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

Skip to comments.

"The evolution wars" in Time [Time Magazine's cover story]
National Center for Science Education ^ | 11 August 2005 | Staff

Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

The cover story of the August 15, 2005, issue of Time magazine is Claudia Wallis's "The evolution wars" -- the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory.

With "When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is 'intelligent design' a real science? And should it be taught in schools?" as its subhead, the article, in the space of over 3000 words, reviews the current situation in detail. Highlights of the article include:

While Wallis's article is inevitably not as scientifically detailed as, for example, H. Allen Orr's recent article in The New Yorker, or as politically astute as, for example, Chris Mooney's recent article in The American Prospect, overall it accomplishes the important goal of informing the general reader that antievolutionism -- whether it takes the form of creation science, "intelligent design," or calls to "teach the controversy" -- is scientifically unwarranted, pedagogically irresponsible, and constitutionally problematic.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwinschmarwin; headinsand; scienceeducation; timemag; timemagazine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 751-754 next last

1 posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:16 PM PDT 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 290 names.
See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

2 posted on 08/13/2005 3:50:42 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The List-O-Links. A good place for basic information.
How to argue against a scientific theory.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
3 posted on 08/13/2005 3:52:22 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I just dont understand why its so hard for school boards to allow one simple disclaimer to teaching evolution. Some people believe in intelligent design, its not difficult and it doesnt undermine the teaching of the THEORY of evolution.

I myself believe that evolution works well within the constructs of the bible and even intelligent design.


4 posted on 08/13/2005 3:54:55 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Would you be upset if they placed Scientology on an equal footing with ID? How about Christian Science?


5 posted on 08/13/2005 3:57:26 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

As a faith based theory, Darwinism has no place in the classroom. If they're going to sue to ban prayer, somebody ought to sue to ban evolution.


6 posted on 08/13/2005 3:58:43 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
May as well add some information about the litatigation history of the issue:

NEW Eight Significant Court Decisions.
The Evolution Controversy. Scopes trial and some Supreme Court cases.
Selman v. Cobb County School District. The Georgia textbook sticker case.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982). Arkansas statute for "balanced treatment" of "creation-science" & "evolution-science" is unConstitutional. In that decision (found at 529 F. Supp. 1255), the court distinguished between science and creationism, noting:

[T]he essential characteristics of science are:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

7 posted on 08/13/2005 3:59:37 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
As some of the anti-evolution posters have pointed out, science operates on a set of assumptions. The most fundamental of these assumptions is that a natural cause can be found for any given phenomen. When you abandon this assumption, you open the board for every possible hypothesis.

You may not trust me on this, but I will tell you anyway, Religious critics of science will be better off if science maintains a strictly materialistic bias.

Without the assumption of materialism, the definition of science will be opened to every New Age horror imaginable, and they will all be required in public schools. Better the enemy you know...

8 posted on 08/13/2005 4:03:01 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

INTREP


9 posted on 08/13/2005 4:07:04 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Coyoteman
Would you be upset if they placed Scientology on an equal footing with ID? How about Christian Science?

Where are you Coyoteman?

10 posted on 08/13/2005 4:13:30 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Now looking forward to classes on the creation and care of magical beasts in High School. And potions. And divination. Perhaps even defense against the dark arts!

And all the kids raised on Harry Potter will love it...

11 posted on 08/13/2005 4:14:34 PM PDT by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
INTREP

Not a "YEC INTREP"? Do I detect a change in the wind? ;)

12 posted on 08/13/2005 4:29:02 PM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Would you be upset if they placed Scientology on an equal footing with ID? How about Christian Science?

Where are you Coyoteman?

The Saturday Night Fights? OK, here is a good one.


Japanese Creation Story

Long ago all the elements were mixed together with one germ of life. This germ began to mix things around and around until the heavier part sank and the lighter part rose. A muddy sea that covered the entire earth was created. From this ocean grew a green shoot. It grew and grew until it reached the clouds and there it was tranformed into a god. Soon this god grew lonely and it began to create other gods. The last two gods it made, Izanagi anf Izanami, were the most remarkable.

One day as they were walking along they looked down on the ocean and wondered what was beneath it. Izanagi thrust his staff into the waters and as he pulled it back up some clumps of mud fell back into the sea. They began to harden and grow until they became the islands of Japan.

The two descended to these islands and began to explore, each going in different directions. They created all kinds of plants. When they met again they decided to marry and have children to inhabit the land. The first child Izanami bore was a girl of radiant beauty. The gods decided she was too beautiful to live in Japan, so they put her up in the sky and she became the sun. Their second daughter, Tsuki-yami, became the moon and their third and unruly son, Sosano-wo, was sentenced to the sea, where he creates storms.

Later, their first child, Amaterasu, bore a son who became the emperor of Japan and all the emperors since then have claimed descent from him.


13 posted on 08/13/2005 4:37:47 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Do I detect a change in the wind? ;)

Not in the least - just lazy today

14 posted on 08/13/2005 4:42:14 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
I just dont understand why its so hard for school boards to allow one simple disclaimer to teaching evolution. Some people believe in intelligent design, its not difficult and it doesnt undermine the teaching of the THEORY of evolution.

Rather than preface teaching the theory of evolution with a disclaimer that "this theory is a theory" it might be easier to each kids that all scientific output is theory. Gravity, electrons, etc. is all theory. A thorough grounding in the scientific method should serve to fix this "theory" complaint.

Hey, maybe that's something the ID folks maybe could learn too!

(Nah, its been tried.)

15 posted on 08/13/2005 4:43:27 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
But it's "JUST a THEORY" . Some folks around here really need to read this.
16 posted on 08/13/2005 4:57:37 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; All
The premise of ID is based upon a negative assumption, that some structures are too complex to have been created by natural means. Stated as a premise this would be:

Natural processes could not have created certain structures in the Universe and in living beings because these structures are too complex.

This is the very thing that cannot be proven or verified. You can't prove that something didn't happen. You can only verify that something did happen. Intelligent Design reveals its weakness by the rundundancy of Intelligent Design. As opposed to what unintelligent design or dumb design? The fact that it needs this qualifier demonstrates its failure as a scientific theory.

This is an Assertion Without Proof where the premise, that certain structures are "best explained" by the very "intelligence" they are supposed to prove is a text book case in circular thinking.

17 posted on 08/13/2005 5:14:56 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

Given the way the human body works, I have no trouble whatever believing in "unintelligent design."


18 posted on 08/13/2005 5:18:01 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: balch3
As a faith based theory, Darwinism has no place in the classroom.

This is another one of the nincompoop assertions. What aspect of evolution, is "faith based?"

19 posted on 08/13/2005 5:26:44 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."

Did the intelligent agency evolve or did it abruptly appear with it's distinctive features already intact? How can people be gullible enough to fall for such a crock?

20 posted on 08/13/2005 5:38:47 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Who says it will be on an equal footing? No it wouldnt be, consider you might have a week of study on darwinism and a 5 minute blurb on Intelligent Design, so no incomparable.


21 posted on 08/13/2005 5:44:52 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I consider science to be founded mostly on rules and fact, and the assumptions based on logic rather than good guesses. Having said that and as a lover both of Science and God, not equally of course I see room in the classroom to mention a competing ideology to Darwinism, an ideology that has been around a few thousand years longer, embraced by 2/3's of the worlds inhabitants. 5 minutes of classroom time to say " Darwinism isnt the only theory, there is also the Theory of Intelligent design", isnt that much of a compromise.


22 posted on 08/13/2005 5:49:46 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
No it wouldnt be, consider you might have a week of study on darwinism and a 5 minute blurb on Intelligent Design, so no incomparable.

Would you agree that all religious sermons should begin with a scientist giving a 5 minute blurb on Darwinism? If not, then please keep your superstitions out of science class.

23 posted on 08/13/2005 5:52:58 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
5 minutes of classroom time to say "Darwinism isnt the only theory, there is also the Theory of Intelligent design", isnt that much of a compromise.

There are at least three problems with that: (1) Government schools shouldn't be teaching religious doctrines; (2) By comparing fact-based science with some unverifiable alternative, some parents will complain that the teacher is giving an unfair presentation of religion; and (3) evolution is a scientific theory, the alternatives like ID/creationism are not.

The scientific method. Wikipedia article. Exhaustive discussion.
But it's "JUST a THEORY" . You really must read this.
Ichneumon on the Scientific Method. It's post 401 and it's excellent.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.

24 posted on 08/13/2005 5:58:11 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
I see room in the classroom to mention a competing ideology to Darwinism...

Five minutes wouldn't be that much time, but to call it science would be a lie.

25 posted on 08/13/2005 5:58:18 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Lets go back to the beginning then, before everything and the the big bang or whatever. What was there before? How could nothing evolve into something?

Of course this leads into the rebuttal asking, if we all evolved from nothing yet something came, GOD the Intelligent designer must have came from something, so where did this something come from? Which could lead to god himself evolved from something or the nothing, its a massive headache.

So I am saying GOD came or evolved first and everything followed. What was 7 days to GOD may as well been 7 billion years to us. So everything evolved from Gods design. Even the Bible recognizes that giants once walked the Earth and that Man evolved or came last in his design of this planet. I dont know where I am going with it because my head hurts after explaining to a billion people today about the natural and people history of the Phoenix Area. So I will get back to this later.


26 posted on 08/13/2005 5:58:50 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

The difference being that Churchs are private not public institutions, unlike schools, no I wont keep my "superstitions" out of your class, considering that my "superstition" is also a legitimate scientific theory also.

And you cant disprove the scientific theory part of it.


27 posted on 08/13/2005 6:01:28 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard; LogicWings
there is also the Theory of Intelligent design

From post #17: The premise of ID is based upon a negative assumption, that some structures are too complex to have been created by natural means. Stated as a premise this would be:

Natural processes could not have created certain structures in the Universe and in living beings because these structures are too complex.

This is the very thing that cannot be proven or verified. You can't prove that something didn't happen.


Given the caution in post #17, please state clearly what the "theory" of intelligent design is. Please include any necessary assumptions as well.

This has been done for the theory of evolution by thousands of scientists and for 150 or so years. No amount of condemnation of evolution will serve to validate the "theory" of intelligent design. As a theory it has to stand on its own. So, what is that theory?

28 posted on 08/13/2005 6:04:26 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Lets go back to the beginning then, before everything and the the big bang or whatever. What was there before? How could nothing evolve into something?

The fact that we don't know what went BANG! doesn't have any bearing upon anything, period. The assumption that the Universe was entirely empty before that point is as much a non-sequitur as assuming some supernatural being did it. At this point we simply have no evidence, so no conclusions can be drawn.

So I am saying GOD came or evolved first and everything followed. What was 7 days to GOD may as well been 7 billion years to us. So everything evolved from Gods design.

This includes evil. So is evil part of His design too?

29 posted on 08/13/2005 6:09:06 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

1. Intelligent design IS NOT simply a religious doctrine as you would so dismiss it as.

2. How about this for fact based science.

Every culture across human history has independently came up with its own ID theory. With thousands of pages of writing, thousands if not more, instances of communication between deity and man. Why wont science simply investigate this rather than dismiss it whole heartedly?

3. How can you say ID is not a scientific throey, I mean how much more into science does it need to be to be considered scientific theory? My god created the heavens an the earth(astronomy, geology) the trees and grass(botany) well you get my point. Its deeply rooted and connected to science.

Well I guess my views of science and what it does is completely screwed. I thought science was to investigate and explain, create ideas and attempt to prove or disprove. Maybe I am completely wrong and need to toss some of my books away.


30 posted on 08/13/2005 6:11:02 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
And you cant disprove the scientific theory part of it.

You have it backwards. You cannot prove there is a scientific part to it. The Burden of Proof is upon you to give evidence for your assertion, not upon others to disprove it since that would be a Proving the Negative fallacy.

my "superstition" is also a legitimate scientific theory also.

Precisely the point, ID is NOT a legitimate scientific theory since it has absolutely no evidence to support it.

31 posted on 08/13/2005 6:13:29 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

What creation story would you want taught in our public schools?


32 posted on 08/13/2005 6:14:24 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
What creation story would you want taught in our public schools?

Thats an easy one. My favorite!


The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.

Salinan Indian creation story, south-central California


33 posted on 08/13/2005 6:18:41 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Every culture across human history has independently came up with its own ID theory.

Primitive cultures create stories to explain the unexplainable. As knowledge increases, however, and reason overcomes superstition, these old stories are abandoned.

34 posted on 08/13/2005 6:18:41 PM PDT by oldfarmer (Mark 16:17-18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

evil is not a physical state, and frankly I dont understand why you brought it up. But to answer you question, yes god created evil,as well as good and whatever we as human beings decided what is what, see he gave us freewill and with freewill we are able to deicde what to call what and when to do it.

And for the first part of your question, then if the universe origins cannot be proven or disproven, with new theories popping up every few years can we say we all evolved from an single cell organism? There are billions of species on earth, and only one universe it sits in, yet for some odd reason we can kind of sort of geez, create a theory on how we evolved here yet cannot explain the universes birth.


35 posted on 08/13/2005 6:19:09 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Every culture across human history has independently came up with its own ID theory.

That human beings tend to anthropormophize everything is proof of nothing actually existing. More cultures believed that rocks and trees and waterfalls and everything else we beings with spirits. That this same idea was projected upon the Universe as a whole is no proof of anything.

With thousands of pages of writing, thousands if not more, instances of communication between deity and man.

Because there is no evidence that these people were communicating with anything but themselves. That is why Mohammed is so significant. Was he talking to Him too? Then why aren't you Muslim?

36 posted on 08/13/2005 6:20:29 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Fair enough. I'd prefer another. Let's put it to a vote.


37 posted on 08/13/2005 6:22:07 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5
And all the kids raised on Harry Potter will love it...

And the Indian and Chinese kids will love it too! They'll be the ones coming over here for the science jobs that the American kids are to stupid to compete in.

Thanks ID proponents! Just when we thought American kids couldn't get dumbed-down any further, you fine folks show up.

