Posted on 12/01/2005 10:55:04 AM PST by curiosity
Edited on 12/01/2005 11:11:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The storm-tossed and rudderless Republican Party should particularly ponder the vote last week in Dover, Pa., where all eight members of the school board seeking re-election were defeated. This expressed the community's wholesome exasperation with the board's campaign to insinuate religion, in the guise of "intelligent design'' theory, into high school biology classes, beginning with a required proclamation that evolution "is not a fact.''
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
So, are intelligent conservatives the ones who think we should allow creationism to be taught in science classrooms? Perhaps you have "intelligent" confused with "cretinous".
Were not the public schools controlled by politics, and currently set up so that the theory of evolution must be given a monopoly, I'd agree with you.
It really, really bothers me that "social conservative" has become equated with biblical fundamentalist.
Which is going to scare the cr*p out of many independents.
It is true, unfortunatley, that in the US, right now, most social conservatives are probably into creationism or ID.
Not the smarter ones if Will and Krauthammer are any barometer. That's why there is still hope. There are many smart ones who haven't taken a position yet.
Poland, for example, is a far more socially conservative country than the US. Far more religious, I'd venture to say. And yet, no one there has any problem with evolution.
Poland is predominately Catholic. And after living under dictators for 50 years, they probably have higher priorities these days.
Interesting how evofundies keep pretending that every educated person is on their team.
Interesting how creationists keep insisting that they have things that they cannot produce. Like a debate within the scientific community.
Like the slightest bit of physical evidence for sidereal astrology. You're going to actually back up your previous claim at some point, aren't you?
the god of evolution
Once again, when a creationist wants to insult evolution he calls it a "religion." Tells you what they really think about religions.
Right, because faux conservatives like you have no conception of federalism, local control, freedom and the ability of the proletariat to make decisions on their own absent federal intervention. Statism comes in all flavors.
Straw man. Most genome changes are not the result of nor rely on random mutation, though you would be correct that random mutation is a pretty damn slow. Some of the other mechanisms provide smooth and rapid DNA drift, which almost certainly dominates evolutionary variation in most complex organisms.
Nonsense. I personally know strong social conservatives that are atheists and/or agnostics. The only difference is that their social conservatisms has nothing to do with religion.
ID simply states that some outside Intellegence created life and may have had a hand in shaping it over time. It is therefore compatible with Christianity--and Islam, Deism, Hinduism, Buddhism, agnosticism, New Age, and every other belief system that posits a creative intellegence behind life.
The only ones who are throwing a fit are those who a) don't understand ID and have fallen for the press bit that it's "young-earth Creationism in disguise," and b) those who are so wed to their atheistic creation myth (usually something involving Campbell's primordial soup) that they are personally threatened by the increasing evidence that life could not have arisen on its own.
Depends upon your definition of "creationism." If it's God as fundamental creator, prime cause, first cause, originator, etc., then you're right. If it's in the vein of "a global flood formed the Grand Canyon and man lived with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago", well, there are many dissenters.
Fine, I know social conservatives who believe the earth is held up by a giant standing on the back of a turtle. The exception proves the rule.
What other mechanisms? That sounds interesting. If it isn't random, doesn't Darwinian evolution go out the window? I know many evolutionists retort that "Darwinism" has long been replaced, but they continue to use the term in all kind of contexts and only seem to suggest that when holes in Darwinistic theories are pointed out. Still, I'm always intrigued by theories of non-random mutation.
Perhaps I was using the term "genome" in too broad a sense. But my point is, the complexity of the human organism is highly unlikely to have evolved (I won't say couldn't have, because though the statistical argument is compelling, I don't know that that kind of proof can be considered conclusive)as the result of random mutation followed by natural selection. I think the current state of life is the result of evolution, I just don't think it is or was random. I think life has been programmed to evolve.
I'm right because the word creation has a specific meaning which you have described accurately.
What's more, abusing the word does science no favors. Most folk don't understand the nuance when technophiles use the newspeak version. The net result is the wedge goes ever deeper and since "creationists' far outnumber technophiles blowback is inevitable.
The only ones who are throwing a fit are those who a) don't understand ID and have fallen for the press bit that it's "young-earth Creationism in disguise," and b) those who are so wed to their atheistic creation myth (usually something involving Campbell's primordial soup) that they are personally threatened by the increasing evidence that life could not have arisen on its own.
Nonsense. The only problem most of us have with ID is when its proponents insist on re-writing the definition of "science" to accomdate it.
The answer is simple - don't pretend that it's science, and you'll have no beef with most of the people on these threads. It's the lowering of standards to which we object.
LOL -the libertarian tail attempts to wag the dog as morally devoid libertarians cheer on...
I would hardly make such an assertion. Most people who support evolution do not understand it. Personally, I could not care less how speciation happens.
However, I will assert that ID is based on premises and assumptions that are unambiguously mathematically invalid. Therefore, I will assert that ID as currently formulated is utter nonsense. It does not mean evolution is the correct theory either, as there are a multitude of possible hypotheses other than the usual false dichotomy of evolution and creationism, but at least evolution is mathematically valid at a basic conceptual level regardless of its applicability to this particular case.
when holes in Darwinistic theories are pointed out
Which "holes" would those be?
Other than, of course, the "holes" that Darwin himself listed and addressed one by one (the latter half of which being frequently ignored by quote-miners)?
... most high schools and jr. highs have more than one science teacher.
Do you honestly think you could find science teachers who would be willing to teach something they know to be false just in order to keep their paycheck?!
It's hard enough now to find competent science teachers. This would make it impossible.
IMO, if you want to teach CS/ID, it has to be either like KU, in comparative religion/folklore/myth class, or in rhetoric class, where its illogical and emotion-filled "arguments" could be exposed for what they're worth, and compared to politicians' promises, advertisements, quack medical appeals, etc.
All a competent science teacher could do is explain how CS and ID don't satisfy the minimal requirements for theories, and are thus pseudoscience, similar to UFOlogy, asrology, etc.
Note that it is explicit association, not implicit.
ID simply states that some outside Intellegence created life and may have had a hand in shaping it over time.
I agree. That's all it states. And it is precisely the amorphous and utterly untestable nature of this "simple statement" that renders it unscientific, useless as an exploratory tool, and perfectly adaptable to the theocratic flavor of the day.
Understand, I am not the least threatened theologically by the idea of macro-evolution. I believe in the Designer for both scientific reasons and personal experience, but I'm not worried about how He went about building life. But neither will I simply accept the bull that what works at micro level automatically works the same way at a macro level. I've read a bit too much scientific literature to fall for that.
You need to be able to prove it, experimentally. Given the existence of extremely short-lived lifeforms, it should be possible. Have they ever bred a fruit-fly into an arachnid, to pick one example?
We've managed to create mutant fruit-flies with third eyes or superfluous wings. We've managed to breed fruit-flies to have new color variations, just as we have with dogs. Whoopie. But they remain fruit-flies. Why?
Likewise, we've bred dogs that range in size from poodles to great danes. But we've not managed to breed horse-sided riding dogs yet, have we? Why not? What's the mechanism that keeps dogs from getting much bigger than they are now?
We don't know yet. But not knowing doesn't change the facts, and the fact is that we know from experience that there are limits to how much we can change an animal by selective breeding. We may be able to overcome those limits as we learn more about genetic manipulation--but that would prove ID, not macro-evolution.
A point well worth considering.
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.