Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by wkdaysoff
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The state American Civil Liberties Union (search) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution (search).
The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
ADDITIONALLY, I've never once said ID is false. I've only said that it is not science, nor should be taught as such. But please answer my question.
You can't know that. Is that your "scientific" opinion?
I think what RWP had in mind (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that we don't teach alternative THEORIES of gravity. The currently accepted theory (general relativity) states that gravity arises and has the measured force of attraction that it does because matter causes a curvature of space-time. We don't normally teach alternatives to that theory because there are no other scientific theories for gravity. Similarly, there are no other SCIENTIFIC theories to compete with evolution. ID simply is not scientific because there is no observation that would be inconsistent with it. If some such observation were purported to have been found, then ID proponents would simply say that we have underestimated the intelligence of the designer (or, more likely, pointed out the omnipotence of the Designer), thus showing that this observation was actually consistent with ID. This argument works for any possible observation. Therefore, ID is unfalsifiable. ID is thus not science. Evolution, OTOH, would be shown to be false (or at least would be in serious trouble) if any number of observation were to be made. For example, if we discovered a new species of animal that used something besides polynucleotides for a genetic material, evolution would be in trouble. Similarly, if we found a human fossil in precambrian rock and reliably dated that fossil to an age of 1.5 billion years, evolution would be in serious trouble. Therefore, evolution is falsifiable, and is therefore a scientific theory. Is it proven? Of course not, but that's because there is no such thing as proof in science.
And yes, based on every post that I have read from you, that is my opinion. Is it fact? Probably. You can easily falsify my theory. Just name another.
Pointing out your errors is not an ad hominem fallacy. Your above fallacy is known as equivocation. Nonetheless, I appreciate your well-wishing and hope you have a merry Christmas.
The theory of evolution is just a theory
The word theory means something different in science than it does in common usage. Theories are the result of a hypothesis, or educated suggestion, being tested and found to be consistent with observation. A theory coherently explains a large range of observations. It is in contrast to a law which simply expresses a regularity seen in observations without attempting to explain that regularity. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not somehow more certain than theories. Both are on equal footing in science.
There's no way life could have arisen from non-living chemicals/There's no way to get from the big bang to humans
Neither the origin of life nor the big bang is covered in the theory of evolution. Evolution only applies once life has begun. It makes no difference how life began.
The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible
The second law of thermodynamics states that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy always increases. The earth is not a closed system. The earth receives energy from the sun. This release of energy from the surface of the sun at a temperature of 6000K to space at a temperature of ~3K represents an enormous increase in entropy. Therefore, even taking evolution into account, the entropy of the earth/sun system does indeed increase over time.
Creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution/Evolution is not really science
To qualify as a theory in science, an idea must explain observations in such a way as to be falsifiable. This means that it must predict something and finding that this prediction is not true would require abandonment or serious modification of the theory. Evolution meets this requirement. For example, evolution predicts that in billion year old rock layers, no fossils of modern humans will be found. It predicts that all organisms on earth will have nucleic acids as their genetic material. It predicts that it will be possible to observe changes in the genepool of organisms. All of these predictions have been borne out by observations. If any of them are not, then evolution would have to be seriously modified or abandoned. I am sure that someone with more knowledge of biology could provide many more such examples. Creationism, on the other hand, by its very nature can offer no such predictions. The most basic premise of creationism is that there is an omnipotent God who created the universe. By virtue of God's omnipotence, there is no possible observation that could falsify this premise. God could have made the universe appear any way He wanted it to appear.
Evolution has never been proven
Neither has quantum theory, or relativity, or any other scientific theory or law. Science never offers proof, merely strong evidence for an idea. Evolution is backed by a large amount of observational evidence.
Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible (or belief in God)
Evolution says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists. Science in general makes no reference to God. Theories of gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, quantum mechanics, and many other theories in science are make correct predictions (so far) without reference to God in any way. As covered above, God is simply not a proper subject of science. The idea that God exists (or the idea that He doesn't) is simply not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. There is no test or physical evidence that would be able to prove that those who believe in God are wrong. Similarly there is no test or physical evidence to show that those who don't believe in God are wrong. Both ideas are unfalsifiable and are thus outside the realm of science. I have heard arguments that "evolutionists are trying to eliminate God." This may be true, but it is beyond the scope of the theory of evolution to try to disprove the existence of God. This is the result of some subset of scientists (or non-scientific evolution supporters) trying to push their own opinions. I have also heard people who are entirely convinced that the Bible contradicts evolution entirely since evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. Such people need to remember that, while the Bible has not changed over all these millennia, our necessarily flawed human understanding of it has. We used to believe, as recently as 140 years ago, that the Bible said that the owning of another human being in a condition of slavery was acceptable, and some even went so far as to say that the Bible said that this was a desirable condition for both the master and the slave. We no longer believe this. Therefore the way we understand the Biblical word has changed. If you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that is possibly correct, then you are ignoring the fact that good people have struggled to understand the Bible for thousands of years. It is not a sign that someone is evil if he/she disagrees with your beliefs about what the Bible means.
I'm not familiar with Darwin's writing on molecular machines. Are you?
Actually I did answer you. It is essential that you actually read the responses to your challenges before you reply. This makes the conversation more meaningful and saves you much embarrassment.
And if I do? If I give you five, will you publically admit your ignorant bias?
...and this is different from evolution how...
Not to answer a query with a query, but are you stipulating that without evolution, as without gravity, we would be equally bereft of the chance to exist? A remarkable leap, I think, almost, one could say, a leap of faith...again, I ask you, how do you equate evolution and gravity as unassailable concepts?
But let's forget that. Let's say, instead, you people managed to convince all biologists, right now, that our structures and functions are, in the end, too complex to know. Now, where would that get us? What medical and scientific gains would come pouring out of that mindset? Hrm? Please answer me that. No other creationist even tries to.
God answered the question. Shryke fled.
Micro evolution, not macro evolution, has scientific backup. Macro evolution is the only theory that would make the EVOs theory of life work and it requires millions of zillions of years to work There is no proof of macro evolution as last I checked.
Your answer, as far as I can tell, was another question. Am I missing the post?
Absolutely. Evolution is how we came to be thinking, perceptive beings. The scientific evidence for it is overwhelming.
A remarkable leap, I think, almost, one could say, a leap of faith...again, I ask you, how do you equate evolution and gravity as unassailable concepts?
Not a leap of faith. The leap of faith says that, despite all the evidence, we are decended from one man and one woman who were formed out of dust 4000 years ago, and from another man and woman who survived a flood that physics tell us could not have occurred. The fossil evidence from the past, combined with the richness and detail of the genomic evidence from the present, make the case for evolution so firm that only one motivated by some sort of irrational prejudice could deny it.
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.