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?"

[Dimensio]

Why should an atheist be honest?

I don't want a reputation as a liar. It degrades credibility for anything that I say.

The only reason is because it makes you feel good.

Actually, there's also that "I want to be trusted" factor. If I make a habit of lying, people won't trust me, and then they might doubt my word even if I'm telling the truth.

But what if an atheist doesn't feel good about being honest?

Then they might lie. A theist might also lie. What basis is there for him to be honest? There is none.

There's that whole "trustworthy" issue. And then there's the issue of the consequences of not telling the truth; if lying would produce an even worse result then telling the truth, they might be inclined to tell the truth no matter how "good" it made them feel.

And, of course, this all applies to theists also. You're just singling out atheists because you're a bigot.

So getting the most out of life may vary from one atheist to another.

I see that you've changed from your "a rational atheist behaves like a monster" argument without actually acknowledging that it was wrong from the beginning.

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.

So might -- and have, for that matter -- a theist.

How can you -- the moral atheist -- judge the "immoral" one. And who is to decide what is moral and immoral?

I can't claim an absolute basis for determining morality. But then, I never claimed such an ability.

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.

Why do you think that our conscience tells us what is "right and wrong"? Perhaps we are conditioned for it during our lives -- there is, in fact, quite a bit of evidence that many (if not all) of our perceptions of what is right or wrong are based upon influences upon our minds as we develop from a young age. I don't see what you're trying to argue here, because I don't see you presenting evidence that anything that our "conscience" tells us has a supernatural source.

[pharmamom]

Boy, I take a couple hours' break to go to some stupid black tie thingie, and the state of affairs here just deteriorates. Must be the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work.

[Dimensio]

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.

Are you saying that the mechanics of gravity are not well-known?

By mechanics, I mean the generally-accepted explanation of how it works, not necessarily why gravity exists.

[balrog666]

"exmarine" all over again!

Why is that some theists posit that without their faith they would automatically be rapists and murders without fail??

[mlc9852]

Not sure I follow you.

[Rudder]

Why is that some theists posit that without their faith they would automatically be rapists and murders without fail??

Repression as a psychological defense requires considerable self-deception and energy...it's easier to use Projection.

[FastCoyote]

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

That's a place to start with a few pictures of a modern humpback whale with it's floating bones. See also my post #210 on this thread.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/ambulo.htm

http://studentwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~s_echt/

The last one has the most skeletal pics.

[gobucks]

"Telling untruths out of negligence or wanton disregard for the truth is lying."

Your references, however, and discussion, refer to everybody; I'm referring to those folks who are tenured and control the tenure process. I'm referring to those folks who run the journals.

I'm not a liar. But, you have posted a source. I'll go find mine.

[Dimensio]

He's not quite as bad as exmarine. Exmarine actually paradoxially stated that it would be "wrong" to try to stop a murderer if you didn't have a belief in absolute right and wrong.

[Fester Chugabrew]

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

Exactly. The philosophy of evolution has too long held a position amidst empirical science. God only knows why the pontifications attributed thereto have asserted for themselves the status of anything more than a philosophy of history.

[balrog666]

Repression as a psychological defense requires considerable self-deception and energy...it's easier to use Projection.

Hey! Quit helping them find an out!

[Tench_Coxe]

" Are you saying that the mechanics of gravity are not well-known?

By mechanics, I mean the generally-accepted explanation of how it works, not necessarily why gravity exists."

No. The mechanics of gravity are well known. And I'm not about to get into some stupid 'gotcha' comparison of Newtonian physics and Relativity.
But the claims presented in some of the threads on Free Republic ( don't get me started on the Dawkins " ...given enough time, pigs will fly..." stupidity), evolution is predictive. And I'm not talking in the sense of " we see a progression of evidence in the fossil record, therefore, we predict a progression of evidence in the fossil record " crap. That is a tautology.
I want to see a definite prediction that bears fruit, i.e., starting with simple organisms, without purposeful prior selection, a demonstration of enviromental conditions forcing a change in species.
As for the trap of explaining mechanics, lets just say that the laws governing the motion of planets around the sun can predict within a rather good degree of accuracy where those planets will be 10 years from now.

[nasamn777]

I never said your body defies thermodynamics. Your body is the thermodynamic mechanism and it has to be an incredibly complex mechanism. If we examine how a baby develops from an embryo to a fully developed person, the process is very precise. There is no room for error. All the processes are controlled precisely, otherwise you would be left with a cancerous blob. There are also limits imposed on the thermodynamic mechanism. It is limited by its functionality. If you then try to explain the biological development of new systems on evolution, you are left with an incomplete mechanism. It goes back to the heart of thermodynamics -- the most probable states win out. Given the precision required for the advancement, there is not enough time to explain the development. This is especially noticeable in the Cambrian explosion where a multitude of different lifeforms rapidly appeared.

[bvw]

And I shall. People understand what a theory is, and you could explain what YOU meant by any distinction, rather what you are doing which is in all essence running off saying, "Well everybody already knows -- except you, dummy."

Well gee-golly -- no one knows what you meant by the distinction, except that it was your aboslutely fabulously elucidating way saying "I'm right and you are an idiot."

In that sense, your posts follow the pattern of all the evo-Church's typical clerical response: "We are right beyond any question and you are a raving idiot, flat out liar and unevolved caveman."

[balrog666]

He's not quite as bad as exmarine. Exmarine actually paradoxically stated that it would be "wrong" to try to stop a murderer if you didn't have a belief in absolute right and wrong.

True.

And he threatened to track me down and beat me up for questioning him until the mods reined him in. Of course, he was an ex-marine (I really don't know why he was drummed out) and I am on death's door (in my late 70's).

[Right Wing Professor]

Your references, however, and discussion, refer to everybody; I'm referring to those folks who are tenured and control the tenure process. I'm referring to those folks who run the journals.

You said 'scientists'. I've not noticed elsewhere you lack literacy. That's a second lie, Mr. Christian.

[FastCoyote]

[bvw]

Well, there you are being an "intelligent designer". You have the ball and the decision when and where to drop it is your own. The dynamics and sciences of balls, stairs and gravity all apply -- yet there you are in the midst of it. In complete control.

[FastCoyote]

"Given the precision required for the advancement, there is not enough time to explain the development."

Says who? Please show your calculations. Bwahaha.

[Right Wing Professor]

Why should an atheist be honest?

A better question: why should a Christian be a liar? Of course, he shouldn't. But so many self declared Christians are.

In case you're interested, I can give you some compelling reasons why everyone should be honest.