Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
It's merely an extension of magical thinking, which is based on intuition. Intuition and associating events together (which may turn out unrelated) is how the mind learns new things and allows for the creation of scientific theories that can then be tested, and it can help self-preserve when the intuition hits a positive, but there's the bad side as well. Primates learn about their world the same as we do, the same as babies do, just at a simpler level. I have every confidence that evolved primates would be inclined to be sentimental or superstitious. Superstition makes people cautious, and caution improves the likelihood of spreading your genes.
Which Bible? We have already had a discussion of the merits of the English version and its inadequacies. Not my word but the word of one of the anti-evolutionists posting here.
I think you have that backwards. I have no problem with interpreting the Bible. I have problems with people that say that the Bible must be taken literally word for word but then saying that it must be interpreted. For example, when the Bible says that God observed that man was alone and needed a help-meet then God made the animals does not mean (when properly interpreted) that man was alone and did not create the animals after God realized Adam needed a help-meet.
Can I safely assume that you agree that the apparent position of the sun is off by apx. 8.3 minutes?
But wouldn't that also mean that when Pluto was at the part of its orbit which brought it the most distance from the earth, at which point the time of light travel is 6.8 hours in which time the earth rotates 102 degrees -- does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won't even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?
The angular correction factor depends on "when" you look at Pluto. During a night of observing Pluto, Pluto will appear to move apx 180 degrees in the sky if we are using earth as the frame of reference.
To answer your question I will give you a thought experiment. From the time when the reflected light from Pluto just appears at Earths horizon from our point of view, how long and how many degrees of the Earths rotation do we need to wait before we actually see the light that was reflected by Pluto at the precise time we first saw Pluto at the horizon?
I am trying to keep this simple just for you : ) This is really a question of whether or not you understand what a frame of reference is. MrJesse had a hard time understanding the 'frame of reference' concept. Everything is relative to the 'frame of reference' : )
What really ticks me off is that people get sued when they want to think beyond evolution to teach children about it’s warts.
Please direct me to your one of your queries so I may address it or query me again on what you desire my opinion on.
I no of no one that gets sued for that. In fact, there are lots of home schoolers and private (religious) schools that teach that and are not sued. In fact, there are published textbooks that do just that and no one is trying to get them banned by court order.
Can you explain? I would have thought that those with less caution would more likely spread their genes. I am very cautious about spreading my genes; my wife would remove my gene spreader if she ever thought that I was out spreading my genes.
Ann Coulter’s ‘Godless’, page 200:
The ACLU sued a school district in Cobb County, Georgia, merely for putting stickers in biology textbuooks that urged students to study evolution with ‘an open mind’.
That’s one example. More coming.
“So that's that. after Dover, no school district will dare breathe a word about “intelligent design,” unless they want to risk being bankrupted by ACLU lawsuits. The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of their temples: the public schools.” — Ann Coulter, Godless, page 200.
“In fact, there are lots of home schoolers and private (religious) schools that teach that and are not sued.”
School choice is the only fair way to have children educated. Christians are tax payers too.
“School choice is the only fair way to have children educated. Christians are tax payers too.” — in this current political climate, that is.
I am for school choice. We sent our daughter to one of the best Christian schools in the area. OTOH, the tax breaks for churches should be limited. I have no problem with giving small churches a break but not the mega-churches that that are more business than religion. The biggest example of them all is Obama's church.
So you don’t have a problem with tax paying parents deciding what their kids are taught?
Why do you suppose they singled out evolution for stickers? Does that imply that other subjects are to be studied with a closed mind?
What does it matter? Darwin’s Theory was a great launching pad to help in higher levels of thinking, I admit. But there are flaws in the theory now. When schools want to advance their students beyond a flawed dogma, I think they should be commended, not sued.
Oh, you mean the class taught by a phys ed instructor that had no training in the sciences or philosophy and the course used only video-tapes which presented the creationist's side as fact and did not present both sides and the course that argued against evolution by presenting 'facts' to the contrary which would make it a 'science' course not a philosophy course. Oh yeah, this was not about philosophy but a crude attempt to put out garbage by an unqualified phys ed instructor (who by the way, just happened to be the wife of a local minister and a proponent of creationism). You can teach the garbage all you want. That does not mean you have the right to use taxpayer dollars for that and put out garbage to students in the public school system.
Right. Darwin's theory was flawed. We all know that. He didn't even know about genetics at that time! Science has gradually updated his original theory based on the accumulated knowledge science has collected over the decades.
Let's hear about a flaw. Give us the single biggest flaw that you see.
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.