Posted on 08/05/2005 5:22:08 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Bravo. Some of the parrots around here are no better than their liberal counterparts. I hope there are a lot more teachers like you.
*Looking at watch*
but since you don't want to actually debate or discuss ideas, I'll just have to wait a long time I guess........
We were debating the American Federation of Teachers' idea that Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, remember? I didn't see the point of finding a new topic since that is the topic of the thread, after all.
Just to briefly review, in post #150, you implied that keeping ID out of science classrooms was a bad idea simply because a teachers' union proposed it.
In post #151, I suggested that we judge the idea on its merits and not on who had proposed it. You rejected that as "absurd and silly" in post #153.
In post #154 I pointed out that Republican and religious conservative Rick Santorum agrees with the AFT on this issue. That would seem to indicate that this isn't necessarily a liberal or conservative issue.
On the other hand, if you believe, as you appear to, that "our guys" are always right, Santorum's agreement on this issue would seem to indicate that, at least in this case, the AFT is correct. But wait, either Santorum or Bush is wrong.....
If you can't understand how far you brought this from my point.......which was a sarcastic jab that it must be true, cause it's the teachers union position.......
And then you make up this really dumb and baseless straw man that I must be a robot for Bush because I, after all, can't think because I disagree with the teacher's union.......my goodness.....how desperate you must be.....
And I'm still waiting for you to give some good proposals from the union......which you can't seem to do.
*Still waiting for a sensible comment*
I've discovered during my years at FR that the posters who complain the most about strawmen are usually those who are the most adept at erecting them.
Thanks. *blush*
Many of those I know are better teachers than I...unfortunately, the bad ones get most of the publicity. Kind of like the squeaky wheel, I guess.
I'm guessing you went to a third rate teachers college, and that you're a third rate teacher from your inability to read what others are saying. I find it sad that you get the privilege of calling yourself a member of a formerly well thought of profession.
*snicker*
Wow you hit a nerve. This fellow is ready to pop a blood vessel.
Jack Chick, is that you?!
I speak for myself only, but I suspect my feelings on this matter are applicable to others as well:
First of all, in at least 90% of the cases, the "questioning" of evolution has its basis in some scientific misconception (such as including abiogensis as part of evolution, arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics, or "it's only a theory!", to name just a few) or logical fallacy (for example, an argument from consequences that evolution implies that there is no basis for morality). Such arguments are swiftly and easily dealt with, but it becomes frustrating to have to debunk the same tired and ridiculous arguments time and time again. It is especially galling when the argument is presented for the umpteenth time by someone who has been debating on these threads for a long time and should know better.
Almost all of the rest of the "questioning" falls outside the realm of science and squarely into theological "questioning" of the theory, which is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory. The only problem is that the creationists don't want to hear or accept this fact. Here it is bluntly for all of you: Scientists don't give a damn what the Bible says. Whether evolution is consistent with, inconsistent with, or partially consistent with the Bible is simply irrelevant to the question of whether it is a valid scientific theory or not.
Note that stating that evolution is a valid scientific theory is NOT the same as saying that it's true. We are well aware of the fact that all theories are subject to revision as new data comes in. Personally, I am also well aware of the limitations of science. If God really did create the earth and the universe exactly as stated in a literal reading of Genesis, then science will never be able to determine this. Supernatural action is outside the realm of science. There's no way to falsify the notion that "God did it," precisely because any potentially falsifying observation can be explained away by divine will. Evolution, on the other hand, like any scientific theory could potentially be falsified by the right observation. Just find a human fossil reliably dated to over 1 billion years old, for example, and the current theory of evolution would be falsified.
This leads me to the last point of frustration, however. Namely that there are those on these threads whose "questioning" of evolution is meant to imply that since evolution is not a valid theory, then creationism must be the correct answer. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, in my above falsification example, if a 1 billion year-old human fossil were actually found, our current theory of evolution would be in trouble. However, what would emerge is not creationism, but rather a new theory which incorporates much of the old theory, but with a revised timeline for human evolution (and probably a revised lineage of species as well). It is very frustrating to try to point out this false dichotomy fallacy to creationists who just don't see it and refuse to even consider the point.
