Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff
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 ...
Great links. I just skimmed the 15 answers. Creation "science" is an oxymoron, isn't it? The funniest part of "intelligent design" for me is its inherent paradox, not mentioned in the 15 answers: if design is required for any phenomena of sufficient complexity, then who designed God?
ping
It is a religion that does away, quite nicely with God. There is no need for one, as it elevates man to the highest being on the food chain. Atheism, Communism, Marxism, socialism, all use it to re-educate the young, making them much more pliable to the aims of the State. Look at the recent history and tell me it hasn't done its job effectively. Without God, the State can declare what is moral and what is immoral. Man without God's Word to guide him, is just another animal, deciding to father children without caring for them,(welfare) killing them if it pleases him,(abortion on demand)(killing the elderly) experimenting on them (some educational programs) and on and on. It pretends at first to be a system to help the poor, but it quickly turns into a beast bullying and devouring its own people
It helps the Creationists's mission. Their job and that of their soul-mates, the PostModernDeconstructionists and NewAgers, is to destroy the idea that scientific inquiry is a legitimate means of obtaining knowledge.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.
Am I and numerous others reading it wrong?? Evolution is is a constant state of evolving while our lives are actually dying.
Why don't you enlighten me...
It' a symptom of projection.
And thus stated, evolutionary theory is fine and dandy.
However two problems do arise in the application:
1. Astronomy is rife with reports of observations that change the way we interpret the universe....The Big bang is the dominating theory but daily someone 'sees' something that questions or revises it. There is still a great deal of searching taking place.
2. Entirely on the other side of the coin, evolution as you define it picked up baggage when it was extended into the 'primordial soup' auto-start from nothing to life. It might be true, it might be sort of true, but there is such a hard-line opposition to any questioning of its truth that many of us (NOT religious) wonder about the lack of searching for new data that I noted exists in astronomy.
Why do those who seem to worship something that was not part of Darwin's findings also seem to fear being shown any other alternative?
Why does their debate seem always to turn to calling the other guy a moron or a raving Christian zealot?
Even disregarding moral considerations, I view the legal reasoning of Roe v Wade extremely unsound just from the standpoint of constitutional law.
Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff
You are very free wih your insults and judgments. Unless you bring something to the table to discuss, other than that, please dont post to me
Nobody taught me this, but I amalgamated this conclusion from several things I learned and some I realized on my own.
Is it really the truth? In a very large sense, it has to be. (If you doubt it, try teaching a cat to write sonnets.) But asserting that both innate ability and experience are involved in creativity is akin to saying that orange juice has both water and citric acid in it. It's clearly true, but doesn't say much about what the proportions are or what else might be in the mix.
I'm not attempting to dodge your question, though it's quite imprecise. If the question is formulated as "are innate factors more important than experience in creative ability", I believe it to be true. Some leftists have maintained that the environment is the only determining factor behind such things, but studies on twins have decisively abolished such nonsense. But exactly how much heredity vs environment play in creativity is a much more difficult question to answer.
I'm not sure if you are have a point or are just pursuing a pleasant philosophical discussion. But if you have a point, you need to get to it. I will not be checking FR much more today. (If you're just pursuing a philosophical discussion, that's fine too, but I have no more time for it today.)
However, evolution does not "do away" with God. Evolution doesn't "elevate" man, either. Evolution is a theory used to explain what is found in the geological and fossil record. Those may exist who use evolution to support their particular world view, but there are also those who use faith to support a twisted, immoral world view, as well.
I am a Christian, an ordained Episcopal minister, a scientist--I find no reason not to believe in God and accept the theory of evolution.
The Bible was not written to answer scientific questions such as how the earth was made. The Bible was written to explain man's relationship and dependence on God. The two have nothing to do with one another.
I think I can answer this. Scientists do not control the definition of the word 'science'.
I have to disagree. I've never encountered any objective definition of science other than that it is, essentially, "what scientists do." Note however that it is what scientists -- working scientists, conducting original research -- actually do, as opposed to what they might profess, think or believe.
Let's say, for instance, that every scientist on the face of the earth was a creationist, by belief and profession, but that the theories and principles they actually utilized and implicated in their ongoing research were all evolutionary rather than creationistic. In that case we would have to say that evolution was part of science but creationism was not. Likewise if scientists professed evolution but actually practiced creationism, we would have to say the reverse.
IOW scientists do control the "definition" (the content) of science, but they cannot do so by sheer intent, or by fiat, or by pronouncement. They must produce actual, productive work that manifests this content.
My distinction may seem odd, but from my reading I think it is much more common for scientists to work with theories they don't "believe" than most layman suspect.
"Science puts emotions and biases in their place, it doesn't deny their existence! They are to be understood and overcome."
Science, then, has nothing to do with emotion? One and the other are unrelated? Are you quite sure?
And, science has to OVERCOME emotion? Are you sure that is the way the universe of human thought and belief is supposed to be ordered and taught to little kids?
Or, perhaps, do you live two lives: the 'public' life where you appear calm rational, reasonable, and have a voice that sounds alot like an NPR commentator, and a 'nonpublic' life, where you act on your feelings, not your rationalisms. It's been my experience, a limited sample set i'll grant, that scientists in general lead two lives - the public stage of flawless presentation, and then what they do when no one is watching.
Sort of alot like the corporate types I've met, and yes, lots and lots of church going christians too ... especially them.
Isn't that's what Clinton's supporters were trying to get me to believe; that his personal life should be ignored for it had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to be president.
I'm just trying to follow your logic here ....
The bible was written to explain God's creation. In fact, the bible tells exactly how He did it, and evolution does not figure into it in the least
Maybe you should read the second law again. The second law requires that in a closed system, energy cannot decrease. If anything, this contradicts your interpretation because the earth is by no means losing energy. The sun replenishes it continually.
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.