My Photo

My Online Status

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

Technorati

« Body Tracts | Main | Bringing Hubbard out of the Cupboard »

November 09, 2004

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This month's National Geographic has a cover story that asks in big letters, "Was Darwin Wrong?" Yet the article itself begins with a big, fat "NO" and then proceeds to only examine the side of the argument that supports their contention. At no place in the article is anything that assails the hallowed theory presented. I thought that you needed two sides of an issue in order to come to a conclusion, but NG--acting just like the MSM in this last election--doesn't seem to even want to acknowledge that detractors exist.

Who is balanced on this topic? Certainly not the ACLU. Sure, they take a pro-Christian case a couple times a year in order to look up and up, but otherwise they are part of the lawsuit-happy problem.

It is funny when you think about it. The pro-Darwinism side simply does ot want to engage the Creationist side at all anymore. Doesn't want to even think there might be people out there who think pure Darwinism is just one of several schools of thought, each of which has valuable insights to provide.

I, for one, understand that portions of Darwin's natural selection theories are perfectly valid. Within species there is variety brought about by selective breeding. A quick look at dogs will tell you that works. But on the other hand, I reject the notions of decent/ascent as depicted within those same natural selection concepts. Sure, a bacteria may gain resistance against a certain drug, but despite millions of generations of bacteria that can arise within the full view of scientists, no scientist has ever seen one of those bacteria add to or subtract from the total number of genes it possesses. So much for ascent/decent.

Oh well. Truth is lost on those who do not wish to see.

There are certainly legitimate scientists who question parts or all of evolution theory. HOWEVER, when idiots like the people in this school system say things like "evolution is a theory, not a fact" they are only potentially misleading students. Evolution is the prevailing theory. According to a majority of scientists it is supportable enough to be called a theory. To say it's not a fact confuses the issue (and thereby confuses students).

when idiots like the people in this school system say things like "evolution is a theory, not a fact" they are only potentially misleading students. Evolution is the prevailing theory. According to a majority of scientists it is supportable enough to be called a theory. To say it's not a fact confuses the issue (and thereby confuses students)."
How does that statement make sense? Evolution is a theory, not a fact. I don't see anything in this lawsuit but some people with their underpants in a bunch over the possibility that children will have the option of making a decision on their own about something (*gasp* free though! no!). The reason something is called a theory is because it has not yet become a fact through substantial evidence. Therefor the sticker was correct and a thoughtfull gesture towards the intelligence of students and the idea that everyone needs to be at least somewhat tolerant of other ideas ie. Creationism and Darwinism.

The comments to this entry are closed.