Reason #99,976,522 to homeschool
Posted in: Education
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Blatant Reality » Blog Archive » Another Reason to Homeschool
- Oblogatory Anecdotes - Schwarzenegger Vows to Terminate Outrageous Court Ruling
- Reformed Hippie
- Holy Hamburger Helper Batman! « Wayward Fundamentalist Christian
- Young Patriot Who Loves America Is Punished For His Pride At School.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Education
TigerHawk
» Markets, Obama, goose, ganderPower Line
» An appeal not to appealJustOneMinute
» James (Not Earl) Jones As National Security AdviserBelmont Club
» 2025Patterico
» New York Times: Secretary of State ClintonRiehl World View
» Observations: Hank Paulson On A Plane
Krykee, is right.
~scuze me while I hurl.
Thanks for another example in a long line I have collected recently as to why government schools are no more than warehouses that tax payers support so their children can be indoctrinated, abused, and only occasionally assaulted or murdered.
I’m over due for a post on why we tax payers should VOTE SCHOOL VOUCHERS - VOTE SCHOOL CHOICE.
I’ll put one up tonight.
Talk about a stupid argument. The “I say it is fact and if you can’t prove what I said is wrong, that makes it fact” argument has NO science behind it. This is why evolution is faith based just like any religion. You HAVE to believe it as fact and everybody else have to prove it wrong.
When pressed to come up with one “fact” of evolution, the evolutionist finds himself coming up short or regurgitating old disproven “facts”.
SHEESH
BTW, I’ve seen a couple of people complaining about Mark twain being banned from some schools. I just want to throw in my support for Twain. Schools banning Huck Finn because of the N-bombs are missing the point entirely. Same with schools banning Vonnegut, Heller, and Salinger.
Really, no book should ever be banned from a school. Again, I’m not making an argument that especially controversial pieces should be required, but it’s a school’s job to make these items available. Yes, even the Bible. Heck, even the Koran.
What happens if home schooled kids are taught evolution by their parents then?
It’s also a little unfair to imply that people who believe in evolution are “closed minded”. Personally I believe in the theory of evolution, have a lot of respect for other peoples’ religious beliefs, and consider myself to be quite opened minded. I simply think that evolution is the most logical explanation for me. That doesn’t make me closed minded.
Rusty at 103,
Something we can agree on for sure!
No. I believe it because out of all the other possible explanations, I find the evidence to be the most logical. I’m more of a practical rather than spiritual person, which is why I’ve never really been able to find answers in religion. I appreciate that others might, though.
WOW. So you can decide what qualifies as science? The above being said I have to agree:
Kansas Board of Education, which has debated the subject of teaching intelligent design in schools. A Nov. 2005 decision in Kansas changed the standard in public schools so that they will teach intelligent design along with evolution.
Soap / 30pcs:
I have a friend at work who believes along the lines you folks do:
He is a fellow vet, a person who I have much respect for, and politically in line with me on nearly every topic save a few.
Once or twice, this topic came up. I refuse to debate him on it any longer. It ends with me being convinced that he is ignorant of evolution (the tornado-bus-junkyard example is often cited by people that do not understand the theory), and him being convinced that I am going to hell.
As such, I think its best we end here.
I don’t think you are ignorant. You believe what you believe and I can respect that, regardless of whether I agree with you or not.
Until next time.
-Long-Winded Response Warning-
Basic algebra has proofs and theorems. Proofs can be proven so they are called proof. Theorems cannot be proven so they are called theory. Pretty easy. The theory of relativity is still a theory because it has not been proven. The same is true with the theory of Evolution which Darwin himself brought into question. The theory of Intelligent Design is a theory because it cannot be proven. Many of us who believe in God as our Creator take this as a matter of faith and it should not be taught as fact any more than any other theory.
Facts:
In Darwin’s observations and all scientific proof of evolution a species changes certain aspects such as pigment, size of the bird’s beak, etc. but the sparrow remains a sparrow, the human remains a human. There is no evidence and therefore no proof of a missing link.
Fact: The Bible lays out a ten step process of creation in Genesis chapters one and two. I will be happy to list those on my personal site (Not the one linked to here in my signature) if anyone wants to go there but it is a long list. However, Scientific studies and experimentation and (The dreaded word) theories have shown this to be an accurate representation of the physical requirements for the onset of life as we know it.
Fact: Fossil records indicate vast expanses of new life “suddenly” appearing. Granted, the fossil records may not be complete but it is the best indicator we have for ANY theory even if it does not provide irrefutable proof.
There are absolutely no fossil records from the pre-Cambrian period. The beginning of the Cambrian period introduced large amounts of fossil remains both vertebrate and invertebrate with no transitionary fossils to indicate any evolution from one species to another. In fact, no fossils exist indicative of the evolution from “simple” single cell organisms to “simple” multi-cell organisms. (Alfred S. Romer, Charles Darwin both noted that the Cambrian period was when fossils first began to appear) “…the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear …” (And both men noted the lack of any intermediary species)
In 40 million years (The oldest known fossil of a fly) it has not evolved any at all. Fossil evidence indicates that leaves and plants are effectually the same today as they were an estimated 200 million years ago.
There are no fossil records of any creature with a vertebrate in the process of evolution. In fact, all manner of species appear quite suddenly in the fossil records with no apparent predecessor.
So in theory … evolution could be solely responsible for our existence.
In theory, Intelligent Design could be solely responsible for our existence.
In theory, a Creator could have used the Evolutionary process to bring life to its present stage.
To teach any theory as fact is to discredit both faith and science.
Global cooling in the 70s turned to global warming when the Goracle decided to begin selling carbon credits right after he invented the internet and now it is rapidly becoming global climate change in order to fit the recently noted tendency towards global cooling and fit no matter what the reality is. Should these theories be taught in school as well?
Evidence indicates that species evolve each according to their kind … thicker fur, longer beaks, etc but there is no evidence of any species changing from one to another or even so much as factual scientific evidence of any noticeably transitional species ever having existed. I would say that pretty much makes all of them theories in which case, shouldn’t they all be held as equally feasible until ANY of them can be ruled out or proven? It used to be that teachers could be (and were) jailed for teaching evolution. Should we be so willing to put the shoe on the other foot now?
Except one thing zeroangel, I understand evolution. I happen to love the subject. My favorite part is when more evidence shows it to be just what it is, a theory.
You call geology “pseudo-science”. Is it because it does not fall into the category of propping up evolution? There are many scientists who have a problem with evolution on many levels. Are they pseudo-scientists because they are not a believer in you theory? I have not discounted any science. Nor have I discounted Darwin himself who discounted his own theory on many levels.
You may want to clump us all together with your friend at the office but I, for one, am not a cookie cutter person. I can reason on my own and I for one would never condemn a person to hell. That is not my job.
If I am not mistaken, you are also failing to point out the necessary RNA which scientists have been able to recreate their “spontaneous appearance” in a lab … they got three of the twenty they needed to create a simple dna strand (Not even a complete single cell) right before the very environment which created them destroyed them as soon as they were “created” by the scientists.
I am not offering any proof or conclusions. I am only stating that they are all simply theories. Me personally? I am betting forever that God had a hand in it no matter how he actually went about accomplishing it. While it may be interesting to study from both perspectives, it is unimportant as my salvation and no more than a theory when it comes to the “religion” of science.
IMHO
Yikes. My kid’s AP World Lit class read “Pride and Prejudice,” not gay porn. I don’t care how highly acclaimed it is, it’s not suitable for high school students.
Soap:
The friend at work was just an example of why this is a touchy area.
Your swiss watch example is evidence that you do not understand the theory.
There are many “scientists” that support the idea that “global warming” is caused by humans, this is also psuedo-science.
@ Wartip
-Short Response Warning-
Yep!
@doppelganglander
They are letting your kid read a book with “Prejudice” in it. For shame!
Wartip:
While evoultion is not “proven” it is all we have, ID is not science.
