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

Skip to comments.

Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]
Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry

A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.

The ruling this month in Georgia by Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ordering the Cobb County School Board to remove stickers it had inserted in biology textbooks questioning Darwin's theory of evolution is being appealed by the suburban Atlanta district. Similar legal battles pitting evolution against biblical creationism are erupting across the country. Judges are conscientiously observing the constitutionally required separation of church and state, and specifically a 1987 Supreme Court ruling forbidding the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in public schools. But seekers of scientific truth have to be unnerved by a November 2004 CBS News poll in which nearly two-thirds of Americans favored teaching creationism, the notion that God created heaven and earth in six days, alongside evolution in schools.

If this style of "science" ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies. Much of the Arab world is stuck in a miasma of imam-enforced repression and non-thought. Could it happen here? Our Constitution protects creativity and dissent, but no civilization has lasted forever, and our current national leaders seem happy with the present trends.

It is the creationists, of course, who forecast doom if U.S. schools follow a secularist path. Science, however, by its nature, relies on evidence, and all the fossil and other evidence points toward an evolved human species over millions of years on a planet tens of millions of years old [ooops!] in a universe over two billion years in existence [ooops again!].

Some creationists are promoting an idea they call "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism, eliminating the randomness and survival-of-the-fittest of Darwinian thought. But, again, no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's. Science classes can only teach the scientific method or they become meaningless.

Many creationists say that teaching Darwin is tantamount to teaching atheism, but most science teachers, believers as well as non-believers, scoff at that. The Rev. Warren Eschbach, a professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., believes that "science is figuring out what God has already done" and the book of Genesis was never "meant to be a science textbook for the 21st century." Rev. Eschbach is the father of Robert Eschbach, one of the science teachers in Dover, Pa., who refused to teach a school-board-mandated statement to biology students criticizing the theory of evolution and promoting intelligent design. Last week, the school district gathered students together and the statement was read to them by an assistant superintendent.

Similar pro-creationist initiatives are underway in Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina. And a newly elected creationist majority on the state board of education in Kansas plans to rewrite the entire state's science curriculum this spring. This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antitheist; atheistgestapo; chickenlittle; creationism; crevolist; cryingwolf; darwin; evolution; governmentschools; justatheory; seculartaliban; stateapprovedthought; theskyisfalling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,106 next last
I added a couple of [ooops] remarks where the article obviously goes scientifically astray.

Everyone be nice.

1 posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 220 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

2 posted on 01/22/2005 7:40:10 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Saudi-style religious dogma

I always appreciate it when newspaper writers put a piece of egregious stupidity in their first paragraph as a signal that I don't need to watse my time reading the rest of the piece. Nice of them.

3 posted on 01/22/2005 7:42:33 AM PST by ScottFromSpokane (http://drunkengop.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

By definition of the term, America can never be a 'third world county'. but I digress


4 posted on 01/22/2005 7:47:05 AM PST by bencarter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Why are they so against just advising students that evolution is a theory? No one has said Genesis was now their textbook. Why not allow more than one opinion? Isn't science about questioning?


5 posted on 01/22/2005 7:56:08 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
No one I know on the evolution side (teacher, scientists) are against teaching the theory of evolution. Gravity is a theory as well. <p.The issue is the use of "theory" as if it meant "hypothesis". In other words, the only reason creationists want to unnecessarily underscore the "theory" part is in an effort to spread doubt.
6 posted on 01/22/2005 8:05:22 AM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
... where the article obviously goes scientifically astray.

But let us also note the errors are significant UNDERSTATEMENTS.

7 posted on 01/22/2005 8:07:49 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Everyone be nice.

6 posts in an hour. See what happens to crevo threads when you put restrictions like that on them

8 posted on 01/22/2005 8:41:58 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Not a tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; EdReform; Born Conservative; missyme; ApesForEvolution; Southack; Cobra64
"no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's."

...none, EXCEPT for the many firsthand testimonies of Noah's Ark and collusion among many in Turkey's government and elsewhere to minimize opportunities to access the mountain range in which it's been reportedly seen by many....and the fact that if the solar system was anywhere near as old as some claim--our sun would have been so much larger--its gravitational pull would have been so much higher--that the innermost planets by now would have spiraled into it by now....

It is a curious fact that, while neither theory of origins can prove itself or disprove its rival SCIENTIFICALLY, it is the Darwinists who religiously clamor that only the dogma of THEIR church be proselytized in government taxpayer-supported classrooms to the children of the taxpayers--while simultaneously seeking to quash free-market opportunities via vouchers and INDEPENDENT charter schools for these same parents to have taught to their kids according to their beliefs.

Related FR threads:

Intellectuals Who Doubt Darwin
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7429

Why Darwinists Fear Democracy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308881/posts

Darwinists Top the Censorship Food Chain
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309195/posts

Also see: Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/
9 posted on 01/22/2005 8:44:17 AM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (AHEM Useful Idiots: YOU are the REDS. You and your Red-Stream Media. True America is BLUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottFromSpokane
I always appreciate it when newspaper writers put a piece of egregious stupidity in their first paragraph as a signal that I don't need to watse my time reading the rest of the piece. Nice of them.

When you look at the stated goals of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle based organization promoting ID, a Saudi style theocracy is indeed their goal. Granted, it is a Christian theology, which generally I support. Except not in schools, and not mandated by government. We ended that in the Americas sometime after they chased my ancestors out of Hampton NH in the 1630's because they were Quaker.

The Discovery Institute published on their web site (and has since removed) a strategy they call the "Wedge". It is to promote a non-God "Intellegent Design" to get science to accept the idea that some kind of supernatural exists, despite no evidence for it.

Then the plan is to replace that belief in a generic supernatural with a Christian faith. I don't doubt that since this is specifically directed at government schools, that they fully intend on carrying this over into government mandates as well.

Who knows what would happen after decades of such government sponsord religion? Perhaps a return to government mandated tithes as existed in New England well after the First Amendment (since the First only prevented Congress from establishing a religion, a strict interpretation allows States to do so, and they once did).

Perhaps the Taliban example is a bit strong, because Christianity was never that violent in the Americas. But in England, it certianly was.

10 posted on 01/22/2005 8:48:30 AM PST by narby ( A truly Intelligent Designer, would have designed Evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
it is the Darwinists who religiously clamor that only the dogma of THEIR church be proselytized in government taxpayer-supported classrooms to the children of the taxpayers--while simultaneously seeking to quash free-market opportunities via vouchers and INDEPENDENT charter schools for these same parents to have taught to their kids according to their beliefs.

It is not a religious dogma. It is science. Creationism is the dogmatic belief.

I am all for vouchers, and Charter schools, as are many pro-evolutionists. The point is irrelevant. They have nothing to do with one another.

My children are in private Christian schools.

11 posted on 01/22/2005 8:52:01 AM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why are they so against just advising students that evolution is a theory?

I was taught that it was a theory about 45 years ago and as far as I know it is always taught as a theory. Do you have evidence otherwise?

12 posted on 01/22/2005 8:52:41 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: narby
Perhaps the Taliban example is a bit strong, because Christianity was never that violent in the Americas. But in England, it certianly was

Excellent points - both.

13 posted on 01/22/2005 8:53:45 AM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
So you are a genuine young earth creationist eh. The DI folks gave up on that 20 years ago. But perhaps their wedge strategy is working. They keep beating their drum and telling the lie over and over and over. And pretty soon, people like you believe it.

Note the suicide bombers. You can tell anyone anything over and over, and they'll buy it.

I'm just amazed that people seem driven to reject Evolution, when I see no real conflict between it and Genesis. It's all in the interpretation. No two denominations ever agreed on interpreting the Bible, and I guess they never will.

14 posted on 01/22/2005 8:54:27 AM PST by narby ( A truly Intelligent Designer, would have designed Evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I like the 'be nice' part. But I think you Established Religion true believers protest too much. If you really believed challenges to your doctrine were silly, you wouldn't over-react contstantly and continually. But lets get started; evolution is ridiculous.
Nothing organizes without Mind. Chance DISorganizes.


15 posted on 01/22/2005 8:54:51 AM PST by metacognative (follow the gravy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NJ Neocon
The issue is the use of "theory" as if it meant "hypothesis".

Every crevo thread I've ever read on these boards, this point about the word 'theory' needs to be made repeatedly... repeatedly, and then repeatedly. It is such a simple concept, yet it comes up over and over, I cannot understand how this myth can be so pervasive that it needs to be reiterated endlessly.

Are there just so many people on these boards who haven't got the first clue about science that we have yet to reach all of them?

Is it the same people over and over again who either refuse to understand, or just forget what a theory means in science?

It gets really tiresome having to deal with the same stupid misconception in every crevo thread. It sort of precludes an intelligent debate about a science issue when the majority of one side has forgotten what they learned in grade 5 science class.

I'm curious why you, and anyone else here, thinks this simple misconception just won't die. Thoughts?
16 posted on 01/22/2005 8:55:09 AM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte
I feel your pain, but you answered your own question. That stupid label they pulled off the text books was all about making the thoroughly redundant point that Evolution was a theory.

