Posted on 11/06/2005 6:26:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
Evolution bump. Note how our favorite educator, Connie Morris, is 'extemely anxious to put this behind us..." No doubt she has other damage to inflict.
My guess is that major universities will announce their unwillingness to accept Kansas diplomas. The state schools might even be disaccredited.
This can happen. My local schools were disaccredited (some decades ago).
Conservatives and moderates. Where are the liberals?
It wil be defended tooth and nail but materialists needing it as a philosophical foundation, but there is growing erosion of its possibility as it has been taught and understood for a long time.
In Lawrence, KS.. ( University town and rabidly Liberal )
At least that is the one Liberal pocket I am familiar with..
Most of KS is either Conservative or Moderate..
Where you find concentrations (infestations?) of Liberals is in the college towns..
Little pockets of infection scattered throughout the state..
As for the TOE's erosion as an explanation of speciation, the evidence supporting it continues to grow..
The evidence that already exists is overwhelmingly supportive..
Only in the minds of the irrational.
Next the ID nuts will be attacking gravity: "we see no proof of gravity; our evidence suggests humans are kept in place by the hand of an invisible sky-god."
Ah, we haven't had a thread about the idiocy in Kansas for a few weeks. This is good weekend material. Cranking up the ping machine ...
|
Well, I'm glad to see that this can be a dispassionate discussion! Exclamations like yours cannot dismiss criticism of what is, finally, only a theory.
When advocates of pure TOE can demonstrate repeatedly, under identical conditions, in a variety of locations and times, the competition among complex organic and inorganic compounds leading to viable primitive life, then I will say that TOE absent everthing else is science. Until then, begging to introduce immense spans of time as the deus ex machina of a materialist theory is the same thing as saying "The gods did it!"
The inadequacies of TOE as an explanation of origins of life, which seem to be forgotten when it is taught, must be mentioned even as the truths of TOE are explained. Otherwise, education is incomplete and limited by secularist and materialist prejudices and opinion.
We wouldn't want that, would we?
There is no erosion of support among people who understand it or who are willing to approach it with an open mind.
Any teacher who spoke about the *failure* of evolution to explain the origins of life should be fired. They would either be amazingly incompetent or liars. The ToE has never been concerned with life's origins, any more than the Theory of Universal Gravity attempts to explain the origins of matter or the Germ Theory attempts to explain the origin of germs. And we know that you know better. Why must you therefore make things up?
You might wish to explain why the icons of intelligent design -- Behe and Denton -- have accepted evolution as a fact, including common descent. There is no position among people educated in science that does not accept common descent, even among the critics of Darwinian evolution.
Haven't seen you around geezer. You obviously haven't been corrected yet on your mistaken definition of "theory". It does not mean "guess" as non-scientists assume. It the context of evolution, it is an explanation of how things work. As in the "Theory of Gravity", or "Music Theory", or "Nuclear Theory". Evolution is both a scientific theory, because it explains how things work, and an observed fact, because it does in fact occur, as even ID proponents have begun to acknowledge when they get under oath at trial.
When advocates of pure TOE can demonstrate repeatedly, under identical conditions, in a variety of locations and times, the competition among complex organic and inorganic compounds leading to viable primitive life
Obviously you have also not been corrected on your mistaken conflation of various hypothesis of how the first life came to be, vs. how species arose via evolution theory. The two are utterly unconnected. Whether the first life form was "planted" by God or a space alien, or arose via abiogensis is irrelevant to the observed fact that evolution occurs and is the cause of the various species.
Now you know these things, and you can either dispute them with me (in which case you will continue to be wrong), or you can move on to other issues regarding evolution. It will be interesting to see if you bring these issues up in later threads.
> Conservatives and moderates. Where are the liberals?
Sitting on the sidelines, laughing. Congratulating themselves for the yeomans work being doen by their supposedly conservative useful idiots on the school board, busy making all conservatives look like uneducated, anti-science boobs.
PatrickHenry, allow me to express my appreciation for your excellent EvolutionPing. I've never come across an argument for Intelligent Design that would survive your list of caveats under "How to argue against a scientific theory."
What's really funny about the whole thing is that the concept of Intelligent Design is completely in harmony with the Theory of Evolution. Most Catholics accept the scientific theory of evolution as the means God used to create humans. The God part is based on faith. The evolution part is based on evidence. An elegant solution to the problem, and why Catholics don't feel the need to insert God into biology and astronomy texts. I guess they aren't as insecure about their faith as the folks on the Kansas school board.
The fanatic at work. He's gonna do what he's gonna do. Consequences be damned and who cares what the scientific evidence is?
What he said...
Thanks for the ping!
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.