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?"

[stremba]

The second law doesn't imply that, even in a closed system, entropy decreases can't occur. Entropy in a closed system can decrease locally, so long as there is a greater increase in entropy in some other part of the system. Defining entropy as disorder or useful energy, while making the concept intuitively easier to grasp, are not correct definitions. The correct definition is that entropy is the quotient of the heat released in a reversible prcess connecting two states and the temperature at which that heat release occurs. The sun releases a tremendous amount of heat. This heat release results in a decrease in the entropy of the sun in the amount of q/6000K, where q is the amount of heat actually released and 6000K is the temperature of the sun's surface. Simultaneously, an entropy increase of the space surrounding the sun occurs in the amount of q/3K, where q is the same value as before, and 3K is the temperature of the surrounding space. Overall, the net entropy increase in this process is 1999q/6000 (some algebra required here). Since q is a very large number (the sun releases a lot of heat), this is a very large increase in the entropy of the solar system, which to a good approximation can be considered to be a closed system. The process of evolution on earth is accompanied by a much smaller decrease in entropy, and is therefore possible since it is driven by solar energy, which as has been shown above, is produced via a process in which there is a large entropy increase. Therefore, a local entropy decrease is possible because of the increase in entropy in another part of the system.

[stremba]

Provide an alternative scientific theory and everyone will listen. Don't try to pass off creationism/ID as a scientific theory, however, because they are not. A scientific theory must in principle be falsifiable. That is, it must limit the range of things that could potentially be observed. Since God is the creator in the idea of creationism, and He is omnipotent, it would be impossible for creationism to limit the range of things that could be observed, since by definition God can do anything. ID has thus far been very careful to not make any specific statement about the characteristics of the designer. Without knowledge of the limitations of the designer, it is impossible to make any limitations of the range of things that can be observed. Specify some characteristics of a designer and specify some things that couldn't possibly be observed if ID were true, and then ID becomes a scientific hypothesis. Check out the observations that ID says can't be observed and try to find observations that it says can't be observed. If none of them are actually found, then ID becomes an alternative scientific theory. This very process has been done WRT evolution, which is why it is the accepted scientific theory of how the diversity of life on earth. The point is that it takes more than making (specious) attacks on evolution to establish an alternative idea as a competing scientific theory.

[stremba]

Logical fallacy of origins here. It doesn't matter whether Darwin's ideas about evolution came from a questioning of Christian beliefs or from some other source. They are true or not on their own merits.

[WildTurkey]

You mistake me for one who has a closed mind,

No mistake, my friend.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Scientists are overwhelmingly paid by government grants, not student tuition money.

Actually scientists are overwhelmingly paid for by private companies.

Also, for the most part, what's taught in public school is not science. That's what makes the multi-billion dollar market for creationist and ID literature possible.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

What good did the Word serve before the existance of humans,

The Word, being God, does not need humans in order to exist. Remember, Jesus is the Word made flesh. Several things are said to have been from the beginning with God-- there's the heavenly host, the Torah, the Sabbath, among them

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The Torah does not attempt to explain how God created--it just says he made it and there it is.

Actually it does, but it's not for all to know

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The moral nature of people doesn't change.

Is it still a depraved moral nature? Or has the centuries and knowledge combined to make him a more noble beast? One thing, and one thing only can change that nature and it isn't man and his marvelous brain

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The state with God does not have a good track record either.

Due to the natures of men, not to God. Without Christianity there would be no civilization, no USA, probably nothing like freedom as we know it at all

[stremba]

Without Christianity there would be no civilization

The Sumerians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Chinese and Indian people would beg to differ.

[stremba]

not to mention the Greeks and Romans on whose civilization much of modern law and culture is based.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

So you say you are an ordained deacon in the Episcopal church. Do you believe in God and was Jesus fully human and fully divine? (I'm no longer into assuming everyone believes as I do, just asking. After all, many in churches today dont think a belief in God is necessary to draw a paycheck or preach or whatever it is they do)

If God went to the trouble of having Moses record the origin of man, why would you believe in a theory like evolution? Is man just the result of a climb out of slime? If so, why fool around with a concept like God anyway. Why not just have a Church of Man and be done with it?

Does man have a soul? Where did he get it? Why even have it if he's all animal?

Do you know the difference in the bible between the cattle and the cattle?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

sure, if you like human sacrifice, slavery, mass murder, idol worship, ignorance, steeped in darkness, etc, go live there

[stremba]

Yes, because human sacrifice, slavery, and mass murder have NEVER occurred in Christian civilizations. Well, other than in European/US civilization over the last 1000 years or so, that is. I'd bet there's been some idol worship in our civilization, too, and I know that there's been quite a bit of ignorance and darkness in our civilization. Judge not, lest ye be judged. None of this is pertinent, however. Your original statement was that there cannot be civilizations without Christianity. I gave several counterexamples to that statement. It is irrelevant whether or not you approve of those civilizations; they are nonetheless civilizations that arose without the benefit of Christianity.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Well your Babylon has Islam, go live under that. Mexico can use you, it's right up there. India, they throw the dead in the river, go live there, just hope you don't need a doctor. Oh and be sure you worship their cows and statues, rats and monkeys, have fun. These are the civilizations, you get without God. The USSR, Red China, North Korea. Its a big world, they're civilized, if you can call it living

My original statement was that we would have no USA, no freedom like we enjoy today, without Christianity. Without God, without Judaism and without Christianity, with man as God, you will re-enter the dark ages to end all dark ages

[gobucks]

My original statement was that we would have no USA, no freedom like we enjoy today, without Christianity. And freemasons. Let's not forget them in all this ...

[gobucks]

Is man just the result of a climb out of slime?

see this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1337381/posts

It is an unusual angle about the slime idea I had never heard before....

[D Edmund Joaquin]

But for the godless, reading this story gives them a validation of what they believe. They are truely good. It is the world that makes them do 'bad' things.

Exactly. Can't have that part about man's fallen nature mucking things up. The "new church" teaches that man has no original sin, and so, sees no problem with accepting something like evolution. The fact that Rome has no problem with it , either, just furthers her goal of coming out on top in the global quest for that one-world religion

[pharmamom]

One thing, and one thing only can change that nature and it isn't man and his marvelous brain

Of course our moral nature remains depraved. One of the things that is so amazing about our depravity is that we really haven't come up with any new ideas for depravity.

But to acknowledge our depraved natures is not to gainsay the evolutionary process.

[pharmamom]

DEJ, you are a man of many questions.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord....etc.

I don't think belief in God and evolution are mutually exclusive. God had to do all this somehow--evolution would seem to be as good a way as any. God's ways and will are inscrutable. Through a glass darkly and all that. I still think that God foresaw our human curiosity and did a lot of stuff just to keep our brains busy. Idle hands (and minds) being the devil's workshop...