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 didn't know monkeys could write.
So many Morons - So little time. :-(
I personally think the Discovery Institute is a leftist front to sap money and political capital away from conservative causes. They are apparently succeding beyond their wildest dreams to get us arguing endlessly on a subject that will distract us from what we should be doing.
quit arguing then
Sorry. I'm not going to abandon the advances that science has brought us over the last 300 years just because you have a warped understanding on exactly what Genesis means.
I wonder how Cohen views the "theory" of global warming...
ping
It's hopeless. The creationists will hunt you down and slay you with a stone because science will not become religions keeper.
Creationists have a lot of the blame for this issue that is sapping so much of the conservative political capital. But the scientific community shares in much of the blame because they've so obviously sold out to the political ambitions of the environmental leftists.
It will be a further confirmation of the deterioration of honest science if and when more of them begin to pander to the creationist crowd in order to get funding.
Creationism (as opposed to Christianity) and Environmentalism are two religions that science should avoid.
I may have had some ancestors hang by their neck, but none that ever hung by their tails.
Cold water boils? I'm shocked, I tells ya, shocked! Is that part of cold fusion?
Oh no! How dare students be encouraged to be intellectually challenged rather than accept curriculum as truth because its in a text book.
I view the rigid defense of evolutionism to be akin to Faith. I realize others recognize it as science. By whatever name, nothing that is of any value should fear a sceptic's questioning.
Well, since creationists don't agree on exactly what Genesis does mean, I have no idea. You might believe in a 6000 year old world, or old-earth creationism. Or maybe you believe that some form of evolution happened but that it was directed by God and Darwin is an evil mad scientist to propose his theories of natural selection.
Perhaps you should read Genesis yourself and rationalize the difference between the two creation stories in Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4. Since they have explicit sequence conflicts between them you should enjoy the challenge.
Personally, I think Genesis, like many of Jesus' parables, was never meant to be litterally interpreted. I believe that Genesis says that God is the creator. And I believe that science has done a good job in describing how God did his handiwork, including His most elegant of creations, Evolution.
Agreed. Neither are matters of science; rather, they are both a matter of faith.
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.