Frist backs 'intelligent design' teaching

AP ^ | 8/19/5 | ROSE FRENCH

[DeweyCA]

Yes, Gould looked at the fossil record and saw NO good evidence of macro-evolution (especially with the Cambrian explosion). Again, why did he come to that conclusion? You still haven't explained why he did that. By the way, I need to go now because of another project. Freep mail me when you can come up with a good reason that explains Gould's actions.

[Vive ut Vivas]

If being a trained biologists is a requirement to discuss evolution then let all non-biologists who support evolution please refrain from commenting on this list.

If you're going to pull rank, it is. Unless your training was specifically in the sciences, the amount of schooling you've had is irrelevent and does not give you a pedestal from which to denounce evolution.

[Once-Ler]

Suppose you have a Jewish family who doesn't want their kid taught Catholicism? Or a Catholic family who doesn't want their kid taught Mormonism?

Or suppose it is a family of Christians who don't want their children taught evolution. Your entitled to your opinion. Mine remains "the complete absenence of faith in school is baffling when one considers the influence (both good and bad) of faith on science, history, literature, law, and even the #1 school subject self-estem / self-centeredness."

[malakhi]

My beef with the pro-evolutionists is with their faulty epistemology where because of the limits of the research tools in the natural sciences they insist that there must be only natural explanations for the origin of life and the origin of species.

Wrong. Rather, natural explanations are the only scientific explanations for the origin of species.

Why have a beef with science being science? If you want supernatural or metaphysical explanations, look to religion or philosophy instead.

[Stultis]

Yup, the Raelians believed in something that noone had ever observed, just like Darwinists.

Yeah, let's take everything out of science classes that no one has ever observed. Like for instance photosynthesis (nope, the actual hypothesised chemical reactions have not been observed, only the effects) krebs cycle, sub-atomic particle theory, most meteorology, thermodynamics (no system both truly closed and discretely observable exists, plus the theory is really only statistical in the end), etc, etc, etc.

We'll still be left with "facts" such as "the sky is blue" and "the grass is green" (but just with no explanation of why).

[malakhi]

Or suppose it is a family of Christians who don't want their children taught evolution.

The difference being, evolution is science, and religion isn't.

[Clemenza]

Frist is now 0-2 with me.

[PatrickHenry]

Even evidence for "macroevolution". Take the time to read it.

Let's make it easy:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
NEW Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
NEW Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions. There really is evidence out there.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Yes, transitional fossils exist.
Fossil whale with legs. Land animal to whale transitional fossil.
Feathered Dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx. Reptile-to- bird transitional fossil.
Archaeopteryx: FAQS . A true transitional fossil
All About Archaeopteryx.
Evidence for Evolution . Compilation of links.
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution. For those who claim there isn't any evidence.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.

[malakhi]

Yeah, let's take everything out of science classes that no one has ever observed. Like for instance photosynthesis (nope, the actual hypothesised chemical reactions have not been observed, only the effects) krebs cycle, sub-atomic particle theory, most meteorology, thermodynamics (no system both truly closed and discretely observable exists, plus the theory is really only statistical in the end), etc, etc, etc.

Get rid of Avogadro's Number. I mean really, who has ever counted 6.022 x 10²³ atoms of Carbon-12 anyway?

[NJ_gent]

"Or suppose it is a family of Christians who don't want their children taught evolution."

Then I suggest sending them to a school where science is not a subject. Perhaps an art school, or a Wahhabist school in Pakistan.

[Mylo]

You forgot to address any issue.

I don't agree with the esteemed straw man from Harvard that the constructions of science are absurd, or that the claims and promises are extravagant, or that the scientific community has toleration for the unsubstantiated.

The constructions are based upon natural and quantifiable phenomenon. And they enable one to better observe and predict the universe. This is hardly absurd.

The claims and promises of science have led to modern medicine, understanding of Molecular Biology, getting man on the moon, improving food crops, and the elimination of small pox. I don't know who claimed that science would do better, but they must have wanted grant money.

Scientists test claims, therefore that which is unsubstantiated isn't science. It is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Now compare that with the constructions of theology (such as the Trinity which Thomas Jefferson rejected as absurd), the claims and promises of religions (promise them everything, but only after they die and only is some far off land of make believe), and the toleration (and often enforcement) of totally unsubstantiated dogma.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Suppose you've got a family who doesn't want their kid taught physics, or chemistry, or history, or English. Doesn't matter - if you want your children to be intellectually incompetent, that is your choice, and remove your children from public schools. The wrong path to take is to force your mysticism on everybody else.

[Mylo]

You can lie all you want to about Gould. Where is the actual quote from him?

[Petrosius]

Wrong. Rather, natural explanations are the only scientific explanations for the origin of species.

Wrong to you. Natural explanations are the only natural explanations for the origin of species. Science requires no necessity for a natural explanation. Such a statement would be one that belongs in metaphysics. Good science would accept the possibility of non-natural causes that were beyond it competence to study even while seeks natural ones. Do not mistake research methodology with ontological truth

[Vive ut Vivas]

Look at that. Real evidence that approximately 0 creationists will read, and then tomorrow they will proclaim that no evidence exists. Lovely.

[PatrickHenry]

Real evidence that approximately 0 creationists will read, and then tomorrow they will proclaim that no evidence exists. Lovely.

We're used to it. If they wanted to actually start looking at evidence and thinking about it, then they wouldn't be creationists. Can't have that, can we?

[Mylo]

Too true.

Trying to teach a pig to sing wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Science requires no necessity for a natural explanation. Such a statement would be one that belongs in metaphysics. Good science would accept the possibility of non-natural causes that were beyond it competence to study even while seeks natural ones. Do not mistake research methodology with ontological truth

Are you kidding me? You are so far off the mark it's not funny.

[Right Wing Professor]

I suppose you are equally satisfied with the left wing professors who are teaching politics in our schools

Ah, the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.

[Mylo]

None of these yobs will address the primary issue of material -vs- supernatural explanation.

How successful have supernatural explanations been in observing and predicting the universe and settling issues of factual disagreement?

How many scientific theories are dependent upon an unquantifiable and unknowable power that is impossible to observe or predict?