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.
Only in heavily top-down power structures that think that only THEY have the keys to the kingdom.
Here are some Scriptures that show that THINKING is permitted...
NIV Matthew 17:25
"Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?"
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?
"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, `Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied.
30. In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
35. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. `Look after him,' he said, `and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36. "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37. The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
1. Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
3. I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
4. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
5. I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
20. Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
14. I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
15. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.
8. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
I think it's more apparent in "heavily top-down power structures" becuause it's institutionalized and codified, but that doesn't mean it only exists there.
I would bet a very large sum that there is NOT A SINGLE qualified "secular" scientist who rejects the reptile to mammal transition wholesale. I'm not aware of any. This case if extremely compelling and rejected only, so far as I know, by antievolutionists, the vast majority of those religiously motivated.
I’m being sarcastic when I say they are ‘fair and balanced’- of course pbs won’t give a fair and balanced show on evo-
I understand that. What I don't understand is this:
"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 "
On one hand you're saying you know that PBS is going to present a slanted view, and select their subjects and edit their comments to reflect that view. At the same time you are saying that this is where you want people to go to get the information, which they will supposedly use to form their opinions about scientists.
and what does ‘qualified secular scientists’ mean to you? Someone who unquestioningly beleives reptiles evolved into mammals? Because if that is the only criteria for ‘qualified’ then you would indeed be correct- if however, you include scientists who might have differing beleifs, and believe the evidence supports their claims that there were other mechanisms at wwork and that different lines were taken in the evolutionary process, then you are quite wrong. There are indeed scientists who don’t buy into it yet have no religious agenda. To hold a beleif that God created many original creatures from which our current species evolved is not a ‘religious agenda’. Do a great many scientists unquestioningly beleif in common descent? You betcha- do a great many beleive somethign else and beleive the evidence supports their beleifs? You betcha. Do the second group ever get major airtime by an agenda driven public comunication system? Not a chance.
As I mentioned, the doubts are never, ever, hardly ever barely ever, only occasionally, presented in public forums such as NG, PBS etc, and when they are presented, they are derided and maligned in snotty immature ways by those who have an obvious preconceived liberal bias on the issue. Just ask Dr. Richard Sternberg and others who have been ostracised and attacked by agenda driven ‘scientists’ and dogma driven prostelytizers.
no, I think you’re miunderstanding my points- I’ve said my beef is with the public comunicatrions systems like pbs that only present their agenda and never give fair and balanced reports for the public to make up their own minds about the subject. I’m saying that the public is only presented with biased media reporting on the issue of evolution, and that is a shame because they never learn of fact that there are those who DO question the validity of the claims being made by those liberal baised scientists who are constantly portrayed on PBS etc.
I've reviewed your comments and the context of the posts they were made in reply to. If there is some misunderstanding here, it is not mine.
I was just responding to your expression of the belief that some scientists in addition to creationists think there is something fundamentally wrong with the fossil evidence of a reptile into mammal transition. I think you're delusion. At least I am aware of NO "secular scientists," not a single one, who hold such a position.
Evolution is definitely a political issue, no matter what else you might call it.
Regarding your other question, I have no idea why National Geographic didn't discover the forgery on its own, but you have to remember that National Geographic is a popular publication -- it isn't a peer reviewed journal. As soon as scientists got their first look at the fossil (when National Geographic submitted their paper to Nature and Science for peer review) the fraud was uncovered. Neither Nature nor Science published the paper, because of their suspicions of fraud.
there has been a misunderstanding- I didn’t explain it very well as I was rushed-
Coyoteman said in order to know what scientists beleive one ‘must’ go to the journals that they publish in and my reply was no that is incorrect because less than intellectually honest scientists constantly appear on biased shows and constantly give us their biased information which, shows like PBS are mostly what people will be made aware of- IF the majority of scientists that go public are the ones giving biased information on shows like pbs, then we are being fed biased and non factual information as absolute truth on those shows, and therefore, we’re being fed the popular views of liberal bais scientists. Coyoteman made it appear that the views of all scientists are represented by journals, but this isn’t true as far as the intellectually dishonest scientists are concerned-
Beleive me Tactic- I am in NO way advocating that people get thgeir information from shows like PBS and mny posts pointed out why- as I said, I was being sarcastic- although it should have been apparent that I was making it clear that you will NOT find fair and balanced reporting on PBS. I can’t explain it any better than that- if you’ve missed what my posts were intended to portray, then I’m sorry.
