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.
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.
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
Seems you continue to take pride in remaining ignorant of opposing evidence. No wonder all you can do is indulge in lame insults.
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.
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?
Everything in science proceeds by speculation and verification.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.