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."
Some people are just irredeemably stupid.
Go back 13,000 years and none us are "native americans," and go back 250,000 years and none us are genus "homo."
Then again, someone said, "the stupid will always be with us" or something like that.
Still just a theory,...not proof.
There is no credible link between these two humanoids.
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.
We appear to be in agreement, except for the last sentence which came straight out of nowhere. It has no connection with the rest of what you typed.
Well, I was right.
The very last word on my part on this thread, I promise...probably won't be seen at this point anyhow...kudos to you, mlc, for standing up to the utter contempt dished out to you from the tyrants who purport to love the diversity of opinion generated by the scientific method...until it clashes with their own belief system. Then, giving liberal nazi types a run for their money, they respond posthaste with the insults and gratuitous slanders...any reasoning individual reading all these threads would recognize the true 'knuckle draggers' are...(just referencing one of the names I saw tossed out to describe IDers...sorry if I offend...)
Liberal Dem Ed Rendell backs evolution? surprise, surprise.
I agree. Evolutionary theory is not dogma. It is falsifiable (that is, it can be tested). It makes specific, empirical predictions.
Intelligent Design fails both of these basic criteria required of a scientific theory. It is philosophy, and should be discussed as such. You should ask yourself, "What specific empirical predictions does ID make?" and "What potential finding could falsify ID?"
Those are the problems with ID as science. People should feel free to discuss whatever intellectual topics they want, but you can't require a science teacher to include something in a curriculum that just isn't science. There would be nothing to teach.
The caller was a talk-radio host wannabe. He should take a clue from Rush and avoid the subject of religion in general, and evolution in particular. Rush has made some short comments that make it clear that he's a Christian and a creationist. But I don't remember him ever seriously discussing it at length. I do remember him saying some time ago that he didn't want to talk about religion, because too many people have too many different ideas about dogma. These threads prove that point in abundance.
The caller had his shot at 10 minutes of fame, and he blew it by convincing many of his the listeners he doesn't have a clue because he brought up evolution.
Your people awareness is so dull you have no clue what evolution says to different people.
After quite a long time on these threads, I've got quite a clue about what different people think on the subject. Most people outside these threads could care less. But a significant minority of the population believe the subject is a bellwether identifying the education and general intelligence and open mindedness of people. In the situation of Rush's caller, he blew away that section of people that he otherwise might have made inroads into.
This is why the Republicans need to stay away from this subject like the plague. Because the second they adopt creationism as a plank in the party, 10% of the people will never have respect for them again. Since major elections are decided by 1-2 points, that 10% is a killer.
That's the reason I post on these threads. To attempt to convince republican pols that this subject is to divisive, and brings no advantage, and they should therefore stay away from it like Limbaugh, who has some brains, and generally avoids such subjects.
And speaking of people's awareness. You should know that people who've studied evolution look on creationists with the respect one would hold for a person who thinks Santa Claus is a real guy living on the North Pole. Even many Christians outside of some fundimentalist sects that have preached this subject pretty hard in the last few decades think Young Earth creationists are pretty clueless.
Anyone have an 1820 pic of Helen Thomas when she was in her early twenties? Damn, those centuries she do have an effect, now don't they?
Being on the right side means Holy Warriors don't have to acknowledge anything inconvenient. Many apparently feel they MUST NEVER BE wrong, even when they are wrong, nor is there any pressure on them not to carry on fighting when all is lost.
This is a trap, of course. It's the reason so many threads turn into a show of some creationist brazening a beat-to-death point for post after weary post rather than admitting the obvious.
To stay as right as you can, you have to be allowed to be wrong.
REV. JAMES LAWSON
Methodist minister
Chairman of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice
Open Borders and "living wage" advocate
Calls for the defeat of the United States in the war on terrorism
"The status quo in America means death for people in our own streets and for the earth."
From http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/dt/V138/N32/02-chemoren.32c.html
Chemerinsky was an active opponent in the campaign against Proposition 209, best-known as the law that ended affirmative action in public universities.
"I believe very strongly that diversity is essential," he said.
Chemerinsky was recently appointed to a task force to increase diversity in state government by Gov. Gray Davis. The task force is similar to the recent launch of outreach programs by public universities to combat the effects of anti-affirmative action legislation.
