Posted on 12/26/2005 8:37:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Questioned about the national debate over ''intelligent design,'' [Florida] Gov. Jeb Bush last week said he's more interested in seeing some evolution of the science standards that Florida public school students must meet.
He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.
Nationally, the discussion over whether to teach intelligent design -- a concept that says life is too complex to have occurred without the involvement of a higher force -- in public school classes heated up after U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that it smacked of creationism and was a violation of church and state separation. (President Bush appointed Jones to the federal bench in 2004.)
Jones, in his decision, wrote that the concept of intelligent design ''cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,'' according to a Knight Ridder News Service report published Wednesday in The Miami Herald. [PH here: For a more reliable source than the Herald, here's the judge's opinion (big pdf file).]
In Florida, education officials and science teachers will be reviewing the state's science curriculum in 2007 or 2008, after the governor has left office, and ''it is possible that people would make an effort to include [intelligent design] in the debate,'' Gov. Bush told The Watchdog Report on Wednesday. ''My personal belief is we ought to look at whether our standards are high first,'' he said.
SCIENCE FIRST
``The more important point is science itself and how important it is, and we right now have adequate standards that may need to be raised. But worse: Students are not given the course work necessary to do well with those standards.''
Bush, after meeting with Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick and city commissioners concerning the community's widespread power outages after hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, also noted that the federal ruling came in a case that involves Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District.
''It is one school district in Pennsylvania,'' he said.
POINT OF VIEW
The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
Bush said: ``Yeah, but I don't think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.''
I'm studying evolution through the links you provided. LOL!
I am glad that you are studying evolution, and doing your own research. I hope that this will let you bring a better understanding of the subject to these threads.
There is a lot to be learned for all of us. Unfortunately, many of your posts project a very limited understanding of the theory of evolution, and what it entails, along with an overriding belief in creationism or intelligent design.
This has been painfully obvious. For example, you didn't know what mtDNA was, but were willing to disbelieve it and any/all of the other evidence supporting evolution.
Many of us will be happy to help you with details, but a lot of your posts have been both highly opinionated and contain little information to support your position. That wears thin after a while.
"mtDNA"
I thought "mt" as the abbreviation for mount/mountain. Hence, Mount DNA. I think it means microdonthial DNA, or something like that. LOL!
Hey, I never said I'm a scientist.
"You admitted at the time "Geography is not my forte, btw, and a whole other subjects."
I think that line was communicated through FR email. But that was then, this is now.
Those are "weasel words." "From what (you've) read?" Kindly cite your source.
That claim has been refuted by historians. It's also been debunked by plenty of creationists. The lie was started by a woman thirty years after he died, who suddenly started telling this story of a visit that she made to him before he died three decades previously. She never mentioned it at all before then, and she had no proof that she ever visited him in the first place.
Even "Answers in Genesis" admits that it's not true. You have been told, you have been shown proof (from your own side!) that it's not true. If you continue to spread this fiction, you will be doing so with the full knowledge that it is a lie.
This coming from someone who refers to advocates of science as the "anti-g-d squad"? You're right that I shouldn't lash out, but that works both ways.
Here's a couple answers to your questions:
Eventually your theories will fall as did Communism in Russia but how many will you mislead before the truth is known?
Zero intentionally, so long as I cite known scientific findings. I've been known to make mistakes, as we all have. Thankfully, science has experts who engage in peer review to minimize faulty information and makes attempts to correct itself on the way as better information becomes available. Evolution is a scientific theory, not an ideology like Communism.
Darwin admitted in the end he was wrong. When will you?
Whether or not Darwin admitted he was wrong (though he probably didn't) is irrelevant. The theory stands strong with or without Darwin, who has been dead since the most striking advancements in science have been made to confirm his theory. I'll admit I'm wrong any time you can show me well-documented and reviewed evidence to the contrary. Shouldn't be hard to do; I'm as fallible as the next person here.
You make a good point. Discussions about evolution should be limited to the facts and the science, not the supposed ideologies that result from them.
