Posted on 04/08/2010 9:32:18 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
UPDATE: The school board has decided to postpone any decision on the textbook until May.
A Tennessee father told his son’s school board it should ban a biology textbook because of its ‘bias’ against Christians.
Kurt Zimmermann is appealing a Knoxville school district's decision to keep the book. He says the textbook used in his son’s biology class cites creationism as a "biblical myth." According to reports, he requests, 'non-biased' textbooks be used. In his words, the current textbook's phrasing misleads, belittles and discourages students in believing in creationism and calls the Bible a myth.
"Education material that is offensive, intolerant, racist, or one-sided in nature should not be used in our school system," Zimmermann told the board members Wednesday.
Knoxville County School superintendent Jim McIntyre says the committee's finding to keep using the book is appropriate. However he asked the board to hear Zimmerman's appeal Wednesday, April 7.
Melissa Copelan, the board’s director of public affairs tells Fox News, “when there is a concern about education materials there is a process that is followed… Now it is up to the board.”
(Excerpt) Read more at liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com ...
Funny, I see this tactic being used by TToE supporters everywhere. They prevent any real discussion about problems with TToE, and use their influence in academia to silence critics.
Galileo did not want to silence his critics, he wanted open debate to show the truth or falsehood of his theory. IF TToE supporters were this open and honest, I would have more trust in them. Otherwise, they look exactly like global warming supporters.
Well, that would be self evident, wouldn't it? I will be smarter (loose term) tomorrow than I am today.. :)
“This is a logical fallacy.”
Oh, and which fallacy would that be? The truth of the premise assures the truth of the conclusion. It is one thing to say that you disagree with the premise, but I would then ask for a compelling argument that disproves the premise.
“Agreed, but from where did this intelligence come from? From blind, random luck?”
It doesn't need to come from anywhere in order for the premise to be true; it only need be present.
“I have posited earlier on this thread (post 43) that since we are here, we are here either by accident or design.”
By accident, I assume you mean random chance? Accident implies a priori intent.
“If we are here by accident, there is no God”
Now, this ^^ is a logical fallacy.
“just a universe that will expand to heat death, or collapse back on itself, and there is nothing ultimately to be learned with this intelligence we have been given.”
Another fallacy ^^ What are the limits on intelligence, and knowledge?
“However, if we are here by design, it would make sense that we were given this intelligence to explore the universe to see the designer's intent.”
Making sense, is the crux of the issue. There is no “sense” in the design of the universe that would suggest your assumption to be true. God, may well have simply begun the process, from another period, and as a result may have even destroyed itself. In this vein, perhaps the “intent” is to not make the same mistake, but now we're entering the realm of metaphysical-analysis. It, at our current level of understanding is an exercise in futility. :)
Tim-
I think you have me confused with someone else. My beef is with scientists who bleat as if they know what they’re talking about, that their theories are metaphysical certainty and that they can’t possibly be wrong. Until, of course, they’re proven wrong and then the next theory is metaphysical certainty.
Also, I object to the wussy sciences which have a low pM (percent Mathematics).
It’s also with the theory of evolution which isn’t a theory in any meaningful sense. It’s more of a paradigm or a philosophical view.
Relevant Post:
>>Does it cite evolution as fact or theory?<<
YOU: “It (evolution) is a Scientific Theory.
Then you go on to say, “Evolution happened.”
That's pretty clear. A declarative statement by you that evolution is a “theory” and then you make a declarative statement that says evolution is a “fact and then go on to offer TToE as proof of the fact.”
This makes no sense.
So we see you calling evolution a theory and a fact at the same time.
Unless of course, you get a disease that reduces your ability to learn. Also, if man truly was learning and getting smarter, why does every generation seem to repeat the same mistakes? But I digress...
“This is a logical fallacy.” Oh, and which fallacy would that be?
Going back to your original quote:
My belief is that it is not unreasonable to presuppose that with enough luck, and over time, humans can know all there is to know about the universe. If it is logical to accept this premise, then, and only then, one can accept that, if it is possible for humans to become God-like, then it is also possible to assume that something has come before us.
I retract my comment, since your second statement presupposes your first statement. I got caught up in the "then, and only then" clause. My apologies.
It doesn't need to come from anywhere in order for the premise to be true; it only need be present.
So, are you proposing an un-caused cause?
By accident, I assume you mean random chance? Accident implies a priori intent.
The words can be synonymous, but to clarify I mean something that happens unpredictably or without purpose.
“If we are here by accident, there is no God” Now, this is a logical fallacy.
To clarify, I mean a Creator-God that has imbued us with intelligence to observe his creation, and has a purpose for His creation, not just a really powerful being. Perhaps a better way to say this is that if there is no God, we are here by accident. I must think on this further...
What are the limits on intelligence, and knowledge?
I think this would have to rely on the number of synaptic connection that we could ultimately have in our brains, and the amount of information that we can store. However, it is not infinite. Also, if you know your Heisenberg uncertainty theory, you would know that we can't know everything by observation.
Making sense, is the crux of the issue.
My presupposition is that we are here for a purpose. I also know that if all there that exists is the universe I live in and nothing else outside of it, there is no ultimate purpose for anyone's existence, since it will all be gone one day. I would rather believe I was given knowledge for a purpose than for nothing.
However, if there is something outside of this universe, the Uncaused Cause, then there is a purpose for this life.
"if all there that exists is the universe" == "if all that exists is the universe"
My current hypothesis is one which isn't exactly an “un-caused, cause”, but rather a caused, but uncaring, uninterested, unmanaged, event. This leads to the ultimate conclusion that there may have been a creator, but it isn't the one many religions might think, and hope it to be. In this sense, to believe in a God that has no interest, or otherwise any benevolence towards humanity specifically is, counter-intuative, and ultimately unproductive.
The only veracity in such a belief is that, there is, or was a God that created the universe. The only comfort in that is that, given my premise, we can attain this level of understanding, and perhaps do it all differently? I'm comforted enough by this philosophy - it changes little my direction in life, and I need not believe in any afterlife for me to live a moral, virtuous existence. I know that one day, someday in the distant future, we humans can reach a level of understanding that will give us the foresight to know God, and even become God. Perhaps, the God we all envisioned to begin with, is the illusionary a priori of ourselves; maybe some massive, collective deja vu. :)
I don't know for sure, of course. But it's a good exercise for the brain regardless.
Tim-
No biologist can work without the theory of evolution. Like Galileo’s notion of a solar system with the sun at its center, Darwin’s long argument makes sense of their subject. Ideas of origin were once, like Moby Dick, allegories. They helped to comprehend not the structure but the meaning of the universe. Some still hope to find symbolic significance in Darwinism. They will not: but his work turned the study of life into a science rather than a collection of unrelated anecdotes.
The event(s) of evolution occurred. TToE provides an explanatory framework.
1. Life from non-life?
2. Asexual to sexual reproduction?
3. Development of “thought”?
And is there an experiment to prove the explanations?
>>1. Life from non-life?<<
That is abiogenesis and has nothing to do with TToE, any more than physics, chemistry or astronomy.
>>2. Asexual to sexual reproduction?<<
Stochastic progression, as explained in the theory.
>>3. Development of “thought”?<<
Clearly a survival need, but it followed the process just like everything else. But there is a lot of debate in the scientific community about that at the detailed level.
Based on moon rocks, we know that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth, therefore, originated or arrived inside that time span.
According to my Jones book on evolution, "The balance of isotopes in carbon entrapped in Greenland rocks three thousand eight hundred million years old resembles that of the modern bacteria that live on methane." (page 208)
Another revelation from Jones is ... "About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated. Although their common ancestor must have lived more than a billion years ago, their shared structure can still be glimpsed. It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution." (page 284)
Based on moon rocks, we know that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth, therefore, originated or arrived inside that time span.
According to my Jones book on evolution, "The balance of isotopes in carbon entrapped in Greenland rocks three thousand eight hundred million years old resembles that of the modern bacteria that live on methane." (page 208)
Another revelation from Jones is ... "About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated. Although their common ancestor must have lived more than a billion years ago, their shared structure can still be glimpsed. It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution." (page 284)
So are you saying you don't know how life started, but it must have evolved?
>>2. Asexual to sexual reproduction?<<
Stochastic progression, as explained in the theory.
What stochastic progression? Most, if not all, stochastic processes increase entropy. Can one demonstrate this this stochastic progression in a controlled experiment?
>>3. Development of “thought”?<<
Clearly a survival need, but it followed the process just like everything else. But there is a lot of debate in the scientific community about that at the detailed level.
There is nothing "clear" about this. How does this "need" arise? In fact, what cause the "need" for life to exist, to form cells, to create specialized cells, to have these cells work in conjunction to make biological machines more complex than any system man has devised?
Plan?!!!? What plan? WHOSE plan? A plan denotes an intelligence and design, which is verboten for TToE.
Oh, I just noticed this from your Jones quote "It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution."
Plan?!!!? What plan? WHOSE plan? A plan denotes an intelligence and design, which is verboten for TToE.
Oops. Again. I was replying to OldNavyVet, but I thought it was freedumb2003. My eyes were playing tricks on me. It has been a long day. Sorry for the confusion.
To the contrary, I'd say that both Darwin and Jones simply revealed truth -- as Galileo did some years ago -- without specifically attacking religious beliefs.
Both Jones and Darwin end their books with the same words ...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
>>Plan?!!!? What plan? WHOSE plan? A plan denotes an intelligence and design, which is verboten for TToE. <<
Wrong. It just means God doesn’t intervene in the intermediate processes.
God created the vast and grand Universe according to His plan. Evolution is just one of His many wonders.
>> So are you saying you don’t know how life started, but it must have evolved?<<
I am saying it is irrelevant — even now the Big Bang is being challenged and it doesn’t really matter.
eory.
>>What stochastic progression? Most, if not all, stochastic processes increase entropy. Can one demonstrate this this stochastic progression in a controlled experiment?<<
There is nothing “clear” about this. How does this “need” arise? In fact, what cause the “need” for life to exist, to form cells, to create specialized cells, to have these cells work in conjunction to make biological machines more complex than any system man has devised? <<
It is not my job to teach you TToE. Educate yourself or not. Your questions pole no holes, but merely reveal your lack of knowledge.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Why is it grand? How is it beautiful? This quote appears to ascribe metaphysical qualities to evolution. Well, you may say that the authors meant that they are grand and beautiful to us. But why would we evolve a sense of awe and beauty of the universe, or of a theory? It doesn't seem to be very helpful to the survival of the species (in the long run, nothing is very helpful to the survival of the species, if the whole universe ends up in heat death or the Big Crunch).
Going back to the original quote, is there a grand plan of life or not?
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.