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?"

[PatrickHenry]

They [Jack Chick comics] do seem aimed toward the truly feeble-minded and gullible.

Like he hasn't been raised on them. Like he doesn't have them framed on the wall. Like he doesn't pass them out at bus benches. Like he hasn't been quoting from them since he first appeared in the evolution threads.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

"Facts do not a Science make": Henri Poincare

[EnigmaticAnomaly]

I hardly think one can categorize faith into "facts". Science and faith have very little in common as one does not have any notable effect on the other. A core set of unshakable beliefs does not imply that science is somehow more "justifiable". Pure scientific logic and reasoning reduces faith to mere coincidence, not accounting for the unexplainable. Science itself is Godless. Remember: If one does not believe in a power greater than himself, then he must believe that something was made from absolutely nothing.

[Right Wing Professor]

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

A small minority of US scientists are paid on grants; and of course, foreign scientists are not paid on US grants at all.

Yet another case where you've simply made something up. The side of 'morality' once again caught in a lie.

[gobucks]

"What does that have to do with logic? If you can't put biases aside to look at logic, you have no business talking about what science is or is not."

So, the only true knowledge is that as defined by those who practice 'science', and I have no business talking about it? Interesting claim. Are you a leftist science teacher?

But what if you learn things in ways that have nothing to do with logic? For example, your wedding day and wedding night; no scientist on earth is going to be able to be logical with you in such a way that you are 'logically' prepared for what you will experience.

Or, for example, the day you watch your daughter being born. I could go on. Revelations have little to do with logic.

[Jeff Gordon]

I thank God that governments do not control the definition of science. The government of the State of Marlyland is trying but they shall fail. They will fail just as the kooks in other state legislation bodies have failed.

[mlc9852]

Who pays foreign scientists?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

So, the only true knowledge is that as defined by those who practice 'science',

The high priests of the religion, and don't question them, as you will be questioning dogma, which must be defended, at all costs, by the faithful

[Trinity_Tx]

That was a good post, Joe.

I'd add that parents who are on a mission to keep their children in the faith take a huge risk if they tie that faith to a literal interpretation of the Genesis story.

The evidence for an old earth is undeniable, and the evidence for evolution is growing... So making people choose between the two just creates an unnecessary crisis of faith.

[gobucks]

No matter how often I see this lie, I am still astounded that so many dishonest creationists think that it's believable. Are they really that stupid, or is it just incurable dishonesty?

Well, if by definition, creationists are intrinsically dishonest, then that means nothing I'd post would be trustworthy. Nothing any creationist would post be trustworthy.

Funny how sure we are regarding our definitions. For evolutionists, are for certain, a bunch that loves to live by dishonesty too; at least on the surface it looks that way.

That is why Emma Darwin's death at a young age is never, ever discussed, nor its impact on Charles. Lies of omission are far worse than lies comission.

[From many - one.]

:-) First off, don't blame the nuns. Bad spelling is often a form of dyslexia. Two of my kids grew up thinking of spelling as one of the creative arts!

I can't "do" astronomy either; like you I take it on faith that astronomers haven't made planets in test tubes yet. And math and I parted ways in calculus.

As far as being "ahead" of you, I am...but not in the way you think. I took the Biology Regent's way back in 1952. At that time it was "known" that human beings had 48 chromosomes!

[gobucks]

"But only a person with inborn creative ability can use that raw material to generate new insights."

Thank you. Now, I confess I was taught the same thing. But, I don't recall who taught me this. It was just 'there', being driven into my mind year after year. But, is it really the truth? Who taught you this?

[pharmamom]

I don't follow the logic here. Evolution does not purport to be an ethical system. Nor does it claim to be a theological system. Therefore, evolution has nothing to say about what constitutes a moral or immoral act.

[xm177e2]

So, the only true knowledge is that as defined by those who practice 'science', and I have no business talking about it?

Now you've misstated my claim. People from any profession can think scientifically. It's a matter of understanding the scientific process and being willing to follow it where it leads you. So don't do any science if you're afraid of what you might find out!

Are you a leftist science teacher?

That you for proving my point. Moron.

no scientist on earth is going to be able to be logical with you in such a way that you are 'logically' prepared for what you will experience

So the fact that we have emotions that are not governed by logic is reason enough to throw out Science? Give me a break. Science puts emotions and biases in their place, it doesn't deny their existence! They are to be understood and overcome.

[NDGG]

Maybe you have heard of Law of Conservation of Matter. This states that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. This propped up the materialist philosophy.

[NDGG]

ping

[xm177e2]

They do seem aimed toward the truly feeble-minded and gullible.

I just hope gobucks isn't a Catholic, because he'll be mighty disappointed when he reads about the "death cookie."

[gobucks]

Ooooooooooh. That is really scary. So who exactly has been doing this? Where do they meet and when? Are their meetings secret? Do they publish their proposed meanings of science in the Federal Register for public comment?

I simply made the observation that knowledge is a function of successful symbol translation. Symbols are assigned meanings by symbol translation devices ... like dictionaries.

I once did a word study comparison. Words like 'faith', 'reason', 'science', 'truth', 'integrity'... comparing them to Noah Websters orignal 1828 publication, and what dictionary publishers today say those words mean.

I discovered, scientifically, that the meaning of symbols has changed over time. Then I asked myself this question: who owns the devices of symbol translation? Who owned them 100 years ago? Who owned them 300 years ago?

From this bit of investigation, today's world of science, faith, and reason, and the conflicts among them, began to make, from a scientific perspective, far more sense.

A failure to teach the history of religious conflicts (a designed feature of secular schools) pretty much ensures the faith of science is the default religion. There's no need for a conspiracy if everyone is on the same page.

[NDGG]

ping

[gobucks]

" A small minority of US scientists are paid on grants"

Funny, I didn't cite my source, but then, neither did you. I suppose the Chronicle of Higher Ed could be researched.

Roughly 8/10ths of all research dollars come straight from the feds. Roughly 50 percent of grants goes straight to the university as 'overhead'. Professors salaries are 'overhead'. Salaries are part of overhead.