Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.
In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You might like to play games, but the question has been posed as evidence of intelligent design. If the question were of perfect design, there would be no point in looking. We don't know what a perfect design is(scientifically that is).
Oh you mean like FORREST M. MIMS
Mims, Caplan Respond To Readers' Letters
Opinion Mims, Caplan Respond To Readers' LettersBy Arthur L. Caplan
Date: May 13, 1991
The Opinion section of the Feb. 18, 1991, issue of The Scientist contained an essay by Mims in which he elaborated on his allegations against Scientific American. Accompanying Mims's article was an essay by Arthur L. Caplan, professor of philosophy and director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. In his essay, Caplan contended that Scientific American had to deny Mims authorship of the column because the magazine needed to take a stand on what is science and what is not. After the publication of The Scientist's February 18 issue, many readers reacted to Mims's and Caplan's essays in letters to the editor. These letters were published in the April 29, 1991, issue of The Scientist. Here, Mims and Caplan respond to the readers' letters. Those who doubt that for some of its adherents Darwinism has evolved into a philosophical dogma that justifies censoring, blacklisting, and excommunicating dissenters need only read some of the letters published recently in The Scientist. Daniel E. Atkinson, for example, claims I have diverted the discussion about Scientific American's withdrawal of my assignment to write "The Amateur Scientist" by focusing on the "false" issue of civil rights. However it is Atkinson himself who has raised a false issue, for at least six times he incorrectly labeled me as a religious "fundamentalist." This is precisely the kind of unscientific stereotyping to which I was subjected by Scientific American. Moreover, Atkinson's claim that the issue is not civil rights is contradicted by Scientific American editor Jonathan Piel's own words and questions asked by two of the magazine's editors. When on Oct. 4, 1989, I told Piel, "Never was there even a hint that religion would become an issue," he immediately responded, "Forrest, come on, that's why I had the meeting with you!" Earlier, another editor asked me about my Christian faith and said that my religious views were a "problem" and "a major area of concern." Still another asked, "Do you believe in the sanctity of life?" and said the staff remained "concerned about your religious views." Atkinson's worry that I would "control the contents of `The Amateur Scientist'" is groundless speculation. My three columns were subjected to meticulous editing. Clearly, the editors of Scientific American, not its authors, have the final say about what appears in the magazine. In any event, Atkinson fails to support his concern with a single example of my science writing. Moreover, apparently Atkinson does not realize that the topics I proposed and wrote about were never in question. For example, on Oct. 4, 1989, Piel said to me, "What you've written is first-rate. That's just not an issue. It's the public relations nightmare that's keeping me awake." Next there's the curious letter from Thomas A. Jukes, who attacks as "venomous" a previous letter from John L. Weister that describes "the shell game being played with the meaning of `evolution.'" In view of the inquisition to which I have been subjected by some of the more fundamentalist Darwinists, Weister raises an important point. For proof, one need only read the letter from Tim Walker, which states that I, as a creationist, "cannot successfully attack evolutionary theory." Which evolutionary theory does Walker have in mind? Does he mean mere change over time? Descent with modification? Classical Darwinism? The new synthesis? Some version of punctuated equilibrium? And on what grounds does Walker base his claim that I cannot successfully attack whichever evolutionary theory he has in mind? Does he mean that a creationist is not allowed, or is somehow unqualified, to challenge his orthodoxy? Evolution is not discussed in my essay in The Scientist, for Arthur Caplan and I were not asked to debate evolution. We were asked to debate whether or not it was proper for Scientific American to withdraw my assignment to "The Amateur Scientist" over the issue of my religious beliefs. Walker again fails to produce any evidence when he claims that my essay is a personal attack on Caplan. Perhaps Walker is unaware that Caplan initiated this ongoing debate in a Dec. 10, 1990, column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press in which he wrote, "I think Mims deserved to be fired....I believe Mims is not qualified to write a regular column about science for the general public." Caplan later told me he did not know that I have made a living for 20 years writing more than 50 books (which have sold millions of copies) and many hundreds of magazine articles about hands-on science and technology. Walker may also be unaware that when The Scientist invited me to submit an essay about the Scientific American affair, I suggested that Caplan give the opposing view. When the Voice of America called to propose a broadcast debate on the controversy, I again suggested Caplan. Yes, Caplan and I have debated the issue at hand, but there is certainly no personal animosity between us. Faith in Darwinism is not a prerequisite to writing scientific books and articles. Now I wonder what will become of the thousands of solar ultraviolet radiation, background radiation, and total column ozone, oxygen, and water vapor measurements I have made over the past three years. Must these data go unpublished and my books and articles be censored and banned simply because I fail to subscribe to one of the most controversial theories in the history of science? Will those who have pronounced judgment against me next attempt to censor and blacklist the many scientists who have sent me eloquent letters of support and the 49 physicians in New York who recently signed a statement advocating belief in a Creator God? All that can be said about these scary prospects is "God forbid." FORREST M. MIMS III Seguin, Texas
The barrage of correspondence received by The Scientist about the controversy over the decision of Scientific American not to hire Forrest Mims III as a regular staff columnist indicates that I was right to have opined in my essay on the affair that "when science and religion intertwine it becomes very hard to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination." Many of those who wrote to criticize my position insist that canning Mims is nothing but religious discrimination. I continue to believe that it is nothing of the sort. Religion is not--despite all the verbiage from various correspondents about "bigotry," "prejudice," "rights guaranteed under the Constitution," and "censorship"--what is at issue in not selecting Mims to write a regular column in Scientific American. The one issue, the only issue, is whether or not Mims, or anyone for that matter, can credibly serve as a staff columnist for a magazine that intends to communicate about science to the general public if he does not accept evolutionary theory as science. Mims rejects evolutionary theory as science because he finds it necessary to suspend his knowledge of scientific methods when they conflict with his personal religious beliefs in biblical creationism. Other people, who are not fundamentalist Christians, choose to reject evolutionary theory on the basis of other religious traditions or for secular reasons. If so, then, while they ought be free and even encouraged to submit articles about all manner of subjects for consideration by scientific journals, they too should not be hired to write the "Amateur Scientist" column for Scientific American. Many who disagree with me seem concerned about proving that it is possible to be a scientist, even a great scientists, and to also believe in the literal truth of the Bible. They are undoubtedly correct, since a large number of scientists--Catholics and Protestants as well as practicing Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus--did their work long before Darwin, Mendel, Huxley, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Simpson, Mayr, Watson, or Crick showed up on this planet. No one should doubt that scientists have an obligation to accept as peers those scientists who adhere to religious worldviews. The question is: Should a science magazine hire someone as a regular columnist who rejects the scientific standing of the theory that underpins the life sciences, geology, archeology, oceanography, cosmology, agricultural science, veterinary science, the health sciences, and the social sciences? Some light may be shed on this question by a fanciful thought experiment. Suppose that Newton, Galen, Harvey, Galileo, Leibniz, Maxwell, the Curies, Copernicus, and Einstein were to suddenly receive the ultimate subscription offer--a chance to receive (free!) a single science magazine delivered monthly on the doorstep of their eternal address. Eager to hear what has happened in science since they last sought a patron or grant, they inquire as to their choices. They are offered two. One is a well-written magazine that covers developments in the physico-chemical sciences produced by a staff who believe that the account of creation presented in the Bible is literally true. The other has a far broader scope. It is written by those who apply the methods, techniques, and experimental modalities the potential subscribers pioneered to study and explain not only physical and chemical phenomena, but also the evolution of the planet earth and all the life forms that dwell therein, and to solve the mystery of heredity. To those who would argue for Mims by pointing out that many scientific greats did not believe in the theory of evolution, let me respond that there is no doubt as to how they'd choose. Nor should there be any doubt as to how the current editors of Scientific American had to choose. ARTHUR L. CAPLAN Director, Center for Biomedical Ethics, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Surgery University of Minnesota Minneapolis |
Schopf in Cradle of Life says in part:
Yet the presence of these remarkable deposits does not mean the oceans were oxygen-rich. On the contrary, BIFs were nearly always deposited in large basins, hundreds of kilometers in length and breadth, and the dissolved ferrous iron from which BIFs form could be spread over such vast distances only if carried by waters that were oxygen-poor. Huge amounts of molecular oxygen were pumped into the environment by oxygenic (cyanobacterial) photosynthesis, but except locally, near where it was produced, amounts of oxygen were kept low by its capture and rapid burial in the oxide minerals of BIFs.You forgot to deal with the pyrites and I forgot to mention the uraninite. From Icon of Obfuscation:
Chapter 2: Miller-Urey experiment
Prebiotic Oxygen. A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). He spends several pages (14-19) on a pseudo-discussion of the oxygen issue, citing sources from the 1970's and writing that (p. 17) "the controversy has never been resolved", that "Evidence from early rocks has been inconclusive," and concluding that the current geological consensus -- that oxygen was merely a trace gas before approximately 2.5 bya and only began rising after this point -- was due to "Dogma [taking] the place of empirical evidence" (p. 18). None of this is true (see e.g. Copley, 2001).
Certain minerals, such as uraninite, cannot form under significant exposure to oxygen. Thick deposits of these rocks are found in rocks older than 2.5 bya years ago, indicating that essentially no oxygen (only trace amounts) was present. On page 17 Wells notes that uraninite deposits have been found in more recent rocks, but neglects to mention to his readers that these only occur under rapid-burial conditions, whereas ancient deposits of uraninite occur in slow deposition conditions, for example in sediments laid down by rivers, so that the minerals were exposed to atmospheric gases for significant periods of time before burial.
'Red beds' are geologic features containing highly oxidized iron (rust) indicative of high amounts of oxygen. Wells (p. 17) notes that red beds are found before 2 bya, but fails to mention that the temporal limit of red beds is just a few hundred million years before 2 bya.
Wells doesn't even mention the evidence that banded iron formations (incompletely oxidized iron indicative of ultralow-oxygen conditions) are very common prior to 2.3 bya and very rare afterwards.
Wells also doesn't mention that early paleosols (fossil soils) from about ~2.5 bya contain unoxidized cerium, impossible in an oxygenic atmosphere (e.g., Murakami et al., 2001).
Finally, Wells doesn't mention to his readers that pyrite, a mineral even more vulnerable to oxidation than uraninite, is found unoxidized in pre-2.5 bya rocks, and with significant evidence of long surface exposure (i.e. grains weathered by water erosion; e.g. Rasmussen and Buick, 1999).
Why does Wells leave out the converging independent lines of geological evidence pointing to an anoxic early (pre ~2.5 bya) atmosphere?
Okay, "complex-minded" person, explain to the audience how the pyramids were built with the technology available at the time of their building. Explain Stonehenge. Explain Easter Island.
Today, we are more "scientifically enlightened" than those "simple-minded" people were to created these things.
Explain.
I'm waiting...
E-siders rarely hit the AB. When posts get stomped, they tend to be E by a wide margine. Not only that, but PatrickHenry at one point couldn't even post a compilation of still-undeleted abusive posts by C-siders upon Es without his compilation being deleted. Track-covering.
And who is the usual Moderator suspect? There's one that's suspect?
The major damage always happens 8-11 PM Eastern in funny clusters of activity. We don't know the moderator names so it's all speculation how many and who.
Since I'm not interested in playing your games. my last and final answer is.... Evidence of imperfect design is evidence of imperfect design to the imperfect person.
Cool, huh?
That's exactly correct. The compilation of quotations from several of the "C" types was an overwhelming demonstration of creationist tactics and the intellectual nature of their side of the argument. I guess they just couldn't stand it. Their complient moderator did what had to be done to save us all from the devil.
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.