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 ...
There is a sure way to tell. My posts consist of reasoned facts, not false propaganda. Thus, I cannot be from DU.
Adam Smith designed the system. And Darwin was influenced by Smith in conceptualizing evolution. Odd that the father of conservative economics is so reviled by so-called conservatives when his ideas are applied in another area.
As I recall, my science classes did not make a big deal out of evolution.
No need to further incriminate yourself.
You would agree I presume that this would be a descent into amoral chaos?
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).
Well, you could have thrown in a little Mills and with Mills, Kant and Singer what we have is theoretical chaos and a strong argument for moral absolutes as defined by a religious organization like the Catholic Church and rights which flow from the Creator.
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 really don't think when the fetus becomes human is an argument at all. Science defines human beings by its genome, no? An embryo's genome is that of a unique human being. Personhood is the point of argument because even Justice Blackmun stated that if a fetus were a person, then 14A covers same.
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.
I'm an absolutist on abortion being an intrinsic evil from conception but I'm a pragmatist on limiting abortion politically. I happen to think that there is a consensus growing to roll back abortion in the US right now to the first trimester and that is the goal for now.
But rolling back stare decisis is a slow and ponderous process and takes years. Only the faithful have the patience to fight that battle at that pace.
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.
Well, I guess we'd have to disagree about that.
I think that is his point. Since it is a sin for a Christian to bear false witness, why would a Christian sin "in the name of God"?
This is actually an interesting statement. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate. How does intelligent design work in the absence of omniscience? How, for example, would you design a new life form without complete knowledge of the ecosystem in which it will live? How would you design it with foreknowledge of all the emergent properties of its genome?
Just curious.
I am so glad to see this argument showing up more often. Darwin borrowed natural selection from Adam Smith, so economics preceeds biology with the invisible hand insight.
At bottom, there is no scientific argument against the declaration that God created “all that there is” last Thursday.
Personally, I see perfect harmony between Genesis and science because:
b) The perspective of time (space/time) passing changes from the inception of “all that there is” in Genesis 1-3 to earth in Genesis 4 when Adam is banished to mortality.
c) Relativity and inflationary theory tell us that time is relative. Six days from the space/time coordinates of the inception of this universe is equal to roughly 14 billion years from our space/time coordinates on earth.
Schroeder: Age of the Universe
In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.
The theological difference hinges on the interpretation of Scriptures, particularly Romans 5:12-14 and I Corinthians 15:42-48. A large segment of Christians (including Roman Catholics) view Adam as the first ensouled man, a smaller segment view Adam as the first mortal man.
My musings are squarely in the middle, i.e. 6000 years since Adam at earth’s space/time coordinates plus 6 days from the inception space/time coordinates and Adam as the first mortal man with the breath of God (neshama – Genesis 2). All other creatures in Genesis 1 have a soul, a nephesh, but not a neshama.
It is a waste of time to argue a theological point such as YEC using science. It is doctrine and must be argued with Scripture, lexicons and ancient manuscripts. If one is unable to make such a theological argument, I suggest it is better just to ignore the YEC post altogether.
Among Christians are those of us whose vision of the Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1 and Rev 19) – that the Word of God is alive and speaks to us by the indwelling Spirit (I Cor 2, Romans 8, John 15-17) to lead us into Truth. To us, the Scriptures are inerrant but do not substitute for His Person.
There are other Christians who put Scriptures on par with Tradition of the Church. The interpretation is made by the Church leader, or Pope, who is to be received as the vicar of Christ on earth.
And there are other Christians who put the emphasis on the Scriptures themselves. These will more often refer to the Scriptures as the Word of God.
And then there are the Christians who are cavalier about all of this.
Thus, when you ask:
At one time it strained the mind to consider that the earth revolved around the sun when we felt no motion and could see the sun move across the sky.
At one time it strained the mind to think that airplanes could fly without angels holding them up.
At one time it strained the mind to believe man could travel faster than the speed of sound without tearing his body apart.
That is the problem. For some straining the brain is too painful and they return to their ignorance.
Hundreds of thousands of dead "witches" would beg otherwise.
Question? Were these "witches" denied Heaven?
Not if you jump into the swimming pool, or attach yourself to a hang-glider.
By the way, have you read the stories about all the cats that survive those jumps.
It took until other intermediate fossils were found. The detective work took time, but it was thorough. From the perspective of a creationist, Piltdown is a valid find and not a hoax, since the find was witnessed. Witnesses trump science, don't they?
I think this guy was heard saying shortly after, "Thank God I was jumping from 3500 feet and not 10 stories".
Man survives 3,500ft fall
A British skydiver has survived a 3,500ft fall after his parachute failed to open.
Wrong. Lot's of people get along without color vision. That is a loss of a major function and area of the eye. Even those that can only see shadows use that information. This is akin to the early creatures that only saw "light and dark". It was an advantage over creatures that could not.
Here is what I found in a 1967 copy of "Biology" (Third Edition: Johnson, Laubengayer, DeLanney, Cole, page 685).
EVIDENCE FROM DEVELOPMENT
The embryos of higher animals repeat many of the stages passed through by embryos of lower animals. This has been referred to as recapitulation. This concept as originally used by von Baer indicated that some of the developmental stages of an organism are similar to some of the developmental stages of its ancestors. Unfortunately, however. Haeckel modified the concept to mean that the individual in its development passes through stages like the adult stages of its ancestors. Modern students of development insist that Haeckel's version is wrong and, as a matter of fact, our present knowledge of the hereditary mechanisms tends to support the views of von Baer. Several examples of recapitulation have been described in a previous section. In the development of any mammalian embryo, the heart is a four-chambered in-series structure as it is in fish embryos; then it has partitions of the auricles (atria) similar to those of amphibian embryos, followed by ventricular division that is incomplete for a period as it is in the embryos of reptiles.
As far as I am concerned, this is the only actual evidence put forward on the truthfulness of "Icons of Evolution", and until I see equivalent evidence to the contrary, the issue is settled.
Jonathan Wells is a liar.
I don't converse with serial liars, that would be you.
When a believer perceives a conflict between Genesis and science – since God is author of both – the believer must conclude that either (a) he doesn’t understand either the Scriptures or the science or (b) that he must accept the Scripture on faith.
I think you have a supurfluous alternative there, specifically your (b). I believe that your alternative (a) says it all. There's an error in his understanding of science or scripture which results in an apparent conflict.
However, as you said later on, if the believer is unable to resolve the meaning of scripture and science, then he will rely on scripture -- if that is the imperative of his theology. That, alas, may put the believer who knows no science, and who may mis-interpret scripture, in the position of (pardon the expression) a "flat earther."
You are using the word "strained" in a manner different than me. "Forced" would perhaps be better in this context. In short, the economic development of NYC food supplies is not a good model for demonstrating self-organization completely apart from intelligence or design.
When the ID movement was in full flower (about 1800) it was considered imperative for Christians to be knowledgeable of science, since science studied the unedited, untranslated Book of God.
Huh? I think you are mistaking the evidence for its interpretation. I know of no adherent of biblical creation accounts who would consider the Piltdown find as significant either way.
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.