Posted on 04/12/2005 11:29:22 AM PDT by presidio9
Behold the giant Galapagos tortoise! It weighs 700 pounds, lives God-only-knows how long and a couple of weeks ago when I was on the Galapagos Islands, could not be beholden at all. The tortoise we wanted to see, Lonesome George, so called because he is apparently the last of his subspecies, was in hiding. In a sense, that's appropriate because almost half of America cannot see any of the Galapagos for what they are: the home office of evolution. This is where Charles Darwin got his bright idea. It is odd to amble around the Galapagos and see the handiwork of evolution and yet at the same time bear in mind that many Americans do not accept evolution. It is belittled as a mere "theory," which is a misunderstanding of the scientific term, and even in some places where it is grudgingly accepted, it is supposed to share the curriculum with creationism, as if that - creation according to the Bible - is an alternative theory. It is, of course, just a fancy term for the creation according to Genesis, a matter of religious belief and not scientific theory or fact. Each can have its place, but not in the science curriculum.
The ongoing fight over evolution is an odd and sad one. There is nothing about Darwinian theory that cannot be ascribed to God - Darwin himself referred to "the Creator" in his "The Origin of Species" - and back when I was in college and studying evolution, my teacher began the semester by saying, behold the world of God or behold something else: It is entirely up to you.
Yet, 19 states are considering proposals that would require schools to question evolution, which is nothing less than proposals to inject religion into the curriculum. But why stop there? Why not introduce such skepticism into astronomy and have the sun revolve around the Earth or have the Earth stand still? These are questions that Clarence Darrow put to William Jennings Bryan at the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. Amazingly, they still linger.
They do so not just because, as Darwin himself conceded, there are holes in the theory of evolution, but because of an evolving political weakness in which intellectual honesty counts for less and less. Thus, you have political leaders from George Bush on down refusing to say whether they put any stock in evolution or believe, as apparently they think they should, that it is an affront and assault on religion. In 1999, Bush was asked whether he was "a creationist." He responded by not responding: "I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." This proves you can go to Yale and learn nothing - not about evolution, mind you, but about intellectual integrity.
The current and ongoing assault on evolution - some Imax theaters, mostly in the South, will not show a film that makes brief references to evolution - is an assault not merely on science, but on thinking and truth and skepticism. Proponents of creationism demand that you stop thinking and instead accept religious dogma.
"There is a grandeur in this view of life," Darwin wrote about his theory.
Behold it.
I often capitalize Creationism. What's your point?
And yet 75% don't know what it is.
Yeah. That will certianly help get proper judges confirmed to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe.
Last week's offering by Doctor Cohen was about why John Paul II was not a good Catholic.
Personally, I'm willing to accept the Theory of Evolution as the most possible expllaination for the diversity of life, but that doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of flawsin that theory. Also, athiests who demand total secularism at all times are practicing their own sort of religion.
In point of fact they do not, and I will explain why.
It is a common literary device used by historians of all times to lay out a narrative in a framework and then to revisit key points of that framework later.
For example, a biography of President Lincoln might lay out a general sketch of his life, mentioning his debates with Douglass in passing, and then revisit those debates in a later chapter in great detail.
Likewise, in the Genesis narrative a sketch of the creation is proffered from nothingness to the first Sabbath.
Then the narrative becomes more specific and describes the creation of man and woman in more explicit detail.
Most books are written in this way, in fact - a general overview first and then focus on what the author considers important details later.This discussion has about as much meaning as an argument between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic on how to treat Mary, mother of Jesus.
What makes the discussion meaningful is when both parties acknowledge the facts at hand and then come to the conclusion that they interpret the facts differently.
The fact at hand here is that the Genesis narrative is internally consistent as a narrative. It does not contradict itself.
Whether one believes the Genesis narrative to be accurate is a nother matter.
One can argue against the historicity of Genesis in a variety of ways without making the embarrassing mistake of projecting inconsistencies onto the narrative which are not there.
What this discussion does prove is that creationism does not belong in a classroom of any kind, because it is faith, not science.
Not really.
What it points out is that science class should focus on hard science like the mechanics of genetics and physical morphology and not present unproven hypotheses as fact.
Creationists are at fault for Republicans being too spineless to fight for judge nominations or reform in S.S.? Not that I grant your premise we're losing on S.S., but this statement is ridiculous.
Get back to the point. IF evolution IS true, what harm comes of it being challenged in a classroom? I accept challenges to scripture. I accept challenges to government. I support challenges in a class room environment no matter if the subject is a mathematical equasion, literature or science. I even accept challenges to man walking on the moon. In the case of the last, the majority have weighed the evidence and found it lacking. The case is still out on evolution. Dismissing Creationists as being stuck in an outdated faith warp will not breed acceptance of evolution.
Encouraging the ability to debate and test evolution conceivably could IF your argument proves superior.
"Non-believing scientists" don't refuse to consider anything.
Maybe scientists will consider anything but they will not allow the conflicting facts which show that the theory of evolution still has many wrinkles to iron out. This opens them up to charges of intellictual dishonesty by the creationists. It's no accident that most major leaps of science have been made by scientists who were somewhat on the fringes of the science community.
IF evolution IS true, what harm comes of it being challenged in a classroom? I accept challenges to scripture. I accept challenges to government. I support challenges in a class room environment no matter if the subject is a mathematical equasion, literature or science. I even accept challenges to man walking on the moon.
Of course, people who are confident in what they believe are not afraid of public challenges. Why are evolutionists worried?
"Half of America Rejects Theory of Evolution
And yet 75% don't know what it is."
Worse yet, the same goes for those who say do.
If there is a god, who else would be responsible for evolution?
Ok so a few mutations or a few million big deal. Humans are just another link on an evolutionary chain according to scienc. So why would science care if human babies are killed. They are just as good a piece of scientific material as a monkey or a rat. What am I missing?
Strawman. Humans are not just a few mutations away from the other apes. We are a distinct species.
I'll take that as "If there is evolution, who else would have created it."
Take it however you want. We know evolution occurs. If god occurs, he created evolution.
There are actually two different elements labled "Evolution". There is the "fact" of Evolution, in that we know that creatures used to be different than they are now. Then there is the "theory" of evolution that attempts to explain why these creatures evolved. There are valid disagreements in science about this, which agenda agencies like the Discovery Institute seize on and promote as "flaws" in evolution theory.
At the fringes of science there are always disagreements that can be sold as "flaws". But this is a dishonest tactic, and only done by people with an agenda other than truth.
If I understand ToE correctly, nothing is "distinct" all is changing/evolving. What we are today isn't what we were or what we will be. So distinct means nothing.
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.