Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
Ah yes, that silly ol' argument. It goes like this:
1. All lab experiments are designed by humans.I think that sums up your case. If I left out any steps, please feel free to let me know.
2. Therefore ... the case for ID is proven!
Then they should also teach the belief of Aliens seeding the earth as well.
Exactly, "intellegent design" is a theory for "dumb hicks."
You know, it is funny that men like Einstein and C.S. Lewis (two of the most brilliant minds of the 20th Century) were not supporters of macro-evolution.
I read a quote from Lewis once where he put it in really simple terms..."If there was nothing in the beginning, without a Creator, there would still be nothing."
The very idea that life evolved from non-life has been challenged from the top Physicists, Chemists, and even some biologists (especially DNA scientists).
So, I'd say this writer is a scared liberal--afraid that the weak theory he agrees with is on the way out--it has been that way in science for a while, it's about time the schools catch up!
I wouldn't use the word silly. There's no reason to inflame people.
Science has proven one or two things over the years, and people who choose not to believe evolution are living in denial of a proven fact. That doesn't mean if you believe in God your faith should be broken.
I resent the constant drumbeat that I'm supposed to believe in evolution if I'm a good conservative. No.
Darwin was right.
'Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts'
Science can not prove the theory of evolution. It takes more "faith" to believe in it than Creation. Creation follows sound scientific principles.
You don't know the meaning of the word "faith." You also don't have a clue about the scientific method. But that's okay, because we're here to help: The scientific method.
That there are that many ignorant people is pretty scary.<<
LOL! I thought that same thing on 1992 and in 1996!
Yeah, one man's theory is the other man's religion, when it comes to the topic of origins. I say we let the young minds in on the debate.
What is there to fear?
Brian.
Y-a-w-n.
Summary of typical hitpiece: "Let's confuse science with philosophy, throw in a few Latin terms, and hope the ignorant masses don't catch on. There are only 2 roads: Evolution or religion. Evolution is a fact, not really a theory; we just screwed up the semantics. Everything else must be "religion." Forget the disappointments of the fossil record. Forget the numerous missing links hoaxes and fallacious ascent records we used for many years to "prove" the religious nuts wrong. Forget the glaring evidence of design. Ignore scientific inquiries in fields like the mathematics of probability. Ignore the fallacy of reasoning from a conclusion ("sure macroevolution is infinitely improbable, but we're here, so it must have happened.") We believe that somehow, an amorphous mass began to undergo millions of benefical mutations until it developed the human eye, and sense of aesthetics, etc. Don't question our faith, you ignorant Bible thumpers."
Exactly...
I like "Wired"! Also 2600. :-)
bump
"Given the absurd number of times bacteria have reproduced in the last 100+ years that we've been observing them (millions given the rapid rate of reproduction), how many new bacterial species have been seen? Any?"
Haven't looked for any new species of bacteria, but I have noticed that 500 lb pumpkins now exist. Granted, it took a little help from mankind, but that's exactly what Mother Nature does day in and day out. Help species evolve. I've also noticed that mankind is evolving. We're getting larger and dumber as time goes by.
It might help the argument if the author understood that evolution and natural selection are not synonymous terms.
(Pssst: That's not a new species. It's still a pumpkin).
Pure and total codswallop!
PH; your list-o-links?
>>It's a system of verifiable facts
LOL. Like the world is flat? Like nothing escapes from black holes? (Hawking was wrong on that one!)
Science is a system of facts, postulates, and hypothesis.
There is a difference between proven, verifiable facts and theory.
Evolution at best is a theory, one that is constantly shifting. While the consensus of the scientific community upholds the theory and gives it some credibility, it doesn't mean it's facutual or accurate.
This is not to say the theory is hogwash, or that there are not verifiable facts. However, to say Evolution is proven and verified is a gross misunderstanding of science.
Having said the idea of "intelligent design" has been co-opted by those who wish to rewrite scientific thoery according to scripture.
I believe there is a better case for an "intelligent design" than what is being put out right now. Unfortunatly the "bible alone" crowd has co-opted this phrase and by doing so have discredited an intelligent "intelligent design" theory.
This statement is absolutely false and in fact the opposite is true. The vast weight of scientific evidence and research supports intelligent design. Understand too that what has raised the heckles and upped the ante has been the tendency of the evolutionists to refer to their teaching as 'the fact of evolution', not 'the theory of evolution'. However, be that as it may, both have to be accepted on faith as no one can go back thousands, millions or billions of years to see what went on way back then. Here's the conclusion that I've come to as far as this subject for public and high schools. I don't think that it is necessary to teach either - and in fact neither should be taught as 'origins' has nothing to do with understanding the science of anything. Here's the human eye - here's how it works, here's how it relates to the rest of the body, the biology of it, differences from one eye to the next etc etc - where did it come from? Oh, that's a mystery and we don't need to go there to understand the eye. Ban both evolutionary and creation teaching from the public classroom. As a matter of fact, ban public education.
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.