Posted on 01/19/2005 8:52:24 AM PST by FeeinTennessee
Suppose that after tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of years, civilization returns. The scientists of that day find a problem:
There are a group of related canine species of many sizes. It seems, from the fossil record, that there had been only a few species 100,000 years before, but suddenly, over seemingly less than 5,000 years, dozens of branches suddenly developed that further evolved into separate, though clearly related species.
Could those future scientists and interested laymen be having the same debate we are now: Was this branching of species (as well as that of cattle and several other creatures) the results of pure random chance or some intelligent intervention?
To a certain extent, Intelligent Design is proved: Humans have manipulated evolution, through breeding, hybridization, and, now genetic manipulation. We are a known "I" in ID.
Given that, is it inconceivable that there is some lost manipulator in our past. Perhaps life arose spontaneously, but was guided along in its development. Perhaps we are that future civilization with lost forebears, whose few survivors of catastrophe are now only remembered as Noah and his family.
Even the alien theory would work here -- one spontaneously rising intelligent species by chance could then guide further planets.
This is all science fictiony speculation, sure. But if there are aspects of evolution that don't appear entirely by chance, we need not have God or any deity enter the argument.
That is a great assesment of the problem. We who defend evolution allow our selves to take the bait of Creationists and respond rudely as a result. I am guilty of it myself.
Clearly. What is the alternative though?
Evolution and creationism are not incompatible.Amen.
Which made a lot of sense, before the Copernican model was proved....
Mind you, the Sun isn't the center of the universe either, and some orbital varation -- as well as eccentric orbits of various comets, planetoids, etc., may well turn out to be due to objects outside our solar system.
Copernican works well-enough for most of what we've need so far. But in the future, we may need something more.
The difference between the two is some religions teach values or rights and wrongs about being civil in a world that teeters on implosion, this creates a fabric for a society to survive and this is its real power not who created it. Other less desirable religions cause death and hatred in a tormented logic bent on implosion. Science should only care about understanding what we have found ourselves to exist in and why, not to battle God as wrong because it doesn't matter. Science has enough to consume with whats already on its plate.
There are two possibilities. 1) God made the world in 6 days, but put lots of stuff in it to make it look very much older.
2) God made the world in 4 billion years featuring a neat invention we call "Evolution", but some peoples interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
Since no two denominations can agree on the meaning of the important parts of the Bible, I prefer to think that #2 is the correct answer. I just don't think God plays practical jokes like making the world old just to mess with us.
What do you call people who are wrong? Evolutionists! :-D
LOL!
So, you want to teach fictiony speculation and call it science?
That'd be great for the creative writing class, but thats just not "science".
The "theory" of "evolution" is an insult to our God given brain.
Regardless of where you stand on the debate, children and adults should be taught all possible "theories". It is fair and balanced just like FOX!
Really? Who sez? You?
making the world old = making the world appear old
You are partially referring to a theory called "Directed Panspermia". It was put forth by Francis Crick about 30 years ago. It goes like this: Life originated somewhere and intelligent life evolved. They were "lonely". They packaged several types of microbes into spacecraft realizing that they couldn't go themselves. Whenever that space craft found an appropriate planet it dropped a packet of seeds ("spermia"). They grew and evolved into --- "Us". The time is there and the possibility is real. Is is a "good" theory? Probably not, but neither supported nor unsupported. It puts off the "abiogenesis" problem for Earth, but it doesn't say where it happened, only that maybe somewhere else conditions were more ideal than Earth. I don't look down on Crick fore this, he is just stating another idea. (He's dead now so, I guess he can't answer the question as to whether he really believes it - 30 years ago he told me it was partially a joke, but..... wink wink)
Maybe we should teach this in school too. Scientists love to play these mind games - it helps them to be more innovative in their thinking. Nothing is tossed out without thorough examination and even discarded ideas sometimes enjoy a new life if conditions warrant.
Two mistakes in your analysis.
You are assuming that the changes take place at the same time.
You are assuming that the end result is given. This is identical to assuming a particular deal of a set of cards will occur (odds 1 in about 10**67) whereas some deal will occur.
Teaching biology students both evolution and 'intelligent design' makes about as much sense as teaching astrophysics students to calculate planetary orbits using both a Copernican (heliocentric) model and a Ptolemaic (geocentric) model.Which made a lot of sense, before the Copernican model was proved....
That time is past. And, yes, of course, there are perturbations to be accounted for. But the Copernican model is broadly correct in a way that the Ptolemaic model is not. And to teach astrophysics students (qua astrophysics students rather than, say, history of science students) the Ptolemaic model as a calculational tool would be an utter waste of their valuable time.
And, yes, science is a work in progress—it's always on the way towards truth. But I've posted on that topic on earlier threads, so I won't belabor that point.
Did'nt the Egyptions have some neat scientific theories about life after death. We must teach those in government schools too. They're just as valid as Evolution you know.
Why do you think only fools believe in the literal translation of Genesis? I am curious as to what your definition of a fool is? I see a fool as someone that opens their mouth without really spending time in critical thought, carefully studying all the possibilities and then making a decision as to what they believe. It appears you know very little about Richard Thompson or the law center he represents. Happy Hunting!
Actually, She made it Thursday Last but it looks 5 billion years old.
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.