Posted on 01/20/2005 12:54:58 PM PST by Jay777
ANN ARBOR, MI — The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution. In what has been called a “measured step”, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin’s theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells - the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, “Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.”
“It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin’s theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it,” continued Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
Surf Pubmed. The really good stuff seems more and more often to come out of Japan, Europe and India.
For the American ones, look at the authors' names.
Try teaching college biology for non-science majors.
..."life originated in our public schools."
WOW!!
Shows what you can do taking a quote out of context. At least I give the ...
Nope. Intelligent Design = the Zarke, who were designed by the Ganicci, who were designed by the Yolata, who.... and if the past runs on forever it never stops because it never starts.
On the other hand, if the Universe did start at some point, then it all traces back to the Quitlokee, who started when the Universe did: much more elegant than supposing an extra-Universal God who waited forever just to kick creation in the backside.
Mind you, I believe in God; I even believe that proof of the existence of God is easy. But 'Intelligent Design' ain't it.
But again, once again, let's say that I grant you this - fact - however you understand it, or define it, or work with it, etc. I wondered if there was some theory you might also be working through to help explain this odd fact?
you want it in one simple sentence
Make it a long sentence. Make it two. Make it three. When describing basic particle physics, you can cut to the gist quickly. But perhaps not in one, single sentence. But you don't have to write a full chapter, either, to explain the basic definitions. If you have theory for your fact, I suspect it's not nearly as complicated as particle physics. Surely you can say what you mean, succinctly, and knowing that no reasonable person would confuse such a statement with the detailed sum of knowledge of the field. Put the herring back in the can and answer the question.
The meat of the matter isn't in the creed
That's precisely what the Creed is. That's the point. That's the basis, the norm, the standard, the very minimum which one must entirely confess in each point or else consider oneself on the outside looking in. As for what the words and phrases mean - yes, there is further explanation. Since it is not merely religion, but Revelation, the explanation is voluminous and reflects some of the most intense personal moments in people's lives through the ages.
Christianity is
But you know what Christianity is. It's been explained, succinctly, definitively - in the four principal Creeds of The Church. That's the point. You're not getting this.
an advantage
Not true. It could be a disadvantage that proves ultimately irrelevant to this vague operation of evolutionist forces. Until you can say what causes - evolution - you can't say much else about it. What do you think causes it, specifically? Lay it out, as one who understands. Those who understand, in any field, can explain it cleanly, and succinctly, as you might well know yourself.
constant deific intervention, which doesn't match how anything else works.
But how do you test that? You say God does not intervene, even every hour, not even every indivisible unit of time, continually that is. But how do you know that? Has science put God to the test? And if so, is that science?
(Here's a claim of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record from that leading "creationist," Stephen Jay Gould.)
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen J. The Pandas Thumb, 1980, p. 181.)
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ‘official’ position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." (Gould & Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibria: the Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered," Paleobiology, 3:147, 1977, p.147).
Under a commonplace evolutionary misuse of terms, a "convergent form," like a "transitional form," contains character traits from two separate groups. The only difference is in how the Darwinists explain them. Archaeopteryx, having teeth and a tail, is said to be a transitional form because it fits the common descent story of birds evolving from reptiles. On the other hand, bats, having wings and utilizing echolocation to navigate, just like multiple species of birds, is said to be convergent. One must not say that bats are transitional between birds and mammals because it does not fit the accepted common descent story. Thus, Dawkins asserts, "It follows that the echolocation technology has been independently developed in bats and birds, just as it was independently developed by British, American, and German scientists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 96.) Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, convergent forms are abundant, while transitional candidates are rare.
Evolutionists create the illusion of ancestry by merging together, in rapid fire, these various techniques. (See, for example Cuffey, Roger J., "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution," p. 255-281 in Montagu, Ashley, ed., Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.) The point is that any collection of objects can arbitrarily be placed into a continuum, with some identified as transitional. This, however, is not sufficient to establish actual evidence for common descent. There must, instead, be a discernable pattern of lineages giving the supposed transitionals credibility. The data must occur along a long, narrow trail. The size of the gaps is not as important as the pattern. Once a lineage is determined, the transitional forms are self-evident.
While both creationists and evolutionists agree that there is a general pattern of nested hierarchy (which was recognized by Linnaeus long before Darwin’s work), the question for evolutionists remains one of lineage and ancestors. As more fossils have been found, the gaps and the lack of identifiable phylogeny have become more distinct. New discoveries have tended to obscure lineages previously believed by evolutionists to be reliable.
