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

To: amchugh
I fail to see why the theory of evolution as it stands is incompatible with the idea of a creator.

I agree.

But that doesn’t mean that Darwin’s theory of evolution is good science. There has been a lot of junk science that was/is accepted as good science. Notable names and groups: Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Rachel Carson, Kinsey, Robert Malthus, and a bunch of environmentalists to include those afraid of global warming, or, in an earlier decade, global cooling. On closer examination, I believe the same may apply to Charles Darwin. This is hard to see because we have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution. The competition of ideas has not taken place on a level playing field in high school and elsewhere for many decades.

124 posted on 01/27/2007 8:38:27 PM PST by ChessExpert (Reagan defeated America's enemies foreign and domestic. I hope Bush can do the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]


To: ChessExpert
The competition of ideas has not taken place on a level playing field in high school and elsewhere for many decades.

False.

Ideas (I presume you mean formulations of scientific hypotheses and theories) are not arrived at in high schools. They are formulated in technical journals and other interactions among established scientists.

High schools are near the bottom of the food chain--they are consumers, not originators, of scientific thought. High school students, and most high school teachers, are simply not equipped to evaluate a "competition of ideas." They fall short by several years to decades of intensive study.

135 posted on 01/27/2007 9:38:16 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

To: ChessExpert
There has been a lot of junk science that was/is accepted as good science. Notable names and groups: Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Rachel Carson, Kinsey, Robert Malthus,

You could add to your list Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Curie (both of them), Mendel, Priestly, Pasteur, and pretty much any scientist who's dead. That's how science works. The prevailing theory is the one that best explains the available evidence, and new prevailing theories emerge as does new evidence. It's a method, not a doctrine.

And as an aside, Marx and Malthus were social scientists, not scientists (despite the use of the word), a field that is much more subjective.

On closer examination, I believe the same may apply to Charles Darwin. This is hard to see because we have been indoctrinated to believe in evolution.

Clearly not, because so many Americans still do not. It would take one simple thing to debunk Darwin, and that is to debunk Darwin. That is, to find an alternate explanation that better fits the available evidence.

The competition of ideas has not taken place on a level playing field in high school and elsewhere for many decades.

High schools are not where scientific progress occurs. You might as well say that American literature is moribund because of the limited literature taught to kindergartners. The purpose of primary and secondary education is to lay the groundwork, to teach the method. Innovation comes later.

161 posted on 01/28/2007 6:25:55 AM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

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