Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Friday, July 20, 2007
Biblical Interpretaton Attempted
The ChristianCourier.com web site contains the statement, "Jesus affirmed that mankind has existed 'from the beginning of the creation' (Mk. 10:6); this certainly excludes the notion that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before man appeared upon the planet."
This so-called affirmation of dinosaurs co-existing with mankind by Jesus in Chapter 10, Verse 6, of St Mark's gospel was not about mankind and dinosaurs as the Web site claims, rather it dealt with Jesus's teachings about divorce. Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female." Because of the definitive article, the, that is used in the reference to creation, one must assume that the science book used by Jesus for his education was the Holy Scriptures, particularly the book of Genesis. Jesus's statement about the creation proves that he knew of the biblical story of the creation and that accepted it as an explanation of how there came to be two sexes. In the time of Jesus, evolution was as much a fact as it is today. Jesus and everyone else in his time were simply unaware of evolution. Mark 10:6 does not exclude anything regarding the age of dinosaurs. The fossil record establishes the extinction of dinosaurs millions of years before the evolution of mankind.
Actually, Mark 10:6 possibly excludes the divinity of Jesus. If Jesus is one with an all-knowing, omniscient god, he would have been aware of the role of evolution in the development of sexuality. It is possible, of course, that Jesus was aware of evolution, but chose not to reveal it, because people would be confused by facts too modern for their understanding, and that would have hurt Jesus's credibility. Jesus was by his science education (which was almost none, I would guess) not ahead of his time.
I expect that had dinosaurs and mankind lived at the same time, the bible would have been full of stories about these remarkable creatures, for example: how a Hebrew tribe was devoured and passed into oblivion; how the walls of Jericho and other settlements were built to withstand their carnivorous foraging; how the meat from dinosaurs was unclean, because it was corrupted by the people dinosaurs ate; etc. And, I am sure that the bible would have had many names for dinosaurs besides behemoth, leviathan and dragon because of the great variety of these beasts. Yes, dinosaurs and mankind together would have been a story too big not to tell it in the bible.
The last words of the 'Dinosaurs and the Bible" page in the ChristianCourier Web site sums it up, thusly, "Those who accept the testimony of the Bible are confident that men and dinosaurs did occupy the ancient earth at the same time. We are not dependent upon modern discoveries to confirm that for us. However, when clear evidence does come to light, we should not hesitate to accept it." Yeah, right. If you believe that, you'll believe anything, even dinosaurs and man living on earth at the same time.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Search for Science Standards Changes Master Plan
In yesterday's post, I asked, "Who is responsible for the plan to amend the [Kansas] standards by attempting to cast doubt on evolution and changing the definition of science?" I have decided to attempt an answer to my question by conducting a Web search for clues and telltale signs of this malfeasance. One of the likely culprits is the Kansas Republican Assembly (KRA), wing-nut central and sponsor of the Free Academic Inquiry and Research Committee (FAIR).
On the KRA Web site, http://www.ks-ra.org/, Charlotte Esau, KRA Executive Director writes, "…we must hang onto our state school board seats and work to grow our majority there!" Although no reference to the redefinition of science or questions about evolution was found on the KRA Web site, KRA supports the KBOE members who messed with the science standards.
In a KRA Web site page seeking money for wing-nut candidates, is written:
"Funds donated to the Free Academic Inquiry and Research Committee (FAIR) go to recruit and support candidates for office who support reform in our education system. FAIR is largely responsible for the current majority on the Kansas State Board of Education and is pleased to support candidates who share KRA's vision for better, more efficient schools that place Kansas students at the head of the class."
KBOE wing-nuts have used educational reform as one of several justifications for their actions vis-à-vis the science standards. "Better, more efficient schools" is touted as a benefit of a school voucher program proposed by Kansas Education Commissioner Corkins. FAIR's funding is intended to advance KRA's vision for education, but nowhere is the need to alter science standards to remove a possible barrier to vouchers mentioned. KRA appears to be part of a complicity in the science standards mess, but no master plan is overt on their Web site. The search will continue.
In the meantime, I hope KRA will explain how all the students in Kansas could be placed "…at the head of the class." Also, I hope KRA will correct misspelled words on their Web site. After all, if someone claims to promote education, at least they should exhibit some benefit from it.
On the KRA Web site, http://www.ks-ra.org/, Charlotte Esau, KRA Executive Director writes, "…we must hang onto our state school board seats and work to grow our majority there!" Although no reference to the redefinition of science or questions about evolution was found on the KRA Web site, KRA supports the KBOE members who messed with the science standards.
In a KRA Web site page seeking money for wing-nut candidates, is written:
"Funds donated to the Free Academic Inquiry and Research Committee (FAIR) go to recruit and support candidates for office who support reform in our education system. FAIR is largely responsible for the current majority on the Kansas State Board of Education and is pleased to support candidates who share KRA's vision for better, more efficient schools that place Kansas students at the head of the class."
KBOE wing-nuts have used educational reform as one of several justifications for their actions vis-à-vis the science standards. "Better, more efficient schools" is touted as a benefit of a school voucher program proposed by Kansas Education Commissioner Corkins. FAIR's funding is intended to advance KRA's vision for education, but nowhere is the need to alter science standards to remove a possible barrier to vouchers mentioned. KRA appears to be part of a complicity in the science standards mess, but no master plan is overt on their Web site. The search will continue.
In the meantime, I hope KRA will explain how all the students in Kansas could be placed "…at the head of the class." Also, I hope KRA will correct misspelled words on their Web site. After all, if someone claims to promote education, at least they should exhibit some benefit from it.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
New Science Standards - A Trojan Horse?
The furor caused by fundamentalists on the Kansas State Board of Education (KBOE) by their changes to the science standards is portrayed as creationism versus Darwinism, an attack on public schools, introducing religious education into public schools, and a slew of other cultural controversies. However, because fundamentalists prefer home schooling their children or sending them to private fundamentalist Christian schools, why would they care about the content of science standards for public schools in Kansas? For those fundamentalists who believe the Holy Bible's creation story and who seek no further scientific explanations of the origin of life, why would they change the definition of science itself to include the study of non-observable supernatural phenomenon? Is this really action of the KBOE about evolution versus creationism or about public school students learning about the so-called theory of intelligent design?
Could it be that the real reason behind the new science standards is to pave the way for school vouchers? The science standards as proposed by the KBOE are not mandatory for local school boards. But, for the Kansas legislature to approve a bill enabling a system of vouchers to pay for students who attend private schools of religious instruction with public funds, it is conceivable that students receiving vouchers would be required to receive instruction that conforms to the state educational standards. Science standards that did not include supernatural causes would not be acceptable to fundamentalist Christian religious instruction. Thus, changing the science standards would remove a barrier for school vouchers, and perhaps even create the impression that the money would be used for a public purpose, i.e. meeting state educational standards.
The actions of the KBOE members who have made a mess of the science standards don't seem to be about science at all. They have demonstrated by their public remarks that they lack an understanding of science. Rather, their actions appear to be merely a means to an end, namely, paving the way for the use of public funds to pay for religious instruction. The real effort in opposing the actions of the KBOE should be directed toward defeating the proposed school vouchers. The reasons for opposition should be based on the defects of the school voucher proposal - misuse of public funds, inappropriateness for rural Kansas, damage to public education, and other problems it would create for our social and economic welfare.
Could it be that the real reason behind the new science standards is to pave the way for school vouchers? The science standards as proposed by the KBOE are not mandatory for local school boards. But, for the Kansas legislature to approve a bill enabling a system of vouchers to pay for students who attend private schools of religious instruction with public funds, it is conceivable that students receiving vouchers would be required to receive instruction that conforms to the state educational standards. Science standards that did not include supernatural causes would not be acceptable to fundamentalist Christian religious instruction. Thus, changing the science standards would remove a barrier for school vouchers, and perhaps even create the impression that the money would be used for a public purpose, i.e. meeting state educational standards.
The actions of the KBOE members who have made a mess of the science standards don't seem to be about science at all. They have demonstrated by their public remarks that they lack an understanding of science. Rather, their actions appear to be merely a means to an end, namely, paving the way for the use of public funds to pay for religious instruction. The real effort in opposing the actions of the KBOE should be directed toward defeating the proposed school vouchers. The reasons for opposition should be based on the defects of the school voucher proposal - misuse of public funds, inappropriateness for rural Kansas, damage to public education, and other problems it would create for our social and economic welfare.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Wedge Issue Opportunity
Leaders of the "church of Jesus Christ", as they like to refer to their dominion, claim that they returned George W. Bush to the White House and that many federal and state elected representatives owe their offices to the voting power of thier "Christian" followers. It is probably safe to assume that a goodly number of these evangelical fundamentalist Christian conservative (EFCC) voters are also believers in young earth creationism (YEC). After all, a criterion for an evangelical or fundamentalist is a belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Accordingly, an EFCC/YEC would believe, among other things regarding our planet, that God's creation (the biosphere (except as altered by the Great Flood), including all animals and plants in their present from) came about in six 24-hour days, that the earth is about 6,000 years old, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that the theory of evolution is a godless, materialistic religion that undermines people's moral beliefs. It is time that politicians from George W. Bush on down be asked unequivocally to state whether they too are young earth creationists like their EFCC/YEC supporters. Probably, some are, but those who are not should be asked to repudiate publicly YEC and affirm their acceptance of the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the present-day world.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Louis J. Halle
Louis J. Halle (1910–1998) was a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, besides holding other academic posts. He was a member of the Policy Planning Staff in the U.S. Department of State from 1952 to 1954. He is the author of Men and Nations, The Cold War as History, The Ideological Imagination, Out of Chaos, and other works. He is a naturalist, an historian, a philosopher, and a foreign policy specialist. He is a Renaissance man of the 20th Century. He has been quoted extensively. Below is one of his most renowned quotes.
