The Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research is seeking state approval to train science teachers. This is one of those ideas that should be left on the shelf, right next to Lynne Spears' book on parenting.
2. Army has on payroll priests in ranks of Generals,
To believe evolution according to Darwin precludes too many answers, which is unaceptable in scientific research.
Oh dear. In making a decision regarding accreditation, only one question need be asked and honestly answered: Is "Creation Science" (or scientific creationism, etc;) falsifiable? Evolution, and any other scientific pursuit relies on theories (theory does not have the same meaning in scientific use and as used by the general populace) that are always and at any time, in part or in whole, falsifiable. Indeed, that is the hallmark of science. If a theory cannot be falsified, it cannot claim to be science.
Is evolution falsifiable?
1. All evidence does not support evolution
2. I stated that schools teaching spoon-fed Darwin education 'precludes TOO MANY answers'- I did not say all answers,
3.Isaac Newton, if alive, would be considered a creationist: perhaps he is infallible, since his theory is still the foundation of physics
4.Scientists should be free to learn and research without the limits of a state imposed education directed to the 'left brain mentality of memorizing' such as Darwinian evolution,
5.a scientist should not be fired for exploring theory beyond Darwin
6. Sir Newton wrote more about God than he did gravity, and did so without persecution: would he be able to do this now? Evidently not
I was going to leave well enough alone for the next few days. But my old friend Ed Brayton drags me back into the breach with this amusing anti-evolutionary screed from "Joseph Grant Swank, who would need at least one promotion to get to be an idiot."
Rev. Swank -- "It's a crazy world we live in. Crazier every day. But one of the craziest notions that ever came down the pike is evolution. Who in his right mind would ever believe that the complicated homo sapien derived from a speck? That's getting the larger from the smaller."
So, believing we came from a microscopic speck over the course of four billion years is off the chain crazy, accepting it can happen in nine months flat on the other hand ...
...perhaps we should consider the possibility that life was created by an energy that carried the Trait of Intelligence; and call the energy Intelligence, or call it god, or call it rocktreefish-
Falsifiability is a canard. If an explanation is found interesting and satisfying to a sufficiently influential group, they will exclude contrary explanations and explain away inconsistencies. This tendency is certainly present in scientific communities, whether the view excluded is one new in the past two centuries, or one common to the preceding millennia.
...only one question need be asked and honestly answered: Is "Creation Science" (or scientific creationism, etc;) falsifiable?
But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.
We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.
All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.
Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.
You are conveniently naive and have bitten off more than you seem to realize. The FSM was in fact first and foremost aimed at pseudo-science. Still, it is, and I dare say rather obviously, of a piece with celestial teapots and unicorns on the far side of the moon. Do you disagree?
As for the fish,fowl fungus all having the same genetic code: considering that everything came from the big bang it is impossible for everything to not share at least some commonality of genetic code.
Is evolution falsifiable?
Yes. See, e.g., fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian. Facile God-of-the-gaps arguments miss the point entirely. In fact, your link misses several points, not least being: 1) biological evolution and origin-of-life theories address completely separate questions; and 2) adaptability in the face of new evidence is a strength, not a weakness, of a scientific approach.
Ok, here's a creationist theory that has the same standard of falsifiability: the creator created all life in the universe and located it exclusively on Earth. To prove the theory false, all you have to do is demonstrate that life exists in any other place in the whole wide universe, and you will have demonstrated the theory false.
Evolution does not, and can not explain free will.
For the record, Catholics understand and have no problem with the theory of evolution. Further, Poland has given the world some quite competent scientists.
It's the evangelical Christians who believe every word of the book. Including the fact that Israel is to be supported because she is fated for destruction, to fulfill the prophecies.
"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
If an explanation is found interesting and satisfying to a sufficiently influential group, they will exclude contrary explanations and explain away inconsistencies.
The mechanism of random modifications plus natural selection of the fittest, taking into account environmental conditions, is sufficient to explain every incident of species formation, after the initial creation of life.
It would be a collosal waste of space to list the enormous amount of scientific breakthroughs in technology and medicine directly developed via modern biology, which rests firmly on evolutionary principles.
