Posted on 08/15/2005 9:18:06 AM PDT by hc87
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned.
The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al--began innocuously...
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
That's not a bad plan.
It's normal for people with an agenda to "shop" their story around some friendly MSM outlets. This on-going fight is a story in and of itself. "The Conservative Heros of Science" and all that rubbish.
Anyone know someone in the MSM that can make a story out of this and get it published somewhere?
Is that you again, Teddy-boy?
That would be unconstitutional.
"If none of this was by accident, then how did each species arrive at the decision it wanted to evolve into something else?"
Ah, truly you have mastered the concept of natural selection. Species "decide" how they want to evolve, rather than those that have random mutations that are beneficial being more likely to survive and reproduce.
I'll beg to differ on man being "the most complex." How do you define "complexity?" Other organisms have bigger genomes, so that's probably not a good yardstick to go by.
I know we joke about Darwin Central, but sometimes I think we would do best to actually have such an organization that would be able to generate press releases and maintain a speakers bureau for press interviews.
No.
My point is that neither side are aware of this though and are not separating the two.
There's a greater issue which is the liberal mentality is trying to re-live past glories. They love to relive the glory of the Vietnam days and the current circus in Crawford Texas is a perfect example.
They also want to relive the Monkey trial of 1925, or actually, more the Inherit the Wimd version of it where the conservative demagougue is brought down -- literally to death in the case of the play/movie -- and their intellectual and moral superiority is once again established.
It's another lefty replay of their tired old paradigms.
Nothing really to do with learning science or not.
And it of course federalizes the issue of what -- or rather how a subject -- is taught in a classroom thousands of miles awy from DC so that makes Dems very happy.
"Show me how matter appears from nothing. "
Check out quantum physics, and vacuum fluctuations.
"Matter, such as the "soup" of cosmos-orginated elements that arrived on earth, "primordial "soup" from which our molecules bumped and bounced and ultimately sought each other to bind and blend, to evolve via trillions of successes and errors - to ultimately arrive at a unique DNA code for every living being, each of which replicates with yet more unique DNA codes...to produce a dinsaur, a blue whale, or a blue-eyed red haired human baby with fingerprints never before seen in any creature.
You are looking at it backwards. The DNA did not come about for each living being, each living being is a result of the different DNA sequences. You are arguing from personal incredulity.
"You've got 10 million years to run the best computer simulations you can. to test your theory that everything came from nothing and is not, perhaps never was, random or without reason or desire to thrive. "
Simulations have been run and have resulted in 'different beings' coming about through mutation and selection. Before you go claiming that the simulations were designed by an intelligence, therebye proving your point, consider for a moment that there is no other way for a human to produce a simulation simply because we are intelligent designers. The fact that the simulation was created by a human does not change the point of the exercise, which is to determine if random changes and selection can produce large changes in morphology.
If you are referring to the probability calculations of abiogenesis, those calculations are full of holes.
Show me how to create consciousness from primordial soup.
How about we show how consciousness can come from an ancestor species instead? Cumulative effect.
"Show how the human eye developed by chance from primordial soup.
How about we show the continuum in sight that extant organisms possess and then extrapolate that back in time?
"Show me how mathematical precisions that can now be detected in the operations of the universe- appeared from chaos, and where the chaos came from. What scientific theory describes mathematics originating from....nothing. "
Mathematics is a human construct, something we use to put description to our observations. The chaos is a result of the 2LoT and the order is a result of spacial inflation during the initial Planck second. I assume your mathematical precisions are the physical constants we see. Check out quantum mechanics and wave function collapse.
"Invasion of the Squeegee Wipers" placemarker
They've degenerated since I've been here.
bttt
Which means it's your fault ;)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc placemarker
Evolution, at best, is junk science. It is intellectually dishonest and for any `true' scientist to say otherwise makes that individual an outright liar.
It takes more faith to be an evolutionist than to be a creationist.
In addition, there are no facts, science or whatever to support evolution.
So...the wind always blows when creationists are speaking in public? I don't doubt it.
BBT, Initial Planck second, Inflation. Vacuum fluctuation, wave function collapse and parallel universes.
Interesting choice of words, reminiscent of another quote relevant to the issue:
II Peter 3:2 That all of you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
II Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
II Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word (o. logos) of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
II Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
II Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word (o. logos) are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
II Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
When such a furor is raised over nothing more than these incredibly benign disclaimers pointing out that there are gaps in the evidence of evolution, the dogmatic nature of its disciples is proven beyond any doubt. Instead of seeing it as an opportunity to intellectually demonstrate the strength of your position vs. other possibilities, you stomp around and snort and whine and assure the world that nobody worth listening to could possibly disagree with your dogma. Instead of stepping up to the challenge and taking on another viewpoint with a reasoned debate, you deride and chortle.
Here's reality: That behavior, that manic resistance to the very idea of simple discussion, is so transparent that a child can see right through to the core of what it's really all about, which is the fact that evolution as currently taught cannot remotely begin to stand up under real scrutiny. Thus your frenzied efforts to see that it never receives real scrutiny in the public eye. You instead march in lockstep with an enormous belief system that has been handed over to you, and refuse to see anything else or hear anything else. It's pretty clear who's "willfully blind" on this issue, and it ain't us.
Your claim that conservatives are scientifically ignorant and willfully blind is the height of ironic hypocrisy. Virtually every science textbook in the country adheres 100% to what you want, yet you would oppose a sticker with a few sentences being slapped in the front of the book, or a thirty-second statement being read, both of which essentially say "there are people who don't believe evolution as taught." A proponent of a scientifically strong theory would eagerly accept not only such statements, but a full-fledged public debate so you could show your "enemies" as the wanton fools you claim them to be. You would lick your chops in anticipation of your inevitable and decisive victory. Instead, you sit back and play the role of heckler. Most curious.
Understand this: Conservatism doesn't need you to save and protect it from those you consider to be so ignorant and blind. I'm neither ignorant nor blind. I'm paying close attention with eyes wide open.
You've staked your entire position regarding this issue on a house of cards built by a man who let his imagination get carried away as he engaged in birdwatching, a house of cards that has been endlessly and frantically propped up for a hundred-fifty years. If Darwin were alive, he would almost certainly reject his own theory. The lack of transitional fossils was a glaring weakness, one that was sure to be eliminated as technology advanced and uncovered a staggering wealth of transitional fossils that left no doubt. A century and a half later, the technology has certainly improved but those darned pesky transitionals are still missing. That weakness still exists and has moved beyond glaring; it now shines with the blinding fervor of the sun.
Finally, so there's no mistake as to where I'm coming from: I believe in God the Creator and His Son Jesus Christ. It's wonderful to me that there is no contradiction between His Word and real science, but even if there were, I'd take what God says over what any conglomeration of men had to say. The very thought that a century and a half of man-created wisdom is even in the same realm as the knowledge handed down from Almighty God is farcicality on parade.
MM
************
It does seem that way to me, but I'm somewhat new to this issue.
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.