Bobby Jindal and the GOP Don’t Believe in Evolution

US NEWS ^ | 12-4-08 | Farell

[Wegotsarah.com]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's recent trip to Iowa, where they hold those presidential caucuses every four years, leads me to suspect he may share the media speculation that he could be the Next Great Thing in the Republican Party.

It also reminded me how Jindal signed a dumb and devious bit of legislation last summer, allowing local school districts to promote alternative (i.e., religious) doctrines in their science curriculums when it comes to evolution.

Jindal is obviously one bright guy. How can he equate ancient creation myths with the hard facts of physics and biology?

One might think that the Republicans learned something from the drubbing they took in the 2006 and 2008 elections. But like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee (and John McCain in 2008), Jindal is apparently happy to cater to the religious right, even if it means teaching superstition in the classroom

[PaleoBob]

The big bang theory essentially holds that something went bang and that the earth etc. ensued.
OK. So where did the something come from? (Whose something was it?) And what/who caused it to go bang?

---

I once asked a scientist friend of mine this very question—what came BEFORE the big bang? He said to me, “That’s why I go to church on Sunday.”

[ColdWater]

Nothing wrong with discussing the other perspectives so kids know what’s out there.

Great. Nothing like having a president that wants to teach that the earth is only 6000 years onld and man rode dinosaurs with leather saddles ...

[Mr.Grumble]

That is false, and nothing more than a creationist talking point. Why don't you let science be the judge of what is, and is not, science, and what has failed? They are qualified in this area, you are not. For that matter, creationists have been declaring the theory of evolution as failed for 150 years. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. They should just learn to leave science alone.

The theory of evolution has failed because it no longer explains observational data. That's how scientific theories are commonly disqualified; they no longer match up to real world knowledge.

I studied evolution for six years in graduate school, and included both fossil man and human osteology on my Ph.D. exams. It is the nonsense that creationists keep coming up with that fails to explain the data. Dinosaurs and humans cavorting around together? A 6,000 year old earth? Those religious beliefs, applied to scientific questions, are what do not adequately explain the data.

Oh please. There is no data that dinosaurs and humans were "cavorting" around together, nor is there any Biblical basis for the notion for the young Earth theory. The Garden of Eden could have lasted for untold amounts of time, the Bible doesn't say, and all manner of creatures could have lived outside its boundaries prior to the first sin. In this manner dinosaurs and the age of the world is easily explained. Of course, God could have merely set up the world as it appears now to confound our understanding of it. After all, we know that soil is made up of decaying organic matter, but if we examined some soil that God made then to our observation it would be made up of creatures once living even if God had commanded it into existence.

The flaws with evolution are many. The basic premise of evolution is that random mutation causes incrimental changes that over time transform single celled organisms into multicelled organisms, one species into a completely different species, randomly, but in a manner that increases each alteration's ability to survive.

Yet if this is truly what is happening then why do we not see it in the fossile record. More precisely, why do we not see all of evolution's failures in the fossile record. With species changing into new species we should see lots of evolutionary dead ends. Yet thus far all the fossile record has ever revealed is fully formed organisms that appear out of no where, live for huge periods of time, and then disappear to make room for the new strata of fully formed organisms. Curiously, we never see the odd misshapen creature that just couldn't cut it. Even if such creatures don't last long, because they're failures, it seems rather incredible that for millions of years not a single one would manage to fossilize.

Another flaw is how specific organs and cellular components would form. 1% of an eye, for example, is utterly worthless. Why would a creature evolving to be more fit in its environment evolve an appendage which, while potentially useful in the future, is currently nothing more than a drain on precious calories?

Evolution apologists, of course, invent a fanciful story about light sensitive cells being at least somewhat useful, but this musing misses the larger point. Even if light sensitive cells would be more useful and would eventually evolve into an eye (two huge assumptions) it still doesn't explain other even more troubling problems. Light sensitive cells, even if they were to develop, are useless on their own. You have to have nerves connecting them to the brain. You have to have a brain capable of understanding what those cells are saying. The brain, the light recepitive cells, and the nerve connections all have to evolve at the same time since any one component is useless without the other two.

We're expected to believe that this random mutation occurred, but that there are no fossiles of creatures with three eyes, or one eye in the back of their head (or the bottom of their foot).

The problem is even more acute when you consider the internal makeup of a cell. Even if you ignore the notion that self-replicating RNA strands could spontaneously appear in ancient organic soup and then form a cell, the internals of a cell are impervious to evolution. Cells are basically incredibly complex pieces of molecular machinery. As most people who aren't burying their head in evolutionary sand know, chance and complexity are countervailing forces. No one would look at a computer and conclude that geological forces randomly created it, but that's what evolutionists do upon observing a person. However, for evolution to work random chance must produce the complexity we see without remembering what it just created. If a cell mutates something useful on this go around it is just as likely to mutate something useless on the next. The typical evolutionist answer of stage driven mutation doesn't solve this problem, it just illustrates the bankruptcy of the theory.

That doesn't stop the evolutionist, however. Beginning with the premise that God does not exist the evolutionist contorts himself to force the evidence to fit the conclusion he has already reached. That is the exact opposite of observation and the scientific method. That is the methodology of a zealot and a dogmatist.

[Coyoteman]

I'm not going to bother to respond to your post in any detail. Your understanding of what the theory of evolution calls for is severely flawed, and I simply don't have the time tonight to explain what the theory really predicts and where you are incorrect.

Just one example --

...we not see all of evolution's failures in the fossile record

There is a reason for this. See if you can work it out for yourself. You probably wouldn't believe any explanation I provided anyway.

[Mr.Grumble]

I accept your concession.

[valkyry1]

That is the methodology of a zealot and a dogmatist.

And that is the evolutionist. 

[llandres]

what I meant was that Intelligent Design is indeed called a scientific theory, just as evolution is. (However, it’s VERY interesting, and encouraging, that so many scientists embrace it - also, that so many of them have religious faith). WE know which one is right.

[sport]

Nor do I.

[Coyoteman]

...what I meant was that Intelligent Design is indeed called a scientific theory, just as evolution is.

Sorry, no. The term "theory" does not mean idea or guess or proposal, as might be common usage for the layman. In science, "theory" has a much more specific meaning.

In short, a theory is the current best explanation for a given set of facts. It has been advanced to this level from an hypothesis because it explained all of the relevant facts, and made predictions which were subsequently confirmed. Further, in a mature field of science there is generally only one theory at a time used to explain that given set of facts.

When a field of investigation is young, there will likely be a series of hypotheses proposed to explain the facts. These are modified, or discarded, as the evidence accumulates until only one survives, which then is advanced to the level of a theory.

So when you say that intelligent design is a scientific theory you are incorrect; that would also be giving ID a major "affirmative action" boost that it has not earned through testing and the normal scientific process. ID is still an idea, from which a few testable hypotheses have been derived. Irreducible complexity and Dembski's explanatory filter are two such. The examples of irreducible complexity that Behe proposed have been shown not to be irreducibly complex, and Dembski gave up on his explanatory filter idea just this week.

If you want to bring ID into the realm of science, you have to follow the rules of science. So far ID has not shown any promise of being science, and there is a lot of evidence that it is simply religion dressed up in new clothes.

[Mr.Grumble]

Yet irreducible complexity is still perfectly valid despite some of Behe’s examples falling through. Furthermore, even if a function could have evolved through other different functions that explanation has limited viability. A vital biological component, without which an organism could not function, would not have been able to evolve from one piece at a time unless the organism could otherwise accomplish that function in some other manner. That is not always possible.

Of course, intelligent design is not a scientific theory either, its just another nice story, sort of like evolution itself. It would be nice if science could focus on actually observing and comprehending the world instead of using its rightful prestige to wage a political\philosophical war against religion.

[llandres]

I guess I stand corrected! I have heard it called a parallel scientific theory by a couple of authors who’ve spoken on cspan.

Excuse me..........

[Mr.Grumble]

Some people might try to claim that, but you can find some people to claim anything. The concept isn't falsifiable because the notion that God created the world can't be proven or disproven by observation. God created mountains, but we can't observe a mountain being created by anything other than natural observable forces (as opposed to a mountain simply appearing on command from no where). The same is true with all life, the universe, etc... Thus ID isn't science.

People who believe in God should know this. The Bible says blessed are those who believe and yet have not seen. If we had observable facts proving God created the world then we would have no faith, no free will to accept or reject God.

[Ron Jeremy]

They go to the same schools, they watch the same sinful movies and tv shows, they listen to the same worldly music,

You must be barrels of fun.

[OriginalIntent]

Instead of admitting you have some very valid points, some free republic liberal will show up to downplay your points with a glib comment instead of dealing with your facts. Start the timer.

[llandres]

“”Thus ID isn’t science.
People who believe in God should know this. The Bible says blessed are those who believe and yet have not seen.””

I only said that ID has been called scientific theory by others, scientists in fact.

I totally agree with you - I personally believe that God created everything and I’m a Christian who tries to be better every day. It was just an interesting discussion on the board the other night.

I’d never get into an argument on this subject with anyone - I’m not smart enough, left-brained enough - besides, as you said, the bottom line with me is faith.

[Fichori]

“Excellent point. No reason for “Evolution” and “God” to be mutually exclusive.”

And that my FRiend, is the beauty of relativism!

[Fichori]

“The Bible is written in allegory.” [excerpt]

A close examination of the OT Hebrew does not support that claim.

Most of the OT is very literal. (Means exactly what is says)

If the Bible is only allegory, then it is worthless.

[mysterio]

If the Bible is only allegory, then it is worthless.

I wasn't clear in my initial statement. I don't believe the Bible is only allegory. Just as Jesus sometimes spoke in parables, some parts of the Bible are allegory.

[Theo]

You’re not a deep thinker, are you? You either know very little about Scripture, or very little about evolution. They are absolutely not compatible.

[Theo]

Yes, as you say, the Bible is a piece of fiction, totally unreliable, full of make believe stories.

Or maybe it’s true?