38 posted on 08/13/2005 6:22:30 PM PDT by Drew68 (IYAOYAS! Semper Gumby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
ID should not be in the classroom. Our kids should be as ignorant and unquestioning as possible.
39 posted on 08/13/2005 6:22:59 PM PDT by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

and what physical evidence is there that we evolved from one single creature?


40 posted on 08/13/2005 6:24:46 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
and what physical evidence is there that we evolved from one single creature?

You mean Adam? None whatever.

41 posted on 08/13/2005 6:29:21 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
"Intelligent Design reveals its weakness by the rundundancy of Intelligent Design. As opposed to what unintelligent design or dumb design? The fact that it needs this qualifier demonstrates its failure as a scientific theory.

Bull-oney. Evolutionists can hardly write a paragraph without speaking of "design" and in "intentional" terms. In today's science parlance, the term "design" in no way implies intelligence. The term "intelligent Design" is used to distinguish from the evolutionists' virtually unanimous belief in "accidental design."

42 posted on 08/13/2005 6:29:34 PM PDT by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
evil is not a physical state, and frankly I dont understand why you brought it up.

You said "everything" so I was just clarifying.

But to answer you question, yes god created evil,as well as good

Then He is responsible for "evil" end of discussion. Not everything He created is good and, therefore, He is not worthy of worship. Unless you are trying to argue that "evil" is "good" which means that words mean nothing.

see he gave us freewill and with freewill we are able to deicde what to call what and when to do it.

Actually this is impossible. He knew my name before I was born and knew all my choices before I was born. I could not act in a manner that contradicted His foreknowledge so He decided long before I was born whether I would be evil, which you admit He created, or whether I would be saved. There is no free will there.

can we say we all evolved from an single cell organism?

Actually the concept of "strange attractors" says that if the conditions were right there were probably billions of cells all came into being at roughly the same time. Just like when the conditions are right there are 100 tornadoes in a given area, if the conditions were right for life billions of cells could have spontaneously sprang into being.

There are billions of species on earth, and only one universe it sits in, yet for some odd reason we can kind of sort of geez, create a theory on how we evolved here yet cannot explain the universes birth.

This is called False Analogy. The comparison of evolution to the Universe's "Birth" are 2 completely separate subjects. You want the harder one solved first before you will accept the closer, easier one valid. To use an Analogy properly, this would be like insisting a doctor perform brain surgery before doctors had learned how to set broken bones.

43 posted on 08/13/2005 6:34:49 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

Aren't you aware of the First Law of IDiocy? If science can't explain something, Got did it. Or perhaps space aliens.


44 posted on 08/13/2005 6:38:02 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
"This is another one of the nincompoop assertions. What aspect of evolution, is "faith based?"

We could start with the abiogenesis crap in the high school textbooks under the heading Evolution: Origin of Life.

Yes, I know you will object that "how life came to be" is not "Darwinism," but the fact is, the heavyweights in Science Education curriculae in this country unanimously disagree with you. So unless you have a mind to write the first intelligent Biology text, go argue with them.

45 posted on 08/13/2005 6:39:11 PM PDT by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
As a theory it has to stand on its own. So, what is that theory?

More importantly: What is the "Theory of Evolution"? Been here awhile and still haven't seen a ToE, that stands the test of the Scientific Method. Evolution is bad science.

IMHO, WhiteKnight

46 posted on 08/13/2005 6:39:29 PM PDT by WhiteKnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
and what physical evidence is there that we evolved from one single creature?

I answer this in a later post. But this doesn't answer my question. Evolution doesn't say this.

47 posted on 08/13/2005 6:40:22 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

aft_lizard, the world needs more people like yourself. Don't ever change ;)


48 posted on 08/13/2005 6:40:24 PM PDT by Cell9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Maybe I am completely wrong and need to toss some of my books away.

Not a problem that can't be fixed. Please read some of this material:

The scientific method. Wikipedia article. Exhaustive discussion.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
The Theory of Evolution. Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.
The Pocket Darwin. Very good, easily readable summary.
Is Evolution Science? It certainly is. Here's why.

49 posted on 08/13/2005 6:44:48 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

Because there is no evidence that these people were communicating with anything but themselves. That is why Mohammed is so significant. Was he talking to Him too? Then why aren't you Muslim?....



Then were is the evidence that all creatures are evolved from the same one that flopped itself on a beach a few billion years back.

Have you ever watched a ape evolve into a neanderthal? Yet it is said they are evolved from them. So you would rather assume that over billions of years all things on this planet evolved from one creature.With unproven, anectdotal evidence.

Well I am done posting for now. Like I said I have no qualms against evolution.

But if people dont want a blurb for ID, then remove evolution altogether and make it an elective in college when the kids are an adult and can choose for themselves what they wish to learn.


50 posted on 08/13/2005 6:45:05 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 751-754 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