bam wrote:

"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote

This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.

Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].

Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.

That's simply false. Scientific theories are not
"proved".

Ask yourself why (honestly) you are such a skeptic over
everything else in creation EXCEPT Evolution.

The theory of evolution yields accurate predictions.

"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:eTGPf.223$S8.189@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

Relevance? Are you saying that Newton would have become a Darwinist if
he'd read Origin of the Species?

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. He was generally a rather bright
guy, so it may well be likely he would have immediately become an
enthusiastic supporter [especially if we're talking about a
hypothetical 19th century version of Newton, not the 15th-16th
century chap].

"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:eTGPf.223$S8.189@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote

Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied
to the biological world.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

'Tisn't. But the economic laissez faire-ists did try to claim it,
with their "Social Darwinism" nonsense. Regardless of whether or
not parallels can be drawn with economics, natural selection is
just a phenomenon that actually exists in the natural biological
world.

Credit for the evolution theory would probably be better attributed to
Malthus than Darwin.

The theory that living things have evolved is older than both. Darwin
just hit on the major mechanism for adaptive change, and came up with
a long convincing argument for it, with lots of supporting evidence.
But modern evolutionary science has come an enormously long way from
Darwin's strong beginning.

What are you trying to prove? That Darwin was a plagiarist?

Nope, but he built on the pre-existing scientific body of
understanding, as real science always does. As Newton did, for that
matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html

"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:IXAPf.7$S8.1@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

J Young wrote:

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?

Why should educators listen to the ignorant in deciding science
curricula? Since when are any scientific issues decided by popular
vote? If Flat-Earthism becomes popular again, should classroom
globes be banned, or flat versions be given equal time?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153


Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll

Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom

When someone comes up with an alternative scientific theory that
fits the scientific evidence as well as does evolutionary theory,
then they can talk.

Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.

There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.

Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world.

No, it isn't. It's much the same principle as selective breeding by
crop and animal breeders, with the influence of the natural
environment in place of the breeder's choices.

Credit for the evolution theory would probably be better attributed to
Malthus than Darwin.

The theory that living things have evolved is older than both. Darwin
just hit on the major mechanism for adaptive change, and came up with
a long convincing argument for it, with lots of supporting evidence.
But modern evolutionary science has come an enormously long way from
Darwin's strong beginning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu

[But it's perhaps telling that anti-evolutionists still seem
so fixated on the 19th century.]

Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.

Hint: What year did Newton die? What year was "The Origin of Species"
published?

Newton never heard of Darwinian evolution, nor did he ever hear of
the modern religious heresy called "creation science". "Creation
science" is not science of any kind, and it's arguably also a
debasement of religion.

Speaking of which, do you also endorse Newton's other views?
Most Christians would consider him a heretic. [Look up "Arianism".]
He was also deeply into alchemy and other occult notions. Perhaps
you'd endorse him as an authority on these matters as well?

http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/BIOGRAPHY/Newtonian.html
http://unfailinglove.org/science_religion/socinianism.htm
cheers

Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.

"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

J Young wrote:

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153


Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll



Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom

Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.

There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.

Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.

Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.

J Young wrote:

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153


Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll



Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom

Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans
think McDonald's is good food, too.

There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural
selection. "Creation science" isn't a theory at all;
it's purely religious dogma.

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153


Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll



Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153


Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll



Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153

Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll

Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom

A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school
teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian
evolution.

The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology
teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific
evidence that supports it.

A majority of Americans from every sub-group were at least twice as
likely to prefer this approach to science education, the Zogby study showed.

Casey Luskin

"The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn
about such evidence," Luskin said.

" The truth shall set you free "

Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll

Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153


Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll



Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?

Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153


Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll



Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom







A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school
teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian
evolution.

The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology
teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific
evidence that supports it.

A majority of Americans from every sub-group were at least twice as
likely to prefer this approach to science education, the Zogby study showed.


About 88 percent of Americans 18-29 years old were in support, along
with 73 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independent voters.

Others who strongly support teaching the strengths and weaknesses of
evolutionary theory include African-Americans (69 percent), 35-54 year-olds
(70 percent) and Democrats (60 percent).

Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture said while his group
does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, "we do think it
is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is
based upon scientific evidence not religious premises."

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the
theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in
federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes.
Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and
related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are
best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an
undirected process such as natural selection.

"The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn
about such evidence," Luskin said.

The Discovery Institute noted Americans also support students learning
about evidence for intelligent design alongside evolution in biology class -
77 percent.

Just over half - 51 percent - agree strongly with that. Only 19
percent disagree.










--
" The truth shall set you free "