Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

NY Times ^ | June 4, 2008 | LAURA BEIL

[Non-Sequitur]

You have no "Theory on the Origins of the Species", unless you specify an origin!

Can you have a "Theory of Intelligent Design" if you don't specify the designer?

[Coyoteman]

You have no "Theory on the Origins of the Species", unless you specify an origin! Observations of change have not verified anything. Where did it begin?

False.

Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

Note that the theory of evolution works the same, and just fine, with any of these five -- your unsubstantiated claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

[js1138]

You offer nothing to this conversation. You just make caustic, boorish complaints about, and to, people of faith.

Is this the evidence for an alternative to evolution?

[Mogollon]

Lets discuss the strengths and weaknesses of gravitational theory.

The difference being that athiests do not use gravitational theory to minimize and discount the viewpoint of Christians.

[Soliton]

Your whole reply is a personal attack. Lying for Jesus I guess isn’t enough for you, now it has to be Lying and libeling for Jesus. Good for you. You are a great hatchet man for the big invisible guy in the sky.

[Theo]

I’m saying that schools should teach truth. If all things came into being through Jesus, as Scripture says, then such truth should be taught.

If that’s not true, then it should not be taught.

What’s true? Historically and factually?

[WVKayaker]

I am not an IDer. I am a Creationist. I believe God made something from nothing.

I do not subscribe to Bishop Ussher's time line. I have studied Scripture and can see enough variability to persuade me that he was wrong in some of his assumptions.

I am not enough a fool to deny that there may be some truth found in observation of differing species. But, I am persuaded that He (God) set it all in motion. I don't have all the answers. I don't need them.

I have been reasonably successful at life. I have children and grandchildren. I own a lot of real property. I drive a 1990 Towncar. I am not interested in impressing folk with my intellectual prowess. Many here on this thread amay be much smarter, better educated than I. BUT, I have a personal relationship with the Creator, God...

[WVKayaker]

You are a great hatchet man for the big invisible guy in the sky.

Who's hatchet man are you? Freud?

[Mogollon]

Weaknesses in evolution?...Let's see maybe I can think of a few....

After 70 years of experimentation on the common fruit-fly in which millions of generations of the little bugs have been exposed to virtually every mutagenic agent known to man...they are still fruit flys and they are still unchanged. Looks like the primary mechanism for evolution is in serious trouble.

Fruit Flys Speak Up

Not to mention the primordial Slime/Soup/Ooze fairy tale in which all the millions of incredibly complex biomolecules supposedly self-synthesized for no particular reason.

[Soliton]

I accept the scientific method as the only demonstrated paradigm for epistemological certitude.

[Soliton]

Explain this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2025482/posts>

[WVKayaker]

Lying for Jesus I guess isn’t enough for you, now it has to be Lying and libeling for Jesus.

Sorry, I'm not a Mormon. I am sorry you feel you are back-slidden. I was once a Baptist Deacon, myself. I was raised Episcopal, and studied lots of other "religions". I guess when you decided that Evolution seemed correct, you apparently threw out the baby with the bath water. That explains much of your animosity toward believers.

I only posted from my personal experience with you. You take "cheap shots" without consideration that you could be wrong. Maybe you could try making positive remarks, and I will try, too.

I apologize to all, for being such a boor. I feel properly chastised.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You can tell from these threads that evolution isn’t taught at all.

I still say add an additional religion class and have at it.

Public schools in Illinois already have religion classes where this could be argued.

[cacoethes_resipisco]

The difference being that athiests do not use gravitational theory to minimize and discount the viewpoint of Christians. A number of flambaed astronomers point out that some Christians seem to be mighty touchy about their beliefs and the consequences of gravitational theory used to be as unwelcome as some interpretations of evolutionary theory are today.

[freespirited]

You can tell from these threads that evolution isn’t taught at all.

LOL. Or that as I have been known to say, nobody remembers anything from high school biology class anyway.

The degree of passion this subject arouses is remarkable when you consider that.

[RogerD]

As a public school teacher ...

"Lets discuss the strengths and weaknesses of gravitational theory." The difference being that athiests do not use gravitational theory to minimize and discount the viewpoint of Christians.

I'm in favor of discussing the strengths and weaknesses of Newtonian gravity. If we don't teach our kids to question, we're doing a disservice to the next Einstein (a sceptic who questioned Newton and reached a significantly different answer despite the theory having been proven so completely that it was reclassified as a Law). Science is much more exciting once the kids understand that they are part of the inquiry, and that they are in a position to correct errors from the most recent decade of research as well as from centuries ago.

I'm in favor of discussing the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. It's no big deal scientifically or instructionally to mention that everything from natural selection to punctuated equilibrium is entirely consistent with creation, and that students whose religious beliefs address the issue can interpret them as: the Bible tells what God did, while the variants of evolutionary theory are scientific explanations of how God did it. A very simple disclaimer like that would allow the religious majority to see evolution in context, as something to be understood for insight into the hand and mind of God rather than as something to be memorized and regurgitated for a grade, and then discarded because of a perception that evolution conflicts with faith. Besides, there may be a much different scientific explanation (one that does not need to address God's role), or at least a more polished version of our current understanding of evolution, that only needs open-minded inquiry from a scientist who learned biology properly - as a science in which even the basic assumptions should be questioned and measured against observation.

BTW, as a mathematician, I'm entirely comfortable discussing the strengths and weaknesses of statistical methods and models [a long global warming discussion is possible in this context]; in fact, I would be uncomfortable presenting the material without including the limitations and the importance of healthy scepticism. I'm here to teach the kids how to think numerically, NOT to demand that they accept my statements blindly. Similarly, I teach (Euclidean) geometry not as absolute fact but as one description of the world - look up "non-Euclidean geometry" if you want to see a couple of alternatives to the bulk of what is taught in high school. A scientific theory that can't stand in the presence of sceptical questioning has no business in the classroom, or in a science journal for that matter.

[Coyoteman]

A scientific theory that can't stand in the presence of sceptical questioning has no business in the classroom, or in a science journal for that matter.

The problem is that the questioning is based on religious belief, not science.

As such, no amount of scientific evidence will convince the "skeptics" that the science in question is correct.

This is not the way science is conducted.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

Toilet paper heresy!

[Dutchboy88]

Not so. The “Origins” website (a self-proclaimed spokesman for evolution) claims that the central claim of “evolution” is the random appearance of one life form from which all life has descended. Thus, “d” would be eliminated from their discussion since you used the plural “life forms”.

It is true that Christians find a comfort in understanding how a thinking, caring God provides a comprehensive answer to the universe, but that comfort is not the primary intellectual hurdle to evolution. Some scientists wish us to accept that they have identified a place in the universe (earth) where they can assure us that no input from other than an unthinking, random naturalism operates to form complex adaptations, not once, but trillions of times in astounding harmony.

We question whether the assurance of no other inputs in the “lab” can be provided. And, is it not incumbent upon the scientist to demonstrate that he/she has removed all other possible inputs from an experiment before we accept their conclusions about causation?

Additionally, listen to the “evolution” pontificators. They begin to speak of how evolution has over millions of years thrown up an organism “well-designed” for (fill in the blank). How could this be if the adaptations are simply random accidents unprompted by inputs of any sort. The adaptations may work better, but they cannot be thought of as “designed” by their own definition. And, it is fair to ask where are all of the other adaptations that were not bad, just not quite as good?

It is these and dozens of other dogmatic assumptions demanded of us that we have a hard time believing without question and simply ask, “Could there be a more plausible explanation?” Are you certain that we are the only folks operating on “faith”?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It’s so unusual to have anyone agree with me on these threads.

I’ve said for 7 years now, that people are able to lie to Christians and take their money for materials because science education is so poor.

Kent Hovind used to brag that he made $20 million a year selling creationist materials and running his park (then he went to jail for not paying his taxes and threatening IRS agents).

But many Christians have been sold on this idea in spite of evolutionary biology being mostly a descriptive theory. So creationists have made up their own theory to argue against, so that facts are no longer necessary beyond the latest nonsense from someone like Dawkins or one of his ilk.

Not good.