Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Truth is a monkey on pols' backs (Richard Cohen: "Half Of America Rejects Theory Of Evolution."
New York Daily News ^ | April 12, 2005 | Richard Cohen

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; crevolist; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; ichthyostega; science; theory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-132 next last
To: Modernman
"Strawman. Humans are not just a few mutations away from the other apes. We are a distinct species."

Semantics. The theory would state both humans and apes are just a relative few mutations away from their common ancestor (thus each other).

What did you mean by "Strawman"?
61 posted on 04/12/2005 1:42:15 PM PDT by E-Mat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: narby; Soul Seeker; presidio9; ClearCase_guy
Evolution is not incompatible with a solid Christian faith. It's some peoples blind, dogmatic faith, though, that make them incompatible with Evolution.

OK, let's make the discussion a matter of Christianity.

Questions for you:

1. Is Jesus Christ, God, Himself? If Jesus Christ is God, by definition the perfect God cannot lie, and therefore cannot contradict Himself. Do we agree?

2. Jesus Christ declared that if you do not believe the writings of Moses, you will not believe Him (John 5:45-47). Jesus Christ affirms the writings of Moses as believable. Do you believe Moses?

3. Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel of John, is the Creator, Himself (John 1:1-5). Jesus Christ declared that in the context of man, " Have you not read He that made them in the beginning made them male and female." (Matthew 19:4). Jesus Christ is quoting the book of Genesis written by Moses. Is Jesus Chist credible to speak with regard to His Creation?

4. Do you believe what Jesus Christ says about His Creation?

5. The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18). They are the Law. The finger of God wrote plainly that the entire Creation came to be in the space of six literal days. If we agree that question #1 is true, and that God wrote the Ten Commandments, it is equally true to say that Jesus Christ wrote the Ten Commandments. The writer of the Law is clear. Do you believe the writer of the Ten Commandments?

One believes in Evolution, or one believes Jesus Christ. The two cannot both be right; therefore, the one is indeed completely incompatible with the other.

Which do you believe?

62 posted on 04/12/2005 1:43:35 PM PDT by Agamemnon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

"We know evolution occurs."

Without simply tossing the question back at me, you know evolution occurs as well as what?


63 posted on 04/12/2005 1:44:34 PM PDT by E-Mat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat
Without simply tossing the question back at me, you know evolution occurs as well as what?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

64 posted on 04/12/2005 1:45:34 PM PDT by Modernman ("I'm in favor of limited government unless it limits what I want government to do."- dirtboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The march of the luddites continues.


65 posted on 04/12/2005 1:46:11 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight
If I understand ToE correctly, nothing is "distinct" all is changing/evolving

Sure. But at this point in our development, every human living on this planet belongs to a distinct species.

66 posted on 04/12/2005 1:47:02 PM PDT by Modernman ("I'm in favor of limited government unless it limits what I want government to do."- dirtboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Well how very DU of you. Start by calling names. If not prepared to discuss intellectually, maybe this isn't the place for you.


67 posted on 04/12/2005 1:48:13 PM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

Again distinct (and even the concept of species) doesn't mean anything. Just a convenient naming convention to classify.


68 posted on 04/12/2005 1:49:50 PM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat
Semantics. The theory would state both humans and apes are just a relative few mutations away from their common ancestor (thus each other).

Maybe when compared to the difference between humans and slugs, humans and chimps are relatively close. But in actuality, the two species are distinct and different.

What did you mean by "Strawman"?

Your claim that people who support the TOE don't see a real difference between humans and apes is a strawman argument.

69 posted on 04/12/2005 1:49:54 PM PDT by Modernman ("I'm in favor of limited government unless it limits what I want government to do."- dirtboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight
Again distinct (and even the concept of species) doesn't mean anything.

Really?

70 posted on 04/12/2005 1:51:00 PM PDT by Modernman ("I'm in favor of limited government unless it limits what I want government to do."- dirtboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

"Without simply tossing the question back at me, you know evolution occurs as well as what?"

"I'm not sure I understand the question."

Yes, it's good to seek clarification.
We'd probably agree that knowing is relative.
What level of knowing would you compare your knowing that evolution occurs?


71 posted on 04/12/2005 1:53:08 PM PDT by E-Mat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
In point of fact they do not, and I will explain why.

Yes, they do.

The fact at hand here is that the Genesis narrative is internally consistent as a narrative. It does not contradict itself.

Genesis does contradict itself in specific sequences of actions. The second story is not as obvious in the sequence, as it does not use "day one", "day two", etc. Yet it is still explicit in sequence when it says that certian things had not yet happend because other things had not yet occured.

I've covered explicit verse by verse descriptions in these threads before. Sorry you missed it.

To maintain that the Bible is not inconsistent, it is necessary to interpret Genesis creation stories to have the very general meaning that "God did it".

There are several places in the old books of the Bible where two different versions of the same story show up. The likely explanation is a split between the tribes if Israel where early translations of the Bible diverged, and were later merged into single collection.

The bottom line is that we disagree on major interpretations of the few verses in Genesis pertaining to the Creation. How can you possibly be so certian of any particular interpretation that you wish to insist on teaching your theory in a public school? That's a place for science, not religious dogma that you and I can't agree on.

72 posted on 04/12/2005 1:53:09 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

Well since life is evolving, changing from one species to another the distinct = nothing. And the classification describes a snapshot in time.


73 posted on 04/12/2005 1:56:59 PM PDT by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
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.

The creationism issue is a stick that the left routinely uses to bash us. You may miss the tactic if you don't read many publications, but the criticism exists and congresscritters are aware of it.

The creationism issue takes our focus off the other genuinely important issues such as judicial nominees. It is divisive, as this thread proves, and the left knows how to divide and conquer.

My motivation in posting is an attempt to at least defuse the issue here, among conservatives, before any more of it gets into the public domain and does real damage.

74 posted on 04/12/2005 1:59:03 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

"Your claim that people who support the TOE don't see a real difference between humans and apes is a strawman argument."

Not my argument. That was 3dognight.
I guess you're right. It does look like a strawman.
Then again, they both look a lot like the typical secularist.


75 posted on 04/12/2005 1:59:26 PM PDT by E-Mat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat
What level of knowing would you compare your knowing that evolution occurs?

Probably on the same level as plate tectonics or that planets exist in other solar systems.

76 posted on 04/12/2005 1:59:47 PM PDT by Modernman ("I'm in favor of limited government unless it limits what I want government to do."- dirtboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight
"What am I missing?"

The good scientists who do not and will not delve into metaphysics to look at things like a soul and such. Do humans have a soul? Any scientist worth half his weight in salt takes one look at that question, recognizes that he can't apply the scientific method to it, can't gather tangeable evidence either way, and can never prove or disprove it, and doesn't touch it with a 10ft pole.

Aside from that, you're also missing the ethics of science. Most scientists will agree that purposely doing harm to a sentient, intelligent being is inherently wrong.

Science doesn't care one way or another who lives or who dies. Scientists, on the other hand, are human beings with their own morals and ethics.
77 posted on 04/12/2005 2:04:53 PM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: narby
Genesis does contradict itself in specific sequences of actions.

No it doesn't.

Cite one single example.

78 posted on 04/12/2005 2:05:29 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 3dognight
ID is not science. Creationism is not science. Evolution is science. Those who accept the validity of the former two and reject the validity of the latter in the face of overwhelming evidence (a mere smidge of which you would have seen on any crevo thread on this forum over the past seven years or so) is, by definition, a luddite.

Now, when the creationists and IDers can actually present data and evidence to SUPPORT their particular positions (and sniping away at evolution IS NOT data and evidence) then they might have a dog in this hunt. To date though we have yet to see any of it.

Do you have any positive evidence in support of ID or creationism? If you are simply going to snipe at evolution, I'll dismiss you out of hand as irrelevant.

79 posted on 04/12/2005 2:08:32 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
Of course, people who are confident in what they believe are not afraid of public challenges. Why are evolutionists worried?

If there were genuine scientific issues that would totally discredit evolution, science would be gleeful. It would open up entirely new areas of study, new doctorial thesis, and above all, new funding to study the new phenomenon.

The problem is that there really isn't any scientific evidence that actually challenges evolution. Just a few meaningless objections sold to the non-science population.

What is happening is that a mob of practically half the population with pitchforks and torches is coming after scientists yelling "blasphemy"!

Darn straight they're scared. Scared for their entire field of interest that they've spent a lifetime working at.

Much of it is the fault of bad science education. And much of it is sciences own fault for taking money offered by followers of the Religion of the Environment. But that's another story.

80 posted on 04/12/2005 2:11:43 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson