Posted on 12/09/2005 3:55:11 AM PST by mlc9852
Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.
Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
I named someone who has changed his mind. I notice you ignored my response.
Two meanings, the former of which comfortably applies to a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
I don't believe I've heard 'scientists' say those things. In fact where 'b_sharp' was born the majority of scientists are Christian.
True in what sense?
And why should the end user of a course of biological research (say, gene mapping, or organ transplant development, or antiviral development, or genetic crop manipulation) care whether the biologist responsible believed in God or not?
But he would care even less if the established principles applicable to both the builder and the bridge were void of intelligent design, for there would be no bridge, nor a gap to be bridged, nor a driver to cross the bridge, nor a toll, nor two Freepers to discuss the contingencies.
I've never thought of bridge builders as gods (although Mr. Roebling came pretty close to divine inspiration).
As for the rest, you've kind of sideswiped the core issue. How do you propose to demonstrate that the "gap to be bridged" was intelligently designed, or that the "driver" was intelligently designed, or that "we two FReeps" were intelligently designed?
Biology, like any other discipline, can be undertaken without stating or assuming "God is forever outside the purview of science."
Of course it can. But what does the scientist's belief in God bring to the research table?
Sure, a biologist can begin each course of research by writing on the first page of his notebook "It could have been a miracle" or "The ID Guy could have blinked the critter/plant/bacteria/cell/compound/etc. into existence." But after that, the evil naturalistic, materialistic, plain old investigative hard work remains the same, doesn't it? (Assuming the biologist isn't lazy and doesn't just quit after penning that first entry.)
Those are the plaintiff's proposed findings of fact. They are not the findings of fact. You think the palintiffs aren't biased in favor of their own position.
I am sure the defendant's findings of fact and conclusions of law are quite different.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Out for about 5 hours.
Cheers!
Do scientists have a different definition of truth than the rest of the world?
I know of few people who would create a hypothesis without first believing it may be true.
No, he isn't. His post clearly identifies the material as the plaintiffs' proposed finding of fact. He is not attempting to conceal that fact in any way.
I am certain you don't mean it that way, but this passage comes across as a bit patronizing to minorities. Others would use a different word. Surely you aren't saying these folks are simpler and more gullible than white folk from the city?
And man, that's one complex operation!
In a corpse energy flow has been terminated. In a live organism energy flow continues.
"Do you think science is capable of telling the difference?
Yes
I am sure the defendant's findings of fact and conclusions of law are quite different.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
You are correct, that is the Plaintiffs' submission. Dishonest? BS. I labeled the submission as such and provided a link. What is dishonest about that? I think you just don't like what they submitted to the judge.
By the way, have you read the Defendant's submission? I have, and it is very different. It is abbreviated, not as well researched and seems to be addressing a totally different trial. Take a look at the two side by side.
You mean like cabbage preventing/curing bird flu?
homeopathy - noun a system of complementary medicine in which disease is treated by minute doses of natural substances that in large quantities would produce symptoms of the disease.
Cabbage in large quantities produces symptoms of the bird flu?
As long as the discipline entails the accurate representation of reality I see no reason for the end user to hanker for the introduction of theistic explanations.
I've never thought of bridge builders as gods . . .
Me neither. But I've always considered them to be subject to laws that were established by God, whether they acknowlege Him or not. Science is free to call them the "laws of nature." The names science gives to its object does not effect the essence of the object in any way.
As I've said before, the general cohesiveness of particle matter is enough to convince me, at least indirectly, that intelligent design is present and operative in all things.
These type of mutations were not a help for the theory of evolution. The additional limbs, such as extra wings, did not have parts to supply motive force. They were simply appendages, which actually were a crippling mutation (gee, aren't they all, though), not an advantageous one as required for evolution. Fruit fly experiments, in fact, due to their utter failure to create an advantageous mutation, actually hurt Darwin's theory. But, like the fake moths and the finches that didn't really change, they're all ya got. Sorry.
Possible, but for scientists when the evidence is lacking, or turns against an hypothesis, they abandon it. They certainly don't go forth proclaiming it has reached the level of a theory. Some nice ideas have been demolished by stubborn facts.
Beliefs are not so changed by facts. (Look at belief in the global flood in spite of the huge proponderance of evidence to the contrary.) That is why the definitions I have provided are important.
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.