Posted on 10/01/2002 6:32:12 AM PDT by Phaedrus
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
More than 40 years ago, the film "Inherit the Wind" presented the controversy over the teaching of evolution as a battle between stick-figure fundamentalists who defend a literal reading of Genesis and saintly scientists who simply want to teach the facts of biology. Ever since, journalists have tended to depict almost any battle over evolution in the schools as if it were a replay of "Inherit the Wind"--even if it's not.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"I apologize to Bill Clinton that I did not have his strength," -- Bob Torricelli
Typical evolutionist 'scientific' argument - slime the opposition.
Then Intelligent Design should be taught in schools instead of evolution. Let's compare the two theories side by side. First Darwin on the eye and then Behe on the eye:
He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
From: Origin of the Species, Chapter 6
Compare the above with the quote below on the same subject:
What is needed to make a light sensitive spot? What happens when a photon of light impinges on the retina?
When a photon first hits the retina, it interacts with a small organic molecule called II-cis-retinal. The shape of retinal is rather bent, but when retinal interacts with the photon, it straightens out, isomerizing into trans-retinal. This is the signal that sets in motion a whole cascade of events resulting in vision. When retinal changes shape, it forces a change in the shape of the protein rhodopsin, which is bound to it. Now part of the transducin complex dissociates and interacts with a protein called phosphodiesterase, When that happens, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability chemically to cut a small organic molecule called cyclic-GMP, turning it into 5'-GMP. There is a lot of cyclic-GMP in the cell, and some of it sticks to another protein called an ion channel. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions into the cell. When the concentration of cyclic-GMP decreases because of the action of the phosphodiesterase, however, the cyclic-GMP bound to the ion channel eventually falls off, causing a change in shape that shuts the channel. As a result, sodium ions can no longer enter the cell, the concentration of sodium in the cell decreases, and the voltage accross the cell membrane changes. That in turn causes a wave of electrical polarization to be sent down the optic nerve to the brain. And when interpreted by the brain, that is vision. So this is what modern science has discovered about how Darwin's 'simple' light sensitive spot functions.
From: Michael Behe, 'Design at the Foundation of Life".
Now which one of the two is science and which one is not - the charlatan Darwin or the biologist Behe?????
Actually just about anything will describe natural phenomena better than evolution. These people are no scientists, they do not seek the truth. All they seek is to justify their ideology. Their arrogance and blindness has led them to quite a few imbecile remarks. For example evolutionists claimed (and some, still ignorant of science continue to claim) that the tonsils and appendix were useless organs the leftovers of previous evolutionary transformations. More recently they were claiming that all DNA not in genes was totally useless and again just leftovers of previous transformations. Of course, this has been disproven by several Nobel Prize Winners and the whole of biological inquiry is now focused on discovering the designs produced by this DNA. Perhaps the most un-scientific and totally ridiculous assumption by evolutionists was that maternal DNA could prove evolution. Not only did it disprove many evolutionist assumptions as to descent, but the finding that some mutations in it were the cause of some terrible diseases proved that the evolutionist's arrogant assumption that it was totally useless and infinitely mutable without consequence was just more of their stupid, ignorant pseudo-science.
The king of slime at it again! He needs to keep himself ignorant because knowledge might challenge his stupid atheistic beliefs.
Amazing how evolutionists keep coming up with Clintonian excuses to avoid discussion. Of course this is the famous - hey I fooled around with her yesterday, it's old news, let's get on to my new depravities.
Aah, the favorite evolutionist excuse! It is also often phrased as 'lack of proof is not proof of lack'. It may be good rhetoric, but it is awful science. With such nonsense one can prove just about any nonsense proposition - even a few which are more ridiculous than evolution.
In fact I am sure that many schools do say that the Theory of Gravity has been shown not to be correct in all situations by the Theory of Relativity. Real scientists are open to new ideas and to challenges, evolutionists being ideologues, not scientists are not open to discussion or challenges so they always strive to silence opposition as they are doing in Cobb County, Georgia.
Totally false. The only multi-cell organism that has been found prior to the Cambrian is a worm. That does not explain the multiplicity of new phyla in the Cambrian. Also, it was after 1958 and the so called 'Vendian" fossils were found that Eldredge and Gould split with Darwinism asserting that Darwinian evolution was rendered bunk by the Cambrian explosion. Also note that Darwin himself stated in the Origins that if no fossils were found prior to the Cambrians his theory would be refuted. Well none have been found to explain the massive sudden flowering of life in the Cambrian so according to Darwin's own statement the theory of evolution has been disproven.
I am shocked that you are using the Clintonian 'old news' attack on something which as usual refutes evolution but the evolutionists cannot answer. Evolutionists do not tire of talking about the same old fossils and same old nonsense over and over, but heaven forbid that anyone else should repeat himself on these threads even though their statements have never been answered.
Lame, very lame.
The short answer is as follows. A law is a theory which has been proven to apply in all circumstances such as the law of biogenesis that life only comes from life. A theory is a hypothesis which has been shown to apply everywhere that it has been tested but there has been no absolutely conclusive test to advance it to a law. A hypothesis is a proposition which has been shown to be valid in some instances but has not achieved universal applicability.
There is one more which you forgot about though, it goes by the very scientific name of nonsense. It is a proposition which has been shown to be untrue numerous times. That is the category in which evolution falls.
Isn't it time for you to go to sleep? You need to get a good rest for another hard day of sliming tomorrow.
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.