The bold part agrees with what I've read elsewhere - i.e., that Darwin denied evolution before his death. Now, whether she mentioned Darwins' denial 30 years later, I don't know. I wasn't there, and was only mentioning his denial at his deathbed, which, btw, seems to agree with woman.
I think that line was communicated through FR email. But that was then, this is now.
Actually that was a post you made on another thread (reproduced below, with link). I will not use a private FR mail on a thread, as I consider FR mail to be non-public; a common courtesy I think most FR folks adhere to.
=========
To: Ichneumon
Hey Ichneumon,
A few posts upthread was mentioned Mount DNA (mtDNA). By any chance, do you know where this mountain is. I always thought it is in Washington State. I can almost swear it's in Washington. Can you confirm it?
Geography is not my forte, btw, and a whole other subjects. :)
820 posted on 12/17/2005 8:11:54 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Thanks for clearing that up.
" "Darwin admitted in the end he was wrong."
Yes, he did admit it in his deathbed while surrounded by his family and his closest evolutionist friends. Many of his followers later admitted that Darwin and themselves were wrong about evolution."
Actually, the story that Darwin recanted on his deathbed has long since been discredited.
Stories about his recantation started surfacing almost immediately after his death in 1882.
The main problem with these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family, including both his son & his daughter.
Darwin's son, Francis Darwin, wrote to Thomas Huxley in 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was "false and without any kind of foundation". In 1917 Francis Darwin again affirmed that he had "no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view".
Charles's daughter, Henrietta Litchfield, wrote in the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for Feb. 23, 1922:
"I was present at his deathbed. [...] He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . "
It should be noted that Darwin's wife Emma was a conventionally pious woman & was deeply pained by the "irreligious" nature of her husband's views. She would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.
"The lie was started by a woman thirty years after he died, who suddenly started telling this story of a visit that she made to him before he died three decades previously."
The bold part agrees with what I've read elsewhere - i.e., that Darwin denied evolution before his death. Now, whether she mentioned Darwins' denial 30 years later, I don't know. I wasn't there, and was only mentioning his denial at his deathbed, which, btw, seems to agree with woman.
It doesn't matter if you read it elsewhere - it isn't true. It's a lie, that has been debunked by plenty of people, including many who would have reason to support it.
Kindly stop repeating lies just because you heard them "somewhere." It's not true, and even many creationists admit that it isn't true.
What's more it's not even relevant. Einstein could have recanted relativity on his deathbed and it wouldn't change the fact that the theory still works well today.
I know, but there's no point in actually debating the merits of a statement when they keep repeating the lies.
Garbage, you deny it fine you demand evidence it may well get presented to you but so far most folks I see vehemently against ID are themselves calling it juck science in a very dismissive fashion. Not really in a fair and objective sense. You would be less than honest to not agree that Evolution theory has a lot of questions unanswered, it raises a lot of questions in its own findings and some of it is hypothesis...is it not? Or are you willing to tell me evolution theory has every answer? If not then you are no different here. You demand that Evolution Theory (ET) is the ONLY answer and it has to fit a lot of what you already know yet you do not see any of it as possibly wrong when all the time the corporate knoweldge on the subject is being revised and in some cases dashing previous rock-solid theory and present whole new ones. Age of the earth was nearly doubled by a mistake in measurement...was it not? And I am sure you can tell me of others. Evolution does not have all the answers, and even with the limitations on our scientific capability ID does not have it all either...which is why it is a theory in work JUST like evolution theory.
This presupposes that this particular planet is the only planet Humans could possibly exist on. Note that I said planet, not conditions. This is not easy to explain, at least for me, but I'll give it a try. To do so I'll have to use a bit of an analogy.
Where does it limit the earth as the only one? In this system it is a fact...I do not see that ID says only earth in the whole universe though I do not doubt some say that. I very much agree that life could exist elsewhere but that the human existance right now can only be proven to exist here and the earth MUST be where it is for this to happen.
