Forced Education in Homosexuality and Evolution Leads to Exodus of Mennonites from Quebec

I'll believe in evolution when a million monkeys, banging on a keyboard for a million years has the possibility of duplicating War and Peace (or any other major literary work).

Typically, you've mingled the beginning of life with the process of evolution, demonstrating that you understand neither.

In the doubtful chance that you're open minded enough to pay attention to an explanation of your error, I'll explain it.

The process of evolution does not depend on how the first life came to exist. Let's say that God created the first life four billion years ago. The evidence loudly says that from that point evolution was the process the produced the various species.

It's not unlike many other scientific processes. For example the process of heat from the sun causing evaporation, followed by condensation, rain, hurricanes, etc. One could say that "God made the rain", or one could say that the "sun caused it from evaporation, etc." So what's the difference? If you believe that God has a hand in everything, then He caused the sun to shine, the water to evaporate, and the condensation to bring the rain. It's all a case of semantics.

Evolution is solid science. The beginning of life, that you bring up with the monkey's typing thing, is not solid science. We have no idea how the first life came to be, and frankly it's irrelevant. What we do know is that evolution followed that first life. That fact is backed up by geology, genetics, paleontology, and myriad other sciences.

But of course, you can't get past "monkeys typing", so you are blind to it.

And typical of a naturalist, you do not understand how MICRO evolution (differentiation between species via the loss or alteration of genetic information) is being held up in so call "science classes" as the grounds for MACRO evolution. And since you are so personally invested in your faith of naturalism, it is likewise doubtful that you're open minded enough to pay attention to any explanation, but I will press on.

First, lets go over vocabulary:
Theory -
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

I will accept as FACT, that the exchange of information of leads to differentiation of species. This has been observed and the results can be reproduced. What I can't accept as fact is the teachings in school of the theory / conjecture / proposal / belief that micro evolution comes from macro evolution as this has not been proven or observed.

IN short, I accept the NARROW biological definition of evolution....
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Just because the observed facts hold true for species differentiation, the same does not hold true for genus or family etc. My problem is that when the course of instruction goes beyond the facts and uses the THEORY (as in still in conjecture) to propose the "tree of life". This is common in almost all instruction about life throughout the K-12 school system. This conjecture is not based upon facts and that is why evolution (even within the scientific community) is call THEORY as opposed to LAW (as in the Law of the conservation of angular momentum, etc). But, since their are no facts to support this promotion of evolution from the micro to the macro, it must be accepted on FAITH if it is to be believed.

Faith -
2. belief that is not based on proof:

Now we are back to teaching things that are not science and belong in philosophy and religion classes. So if you are going to teach a FAITH based theory in science class, open the debate up and teach other FAITH based theories. Because if you don't, you are doing nothing more that teaching the religion of naturalism and humanism in public school and denying any other religion access to the same public forum. And to me, that denial of any other alternatives, makes naturalism a state sponsored religion.

So ... either we limit science classes to science, as in things that can be observed, measured etc. Or we open it up to other religions. Don't teach one faith based system over another.

From your post:

Theory -

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

What you skipped over is that these are two entirely different meanings. The THEORY of evolution is covered by the first definition, "principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". That is entirely different from the second definition "a proposed explanation", that you used in the rest of your post in reference to evolution, such as conflating "theory / conjecture / proposal/ belief". Further, I believe you mixed your definitions of "micro" vs. "macro", when you mention that "micro evolution comes from macro evolution". I believe your point would be the reverse, and it would be incorrect.

There is no proposed mechanism or observation where "micro" stops short of "macro". This would be a place where creationists might do actual science, if they could demonstrate how their claimed guardrail operates that prevents the progression of micro to macro. But as we know, creationists don't do science. If they did, they would be forced to change their arguments (and some have done just that over the years).

Finally, you ignore my point from your original post where you complain that "monkeys typing" could not produce a work of literature as an explanation why evolution could not operate, mixing the question of the origin of life vs. the evolution of life. Those are two entirely separate issues, and you might be more believable on your other arguments if you would admit your original error.

So as long as there is “... a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation ...” that it qualifies as SCIENCE!?!?!?

By that definition just about any proposal can be taught as science.

And in response to your last paragraph, you have ignored how micro evolution has been used to push macro evolution, planetary evolution, solar evolution and even cosmic evolution.

As for the million monkeys comment, you have failed to grasp the concept that randomness and chaos does not produce structure and intelligence. While the argument can be applied to the origin of life, it can be also applied to any system where the supposition is that non-intelligence, non-information, and non-structure can develop (through some mechanism - say evolution or magic) into an intelligent system with information and structure.There is no error on my part.

