Posted on 05/03/2005 2:12:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
When you have no logic or facts, label someone an OJ juror. When challenged about evidence for macro evidence, hide behind micro evolution.
I have no skin in this game either way. Even as a Christian, if there was sufficient evidence I would go with the science and still be comfortable in my faith that God designed it all anyway. In the case of macro evolution there is no compelling evidence only sheer speculation based on a few dots.
Arguing with an evolutionist is like arguing with a liberal. Little difference between the two intellectually. Pseudo-intellectuals who know less than they think they do.
I'm originally from Canada and the system of educating teachers is very differnet than here. In order to get a teaching degree, you must first have a 4 year degree and have at least 12 classes in the subject area you are to teach. To get into Teacher's College, it is highly competitive and based primarily on your grades from your 4 year degree. If you don't have a 4.0 GPA equivalent, you likely will not get admitted. Lots of people try to get in because teachers are very well paid in Canada (due to unions threatening province wide strikes near exam time when their contracts are about to run out).
This is off the subject a bit, but. I think that we should increase teachers salaries out of sight. That would attract the aggressive types to the field.
There's no better way to eliminate the teachers unions than by having teachers that are more aggressive and smart than the union bosses.
It might cost some money, but if just the money we waste on school administration were spent on teachers, they could double their salary right now.
From TalkOrigins: Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs
"biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by random natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.
As I said, this comes up in nearly every thread. Please remember that evolutionary theory is only an attempt to explain the diversity of life, but not the origin of life.
"Darwin did not propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning... Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds. " [emphasis mine] Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life
You can't have it both ways.
Cordially,
Similarly, I wouldn't want a physicist to explain WHY they should contain it, only HOW.
I think we agree from differnet sides of the field. (Which is another argument I have: if two ideas agree, work in THAT direction, it is more likely correct than a sinlge philosophy.)
How many dots is a few?
As discussed many times in these threads, if any "scientist" uses evolution or any other scientific field to claim that there is no God. Then they have gone beyond the realms of science and no longer deserve to be considered operating within those confines. They are out of bounds.
Science and evolution do not speak to the subject of God, one way or the other.
I'm challenging the notion that macro evolution is a scientific fact (and not just because academia buys into it - they buy into global warming also - right?). If you have compelling evidence for macro evolution - as distinquished from micro evolution - offer it.
There is massive compelling evidence that has been posted on these threads numerous times.
Yet you are not "compelled" by it. As the OJ jury was not compelled by the DNA evidence.
They didn't understand it. They didn't care about it. So they did not consider it.
What would convince you that it is a reasonable possiblity?
Well, I don't think much of the union aspect, but the Canadian teacher education system sounds better than ours. In lots of states a teacher can teach a subject with as little of 12 hours, not classes, in that subject.
The big reason I'm an evo-skeptic is my stridently pro-evolution high school and junior high school science classes.
There would be a simple list of data points and only "God did it" as an explanation.
A simple list of data points? If you are teaching taxonomy you should be teaching why man has determined organisms belong in particular categories not guessing as to how creatures developed. You don't have to offer an explanation as to how the creature got the way it did, or you could offer more than one.
No discussion of co-evolution of parasite and host, similarities among primates, common physiologic pathways . . .
And in lieu of that you can teach how blood clots, the heart pumps, DDT effects mosquitos, and how to make roses different colors. You don't need the theory of evolution for any of that. OTOH, philosophical-political bull sessions may mean these things are not getting taught.
"And if you're going to suggest that it's just the result of people asking the wrong questions then the issue clearly turns into how we can know what the right questions are."
Come up with a way to figure out what the "correct questions" are and you will be lauded in the tomes of time for founding the very thoughts of a unified world (as opposed to Western and Eastern schools of thought)
There is genuine debate with the scientific community on global warming. There has been some recent consensus that recent decades actually are warmer. But still serious debate about whether man has any serious input into the global climate.
This is different from the evolution debate, where there is basically zero debate WITHIN the scientific community on the issue. But merely ankle biters on the outside making claims they cannot justify with genuine science.
No. That's not correct. I have a complete open mind on this. In all this back and forth you've yet to produce a single shred of evidence for macro evolution.
"You just brought up Socrates to be contrary, because you don't like science even though you don't have a better alternative."
Who the hell said I "don't like science"?
I simply say that science isn't the end-all to human knowledge. If you dispute that, then you are a fool, and I cannot help a fool.
Nope. Global warming is overwheming accepted by academia as is evolution. Pick up a Scientific American. Again - I'm speaking about macro evolution. There is overwelming evidence for small changes within species, i.e., micro evolution. But that's not where the debate is.
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.