoke of left one herd living in an environment where size was a benefit, while the other herd inhabited an environment where speed was a benefit. In the first territory, the smaller members of the species might die out, leading to an increase in the average size of the herd members. In the second territory, the small, fast herd members would propagate and the slow members would die out. So the naturalist would find a larger, slower herd in one area and a sleek, small herd in the other.
This would accomplish via nature what farmers & breeders accomplish via selective breeding in dogs, cattle, etc. It would heighten certain existing traits in the animals in question, only in your example it would be merely chance that produced it.
Now, I'm sure you're next going to suggest that over enough generations, a wolf, let's say, might become a reindeer, or vice-versa. Or some lizard creature with scales might become a bird. That's the theory, in admittedly simplistic terms. The theory is that *ALL** of the species on earth came about that way. They managed to do that despite extinction also occurring. In other words, to arrive at the multiple millions of species on earth, things would have to evolve faster than the rate of extinction. After all, if there were 30 species on earth, and two became extinct for every new one that evolved, where would we be? So evolution not only has to occur, but it has to occur faster than extinction. Much faster to account for the massive numbers of species we see today.
Do I believe it's possible for isolated herds, such as you described, to become something radically different from what they began as, given enough time? No. My own opinion, and granted it is only that, is that variation within kind is conservatory. It's nature's way of combatting extinction, a battle that isn't always won. The variation that exists within a creature's genetic code increases the likelihood that the "kind" will survive a change in environment. If all species members have short hair, they might all die out in an ice age. But if some have long coats, they might survive and keep the kind alive even if the short haired ones die out.
Ahem. I beg to differ. The fossil sequence is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.
Finding fossils out of place would better serve as evidence for those who adhere to no intelligent design.
Actually not. If things happen purely by nature, one would expect a specific sequence. If one posits everything created by an "intelligence," that intelligence could have done it in any fashion he or she wanted, without regard to any particular sequence.
Adherents of intelligent design would expect to find order in the fossil record from smaller to larger; more waterbound creatures up to those that need air.
Why? An exterior intelligence can do anything in any order he or she wished. There would not have to be any sort of sequence.
And so the fossil record testifies.
As you can see, the fossil record actually supports a naturalistic sequence.
In other words, it is true and verifiable because it is a cornerstone. Do you see the circular reasoning here?
If things happen purely by nature, one would expect a specific sequence.
There IS a specific sequence, just like there is with any intelligent process. Are you trying to tell me that nature, intelligence, and design are mutally exclusive? Get out of town.
An exterior intelligence can do anything in any order he or she wished.
An exterior intelligence also has the volition to leave well enough alone when it wishes. No?
As you can see, the fossil record actually supports a naturalistic sequence.
Yes indeed. It follows the Law of Gravity as God established it from the get go.
Um... no I don't.
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.