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

Skip to comments.

Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
NY Times ^ | June 4, 2008 | LAURA BEIL

Posted on 06/04/2008 7:00:22 AM PDT by King of Florida

DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”

The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: evolution; scienceasreligion; scienceeducation; textbooks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 601-609 next last
To: Dutchboy88
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.

Do you have a link, citation, or quote supporting this statement? I've never before heard that "the central claim of evolution is the random appearance of one life form from which all life has descended."

61 posted on 06/04/2008 10:43:38 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
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.

I don't quite agree. There is nothing wrong with questioning science based on religious values - Einstein did it and was within the proper bounds of scientific inquiry when he questioned quantum and asserted, "God does not play dice with the universe." The trick is to take an explanation, even one based on religious belief, frame it as a testable hypothesis, and evaluate the implications objectively using the scientific method.

62 posted on 06/04/2008 10:46:03 AM PDT by RogerD (public school teacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida
"Weakness" - total inability of evolution to account for the origin of information. Information is a property of neither matter nor energy - the two fundamental entities in the universe. There is only one possible source of information: a mind.

I defy anyone to posit an alternative source.

63 posted on 06/04/2008 10:49:54 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Certainly,

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Specifically, the “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent” Douglas Theobald, PhD.

64 posted on 06/04/2008 10:51:46 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: RogerD
The trick is to take an explanation, even one based on religious belief, frame it as a testable hypothesis, and evaluate the implications objectively using the scientific method.

And then accept the results of that test.

A lot of folks with strong religious beliefs will not do so. The will continue to poke at science, while refusing to accept the evidence that science has.

Two examples: young earth and global flood. Both are overwhelmingly discredited by science, but still steadfastly believed -- on religious grounds -- by many. And no amount of scientific evidence will make any difference. It is these folks who have no business attempting to do science if they can't accept the results of the scientific method.

65 posted on 06/04/2008 10:52:24 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Sorry. I can’t find your statement anywhere in the “29+” article. Can you provide a specific quote and a link to the page on which the quote is found?


66 posted on 06/04/2008 11:05:23 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

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

LOL. You think the scientific method gives epistemological certitude?

You can't be serious. If you are, then you are a great example of the importance of including basic philosophy in general education requirements.

The scientific method itself relies on several unproven axioms. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what they are.

67 posted on 06/04/2008 11:13:04 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You are right about the need for accepting evidence. The folks that claim the earth is young (10K years?) may be overstating their position, or overstating the position of the Bible. The Hebrew would allow far longer periods.

But, this does not remove their legitimate concern that the evolutionary scientific community demands that a Creator not be included in any discussion. The hard-core naturalist wants us to acquiesce to, “Science has proven there is no need for a Creator”. Rabid writers such as Dawkins and Hitchens believe the issue is settled, proven and put to bed...Except for us poor backward Bible thumpers.

The difficulty is that these scientists are themselves making extreme leaps of faith beyond small, incremental steps of evidence to monumental claims of proof by implication. Is that not what they criticize is us thumpers?

Why should an evolutionary scientist that has evolved from primordial soup care about “truth”? If he is right, his own mind is as accidental as any misfired adaptation. The likelihood that he even perceives truth, vs. survival, should be small. If he is right, his findings are pointless. Yet, he demands I listen to a mind that he admits is not purposeful, but only “here”. He has a lock on understanding that which he already admits means absolutely nothing. His accidental existence is the triumphal survival of what, a self-recognizing protoplasm? Yet, I must bow to his superior intellectual conclusions. Hmmm.


68 posted on 06/04/2008 11:15:56 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

You read that already?


69 posted on 06/04/2008 11:16:39 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And should Edison have accepted the results of his first dozen or first hundred failures with incandescent light bulb filaments?

And then accept the results of that test.

I'm okay with an Intelligent Design advocate recognizing that his hypothesis does not stand up to the evidence and revising the guess to produce another theory. It's not important whether a perspective is insired by an attempt to make the theory match scripture or as with Friedrich August Kekulé by dreaming of a chain of carbon atoms rotating in a circle and thus visualizing benzene as a ring, so long as the hypothesis is testable and passes that test.

A lot of folks with strong religious beliefs will not do so. The will continue to poke at science, while refusing to accept the evidence that science has.

True, and that's unfortunate. Sadly, religion has often been antagonistic toward science, and vice versa.

Two examples: young earth and global flood. Both are overwhelmingly discredited by science, but still steadfastly believed -- on religious grounds -- by many. And no amount of scientific evidence will make any difference. It is these folks who have no business attempting to do science if they can't accept the results of the scientific method.

I may be a bit optimistic, but I believe most of them can learn to appreciate scientific testing.

70 posted on 06/04/2008 11:17:25 AM PDT by RogerD (public school teacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Theo
You choose: The account affirmed by atheists or the account affirmed by Jesus.

That's odd. I don't recall Jesus insisting that Genesis 1 & 2 must be taken stictly literally. Nor do I recall reading about him saying there was absolutely no symbolism or allegory in the creation stories.

In which Gospel did you find it?

71 posted on 06/04/2008 11:19:31 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

I did a word search of the article for your statement. I couldn’t find it. Can you provide a specific quote and a link to the page on which the quote is found?


72 posted on 06/04/2008 11:20:16 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RogerD
The trick is to take an explanation, even one based on religious belief, frame it as a testable hypothesis, and evaluate the implications objectively

Okay, so what testable hypothesis does the theory of intelligent design provide?

73 posted on 06/04/2008 11:21:49 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

So mathematics is totally unable to decide if pi is “normal.” Don’t we need warning lables in math textbooks to caution children that math is just a theory and can’t even provide properties for one of its most important numbers?


74 posted on 06/04/2008 11:22:31 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mogollon

Good point.

I think if some in the evolution crowd were honest they would admit that Evolution is being used as a crutch to prop up their faith that there is no God.


75 posted on 06/04/2008 11:32:49 AM PDT by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
But, this does not remove their legitimate concern that the evolutionary scientific community demands that a Creator not be included in any discussion.The hard-core naturalist wants us to acquiesce to, “Science has proven there is no need for a Creator”.

That's not what is being taught in biology classes that cover evolution. No one is teaching kids science proves there is no need for a creator. Indeed, such a person would be incorrect, as science can't tell you anything about a creator. And if a teacher somewhere were teaching such things in a biology class, I'd be just as upset as if he were teaching creationism.

You seem to misunderstand why scientists don't want discussions about the Creator in science class. It's not because science has proven anything about Him, but because science can't prove anthing about Him. Or any other supernatural entity for that matter. All science can do is answer questions about nature. It can't answer questions about divinity, ethics, metaphysics, etc.

Blowhards like Dawkins and Hitchens might be spouting atheist nonsense that doesn't follow from the conclusions of science, but they aren't evolutionary biology teachers. Their opinions on this matter aren't mainstream. For every rabid evangelical atheist evolutionist, I can find you a theistic evolutionist who takes religion seriously.

76 posted on 06/04/2008 11:33:49 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Okay, so what testable hypothesis does the theory of intelligent design provide?

I haven't had much interest in ID and haven't looked into the details. I would assume that ID could be tested in the same manner and to the same degree as the variants of evolution.

77 posted on 06/04/2008 11:34:13 AM PDT by RogerD (public school teacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
I think if some in the evolution crowd were honest they would admit that Evolution is being used as a crutch to prop up their faith that there is no God.

That's funny, because I have faith in God, and I also accept evolution as a scientific theory well-supported by the evidence.

FYI, most people who accept evolution also believe in God.

78 posted on 06/04/2008 11:35:33 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RogerD
I would assume that ID could be tested in the same manner and to the same degree as the variants of evolution.

Your assumption is incorrect.

79 posted on 06/04/2008 11:37:43 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
John 5:46-47 where Jesus affirms the writings of Moses as factually true: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

He says, "If you do NOT believe Moses, then you will NOT believe me."

The logical contrapositive of this statement is: "If you DO believe me, then you will believe Moses."

Jesus is affirming the writings of Moses as true. If they are not historically true, they are not true.

Hard words, I admit. Are Jesus' words true or false?

80 posted on 06/04/2008 11:38:32 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 601-609 next last

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.

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