Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Pennsylvania] Gov. Rendell backs evolution
York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 30 September 2005 | NICOLE FREHSEE

Posted on 09/30/2005 7:45:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a group organized to promote the teaching of evolution, sent letters Thursday to all 50 governors, urging them to ensure that science classes teach material based on established science.

The letters were signed by more than 100 scientists and clergy of various faiths, the group said.

Although Gov. Ed Rendell had not received the letters as of Thursday afternoon, spokeswoman Kate Philips said he is committed to the idea of teaching evolution in science classes.

Rendell "believes that (intelligent design) is more than appropriate to be taught in religion classes, but has no room in science classes in public schools," Philips said. "But this is in the court's hands now, and other than his opinion, he has no influence."

But a spokeswoman for DefCon, the group's nickname for itself, said the group hopes that after governors receive the letter, they will make a public announcement opposing the teaching of intelligent design.

"It would be nice if (Rendell) took a stance and said, whether it's in the Dover district or any other Pennsylvania district, 'We need to protect the teaching of science in our science classrooms,'" Jessica Smith said.

The group named Dover its top "Island of Ignorance" in the country. It has targeted areas in the country where it says evolution is being challenged at the state level or in public school science classrooms. They include Cobb County, Ga.; Kansas; Blount County, Tenn.; Ohio; Grantsburg, Wisc.; Alabama; Utah; South Carolina; and Florida.

Advocates of intelligent design say life is so complex that it is likely the result of deliberate design by some unidentified creator, not random evolutionary mutation and adaptation.

Critics say it is essentially creationism and violates the separation of church and state when it becomes part of a public school curriculum.

"We can do better when we let science do its job, and ask religion to do its job," former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser said Thursday, "and if there's a need for conversation, please, let's not do it in the classrooms of our children."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dover; evolution; oviraptor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 441-449 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman

From NY - I knew you were no Carolina native. That explains your attitude. I live in NC and can usually tell the natives from the immigrants.


321 posted on 10/01/2005 4:11:16 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

"The person I am arguing against, mlc9852 *is* a young earth creationist"

I never said how old I assume the earth to be but then honesty isn't big with evos anyway - just spew your vitrol and hope we'll go away. You really should stick to what people actually say rather than injecting your opinions of what you imagined.


322 posted on 10/01/2005 4:18:22 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

But we're still arguing and I guess there will always be arguments about evolution - even if you don't want these discussions in classrooms.


323 posted on 10/01/2005 4:20:19 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

OK, how old do you believe the earth is? Do you believe the Noah story is substantially true?

From you I'll take accusations of dishonesty as a compliment.


324 posted on 10/01/2005 4:30:45 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo
"Certainly you must know that Eugenicists from Margaret Sanger to Hitler have used Evolution to excuse their evil schemes."

Would you like a list of those who have used religion to "excuse their evil schemes"? Bandwidth is limited and the list is extensive. And really, what do such lists prove anyway?

325 posted on 10/01/2005 4:32:31 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I don't pretend to know how old the earth is but I do believe there was a world-wide flood and I think the evidence points to that. Why are you evos always calling those who disagree with you names? Childish.


326 posted on 10/01/2005 4:42:58 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Apologies, I do have difficulty getting my head round someone who believes that there was a global flood (for which there is zero objective evidence) other than on Biblical Authority, so I would expect them to also believe the Biblical genealogies as well. My problem that I had not correctly understood your position, that you believe in a global flood, but presumably not a literal 7 day creation around 6000 years ago (since the assertion that you might believe in that makes you testy). Sorry, I was wrong.


327 posted on 10/01/2005 4:57:46 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
"From NY - I knew you were no Carolina native. That explains your attitude. I live in NC and can usually tell the natives from the immigrants."

I have rarely seen your attitude; most native NC'ers are actually very friendly. That's why I am more at home here than I was in NY (plus, it fits my politics a lot better too). I couldn't help where I was raised; I made a choice to stay here though. Even with the very occasional ignoramus like you mucking about. If you really ARE a NC native.

I also notice you had nothing more to say about your pathetic attempt at humor. All you can do is insult me because of where I was born. Not very Christian of you.
328 posted on 10/01/2005 5:29:49 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Actually I was born in TN so I'm not a native of NC, just of the South. And whether or not you appreciate my humor makes no difference to me. And NC may fit your politics but I doubt it fits your scientific beliefs.


329 posted on 10/01/2005 5:53:01 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place."

