This is a fish according to the Bible. Jonah was taken by one of these gentle beasts of the waves and deposited in Nineveh, a city far far far far from any sea.
A flock of biblical bats/birds. Some think these are the grasshoppers of Revelation.
Posted on 04/13/2006 6:51:19 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The list got more husky since then:
NCSE welcomes Steve #733
Steven Davis
University of Connecticut
Ping! The Royal Society on CREVO
You posted
Sorry, but it is all related.
Expansion of the teaching of creationism and/or ID will eventually drop math / physics scores to the sub-basement.
This movement has to be stopped.
Maybe you read my post wrong? I'm calling for less teaching of evo and ID and more time and resources dedicated to Math.
I am all for telling students the whole unvarnished truth about "intelligent design implications". Of course, doing so would cause the "ID" fans to have a stroke, but hey, tell the truth and let the chips fall as they may.
What if there wasn't a Big Bang.. and the Big Bang is just a story that seems reasonable like evolution?..
Rahther!
Let's dissect the statement and see where it is lacking—and how it might have been improved:
. . . This approach to the acquisition of knowledge forms the basis of the scientific method, which involves the testing of theories against observational evidence. . . .
The Royal Society's description of science is incomplete. The "testing of theories against observational evidence" is not the exclusive domain of science. The authors should have mentioned that science deals in a special class of "theories"—I prefer to call them "models"—that exclude all normative, supernatural, and teleological explanations. Hence, science cannot answer questions of morality, or discuss God, or discover the purpose of life. Those are religious or philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
It has led to major advances of understanding over more than 300 years. Although there is still much left to be discovered, we now have a broad knowledge of how the universe developed after the 'Big Bang' and of how humans and other species appeared on Earth.
This statement will sound quaint when the current Big Bang model is replaced by another model. I would argue that the use of the word knowledge is inappropriate here. We have useful models of the material universe that involve the occurrence of an event called the Big Bang. No one can say for certain that such an event really occurred—no one living on earth today was present to observe it—but the model does appear to explain some facts about the universe.
Likewise, no one alive today was present to observe the appearance of humans and other species on the earth. The best we can do is devise models that explain the available evidence.
. . . Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. . . .
Recognized by whom? And "best" in what sense? Does "from its beginnings" imply that evolution explains the origin of life?
Many other explanations, some of them based on religious belief, have been offered for the development of life on Earth, and the existence of a 'creator' is fundamental to many religions. Many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed.
Why the scare quotes around creator? I detect a whiff of condescension here. Be that as it may, the statement would be much stronger and more accurate if it were augmented:
Many other explanations, some of them based on religious belief, have been offered for the development of life on Earth, and the existence of a Creator or Supreme Being is fundamental to many religions. Science cannot address questions regarding the existence or nature of such a Being, and cannot therefore evaluate religious explanations for the development of life. That is why many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientificevidencemodels for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed.
Creationism is a belief that may be taught as part of religious education in schools, colleges and universities.
It is so good of the Royal Society to tell us what may or may not be taught in schools, colleges, and universities.
Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith.
In their zeal to discredit creationism, the authors neglect to mention that science is itself based on faith—not religious faith, to be sure, but faith nonetheless.
However, some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence. For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.
I believe that "young-earth creationism" is both bad science and bad theology. I can accept the estimates of those who say that the solar system is 4600 million years old. That said, I can certainly conceive of other models that are not based on Darwin's theory and yet explain the diversity of species on earth. Even the age of the earth is based on certain assumptions that may turn out to be erroneous.
Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a 'designer'. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a 'designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.
I am not sure that this represents a fair or accurate picture of Intelligent Design. The authors are trying to establish guilt by association by asserting that ID has more in common with creationism (presumably of the young-earth variety discussed in the previous paragraph) than science. They imply that ID is not "based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation." They fault the proponents of ID for exploiting gaps in current knowledge—as if every other scientific model was not established the same way.
Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain.
The Royal Society statement is incomplete. It could be improved by some editing:
Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientificSome may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.knowledge,models including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain and many other things that science may never be able to explain.
Once again, the Royal Society statement is incomplete. I would suggest a few changes:
Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific methodsknowledge and understandingin order to promote particular religious beliefs. Likewise, they are poorly served when the limitations of science are not explained to them, or when science is misused in an attempt to denigrate religious beliefs.
In short, the Royal Society statement would be improved by a large dose of humility. An admission that science does not have the answers to all questions, and that science is no substitute for religion or philosophy, would go a long way toward cooling the controversies surrounding evolution.
placemarker
You're probably not as aware of the problems with public education as you pretend. There's practically no teaching of the extremely important theory of evolution in schools and there's a perverted agenda of the terminally ignorant trying to keep it that way by insisting that any small mention in textbooks be given equal time for bizarre myths and superstitions such as the flying spaghetti monster and/or charlatan pseudo science such as "intelligent design."
I take that you are speaking of evolution? Are you not? Any thing that comes out about your fundamental beliefs puts certain parts of you alls anatomy in a wringer! After you stop spitting and sputtering about how dare I …
I have one bit of satisfaction through all of this you all think that you will end up in the grave dead and gone and I know that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that He is Lord of all!
Have a nice eternity
LOL! I just like to laugh at you thats all... :)
Creationism is not science, it is theology.
Aren't the righteous charming individuals? Taking delight in the fate of those who don't share their beliefs. Do you really think that accepting the copious physical evidence for evolution is enough of a sin to warrant eternal punishment (or the denial of eternal reward)?
Do you believe the bible?
How many posts till someone misconstrues the meaning of this phrase?
When ID proponents actually start doing research and publishing their results, then the establishment will sit up and take notice. Until then, the IDers haven't got a dog in this hunt.
Sure has an awful lot of supporting evidence and sure does explain quite a lot of otherwise unexplainable phenomena.
Yes! Praise Vishnu!
The Royal Society is comprised of some of the most brilliant and accomplished people who ever lived. It is most impressive that you are not the least bit intimidated this. Most non-scientists wouldn't have audacity to lecture such people about humility. Perhaps they might appreciate a non-scientist's advice. Don't be shy. Send them an email.
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.