Religions > Atheism > Op-Ed: Strong evidence for evolution, for creationist alternatives
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2005 02:44:25 AM |
| Object: |
Op-Ed: Strong evidence for evolution, for creationist alternatives |
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
By Paul R. Gross
Originally published February 28, 2005
AROUND THE country, the debate over evolution in public schools is
again incendiary.
The new critics of evolution - including those in Cecil County -
promote alternative "theories" claimed to deserve the same study in
science classes as the evidence-based modern science of evolution.
However, the main current competitor, "intelligent design theory," is
far from suitable for such a purpose. Cecil County and others should
examine the facts before giving intelligent design and similar
creationisms time in science class.
-------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.inteldesign28feb28,1,6248066.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
(may require login & password -->
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baltimoresun.com
)
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Strong evidence for evolution, for creationist alternatives |
28 Feb 2005 07:54:04 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
By Paul R. Gross
Originally published February 28, 2005
AROUND THE country, the debate over evolution in public schools is
again incendiary.
The new critics of evolution - including those in Cecil County -
promote alternative "theories" claimed to deserve the same study in
science classes as the evidence-based modern science of evolution.
However, the main current competitor, "intelligent design theory," is
far from suitable for such a purpose. Cecil County and others should
examine the facts before giving intelligent design and similar
creationisms time in science class.
-------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.inteldesign28feb28,1,6248066.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
(may require login & password -->
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baltimoresun.com
)
J. Spaceman
Has anyone noticed how a lot of the ID scam artists aren't calling ID a
"theory" since Dover put up "well tested" in their definition of a
scientific theory? The Wedgies are calling it an "explanation" or a
"concept." I guess calling it a "theory" in public has become too
stupid to support and has joined the list of Junk creationist arguments
that you shouldn't use. I bet that they still call it a theory when
they are talking to the true believers, but no one is going to claim
that ID is "well tested." You have to be able to test it before you
can say that, and you have to actually do the testing once it becomes
testable (if it ever does). If they claim that it is "well tested"
they also have to claim that it has failed testing every time and
another alternative has taken its place. It is sort of a no win
situation to claim that ID is well tested because all you have to bring
up is the failures. ID has never passed testing in science. If it
had, it would already be in the textbooks.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Strong evidence for evolution, for creationist alternatives |
28 Feb 2005 02:49:11 AM |
|
|
Ooppps, that subject heading should read "Strong evidence for
evolution, none for creationist alternatives" :-)
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "God Almighty" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Strong evidence for evolution, for creationist alternatives |
28 Feb 2005 02:52:24 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:kmm5219h4t6loajis009hc1u988t80djgp@4ax.com...
Ooppps, that subject heading should read "Strong evidence for
evolution, none for creationist alternatives" :-)
J. Spaceman deceased!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
