INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Teaching children the truth [Cal Thomas gets it]

Miami Herald ^ | 28 December 2005 | CAL THOMAS

[Snowbelt Man]

most of us would love to abandon the public schools. the only problem is we still have to pay for them.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why is evolution a scientific claim?"

Because it has tons of evidence, explains the phenomena, makes testable claims. You know, like other scientific theories.

[Quark2005]

There is no way to calculate the probability of life arising without knowing the processes involved.

Nor can one make any blanket statements about the Laws of Thermodynamics without knowing the processes involved (this one particularly irks me). The reasons are basically the same.

[narby]

That's it? Just two "fakes" out of literally thousands of fossils that support evolution? And keep in mind that fossils of almost any creature, if located in the incorrect sequence could falsify evolution, yet the "scientists" at the Discovery Institute don't even have one they can claim does so.

And in any event, one or two "fake" fossils hardly falsify the science of evolution any more than a Jim Jones or Marjoe falsify faith.

[Chickensoup]

Because it has tons of evidence, explains the phenomena, makes testable claims. You know, like other scientific theories.

Name one claim for macroevolution which has been supported by today's DNA testing.

[narby]

He is simply another elitist and obviously does'nt understand the lack of scientific foundation for evolution.

LOL. And what university paleontology departments and museums support that "lack of scientific foundation for evolution"?

OK, there is that "creation research" museum, but with all the fools that have been convinced that evolution is false I can see that the one museum that caters to that faith would be quite a money maker.

Maybe I should switch sides and open a museum and get rich from scientific illiterates.

[Quark2005]

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.

No, it is the content and quality of their publications, as you know, that is the real measure of success. Currently there are thousands of articles in refereed journals describing and refining evolutionary theory and zero for intelligent design, either pro or con. This is because intelligent design has no yet identifiable scientific consequences.

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.

What specific question(s) do you feel are being denied the right of being brought to fruition, and what accessible means do you propose to test such questions?

[MamaB]

That was a huge mistake in schools. I was not taught that for which I am thankful. I have loved to read since I learned how. I always have books on hand. I take them everywhere I go--to the doctor's office, to church when I get there early, etc. Now, they are advising people who are getting new driver's licenses to bring a book. It is going to take that long. At the rate I read, maybe I should take 2.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

ERV's.

DNA analysis has been the best evidence yet for common descent.

Also, there is the gene for vitamin C production. Most mammals can produce vitamin C. Primates can't; they DO have the gene for it though. It's broken, in the same place, throughout the primates (including Man). Why would a designer/God give us a gene that doesn't work, and also give the same faulty gene(broken in the same spot) to other primates? This makes no sense in the creationist/ID model. It makes a lot of sense in the evolutionary model. A common ancestor of modern primates lost the function of the gene, most likely because their diet was so rich in vitamin C that a loss of function had no selective repercussions. The descendants of this early primate all inherited the same faulty gene.

[Quark2005]

Name one claim for macroevolution which has been supported by today's DNA testing.

DNA testing has lent stupendous credence to evolutionary theory.

A couple articles on the subject:

Evolution in Action

New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory

[Thatcherite]

Maybe I should switch sides and open a museum and get rich from scientific illiterates.

Sorry, that market has already been occupied. You'll have to fight them for the worldwide rights

[G.Mason]

"Give that man an RG Dunn."

You are too kind. ;)

[MamaB]

Most churches in my town have private schools in them and they are growing by leaps and bounds. Many start with only a few grades then add 1 or 2 each year until all 12 grades are included. There are many, mine included, who have home schooling programs. Those, too are growing. People here are fed up with public education. These home schooled students are doing quite well in the scholarships awarded, too.

[MamaB]

I do not know where you live, but home schoolers here have to pass all of the normal routine tests given to every grade. The home schoolers are doing great. I guess it depends on where you live.

[shuckmaster]

Why is evolution a scientific claim?

Evolution is the basis of all study of biology.

[MamaB]

Amen.

[hawkaw]

Start here:

Patrick Henry

[Thatcherite]

Why is evolution a scientific claim?

[shuckmaster]

Name one claim for macroevolution which has been supported by today's DNA testing.

Todays DNA testing supports the fact that all living things on earth are descended from a common ancestor.

[Thatcherite]

Name one claim for macroevolution which has been supported by today's DNA testing.

The endogenous retroviral evidence has matched the predictions of common descent. Had the evidence come out differently it would have falsified common descent. The crushing nail in the coffin for those aware of the evidence who would like the evidence to go away. Essentially since this evidence has appeared even people like Behe, Denton, and Dembski have been forced by the evidence to accept common descent.