M
Melchior
Guest
Petra,
No problem. I have been honestly mistaken many times.
Merry Christmas!
Mel
- Status
No problem. I have been honestly mistaken many times.
Merry Christmas!
Mel
M
Melchior
Guest
A final point that goes back to the original question.
The big problem with this decision, no matter what side you fall on, is the judge was simply not qualified, as a lawyer, to make such a decision. He is not scientist, he is a lawyer. He made a decision based on preference of opinion not legal facts. His decision was wrong on this basis. Even if the question was what qualifies as “classic literature” for a Classic Lit. class this guy was not in any position to stifle different view that school districts want to share. It get’s into a messy first ammendment issue.
The law is something I am familiar with. And if you don’t believe me I am will get the the lawyer I am married to to back me up.
Of course I think government schools are colossal failure anyway so this debate, in an ideal world, should be left to the parents and teachers of private schools.
My kids will get all sides. The beauty of homeschooling.
Merry Christmas,
Mel
The big problem with this decision, no matter what side you fall on, is the judge was simply not qualified, as a lawyer, to make such a decision. He is not scientist, he is a lawyer. He made a decision based on preference of opinion not legal facts. His decision was wrong on this basis. Even if the question was what qualifies as “classic literature” for a Classic Lit. class this guy was not in any position to stifle different view that school districts want to share. It get’s into a messy first ammendment issue.
The law is something I am familiar with. And if you don’t believe me I am will get the the lawyer I am married to to back me up.
Of course I think government schools are colossal failure anyway so this debate, in an ideal world, should be left to the parents and teachers of private schools.
My kids will get all sides. The beauty of homeschooling.
Merry Christmas,
Mel
A
Alberich
Guest
The difference here is that it as a common and verifiable everyday experience to see that pottery is made by people. We have yet to see God creating any world, much less the people that He chose to populate it with. Barring that touchstone, how can we possibly say with any sort of straight face, “I can recognize that we must be created in this certain manner by God”? Evolution, at least, has allowed scientists to observe certain patterns of evolution, predict evolution in species based upon those observations, and has allowed for those predictions to be tested. ID has no such “testability,” which is precisely why it is not scientific.
Pax,
Alberich
A
Alberich
Guest
But the question becomes this, then: Where do you draw the boundary between intra-species and inter-species evolution? Every ID argument I’ve heard thus far that will allow for micro but disallows macro evolution is essentially circular:That is absurd. No offense. Chane within a species and change form one species to another are completely different things. Talk about oversimplifying things. A son being taller than his father and a squirrel becoming a bird are two very different concepts. One is observable. The other is not. So I will have to say my claim of hooey is much stronger than yours.
“Sure, evolution occurs within a species, but cannot occur as one species evolves into a new species.”
“Why not?”
“Because God created the species and they cannot change therefrom.”
Seems to me that, at end, you are still using a religious basis to support a supposedly scientific argument. Which is why ID is not scientific.
Frankly, as a Catholic and a biologist, I cannot understand the big deal. I’ve never understood the sort of person that could believe that God create simply say create light with a simple “fiat lux,” could cause a virgin to become with child, could appear as a burning bush, coulk raise the dead, could walk on water, &c, but could for whatever reason, not accept that He would allow his Creation to grow and mature according to the very laws of nature that He must have set in place. To me, and no offense is meant to anyone, that smacks of having not nearly enough (non-scientific!) faith.
Pax,
Alberich
W
wildleafblower
Guest
petra, “I’m not suggesting that aetheists actually have truths that you or I as Christians do not have. I’m suggesting that the issue had become convoluted in public debate, and that is what I object to.”
Ah, but you did say, “Christians’ suspicion of science is unfounded and ill-advised. Moreover, it allows atheists to hold a monopoly on several truths that do not belong to them.”
petra, “My sense is that atheists would like to think they have a monopoly on macroevolution–they like to think that it is their cause.”
It seems you’re telling me that one of the several truths that ‘only’ atheists have is macroevolution. Macroevolution isn’t biased. I don’t think all atheists will agree with it being ‘their’ cause and that macroevolution is considered a ‘truth’. I’ll leave it up to the scientists to answer that question since macroevolution is science. Factual by evidence perhaps, but I have never heard a scientist use the word ‘truth’. Let’s leave it up to a qualified scientific judge to decide. You have brought up a very good point petra.
petra, “My point is that they do not own it. If evolution is true, it is truth that belongs to God, and as Christians, we can embrace it.”
You can’t embrace macroevolution without acknowledging evolution is a fact and has nothing to do with ownership. I’m a Christian and believe in evolution and love God. I don’t wish to go off topic but as Christians we disagree. The truth is God still loves us and atheists. God doesn’t discriminate. God loves.
petra, “Conversely, many young earth creationists marginalize theistic evolution as a capitulation to atheistic scientists and suggest that the only orthodox view is that of a literal 6 days of creation. By doing so, they are giving something away that rightly belongs to them. My point is that the issue is falsely divided. and defined.”
This is a very confusing statement. Are you stating that an orthodox view belongs only to YEC?
Petra, all the points that you have made above has only proven to me that the judge definately made the right decision by keeping ID out of public schools.
I hope you have a wonderful Christ-filled Christmas.
Ah, but you did say, “Christians’ suspicion of science is unfounded and ill-advised. Moreover, it allows atheists to hold a monopoly on several truths that do not belong to them.”
petra, “My sense is that atheists would like to think they have a monopoly on macroevolution–they like to think that it is their cause.”
It seems you’re telling me that one of the several truths that ‘only’ atheists have is macroevolution. Macroevolution isn’t biased.
I don’t think all atheists will agree with it being ‘their’ cause and that macroevolution is considered a ‘truth’. I’ll leave it up to the scientists to answer that question since macroevolution is science. Factual by evidence perhaps, but I have never heard a scientist use the word ‘truth’. Let’s leave it up to a qualified scientific judge to decide. You have brought up a very good point petra.petra, “My point is that they do not own it. If evolution is true, it is truth that belongs to God, and as Christians, we can embrace it.”
You can’t embrace macroevolution without acknowledging evolution is a fact and has nothing to do with ownership. I’m a Christian and believe in evolution and love God. I don’t wish to go off topic but as Christians we disagree. The truth is God still loves us and atheists. God doesn’t discriminate. God loves.
petra, “Conversely, many young earth creationists marginalize theistic evolution as a capitulation to atheistic scientists and suggest that the only orthodox view is that of a literal 6 days of creation. By doing so, they are giving something away that rightly belongs to them. My point is that the issue is falsely divided. and defined.”
This is a very confusing statement. Are you stating that an orthodox view belongs only to YEC?
Petra, all the points that you have made above has only proven to me that the judge definately made the right decision by keeping ID out of public schools.
I hope you have a wonderful Christ-filled Christmas.
W
wanerious
Guest
Whose evolutionary theory? Yours? How many times must it be pointed out to you that your understanding of evolutionary science is in error. No one predicts, as you indeed said earlier, that we should now or at any point see “squirrels turn into birds”.
I am very much aware of them, thanks. And they are not so much theories of mutation as speciation as a whole.
What shall I address? The only thing you’ve given me to swing at is your version of evolutionary theory that doesn’t exist in scientific circles. I’ve used your own assertions of observational expectations that we don’t see, and tried to tell you that they actually aren’t predicted by anyone, so we shouldn’t be surprised that they are not observed.
W
wanerious
Guest
From the above, I still suspect that you haven’t read the ruling. Please read the ruling. The judge heard weeks of testimony from leading scientists in the field as well as testimony from ID supporters. The preponderance of the evidence is clear. What makes you think he didn’t rule according to “legal facts” when dozens of precedence cases and pages of legal background are included? Can you honestly say that, if he had ruled against every scientific expert who took the stand, against the very teachers teaching the courses, against every legal precedent cited in the ruling, that you would congratulate him on ruling according to “legal facts”? What are these facts?
Welcome to the case! The background of the Establishment Clause occupies the first 30 pages of the ruling. I would advise you to read them. The analogy with literature opinions is a terrible one. Surely you don’t want to pursue that. Even Behe admitted that, under his definition of science, astrology is a legitimate science. Is this the kind of thing you want mandated to our students?
M
mlchance
Guest
It is a false axiom.
The survey that made the determination is readily available to anyone who knows what Google is. For example:
The follow-up study reported in “Nature” reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in “personal god,” only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed “personal disbelief,” and 20.8% expressed “doubt or agnosticism.” Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the “human immortality” tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed “doubt or agnosticism” on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba’s original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields – only 5.5%.
In every single thread ever on this topic, one constantly hears that theists are trying to sneak “bad science” into the classrooms and laboratories (an accusation that is always framed as if it were a self-evident statement).
The hand that isn’t shown is that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences - which actively seeks to prop up the false scientistic axiom that all processes are materialistic - either deny, doubt, or discount the existence of God seldom enters the picture.
Thus special pleading enters the “debate” and, if it weren’t for double standards, many of those opposing ID wouldn’t have standards at all. The motives of theistic scientists are automatically suspect, while the atheists are given a free pass and allowed to set the terms of the “debate” to conform to their ideological prejudices.
– Mark L. Chance.
M
Melchior
Guest
As a biologist you should know the big difference is that Macro-evolution has never been observed.
It is a big deal because it comes down to blindly accepting something that has been repeated often ebnough to give it credibillity. If it is not observable, which macro-evolution is certainly not - beyond a theory that it could be, though has never been to date, then it has no more of a claim to science than identifying patterns that suggest design. The problem is you take what has been observed and come up with a theory that it could happen on a completely different scale without having the same observable proof that you do for intra-species mutation. If a theory goes dacades and decades without being supported it is a failed theory. That is how the rest of science works. Macro-evolution is taken on faith, not science.
(now someone is going to post a link to TalkOrigins that still avoids this central question - where is the obervable evidence? - at the site evidence is a relative word)
Mel
M
Melchior
Guest
What is your point? The ruling was bad law - because it makes suspect those who teach subject that don’t assume atheism for one thing. Perfect example of why public schools have completely failed. Educational freedom no longer exists. The entire public school system is completely secularist and agenda driven and when *misguided parents try to fight back they are the ones who are the activists. The astrology thing does not work by the way, you are trying to make a (not so) subtle comparison between good science, there is evidence of design and order, and something most people think is foolish superstition. BUt most evolutionsist think belief in a creator is akin to such superstition.
But I am not worried since it won’t be the kids “educated” in public schools who will be our future leaders in most fields anyway. It will be those with the superior education of private, classical, othher private schools and the homeschooled.
*They are misguided because they are trying in to do the impossible reform schools run by radical secularist teahcers unions where 5 year olds can learn about Heather’s to mommy’s and what oral sex is but can’t hear any theory of creation that is not atheistic. They are wasting their time. No Christian child should be handed over to the state for 12 years. Parents are responsible for their childrens education not the government.
But it was still a terrible ruling to those who are familiar with the law and the Constitution. It was never a matter for the courts.
Mel
S
steveandersen
Guest
:crying: :banghead:
You claim that the difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution is that in “macro” a change of species occurs
We provide you with evidence of observed instances of speciation and you say it never happened
I’m not sure what to say………
M
Melchior
Guest
steveandersen said::crying: :banghead:
You claim that the difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution is that in “macro” a change of species occurs
We provide you with evidence of observed instances of speciation and you say it never happened
I’m not sure what to say………
I saw no evidence in the traditional meaning of the word. Name one, just one transitional species that has been obvserved. You are just playing with definitions now to fit your purposes. I am sure it is not intentional, but it is what is being done.
Mel
P
petra
Guest
Wow, you really misinterpreted me! Rather than belabor my already tangental points, I’ll let them be.petra, “I’m not suggesting that aetheists actually have truths that you or I as Christians do not have. I’m suggesting that the issue had become convoluted in public debate, and that is what I object to.”
Ah, but you did say, “Christians’ suspicion of science is unfounded and ill-advised. Moreover, it allows atheists to hold a monopoly on several truths that do not belong to them.”
petra, “My sense is that atheists would like to think they have a monopoly on macroevolution–they like to think that it is their cause.”
It seems you’re telling me that one of the several truths that ‘only’ atheists have is macroevolution. Macroevolution isn’t biased.
petra, “My point is that they do not own it. If evolution is true, it is truth that belongs to God, and as Christians, we can embrace it.”
You can’t embrace macroevolution without acknowledging evolution is a fact and has nothing to do with ownership. I’m a Christian and believe in evolution and love God. I don’t wish to go off topic but as Christians we disagree. The truth is God still loves us and atheists. God doesn’t discriminate. God loves.
petra, “Conversely, many young earth creationists marginalize theistic evolution as a capitulation to atheistic scientists and suggest that the only orthodox view is that of a literal 6 days of creation. By doing so, they are giving something away that rightly belongs to them. My point is that the issue is falsely divided. and defined.”
This is a very confusing statement. Are you stating that an orthodox view belongs only to YEC?
Petra, all the points that you have made above has only proven to me that the judge definately made the right decision by keeping ID out of public schools.
I hope you have a wonderful Christ-filled Christmas.
I also agree that the judge made the right decision.
Merry Christmas to you, too!
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
Pardon me, I’m jumping into the midst of what appears to be a heated discussion… but why do you say that evolution is necessarily atheistic? Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the RCC accept evolution as God’s mechanism for creation?
P
petra
Guest
Amen to that!!
M
Melchior
Guest
It allows for it as one view with but several caveats. But official Catholic teaching on many things, such as Adam and Eve makes it very problematic for there to be a coherent and consistent Catholic view in line with the predominantely atheistic evolutionary science community. Thankfully when science abandons 19th century theory Rome can take it off the table as an option.
It is not necessarily atheistic, but it is logically and predominantely Atheistic. How does a Catholic who believes in evolution reconcile the Catholic teaching that all men descended from a literal Adam and Eve?
Mel
S
steveandersen
Guest
The official view is that there is no official view. The Church is wise enough to know that commenting on matters of science is outside of Her competence.
Members are free to subscribe to evolution or not as long as they don’t deny the supernatural origin of the soul or let their views on evolution conflict with the concept of original sin or decent from a single pair.
This is where some people have a legitimate concern with reconciling faith and evolution.
W
wanerious
Guest
Melchior said:
Apparently giving you what you ask for is not going to work. We have repeatedly given you instances of one species branching out into others. It has been observed. We’ve told you where & how. That’s as “transitional” as evolution gets.
Since this isn’t working, why don’t you tell us some example of what a “transitional” fossil is? I suspect that you still misunderstand the science. There really is no such thing as a “transitional” fossil — what are you really looking for? What is an example of some observation that you would say, “Aha! Now that is a transitional fossil!”
H
hecd2
Guest
** Pederpes finneyae**, a polydactylous tetrapod with massive stapes and lateral lines.
I see that you argue by making up your own definitions as you go along. Just what is the ‘traditional meaning’ of species?
The references showed speciation according to the biological species concept.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
- Status