Why evolution is a political question

Morse Code ^ | May 8,2007 | Chuck Morse

[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.

[CottShop]

didn’t turn out ‘as seemed’? How so? You’re not going to rehash the assinine and totally irrelevent accusations you made before are you? “As Seemed”? The only one under any delusions about anythign were you and coyoteman and gumlegs trying to make arguments where NO arguments were warrented because the accusations you launched were false. If You can prove the fella didn’t say a “growing number of EVOLUTIONISTS” then by all means, come on back here and present your case- toherwise you got nothign but petty false accusations! Dirty little secrets indeed!

[LightBeam]

I have an honest question for you:

Have you ever wondered, at least in passing, why evolution is almost always supported by liberals? Why liberals are always pushing evolution in schools and why conservatives are always opposed?

[Coyoteman]

I have an honest question for you:

Have you ever wondered, at least in passing, why evolution is almost always supported by liberals? Why liberals are always pushing evolution in schools and why conservatives are always opposed?

I do not believe that being conservative means being anti-science.

St. Augustine said this very well:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7].

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.

[CottShop]

that wasn’t what he asked- he asked why it seems most liberals are always the ones pushing evolution- he didn’t ask why they push science. Evolution is a beleif based on opinions about what the scientific evidence seems to suggest. Conservatives are not against science- not by any stretch of the imagination. Evolution is only ONE opinion about what the strict SCIENCE presents.

[MrB]

“Everybody that had a decent education in science and mathematics knows that”

You argue like a typical arrogant leftist.

[Gumlegs]

Did I say Woese didn’t beleive in eovlution? Nope

What an odd thing to post in light of your post 214 to this thread. It contains this statement:

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,”

Perhaps someone tampered with your post? Because otherwise “SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION” and the Woese quote salad would give the disinterested reader the idea that you were trying to give exactly that impression.

By the way, Woese is talking about cells, which aren’t species.

And just for the record- I could[sic] care less what Weose beleives[sic] about lateral gene transference- it’s all biological garbage-

Which is why you bothered posting and linking to it.

And how is it you’re qualified to judge what he’s saying?

…if you wish to keep deceitfully misrepresenting what I’ve said in hopes of derailing the truth about what I DID say, then perhaps it would be better for you to start a new thread relevent [sic] to your points because quite frankly, they have absolutely NO rleevence[sic] to what was being discussed here …

You don’t need me to misrepresent what you post; you’re doing a fine job all by yourself.

Did I say scientists have problems beleivign[sic] in ANY forms ofd[sic] evolution? Nope- Got that? Understand it well becausde[sic] what I’m abotu[sic] to say is apparently difficult to understand judging by the responses of some here to my points- I said “Some Evolutionsits[sic] have problem with the model of common descent” - please let me know what it is that is throwing you for a loop concerning that statement. Next time you jump into a conversation late in the discussion- be more civil and you’ll receive a more civil respoinsde[sic] explaining your obvious error.

It’s rally too tedious to keep this up. Your idea of “evolutionists who have a problem with common descent” appears to be anyone trying to figure out how the process works. Your attempts are beyond silly.

I realize now that the depths of your ignorance are far too deep for me to attempt to even attempt to plumb. Post anything you like. I’ll do the same.

[weaponeer]

You argue like a typical arrogant leftist.

Oh, really? How is that? By stating a truth?

I guess they stopped teaching science and mathematics principles sometime after I left school in the 60's. There's certainly not much evidence that they are teaching scientific and mathematical philosophy in the schools nowadays.

And, me, a leftist? HA!

[Fido969]

The architect, the carpenters, the electricians, the masons, the roofers, etc., can build a more complex structure (a 4 bedroom house) out of a pile of disorganized materials only because they consume hundreds of pounds of food.

Well, it's not just food - there is a certain amount of intelligence as well.

[tacticalogic]

didn’t turn out ‘as seemed’?

No, they didn't turn out 'as claimed'. Measure twice, cut once.