I just thought it would be interesting to know a little something about the non-scientists who are "defending" the Constitution. I find Mr. Chemerinsky's fight for diversity amusing under the circumstances. The other non-scientist, Mr. Glasser's association with the ACLU says all that needs to be said in this case. We can be pretty certain that if all scientists proved that God is the Creator, the ACLU would be suing this board.
PA ping
Where did I mention race? Where did I imply race? I think you've got more in common with the left that sees every issue framed with race for no reason whatever.
The caller was pretty good, until he brought up creationism as supporting is political issues. That blew his credibility out of the water.
Race has zero to do with it, and I could do with an apology where you say "your words describe what is at the base of evolution, a very racist ideology". Calling someone a racist, particularly since I didn't even bring up the subject of race, is an insult.
This supposed claim that evolution sits outside of politics and religion is a HOAX.
Evolution is a major part of science. If you don't get that, then you're seriously misinformed.
Politicians, and religions, that attempt to attack science for their personal power trip will be denounced. That's why any serious politician needs to stay away from this subject. And religious denominations, if they had brains, would stay away as well. It seems that some of them don't have brains.
3) the Bible is not infallible (or just flat out wrong.)
" There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:"
* a static fossil record;
Well, the fossil record isn't static, so that tosses this on out the window. What good is a falsification criteria that we already know to be false?
Why don't I just say that the falsification criteria for ID is that I created the universe by accident. I know it's not true but why let that bother me.
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
The theory of evolution does not say that there cannot be multiple evolutionary paths. It says that everything evolved from common ancestory and a seperate evolutionary path could produce such chimeras.
The existence of such fossils might disprove some theories built upon the theory of evolution, to say that disproves the theory of evolution is a denying the antecedent fallacy.
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
Nah, evolution suggests such a mechanism could develop. It merely suggests that natural selection would cause the species that develpos it to die out.
You would have to find a mechanism that exists in all creatures that keeps mutations from accumulaing. All it would take is one critter out there that lacked that restriction and evolution is back in business. We've also seen evidence that mutations can accumulate, so it appears to be another false falsification criteria.
* observations of organisms being created.
That one fails too. Nothing to say that the ability to create an organism couldn't have evolved. If we were to creat a self replicating machine would that be creating an organism? How about if we genetically engineer an organism that can reproduce?
"A true science must make predictions. Evolution only describes what happened in the past, so it is not predictive.
Response:
1. The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.
2. The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort. "
So it's a theory because you're able to make predictions, based on it even though those predictions may not be shown to be true, or may even be false.
I predict that because God made the world the world didn't exist before god created it.
You can predict that all kinds of past occurrances were the work of intelligent design.
Or are you suggesting that some of those predictions must be proven to have happened as a result of the phenomenon described in the theory? If that's the case Evolution can't meet that criteria either.
The link then goes on to list evidence. That's nice, but since the "evidence" doesn't prove evolution was involved, it's irrelevent.
But lets take a look at that evidence:
" Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000)."
Actually we've still never found fossils of intermediate states of one species evoloving into another species. The fossil's that were proposed to be hominids have pretty much turned out to be ape fossils or in one case a jaw from a human put with a skull from an ape that was proposed to be a himinid fossil for about 50 years.
The track record on hominid fossils is pretty much batting 100% failure.
Since The theory of evolution suggests many intermediate steps you'd think we'd find lots of hominid fossils. You'd also expect lots of fossils from other species evolving into another species rather than just evolutionary changes within a species.
I guess that's why they call it the MISSING link.
The problem is that evolutionists have made their predictions and are working to find evidence to support it and aren't very critical of evidence they find.
There are simply too many people that are willing to not examine the evidence too critically and then claim that it supports their theories.
People who disagree with them are called non-sicentists who beleive in that creation crap.
" Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000)."
An intelligent design would also need to be able to adapt in a rapidly changing environment. No proof that those changes are random mutations. Or you could say that the theory of an intelligent design would predict that the design would be adaptable to rapidly changin environments. After all, those rapidly changing envornments were intelligently designed.
Sound absurd? No more so that these arguments saying the theory of evolution is more scientific because you can predict stuff that may or may not happen or have happened based on it.
"# Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
# Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003)."
Same as the last. You could just as easily predict those on the basis of an intelligent design.
" * Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982). "
These last two would take me a bit of time to research to evaluate. Since the things they listed before them were not compelling and the logic they're using is flawed, I'm not going to bother unless someone gives me some reasons to consider them compelling.
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.