Can you hear a deafening silence from the OP, who fosited their fantasy on us (doubtless parroted from a creatonist lie-site) of Darwin's racism? Wouldn't it be wonderful, just for once in all of these threads, to hear, "Sorry I was misinformed, I've learned something", or "Sorry, I was wrong" from a creationist.

330 posted on 10/01/2005 6:06:10 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
"And NC may fit your politics but I doubt it fits your scientific beliefs."

Not everybody in the South is as scientifically illiterate as you. Nor are most as impolite as you are. Certainly the ones I know wouldn't try to duck out of answering a question by throwing insults about where someone was born. They would consider that cowardly and low.

"And whether or not you appreciate my humor makes no difference to me."

Still no explanation as to why you implied I was using Hitler as an example of a scientist. In order to appreciate your humor you first have to be humorous.
331 posted on 10/01/2005 6:06:24 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I am an Old Earth Creationist, especially after finding out how the age of the Earth was determined. There is a book called "The Fingerprint of God" by Hugh Ross, which examines the creation debate and addresses the young vs. old Earth debate. I arrived at my conclusion after reading that book.
Since most mutations are detrimental to the animal/plant in which they occur,it seems unlikely to me that even with the length of time involved that enough beneficial mutations would occur to allow for new species to evolve.
I also don't understand why evolutionists consider less probable for evolution to be directed as opposed to random. There is nothing to support either viewpoint as it cannot be tested. The factor that lends support to the idea that God directs evolution goes back to the mutations.(IMO) There are an awful lot of bad mutations to overcome for a favorable one to become established. It just seems improbable that chance could accomplish that.


332 posted on 10/01/2005 6:37:59 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Thank you for your considered response.

Since most mutations are detrimental to the animal/plant in which they occur,it seems unlikely to me that even with the length of time involved that enough beneficial mutations would occur to allow for new species to evolve.

This is of course an area where considerable research has been done, and those who do that research have not come to the same conclusions as you. Observed mutation rates appear to be easily enough to generate sufficient favourable mutations over the available time.

I also don't understand why evolutionists consider less probable for evolution to be directed as opposed to random. There is nothing to support either viewpoint as it cannot be tested. The factor that lends support to the idea that God directs evolution goes back to the mutations.(IMO) There are an awful lot of bad mutations to overcome for a favorable one to become established. It just seems improbable that chance could accomplish that.

I don't think we have a lot to argue about, except that professional biologists who study this field haven't come to the same conclusions as you. Something that you should ponder is that most "bad" mutations are weeded out of the gene pool in the most final manner instantly, by preventing organisms that suffer from them from ever having any chance of reproducing at all. The overwhelming number of mutations are merely neutral. Viable favourable mutations and viable unfavourable mutations occur and the favourable ones are preserved by natural selection. I am afraid "It just seems improbable that chance could accomplish that." doesn't really cut it as an argument against that position.

Believe that God directs what science treats as random if you wish, there is no way that science can ever test for that proposition so it is unscientific, but not inherently false or stupid. Such a belief has no place in a science classroom though.

333 posted on 10/01/2005 6:57:03 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; metmom

Ich, Can you please check my answer to Metmom above. You understand this stuff much better than I do and I'd like it confirmed by someone who really does understand this that I have got it right.


334 posted on 10/01/2005 7:00:09 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I'll post some examples when I have time.

You've said that before. Actually, you've said that many, many times before. Apparently, you never have the time. Not ever.

335 posted on 10/01/2005 10:19:20 AM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo
Certainly you must know that Eugenicists from Margaret Sanger to Hitler have used Evolution to excuse their evil schemes.

Christians like Jim Jones and the Spanish Inquisition have used Christianity to plot evil as well. That does not make all Christians evil. This is a logical fallacy.

336 posted on 10/01/2005 10:29:11 AM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic; PatrickHenry
You have my original comments and yours kind of mixed together, so I will put my original comments in italics and your responses in blockquotes (indented), followed by my responses in normal formatting.


==========

"As soon as you bring in the outside "designer" you stop doing science."

You should know the next question. What is science?

Why is intelligent design not science? Give me a nice concise definition.

How about I give you a nice simple definition. Science is the application of the scientific process with the intention of learning about the world in which we live.

What's wrong? Is the definition too theoretical? Does it define science in a way that doesn't provide nice comfortable answers?

If we start restricting science to things we understand, we become Ludditites. We stop seeking to qeustion what we know. Considering how little we really know about the world in which we live, it's kind of absurd to asume that we haven't made some incorrect assumptions in our scientific theories. After all they are theories, not proven facts.

That's easy; science is facts-and-theories. Facts by themselves don't mean much. A good theory organizes them into far greater usefulness. A powerful theory includes existing facts and accommodates newly discovered facts, and also allows you to make testable predictions.

This is the first place ID has problems. What are the facts? What I see on these threads is more like, "Its too complex, so God did it." or "Its too complex for me to figure out, so it must have been designed." There are no facts there, just assumptions. Not even a good working hypothesis, as it cannot be tested against data.

Evolution is a theory based on facts. The facts include hundreds of thousands of fossils, millions of existing plant and animal species, DNA, geological layers, and on and on and on. One of these facts is that things change through time. The theory of evolution builds on these facts and explains how all of the facts interrelate.

In answer to your specific question, "If we start restricting science to things we understand, we become Ludditites." That is where theory comes in--you build a theory from the facts you do have, spin off some nice hypotheses and test them. If they are falsified, throw them out and start over. No Luddites there. That's how science works.

And that's why ID doesn't fit into science. Imagine a scientific conference. You present a paper saying, "God did it." I present a paper saying, "Old Man Coyote did it." What are we going to use for data to distinguish between these two hypotheses? It all eventually boils down to individual belief, and that is no data. Science as a method has trouble when there are no facts of any kind to work with. I suppose you could try to build a hypothesis to test, but without a database how could you test it? That is where philosophy comes in.

Imagine another conference. Someone presents a paper saying, "The earth is flat." What data can you bring to bear on this. Quite a lot, actually. That's why only the tiniest lunatic fringe still believes the theory that the earth is flat.

==========

"Its like the comment I read on one of these threads earlier of a scientific theory or mathematical proof or some such with "then a miracle happened" in the middle."

A proof with "then a miracle happened" in the middle isn't a proof. It's still a theory. It's not a very credible theory. It needs a bit of work in the area containing the miracle, but at least you know a good area to concentrate on when working to refine and improve on that theory.

That's right, but you work on refining the theory by reference to data! What are the facts, and to how many decimal points.

==========

"What is the evidence for an outside designer?"

Well, obviously there isn't proof of an outside designer. That's kind of part of the whole theory thing.

One way inwhich you evaluate theories is to simply ask questions that the theory might answer and look for other explainations.

Evolution might explain how life evolved, but where did this world come from? How did it all start? We've got that whole second law of therodynamics thing that says that systems tend toward entropy and that no system is 100% efficient.

So our univers must be increasing in entropy and must be expending energy in the process. Well where did all the energy come from to get this whole thing started?

Evolution isn't gonna answer that one for ya.

Whenever you ask why we teach evolution the answer is that it's the best theory we have that explains what we have observed.

Well, what's the best explaination you have for how all this got started. If it doesn't involve some form of intelligent design, explain why it's a better theory than some form of intelligent design. Make sure your reasoning doesn't include some self serving and limiting defintion of science. let's leave the semantics to Bill Clinton when he tries to define "is" in a way such that he can say he didn't perjure himself.

I'n not saying that ID is the only explaination to anything. I'm merely pointing out that it's a theory.

I didn't ask for proof (science doesn't deal in proof); I asked for evidence (facts or data). You responded, correctly, there isn't proof, but that's where theory comes in. But science is facts and theory. Where are the facts?

I'm ignoring the abiogenesis (How did it all start) question, as that's not evolution. And I can't believe you are bringing up the second law of thermodynamics. That has been dealt with so often I won't even bother here. See PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.

Your final comments in this section ask why the "theory" of ID is not equally valid. Again, no data which can be used to distinguish competing hypotheses--God vs. Old Man Coyote, etc.

==========

"Under what conditions does this designer operate. If you hypothesize such a designer, how will you test your hypothesis?"

There is no criteria for a theory that says it must be provable. Facts must be provable. Theories are possible answers to questions that usually bring up more questions than they answer.

I do not know how to test for a designer. I also don't know how to test that evolutionary mutations are truely random. By definition you can't prove that something is random. So much for really testing out that theory of evolution.

Oh wait, maybe that's one of the reasons why it's considered a THEORY?!?!

Science is not simply the study of nice conveient facts that you can go look up in a textbook. If it were it would be pretty boring. After all what we know about our universe is such a small amount compared to what we don't know. If we limit science to those nice comfortable facts, what are we doing when we try and learn about the things we don't currently understand? We obviously don't want to call that studying religion or we'll never get anywhere due to fighting lawsuits from the ACLU all the time instead of learning.

We could call it philosophy. I'm kind of fond of philosophy since what we like to consider science has it's roots in philosophy. I'm always amused that if you want to take a class on logic in a university you'll have to go to the philosophy department, because it isn't taught as science, yet you can't explain anything in science without understanding logic.