[Polybius]

The architect, the carpenters, the electricians, the masons, the roofers, etc., can build a more complex structure (a 4 bedroom house) out of a pile of disorganized materials only because they consume hundreds of pounds of food.

Well, it's not just food - there is a certain amount of intelligence as well.

Or, in the case of bees building a beehive, instinct.......Which God may very well have put into the bee.

My explanation was not for or against evolution or creation. My explanation was to counter the often stated claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics violates the possibility of evolution without taking into account that the Planet Earth is not a closed (isolated) system.

"The entropy of an ISOLATED system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”

"Isolated" is the operative word there.

Here, on this thread, we are producing ordered writing where, before, there was nothing. However, that is coming at an entropy increase (a net increase in disorder) when you consider how many steers, pigs, chickens and fish, and how much wheat, potato chips, (don't forget the beer) and vegetables that you and I have "disordered" into carbon dioxide, water and sewage during the past year. All that, in turn, came about because of the solar energy produced by the increasing entropy (increasing disorder) on the Sun that resulted from the consumption of tons of solar fuel.

In the debate of Evolution vs. Creationism, the "Thermodynamics Makes It Impossible To Have Something Go From Less Complex To More Complex on the Planet Earth" argument needs to be dropped as the argument against it rises in the East and sets in the West every day.

[CottShop]

oph goog gollly- I’dd hopped youe weare aboove uarguing leike a 12’thh gradder- I saee I weas misstaken.[sic]

Did you have fun standing on your little high horse pointing out all the spelling mistakes as though spotting htem were an important victory?

I see from the rest of your post you’ve dug your heels in and decided to continue on with your gradeschool arguing. I already explained about woese- If you can’t figure it out- perhaps you can have someone who is a little better at understanding htigns over on DC give you a hand with that

Woese is talking about Cells? Egads, and here I thought Cells meant banana peels- thanks for pointing that out- Cells aren't species? Doh- Why thanks- I hadn't realized that cells were the foundations of the whole lateral gene transference system Woese speeks about, nor that he was implying “The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent.” I figured he meant that the time had come to glom onto common descent while at the same time voicing his hypothesis about an absolutely and completely different model of evolution. And here I figured he was ignant- you've shown me the errors of my ways. I see clearly now that he was smart enough to realize that when one system breaks down due to biological impossibilities, that it's time to move on to another perhaps more viable hypothesis.

[Your idea of “evolutionists who have a problem with common descent” appears to be anyone trying to figure out how the process works]

What a retarded statement. The evidences I provided are more than enough to dispel that foolish nonsense

[It’s rally [sic] too tedious to keep this up.]

Good- buh bye. I figured it would be too much work for you to follow along and post honestly. Run on back to DC- they miss the backslapping and camaraderie whenever threads maligning creationists (or cretards as you like to so maturely call us) crop 7p.

[CottShop]

Good bye- you’ve made it abundantly clear that you can’t follow along and will consistently make crap up as you go along. Come on back when you’ve actually followed the links and seen for yourself the evidences- Writing evberythign off simply because you’re too lazy to follow along and read for yourself just shows lack of sensibility. If you want to argue sensibly- lemme know.

[tacticalogic]

Good bye- you’ve made it abundantly clear that you can’t follow along and will consistently make crap up as you go along. Come on back when you’ve actually followed the links and seen for yourself the evidences- Writing evberythign off simply because you’re too lazy to follow along and read for yourself just shows lack of sensibility

Actually I made the mistake of wasting the time it took to follow one of them, and it didn't amount to squat. I saw for myself, and it was pathetic.

