Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BigGun on December 20, 2005, 12:14:14 PM
-
so the court opinion is...
Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_7;_ylt=AvxbCZ8yMoQAi1yeTGluuOt7OyAi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
-
Link didn't work.
Try this:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051220/pl_nm/life_evolution_dc_4
-
you da man..thanks
-
knotch one up for the good guys :aok . Religion has its place but that place is not in a science class.
asw
-
pretty good news.
read it on CNN and BBC few hours ago.
The question is.... how did that "chit" manage to get into the school ?
Was it private action of 1 teacher or what ?
-
intelligent design? You mean like a North American P-51D ?
-
Originally posted by lada
pretty good news.
read it on CNN and BBC few hours ago.
The question is.... how did that "chit" manage to get into the school ?
Was it private action of 1 teacher or what ?
I think it was the action of the local school board.
-
Sanity 1
Sillyness 0
-
When I was in high school (a long time ago), we had an elective called "Bible Mythology". It was a class that was taught right alongside Roman and Greek mythology.
To teach religion as a fact or a science is rediculous, but to leave it out completely or to single out Christianity is silly too. If it is relevant to teach kids about Greek and Roman gods then why should it be irrelevant to teach them about the befiefs of Judaism or Christianity or even Islam for that matter?
I'm not saying that these things should be taught as fact and I certainly don't think they should be required, but I think it is important for people to learn about their religious heritage and the religious befiefs of those of different cultures.
Religious convictions should come from a climate at home, if so desired. Knowledge of personal heritage and the heritage of others is a powerful tool that can lead to understanding and harmony.
let us all join hands and sing Kumbya
-
Love the article in the link. I can't imagine what the writer's political affiliation is or what he personally thinks of ID:
"The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Jones dealt a blow to U.S. Christian conservatives who have been pressing for the teaching of creationism in schools and who played a significant role in the re-election of President George W. Bush"
:rofl
It would be like a conservative writing on the ruling and saying "The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Jones handed a victory to secular humanists who have been pressing for the teaching of atheistic materialism in schools and who play a significant role in the Democratic Party"
-
Why not teach intelligent design is religious studies classes? There doesn't seem to be much common sense applied in this situation.
-
'llo Dowding,
Originally posted by Dowding
Why not teach intelligent design is religious studies classes? There doesn't seem to be much common sense applied in this situation.
Because Intelligent Design isn't Christian (or any other religion for that matter) doctrine or taught in the Bible, Creationism is.
As popular as they are Darwin's Black Box and Darwin on Trial are not part of the bible, neither do they teach biblical creationism. When, for instance, I teach on the creation of the universe, I do not ask the congregation to turn to 1st Behe or 2nd Dembski, I ask them to open their bibles and turn to Genesis 1 & 2.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
'llo Dowding,
Because Intelligent Design isn't Christian (or any other religion for that matter) doctrine or taught in the Bible, Creationism is.
- SEAGOON
I must claim partial ignorance on the Intelligent Design cirriculum. My understanding was that the underlying foundation of ID is creationism, call it religion or whatever. Would be interested in your knowledge of what ID is?
Also, what is your view in regards to creationism being taught in schools? religion?
-
psst... Seagoon, Intelligent Design IS Creationism. It just carries lots of vacuous scientific sounding terms thrown in to disguise it and make it sound reasonable. This Dover case showed that in spades.
The jig is up.
They just got caught (big time) pretending it isn't creationism so they could get it in the schools. The fundy proponents got nailed lying thier butts off in court, the judge was not amused. They even found early drafts of Behe's book before they replaced the use of "creationism" with the "ID" term. Someone always slips up and lets the cat out of the bag. Kansas already screwed the pooch on this too.
from a recent article:
The [Kansas Board of Education's] chairman, Steven Abrams, is a
middle-aged veterinarian who says he is a man who knows science. He insists the
guidelines [for teaching science adopted November 7] will not damage
science teaching in the state. "Eventually people will have to choose
between the Bible's explanation for life on Earth or evolution, which is
just dogma."
Read the rest at:
Words like that just scream "teach my religion", the dope couldn't keep his mouth shut. So as soon as someone sues the Kansas school board it's already lost. They'll probably throw out those religious fundamentalists and re-elect reality based school board members again, just like the last time in Kansas. Just like Dover did.
Watch for "Directed Development" next from those geniuses at the Discovery Institute....but stfu about what it really is ok?
-
Biggun-
Intelligent Design points toward the many holes in the scientific explanation of the universe and suggests that we use "God" to fill in the blanks (I believe God and Creator are interchangeable). Also the fact that so many unlikely huge coincidences have had to happen to put us here points towards a creator. What they fail to wrap their minds around is the fact that in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities (including Intelligent Design)
One thing I know from past discussions around here is that you'll never get anyone to admit they don't know how we got here.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
'llo Dowding,
Because Intelligent Design isn't Christian (or any other religion for that matter) doctrine or taught in the Bible, Creationism is.
As popular as they are Darwin's Black Box and Darwin on Trial are not part of the bible, neither do they teach biblical creationism. When, for instance, I teach on the creation of the universe, I do not ask the congregation to turn to 1st Behe or 2nd Dembski, I ask them to open their bibles and turn to Genesis 1 & 2.
- SEAGOON
Somewhat disengenous as ID was formulated by creationist christians deliberately so they could claim this.
I accept both of them as theories of the state of life as it is today, however ID is NOT a scientific theory: a scientific theory starts with the facts, whereas the only way you get to ID is through the preconcieved conviction that there must be some guiding intelligence. The two should not be taught together in science classes. ID should be taught in either religion or philosophy (despite it not being explicitly tied to any one doctrine I see it as a religous concept: the fact that the main supporters of it, on this board and in general, are religous supports me in this). That this debate is even occuring is a huge victory for the religous right.
-
If ID isn't religious then why are all the people of Dover damned to hell?
"I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city…And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there. "
http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/11/pat_robertson_d.html
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If ID isn't religious then why are all the people of Dover damned to hell?
If Pat Robertson wields this kind of power, we're all doomed.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
Biggun-
Intelligent Design points toward the many holes in the scientific explanation of the universe and suggests that we use "God" to fill in the blanks (I believe God and Creator are interchangeable). Also the fact that so many unlikely huge coincidences have had to happen to put us here points towards a creator. What they fail to wrap their minds around is the fact that in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities (including Intelligent Design)
One thing I know from past discussions around here is that you'll never get anyone to admit they don't know how we got here.
I don't know how we got here and I think that the "holes" should be left empty until we learn otherwise. Once we've decided that a particular "hole" is covered by God, the attempt to prove otherwise is heresy is it not?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't know how we got here and I think that the "holes" should be left empty until we learn otherwise. Once we've decided that a particular "hole" is covered by God, the attempt to prove otherwise is heresy is it not?
I think we're in total agrement.
P.S. It's very refreshing to see someone on the AH BBS that has the ability to admit to not knowing the origins of life.
-
good, get this decided and get over it/on with life.
-
Boy do I feel sorry for you guys that don't know.
-
The judge, John E Jones (a Christian Republican appointed to the Federal bench 3 years ago by Dubya), had this to say:
Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.
Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective. Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.
Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
One thing I know from past discussions around here is that you'll never get anyone to admit they don't know how we got here.
I don't know. It'd be fun to find out, but if not, no big woop.
-
Not sure about ID myself, just as long as they keep teaching Darwins crap as THEORY, and not fact. That stuff has too many ifs, ands, but(t)s and holes in it.
Shakier than Katherine Hepburn's head in a helicopter.
-
nobody knows how we got here and anyone who says they know how we got here is just fooling themselves.
I "believe" we are here as a result of a creator, who created the universe and everything in it.
I think I can argue in behalf of my belief with anyone based on logic and reason and be at least as reasonable as anyone with an oposing view.
But, I have a kinda high IQ, am creative and am well balanced. Others may be more inclined to follow paths based on what they have "learned" is the more reasonable explaination.
-
well put NUKIE - I concur.
and thank god the Colts lost on Sunday
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
Not sure about ID myself, just as long as they keep teaching Darwins crap as THEORY, and not fact. That stuff has too many ifs, ands, but(t)s and holes in it.
Shakier than Katherine Hepburn's head in a helicopter.
Education would clear most of that up.
-
ID is absolutely a Christian attempt to inject Genesis into Science class.
Here is the modern history of ID>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
The intelligent design movement, which began in the early 1990s, is an organized campaign promoting a Neo-Creationist religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes centering around intelligent design in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. Intelligent design is the controversial conjecture that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. The overall goal of the movement is "to defeat materialism" and the "materialist world view" as represented by evolution, and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [1]
-
I'm going to inject some selfish, self-indignation here to spice up the argument a bit.
I really do not care how we got here. I do not need to know how the entire human race came to be. It does not matter to me if we were created by some all-powerful, all-knowing being, if we evolved over time or if we were crapped out of a giant potato. Knowing such would not change my life one bit, nor would it reaffirm any of my own beliefs.
What I do care about, however, is where I came from and where I am going. I am more interested in living my life day-to-day and planning my own future than finding out where humans come from. They arrived on Earth long before I got here and they'll die out long after I do. I'm just along for the ride. If evolution's correct, we'll evolve and move on like we have the last hundred thousand years. I won't be around to see it. If ID is correct, God will eventually smite everyone for whatever reason. I won't be around to see that, either.
If we find out where we came from before I die, then great. If not, it ain't going to bother me at all.