That is the whole point of punctuated equilibrium. Leading evolutionists do not claim that the fossils demonstrate phylogeny or gradual intergradations sufficient to prove large-scale evolution. To the contrary, they admit to the abundance of systematic, large gaps between major groups in the fossil record. Walter ReMine notes, "These absences are huge as measured by the only scientific measuring stick we have - experimental demonstrations. The gaps are so huge they have not remotely been bridged by experimental demonstrations in labs or in the field." (ReMine, Walter, Private correspondence, 1999.) This point should not be debatable since there are plentiful statements from punctuationists admitting to the lack of clear ancestors and lineages in the fossil record.
You're just being argumentative.
No, I am being precise. You would just rather I be at a loss for words. LOL
Just the theory, please.
You got it. Feel free to read it again however many times you need before you acknowledge it.
Perhaps you should define - speciation.
Here's the most concise definition: "the process of developing new species" - I guess we can move on from wordgames now...
I suspect it harbors your Theory, and you don't even know it.
Probably. Since there is every reason to deduce that evolution is reality, then it's a given that speciation "harbors" it..
Does speciation also include notions of genetic drift, and populations as opposed to mere individuals, etc?
Speciation includes "the process of developing new species" via whatever means that took place (which, you might note, I specified as adaptation to natural selection pressure).
All that would remain is to place natural selection under this all-inclusive rubric and the job would be done.
The answer to what evolution "is" - in other words, what you asked for - is naturally an "all-inclusive rubric" or else it would be an incomplete answer. Of course I included natural selection to begin with, since that is an essential part of what evolution is. If you want details, then I recommend picking up a biology text..
Your parsing of what "is" is is giving me a migraine.
Do you have any basis for your claim? Here is a typical teaching module and you will see that it is NOT what you claim. It clearly separates the origin of life from evolution and clearly states same.
When will yo correct your post?
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/home.html
>> I seriously, seriously doubt that, whether it was intended that way or not ;)<<
An opinion is all the post CAN be. Unless of course he cited sources, which he didn't. 8^>
What do you mean - we?
but nobody had figured out how they fell
You mean they just hadn't thought to call it - gravity - yet.
Thus the theory of gravity was born
It wasn't really born. It was just made up, and was initially quite wrong. But it didn't explain gravity. It explained, or attempted to explain, the effects.
fire existed
One can get the image of evolutionists nervously crowding around - oooh, firrrreee!
But that's what I asked you. That's exactly what I asked. No natural selection? No mutation? Genetic drift? Punctuated eardrums, etc? None of that? There's no theory to explain evolution. You want to say it's simply a force of nature.
Well if you're completely abandoning any effort to discover a theory to help explain evolution, maybe we - that's we - should retrace our steps over the old ground and you tell me, again, precisely what is the 'fact' - of evolution.
Don't try to come up with a theory on me, now!
I said you were being "argumentative", not considering what I wrote but simply arguing for the sake of arguing. That's wastes your time. It wastes my time.
the process of developing new species
Then you've simply substituted "speciation" for "evolution". What then is your theory of speciation?
That's what I asked. Does it happen to include natural selection, chance, mutation, genetic drift, in what order and what combination, in what way, and so on?
what evolution "is"
Do you really not understand the difference between fact and theory?
As a matter of fact evolution is rather hard to teach to non-scientists.
I (long ago and in a galaxy far far away) taught biology to non-science majors.
Never even got near evolution. Tried to do a bit of classification, objectivity, reproducible results, effects have causes....plus some data bits.
Extremely tough. Different mindset. A few would break through. Many found understanding actually objectionable... made them "cold," diminished the importance of feelings,
and, from my observations, made some afraid that established dominance heirarchies among themselves would crumble.
There's a sign the author of the statement is an utter and complete moron.
If Evolution was an explanation of the origin of life, Darwin wouldn't have entitled his book "The Origin of Species"; he would have called it "The Origin of Life."
You're right that on this count the statement is flat wrong, but on another it is misleading, and I think, in the way that the ID movement sells itself, intentionally so. If we correct "origin of life" to "history of life," the manner in which, and the extent to which, ID "differs from Darwin’s view" is all but arbitrary.
What I mean is that there are some proponents or supporters of ID who are basically strict creationists, holding that each "kind" (whatever that is) of creature had an entirely separate and non-natural origin. On the other hand there are IDers who have little to no problem with macro-evolution, in some cases possibly up to and including the common origin of man and ape, and reserve the mechanism of ID (whatever that is) to explain the origin of certain complex molecular components or subsystems of living things.
Acknowledging this is a problem for ID for several reasons.
