YIKES!
:7)
Posted on 08/04/2005 12:43:01 PM PDT by Crackingham
A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."
Evangelical Christians have launched campaigns in at least 18 states to make public schools teach intelligent design alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Proponents of intelligent design argue that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, as held by Darwin's 1859 theory of evolution, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."
Santorum is the third-ranking member of the U.S. Senate and has championed causes of the religious right including opposition to gay marriage and abortion. He is expected to face a stiff challenge from Democrat Bob Casey in his quest for re-election next year in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state in recent presidential elections.
SNIP
"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview.
"As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution."
Please follow the link I provided in #347, and try to point out to me where I stated that I BELIEVE man comes from ape (or more accurately, a different kind of ape than man is defined as).
I've just been stating that TOE is the best current scientific explanation we have for what it covers. I didn;t state I believe it's perfectly correct.
But why do I think it's a better scientific theory than ID? See the link in post 347 for some of the sort of information ... it also provides some of the "missing links" you ask someone else for.
YIKES!
:7)
You would leave the student wanting without a consideration of "who pulled the trigger". It all seems really pointless if that question is ignored.
Check my previous post. Your link does not work. Please repost.
The paper I posted was not a search for the pseudogene in these primates, that was already known from previous research. I posted the paper simply to show that it is known these primates share a pseudogene for vitimin C.
In many other mammals the vitimin C gene is functional.
The point of this is that these primates share the same breakage in their vitimin C gene - unintelligent design?
My take on this is that why teach either? You have people on both sides. To me, it is so obvious that God created the universe it is laughable to not believe it. I believe the account in the Bible - after all, the folks in the Bible were a lot closer to creation than we were/are. But to teach evolution as "the way we got here" is an entire hoax. What should be taught is how things are - biological reality - instead of the origin of the creation. That would pretty much put an end to evolutionary "science" - a good thing.
Am I? Wow, I must've been someone else for a while. I DID state that if we are going to follow the edict that "Let’s just teach the scientific evidence that is known and undisputed. " that any source of dipute must be considered as a reason to not teach the issue. I picked the theory of gravity ... not the law of gravity, as evidenced by the fact that I still allowed for demonstrations of gravity ... at random, and could have easily have picked any other scientific issue under dispute. Moon landings? Relativity? All theories of science should be under dispute at all times ...
the issue is whether that dispute can successfully show existing theory to be invalud or not.
Your example is ludicrous and nonsensical.
It was my intention that it be ludicrous, to show that the original statement I was replying to was overly broad and porrly phrased. And it's nonsensical only if you can;t follow along with the discussion well enough to make sense of it.
Rom 1:21 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
I believe this was specifically referring to you. That's why God helped you find the quote so easily.
II Tim 3:7 - "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Um, hello Tim 3:7, you appear to have left your match.com profile in your post ...
(FYI, these are quotes from the Bible, New Testament)
I LOVE the assumption that because I'm not arguing against the TOE, I'm not a Christian.
But thanks for your condescending post, that completely missed the points, assumed facts not in evidence, and implied I wouldn;t understand Bible quotes, with attribution to chapter and verse, were from the Bible.
If you'd like to add something to this thread, please go ahead, most of the rest of us on both sides of the discussion are doing so.
How was Lucy disproven? (this should be good)
" Problem is, once you get above fifth-grade science, all this stuff sort of hangs together"
existence hangs together, that doesnt mean that we teach everything in 6th grade. My point is that you cant use evolution like you can use 'how an electron works'. Yet how many high school student know that far more important maxwell equations? Very few!
"It’s just very, very difficult to try to conceive of “evolution” as a unique process outside of and excluded from the biological matrix in which it’s embedded"
But that is not science, it's an interpretive world-view. The science *behind* that observation w.r.t. Molecular Cell Biology is not taught until College!! So you are *not* giving them the whole picture ... hmmm.
I'd have to disagree btw. Computer Science uses 'evolution' and its kin simulated annealling in algorithms. You can take evolution out of context. Many have. (eg Herbert Spencer.)
"As for Quantum Mechanics, anyone uneasy with the absence of God’s guidance in the process of “random evolution” ought to be outraged by the existence tunnel diodes – even Einstein couldn’t continence a God who plays dice in an indeterminate universe, but that's what QM is ALL ABOUT."
Um, not really, I dont see that at all.
QM is about information and it limits, it just looks like randomness from our limited perspective and that of measuring instruments. Unless you have infinite information, at some point you will face some kind of Heisenberg limit of certainty, because certainty denotes information (eg Shannon limits). The indeterminism of a tunnelling diode is 'well-behaved' in ways that we can model.
Big Bang cosmology takes you to a first-mover event that had no known prior cause, and the strangeness of QM humbles us. In a way this brings us closer to God. Indeed Genesis and Gospel of John looks pretty good as metaphor when you think of the universe as starting with energy "let their be light" and information "In the beginning was the word".
Yet my point was different. And most missed it.
If high schoolers are 'crippled' by not knowing evolution,
why was I not crippled by being taught the Bohr model of the atom, something about as close to the truth as ID might be?
But evolution is a part of it and not QM, not for the reason assumed.
The science we teach in grade school is NOT the most important science that the children need to learn...
They are taught some things and not others BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLISTIC ENOUGH FOR GRADE-SCHOOL TEACHERS TO TEACH IT!
Now, if the math behind Einstein's general relativity and Darwin's Evolution had been switched ... we'd have raging debates over the wisdom of general relativity, and none about evolution.
JMHO.
Maybe it's just you ... most of us on both sides of this discussion do NOT go off on each other in this forum, but when you make posts that you feel the need to point out specifically that your Bible quotes are from the Bible (calling the faith of who you post to into question), miscomprehend someone's post and then call it "Your example is ludicrous and nonsensical. ", and assume facts not in evidence ...
... all of this without so much as a hello ...
... might tick some people off.
Now, I'm willing to bury the hatchet on this one, but you DID ask why "evolutionists" get unhinged, and I felt I should provide an answer that might apply more generically.
I can't seem to link the specific post, but it's still there.
Post 186 there is still full of info and links ...
And the reason I don't buy it is because there simply isn't enough evidence IMO to support it. I just cannot believe that over millions of years, science can only provide a few incomplete examples/fossils of what they are stating as the most likely answer. Sometimes I have to bow to common sense.
Well, I don't know if any of what's in that post will convince you.
I hope I wasn;t giving the impression I didn;t want to acknowledge it. Part of the whole idea of transition is that there was, well, a transition.
And to date, the missing link between man and ape has not been discovered. Last I heard, Piltdown man was the candidate, but that fell on its face. I also heard Lucy was a candidate but that was also disproven.
Oh, I hope that link I retried to set up actually worked ...
You'll have to ask yourself, then, how many "missing links" would be needed. If you find someting between "ape" and "human", say "apeman" ... you then have to find a link between "apeman" and "human". Is there a certain number of links you need? An uninterrupted family history, every child of every child? Or would an ape-like, human-like hybrid at some point in between be close enough.
And even then, it would not "prove" evolution.
As for the Piltdown man, I believe TOE is well beyond that one.
And you would leave us in the state that because we cannot determine who pulled the trigger, we should not attempt to determine if the gun in the room is the murder weapon.
Link should be in post 374 ... if it still doesn't work (and the first one didn;t for me, but the one in 374 still does), I'll check it from a different machine tomorrow.
I suppose that's true if you're going by the 3rd, 4th or 5th definition of the term. However, I was thinking of the word in terms of the 2nd definition: attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
God created nature. He designed the forces and laws of nature. There is no reason, therefore, that he cannot use natural forces to affect our lives in ways that do not violate the laws of nature.
Of course, as a Christian, I do believe that sometimes he has done things that violate the laws of nature. Like rising from the dead or walking on water or turning water into wine. But most of the time, on a day to day basis, God touches our lives in ways that are perfectly consistent with the laws of nature.
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.