Posted on 05/01/2008 11:35:33 AM PDT by Sopater
So 1 Timothy 6:20 will be part of the new “critical analysis of evolution” curriculum?
Hardly - Please - I was just having some fun. I’m asking for just a little wiggle room here.
Maybe not the right time or place.
It has withstood critical scientific analysis for 150 years.
then folks like you really have nothing to worry about
I don't have anything to worry about either way. As long as it's done strictly scientifically with no ulterior motives, evolutionary theory living or dying is a win-win situation for science and for me.
Your faith can remain in tact.
I have no faith.
Criticism without any alternate theory is nothing but whining. Knock it all you want, it is still the only one that can carry water.
I question motives. It's the main reason I don't subscribe to Global Warming. ID has a religious motive and GW has a totalitarian socialist motive, so I trust neither. The only allowed motive is the advancement of science, all else is suspect.
Whoops!!! We are done here.
Check please!!
Sure I can. Evo does not mention it, because it is not science. It is faith.
See how simple that is?
"There is no controversy" that two planes flew into the WTC towers, bringing them down. But people keep trying to prove they were taken down with precision explosives, and rational people are getting tired of playing whack-a-mole against the same old tired arguments.
What’s your degree in?
Guess you didn’t read the link, with the numerous quotes from evos about how evo is the engine of atheism, and how it proves there is no need for a spiritual origin of life, and how the text books of our public schools state the same, thereby “establishing” the religion of atheism as the official religion to be taught in schools.
I did. It changes nothing. I found it carping. Take Steven Jay Gould. He wrote more than 20 books and published tens of thousands of articles, and the author could only find 20 words to quote from. Talk about cherry picking.
Spirituality is not science. I have no problem with teaching religion in the school. But never mistake it for science.
I did. It changes nothing. I found it carping. Take Steven Jay Gould. He wrote more than 20 books and published tens of thousands of articles, and the author could only find 20 words to quote from. Talk about cherry picking.
Spirituality is not science. I have no problem with teaching religion in the school. But never mistake it for science.
The main problem with the federal courts banning creationism in public schools is actually not the courts but the people. More specifically, ignorance of the Constitution and its history is epidemic. Widespread constitutional ignorance is evidenced by the following links.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tThe consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the people are impotent to stop crooked judges and justices from walking all over our freedoms, particularly our religious freedoms.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
Regarding the USSC's scandalous stifling of our religious freedoms, consider the following excerpt from a post linked to below. Regarding this excerpt, although Justice Black trumpted Jefferson's "wall of separation" words from a private letter in order to justify his twisted interpretation of the establishment clause, thus putting a stop to official religious exercises in public schools, the excerpt shows how Justice Black had gotten the constitutional wires completely crossed in doing so.
Although Justice Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the establishment clause was intended to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson had done so on at least three occasions. See for yourself.So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black essentially quoted probably the worst person that he could have quoted to get away with his dirty work."3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The reason that Justice Black was probably confident that he could get away with his perversion of the establishment clause is as follows. Although the states have the 10th A. protected power to address religious issues, FDR foolishly weakened the 10th A. when he established his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs. Then along comes Justice Owen Roberts who used FDR's "license" to ignore the 10th A. to pervert the 14th Amendment. Then after Justice Roberts comes Justice Black who used Justice Roberts' perversion of the 14th A. and FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to pervert the establishment clause, unlawfully limiting our religious freedoms.
This post (<-click), while dealing with a 10 Commandments issue, goes into more detail how Justices Roberts and Black made a mess out of our religious freedoms.
Getting back to a state law that would permit the questioning of evolution in public schools, consider that the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
The bottom line is that the people need to reconnect with the intentions of the Founders where the Founder's division of federal and state government powers are concerned. The people need to get in the faces of federal judges, demanding that the judges stop ignoring their oaths to defend the Constitution, particularly where the 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues is concerned.
(Stupid double Post!!)
Exactly - the atheists shouldn’t be pushing their religion in the science/biology class.
All true. But the 20th Century philosopher Karl Popper rejects the view that induction is a characteristic of the scientific method. He argues that it is easy to for one to obtain evidence of virtually any theory. He calls that pseudo-science.
Instead, Popper replaces induction with the concept of falsifiability which means, basically, that we should look for flaws of limits in a theory. And that is exactly what questioning evolution is. Good science is all about doubting theories. Not allowing theories to be questioned is just about as unscientific as one can get.
Absolutely wrong! Science is all about questioning theories regardless of whether there is anything to replace it with. This is how quantum mechanics and relativity came to be. Classical theories were not sufficient to explain observations, so we knew something was wrong and it spawned a lot of activity to find out what.
These are the kinds of things that lead to the greatest advancements in science. When a theory is discovered to be wrong or incomplete, while there is no current theory to explain the phenomena.
Not questioning theories is NOT science.(period)
Popper's approach could be accommodated by the classic scientific method. The summary of the method is that hypothesis in order to be valid must be testable in such a manner as results validating or invalidating the hypothesis are all of the following: observable, verifiable, and repeatable. If the test is not observable it is not really a test, if it is not not verifiable it is as useless as the rantings of a madman, and if it is not repeated on successive iterations it is false, but if it is not repeatable it is more likely history not science. Therefore the classic scientific method is more interested in validating then disproving a hypothesis, this validation must meet the criteria but it is also test for failure. Then at least we can know that the falsity of the theory is true.
Under this classical understanding I think Popper adds little. Evolution (ie common ancestor as the origin of all life) fails all three of these tests. It is not observable - it is in the past,it is not verifiable - guess work that can only say what was not possible, nor repeated - cannot logically prove a negative so it may not be said that it not repeatable as that begs the question. In that regard no theory of origins is science - it is historic forensic guesswork. No "scientific" theory accounts for the existence of matter and energy and no hypothesis provides for the generation of life. In fact there is much more evidence from real science to suggest that the proposed hypothetical mechanisms for generation are not able to create life. ID is just one more hurdle out of thousands for the material empiricists to overcome
Julienne Gage of Fox News has misused the term "theory." The problem with the word theory is that it's got both an informal sense but also a formal meaning, never the twine should meet. The informal meaning of theory is that an idea is being guessed at, the way that Ms Gage probably wants it to be understood, not that everybody is going to construe her words that way.
The problem is that the formal, scientific usage of the word theory means that an idea has indeed held up to the rigor of scientific-method based experimentation and is accepted as scientific fact. So regardless that Ms Gage likely intended to give the impression that evolution is merely guesswork, she has fallen into the trap where her words can be reasonably construed as meaning that evolution ideas are indeed accepted scientific fact.
The reasons that macroevolution ideas, so-called long term evolution processes, are largely no more than science fiction are as follows. The problem with the claim of evolutionists that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, is that the scientific-method experiments that would conclusively verify such claims would themselves take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments to verify outcome.
Another reason is that experiments that are said to simulate billions of years of evolution have "backfired," showing that harmful mutations are a major obstacle to evolution ideas.
The bottom line is that macroevolution ideas are no more a science than creationism is; evolutionists believe in evolution by faith as much as Christians put their faith into Jesus Christ. But although neither macroevolution or creationism has a place in the science classrooms of public schools, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that either issue cannot be discussed and questioned in public schools.
Finally, is it any wonder, given the conflicting meanings of theory, that creationism versus evolution arguments seemingly go in endless circles?
The following online references indicate the formal and informal usages of theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
"I homeschool." [excerpt]
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.