Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: narby
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.
110 posted on 08/20/2007 1:55:53 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]


To: taxcontrol
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.

112 posted on 08/20/2007 3:32:29 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson