Posted on 08/19/2010 1:19:28 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
Documentary educational television would have us believe that the single greatest scientific achievement of the past millennium was Darwin’s theory of evolution. Many religious fundamentalists have serious issues with this assertion. Many legitimate scientists with both secular and religious perspectives do as well. Darwin himself recognized serious shortcomings with evolution. A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene. These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.
On the other side we have unscientific religious fundamentalists. These folks are willing to describe their search for proof of their scriptures as basic science. They study scripture and seek evidence to support what it says.
Both sides’ methods are troublingly reminiscent of case law: by carefully selecting your precedents or evidence one can prove anything. Mathematicians and philosophers long ago concluded that “proving” a general hypotheses about the real world is a logical impossibility. That is, no one can find every possible exception to any assertion about the real world.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionclub.org ...
You fail to realize the following that is common in the discussion of evolutionary thinking:
I could continue to quote from the source, but it is more of the same.
These statements are presented by portions of the evolutionary community, and I I have not found a counter example to them. This basically say that evolution created religious beliefs. The God of the Bible that you quote is no more than an evolutionary quirk, and the Christian religion is provably false in its claims.
So, evolution may not be anti-God, but it sure seems anti-Christian from where I stand.
-K51
The fact that you used the phrases "micro-" vs. "macro" evolution tells me exactly what your belief system is.
Sorry, I am a unique individual; there is no one else like me."
So are we all, but you have proven yourself a member of the set of religious creationists pushing religion as science.
"If you want to have a discussion, fine. If you want to present facts with out belittling me, fine. But if you want to continue the ad hominem attacks, our discussion is over.
Bye. Suggest you grow a thicker skin. You'd never make it in the science biz if you think the mild comments I made are unacceptable.
I did. All horse manure.
"ALL education is filtered through either a godless or God-centered worldview. Neither worldveiw, godless or God-centered, is religiously neutral in content or consequences."
We're not talking "all education", we're talking about science, specifically biology. Like it or not, in biology, evolution is THE scientific explanation.
"The origins of the universe and man's appearance in it is taught to children and young adults has **enormous** religious consequences for the child and for all of society. Citizens rightfully resent having government establishing one religious worldview over another. It is a freedom of conscience issue."
As usual, like all biblical creationists, you change the subject from evolution in biology to "the origins of the universe and man's appearance in it". They are completely different things. Biblical creationists appear not to understand the differences between cosmological evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution, but mash them all together into "evil evolution" because the theories disagree with Genesis.
"Evolutionists are the biggest bullies when it comes to shoving godless, socialist-funded, **compulsory** government run and owned schooling down the taxpayers’s throat."
No, you're mistaking "evolutionists" with communists. The two groups are not the same. All the evolutionists I know of just want to see science taught in science classes. If you want to establish a compulsory "comparative religion" class and teach "creation science" and "intelligent design" there, I'm fine with that. But not in biology class.
"The creationists are far more tolerant and far more likely to support separation of school and state,( as well as complete separation of science and state) and willing to let evolutionist believe what they want.
Complete baloney. It isn't "evolutionists" pushing to have "intelligent design" taught as science...it is biblical literalist creationists.
Your reading skills must be deficient. I am an evolutionist. For the time being evolution seems to be the best theory to explain how man and other life forms came to exist on this earth and is not in conflict with the teaching of our family's denomination. Our children were taught evolution in our homeschool. It was, though, within the framework of a thoroughly God-centered worldview.
It is my observation that evolutionists are the biggest defenders of compulsory government schooling where evolution can then be thrust on unwilling families and their children.
While the creationists would be very happy to have complete separation of school and state, and let evolutionists teach what they want in their private schools.
There is only **ONE** reason why evolution is a hot button topic. GOVERNMENT! If there were complete separation of school and state, as well as science funding and state ( except for military defense research), the controversy would dissipate as quickly as dew on a hot summer's day. But evolutionist don't want to see that because many of them are freedom of conscience BULLIES!
You'd never make it in the science biz if you think the mild comments I made are unacceptable. Again, you are mistaken. I make my living as a mechanical engineer, and I know when people are trying to prove their point with good rational arguments vs. those who like to belittle others to make themselves look better and control the dialog. But, since you don't think you can control yourself, bye.
So unless a scientists says God is “directing” the planets, the theory of universal gravitational attraction of mass is “anti-God”?
So unless a scientists says God is “directing” the movement of the geological plates, the theory of plate techtoncis is “anti-God”?
Unless a scientists says God is “directing” the movement of electrons, the theory of electromagnetism is “anti-God”?
Way to show your absolutism and your absolute ignorance!
You know this is a false argument, AMD. These other disiplines can PROVE satisfactorily that you can go from point A to point B and beyond, using experimentation. Evolution posits that modification through descent, over millions of years, can transform an amoeba into a cat, elephant or human being. This has NOT been proven, and if it could be, would a “god” be necessary at all for life?
Of course, God is necessary for other physical disciplines as well, but we are talking about HOW things work, not WHY they work when we study them. Scientists WANT our young people to believe that all that exists does not need God to be explained, and you KNOW this. Bob
If to you that means that scientists want young people to believe that God is not needed, that says more about your own ignorance than about scientists and science.
One doesn't need to see entire canyons forming over millions of years to know that erosion was responsible.
Or is “micro” erosion not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of the Grand Canyon?
It is the creationists that are pushing for "intelligent design" (non-science) to be added to the science curricula.
"It is my observation that evolutionists are the biggest defenders of compulsory government schooling where evolution can then be thrust on unwilling families and their children."
Malarkey.
No, I'm saying that those terms were invented and promulgated by the biblical literalists. And what I said was that YOU are a creationists. 1) You use their language, and 2) you're defending their ideas. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc.
"So does that make the National Academy of Science religious creationist since they make a distinction between micro and macro evolution?"
The more fools they, for adopting terminolgy invented by and fostered by anti-science creationists.
"I make my living as a mechanical engineer, and I know when people are trying to prove their point with good rational arguments vs. those who like to belittle others to make themselves look better and control the dialog. But, since you don't think you can control yourself, bye."
Here's a clue. Mechnical engineering is not science. It USES science. I started out life as an ME until I decided I liked chemistry better. And even among mechanical engineers, the comments I made would be considered absolutely OK. I've caught lots worse flak in tech meetings FROM mechanical engineers.
So, you are saying that because erosion can form a canyon, it’s possible that inanimate molecules can turn into an elephant. Or, that an amoeba might become a camel, given enough time and mutations. That’s quite a non sequitur, AMD. Bob
The entire point of my posts is that if there were complete separation of school and state, evolution would not be an issue for contention among citizens.
**You would send you kids to a school that supported your educational philosophy and religious worldview.
**I would send mine to a school that taught evolution within the framework of our religious belief.
** And...the creationists and IDers would find the schools that best fit their worldview.
But...It is my **anecdotal** observation from reading the many posts here on Free Republic that evolutionist tend to be the biggest defenders of compulsory funded, compulsory attendance, government schooling. I wonder about their motivations for that.
Personally, I think many evolutionists are bullies and wish to force evolution on unwilling families and children and want unwilling taxpayers to pay for it. I don't see any constitutional justification for this since evolution has nothing to do with military defense of our nation.
The creationists on the other hand would welcome vouchers, tax credits, charters, or ( best) complete separation of school and state. I would welcome this as well. Although I taught my children evolution, I have no wish to be a bully and to force on my unwilling neighbor. Again this is my anecdotal observation.
Likely only a very tiny number of scientists work directly with the subject of evolution and this is true even for biologists themselves. My husband, a Ph.D. biochemist and researcher, spent about 20 minutes of lecture time as an undergrad and never touched the topic again in his 25 year career. I was a pre-med major and have doctorate in one of the most academically competitive health professions. I had the same experience with about 20 minutes of undergrad lecture time and never touched evolution again on either the undergraduate or graduate level.
Get government out of the education business and all this contention regarding evolution will completely disappear!
One needn't see the Grand Canyon form to know that it formed from erosion.
We see the difference between humans and chimps is some 2% in genetic DNA and 6% over the genome. That is as explainable by the observed rate of change as the Grand Canyon is explainable by the observed rates of erosion.
It is only a non sequitur if you think the point I made, and now made again, is not obvious.
First of all, you're wrong. No scientific theory, in any discipline, is ever subject to absolute proof by experiment or observation. All scientific results of any importance are inferred and/or tested by fundamentally indirect means. Take chemistry, for instance. Chemical reactions, at the atom to atom level, occur very quickly. We've never actually seen — that is imaged, in any fashion visually recorded — a chemical reaction at the atomic level. NOT A SINGLE ONE. All of chemistry is based on assuming things happen that we never see happen, even once, and as a practical matter probably never will see. The entire science of chemistry is completely absent the level of proof you demand of evolutionary theory. And so is every other scientific field.
But, on the other hand, assume you are not wrong, and that the major theories and models in scientific fields other than evolution are provable. Now recall what you said earlier:
Show me where ANY scientific paper says that the mechanism of evolution is directed by God, and I will withdraw my statement that most evolutionist are anti-God.
Does it escape your notice that you are implicitly arguing for scientific atheism, at least outside of biology? You are excusing all scientific disciplines, except evolution, from including God as a mechanism, because they can prove that mechanism is not needed. You are effectively agreeing that a complete and satisfactory scientific explanation does and should exclude God.
You sound like a liberal?
School choice is a good thing.
Even Neal Boortz is for school choice and thinks public schools are a leftist disaster.
Because the system is currently being horribly run doesn't mean it should be abolished. The military was horribly run under Carter, should we have abolished it? No, we reformed it.
You sound like a liberal?
Those who disagree with you must be liberal, right?
Liberals love big government, especially big government public schools run by the far left.
They view that kind of big government abuse (public school monopoly) as their holy temple and will protect that huge centralized government monstrosity above all things on this earth.
Sometimes liberals hide out on Free Republc dodging and avoiding straight answers.
The Free Republic liberal hates the founding principle of America, that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights", they worship big government and think our rights come from the state.
There's the problem with extremes. The Founders intended for public schools. They knew an educated citizenry is necessary for the success of the republic.
The liberals now want public schools to be a monopoly, although it's impossible that the Founders intended that. I thought it was all decided in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which said the state cannot compel attendance in a public school instead of private. But you know the extremists, the Constitution's only a bump, so they made it financially difficult for the average family to send their kids to private school, and opposed vouchers not because of separation of church and state, but because it would loosen their stranglehold on education.
On the extreme conservative side, others want to get rid of them, although that was also not the Founders' intent. Interestingly, the above court case was in response to state laws intended to use the power of the state to instill "traditional American values" in the kids using the public school system. Basically, conservative Protestants didn't like the influence of Catholic schools, especially in light of all the Catholic immigrants of the time. They tried to cut out private schools to make sure there would be no competition for the minds of a generation, calling the kids "the State's children."
Kind of like the liberals are doing now. Same intent, same disregard for the Constitution, different side of the political coin.
So now you want the power of the state to instill a different set of values in the kids using the government school system? That is what is being done. Have you ever read the NEA literature?
You think the public school can be nonpolitical and not be in the business of forcing someone's particular views of morality? Which morality do you suggest since you support the big government public school which is controlled by leftists with an agenda which is the opposite of that of a large MAJORITY of the parents.
What are you afraid of?
I don't advocate using the power of the state either way. It is the extreme liberals and conservatives who have tried and done that.
Which morality do you suggest
I suggest that the public schools are no place to teach morality. Differing sense of morality between Christian denominations were a cause for the Protestant conservatives passing that law in the 20s, and the cause for the riots in the 1800s. If even Christians can't be consistent among themselves, there's no way we can teach morality in public schools that will agree with the parents -- who are actually the ones with the right and responsibility to teach morality to their kids.
What are you afraid of?
Big-government extremists from either side of the political spectrum using the government to indoctrinate children according to their world view.
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.