I think the reason we have to keep repeating it is NOT that the Creationists don't know it, but because many of them don't care. The idea is to discredit evolution. Admitting the difference between theory & hypothesis weakens their goal.

17 posted on 01/22/2005 8:59:33 AM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte
I'm curious why you, and anyone else here, thinks this simple misconception just won't die. Thoughts?

Most poeple are ignorant of the sciences.

18 posted on 01/22/2005 9:09:18 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"If this style of 'science' ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies."

But this is what was taught for many years during a time when this nation grew to greatness.

Since evolution has been taught, social institutions have been in decline. Though Americans are richer and have less work than ever before, as a whole, we also are more lazy, dissatisfied, selfish, immoral, dishonest and generally uneducated than ever before.

If we do not get back to the underlying moral principles that made us great, our greatness will also become a thing of the past.


19 posted on 01/22/2005 9:09:43 AM PST by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
But lets get started; evolution is ridiculous.

Compelling argument, you'll have me up all night pondering it's profound intricacies, way to "get it started."

Nothing organizes without Mind. Chance DISorganizes.

False, where do you get this stuff? Lot's of things in the natural world order without any help. Any crystalline structure comes to mind, salt, snowflakes... The wind forms patterns in the sand and rock... All you need is energy.
20 posted on 01/22/2005 9:12:10 AM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

I just meant that they seem against any other point of view.


21 posted on 01/22/2005 9:12:32 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NJ Neocon
Why is it that we're seeing a new religious dogma develop around attacking Evolution?

I suppose it is easier to organize people if there is a "bad guy", a demon somewhere to oppose. It elevates emotions, and opens wallets.

Although I support Christianity, I suppose there is no way to prevent some denominations from attempting to replace science with theology except by making it painful for them to do so. And at the same time they need reasurance that Evolution is not anti-Christian. Opposing ID needs to be a carrot and stick strategy.

The stick is forcing Christians to actually read and defend the Bible. Pointing out the two separate and different creation stories in Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4 forces them to acknowledge that the Bible cannot be taken word-for-word litterally. There must be some interpretation, so they might as well interpret it to allow for Evolution.

The carrot is pointing out how grand a design Evolution actually is. And that God is so great that He designed a truly wonderful system. A system that has operated itself for 2-3 billion years. An adaptive, and immortal system, that man could only dream of designing.

22 posted on 01/22/2005 9:12:41 AM PST by narby ( A truly Intelligent Designer, would have designed Evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Everyone be nice.

You post an article that basically calls doubters of evolution "Ayatolla's" and you want us to be nice? What's the matter, you couldn't find an article that calls us "terrorists" or charge us with killing innocent women and children?

23 posted on 01/22/2005 9:14:06 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


24 posted on 01/22/2005 9:16:22 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

He's a troll, who just happens to have been on Free Republic for a while.


25 posted on 01/22/2005 9:17:38 AM PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I just meant that they seem against any other point of view.

No. You said they were against advising them that it was just a theory.

I guess you would also like them to teach that aliens brought life to the earth?

26 posted on 01/22/2005 9:20:06 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The only "Ayatollahs" I see represented in this article are "activist judges" imposing their dogmas on the citizens of Georgia.


27 posted on 01/22/2005 9:21:24 AM PST by Gritty ("blue staters’ theophobia is more pervasive than red staters’ homophobia"-Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte
It sort of precludes an intelligent debate about a science issue when the majority of one side has forgotten what they learned in grade 5 science class.

There is a different mindset in highly religious people. It's more emotion than logic. They have their belief, and they're sticking with it.

One thing that I have not seen much attention in science is the study of how people are lead. How are political movements (which are almost entirely emotional) generated. This is a very tough thing to study. But political movements are the most powerful thing in human civilization. They need to be studied, and that research distributed as wide as possible. This will take the edge off of these movements, and dampen their ability to do damage.

The ID movement has become very sophisticated, and has broken the boundary of what we would call religion, and is now into politics. Similar to activities of the Sierra Club and PETA on the left. Like those entities, the ID movement is self sustaining by seeking donations and selling media to those it convinces. Like the Greens, who have a demon to oppose in "big business", ID organizations have an evil in "Evolution" to oppose. It is a highly seductive method of gathering and keeping a political following.

In the end, it could be very dangerous. Where the Greens took basically non-religious people and formed a "Gaia" following that they don't claim to be a religion. The ID people at the Discovery Institute are attempting to hijack a genuine established religion and get it to do it's bidding. I don't think they have any evil designs. But they are after power. And power does corrupt. What the ID movement may spawn in 50 years we will probably not like.

28 posted on 01/22/2005 9:32:07 AM PST by narby ( A truly Intelligent Designer, would have designed Evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: narby

"young earth creationist"

In my reference to burn/size/gravitational pull I cited a physics argument against an old earth. Do you have a rebuttal or just a rebuff based in your own theories and memes?

I am looking for scientific rationale, as an empiricist with faith in God. Please show me you are an empiricist as well--with faith in not only your belief, but an astrophysics-appropriate validation or argument. Thanks.


29 posted on 01/22/2005 9:32:35 AM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (AHEM Useful Idiots: YOU are the REDS. You and your Red-Stream Media. True America is BLUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
In my reference to burn/size/gravitational pull I cited a physics argument against an old earth.

You "cite" but you give no basis for your citation.

I now cite "If God were a good god, he would allow innocent babies to suffer, therefore he is an evil god."

30 posted on 01/22/2005 9:36:40 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Why would you think I would want students taught that aliens brought life to earth?


31 posted on 01/22/2005 9:36:59 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte

I'm relatively new but posted on another related thread a thought about Creationists-by-Faith versus Creationists-by-Argument.

I have utmost respect for Creationists-by-Faith.

Creationists-by-Argument seem to me to be dishonest at some level and don't believe their own rhetoric. It may be that they are dishonest with themselves and fear that to accept evolution is to somehow lose their faith. I wonder if meeting deeply religious people who accept the theory of evolution as a wonderful evidence of the glory and magnificence of Creation would relax that group. One might hope.


32 posted on 01/22/2005 9:41:00 AM PST by e p1uribus unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: narby
Why are you against God? For generations the Bible was read in schools and teachers prayed and everyone survived. I don't understand why people are against God in school. This nation was founded by people who believed in God and wanted to worship God and thanked God for this nation. Why all of a sudden must God be kicked out of schools and other institutions? Whose idea was this? The majority of Americans who believe in God and believe in creationism? Or was it a small, radically atheist group with the help of judges who see the Constitution as something to be overcome?
33 posted on 01/22/2005 9:43:20 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
and the fact that if the solar system was anywhere near as old as some claim--our sun would have been so much larger--

What "fact"! Oh, it was stated on some creationist's web-site therefore it is FACT.

34 posted on 01/22/2005 9:45:16 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why would you think I would want students taught that aliens brought life to earth?

I thought you were in favor of teaching the students that other alternative to evolution existed.

35 posted on 01/22/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: e p1uribus unum
I have utmost respect for Creationists-by-Faith.

Same here. Creationists-by-Argument seem to me to be dishonest at some level and don't believe their own rhetoric. It may be that they are dishonest with themselves and fear that to accept evolution is to somehow lose their faith. I wonder if meeting deeply religious people who accept the theory of evolution as a wonderful evidence of the glory and magnificence of Creation would relax that group. One might hope.

Ditto! Excellent!

36 posted on 01/22/2005 9:49:19 AM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why are you against God?

Did God tell you that? Nothing in his post infers that.

37 posted on 01/22/2005 9:49:23 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: narby

"...One thing that I have not seen much attention in science is the study of how people are lead. How are political movements (which are almost entirely emotional) generated...."

Study advertising and sales. They've got it.

Also some studies like the one popularized by the book "Obedience to Authority" by Milgrim.


38 posted on 01/22/2005 9:50:21 AM PST by e p1uribus unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why all of a sudden must God be kicked out of schools and other institutions?

Why do yo distort. No one here has ever said that. In fact, many have supported the teaching of religions in a RELIGION class. But not in a science class.

39 posted on 01/22/2005 9:50:52 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: narby
There is a different mindset in highly religious people. It's more emotion than logic. They have their belief, and they're sticking with it.

So much that they will pretend they don't understand the semantics of the word 'theory' simply not to disturb their beliefs? That mentality has frightening implications.

I don't care who espouses what philosophical or religious ideas, I only care when they start purposely misrepresenting science like IDers and creationists do. I don't know much about PETA and the 'Greens,' so I won't comment on them.
Without science on their side, these groups are all rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

BTW Narby, I think we have very differing POV at a higher idealistic level, so this isn't backslapping, but I very much enjoy your posts. They seem well thought out and honest, and you present your points in an articulate manner. I hope to read lots more. Cheers.
40 posted on 01/22/2005 9:55:06 AM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why are they so against just advising students that evolution is a theory?

Because they confuse "theory" with "hypothesis." "Theory" in science is as close to fact as one could possibly get. The scientifically illiterate (read the vast majority of Americans) however, think "theory" means "guess."

41 posted on 01/22/2005 9:59:56 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
In my reference to burn/size/gravitational pull I cited a physics argument against an old earth.

You demand a scientific answer, yet you cannot provide one link to a scientific institution that supports your outrageous claims? The notion that all we know about astronomy, biology, archeology, paleontology, geology... is wrong would warrant a little attention from the scientific community, don't you think? In which case there would be tons of articles and papers on it, so you should be able to provide us with at least one link to an actual science institution that even mentions this fantastic idea of yours.... I won't hold my breath.
42 posted on 01/22/2005 10:01:21 AM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The scientifically illiterate (read the vast majority of Americans) however, think "theory" means "guess."

What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.

43 posted on 01/22/2005 10:01:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The scientifically illiterate (read the vast majority of Americans) however, think "theory" means "guess."

Our dictionaries support this. After several "correct" definitions, #5 says "guess". This is not the fault of the dictionary, since it has to reflect popular usage of words but does give ammunition for the creationists.

44 posted on 01/22/2005 10:03:14 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; narby; Blurblogger; WOSG; Physicist; RightWhale; Right Wing Professor; ...
"no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's."

Actually, the same evidence that supports Darwinism supports Intelligent Design.

Consider, for instance, if an alien society came to a dead Earth and began uncovering autombiles buried in a junkyard. The aliens would notice that the cars were progressively more advanced over time, but that year on year the cars had only minor changes from their earlier variants.

The aliens could then use that physical evidence of the cars buried in layers over more than a century to conclude either that the cars themselves evolved, or that the intelligent designers of the cars evolved.

The physical evidence, after all, would support both theories. Ditto for digging up fossils of animals and plants.

Of course, where Darwinism breaks down is not in the physical evidence or even in the Natural Selection process, but in the probability *math* required for the unaided sequencing of billions of genetic DNA instructions into their precise order (see: A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution).

In contrast, Intelligent Design holds up remarkably well to that same math. For instance, Intelligent Design precisely and accurately explains why computer programs are sequenced into their precise electronic coding order.

Probability math is still taught in our dilapadated public schools, one presumes, so applying that math to areas of known contention, where said math will show a precise scientific answer, seems like the obvious path.

Sadly, activist judges in Georgia and wild-eyed liberals in Massachusetts don't want such scholarly study to take place. Any attempt to investigate Darwinism with *math* is ruled out of bounds. Evolutionary *theory* must be accepted as fact, per those radicals, and no scientific challenges to said theory are to be permitted.

In this case, even the application of mere sticky notes that said "Evolution is a Theory" are banned by such activists.

Oh my goodness, not those "religiously dogmatic" sticky notes! How will "science" ever survive?! < /mocking! >

45 posted on 01/22/2005 10:06:07 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte
Without science on their side, these groups are all rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

Like you said earlier, they misrepresent science and all the 'followers' think they have science on their side.

46 posted on 01/22/2005 10:06:08 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte

You evolution-religion cultists exasperate me. How can you claim to be scientific without being able to comprehend the difference between a crystal and a living cell?


47 posted on 01/22/2005 10:07:33 AM PST by metacognative (follow the gravy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"Theory" in science is as close to fact as one could possibly get."

No, observing a direct fact in the lab or in the wild is much, much closer than postulating a mere theory.

48 posted on 01/22/2005 10:08:14 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
If you really believed challenges to your doctrine were silly, you wouldn't over-react contstantly and continually.

And if we ignored the challenges, like we did for decades, we allow for the growth of even more scientific ignorance.

49 posted on 01/22/2005 10:09:52 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: e p1uribus unum
I have utmost respect for Creationists-by-Faith.

I assume creationist-by-faith are people who believe because they want to believe, not because they think there is any actual evidence... Whereas the argument type fell there is evidence for their beliefs. In which case I'm starting to think that it's dishonesty too that causes them not to want to understand.

I wonder if meeting deeply religious people who accept the theory of evolution as a wonderful evidence of the glory and magnificence of Creation would relax that group.

Religious people in the sciences are always the most interesting people to talk to. It is fascinating to hear them rationalize their beliefs with the sciences. They are always logical and honest, and they always believe in evolution of course. I don't see what is wrong with the "genesis is a metaphor for evolution" argument. I don't agree, but at least it's honest.

I'm pretty new myself, but welcome. ;)
50 posted on 01/22/2005 10:10:01 AM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,106 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