[CottShop]

Yup- major symposiums that included the worlds top scientists expressing their dissastisfaction with evolution through common descent doesn’t amount to squat. Scientists showing the mathematical impossibilities of common descent is squat. Scientists searching for a new method, one that ISN’T riddled with impossibilities and brainwashed into our kids minds (yet) like the old broken model is, is nothing but squat. You’re right- no sense actually following the links and discovering that the silly notion that common descent is a universally accepted and undisputed fact isn’t as strong and ‘settled’ as many evolution advocates would lead us 56to believe. You’re right-

Reading a statement from a top evolution scientist that stated The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent" doesn't back up my ORIGINAL statement to Stultis that there are indeed scientists that have problems with the model of common descent. How silly of me to think that this would have been the case- Posting that statement by a scientist was so far off base concerning what I had said to Stultis that it amounted to squat and was a waste of your precious time- By golly, all your huffing and puffing has proved that there aren’t scientists who have problems with the model of common descent.

Shallowness and laziness rule the day- no sense bothering putting much effort into finding out that this is the case- much better to make false accusations against someone WHO provides the evidence thaN To actually be thorough enough to be accurate when responding- good job!

As I said tactic- when you decide you want to argue sensibly, instead of throwing out asinine and faLSE accusations- and when you decide you want to kick up the coutner arguments beyond a foot stamping gradeschool denial of the obvious points being made, and when you decide you want to actually argue ligitmate points instead of making crap up and insinuating I've said somethign I haven't just so you can keep on arguing non issues, why then You just let me know. Your silly little round and round games are amusing, but grow old quick

[tacticalogic]

Yup. Two sentences out out of the entire body of work presented at a symposium is the whole symposium. That's gonna fly.

[CottShop]

oh, there’s MANY more quotes fro m the scientists present- just as I said there was for anyone who cares to check it out and aren’[t as lazy and immaturely dismissive like yourself. Crying and saying ‘you didn’t post every quote- just links that you expect me to follow- so therefore the quotes don’t exist’ aint gonna fly. Sorry you think it will.

[tacticalogic]

oh, there’s MANY more quotes fro m the scientists present- just as I said there was for anyone who cares to check it out

I followed the link with the information from the New York symposium. It contained two sentences, from one person, submitted as having been presented at that symposium. In order to "check it out" I would have to go looking through the entire body of works presented at this symposium to verify that there are indeed "many more from the scientists present".

[tacticalogic]

oh, there’s MANY more quotes fro m the scientists present- just as I said there was for anyone who cares to check it out

I followed the link with the information from the New York symposium. It contained two sentences, from one person, submitted as having been presented at that symposium. In order to "check it out" I would have to go looking through the entire body of works presented at this symposium to verify that there are indeed "many more from the scientists present".

[CottShop]

[In order to “check it out” I would have to go looking through the entire body of works presented at this symposium to verify that there are indeed “many more from the scientists present”.]

Eeeek! - you’re kidding? Check something out? With links provided? Just by clicking and spending a few minutes searching? How terrible!- let’s just insinuate that the person posting hte links and making the valid claim that the symposiums contained statements from scientists that voiced their opinions about the problems with common descent, is a liar and accuse him falsely instead.

entomologist W.R. Thompson:

“This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credibility with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

And for your reading pleasure:

http://www.northcarolinaconservative.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1175792561&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&;

“Stephen J. Gould of Harvard :

“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with Darwin’s idea of gradualism :

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear ; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2) Sudden appearence. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once, and fully formed.”

“The judge in the recent Dover, Pennsylvania ruling noted that Intelligent Design proponents focused on “gaps” and “problems” and he made it illegal for teachers to mention these”

Hahaha- You’re kidding me? Illegal to teach gaps and problems?

Teacher: “Students, evolution is fact.”

Student: “But teacher, I thought there were problems and gaps with evolution?”

Teacher: “You shut your filthy piehole you rabble rouser!!! One more word and I’ll personally see to it that you’re expelled!” Lol 5...4...3...2......

[tacticalogic]

Eeeek! - you’re kidding? Check something out? With links provided?

I investigated the link for the information from the New York Symposium (that covers a quarter of the four symposiums you're submitting as evidence), and read the content. It does not contain "many quotes from the scientists present". It contains two sentences from one of them.