It is the nature of slavery to render its victims so abject that at last, fearing to be free, they multiply their own chains. You can liberate a freeman, but you cannot liberate a slave.
One of Halle's interest was the colonization of space, which he says has a precedent: the colonization of land. A quote:
Up to 350 million years ago, after 3 billion years of evolution, life was still entirely confined to the waters of the earth, which constituted its only natural habitat. But those waters were becoming increasingly crowded. Looking back from our present vantage point we can see that the spreading life of this time was destined to emerge into the "unnatural" environment of what was, for it, the equivalent of outer space, the dry land and aerial atmosphere that stretched above them.
Halle contends that humankind owes its existence to the colonization of land, and future generations will owe their existence to the colonization of space. Another quote:
One can imagine an intelligent fish of the time revolting at the thought of abandoning its familiar water for the "unnatural" and hostile environment of outer space. But it would have been wrong; for the emergence of life from the water, which we may now regard as destined, added immeasurably to its potentiality for further expansion and development. Indeed, as hindsight now enables us to see, all the hopefulness of life turned on this emergence from a traditional confinement. I surmise that all the hopefulness of life now turns on its emergence from its earthly envelope.
Evolution continues.
It is the nature of slavery to render its victims so abject that at last, fearing to be free, they multiply their own chains. You can liberate a freeman, but you cannot liberate a slave.
One of Halle's interest was the colonization of space, which he says has a precedent: the colonization of land. A quote:
Up to 350 million years ago, after 3 billion years of evolution, life was still entirely confined to the waters of the earth, which constituted its only natural habitat. But those waters were becoming increasingly crowded. Looking back from our present vantage point we can see that the spreading life of this time was destined to emerge into the "unnatural" environment of what was, for it, the equivalent of outer space, the dry land and aerial atmosphere that stretched above them.
Halle contends that humankind owes its existence to the colonization of land, and future generations will owe their existence to the colonization of space. Another quote:
One can imagine an intelligent fish of the time revolting at the thought of abandoning its familiar water for the "unnatural" and hostile environment of outer space. But it would have been wrong; for the emergence of life from the water, which we may now regard as destined, added immeasurably to its potentiality for further expansion and development. Indeed, as hindsight now enables us to see, all the hopefulness of life turned on this emergence from a traditional confinement. I surmise that all the hopefulness of life now turns on its emergence from its earthly envelope.
Evolution continues.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Fanning the Fires
The following, captioned "Intelligent Design", appeared in the KC Star on May 19, 2005:
For all those apologists who claim there is no controversy about evolution, either keep drinking the Kool-Aid or read Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong or Michael Denton's book, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis.
Evolutionists have fobbed on us all kinds of lies (Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's drawings, primordial soup, etc.) and leaps of faith (amino acids can easily group into proteins, scales can easily turn into feathers, morality evolved easily from animal culture, etc.). I say keep the debates alive.
John Lagle
Kansas City
It is beyond me why the Star prints such tripe. Perhaps, exposing the letter's fantasies will get the Star to quit printing such junk or immunize readers from the letter's distractions. More than likely, nothing will happen. Anyway, here goes, point-by-point:
Apologists(?) If one doesn't accept the idea of a "controversy about evolution", how are they tagged "apologists". People who see no controversy between religion and evolution need not apologize.
Drink the Kool-Aid or read(?) I suppose the "Kool-Aid" reference suggests that either one blindly follow authority down a perilous path to perdition or be saved by the grace of the written word. Well, let's look at the texts cited. The first, Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe, is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html, thusly:
Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV scriptwriter and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe, he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."
The seconded text named as a source of enlightenment, Denton's Evolution: a Theory in Crisis is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html, thusly:
Evolutionary pattern and process stands vindicated from Denton's assault. It does not win out by default, being implausible but socially established and lacking a superior alternative - rather, it is a plausible process with no contenders, and is backed up strongly by empirical evidence. There is debate within evolutionist circles about systematics, tempo, and the roles of genetic drift and preadaptation, and still plenty of work to be done fleshing out stories about the development of certain structures, but none of this in any way puts macroevolution and the pattern of non-teleological common descent in a crisis situation. Rather, they are indicators that evolutionary biology is still a field which offers work to be done, just like any other field.
In a later book, Nature's Destiny, Denton himself refuted his contentions in Evolution. See
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm.
Lies and Leaps(?) In the letter's second paragraph, it is alleged that evolutionists have "fobbed" us with "lies…and leaps of faith". Again, point-by-point:
1. Java Man. See the following Web sites: http://www.eastjava.com/books/mystery/html/search.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html.
A recent book, Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, has the e-word in its title. No lie there.
2. Peking Man. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html.
3. Nebraska Man. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html. The following quote from this URL is not that of an apologist.
"Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach)."
4. Haeckel's drawings. See http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html. The following quote from this site shows the ability of science to police its ranks, another contrast to the creationist or intelligent design approach.
"Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b)."
5. Primordial Soup. See http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html.
Whaddaya know! A laboratory trial replicates what could have occurred on early Earth.
6. Amino acids. Leap of faith: "Amino acids can easily group into proteins?" Basic chemistry tells us that proteins are composed of amino-acid molecules. Without the grouping of amino-acid molecules into proteins, easy or not, we'd still be in the soup primordial.
7. Scales into feathers. Leap of faith: Scales can easily turn into feathers? Perhaps scales and feathers have both evolved since the reptile to bird transformation. How does easy matter?
8. Morality and animal culture. Leap of faith: morality evolved easily from animal culture? Linking morality to animal culture transcends evolutionary biology, but if animals have culture, couldn't they also have morals?
Rather than keeping the debates alive, perhaps it would be better to let leaping dogs lie. As for making points about the "controversy", the letter fails. Scientists have better pursuits.
For all those apologists who claim there is no controversy about evolution, either keep drinking the Kool-Aid or read Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong or Michael Denton's book, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis.
Evolutionists have fobbed on us all kinds of lies (Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's drawings, primordial soup, etc.) and leaps of faith (amino acids can easily group into proteins, scales can easily turn into feathers, morality evolved easily from animal culture, etc.). I say keep the debates alive.
John Lagle
Kansas City
It is beyond me why the Star prints such tripe. Perhaps, exposing the letter's fantasies will get the Star to quit printing such junk or immunize readers from the letter's distractions. More than likely, nothing will happen. Anyway, here goes, point-by-point:
Apologists(?) If one doesn't accept the idea of a "controversy about evolution", how are they tagged "apologists". People who see no controversy between religion and evolution need not apologize.
Drink the Kool-Aid or read(?) I suppose the "Kool-Aid" reference suggests that either one blindly follow authority down a perilous path to perdition or be saved by the grace of the written word. Well, let's look at the texts cited. The first, Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe, is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html, thusly:
Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV scriptwriter and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe, he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."
The seconded text named as a source of enlightenment, Denton's Evolution: a Theory in Crisis is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html, thusly:
Evolutionary pattern and process stands vindicated from Denton's assault. It does not win out by default, being implausible but socially established and lacking a superior alternative - rather, it is a plausible process with no contenders, and is backed up strongly by empirical evidence. There is debate within evolutionist circles about systematics, tempo, and the roles of genetic drift and preadaptation, and still plenty of work to be done fleshing out stories about the development of certain structures, but none of this in any way puts macroevolution and the pattern of non-teleological common descent in a crisis situation. Rather, they are indicators that evolutionary biology is still a field which offers work to be done, just like any other field.
In a later book, Nature's Destiny, Denton himself refuted his contentions in Evolution. See
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm.
Lies and Leaps(?) In the letter's second paragraph, it is alleged that evolutionists have "fobbed" us with "lies…and leaps of faith". Again, point-by-point:
1. Java Man. See the following Web sites: http://www.eastjava.com/books/mystery/html/search.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html.
A recent book, Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, has the e-word in its title. No lie there.
2. Peking Man. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html.
3. Nebraska Man. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html. The following quote from this URL is not that of an apologist.
"Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach)."
4. Haeckel's drawings. See http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html. The following quote from this site shows the ability of science to police its ranks, another contrast to the creationist or intelligent design approach.
"Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b)."
5. Primordial Soup. See http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html.
Whaddaya know! A laboratory trial replicates what could have occurred on early Earth.
6. Amino acids. Leap of faith: "Amino acids can easily group into proteins?" Basic chemistry tells us that proteins are composed of amino-acid molecules. Without the grouping of amino-acid molecules into proteins, easy or not, we'd still be in the soup primordial.
7. Scales into feathers. Leap of faith: Scales can easily turn into feathers? Perhaps scales and feathers have both evolved since the reptile to bird transformation. How does easy matter?
8. Morality and animal culture. Leap of faith: morality evolved easily from animal culture? Linking morality to animal culture transcends evolutionary biology, but if animals have culture, couldn't they also have morals?
Rather than keeping the debates alive, perhaps it would be better to let leaping dogs lie. As for making points about the "controversy", the letter fails. Scientists have better pursuits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
