Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

We review here the current political landscape and our own efforts to address the attempts to undermine science education in Wisconsin. To mount an effective response, expertise in evolutionary biology and in the history of the public controversy is useful but not essential. However, entering the fray requires a minimal tool kit of information. Here, we summarize some of the scientific and legal history of this issue and list a series of actions that scientists can take to help facilitate good science education and an improved atmosphere for the scientific enterprise nationally. Finally, we provide some model legislation that has been introduced in Wisconsin to strengthen the teaching of science.

The past decade has seen breathtaking progress in evolutionary biology, thanks largely to the fruits of genome sequencing projects. The molecular footprints linking all life on the planet are now fleshed out in rich detail, and we possess a chronometer of molecular evolution going all the way back to early bacteria. This has sparked a renaissance of interest in speciation, development, and evolutionary aspects of disease susceptibility and resistance. The importance of evolution to biology was properly summarized by White House Science Adviser John Marburger when he said, "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Period. What else can you say?" (1).

In a parallel universe, a majority of Americans, 54%, do not believe human beings evolved, according to one poll (2). Only 38% agree with the statement, "human beings evolved from an earlier species" (3). Opposition to evolutionary theory has existed since Darwin. Efforts to eradicate or dilute the teaching of evolution persist throughout the nation despite consistent rejection in the courts. Conservative think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and influential magazines such as National Review continue their attempts to introduce pseudo-science into science classrooms. This movement has gained the support of such prominent politicians as President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Senator John McCain. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a onetime biology major, said, "our school systems teach the children they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud" (4). Even the definition of science itself has fallen victim to political attack; the state board of education in Kansas decided that the supernatural may now be taught as science in the classroom. Some have claimed that the challenge to evolution is symptomatic of a broader, more generic attack on science itself (5).

Scientists can no longer afford to let these challenges go unopposed. The wide gap between established facts accepted by scientists and the sentiments sampled in the polls reflects a failure of science education. For this, scientists, particularly those in academia, must take some responsibility. The remedies are educational and political and must involve scientists and non-scientists. Instituting an effective response does not require large blocks of time, nor need it involve debates with creationists: small actions can have large effects.

The road to Dover.

In 1968, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Arkansas law had a religious purpose — namely, to oppose teachings perceived to conflict with the biblical story of creation. Following this defeat, opponents of evolution adopted two strategies. First, they advocated the teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation, along with evolution. Second, they began to adopt scientific jargon to give creationism a veneer of science. Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, passed laws mandating this "balanced" treatment of evolution and creationism.

This set the stage for the Arkansas trial of 1982 (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education), which was almost entirely focused on the question "Is creationism science?" Judge William R. Overton stated in his opinion (6) that creationism fails to be a science because it fails to satisfy the following requirements: "(a) it is guided by natural law; (b) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (c) it is testable against the empirical world; (d) its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and (e) it is falsifiable."

The issue returned to the Supreme Court in 1986–1987. The Court ruled 7–2 in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana’s law calling for the balanced treatment of evolution ("evolution-science" and "creation-science") violated the First Amendment "because it lacks a clear secular purpose" and it "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind" (7).

The creationists once again mutated and adapted. After the Edwards ruling, they set about removing references to God and creationism from their tracts. For example, as revealed at the Dover trial (8), the authors of the intelligent design (ID) text Of pandas and people: the central question of biological origins stripped the direct mentions of creationism present in early drafts of the text and systematically substituted the novel term "intelligent design" (9).

The evolution of creationism.

ID is the contemporary version of an argument that has a long history. It was given a succinct formulation by William Paley in the early 19th century. Modern defenders of the design argument contend that living things are too complex to have evolved by the process of natural selection; rather, their "irreducible complexity" is convincing evidence of the hand of an intelligent designer. ID theory’s contemporary advocates, who include Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, cite complex systems such as the blood-clotting cascade, the flagellar motor, and the human eye to argue that because these systems would be nonfunctional if even a single component part were excised, they could not have evolved by mutation/natural selection and therefore must have been "intelligently designed." The argument can be boiled down to this: complexity is itself evidence of a designer. In its current version, ID conveniently omits mention of God.

However, ID is not a scientific theory. The premise for the arguments of Behe and other ID proponents is deeply flawed, scientifically and philosophically. Behe assumes that the component parts of irreducibly complex systems never had other functions in older organisms. This is contradicted by scientific evidence. The Dover trial transcripts are illuminating (see "The Dover trial") (8). Under oath, Behe was forced to concede that there are organisms that lack some of the mammalian clotting proteins. Proteins that are present in the flagellar motor have orthologs that are involved in unrelated functions. A recent elegant example of proteins acquiring a new function within a complex system can be seen in a structure that functioned in respiration in fish and later evolved to be part of the mammalian inner ear (10).

ID makes no testable predictions. There is nothing in this concept that allows for scientific investigation of the "designer." It is simply an argument by default; the failure to explain something is said to lend credence to a supernatural explanation. The attempt to promote this as science is deeply misguided. In spite of uncounted hundreds of thousands of scientific studies published in the last 50 years, there are still demonstrable gaps in what we know about the evolution of life on this planet. However, those studies tell us a great deal about how life came to be as it is and now form the foundation of modern biology. ID, by contrast, has produced nothing.

The Discovery Institute.

The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute, founded in 1990 by Bruce K. Chapman. Today, the institute receives more than $4 million per year from numerous foundations, most with religious missions. The center’s objectives are outlined in its "Wedge Strategy," which was leaked and posted on the Internet (11). The document states that the Discovery Institute "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Its goals are to see ID theory as the dominant perspective in science; to see design theory applied in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics, and cosmology in the natural sciences and ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts; and to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life.

The Dover decision.

In Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005, 11 parents sued to reverse a school board requirement that the following statement be read to students: "because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations" (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District) (12). The required statement referred only to evolution. The third paragraph in the statement read: "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of pandas and people (9), is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves."

In his decision, Judge John E. Jones stated that ID is essentially Paley’s argument for the existence of God, with God left unmentioned. In short, ID is a religious doctrine. He noted that Behe "claims that the plausibility argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God"; thus, "ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." He characterized ID as "nothing less than the progeny of creationism." Jones stated that the Dover school statement forces a "false duality" on students by making them choose between God/ID and atheism/science and "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

The Dover case was an important victory for science education. Judge Jones wrote a strongly worded, carefully crafted opinion that should guide future litigation (12). The transcripts of the Dover trial constitute an excellent educational resource, rich in testimony about the nature of science, the evidence for evolution, and the history of deceit in the creationism/ID movement.

The "teach the controversy" hoax.

The ID movement employs a tactic that appeals to the American tradition of "fairness and balance." ID advocates argue that since there is a controversy over evolution, we should "teach the controversy" in public school science classrooms.

The "controversy" is manufactured. Evolutionary biology draws strength from a supporting scientific literature extending across 150 years that includes literally hundreds of thousands of individual papers. Creationists offer no science. In some cases, they have misrepresented science in their efforts to debunk it. For example, in Of pandas and people (9), evolutionary lineages are presented as straight lines linking species, rather than as parts of a tree structure. The incorrect linear model is then used to argue that cytochrome c homology patterns do not conform to evolutionary predictions.

The "just a theory" hoax.

Creationists purposefully confuse the two meanings of the word "theory." In common usage, a theory connotes a statement that is tentative or hypothetical. This is the meaning implied in the frequent claim of ID advocates that evolution is "just a theory." However, science uses the term "theory" differently. When substantiated to the degree that evolutionary theory has been, a theory is regarded as a fact. Practicing biologists operate within the rich context of evolutionary theory, and no part of modern biology, including medicine (13), is completely understandable without it. Scientific arguments are not qualified with clauses that allow for a nonevolutionary scenario.

The "fair and balanced" hoax.

In the name of "fairness and balance," the media have decided to present "two sides" of this story. For example, a day after the Dover decision, National Public Radio aired a commentary by a Heritage Foundation fellow comparing ID to the Big Bang Theory, predicting that eventually it will be widely accepted by scientists (14). By giving uncritical treatment to "both sides," the media convey to the public the false impression that this is a genuine scientific controversy and that each has a substantial body of evidence and convincing argumentation. Journalists should be mindful of the fact that no science supports creationism/ID; 150 years of biological, geological, and physical science supports the modern synthesis of Darwin’s theory. The individuals with scientific credentials who support ideas such as ID actually constitute a rather small group, as recently described in a New York Times article (15).

The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax.

Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped.

The constant, unanswered assault on evolution is harmful to science and science education. ID and its progeny rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Yet all of science education and practice rests on the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces. Teaching our students otherwise disables the very critical thinking they must have in order to be scientists and is a fundamental distortion of the scientific process. ID is therefore not simply an assault on evolution: it is an assault on science itself.

ID groups have threatened and isolated high school science teachers. Well-organized curricular challenges to local school boards place teachers in the difficult position of arguing against their employers. We have spoken with high school science teachers who feel censored in their efforts to teach the basic principles of science. The legal challenges to local school districts are costly and divert scarce funds away from education into court battles. Although these court battles result in the defeat of ID, they are draining and divisive to local schools.

Finally, the assault on evolution and science threatens our nation’s scientific and technological leadership. Political and economic agendas are interfering with the free flow of scientific information. For example, political appointees have ordered scientists at NASA to eliminate references to the Big Bang Theory and to cease to mention the eventual death of the sun billions of years from now in their comments and publications. Other scientists have been cautioned about speaking out on global warming. These actions disrupt the long-standing tradition of public policy based on the consensus of the scientific community.

[snip]

There is a wide range of actions that each scientist can take to facilitate good science education. Our experience has shown repeatedly that every action carries weight and represents a very productive use of time. Some of these require little time; some require a more substantial commitment.

Educate yourself.

A few hours with publications available on the websites of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the National Center for Science Education can help clarify the issues and provide the preparation needed for an effective scientific response to challenges (see Table 1). The decision rendered by Judge Jones in the Dover decision is a particularly excellent resource and is well worth reading in its entirety.

Write letters.

Write to legislators and newspapers. Write to school boards considering actions that might undermine science education. Write to government leaders. Respond to comments made by ID proponents wherever they might appear. The letters need not be long, and even one letter every few months will have a large effect. This is an activity that can and should fit into the schedule of every working scientist. Similarly, call in to talk shows featuring pro- or antiscience guests. Every letter written by authors of this paper has elicited a positive response. The ID program consists entirely of public relations efforts. They have had this playing field to themselves for too long.

Organize campus evolution groups.

This provides an informal way to husband campus resources in evolutionary biology. Seminar series are useful. Regular meetings to plan special events such as Darwin Day celebrations can serve as outreach exercises.

Organize educational support teams.

Scientists can be a compelling resource for teachers in K–12 science programs who are facing pressure from school boards or parents to alter good science curricula in ways that harm students. If a group of such scientists can be organized, individuals need not face unreasonable demands on time, and the group as a whole can provide valuable assistance to educators within the scientists’ state.

Participate in outreach activities.

Go to local schools and talk to classes about science in general and evolution in particular. Go to school board meetings when appropriate and talk to school board members. Talk to local business groups.

Organize educational sessions at national and international meetings.

Major scientific professional societies should embark on a concerted educational effort, directed both at educating scientists about the problem and arming them for an effective response. Resources also must be made available for science teachers at the K–12 levels. Travel grants, where available, should be concentrated on K–12 teachers to make attendance possible.

Revise textbooks.

Scientists engaged in textbook writing should be more cognizant of the need to educate future scientists and science teachers about evolutionary biology. Additional education is required to explain what science is, what defines a scientist, and how the various forms of the scientific method constitute a consistent whole.

Become more effective lobbyists for legislation that improves the atmosphere for science and science funding.

We urge scientists in all 50 states to work with their respective legislatures to enact legislation similar to the bill just introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature. This movement should appeal to a widely shared interest to uphold the standards of science education and should transcend political ideology.

Make yourself available at least occasionally as a local resource.

Creationists are not deterred by the Dover case. There are troubling situations brewing in almost every state. Scientists should use these new cases as teaching opportunities in their own classrooms and should be willing to testify and support the cause of science education in the courtroom.

Teach.

For academic scientists, there is no greater responsibility than the education of our citizenry, and there is no activity that has a greater impact. For too long, educational programs in biology at the college level have neglected to provide a solid grounding in evolutionary biology, despite its central importance. This background has been left to unstandardized mentions in core courses and to upper-level specialized courses that are often not required. A nationwide overhaul of these programs is essential. New introductory courses are needed to provide a background in evolutionary biology at the very beginning of all programs leading to science or science education degrees, and the courses should be required. New lower-level courses for nonmajors, pitched at a level appropriate for students with minimal science background, are needed to expose as many citizens as possible to evolutionary theory and to introduce them to science.

Work with your legislators.

Identify legislators who are friends of science and work with them, as we have in Wisconsin, to introduce legislation that supports and strengthens science education.

Work with clergy.

As Judge Jones indicated, the creationists have fostered a false duality between science and religion. A majority of people do not hold a literal young-earth interpretation of the Bible. The clerical community has a shared interest in keeping science and religion apart. They do not want religion to be presented as science and, like a large block of religious scientists, do not see any conflict between religious belief and evolutionary theory.

Whether in crafting a tax code, making health care decisions, evaluating the economy, exploring the resolution of world conflicts, evidence-based thinking is the best intellectual tool in our possession. In science, controversies are usually temporary. When scientists have divergent hypotheses, they usually agree on the key experiments that will favor one hypothesis over others. This is because there is a consensus that framing questions in a way that is subject to the test of evidence is the most progressive way to advance knowledge and understanding. In an ideal world, such principles ought to be widely embraced. Students should learn the difference between hard evidence and speculation. They should understand the elements of logic and clear, critical thinking. They need to understand how to suspend belief while gathering and evaluating evidence.

As George Orwell observed, "a mere training in . . . sciences . . . is no guarantee of a humane or skeptical outlook." Yet Orwell advocated universal science education if such an education was structured to focus on "acquiring a method — a method that can be used on any problem that one meets — and not simply piling up a lot of facts" (18).

Within universities, the cultural gap between the sciences and the humanities needs to be bridged. A useful approach is to create courses in critical thinking that combine science and the humanities. Ideally, such courses would include an exploration of contemporary problems from the combined perspectives of the sciences and the humanities, united in the common theme of evidence-based, critical thinking. Given that our universities play a large role in the training of the next generation of government and corporate leadership, investing in a future better guided by evidence-based, critical thinking is the most important investment we can make.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; pavlovian; puppetmasters; scienceeducation; usualsuspects; yomommaisanape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 961-973 next last
To: WKB

It's an open discussion forum. Post sheer willful ignorance to educated people and expect a bit of ridicule.


441 posted on 05/03/2006 10:00:40 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Quix
You are welcome to trash them immediately at your preference.

I hardly see a reason to do so. Several of them, such as your claim regarding panspermia replacing the theory of evolution, are clearly absurd. Others are merely incoherent. However, I will listen if you are willing to explain what you mean by them, and attempt to justify their validity.

Or, you could put them on a high shelf and wait and see what falls off at some point in the future.

I do not understand what you mean by this.

Or, you could study the issues out more thoroughly than perhaps you have heretofore.

I have studied the issues. In fact, it is for that reason that I understand the notion of panspermia -- which attempts to explain the origin of the first life forms on Earth -- "replacing" evolution -- which explains how life on Earth diversified over time -- is an absurd notion. It would be like replacing rubber tires on an automobile with a new steering wheel. There is no reason to expect a scientific explanation for one event to "replace" a scientific explanation for a different event.

Or, perhaps Holy Spirit at some point in the future will remind you of such humble statements amidst much fulfillment falling all around you in vividly tangible and dramatic forms.

I fail to understand what this has to do with the theory of evolution or with what is called "Intelligent Design".
442 posted on 05/03/2006 10:04:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet
That is the whole purpose of evolution: to demean, belittle and eventually stamp out Christianity and the culture (Western culture) it gave rise to.

Please justify your assertion regarding the alleged purpose of evolution.
443 posted on 05/03/2006 10:05:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; WKB
Post sheer willful ignorance to educated people and expect a bit of ridicule.

Yes, that's why people pick on you.

444 posted on 05/03/2006 10:05:50 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

Microevolution is a theory. Macroevolution is a belief.

There is evidence that supports that organisms change with time. In fact many species experience so much Microevolution, they go extinct. We have thousands of examples.

Macroevolution has no evidence. We do not have a demonstrably new species that shows evidence of more complexity (such as an improved system that functions better than it's ancestors or non-degraded element of an organisms DNA that demonstrates a branch of programing, via RMNS, not found in it's ancestor).

When scientists overcome these shortcomings regarding Macroevolution, we would have something to debate.

445 posted on 05/03/2006 10:10:38 PM PDT by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

Comment #446 Removed by Moderator

To: HappyFeet
I already did in post 440.

You are mistaken. In post 440, you asserted that the purpose of evolution is to destroy Christianity and western civilization with it. You did not provide justification for this assertion.

I've been reading the evolution posts over the last month and have come to the unshakable conclusion that Darwinists and the so-called theory of evolution, either don't believe in God, have been brainwashed by the media or have an outright anti christian agenda.

Then you should be able to reference these postings and explain how they are indicative of all who accept evolution not believing in God, are media-brainwashed or have an "outright anti christian agenda".
447 posted on 05/03/2006 10:16:59 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

Comment #448 Removed by Moderator

To: HappyFeet
How do you reference the posts with a link? Can you show me?

Do you require instruction on obtaining a URL to a specific posting, or on creating a link to a specified URL?

All postings on FreeRepublic are noted by a number below the text of the post. This number is a link to the post itself. If you right-click on that number and choose "Copy Link Location", your operating system will save that specific link to its "clipboard". You can then 'paste' that link via Ctrl-V or an equivalent command in any text editing box.

To create a link within a posting, you will need to format it with proper HTML. An example, referencing my own posting:

<a href="http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1625993/posts?page=449#449">This is an example link</a>.

Will produce

This is an example link.

You begin by denoting an HTML code statement with the less-than character, <. You then denote a link with "a href=", followed by the URL -- in this case the URL to my own posting -- in quotation marks, then you close the HTML code with the greater-than character, >. That will tell web browsers to link the text following that line of HTML to the URL within the code. When you have typed the full text that you wish to comprise your link, you close the link with the "/a" code in another set of less than and greater than symbols.

Another example, to link the word "another" in the sentence "This is another example." to http://www.example.com.

This is <a href="http://www.example.com/">another</a> example.

Will produce:

This is another example.
449 posted on 05/03/2006 10:41:11 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It really ceased being a fun topic to go round and round about a long time ago, to me.

However, out of respect for your thoughtful reply, I'll try and give in kind.

You are welcome to trash them immediately at your preference.

I hardly see a reason to do so. Several of them, such as your claim regarding panspermia replacing the theory of evolution, are clearly absurd. Others are merely incoherent. However, I will listen if you are willing to explain what you mean by them, and attempt to justify their validity.

Well, you can find lots of company hereon for considering me absurd, without looking too hard. Enjoy your perspective. I can handle it easily as long as God sees me otherwise.

My prediction is . . . that the global government tyranny folks will increasingly trot out the grand deception that ET's seeded man on this globe--having genetically designed him or some variation on that theme. This will be called some form of panspermia. This will take the place of evolution as it has been taught and believed.

But I can understand that you would not have studied that out very far or much. You may even still consider it yet more evidence of even greater absurdity. Time will tell.

Or, you could put them on a high shelf and wait and see what falls off at some point in the future.

I do not understand what you mean by this.

It's a fairly old metaphor, idiom. It has to do with holding things loosely which are of somewhat questionable validity. And, then waiting to see what time, events, facts later prove out or disprove.

Or, you could study the issues out more thoroughly than perhaps you have heretofore.

I have studied the issues. In fact, it is for that reason that I understand the notion of panspermia -- which attempts to explain the origin of the first life forms on Earth -- "replacing" evolution -- which explains how life on Earth diversified over time -- is an absurd notion. It would be like replacing rubber tires on an automobile with a new steering wheel. There is no reason to expect a scientific explanation for one event to "replace" a scientific explanation for a different event.

The ETs-as-seeders-of-panspermia-bioengineered-humans-on-earth explanation will likely include the info that they have shepherded their 'creation' at many points along the way in addition to beginning the grand experiment eons ago. Your assertion that panspermia is an absurd notion for the reasons you stated simply indicates to me that you have not studied the depth and breadth of the topic very much at all.

Or, perhaps Holy Spirit at some point in the future will remind you of such humble statements amidst much fulfillment falling all around you in vividly tangible and dramatic forms.

I fail to understand what this has to do with the theory of evolution or with what is called "Intelligent Design".

I believe that there will be much contrasting of light with darkness; truth with deception, lies etc. in coming months and years. I believe that all those seriously interested in knowing THE TRUTH and letting THE TRUTH determine where all the chips lie--that anyone seriously seeking truth will find it in abundance with thorough going confirmation.

Of course, I also believe that those exceedingly stubbornly refusing to be the least bit open to THE TRUTH will find plenty of rationalization to remain in their narrow, rigid, closed minded notions.

I believe Holy Spirit will be pinging folks in their brains with abundant evidence that will be increasingly available in the natural world in stark proportions and startling presentation.

--just an opinion I happen to have.

450 posted on 05/03/2006 10:42:14 PM PDT by Quix (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.-- Bible Belt Bumper Sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Quix
My prediction is . . . that the global government tyranny folks will increasingly trot out the grand deception that ET's seeded man on this globe--having genetically designed him or some variation on that theme. This will be called some form of panspermia. This will take the place of evolution as it has been taught and believed.

This is not panspermia. This is a form of intelligent design. Panspermia is the hypothesis that the first life forms arrived to earth from space. It says nothing regarding how or why this life developed once it arrived on earth.

Do you have evidence for your claim that "extraterrestrial intelligent design" will replace the theory of evolution in the coming future?
451 posted on 05/03/2006 10:50:46 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I guess we'll have to just differ on our definitions of what panspermia is or will be labeled as, defined as.

Some of the earlier discussions of the ET's part in such things included the label panspermia. I don't recall if panspermia was used by the sources themselves or by the persons writing about what the sources had revealed.

I suppose you could call the ET explanation a variant of Intelligent Design--certainly. But, that wouldn't fit the political agenda of so many evolutionists so rabidly hostile to Christianity etc.

I have plenty of (for me and many I know) evidence regarding such. But none I want to bother sharing here. But you could track it down at Dr Stephen Greer's DISCLOSURE PROJECT and a plethora of other sites. But it would be a bit of a tedious task. It's not set out per se as about that topic. The evidence is mixed in amidst a bunch of other stuff of varying quality and import, depending on the sources and sites etc.

So, help yourself, throw it all in the trash. But when it comes up again in public, you'll remember where you first ran into such notions.


452 posted on 05/03/2006 10:58:57 PM PDT by Quix (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.-- Bible Belt Bumper Sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Scientists are the ones stating that science does not does not deal with the supernatural. I haven't seen any Christians/creationists/IDers/whatever say that the supernatural excludes the natural. If scientists don't take the supernatural into consideration or have no way to measure, test, or observe it, then they are in no position to make intelligent, well-supported comments on it; all they have to offer at that point is their opinion based on speculation, which should not be presented as scientific fact or findings.


453 posted on 05/03/2006 11:06:10 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Quix
You know Quix I have been following what you are saying here and as you say it would be a tedious task over many many sources.

But you can already see where they are going with it.

And if you do post the material, do it for everyone and don't look for any confirmation from the evo-cultists.

Wolf
454 posted on 05/03/2006 11:08:05 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

I think your analysis is very perceptive and quite accurate.

And, I'm trying to reduce the amount of

--futile exercises
--tedium
--p*ssing in the wind
--useless pontificating

in my life.

Thanks for your wisdom. Will keep it in mind. But likely will leave such tedium for those who truly want to seek out such evidence. I've studied such things since 1961-ish. I'm not a bad researcher. I'm not a bad screener of evidence. Doesn't mean I always want to defend my perspective in a hurricane of narrow, rigid 'orthodoxy.'

Many things are tentatively known and held until the proof is FINALLY in. But by then, the merit or benefit in knowing the truth is much different than it is when the truth seems much more tenuous and up for grabs.


455 posted on 05/03/2006 11:13:24 PM PDT by Quix (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.-- Bible Belt Bumper Sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet
FYI: FreeRepublic HTML Sandbox thread

"This Sandbox is devoted to giving you a place to practice basic HTML, and to get some coaching."

456 posted on 05/03/2006 11:22:28 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I guess we'll have to just differ on our definitions of what panspermia is or will be labeled as, defined as.

Actually, panspermia is well-defined. Your definition of the term is not the standard accepted definition.

I suppose you could call the ET explanation a variant of Intelligent Design--certainly.

It is a variant of intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design have conceded that the "designer" could in fact be an extraterrestrial agent.

But, that wouldn't fit the political agenda of so many evolutionists so rabidly hostile to Christianity etc.

Please explain.

I have plenty of (for me and many I know) evidence regarding such. But none I want to bother sharing here.

Then, again, why should what you say be believed?

But you could track it down at Dr Stephen Greer's DISCLOSURE PROJECT and a plethora of other sites. But it would be a bit of a tedious task. It's not set out per se as about that topic. The evidence is mixed in amidst a bunch of other stuff of varying quality and import, depending on the sources and sites etc.

I was not aware that the Disclosure Project included in its agenda an attempt to replace the theory of evolution with a theory stating that extraterrestrials were involved with the development of life on earth. Do you have a reference? Moreover, I was also not aware that the Disclosure Project had been making any significant headway amongst biologists.
457 posted on 05/03/2006 11:29:32 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; metmom; WKB
Dimensio you make many perhaps hundreds statements that might suggest you speak knowingly/or unknowingly> for various groups of individuals, as here this most common inference to the 'biologist's'

A quick google search reveals there are all sorts of biologists in wide area of interests, and they come from a broad range of qualifications and experience. Just which ones do Dimensio speak for?

And BTW, you have never established yourself as a biologist scientist, nor an astute and accurate debater. Nor have you ever given any good reason why what you say should be believed.

Other than that though, you are quite a circular girl.

Wolf
458 posted on 05/04/2006 12:39:41 AM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
We figured two conservatives should be able to take on 20 or so liberals. :-)

Sounds like shooting fish in a barrel, Prof--hope you gave them a handicap to make it a bit more sporting!

Thanks for your post, btw: the situation you describe in the 1990's was similar in Europe: after the arts and the soft sciences, the Left began its post-modernist assault on the hard sciences, but without much success. Here, at least, Conservatives remain stalwart defenders of genuine education, the only really vocal religious pressure group are the Islamists.

459 posted on 05/04/2006 1:57:33 AM PDT by ToryHeartland ("The universe shares in God’s own creativity." - Rev. G.V.Coyne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
I didn't want to be a message board debater in the first place, I wanted to be a lumberjack! :-)

And I wanted to be a Lion Tamer! I'm qualified, I've got a hat that says LION TAMER on it!

Have a good one, puroresu!

460 posted on 05/04/2006 3:01:55 AM PDT by ToryHeartland ("The universe shares in God’s own creativity." - Rev. G.V.Coyne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 961-973 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson