Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper
Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 01/19/06 | Tom Heneghan

Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by peyton randolph

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; creationisminadress; dover; fsm; id; idiocy; idisjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; science; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 601-606 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman

Inquisition, now there's another original argument. Yet another misrepresented and misunderstood topic (which, by my saying so, will undoubtedly cause you to assume that I advocate the Inquisition, or approve of its tactics...)

As for evidentiary proof, the Church (along with Protestants and professors and scientists...) relied on centuries-old ideas and the (faulty) biblical interpretation of the day. Galileo said they were wrong, but offered no proof. THERE'S a strong argument... "Your Honor, my client is not guilty." "Have you any evidence?" "Well, no, but he isn't!"

I don't know what else to say. You single out the Church because it put him on trial, you criticize it because it was wrong, standing in the way of "free thought" and so on, and yet you ignore the fact that the Church was not alone in their opposition to Galileo. Copernicus said the very same thing (yes, he published the year he died, but his ideas were well known) and nothing happened to him. Galileo was on trial not just with the Church but in the minds of EVERYONE, because he taught as fact that which he could not prove as fact--scientists, professors, and theologians alike all looked at him the same; it just happened that he was under the Church's jurisdiction.

I'm at a loss for words. If you would just do some cursory reading, you would see what I am saying. It is not that hard to find the meat of the matter--it was failure of all parties, not just the Church. If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


401 posted on 01/20/2006 2:11:59 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
They were scientific boneheads once, but they're determined to avoid such a mistake in the future.

Nice to see that someone learns from history....

402 posted on 01/20/2006 2:14:46 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

But the whole image of being 'anti-science' is fallacious (at least you knew to mention Bruno--most people hold up the Galileo issue as the definitive "proof" of the anti-science leanings of the Church and fail to come up with even ONE other instance). The Galileo affair can be taken as evidence of the PRO-science leaning of the Church--turning 1500 years of accepted scientific fact over because one man said he had proof but couldn't produce any, makes no sense no matter WHAT age you live in. Galileo taught as fact that which he couldn't prove was fact. Proof was all the Church was after. As you mentioned, the disconnect comes in the speed with which the Church acknowledged the proof. There was not sufficient proof until Newton, at which time the Church should have reversed, which it didn't.

As for the Letter to the Grand Duchess, it is actually something I am going to be giving my students on Tuesday...


403 posted on 01/20/2006 2:18:11 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

He had more than enough evidence to be persuasive. What additional evidence would you require, if you were a contemporary of Galileo's, to accept the solar system? Please name something specific, that would have been a clincher.

The point is that he had plenty of evidence, and of course it was a revolutionary idea. So what? Why threaten him with torture, ban his book, and place him under house arrest for the remainder of his life? What if he had been a total goofball and said that the earth orbits Santa Clause? Then he would have had no evidence at all. Again, so what? He shouldn't have been persecuted. We all understand why the Church did what they did, but I hope we all understand that they were wrong in doing so. They recognize this now, so why can't you. Or do you?

404 posted on 01/20/2006 2:18:38 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
I thought I said that as far new species were concerned, perhaps that part of evolution had ended, and I took a wild guess as to why. The anti-evolutionists are always claiming that species are immutable. Perhaps they were immutable, not theoretically but in fact, after a certain point, is what I was saying. If species are not immutable now, let me know of one that has changed within our knowledge. I believe Darwin's observations were of varieties only, and the rest was extrapolation.

I believe his extrapolation to be correct, but I'm just making some guesses about the relatively very recent history of the planet.

405 posted on 01/20/2006 2:19:34 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The Galileo affair is the inevitable background to understanding the current position of the Church on such issues.

And the ONLY background often mentioned...

The Church is never credited for fostering and growing science and education, only for standing in its way as "proven" by the Galileo affair. As I said a second ago, it can be said that the Church was acting in the interests of science in insisting the heliocentric model be taught as hypothesis, since not enough evidence was available to prove it. Scientists (good ones, anyway) don't make claims they can't back up--they make hypotheses that are subject to change or affirmation with the discovery of new information.
406 posted on 01/20/2006 2:21:48 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
Proof was all the Church was after.

Hmmm. That's a pretty bold statement.

Given that the Church used force to quiet Galileo, it's also a very hard one to support.

407 posted on 01/20/2006 2:28:49 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Chili Girl
"The Catholic Church does not believe in creationism?"

Where did you read that?

Evolution does not address creation, evolution means change after creation.

Once one settles that little tidbit in one's own mind, then one can be quite comfortable believing in both Creation and evolution.

Simply stated, to make the argument that the Creation of everything can be boiled down to a few words, and understood by man, is actually a silly notion; if a man could grasp the complexity of His Creation and how He did it, that man would be a God.

In a nutshell, if there once existed an amoeba that was able to eventually evolve into a monkey able to evolve into man, that amoeba was created by God.

Was Creation an act of God?

Without a doubt.

Has evolution happaned in this planet?

I believe that it has...and in no way does that belief interfere with my belief in Biblical Creation.

408 posted on 01/20/2006 2:30:54 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Tsk tsk. Such hostility. Maybe if you had a little more emotional maturity you wouldn't be so quick to anger.

Have a nice day!
409 posted on 01/20/2006 2:35:28 PM PST by Sirloin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: munin

That does not answer my question.


410 posted on 01/20/2006 2:42:18 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Being that I am a historian and not an astronomer or physicist, I wouldn't know what evidence to produce. Given the history, doubt was removed when Newton developed his laws of planetary motion. Parallaxes work into it, something which was not observed until 1838 (Copernican theory holds that you would observe a shift when viewing a star, though supporters explained the lack of one as being that the stars were too far away to see). It was Newton's work, ultimately, that proved the heliocentric model.

Fact remains he couldn't provide the mathematical, physical, or observational PROOF necessary. He observed compelling evidence ("experimental evidence"), but the evidence he provided couldn't prove he was right--among the evidence, he said the tides were caused by the motion of the Earth (dismissing other evidence to the contrary); he said the orbits are circular, despite Kepler's work.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~hanes/p014/Notes/Topic_020.html#PART%209
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

As for my personal feelings on the topic, obviously the Church was wrong in holding to steadfastly to the (incorrect) interpretation of Scripture. As a Modern Catholic, I can apprecaite that the Bible is a guide, not a end in an of itself. I agree with Galileo (and the modern Church)--the interpretation of the Bible is correct only insofar as it doesn't contradict what is scientifically proven; then, it is not the science that is faulty, but the interpretation. Cardinal Bellarmine said the same thing 400 years ago, but Galileo was unable to sufficiently prove that the interpretation was wrong as shown by science. Newton did that, and the Church should have corrected its position. I'm not sure what else you are looking for...


411 posted on 01/20/2006 2:46:03 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: highball

Galileo was saying the scientists for the previous 1500 years and the Biblical interpretation of Catholics and Protestants alike were wrong, yet offered insufficient evidence to prove it. He persisted in teaching as fact that which he could not prove, without doubt, was fact. It is for that reason that he got in trouble.


412 posted on 01/20/2006 2:48:35 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

The best name was "Domino"--


413 posted on 01/20/2006 2:57:11 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

I hate to admit it, but the creationists do seem to have thrown out the most insults so far in this thread. (at post 330)


414 posted on 01/20/2006 3:26:22 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: jec41
However there are primitive tribes that exist on islands off of Indonesia that have no thought or concept of time.

Seriously? They don't say to themselves, I just ate? or the sun is straight up, the day must be half over?
415 posted on 01/20/2006 3:35:43 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: xmission
Seriously? They don't say to themselves, I just ate? or the sun is straight up, the day must be half over?

Serious as can be. I can't remember the names of the tribes.
Here is a tribe without math. I will try to find one for you without time.
Life without numbers in a unique Amazon tribe

Piraha apparently can't learn to count and have no distinct words for colours

By STEPHEN STRAUSS
Friday, August 20, 2004 - Page A3
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040820/NUMBERS20/TPScience/

1+1=2. Mathematics doesn't get any more basic than this, but even 1+1 would stump the brightest minds among the Piraha tribe of the Amazon.

A study appearing today in the journal Science reports that the hunter-gatherers seem to be the only group of humans known to have no concept of numbering and counting.

Not only that, but adult Piraha apparently can't learn to count or understand the concept of numbers or numerals, even when they asked anthropologists to teach them and have been given basic math lessons for months at a time.

Their lack of enumeration skills is just one of the mental and cultural traits that has led scientists who have visited the 300 members of the tribe to describe the Piraha as "something from Mars."

Daniel Everett, an American linguistic anthropologist, has been studying and living with Piraha for 27 years.

Besides living a numberless life, he reports in a separate study prepared for publication, the Piraha are the only people known to have no distinct words for colours.

They have no written language, and no collective memory going back more than two generations. They don't sleep for more than two hours at a time during the night or day.

Even when food is available, they frequently starve themselves and their children, Prof. Everett reports.

They communicate almost as much by singing, whistling and humming as by normal speech.

They frequently change their names, because they believe spirits regularly take them over and intrinsically change who they are.

They do not believe that outsiders understand their language even after they have just carried on conversations with them.

They have no creation myths, tell no fictional stories and have no art. All of their pronouns appear to be borrowed from a neighbouring language.

Their lack of numbering terms and skills is highlighted in a report by Columbia University cognitive psychologist Peter Gordon that appears today in Science.

Intrigued by anecdotal reports that Prof. Everett and his wife Keren had presented about the mathlessness of Piraha life, Prof. Gordon conducted a number of experiments over a three-year period.

He found that a group of male tribe members -- women and children were not involved because of certain cultural taboos -- could not perform the most elementary mathematical operations.

When faced with a line of batteries and asked to duplicate the number they saw, the men could not get beyond two or three before starting to make mistakes.

They had difficulty drawing straight lines to copy a number of lines they were presented with. They couldn't remember which of two boxes had more or less fish symbols on it, even when they were about to be rewarded for their knowledge.

A significant part of the difficulty related to their number-impoverished vocabulary.

Although they would say one word to indicate a single thing and another for two things, those words didn't necessarily mean one or two in any usual sense. "It is more like oneish and twoish," Prof. Gordon said in an interview.

Prof. Everett, who now teaches at the University of Manchester in England and who unlike Prof. Gordon is a fluent Piraha-speaker, takes issue even with the "ishness" of the Piraha numbers.

"The word he [Gordon] translates as 'one' means just a relatively small amount, the word for 'two' means a relatively bigger amount," he said in an interview from Brazil.

Prof. Everett points out that when the Piraha are talking and use the "oneish" word to talk about something such as fish, you can't tell whether they are describing a single fish, a small fish, or one or two fish.

Linguists and anthropologists who have seen both the Everett and Gordon studies are flabbergasted by the tribe's strangeness, particularly since the Piraha have not lived in total isolation.

The tribe, which lives on a tributary river to the Amazon, has been in contact with other Brazilians for 200 years and regularly sells nuts to, and shares their women with, Brazilian traders who stop by.

"Why they have been resistant to adopting Western number systems is beyond me," Ray Jackendoff of Brandeis University, a past president of the Linguistic Society of America, said in an interview.

Prof. Gordon said the findings are perhaps the strongest evidence for a once largely discredited linguistic theory.

More than 60 years ago, amateur linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf argued that learning a specific language determined the nature and content of how you think.

That theory fell into intellectual disrepute after linguist Noam Chomsky's notions of a universal human grammar and Harvard University professor Steven Pinker's idea of a universal language instinct became widely accepted.

"The question is, is there any case where not having words for something doesn't allow you to think about it?" Prof. Gordon asked about the Piraha and the Whorfian thesis. "I think this is a case for just that."

Prof. Everett argues that what the Piraha case demonstrates is a fundamental cultural principle working itself out in language and behaviour.

The principle is that the Piraha see themselves as intrinsically different from, and better than, the people around them; everything they do is to prevent them from being like anyone else or being absorbed into the wider world. One of the ways they do this is by not abstracting anything: numbers, colours, or future events.

"This is the reason why the Piraha have survived as Piraha while tribes around them have been absorbed into Brazilian culture," Prof. Everett said.

Nevertheless, the Piraha's lives and lifestyles are so strange that other anthropologists have raised the question of whether inbreeding -- their lack of number skills apparently makes it difficult for the Piraha to identify kin -- has resulted in a tribe of intellectually handicapped people.

Both Prof. Everett and Prof. Gordon say that they have seen no examples of this and that the Pirahas' fishing, hunting and even joking skills seem equal to those of people elsewhere.
416 posted on 01/20/2006 3:56:35 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: jec41


Aw heck, we've got people like that here!
417 posted on 01/20/2006 4:02:56 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
There lies the problem with debates, sometimes mistakes are made in interpretation of posts. Now that I understand what you meant... I hope.

"I thought I said that as far new species were concerned, perhaps that part of evolution had ended, and I took a wild guess as to why."

Actually it depends on whether you use the scientific definition of speciation or the YEC definition.

The science definition of speciation is - a single population that splits into two subpopulations that for one reason or another do not interbreed and gene flow between the two groups is restricted to such an extent as to be considered stopped. This has happened on numerous occasions, both in the lab and in the wild. PatrickHenry's List-o-Links has many links to examples.

The typical YEC definition is - a cat giving birth to a dog. This is simply a strawman. No saltational event such as this has ever been proposed by science and would never survive in the wild.

Everything happens at the species level and the variance between any two related species whether in the same Genus, Family, Order, Class,... or in different classifications is a result of accumulated changes over a number of generations. We see the changes occurring, we see the split at the species level, we see the molecular evidence of larger variance.

Evolution is proceeding exactly as it always has.

418 posted on 01/20/2006 4:18:27 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
"He persisted in teaching as fact that which he could not prove, without doubt, was fact"

Sounds like what the IDists are trying to do.

419 posted on 01/20/2006 4:23:14 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: xmission

I stopped keeping track a little too quickly.


420 posted on 01/20/2006 4:24:39 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: jec41
"...regularly sells nuts to, and shares their women with, Brazilian traders who stop by.

It would be rather interesting to watch selling without number concepts.

421 posted on 01/20/2006 4:24:56 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199

If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact..

How? What additional 'proof' has there been since Galileo?

422 posted on 01/20/2006 4:28:02 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: xmission

You might want to goggle up something like nations IQ.
There are some countries with a average IQ of 65. They would be lucky to earn a D in a class for monkeys. Thats 33 points lower than the 98 mean in the US.


423 posted on 01/20/2006 4:42:19 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
Being that I am a historian and not an astronomer or physicist, I wouldn't know what evidence to produce. Given the history, doubt was removed when Newton developed his laws of planetary motion. Parallaxes work into it, something which was not observed until 1838 (Copernican theory holds that you would observe a shift when viewing a star, though supporters explained the lack of one as being that the stars were too far away to see). It was Newton's work, ultimately, that proved the heliocentric model.

I don't think Newton proved the solar system. He explained the motion of the planets better than before, but he provided no proof that the earth orbits the sun. And I don't know what parallax has to do with this issue. It was ultimately used to determine the distance to the nearest stars, and the method certainly relies on the solar system model to provide the base of the triangle involved (the diameter of earth's orbit, for observations made six months apart), but that's not proof of the solar system either. Frankly, I don't know of a scientific proof even now. The solar system is a theory, and like other currently accepted theories, it's supported by evidence and it makes useful predictions.

Your insistence on Galileo's lack of proof is not a good argument for your position. He had great evidence, and that's really all that any scientific theory has.

424 posted on 01/20/2006 4:47:16 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: jec41

I can understand the IQ thing, and I'm not debating this. I do have a hard time understanding how there could be a guy anywhere who can't comprehend "If I drink another beer, I'm going to have to have a wee soon"


425 posted on 01/20/2006 4:47:54 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; firebrand
The science definition of speciation is ...

There's a pretty good discussion here. Scroll down a bit for a critique of the biological species concept.

426 posted on 01/20/2006 4:51:31 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"Isn't it a shade inconsistent to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you would welcome legal judgments against teaching intelligent design as a viable explanation for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws?"

1) That is not what ID claims to be.
2) Students in a government school should not be subjected to religious instruction, which ID is.
3) Nobody here is saying that ID/creationist proponents can't do as much *research* as they want, nor that they can't write articles, books, make speeches, whatever, to try to persuade people that ID/creationism is correct. The line is drawn when they want to use tax dollars to teach their religious based claim to students.


427 posted on 01/20/2006 4:53:47 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: xmission
can't comprehend "If I drink another beer, I'm going to have to have a wee soon"

Don't know. I am allergic to hops and cannot drink beer.
428 posted on 01/20/2006 5:00:45 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: jec41
"There are some countries with a average IQ of 65. They would be lucky to earn a D in a class for monkeys. Thats 33 points lower than the 98 mean in the US."

Don't rely on IQ tests as a measure of another cultures intelligence, there are far too many problems with them.

429 posted on 01/20/2006 5:09:35 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
"Inquisition, now there's another original argument."

As an argument that the Church did in fact use force against *heretics*, yes. And as an argument that they didn't have to be Catholics anymore, yes. And remember, Protestants were considered heretics too; if you were in Catholic lands and were protestant, and the Inquisition was around, you could have trouble.

The Protestants were of course just as bad weeding out heretics as the Catholics were. There was nothing particularly unique about what the Church did. Again, that isn't the point here as we are discussing the Church's treatment of Galileo.

"Galileo said they were wrong, but offered no proof."

I hope you don't mean he offered no evidence. If you mean prove as in absolute proof, well, the Church didn't have any either. There never will be for a scientific theory.

""Your Honor, my client is not guilty." "Have you any evidence?" "Well, no, but he isn't!" "

Yep, you are claiming he had no evidence. What an ignoramus.

"You single out the Church because it put him on trial, you criticize it because it was wrong, standing in the way of "free thought" and so on, and yet you ignore the fact that the Church was not alone in their opposition to Galileo."

The historical fact is that these other groups who would have opposed him had no chance to, since he lived in Catholic Italy. I also didn't bring up what the Chinese thought, or the Hindus, or the Muslims. I am sticking to the facts of the case, you are wandering all over with irrelevant points.

"Copernicus said the very same thing (yes, he published the year he died, but his ideas were well known) and nothing happened to him."

No, his book(the intro) said that the model was not true physically. If he had made it clear that he really thought his model was physically correct, and this got out in his lifetime widely, he would have been in a lot of trouble.

"Galileo was on trial not just with the Church but in the minds of EVERYONE, because he taught as fact that which he could not prove as fact--scientists, professors, and theologians alike all looked at him the same; it just happened that he was under the Church's jurisdiction. "

Before you said that he could have moved somewhere else to escape Church punishment; now you say that everyone was against him, so what would the point have been to run away?
Even IF everybody was against them, they didn't have the power to do anything against him; the Church did. And the Church had no right to silence him.

"If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

Why didn't the Church have to prove ITS position in the same way you and it demand Galileo had to? You make it sound like Galileo just said, "It's true because I said so." That's not the case at all. He provided evidence for why and how the earth could be moving. Was it all the evidence there is? No, but that's irrelevant. It was at least as good as the evidence the Church had.

The point is, The Church has said that they were wrong, but you are sticking up for their own discarded position.
430 posted on 01/20/2006 5:11:44 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa; PatrickHenry
"There's a pretty good discussion here. Scroll down a bit for a critique of the biological species concept.

That is a good link.

However I didn't use the strict inability to interbreed which implies the inability to produce progeny or to produce only sterile hybrids in my definition. The definition I use and the one that is commonly used despite the fact that the change between one species to another is extremely gradual and thereby difficult to determine at the best of times, is the cessation of gene flow. Even though this definition is not entirely accurate when speaking of plants and definitely not with asexually reproducing species, it is useful during these debates where most are concerned with animals (Metazoans).

Whether the two groups being considered do not interbreed because of the physical limitations such as geographical location or sterile hybrids or they simply do not recognize each other as the same group, the gene flow is highly restricted. This restriction allows each group to evolve in different directions.

NOTE: John Wilkins from TalkOrigins is currently working on another FAQ further explaining the use of 'speciation' and the difference between what science means and what creationists mean and why they are wrong. As soon as it's ready I'll pass it along to PatrickHenry.

431 posted on 01/20/2006 5:35:19 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I'm curious as to what is particularly "religious" about the inference that, where there is organized matter, an intelligent designer might be involved. I'm also curious as to where in our Constitution the free exercise of religion is prohibited in a public context. Lastly, as I said, I find it rather inconsistent for you to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you argue for squelching free inquiry by law.


432 posted on 01/20/2006 5:39:42 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
As soon as it's ready I'll pass it along to PatrickHenry.

Ah, something may be stirring in the janitorial pool.

433 posted on 01/20/2006 5:58:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"I'm curious as to what is particularly "religious" about the inference that, where there is organized matter, an intelligent designer might be involved."

The only evidence going for it is the theological claim that an intelligent designer (code name for God) exists. Also, it's the gay jeans argument.

" I'm also curious as to where in our Constitution the free exercise of religion is prohibited in a public context."


A government school is not a public forum.


"Lastly, as I said, I find it rather inconsistent for you to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you argue for squelching free inquiry by law."

I argue for no such thing. I am arguing against government indoctrination of religion in government schools. ID is a theological claim. People are perfectly free to do any research they want in it(though ID'ers don't actually do research about the designer). They can try to persuade anybody they wish that their theological claim is correct. Just not with a captive audience in a government school.
434 posted on 01/20/2006 6:09:21 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Don't rely on IQ tests as a measure of another cultures intelligence, there are far too many problems with them.

Actually most fall within acceptable error and method is steadily improved. There are many who would seek to discredit any test that would measure intelligence for social or political reasons.
435 posted on 01/20/2006 6:20:15 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Ah, something may be stirring in the janitorial pool."

Oh that? I'm just boiling the lavatory cleaning rags to sterilize them. If you don't stir them they stick. The smell should go away in a couple of days.

436 posted on 01/20/2006 6:24:54 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Thank you. I'll check out that link.


437 posted on 01/20/2006 6:26:12 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa

Will check it out.


438 posted on 01/20/2006 6:27:04 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
And is it likely a viable species could be derived from two individuals?

Why not?

Doesn't the ToE say that just ONE change, being propagated, is what is responsible for all the diversity today?

439 posted on 01/20/2006 7:22:08 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; b_sharp

DANG!!

What did I miss at #395?


(I just KNEW I shouda not gone to supper!)


440 posted on 01/20/2006 7:26:04 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Has evolution happaned in this planet?

I believe that it has...and in no way does that belief interfere with my belief in Biblical Creation.

 

Ok....
 
 
Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 
If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,
they have to decide what the following verses mean:
 
Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
 
 
If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.
 
If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.
 
If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.
 
 
Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?
 
 
The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last (few?) mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
 
 
 
 
1 Timothy 2:13
  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  
 
 
Was Paul WRONG about this???
 

441 posted on 01/20/2006 7:30:05 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
He persisted in teaching as fact that which he could not prove, without doubt, was fact.

HMmm...

Early Evolutionist...

442 posted on 01/20/2006 7:31:13 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Do you believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally?

Is there no symbolism in the Bible at all?

Don't you agree that some parts of the Bible are symbolic, whereas others are meant to be taken literally?


443 posted on 01/20/2006 7:34:06 PM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: xmission
I hate to admit it, but the creationists do seem to have thrown out the most insults so far in this thread. (at post 330)

Post 330???

Phantom's homepage doesn't indicate she's a Creationist.

What are you talking about???

444 posted on 01/20/2006 7:34:42 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: jec41
Mathematics doesn't get any more basic than this, but even 1+1 would stump the brightest minds among the Piraha tribe of the Amazon.

AHhh..

The welfare state to the Nth power!

445 posted on 01/20/2006 7:36:43 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
The typical YEC definition is - a cat giving birth to a dog. This is simply a strawman. No saltational event such as this has ever been proposed by science and would never survive in the wild.

Then how many steps WOULD it take?

446 posted on 01/20/2006 7:38:06 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Scroll down a bit for a critique of the biological species concept.

 

<snip>

In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.

Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.

Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.

</snip>

 

I don't know if I can STAND any more!

447 posted on 01/20/2006 7:47:36 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

no, no, yes


448 posted on 01/20/2006 7:48:22 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

SO what if some future Pope would welcome homosexual marriages? THEN what would happen? Please..some Catholic enlighten this Protestant! (only in the interest of learning)


449 posted on 01/20/2006 7:49:59 PM PST by Windsong (Jesus Saves, but Buddha makes incremental backups)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
The welfare state to the Nth power!

Wasn't it College Algebra (1st semester of college) that first introduced the "nth" concept? Or was it Algebra II in high school?

450 posted on 01/20/2006 7:54:01 PM PST by Windsong (Jesus Saves, but Buddha makes incremental backups)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 601-606 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson