Posted on 02/05/2005 11:37:51 AM PST by gobucks
ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.
With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.
*snip*
The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.
*snip*
At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.
*snip*
The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."
*snip*
Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."
*snip*
Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.
"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
That way the rabble and flux of reality will never shake the brittle crystal evo-Tower of Holy Knowing to the ground.
I think you have succinctly defined the nature of this debate and why, despite any advancement in scientific knowledge, it will retain its ferocity.
It is thus b/c many of the adherents to evo. have and will continue to use evo. as an instrument to undermine faith in the Bible and, regardless of their denials, God.
Many people are unhappy that they are forced to pay for an educational philosophy that is at cross purposes to their deepest understandings of life. They will continue to fight it, and they won't stop.
Thank God for their persistence.
And she does use blades on people, every working day. Hmmm ....
Thank you for the nice compliment. I was brought up in a pretty strict Catholic household. Any credit for my moral instruction goes to my parents.
And whether you read Papal Bulls or the Me'am Lo'ez for your religious wisdom, you should be counting the abortions as a secularist slaughter.
I see. So your criteria are just a wee bit more liberal than those of Dembski or Behe, in that you feel justified in asserting that anything made of anything is Intelligently Designed.
Do you mean to suggest that we accept this as a scientific principle?
Sorry if I came off argumentative in my post to you. My intention was simply to provide data.
I have posted before about fungi and suchlike primarily to bolster my own statements that God was not writing a biology textbook in Genesis.
Some, but not all, religions do treat it as a moral evil, yes. And assuming the non-religious person thinks about ethics, he or she might come to different conclusions, based on different premises. A utilitarian might well come to the conclusion that abortion is not evil, as Peter Singer has (Singer even thinks under some circumstances it's permissible to kill newborns). A Kantian's decision would be more complex; but it's hard to see how a Kantian could permit abortion after the point the unborn had become human - it would violate the second categorical imperative (humans shouldn't be treated as a means to an end).
Of course, when does the fetus becomes human is the $64,000 question, and if one discounts arguments from immediate ensoulment, it's not an easy one. I'm inclined to put it at the point when the fetus has the physical appearance of a human being, and detectable brain activity. That is, of course, very early in gestation; perhaps a few weeks. If there is a social consensus about abortion possible, it might be to draw the line at that point.
On the issue of whether religion motivates people to oppose abortion more than irreligious people, yes it does, but I generally don't think one should get much credit for good intentions when the actions are ineffectual.
On a side note, there are many different types of fungi that live in the ocean. The one that I mistakenly named "sea grapes"(as you said, sea grapes are indeed animals) is made up of little greenish sacks all connected to each other on a stem-like strand. I asked my marine biology teacher about them once and he told me they were a fungus, but I sadly can't remember the name.
Pardon my bluntness, but can you be that ignorant, or did you miss type that or something? I mean you earlier joined in scorning evolutionists for their (supposed) willful ignorance of fraud, so you couldn't then say something this amazing, could you? It would be just too ironic!
Where can I start on how crazy your assertion is? Probably the single most famous case of (widely accepted) scientific fraud outside of the physical sciences is the Cyril Burt affair: intelligence/twin studies having nothing to do with evolution. Even the most cursory survey of scientific fraud would indicate that it is overwhelmingly most common in the biomedical sciences (where the biggest chunks of grant money are dispensed) again having little or nothing to do with evolution. Then there's numerous cases of fraud in paraspsycological research. In physical science there's the famous case of N-rays and polywater (the first at least a mistake, not fraud, but then the same is true of most examples of "fraud" creationists cite).
I could go on, and on, and on.
Again, do you really mean this, or are you that myopically obsessed with evolution?
Please clarify and detail is the disctinction you draw between "popular theory" and what YOU call "scientific theory". And please provide me the posting number and relevant summary specifying how YOUR distinctions of theory relate to my post that you foisted your escapist distinction on. Oh and provide your social security number and mother's maiden name, too. Just a humble request, your Worship.
The only place where Lamarkian ideas were popular lately was in the Soviet Union. Stalin like Lamark and disliked Darwin so he had professors teaching Darwin'd ideas executed and promoted Lamark's ideas; head guy Lysenko.
I already answered you re Piltdown, 1912 (except for the Out Of England guys who wanted Early Man to be British.)
I'm glad we have that straightened out and especially pleased that you mentioned Faith.
I have made the distinction between Creationists-by-Faith for whom I have the utmost respect (my own brain needs too much to poke at whys and where-fors), and Creationists-by-Argument who seem to me to be a different type of group altoghther.
For myself, I have not the slightest problem with accepting both Genesis and evolutionary theory. It seems to me to be an excess of hubris to say that God, on day 5 could not have created animals comlete with their whatever billion year evolutionary history. And I would certainly not have expected Him to try and explain the details.
As I said it was poorly received initially (interpreted as material from two separate individuals, a human skull and an ape's jaw) then, when the hoaxer engineered a second find which "proved" the skull and the jaw belonged together, it was grudgingly accepted. Then, as genuine fossil evidence on human evolution accumulated, Piltdown became a seldom cited anomaly, a puzzle piece that didn't fit and would have to await further evidence to suggest where it belonged (presumably on some side branch to human evolution).
But how long did it take to expose the Piltdown fraud?
It took decades. In part, however, this was because Piltdown had become unimportant; just the opposite of the reason you (or was it another creationist?) suggested: That evolutionist are "rabidly" protective of their frauds. Piltdown didn't matter. Following the death of it's prime advocate, Elliot Grafton Smith, literally no one thought Eoanthropus was on the main branch of human evolution. It was eventually investigated more closely out of more-or-less idle curiosity, i.e., "what's up with this odd duck?"
IOW, that community is not incapable of deceiving itself, and others for that matter.
Well, Duh!
Though I did not answer you because you were off the topic, I will work myself to a sweat to answer such a brilliantly 'scary' question. No! But you missed the point. I suggest you do a logical review of my point.
I wasn't "off point". Let the record show;
You:I was referring to making laws about morality based upon religion. This is a clear violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.
Me: Can you give a specific example?
You: ...Griswold v Conneticut...
Me: Do you have to be religious to think abortion is wrong?
You mentioned contraception as an example of how religion tries to legislate morality. So, I ask you if abortion is another example. You, do a logical review. Don't misrepresent what I've posted with some BS statement about "being off topic".
BTW, religion is really not a problem in this country. You've not illustrated any current examples where they've successfully legislated morality.
Is ther any crime, short of suicide, for which a Christian cannot be forgiven?
Did I miss that?
Evolution of Carnot's Principle
There was good participation by the scientists and mathematicians on the forum who stand as their own authority in their particular disciplines. The sources were vetted by all.
In the end, the effort was scuttled altogether by the forum's expert on algorithmic information theory raising the fallacy of quantizing the continuum - which makes all abiogenesis theory impossible. IOW, a definition for "life" v "non-life" would be a quantization of the continuum and since abiogenesis is the theory of non-life to life, having both ends a "fallacy" makes it impossible to investigate.
Several of us of course objected, but that particular investigation was halted. A sidebar discussion of that "fallacy" continues on another thread. If it is ever resolved we'll resume the project.
In sum, research being conducted on an open forum at Free Republic is not ipso facto "uninformed".
But please note the difference in decorum between those threads and threads such as this one. Threads such as this one, IMHO, are like a Texas Friday night high school football game with the spectators on either side of the field cheering for their home team and a precious few on the field actually doing the work and/or knowing what is going on.
The research threads, OTOH, are characterized by mutual respect, exhaustive off-thread research, credible sources, open discussion. The threads become a treasure trove of information, making Free Republic unique among the many forums on the web which entertain evolution debate.
Evolution does dont have a preferred direction of change, because the direction of change is ultimated controlled by selection. In the short run we can see selective pressures, just as we can predict tomorrow's weather. But biology is more complex than weather.
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.