Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Teaching children the truth [Cal Thomas gets it]
Miami Herald ^ | 28 December 2005 | CAL THOMAS

Posted on 12/28/2005 3:49:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 401-410 next last
To: narby
Evolution is not a stumbling block to believing in God. Your particular denominations interpretation of Genesis is the stumbling block to reconciling reality and belief.

If you had read the link relating to the study of the Hebrew used in Genesis, you would see why the two are incompatible.

As I said, some people believe Christian creationism is a myth, and choose not to believe anything in the Bible based on this. This is the definition of a stumbling block. More than one evo on these threads have expressed their disbelief in the Bible due to this fact.

Then you'd best hope they don't study science.

Got a BS degree in computer science from a secular state university. Studied a good amount of physics to go with it. Nothing I learned about science invalidated what I already knew about God and Bible. Try again.

I've seen studies that a majority of children of fundimentalist families reject their faith. It's easy to see why.

Seriously doubt it. But do provide links if you actually have them. My dad's family has been Bible-believing Christians from well before their ancestors even made the trip to this country. Not much rebellion there.
241 posted on 12/28/2005 10:43:25 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

I don't think running away from society helps kids. Eventually they have to face reality, if only on these forums.

Look at how surprised some FReepers are to find conservatives who accept mainstream science.


242 posted on 12/28/2005 10:43:33 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Sorry, you missed the humor. That was a political jab on how much society has morphed into relativism, not on biological diversity.

Altho - this is humor in case you miss it too - the amount of tattooing and piercings among the very young might make my case.


243 posted on 12/28/2005 10:46:21 AM PST by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: narby
If religious denominations truly wanted private schools they'd find a way to fund them rather than build grand palaces for preaching that aren't used but an hour or two a week.

LOL!! An hour or two a week. Amazing that people believe that. Even the leftwing, theologically unsound churches do better than that.
244 posted on 12/28/2005 10:46:30 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
For that reason homeschooling has the potential to bring more government interference into the parents lives not less.

Government interference in schooling, especially federal< government interference should be at a minimum. Not that Bush, for all his other successes, is going to do anything about it.
245 posted on 12/28/2005 10:48:07 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: cinives
The fossil record, as far as I am aware, does not prove descent. It cannot prove, to the best of my knowledge, whether one fossil is a direct descendent of another. It can suggest that one fossil is older than another, but not whether they are in a direct line.

The fossil record is now supplemented by DNA evidence -- the same kind of inference used in courtrooms to demonstrate identity or relationship.

246 posted on 12/28/2005 10:49:32 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: cinives
The fossil record, as far as I am aware, does not prove descent. It cannot prove, to the best of my knowledge, whether one fossil is a direct descendent of another.

I agree there. All the fossil record can do is contribute evidence to the theory of common descent - and this it does - there is clear progression in vertebrate forms in successively dated strata, for example. One can't prove that transitionals are "direct" ascendents of their successive forms without DNA, but they can, in many cases, show a clear relation by morphological similarities.

Fossil evidence is not the only line of evidence used to support evolution, though. There is also:

1) Morphological continuity
2) Biogeographical distribution
3) Genetic analysis
4) Observed instances of evolutionary dimorphism & speciation

Inquiries along all these lines have lent support to the same scientific conclusion. This spells out, in the end, a strong scientific theory. To consider an "alternative" to evolution, one has to provide an explanation that uniquely accounts for all this information, not just a single piece. Granted, the theory isn't complete (scientific theories seldom, if ever, are), but this lack of completeness does not translate to complete uncertainty. Evolution remains the only coherent & successful scientific explanation of biological origins.

Why did Gould have to resort to "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the lack of fossil evidence for transition at the species level ?

Whether punctuated equilibrium is a real phenomenon or an apparent illusion caused by the inherent paucity of the fossil record is a genuine scientific debate, last I heard. Note that it is a debate over the specific details of evolution, not whether or not it occurred. Doubt over whether evolution occurs at a steady pace or in irregular cyclical "spurts" doesn't cast doubt on the general coherence of the theory, only some of its specific details. The specific details of every scientific theory are under constant refinement and improvement, without exception. The continual refinement of theories is not a weakness, but rather the primary strength and power of the scientific method. Such refinements can't just be stabs in the air though; they have to take into account all existing data.

247 posted on 12/28/2005 11:07:07 AM PST by Quark2005 (Divination is NOT science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Without seeing those things, it would be hard to say whether or not the judge is biased. Most creationists have religious and secular reasons for wanting both sides to be presented.


248 posted on 12/28/2005 11:08:30 AM PST by Terriergal (Cursed be any love or unity for whose sake the Word of God must be put at stake. -- Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I said Most creationists have religious and secular reasons for wanting both sides to be presented.

...and they would present the secular reasons to the court, because the religious reasons are irrelevant to the court. I can certainly see a biased judge considering that a 'lie' if he had an agenda. But we all know judges never have personal agendas, don't we....

249 posted on 12/28/2005 11:10:02 AM PST by Terriergal (Cursed be any love or unity for whose sake the Word of God must be put at stake. -- Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
That's not my objection. What I find offensive about the ID gang (and not ID itself, as a matter of faith) is that they're fraudulently pushing it as science -- which it manifestly is not.

Exactly. The school board in the Dover case knew it wasn't science, which is why they had to hide their true intentions (and the money trail).

I also would like to give Cal Thomas kudos for admitting that the school board lied, and that the lies are unacceptable - something very few creationists on these threads are willing to do. I might not agree with everything he has to say, but at least he's intellectually consistent.

250 posted on 12/28/2005 11:13:25 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal

You have had the opportunity to see these things. I have seen you posting on these threads the last few months. The perjury at the trial was widely discussed. It is discussed in the Judge's decision.


251 posted on 12/28/2005 11:14:16 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I disagree with your opinion of evolutionists. As for creationists, I thought the question was of intelligent design rather than divine design.

As to using scientific methods, I am a professional scientist with a doctorate in Physics, Quantum Electronics to be more precise, and I am published.

Science and the scientific method is not about dogma or faith it's about objective truth. It is not democratic either. A poll of "scientists" may produce a majority opinion but is no more worthy than a political poll, which is what it usually is anyway.

Life on this planet could either have begun spontaneously or by design (divine intervention not required) -- the logic is overwhelming. The question is which is the most likely given the current evidence -- including evidence of single celled bacteria, with DNA, only a few hundred millions years older than the planet's coalesence while it was still mostly molten and had a CO2/Methane atmosphere. Shoving the question off-planet, as there is a modern trend to do, merely avoids the issue and replaces science with dogma -- as of course using divine creation as the answer does too.


252 posted on 12/28/2005 11:16:51 AM PST by picti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: picti

The problem is that there is no possible evidence that is inconsistent with divine intervention, and it is impossible to do science when every possible causal chain is equivalent.


253 posted on 12/28/2005 11:19:22 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Teaching wrong kills our society's future.

Please explain how teaching the possibility of ID could bring about any negative effects, let alone your apocalyptic (sorry for the biblical reference) assertion.

Since gravity isn't completely understood by science, anything that is taught about it might be wrong. You best get busy removing it from the text books. Lest evil be perpetrated upon the land.

Also, since you are so certain that science has all the answers, you may want to add a chapter to the text books before the one on unintelligent design. It should explain where all the matter in the universe came from and when. Any scientific explanation will do.

254 posted on 12/28/2005 11:24:15 AM PST by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Personally I'd rather see an abolition of the Dept of Education across the board. THEN an abolition of Government Run schools.

Make them all private and let the market decide where our money is spent and what the quality of teachers there are that teach.


255 posted on 12/28/2005 11:24:40 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

Teaching ID in the schools is akin to teaching girls that babies are brought by a stork. If stork birth were included in school health classes would there be outrage?


Actually this is a lousy analogy. One can prove over and over that babies are born instead of being brought by storks just by spending a weekend in a birthing room at a hospital. One cannot prove that ID is wrong. There is no birthing room. No proof that it is wrong.


256 posted on 12/28/2005 11:27:56 AM PST by Chickensoup (Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Chri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: picti
"I disagree with your opinion of evolutionists."

Ignorance is not bliss.

"As for creationists, I thought the question was of intelligent design rather than divine design."

There is no essential difference.

"As to using scientific methods, I am a professional scientist with a doctorate in Physics, Quantum Electronics to be more precise, and I am published."

Good for you. This isn't a debate about credentials. It's about evidence.

"Life on this planet could either have begun spontaneously or by design (divine intervention not required) -- the logic is overwhelming."

*Design* in this case would be divine intervention, unless you mean space aliens. Then you have to figure out how they got there. ID always has to fall back on divine intervention; that's all it really has. It's an argument from incredulity; it's a gutless choice.

"The question is which is the most likely given the current evidence -- including evidence of single celled bacteria, with DNA, only a few hundred millions years older than the planet's coalesence while it was still mostly molten and had a CO2/Methane atmosphere. Shoving the question off-planet, as there is a modern trend to do, merely avoids the issue and replaces science with dogma -- as of course using divine creation as the answer does too."

There is no way to calculate the probability of life arising without knowing the processes involved. All such ID/creationist calculations about the high improbability of abiogenesis can rightly be said to have been pulled from their posteriors.
257 posted on 12/28/2005 11:28:36 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

Well, first off, creation or I.D. should never be taught in science. The data provided by these people does not provide the basis to create a proper scientific theory that can be tested over and over. Usually it provides data that can be disproven.

Do you have proof that macroevolution occurred?


258 posted on 12/28/2005 11:28:58 AM PST by Chickensoup (Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Chri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: picti

In the origin of species debate, not only do the evolutionist deny the holes in their explanation, they deny the right to question these gaps. The intelligent designers fail in many ways, but are not so dogmatic about criticism, although they do not like being asked to explain who designed the intelligence in the first place -- any all the philosophical flaws that flow from that question.

most intellegent statement on the thread.


259 posted on 12/28/2005 11:31:39 AM PST by Chickensoup (Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Chri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Nonsense. Evolutionists are always questioning their theories. ID simply isn't a scientific claim; why compound the imperfection of the Theory of Evolution with the horse manure that is ID?

Why is evolution a scientific claim?


260 posted on 12/28/2005 11:32:31 AM PST by Chickensoup (Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Chri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 401-410 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson