Posted on 10/16/2005 11:50:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
Edited on 10/16/2005 12:04:43 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Natural history museums around the country are mounting new exhibits they hope will succeed where high school biology classes have faltered: convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science. At Chicago's Field Museum, curators call their upcoming effort "Evolving Planet." The University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln calls its program "Explore Evolution." And here at the American Museum of Natural History, the exhibit that opens next month is called simply "Darwin."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science"
And they won't permit any other viewpoint to be considered?
No, of course not. That would be heresy.
isn't this a rehash of something posted last week?
I don't know how they have "rigorously tested" something that happened billions of years ago and has no parallel in modern biology. Variations do not equal evolution, but it's all they have. From there they can only extrapolate the rest. That's not rigorous testing.
It wouldn't be heresy, but it also wouldn't be science.
What are you talking about? Evolution is going on all around us.
> And they won't permit any other viewpoint to be considered?
If that other viewpoint is, as stated, a "rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science," then sure.
Or are you saying the Smithsonian should put the Raelian view on display? How about a display showing Yakub breeding those evil white devils 6,000 years ago? Audhumla licking the salt form the ice?
Where?
And they won't permit any other viewpoint to be considered?
Sure -- feel free to "consider" any other thing you wish, including unicorns and a hollow Earth. But don't kid yourself that such "other viewpoints" are, as they say, "a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science", because they're not. Evolution is. There are massive mountains of research and evidence which support it in independently cross-confirming lines of verification. Yes, really -- if you think otherwise, it's most likely because you made the mistake of falling for the dishonest claims of the creationist propagandists.
No, of course not. That would be heresy.
Try not to be hysterical and ridiculous. It wouldn't be heresy. It would just be mistaken.
"convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science."
God how stupid can you be. Anyone who took 6th grade science knows that you can never prove a theory correct, only prove it wrong. Any scientific theory, including F=ma or Einstein's theory of relativity, can only ever gain credence but never become fact, because a new piece of data can always come along and bring down the house of cards.
Of course you don't. But we do.
and has no parallel in modern biology.
Nonsense.
Variations do not equal evolution, but it's all they have.
Wrong again.
From there they can only extrapolate the rest.
Nice try.
That's not rigorous testing.
Your misconceptions do not equal the actual evidence. Why don't you try actually learning about a topic before you start spouting your confident declarations about it?
Silly comments, but not answers.
God how stupid can you be.
Who?
Anyone who took 6th grade science knows that you can never prove a theory correct, only prove it wrong.
That's why they didn't say that it *had* been "proven correct". They said it had been rigorously tested. And it has.
Any scientific theory, including F=ma or Einstein's theory of relativity, can only ever gain credence but never become fact, because a new piece of data can always come along and bring down the house of cards.
Right.
"I don't know how they have "rigorously tested" something that happened billions of years ago and has no parallel in modern biology. Variations do not equal evolution, but it's all they have. From there they can only extrapolate the rest. That's not rigorous testing"
Bingo! This is what really gets me....it has not, and can not, be rigourously tested in the same manner as a chemistry or physics experiment that is repeatable. Its all Sherlock Holmes style science...logical deduction from the evidence available. Its like solving a crime. Darwinists say that Darwinism best fits the evidence.....others say that there are too many contradictions and too much missing evidence to confidently make that claim.
Unfortunateley Darwinism has become a relgion of sorts....a pagan science cult.
It isn't particularly important in my degree field of physics. As far as I know it isn't particularly important in modern biology either. It seems to be important in psychology. In fact, in physics there is a reliance on some kind of design in the universe, intelligent design is not necessary, but if the fundamental laws of physics were evolving or changing it would be difficult to do physics.
Or biology.
True.
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.