Posted on 02/17/2005 5:30:03 PM PST by Happy2BMe
| News Alert: On January 13, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that stickers placed in textbooks of an Atlanta area school district saying “Evolution is a theory, not a fact” are unconstitutional! ( View sticker.) According to this judge, such criticisms of evolution are an endorsement of religion. The judge’s action is the latest example of the nationwide effort to ban any critical analysis of the theory of evolution and insist that evolution be taught as the only option! The Action:
|
You must have misunderstood. There is no alternative theory to evolution. Evolution is the basic foundation for all of biology.
There are arguments over various technical mechanisms. The advance in our understanding of genetics and molecular biology have confirmed ToE even more, but the arguments among scientists over details may seem like arguments against evolution, when they are not.
Philosophy is not a science. Sigh...
Amen! Hallelujah!
The main mechanism is natural selection. It is known.
Scientific theories are not based on conjecture. They are, as far as the layman is concerned, facts.
Throwing out the cobbled Evolutionary rafts, do you find it so hard to understand that, when you are in a Greater Being's Kingdom, your, in fact, Creator's Kingdom - that indeed you can not become your Creator while you are on earth? IOW, just because you want an answer, doesn't mean you'll get it (when you want it) or that you will understand it? One more time - could it be that you aren't God nor possess the answers He does? Humility is an enlightening experience imo...
Once you think you are humble, you are not.
I don't see how any of your last post affects biological science and the fact of evolution. No matter how much you don't want to accept the science, will not make the fact of evolution go away.
There are many times where scientific ideas affect ethics and how we philosophically interpret the world. Those are matters pertaining to the humanities. Such an example would be the existance of the atomic bomb - when to consider using it, the morality of using it, the policy of first strike. Those are ethical matters. But those ethical matters do not affect the physics of how atomic bombs work.
The same is true for evolution. Evolution is accepted by the field of biology. How we human beings treat each other should not be based upon evolution's validity. Morality has existed before, exists now, and will continue to exist.
What is going on is that many good people who do not have the training in the biological sciences are afraid of evolution because they perceive it to be an assault on their worldview. And there is some truth to that because there are elements on the left hostile to religion and tradition who want to use it to erode those ideas.
Unfortunately, there is a movement afoot that is trying to impose a non-scientific idea, ID, onto science. In no other academic field would it be considered acceptable for outsiders to dictate to the trained professional insiders how to shape their curriculum. But the IDers are trying to do so. So long as scientists and biology teachers continue to oppose ID, those efforts will inevitable fail. There can be no other outcome. If one independent group of study, in this case biology in America, can be coerced into teaching something it doesn't believe in, then academic freedom is threatened for other groups as well.
I accept your apology in a spirit of good fellowship.
I don't wish to be side tracked into a discussion on General Relativity and Gravity. I am giving you the textbook definitions of Theory and Law. A hypothesis, if confirmed by observation and experiment, becomes a Theory. A Theory that has been confirmed with every test over a long period of time and is generally accepted as true becomes a Law.
Theories about the way events unfolded in the past and are claimed to take extremely long periods of time in order to be observed today (like macroevolution) will be extremely hard to confirm and gain the acceptence that is needed for them to become a Law, even absent religious protestations. Even without them, General Evolution simply is not as establised as the things we call laws. I do not say that from rancour, it is just fact.
Oh I understood alright, and no alternative was proposed just a bunch of objections, contradiction, etc.
I am old enought to remember then the steady state universe was accepted and taught in schools, so I have seen the Big Dog taken down before.
That was a monotreme fossil discovery (Platypus ancestor).
It in no way refutes evolution.
Boy, you're an ass.
I said roughly half and then listed three areas that members of my immediate family work in example.
Bio, Chem, Philos, etc.
2/3 of the fields I listed are Sci.
Are you on drugs or just young and cocky?
I don't accept junk, wishful-thinking, Marxist 'science', no - you are correct. Evotards do though.
Sorry, you did not understand. I am probably just as old as you are. There is no doubt that evolution is fact.
There is much more to be discovered about how it works. The Platypus is a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile. Do you really think this is not transitional and that an intelligent designer would make such a funny looking thing?
If you do, do you really think that God would design the human eye with receptors facing backwards, but design a Hawks eye much better?
Would an intelligent designer have wasted nipples on a male?
I still have a large supply of aluminum hats if you need one.
What you described would be called, I think, convergent evolution by the darwinists. What is the probability of such convergence? I would expect that it is a very large number against.
I see design all around us. I see genetically designed cotton, wheat and chimeras that fulfill the definition of evolution which can be defined as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989. So while a preponderance of scientists dismiss design out of hand, I don't since I can observe it with my own two getting old eyes.
Of course I'm not a scientist, I'm a blue collar guy who managed to collect a BS in engineering when I got out of the Army. So, you'll have to take my points with a grain of salt.
good point, I'll have to think about that. I also think you are right about the left using evolution to assault the moral foundation of the right. That is the real crime cause as you point out most of us have no problem believing in ID as an unprovable truth. Personally evolution does not shake my faith. I think there is lots more going on then we know but certainly science should be free to dig in and try to figure it all out. And what ever the latest and greatest is should be shared with our kids as part of their education.
Not true Mr Science.
Scientific theories are not based on conjecture. They are, as far as the layman is concerned, facts.
>>>
LOL
There is no doubt that evolution is fact.
>>>
After as many years as you lived through - your repititious self-talk that echo the ever-changing rafts of Evolutionary B.S., spewed forth by grant-seeking Communist 'scientists', I'd probably repeat the BIG LIE as ignorantly as you do. LOL
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.