Skip to comments.Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom
Posted on 07/05/2008 5:23:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
This is how the left wins the public argument - by appealing to people’s sense of emotion - i.e sympothy. Emotion wins everytime - this is how we have homos, minorities and women dictating policy to the majority. Rather than a colorblind society we have race, sexual preference and gender based discrimintion.
IF the right wants to win the cultural war they will unfortunately have to engage people from an emotional (ie. sympathy) level. People are sheep and for the most part idiots. In fact the more educated one is, the less common sense they have.
We agree on both of these points. I *think* where we differ is what is being advocated here. I do not believe that "religion" is being required to be taught in science class. I do believe, though, that the weaknesses and strengths of any theory, or belief system, should be taught when that theory or belief system is taught.
Part of the teaching the weaknesses of evolution could include (NOT "should"), religious beliefs of various peoples. While this part would not be science, the exposure of the theory's weaknesses would be the science being discussed.
Only if you referee doesn't know the difference between school district taxes and tax exmpt institutions. By your reducto ad absurdum, we could put the tax exempt ACLU in the same camp and start regulating it, and I am sure you wouldn't want that, 'cause then they wouldn't have the fund to sue taxpayers who do not vote they way they like.
Every single one of your examples can be shown as nonsense by repeatable experimentation in the here and now. Evolution, as a theory of what happened in the (very) distant past, cannot be directly tested by repeatable contemporary experimentation, in the good old here and now.
As a theory of history...not at all subject to direct observation and experimentation, (and by it's own hypothesis actually pre-historic...) Darwinism is unique in science, in that so many scientists hold to it as firmly as gravity, and yet unlike gravity, and practically everything else in science (since it is claimed evolution happened over hundreds of millions of years), no one can directly test it.
It's no wonder that the most ardent evolutionary scientists are atheists, and, virtually all atheists are evolutionists. All religious beliefs have a philosophy of history, and Darwinism is no exception.
Maybe that is the reason the Dr. Provine is at Cornell,instead of Harvard or Yale. Knowing the founders of Harvard believed that “All knowledge without Christ was vain.” And yet still on the college seal the motto, “For Christ and the Church.
And Yale had a primary goal of, “Every student shall consider the main end of his study to wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly, sober life.”
Would to God these were true today, at all our Universities, we would have worthy goals and purposes.
I didn’t use taxpayer support as a determining factor, my opponent did.
The weaknesses of scientific theories including evolution IS being tought in science class. Darwin did it himself. You cannot offer religious objections in schools unless the religious objections can be argued based on scientific evidence. ID offers no proof at all; no evidence. It isn't science so teach it in church
Ive seen this example provided by you in a previous thread. If I remember correctly, you never replied to my refutation. To illustrate the inadequacy of this example, I would ask you how many genetic mutations were involved in the evolution of this species from the previous one, and what are the corresponding phenotypes?
This one questionable example of yours is like trying to stop a hurricane with a single bag of sand.
In order to give a minimum amount of credibility to evolutionism, fossil evidence of transitional forms must be found at least in the tens of thousands, but preferably in the tens of millions.
I challenge you to provide just ten separate examples of transitional forms.
If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found.
-Duane T. Gish, in his book The Fossils Still Say No.
More from Gish:
Errol White, an evolutionist and expert on fishes, in his presidential address on lungfishes to the Linnean Society of London, said: But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing Later he went on to say, I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.
If you read Gishs book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms. Not just transitional forms between fish and amphimbians, but also between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and all the countless species between which transitional forms must have existed in the path of commmon descent if evolution is true.
Looking at the photo of the reconstructed skull above reminded me that in a real sense the only evidence for Darwinism is forensic—typically fossilized bones alleged to be extremely ancient. Unlike the TV show CSI though very old forensic evidence often does not yield intelligible proof, be it about a crime, or a theory.
The existence of evidence for similar hominids to Homo Sapiens Sapiens no more proves we are descended from them any more than the existence of the Chinese proves my family is descended from them.
Duane T. Gish, quoting the evolutionist Errol White:
We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling Darwin is God and I, So-and-so, am his prophetthe recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the Neo-Darwinian Jericho.
Their evidence is asking stupid questions like "If God created the universe, then who or what created God"? (Evolutionists try to corner you into believing you must provide scientific evidence for God's existence.)
Answer: God is God. God is the Creator. If God needed someone or something to create Him, He would not be God. You don't need science to explain God.
Such as finding useful explanations, which probably would seem to silence something but doesn't silence anything except by contrast with useless conjecture.
Gish is a creationist. You can't expect him to tell the truth about the theory of evolution, can you?
Just because an old fool says something doesn’t make it true.