Evolution is not really 'chance'. What 'variation' occurs in the genome at any given time may be pseudo-random, but the various types of selection are not random in any sense of the word. IDists use apparent complexity as an indication of design. They make an unwarranted assumption that only intelligences can produce what appears to be design. Before they can use complexity as a measure of a designer, they have to show, unequivocally, that complexity is exclusive to intelligence. As it stands, we've seen nature produce complexity that 'looks' designed.
Where can evolution prove that chance or selection made the simple complex? It cannot...it relies on chances being good that the right things happened at the right time and place. How did organisms evolve to the point where they needed an eye if there was none before it required? While only one question it does beg an answer. We can not find a lot of such questions answered with certainty at all. Thsi alone amazes me and yet I think you have as much faith in chance as I do a designer on the subject.
The transition in fossils in a number of lines, including those of the cetartiodactyls, show much more than just 'possible' connections. If those fossils just showed one or two transitional features, there would be room for doubt. In the case of whales, we have a continuous line of fossils that show 1) an elongation of the head, 2) movement of the head/neck joint from the lower rear to rear position, 3) movement of the nostrils from the front of the snout to the top of the head, 4) change in the ear from above water use to below water use, 5) change in leg length from long to short in the front, and gone in the back, 6) change in back leg/pelvis connection from connected to unconnected, 7) change in spine from rigid to flexible. There are a few more shared features that I won't bother to list, I think this is enough for a start.
It is not evidence of evolution it is evidence of variation. Let me ask you this....are all dogs related? If yes, you will find variations like what you say, if no then you arguing that evolution exists in a fabulous form right in front of our eyes...but I dont hear ET folks saying that.
Indeed, there are many holes in the fossil record and it would be nice to have more, but the sparseness of the fossil record is expected. As far as I know there are no areas where there is conflicting data. There are a number of fossil groups that there is disagreement as to where they should be placed in the phylogenic tree, but they do not conflict with other fossil groups.
Are there not incidences of fossils found in the same layers that have been determined to not be of the same period? I have heard the dinosaur footprint / man footprint but thats not what I am refering to, I am talking about the existance of fosile record where a man and a dinosaur have been found in the same layer. Has this not happened? Does it not conflict at points?
I just do not understand how extinctions which were caused by unforeseeable catastrophes are arguments for ID. A supernatural creator could indeed cause them, but ID claims to be a supernatural free zone, so it doesn't mesh.
A Supernatural free zone?? How could this be? A designer by definition has to have powers greater than the created. I am sure on this point we will simply disagree on faith issues but I find it hard to see how a designer of what we know in our universe to be bound by the rules we are goverened by, Physics and such.
Forgive me if I missed anything, our post-repost is getting quite long, but I do appreciate your replies.
dinosaur footprint / man footprint ????
Has not happened. Not even close. Sorry. You really should study some science and stay away from the creationist websites until you get this sorted out.
You are, of course, aware that ID does not dispute evolution? Or the common ancestor? It just ads a supernatural element to the mix.
So the bulk of your post trying to poke holes in the ToE in favor of ID is moot. Evolution happened - even ID's most fervent proponents admit that.
Wow. You're a better reader than I, Coyoteman. I didn't get that far.
"dinosaur footprint / man footprint ????" Does anybody still believe that falsehood?
Has not happened. Not even close. Sorry.
See also Hammond, J., Malcolm, Ian, et al, "Recombinant DNA recovered from Fossil Mosquitoes leading to gastrointestinal assimilation of human protein by T. Rex" in J. Urassic Pk, ed. by Stephen Spielberg. (20th Century Fox, Hollywood, CA, USA)...
Cheers!
...and Merry Christmas!
If the purpose of Noah's flood was to wipe out (most of) humankind, what would be the necessity to take out unpopulated areas?
Depends on whether God was trying to teach them a lesson about getting too big for their britches; or whether the planted info was there for some other reason than to fool them; or whether some saboteur planted the fakes to estrange God and man; or any of a number of other circumstances you left out.
If you claim one must use rigorous testing, Occam's razor, etc., then it is inconsistent with your stated methodology to go around making ad hoc assumptions about God's behaviour or motivations...
Cheers!
...and Merry Christmas!
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.