War on evolution has a price [Archive]

Wise Young

10-04-2006, 12:18 AM

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/15663038.htm

QUOTE]War on evolution has a price
Paul Hanle

WASHINGTON

I recently ad-dressed a group of French engineering graduate students who were visiting Washington from the prestigious School of Mines in Paris. After encouraging them to teach biotechnology in French high schools, I expected the standard queries on teaching methods or training. Instead, a bright young student asked bluntly: "How can you teach biotechnology in this country when you don't even accept evolution?"

I wanted to disagree, but the kid had a point. Proponents of "intelligent design" in the United States are waging a war against teaching science as scientists understand it. Over the past year alone, efforts to incorporate creationist language or undermine evolution in science classrooms at public schools have emerged in at least 15 states, according to the National Center for Science Education. And an independent education foundation has concluded that science-teaching standards in 10 states fail to address evolution in a scientifically sound way. Through changes in standards and curriculum, these efforts urge students to doubt evolution — the cornerstone principle of biology, one on which there is no serious scientific debate.

This war could decimate the development of U.S. scientific talent and erode whatever competitive advantage the United States enjoys in the technology-based global economy. Already, U.S. high school students lag near the bottom in math skills compared with students in other developed nations, and high school seniors are performing worse in science than they were 10 years ago.

These trends can only worsen if students come to regard evolution as questionable or controversial. Thirty-seven percent of the high school Advanced Placement biology examination tests knowledge of evolution, evolutionary biology and heredity, according to the College Board. Students who do not thoroughly understand evolution cannot hope to succeed on this exam; they will be handicapped in competitive science courses in college and the careers that may follow.

Byteachingintelligentdesignor other variants of creationism in science classes at public schools — or by undercutting the credibility of evolution — we are greatly diminishing our chances for future scientific breakthroughs and technological innovations, and are endangering our health, safety and economic well-being as individuals and as a nation.

<more>

Paul Hanle is president of the Biotechnology Institute. He wrote this piece for the Washington Post.
[/QUOTE]

eagle18

10-04-2006, 12:29 AM

Last night I watched an old tape of a movie I have. The movie is called INHERIT THE WIND. The movie is all about the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920's. The trial was as many of you know, about the right to teach Darwin's theory of evolution in the schoolroom. If anyone has not seen the film or hasn't for some time, I recommend seeing it.

10-04-2006, 12:36 AM

i dont remember a law that says evolution is banned.

Wise Young

10-04-2006, 01:21 AM

i dont remember a law that says evolution is banned.

Just school boards that rule that evolution is an unproven theory and that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution to school children.

Wise.

etexley

10-04-2006, 08:19 AM

The problem is not so much that evolutionary principals are not being taught. I think that the problem is that intellient design is being taught as if it is science.

As a tay payer, I don't want my tax dollars going to teaching students religion. Creationist perspectives have a place...Sunday School.

And if the school boards insist that a class in "religions" should be part of the cirriculum, then every religious perspective should be represented, included Muslim, Jewish...etc. But it should NOT come under the title of science class.

10-04-2006, 11:02 AM

a lot of things are not being taught or wrong information taught, whats new?
everyone dont need to be everything. how many ppl use evolution in everyday life?

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 11:15 AM

a lot of things are not being taught or wrong information taught, whats new?
everyone dont need to be everything. how many ppl use evolution in everyday life?

You use English everyday and have yet to master that. Come on, DA, don't tear down the importance of knowledge. :nono:

10-04-2006, 01:20 PM

You use English everyday and have yet to master that. Come on, DA, don't tear down the importance of knowledge. :nono:
you use math everyday, and you couldnt out score me.

10-04-2006, 01:23 PM

lets do something real simple.
how about giving the anti-derivative of this number 724.

eagle18

10-04-2006, 01:24 PM

a lot of things are not being taught or wrong information taught, whats new?
everyone dont need to be everything. how many ppl use evolution in everyday life?

How many people use evolution in everyday life?

Priceless!

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 01:40 PM

you use math everyday, and you couldnt out score me.

In my last year of formal schooling (Freshman in high school), I was awarded the medal for having the highest average in Algebra. Unfortunately, I haven't studied Mathematics in almost nine years so it would not surprise me if one who studies or uses it often can outdo me. You either use it or lose it.

10-04-2006, 01:41 PM

lets do something real simple.
how about giving the anti-derivative of this number 724.

whats taking so long. surely your not calling someone?

10-04-2006, 01:44 PM

In my last year of formal schooling (Freshman in high school), I was awarded the medal for having the highest average in Algebra. Unfortunately, I haven't studied Mathematics in almost nine years so it would not surprise me if one who studies or uses it often can outdo me. You either use it or lose it.
its been over 10 years since i did a simple math problem like this. my math minor at UNLV dont get used much today. so no excuses. you like to attack ppl on skills, so put up. answer the question or prepared to be named stupid.

10-04-2006, 01:45 PM

let me help you out. this is calculus, not algebra.

kate

10-04-2006, 01:50 PM

how many ppl use evolution in everyday life?

How many people take antibiotics?

And here's the calculus lesson:

If you take the derivative f' of f(x) =724x, you get f'(x) = 724 . . . this means that the antiderivative of 724 is 724x.

Would you be troubled if people were out there teaching mathematics wrong?

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 01:53 PM

let me help you out. this is calculus, not algebra.

Precisely, I never took Calculus. I was merely pointing out that I was once good at Mathematics and would know had I studied it.

10-04-2006, 01:58 PM

How many people take antibiotics?

And here's the calculus lesson:

If you take the derivative f' of f(x) =724x, you get f'(x) = 724 . . . this means that the antiderivative of 724 is 724x.

Would you be troubled if people were out there teaching mathematics wrong?
the answer is 724x + C. you posted improper math kate. your broken math skills shows your lack of education.

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 02:03 PM

its been over 10 years since i did a simple math problem like this. my math minor at UNLV dont get used much today. so no excuses. you like to attack ppl on skills, so put up. answer the question or prepared to be named stupid.
I "attack" people's skills based on the situation. For example, you should know proper English but Adi chicago may not because he is a foreigner. The two situations are different and thus call for different reactions.

I've never studied Calculus in my life. You've certainly studied English. I have a legitimate reason for not knowing the answer to your problem.

10-04-2006, 02:03 PM

Precisely, I never took Calculus. I was merely pointing out that I was once good at Mathematics and would know had I studied it.
the ironic part is this thread is about evolution. evolution says everyone is different. some ppl have strong skills in one area and weak in others. yet you attack ppl for not being strong in all areas. this is why i say liberals dont understand none of which they preach. this is the true nature of liberalism.

btw, you can study all you want. had you answer this, i would have posted a simple problem that would freeze a calculator.

10-04-2006, 02:07 PM

I "attack" people's skills based on the situation. For example, you should know proper English but Adi chicago may not because he is a foreigner. The two situations are different and thus call for different results.

I've never studied Calculus in my life. You've certainly studied English. I have a legitimate reason for not knowing the answer to your problem.
you should know simple math. i bet our canadian and european members knew this. kate knew it, not that kate is dumb. but she is no math genius. IT WAS A SIMPLE INTEGRAL, ANYONE WITH A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION SHOULD KNOW THIS.

artsyguy1954

10-04-2006, 02:16 PM

a lot of things are not being taught or wrong information taught, whats new?
everyone dont need to be everything. how many ppl use evolution in everyday life?
DA, you are missing the point as usual. The point is "intelligent design" explains nothing, is bogus science and belongs in sunday school. The accumulation and teaching of scientific knowledge should not be interfered with by other disciplines. Science has to be unfettered and free to be true science. It cannot thrive in an environment of oppression and meddling.

kate

10-04-2006, 02:35 PM

the answer is 724x + C. you posted improper math kate. your broken math skills shows your lack of education.

lol, but DA you're here explaining to us that it doesn't matter whether or not science is taught properly . . . so when I post a partial solution to see if you really know what you're talking about (he does, everybody!) that should be good enough for you. Or are you now going to say that science is different from mathematics? Is it really your position that science is a matter of opinion, like art criticism?

End of calculus lesson:

The derivative of a mathematical function at any given point is the slope that a line tangent to that point would have. Because the function f(x) = 724x is a line with constant slope 724, its derivative is 724. But, as DA knows, there is a whole family of functions--lines, in this case--with slope of 724. They're all parallel to one another, and all their equations have the form f(x) = 724x + C, where C is any constant.

Now, would you like to explain why you are okay with letting politics corrupt science so deeply that foreign students are laughing at the USA's educational system?

artsyguy1954

10-04-2006, 02:39 PM

:back2top: :back2top: :back2top:

artsyguy1954

10-04-2006, 02:41 PM

Politics and Science don't and should not mix. Same as Religion and Politics.

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 02:44 PM

you should know simple math. i bet our canadian and european members knew this. kate knew it, not that kate is dumb. but she is no math genius. IT WAS A SIMPLE INTEGRAL, ANYONE WITH A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION SHOULD KNOW THIS.

I do know simple math - decimals, fractions, multiplication, basic algebra, etc. Calculus is not simple math, it requires that you learn and memorize equations. In fact, Calculus was not even required for grade-level students at the private school I attended.

I did say my last formal year of schooling was a Freshman in high school. Thus I don't officially have a high school education.

Lindox

10-04-2006, 02:46 PM

you use math everyday, and you couldnt out score me.

Thus the reason the world NEEDS everybody working together. There are plenty of know-it-alls. But nobody knows it all.

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 02:50 PM

End of calculus lesson:

The derivative of a mathematical function at any given point is the slope that a line tangent to that point would have. Because the function f(x) = 724x is a line with constant slope 724, its derivative is 724. But, as DA knows, there is a whole family of functions--lines, in this case--with slope of 724. They're all parallel to one another, and all their equations have the form f(x) = 724x + C, where C is any constant.

lol I understand French better than I understood that. Oh boy! Kate, do you teach Calculus or simply excelled at it? After nine years of no schooling, my weak point is definitely Mathematics because I lost almost all the equations I learned even in Alegra.

Lindox

10-04-2006, 02:55 PM

a lot of things are not being taught or wrong information taught, whats new?
everyone dont need to be everything. how many ppl use evolution in everyday life?

How many people use cell regeneration in everyday life? Everybody. And how many even understand how it happens? A minority.

Inquiring people WANT to know.

kate

10-04-2006, 02:58 PM

lol I understand French better than I understood that. Oh boy! Kate, do you teach Calculus?

I did teach calculus, along with algebra, trig, geometry, statistics, and writing.

Maybe you should ask DA a simple question in French that any reasonably intelligent high school student ought to be able to answer . . . just kidding.

This thread is about the decay of our ability to attract and hold the brightest science students, isn't it? We used to laugh at Japanese-made products when I was a kid . . . we used to laugh at the Soviets and their transparent propaganda . . . we used to be proud of our schools, too.

roshni

10-04-2006, 03:01 PM

This thread is about the decay of our ability to attract and hold the brightest science students, isn't it?

...and then you have a week like this where 3 Americans win Nobels in Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry.

Adrian

10-04-2006, 03:01 PM

How many people use evolution in everyday life?

The instructions on a bottle of antibiotics, to finish the course even though you feel better, are there are there to deal with the effects of evolution.
People who fail to follow the instructions that come with the antibiotics and those who prescribe antibiotics when other treamtnets would be more appropriate could really benefit from an understanding of evolution to apply in their everyday life. Their ignorance accelerates the development of antibiotic resistance and does all of us a dis-service.

betheny

10-04-2006, 03:02 PM

Heeheee. How many people use evolution in everyday life?

Most. Those of us that can't walk upright or use our opposable thumbs tend to use it less though. :rotfl:

Our people probably didn't crawl out of the slime pit solving calculus equations, Mr. Big Brain. I personally never did evolve to that degree. :p

This thread is hilarious. Yes, I am on pain medication.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 03:09 PM

The funny thing is is that the more enlightened one becomes the more simple science is questioned. We all know evolution takes place. But there are still significant holes in evolution. We should encourage thought and experimentation. We should not just accept evolution and move on. Intelligent design does not equal religion.

I would want my children taught both.

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 03:13 PM

Maybe you should ask DA a simple question in French that any reasonably intelligent high school student ought to be able to answer . . . just kidding.

lol :D I'm not that unfair. I'm passionate about language and I do often get overzealous with it. I don't intend to be mean but when I see DA, whose mother tongue is English, consistently and I sometimes think purposely use improper grammar and spelling, I get the urge to show him the right way. I'd expect no less from him if we spoke in equations and I consistently got it wrong. ;)

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 03:15 PM

Intelligent design does not equal religion.

How can you say that? Who is the designer? If it's God, then it is religion.

kate

10-04-2006, 03:22 PM

Intelligent design does not equal religion.

I would want my children taught both.

No, and it doesn't equal science, either. The argument is not about whether or not to teach children both evolution and id, but whether or not to pretend that they both belong in the science curriculum.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 03:26 PM

Well, there is scientific basis in id. As Wise has posted several times.

Lindox

10-04-2006, 03:31 PM

...and then you have a week like this where 3 Americans win Nobels in Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry.

A very good reason and example for NOT letting our science be incinerated along with excess embryos.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 03:33 PM

How can you say that? Who is the designer? If it's God, then it is religion.

Thats just it. who is the designer?

eagle18

10-04-2006, 03:47 PM

the ironic part is this thread is about evolution. evolution says everyone is different. some ppl have strong skills in one area and weak in others. yet you attack ppl for not being strong in all areas. this is why i say liberals dont understand none of which they preach. this is the true nature of liberalism.

btw, you can study all you want. had you answer this, i would have posted a simple problem that would freeze a calculator.

Don't you all love how he got " how many people uses evolution in everyday life" around to bashing the "true nature of liberalism". I was wondering how he'd get there. Sooner or later everything he winds up saying is the same thing. Well, that's evolution for ya.

adi chicago

10-04-2006, 03:47 PM

do not mix science with religion .life itself is a evolution to everyone of us.
just depends how is evolving ,good or bad.

kate

10-04-2006, 03:50 PM

Well, there is scientific basis in id. As Wise has posted several times.

Well, there is a scientific basis in astrology, too. Also alchemists could claim a scientific basis in their efforts.

A "scientific basis" . . . lovely phrase, but what does it mean? Tell me this: what would you take out of the current science curriculum to make room for science teachers spending time on something that has a "scientific basis"? We can't just add things endlessly without tossing other things out. What should go?

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 03:52 PM

Humm, I dont know. When I was in high school general science we were taught both. And we had PE and shop class.

Rock

10-04-2006, 03:57 PM

How can you say that? Who is the designer? If it's God, then it is religion.

I don't know if religion is God because God has no equal. Even evolution could just be a template God used for us.

kate

10-04-2006, 04:01 PM

Humm, I dont know.

Hold on to that thought, bc. Good things will happen.

adi chicago

10-04-2006, 04:06 PM

can you imagine guys what would happend if god created all the people with the same IQ.?thank`s god because i can post some dumb and bored posts:)

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 04:07 PM

Hold on to that thought, bc. Good things will happen.

What is that supposed to mean? Its not a matter of something has to go to make room.

Lindox

10-04-2006, 04:18 PM

Humm, I dont know. When I was in high school general science we were taught both. And we had PE and shop class.

Strange in Omaha Public High School I never heard of Intelligent Design or mention of creationism in science courses of any kind I took.

Now in Caticism never heard the word Evolution mentioned either that I can remember.

Also strange that God took six days to make the world.
Seems to me he could have done that by blinking his eyes..perhaps he used some evolution there just to make sure his project had everything it needed.

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 04:29 PM

The funny thing is is that the more enlightened one becomes the more simple science is questioned. We all know evolution takes place. But there are still significant holes in evolution.

According to who? Not Wise nor other scientists. Significant only to those who want evolutionary theory to be wrong.
We should encourage thought and experimentation. We should not just accept evolution and move on. Intelligent design does not equal religion.

I would want my children taught both.

Scientists are adding to evolutionary thought all the time as Wise keeps telling us, time did not stop at Darwin's era. It is ID is not science it cannot be tested in experiments thus it does not belong in science class. Parents who want their children ill-educated must do it on their own time or send them to schools with less rigorous scientific standards.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 04:58 PM

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

ill-educated? less scientific standards? LOL

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 05:02 PM

More interesting reading for those ill educated and are interested in less scientific standards like me...

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3059

The modern theory of intelligent design was not developed in response to a legal setback for creationists in 1987. Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon-who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.

more

Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, livings systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 05:06 PM

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

ill-educated? less scientific standards? LOL

For those who are taught ID is science yes, as cc's scientists keep trying to tell you. Writing LOL doesn't change that.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 05:09 PM

It is science. That is where you are completely wrong.

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 05:29 PM

It is science. That is where you are completely wrong.

You don't understand what science is, ID cannot be tested, thus it cannot be validated. It belongs in a class on philosophy, religion or mythology.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 05:39 PM

Obviously you do not know what science is. Here is a start...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

Heres a little extra, just because I feel good today.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

kate

10-04-2006, 06:21 PM

bc, you're on the wrong end of this argument.

The ID people have their headquarters right here in Seattle, and there is no question--they are very well educated, very well-funded, and extremely smart.

They also have an agenda, and that agenda is (and has been from the very beginning) to "teach the controversy". This means that if they can raise a doubt in the public mind about whether or not the theory of evolution is solid, they are winning the battle.

You are a live example of how well that strategy has worked!

Nicole is right. ID will never be "science" in the way that biology is a science, because it doesn't create testable hypotheses.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 07:25 PM

10-04-2006, 07:33 PM

lol, but DA you're here explaining to us that it doesn't matter whether or not science is taught properly . . . so when I post a partial solution to see if you really know what you're talking about (he does, everybody!) that should be good enough for you. Or are you now going to say that science is different from mathematics? Is it really your position that science is a matter of opinion, like art criticism?

End of calculus lesson:

The derivative of a mathematical function at any given point is the slope that a line tangent to that point would have. Because the function f(x) = 724x is a line with constant slope 724, its derivative is 724. But, as DA knows, there is a whole family of functions--lines, in this case--with slope of 724. They're all parallel to one another, and all their equations have the form f(x) = 724x + C, where C is any constant.

Now, would you like to explain why you are okay with letting politics corrupt science so deeply that foreign students are laughing at the USA's educational system?kate you must take the forum as a bunch of jive time turkeys for us to believe you missed the answer on purpose. you beep-bopped you way into the thread thinking you will save him, but ya slipped face first into the mud. splat. lol.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 07:36 PM

Here are some interesting questions.

Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!

Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.

Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

from

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

I think they are reasonable questions.

adi chicago

10-04-2006, 07:41 PM

if humans are not realeated to apes who is our realetead ancestor talking about animal kingdom?

kate

10-04-2006, 07:41 PM

The theory of evolution is not solid.

Well, if that's your position, I can only assume that you don't know enough about it to be in this conversation. Too bad.

kate

10-04-2006, 07:43 PM

kate you must take the forum as a bunch of jive time turkeys

Why, no DA, I just think that about sweet ol' you. :D How far does you knowledge of calculus go, anyway? Would you like me to pose a question or two for you to try?

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 07:45 PM

Well, if that's your position, I can only assume that you don't know enough about it to be in this conversation. Too bad.

Kate, you are being too rigid. Here is a good quote that maybe you should think about.

Intellectual honesty requires you suspend what you "know" long enough to intelligently consider challenging alternatives.

btw, the theory of evolution is just that. theory

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 07:49 PM

Its like stating that SCI has not been cured, therefore there is no cure. Maybe there is, maybe there isnt but I certainly do not want new medical students who someday might cure SCI to give up because there is no cure.

Lindox

10-04-2006, 07:58 PM

if humans are not realeated to apes who is our realetead ancestor talking about animal kingdom?

If you are a conservative your ancestors were weasels and Tasmanian Devils..cross bred.

If your a liberal..love birds crossed with more love birds.

adi chicago

10-04-2006, 08:00 PM

Le Type Français

10-04-2006, 08:04 PM

I don't know if religion is God because God has no equal. Even evolution could just be a template God used for us.

That is precisely what I believe.

Lindox

10-04-2006, 08:07 PM

kate

10-04-2006, 08:12 PM

btw, the theory of evolution is just that. theory

Yes it is. And in the context of science, it is as fully developed, reliable, and solid as other theories, like gravitation and relativity. We've had this conversation before, and I'm sorry to say I just don't know another way to say it. When you say "evolution is just a theory", it's like you've put a neon sign over your head that says "I don't understand what I'm talking about!"

10-04-2006, 08:14 PM

i think bc post asked a very important question you all skipped by. the big bang, did all the matter in the universe just appear out of nothing?

Lindox

10-04-2006, 08:14 PM

why humans are on top of this evolutionary circle?
fish can swim,birds can fly etc. but is no living beeing on this earth like humans.the diversity was so cruel to other species thinking that the life on earth started in an organic soup.

Can you imagine if all the animals in the world could talk..and think like humans?
With their special traits to add this would mean the end of the human species.

We would soon show them human hypocrisy and they would know that will ruin the world they love.

10-04-2006, 08:16 PM

Can you imagine if all the animals in the world could talk..and think like humans?
With their special traits to add this would mean the end of the human species.

We would soon show them human hypocrisy and they would know that will ruin the world they love.
would the talking lion tell the talking antelope "i will eat you"....lol.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 08:22 PM

Yes it is. And in the context of science, it is as fully developed, reliable, and solid as other theories, like gravitation and relativity. We've had this conversation before, and I'm sorry to say I just don't know another way to say it. When you say "evolution is just a theory", it's like you've put a neon sign over your head that says "I don't understand what I'm talking about!"

ID is also just a theory.

Lindox

10-04-2006, 08:24 PM

would the talking lion tell the talking antelope "i will eat you"....lol.

NO. The lion would no longer need to expend the energy to chase after that swift of a meal.
He would have the knowledge and the mental ability to just go to the new food source..those pesky humans.

You see with the new knowledge in their human like brains they would hire a monkey to ride on their backs carrying and having the ability to use a GUN.

Well being humanlike now..the lion would make the monkey his slave. And the monkey would play along because it's a monkey.

kate

10-04-2006, 08:25 PM

ID is also just a theory.

Sure it is, bc! But it's not a scientific theory, that's the point.

adi chicago

10-04-2006, 08:27 PM

would the talking lion tell the talking antelope "i will eat you"....lol.
or maybe the lion will ask the antelope other question...like ....would you like to have dinner with me ?:)

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 08:28 PM

BTW gravity and relativity are two areas that have changing ideas also.

adi chicago

10-04-2006, 08:34 PM

check the bible regarding this subject.fraternization between animals :)
i would like to see an hungry lion eating grass and not an antelope:)

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 08:35 PM

Sure it is, bc! But it's not a scientific theory, that's the point.

http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm

Its not????

Rock

10-04-2006, 08:45 PM

Well being humanlike now..the lion would make the monkey his slave. And the monkey would play along because it's a monkey.

It's a sad day for the politician lion when they can't hire enough monkeys to come down out of their trees.

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 09:05 PM

http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm

Its not????

No it is not. Though I like the Dali Lama a Tibetan Buddhist site is a rather odd choice to use as a source for science but so is using intelligent designers.

10-04-2006, 09:23 PM

NO. The lion would no longer need to expend the energy to chase after that swift of a meal.
He would have the knowledge and the mental ability to just go to the new food source..those pesky humans.

You see with the new knowledge in their human like brains they would hire a monkey to ride on their backs carrying and having the ability to use a GUN.

Well being humanlike now..the lion would make the monkey his slave. And the monkey would play along because it's a monkey.
lol...ya gotta love the loon thinking. we need to ban thinking by animals before this happens.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 09:23 PM

Because you and kate say so it is not... It is a very weak argument that you two make.

I noticed questions asked were dismissed.

Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.

10-04-2006, 09:24 PM

or maybe the lion will ask the antelope other question...like ....would you like to have dinner with me ?:)
the dog would ask another dog, can i smell your but...lol.

10-04-2006, 09:27 PM

here ya go....the lion and monkey

Way down in the jungle deep,
The bad ass lion stepped on the signifyin monkey's feet.
The monkey said, "Muthafucka, can't you see?
Why, you standin on my goddamn feet!"
The lion said, "I ain't heard a word you said."
Said, "If you say three more I'll be steppin on yo muthafuckin head!"
Now, the monkey lived in the jungle in an old oak tree.
Bullshittin the lion everyday of the week.
Why, everyday before the sun go down,
The lion would kick his all through the jungle town.
But the monkey got wise and started usin his wit.
Said, "I'm gon' put a stop to this ole ass kickin shit!"

http://www.dolemite.com/original_rhymes.php?r_id=5

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 09:33 PM

Because you and kate say so it is not... It is a very weak argument that you two make.

I noticed questions asked were dismissed.

Um no it's because SCIENCE says so. Either you accept scientific standards or you don't. Obviously you don't.

10-04-2006, 09:34 PM

Um no it's because SCIENCE says so. Either you accept scientific standards or you don't. Obviously you don't.
where did the matter of the big bang come from?

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 09:38 PM

What you confuse is creationism and id. They are different.

Here is an op-ed that explains it better than I.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml

Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose".

But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is illusory, because the purely undirected process of natural selection acting on random mutations is entirely sufficient to produce the intricate designed-like structures found in living organisms.

By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 09:44 PM

Um no it's because SCIENCE says so. Either you accept scientific standards or you don't. Obviously you don't.

Very weak. Where is the book of scientific standards?

Wise Young

10-04-2006, 09:45 PM

And you two do not have an agenda? The theory of evolution is not solid. What is the testable hypothesis that created the first life? Or that we evolved from single cell organisms? Or who we actually evolved from? I happen to agree with aspects of both.

Yea yea, origins and evolution are different, or are they?

bcripeq,

Unfortunately, most people who oppose evolutionary theory misunderstand the theory. They have been taught out-of-date and wrong science. If you ask most people what evolutionary theory is, they will tell you that it was proposed by Darwin and that evolution theory is "survival of the fittest". If you ask them about what evolutionary theory says about the evolution of humans, they will say that the theory states that humans evolved from the apes. Many people believe that evolutionary theory purports to explain the origins of life. All of the above is wrong.

Modern evolution theory no longer emphasizes gradual change of species depending on the survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is only one of many mechanisms responsible for evolution. Modern evolution theory does not claim that humans evolved from the apes. It also does not address the question of who or what created life. Let me delve into each of these misunderstandings in greater detail.

• Survival of the fittest is not the only factor in evolution. While Darwin hypothesized "survival of fittest" as one reason for evolution in the 1860's, we should remember that he proposed this nearly 150 years ago when biology was a primitive science. He did not know about cells or genes. The cellular theory did not become accepted until the early 1900's. The discovery and acceptance of DNA as the genetic code did not occur until the 1950's. Modern evolutionary theory focuses on the remarkable similarity of molecular and cellular mechanisms in all life forms studied to date, the changes in the genetic code that explain both the similarity and diversity of life, and the strong evidence for evolution of life forms both before and during human history. Many factors affect evolution besides "survival of the fittest", including isolation and genetic drift, environmental catastrophes that cause mass extinction of species regardless of fitness of individual species, the unidirectional and dichotamous tendencies of genetic changes, the availability of already existing molecular or cellular mechanisms that can be used to achieve additional function, the redundancy of mechanisms that support each function, suppression of existing mechanisms, and many others. Criticizing modern evolutionary theory today based on Darwin is like arguing against nuclear physics based on Newtonian physics.

• Humans did not evolve from the apes. While the simplistic concept that humans evolved from the apes may have been claimed in the early evolution literature, this has long been refuted. For over 50 years, anthropologists have emphasized the theory of a common ancestor between the apes and humans. Perhaps 150,000 or more years ago, the evolution of the apes diverged from the evolution of humans. Both fossil evidence and genetic evidence strongly support this divergence. Let me state it crudely and simply. Humans have not successfully mated with apes for many millenia. There is much evidence now of several branches of human evolution and all modern humans today appear to have evolved from ancestors who left Africa about 100,000 years ago and migrated to the rest of the world.

• Evolution does not address who or what created life. This is perhaps the most frustrating part of the evolution debate. Most people who attack the theory of evolution use this false premise to criticize the theory. The scientific demise of literal creationism did not occur because of evolutionary theory. Rather, its demise resulted from an overwhelming mass of data indicating that the earth is more than 10,000 years old and that life existed in this earth for millions of years. There are a number of competing theories concerning the origins of life but evolution theory is not one of them. Evolutionary theory can co-exist with creationism if its time scale were not literal. It can even co-exist with intelligence design theory if the theory were to accept the possibility that the intelligent designer used evolution as a means of shaping new life forms.

As I pointed out in another related topic, the problem with the "young earth creationism" theory is that it does not fit the data. The problem with intelligent design is that it falsely repudiates evolution as a mechanism by which life forms have occurred on this earth. And, the problem for our country is that there are many people who want to teach our children false science and beliefs that are not based on data. This is harmful to science and our country.

Wise.

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 09:47 PM

Here are some interesting questions.

from

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

I think they are reasonable questions.

I thought you weren't a creationist and ID had nothing to do with religion?
Here you will find many resources related to the study of origins and science from a creationist perspective.

Take a look at our Basics of Creation Versus Evolution show. It will give you a good understanding of the creation message.

This is not objective science based knowledge bc. You can believe whatever you want just don't call it science.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 09:55 PM

I just firmly believe that you are wrong. creationism and id are completely seperate. Some of the id arguments may be used by creationists.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us."

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 09:59 PM

The more I explore with an open mind the more I believe in both id and evolution. Personally, I do not believe in creationism.

Many discoveries have been made by people who did not just accept current scientific thought. People accomplish what they are told cannot be accomplished all the time.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 10:03 PM

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 10:10 PM

I just firmly believe that you are wrong. creationism and id are completely seperate. Some of the id arguments may be used by creationists.

You're the one who cited creationists, who said nothing about id.
If you believe in evolution and find the concept of special creation difficult to accept, we understand this. Many of today's creationists also accepted evolution as a fact at one time in their lives. It takes time and study to undo the effects of evolutionary teachings. We hope to start you down this road.

If you "believe" in evolution then you should realize that sites like these who tell you their anti-science agenda are not going to be accurate sources.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 10:15 PM

They are not anti-science. Why are you so afraid of expanding knowledge, questioning the questionable.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-14-evolution-debate_x.htm

adi chicago

10-04-2006, 10:18 PM

don`t worry to much guys ,we will find out after will die who was right.
darwin or god?

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 10:19 PM

They are not anti-science. Why are you so afraid of expanding knowledge, questioning the questionable.

They called themselves creationists who want to undo evolution! How much clearer do they need to be!

Wise Young

10-04-2006, 10:25 PM

Here are some interesting questions.

from

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

I think they are reasonable questions.

bcripeq,

This is total nonsense. The person, whoever he or she is, doesn't know what evolution theory is. The person created a stupid theory and then attacked the theory. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Wise.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 10:26 PM

Who does?

Most id proponents agree with aspects of evolution. Many of these people are incredibly intelligent.

You cannot be so rigid in your beliefs.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 10:26 PM

bcripeq,

This is total nonsense. The person, whoever he or she is, doesn't know what evolution theory is. The person created a stupid theory and then attacked the theory. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Wise.

Explain...

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 10:27 PM

leschinsky

10-04-2006, 10:30 PM

Who does?

Most id proponents agree with aspects of evolution. Many of these people are incredibly intelligent.

You cannot be so rigid in your beliefs.

omg the turnpike people, look at the freakin homepage or who they are from which I quoted. Or listen to Wise.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 10:46 PM

Evolution is defined as:

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

Evolution theory is defined as:

theory of evolution - (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

Just so that we all understand the definitions from the dictionary.

Leif

10-04-2006, 10:54 PM

Rock

10-04-2006, 11:06 PM

I believe that science (ability) has proven that evolution (origin, etc.) has merits, but the problem is that evolution hasn't proven the origin of the BIG chain of origins, in my opinion.

Religious persons should accept both and push for more hope. It is too much wasted talent. Faith (hope) and science are great parents. Even Jesus told the disciples to ask that your joy may be full. God doesn't expect us to be dominant on earth for the sake of ignorance.

Wise Young

10-04-2006, 11:07 PM

Explain...

The anonymous person who wrote is wrong. I don't have time to go through the entire diatribe of false statements and thus will concentrate only on a few of the most ridiculous claims.

Something from nothing. The Big Bang theory is based on observations of an expanding universe, almost as if there was an original explosion from which all observable universe is now expanding away from. This person is trying to judge astrophysical events based on common every day experience on this earth. If everything astrophysical had to take place on this earth before it should be believed, we would not be able to explain our sun, the orbits of the planets, dark stars, the speed of light, and many other phenomena whose scale are such that we cannot easily observe them on this earth. The theory that the person appears to be propounding is that God is responsible for all phenomena that he/she doesn't understand and we should not try to explain the phenomena. This is a very dangerous theory.

Physical laws an accident? It is interesting that the person seems to know some laws of physics but falsely claims that scientists claim that these "laws" occurred by "accident". They are simply empirical observations. When conflicting observations come up, the laws must be revised, as Newton's laws had to be revised. Where has anybody said that it was an accident? Likewise, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an empirical observation from macrochemical events and had to be revised by quantum mechanics when applied to sub-molecular events. If this person wants to believe that God created these laws, that is fine. Science doesn't address that question.

Order from disorder? This person cites Second Law of Thermodynamics but seems not to understand its origins or application, and misrepresents the Law. By the way, the second law is based on empirical observations in the same way evolution has been empirically observed. The person seems to accept that the Second Law allows the development of ordered systems and then says that it cannot be true on this earth because evolution is "contrary to the Second Law". There is much evidence indicating that order can result from disorder. If you have ever watched the formation of a crystal from a solution, you know that it occurs. I don't know if the intervention of God is necessary for crystals to form but such intervention would be against the Second Law, would it not? By the way, the Second Law does explain the phenomenon of crystallation.

Information from randomness? The person states that information never arises out of randomness or chance events. He/she is wrong. There is no such law of information theory. In fact, chance events can often yield remarkably ordered systems. Crystallization is just one example. Anybody who has played poker knows that there are streaks. Royal flushes can and do occur from chance. Perhaps such chance events are the work of God but there is no law in information theory that says that transient order cannot occur randomly.

Life from dead chemicals? The very question implies a bias. We can create computer programs that produces order and even the semblance of life. We can create computer "viruses" that not only propagate but evolve and mutate. What is living and what is dead? By the way, such computer programs do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics or any Information Theory. The person falsely claims that "the probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero..." This is total nonsense. Who has calculated this?

Complex DNA and RNA by chance? The main argument here again appears to be the failure of the imagination by the person. He/she cannot imagine how DNA and RNA developed without divine intervention and therefore assumes that it must be a result of divine intervention. Failure of imagination is no reason to believe that something is not true.

Where are the transitional fossils? The person claims that "if evolution has taken place our museums would be overflowing with skeletons of countless transitional forms." It is clear that this person has not visited the any good natural history museums lately. They are filled to overflowing with transitional forms. There are millions of transitional forms. In fact, if this person opened his/her eyes, the person would notice that they surround us. The are hundreds of millions of species of animals and plants. They are all transitional forms.

Could an intermediate even survive? The person claims that "evolution requires the transition form one kind to another to be gradual". This person misunderstands evolutionary theory and makes another false claim. He or she is suggesting that evolutionary theory requires gradual selection of the fittest. This is wrong and just illustrates the ignorance of the person of what the theory of evolution is.

I can go on and on. Every question that the person asks simply exposes the ignorance of the person. Worse, it is anti-science at its very worst. The person pretends to know and respect science and then ignorantly rebuts the very basis of the science.

Wise.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 11:09 PM

Im not evangelical right-wing. I havent been to church since my accident in 1991. That was normal christian non-denom church with close friends who were trying to "help me through". Before accident I was last in church in 1984. About 1974-1984 I went to mormon church with grandparents. I am not particularily a fan of organised religion.

I am however, as a result of things that happened to me during my accident, a believer in a higher being.

you?

kate

10-04-2006, 11:18 PM

Here is a good argument that ID is in fact science.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697

Here is another article.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

But then again, I am being duped. right....

Jeebus, bc. Go read item #15 in your first link, okay?

The good professor explains that whether or not ID is science depends on your definition of science . . . well, yeah. And whether or not I am a goddess depends on your definition of goddess! Most people would not place me in that category, sadly, but all I have to do is redefine the term and boom! I'm a goddess.

Professor Behe the proceeds to inform the class that he thinks his work is science because his hypotheses "are based on reasoning from physical evidence." That is a good beginning for a hypothesis, fair enough. But then the scientist must move on to create a means of testing that hypothesis, or demonstrate that it has explanatory power.

He doesn't even pretend to do that; he's essentially re-defining a whole field of knowledge to suit his own purposes. If you feel like a free-thinker because you allow yourself to be taken in by well-funded, well-educated, extremely articulate crackpots, go for it.

By the way, I'm not a goddess, but I'm pretty sure leschinsky is.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 11:32 PM

The anonymous person who wrote is wrong. I don't have time to go through the entire diatribe of false statements and thus will concentrate only on a few of the most ridiculous claims.

Something from nothing. The Big Bang theory is based on observations of an expanding universe, almost as if there was an original explosion from which all observable universe is now expanding away from. This person is trying to judge astrophysical events based on common every day experience on this earth. If everything astrophysical had to take place on this earth before it should be believed, we would not be able to explain our sun, the orbits of the planets, dark stars, the speed of light, and many other phenomena whose scale are such that we cannot easily observe them on this earth. The theory that the person appears to be propounding is that God is responsible for all phenomena that he/she doesn't understand and we should not try to explain the phenomena. This is a very dangerous theory.

Physical laws an accident? It is interesting that the person seems to know some laws of physics but falsely claims that scientists claim that these "laws" occurred by "accident". They are simply empirical observations. When conflicting observations come up, the laws must be revised, as Newton's laws had to be revised. Where has anybody said that it was an accident? Likewise, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an empirical observation from macrochemical events and had to be revised by quantum mechanics when applied to sub-molecular events. If this person wants to believe that God created these laws, that is fine. Science doesn't address that question.

Order from disorder? This person cites Second Law of Thermodynamics but seems not to understand its origins or application, and misrepresents the Law. By the way, the second law is based on empirical observations in the same way evolution has been empirically observed. The Second Law does *not* state that all systems tend to deteriorate. The person seems to accept that the Second Law allows the development of ordered systems and then says that it cannot be true on this earth because evolution is "contrary to the Second Law". There is much evidence indicating that order can result from disorder. If you have ever watched the formation of a crystal from a solution, you know that it occurs. I don't know if the intervention of God is necessary for crystals to form but such intervention would be against the Second Law, would it not?

Information from randomness? The person states that information never arises out of randomness or chance events. He/she is wrong. There is no such law of information theory. In fact, chance events can often yield remarkably ordered systems. Crystallization is just one example. Anybody who has played poker knows that there are streaks. Royal flushes can and do occur from chance. Perhaps such chance events are the work of God but there is no law in information theory that says that transient order cannot occur randomly.

Life from dead chemicals? The very question implies a bias. We can create computer programs that produces order and even the semblance of life. We can create computer "viruses" that not only propagate but evolve and mutate. What is living and what is dead? By the way, such computer programs do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics or any Information Theory. The person falsely claims that "the probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero..." This is total nonsense. Who has calculated this?

Complex DNA and RNA by chance? The main argument here again appears to be the failure of the imagination by the person. He/she cannot imagine how DNA and RNA developed without divine intervention and therefore assumes that it must be a result of divine intervention. Failure of imagination is no reason to believe that something is not true.

Where are the transitional fossils? The person claims that "if evolution has taken place our museums would be overflowing with skeletons of countless transitional forms." It is clear that this person has not visited the any good natural history museums lately. They are filled to overflowing with transitional forms. There are millions of transitional forms. In fact, if this person opened his/her eyes, the person would notice that they surround us. The are hundreds of millions of species of animals and plants. They are all transitional forms.

Could an intermediate even survive? The person claims that "evolution requires the transition form one kind to another to be gradual". This person misunderstands evolutionary theory and makes another false claim. He or she is suggesting that evolutionary theory requires gradual selection of the fittest. This is wrong and just illustrates the ignorance of the person of what the theory of evolution is.

I can go on and on. Every question that the person asks simply exposes the ignorance of the person. Worse, it is anti-science at its very worst. The person pretends to know and respect science and then ignorantly rebuts the very basis of the science.

Wise.

Wow what a tirad. As whoevers points can be disputed, most of yours can as well.

You could be called anti-science just as easily.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 11:33 PM

Jeebus, bc. Go read item #15 in your first link, okay?

The good professor explains that whether or not ID is science depends on your definition of science . . . well, yeah. And whether or not I am a goddess depends on your definition of goddess! Most people would not place me in that category, sadly, but all I have to do is redefine the term and boom! I'm a goddess.

Professor Behe the proceeds to inform the class that he thinks his work is science because his hypotheses "are based on reasoning from physical evidence." That is a good beginning for a hypothesis, fair enough. But then the scientist must move on to create a means of testing that hypothesis, or demonstrate that it has explanatory power.

He doesn't even pretend to do that; he's essentially re-defining a whole field of knowledge to suit his own purposes. If you feel like a free-thinker because you allow yourself to be taken in by well-funded, well-educated, extremely articulate crackpots, go for it.

By the way, I'm not a goddess, but I'm pretty sure leschinsky is.

Im not taken in. I am exploring.

Wise Young

10-04-2006, 11:35 PM

Wise Young

10-04-2006, 11:36 PM

Wow what a tirad. As whoevers points can be disputed, most of yours can as well.

You could be called anti-science just as easily.

Please clarify. Wise.

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 11:56 PM

Please clarify. Wise.

Well for one, transitional fossils. Even some paleontologists such as Niles Eldridge and evolutionists such as Steven Stanley and Stephen Jay Gould have acknowledged that transitional species do not exist.

Here is a quote from eldridge

"The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist," declared Niles Eldridge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Eldridge reminded the meeting of what many fossil hunters have recognized as they trace the history of a species through successive layers of ancient sediments. Species simply appear at a given point in geologic time, persist largely unchanged for a few million years and then disappear. There are very few examples--some say none--of one species shading gradually into another."

bcripeq

10-04-2006, 11:59 PM

Complex DNA and RNA by chance? The main argument here again appears to be the failure of the imagination by the person. He/she cannot imagine how DNA and RNA developed without divine intervention and therefore assumes that it must be a result of divine intervention. Failure of imagination is no reason to believe that something is not true.

Here is another. Is imagination scientific? This is a laughable statement.

bcripeq

10-05-2006, 12:05 AM

bcripeq,

Unfortunately, most people who oppose evolutionary theory misunderstand the theory. They have been taught out-of-date and wrong science. If you ask most people what evolutionary theory is, they will tell you that it was proposed by Darwin and that evolution theory is "survival of the fittest". If you ask them about what evolutionary theory says about the evolution of humans, they will say that the theory states that humans evolved from the apes. Many people believe that evolutionary theory purports to explain the origins of life. All of the above is wrong.

Modern evolution theory no longer emphasizes gradual change of species depending on the survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is only one of many mechanisms responsible for evolution. Modern evolution theory does not claim that humans evolved from the apes. It also does not address the question of who or what created life. Let me delve into each of these misunderstandings in greater detail.

• Survival of the fittest is not the only factor in evolution. While Darwin hypothesized "survival of fittest" as one reason for evolution in the 1860's, we should remember that he proposed this nearly 150 years ago when biology was a primitive science. He did not know about cells or genes. The cellular theory did not become accepted until the early 1900's. The discovery and acceptance of DNA as the genetic code did not occur until the 1950's. Modern evolutionary theory focuses on the remarkable similarity of molecular and cellular mechanisms in all life forms studied to date, the changes in the genetic code that explain both the similarity and diversity of life, and the strong evidence for evolution of life forms both before and during human history. Many factors affect evolution besides "survival of the fittest", including isolation and genetic drift, environmental catastrophes that cause mass extinction of species regardless of fitness of individual species, the unidirectional and dichotamous tendencies of genetic changes, the availability of already existing molecular or cellular mechanisms that can be used to achieve additional function, the redundancy of mechanisms that support each function, suppression of existing mechanisms, and many others. Criticizing modern evolutionary theory today based on Darwin is like arguing against nuclear physics based on Newtonian physics.

