Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Narrative Summary
4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
(Click excerpt link for responses)
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
What I may or may not presuppose is not the issue. Why do you keep evading it?
So would you consider the affirmative statements in the following scientific publication to be science or faith?
“You shouldn’t be here. Not just reading this blog, but anywhere.
You shouldn’t exist. Period.
Moments after the big bang, equal amounts of matter and antimatter floated through the universe and when particles of each collided, they annihilated each other, leaving nothing but free floating energy in their paths.
Suddenly something changed, allowing for more matter than antimatter. The little extra bit that escaped annihilation clumped together and over time planets… and eventually you formed.
But billions of years later no one knows exactly how that happened.”
As far as I can tell, Wile has a PhD in chemistry and his research focus was nuclear chemistry. Additionally, his last professional article was published in 1993, and since 1995 he appears to have absolutely no association with any accredited university. From 1995 to 1998 he wasn't even doing vaguely academic work; he was doing database programming or something. Why would you use a biology course written by someone who doesn't have any credentials in biology?
Here is what one Amazon reviewer had to say about Wile's biology course:
At one point Wile compares a certain basic protein, which is known to scientists as one of the simplest building blocks of life, and that is present across all species, and compares the differences between the protein in one animal and the protein in another, and shows that there is no relation between how distant the animals are related evolutionarily and the differences in the proteins: but this is very poor science, proteins are heavily modified after they are made, which is why scientists go to the blueprint of the protein: the DNA. DNA is the genetic material We've all heard of the "human genome project", which mapped out the DNA of human beings, and we all know that the project found the DNA of humans was only one spot different from chimps, and a couple from gorillas and orangutans and so on, and it all confirmed what had been previously theorized about human evolution. Well while Wile presents "evidence" from a single protein, which really can tell us nothing about evolutionary history, he decides not to even tell the student about the Human Genome Project! This is gross negligence!Is it true that Wile doesn't even mention the Human Genome Project? If so, that's incredibly dishonest of him. What arguments for evolution does Wile discuss?
Do you have any evidence at all that plants were growing on the Earth before the Sun existed?
Apparently you don’t have a good explanation do you? See how trivially easy it is to falsify Creationism.
“It is incumbent upon the proponents of a theory to prove it.” [excerpt]It is also their responsibility to attempt to disprove it.
“Give us 150 years, a strangle hold on academia and untold grant dollars and we'll get back to you.”Ka-Ching!
“I have complete and total faith that the account in Genesis is allegorical, that “morning” and “evening” of a “day” without a Sun was not, as a matter of necessity, exactly 24 hours or any nearby variation;” [excerpt]Exodus 20:11 puts the total (from beginning to end) creation time at six 24 hour days.
“But presupposing something ISN’T true isn’t science either, is it?” [excerpt]Interesting thing presuppositions are.
How big of a ship would it take, to have room for all known species of animals on board? Two each.
Creation science should answer the questions of how many species, and how big a boat (ship).
Did the technology exist at the time, to build a vessel of whatever size the scientists calculate?
Name the species.
I think my question is very legitimate, from a logical standpoint.
Morality (and all of those associated ideals) are rooted entirely in a presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Nature is pure war, with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized by the restraint of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.
The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.
The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.
Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the "missing link" Louis Leaky searched Oldavai Gorge 30 years in vain for.
But, the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule. All living things have it. Like the singularity of the "big bang" theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception...
Evolution, the theory, is called more properly "The Origin of Species." That was Darwin's title.
Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.
The flaw in evolutionists' logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life came from somewhere else...
See #212... a boiling point...
‘work for six days, and rest on the seventh’
>>The starting point of Evolution is that, everything that exists arrived at its current state via completely Naturalistic processes.
The second one is not accurate. The theory of evolution is just currently the theory that best fits the evidence
The first one is true but if evidence of intervention by an intelligent being is found that would be part of naturalistic. so while science does not assume God (or gods for that matter) it does not preclude them either.
“It says “24 hour days”? You must have the “creationist” Bible.” [excerpt]Just the Hebrew.
“Mine says it was “in six days”, but doesn't give how many hours were in those “days”; moreover that passage gives the direct applicability of the parable of creation and its connection to the sabbath.” [excerpt]Using an English translation to argue against the exactness of the Hebrew makes a pretty weak argument.
Evolution as taught claims that it is the singular Naturalistic source of life.The only completely Naturalistic process is Evolution.“The second one is not accurate.” [excerpt]
“so while science does not assume God (or gods for that matter) it does not preclude them either.” [excerpt]From a post by Coyote[man]:
“Methodological naturalism is a philosophical rule used by scientists. This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon.” [excerpt]Methodological Naturalism precludes anything supernatural, including God.
“The Hebrew that was translated also did not specify 24 hours, but merely said “yom”.”Thats because you are taking it out of context and are, apparently, oblivious to semantics, intentionally or otherwise.
“What I may or may not presuppose is not the issue. Why do you keep evading it?”
Well, I guess I see it as the issue. For some time I accepted the idea that my reasoning on the creation/evolution issue was faulty, because I jumped into any discussion with the assumption that the Bible is true.
After a few years it was pointed out to me that those who argued against me assume that the Bible isn’t true. So they really aren’t claiming any moral high ground. They are not “more scientific” than me.
We could say, alternatively, that I enter the argument assuming evolution isn’t true, and you enter assuming it is.
Either way I think it is helpful to everyone to be honest about our presuppositions, instead of pretending they don’t exist.
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.