Posted on 11/28/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The fuel driving this science education debate is easy to understand. Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.
They recognize that science must be free, not subject to religious veto. On the other hand, many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether, beginning in the science classroom--a direction unacceptable to them.
They recognize that when scientists make definitive pronouncements regarding ultimate causes, the legitimate boundaries of science have been exceeded. For these Christians, intelligent design seems to provide protection against a perceived assault from science.
But does it really lend protection? Or does it supply yet another reason to question Christian credibility?
The science education debate need not be so contentious. If the intelligent design movement was truly about keeping the legitimate plausibility of a creator in the scientific picture, the case would seem quite strong.
Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, the Dover version of intelligent design has a different objective: opposition to evolution. And that opposition is becoming an increasing liability for Christians.
The reason for this liability is simple: While a growing array of fossils shows evolution occurring over several billion years, information arising from a variety of other scientific fields is confirming and extending the evolutionary record in thoroughly compelling ways.
The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality.
In spite of this information, many Christians remain skeptical, seemingly mired in a naive religious bog that sees evolution as merely a personal opinion, massive scientific ruse or atheistic philosophy.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
When the only thing you mention in the post I responded to is fossils while ignoring the entire field of genetics and the utterly overwhelming support it lends to the Theory of Evolution, what else am I to conclude?
Ah but you see...there is no standard, only what we see, measure, taste, touch, and know to be repeatable...according to science;yet, the great Clintonius himself has set Webster at naught for having caused doubt as to what IS truly IS!
Perhaps, that is what God confused first at Babel, the sense and contexts as to how the protolanguage spoken then was to be interpreted....then of course the differentiating of the tongues themselves, further splitting the human race apart.
Webster standardized definitions of words but unfortunately he could not standardize contextual interpretation of language. He wrote his dictionary in an era in which a judeo-christian consenses and mind set held sway in the nation! Introduce a competing materialistic/utilitarian world view and Babel insues!
We are seeing it, unless you have no particular concerns about the Avian flu becoming human transmissible, but I assume as an MD that you do not ignore that evolutionary possibility.
Here is one: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
Where is the proof of simple organic molecules combining into complex molecules and coming together in cells? Where "is the evidence that any amino acid will combine into DNA and RNA (much less in the appropriate sequence to be meaningfull?)
That isn't necessary for evolution
Also,If evolution is the driving force behind life existing, why have we not seen it occurring around us?
We do
Where are the new forms that should be springing out all over?
If you look at the timeline of evolutionary change in the past you will see that we shouldn't expect "new forms" to be "springing out all over"
And also, please distinguish between macro and micro evolution. I am talking about change between species, not inside species.
There are about 1,000 different species of bats in the world. Are you saying all of them were created seperately, or do you agree that macroevolution can occur?
Fossil bones do not tell the story about evolution. YOu take a couple of pieces of evidence and create a construct from them and evolution is as tenuous as creation.
I would have to see your paper on the retroviral insertion, but again, where has this produced a change between the species? I agree that some rna can be inserted into the gene sequence of another organism, but--this is pre-existing rna and does not explain how rna came about in the first place.
I will also say as we become more facile with molecular genetics, we may be able to bring about change in genetics, but we did not create the material in the first place, and in some cases this could also be considered intelligent design :-)
Someone who has studied molecular biology more recently than I have may have a better anwer for you, this is not my field.
The Lord: So, around fifteen billion years ago I got around to creating the universe. Within the first one billionth of a second, I had the fundamental forces established, such as nuclear forces, gravitation, and electro-magnetism.
Moses: O Lord, what is a billion?
The Lord: Ah, a billion is a one followed by nine zeroes.
Moses: O Lord, what then, is a zero?
The Lord: Hmm.
The Lord: In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth...
So am I to understand that you actually don't want to discuss the Theory of Evolution and instead wish to discuss the field of abiogenesis?
Why not? Your questions reflect that this is indeed the case. (Unless you count the lies and propaganda on creationist websites as good study material)
A good primer on what science actually has to say about the subject:
Index to Creationist Claims (all your questions and many others are addressed here)
How is DNA and RNA not necessary for evolution? Evolution is all about molecular genetics
Where do we see evolution around us?
I consider macroevolution to be above the genus level. A bat is a bat, not a puppy.
I don't think you understand what the retroviral evidence implies. It's not about producing change in a species. Retroviral evidence deals with relationship among lines of decent. The retroviruses are essentially trackers for tracking those relationships and construction a corresponding phylogeny.
Evidence that any amino acid will combine into DNA and RNA is not necessary for evolution
Where do we see evolution around us?
Life changes
I consider macroevolution to be above the genus level. A bat is a bat, not a puppy.
There are about 150 genera of bats in the world. Were all those created seperately? Or is macroevolution possible?
I don't follow your logic. Did God ever claim to have created the world in six days? Extemporaneous written accounts of oral tradition calim that He did. Is a God-day the same as our day? SInce God created the sun why does His day conform to the 24 hour sun-earth relativism? Could not a God-day be millions of years?
Our God is a mighty God and we do him a disservice when we try to make Him fit into our severely limited human perspective on the universe and eternity.
You are an idiot!
no thanks.
You are an idiot!
LOL! I like your posting...yeah I could imagine Moses staring blankly if God had gotten to technical...indeed he had to hide Moses in the cleft of the rock so that Moses could only see the "hinder parts" of God. Seeing His Face would have been way too "technical" for Moses, causing Moses to lapse into nonexistence!
Actually evolution deals with the orgin of SPECIES no life. It deals merely with adaptive mutations.
"You are an idiot!"
LOL, you need to slap my other cheek??????
I think that is the problem - scientists start with an a priori worldview that says there is no God. As you can read from other threads on this subject, there is a lot of emotion vested in support of theory of evolution.
Actually, you have just demonstrated you don't understand it at all.
And if you want to explain how things came about without Creation, you have to explain the whole ball of wax to be cogent.
And if you want to explain how color theory came about without Creation ...
And if you want to explain how electromagnetic theory came about without Creation ...
And if you want to explain how gravitational theory came about without creation ...
I guess we dump all of these ... because none of them address Creation.
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.