Posted on 01/07/2002 3:16:27 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to be drawn into a debate over the teaching of evolution in America's public schools.
The refusal is a victory for schools that require teachers to instruct on the subject even if the teacher disagrees with the scientific theory.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don't know about this, but I concede that there may be ambiguous cases. Enough of them would be troublesome. A few really solid, undeniable examples would be devastating.
LOL!! Many times on these CvE types of threads.
One rabbit in the Precambrian would be all it took. I like the analogy of a wall that's painted black on the top half and white on the bottom. A creationist/IDer would find a single microscopic black spot on the bottom half and exclaim "AHA! There's no pattern on that wall at all!"
I didn't say that that was my criterion for evolution to be accepted. I'm merely explaining to you why ID theory hasn't done its job (yet), IMHO. That is what ID theoreticians feel they need to do to get their theory accepted.
Hmmmm. How is that different than what evolutionists do? The only difference is evolutionists say, "Golly, I can't figure out how X happened, and I know there is no God, . . .Therefore . . ."
Hmmm. So RadioAstronomer has an exhaustive list of all possible types of naturally-occurring signals? Wow.
I don't see how this is different from what ID does.
We cannot start life on earth all over again, and from bacteria develop the living world we see around us. To demand this is to claim that all scientific explanations of the past are invalid. To embrace your standard would abolish geology, cosmology, and much of biology and astronomy too. Your standard would leave us utterly ignorant of the past. Sorry, there's a lot that we have learned about the past, notwithstanding that we can't literally re-create the past.
Present Darwin and evolution. Lecture on the fundimentals of Darwin. Then you lecture on creationism. Stay neutral, but teach all the logic of both sides. Have the kids bring in articles that they have seen on the internet, church, books, Mom & Dad, make them examine the differences, without prejudist. Keep the debate logical and with scientific integrety. Let the class decide when the semester is over and all the scientific facts are in. Let them have an open and honest debate. Control the non-scientific rhedoric, keep the emotions and exterior influence to a minimum and let the kids research, talk, and let them make an informed, logical conclusion.
What will you have taught them? The technique of scientific investigation. The art of debate. A scientific method of research that is learned in graduate schools. You have given them the "Keys to The Kingdome" without ever "preaching" to them, one word of scripture.
Years ago I believed only in my self to save, and to keep life. I was misguided but I was the best that ever was. Today, I have found the entity that made me that good. I used to face God and call Him out. I used to swear at him for fighting against me. I've since come to a peace with Him. He gave me the inspiration, he gave me the knowledge, he gave me the dedication, but I can't do what He can do. Now He gave me humility. I'll fight Him when it come to those final hours of my patient's life, but I'll respect His decision. No matter what I do, no matter good I am, I can't change His decision. You're a better man when you understand that! I wish we could teach it in medical schools. It takes a long time, and a long road to learn it.
Having done the time at a radio telescope myself: Yes.
The last real big false positive? Pulsars. A regular signal that keeps nearly perfect time, with a very regular spectrum. They were detected nearly 40 years ago. That's the last serious near miss for LGM hunters. Though RA would know more than me. I tended to look at more exotic items in my line of work.
"Sometimes the word indicates simply descent with modification, leaving open the question of how the staggering changes in life forms could possibly have occurred. Other times Darwin’s particular mechanism of natural selection is added to the meaning. It is critical for people interested in the subject to understand, when they hear it said that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence, that virtually all of the evidence concerns just common descent. The experimental evidence that natural selection could build a vertebrate from an invertebrate, a mammal from a reptile, or a human from an ape is a bit less than the experimental evidence for superstring theory—that is, none at all.
Icons of evolution such as Haeckel’s embryos, peppered moths, and classic origin–of–life experiments have been shown to be more mythic than scientific, even though they still live as textbook orthodoxy. One prominent evolutionary biologist recently wrote, “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.”
The claim I make is this: design is always inferred, it is never a direct intuition. We don’t get into the mind of designers and thereby attribute design. Rather we look at effects in the physical world that seem to have been designed and from those features infer to a designing intelligence."
Michael Behe
I'm not sure what you're asking for. Crickets chirping in time with the temperature seem to me a purely natural creation of information.
This one's a coward.
What I dont like is a theory being not only forced down others' throats, but the clucking superiority of the Evo-Clergy
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.