Posted on 06/17/2008 8:57:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
What would you expect such a link to look like?
A good idea in the abstract, but we see in these discussion why it wouldn't work in practice. The teacher presents the theory of evolution, and Johnny raises his hand and asks why there aren't any transitional fossils. So then there's a whole lesson on what a transitional fossil would be and why, yes, there are too transitional fossils. Then Carmen asks why you never see a chicken evolve from a lizard, and there goes another week on how speciation actually works and the concept of clades and ring species and all the rest. Then Antwan says his daddy said all the fossils were deposited by the Flood, and there's another week gone talking about stratification and mineralization and tree rings and the rest. And then Sanjay asks... and then Sacheen asks... and then Tomiko asks... and bam, your school year is over.
And don't forget, this would have to occur again in geology, when Robert asks about the fountains of the deep and where all the water went. And in astronomy, when Felipe wants to talk about how the Earth is the center of the universe and the speed of light used to be different. And, and.
And then in physics class, little smartass Billy wants to know how gravity isn't just invisible pixies pushing down apples and holding up airplanes. What do you tell him? How much time do you spend on that? Don't get me wrong: I think these would all be fruitful discussions. But we're talking about middle school science class. Frankly, I want my kid to come out with a basic understanding of how science thinks the world works. If anyone can guarantee that the amount of time spent on these alternative theories is proportional to the number of real scientists that hold them, then fine--we'll dispense with all of them in a couple of days. But that's not what's going to happen.
See post 20. Why should it be the government's job to teach any of this?
Yes, much like in Dover where the Science teachers were so “limited” by only teaching Science, that when they were “allowed” to read the Incompetent Design statement they all declined to do so. The statement had to be read by a School board member or something because none of the Science teachers wanted to read the drivel they were promulgating.
How can you be so sure the definition of a “day” holds true when there is no Sun?
Morning and evening the first day was apparently a morning and an evening and a day without a Sun.
MUST have been exactly 24 hours some six thousand years ago!!!! It is the only thing that makes sense! A day without a Sun MUST be 24 hours! I INSIST UPON IT!!! I BASE MY AND YOUR SALVATION ON IT!!!! If a day without a Sun isn’t 24 hours the entire edifice comes crashing down!!!! /s
And not to speak for Mr. Nehrling, m, correct me if I’m mistaken, but what I think he is saying is that a classroom which welcomes debate and discussion on issues is a more dynamic, intellectually stimulating experience. And I agree with that on principle. Where we disagree is on practicality. NS, you brought up some good points of why that would (sadly IMO) not be practical.
Not to kiss your butt, but on an unrelated note, if people simply threw these four words into FR threads of this nature every now and then, these threads would be a lot more peaceful and productive. Kudos to everyone on this thread for keeping it cool so far.
The existence of gravity can be demonstrated in the lab, just as the existence of evolution can be demonstrated by measuring endogenous retroviruses.
But the analogy to "Re-creating evolution" is creating a significant gravitational anomaly (without using megatons of mass) - hasn't been done, because we know even less about gravitational theory than evolutionary theory.
Well... evolution cannot be proven scientifically, but the law of thermodynamics has been accepted (to my knowledge) as scientific. You decide. Which is more likely? Admittedly, there are those “theistic evolutionists” who would claim that God intervened along the way, but there is no proof for that either. My original point was - and still is - that it takes as much faith (if not more!) to accept evolution than to accept any other origin of man explanation. Why, then, should evolution alone rule the classroom and get the only hearing - much less why should it be tagged as “science”??
Correct in that the exact sequence of events where an environment led to selective pressure on the genetic variation of a population cannot be recreated.
But evolution can be done in the lab. Many thousands of experiments on selective pressure have demonstrated the principles of the theory of evolution through natural selection.
Also like a forensic Science, the past can be seen (through a prism darkly) in the relics of our past that DNA contains like old retroviral infections from when we shared ancestors with other species, and identical mutations in genes not under selective pressure (vitamin C synthase Gulo gene), and a pattern of similarity and divergence such that the relationship of species can be discerned.
Moreover the idea that you have that something is missing in the fossil record is only correct in that a lot of things are missing. What is there shows that what species inhabit the earth has been a varied and changing thing in our long and storied past. It seems that you are looking for some sort of clean line of demarcation, something that you will not see in nature- when you walk from a forest into a marsh there isn't a clean line of separation, the forest just gets marshier and marshier.
Well, I’m hoping that those to whom I’m replying know that I’m not trying to take an ugly tone. I trust that they mean well, too.
I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but some clear transition where the two species are clearly transforming from one into another... but the only pictures I’ve seen show separate skulls which theorists cannot even clearly agree as to the species - let alone the relationship between them. (Hope I’m making myself understood and that my answer hasn’t muddied the water.)
Don't get me wrong, I am a creationist, however, I fall into the theistic evolution camp. I am often disappointed, however, how poorly most creationists argue against evolution.
Yea, that pretty much covers it.
I think I understand, but I still invite you to think about what exactly would constitute “some clear transition where the two species are clearly transforming from one into another.” Evolutionists would say that a bunch of skulls that we have a hard time saying were definitely ape or definitely human would be exactly what we would expect if apes and humans had a common ancestor. If you disagree, what else should we look for?
Because, like it or not, there is evidence supporting the theory of evolution -- that's how it rose to the level of a theory.
Other origins, whether due to the action of some deity, Old Man Coyote perhaps, or due to space aliens, are fun to talk about but there is no evidence to support any of them.
And by adherence to the scientific method the theory of evolution qualifies as a science. Science starts with data and seeks to explain it. Note that this is the exact opposite of what creationists espouse -- they start with a conclusion and twist evidence in a vain effort to make it fit.
And that is why, when it comes to teaching science, the theory of evolution should "rule the classroom and get the only hearing."
Sorry to disagree with you there, but if evolution had been definitively proven there would be no argument (much as there is no argument about the earth not being flat) - i.e. there is actual proof. It is not a theory, as evolution is. Despite many scientists’ attempts to twist what they have found into some sort of “eureka” moment, they have not succeeded. However, I suspect you are wedded to this theory, so we will have to let the matter go there as you cannot prove evolution - nor can you disprove any of the other explanations for the origins of mankind. There is much more evidence, like it or not, for an intelligent creator than there is for the idea that everything just sort of came together.
FYI - I probably understand the law as well as many here do, so please remain respectful. As for your implication that creationists do not argue evolution well, that is strictly your opinion and I have heard some very strong arguments that evolutionists simply have no answer for. Perhaps you are listening to the wrong people.
I have to stop posting in a few moments, but will try to answer quickly. My problem with the idea that transitional fossils have been found (they haven’t), is that one must ASSUME a great many things to arrive at the conclusions that are the basis of evolution. One must ASSUME, for example, that because two species look similar in some ways that they MUST have a common ancestor - not because fossils have actually been found to support that, but because certain scientists have a decidedly vested interest (and I would say a very un-scientific one) in making sure their conclusions are “proven”. Perhaps this is why they have been so eager to embrace every hoax find out there. The famed “Lucie” wasn’t even found intact, but was found over quite a bit of ground, but hey, it must be all one skeleton - right?? Evolutionists, in rejecting the concept of an intelligent creator, have to begin with the BIG BANG - which turns every proven scientific theory (”proven” being the operative word here)on its head. There was nothing, then - boom! Spontaneous life - which - PRESTO - turns into something else and adapts over time (but we really don’t have any fossils to PROVE this definitively). And they say Christian creationists must have to have a lot of faith for their belief.... WHEW!!
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.