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 ...
No, I think it is still preferable that people believe in God, so long as they don't use that as a rationale to violence or as a means to impede scientific progress.
But the original interrogator specified that he wanted my own atheistic views regarding moral principles.
PS. My logic is never faulty. My premises might be on rare occasion. ;)
At any rate, we Christians receive Truth from the Spirit - both the living Word of God Jesus Christ (John 1, Rev 19) and the written Scriptures. Truth always trumps facts. Hence the 34 (or so) verses of Genesis 1 trump the hundreds of thousands of volumes of scientific text.
But they are speaking at two different levels, hence there are many misunderstandings. The only metaphor that comes to mind is a poor one: the Constitution v. the Internal Revenue Code.
The argument is that without Christianity, we will devolve into amoral chaos. But if Christians' minimal standard of behavior is to be no worse than the people they're inveighing against, that's not terribly persuasive, is it?
It's clear you don't a clue what "self-organizing" means.
Consider a famous example. Several million people live in Manhattan. Almost everyone there is well fed. How does that happen? Who designed the system that feeds Manhattan?
The answer is nobody. Individuals do various small tasks (for money) that in aggregate produce an astounding result - New York gets fed, day after day. Nobody understands how it happens - no single person or even small group of people understands where the food comes from, or how it is transported, or how it is distributed. Yet New York gets fed.
The complex "system" that feeds New York was never designed - it evolved over time, and continues to evolve as conditions change. Despite its enormous complexity, no one ever sat down and said "Let's figure out how to feed New York". And no one is monitoring the entire system today to figure out exactly what changes need to be made.
It's true that the individuals involved are intelligent, but their intelligence is only applied to the limited part that they play in the overall system. The system is self-organizing. Those people in the system have signals (the free-market) that tell them whether the small part they are doing is appropriate or not. The combination of individuals doing their small, simple parts and a signaling system that tells them if those parts are good yields a system as complex as any organism, with no one designing it.
I have to ask - do creationists feel compelled to discuss things they don't understand? Wouldn't you feel better if you did a little research on something like self-organizing systems before you showed that you didn't know what you were talking about? I'm just asking...
Not a good argument.
Truth always trumps facts.I just wanted to bookmark this; it sounds like made-up objectivism - only from another angle ...
LOL, so you use my generosity against me? Not very sporting of you Professor.
The argument would seem to me the same as it's alaways been, that being absent absolutes which require God what proscribes one from evil?
Lets take 20th Century America for example. From Roe v Wade in 1973 we have progressed to the point where we kill full term babies who are quite healthy and partially born.
The organization that has led the way in advising the public of what the secularists have accomplished by judicial fiat is the Catholic Church in league with our Evangelical brothers and sisters. I'm active in that movement Professor and I hae yet to see a group from Atheists with Post Grad Degrees in the Sciences for Life marching side by side with us.
Would you agree that religion has exceeded the behavior of the average person in the fight to stop the murder of partially born human beings?
What's that?
I can understand your example, but it is strained if meant to show that self-organization can account for all of the intelligent design so evident in the universe. Consciousness of the overall program is not necessary for intelligent design to manifest itself, or for self-organization to take place. I would not ascribe consciousness to genetic material, but all the evidence points to processes, information, and communication that cannot take place without both intelligence and design.
That without Christianity, we will devolve into amoral chaos.
Presumably, these 'new facts' replaced the 'old facts'. I just can't figure out why these religious folks don't get it...
What violence?
And if by impeding scientific progress you refer to school boards setting curricula for the students without help from scientists and judges in DC, I would have to disagree with you.
I didn't make that argument but I'd be happy to make the argument that banning God from public and deriving rights from the central party devolves into amoral chaos right damn quick if you'd like.
In stopping it?
Realistically, nothing effective has been done since 1973 to combat abortion. Oh, we did have one President who on the one hand claimed that an atheist could not properly be a US citizen, but on the other appointed Souter to the Supreme Court. And Republican presidents also appointed Kennedy and O Connor.
So what you want credit for is good intentions?
No, what I wanted was an honest answer to an honest question. You failed miserably. Why don't you give it another shot?
Who wouldn't agree with that.
In case you missed it, I'm intensely cynical about whether many self declared 'pro-lifers' really want to do anything about abortion. It's a great issue to martial the troops.
Truth always trumps facts. Hence the 34 (or so) verses of Genesis 1 trump the hundreds of thousands of volumes of scientific text.As she types this on a modern-day computer which _only_ serves to epitomize the validity of the scientifc method* ...
Playing at being a meta-physicist these days are we A-G?
(* Oh - you think that Dell, HP, Gateway et al pick their computers from trees? It astounds me that presumably LOGICAL people can go so off the reservation when it comes to the practical fruits of scientific endeavors; you might as well admit that the total sum of all your present knowlwdge is null and void when you claim "Genesis 1 trump the hundreds of thousands of volumes of scientific text" when the SAME techniques were used to unravel nature, matter and atomic structure so as to allow the design, development and the engineering that goes in to fabricating today's modern PC)
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.