For one it would undermine an important function of the ID movement, which is to serve as a sort of "lowest common denominator" umbrella ideology for anti-evolutionists, who have historically been prone to intense infighting (typically of a political or irresolvable nature, unlike the adversarial process in mainstream science which has the effect of resolving debates).
The substantive differences between, say, strict creationism and progressive creationism, or between young earth and old earth creationism, are nearly as great and as irresolvable as those between any version of creationism and mainstream scientific accounts, and in some cases greater. The ID brand name allows anti-evolutionists to avoid (literally to ignore) such differences and work together.
In general such willingness to set aside differences and band together is a good thing, but this is not the case if one claims to represent a scientific view or movement. Science seeks to expose, clarify and sharply delineate substantive differences, especially if they are mutually irreconcilable. Science is opposed at its core to wishy-washy relativism. If two incommensurable views exist within a scientific field or theory, it is an intellectual obligation to set them openly at odds with the aim of discovering crucial tests to decide between them.
Another problem with acknowledging the arbitrary degree to which ID differs with evolutionary views is that this pretty much gives away the fundamentally vacuous character of "intelligent design," or at best reveals that it is nothing like a comparable "alternative" to evolutionary theory. One of the most important features of any scientific theory is a mechanism or mechanisms. The whole point of ID, however, is to not have a mechanism.
If IDers don't agree about what was "intelligently designed" (whether for instance whole organisms or only some of the more complex molecular machines of which they are composed) at least that is potentially resolvable, if IDers were at some point willing to expose and debate their differences. OTOH avoidance of the issue of how (or when, or where, or why) acts of "intelligent design" occur is key to the very nature of intelligent design, both in how it is pursued and how it is presented.
Basically ID wants to assert that something happened, but refuses to answer or address any further questions, even (if not especially) exactly what that "something" was. This is not under any circumstances an acceptable approach in science, certainly not for any theory that wishes to claim status as an "alternative" to well established theory. Science demands that any and all aspects of a theory are subject to investigation.
Your quote:
|
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen J. The Pandas Thumb, 1980, p. 181.) |
The real quote:
|
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.] [1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed. |
Note, the underlined portion, above, completely obviates the tiny little snippet you snagged.
You actually got the next quote correct, but you missed the context:
|
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ‘official’ position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." (Gould & Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibria: the Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered," Paleobiology, 3:147, 1977, p.147). |
As the Quote Mine Project points out:
|
It's now obvious that Gould and Eldredge weren't arguing against Archaeopteryx being a transitional form, but arguing that it wasn't an example of a perfectly smooth change between body plans (or "Baupläne"). For instance, the wing of Archaeopteryx was in essence the forelimb of a dinosaur covered with feathers. This is what Gould and Eldredge meant by the term "mosaic": a creature that is a mixture of both primitive and advanced features. But mosaic forms are exactly what we should expect from evolutionary transitions, since there's no reason to expect every part of the body to evolve at the same rate or at the same time. Evolution has no destination in mind, just as the Wright Brothers didn't envision modern jet fighters when they flew at Kitty Hawk. But did Gould believe that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form? He did indeed, as can be seen in his article "The Tell-tale Wishbone" (Gould 1980). Any claim to the contrary would be a misrepresentation. |
The next four paragraphs are lifted, verbatim, from a creationist website (Genesis Park):
|
Under a commonplace evolutionary misuse of terms, a "convergent form," like a "transitional form," contains character traits from two separate groups. The only difference is in how the Darwinists explain them. Archaeopteryx, having teeth and a tail, is said to be a transitional form because it fits the common descent story of birds evolving from reptiles. On the other hand, bats, having wings and utilizing echolocation to navigate, just like multiple species of birds, is said to be convergent. One must not say that bats are transitional between birds and mammals because it does not fit the accepted common descent story. Thus, Dawkins asserts, "It follows that the echolocation technology has been independently developed in bats and birds, just as it was independently developed by British, American, and German scientists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 96.) Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, convergent forms are abundant, while transitional candidates are rare. Evolutionists create the illusion of ancestry by merging together, in rapid fire, these various techniques. (See, for example Cuffey, Roger J., "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution," p. 255-281 in Montagu, Ashley, ed., Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.) The point is that any collection of objects can arbitrarily be placed into a continuum, with some identified as transitional. This, however, is not sufficient to establish actual evidence for common descent. There must, instead, be a discernable pattern of lineages giving the supposed transitionals credibility. The data must occur along a long, narrow trail. The size of the gaps is not as important as the pattern. Once a lineage is determined, the transitional forms are self-evident. While both creationists and evolutionists agree that there is a general pattern of nested hierarchy (which was recognized by Linnaeus long before Darwin’s work), the question for evolutionists remains one of lineage and ancestors. As more fossils have been found, the gaps and the lack of identifiable phylogeny have become more distinct. New discoveries have tended to obscure lineages previously believed by evolutionists to be reliable. That is the whole point of punctuated equilibrium. Leading evolutionists do not claim that the fossils demonstrate phylogeny or gradual intergradations sufficient to prove large-scale evolution. To the contrary, they admit to the abundance of systematic, large gaps between major groups in the fossil record. Walter ReMine notes, "These absences are huge as measured by the only scientific measuring stick we have - experimental demonstrations. The gaps are so huge they have not remotely been bridged by experimental demonstrations in labs or in the field." (ReMine, Walter, Private correspondence, 1999.) This point should not be debatable since there are plentiful statements from punctuationists admitting to the lack of clear ancestors and lineages in the fossil record. |
You really ought to attribute things you lift wholesale. Better yet, paraphrase and attribute. That way you don't look like another Joseph Biden.
What odd fact? That species change? Look at the fossil record, there's stuff in there that doesn't anymore, and the stuff that does exist isn't found very deep in the fossil record. Something has changed, this is a known fact, evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the mechanics of that change.
Sorry but a proper explantion of evolutionary theory takes hundreds maybe even thousands of pages, I don't have that kind of time and JimRob probably wouldn't dig on me taking up all that space. My personal explanation of evolution is actually rather shallow, I'm neither a paleontologist nor geneticist. I simply understand that things change, through some mechanism I'll probably never have a complete enough education to understand, but they do change, new species are formed, old species go away. Kind of like weather, another science I'll never have the education to fully understand but I know enough about it to know that just because it's cloudy today doesn't mean it's never going to be sunny nor does it mean it was always cloudy, in fact because weather is fact I know for a fact it wasn't always cloudy because it the skies were clear this morning, this helps me understand that the clouds will go away. The herring has never been out of the can and I HAVE answered your question, multiple times and in multiple phrasings of both your question and my answer. But since my answer will never be to lie and say there is no evolution you will never accept that answer. Open your mind to possibilities, the possibilities are where the true glory of God exists, painting are more beautiful when you understand the medium and how the artist used it to create his work, so is this world God has given us.
No Creed isn't the meat. The Creed is the shorthand version of the meat, that opens the door of thought and understanding.
I know what Christianity is because I've read the Bible, and I've studied the history of western religion, I've learned how Christianity evolved from Judaism and from itself. I know what Christianity is because I've delved past the shorthand of the Creed to study the MEAT. And one of the things I've learned is that the Creed does no justice to the meat, it's the difference between a picture of fillet mignon and a well prepared and supported with proper side dishes ACTUAL fillet.
It could turn into a disadvantage, but the purpose of the change is seeking advantage.
That's the hard part with things like evolution and astronomy. We don't have the tools necessary to perform "tests" in the standard sense of the word. We can't cause evolution to happen, we can't make planets and suns, we can't make faultlines, we can't make weather. When science branched out beyond things we had the physical capabilities to nudge we stopped being able to do tests, instead we do more observation, examine what we observe and see if it fit the model. It's like a test, only more random and requiring more patience by all involved. Science hasn't put God to the test, though I'm sure there's more than a few scientist that would do anything for a sit down and a few complete answers, science just tries to figure out what He did, studying the mechanical aspects of the wonders of His creation, learning the brush technique of the greatest Master.
Then you've simply substituted "speciation" for "evolution".
No, I haven't. The "process of developing new species" could be God snapping his fingers, or whatever. I have specified adaptation to natural selection pressure. Do you need the link to read it once more? Here it is again, just in case. The modifiers were not optional.
That's what I asked. Does it happen to include natural selection, chance, mutation, genetic drift, in what order and what combination, in what way, and so on?
I specified natural selection. You will have to define what you mean by "chance" before I can answer to that, because people use it in different ways (particularly when they want to be rhetorically elusive). My dictionary has eight definitions. Yes, mutation and genetic drift are a given in "adaptive" .. that is how the adaptation takes place.
As for the rest, you're just trying to waste time now. They are encompassed in the basic definition and my only purpose was to refute your inane statement that one could not state what evolution is. I did that and have no further interest toward being your remedial biology tutor.
Do you really not understand the difference between fact and theory?
Of course I understand the difference. What evolution "is" is a theory. I never said otherwise. I choose my elliptical sentence structure very carefully. =)
More irony, considering all the overheated paranoia up thread about the "anti-Christian" motivation of opposition to ID, even though ID is supposedly non-religious. (Confusing, ain't it?):
In this country the first widely used secondary school texts teaching evolution were written by an evangelical (congregationalist) Christian, Harvard botanist Asa Gray. The primary opponent of evolution, Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz, was a liberal Christian who associated with unitarian and transcendentalist types.
"We" is the people you keep asking the same question to over and over.
I mean they hadn't stopped to say "I wonder what holds us to the ground, I wonder why it is that when things leave the ground they return, I wonder why not everything seems to fall at the same rate". Now one had bothered to explain gravity, they simply accepted its effects, largely without name. It was just there, they were busy doing other things like farming and stuff.
Yes the first theory of gravity was quite wrong. The first theory we've come up with for just about everything has been quite wrong, that's because we're humans and falible. And most of our first theories were based on a set of test data that would be considered laughable by modern scientific standards, which has a lot to do with why they were wrong, which in turn is why that level of study is now considered largely worthless.
Nothing nervous about it. But one of the creationists biggest arguments against evolution is that the theory has changed, that in fact Darwinian evolution has been largely discarded as wrong across the board. From that they insist evolution didn't happen. By that logic thanks to phologiston http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=phlogiston there must not be fire, obviously there is fire, very little of modern society would even be possible without it.
There you go outright lying. Did I say no natural selection? NO. Did I say no genetic drift? NO. No mutation? NO. Punctuated eardrums? NO. Those are all thing YOU are saying. Don't put your words in my mouth, all that does is prove how little you know. I don't want to say it's simply a force of nature, I want to say it's a mechanism, of some sort, that we don't fully understand. It could be natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, something we haven't figured out yet, or some combination of all of the above. Don't know, that's what scientists are studying, that's what they're trying to figure out, what makes evolution happen. That's what all scientists study, always digging deeper for better explanations of how things happen, never being satisfied that they have all the answers. Each answer brings only more questions, and in the world of good science they know there will never be a final answer.
Already told you what the fact of evolution is multiple times. Species change, we know that for a fact, the theory of evolution is attempts to figure out how.
You certainly seem to believe that. But why? You don't really know what the 'fact' is, I going to guess. You don't seem to have any real sense of what any theories might be, in any detail. But yet you feel compelled to believe. It's obviously for reasons other than science.
explantion of evolutionary theory takes hundreds
That's the point - it simply doesn't. That's why I mentioned particle physics. Simple formulas. Simple concepts. Basic tenets, if you will. There's much more to it. But it can be succinctly stated. Why is that? Because it's science. You want to tell me what evolution is, again?
the true glory of God exists, painting are more beautiful when you understand the medium and how the artist used it to create his work, so is this world God has given us.
You're describing perpetual adoration. You're describing heaven, to a degree. Free to be the best in adoration. Free to be more competent and more skilled and imaginative than Bach and Kepler and Aquinas all thrown together at their peak. And by observing the world, we see the hand of God.
The Creed is the shorthand version
We believe in One God. There's a lot that went into that, with regard to the Trinity, Persons, etc. But it's not shorthand. It means what it says. It is to the point. But volumes have been written on just that one point. It's both.
the Creed does no justice to
If you believe the four principal Creeds of The Church are in any way unjust then you don't really confess those Creeds, and are outside The Church, and proudly so. Many are. What line, what phrase, what word, is insufficient, in your opinion?
we can't make planets and suns
But one can predict this or that based on observation, reason and experiment in support of that. One develops theories to explain what the Hubble and others see. One does not say that a Quasar is an irreducible force of nature. One attempts to describe what a Quasar is, and then what it does, and why, and where it came from, and what might produce another, and so on. One notes much of this in the language of trig and calculus, in a language of symbols with rules for manipulation if not always verifying the semantics. And one looks to see if the predictions are supported by subsequent observations from the distant voice of the past.
Since evolutionism is so difficult to define and quantify, at least you might say it has no place in a science curriculum, and is at the very least, after 150 years still a remarkably immature science, if that's even the word.
Well done. Always fun to see flat-out creationist frauds so nicely exposed.
In that case, evolutionists should have no problem with the introduction of "intelligent design" or raw "creationism" into the schools, since those really broach something other than evolution, and hence are no threat to Darwinism.
No problem at all. If someone develops a successful creationistic theory ("successful" meaning only that working scientists find it useful enough to address and apply in their ongoing research) then it can be taught. The nice thing under these circumstances is that it will be taught, as a matter of course, simply because it's part of science and science is what science curricula generally try to include.
You see if you insist that theories only be included in curricula on the basis of merit, then you don't have to resort to the popular pressure tactics and politics that are necessary if you seek inclusion on the basis of intellectual affirmative action and wishy-washy, relativistic arguments of "balance" and "fairness".
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.