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