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 ...
Late 1912 would be among the earliest. Of course, German and French scientists didn't think much of Piltdown; English scientist like it (sort of an "Out Of England" movement.) The British Museum didn't allow the bones to be examined for some years for some reason (I don't know why) so it was harder to find out what was actually going on.
No Creationists worked on proving a hoax. That was done by scientists using scientific methods.
What is the Creationists evidence that Piltdown was a fake? Scientific evidence is based on radioactive dating and the fact that Piltdown doesn't fit evolutionary theory.
Warren Burger ramrodded the Lemon test. Nixon is the man who picked Burger because he was conservative.
Thank you for sharing your frustrations!They are not 'frustrations', I expressed concerns in that post, no matter how you may wish to perceive them now.
'Populism' as a means of reseach is a contradiction in meaning; it amounts to concensus among the uninformed - and we have arrived with the advent of the internet and every Tom Dick and ill-informed Harry able to post as if he were 'a Ghandi' on the subject ...
And you say all of this without even looking at my comments and sources ...You've done some original research somewhere along the lines of biochemistry, genetics or skeletal and tissue comparisons between man and other living creatures?
Did I miss that?
Though I did not answer you because you were off the topic, I will work myself to a sweat to answer such a brilliantly 'scary' question.
No!
But you missed the point. I suggest you do a logical review of my point.
We never left!
Good point. I think the biblical term for this is "suppressing the truth." Thanks.
...because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rom. 1:19,20)
I am trying to be as polite as I can, under the circumstances. But there are a lot of creationists that revel in their in-you-face tactics. So if this offends someone that does not subscribe to the in-your-face tactics, I apologize. My intent is not to talk down to anyone. But I have two degrees and don't apologize to a single person for my higher education. Therefore, it's not right for me to sit by and let uneducated, ill-formed opinions that crumble under the most minor of scrutiny prevail for lack of being challenged. To wit:
To the dismay of creationists, evolution will survive completely intact because there are educated and intelligent people in this world. The fact is that there is no real attack on the facts of evolution. Those facts stand very well on their own merit, thank you very much. However there is a political and religious attack on evolution that preys on people's ignorance. Knowledge and reason gained by higher education of great minds always wins in the long run. Our country as well as the world is a better place because of it. Evolution will ultimately emerge just fine in spite of attempts to shove the religion of creationism down childrens' throats.
The entire creationism movement and the push to offer a completely bogus "alternate theory" to evolution to school kids conjures up images of the Church of England's practices that drove the Pilgrims to the New World.
Oh, given a few billion years, I wouldn't count on that.
There's a word for people who believe that economies must be intelligently designed in order to be successful. We call these people Communists.
Also, there's a word for people, such as Phillip Johnson & his Discovery Institute bretheren, who believe that there is no objective basis for morality: We call these people postmodernists.
Flawed premises sure can make for some strange bedfellows, eh wot? :-)
(No, I'm not calling creationists commies. But the similarity of their thinking about biology to how Communists view economics is spooky. I am calling them postmodernists.)
Nope, that post represented the fact that there are crevo games I won't play.
One is posting, and re-posting, and re-re-posting the same material.
re: fungi
"Day five was creatures of the sea. Day six was creatures of the ground. Plants was day...two or three, I think."
Plant Creation was highly specific: grasses, seed-bearing herbs and trees.
Fungi don't live in the sea, don't creep on the ground and aren't plants.
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.
You say: "Truth always trumps facts." Fine. But if reading Genesis, even in the original Hebrew, produces any apparent conflicts with what science has learned, then ... what shall we do? That's always the issue for some folks in these threads. How do we resolve scripture/science conflicts, without burning either bibles or scientists?
But before I deal with the cosmic issues, let me comment on your metaphor about the "two different levels," the Constitution (presumably analogous to scripture) v. the Internal Revenue Code (a really ghastly metaphor for science). Happily, there is no need to resort to metaphor. We have scripture, which -- although divinely inspired -- is the physical work of numerous men over many centuries, and which is also the work of various committees who have decided what stays in and what gets removed. If you're looking for a procedural analogy to the Internal Revenue Code ... [see footnote]
Footnote: I'm attempting to be humorous here, so don't turn purple on me. Any comparision to the Code is, I hope you realize, not to be taken seriously. I don't really see any similarity of the Code to scripture, and I hope you're not serious about using it as a metaphor for science.Returning now to the cosmic issue: scripture is one of those "two levels" you spoke of. The same Author who inspired scripture has also created the whole universe, and it's there to be "read." That's what scientists do. And unlike scripture, the universe is still in God's original handwriting (so to speak).
So to return to your statement that: "Truth always trumps facts," we need to figure out, between observations of physical reality on the one hand, and our personal understanding of scripture on the other hand, which has the higher rank? The Pope has looked into this (as the Galileo affair has dogged his church for centuries). Here's his take:
Faith can never conflict with reason.. The Pope's statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts. An excerpt:
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.I realize that most around here don't look to the Pope for guidance in such matters, but he's at least given the matter a lot of thought, so his opinion on the "conflict" problem is certainly worth considering. Some other theologians have not addressed the issue in anywhere near the depth that he has, and some haven't considered it at all -- which is why we have "young-earthers."
If by "intelligent" you include the attribute of personhood, I don't think so. But I am fairly certain every particle of the universe expresses itself collectively in such a way as to manifest design and intelligence.
The point isn't who did or did not expose the hoax. The point is how well it was received and published in the scientific community before it was exposed. IOW, that community is not incapable of deceiving itself, and others for that matter. I can think of no other fields of philosophy where hoaxes have reared their heads except in the one that attempts to sew the head of Darwin on its shoulders.
But how long did it take to expose the Piltdown fraud? Why are Lamarckian drawings still being pushed in some quarters as truthful, a.k.a. "scientific," representations of evolutionary development?
Did you time it? How do we know which "laws of physics" governed the beginning of the universe?
I would also like to put forth that I did not enter this thread with the intention of debating. That may have been a less than realistic expectation on my part, but there it is. I came on to answer those ridiculous "arguments" about fossils, dinosaurs, and Noah's Ark.
As for my thoughts on Evolution, I don't think it's a stupid theory. I actually think it's a good theory, quite logical, and I will give that there is evidence to support it. However, I find the questions Evolution doesn't answer(irreducible complexity and the spontaneous generation of life are two of my bigger concerns) too compelling to leave the theory to which I already subscribe(which is also a good theory with evidence to support it).
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.