Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.
The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]
Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.
"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."
Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.
"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."
Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.
>>>>
The most compelling evidence supporting Darwin's theory is not hominid fossil evidence found in East Africa, but genetic evidence showing our similarities with other higher primates such as chimps, bonobos, and gorillas.<<<<What's in the Fridge?. Origins Research 13:1
It's from that moment which is two months after fertilization, that we don't call any longer human being embryos, we call them fetuses. And that is very true to change the name just because it tell a very plain evidence: Nobody in the world looking for the first time at a Tom Thumb bag, looking at an embryo of two months of a chimpanzee, of a gorilla, of an orangutan, or of a man, nobody in the world would make a mistake just looking at him. It's obvious this one is a chimpanzee, this one is an orangutan, this one is gorilla, this one is a man.
Q. Certainly. I think I have read somewhere, and I'm sure if I'm not right you'll correct me, that genetically as far as the chromosomes, as far as the contents of the DNA in the chromosomes, for instance, man, Homo sapiens, and the higher mammals, particularly the gorillas, chimpanzeeshelp me look for that species.
A. Orangutan.
Q. There is a remarkable similarity?
A. Well, it depends what you remark. You can remark the similarity, or you can remark the differences. And difference is incredibly interesting. I don't know where you want to ask me.
Q. Well, I have heard it said or read that approximately ninety-eight percent of the genetic material that is found in a chimpanzee or gorilla is identical to what may be found in a human being.
A. It has been written, and it has been written by statistical calculation of the DNA but not about the meaning of it. Now, what makes ninety percent similarity in the number of words in two different texts? They can mean something very different by the way the sentence are made. It's what makes the difference between the species.
Q. But there is a similarity in the DNA?
A. Oh, yes, exactly like the similarity in the fact they have two hands like us, not the same thumb, but they have hands, we have feet, but they are the most similar to us, no doubt. It's no surprise that the DNA also has some similarity.
Q. But the same basic process that we observe in human beings we also observe in chimpanzees?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Mice?
A. Mice, I would not go that far but partly.
Q. Mice have zygotes?
A. Oh, yes, I mean--I want to make clear when we speak about basic mechanism we have to know what we mean by basic. For example, I told you the enormous importance of methylation of the DNA we discovered those years. But, for example, Drosophila does not methylate the DNA.
Q. That's the fruit fly?
A. That's the fruit fly but it's a very complex organism. It's makes a differentiation of cells that makes me believe that with methylation we have unveiled one of the tricks used by nature, but there are other tricks we are still using, we men, that were sufficient to build a Drosophila but would not be sufficient to build the human being. I would not agree that basic mechanism are the same in the whole living system. Surely it's much more complicated to build a human being, to determinate on one cell the wiring of his brain so that he will some day invent machine to help his own brain to understand the law of the universe. There is something peculiar to the human beings compared to others, you know. I will tell you one thing, very simple: I'm traveling a lot, and as far as I can I visit two points which are very important for me when I go in a new town: One is the university and other is the zoological garden. In the university I have often seen very grave professors asking themselves whether after all their children when they were very young were not animals, but I have never seen in a zoological garden a congress of chimpanzees asking themselves whether their children when they are grown up will become universitarians. I feel there is a difference somewhere.
Perhaps we should set them up in a public debate (If Behe doesn't have minimum requirements).
Oh? Did you want a serious answer? How does one seriously respond to such comments as:
Behe's response was essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Dirtboy has graciously conceded that you are wrong.
Hats off to dirtboy.
>>>>
First off it is ridiculous to call people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, fossil thumpers.<<<<Mouth foaming, social Darwinist, fossil thumping, biased EVILUTIONIST.
Even across the vast gulf of the internet, I'm sure we can all positively feel the love radiating from you...
Don't do unto others and then complain when they do the same to you.
It's main motive for all sorts of groups (mostly leftist) including gayz, feminists, anti-WOD bunch, the 60's radicals, the existentialist philosophers, atheists, and other assorted societal misfits and rebels.
Apparently, things changed when I wasn't looking - I must have missed a memo or something...
The British Humanist solution to evolution's many problems.
"Can you say Intellectually bankrupt?"
...hypocrites.
OK, let's start out with the Grand Canyon. True enough, there are many, many layers of horizontal sedimentary rocks. large angular unconformity - or other sedimentary layers that were subsequently tilted, eroded and then they became a depositional surface. In addition, if there was a singular, great flood, there would be a transgression and regression sequence in the Grand Canyon - rocks would go from shallow-water to deep-water depositional forms and then back again in a singular sequence. Instead, you see many different depositional environments, including some terrestial sandstones. How does the Genesis account of the flood account for this?
I don't think Genesis has anything to say about the GC. Creationist geologists don't say that it was carved out by the flood itself, but by an ancient lake draining suddenly through the canyon.
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.