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 ...
"Apparently, Fester does recognize a difference between the two.
I think that was a different Fester.
Just which of the 14000 deities are you?
I think that was a different Fester.
I made a mistake. I mistyped. Please see # 276.
My apologies to Fester.
"Quite well" is a relative term, much as is "natural" vs. "supernatural." Science would not do well at all if the universe did not demonstrate cohesiveness and laws that allow intelligent beings to query its nature. The predominant assumption of science through the ages is that order, organization, cohesiveness, consistency, and the like are indirect evidence of intelligent design. Not only the existence of God, but also His preeminent involvement in created matter, are givens under which science has operated for millenia. Science may confidently say "God did it," as well as "God is still doing it," all the while ascribing terms to the creation that assist in explaining it. God is the beginning and end of all science.
That is not to say, as some confuse me as saying, that science must introduce God into every explanation, or use His preeminence as an excuse to cease from exploration. Science is just one of many gifts from the Creator. Methodologies are free to to treat of the creation through specific omissions of reference to God. (Have you ever seen a play where the director had to keep inserting himself just to assure everyone he was in control?) But methodologies cannot exist without intelligent design.
The practice of science, if it proceeds under the assumption God is, and always will be, completely outside its purview, will result in colored interpretations and explanations. No two ways about it. Atheistic science is one kind of science, but not the only kind.
I do not believe it is the prerogative of public schools to address the legitimacy of atheistic science. Nor is it the prerogative of public school to address the legitimacy of theistic science. They are both ways of doing science. Give me either way of doing science, and I can make the evidence fit. I can even use both at the same time.
It certainly is no reason to give occasion for inflaming hatred because each observer begins with a different set of assumptions. Although I tend to disparage the usefulness of the Theory of Evolution I must admit it has not been entirely bereft of benefit.
I understand the human construct of applying the word "natural" or "supernatural" to a given phenomenon. But it is only a human construct. It does not necessarily reflect the reality involved. You are correct in asserting that I go on record as stating "everything is supernatural." The natural state of affairs for the universe, as far as I am concerned, is for all the elements to disintegrate into NOTHING.
I know... Do not mistake material proof with knowledge - one can not prove love yet one can know it... Faith is accepting without knowing --that one may come to know e.g. faith seeking understanding...
One must hold open the mind to anything outside that which they do not know; otherwise, their not knowing is their doing and lack of faith proof that lack of faith can prevent knowing...
Really? I have not heard of this. I would be grateful for names or more information.
They tried those experiments with fruit flies for more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of primates in our world.
Color me skeptical here; fruit flies (drosophila) have a 14 day generation (if memory serves). If the homeobox experiments were conducted for 20 years, this would be 500 generations. Let's say 1000 generations. Well, scientists believe that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor maybe 6 million years ago. Apes share with humans generations of at least 10 years, let's say 20. This would be 300,000 generations, a vastly larger number. Perhaps the number you are implying is from counting parallel experiments -- but this would not entail the enormous number of sequential generations that evolution requires.
"There are quite a few tests being used with animals for self awareness."
I heard about some of them. I know it has been done with chimps, gorillas, and dolphins. Interesting research.
The floating axe head is another example. From that account I consider it possible that an axe head can float, but will do so only if it serves the ultimate purpose of an intelligently designed universe. I would not expect science to undertake experiments in a controlled environment to bring about such a phenomenon, but given the peculiarities of quantum physics a floating axe head is but a microscopic anomaly.
Challenge: Describe mathematically the size of the known universe and the size of the smallest particle. Then calculate where your physical size fits within that spectrum. Let me know what you come up with.
The radish/cabbage thread produced an entirely new species of plant.
The studies with the sunflowers began by examining natural, wild species of sunflowers. These studies implied that two species were the evolutionary parents of a third wild species. The laboratory studies produced a plant from the two "parents" that is indistinguishable from the wild, natural plant. Basically the researchers showed the production of a wild natural sunflower species in the laboratory. It's a nifty set of experiments.
Don't give me the "kind" Creationist argument. All three were unambiguous, wild, natural and separate species long before this work was done.
None can cross with the others, wild or laboratory species.
Have all possible attempts at reproduction been made?
LOL -a sequential requirement would defacto necessitate a required sequntial process -proof of ID. The premise for evolution is random mutation and this involves probability e.g. a percentage of a population -a count...
The fact that all organisms share the same building blocks and have many such building blocks in common does not necessarily prove evolution -all the facts prove is that organisms share the same building blocks and have many such building blocks in common LOL... Evolutionists must still prove it evolution -the facts prove themselves the theory does not...
Hybrids can be readily made, but as with most hybrids they are sterile. This kind of thing is relatively easy to show in plants, because of their ease of hybridization. It is estimated that up to 40% of existing plants species have arisen by this mechanism.
Now, here's what you're looking for: after many thousands or millions of hybrids, a chromosomal rearrangement will occur that will allow the "hybrid" to be fertile. But it is never fertile with either of the "parents" of the hybrid. IOW it is no longer a hybrid but an entirely new species with a completely different complement of genes.
Obviously I am of the opinion that the latter holds true. If I could see some record, that is to say human writing, that comunicated a point in time when we were confused as to whether a biological entity was ape or human, then I might be inclined to consider the claims of evolutionary theory more seriously. As it is, the claims always come from bones and fossils.
As far as I know, humans have always been able to tell themselves apart from apes, and vice versa. And while I am aware certain humans attempt to mate with other critters, I hardly think they do so for the purpose of procreation, and I hardly think they have been successful, Helen Thomas notwithstanding.
I don't doubt for a moment that it is possible for new species to come about. It may simply be that the biological entity was genetically programmed to manifest varitions we can only categorize as such. But what will be the limits of this variation? As far as I know, recorded history has fairly well attested to consistent results as life goes on. It is not a crazy stretch for anyone to conclude those plants were designed that way.
Read the cabbage/radish thread (it's not long) and you will see that you're barking up the wrong tree. These experiments were done in a few years in the lab. Since plants crawled out of the ocean many hundreds of millions of years ago, there is a lot of time for new species to appear.
Whichever Fester you are, why do you feel you have to twist to make facts go the way you wish. What's wrong with seeing a simple picture instead of a bowl of spaghetti?
BTW there are other natural species that appear to have arisen the same way (sunflowers). These have distinct ecological niches different from each other and their "parents". Can you say "Natural Selection"?
You said: If I could see some record, that is to say human writing, that comunicated a point in time when we were confused as to whether a biological entity was ape or human, then I might be inclined to consider the claims of evolutionary theory more seriously. As it is, the claims always come from bones and fossils.
Written records from half a million years ago?! You know, as well as I do, that there are none from 10,000 years ago.
The fact remains, there are fossils which are hard to classify as human or non-human.
Surely, you've seen this?
BTW, why is the hypothetical designer restricted to designs that look as though evolution has occured? Such as the ERV pattern I referred to above? Or analogous patterns involving cows, whales and hippos.
Maybe it's possible to put together an ad-hoc case for there being identical details in the genomes of people and the other great apes. (I've seen the hypothetical designer compared to a programmer re-using code.)
But cows and hippos and whales?!
I'm waiting for an Audrey II picture.
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.