Evolution can't explain how the unbelievably complex evolved when things don't work without ALL of their parts. Evolution cannot explain how an eye evolved, let alone the unbelievably diverse life on this planet
and talk about how half an eye is no use. This is, to put it bluntly bogus. Firstly there are a number of plausible pathways about how eyes can develop from light sensitive skin and all sorts of different mechanisms used for seeing. The vertebrate eye is different to the insect eye is diffent to the squid/octopus eye, not to mention simple visual structures such as an ocellus. Another favourite is the implausibility of the "Cambrian explosion", but anyone who makes the most cursory examination of complexity theory can see that exponential growth of an apparently ordered limited system once a certain threshold is reached is the norm. The basic point is that once you get DNA, sex and genes working reliably then any change of the environment (caused by, for example, resource starvation because all the nice bits have already been taken) makes it likely that changes will occur and there is no reason to assume that there is only one solution to the problem of survival under new conditions. Hence speciation and hence, since the new species will then change the environment again, further incentive for more adaptations and furhter evolution into newer species, with, again, no reason to assume that a single strategy is optimum. It is critical to recall that the "Cambrian Explosion" lasted over 50 million years (or about as much time as has elapsed since the dinosaurs died out) and that the first fossil eukaryotes (i.e. non bacteria) show up in the preceding Vendian era as well.
This "advice," which the Kansas standards quote, is: "The Conferees recognize that quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."See statement at the start of this post. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis that may be disproven. It is critical that students are taught "to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science". Unfortunately that is about as far as my agreement goes.
The newly elected school board members immediately pledged to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject evolution to criticism. They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.Criticism is not the same as denial. Evolution should be taught in a way that makes clear that it may have flaws and that it is current scientific orthodoxy, but there is no point in going further. We don't teach children the more obscure bits of relativistic theory when we do physics, we give them Newton's laws, note that Einstien and co found places where they turn out wrong and leave it at that. A similar approach to evolution in biology is all that is necessary.
Liberals see the political value to teaching evolution in school, as it makes teachers and children think they are no more special than animals. Childhood joy and ambition can turn into depression as children learn to reject that they were created in the image of God.This is where all my sympathy for evolution sceptics dries up. The phrase WTF springs to mind, along with "I'll have some of what he's smoking" and "did he take his pills this morning?". Three questions:
The press is claiming that the pro-evolution victory in Kansas - where, incidentally, voter turnout was only 18 percent - was the third strike for evolution critics. In December a federal judge in Dover, Pa., prohibited the school from even mentioning intelligent design, and in February, the Ohio board of education nixed a plan to allow a modicum of critical analysis of evolution. But one strikeout does not a ballgame win. Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.Science, sir, is not a democratic subject. You can't repeal scientific findings by legislative fiat or by opinion polls. The fact that 10% believe the version of evolution taught in public schools may be an indication that it is wrong but it looks to me more like the careful filtering of an opinion poll where various evolutionary and non evolutionary theories were presented and the majority picked evolution but split between the various options. It is I believe, entirely possible, to believe both in evolution and that God created the world and all things in it.
[...] Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" (Crown Forum, $28), has enjoyed weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. Despite bitter denunciations by liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism. She calls it the cosmology of the Church of Liberalism.
Coulter's book charges that evolution is a cult religion, and described how its priests and practitioners regularly treat critics as religious heretics. The Darwinists' answer to every challenge is to accuse their opponents of, horrors, a fundamentalist belief in God.Perhaps I should read Coulter's book and deconstruct that third. I tend to agree completely (see post yesterday) that liberals frequently act like religious fanatics but I don't think that their behaviour necessarily invalidates what they are defending. The fact that some "liberals" are unable to string together a logical argument on anything from economic policy to evolution and are forced to revert to playing the man not the ball is a sign of their stupidity. Scientists of all stripes (not to mention genetic engineers and technicians) accept the prime tenets of evolutionary theory and apply it in their work. That is the hallmark of scientific acceptability not the ravings of a lunatic fringe that grows up around it.
[...] Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed, which is why they refused the invitation to present their case at a public hearing in Kansas. But this is America, and 90 percent of the public will not remain silenced.No we aren't. We just think that you need to come up with a testable alternative theory. If it isn't testable then it isn't science. Evolution is testable and is standing the test of time as discoveries in the fossil record and in analysis of the DNA of current species. On the other hand Creationism, Intelligent Deisgn etc. fail to make testable hypotheses and hence, since they can never be disproven, are not science but rather "religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. For example if God created mankind on his own image but did not extend his own image to other creatures then why does mankind share an enormous part of its DNA with other great apes, a lesser part with other simians, a lesser part with mammals and so on? For these alternate systems to be scientific they need to explain this and nothing that I see in the bible says that God created man in his own image, chimpanzees in almost his own image, baboons in about 90% of his image etc. If humans are special then we shouldn't share so much with other species, including not just DNA but diseases and levels of cognition.
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken