Posted on 05/28/2005 4:50:19 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.
The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, "intelligent design," is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum "are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception" on June 23 for the movie, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."
The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute ....
[Massive snip, required.]
The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000.
[Massive snip, required.]
Evolution has become a major battleground in the culture wars, with bitter debates in legislatures and school boards, national parks and museums. Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught.
When asked whether the announcement on the Discovery Institute's Web site meant to imply that the museum supports the film and the event, Mr. Chapman replied:
"We are not implying in any sense that they endorsed the content, but they are co-sponsoring it, and we are delighted. We're not claiming anything more than that. They certainly didn't say, 'We're really warming up to intelligent design, and therefore we're going to sponsor this.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I don't understand why intelligent people argue over this. It doesn't mean anything and neither side can know, or prove, their point to the other. Both views are taken as a matter of faith.
So you say.... Why do you have such a problem saying: "I don't know"?
Because we do know -- how speciation has and does occur. How did life begin? THAT is unknowable. But that living organisms evolve is as far from speculation as the theory of gravitation.
Prove it.
They evolve. They can be seen evolving now. No question there.
The sticking point is "how fast." Enough to account, all of its lonesome for the story of life on earth from the first amoeba to the first man? Some folks are saying "not so fast."
Prove it.No scientific theory has ever been proven. Science doesn't work that way. Check the 'ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE' links at PatrickHenry's page for some educational information.
I agree. Why do some say evolution is a proven fact?
I agree. Why do some say evolution is a proven fact?Evolution, as in that living organisms mutate and those mutations spread through generations, is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the theory scientists use to explain this. So, in essence, evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Hmm. The article is about a "case against evolution". Why are so many of the mined quotes (anyone want to see how many of them have been taken out of context?) on the subject of cosmology? I noticed that Antony Flew was mentioned in the list, but Antony Flew has no problems with evolution.
Wait a minute, ID is not a theory, as even its proponents admit. Note also how they refer to the "design inference," the "intelligent design proposal," and "teaching the controversy".
IOW, they don't have anything of sufficient specificity, depth or substance to put up against mainstream theory, and they know it. At minimum a theory must propose an explanatory mechanism or model. ID is all about studiously avoiding any reference to mechanism. ID simply asserts (or putatively "infers") that some things are "designed," but refuses to forward any proposals about how, when, where or by what agency either the "designing" or its implementation occurred.
How can you pose a theory as an "alternative" to something that is not a theory?
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)
Pardon, but there is a glaring non-sequitor here. Why does Deem cite this survey as evidence that "many scientists now believe in God," as the result of "recent evidence in support of design"?
I don't specifically recall similar survey figures from years and decades past, but my recollection, if admittedly vague, is that this 40 percent figure is, if anything, rather lower than most from years past.
My recollection is that a majority of American scientists are theists. Although the percentage is lower than the general population, I believe it is essentially the same as for non-scientist with otherwise similar demographic characteristics (e.g. education level).
IOW I don't think there is evidence that scientists, qua scientists, are, or ever have been, more likely to be non-theistic. Could it be that Deem's delight in this (if anything anomalously low) statistic is predicated on prior acceptance of the paranoid stereotype common to naive fundamentalists that scientists are anti-God?
While that may or may not be true (I seem to remember polling showing a majority believing in evolution, but some insisting on a concurrent "theistic" component), the fact remains that science is not a democracy. As far as establishing scientific facts, the opinion of evolutionary biologists count, but the opinions of Genesis literalists and ID'ers doesn't. They're practicing religion, not science.
It would be great if more of the public were fully informed of the subject, and I recognize the importance of teaching the truth on evolution to the uninformed and misguided. However, the opinions of non-scientists only matters as a political matter; they don't matter on the question of the validity of evolution or the theory of evolution. Likewise, since Behe, Johnson, Hamm, Gish, and the rest don't do science, their opinions, as a scientific matter, are irrelevant.
"Finally, step back, look at your theory, then at the intelligent design theory and decide which is more plausible."
I can hold both thoughts simultaneously and without angst.
"atually it is not settledd for most,"
Oh? Try the link..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=percent+of+people+who+believe+in+evolution
"To say the matter is settled is pretty ignorant."
The theory of evolution isn't settled? Nobody knows what it is?
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.