Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.
It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.
I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.
The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.
As opposed to 200 year old tales an ocean traveler cooked up when he had nothing better to do at sea?
That's right. That's why people are opposed to government mandated teaching of evolution only in the school system. There's something very wrong when an idea can only gain ground, and not much at that, by having a monopoly in the school system.
So, which religion would that be that Stalin, Lenin, PolPot, or Mao Zedong adhered to?
That still doesn’t change the issue of what the consequences would be if the government got in the business of deciding what is and is not science.
It’s not the government’s responsibility.
My copy of the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power “To promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts”. I don’t see how they can very well do that without making some determination about what those are.
Anyway, concerning science, most of the great advances in Western science (esp. biology Harvey, Pasteur, Mendel) were inspired by religion (Christianity specifically).
I take it the existence of “Political Science” classes is to be held as evidence that politics is a “science”, and by extension all of the evils of politics can thus be attributed to science.
One thing that YOU need to remember, when “arguing” with evolutionists -
it’s a matter of faith and religion with them, just as Christianity is,
and you just can’t logically argue about anything based on faith.
Indeed. Dogma is, by definiton, immune to reason. You either believe it or you don't, but you aren't allowed to test it. If you do, then it isn't a matter of faith.
Marx and Lenin figured they were practicing "science" as in assuming human social interaction was solely a natural phenomenon that could be studied methodologically then ordered without concern for any divine intent.
They would have expressed resentful anger if you told them they were practicing "religion".
Given how much they got wrong I don't see any reason to give them that.
Anyway, the point is whether more harm is done in the name of science or religion.
I think the case is made that what has been done in the name of science has caused the greater suffering.
The perversity is that in Western culture science and religion (Christianity, anyway) are both considered integral and good.
And both are.
I think that's still arguable. Marx and Lenin may have rationalize their philosophy as "science", but I doubt the practicioners (Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Castro, Mugabe, etc.) considered it an exercise in the pursuit of "science" or themselves to be "scientists".
Oh, I don't think so!
Yea? Well I assume you don't take any medication, have never taken any vaccinations, never used technology, and live in caves, eh?
Evolutionists want evolution to be demonstrated to be true so badly, that they are willing to fake it and deceive people.
False. As usual.
From Wikipedia:
Archaeoraptor was a fossil believed to be a theropod dinosaur closely related to the ancestors of birds, but which proved to be a forgery.The purported fossil of "Archaeoraptor" was found in 1998 at a gem show in Tucson, Arizona. It had been found in July 1997 in the Liaoning Province of China, sold on the black market and smuggled out of China and into the United States. Stephen Czerkas, owner of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, purchased it for $80,000 and contacted paleontologist Phil Currie and the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The society intended to announce the find to the larger public, immediately after a publication in Nature. During the first investigation it already became clear to Currie that the left and right leg mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had been completed by using both slab and counterslab. He then sent it to Timothy Rowe in Austin to make CAT scans. These indicated that the bottom fragments were not part of the larger fossil. This was confirmed through a close study by Currie's preparator, Kevin Aulenback. Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.
The fossil was unveiled in a press conference on October 15, 1999, and the November 1999 National Geographic Magazine contained an article by Christopher P. Sloan (National Geographic's art editor). Sloan described it as a missing link that would connect dinosaurs and birds. The original fossil was put on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington, DC, pending return to China. In the article Sloan used the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis but with a disclaimer (so that it would not count as a nomenclatural act for the purposes of scientific classification) in anticipation of being able to publish a peer-reviewed description simultaneously in Nature. However, Nature and Science both rejected the paper, and National Geographic went ahead and published without peer review.
After the November National Geographic came out, Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds in the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution published an open letter on 1 November 1999, pointing out that "the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported"; protesting the "prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs", and complaining that Sloan, a journalist, had usurped the process of scientific nomenclature by publishing a name first in the popular press: "This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists—that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist." (This last claim turned out to be wrong because of the disclaimer.)
Uncovering the fake
The "Archaeoraptor" specimen was returned by the Czerkases to China. Xu Xing, a member of Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology had already noticed in October after having been informed by Currie of the problems during a visit to the USA, that the tail of "Archaeoraptor" strongly resembled an unnamed Maniraptoran dinosaur — later to be named Microraptor zhaoianus — that he was studying, but the front half did not match. He returned to China and traveled to Liaoning Province where he inspected the fossil site. His suspicions that the dinosaur-like tail of the fossil did not belong to the same species were confirmed. In December he contacted a number of fossil dealers and eventually found the fossilized body that corresponded to the tail on the "Archaeoraptor" fossil. He informed the National Geographic Society, and CT scans funded by the society confirmed his suspicions. The society still believed the fossil to be important, however.
By January 2000 the fossil had proven to be fraudulent and National Geographic retracted their article and promised an investigation. In the October 2000 issue, the magazine published a retraction and an article about the case. A Chinese farmer had created the "Archaeoraptor" fossil by gluing two fossils together, one of which was a Microraptor, the other one was a fossil bird later named Archaeovolans. On November 21, 2002, a paper in Nature found that Archaeovolans was the the same species as the previously-named avialan species Yanornis martini, so the front end of the fossil now bears this name.
Rather than being a fake by scientists to deceive people, as you falsely claimed, this specimen was faked by a Chinese farmer. The fake was discovered by scientists.
Do you hate science, and the results of science, so much that you are willing to spread falsehoods in an attempt to discredit them, when the actual facts can be easily learned? It sure seems so.
To add to what Coyoteman said, it's important to recognize that a paper announcing the "discovery" of said fossil was sent to the two leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, Science and Nature, and both rejected it out of hand. Archaeoraptor is proof that the scientific method and the peer-review process works.
Can't say those things ever saved any lives :-)
All they did is extend our breathing a bit and made our time here a little more comfortable.
Try sticking a rusted nail into your foot. Use no first aid. Get back to me if your foot is still intact, a week later. And this, I'm assuming, you've never been inoculated for any diseases.
Are you saying if I use first aid I won't die?
You’ll lower your chances by a big degree. Ever heard of tetanus deaths? Look up how many people used to die of it in the years before antiseptics.
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.