Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[PatrickHenry]

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?

You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.

[taxesareforever]

This is where you got yours and I got mine from the same place. Read it and weep Mr.Selector: "the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) n., pl. -ries. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

[tomzz]

Take a look at this site. This should keep the hands waving for weeks (if you actually read anything, which I very strongly doubt):

Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak....

The flood is a true story. Every antique nation had its own account of the story and Greeks and Chinese noted that handsfull of humans and animals survived here and there on high places and anything which could float for the better part of a year, but most of the animals which survive today owe their survival to Noah.

The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger, solar-system-wide calamity.

In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice within a short space:

Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights;...

Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."

These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:

"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."

Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood. The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".

It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the flood. It may not say so directly, but the ages given in Genesis 5 along with the note that the flood began in the 600'th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) add up that way:

Gen. 5:25 ->

"And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years.

<i.e. he lived 969 - 187 = 782 years after Lamech's birth>

And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years and begat a son. And he called his name Noah...

<182 + 600 = 782 also...>

Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood; seven days prior to the flood...

Louis Ginzburg's seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into German and English to my knowledge, expands upon the laconic tales of the OT.

From Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:

...however, Lekah, Gen. 7.4) BR 3.6 (in the week of mourning for Methuselah, God caused the primordial light to shine).... God did not wish Methuselah to die at the same time as the sinners...

The reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4, which reads:

"For yet seven days, and I shall cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights..."

The note that "God did not wish Methusaleh to die at the same time as the sinners" indicates that Methusaleh died at pretty nearly precisely the beginning of the week prior to the flood. The week of "God causing the primordial lights to shine" was the week of intense light before the flood.

What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take extraordinary precautions.

[Coyoteman]

You have not addressed the problem that the evidence for a global flood is entirely lacking. Not there. Nada. Zip. Never happened.

If you wish to argue to the contrary, bring evidence, not Biblical quotations.

I note also, that you have not asked about the evidence I have accumulated from my own research, which is not rebutted in the creation "science" websites.

[tomzz]

Oh, yeah, Mark Isaac and others claim nobody could build a wooden ship big enough for the bible story. Apparently nobody ever told that to that third Ming Emperor back around 1320:

[RunningWolf]

mistakenly named "Big Bang" instead of "Big Bong"

For some reason that triggered a memory, so I googled.. lsd dna leary
and the very first hit you get is Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD when he discovered the secret of life.

W.

[tomzz]

You have not addressed the problem that the evidence for a global flood is entirely lacking. Not there. Nada. Zip. Never happened.

The evidence for it is overwhelming. What do you think continental shelves are if not simply the pre-flood ocean boundaries?

[Coyoteman]

I've actually heard of that ship. It was pretty big.

Now address the other few hundred points.

Or, if you're brave, ask me about my own research.

[Liberal Classic]

What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself.

[SoldierDad]

Based on post #1097, I'd say there is definately a devil. Thank GOD he lost the race.

[Alamo-Girl]

But then, inevitably that might get you into the "teaching the controversy" problem; and, not only is that wildly unpopular with the status quo, but practically speaking you couldn't find many teachers today actually able/qualified to teach such a course.

So very true. Thank you for your outstanding essay-post!

[taxesareforever]

I note also, that you have not asked about the evidence I have accumulated from my own research, which is not rebutted in the creation "science" websites.

They don't rebutt comics on the creationist websites. They leave that to the evo sites.

[taxesareforever]

I knew there was a connection somewhere. :)

[FreedomProtector]

The belief in evolution by chance and natural process is based on ultimately based on faith, not scientific verification and observation. Since no one can or has ever verified evolution, either spontaneous generation or one species miraculously changing into another in the laboratory, and no one has invented time machine a back in time and watch the origin of life and all its diverse forms, evolution is ultimately based on faith.

Evolutionists themselves state that evolution is religious.

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, a leading evolutionist is often considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, a primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "Religion Without Revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: “Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.” [Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964) pp. 125, 222.] Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.” Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."

Evolutionist and senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson: “If we accept [Karl] Popper’s distinction between science and non-science, we must first ask whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical) … Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.” [Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1978), pp. 145-146

Evolutionist Harrison Matthews in the Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”
[L. Harrison Matthews in the Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971)



Evolutionists like to pompously masquerade repeatedly stating like a broken record that is evolution is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character. Not so. Religious is exactly the right word to describe it. The philosophy of “matter is all there is” (Carl Sagan) is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of anything supernatural—requires a leap of faith. All people have a religious worldview--all people have presuppositions about ultimate reality. No one is neutral. Evolutionists openly state their presuppositions starting with the assertion that "Evolution is a fact". Nevermind the fact that no one has ever verified evolution--either spontaneous generation or one species miraculously changing into another. With religious fervor evolutionists presume that they know the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it.

“Evolution is a fact, not a theory.”
Carl Sagan

“The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact…”
Julian Huxley

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

…The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434

Professor of Genetics, Dr. Whitten, University of Melbourne:
“Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.”
Professor Whitten, 1980 Assembly Week address, University of Melbourne.



Evolution is the central doctrine and provides the foundational basis for the religion of Secular Humanism.