Alright, for real. I am going to take my own advice.
I will not read this thread from this point on.
30pcs: If you are still inclined to send me the aforementioned evidence, send it here:
zeroang3L@hotmail.com
Making them available in the school is fine, including this work referenced by our gracious Hostess. However, making them required reading is where I think most of the Conservative complaint would come from.
I am surprised nobody has ever tried to get Heinlein banned with his super-conservative and anti-government stances. Then again, maybe they only saw the movies and never read the books. It is often hard to recognize the two as having come from the same source.
It is not proven, in your words … so that would make it a theory correct? In which case I have offered two other “theories” which are just as viable.
A scientific theory should not be taught as scientific fact is all I am saying.
Again, my argument is not against the teaching of evolution but in teaching it as the only viable theory. “It is all we have” does not cut it. Sorry … but it just does not … any more than teaching ID without what we know and theorize about evolution.
I would like the seven dollar burger but I only have four bucks … but it is okay because it is all I have. Apples and oranges I know but perhaps it explains my point?
About the article : ick.
Wish I had time to read all the posts on the evolution argument, but I must return to my school room and teach 3rd / 5th grade grammar. I was dreading this task, but, not so much now.
Michelle, thanks the homeschooling encouragement…it’s always appreciated.
Zero,
Oh, I understand alright. I don’t say the things I am supposed to so you discount my “intelligence”. And you have a problem with your co-worker saying you are going to hell?
Do you understand probabilities?
Wartip,
In the experiment I think you are refering to they created three amino acids all “left handed” and you need right handed amino acids to even begin to create a protein (28 of them and one left handed amino acid will keem a protein from forming). He also removed oxygen from the experiment because the oxygen would have destroyed the amino acids he created. I believe his environment contained methane and ammonia only. Why? This is what he needed to create the amino acids and he knew it. The “scientist” who did the experiment will not even debate the subject. At every challenge, he still remains quiet. His experiment was hailed as a breakthrough by the evolution community until scientists on the “other side” poked wholes through it. Interestingly, one of the arguments (to keep the experiment alive for the sake of evolution) was there was no oxygen in the atmosphere during the early formation of the earth and “life”. Geology (which by some here is not really science) has proven that oxygen has always been a part of the atmosphere.
Methinks we could use an open thread for Evolution once in a while….
For a good read on Intelligent Design, check out Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Blackbox-A biochemical challenge to evolution. Its just been recently updated.
Michael at the time he wrote this, was a biochemist and it started out as a round table discussion of what is life and how did we come about. They looked at the human cell, and therorised that if the cell evolved then the cell would still function if anything was taken out. They discovered that the cell died everytime something was taken out, and due to its complexity a designer had to be involved.
Either “assume a can opener” (evolution for the lack of fossils) or see a can opener (ID).
Micro evolution can be proved by science (changes within species) rather than macro evolution (species changing one to another).
Just my take on it.
GSP
My ex’s sister lives in Texas, and she and her husband have 15 children. All but four of them are still at home.
She home schools them all… has a classroom set up at home, with a computer and all of the essentials.
They live in an area of Texas where families are generally large, and their support system is extensive.
They network with other home-schooling parents and really work hard to provide an exceptional learning experience for their kids… band, choir, sports, after school activities, field trips, you name it.
She’s retired military, and knows how to run a disciplined ship. Her kids are all fantastic students and wonderful, Godly young people with compassionate hearts and a real sense of purpose.
Pretty amazing lady.
And so, curiosity has gotten the better of me, thus I am back in this thread this evening.
Soap:
Here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
is the article you linked.
Did you read it? It is a refutation of Gentry’s “science.”
…and so on.
All the “evidence” against evolution and a “Old Earth” amounts to “gaps” that simply have yet to be explained. Nothing outright refutes evolution, or in this geological example, refutes an “Old Earth.”
On the flipside, those “scientists” that purport a theory of a “Young Earth” and creationism simply throw out any evidence to the contrary and make some claim that “OK that part is micro-evolution” or, even worse, “God made it that way to test our faith.”
I apply Occam’s Razor.
As for statistics / probabilities, yes I understand very well. Math was my major. A claim that “evolution is statistically impossible” either simplifies evolution to something it isn’t (e.g. Bus/Tornado/junkyard) or fails to appreciate the vast numbers we are dealing with.
The “irreducibility complexity” argument always amounts to a “gap” and creationists simply move from one example to the next as each is explained.
Finally, the ID hypothesis cannot be tested, as such, it is NOT science.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25
Might do good to read the entire conclusion (if not the whole thing) as the authors do not throw out creationism entirely, but they just make the case it is not science.
This is not a matter of, “well that one theory doesn’t explain it all, so here’s another theory that explains it. If you say this one has holes, and that one has holes, why can’t I teach both?”
You can’t teach both in a science classroom because it isn’t science.
If creationism is allowed in a science classroom then we might as well allow ESP, UFOology, telepathy, ghosts, and any number of types of pseudo-science that cannot be empirically tested.
Teach creationism in philosophy, teach it in Sunday school, teach it in Literature alongside of Greek creation myths, because it is NOT science.
zeroangel,
Well, I too am drawn back into this. I have a simple question for you:
What is the mechanism by which an organism evolves?
An example might be this: if I am some kind of pre-primate, but I do not yet have an opposable thumb, what is it that causes me to grow an opposable thumb?
You see, that is a shortcoming of the theory. So much so that last week a story appeared that a group of 15 scientists and “philosophers” met to discuss the problems of evolution. It seems that even evolutionists aren’t content saying it just happened.
Random mutation has been given by many evolutionists as the reason for such changes, but that would necessarily mean there would have to be an absolute butt-load of intermediary fossils and ‘failed’ mutations. But there aren’t. This is an interesting hole that has yet to be explained.
You do seem more adept at research than I am, so I am asking, not sparring, if you have found a satisfactory answer to this.
Also, the last rebuttal I saw to the concept of irreducable complexity really wasn’t. They just said that there is another organism that was close, but still none showing progression.
SHoward:
The mechanism, as I understand it, is mutation that leads to an organism further surviving and reproducing.
Please link the story as I would like to read it.
There doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be butt load of “failed mutations” because by their nature they are failed. That is, if by some mutation, an organism developed an “unfavorable” trait, it would likely die out very fast and there wouldn’t be much of a fossil record (if at all) of its particular failure.
Whichever example you are referring to of irreducible complexity, I have no doubt in time, it will also be explained. Then the creationists will move on to another example, “Oh yah? Well what about this? Can’t explain that, can you? Ergo, evolution is a farce!” …not quite.
In any case, as I said, creationism just isn’t science by definition. Science involves testing empirically. “Intelligent Design” requires one of two things (or both) a supernatural God (not able to be tested empirically) or extra-terrestrial intervention (able to be tested empirically but absolutely no sound evidence of).
A caveat:
One can easily say:
“God exists, created the Earth and man in the several thousand years, and any evidence to the contrary is incomplete or meant to test our faith.”
This cannot be disproven either. But that does not make it science. One can contort language and definitions until the end of time to say otherwise. But it does not make it so. Science involves empirical tests.
One can also say:
“Evolution might be true, but there was some planning on the part of a supernatural being, somehow beyond our understanding and the physical world. Evolution was merely the mechcanism.”
Also, not science. It is in fact this explanation that for a very long time led me to be a Deist (or something of that nature). It was not until it occured to me that this definition of God places Him outside the realm of existance. As such I became an atheist. As I said, I apply Occam’s Razor.
As for being an atheist, I am what one might call a “weak atheist.” I do not unequivocaly state, “God does not exist.” In fact, I “pray,” nay, hope I am wrong. If the day comes after my death and I am faced with my maker and he asks me, “Why didn’t you believe?” I will say, without hesitation, “Well, you should know shouldn’t you? Afterall, you made me. There was not enough evidence.”
There was more I wanted to say, something about early man attributing lightning to be Zeus throwing thunderbolts to be comparable to creationists “gap filling.” However, it is late, and I am losing my train of thought.
Goodnight.
I see we’re both still up. For me it’s not late yet, although I do retire early.
Your first link I’m not arguing, although it does look good and I’ll likely read it soon. (I don’t necessarily believe in a young earth, although I haven’t ruled it out.)
Your second link does seem to contain quite a bit. I think the first thing I’d like to comment on is Darwin’s finches, as they have come to be called.
The scietnists quoted, I think around page 10 or 11, suppose that a new species will appear about every 200 years (of finch). They also state that the definition of a new species includes the inability to mate with the parent species.
Darwin’s finches have in fact been observed to mate. They just usually choose not to. There is actually nothing distinctly different in their biology to prevent it. Also, their many color and beak variations, they only vary by small amounts, so little that a laymen like me would have a hard time telling them apart.
As for irreducable complexity, I was talking about the bacterial motor. It is in fact a biological electric motor. It contains all the components of an electric motor: armature, stator, commutator, shaft, and what amounts to a propeller. Take away any one of these and it stops. How could it evolve?
I saw a rebuttal that involved a non-bacterial organism that looked just like it except the stator. The problem is that it also had a completely different funtion. Other than anatomy, the two were nothing alike, and there was no explaination how the moving one might have grown a stator.
Not being a research hound, I don’t have any links for you, but I will leave you with one title (I know what it sounds like, but trust me, you’ll like it if you read it): Shattering The Myths Of Darwinism. Author: Richard Milton. He’s a British Science writer, and NOT a creationist.
Now, I probably will go to bed, but I look forward to reading your response, if not tonight, tomorrow.
Ha ha, we posted atteh same time!
See you tomorrow.
“at the” You see, it’s late….
I am not personally opposed to teaching Creationism in a Philosophy class. Again however, like Evolution, it needs to be taught as a theory and not as irrefutable and proven fact. Neither one is proven and it is not likely either will be in our lifetimes. (Though personally I hope that at least one of them will be when somebody comes Home so to speak … but that is a personal belief and hope based on my Faith)
Philosophy is nothing more than a search for the truth and in your case, you make a good argument for that. However, to teach theory as fact is still wrong as far as I am concerned.
Again, we encounter a problem here with federally based education that forces children into anything … whether it is reading the literature (Garbage IMHO but again, that is opinion and not fact) and not teaching the children critical thinking skills or even rudimentary skills in applied sciences. When the schools concentrate more on Social indoctrination than on Education, then we have a problem.
Present your facts, present your theories, teach children to think about them on their own and let them make up their own minds.
Teach them fundamental skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and help them to think logically with provable work and to allow them to compete in an increasingly global market.
With the schools forcing anyone to believe anything, we run into nothing but problems. What is wrong with providing them with options and allowing them to decide based on the available information at hand?
SHoward:
Woke up in the middle of the night, having a bout with a bit of a cold.
Briefly:
Do you have a source concerning your information about finches? Remember, different species doesn’t mean they CAN’T mate. Recall hybrids, e.g. the mule.
Re: the bacterial motor. I have heard of this one too. IIRC, the current working explanation is that it was something that arose from something else with a different function, and that since bacteria are so simple, a small mutation in its genetic code could radically alter its composition and produce something entirely new.
I believe that particular “irreducibly complex” bit is still be looked at. Research and views from both sides here (including the above):
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/17/7116
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/240/63/
In any case, it is a gap, and nothing more than the current retreat of creationists. When, not if, when, it is explained, they will retreat once again, and in doing so, pull Mt. Olympus just out of the reach of science.
Richard Milton is not a scientist. He is an engineer that writes about science.
More than one actual scientist has more or less called Milton a quack.
Not that wiki is a definitive source, however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Milton_(scientific_researcher)
Dawkins here:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1992-08-28shattering_the_myths.shtml
…
…ouch.
Lastly,
Wartip:
I never recall evolution as being taught as anything other then theory, ditto for every other scientific theory from models of the atom to relativity.
Teaching creationism as science is flat out wrong.
Remember how the Feds used to kidnap indian children, send them to boarding schools, cut off their hair, beat them for speaking their native language and indoctrinate into a foreign religion?
Remember how the government did everything possible to alienate these children from their cultural heritage and turn them against the traditional way of life practiced by their ancestors?
That’s exactly what’s happening to the rest of you today.
Enjoy : )
Good Morning, zeroangel. Sorry about your cold.
You may not feel fulfilled by this response, but after reviewing your provided links, It’s what I’ve got.
Firstly, I have read Dawkins criticisms of Milton before. Did you notice that Dawkins failed to give specific, referenced examples? His entire “review” was basically a long screed about how Milton should never have been published.
I have read the book, and believe me, I ain’t no pushover. It is incredibly well thought out with source information and examples given. It certainly isn’t any Walt Brown, who tends to jump to unsibstantiated conclusions.
Yes, Milton is a science writer, which means he has been reporting of scientific discovery and debate for his career. He’s not exactly an unreliable source.
After reading the piece at pnas.org, the one thing that stands out is how many times that scientific article used the word suggests. As you pointed out, the mystery of the bacterial motor is as yet unexplained. So here’s a question: what makes you think it is going to be explained by evolution?
You’ve correctly pointed out before that since the actions of a divine hand cannot be empirically tested, we should not consider it science, (a statement I don’t necessarily disagree with), but that doesn’t mean we will never be able to. You see? I just used the same arguement evolutionists use when confronted with something they cannot explain — “I’m sure we will one day.”
Finally, the finch info did come from Milton. However, didn’t I read in the link you provided that scientists studying evolution are the ones that stated different species couldn’t mate? I know we have actual examples of species that can, but my point was this: the different finches on the Gallapogos are different variations, but are they really different birds?
Think of it this way: what is the difference between a Doberman and a chihuahua? They’re both dogs (sort of), but look at them. If they were both extinct today, would we be concluding that dobermans evolved from chihuahuas?
Before condemening Milton on the word of Dawkins, try reading a couple of chapters of his book. It is a good read whether you agree with it or not.
Hope you fell better, off to work for me…
SHoward:
Good morning and thank you. I feel much better this morning thanks to antibiotics.
Re: Milton, I am not sure if Dawkins directly took on Milton in some other paper, I might have to research that further. Robert Todd Carol apparently did though:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html
Not so much directly related at The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism but rather, at Milton’s website (which appears to be down) / book: Alternative Science.
If Milton has been shown to be apt to logical fallacies in several other areas, his credibility is, of course, called into question.
I am not certain, but I believe Dawkins would just as soon debate Milton as debate someone that believes the Earth is flat. Milton, after all, is a proponent of a few other things like, the paranormal, and UFOs.
Well, because every other “gap” in the history of mankind that used a divine being as an explanation eventually was shown to be explained by science. I have no reason to believe this trend will not continue.
Taking the stance that we will one day be able to empirically test the existence of a supernatural or divine being does not hold up because then that being would no longer be “supernatural.” “Supernatural” means above or outside of nature, hence it cannot be tested empirically and is not science. If one were to take the stand that “God” does in fact exist in a tangible way that can be tested empirically that would open up a whole slew of paradoxes (can God make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it? etc.)
Here:
Key word is viable.
Would we? Or would we correctly deduce that they are different branches emanating from another common ancestor?
I may get to Milton after I read, “Liberal Fascism.”
Slow at work for me today and yesterday, waiting on results from other folks before I can continue.
SHoward:
Whilst pondering this, I have something else that occurred to me that I’d like to share:
If ever the day comes when “God” appears in the sky, announces his return and begins harvesting souls I will be among many others (I presume) to state that it appears we are being invaded by an advanced race and we are equivalent to Native Americans facing the arrival of European explorers.
Then, perhaps later, if I find myself “dead”, I am likely to postulate that I have been imprisoned within my own mind or somehow “moved” to a type of “zoo” created for our (humankind’s) benefit and made to resemble the afterlife.
So, assuming I am wrong, and it IS in fact the afterlife, I guess then there are two options: Heaven or Hell (other religions have more in varying degrees of the two absolutes).
So, if I find myself in hell, one could say, what a cruel “God” indeed. He created me to be, by my nature, a skeptic, and knowing this, condemned me to hell at the instant of my creation. If He didn’t then He isn’t omniscient, and thus, does not fit the definition of “God.”
On the flipside, finding myself in “Heaven” I will no doubt spend eternity pestering St. Peter, Jesus, God, or various other folk, to answer my questions and provide a rational explanation for my current predicament.
Or, not, or perhaps it is all simply “supernatural” and “un-explainable” and thus outside the realm of reasoned debate and science.
Just a quick note, zero, (I’m attempting to work, without much success),
I wasn’t trying to enter the God/Atheist debate. That one would never end….(not that this one necessarily will
)
Be back when I can….
SHoward:
*smile*. Maybe I should make an honest effort to find something else constructive to do instead of waiting for results from others and/or going to my project lead every 15mins reminding him that I am waiting for results from others. Perhaps I will start a new project ahead of schedule.
In any case, if we are to consider “Intelligent Design” into reasoned debate we MUST enter the God/Atheist debate. Either that, or start talking about UFOs. Neither of which are science.
Ummm, doesn’t the “gap theory” belong to evolutionists? How about “punctuated equilibrium”? These two reasons alone give trouble to evolution. If we can’t explain it, we throw something at it and teach it as fact. NOT SICENCE!!!
…and I would have to say the same has happened with Scientists on your side of the debate. I love the example of 7 bone sent off to 4 evolutionists for a sketch of what the “humanoid” must have looked like. All very different. Two with normal human arm lengths and two with ape arm lengths. Soft science has been applied to evolution and been claimed as “science” for years. Manhattan Man and his family were drawn from a single tooth that turned out to be that of an extinct pig which later turned out to not be extinct. The examples of the lack of “science” have plagued evolution from the very beginning. Yet, you want to hold evolution up to be taught as science because there is “nothing better”. SCIENCE???
The probability that even a single strand of DNA can form in the billions of years of life on earth is so beyond possible it removes science from evolution. Take the protein connections between the double helix itself. Mathematically, there is about 1×10 to the 80th power possibilities. That is more seconds than in 4 billion years. This is just one of many stumbling blocks for evolution. When the complexity of a single cell is studied, the whole plan falls apart at the seams.
As each gap is explained? Like the gap theory is an explanation? Come on, be real. Some of the “explanations” do not deserve study. How do we explain vertical fossils? You know, trees that are vertical in coal which, according to evolutionists takes millions of years to form? How about living fossils that have NOT changed (evolved) over millions of years? How about why in the world would anything evolve past phytoplankton which gets its energy from the sun and reproduces? It seems perfect enough. Why do we not have chloroform as it is way more efficient than eating? How about; how does a living cell come into existence with all of its complexities including the ability to reproduce? Talk about gap creationists have yet to explain or just – explain away (like, the planet was “seeded” by an asteroid or meteor…). Talk about things evolutionists cannot observe or see or produce in a lab experiment!
By your final statement, neither can evolution (“be tested”). It should not be in a science class but a philosophy class. It takes just as much “faith” to believe in it as it does to believe GOD created it. Since the Bible continues to be proven right (on many levels) it might just be right on all and who needs an experiment to believe all of it. You would have me believe all of evolution because “there is nothing better. HA, that’s a laugh.
I have been an atheist and an evolutionist. Given the choice of what I was taught as fact and what I have learned from not taking what I was taught as “gospel”, I will take what I have learned with my open mind. The evidence (the lack thereof actually) for evolution in my mind, keeps it in the toilet where it belongs.
Soap:
I do not have the inclination to go point to point with you on every single issue you cite that is or has been addressed elsewhere (a simple google search on your own will be enough). My purpose here is not to try and convince you, nor is it to try and one up you. If you would like to take that as me being unable to, please do, it matters not to me.
The reason I am not so inclined is because I do not think you are even reading what I write. It seems to me you are using equivocation re: my use of the word “gap.” I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but it doesn’t matter.
Further, the simple fact that you posted something that you cited as supporting evidence and it turns out you didn’t even read it (as evidenced by it refuting your claim) leads me to believe you only read what you want to read.
I don’t doubt you when you say you were an atheist. But I do doubt your understanding of the logic associated with it.
Evolution is an explanation concerning the natural and physical world. It CAN be tested by empirical evidence; in fact, some of your issues are empirical evidence. Evolution, by definition, is science. It can be critiqued, modified, adjusted and even disproved by examining evidence. If you want to throw out evolution based on evidence I have no problem with that. The problem comes in as follows:
“Intelligent Design” necessarily requires intervention of a divine being (or aliens, but I don’t think that’s what you espouse). It is not a scientific theory and it is an updated version of Zeus throwing lightning bolts. It is a theological trump card that ENDS debate and research, not expands it. What empirical test can we use to “test” for the existence of God? Answer that, and you will instantly become the most famous person on Earth. Tell me how I am supposed to disprove “God”?
Thus, ID is NOT science, by definition.
SHoward / Wartip / 30pcs:
If any of you are still reading and you have concerns about any of the examples cited above by Soap, please email me at:
zeroang3L@hotmail.com
Yes, that is a ‘3′ in place of an ‘e’. ‘3′ and then the letter ‘L’. Many commonly mistake it for zeroangel or zeroang-thirty-one. It is zeroang-three-L.
SHoward: I was particularly enjoying our discussion as it made me ponder interesting scenarios. I would like to continue this off fourm.
Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.
For Gods’ Sake and Ours, Let Darwin Rest!
I say this as a black American of faith who’s steeped in science and a background in oceanography, I find this whole argument deeply disheartening. Religion has FAR more important fish to fry in terms of teaching kids morality in the face of the lack of it on MTV/Spike and TV/movies and wild street culture than debate on the mechanism God uses in creation. I am _offended_ off the wall when zealots tell me that sincere unbiased experiments and investigation into the structure of the universe are all lies. It makes me go crazy. Pitting religion against science is just as bad as people today twisting science to bolster a political agenda, saying the results of experiments are all wrong/lies because it’d disprove God’s existance when it’d then mean that God is one cruel prankster with our experiments and our heads. This quibble — to be so presumptuous that Man knows exactly how God works — gives religion a bad name and small wonder libs and the general public regards and presents people of faith as flakes and steamroller over us social policies detrimental to us all. Faith-based theories (not the same as teaching about religion) should be taught at church and home and science-based ones in academia. If your faith’s strong and morally solid and positive enough then it shouldn’t have to be worried of being “undermined” by science.
Let’s get off this ivory-tower train and focus on competing against the rappers and liberals for the minds, morals and souls of our children! THAT’s where faith earns its keep!
Amen!
James Greenidge
Queens NY
James:
Very well said.
Despite being an atheist I can agree wholeheartedly with everything James said.
My caveat:
ensures that James and I are NOT at odds on anything other than faith or perhaps a philosophical disagreement. I can accept the notion that “God” has a mechanism and mindset that completely eludes man. In fact I did ascribe to that notion for a very long time.
I too, am frustrated and offended by zealotry. ID “theory” is poisonous and will undermine the education of the youth of America.
Well on the “bright Side?”….If B. Hussiane Obabama….gets elected and tries the surrender to the terrorist option…. the homosexuality “problem” will be a problem no more….new problems may arise however…..
zero,
I’m not ignoring you, I just have too much to do….
I’ll get a hold of you when I can….
-Steve
(I am watching the Spitz go down in flames, however!)
SHoward:
I surmised as much. Please email me though as the further this thread goes down on Malkin’s main page the less inclined I (and anyone else) am inclined to look at it. Thank you!