It is unfortunate that Barry implies that Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and the millions of other Americans who believe that a creator designed human life, are anti-science while those who believe that human life randomly evolved from non-living chemicals through unguided, blind chance are "pro-science."
Science is supposed to be a search for truth about nature but, on the issue of evolution, has become more of a politicized establishment where the favored viewpoint is protected from scrutiny. Virtually any criticism of Darwinian evolution, no matter how well-researched and supported, is labeled as an impermissible religious viewpoint unfit for discussion, let alone acceptance.
The history of science is riddled with examples of theories that were supported by a majority of scientists only to be discarded later as new evidence emerged. Many who questioned those theories were criticized by the scientific establishment of their day just as intelligent design theorists are ridiculed and blacklisted today.
Governor Palin simply stated that debate is important on the issue of evolution and we should not be afraid to discuss information that challenges the orthodox view. Students should be free to question theories that are presented in class; Palin simply stated, "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." Discussing intelligent design in the classroom in response to student questions is certainly consistent with the Supreme Court's statement in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), that "[w]e do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
It is clear that our nation's founders disagreed with Barry's view. The Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Boris said it all for me.
Except for the lawyer stuff, that's not my arena.
God has given us feelings that are a good. Have you ever been in a situation and felt something bad was about to happen? This feeling you had turned you away from the danger of that situation. Such as walking near a growling dog. You don't understand it, but it was a feeling to warn you. A feeling toward someone you have met, good or bad. The person you married or are involved with. The good feeling you have when you are around them. You don't know where it came from but you know it makes you feel good, therefore the attraction is there. Get my meaning? Feeling have a lot to do with decisions we make every day. I feel sick, I can't go to work. At a party I feel happy. At the birth of my child I feel joy. I feel a pull toward God, I receive Jesus as my Lord. Feeling? The great joy is undiscribable.
Unless you have done this you have no idea what happens to you. It is the simple man that will put the proud man to shame. How does this happen? Think about it.
On September 7, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Robert wrote: "Ok here it goes one more time, you can not have it both ways. Both the theroys of gravity and relativity have been proven, so therefore they are no longer theroys they are facts."
This statement is blatantly false, Robert. Please learn a little about how science actually works before trying to argue it.
1. We do not prove things in science. We disprove things. Nothing in science is ever proven 100%. It's just not how we do things. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or is ignorant about how science works.
2. In so much as point 1 is accurate, we (scientists) have NOT proven either the theory of gravity OR the theory of relatively.
3. Scientific theories do NOT change into facts after repeated testing. This is a complete misunderstanding of how science works. Facts are observations. Theories are erected to explain observations. A theory will never ever change into a fact. With respect to evolution, it is a fact (an observation with associated error) that life has changed over the course of geologic time. This is one of the facts of evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains this observation. That's how it works.
October 25th, 2008
By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Believe it or not, Sarah Palin gave a “policy” speech yesterday in support of (and in support of full government funding of) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In her speech, Palin stressed that “the most valuable thing of all is information” and that “[e]arly identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference.” However, she also criticized certain “pet projects,” such as fruit-fly research, that are funded through earmarks and that, according to her, are utterly pointless:
Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.
No, she kids us not. In her view, such research is a joke and, needless to say, shouldn’t be funded. It’s all a big waste, government largesse at its worst.
But is she right about the research? No.
I’ll let an expert, PZ Myers of Pharyngula, explain — brilliantly, I might add:
I am appalled.
This idiot woman, this blind, shortsighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community. You damn well better believe that there is research going on in animal models — what does she expect, that scientists should mutagenize human mothers and chop up baby brains for this work? — and countries like France and Germany and England and Canada and China and India and others are all respected participants in these efforts.
Yes, scientists work on fruit flies. Some of the most powerful tools in genetics and molecular biology are available in fruit flies, and these are animals that are particularly amenable to experimentation. Molecular genetics has revealed that humans share key molecules, the basic developmental toolkit, with all other animals, thanks to our shared evolutionary heritage (something else the wackaloon from Wasilla denies), and that we can use these other organisms to probe the fundamental mechanisms that underlie core processes in the formation of the nervous system — precisely the phenomena Palin claims are so important.
This is where the Republican party has ended up: supporting an ignorant buffoon who believes in the End Times and speaking in tongues while deriding some of the best and most successful strategies for scientific research. In this next election, we’ve got to choose between the 21st century rationalism and Dark Age inanity. It ought to be an easy choice.
What can I add to that? His language is harsh, but Myers is exactly right. The Republican Party has become — and has been for some time — the party of darkness, an anti-Enlightenment party beholden to a base of theocratic Christian fundamentalism, a party that has positioned itself in opposition to science.
However unpopular generally, Sarah Palin has become, to many, the mascot and cheerleader of this movement, a leader of the darkest wing of her party.
In ridiculing the very scientific research that would support her “policy,” she was just being a good Republican.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
http://discoveringjesusfishing.net
Evolution is a THEORY and has never been proven, just like intelligent design is a THEORY. Although my religious beliefs lead me to accept the theory of intelligent design, neither of these two theories are sound enough to be held up in a court of law.
If a scientific fact is well accepted by the scientific community, the fact does not have to be proven in a court of law but is automatically accepted as evidence. If both theories were offered as evidence in a court of law, both would have to be proven because neither of the two are accepted by the majority in the scientific community.
That said, intelligent design is an equally valid theory to evolution (and even more so from a scientific perspective since evolution goes against many scientific principles) and should be taught in the public schools.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.