• Humans did not evolve from the apes. While the simplistic concept that humans evolved from the apes may have been claimed in the early evolution literature, this has long been refuted. For over 50 years, anthropologists have emphasized the theory of a common ancestor between the apes and humans. Perhaps 150,000 or more years ago, the evolution of the apes diverged from the evolution of humans. Both fossil evidence and genetic evidence strongly support this divergence. Let me state it crudely and simply. Humans have not successfully mated with apes for many millenia. There is much evidence now of several branches of human evolution and all modern humans today appear to have evolved from ancestors who left Africa about 100,000 years ago and migrated to the rest of the world.

• Evolution does not address who or what created life. This is perhaps the most frustrating part of the evolution debate. Most people who attack the theory of evolution use this false premise to criticize the theory. The scientific demise of literal creationism did not occur because of evolutionary theory. Rather, its demise resulted from an overwhelming mass of data indicating that the earth is more than 10,000 years old and that life existed in this earth for millions of years. There are a number of competing theories concerning the origins of life but evolution theory is not one of them. Evolutionary theory can co-exist with creationism if its time scale were not literal. It can even co-exist with intelligence design theory if the theory were to accept the possibility that the intelligent designer used evolution as a means of shaping new life forms.

As I pointed out in another related topic, the problem with the "young earth creationism" theory is that it does not fit the data. The problem with intelligent design is that it falsely repudiates evolution as a mechanism by which life forms have occurred on this earth. And, the problem for our country is that there are many people who want to teach our children false science and beliefs that are not based on data. This is harmful to science and our country.

Wise.

I dont believe in the "young earth creationism" and actually was not taught that. Well, actually yes in sunday school I was taught that but I was also taught lots of crazy mormon stuff.

But I dont think id in itself discredits evolution in any way. You are getting the two confused I believe.

From what you say above, science has deemed early evolution theory as not possible. So science has learned that science was wrong. Isnt that what we want? So now origins. How can we explain that?

leschinsky

10-05-2006, 12:12 AM

If you feel like a free-thinker because you allow yourself to be taken in by well-funded, well-educated, extremely articulate crackpots, go for it.

By the way, I'm not a goddess, but I'm pretty sure leschinsky is.

Kate owes me a new keyboard, I spewed water all over mine!!!

bcripeq

10-05-2006, 12:13 AM

The term evolutionary theory is a misnomer. Maybe that is part of the problem.

wise.

That is the dictionary definition. I didnt make it up.

bcripeq

10-05-2006, 12:14 AM

Kate owes me a new keyboard, I spewed water all over mine!!!

please.... TMI!

bcripeq

10-05-2006, 12:19 AM

Could an intermediate even survive? The person claims that "evolution requires the transition form one kind to another to be gradual". This person misunderstands evolutionary theory and makes another false claim. He or she is suggesting that evolutionary theory requires gradual selection of the fittest. This is wrong and just illustrates the ignorance of the person of what the theory of evolution is.

This is the dictionary definition. I suppose the dictionary is wrong?

Wise Young

10-05-2006, 12:26 AM

This is the dictionary definition. I suppose the dictionary is wrong?

bcripeq,

Science does not come from dictionaries. The current theory does not claim gradual change through selection of the fittest as the only or even mechanism of evolution. The fact that most people don't know this gives some indication of the poor state of science education in the United States.

Wise.

Wise Young

10-05-2006, 12:31 AM

I dont believe in the "young earth creationism" and actually was not taught that. Well, actually yes in sunday school I was taught that but I was also taught lots of crazy mormon stuff.

But I dont think id in itself discredits evolution in any way. You are getting the two confused I believe.

From what you say above, science has deemed early evolution theory as not possible. So science has learned that science was wrong. Isnt that what we want? So now origins. How can we explain that?

I don't think that I am confusing creationism and intelligent design. Perhaps you are confusing what others are saying with what I have said. Evolutionary theory has changed substantially since the discovery of DNA as the genetic code and the enormous revolution in biology that it has created. As I was saying, that is the frustrating part of the debate. It is like arguing about nuclear physics based on the writings of Newton.

At certain levels, intelligent design theory seems reasonable but the details of the theory are seriously flawed. The main argument made by proponents of intelligent design is that evolution could not have produced the various life forms that we see on earth today because it is "irreducibly complex". This is wrong because every example they have used to suggest "irreducible complexity" has been shown to be preceded by simpler forms.

For example, many ID advocates like to use the example of the eye as something that could not have evolved. However, if you look at the eyes of many animals (and even plants), you will find that there have been photoreceptors based on the same rhodopsin sensors and neurons assocaited with the photoreceptor cells. Early eyes were simple light sensors connected to a neural network and there were many intermediate forms leading to the development of the retina, vitreous humor, contractile lens, pupil, and other features.

The example that the web site used was DNA and RNA. There is no question that DNA and RNA systems evolved from the original prokaryote organisms where the DNA mixed with RNA without nuclei, to the eventual organization of eucharyotic nuclear system that we know with various transporters, promoters, nuclear factors, RNA enzymes, etc., etc. The system has obviously been very important to organisms and its evolution can be clearly seen in the organisms that exist today, from bacteria to human.

Wise.

Tiger Racing

10-05-2006, 06:18 AM

why humans are on top of this evolutionary circle?

Humans aren't. Germs are.

C.

Tiger Racing

10-05-2006, 06:46 AM

Wow what a tirad. As whoevers points can be disputed, most of yours can as well.

You could be called anti-science just as easily.

Wow. I'll give you points for audacity. I've stood my ground with my neurosurgeons many a time, but I wouldn't have the nerve to flat out tell them that they are wrong without substantial evidence to back it up.

Tell us specifically how Dr. Young is anti-science in the context of this discussion? He's taken the time, quite a bit of time it seems, (amazing!) to clearly spell out the errors in much of what you have posted. I have yet to see you respond directly to any of his counterpoints and explanations with anything more than dismissive fluff like what I've quoted here.

The funny thing is is that the more enlightened one becomes the more simple science is questioned.

How enlightened is it to decide that because one does not understand how something came to be that a god must have had a hand in it? That is what Dr. Young was referring to when he mentioned a lack of imagination.

Is imagination scientific?

You're damn skippy it is! You're so fond of the layman's dictionary, look it up.

We all know evolution takes place.

Is there a white rat in your pocket? Which we are you referring to? Sadly, millions of Americans don't believe in evolution at all.

there are still significant holes in evolution.

Like what? Anything that Dr. Young hasn't already addressed for the distorted facts and outdated information that they are?

We should encourage thought and experimentation.

Great idea! Too bad that none of the creationists that you've quoted actually want to do that.

Intelligent design does not equal religion.

OK. Can you quote anyone who doesn't have a religious agenda that is a strong, vocal proponent of teaching ID in schools as a "science"?

I would want my children taught both.

You may feel free to teach your kids anything you like. (I can't think of a legal way to stop you.) However, I draw the line at you pushing your quest for ignorance onto me and mine.

For the record, I am a very, religious person and I see no reason for intellectual barriers between science and religion. I believe that science will prove out my religious beliefs over time, but until that happens, I strongly support the separation of church and state. Of course, I support that separation for the opposite reason that so many Xians want to tear it down. I know what I know and I know that Xianity is a wacky theory with little basis in fact and so I don't want it taught to my children or forced any deeper into my daily life and culture than it already is.

C.

bcripeq

10-05-2006, 12:19 PM

tiger, you obviously have a limited view.

Lindox

10-05-2006, 02:48 PM

the dog would ask another dog, can i smell your but...lol.

And the another dog would say, "Sure, be my guest."

Lindox

10-05-2006, 02:52 PM

i think bc post asked a very important question you all skipped by. the big bang, did all the matter in the universe just appear out of nothing?

I think the big bang may have been the Creator farting.

adi chicago

10-05-2006, 02:57 PM

I think the big bang may have been the Creator farting.
was it smelly?

Lindox

10-05-2006, 03:21 PM

was it smelly?

Not at first. Humans added the stench of death.

Wise Young

10-05-2006, 04:36 PM

Well for one, transitional fossils. Even some paleontologists such as Niles Eldridge and evolutionists such as Steven Stanley and Stephen Jay Gould have acknowledged that transitional species do not exist.

Here is a quote from eldridge

bcripeq,

I knew Stephen J. Gould. He is one of the foremost champions of evolutionary theory. He and Niles Eldridge had indeed searched for "intermediate forms" of snails and found instead that fossils of snail shells seem to change suddenly from one form to another. In his lectures on the subject, he emphasized two explanations of this finding. First, changes in genes produce big changes. Second, those forms that were unfavorable for survival died relatively quickly or even during development and therefore did not leave many fossils. Those that were favorable for survival contributed many more snails whose fossils numerically dominated the fossil record. But, there are many successful intermediate forms that have led to a huge number of snail species with different shaped shells, one of the reason why they have fascinated evolution biologists.

They proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain their findings, that evolution leads to stability of successful forms that numerically dominate over the unsuccessful intermediate forms that last at most a few generations. Stephen J. Gould also proposed the theory of spandrels, features of an organism that are unintended consequences of other changes and not because the change is necessarily favorable for survival. While controversial when they were first proposed, these theories were major contributions to the building of the so-called neo-Darwinism.

