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

Skip to comments.

Denying Evolution Is Denying Biology
NY Times ^ | 2/2/04

Posted on 02/02/2004 5:58:33 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

I have always been amazed at the ability of the Christian right to bully educators into diluting the teaching of evolution and promoting so-called creation science in public school classrooms. I suspect that part of the reason for this is a misappreciation of the importance of evolution by the general public.

Evolution is not an isolated concept that can be expediently omitted from a high-school biology syllabus. Rather, it is the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent.

Can you imagine asking a physics teacher to cover everything except Newton's laws?

Maybe soon a small group of reactionaries will persuade a school board to teach students that apples do not fall to earth because of gravity, but because of some mystical phenomenon that can neither be studied nor understood. ALBERT E. PRICE

New Haven, Jan. 30, 2004

The writer is a research fellow, department of cell biology, Yale University School of Medicine.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: crevolist; education; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-300 last
To: Dimensio
“Do you know if he examined historical evidence for Hindu texts? If not, do you know why he specifically selected just one religion?”

Strobel, in his book “The Case for Christ” doesn’t go into Hinduism or the historical validity thereof. Though if I remember correctly he did do some truth-seeking that led him from atheism to agnosticism and then, finally, to biblical Christianity.

What he did do, was to approach the subject objectively as he could. He basically accumulated what he thought were, the most challenging refuting arguments he could muster, and then he went across the country interviewing different scholars to get their respective answers to them.

And he wound up as a Christian believer.

The only reason I brought it up was to illustrate that faith isn’t necessarily opposed to reason or logic.

Indeed, if it did, it would truly be blind faith.

Brian.

281 posted on 02/05/2004 10:12:15 AM PST by bzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Do you know if he examined historical evidence for Hindu texts? If not, do you know why he specifically selected just one religion?

Such an obvious question. I wonder why they never thought of it that way?

And, of course, he's just one guy - what about all the others that reached different conclusions?

282 posted on 02/05/2004 10:47:24 AM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; Ichneumon; bzrd; Always Right; ml/nj; balrog666
"I mean evidence, not a line of logic.

By a "line of logic" I can only assume you are referring to a logical construct. Those always contain evidence. Evidence in science consists of observations that fit and provide the foundation for logical constructs. Take gravity for example. The first proof, or evidence of Newton's law of gravity was that apples fall according to his formulated logical construct.

Later evidence came by observing that planetary motion followed the same law. After the general therory of relativity, Newton's law was not disproven, as some on this thread claimed. It was found to be a special case of Einstien's logical construct. That finding of a logical construct already proven with evidence to be a special case of a more general law, is covered by the correspondence principle. That principle is...any new theory, whatever its character--or details--should reduce to the well-established theory to which it corresponds when the new theory is applied to the circumstances for which the less general theory is known to hold.

Basically the discussion on the thread involves science vs. claims based on Biblical stories. In post 163 I gave a fundamental teaching that came directly from God. It addresses the discussion on this thread directly and states in no uncertain terms that science will find the universe exactly as it appears. There will be nothing to back up creationist stories, or design theories to be found.

Matt: 38-39" Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Some would take the story of the Passion and Resurrection as the sign of the prophet Jonah. That story is not the point, nor the sign. The sign is a major part of the proof, or evidence, that no other religion has. The sign of the Jonah is the visitation of the Holy Spirit to each and every man. Note God is speaking directly to the reader, not just those present at the time.

John 14:18-21 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

Note that the miricles Jesus performed were done and witnessed by folks that already knew Him. Obviously this is all something many folks miss. Especially, the humanists like Dawkins. They are clueless. Hence Dawkin's conclusion, "Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops." See God left his own with much more than faith. He gave us the same evidence He gave to those he met while He was alive. The Holy Spirit, the sign of Jonah. Seek and you will find the sign of Jonah.

God said there would be no miraculous sign, but many folks seek it and conjure up volumes of rubbish to support a claim that it exists. God believes in the KISS principle, the above passages in His own words amongst others, makes it clear. Niether the ancients, nor contemporary man needs to know anything more than what the Holy Spirit tells them regarding the concerns of God.

Mark 10: 13-14 "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." There is nothing to be gained by denying and obfuscating the truth that God made plainly evident for all to see. There is a great loss to be had though, by placing a stumbling block in the path of a child.

283 posted on 02/05/2004 8:26:09 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
That was a good post:)

Brian.
284 posted on 02/06/2004 4:47:24 AM PST by bzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: bzrd
Thanks.
285 posted on 02/06/2004 5:42:19 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
By a "line of logic" I can only assume you are referring to a logical construct. Those always contain evidence.

You are incorrectly defining faith. Faith is not belief without evidence. It is the belief in the empiracally unprovable.

While speculating that RNA evolved into DNA is not an act of faith, you are not doing that.

You are saying that RNA "probably" or "without much doubt" evolved into DNA.

Actually, it would be better to describe that statement as objectively erroneous than one of faith. There is quite a bit of doubt that occurred.

If you insist that it occurred without offering empiracal evidence you are making a statement of faith.

286 posted on 02/06/2004 7:53:09 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
You're failing to grasp the concepts involved altogether.
287 posted on 02/06/2004 8:19:37 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
No, I'm calling you on a statement that you made.

Science should be based on skepticism and questioning, not faith. A good deal of what passes for science is faith-based, however. When one claims that man and dog have a common ancestor one is making a statement of faith.

Now, faith is not bad.In fact it is necessary for man in dealing with the world. In fact, it is silly to say one does not need faith.

And a good scientist can also be a man of faith.

288 posted on 02/06/2004 8:36:34 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
"A good deal of what passes for science is faith-based"

No. It's been explained clearly with no ambiguity at all. THere is no room whatsoever for faith in science. Review the definition of faith.

289 posted on 02/06/2004 9:18:32 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
THere is no room whatsoever for faith in science.

Exactly. And there are a whole lot of claims -- RNA "probably" evolved into DNA -- made in the name of science, that are faith based.

290 posted on 02/06/2004 9:43:36 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
"And there are a whole lot of claims -- RNA "probably" evolved into DNA -- made in the name of science, that are faith based."

Whatever.

291 posted on 02/06/2004 9:49:48 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Here is another interesting bit of "chit chat".
292 posted on 02/07/2004 8:03:05 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
From the link:
Featured Creation Scientist for February

William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824 - 1907

"Thomson applied his expertise in physics and thermodynamics to argue that the earth could not be as old as Darwin required for evolution. Darwin needed many millions of years to produce a man from a “warm little pond” of chemicals. Janet Browne explains the seriousness of Thomson’s challenge, and describes how combatting anti-Biblical claims (and bad science) was not a new avocation for the physics professor: "

Had Thompson the info that we have now, he would not have persisted, just as he dropped his claim that heavier than air machines could not fly when presented with the evidence.

The site is a collection of comments, claims and no science. The site's owners packed it with volumes of that material in an unorganized fashion. The intent of the site is to convince the uneducated reader, by simply repeating claims within the volumes of material. The simple presentation of that volume and name dropping, makes it appear that they really have something. They don't.

What I do note is that the site is a con intended to advance falsehoods, not only in the area of biology, but physics also. Hence, it is a diliberate attempt to hinder the children in their desire to know who God is and what He is about. God gave the advice that folks should not worry about the things of this world and the folks that created that site have ignored that along with other things ignored.

293 posted on 02/08/2004 10:06:53 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Men were told in Genisis that by their own hands would they live. That fact was given w/o reservation. Again, God is truthful, logical and not a deceiver. Everything is open to see and nothing is hidden. God told us this in person. Science is that process that allows us to see the truth of reality and to provide for the answers to prayer that were heard before the world was.

You were told that you could move mountains. How many will be moved by denying what is and teaching children that what they see is not? You were told how to pray, how can you teach others to pray if the truth remains hidden in the darkness of a complex fraud? These questions must be answered, because ultimitely the question to be answered is, "who will recognize the Holy Spirit."

294 posted on 02/08/2004 10:43:36 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
So... What is your shred of evidence?
So... What is your pound of proof?
You choose to believe what you believe, because it serves you. I, on the other hand serve another.
295 posted on 02/09/2004 11:34:46 AM PST by barkingdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: bzrd
you: What he did do, was to approach the subject objectively as he could. He basically accumulated what he thought were, the most challenging refuting arguments he could muster, and then he went across the country interviewing different scholars to get their respective answers to them.

And he wound up as a Christian believer.

Me: Good for him. And I can throw Dan Barker at you who did the exact same thing from inside fundamental christianity and turned out a vocal atheist. Tit for tat.

http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/biodan.html

in other words, so what.


296 posted on 02/09/2004 12:15:54 PM PST by whattajoke (Neutiquam erro.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: barkingdog
So... What is your shred of evidence?

I believe there have been volumes written available at your local library, let alone various links throughout this, and many other, threads. Perhaps you could pare your query down to a specific question and we can help you out in your obvious thrist for knowledge.

So... What is your pound of proof?

I believe there have been volumes written available at your local library, let alone various links throughout this, and many other, threads. Perhaps you could pare your query down to a specific question and we can help you out in your obvious thrist for knowledge.

You choose to believe what you believe, because it serves you. I, on the other hand serve another.

Well, at least you didn't claim that I serve Satan. Baby steps.
297 posted on 02/09/2004 12:20:35 PM PST by whattajoke (Neutiquam erro.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
"in other words, so what."

Let's see...it took you 5 days to find one or did you just get around to it?

In either case, my point is that faith can be approached reasonably. And BTW, unless your friend possesses perfect knowledge, he is operating on faith, just like the rest of us.

Brian.


298 posted on 02/10/2004 4:07:26 AM PST by bzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Well, at least you didn't claim that I serve Satan. Baby steps.

Yet ...

299 posted on 02/10/2004 7:38:15 AM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
What do you mean. ( No theory is proven.) A theory is a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. Or, an unproven assumption. Or finally, a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject. ie. theory of equation. The search for the missing link is a quest for that proof. The search for water on mars, is a quest for that proof. You believe what you believe out of faith, not proof, as I myself do. Faith being the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
300 posted on 02/14/2004 3:08:32 PM PST by barkingdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-300 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