Fact is, this theory is under attack (Evolution Revolution Alert)

Baltimoresun.com ^ | 5 Feb 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[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?"

[AntiGuv]

Okay, I'm through with you. You're not here for intelligent discussion, you're just here to act like a fool. You're probably a liberal plant trying to make creationists look stupid.

I suspect he's just drunk myself, or at least that's the kind way of interpreting all that simpering drivel.

[balrog666]

There is no rational basis for goodness and love with atheism.

Are there not consequences for doing evil in a civilized society?

[gobucks]

I am only claiming that one must be irrational to be an atheist -- if one looks at their beliefs rationally!

I'm with you on this one 777. But, remember, we're not capable of rationalism.

Do you know what is more irrational than being an atheist? Teaching that to little kids and calling that teaching a 'good idea'.

[Dimensio]

Whatever you want!

I want a million dollars. How am I to get that?

It is only rational and very futile!

Why is it rational?

I am referring to a rational conclusion based on the atheistic perspective.

And given that I'm an atheist who does not behave as you suggest nor do I know any atheists who behave as you suggest, I say that you're flat-out wrong.

There is no rational basis for goodness and love with atheism.

But you just said that it is "rational" for us to take whatever we want! What if we "want" to experience love? You've just contradicted yourself in your attempt to demonize atheists through your arrogant presumptions.

The fittest survive so why worry about the weak?

What if I feel sorry for them?

The only rational reason to care about someone else is what you get out of it

So what if I get a positive emotional response out of it? I suspect that is the motive for many charitable works, including those done by Christians.

I am only claiming that one must be irrational to be an atheist -- if one looks at their beliefs rationally!

And I'm telling you that you're deciding ahead of time what you want atheists to be, and ignoring relevant factors that might prove you wrong.

[Oztrich Boy]

: "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. That is such embarassing hooey. (Stands saying again)

As Darwin begain his "Notebook on Transmutation of Species" in 1837, thirteen years before Clasius published his work on Thermodynamics, it's safe to say defending the Materialism found imppossible by the 2d Law of Thermodynamics was not Darwin's motivation.

[nasamn777]

I explain it at this link:

thermo link

[bvw]

You constructed strawman concepts of "popular theory" and "scientific theory", strawman constructs that allow the terms to agree with your theory. Your theory, then, is that only the High Holy Church of Evolution Out of godfre Random Processes may apply the word "theory" in any meaningful context. "Popular Theory" is not meaningful in that dogmatic view, Only the High Holy evoChurch may assign meaning under the Holy Term of "Scientific Theory".

[_Jim]

'Science', then, is what liberal democrats use to spread godlessness, and to confuse ordinary citizens, who can't afford a private education, and so thereby prevent them from voting Republican.

Oh brother -

- I want this guy to stay far away from any electronics I've got, to stay far away from my car, away from my -

- how's this for IRONY: this 'torch and pitchforker' is using a COMPUTER!

This is ONLY the result of the continued application of 'science' EVERY STEP OF THE WAY!

What a marroon!

[FastCoyote]

"Or is it Darwinists redefining thermodynamics to support their theory?"

Yeah sure, you obviously have never had a single class in thermo. Nothing in macro thermodynamics is much in dispute (unless you go to Quantum or Relativistic levels). If thermo theory, even in relationship to evolutionary questions, were at all in question, things like jet airplanes, your car, computers, etc. wouldn't work either. This is as close to 2+2=4 level stuff as there is.

[balrog666]

So what if I get a positive emotional response out of it? I suspect that is the motive for many charitable works, including those done by Christians.

True. But their motives are pure Christianâ!

[balrog666]

What a marroon!

Truer words were never posted.

[From many - one.]

The distinction between the scientific and popular use of the word "theory" has been discussed frequently on these threads.

I am done for the evening, you may have the last word.

[Rudder]

"I am referring to a rational conclusion based on the atheistic perspective. There is no rational basis for goodness and love with atheism. It is only a dog-eat-dog world. The fittest survive so why worry about the weak? The only rational reason to care about someone else is what you get out of it. Please explain any other logic?"

I'm not an atheist, but I find fault with your logic. My dog is an atheist, however, and he loves me. He is altruistic toward me. The source of love may well be God as it says in the Bible, but it also says God loves his creations, regardless of their faith.

I can see goodness as the result of our being inherently social. It's necessary to survive in the social community to which all human beings are dependent---a condition that evolved.

To equate atheism with behaving monstrously is using a straw man, which is a rather destestable device to use in a honest debate.

[FastCoyote]

Your link doesn't explain squat. You claim evolution is thermodynamically impossible because of the number of potential states. Yet, my human body is incredibly complex, on the order of an evolutionary organism, and yet my body doesn't defy the thermodynamic laws in any observable way I've heard of. No violations of mass-energy conservation, if I'm stuck in a closed bottle I'll decay according to the 2nd law, I have to sweat to shed heat.

In short, I am a creature that is at the same level of complexity as you claim is thermodynamically impossible.

In other words, you are full of it.

[Tench_Coxe]

"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." "

Wonderful, Joel. Now predict the next evolutionary steps that will occur in the next ten years.
I'll bet the position of the Earth could be predicted fairly accurately before you schmucks even begin.

[Dimensio]

Now predict the next evolutionary steps that will occur in the next ten years.

I have in my hand a ball. Predict, using your knowledge of gravity, whether or not the ball will be dropped down a flight of stairs in the next two hours.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Could you then explain to me why whales have vestigial hips and legs, and there are fossils of whales with more fully formed limbs? I'll wait patiently.

I'd like to know how it can be scientifically certified that whale hips and legs are vestigial. I'd like to see a certified whale fossil. I'd also like to be directed to a textbook on fossils that places them where they were found as opposed to where creative evolutionists think they ought to be with respect to complexity. Can you, with your since-discarded vestigial gills, supply a more-than-hopeful answer?

[nasamn777]

And given that I'm an atheist who does not behave as you suggest nor do I know any atheists who behave as you suggest, I say that you're flat-out wrong.

Let us take one point. Why should an atheist be honest? The only reason is because it makes you feel good. But what if an atheist doesn't feel good about being honest? What basis is there for him to be honest? There is none. So getting the most out of life may vary from one atheist to another. One may choose to live a "moral" life because it makes him feel good. Another may choose to rape kill and pillage because it makes him feel good. How can you -- the moral atheist -- judge the "immoral" one. And who is to decide what is moral and immoral?

Our conscience tells us that there is a right and wrong. This would seem to conflict with the atheists world view. Right and Wrong -- to an atheist -- is based on what makes you feel good.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I have in my hand a ball.

It's a dodge ball. We'll stand by for the rambler.

[Tench_Coxe]

"I have in my hand a ball. Predict, using your knowledge of gravity, whether or not the ball will be dropped down a flight of stairs in the next two hours."

Well, if that is the analogy you use, then there are problems with evolution being on par with celestial mechanics.
your question is the crux of the problem I have with evolution. The proponents claim to be so damn-fire certain of all the mechanisms and facts behind it, and yet when challenged, they fall back into inane sophistry.

They'd be better off placing their subject matter into psychology or sociology type 'sciences', until they know more.