I have already mentioned many examples of evolution that is not based on gradual sculpting of species based on survival of the fittest. Let me explain these in greater detail:
• Genetic isolation and drift. If a certain population of animals is isolated from others for a long time, so that there is no exchange of genes with the other populations, one often sees "genetic drift", gradual changes of the genetic code and the organisms, not from selective pressure but simply because genes change over time.
• Environmental catastrophes. Certain environmental changes are so extreme and sudden that organisms don't have time to evolve. When this occurs, large numbers of species may become extinct. For example, the various ice ages and drought that occurred probably accounts for the disappearance of many species, perhaps the large dinosaurs that dominated the earth for millions of years.
• Forward evolution. This is something that Stephen J. Gould once devoted a whole lecture to at the Marine Biological Laboratory. He pointed out that evolution seldom goes backwards but rather added features on top of already evolved features. The specific example he used were insects. Early fossils of insect-like creatures showed many 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or even more feet. But, once one group evolved to have 6 feet, that branch of evoluton continued to have 6 feet. While there are still catepillars (which can be larval forms of 6-feet insects), spiders, and other insect-like creatures with 8 or more feet, the 6-legged insects did not evolve backwards.
• Spandrels. There are unintended consequences of evolution which Gould and Lewontin called spandrels (an architectural term for the space between an arch and the wall), referring to necessary byproducts of other design decisions. Gould cited the example of the development of false male genitalia on the female spotted hyena (Source (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/20/10750)). For years, biologists had attributed all sorts of significance to the development of false genitalia. Gould proposed that it a result of increased testosterone levels in female hyenas so that they grew to a size that is as big as the males. The size probably conferred a selective advantage but the development of false male genitalia was an unintended side-effect. It was actually a very amusing lecture because he cited all the speculations of scientists who made up all these selective advantages of having male genitalia. Gould cited a number of other spandrels, including certain mental features of humans.
• Protection against infections. Some of the deadliest threats to human survival are diseases. Many so-called genetic diseases that humans may have evolved to protect them against infectious diseases. One of the best examples that I know are blood dyscrasias in humans that resulted from malaria: sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia. Both of these produce inefficient blood cells that are not infected by malaria parasites. If a person is homozygous for the sickle or the thalassemic genes (i.e. got the gene from the mother and father), it is a deadly disease. However, if a person is heterozygous for these genes, they have enough of the normal blood cells for them to survive and procreate but enough of the abnormal blood cells to survive a malarial infection. Two parents that are heterozygous for thalassemia, for example, has a 25% of producing a homozygous infant which would die, a 50% chance of producing heterozygous infant that would be able to survive malaria, and a 25% of producing a normal infant who would be susceptible to malaria. While it means that 50% of the infants would die in a malaria zone, it still means that 50% would live, as opposed to all dying. In certain malaria-infested regions of the world, 35% or more of the population carry the thalassemia gene. Such a high prevalence of this gene implies that malaria can apply very strong selective pressure that killed off most of the people that do not have this gene in a malaria-infested region. Humans have many other molecular adaptations that protect them against animal viruses, including influenza, probably evolved from previous flu epidemics that killed off a large proportion of the population. Likewise, there are specific genetic adaptations that many communities in Europe have that protects them against the Bubonic plague which is said to have killed as many as 40% of the population in certain regions of Europe. There are many other examples. We all know some people who seem to be highly resistant to bacterial infections of the urinary tract. It is very likely that the current AIDS epidemics around the world is strongly selecting for genes that protect infants against AIDS. For example, StemCyte has a unique collection of umbilical cord blood from infants who have survived being born from mothers with AIDS, suggesting that they may have special molecular mechanisms that resist the virus.

Evoluton is real but not as simple as Darwin thought. There is punctuated equilibrium, spandrels, catastrophic influences of climate changes and epidemics of infectious diseases, influence of genetic mechanisms, and other factors that he did not know of and could not have thought of. But, that is what science is all about. It is constantly testing and revising the theories so that they better explain the data.

Wise.

Wise Young

10-05-2006, 05:59 PM

Incidentally, I want to say that I distance myself from Richard Dawkins and his latest book "The God Delusion", reviewed in http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=4&subID=819

Well, that about wraps it up for God

If you have doubts about your religion, or indeed your atheism, this is the book for you. In The God Delusion (Bantam Press, £20) Richard Dawkins shows how the Big Bang and evolution provide a much better explanation for our existence than divine intervention. He demolishes the 'proofs' of Thomas Aquinas. He wins Pascal's wager (that it's shrewder to believe God exists, because if he doesn't, it doesn't matter).

<snip>

So how about the theory that the "irreducible complexity" of the cosmos required intelligent design? The professor elegantly demonstrates how, since God must be more complex than His creation, His existence must therefore be less likely than ours. Moreover, the bottom-up process of Natural Selection dispenses with the need for chance or design.

<snip>

Though Dawkins is hardly disinterested, one trusts he has presented his opponents' arguments to their best advantage. But his later chapters, tackling the psychology and morality of religion, undermine that trust. He finds self-evidence where there is none. He dismisses religious morality as relative and random, but not his own. He makes the dubious claim that "most people pay lip service to the same broad liberal consensus of ethical principles"

Dawkins is the author of a number of books, including "The Selfish Gene", and currently holds the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He and Stephen J. Gould had been butting heads for some time over mechanisms of evolution. Dawkins is what Gould has called a "hyper" Darwinist ( Source (http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/commentary/thurtle.html)) who, in my opinion, sensationalized evolution by doing the disservice of oversimplifying it. The Dawkins/Gould conflict has received much attention (Source (http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000092.html)) and books have been written about the conflict (Source (http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/nettle.html)).

I believe that Dawkins does the field a disservice by oversimplifying and overemphasizing natural selection. His 1976 "Selfish Gene" book posits that the body is just a vehicle for the survival of genes. While it is a useful view, it is just too sensationalist and ignores many of the details of evolution that suggest that evolution is far more complex and beautiful. I far prefer the scholarly approach of Stephen J. Gould and his embrace of the complexity of large systems in his explanations. It is a conflict of two discrepant intellectual styles, between a humanitarian synthesist and the digital reductionist.

By oversimplifying evolution, Dawkins is encouraging generations of biologists to neglect the complexity of evolution and factors that are beyond the control of the gene. These include periods of intense selective pressure which can lead to anomalous traits that are sometimes counter-productive to survival in more normal situations, limitations of what genes can do, and unintended consequences of genetic changes. These are much more common than Dawkins would admit, I suspect. But, I particularly distance myself from his attacks on religion which are both unscientific and gratuitous. It is unscientific because he has no evidentiary basis for the absence of God. It is gratuitous because it is unnecessary and ignores other valid views of the subject. Dawkins' attack of religion emanates from his athiesm and not from his science. Unfortunately, many people will assume otherwise.

Dawkins refuses to debate creationists, believing that he should not grace them with the respect that they do not deserve. According to Wikipedia (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins)):
Dawkins is well known for his contempt for religious extremism, from Islamic terrorism to Christian fundamentalism, but he has also argued fiercely with liberal believers and religious scientists,[3] including many who might otherwise champion his science and fight creationism alongside him, from the biologist Kenneth Miller[8] to the former Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries.[28]

Dawkins' major scientific contribution is the concept of the Meme, which he coined. A meme is an idea or cultural phenomenon that perpetuates its own survival by natural selection. This has led to the creation of a new field called memetics which utilizes information theory to explore the factors that account for survival of ideas and cultural phenomena. It is interesting that his memetic theory is sometimes applied to explain the tenacity of religious beliefs and common characteristics of organized religions. In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part Channel 4 document entitled (according to Wikipedia, against his wishes) "The Root of All Evil?", addressing what he sees as the malignant influence of organized religion on society.

His one-man crusade against religion is unfortunate because it has antagonized potential supporters of evolution in Churches and have focused the debate on religion instead of clarifying evolution to the public. Incidentally, it was a Richard Dawkins article that I quote in a topic entitled Collateral Damage 1: Embryos and Stem Cell Research (http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=539464&postcount=1)). He is clearly taking up a crusade against President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld on the issues of collateral damage and embryonic stem cell research as well. While I agree of some of the his views, he has been more divisive than collaborative, more angry than reasoned, and more inflammatory than healing.

Wise.

Rock

10-05-2006, 08:43 PM

The meme is only malignant if it steps out of the boundary's of the set of parameters. Since Jesus done away with the lasting effects of death, then the "ressurection" has to be proven wrong before he can call God a delusion. There were also many witnesses so Dawkins is outnumbered way before he ever thought about becoming an anomalous author.

Tiger Racing

10-06-2006, 02:46 AM

tiger, you obviously have a limited view.

The only thing obvious here is that you don't want to address any of the questions and comments that I've directed to you. Some might assume that indicates an inability to do so on your part.

C.

brocko

10-06-2006, 07:51 AM

bcripeq, just a friendly piece of advice that no one here has had the compassion to share with you, stop digging mate.

bcripeq

10-06-2006, 04:51 PM

Wow. I'll give you points for audacity. I've stood my ground with my neurosurgeons many a time, but I wouldn't have the nerve to flat out tell them that they are wrong without substantial evidence to back it up.

Tell us specifically how Dr. Young is anti-science in the context of this discussion? He's taken the time, quite a bit of time it seems, (amazing!) to clearly spell out the errors in much of what you have posted. I have yet to see you respond directly to any of his counterpoints and explanations with anything more than dismissive fluff like what I've quoted here.

How enlightened is it to decide that because one does not understand how something came to be that a god must have had a hand in it? That is what Dr. Young was referring to when he mentioned a lack of imagination.

You're damn skippy it is! You're so fond of the layman's dictionary, look it up.

Is there a white rat in your pocket? Which we are you referring to? Sadly, millions of Americans don't believe in evolution at all.

Like what? Anything that Dr. Young hasn't already addressed for the distorted facts and outdated information that they are?

Great idea! Too bad that none of the creationists that you've quoted actually want to do that.

OK. Can you quote anyone who doesn't have a religious agenda that is a strong, vocal proponent of teaching ID in schools as a "science"?

You may feel free to teach your kids anything you like. (I can't think of a legal way to stop you.) However, I draw the line at you pushing your quest for ignorance onto me and mine.

For the record, I am a very, religious person and I see no reason for intellectual barriers between science and religion. I believe that science will prove out my religious beliefs over time, but until that happens, I strongly support the separation of church and state. Of course, I support that separation for the opposite reason that so many Xians want to tear it down. I know what I know and I know that Xianity is a wacky theory with little basis in fact and so I don't want it taught to my children or forced any deeper into my daily life and culture than it already is.

C.

ID has nothing to do with religion. Why do you not want scientists to keep exploring ID? How will science prove your religious beliefs if there is a huge roadblock to alternative thought? Where is Xianity taught in public schools? Umm, its not. So using your argument is teaching ID a step before teaching satanism?

Imagination is science? skippy, sorry but that goes directly against what wise has said.

Nobody ever said god, as christians know god, had anything to do with it. Obviously there is a fossil record of sorts that shows that unless God is tricking us, genesis cannot be accurate.

Look at modern man for example. Where are our transitional fossils? Scientists have shown that we are not related to any previous man like fossils.

Look at new T-rex discoveries. They could completely change what we "know" about dinosauers.

Read my links. Most are not religious zealots.

The word evolution in itself is constantly changing. Dr. Young has stated that the definition as it appears in the dictionary is a misnomer. Was it when added to the dictionary?

Dr. Young, is that brilliant friend of yours that believes in ID a religious zealot. I think you used the term brilliant.

My Drs were completely wrong about many things. They told me I would live in a nursing home the rest of my life. They told me lots of times I would never move my arms again. They then told me they dont understand how I have recovered so well.

How many times have scientists been wrong? How many times have scientists been shown to have an agenda? How many times have we seen scientists so arrogant that you cannot question them?

The rigidity of thought is primarily what I am questioning. Dr. Young and other completely shut down the fact that there are significant questions. Very valid questions. These seem to be due to fear?

The fact that a 2001 poll shows that 87% of americans do not completely subscribe to evolution as origin should show that there are questions. Americans certainly are not stupid or ignorant.

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

Here is an interesting article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5181008.stm

One of the biggest responses to my pieces I've received so far came when I wrote about experimental science - about the way science tries to arrive at the best fit between a general principle and the experimental evidence.

A number of listeners wrote reminding me that my description of scientists as men and women of integrity, painstakingly in pursuit of truth, did not quite tell the whole story. The pressure to be first to reach a particular scientific goal has always been intense. The rewards in terms of personal fame and financial profit can be considerable.