The producers of these shows have an agenda and they will cherry pick their subjects and edit the content to advance that agenda. This does not give a true picture of what scientists do.
You freely submit that there are a few who are "intellectually dishonest" and that these are the ones you will likely see on these programs. Add to that the known history of these shows to take people's statements and edit them to misrepresent what the subjects actual position is if it suits their purposes.
You're submitting that this should be the basis that the scientific community needs to be judged on, rather than published works that present a complete picture. There is no way you can convince me this is going to result in a fair assesment.
As I said Stultis- you’re definition of ‘qualified’ is shallow enough that you would apparently dismiss anyone who actually IS qualified who holds a different view than the one that mammals evolved from reptiles- yet I assure you there are many who don’t AND who are absolutely qualified in their particular fields of expertise. You can keep on with the name calling all you like- but it will never change the fact that not every secular scientist beleives mammals evolved from reptiles.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i2f.htm
3 - SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_23.htm
“We cannot expect to explain cellular evolution if we stay locked in the classical Darwinian mode of thinking,” Woese says. “The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent.”
“Neither it nor any variation of it can capture the tenor, the dynamic, the essence of the evolutionary process that spawned cellular organization,”
http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0618021.htm
Over 700 scientists of all belief pursuasions
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Here are more articles abotu secular scientists against evolution than you can shake a stick at- I’m more thasn certain you’ll find aty the very least ONE ‘qualified’ scientist provided you get past an apparent bias in determining what qualified means. If you state qualified simply means being an accreditted scientists with expertise in their given field, then I’m confident you’ll find plenty on this list that fit your bill.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/topics.htm
More uncertainty goodness:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm#1984
THE CAMBRIDGE MEETING
The following year, still another important meeting of evolutionists was held. At this meeting, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in a paper that he presented to the assembly, declared before his peers that evolution was “positively anti-knowledge,” and added that “all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth.”
The same year another scientist wrote this:
“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—*Michael Ruse, “Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Oh there’s more- however, If you’re content beleiving they don’t exist- then I just know presenting anything will be simply dismissed and as such will not put more effort into presenting the more than abundant scientific folks who have problems with the mammal from reptile scenario
“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.Michael Ruse, “Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Could you please post the entire quote? I don't trust the ... sections.
Good golly tactic- You have absolutely convoluted what I was getting at even though I’ve attempted to strighten out hte misconception on your part several times now.
My gosh- I agree with BOTH you and Coyoteman that the journals contain intellectually honest articles that present BOTH sides in a somewhat fair and balanced manner AND I AGREE that people SHOULD go to those instead of going to shows with a bias. I am NOT- repeat NOT- suggesting people go to shows- I made a sarcastic statement that the shows were fair and balanced- it was sarcastic in the highest order tactic- Again- You’ve completely misread/misinterpreted what I was saying-
you said [The producers of these shows have an agenda and they will cherry pick their subjects and edit the content to advance that agenda. This does not give a true picture of what scientists do.]
Agreed- what’s the confusion?
I guess the confusion is over your reply to his comment about the journals. I simply took it at face value.
of course you don’t- you can find the quote and learn about the chicago meeting, the new york meeting, and the philidelphia meeting of top sicentists in their fields who had problems with the conventionally held notion of evolution by going to the link I posted- sorry- but your predicted ‘it’s quote-mining and therefore not valid’ accusation won’t hold up when so many scientists ALL voiced their problems with evolution at those meetings You might launch a weak argument if only one or two people had voiced problems, and could I suppose suggest that someone had an agenda by only quoting certain segments of a single scientists statements, but the quotes themselves leave no doubt as to the problems and doubts the scientists had and went on record as stating. You can alos investigate the numerous statements in the other links as well if you like- but I’m, sorry, but attacking singular statements hoping to divert attention and undermine the whole won’t cut it here when there are so many. That might work on less intellectually honest forums, but not this one.
I’m reading about the New York meeting. There’s one quote by someone who was there (the one you provided), and two more by someone else, apparently written later, who it doesn’t make clear whether they were actually there or not. That’s it.
and what’s your point? That means those scientists didn’t actually have problems and voice them in the meeting?
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.