Posted on 01/07/2009 6:00:18 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
Pope John Paul II believed in Evolution.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
As does Pope Benedict
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html
Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christian fundamentalists.
The Bill of Rights does contain the Establishment clause and, even though the words “separation of CHurch and State” are not specifically there, the meaning is clear that the government cannot favor any religion. It’s part of the freedoms this great nation embraces and why many people first settled here.
Burning a cross onto a student’s arm is both child abuse and a blatant invocation of religion. We don’t need teachers branding kids with their religious symbols. THe guy needs to be fired and thrown in jail. The parents should get a good chunk of his assets. And just because some petty school board member wants government endorsement of religion does not make it right, not is it going to happen. She’ needs to leave office.
True Christians are smart enough to know a literal reading of the Bible is superficial and decidedly non-Christian. It belittles the greatness of God. The Catholic Church has learned that when physical reality and the Bible do not agree, it is the human interpretation of Scripture that needs to be re-examined.
(See my Tagline)
“I know in most states the first schools were founded by ministers”
That was before compulsory education.
And Dewey was just on the forefront. He had lots of support from government, academia, and big business. They all thought it would be great to have a school system based on the Prussian model of indoctrination.
The schools were intended to produce good citizens who would be willing to go to work in the factories. The result would be prosperity and a utopian society for all to enjoy. Yes, they really did believe this.
“Macro evolution is of importance to only **one** group of people: Scientist studying Macro evolution. The rest of the scientific world never has any reason to apply it to their work, and pays little attention to it.”
This is a fascinating comment. We have been told by many evos that evolution (not adaptation, I mean the TOE) is the foundation for all biological sciences and no one could do any research without understanding and accepting the TOE.
I am no scientist but it always seemed to me that as long as there was an understanding of adaptation then that was all that was necessary to do research. Adaptation is easily verified in real-time in the lab, as opposed to the TOE.
My youngest child took college level biology for science majors when she was only 14. Her professor didn't think she could pass the course, since she had been homeschooled and had never studied high school biology.
Every night, my daughter and I read her college biology text aloud. ( **every** assigned page and more). In a book that was possibly 3 inches thick only 4 or 5 pages was devoted to macro-evolution.
So...You see even in **biology** macro-evolution is barely discussed. This was the book and course that biology and pre-med majors taking.
My daughter and I read the text together so that I could define the terminology and explain the concepts. Her father reviewed all her class notes, corrected the spelling, and explained the chemistry.
What’s “macro-evolution”?
On the micro-level there is plenty of evolution and this really is important. Examples would be a disease germ developing a resistance to an anti-biotic. Breeding fatter cattle.
So what mechanism calls a halt to “micro-evolution” and prevents it from becoming “macro-evolution”?
Funny when I was in junior high school my friend and I built a tesla coil. We spent hours in contact with it causing our hair to stand straight up, holding fluorscent bulbs near the thing and watching them light up. I don’t remember a single burn from that experience.
It would be the organism's inability to survive. If genetic change push is too far the organism can not survive. Most genetic mutations are fatal.
For example: An iguana can evolve to be able swim in salt water ( that would be micro evolution) but it would be unlikely to evolve to be a bird. At some point it would neither be well adapted for igunahood or for birdhood. :-)
But...Hey!...You are really pushing the envelop of what I learned in the 20 minutes we spent studying the topic on the undergrad level. :-)
When my daughter was 14 she took a biology major's course and ( because of her young age and inadequate background) she and I read every assigned page of her college text together. In a college text that was easily 2 to 3 inches thick, the author devoted 4 or 5 pages to macro-evolution.
Even in biology macro-evolution is really a tiny part of the study of biology.
For example: An iguana can evolve to be able swim in salt water ( that would be micro evolution) but it would be unlikely to evolve to be a bird. At some point it would neither be well adapted for igunahood or for birdhood. :-)
You are assuming that the end point of the iguana´s evolution is ´known´, and is evidence that you don´t really understand the topic.
At any stage of a given species evolution, whether or not it is well adapted for it´s environment is entirely dependent on how it is vis a vis it´s environment at that point and not at any predicted future point.
Logic and mathemathics tell us that no mater how large a given system is or how small any changes we make to it are, if we make enough changes then, eventually, the system will change beyond all recognition to it´s starting point.
You have already agreed that small changes can occur to any animal. So, the question still stands - what machanism limits the ´micro-evolutionary´ changes and prevents them radically altering it in the longer term?
Both a human and a chimp are perfectly viable, despite the 2% difference in their genes and the 6% difference in their genome.
So where does this inability to survive come in? What is nonviable or nonfunctional about changing a working protein by 2% into a nearly identical working protein?
How does a 6% change in mostly noncoding DNA lead to non-viability?
If both organisms bridging this divide are viable, what gives you the impression that an organism that “split the difference” would be nonviable?
I did not say that organism would die to do its genetic makeup. I hope you understood that the animal be very vulnerable to attack from other animals if his body were a poorly designed iguana or half-assed bird.
We see micro-evolution every day and is indeed very important. Macro-evolution is nothing more than “ho-hum”, “Gee! That's interesting” ( yawn) to the vast majority of working scientists and health professionals.
Even my daughter's college text book for biology majors had only 4 or 5 pages on macro-evolution. The book was likely 3 inches thick! Evidently, marcro-evolution isn't even that important for **biologists**
She took college biology for science majors when she was only 14. She had had no high school biology. She and I read every page of her assignments aloud, together. This was only in the past 5 years, so I feel I have a fair idea of what is being taught in college these days.
Do you consider the australopithocine a “half assed chimp” or a “poorly designed human”; or do you view it as a upright ape that lived for over a million years over a large part of Africa as a perfectly complete unto itself biological species? The latter is certainly the biological view.
You claimed that “micro” changes could not become “macro” changes due to viability, but obviously there is nothing unviable about either end of the spectrum or any variation in between.
My own daughter's college text for biology and science majors had 4 or 5 pages in a book that was 3 inches thick. Having read every word with her, I **testify** that macro-evolution plays even a minor role in **biology** itself!!!
Actually, all I know about macro-evolution is contained on those FOUR or FIVE **pages** of my daughter's college text! Apparently the esteemed researcher who wrote the text for biology majors felt that was quiet enough space for the topic. FOUR or FIVE **pages**. ( with plenty of room for colorful illustrations, of course)
So???.....If it is of such little importance to working scientists and health professionals and to **biologists** even, why is this being pushed so hard in the high schools? I conclude that is for non-neutral political, cultural, and religious reasons.
We must end the cat fights!
Solution: Begin the privatization of universal K-12 education.
Some parents want a godless and materialist worldview taught in their children's schools and that's OK with me.
I would like traditional science taught to my children but within the framework of a God-centered worldview. I believe many would join me in feeling this way.
Some parents want creationism. I don't agree with them,,,but,,that's OK! Few need to know about or use macro-evolution in their daily lives and work. If their kids really want to go on to take serious science major's biology they can take a course at the community college to fill in the few gaps.
The problem here is government force. Government has the police power to **force** citizens to pay for schools that offend their cultural, political, and ( atheistic or God-centered ) religious worldview. Naturally there are bullying, shoving, and pushing as each tries to be King of the Mountain of government money and power.
Get government out of education and most of these evolution squabbles will melt like snow on a balmy spring day!
Your comments throughout this thread are very interesting. Okay, you and your accomplished husband and college aged daughter took lots of biology courses, and amazingly, what you define as “macroevolution” was barely touched upon.
What’s interesting is that a) you seem blithely unaware of how you certainly must have moved the goal posts wrt your arbitrary distinction between micro and macro.
Of COURSE the courses/texts spent the most time on what you call “micro.” That’s how evolution works! Teeny tiny changes in the alleles over (usually) vast amounts of time that would pretty much never look “evolutionary” or even revolutionary at the time of the chages!
It’s the creationist in you that still expects to see that iguana turn into a bird in one generation. Go back to your texts and class notes that surely have more than 20 minutes worth of the reptilia to avian evolution. you picked a great example with plenty of fossil and DNA evidence to support the facts.
To me, this is sort of a major issue. You admit to tiny changes (ie, salt-water swimming iguanas) but refuse to accept it can go beyond that. Using your example, One iguana population adapts to salt water. Many generations pass. Salt water requires less bouyancy and certain adaptations result in speedier swimmers but less bouyant ones. Many generations pass. Blood proteins change and diets change. Many generations pass. Teeth change in response to the diet change, jaws change as a result and their ears change with the jaws. On and on.
Now the two populations are too genetically distinct to mate successfully. Voila, 2 species. Oh I know... they’re still iguanas. True. Just wait a million years as that salt water lagoon dries up more and more each dry season.
but tha’ts where your brain stops working, unfortunately. That’s when God steps in and either kills off yoru salty population or... I don’t know. He makes them evolve over several million years to adapt?
Hmm.
My daily life as a Scientists deals with the impact of “macro”evolutionary theory in the applicability of research species.
Just because you or members of your family did not receive a sufficient education in the subject does not mean that it is not an essential subject.
And, seeings as your original claim lays in shambles, now you just wish to speak about how little you and yours ever needed to learn about it or use it. Well good for you and yours. Me and mine need to know it and use it every day.
“Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christian fundamentalists.”
No, not the silly Deist bit again.
“The Bill of Rights...blah...blah...the meaning is clear that the government cannot favor any religion.”
Basically true, but The Bill or Rights applied only to the General (federal) government. Even so, most Founders were not shy about official (though non-denominational) references to God and His wisdom and blessings.
The federal court’s theft of power was nearly complete by the time Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a disgusted dissenting opinion (Jaffree), reminisced about our fist President George. Washington, on THE VERY DAY the First Amendment passed Congress and at THEIR behest, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”
Wrote Rehnquist regarding that event: “History must judge whether it was the Father of our country in 1789, or...the Court...which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”
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.