Posted on 11/03/2005 11:39:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Because science is complicated. It doesn't make for good sound-bites. It requires reasoning, which we all know is in short supply.
People want simple solutions, especially ones that vindicate their inborn prejudices. That doesn't change the fact of evolution.
".... and that the ninth-grade biology book was laced with Darwinism."
Complaining that a high school bio text is "laced with Darwinism" is like complaining that a high school math book is "laced with Algebra," a Chemistry text is "laced with Bohrism," or a Physics text is "laced with Newtonianism." No sh@t, Sherlock!
I understand that some of the anti-science folks are at war with reality, but really, this is too rich!
"Evo" and creation are different things. They are not competing theories to be given equal balance. People on these threads have made the comparison of astronomy and astrology, and I think that is accurate. Do you advocate teaching the astrology "theory" with equal weight to astronomy? Evolutionists don't seem to want students to be taught non-scientific subjects in science class.
The problem here is simple. People who interpret their religious beliefs to be opposed to evolution are against evolution no matter what the evidence is. Proponents of CS and its spin-off, ID, have both been trying to get this religious belief into the schools. CS was stopped by the Supreme Court in the 1980s, and now ID is in the docket.
Definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Didn't that happen when Behe, the expert witness for the defence, admitted that evolution and common descent are facts?
You can tell from the comments on these threads that most people don't. Most people aren't aware that evolutionary biology originally relied on the fossil record for it's evidence.
The best argument to that on these threads is, "They're just rocks".
As a conservative, you should be ashamed for bringing left wing populist lines of argument into this discussion.
With television, one makes a persuasive case, then demonstrates it to be true. Unfortunately, that is not possible with evolution.
Therefore you ask us to believe, not know. And I did believe in high school and college. Creationists from Morris to Meyers take the time to explain and persuade rather than demand belief like the materialists.
"People reject evolution because they DO know what it is."
I doubt it very much. Based on the threads here, it appears that the creationist crowd does not even understand the basics of the theory of evolution.
My suspicion is that if a nationwide quiz were taken, asking everyone to briefly describe the theory of evolution in a paragraph, less than 10% would be able to do so with any resemblance of accuracy.
If those arguing the issue do not understand the theory in the first place, then whatever their argument is has no relevance.
The very first error almost every creationist makes is in believing that the TOE has anything whatever to do with the origins of the universe or the origins of the first lifeform on this planet. I've seen few who know that the TOE does not address either.
Based on that, I cannot see why anyone should pay any attention to creationism in the first place, since it is not arguing against anything real. The TOE they're discussing doesn't even exist.
Ignorance is not a good starting point for decisions on how to teach sciences.
You don't. You couldn't give a coherent 900 word description of evolution if your life depended on it. You might be able to copy something from a web site, but you are not capable of presenting a best case description of evolution in your own words.
I've watched you and other evolution critics on these threads for years, and what I'm saying about you applies to pretty much every FReeper evolution critic.
Not only can they not give a coherent description of evolution, they are shocked to find out that ID advocates like Behe take common descent for granted. They don't even know what ID is.
"And I did believe in high school and college. "
And what classes did you take that covered evolutionary theory? What was your major in college? If you're talking about freshman survey classes, then you didn't really learn that much, I promise you.
"Not only can they not give a coherent description of evolution, they are shocked to find out that ID advocates like Behe take common descent for granted. They don't even know what ID is."
You know, I think we should reconstitute the old Know Nothing Party of the 1850s, this time around ignorance of the sciences instead of around opposition to immigration.
All the creationists could join this party and just say, "I know nothing about evolution" in these threads, rather than pretending.
That over-simplification doesn't take into account many things, such as the qualified men of letters who are not evolutionists. My son, for example is in the honors chemistry program with two Ph D's overseeing the track. Neither of the Ph D's are evolutionists.
People want simple solutions, especially ones that vindicate their inborn prejudices.
Careful.. If what you say is true, it is true of evolutionists even more.
That doesn't change the fact of evolution.
Now there we have a perfect example of compound problem involving the use of language and logic. Could it be an illustration of a simple solution vindicating an inborn prejudice?
They wouldn't want the lurkers to focus on the fact that the defenders of this insane ID policy have been shown to be bold-faced liars, and that ID itself has been reduced, under oath, to a cartoonish imitation of science that maintains that while it posits no mechanism for ID, it's practitioners can none the less "detect" design in the "purposeful arrangement of parts."
The clowns who want to jam ID into public school science classes are getting utterly demolished in court, so the disruptor trolls are going to have to be very busy indeed deflecting attention.
I've got a really great used book store with several hundred titles on evolution alone. The best layman's description of evolution I've found is Ernst Mayr's This Is Biology.
If they were not protected by copyright, I'd post the Jack Chick anti-evolution comic strips here. They pretty much represent the ignorance of the theory of evolution displayed by the creationist posters here.
Here are a couple of them. See if they don't sound just like the arguments the creationists post:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
That is a good book.
You have it backwards. If the federal courts hadn't intervened in public schools in the South, the Dems would still be in charge.They were the party of segregation. Once segregation was gone, so were they.
A persuasive case for evolution has been made. Many people simply aren't listening.
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.