Further, your arguments ring hollow because you will not accept the fact that your religion (naturalism and evolution) require FAITH because there are no facts beyond a very narrow field. Until you can mature your thinking and accept that there is a point where evolution as presented in the education system leaves science and becomes faith / belief / religion / philosophy (choose your term), you will never be able to understand why there are people who want to either limit science classes to true science (as in what can be measured and observed), or to present alternate ideas as in .... a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation.

you have ignored how micro evolution has been used to push macro evolution, planetary evolution, solar evolution and even cosmic evolution.

You don't have a clue what evolution is, or is not. You first confuse the origin of life vs. evolution, and now you have confused the evolution of life with changes in the cosmos. The process of biological evolution *requires* imprecise reproduction with external life stresses. In case you haven't heard, planets aren't biological entities that reproduce. I would hate to think about that mating process.

As for the million monkeys comment, you have failed to grasp the concept that randomness and chaos does not produce structure and intelligence.

That's correct, pure randomness and chaos does not produce structure. But evolution is not pure randomness and chaos. The underlying chemistry is as ordered as crystal construction that any first grader can see in a snowflake. The forces of life stress (survival of the fittest) are also non-random.

Again, you demonstrate your complete non-understanding of what evolution is, and is not.

there are people who want to either limit science classes to true science (as in what can be measured and observed)

Evolution can be measured, observed in real time, and it's results predicted. But you don't have any clue what evolution is, so you wouldn't know that.

I am very much aware of micro evolution and have already agreed to that narrow definition of evolution. What you fail to grasp or even read in my reply is the FACT that the science classes in K-12 public schools use this micro evolution (which has never been shown to cause sufficient divergence to create a new genus), as PROOF of macro evolution, the tree of life, justification for the dinosaurs, the fossil record, carbon dating and a host of other things.

And you don't have a clue as to how micro evolution is being used to push a faith based agenda that goes far beyond the realm of science. If you don't believe me ... pick up a first or second grade science book and see how much text is based upon assumption / theory / conjecture / supposition, etc. My position is very simple. If you want to teach micro evolution as science ... fine, I don't have a problem with that. But when you start going beyond science and pushing into the realm of theory, such as macro evolution, you should also present other theories as well.

But since your faith in evolution is blinding you to the truth, there is no need for further discussion.

rickdylan, camerakid400, DaveyB:

Thank you for the lively and civil discussion. Debates like this should be the argument for both sides to consider teaching both sides.

I get more science--and certainly more interesting science--in one FreeRepublic evolution debate than I ever got in weeks of biology and zoology classes in high school and college.

At the very least I can conclude that all Quebec school curriculum should be FreeRepublic-approved.

Now I have two other points of observation:

"Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail."

If there aren't even enough fossils to represent all the evolutionary transitions we expect to see, then how can there be such an excess of redundant fossils for the species we do see?

Also:

"Sure, there are many things we don’t know about evolution, but the field of biology would collapse if evolution wasn’t there to tie everything together."

camerakid400,
For the sake of the credibility of everything else you posted, please confess that you made this statement in haste.

Biology existed long before the hypothesis of evolution, and would continue to exist even if evolution wasn't there. Evolution can be both hypothesis and conclusion, but all the real science remains with or without the conclusion. In fact, it's arguable that biology would be a far more productive science if less resources were spent on trying to prove something that by its own admission could not affect us in a million years. (Sort of reminds me of SETI.)

What you fail to grasp or even read in my reply is the FACT that the science classes in K-12 public schools use this micro evolution (which has never been shown to cause sufficient divergence to create a new genus), as PROOF of macro evolution

Time permits only the tip of the iceberg to be taught in K-12 schools. What you label "micro" evolution is confirmed to be full blown species evolution by fossil studies, and genetic studies which specifically demonstrate human evolution from other primate species (see Human Endogenous Retroviruses, there are 98,000 of these elements and fragments, and comparing their existence in primate genomes acts a clock that reconfirms earlier fossil studies about the sequence and timing of human/primate speciation).

My position is very simple. If you want to teach micro evolution as science ... fine, I don't have a problem with that. But when you start going beyond science and pushing into the realm of theory, such as macro evolution

You need to understand the difference between those two definitions in your previous post. They are entirely different meanings. You use the word "theory" as you would "hypothesis". Evolution theory is the description of a scientific process that is well understood, and with the exception of a literal handful of religiously motivated cranks (see the creationist Discovery Institute's petition that implies that less than 1% of "scientists" have any question about the validity of evolution) is supported by molecular science, geology, paleontology, and many other branches of genuine science. Despite the claims of creationists otherwise, there is no real disagreement within the scientific community about the fact that full species evolution is fact.

As for any kind of "agendas" promoted in parallel with the teaching of science. Ideologues will always use such things to their advantage. But the fact that they do does not change the facts as they are.

Biology existed long before the hypothesis of evolution

Evolution is technically a scientific theory, a state well beyond a mere hypothesis.

But I'm sure you knew that.

I can play that game.

Evolution would technically have to be a hypothesis before it could be a scientific theory (thus giving us a more precise point of reference).

But I'm sure you knew that.

Your answer to my post completely avoids all the points and questions I made.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Your post reminds me why I was so grateful to rickdylan, camerakid400, and DaveyB for their posts and why I addressed it to them.

But I'm sure you knew that.
:-)

Sorry, narby, but I purposely didn’t even leave room to argue about this, and yet you persist and insist on making an argument about it.

My exact statement: “Biology existed long before the hypothesis of evolution”

This statement says nothing about whether evolution is currently a theory or not, because the subject of the sentence is “Biology”, and the “existed long before” is obviously going to refer to something that existed at some more specific point or period of time, and that something is obviously “the hypothesis of evolution” which everyone, except you, seems to accept as having existed.

You knew that, and, in fact, I just finished telling you exactly that in my previous post (without the reading comprehension lesson), and yet you continue to nag and fret like some grand inquisitor for the communist party that someone somewhere on this planet used the words “evolution” and “hypothesis” in the same sentence.

The surest sign that fanatics have turned an idea into cultic dogma is when they relentlessly hound every combination of words that could possibly be rearranged and construed into something contrary to their precious world view.

You knew that, because in your mind you despise and fear people who you think are like that; and yet you’re becoming what you hate.

camerakid400,
Thanks for the response. Although rickdyan and DaveyB are probably long gone, it seems more appropriate that they have an opportunity to respond as well; so I’m posting your response here before responding. (Also, it was only by chance that I read my FreepMail)

From camerakid400 | 08/20/2007 4:04:34 PM PDT

Thanks for reading my explanations.

Biology without evolution is natural history (study of plants and animals), not biology. There is a great deal of important information in natural history that should be taught, but evolution is the unifying idea that ties it all together, allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.

Due to the combined effect of fossilization processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that lived for a long time. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.

I disagree. Evolution is a subject found both in biology and natural history, and based on the definition that natural history has a “leaning toward the observational than experimental” we’re going to find a whole lot of agreement that evolution definitely leans towards “natural history”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_history
In fact, Darwin himself was not so much a biologist but primarily a naturalist.

Furthermore, biology is the study of life, not evolution, and all biological experimentation speaks directly and immediately to the subject of life, not to the theory of evolution.

“Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.”
Bad analogy.
Elements are the building blocks of chemicals; as cells and genes are the building blocks of life. If evolution has anything to do with genes, then it is the study of evolution that is dependent on the study of genes, not the other way around.

The surest sign that fanatics have turned an idea into cultic dogma is when they relentlessly hound every combination of words

So said E-Mat, after he spent time parsing the exact meaning of his previous statement.

Your previous posts used a tried and true technique of labeling something that it was not (calling evolution a "hypothesis"), and now parsing the wording of posts.

Nothing so surely indicates the bankruptcy of an argument than when it's proponent abandons the discussion of the subject at hand and begins cheap word trickery.

So blurts Narby, after he spent no time reading or understanding the meaning of even one complete sentence. (Which means I must be responding just to hear my keyboard clicking.)

Your previous posts used a tried and untrue technique of accusing someone of something they verifiably didn’t do, unless you mean to say that evolution was never a hypothesis, then I guess you caught me. Unfortunately, I think you’re also on record as saying it was a hypothesis over a century ago.

Nothing so surely indicates the bankruptcy of an argument than when it’s proponent abandons the discussion of the subject at hand and begins cheap accusations of blasphemy. You can do better than that.

Take, for example, our fellow evolutionist, CameraKid400, who earns more and more of my respect the more I read your posts. By merely opening both eyes and using at least some small part of his brain, he actually read my post and thoughtfully responded to what it really said, and found not your seething need to attack my use of the dreaded “H”-word.

Speaking of the “H”-word, there was a HYPOTHESIS that Narby and CameraKid400 were actually one and the same person, and Narby’s irrational attacks were just being used to make CameraKid400’s responses look even more rational. But that idea quickly went out the window when we saw that it was CameraKid400 that was the newbie! Oh well, back to Haeckel's drawing board.

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.