.Evolution and Indoctrination
I cannot be too critical, since I was once a loudmouth on the young-earth creationist bandwagon. I've addressed this subject countless times before on this blog. But let me address the issue on this occasion in terms that I think Jim will appreciate.
Is it "indoctrination" if we teach the history of the Holocaust and do not give equal time to the deniers of the Holocaust?
Is it indoctrination if we teach astronomy and make no mention of astrology?
Is it indoctrination if we teach the heliocentric view of the solar system without giving equal time to geocentrists?
Asking for equal time for "alternatives" to evolution is in exactly the same category. It is asking that a point of view with nothing but questions and complaints to offer be treated as the equal of a scientific field of research that has been remarkably productive and consistently confirmed by all sorts of evidence not available when the theory was first formulated.
The media makes much of being "fair" in trying to always hear another side of the story, and there is something indeed laudable about checking to see if there is an opposing viewpoint. Too many of us forget to do that, and forget too often. But not every opposing viewpoint has merit, and the reason we have education standards is to ensure that educators do not waste time on nonsense to the detriment of things that are truly important, valuable, and (ultimately) true.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
False Equivalencies
A great post by tristero at Hullabaloo linked to this post by James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is there ANY proof to support evolution?
"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first ‘missing link’ to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax." U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000
"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God
"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict." David Berlinsky
"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977
"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." G. K. Chesterton
Does any of this prove creationism or make creationism a science? NO. Does it disprove it? No.
Science AND G-d can co-exist and that is where the rabid evolutionists just don't get it.
It's sad when people spread blatant lies about evolutionary evidence, without even bothering to investigate them for themselves. What's even more sad is just how easy it is to find the truth; one need not look any farther than wikipedia to disprove the claims made here by LIPSTICK FEMINIST.
There is a ton of "intermediate" evidence. The strongest is probably the genetic record (along many independent and mutually supportive lines, for cladistics), but there are also many transitional fossils. Examples include such things as Tiktaalik (read about how it was found!) and Ambulocetus Natans, as well as Archaeopteryx (it is NOT "just a bird", nor is it "just a reptile"; it is a genuine cross between them; seriously, read more about it, in detail; it has some features of one, and other features of the other; you could also look-up Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae). There are many, many others that could be listed. (Look-up transitional fossil, for a start.) Just do some research, for goodness sake! Don't just swallow what people tell you.
And, do other research, too. For example, read about nylonase, or ring species, or Italian wall lizards, or biogeography and biodiversity, or just the general overview of the evidence for common descent.
Read about the various genes, and their commonality and roles amongst many species, including ourselves (such as NANOG, the PAX family, HOX, the Hedgehog family, etc.). Oh, and as you are a feminist (I assume), you might be especially interested in the record of mitochondrial DNA---about which entire books have been written, tracing human historical movements/migrations and ancestry (e.g. The Seven Daughters of Eve).
Anyway, I'm barely even scratching the surface of the MOUNTAINS of evidence that has been collected. Just open your eyes, please. (Where, exactly, do you think all these new strains of disease are coming from? And, why is there such an undeniable degree order/species separation in geologic stratigraphy? Why do all the various independent dating methods agree with each other? etc.)
(And FYI: it was the *scientific establishment* that ultimately exposed the frauds (e.g. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and a very few others) and rightly drove the fraudsters' scientific careers into ruins. Lying is not tolerated in science.)
Post a Comment