Posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000
Relativity is theory, chaos theory is well, theory. Quantum mechnics . . .is largely theory.
Evolution is very much theory.
Unfortunately evolution doesn't even qualify as a true science.
A definition of science given by the Oxford Dictionary is:
"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain."
Evolution fails to meet the criteria of being a true science.
Evolution has never been observed by anyone... and evolutionist themselves admit no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record.
Evolution has never been demonstrated in a laboratory.
Though it is rather funny that all these supposedly "highly educated" men would spend so much time trying to cause something to "evolve" and create even the most basic form of life..JUST to prove to us that it *took no higher intelligence to create life.
This equal time argument is a joke. Unless you propose that we give equal time to flat earthers every time a math class discusses the circumfrence of the globe.
If somebody proposed that the universe is chaotic, and eratic because God does exist, he just isn't a very talented designer, but he is a semi competent nincompoop, would you like that to be given "equal time" in schools?
You are a literalist christian. Bully for you. Until God allows himself to be proven scientifically, you can discuss him at church, at home, with friends, but not as the teacher of a science course at a public school.
Which "Gravity" would that be?
Classical Newtonian Gravity (with its known errors at all extremes)?
General Theory of Relativity Gravity, (with its problems in the subatomic area)?
Quantum Gravity, (with its inaplicability to the macro world)?
So9
"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50:22-29)
===================
Bob Reeves Lincoln Journal Star [Nebraska] January 24, 2003 |
Original Article When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1859, most scientists were skeptical and said the theory lacked sufficient evidence. Now, nearly 150 years later, the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for life's diversity. Nevertheless, a small contingent of scientists is pushing for an alternative. They call it "intelligent design." And just as the early evolutionists, their theory has met with widespread skepticism. On Sunday, Paul Nelson, a philosopher of science from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and a leading proponent of intelligent design, appeared in a debate sponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Rational Solutions. His opponent was Massimo Pigliucci, an evolutionary biologist from the University of Tennessee. More than 150 people braved snowy streets to attend the event in the sanctuary of Saint Paul United Methodist Church, 1144 M St. Unlike religious creationists, scientists who theorize about intelligent design do not use the Bible or faith-based arguments to support their case. Instead, they try to show that intelligent design offers the best explanation of the empirical evidence,Nelson said. He noted the complex protein molecules in intestinal bacteria and the wide difference in structures of various sea creatures as examples of phenomena he believes could better be explained as the result of intelligent design than evolution. By refusing to consider evidence for intelligent design, scientists are limiting their knowledge, Nelson said. "Even if I were an atheist but a curious human being I would want that tool in my arsenal." Pigliucci argued that the concept of intelligent design "is founded on an argument from ignorance." Proponents of the theory say, "I cannot explain x, therefore x must have been intelligently designed," he said. He noted that scientists were not opposed to considering intelligent design, for example, when seeking evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence by monitoring radio signals from outer space. But scientists reject "supernatural" explanations based on intelligence that has no natural explanation, he said. The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life or how the entire universe came to exist, Pigliucci said. Instead, it confines itself to the development of living organisms. "We don't know how life originated," he said. "The only conclusion I can draw from that is that we don't know." After nearly an hour of debate, the two took questions from the audience. One former biology teacher said he could see no evidence that different species of plants and animals were the result of evolution. Nelson said he disagreed with those who pressure schools to teach intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution. Once the theory gains acceptance by scientists, he said, it will be taught. One questioner said 90 percent of parents wanted creationism taught in schools, yet "evolutionary atheists," who make up about 5 percent of the U.S. population, have a "stranglehold on public education." In response Pigliucci noted that very few people were brain surgeons, yet would trust one if they needed surgery. He added that as "a professional evolutionary biologist" he is qualified to teach the subject. Asked how much he knew about religion, Pigliucci replied, "Nothing. That's why I'm not teaching it." Reach Bob Reeves at 473-7212 or breeves@journalstar.com. |
Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs. The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty. For more information visit Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org. Please report any errors to webmaster@discovery.org |
The evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson has conceded, that the gaps are a universal phenomenon: "...every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
This, of course, is exactly what creationists would expect to find.
"That the Earth is round is a theory, not a fact,
you might equally believe that the Earth is flat"
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.