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.
Of more interest to me than a fleeting and scant evidence of a supposed connection between very disimiscant liar species based on a few similiar jaw bone structures that are just as plausibly uniquely created for unique species is the transitions from invertebrates to vertebrates, something you seldom see mentioned for obvious reasons.
We find the liberal subjective views of soem scientists prominently put on display and pushed in the public, yet we very seldom see the opposing views of those in the secular sciences who raise doubts about findings such as the examples you showed.
It would be better for science, and more intellectually honest of them, to present fossil records like you pointed out and to say ‘we think this is how it happened’ rather than to suggest that it is clear ‘evidence that it did happen’ this way. however, it is often presented in the latter manner, especially in forums and on lay blogs, and presernted in such a way that anyone who daresd question it will be lebelled a heritick, or worse yet- gasp- a ‘religious nutbag’
How do you know what scientists are saying?
The newspapers don't carry the full story, neither do the popular magazines. The technical details of science are not exciting enough for popular magazines, and would be beyond most readers' comprehension anyway.
To see what scientists are really doing you have to read journals such as those listed below.
Do you read any of those journals? Ever?
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics
I had to. It was a requirement to pass the Course.
I wrote about little gram negative rods, acid fast tests, and all of Cocci, things, and a whole lot of other stuff because I wanted to pass the Course, and also have everyone know that I knew how to keep a Journal.
L’Anthropolgie was a good one in your list. The current March 2007 edition has an intriguing article that I might try to actually stumble my way through concerning Ireland where most of my ancestors once lived.
Of course I’ll have to get my secret decoder ring out when it comes to interpreting the real hard stuff. Those frenchies like to use big words when they get all scientifique and stuff.
C’est la vie.
By the way....what the heck does that list of Publications have to do with anything that is going on here?
Are you trying to suggest that because reasonable people will often disagree that reading stuff they disagree with might change their opinions?
Sometimes I enjoy perusing these type threads, and I am sorry that they do not abound here as much as before.
Oh well, what is a sarcastic FReeper poster such as myself supposed to do when he has an itch to post?
I guess that I’ll just continue to go slumming.
we very seldom see the opposing views of those in the secular sciences who raise doubts about findings such as the examples you showed.I merely suggested that he perhaps was not looking in the right places for the battles that go on within science.
And I agree with you--some of the material in those journals can be difficult indeed.
Oh well, what is a sarcastic FReeper poster such as myself supposed to do when he has an itch to post?
I would not recommend the zot threads if you like sarcasm. Some folks over there have become extremely abusive and thin-skinned, and seem to have no sense of humor at all. They've finished eating their young and are turning on each other!
I have always viewed this site as a wonderful playground of sorts, but I do not pay a whole lot of attention to much of the intricacies.
I rarely view the ZOT threads, anymore, and I suppose I won’t be doing so again soon.
I just like being silly (and a brat) reading the articles and comments that I usually find agreeable and like thinkers on, and some other stuff.
Mostly, I am concerned about the pro Troop threads.
Even though, I tend to be quite sarcastic almost always outside of the Canteen, I mean no serious ill will toward any genuine like thinking person out here.
The Crevo threads can’t help but grab my eye just about every time.
[The newspapers don’t carry the full story, neither do the popular magazines. The technical details of science are not exciting enough for popular magazines, and would be beyond most readers’ comprehension anyway.]
Yeah- it would be icky and ‘boring’ to learn that entire ‘anatomically correct’ constructs were assembled from a single tooth, and it would be Waaaay beyond boring to learn that many in the scientific comunity were in fierce opposition to such constructs, or similiarly far-fetched constructs based on scant finds. Much more ‘exciting’ to publish the biAsed evo-friendly news that “a new hominid proves man came out of deepest darkest Africa... and here’s the photos that ‘many’ in the scientific comunity are so excited about”
No sense middying the waters by printing all that ‘technical stuff’ like “the dentrition was more in line with that of known monkeys than with man” or things like “Scientists caught the mistake early on (but ‘unoftunately not before elaborate drawings made their way into every major public journal and onto every news show across the world) that the bones found indicated a fully upright position as compared to the half-bent/stooped figures that you see so eloquently displayed in your highschool biology books”. Rickets as seen in some fossil femur discoveries hailed as ‘ape to man’ specimens is too ‘deep’ a subject for ordinary folks to grasp, and thus should be withheld from them- you know, for their own good.
Things like a fully human skeleton being discovered right above Leakey’s magnificent discovery of an ‘ape to ma’ creature, or that a young childs jaw was found amoung the tar pit “death traps’ that contained thousands of animals, many extinct, or that the bones of all these thousands of animals were scattered all over the place indicating a massive catyclysmic event. These are all somethign the public need not be told- don’t want to confuse them with scientific discoveries that don’t coincide with the preconception that old bones are always found without any evidences that would contradict the dAtes finally sdettled on after umpteen tests turn out just the right dates to support old dates.
Zzzzzzz. wake me when all these ‘boring’ things are finally buried deep enough that we don’t have to bother with them anymore.
Not to worry. All those boring things, like the details of science, are safely tucked away in our major libraries.
You are perfectly safe.
[To see what scientists are really doing you have to read journals such as those listed below.]
No- to see what scientists are doing you need only look as far as programs like national geographic, the discovery channel, PBS, etc etc etc and see them making outlandish claims- presenting them as cold hard facts, and never, ever, admitting that their views are highly controversial even amoung their own peers- m
My beef isn’t with intellectually honest publications that present evidences objectively and fairly, it is with those ‘scientists’ that sully the sciences and shape public opinion in an obvious and blatantly biased manner, and it is with folks that post one sided inmformation on forums without ever ceeding the point that there is much controversy within the secular sciences itself, in an attempt to pursuade the general public that there really aren’t very real and insurmountable problems with evolution. My beef is also with folks who consistently attack the character of anyone that would dare question the imaculate conception of evolution instead of addressing the counterpoints in a fair and objkective manner.
[Not to worry. All those boring things, like the details of science, are safely tucked away in our major libraries.]
And surprisingly banned from public educational material- Yep- you’re right, anyone can go to a library and find the truth of the matter, but alas, why present ALL the facts to our kids in public schools? Especially knowing that 99% of them will never look into the matter more fully? Much better to drill outlandish and innacurate material into their developing minds and to deride those scientists who attempt to make the full truth more fully known so that kids can get a truely objective education. And, much better to go on forums and continue this bias and continue maligning those hwo question the misconceptions and present coutner-evidences.
I noticed a few spelling mistakes in my post- knowck yourself out pointing htem out and ignoring the points of this thread.
LOL - looks like 'ol Coyoteman is doing a little quote-mining!
Okay, who here believes that, at the very least in the case of PBS, they can expect to get a balanced objective reporting that represents to subject fairly?
and let’s not forget the super duper fair and balanced Smithsonian instititue upon who so many impressionable young minds depend onm for information and who don’t have any agenda whatsoever (Please ignore the following paragraph- accusations about bias in S.I are all a figment of our imagination (and congress’ who incidently had to rule on the case)
““Such bias and mistreatment for religious views has happened to Dr. Richard Sternberg.5 Despite having two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology, he was harassed and encouraged to resign from the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History because, as an editor, he allowed the publication of an article that was favorable to intelligent design. A recently released congressional investigative report6 described “compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials.” In addition, it was noted that “Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials.””
I think everything we do starts as faith. Then we try it.
It either works or doesn’t.
If it doesn’t, we don’t have ‘faith’ in it any more (usually).
If it works; then it moves to the realm of knowledge, and we then have faith in another area.
The original statement said we weren’t ALLOWED to test it; I merely showed that we are.
Luke 181. Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up.
2. He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men.
3. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, `Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4. "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, `Even though I don't fear God or care about men,
5. yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!'"
6. And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says.
7. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?
8. I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
But remember the bad parts, as you pointed out, of religion -- superstition, self-rightousness, legalism, to name three.
Isn't challenging dogma considered heresy?
Do you believe PBS will present a fair, accurate portrayal of scientists and their work? If not, why are you telling people to go there to learn about them?
Thanks for the info, but isn’t there an assumption going on here?
Because there are bones in different creatures, that are close to one another, that one of them MUST have moved, at some point in time in the past, to become a bone with an entirely different function?
I’ll bet there were real CRUNCHY noises while eating for that middle fellow that’s not been found yet.
Now when we can explain the steps for no ears at all, to TWO of them, then that should be interesting.
Again, nice drawings of real old critters. Do you have any actual pictures of these ear bones to post?
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.