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 ...
You don't understand what I said.
Which dead witch hoax are you referring to?
I am neither familiar with this individual nor aware of his statements WRT this contoversy. Apparently you found a textbook from 1967 that allows you to pass this kind of judgment on the man. Good for you.
Thanks for the link, Alama-Girl. Much as I tried to say, far less eloquently, the ancient Jews didn't think about "science" and the origins of the universe the way we do; nonetheless, they recognized a deeper mystery than was described in 31 sentences in Genesis.
That is still a worthy attitude, one which is shared by many (but obviously not all) Christians. I've posted this several times before, but it's on point once again:
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
Bearing false witness on the Sabbath. Not very Christian of you.
Point taken. I will modify my response. I can understand your example, but it is strained if meant to show that self-organization can account for all of the intelligent design so evident in the universe.
At one time it was strained 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 was strained to consider that airplanes could fly without angels holding them up.
At one time it was strained the mind to consider 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.
The one where Christians killed hundreds of thousands.
Personally, I would that all Christians on these threads would take this passage to heart regardless of their doctrine:
Indeed, if one is troubled over the content of Genesis 1 - it would be helpful to spend some time with the original Hebrew, the translations and the traditions of the Jewish people who handed the Torah down so faithfully over the millennia.
Saturnian placemarker (it hovers over a thread's North Pole, reducing the "felt effect" of the replies)
So what? I don't see how it really matters -- insofar as debating the issue with you -- how good or bad a model is.
You've already stated, in #495, that "every particle of the universe expresses itself collectively in such a way as to manifest design and intelligence". Clearly, unless your claim about "every particle" is qualified as mere musing, or as a philosophical but not a scientific principle, then there is, a priori, no possible model that will be acceptable to you.
I'm not aware of that, and frankly doubt it. I'm not even sure that Darwin read Smith. (I think there's a lifetime reading list for Darwin around somewhere but I don't know if it's on the net.) However in general Darwin did read much of the Scottish economists and was quite interested in the subject. He was also a very shrewd investor who multiplied the family fortune several time over.
I can see you are not familiar with the textbook controversy. I thought it would be on your list, since you brought up fraud.
It seems he did. In Descent of Man, chapter 4, he wrote: "Adam Smith formerly argued, as has Mr. Bain recently, that the basis of sympathy lies in our strong retentiveness of former states of pain or pleasure." There's a footnote (#21) that says, in part: "See the first and striking chapter in Adam Smith's 'Theory of Moral Sentiments.' "
Source: here. (Search on "Adam Smith" to find it.)
I neglected to ping you to 555.
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2004/10/smith_and_darwi.html
I’ve always liked Stephen Jay Gould’s revision of Malthus’s role in affecting Darwin’s thought. Consider these passages from one of Gould’s finest essays, “Darwin’s Middle Road,” appearing in Gould’s 1980 collection, The Panda’s Thumb.
Gould cites an article from a 1977 issue of The Journal of the History of Biology in which the author, Silvan Schweber, researched in detail Darwin’s reading just after the great naturalist returned from the Galapagos Islands on the Beagle. Here’s what Darwin read that Schweber found to be most influential on Darwin’s thought:
- Auguste Comte’s Cours de Philosophie Positive
- various works of the Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet
- Dugald Stewart’s On the Life and Writing of Adam SmithAbout the first, Gould says that Darwin “was particularly struck by Comte’s insistence that a proper theory be predictive and at least potentially quantitative.”
About the second, Gould reports that Darwin got a much better statement of Malthus’s theory of population and food-supply growth.
About Stewart’s intellectual biography of Adam Smith, Gould has this to say: “[Darwin] imbibed the basic belief of the Scottish economists that theories of overall social structure must begin by analyzing the unconstrained actions of individuals.”
Gould goes on:
The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits.The more you learn about the Scottish Enlightenment in general, and about Adam Smith in particular, the more struck you are by the out-and-out genius and vision of those great Scots.
You got that right.
Would you like me to post your dissembling from the other thread? I'd be more than happy to.
Or perhaps you'd like to describe for us the moral code you follow that evidently sees serial lying as a virtue and then we can have some fun demolishing 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.