Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.
It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.
I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.
The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.
” The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. “
So is gravity.
The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, it’s better than this article deserved.
Evolution has become increasingly a dogma even though evidence continues to accumulate that suggests that the existing theory is not sufficient to explain what is being observed. I think that current evolutionary theory is one that purposely confuses microevolution minor adaptations and a normal range of genetic variations with macroevolution which is the total transformation of a creature in form and function. Modern Evolutionary theory does produce a lot of wonderful untestable stories and drawings of ancestors re-imagined from a handful of bones. I believe in adaptation but I do not believe natural selection is the primary driver of exceedingly complex genetic change nor do I believe there is any adequate explanation for the origin of life.
So much of what is accepted evolutionary science is really an illusion crafted to suggest things not supported by empirical data. I believe that current evolutionary theory is vastly oversimplified and would be considered ridiculous if the simple picture was not so appealing as was the classical model of Newtonian physics before it was found to be insufficient.
http://www.morsescode.com/Heavy Weaponry? Give us a break. One of them was a freaking .22 cal pistol!Thursday, April 19, 2007
Here we go again – shooter at Virginia Tech
....
What has changed in our society to cause this epidemic of mass murder at schools?
....
2. Guns: The types of weapons now available were not around when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment into the Bill of Rights. While the right to keep and bear arms is and should remain a basic right, there is nevertheless no logical reason why anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy the types of weapons that the Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain.
....
What is to be done?
....
2. Guns. Heavy weaponry should be only available to those who have been trained to use them and not to the public at large.
And both .22 and 9mm cal high-cap. semiauto pistols have been available for more than 70 years.
You Gun Grabbers use any excuse to ban those "pocket rockets"
Entropy and Life
To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.
To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news... I'm sure I would have heard of it.
More in the link above...
Thank you.
Uh huh...
Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories. Diverse fields of science such as geology support the basic concepts of evolution. Findings made long after the theory of natural selection was proposed are remarkable in that they support, rather than refute the theory.
Uh huh...
Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories. Diverse fields of science such as geology support the basic concepts of evolution. Findings made long after the theory of natural selection was proposed are remarkable in that they support, rather than refute the theory.
I find it an interesting data point -- one to be placed alongside the data point that 35% of Democrats believe Bush had advanced knowledge of 9/11.
Each party apparently has its "eccentric" wing of base voters, attracting politicians who seek to identify with (or indeed accurately represent) those voters.
It's almost pointless to strike out most of the article. It could still be a stupid piece, but if it is going to be posted it should be easily legible.
Non-secularly, the existence of God would have huge ramifications.
Now, more back on topic, science seems more and more trying to supplant religion (from the Creationist/Christian point of view). No longer is it very common to see reports from scientists stating that things were observed to be or appear this or that way. There is an air of finality and unquestionability that science isn't supposed to have. Religion and science are two subjects, just as mathematics and history are two subjects. And as is the case with all those subjects, they can at times merge, but are two distinct subjects. Similarly, all those subjects in their abstract form are perfect. However, in their unabstract (concrete?) form, you see that subjects can have flaws in them, given the imperfection of human creatures. Astronomers once believed that space was filled with ether, until Newton came up with his theory of gravitation. Common history once held that the existence of Sumer and Troy were myths. Now, those places and civilizations are believed to have indeed existed.
Christianity has an "opt-out." Because Christians believe that God (Who is perfect) gave mankind the Bible, the Bible can be considered perfect. It is taken by faith.
Science doesn't have that option. Indeed, almost by definition, science is supposed to be debated and tested over and over again until things become reliably clear. And yet, today, there are those who refuse to let science (in its concrete, non-abstract form) be questioned, and who all but reject experiments and observations which call into question what are today basic tenets (such as supposedly 65 million year+ organic material from dinosaurs being found in warm [non-icy year round] regions). That is detrimental to the advancement of science, much more so than letting Creationism be accepted as a rival alternative to and along with Macroevolution.
On the bright side. Only 14% of Republicans believe Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
And remember:
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side!"
“The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, it’s better than this article deserved.”
This is typical of the naturalist position: Squash all debate, assume a naturalistic view of the world and the universe, and attack the character of the person with the opposing view rather than discuss the evidence presented. The posted article is a prime example of this - the “striking-out” of every word the Intelligent Design position given in the article instead of dealing with the points discussed. Talk about censorship and dogmatism!
The problem with naturalistic evolutionists is that they assume that because there are demonstrable variations, or evolution, within a specie (micro-evolution) that this somehow proves that there is evolution between kinds (macro-evolution).
Micro-evolution is not the controversial issue - even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution. No one is arguing that there is never any “change” in the universe. Rather, it is the macro-evolution that is the controversy - that naturalistic evolution occurs between kinds (inorganic to organic, plant to fish, fish to mammal, etc.). Naturalistic evolutionists always assumes that because mirco-evolution occurs (which no one disputes) that this automatically proves that macro-evolution also occurs.
Naturalistic evolutionists philosophically assume a naturalist view of the universe - not because they can scientifically prove macro-evolution occurs or that matter always existed and had no beginning, but because they want to rule out the possiblity of a Creator/Designer. They claim that since the idea of the universe being created by some Being is untestable scientifically, it is therefore outside the realm of science to allow for that possibility. But the problem is, they do the very same thing in regard to naturalistic explanations of the universe - their explanations (theories) are also untestable scientifically. Yet, somehow their philosophical assumptions are “scientific”.
Believe what you want, but don’t avoid the debate.
IMO the controversy over origins is a conflict within Revolutionism between Protestants and Secularists. When I look at the landscape of beliefs through a wide-angle lens where Revolutionism itself is open to question, the origins debate appears to be a preoccupation of Revolutionists. As a Catholic, I’m not especially concerned about the physical mechanisms through which God created the universe. I just know he’s for real and I’m at peace with my inability to understand in totality the one written artifact of the Faith we call the Bible.
If life were subject to the kind of random change that evolution would require (and it is clearly not), it would have destroyed itself long ago. An accidental increase in useful information is denied by the second law, and all those loony dissertations that attempt to 'debunk' this fact are illogical nonsequiters that endlessly play with words to the point of destroying language as effectively as evolution would destroy life.
Actually, it's more of a commonsense vs. evolunacy ping list.
But it isn't evolution, that's the problem; it's only flexibility in the obvious design of the creature. The flexibility is also part of the design, because the designer saw the end from the beginning.
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.