Posted on 08/15/2006 10:11:10 PM PDT by jla
Of course it is...and here's the reason: at the end of the day, you must adhere to a belief in the existence of the theory of evolution's missing pieces the same way people of faith adhere to their beliefs in God--by believing they will be discovered/revealed.
The intellectually honest evolutionist admits to this, the intellectually dishonest does not. Hence, controversy.
Typical Darwinist contempt for God. Which is why so many of them deride 'intelligent design,' even though it does not contradict what has elsewhere on this thread been called the core of evolution: common descent with inherited modification.
You will never find a controversy in which BOTH sides are more intellectually dishonest than this Crevo crap.
Do you make the same demands of the atomic theory of matter? In all seriousness, I can think of much more serious "holes" in that theory than exist in the theory of evolution.
No, but then that theory is testable now, whereas evolution, having taken place, is a past event, which is not so easily repeatable.
Be honest: the features of evolutionary theory to which the school board members object have not changed at all since Darwin.
I wouldnt really know, and wouldnt presume to know, what they are thinking of.
Whatever changes in thinking have occurred (which by the way is a sign of health and not of a problem in a scientific discipline), they have not overturned the core ideas. And yet all of this ginned-up controversy has only a single goal: to manufacture public distrust in those core ideas.
I agree wholeheartedly that the changes in thinking are a sign of health, however, as you then go on to state - they have not overturned the core ideas. Is tht because the core ideas are unassailably correct, or just that no-one dares to challenge them?
As for your comments on the "ginned up controversy", the implication that is being done purely to manufacture public distrust is pure speculation on your part. There are any number of reasons why people are concerned about this issue, some valid and some (no doubt) very suspect.
First, how do you reconcile the accusation that scientists "parrot repeat" the theory with your earlier assertion that evolutionary theory is changing?
Simple. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I very carefully did not do that. Im just pointing out that in general I want scientists to be objective and free to consider all possibilities.
Second, the school board is not responsible for setting scientists straight, but for educating children. And it does them a disservice to teach them that an unusual scientific controversy exists in the field of evolution, when in reality it is one of the most firmly established and intellectually unassailable ideas in science.
True, their duty is to educate...but they have to know what to teach. Is it doing them a disservice? Im not so sure. Considering that this discussion is going on, this is obviously a controversial topic that they are certainly going to need to be aware of in life.
Do you want me to list the reasons Jesus is a Liberal and the Christian Heaven is basically a Communist set-up :)
It's quite easy. I am always amazed at the fact that most Christians are conservatives when they are hell bent on moving on to a communist paradise. Sounds more like hell to me than paradise.
Christians believe that Hell is a place of eternal separation from God. In fact, Christian beliefs concerning God, Christ, Heaven are, at their core, acceptance of the biblical teachings that the manifold evidence that we see in our present material world that create what some would refer to as "hell on earth" (crime, poverty, war, human suffering, etc) is proof of man's fallen nature and that these proofs have a spiritual and eternal consequence. To dwell, as we do now, on a planet where this temporary/physical separation creates such heartache, grief, suffering and woe, and then to choose the alternative as one's guiding principle seems rational, rather than amazing.
Feel free to continue displaying your ignorance.
I think you should bash Christians loudly and often, and make sure you identify yourself as a Darwinist when doing it.
I think he is referring to Kent Hovind. Anyone who can put "central tenets of evolution" and "recapitulation" in the same sentence is smoking something stronger than tobacco.
This is an outright lie. Would you care to verify it? Especially that "almost to a person" claim.
And for your information, Physicist, Mrs. Schlafly has testified in the U.S. congress on nuclear proliferation. So I wouldn't doubt her tenacity in looking at any evidence regarding evolution.
Mark McGwire testified before Congress too. What is your point? Appearing before Congress = veracity? LOL
Try looking up her testimony instead of making inane comments.
I'm not bashing them I am giving you an honest look at your religion and its true political leanings. Its rational study of people who are still living in the 7th century. Oh were those muslims or christians?
Ted Kennedy has testified before congress on Nuclear proliferation and any number of other subjects, does that make him a beacon of honesty?
"...an honest look at your religion and its true political leanings..."
Free of all bias and pre-disposition, of course.
I know what Christians believe no use harping about it to me. They also believe that god formed man out of a mud pie, that snakes can talk, and that language was developed because man built a building that was too high.
Coming back to that when we send rockets into space why is God not punishing us each and every time by confusing the tongues of all those scientists (real scientists mind you)?
In short, you want public school teachers to teach sunday school in science class, and convert their students to the religious tenets of your particular church. Correct?
Or coherent.
They already teach Sunday school and call it science. It's the religion of evolution. That's why my kids don't go to public school church.
I know enough about to know that she is essentially a political voice, and not an expert. Like Fat Teddy as alluded to below. Congress has been known to use hearings for political statements from time to time.
Does she have a PhD in Intl Relations or some such field? What are her qualifications? BESIDES being a professional nag.
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.