My theory is that science and philosophy are labels imposed by acedemics more concerend with empire building at universities than with learning. As evidence to support my theory I suggest you sit in on a budget meeting in which funds are being split up between those different departments.

Now religion on the other hand has something that distinguishes it from science or philosophy.

Religion takes an unprovable theory, recognizes that it is unprovable, and then compells you to believe in it anyway.

This is another reason I don't like how the ACLU and the teachers unions are pushing to teach the theory of evolution exclusively in our public schools.

"There is no criteria for a theory that says it must be provable. Facts must be provable." Again, theories are not provable. Fact should be verifiable. However, science can work by inference. So, we can construct a framework that says "Lets assume A is true, then B has to be true, and that leads to C. If we can devise a test for C and find it is true then the entire construct is supported. Not proved, but supported. Or, if C was shown not to be true the construct is falsified. If you have a large, logical construct which keeps spinning off testable hypotheses and those hypotheses are always found to be accurate, you are making progress. But at some point you have to have something to test, and that is where ID fails.

You note that "I also don't know how to test that evolutionary mutations are truely random. By definition you can't prove that something is random. So much for really testing out that theory of evolution."

I don't see how that is important at all. Who cares whether they are completely random. I don't see where this is a valid test of evolution. You want a test? How about something simple. Old and New World monkeys are said to have split off from one another millions of years ago. If that is true, they will not have the same mtDNA, but will have picked up some number of random mutations. Now that hypothesis can be tested (and probably already has). If the two are identical that's a problem for the theory of evolution. If they are wildly different, that's also a problem. The theory would predict somewhere in between. This is not my field, so some minor details may be off but that is the nature of predictions which can be made and tested.

Finally, your comment on religion " Religion takes an unprovable theory, recognizes that it is unprovable, and then compells you to believe in it anyway." All theories are unprovable. Religion is a belief system, not a theory. It (like ID) is not subject to testing. You either believe it or you don't, but you can't go out and dig up some data that would allow a test.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I'm out of steam. If you have spefic questions, toss them onto these threads and I am sure you will get answers (plenty of answers, most likely).

337 posted on 10/01/2005 11:30:40 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Believe that God directs what science treats as random if you wish, there is no way that science can ever test for that proposition so it is unscientific, but not inherently false or stupid.

Randomness does not mean there was no intelligence, design, or purpose. Scientists use randomness in their research, do they not?
It also depends on whether it appears or is random because what we think or expect to happen doesn't happen when we think it should.
The randomness could have simply been incorporated as a design feature; programmed in, as it were. There's no way to know if the randomness is truly ramdon in a non created universe or part of a greater plan which we are not aware of.
I don't think randomness can be a very good support for the ToE.


338 posted on 10/01/2005 1:11:31 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So, that leaves two possibilities as far as I see it; 1) God did use evolution as the process by which man was created or 2) the fossil record is being misinterpreted. If anyone else can see other possibilities, feel free... I know however, that #2 is not going to be real popular with some folks.

A reasonable postulate.

Now, lets take it to the next step. The real issue is to analyze the issue quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.

The creationist / ID crowd here uses some pretty clever semantics, but it is essentially deceiving. To wit: they argue that the "fossile record is in doubt." OK, how much in doubt?? Are the dates controversial or uncertain to a factor of +- 10%, 50%, a factor of 2, a factor of 10??? (The answer is that they are controversial to a factor of about 2).

Well, then, how old is the fossile record compared to Biblical, young Earth creationism?? Well, (in round numbers), the fossile record is 500 million years old. The Biblical creation occured 5,000 years ago. That's a factor of 100,000 to 1. It's a little beyond the uncertainty.

A similar argument can be made for the geologic record, which goes back a couple of billion years. Perhaps the strongest argument is the cosmological argument. Multiple, quite disparate astronomic measurements put the age of the Universe at about 15 billion years. That's a much larger factor.

339 posted on 10/01/2005 3:54:10 PM PDT by 2ndreconmarine (I've had a bad day at work. I'm in a bad mood. Time to stomp on a creationist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
he knew where his knowledge came from, right out of his mouth was "God" and he knew he was not a result of evolution.

The caller was talking in the realm of politics. Since only a minority of people are dead set that literal creationism is fact, and many people like myself understand how wrong they are, then bringing up evolution destroyed his political message.

It was too bad. He made some otherwise good points.

340 posted on 10/01/2005 4:42:58 PM PDT by narby (Creationists and IDers, Stuck On Stupid for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 441-449 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson