Posted on 01/04/2005 7:28:52 AM PST by DouglasKC
With this as a premise, please describe in a few statements what is missing.
I don't have any problem with the self-regulating nature of 'good science'. But, while science is regulating itself through 'better science', generations of people go to their graves not knowing that the things they believed so wholeheartedly are now false.
Wouldn't it be better to teach it as theory than as fact?
This article is 1999. Not exactly news/current events.
This is old news, but sill new to many in America.
___________________________________________________________
You can count me as one who didn't know that until now. I'm glad this was posted. I had no clue.
Duh. It is called the Theory of Evolution.
Seems the good Reverand does not practice science but lets his beliefs rather than facts determine his destiny.
"Rev. Wells decided in 1976 to "devote my life to destroying Darwinism" since it is incompatible with the beliefs of the Unification Church (the "Moonies"). "
The Ping List must have been activated. Haven't heard your inanity in quite a while.
"Dear Donald, Just a quick note to say that the response you received is fairly typical of what happens when people who have no knowledge or experience of an organism or group of organisms, think that they 'know' what is going on. As usual, the response is subjective and ill-informed."
He is being too kind. The Dear Mr. Donald set out on a course decades ago to "destroy darwinism" not because of the facts but because it conflicted with his Unitarian faith and has no qualms of slanting the truth.
Of course your inanity means you have no meaningful posts and you are not able to refute mine.
Have you read the posts refuting the good Reverend and his statements where he is driven by religion, not facts, in his pursuit?
Gray Peppered Moths and Brilliant Minds
(interesting essay on Peppered Moths and ADHD)
http://ldresources.com/articles/moths_minds.html
I think I missed those. I will have to go back and read them. Thanks for the tip.
Actually, I found it fascinating. What's especially interesting to me is that the author does not mention any direct experiments regarding melanism and SO2 levels, even though there are empirical observations suggesting a strong correlation between the two.
A chemical explanation -- for instance, that sulfur dioxide affects egg development; or even more likely, affects the development of the leaf-eating caterpillars; makes a lot of sense.
"Of course your inanity means you have no meaningful posts and you are not able to refute mine."
LOL!!! That was the most humorous thing you've said in the countless posts you've sent my way!!!
Been down that road with you, haven't I? About a million contrarian times.
You must be enjoying retirement too much. Got way more time on your hands than you need.
Thanks for the links...sometimes the search feature works and sometimes it doesn't!
....and Pepper upsets Muttly's digestion.
.....(brruuuup !)...s'cuse me.
I thought you were kidding until I read a link by racebannon. Wow.
This is what irks me. Math is math. I can go back 30 years ago to what I learned and it's still valid because it's truth.
English is english. I can go back 30 years ago to what I learned and it's still valid because it's truth.
Math is math. I can go back 30 years ago to what I learned and it's still valid because it's truth.
Music is music. Chemistry is chemistry. Astronomy is astronomy. But evolution seems to rank right up there with astrology...it depends on what you believe and who you believe is making the readings.
I have thought evolution was taught as theory. So I would agree with you on that.
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.