Posted on 10/07/2005 7:35:38 AM PDT by Sopater
University of Idaho President Tim White has entered the debate pitting Charles Darwin's theories of life against religious-based alternatives by forbidding anything other than evolution from being taught in the Moscow school's life, earth and physical science classes.
"This (evolution) is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our biophysical sciences," he wrote. "Teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses."
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
I might support withdrawing all aid from all colleges, but your selective use of big govt. power is an abuse of free speech far in excess of what the university of Idaho has done.
Abuse of big govt. power is usually frowned on by conservatives.
;-) God bless you RunningWolf. Your service to our great country is very much appreciated.
The interpretation of empirical data is up for grabs, i.e., any given scientist can interpret the data anyway he wants. The limitation is imposed not upon the interpretation (save for the obstacles of peer-review) but upon what qualifies as data. The usual qualifier is that data must be observable and empricially obtained. Hence, owing to the unobservable aspects of the creator or "spirits" science has placed the supernatural off-limits.
LOL. That's what science is -- the assumption that natural causes can be found.
I think you look to deeply! Go to the top of a mountain
to contemplate reality. In the mean time I'll believe what
can be observed. All existence has followed from Alpha
along the way to Omega. We didn't start at Alpha and
suddenly Windows XP jumped into our midst.
We evolved. You may say, oh yes but God had a hand.....
Doesn't matter. Save that for Church or Philosophy class.
Observed. Does that include indirect observation or just direct observation? Where does that leave quantum mechanics? Wave function collapse? Black holes?
Hmmm. So much for open-mindedness and searching for truth.
No need to catch up. Just jump right in anywhere...
I find it truly amusing that so many believe that the supernatural ought to be addressed by natural science.
their ignorance of linguistics evidently matches their ignorance of science.
supernatural = super(above, beyond) + natural
by definition, the "supernatural" (if it exists at all) exists beyond the scope of nature and -duh!- beyond the bailiwick of natural science.
In the instant "life" first came to living existence, the living matter contained not only measurable mass and chemical properties, but essential, reproducible information that permitted the "life" to reproduce more "life" within it's original lifespan.
Either one of these [ooze/comet] postulates requires a lot more "blind faith" than the central premise of intelligent design - that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.".
By definition -- under normal circumstances, a scientific theory is usually proven and accepted as "scientific" and factual truth when it can be reliably duplicated. Except, of course, for Darwinian thought; which is accepted and taught as a "fact".... when in fact -- it remains quite unproven -- if not far-fetched by true scientific standards.
Hmmmm evidence....
Like the biologists of the 19th and 20th centuries who established Darwinism as scientific orthodoxy while knowing only the tiniest fragments of biochemistry, genetics and cellular science compared to what we know today?
Like the remainder of the existing body of cellular science and biogenetics we enjoy today -- that clearly shows that the intrinsic molecular mechanisms are much more complicated that any computer we could design, build, or even imagine?!?
Like the evidence plainly considered by British scholar and renowned atheist Anthony Flew; Who last December ('04) conceded that the scientific evidence points to the premise that a superior intelligence must be involved in light of the almost unbelieveable complexity of arrangements which are needed to produce life?
Anthony Flew admitted to an interviewer:
My whole life has been guided by the principles of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads
Please refer to The Wonder Of The World by Roy Varghese.
There is a lot more evidence;but we are not talking about the "bones" or "teeth" of "early man-like creatures" that were intellectually sold as such to willing or gullible academes-- but later proven to belong to a non-extinct wild pig...
-Or-
The high probability of large mathematical errors that exist in "scientific" back-dating processes...
-Or-
The fact that there are to date NO reliable evidences of transitional species (Everytime we tried to get away with that -- the DNA blows it away....)
I think it might be helpful to learn to distinguish between what scientists assume and what they really investigate-and thus prove.
Perhaps we should not confuse the adaptation of the species to envrionmental factors -- with evolutionary propositions that you can unzip a dinosaur and a bird flies out; or that in the somewhere of unknown eventualities during the epochs of pre-history -- therapsids walked up out of the ocean and became "pre-" mankind organisms.
I think the reliable and proven mechanism of evolutionary process is the all important key to Darwin's puzzle -- this is yet to be even offered for scientific consideration.
What have we found in existing life forms-- that triggers the change from one species into a new and separate species--with different organs and functions that define it as a "new" species?? I haven't seen it-- and, for the record, I have looked!
Likewise, it would be helpful to discern the difference between testing a theory against the totality of the evidence, instead of using selected bits of evidence to support the theory-- even when flying in the face of the remainder of the body of evidence.
I think we have all observed some slick debating gimmicks in motion; And each... to some degree fallen for the bait & switch salesmanship that permits and endorses the "facts vs.theory" substitutions.
Respectfully submitted, folks...
Check the tagline!!
Have a nice day
"The central premise of Darwinian theory is that life was somehow "born" from the pool of unliving ingredients -- It came out of the ooze by virtue of yet to be explained biochemical reactions..... or perhaps flew in on a comet's tail... etc."
No wonder you don't like evolution - you don't know what it is. Not that I blame you - you've been misinformed and the press is no help.
Evolution is "The historical development of a related group of organisms." Evolution is the idea that more complex organisms came from less complex organisms.
It does not say where the first life came from.
It does not say whether or not there is a God.
It does not discuss whether or not God guided evolution.
There are many parts of it that are unknown or in dispute. We will figure those out the way we figure everything else.
But to the extent that there are problems it will not be helped by forcing science teachers to teach religion against their will.
Scientific criticism of Piltdown Man started in earnest about 1912 so one might say that it was about .01 decade; just long enough to look at the bones. Only English anthropologists continued to support Piltdown in general; most of the American, French, and German anthropologists thought it a collage of several unrelated bone pieces.
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.