Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The attack on evolution
The Economist ^

Posted on 10/07/2002 12:44:39 PM PDT by wallcrawlr

A suburban school board declares that evolution is just another theory

NEWT GINGRICH, while he was a Georgia congressman and then as speaker of the House, was known for his interest in scientific research. Some Georgians prefer a different approach. On September 26th the school board of Cobb County, in the north-western Atlanta suburbs, voted to amend existing policy to allow discussion of “disputed views of academic subjects”, specifically the idea that God created the universe in six days—Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and the rest of them be damned.

The vote came after a month of deliberation, at a meeting crowded with concerned parents. Some 2,000 of the county's residents signed a petition last spring to have the board put stickers on biology textbooks telling students that evolution is a theory, not a fact. “What they're trying to do is appease the religious right,” says Michael Manely, the lawyer representing a local parent who wanted the stickers removed.

The war between creationists and evolutionists had recently fallen quiet. In 1999, the Kansas state board of education dropped evolution from state examinations; but by 2001 the three most prominent anti-evolutionists had been voted out of office, and the decision quietly reversed. Of late, the Christian right has focused on other topics. But the anti-evolutionists' victory in Cobb County may stimulate similar-minded people elsewhere. In Ohio, the state board of education is under pressure to include “intelligent design”—the idea that the complexity of the universe proves the existence of the divine—when it issues a new science curriculum.

Cobb County's new policy argues that providing information on “disputed views” is “necessary for a balanced education” and will help to promote “acceptance of diversity of opinion”. A poll commissioned in 2000 by People for the American Way, a liberal-minded group, shows that many Americans think this way. Nearly half of the respondents believed that the theory of evolution had not yet been proved. And of those who believe in evolution—only a fifth wanted evolution taught alone—three-quarters liberally agreed that students should be presented with “all points of view” and “make up their own minds”. In this post-modern reasoning, evolution and the Book of Genesis are equally valid.

The losers have already begun worrying aloud that this will hurt Cobb County's reputation as a place where children can get a good education. Cobb's schools consistently rank above the state average, which is not saying much. But what happens if superior schools insist that previously accepted facts have become mere theory? No comment from Mr Gingrich, who now lives in Virginia.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-284 next last
To: gore3000
Try again, blue-spew, you didn't answer the question.
161 posted on 10/09/2002 5:13:47 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Could you translate some of your posts from their native post-modern deconstruction and re-submit them in English?

To show that his writings are indeed legible I will translate one for you - f.christians post #112:

Science/reality is ANTI-possibilty/FANTASY(infinite/irrational)...
Science has to be OBJECTIVE predictable-probable-facts-LOGIC(finite/rational)---
Science must limit itself from the political-ego/subjective lower CARNAL SUBJECTIVE animal world!
Science is law/design---CREATION!
Evolution/LIBERALISM is manmade myth/legend---FICTION/fantasy/denial!

In the above he is essentially saying the exact same thing I say just a post or two above in post#160 only he does it in a much more poetic manner than I.

162 posted on 10/09/2002 5:21:34 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
The story below ilustrates what ID is all about better than you or I could ever describe:

A Moment in History...

That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

163 posted on 10/09/2002 5:26:17 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: All
Blue skipping placemarker.
164 posted on 10/09/2002 6:38:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Blue skipping placemarker.

Seems you continue to take pride in remaining ignorant of opposing evidence. No wonder all you can do is indulge in lame insults.

165 posted on 10/09/2002 9:39:17 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
If there was no order but just randomness in the world, science would be totally impossible.

No one, anywhere, is claiming there is "just randomness" in the world.

For this reason materialistic theories are anti-scientific.

Your premise is invalid. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid.

166 posted on 10/10/2002 7:56:27 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
No, you misunderstand my thesis.  I'm stating that every evolutionary experiment is designed.  Evolutionists cannot disprove that ID is the basis for the cosmos, simply because no matter what the experimental result, it was ultimately influenced by intelligent design.

The point I'm making is that there is an inherent bias in experimentation towards ID which is impossible to remove.  One could, of course, write reams on the validitiy and accuracy of the assumptions of evolutionary experiments, but it still doesn't change the point that all of it is still (more or less) intelligently designed.
167 posted on 10/10/2002 9:05:50 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So even if every step can be replicated, and every step shown to occur naturally, this would prove nothing?

Step back a moment and see what I'm saying.  All experimentation is a result of intelligent design.  If you could prove by experimentation that evolution is a reality, you still would not disprove that it is a result of ID.

All you have shown by such experimentation is that the results (whether good or bad) were obtained by intelligent design.
168 posted on 10/10/2002 9:09:25 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
No, you misunderstand my thesis.

Perhaps, but the conclusion you would reach from my little experiment is wrong, so your premise must still be in error.

Evolutionists cannot disprove that ID is the basis for the cosmos

Of course not! ID/IOT makes no predictions that can be verified *OR* falsified.

The fact is that your statement is exactly the same as "Evolutionists cannot disprove that [a giant chicken from Pasedena named Harry] is the basis for the cosmos".

Can you see that?

169 posted on 10/10/2002 9:14:26 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Step back yourself. What you are saying is that if we can produce fusion in the laboratory, or in a bomb, that fusion must always be a result of ID. Get a grip.

Everything in science proceeds by speculation and verification.

170 posted on 10/10/2002 9:54:29 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: js1138
And what proof do you have that fusion is not caused (directly or indirectly) by ID?

You may choose to believe or disbelieve ID.  That is, after all, your own affair.  But you can't disprove ID through experimentation.
171 posted on 10/10/2002 10:26:03 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to throw in the 'falsifiability' strawman once again.  I've noticed that quite often when evolutionary religionists cannot verify their claims they throw the burden of proof on IDers.  Fine, therefore I'll make a verifiable claim - and a challenge.  It goes thusly: All experimentation has, at its source, a recognizable and absolutely essential design element.  Show me even *one* evolutionary experiment which has no design basis.
172 posted on 10/10/2002 10:41:51 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
You can't disprove anything. You can't prove a negative. You can prove that a hypothesis is unnecessary. You can prove that entities have been postulated beyond necessity.

But ID is hoist on its own petard. For anything to be designed, you must have a desinger. then you must have an explanation for the existence of the designer, even if you call the designer God.

173 posted on 10/10/2002 10:53:33 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So you admit that you cannot experimentally disprove ID.  But your assertion that you cannot disprove anything is a little bit over the top since many concepts over time have been disproven.

Many mathematical concepts cannot be proven.  They only cannot be disproven.  Thus "proving a negative" by inference.

Your assertion that we need to have an explanation for the existence of the designer is another strawman.  That assumes a perfect knowledge of all the variables.  One could as readily ask for an explanation of the existence of evolution.  Both are philosophical questions that ultimately delve beyond man's current finite capacity to understand.

ID has proven a better fit than random chance.  As many evolutionary theorists ask IDers to prove the concept of ID, I would ask for the same courtesy from them in proving random chance.  The fact is, that random chance is a very poor fit.  Even evolutionists admit that the universe is governed by laws and rules.  And yet they also wish us to believe that evolution is governed by random chance.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.
174 posted on 10/10/2002 11:34:17 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
ID has proven a better fit than random chance. As many evolutionary theorists ask IDers to prove the concept of ID, I would ask for the same courtesy from them in proving random chance. The fact is, that random chance is a very poor fit.

"Random Chance" is a straw man. It is not what evolutionists believe. For ID to have any meaning at all, you must postulate something about the designer.

175 posted on 10/10/2002 11:49:19 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to throw in the 'falsifiability' strawman once again.

If a theory cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific theory. QED. How many times do you want that statement explained to you?

I've noticed that quite often when evolutionary religionists cannot verify their claims they throw the burden of proof on IDers.

Not what happened. I asked for a falsification criteria. See above. Without such a criteria, it is not a scientific theory - it's just blather (same as the giant chicken argument).

Fine, therefore I'll make a verifiable claim - and a challenge. It goes thusly: All experimentation has, at its source, a recognizable and absolutely essential design element.

This is an assertion without foundation and as such it can be gratuitously discarded. In addition, as I have previously pointed out, not all experiments are designed.

If you don't understand the first bit of that, it means, that your statement is not a prediction of your theory, that it contains no means of verification, that there is no falsifiable criteria attributable to ID/IOT, that is has no relationship to your argument or ID/IOT, that it is a meaningless statement.

Show me even *one* evolutionary experiment which has no design basis.

I already did.

So answer my question, how is your assertion different than the giant chicken argument?

176 posted on 10/10/2002 1:10:15 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
So you admit that you cannot experimentally disprove ID.

This was agreed to earlier precisely because it's a meaningless statement.

It's exactly the same as saying that we cannot experimentally disprove the idea that a giant chicken from Pasadena named Harry created the cosmos.

177 posted on 10/10/2002 1:13:03 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Baloney.  This is a standard evolutionary argument I've heard more than once.  And it does not hold water.  Either evolution happened by chance or it didn't.  If evolutionists don't believe in chance and they don't believe in ID, they don't believe in anything.

But as far as postulations are concerned, you are trying to bend the rules to fit your perceptions.  You can easily recognize effect without understanding cause.  Quite a bit of science (especially bleeding edge stuff) involves this adage.  We still don't know what makes Thorsen tubes work and those have been around for 100 years.  We can see the effect of gamma ray bursters, but still don't know much about them.  Black holes have been predicted but, to my knowledge, none has actually been discovered (although I know of several possibilities which are being checked out now).

The point is that science consists of a lot of unknowns.  And if you were to require people to ignore effects because they don't understand the cause, science would still be stuck in the 12th century.
178 posted on 10/10/2002 1:13:30 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: gore3000; RadioAstronomer; longshadow; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; Junior; Condorman; general_re; ...
"...bunch of thugs"

We need a FReeper-evo-thug-a-thon!!!!!!!! T-shirts will be distributed! :-D

Evo-thuggers unite!

179 posted on 10/10/2002 2:30:23 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
We need a FReeper-evo-thug-a-thon!!!!!!!! T-shirts will be distributed! :-D

I like the sound of this.

In as much as I suck at art, I nominate YOU to be in charge of the "Thugs for Science" tee-shirt design.

180 posted on 10/10/2002 2:57:57 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-284 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson