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 ...
I really think you should go talk to a minister.
WildTurkey: < crickets >
Your version is supported by Stephen Gould, in Eight Little Piggies (paperback, p. 148.) Gould says the influence was indirect, and came from reading the Scottish economists. A distinction without a difference. Smith's invisible hand is evolution directed by natural selection.
A better theory on origins and one that stands up to more scrutiny is the theory that aliens planted life here. I didn't say I believed it, it just stands up better to criticism.
If that is the best that Scientific American can do then they better consider deleting Scientific from their name.
If you are trying to enlighten me by by pointing out that human knowledge has increased since the time of creation you need not bother. I already knew that. God created man with minds that are willing and able to inquire about the universe, and man has at times discovered that his thinking must to be modified here and there to be in accord with reality.
But to suggest that by virue of increased knowldge it thereby follows that inanimate matter is capable of organizing itself without an agent other than natural selection applied without intelligence or design, well, that is a bit much. That is a philosophy that should have a course and classroom of its own so we may consider it as one of many possibilities for explaining the universe.
At this time it is apparently a strain for you to consider that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. Thankfully science can get along just fine without your kind.
Sounds like a hoax to me. Who made that one up?
My words at #495 were prefaced with, "But I am fairly certain," so they were indeed qualified. It is not my aspiration to make biblical creation a tenet of science, unlike those who deceive themselves and others into thinking the philosophy of evolution is anything but the same.
While philosophy of evolution lends itself to fraud, if you check the thread carefully you will see it was not I who brought it up here. If this is any indication of your manner of thinking I can understand why you would remain dogged in your attempts to ascribe scientific merit to what is little more than a philosophy.
Clearly I overstated my case, and you were kind enough to provide additional examples of where the scientific community deceived itself and others. It would bear some research to learn the manner and degree to which fraud is perpetrated, welcomed, widely published, and sluggishly retracted in scientific circles, and see how adherents to the philosophy of evolution have performed.
The philosophy of evolution, however, is not a science, so its adherents should be granted more leeway when they interpret the evidence and present their notion as to how the history of the universe has run its course.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: - 1 Timothy 6:20IOW,
No, I was pointing out that if you were born a few centuries earlier, you would be fighting those that said the earth revolved around the sun; if you had been born a hundred years earlier, you would have been figting those that said man could fly; if you had been born a few decades ago, you would have been saying man could never exceed the speed of sound.
It has more documentation than the coming of Christ. It's called history.
Nevertheless, I strongly suggest you author a thread on the Religion forum where so many ministers and seminary students post in order to get a wide-ranging conversation on whatever issues from that era which are important to you. There are many doctrines represented on the Religion forum - Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinist, Arminian, Mormon, Jewish - even an occasional Buddhist or New Ager.
If you follow-through, please also include the forum experts on philosophy: betty boop, cornelis, marron, beckett.
Religion belongs in the closet. Shut the door and don't come out. Its a brave new world.
You mistake me for one who has a closed mind, like one who believes the philosophy of evolution is a science. Biblical creationists are way ahead of the game when it comes to a basic understanding of the universe. They also tend to excel where basic science is concerned.
No, it isn't helpful at all to actually understand the idea that you are trying to criticize BEFORE you actually try to criticize it. /sarcasm
First of all, it's the law of conservation of mass-energy. Einstein showed that the law of conservation of matter is not true. Second of all, even if true, how would matter conservation contradict the theory that matter left over from the formation of the sun coalesced under the influence of gravity to form the earth?
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.