The Humanist Manifesto I: “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”

Evolutionist Julian Huxley: “I use the word ‘Humanist’ to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or a plant, that his body, his mind, and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural Being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.”

Humanist Manifesto II: As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity……humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves…..human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces….

John Dewey, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto I, wrote A Common Faith, in which he said, ‘Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race. . . . It remains to make it explicit and militant.’

In its decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (June 19, 1961), the U.S. Supreme Court stated, ‘Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.’ A few years later (1965) the Supreme Court allowed Daniel Seeger conscientious objector status because of his religious beliefs. He claimed to be a Secular Humanist.

Since no one can or has ever verified evolution, either spontaneous generation or one species miraculously changing into another in the laboratory, evolutionists themselves state that evolution is religious, and evolution is the central doctrine that provides the foundational basis for the religion of Secular Humanism, evolution is a religion.

Amendment I of the constitution states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There are two clauses, "establishment" and "no prohibition." The first says the federal government may not establish a religion, secular or otherwise. The second says that the federal government may not prohibit an individual's free exercise of religion; that is, the individual right of conscience is inviolable. Since evolution is a religion, the “no prohibition” clause in the constitution is violated by only allowing teaching of one secular religion evolution and prohibiting other views. By only allowing only one secular religion to be taught, and subsequently financially supporting it, the government is establishing a particular state sponsored religion. The establishment clause was never intended to protect people from religion (hence the “no prohibition” clause), it was intended to protect people from a particular state sponsored religion. Both the establishment clause and the no prohibition clause are violated when the state says that only evolution should be taught.

"Should a view be taught/should a view be allowed to be taught?" is not the right question. Maybe this is a valid question for a classroom in the former Soviet Union, but not for America. There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry and freedom of religion, secular or otherwise. The right questions which should be asked by anyone whether they are in a classroom regulated by an all-knowing state or not are: Which view is probable? Which view is most likely true?

[taxesareforever]

Let me think: Coyoteman research Bible, Coyoteman research Bible.
I believe I will stay with the unfathomable God and His Word and dispense with the fathomable Coyoteman and his human research.

[Quark2005]

The theory of evolution is an observed phenomenon, and is not synonymous with secular humanism.

[Coyoteman]

There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry and freedom of religion, secular or otherwise. The right questions which should be asked by anyone whether they are in a classroom regulated by an all-knowing state or not are: Which view is probable? Which view is most likely true? [emphasis added]

That's why the theory of evolution is in the science classes, and creation "science" and its recent Trojan horse stepchild, ID, are sitting on the sidelines snivelling, "its not fair!"

[Coyoteman]

Your post was a total non-sequitor.

Would you like to try again?

[jennyp]

Exactly what happened in my sone Bio class last year. They spent some time on evolution, less than a week, and as they covered it, the teacher told them that he was going to teach them what they needed to know to pass the regents test. He told them that he didn't care if it made sense to them or not or whether they thought it was right or not, if the kids didn't put down these answers, they would get marked wrong on the test. So the point was, don't think for yourself, it'll only get you in trouble with your grade on the regents if you reach a different conclusion from the results that they want to hear.

But you realize why they approached it that way, don't you? It's (most likely) because that's the best way they found to minimize the risk of some passionate creationist student from constantly disrupting the class by bringing up bogus arguments & gotcha's that they read in some righteous creationist website. And it minimizes the risk that a group of creationist parents will storm into the principal's office in high dudgeon, demanding that they stop that evil biology teacher from indoctrinating their children with all these godless lies...

[freedumb2003]

The belief in evolution by chance and natural process is based on ultimately based on faith, not scientific verification and observation. Since no one can or has ever verified evolution, either spontaneous generation or one species miraculously changing into another in the laboratory, and no one has invented time machine a back in time and watch the origin of life and all its diverse forms, evolution is ultimately based on faith.

So sad you posted ALL THAT text, when there is no point in reading beyond the first PPH (helpful hint: Don't go beyond a few sentences).

Your very first sentence demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. No one ever saw the initiation of the Red Shift, yet we see the indirect results on instrumentation.

Contrary to your cute and naive assumptions of what science demands, there is no "direct observation" requirement. Else we would not be able to construct a Theory of Gravity, a Theory of Light, and other theories which, to the uneducated, seem to be now what is "scientific law."

Evolution is based on the same as all other science: observation, proper analysis, application of falsification, and many other precepts you are clearly not familiar with.

Turn your back and drop a spoon. If you don't see it hit the floor, did it do so? You didn't OBSERVE it. So you have no way of KNOWING, except trough inference, that if "fell."

That is your assertion in a nutshell. Sophomoric musings.

[FreedomProtector]

theory of evolution is "not synonymous with secular humanism."

True.

Intelligent design/creation are not synonymous with Christainity either.

However, creation is a fundamental religious doctrine of Christainity and evolution is a fundamental religious doctrine of secular humanism.


"theory of evolution is an observed phenomenon"

When you observe spontaneous generation or one species changing into another I sure you will be very famous. You will probably have your picture on a magazine as "Person of the year".