Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed

Washinton Post ^ | Wednesday, May 29, 2002 | Michael A. Fletcher

[Gladwin]

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.....

[AndrewC]

Yes. Do you see the people of that time understanding the scientific mechanisms used that allowed for life to come in existence as it is now?

The point was to let them know that God was the reason for life.

Excellent!

[PatrickHenry]

Why did he stop short and not call you a Darwinist gay nazi? At least he would have been assured of being one third correct.

Nope, if he had done that (and he still might) then all three terms would be wrong. There are no "Darwinists." That is a totally made-up word to suggest that evolution is a cult about the person of Darwin.

[Gladwin]

[Psalm 73]

"Do you see the people of that time understanding the scientific mechanisms used that allowed for life to come in existence as it is now?"

Ha, we're not much closer NOW to understanding!
We THINK we know, so we run ourselves ragged trying desperately to explain everything without the need for a Creator.
IF you believe in an omnipotent God, then why could He not have created as Genesis implies?

[ArGee]

Interesting read on how Pasteur proved that there can be no life formed without life present, but I hardly see how it supports your claim of the struggle over the viability of a god-conscious scientific method.

Please forgive me if I missed it and don't be mad at me for having to explain it. I'll understand if you don't want to take the time.

Shalom.

[r9etb]

Ooops. plays a role should be "plays no role."

[ArGee]

Yes. Do you see the people of that time understanding the scientific mechanisms used that allowed for life to come in existence as it is now?

I have seen many television specials aimed at children that explain the evolutionist viewpoint.

If G-d does indeed exist then He is likely as creative as the TV show producers. And the people of Moses' day were very intelligent, if not as technologically advanced as we are today.

I think they could have understood a lot more than He gave them. But I would not object to the most simplistic analogy being used. I would object to absolute falsehood.

Shalom.

[JediGirl]

Ha, we're not much closer NOW to understanding! We THINK we know, so we run ourselves ragged trying desperately to explain everything without the need for a Creator. IF you believe in an omnipotent God, then why could He not have created as Genesis implies?

First sentence implies ignorace..I'll let it pass..just do a little reading. Okay, so maybe the earth is flat after all. We just think we know it isn't. We could be wrong...oh yes. yes, indeed.

If you believe in an omnipotent God, then why can't he have created as science proves? Why don't you see that the simple-minded people of that day would have never understood how life came about other than to hear the creation story in Genesis. All that was relevant was that God caused life to be. As we became more scientifically enlightened, we began to seek answers as to what mechanisms lead to our existence. These mechanisms neither imply nor exclude a Creator.

[Gladwin]

The necessary and sufficient condition for the logical system is that phenomena must be explainable in terms of consistent mechanisms. There is no logical need for the additional proposition that God does not exist. The roots of that assertion rest in something other than scientific necessity.

1) Observed phenomena have natural causes.
2) Time does not change explainations for observed phenomena.

This is a simpler set of premises than including God. I don't think that adding God adds anything to the scientific explanation.

[JediGirl]

If G-d does indeed exist then He is likely as creative as the TV show producers. And the people of Moses' day were very intelligent, if not as technologically advanced as we are today.

At the time, yes they were intelligent. But the understanding of science was not what it is now, of course.

[f.Christian]

In the interest of full disclosure, I've had a couple of creo posts removed. Both were by the same raving idiot, whom I shall not name, but whose posts are always incoherent and rambling (unless he's doing a cut-n-paste job). In one case he accused me of being a commie, in another of being a gay nazi. No one reads that bozo's postings, but those items just had to go. They were irrelevant to the "evolution vs. creationism" issue anyway, except to demonstrate the insanity of one particular creo. I've never tried to get him banned.

76 posted on 5/30/02 10:56 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry

All after your remark and quotations that said...

you were the second coming of Galileo/jesus with your gospel of morph-mush-evolution...

you need a reality check---crybaby--lunatic!

Also you made your "total-only evolution" remark...

at the time nebullis wanted headstart indoctrination camps for children...

I'm not supposed to say anything---Darwinban?

[Pete]

. Do you see the people of that time understanding the scientific mechanisms used that allowed for life to come in existence as it is now?

What do you believe those mechanisms are? In other words, what theory for the origins of life do you subscibe to? The reason I ask is that, as I posted earlier, it is my understanding that there have been half a dozen or so theories put forth in the last 50 years to account for a naturalistic origin of life but all have pretty much fallen out of favor. I am not flaming here, I am actually really interested.

[JediGirl]

This is a simpler set of premises than including God. I don't think that adding God adds anything to the scientific explanation.

Of course it doesn't. It serves only as a religious purpose.

[JediGirl]

What do you believe those mechanisms are? In other words, what theory for the origins of life do you subscibe to? The reason I ask is that, as I posted earlier, it is my understanding that there have been half a dozen or so theories put forth in the last 50 years to account for a naturalistic origin of life but all have pretty much fallen out of favor. I am not flaming here, I am actually really interested.

To the widely accepted theory of evolution. The origin of all life? As in a beginning point? Abiogenesis-related? I think that eventually will be discovered. I subscribe to no particular theory there because I have yet to read enough on the various theories surrounding abiogenesis. For now, I will accept that eventually there will be a naturalistic explanation, just as there is to other processes in this world.

[JediGirl]

you need a reality check

Hypocrite!! :-D

[Saturnalia]

Continuing on "THE DESIGNER SUCKS" thread...
If we just appeared the way we are today, then why is the body so badly put together?

[r9etb]

I think they could have understood a lot more than He gave them. But I would not object to the most simplistic analogy being used. I would object to absolute falsehood.

I don't see that Genesis takes any stand on whether evolution was the actual mechanism of creation. It doesn't really address mechanisms at all -- the point of Genesis is to emphasize that God is the Creator.

The way I see it, quibbling about evolution vs. ID vs. whatever else, is not much different from quibbling over the exact process of the Resurrection of Jesus. It may be an interesting topic, but ultimately it's completely beside the point.

[Psalm 73]

"First sentence implies ignorace..I'll let it pass..just do a little reading. Okay, so maybe the earth is flat after all."

Your first sentence implies an ego way beyond your means.
Do you support yourself (you know, a house, bills, job, taxes)? Have you raised children?
How many years have you been volunteering in jails and homeless shelters? How many years' experience do you have in the work force? Should I stop now, or are you incapable of being embarassed?
And BTW - the Bible does not talk of a flat earth, but of a ROUND one.
You may be smart, but you enter the real world with a total lack of respect like you exhibit here - they will eat you alive.

[AndrewC]

That is a totally made-up word to suggest that evolution is a cult about the person of Darwin.

Then I suppose neo-Darwinist is the same. I guess we need to stop the presses and have all dictionaries corrected.

Dar·win·ism   Pronunciation Key  (dar -nzm)
n.

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

---

Darwin·ist n.
Darwin·istic adj.

Ne·o-Dar·win·ism   Pronunciation Key  (n -da -nzm)
n.

Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics.

---

Neo-Dar·wini·an (-darw n-n) adj.
Neo-Darwin·ist n.

Anyway, I understand your aversion to being called a Darwinist.

[ArGee]

At the time, yes they were intelligent. But the understanding of science was not what it is now, of course.

But what about evolution would they have not understood. They certainly understood heredity - Genesis is rife with it. They understood changes within an organism. Humanity was rife with it. They had to be able to accept the concept that a large number of gradual changes could result in a large change. There are plenty of examples of the "evolutionary" concept in history. G-d could have left out all the stuff about RNA and DNA and cellular structures. He had no problem telling them that the life of the body is in the blood without explaining exactly why (not discovered until a few centuries ago by scientists).

If what science now details to us is true about the origins of the universe and about the origin of life, G-d has no reason not to have told His children when He gave them Genesis, as written down by Moses.

Shalom.