Galt's Gulch

Darwin Day resolution in Congress | NCSE

Posted by ssnyh 11 years, 9 months ago to Government
10 comments | Share | Flag

I don't know what to think about this.
SOURCE URL: http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/darwin-day-resolution-congress-0014688

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 9 months ago
    why did this lose a point? Darwin is one of the premier scientists of the 19th century. and at least the initiator of all our bio-technology. As long as its not a federal holiday, I think it's great honor scientists that have had such an impact on the quality of our life and understanding of the world
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 9 months ago
      Hello khalling,
      I was wondering that also, by the time I had finished reading the article last night somebody knocked it down. It could be somebody has a problem with Darwin, but I suspect it may have been because of one of the environmental assertions relative to climate change. I have no problem with Darwin, but there is one statement that has several unsubstantiated assumptions, implications, and characterizations regarding climate change and the skeptics of anthropogenic climate change.
      I don't think we need another federal holiday. The public sector workers already get plenty of time off.
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by ssnyh 11 years, 9 months ago
      If only Darwin had a better understanding of the world in life. And if only many atheists did not go back on their initial stance, and make Darwinism their own religion. Hopefully, that's just an error of knowledge, but introduce emotional reaction to disagreement, and that crosses the line.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 11 years, 9 months ago
        evolution is science. undeniable. lead to incredible advances in science. no faith, no conflict required. Objective Truths: 1. natural selection/forcing function for living things 2. genetic make up of individual organisms varies from their parents
        this occurs because of sexual reproduction and variations in genetic code caused by the environment.
        even a Creationist doesn't try to plant a palm tree in Detroit and can see they don't look identical to their mother or father
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by ssnyh 11 years, 9 months ago
          It would be science if, like other known theories, it could be disproved just as well as it could be proved (look at Einstein's theory of relativity). That makes it non-disprovable, or a pseudo science, if, by nothing else, saying there is a chance, albeit miniscule. Such obstinance has no place in science.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 11 years, 9 months ago
            Evolution explains as many or more observable facts than Newton's Theory of Gravity, Einstein's Special Relativity, and is clearly testable. for instance, if species that were less well adapted to their environment survived while species better adapted died, that disprove evolution. I already gave the example of looking exactly like one's parents. you could disprove evolution if you could show there was no mechanism (ie genetic code) by which traits were passed down. but the evidence is so overwhelming. color of eyes, hair, sickle cell anemia, agricultural breeding, sheep cloning.
            to suggest this not provable is irrational.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by darren 11 years, 7 months ago
      >>>and at least the initiator of all our bio-technology.

      ???

      Where did you get that idea from? To haul in Darwinism retroactively, AFTER a new discovery has been made (or after a new technology is invented) in biology is one thing. But nothing in bio-tech was accomplished by FIRST taking into account Darwinism. Watson & Crick, for example, did not begin their DNA research by "applying" Darwinian ideas of mutation and natural selection. Darwinists brought in ideas from their Master only after Watson & Crick made their discoveries and published their results.

      And it was only after a number of decades that researchers in biology — including Francis Crick — admit the incompatibility of much modern biochemistry with the Darwinian hypothesis.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo