Posted on 08/29/2004 8:07:55 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
This is slightly off-topic, but has anyone read Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy?
Well, that seems to be factual. Evolution is on stronger footing when examining a change from one living thing to a similar living thing, than it is when examining a change from dead/inanimate things to a living thing.
Thanks for the ping!
True. Evolution only concerns living things. Things that aren't alive don't evolve. They are, however, subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. But that's outside of evolution theory.
And the people who object to the disclaimer are arguing about something the disclaimer doesn't say.
The people who want the disclaimer don't know what evolution is. But they don't like it anyway. Ignorant people shouldn't have their way in such matters.
It has long been an unofficial policy of the evolution advocates that, as a matter of courtesy, we don't participate in religious threads to argue scientific issues, because many who enjoy the religion forum would regard our information as unwelcome, and possibly disruptive. It may be a double standard, but that's how it is. For myself, I plan to leave the religion forum's thread alone.
Yeah. The disclaimer is a bit verbose. They could have made a more direct statement about the scope of evolution theory that everybody would agree with. "Evolution theory does not address the origin of life." I don't know if proponents of evolution have other agreeable statements, like whether or how plants and animals are related by evolution, etc.
Indeed we are. The disclaimer isn't directed at any theory but the theory of evolution. It's obvious what's going on here, given the kind of charlatans pushing this thing.
From the article:
But those fears [about a decline in education] are not shared by conservative [ARRRRGHHH!] Christian leaders like Barrett Duke. "For those of us who believe that God really did create the world," he says, "it seems to me that it would be appropriate to at least give a nod in God's direction!"That's what the disclaimer is intended to be.
And what's the problem with that?
In this one "disclaimer", they reveal their utter ignorance about the TOE, and science in general.
In the first place, they repeat the common (wrong) misconception about what a scientific theory is. In the second, they continue to ignore the fact that evolution does not study the origins of life itself.
This "disclaimer" was obviously written by the same people pushing for it.
As you said, PH, those too ignorant to understand what they are talking about should not have any say in its presentation.
One sincerely hopes that the students, in their science classes, are being taught what a scientific theory REALLY is, and what evolution does and does not adress. If so, the need for a "disclaimer" is moot.
Were I teaching science there, I'd use the "disclaimer" itself as a teaching tool, to show how badly some scientific things are misunderstood.
Wrong. Evolution is a theory AND a fact. The theory of evolution is that variations are passed on to offspring, and selected by relative reproductive success. The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies change over time, and have throughout the history of life on Earth. The theory may or may not be correct--the evidence for it is extremely strong--but the fact is irrefutable.
They are all theories, that is, they describe a situation and can be used to develop testable answers. They differ from hypotheses which are simply educated guesses based on observation.
The SBC says that by the time they are 18 years old, nearly 90-percent of the children raised in evangelical homes have left the church, never to return. The attrition problem has Southern Baptist leaders so concerned that earlier this year, prominent members of the church asked their national convention to consider a resolution that would have called on Southern Baptist parents to remove their children from the nation's public schools.
So, instead of looking in the mirror to figure out what's driving so many young people out of their church, they point the finger of blame at an external imfluence they can demonize, rather than face the specter that being out of touch with reality might be the reason why so many young people are quitting.
We could point out that Darwinian evolution isn't the only theory out there which attempts to explain the fact of evolution. There was Lamarckism, derived from the work of the French scientist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, who explained the mechanism of evolution by teaching that transformation of species occurred as the result of many individuals simultaneously adapting to common environmental stimuli.
That was somewhat modified (I don't know the details) into the doctrine that characteristics acquired through environmental influences are inherited, advocated by Lysenko, which was official Soviet doctrine.
There is also the theory of improbable aggregation, which suggests that random atoms fly together from distant parts of the galaxy to generate new species. This theory is advocated by no one, but it is often presented by creationists when they are looking for a theory to ridicule.
Nice. That reminds of when Rush advises the Demoncrats because he knows they will always be too stupid to take his advise.
Aha! Finally - my life's purpose is revealed!
Hmmm... where to start.
Ah, I have it.
Since random particles can be collided and form new 'species' of particles, it must also hold that, for example, an Einsteinium atom and an isotope of Beryllium could also collide and form a new species, and that if a duck flew into a beaver, you'd get a platypus.
+ =
So unless you're willing to argue that the duck and the beaver aren't made of atoms, here we have a clear cut case of atoms flying together and forming a new species.
Now then, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wait by the phone for the Nobel Committee's call.
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.