However, since "little bitty changes" is what we always see, and all we ever see, that would seem to be a more reasonable assumption than Jeannie's First Law of Creation.
Posted on 08/21/2005 7:56:53 AM PDT by CO Gal
Quick: Define miosis and mitosis. Explain mitochondrion and chloroplast. Now briefly, what's RNA?
The biology teachers assembled at the University of Colorado last week for a seminar on teaching evolution know most Americans are clueless about basic science.
They find our ignorance exasperating.
But it also explains a lot.
With most people content with being scientifically illiterate, it's no wonder so many believe intelligent design is a scientific theory.
It unequivocally is not.
It's a religious belief, a political issue or an abomination destined to cripple Americans in global scientific achievement, depending on your point of view. But it is not a legitimate counterpart to the theory of evolution.
In the hall full of schoolteachers, graduate students and science professors, there was no argument on that point.
The debate instead was on how to overcome the challenge from political groups that want to undercut science education with their religious agenda.
The problem is "we've got people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that God put the fossils in the ground," said Matt Young, senior lecturer in physics at the Colorado School of Mines. "That's not scientific. People have a right under the law to believe it. But it's wrong," no matter how many people choose to believe it.
"We have the proof. It's unequivocal," said Norm Pace, a professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at CU. The astronomical, geological and biological evidence of evolution is overwhelming.
Most of the time in the classroom, micro-evolution - the development of antibiotic resistance, for example - is accepted, said one teacher. It's the concept of macro-evolution - the study of changes over eons - that sparks objections.
"That's like saying, 'I believe in feet but not miles,"' said Jeff Mitton, chairman of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at CU, who called the case for evolution "indisputable."
But to understand that, schools must do a better job of teaching science, starting in kindergarten, Mitton said.
If people understand reproduction, fossils, genetics, the scientific method and the fundamentals of scientific theory and how it differs from casual theorizing, the case for evolution is obvious.
And allowing creationists to undermine the teaching of science through some misguided demand for equal classroom time for a supposition that has nothing to do with science is hardly benign. Lives depend on scientific advances.
"Mosquitoes are constantly evolving and developing resistance to insecticides, and 300 million people have malaria," Mitton said. "The AIDS virus rapidly mutates into an array of AIDS viruses that are resistant to drugs, and whole villages in Africa are disappearing because of it. Intelligent design can't do anything for them."
Still, some at the seminar suggested that creationism or its politically correct descendant, intelligent design, should be taught in social studies, history or philosophy class along with other creation ideas such as those of the Iroquois, the Chinese and the Egyptians.
"The goal is to teach science, not to change beliefs," said Sarah Wise, a Ph.D. candidate at CU and a former high school biology teacher in California.
But legislation to require that creationism be taught as a counterpoint to evolution is being discussed in Colorado and across the country. And if history is any guide, we all should be very afraid of politicians legislating science education.
Mitton recalled an Indiana legislator's attempt in 1897 to require that schools simplify pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter) from the clumsy but accurate 3.141592... to 3.2.
If this had been enforced and the products of Indiana schools tried to apply it, he said, "bridges would fall down, structures couldn't be built," engineering would be impossible.
It's simple: Without pi, there is no mathematics.
And without the teaching of evolution, biology doesn't have a prayer.
Oh?
The believers of Puncuated Equilibrium tend to disagree!
Catastrophic meteor impacts tend to be a bit non-linear in nature as well.
Perfect. I am glad you posted this.
It reaffirms those who believe that many creationists are deliberately misrepresenting the facts in arguing about evolution.
It also tells me that I will not trust anything you post again. I have no way of determining if you have decided I am an enemy of yours or not.
Beavus, I refer you to post 440 where Elsie admits he believes in lying to the opposition.
He is clearly misrepresenting the scale of events here.
Ouch!
The messenger is dead!
I suggest you take it up with the Bible authors.
(Can't you address the issue in 441?)
What 'scale'?
Likewise.........
With most people content with being biblically illiterate, it's no wonder so many believe Evolution is a scientific fact.
Use your brain.
That's what Evolutionists do when they look at the Fossil Record.
Use your Spirit.
That's what Creationists do when they try to understand where others are coming from.
(Have I covered all the bases?)
Besides; if you WERE my 'enemy', would I not pray for you?
Not worth it.
To the neutral observer it's obvious and I can't trust your representations of your opinions.
I post for the lurkers.
Used both.
Don't trust you.
Not according to the Biblical quotes you posted.
Suit yourself.
None of THOSE VERSES addressed that aspect; did it?
Hmmm. By logic adultery is also not a sin.
Definitely. It is how the universe works.
The believers of Puncuated Equilibrium tend to disagree!
I GUARANTEE you that it is just the opposite.
Catastrophic meteor impacts tend to be a bit non-linear in nature as well.
Linear or nonlinear, I don't know what you mean. But meteor impacts most definitely do not violate the time continuum. The physical processes involved in an impact occur smoothly in time, without magical skips and jumps.
Everything we see in nature is like that. But, somehow, some creationists seem to think the time continuum was uniquely violated when furry creatures magically poofed into existence. No horse--POOF!--horse. Even though we've never observed anything like it outside an episode of "Bewitched", and it contradicts what we actually do observe all of our lives, some people strangely seem to think that in the past that is how the world worked.
What kind of logic?
No magic; just God's will.
We'll not get agreement on these threads, as one side thinks that little bitty changes magically brought all we see into existance and the other side doesn't.
Your logic.
However, since "little bitty changes" is what we always see, and all we ever see, that would seem to be a more reasonable assumption than Jeannie's First Law of Creation.
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.