Posted on 10/20/2005 8:00:33 PM PDT by Rudder
I ignored the threat for a long time. I groaned at the letters to the editor in our local paper that dismissed evolution as "just a theory" and proclaimed the superiority of "Intelligent Design" (ID) to explain the world around us. When a particular emeritus professor pestered me with e-mails asking how I explained this or that aspect of the fossil record (How could a flying bird evolve from a non-flying species? Did I think feathered dinosaurs were real?), I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested. When this same man stood up, yet again, after a lecture to read a "question" that was actually a prepared statement about ID, I rolled my eyes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanscientist.org ...
So the teachers in Dover had to say that there are gaps or problems with the theory of evolution? Help us ACLU!! Help us ACLU !! An open exchange of ideas may be let into our government schools!! Help us ACLU !
No he's not. It's a scientifc theory, like that for Gravity.
You like gravity, no?
Yeah, the more you talk the more of a perjorative "scientist" becomes.
The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking. The scientific community is filled with some of the most illogical superstitious people on the planet.
All one has to do is look at the "scientific" case against nuclear energy or for global warming to see that the scientific community is filled with as many superstitious people as the churches are.....
Wrong, most scientists are opposed to intelligent design because intelligent design is based on faith, not science.
Micro evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. When human aids virus evolved from simian aids virus, that was a fact.
Macro evolution is a theory based on the logical extension of micro evolution and it is supported by a lot of evidence, but has not been proven.
Science is always on an unrelenting course to further elucidate the processes of evolution. ID does no research, and it took this trial to bring it to your attention. I don't like being on the side of the ACLU but, in this case, they are working to keep science in science classes and religion in religion classes.
I'm not against science or scientists, but I am against those who believe they've a monopoly to truth because they've a BS or PhD
after their name. The scientific community has few Galileo's today
who can actually offer proof for their theories. That which passes as science today often suffers from a stunning lack of critical thinking on the part of the scientist.
some lurker might come to the conclusion that science is science
Science is science, no problem there. But the theory of evolution has in every piece I've read about it treats it as if it was law. Therefore, it is a belief system just like matters of faith/believing.
Actually what you are citing are activists who recklessly and falsely use science for their own agendas. As I have posited here many times before: "If it has an agenda, it's not science."
Name one scientifc theory that has been proven.
Everyone has an agenda....
From what little I know about "intelligent design", I don't believe it can be called scientific theory or science at all. It is like fortune telling or psychic healing. Science involves the natural world and doesn't tangle itself in the supernatural morass.
Like William Paley's watch analogy, this all boils down to belief that God exists and things must have been created by the divine power. But when atoms react, God has little to do with it. Otherwise, God must be so predictable that we can sum up his actions in simple equations.
Darwin was not a physicist and had he been one he would have never said this. A slow gradual change implies one genetic change at a time. A quantum leap or abrupt change would require 2 or many more simutaneous and unlikely genetic changes or a million to one chance against. But when popultions number in the millions, the quantum leap or abrupt sudden and dramatic change can occur.
The improbable event is why we can not make hydrogen burn like the sun. You need to get 4 hydrogen atoms to collide simutaneously to get a helium out which is really hard to do which is why we do not have controlled fusion power. The sun does it by have trillions and trillions of hydrogen atoms colliding and a few produce the 4 body collision.
The quantum leaps in evolution would require many genes simultaneously changing. It is unlikely for one individual but one out of millions could make it happen.
I think the theory that the earth revolves around the sun has been proved, also....
Right. And that is why we have science...to ameliorate the bias of the agenda.
And who ameliorates the bias of the "unbiased"?
You like to mock scientists. But really, the greatest discovery is quantum mechanics which allow electron tunneling which powers the transitor and the integrated circuit that makes your computer and the internet run.
And scientists did this.
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.