Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up the next evolutionary stage? No, it drowns!
Posted on 02/05/2005 11:37:51 AM PST by gobucks
ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.
With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.
*snip*
The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.
*snip*
At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.
*snip*
The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."
*snip*
Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."
*snip*
Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.
"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Well, if by definition, creationists are intrinsically dishonest ...
I've never made any such claim.
Is it just me, or do these two comments of yours placed together create a kind of dissonance?
Absolutely. But I would add that our reason itself is a divine gift. I sometimes think that God knew we would need something to think about and keep us busy.
Have a good outing. I studied Hebrew in Old Testament class, but it has been many years and I have slept a lot since then.
This is a personal, philosophical question, not a scientific one. In other words, you're resorting to metaphysics to resolve the dilemma of how life began. That's fine, as long as you don't try to marry the two together. Metaphysics is for the soul. Science is for the physical world. They don't really need to contradict or validate each other. The whole basis of "creation science" violates this principle, because it demands that science be based on faith, and that faith be reinforced by science. But how strong is such faith? It seems weak to me. So is the science, or pseudo-science that emerges from it.
Sheer utter nonsense.
Ping for stupid 2nd law argument.
Science is not found in a collection of ancient, contradictory writings in a half dozen languages, cobbled together at the behest of a late Roman emperor(talk about your government money) and translated nobody-knows how many times. Science is a on-going effort characterized by a willingness to question all things. It may be true that science cannot now answer all questions of origins but no religion tells where G-d came from.
lol, me too. To understand the Torah one needs a very deep understanding of the Hebrew language, perhaps we can agree on that?
Uh, no they don't. Not any historian familiar with the record, in any case. Although Darwin was exposed to some "free thought" type influences in his youth, he remained religiously orthodox into his early adulthood. He didn't begin to become dubious about Christianity until years after he had begun his work on species, and he only finally abandoned Christianity in the wake of his daughter Annie's death in 1851, nearly a decade after his views on evolution were fully formed and elaborated (although not yet published).
Even Darwin's experiments did not point to an evolutionary cause and effect but back to a transcendent Creator.
Uh, come again? What the heck are you even trying to say with this?! Darwin's experiments, although extensive, were almost always focused on highly specific questions i.e. of morphological variation within and among species, variation in wild versus domestic animals (pigeons, barnacles); distribution, migration and colonization of species (survival of seeds in saltwater); matters of physiology (feeding in insectivorous plants, growth in climbing plants, reproduction in orchids). Darwin actually used to joke with friends about his propensity to perform "fools experiments". That is ones that were so obvious and trivial that most would assume the result and not bother.
None of his experiments focused on anything remotely "transcendent".
The late Francis Schaeffer used to say...Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up the next evolutionary stage? No, it drowns!
Organisms within our system are irreducibly complex. Thus, organisms couldn't possibly survive a piecemeal evolution but would have to have a quick transition. This combats Darwins principles that organisms evolved piecemeal over billions of years.
Evolutionists propose that bats evolved from a small mouselike creature whose forelimbs developed into wings in gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the forelimbs (front toes) grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. So, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop helplessly and soon become extinct.
I take it you are not Catholic.
Thanks, first day!
Back so soon?
No, nor do I recognize the Pope as a spokesman, sorry
Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up the next evolutionary stage? No, it drowns!
Cats. Ayn Rand could only handle the responsibility of cats. Not dogs, definitely not kids. Just cats.
My point is this: Christians are quite capable of out of the box thinking.
But given how public schools are run, it is not a mystery why so few post here and make an issue of it.
ToE folks, on the other hand, these folks are seriously creative. You can tell from the posts.
My point is not philosophical; my point is about bias. If you believe that Christians can't be creative b/c its an instrinsic characteristic, that is called bigotry. It is a common feature here.
You said part of the real mission was teaching kids how to read, write, and think. I'm telling you Joe, there are a lot of atheists who definitely do not want to allow kids, esp. Christian kids, to learn how to think. Especially think creatively.
It is not an accident the way schools are structured today.
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.