So if you really believe that evolution is an invalid theory and wish to question it, how should you do so? After all, science is based on a healthy skepticism, so questioning of theories is to be welcomed, not scorned. This is true in the case of evolution, but the factors I have discussed above get in the way of serious questioning of the theory. Therefore, the first thing one wishing to question the theory of evolution should do is learn evolution. How can you seriously question a theory when you don't understand it? This, as mentioned before is the source of at least 90% of the questioning, and probably a similar percentage of the frustration that evos get from dealing with questioning of evolution. Therefore, learn what the theory actually says BEFORE you start questioning it. Furthermore, you probably should learn the basics of some other fields of science, since the evidence for evolution is based on multiple disciplines. For example, a knowledge of some general principles of geology (as it relates to the laying down of rock strata, and the subsequent inclusion of fossils), physics (basic principles of radiometric dating, so you don't make a fool of yourself by arguing that carbon dating is unreliable), and genetics (so you understand the basic principles of the genetic code and can avoid making silly statement like "almost all mutations are harmful") would be helpful, just to name a couple.
I realize that this is a tall order, but should you wish to tackle all that, and you still are questioning the validity of evolution, the next step would be to come up with an alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation. As part of your explanation, you should specify what observations would lead you to abandon the explanation. Then you should look to see if these falsifying observations have in fact been observed. This is the point at which both creationism and ID fail. Both of these ideas have no falsification criteria. There is no way to empirically test either of them. Both may in fact be correct, but neither will ever be scientific. If you are serious about developing an alternative theory and making a real, serious challenge to evolution, you would be well advised also to check your Bible at the door as well. As mentioned above, theological ideas are not science, and Biblical verse in not admissable as empirical evidence in scientific debates and discussions.
I suspect that anyone who does what I have outlined above will stop short of developing a serious challenge to evolution, mainly because the weight of the evidence in favor of evolution is truly overwhelming. If your religious beliefs get in the way of following the evidence to where it leads, then I respect that. I am not, nor would I ever, try to change anyone's fundamental religious beliefs. However, I do object to the use of these beliefs as a challenge to science. Should you choose not to make a serious scientific challenge to evolution, then evolution will remain the accepted scientific theory regarding the origin of biodiversity. If you wish to believe otherwise as a matter of faith, then again, I respect that, but don't try to pretend that you have brought up anything that seriously questions the scientific validity of evolution.
Agreed, but evolution doesn't attempt to, nor does it purport to answer such questions. Its scope is limited to what happens once an entity capable of making imperfect copies of itself comes into existence. The way that it comes into existence is irrelevant to evolution.
It will NEVER be the law of evolution, any more that we will ever have a law of relativity or quantum law. Laws are not just theories that have been "proven." Theories are never proven; more and more evidence is accumulated to support them, but by definition there's always some set of potential observations that would falsify them. Laws and theories are in fact different TYPES of statements. (Neither of them are ever proven, BTW) Laws are summaries of observations. A good example is Newton's law of gravity which is a summary of all the observations of the magnitude of the attractive force between pairs of objects. Theories are explanations of observations. What is missing from Newton's law of gravity is an explanation of WHY the attractive force between two objects has the value it has. That's where the theory of gravity (better known as the theory of general relativity) comes in. It explains why the force we measure has the value it has. In actual fact, it went further than that and showed that Newton's law gives a WRONG value in some circumstances. If laws were nothing more than proven theories, then how would it be possible to use a theory to show that a law is incorrect?
You are welcomed. I admit when I saw that you had replied, I was ready for a fight. When most posters encounter an explanation such as mine, they continue to fight the point and insist that laws are somehow more certain than theories. It is refreshing to see that you didn't do so. Thank you.
And then the Great White Platter of Cupcakes will be served to you and your friends, and the Great White Ponies will give you rides all afternoon. What fun awaits you in the magical sky palace!
Probably a lot more than we can expect from those who engage in tendentious faultfinding over the commonly-accepted pronunciation of a single word in order to publicly belittle a person's intellect.
From Merriam-Webster Online, which includes "nuke-u-lar" as an acceptable pronunciation:
Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president.
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.