Posted on 01/30/2005 2:25:47 PM PST by gobucks
*snip* The conservatives who attacked evolution because it conflicted with the Genesis account of how the world was created have faded into the background.
In their place are professionals such as Harris who support intelligent design, a theory that states some aspects of the universe and living things are best explained by intelligent causes, not chance. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't always add up, they say, and students should hear more about its shortcomings.
“There are only two options,” said Harris, who is leading this year's fight. “Life was either designed or it wasn't.”
That's not the point, evolution defenders reply. Science is about searching for natural explanations of the world, they say, and has no room for a theory based on faith.
The public will join the debate beginning Tuesday, when the first of four public hearings on new science standards will be held in Kansas City, Kan.
*snip*
So far, no state board of education has required the teaching of intelligent design. And the Kansas supporters of intelligent design are not asking that it be mandated, said Harris, who is on a committee that is rewriting the science standards.
Harris and seven other members of the 26-member committee instead propose students be “more adequately informed” on evolution.
The eight submitted a proposal to the state Board of Education. One recommendation was to change the definition of science. The current definition, they say, limits inquiry because it allows only “natural” explanations. They want it to be more objective and to allow students “to follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
Evolution supporters said such a change would shake science at its foundation.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
1. A physical explanation is not the same thing as a physical cause, much less a physical first cause. So evolution in itself (which posits a physical explanation) poses no threat whatsoever to Christian belief. In fact highly improbable events at the macro-level can occur without violation of any physical laws at the micro-level. God didn't have to will the violation of any physical laws at the micro-level in order to bring about the creation of life, or different species of life.
2. However, when evolutionists start talking about "chance" or "random" events, they have stepped out of the bounds of science and into philosophy. Randomness or chance have no rigorous mathematical or scientific definition. Nor is it possible to design a foolproof test for "randomness" - taking the number pi to umpteen decimal places looks like a "random" sequence without the prior knowledge of where it came from. Thus, claiming life arose out of "random" events is not science.
3. Moreover, from information theory information doesn't just pop out of nowhere. Somehow, some way the information necessary to construct a system as complex as the human brain must have been encoded into the universe. Or, if you like, an earlier version of this argument is the attempt to disprove evolution from thermodynamics and the law of entropy. The evolutionists' correct response is that this only applies in a closed system, but what that means is that the information (or order, if you prefer) must have been elsewhere in the universe. So, eventually the debate is going to have to reduce to debating the origins of the universe (for which evolutionists will have to admit they are on much more shaky ground).
Uh...evolution?
So, your cut and paste posting "originated" from which creationist website?
God must have really loved dinosaurs 'cuz they lasted over 185 million years.
Human civilization has been on Earth around 1/3700000 of that.
Scientific inquiry is okay. Doubting evolution is okay, too. Some biology teachers teach the best/most convincing arguments pro and con. Now many evolutionists start to say the sky is falling. It's hooey.
Evolutionism is all about faith...
Agree completely. But at least we do something about the crackpots in our midst
Scientists are scared that an anti-intellecual, anti-inquiry and faith-inspired, rather than disppasionate logic, thought will hurt the profession and the nation. Conservatives are worried that conservatives will be painted as Taliban-like religious extremists.
The great bulk of scientists I know (I'm a neuro, endocrine, physiologist) don't see any conflict between religion and science. Most see evolution as "God's way," when pressed for an explanation of the basics of life.
Science is one of many human endeavors to understand our world in which we live. There are many other sources of information and knowledge.
Science seeks to explain the "how" of things, and religion seeks to explain the "why."
Scientists seek precision and accuracy of observations, not truths. So far, such an approach has proved immensely successful in dealing with the natural world and our mortal relationship to it. Scientists don't deserve demonization and, by and large, are God-fearing, humble human beings, albeit geek-like, working for a living.
A proper resolution would be for ID to be taught in a religion course or a broad-ranged current events class.
Inserting ID into a science class is totally inappropriate, logically. It is like inserting, as mandatory, that Darwinian Evolution Theory be taught in every Sunday school.
I'll forgive, but I won't forget.
A lot of "scientists" would be really unhappy if they only got paid for work that has value...
ACCORDING TO the Wikipedia article on Evolution: The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which states that modern species are the products of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and existent.
Apparently some evolutionists do deal with the time issue and origin of life issue. There are broad meanings of "evolution" and more specialized meanings of "evolution." You can't really say definitively that evolution isn't about the origin of life.
You are right. There are some brilliant scholars out there who don't "accept" evolution as an explanation for different species. "Accepting" a particular theory IS a matter of faith.
Some scientists can get reductionistic ab absurdo and they do go back to the primordial soup. Yet all know that the orgin of the universe is virtually beyond investigation, and thus, regard such speculation as...aimless speculation. When pressed, I think most scientists assume we can't know the origin of life or the universe.
Yeah. It was a cut-n-paste from one of Dr. Senapathy's websites.
Dr. Senapathy, for those aren't familiar with him, describes life beginning in a primordial soup of proteins and genetic compounds that randomly combine to form the various species (Cambrian explosion).
Once formed, the creatures procreate minor variants within the species, but never evolve into another different species.
Interesting idea, but the fossil record doesn't support him.
How do you feel the theory of evolution should be taught in our schools? As a theory? as fact? Why shouldn't Creationism (everything created "after its kind") be taught as well? Are living things, reproducing "after their kind", not to be considered as science?
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.