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 ...
They call it a lungfish?
Does it move up the next evolutionary stage? No, it drowns!
This will be depressing news for the poor lungfish, which got along fine for hundreds of millions of years before the ignorant and cruel Mr Schaeffer decided his existence was impossible.
The real question is, what would happen if a creationist evolved a brain?
"I guess that means the 'cause' of the first form of life is not a scientific question. That what 'caused' the big bang is not a scientific question....yes?"
No.
Perhaps you might reconsider your wording ...
No. They are not unrelated. Science puts emotion in its place. Science strives to understand human emotions, both in scientists (while they conduct the business of science, especially to look for bias) and in everyone else, doing everyday activities. Scientists can study emotion just as emotional people can pass judgement on science. But that doesn't mean that emotions are valid like scientific research.
And, science has to OVERCOME emotion?
Scientists have to overcome the biases associated with their own emotions. I don't mean that science has to destroy emotion in the broader world. Scientists cannot think clearly if their minds are clouded by emotions, they must realize that.
Or, perhaps, do you live two lives: the 'public' life where you appear calm rational, reasonable, and have a voice that sounds alot like an NPR commentator, and a 'nonpublic' life, where you act on your feelings, not your rationalisms.
I'd like to think I always act rationally, even if emotions affect my behavior. Like I said, science isn't about destroying emotion or sterilizing the world, but to have a real understanding of your surroundings you have to be aware of any potential mental turmoil in your own head that would affect your ability to be logical.
I'm not trying to claim that scientists are better people... just better thinkers.
I don't assert that the Jewish people believe anything, as I have no way of knowing other than what I read, yet surely some still believe in the Torah. And that sacred Word has not changed in 6000 years.
That Word tells how and why God created the Creation. Whether you believe it or not, is of course your perogative, but I do believe it, and I know why I believe it. Unfortunately, because of that, and that alone, I am attacked all the day long by others who find this belief, intolerable.
The classic example of the irreducible complexity is the human eye. An eye is of no use unless all its parts are fully formed and working together. Even a slight alteration from its current form destroys its function. How then could the eye evolve by slight alterations? Even on Darwin's day the complexity of the eye was offered as evidence against his theory, and Darwin said the mere thought of trying to explain the eye gave him "a cold shudder".
Yes, and let us remember the lesson from that great book of Hebrews, that this world we inhabit is just a blueprint for the World to Come.
"Oollllhh Nooooo!!!! The Evolution Nazis are coming."
Ohhhh Nooo!!! The Creationist Mythologists are coming!!
Second Law of Thermodynamics - That's why my house is always dusty.
Nonsense. Salaries are not part of overhead. Salaries are direct costs.
We already know from overwhelming anecdotal evidence that the anti-Evolutionaries didn't pay much attention in science class; what makes you think they were any more scholarly in accounting?
Oh, no! Not the stupid evolution controversy again! This is an issue that simply has to be put to bed! Enough already! No one knows how life began, but there is lots of evidence on how it progressed. There are important battles to fight; this is not one of them.
Annie's death it widely discussed. It's covered in most biographies, and frequently in dicussions of Darwin's religious views. You seem to want it mentioned in relation to Darwin's scientific views, but you would have to explain why and how it's relevant thereto.
No. I referred to "dishonest creationists"
You referred to an 'incurable dishonesty'.
As if folks who believe that Christ rose from the dead are diseased. Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor?
Shake off the need to agree with the self proclaimed purveyors of scientific truth. Your rugged individualism is being hijacked by the need to suck on the teat of a shell game called "expert testimony". :-)
Break free from the shackles placed on your mind!!
Pontifical Academy of Science, Vatican City, 1983
We are the result of the most likely chemical reactions undergone by some of the most abundant elements in this part of the universe.
Charles Pelligrino, Return to Sodom and Gomorrah: Bible Stories from Archeologists
I see you needed pinging to post #175!
I disagree, Our belief in naturalism or theism is the cornerstone to our world view. Why would anyone who doesn't believe in a transcendent God who designed us for a purpose, believe in universal morality? Thus, moral relativism is the direct result of a naturalistic world view. We theists believe that their are universal laws and a power that created us for a purpose. These universal laws are both physical and moral. While everyone understand the severity of not following the phyical (gravity-if you jump off of a 10 story building you will perish), many do not see the importance of folling the moral laws (there are consequences to extra-marrital affairs...pain, broken marriage, STD's). Naturalists (moral relativists) do not understand how the system works and that a Creator made the system and created the laws so that the wise who heed them would be as free from pain as possible.
Once again IDers mistake the Theory of Evolution with the theory of how life began. Darwin's theory tries to explain speciation and the evolution of simple life forms into more complex ones. He does not take any position on how life came to be on Earth, just how it developed.
"Evolution and thus Naturalism were only created because science found that Materialim (the belief that the earth just was- no end and no beginning) was impossible by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (matter is in a constant state of disinigration and decay- thus our bodies break down and our cars rust). "
That is such embarassing hooey. As a mechanical engineer who is into thermodynamics I can tell you the second law precludes nothing, as long as there is a free energy gradient to drive it. That is, if there is a Sun (energy source) and a sink (the low temperature of the universe), evolution is quite possible and is even favored because it promotes the disorder of the global universe by promoting local order.
Take some thermodynamics classes (pleeeez!) before you spout such baloney, find out what the difference is between a closed system, and an open system. You sound like Jeremy Rifkin, the guy behind the gibberish in Al Gore's "Earth In The Balance". Now Rifkin is a real atheist wingnut you can relate your theories to, he believes computers hasten the entropy degradation of the earth and should be banned because of the law of entropy. In fact, read his book called Entropy and you can see a mirror image of your crapola. The Luddite envirowackos believe in the same theory you do.
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.