Posted on 07/09/2005 12:18:19 PM PDT by Crackingham
Jim Sullivan stood outside the Rhea County Courthouse and recalled the carnival-like atmosphere during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, when the teaching of evolution was put on trial.
"They had fights on all these corners and people all over the place," said Sullivan, 85, who remembers seeing Bible-toting preachers and monkeys on leashes.
As the town prepares for its annual re-enactment of the trial here eight decades later, debate over teaching evolution lives on.
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, said it is increasingly difficult to teach American students the basics of evolution.
"We have been facing more anti-evolution activity in the last six months than we have ever faced in a comparable period before," Scott said Friday.
In Kansas, the state school board could change science standards to include criticism of evolution. In Cobb County, Ga., labels describing evolution as a "theory, not a fact" were required in some textbooks before a court overturned the order.
Scott said 31 states this year have had "some kind of incident, such as efforts to get creationism taught or limit teaching of evolution."
Very true.
Good comeback. Next time, maybe you should read what I wrote before you start telling me what I experience personally, 'kay?
Why did you see the word "creation" in my post and assume i was specifying a specific religion?
Ditto that! bttt
Yes, I know what you mean. But it depends on how you define religion. If you define it as the study of who we really are and our relationship to the cosmos, then one can have a religion that includes a diety or one that does not.
Atheism is a religion in that sense. It has a metaphysics, a meta-view of the universe, what it is, who we are, what is real and what is not - including and transcending tangible reality. Just like any other religion.
Thanks for your reply...
I have no problem of our schools talking about ozygen as a theory, but they should also discuss phlogiston just as seriously.
change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.I think is pretty hard science, yes? As is:
embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types)However, I wonder if we could agree that we are on less firm ground, and more theoretical, when we approach:
the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."Another definition that covers the same but a little less ground is:
Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated by geographic barriers.Now here's one that goes popular and broad:
In common parlance the word "evolution" is often used as shorthand for the modern synthesis of evolution, including the theory that all extant species share a common ancestor. It also is often used to describe the mechanisms through which evolution acts to change populations over time.Now which definition should we teach as science, and how much should we classify as theory?
In addition consider whether we should teach the view that "Evolution (plus whatever theory for an organic starting point you wish) completely describes the origin and development of all life on earth." "Completely" being the key word here - infering that the forces attributed to evolution provide the sole teleology of life.
My own personal view is that I don't object to teaching "evolution." The key is what that means and what else is or is not taught. Thanks very much for your post.
I guess the bright side for us believers is that if we're right we get the ultimate reward. If we're wrong we just led good lives and tried not to do harm to our fellows. The best non-believers can hope for is that they are the result of one heck of a lot of incredible accidents and it all ends when they die. The worst they can expect is the ultimate punishment. I like my odds a lot better.
Any truth to the rumor that Carl Sagan, after a life of thinking that scientists were the closest thing to God the earth had to offer, repented on his death bed?
The best way to answer that question is "yes". Those are all science, and all good descriptions of different aspects of the theory of evolution (with one glaring exception, which I will deal with below). I think that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to science. A scientific theory is as "high" in the hierarchy as it goes. Theories do not graduate to facts. Facts are used to support a theory, or to dispute it.
In addition consider whether we should teach the view that "Evolution (plus whatever theory for an organic starting point you wish) completely describes the origin and development of all life on earth."
No. That one is wrong. Evolution does not describe the origin of life on earth in any way. It describes what happened to life after it was created. Exactly how life was created is not addressed by the theory of evolution in any way. This is a common misconception.
'Abiogenesis' is an attempt to explain how life could have come into being naturally. Abiogenesis and Evolution are not dependent upon one another, nor are they mutually exclusive. They are not related in any way. They are two totally different things. This is a mistake that most creationists make when discussing the theory of evolution.
I think it's known as the "Dueling Banjos Effect."
{^_^}
Excuse me, but that's just plain, well......kooky.
Why kooky? Darwin (the father of evolution and natural selection) was a hard-core atheist and made no bones about pushing his theories as a substitute for God.
My faith is strong enough to not be threatened by any man. Yours?
Don't be so sure there. If you are wrong Cthulhu may consume your soul for believing in a being more mighty than him.
The best non-believers can hope for is that they are the result of one heck of a lot of incredible accidents and it all ends when they die. The worst they can expect is the ultimate punishment. I like my odds a lot better.
Unless God doesn't judge people on whether they believe in him, or even rewards those who didn't make assumptions about his character.
Yes, I know. That's why I stated it as "Evolution (plus whatever theory for an organic starting point you wish) " in my description. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
most creationists
I should also make clear I don't consider myself a creationist.
I think that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to science.
Once again I should have been clearer. I was hoping to draw a spectrum from what is more clearly supported by data and what becomes more further removed, such as variations on interpretation of the data into competing theories such as punctuated evolution, etc. The closer we get to the first end, the more agreement we find, the data more clearly supports our conclusions.
Those are all science, and all good descriptions of different aspects of the theory of evolution
I believe these two:
"all extant species share a common ancestor" and;are on the farther end of the spectrum than the other aspects, requiring more of a reach outside the supporting data. Also, as I included previously, the teleology resulting from current theory as usually is far from solidly proven - if it can be from science alone. This leads to error affecting knowledge, and reality, reaching outside biology and science. Our goal should always be truth. A mistake some evolutionists make is to think, and teach, that all that can be known can be known by science. This is not true."Evolution (and abiogenesis) completely describes the origin and development of all life on earth."
So, we differ that all the definitions listed should be taught as fact - theory conclusively supported by fact if you wish. I would settle, perhaps, if it were also taught that the limits of the scientific method do not correspond with the limits of nature or reality; and, that there is a world of knowledge that includes and transcends science that is the proper sphere for placing the empirical data of biology and anthropology in proper context.
thanks for your reply.
Gravity is not just a theory, it is also a law.
As a theory, it has been completely changed out several times now, with each new theory invalidating the old one completely.
As a law, it has been modified by relativity, but on a general basis the calculation holds true.
Science is thought of well because of its "public" nature -- anyone can reproduce the experiments and get the same results. However, this only holds true for empirical hypotheses and to a lesser extent the generalized laws that come from them.
What makes a theory into a law? Absolutely nothing -- they are completely different classes of ideas. However, laws are directly testable, because to be a law requires that you specify a relationship mathematically. A theory is simply a conceptual model. Theories are not subject to direct test the way hypotheses are. Why? Because ultimately we cannot in principle deduce what is occurring behind the scenes on empirical evidence alone. It requires interpretations or a priori assumptions.
Now, as far as biological laws are concerned, I am not aware of creationists ever faulting laws or empirical evidence. What is faulted is the interpretation of that evidence.
Likewise, while no practicing scientist is suggesting that NASA change its gravitational calculations, the theory of gravity itself is still very much an open question.
So, what laws have been proposed on the basis of evolutionary theory? Most of the ones attributed to "evolution" are actually in the field of population genetics, and, given that genetics was actually founded by a creationist I find it ironic that genetics is where most of modern research is going and yet somehow "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution".
At any rate, if only the secularists/atheists have their say, only their point of view gets perused.
If you define it as the study of who we really are and our relationship to the cosmos, then one can have a religion that includes a diety or one that does not.
Let me post my example of gravity:
A little history here: Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation
Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einsteins General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
No. And he did not think that scientists were the closest thing to God.
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.