You can purchase invertebrate fossils here
Apparently it escapes you that people can choose their faith. When children walk into a classroom, and they are told ["Here is the theory of evolution. Accept it as fact. There will be no discussion about it's reliability."]; that's indoctrination. Wait until evolution is proven to be fact before teaching it as fact.
The question is: what life forms preceded the creatures of the Cambrian explosion, and where is the evidence?
In science, how is a theory "proven to be a fact?"
Please explain the process for those of who are not familiar with how this is accomplished.
“Gish is a creationist. You can’t expect him to tell the truth about the theory of evolution, can you?”
If your first priority is to protect a worldview based on either Darwinism or atheistic naturalism, do not read Gishs book. Dont go anywhere near anything written by Michael J. Behe, either, and you must completely ignore the major arguments presented by both Gish and Behe.
Sarcastic tone asideI would say with great enthusiasm yes, look with careful focus into the writings and thinking of these men, as well as that of any serious scientists and philosophers you encounter along the way.
If you find yourself criticizing them based on labels alone or defaming their character, I would suggest you take note of this tactic.
"It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them.
It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".
The best record of the Cambrian diversification is the Burgess Shale in British Columbia. Laid down in the middle-Cambrian, when the "explosion" had already been underway for several million years, this formation contains the first appearance in the fossil record of brachiopods, with clamlike shells, as well as trilobites, mollusks, echinoderms, and many odd animals that probably belong to extinct lineages. They include Opabinia, with five eyes and a nose like a fire hose, and Wiwaxia, an armored slug with two rows of upright scales.
The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.
Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.
Interpretations of this critical period are subject of lively debate among scientists like Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. Gould emphasizes the role of chance. He argues that if one could "rerun the tape" of that evolutionary event, a completely different path might have developed and would likely not have included a humanlike creature. Morris, on the other hand, contends that the environment of our planet would have created selection pressures that would likely have produced similar forms of life to those around us -- including humans".
I have read quite a bit of creationist literature, and studied a number of creationist websites.
When it comes to science they are either willfully self-deluded or they are lying.
They make the most outrageous claims about science, things that are documented to be incorrect, and when corrected they continue to make those same claims.
The reason for this is that they are not doing science; they are promoting their particular religious views. They are not bound by the rules of science, nor by evidence. This leads to repetition of the same falsehoods over and over.
Some of these claims have been seen, and refuted, so often that they have been numbered for easier reference. See Index to Creationist Claims by Mark Isaak.
BS. Science provides evidence to back up its rational claims. Religion does not. Religious indoctrination is the reason Hindu children are Hindus, Christian children are Christians, and why you believe a big daddy in the sky created everythinhg by speaking words in a vacuum.
“Their evidence is asking stupid questions like “If God created the universe, then who or what created God”?”
Yes you do! You do if you’re talking about God in a class that purports to be about science. For example, if the class is called “biology” or “General Science” or “Creation Science”
“Evolutionists try to corner you into believing you must provide scientific evidence for God’s existence.)”
Not necessarily, if the class is about “Religion” or “Philosophy”.
An excellent reason not to read books by the old fool: "Tiktaalik roseae, was recently discovered on Canada. The fossil is important because it fills in a gap in the transition from fish to amphibians and provides clues as to how the transition took place". See pictures here:
Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
I wasn’t very clear in my reply to your post. I’m not against discussion of religion in public schools. However, my point was that assertions based on faith do not belong in classes that are supposed to be about science. By definition, science is restricted to empirical evidence and the rules of logic. T
What a stupid argument. If your thesis cannot be proven consistently by different observers, then it’s trash.
The space for cretion gets smaller though doesn't it?
You’re talking about indirect evidence. Evolution is a theory about a PROCESS, not the current (testable/falsifiable) DNA in lizards today or fossils deposited in the past. As a process that hypothetically takes millions of years, unless humanity lives for a few more millions of years (and keeps a constant state or progress of civilization, observation, and records), or develops a time machine, one cannot observe the process happening. Do organisms mutate, adapt and change? Of course, no one denies that as it’s testable and falsifiable. But do they change for the better by progressively becoming more complex? In spite of thousands of studies on fruit flies, bacteria and the like, I know of no study that proves that...
This idea is not original to me. Dr. Norman Geisler, a respected conservative philosopher, brought this out: Since both creationist AND evolutionist hypotheses are about the distant and pre-historic past, which as the past is NOT subject to falsifiable experimentation and testing, theories need to be kept more humbly and without dogmatism. The fact is, neither you nor I KNOW what happened millions of years ago—since all we have is bones and layers of dirt—so are ideas are testable only in a most indirect way, and it’s sheer arrogance to profess that we do or even can know any pre-history for certain.
If legitimate historians argue about how Custer lost the Battle of Little Bighorn, a bit over a century ago, in an era of written records, and lots of forensic evidence and even eye witnesses, why do we have such overconfidence to describe events many million more times farther away?
To posit a bottom line that random processes made the Universe, and even more fantastically, that these made the scientifically proven unimaginable complexities of organic life, is, at its core a religious, albeit materialistic, faith. Even some great evolutionary scientists have acknowledged this problem (Jasper and the pan-spermia idea—which merely puts origins somewhere else, not solving the problem). Lacking that time machine, origin issues are, by their very nature religious issues, and scientific knowledge, like religious knowledge, but in different ways, is limited.
I simply don’t have enough faith to believe order “arose” from disorder, especially when a scientifically accepted law (and testable/falsifiable) on energy (2nd Law of Thermodymics) says just the opposite. Order arose from an Orderer...and is that religious? Yes, it is where religion and science meet, as there logically they must.
I agree with you. Religion does not belong in a science class. But I do believe that full discussion about evolution needs to be presented to students. The problems confronting the theory evolution need to be addressed, as well as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists do not want this kind of discussion presented to students in the study of evolutionary science.
That's the whole problem. In schools across the nation, evolution is presented as scientific fact. It is therefore, the schools that are teaching "evolution" wrongly.
Silly statement. No one is forced to believe any religious teaching (at least in a free society). I choose to believe in God, you don't.
As far as God speaking words in a vacuum, if there is a God then there never was a vacuum (not to mention that God transcends any scientific explanation). Of course, if you can prove to me there is no God, then I'll gladly eat my words.
That would depend on which question you're trying to answer.
Many believe the evidence proves the hypothesis. What would you require for it to be 'proven'?
Thus the need to open up discussion.
How far would you open it?
I can't speak for all but if I were asked that question then I would point to that hundreds of transitional fossils have been identified, most of which are listed here.
Certainly. I could think of several things that would destroy evolution. If you were to find a fossil of a homo sapien in with Brontosaurus, for example. Of if you found a fossile of a modern horse that is millions of years old. Both would refute evolution as we know it.
so why doesn’t the outcome of an experiment consistent with Lamarckian transmission of acquired characteristics ,and not conistent with Darwinian theory ,falsify Darwinism as the comprehensive explanation you purport it is?
The theory of evolution is being taught as a theory.
In science, a theory incorporates the following:
There is generally only one theory going in a particular field at a given time. There are often hypotheses being raised and studied and these are often incorrectly referred to as theories, using the layman's use of the term.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
The theory of evolution is taught not as a fact (although it certainly is; see the definition below), but as the best explanation for the observations that have been made. There are no competing theories. There are religious beliefs that run counter to the theory of evolution, but within science there are no competing theories.
But what creationists are really demanding is that their religious beliefs be accorded the status of scientific theories without going through the rigorous process to be accepted as a scientific theory. (Kind of like a special affirmative action program for religion, eh?)
So, given that the theory of evolution is the only theory covering its field, and there is only religious belief without scientific evidence or standing in opposition, its only appropriate to teach the theory of evolution in schools and religion in churches.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become recognized as a fact.
Here’s someone who agrees with you that academic freedom has constraints imposed by elite consensus:
“Writing to Houghton Mifflin Company, Hansen asks for changes in the textbook to reflect what he considers to be the truth and consensus:
Apparently, there is no room for debate in the classroom on these issues. Apparently also there is no uncertainty. Hansen also makes a mention of so called activist scientists. I think he proved the point about activist scientists quite well with this letter.”
That is an interesting question. It's like life begins, then almost nothing happens for billions of years. Then all of sudden, one day, the Cambrian explosion begins. Almost all phyla appears in a short span of geological time. Then its back to stasis. Now if it was the increase of oxygen (which scientists have theorized) that caused the explosion, then why aren't new phylum being created all the time?
It's like nothing happened, nothing happened, nothing happened. Then one day, "Surprise!". A big surprise party that lasts for a short time, then everyone goes home. Instead of the "theory of evolution", maybe it should be called the "theory of surprise parties". Only that these surprise parties happen only once every few billion years. (Oh, and BTW, when they do happen we'll give them a fancy name such as "punctuated equilibrium". Not that it really explains anything, but it sounds nice.)
First of all, evolution in not a fact, as you claim! It is only a possibility.
Secondly, it is being taught in many schools that there is absolutely no other explanation for our existence other than evolution. That is not teaching a theory. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should teach Creationism in science class. But as someone pointed out earlier, a theory is not fact.
So how about this? We start off teaching evolution by explaining just exactly how the first cell evolved. Remember though, it has to be more than just pointing out the components of a cell and how they function.
"My research comes from VERY old books and LOTS of beople believe it too. Shouldn't that be good enough?Belief does not equate truth.