Consequently, some scientists have not been above falsifying the evidence in order to claim an important scientific "breakthrough". There are several notorious hoaxes in the history of science.

leschinsky

10-06-2006, 05:42 PM

The rigidity of thought is primarily what I am questioning. Dr. Young and other completely shut down the fact that there are significant questions. Very valid questions. These seem to be due to fear?

We believe in science/the physical world out of fear, oy vey bc, there is no logic to that claim. If anything I fear the possibility of nothingness after my death. But that has nothing to do with how life evolved on earth. Since you're willing to believe even the creationist's site that so bungled the science maybe you shouldn't be accusing others of rigidity and acting out of fear. You apparently don't want the biblical timeline to be inaccurate but do not want to admit that.

The fact that a 2001 poll shows that 87% of americans do not completely subscribe to evolution as origin should show that there are questions. Americans certainly are not stupid or ignorant.

And 70% of Americans, 90% of soldiers, thought Saddam was behind 9/11, all that proves is Americans are susceptible to misinformation/propaganda/well funded campaigns.

bcripeq

10-06-2006, 06:08 PM

We believe in science/the physical world out of fear, oy vey bc, there is no logic to that claim. If anything I fear the possibility of nothingness after my death. But that has nothing to do with how life evolved on earth. Since you're willing to believe even the creationist's site that so bungled the science maybe you shouldn't be accusing others of rigidity and acting out of fear. You apparently don't want the biblical timeline to be inaccurate but do not want to admit that.

And 70% of Americans, 90% of soldiers, thought Saddam was behind 9/11, all that proves is Americans are susceptible to misinformation/propaganda/well funded campaigns.

I do not always believe everything I post as links. They were questions that I thought interesting. There is some truth in the answers as there are with Wise answers.

I do not believe the biblical timeline.

Saddam issue is different. Evolution or not has been hashed and rehashed for how many years?

So in a different tangent. How do you feel about near death experiences?

IanTPoulter

10-06-2006, 06:27 PM

Im not buying this BC, this is not like you. Did you go mushroom picking today?

Tiger Racing

10-06-2006, 07:12 PM

ID has nothing to do with religion.

Then why do you keep posting links to religious websites?

Why do you not want scientists to keep exploring ID?

I don't.

How will science prove your religious beliefs if there is a huge roadblock to alternative thought?

I don't see some huge roadblock like you do. And I don't see ID as alternative thought either.

Where is Xianity taught in public schools? Umm, its not.

I didn't say that Xianity is specifically taught in public schools. (No religion should be.) However, our entire culture is saturated with it.

So using your argument is teaching ID a step before teaching satanism?

What are you talking about?

Imagination is science? skippy, sorry but that goes directly against what wise has said.

How so? Did you bother to look up the word? Here, I'll do it for you.

im - ag - i - na - tion –noun
1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy (def. 2).
4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.
5. ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness: a job that requires imagination.
6. Psychology. the power of reproducing images stored in the memory under the suggestion of associated images (reproductive imagination) or of recombining former experiences in the creation of new images directed at a specific goal or aiding in the solution of problems (creative imagination).
7. (in Kantian epistemology) synthesis of data from the sensory manifold into objects by means of the categories.
8. Archaic. a plan, scheme, or plot.

Nobody ever said god, as christians know god, had anything to do with it.

Most of the people in those organizations whose websites you keep posting links to would disagree with you now.

Obviously there is a fossil record of sorts that shows that unless God is tricking us, genesis cannot be accurate.

Funny that you mention that, as that is exactly what some creationists think. Wacky, eh?

Read my links. Most are not religious zealots.

I've read many of your links, but I've also looked into who is behind those websites. I don't know if those people are specifically zealots, but they are definitely Xians with an agenda.

The word evolution in itself is constantly changing. Dr. Young has stated that the definition as it appears in the dictionary is a misnomer.

What's your point?

My Drs were completely wrong about many things. They told me I would live in a nursing home the rest of my life. They told me lots of times I would never move my arms again. They then told me they dont understand how I have recovered so well.

Doctors aren't gods. They tend to tell patients what is the most common prognosis for their given condition. What's wrong with that?

How many times have scientists been wrong?

Fewer times than the religious layman who only sees the world filtered thru their specific scripture.

How many times have scientists been shown to have an agenda? How many times have we seen scientists so arrogant that you cannot question them?

I dunno. How many times?

The rigidity of thought is primarily what I am questioning.

That's not the impression that you've given. I also don't see the rigidity that you say you do.

Dr. Young and other completely shut down the fact that there are significant questions. Very valid questions.

Dr. Young has done nothing of the kind. He's taken a great deal of time out of what I would assume is his busy day to specifically address a number of the questions that you've posited. You just don't like his answers. Who's being rigid?

These seem to be due to fear?

We should all be afraid of the religious agenda that is being pushed by the current administration.

The fact that a 2001 poll shows that 87% of americans do not completely subscribe to evolution as origin should show that there are questions. Americans certainly are not stupid or ignorant.

ROFL! Oh, my dear man, we most certainly disagree on this point. Millions of Americans are willfully ignorant in oh-so many ways relevant to this conversation. Are they also stupid? Some of them.

Here is an interesting article

I think this one is far more interesting as it offers a balanced view. Emphasis added.

http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html

[I]The moral of Piltdown is that science is a fallible, human activity which does not always take the most direct route in fulfilling its aim of understanding nature. When an anomaly such as the discovery of a human cranium with an ape's jaw occurs one must either fit it into a new theory, re-examine the evidence for error in discovery or interpretation, or show that the so-called anomaly is not really an anomaly at all but in fact fits with current theory. Which route a scientist takes may be guided more by personal hopes and cultural prejudices than by some mythical objectivity characterized by the collection and accumulation of colorless, impersonal facts to be pigeonholed dogmatically into a General Theory of Objective Truth and Knowledge.

But to characterize scientists as arrogant buffoons making claims that often turn out to be false, and to make a caricature out of science because it is not infallible and does not arrive at absolutely certain claims, belies a grave misunderstanding of the nature of science. The buffoons are those who demand absolute certainty where none can be had; the buffoons are those who do not understand the value and beauty of probabilities in science. The arrogant ones are those who think that science is mere speculation because scientists make errors, even egregious errors, or at times even commit fraud to push their prejudices. The arrogant ones are those who can't tell the difference between a testable and an untestable hypothesis and who think one speculation is as good as another. The buffoons are those who think that since both scientists and creationists or other pseudoscientists pose theories, each is doing essentially the same thing. However, all theories are not empirical, and of those that are empirical not all are equally speculative. Furthermore, those creationists who think that Piltdown demonstrates that scientists can't accurately date bones should remember that methods of dating such things have greatly improved since 1910.

C.

leschinsky

10-06-2006, 07:18 PM

I do not always believe everything I post as links. They were questions that I thought interesting. There is some truth in the answers as there are with Wise answers.
I do not believe the biblical timeline.

And yet you called his scientific explanations for creationist distortions a tirade and still claiming there's truth in them, that's faith not knowledge so you can't call it science based.

Saddam issue is different. Evolution or not has been hashed and rehashed for how many years?
You were trying to validate something by citing a poll measuring the knowledge of the average citizen. Same thing.

So in a different tangent. How do you feel about near death experiences?

I didn't really have one. I as a teen accepted them as truth because I wanted them to be true, same with reincarnation. However later I became more questioning and more stringent in the standards for what I accepted as truth. For me to believe in an afterlife experience I would have to have one myself, or maybe my brother or mother. It is too personal an issue and one not subject to objectivity.

bcripeq

10-06-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcripeq
ID has nothing to do with religion.

Then why do you keep posting links to religious websites?

Quote:
Why do you not want scientists to keep exploring ID?

I don't.

Quote:
How will science prove your religious beliefs if there is a huge roadblock to alternative thought?

I don't see some huge roadblock like you do. And I don't see ID as alternative thought either.

Quote:
Where is Xianity taught in public schools? Umm, its not.

I didn't say that Xianity is specifically taught in public schools. (No religion should be.) However, our entire culture is saturated with it.

Quote:
So using your argument is teaching ID a step before teaching satanism?

What are you talking about?

Quote:
Imagination is science? skippy, sorry but that goes directly against what wise has said.

How so? Did you bother to look up the word? Here, I'll do it for you.

im - ag - i - na - tion [i-maj-uh-ney-shuhn] –noun
1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy (def. 2).
4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.
5. ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness: a job that requires imagination.
6. Psychology. the power of reproducing images stored in the memory under the suggestion of associated images (reproductive imagination) or of recombining former experiences in the creation of new images directed at a specific goal or aiding in the solution of problems (creative imagination).
7. (in Kantian epistemology) synthesis of data from the sensory manifold into objects by means of the categories.
8. Archaic. a plan, scheme, or plot.

Quote:
Nobody ever said god, as christians know god, had anything to do with it.

Most of the people in those organizations whose websites you keep posting links to would disagree with you now.

Quote:
Obviously there is a fossil record of sorts that shows that unless God is tricking us, genesis cannot be accurate.

Funny that you mention that, as that is exactly what some creationists think. Wacky, eh?

Quote:
Read my links. Most are not religious zealots.

I've read many of your links, but I've also looked into who is behind those websites. I don't know if those people are specifically zealots, but they are definitely Xians with an agenda.

Quote:
The word evolution in itself is constantly changing. Dr. Young has stated that the definition as it appears in the dictionary is a misnomer.

What's your point?

Quote:
My Drs were completely wrong about many things. They told me I would live in a nursing home the rest of my life. They told me lots of times I would never move my arms again. They then told me they dont understand how I have recovered so well.

Doctors aren't gods. They tend to tell patients what is the most common prognosis for their given condition. What's wrong with that?

Quote:
How many times have scientists been wrong?

Fewer times than the religious layman who only sees the world filtered thru their specific scripture.

Quote:
How many times have scientists been shown to have an agenda? How many times have we seen scientists so arrogant that you cannot question them?

I dunno. How many times?

Quote:
The rigidity of thought is primarily what I am questioning.

That's not the impression that you've given. I also don't see the rigidity that you say you do.

Quote:
Dr. Young and other completely shut down the fact that there are significant questions. Very valid questions.

Dr. Young has done nothing of the kind. He's taken a great deal of time out of what I would assume is his busy day to specifically address a number of the questions that you've posited. You just don't like his answers. Who's being rigid?

Quote:
These seem to be due to fear?

We should all be afraid of the religious agenda that is being pushed by the current administration.

Quote:
The fact that a 2001 poll shows that 87% of americans do not completely subscribe to evolution as origin should show that there are questions. Americans certainly are not stupid or ignorant.

ROFL! Oh, my dear man, we most certainly disagree on this point. Millions of Americans are willfully ignorant in oh-so many ways relevant to this conversation. Are they also stupid? Some of them.

Quote:
Here is an interesting article

I think this one is far more interesting as it offers a balanced view. Emphasis added.

http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html

Quote:
The moral of Piltdown is that science is a fallible, human activity which does not always take the most direct route in fulfilling its aim of understanding nature. When an anomaly such as the discovery of a human cranium with an ape's jaw occurs one must either fit it into a new theory, re-examine the evidence for error in discovery or interpretation, or show that the so-called anomaly is not really an anomaly at all but in fact fits with current theory. Which route a scientist takes may be guided more by personal hopes and cultural prejudices than by some mythical objectivity characterized by the collection and accumulation of colorless, impersonal facts to be pigeonholed dogmatically into a General Theory of Objective Truth and Knowledge.

But to characterize scientists as arrogant buffoons making claims that often turn out to be false, and to make a caricature out of science because it is not infallible and does not arrive at absolutely certain claims, belies a grave misunderstanding of the nature of science. The buffoons are those who demand absolute certainty where none can be had; the buffoons are those who do not understand the value and beauty of probabilities in science. The arrogant ones are those who think that science is mere speculation because scientists make errors, even egregious errors, or at times even commit fraud to push their prejudices. The arrogant ones are those who can't tell the difference between a testable and an untestable hypothesis and who think one speculation is as good as another. The buffoons are those who think that since both scientists and creationists or other pseudoscientists pose theories, each is doing essentially the same thing. However, all theories are not empirical, and of those that are empirical not all are equally speculative. Furthermore, those creationists who think that Piltdown demonstrates that scientists can't accurately date bones should remember that methods of dating such things have greatly improved since 1910.

C.

So what your saying, is your a buffon?

bcripeq

10-06-2006, 08:42 PM

And yet you called his scientific explanations for creationist distortions a tirade and still claiming there's truth in them, that's faith not knowledge so you can't call it science based.

It was a tirade. I think he used the words stupid and ignorant many times.

You were trying to validate something by citing a poll measuring the knowledge of the average citizen. Same thing.

Except, public opinion polls no longer show this and evolution polls have shown the same thing every decade. I say thats a little different. Especially since we all were taught evolution in school.

I didn't really have one. I as a teen accepted them as truth because I wanted them to be true, same with reincarnation. However later I became more questioning and more stringent in the standards for what I accepted as truth. For me to believe in an afterlife experience I would have to have one myself, or maybe my brother or mother. It is too personal an issue and one not subject to objectivity.

Fair enough. After my childhood church experiences I classified myself as an athiest but then during my accident I had several near death experiences which have made me a firm believer in something else. What I cannot say for sure.

bcripeq

10-06-2006, 08:49 PM

Im not buying this BC, this is not like you. Did you go mushroom picking today?

In what way?

No mushrooms, maybe its the socal smog! I am also a bit tired still. I drove from Montana down last weekend. 1500 miles in two days by myself. I have a pad here now so no more hotels. Which is very good. Wife comes tomorrow so I have been eating out alot which is bad. I think Im tacoed out.

Wise Young

10-07-2006, 12:59 AM

bcripeq,

I have no wish to engage in you-said-I-said arguments.

Scientists have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on intelligent design (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design for details). Indeed, there are some scientists who believe that there may be intelligent design in the development of life, at least on some levels. However, a vast majority of scientists draw the line at the claim of intelligent design theory to have refuted evolutionary theory.

Much the arguments that you have quoted are attempts to refute Darwin's theory proposed nearly 150 years ago. Many of the sites that you have linked are creationism advocacy sites and not intelligent design sites. There are much better advocates of intelligent design than the ones that you cite. Dembski is probably the foremost advocate of intelligent design.

Regarding ignorance, let me cite a section from the Wikipedia article above:
Arguments from ignorance

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[91] In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.[91] Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.

Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "god of the gaps" argument, which has the following form:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer).

A god of the gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. The key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.

The awful thing is that many of the arguments made for intelligent design are not based on actual gaps of scientific knowledge but ignorance of existing scientific knowledge. That is the main reason that I was so bothered by the questions that you considered to be so valid. It is unfortunate that the person who wrote did not identify himself or herself. Answers exist to many of the questions posed and the writer took advantage of readers who did not know the answers. Ignorance is not an excuse for intelligent design.

Likewise, the anonymous person that you quoted as posing excellent questions made the improbability argument which had been fancied up by Dembski as the "universal probability bound". There is an excellent discussion of this argument:
Improbable versus impossible events

William Dembski formulated the universal probability bound, a reformulation of the creationist argument from improbability,[92] which he argues is the smallest probability of anything occurring in the universe over all time at the maximum possible rate. e.g., one part in 10 to the 120 power, which represents a refactoring of his original formula that value of the universal probability bound was 1 in 10150.[93] Dembski (2005) re-factored his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities, 10120 and, the variable rank complexity of the event under consideration.[94]

In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."

Very strong arguments have been made against many of the Dembski's theories. Real effort has been made to assess the intelligent design theory and the best scientists in the world have all concluded that the theory is seriously flawed and should not be seriously considered.

Wise.

bcripeq

10-07-2006, 03:03 AM

bcripeq,

I have no wish to engage in you-said-I-said arguments.

Scientists have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on intelligent design (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design for details). Indeed, there are some scientists who believe that there may be intelligent design in the development of life, at least on some levels. However, a vast majority of scientists draw the line at the claim of intelligent design theory to have refuted evolutionary theory.

Much the arguments that you have quoted are attempts to refute Darwin's theory proposed nearly 150 years ago. Many of the sites that you have linked are creationism advocacy sites and not intelligent design sites. There are much better advocates of intelligent design than the ones that you cite. Dembski is probably the foremost advocate of intelligent design.

Regarding ignorance, let me cite a section from the Wikipedia article above:

The awful thing is that many of the arguments made for intelligent design are not based on actual gaps of scientific knowledge but ignorance of existing scientific knowledge. That is the main reason that I was so bothered by the questions that you considered to be so valid. It is unfortunate that the person who wrote did not identify himself or herself. Answers exist to many of the questions posed and the writer took advantage of readers who did not know the answers. Ignorance is not an excuse for intelligent design.

Likewise, the anonymous person that you quoted as posing excellent questions made the improbability argument which had been fancied up by Dembski as the "universal probability bound". There is an excellent discussion of this argument:

Very strong arguments have been made against many of the Dembski's theories. Real effort has been made to assess the intelligent design theory and the best scientists in the world have all concluded that the theory is seriously flawed and should not be seriously considered.

Wise.

The most outspoken evolutionary scientists certainly have an agenda as well.

I dont think people will ever agree on this because I see obvious holes that you do not and visa versa. I thinks its wrong to slam the door on something you feel is "anti-science".

Speaking of Dembski, I found this interesting

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/dembski/desrev.pdf

Below particularily:

The acceptance of radical ideas that challenge the status quo (and Darwinism is as status quo as it gets) typically runs through several stages. According to Arthur Schopenhauer, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Similarly, evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane remarked, “Theories
pass through four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.”

I like to flesh out Haldane’s four stages as follows. First the idea is regarded as preposterous—the ruling elite feel little threat and as much as possible ignore the challenge, but when pressed confidently assert that the idea is so absurd as not to merit consideration. Second it is regarded as pernicious—the ruling elite can no longer ignore the challenge and must take active measures to suppress it, now loudly proclaiming that the idea is confused, irrational,
reprehensible, and even dangerous (thus adding a moral dimension to the debate). Third, it is regarded as possible—the ruling elite reluctantly admits that the idea is not entirely absurd but claims that at best it is of marginal interest; meanwhile, the mainstream realizes that the idea has far reaching consequences and is far more important that previously recognized. And fourth, it is regarded as plausible—a new status quo has emerged, with the ruling elite taking credit for the idea and the mainstream unable to imagine how people in times past could have thought otherwise.

have you read this book?

Here are some interesting stories. I am sure you know where I am going with these...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3570098.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/290121.stm

BTW what are the qualifications to be a scientist?

Its also interesting that probably the most significant scientific breakthrough that created "one of the greatest cultural forces since the development of writing" came from a couple of brothers who were not scientists and who found current scientific knowledge to be flat wrong. You do know what that is... You also know who made that quoted statement right?

So yes, I would want my children to be taught everthing possible including controversial items and why they are controversial.

Who knows, maybe someday they will discover something that causes the entire world to change.

brocko

10-07-2006, 03:25 AM

bcripeq, I'm trying to understand you.

Were you ever told by anyone during your childhood that if people are disagreeing with you then that is proof that you are right? The more people that disagree the more right you are?

Look, I don't like you much, it's pretty obvious I'm sure, but I do think you are probably the most intelligent conservative here at CC and whilst I disagree with you a lot I can mostly see your point. I may wonder why you choose to hold it, but I can see your point. On this issue though I'm lost. You are associating with some pretty low intellectual arguments and seem to be wilfully misinterpreting what has been a universal concept of what 'science 'actually is.

Why are you so desperate to have creationism classified as science?

Wise Young

10-07-2006, 03:47 AM

The most outspoken evolutionary scientists certainly have an agenda as well.

I dont think people will ever agree on this because I see obvious holes that you do not and visa versa. I thinks its wrong to slam the door on something you feel is "anti-science".

Speaking of Dembski, I found this interesting

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/dembski/desrev.pdf

Below particularily:

have you read this book?

Here are some interesting stories. I am sure you know where I am going with these...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3570098.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/290121.stm

BTW what are the qualifications to be a scientist?

Its also interesting that probably the most significant scientific breakthrough that created "one of the greatest cultural forces since the development of writing" came from a couple of brothers who were not scientists and who found current scientific knowledge to be flat wrong. You do know what that is... You also know who made that quoted statement right?

So yes, I would want my children to be taught everthing possible including controversial items and why they are controversial.

Who knows, maybe someday they will discover something that causes the entire world to change.

Bcripeq,

I respect your views and that is why I am spending time trying to convince you that the Intelligent Design theory is seriously flawed and that the arguments against evolution that you keep citing are not based on good reasoning or evidence.

Scientists are human. They have emotions and they live by their wits like everybody else. They develop expertise on some subjects. Some scientists certainly follow the crowd while others are way out on the fringe. There are conservatives and radical scientists with agendas.

I sincerely hope that you want your children to be taught good science and not junk science, science based on ignorance, and just because they are controversial. One of the articles that you cited indicated that most scientific articles are wrong or false. While I have no basis with which to judge the numercial accuracy of the claim, I agree that many scientific articles have some components that are false or wrong. That is why the first lesson that we teach our students is to be critical.

If you are skeptical about the theory of evolution, let us discuss it. I would welcome criticism of the theory of evolution. However, if so, we also need to be critical concerning the intelligent design theory. The main arguments that have been put forth for the Intelligent Design Theory, i.e. irreducible complexity, improbability, and signs of intelligence, have all been strongly refuted. If you can come up with more, I would love to hear about it.

It seems to me that some of your views come closer to what some people call "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creationism" (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution)). Many churches accept this notion that God and creation are compatible with human understanding of biological evolution. The central precepts of theistic evolution include the notion that the Bible is an allegorical description rather than a literal one, that God created evolution as a mechanism of creation, and had a hand in guiding evolution.

Specifically, you may be interested in the view expressed by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne in Catholic Online
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504
Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’
By Father George V. Coyne, SJ
1/30/2006

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
The following is the text of the talk to be delivered by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,” at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jan. 31:

Abstract

I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry; (2) that our scientific understanding of the universe, untainted by religious considerations, provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs. Please note carefully that I distinguish, and will continue to do so in this presentation, that science and religion are totally separate human pursuits. Science is completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic implications which may be drawn from scientific results.

Wise.