How, then, is evolution really compatible with not only Genesis, but the Christian perspective on the significance of Christ's death and resurrection
In order to falsify this, all you have to do is find one demonstrable example of an organism that could not have developed in this way.
"you could prove X false based on a single piece of observational/experimental data," not "it would be possible to find evidence that mitigates against the truth of X."
And how does one go about showing that something like that couldn't have happened?
But Mark, if you believe that God created us in His image, what is wrong with using our God-given mentality to search for and discover the truth? I suspect that He is little pleased with your narrow and anti-intellectual perspective. He gave us minds for a reason.
Would you mind listing scientific disciplines that people should not pursue?
Quite a bit, since I've lectured on Feyerabend's disgusting endorsement of Cardinal Bellarmino's condemnations of Galileo. But what's the point -- just to compare scholarly credentials?
evolutionary theory would -require- that there be -millions- of transitional forms on Earth -right now-, and there's in fact virtually none
if it's not evolution, and you are hellbent on believing there's no God, then you don't have a lot of other options, so you'll stick with evolution till you die.
There are indeed plenty of scientists who doubt evolution
"if it's not evolution, and you are hellbent on believing there's no God, then you don't have a lot of other options, so you'll stick with evolution till you die."
And there is the aforementioned conspiracy theory....
I would really like to see one of these dog/cat/corn hybrids.
In either event, being unable to repeat a process doesn't make it unscientific
The domestic corn varieties we grow today are not only vastly different from what the Indians grew 500 years ago but is a completely different species and is not even comparable to its wild source (which looks something like that minature asian corn and grows in bunches)
And surprise of surprises, you can cross-breed Asian and African lions and get fertile offspring, but if you try and cross-breed a lion and a tiger you get sterile offspring. Same with great apes. Bonobos and Chimps can cross breed but you can't get a Chimp/gorilla hybrid.
Those silly lying scientists. Thanks for exposing them.
In the meanwhile, congratulations again on being more insightful, better educated, and much smarter than thousands of professional biologists worldwide! Quite an achievement. I'm sure your careful and methodical examinations of the evidence will be trumpeted worldwide forthwith. When do you anticipate publishing the results of your groundbreaking research? . . . While you're counting your Nobel prizes, please identify for us the process or natural feature that stops "microevolution" from producing gross morphological changes. . . . your poorly considered complaints have been raised, and dealt with, long before you started bravely crusading against wicked science.
Sitting at home hunched over my computer, I managed to poke holes in a scientific theory that has been accepted by nearly every significant biologist for almost two hundred years.
I guarantee you that if intelligent design proponents produce results then scientists will listen to them. Until that time, the 5% have been harping for 150 years without producing a damn thing. You would be upset too.
Behe formulated his working definition of the term ("theory") and it was the plaintiff's attorney who introduced astrology into the discussion, not Behe. . . . I.e. courtroom sophistry which was subsequently further leveraged by the MSM and others, and then oft-repeated in standard agitprop and propaganda and demonizing mode.
More importantly and by example, I would point you to Einstein's annus mirabilis, the year 1905, wherein the papers Einstein forwarded were not undergirded with any empirical findings whatsoever but rather were supported, essentially, with pure rational thought. So, by your definition, we're not to accept Einstein's 1905 papers as worthy of being thought of as proper theories?
You'd need, in a positive and unambiguous sense, to formulate your own working definition, one which would likewise allow itself to be subjected to critique. That too is something the plaintiffs never did. Convenient, that.
Theories are broad, useful, powerful generalizations that explain and unite a broad range of facts. Theories have to make testable predictions, because otherwise they're not useful as theories. If a theory is enunciated to explain a natural process, it has to make predictions that lead to testable hypotheses so that people can go into the laboratory, can make those tests, and can tend to confirm or refute the theory.
Q. But if a theory does not meet these ground rules of science, testability, observability, they are not considered scientific?
A. It's just not a scientific theory, that's correct.
I have never done any research so grand that I would have described in any of those papers a new theory that I have. Hypotheses, yes, but theories are a whole other level of understanding.
Can someone tell us how natural science has demonstrated the existence of an intelligence capable of taking the role assigned by ID? If not, what research is ongoing to demonstrate it? Who is doing it? Where? What progress has been made?