Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I got out of public high school less than 10 years ago, and I live in a blue state (MN). The Theory of Evolution was always refered to as just that "The Theory of Evolution" and was usually followed up with a discussion of how scientists differentiate between a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Law.
Fusion. Thanks for the refresher. Additional comments follow.
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. 4.6 billion years give or take a few orders of magnitude, God knows.... :)
Additional comments follow.
I'm an Atheist. I went to school with Jews, Muslims, and a sprinkling of Hindus, Bhuddists, and others. For them, and for me, the idea of praying to a Christian God (or any god in my case) was deeply offensive. We do not live in a land where everyone is of the same opinion on the nature of the afterlife, and to have a government institution promote one faith (or any faith) is both wrong and unconstitutional.
I don't have a problem with Christianity itself, and I acknowledge that many of the founders were Christians. But to your question, a question: Why can't you keep your faith part of your private life? How is it made stronger by the government promoting it?
The Ayatollas demand government sponsored religious teachings, and those who want this "Intelligent Design" crap taught in schools demand government sponsored religious teachings. I think that the comparison is rather apt in this case.
The scientific community appears terrified that any other view might be presented, and worse, accepted by most of society.
From another post: "I'm just amazed that people seem driven to reject Evolution, when I see no real conflict between it and Genesis. It's all in the interpretation."
I could not agree more. Except that what also amazes me is that those posting here as 'true scientists' are driven to fear at the thought of dissent. That they are so heavily barricaded behind their beliefs that the only response left is hostility to ANY other belief structure.
The gratuitous use of 'Taliban' in this thread does seem better applied to the 'scientific' side and not to those who want to see the other theory addressed along side theirs - if you can accept them both in a religion class, that's OK with me.
Disclaimer:
I have no idea who the Discovery Institute might be and do not need their help in forming my own opinions.
I have no interest in declaring that the local university has an evil goal of disestablishing religion in America, although many of its residents and employees seem to be of that bent. And,
My own opinions don't fit either extreme in this debate.
PS: Last time I was in a church was to bury someone, there's a lot of that after you hit 55.
Learning complex subjects is iterative. No one can grasp the latest and most complete version of a scientific theory in a few days of high school. You learn simplified versions, then progressively more complex versions. If you make a creer in any field of science you will eventuall reach a point where experts disagree with each other. These disagreements will often be at a level that can't even be understood by non-professionals.
Being realistic, the thing in biologists that is being protested is common descent. Since DNA sequencing became available, common descent is as certain as anything in science. The lab work and theoretical underpinnings are identical to those used in court to identify people and confirm parentage.
Nothing in science has ever been proved.
Scientific ID'ers will have no problem with Rasmussen's Los Alamos experiment, though a few apostate religionists might.
Rasmussen has a very clever angle, one that is actually mathematically possible (i.e. PNA peptides instead of DNA). Now he's just got to show that it is *physically* possible for a life form that simple to be formed from entirely inanimate original material.
...And he may very well do that precise thing. At this point, however, he's merely the best hope for Evolutionists. It's no sure thing that Rasmussen will succeed, and his failure, should that occur along with the other major abiogenesis experiments worldwide, would again put the Intelligent Design theory back ahead of the various unaided theories of the origin of life.
The jury is still out.
As stated earlier, my hypothesis about the gravitational effect on planets by a somewhat larger "old-earth" sun/solar system is just that: my hypothesis, based on my layman's knowledge and interest in astronomy and physics. I have no Alice's Restaurant VW van full of 141 8x10 glossies, PowerPoint presentations or other implements of evolutionary destruction to show the blind judge and seeing eye dog ;) I do have my own teeth, Spunkets, perhaps rather than derogatory jeering we can show mutual respect and raise the level of discourse a notch or two above the Barbara Boxer level....
Whether the 'fire' of the sun is by oxidization or nuclear, the fact remains that energy is radiated away from the sun; it is not a closed system. Estimates about its probable reduction in size (estimated only about 1% over estimated millions/BILLIONS of years, etc.) are ESTIMATES--some including I would say biased to fit a particular set of presuppositions. Nevertheless, I have been duly corrected in my statement about the type of reaction about the sun. I'm man enough and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that I made a statement in error. Now I am slightly the wiser. I stand corrected.
Now I will refer you back to my post #71 and ask the anti-Creationists: why only glom onto my one point and conveniently sidestep a more salient issue? Why have you not replied to my assertions and valid questions about not removing Buddhism, Roman and Greek mythology etc. and the Koran in public schools? Have you written, or will you write, letters to your local school board to help an all-or-none policy be implemented and enforced? If you are consistent, you have integrity. If you are inconsistent, you either lack the courage of your stated convictions--or are willingly and knowingly a hypocrite. Sorry, no dodging that bullet.
I must have missed it - where are they taught as science?
Really? You mean the Dover Area schools aren't teaching the germ theory of disease in their biology classes? The theory of relativity in their physics classes? Electron cloud theory in their chemistry classes?
Man, the situation there is worse than I thought!
When you've explained theory again, it'll be time to answer:
If one species evolved from another, why don't we find transistorized forms?
I'm surprised that you failed to understand his logic. He dumbed down mathematical probabilities so much that even grade school children could grasp the basics of his point.
In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores.
His conclusion is that there *must* be some bias, some outside aid, to correctly sequence long series of data.
You are welcome to argue with his *math* on that thread (it would a digression from this one), but his conclusion is supported by his math.
In other words, if you can't fault his math with math of your own, then any attempt to fault his conclusion would be itself unsupported.
Failure to produce some entirely new synthetic compound in chemistry gives no solice to the assertion that it can't be done. No more than the failure year after year to cure cancer proves it can't be done. It just means you don't yet have it right.
Oh, c'mon. I have NEVER seen anybody on our side argue that religion - let alone christianity - let alone creationism - be removed from history, literature, or comparative religions classes. NOOOOOOO-BODY.
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.