But that's me.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It should be taught in science classes. ID is a religious theory. It should be taught in bible study. They're both theories and should be treated as such. Niether of them are right, and neither are wrong. They're theories, regardless of if they're based on fact or preconcieved notions about an angry, invisible being in the sky. Saying either of them is fact is foolish.
Of course, I don't believe the bible should be used as a scientific...anything. But, that's my own opinion.
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
Not sure about ID myself, just as long as they keep teaching Darwins crap as THEORY, and not fact. That stuff has too many ifs, ands, but(t)s and holes in it.
Shakier than Katherine Hepburn's head in a helicopter.
They way school works is that things are taught as facts, even if not 100% scientifically proven. Otherwise just about everything should be presented as a theory. That would not work however, so things are taught as facts. If we get new evidence about something, then the facts will be altered accordingly.
-
Why is cretionism such a big issue for christians in the US? The christians here have gotten over this thing long ago. According to them the word of the bible shouldn't be taken literally at this age. This makes sense to me, as the bible was written almost 2000 years ago, and altered many times in between.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
But, I have a kinda high IQ
...
-
I do enjoy watching those against "intelligent design" be every bit as arrogant and ignorant as the people they've built up in their heads as being the true "ID" believers. It's even funnier watching them pretend they're not really fanatics.
A fundamental difference between ID and religion is the role of "God" outside of the creation of life. There is no morality. There is no heaven and hell. There is no Christianity.
The fact that it can support Christianity is enough for some people to hate it. That's fine, I guess. Every sect needs zealots.
-
Well I guess you could insert whatever as the "higher force" in ID. But in this case it's quite obvious what the people pushing this thing mean by "higher force". An unbiased teacher can present it without religion, but there's a high potential for abuse.
Edit: I re-read the theory and came into the conclusion that there could be only two possible "Intelligent Designers" either "God" or "aliens".
Does it sound stupid? That's what the whole theory is.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
nobody knows how we got here and anyone who says they know how we got here is just fooling themselves.
I "believe" we are here as a result of a creator, who created the universe and everything in it.
I think I can argue in behalf of my belief with anyone based on logic and reason and be at least as reasonable as anyone with an oposing view.
But, I have a kinda high IQ, am creative and am well balanced. Others may be more inclined to follow paths based on what they have "learned" is the more reasonable explaination.
Never let "learning" get in the way of a good imagination. That's the road to "education". Once you go down that path you are doomed to "knowledge".
:O
-
Intelligent design is a philosophical concept, not a scientific theory.
To the high level IQ posters of this board, I'll ask them by which scientific theoric they are explaining how the 'intelligent designer' appeared or was designed in the first place.
-
Originally posted by mora
I re-read the theory and came into the conclusion that there could be only two possible "Intelligent Designers" either "God" or "aliens".
Why can't a god be an alien?
-
because (he) wouldn't be a god.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Intelligent design is a philosophical concept, not a scientific theory.
To the high level IQ posters of this board, I'll ask them by which scientific theoric they are explaining how the 'intelligent designer' appeared or was designed in the first place.
On the same note show me a theory that proves Darwinism that hasn't been changed or proven false over the years.
Truth is no one really knows how we got here and everything is a best guess given the clues we have.
Some just refuse to see all the clues because they don't like the outcome if the clues were proven to be true.
BTW this goes for both sides.
Also what is wrong with saying in a science class that is discussing evolution that some people don't believe in Darwin's theory (which like it says is just a theory) because they have their own theory?
-
Originally posted by mora
Well I guess you could insert whatever as the "higher force" in ID. But in this case it's quite obvious what the people pushing this thing mean by "higher force". An unbiased teacher can present it without religion, but there's a high potential for abuse.
Edit: I re-read the theory and came into the conclusion that there could be only two possible "Intelligent Designers" either "God" or "aliens".
Does it sound stupid? That's what the whole theory is.
Christains will support it because it does not exclude them. That does not make it religious. Religion would focus around the worship and spirituality aspect of things. It is very easy to distinguish between the two. It's much easier to distinguish than attempting to differentiate between teaching religion and teaching "about" religion.
-
Originally posted by mora
Why is cretionism such a big issue for christians in the US? The christians here have gotten over this thing long ago. According to them the word of the bible shouldn't be taken literally at this age. This makes sense to me, as the bible was written almost 2000 years ago, and altered many times in between.
I finally figured it out recently so stopped arguing with Creationists.
Certain Christians, particularly in America. Seagoon being one, believe in the bible literally. As in, every word is the word of God, thus every word is true. Even the book of Genesis.
If evolution is correct or even partially correct. It renders their whole religion into a pile of dust. They attack evolution not because of the flaws inherent in the theory but because it endangers their faith. If any part of evolution is correct, no matter how small they are in trouble. So their arguments lack credibility really should be ignored.
Many Christians have no problem with evolution because, as you say the bible shouldn't be taken literally and isn't by and large.
ID on the other hand isn't really a creationist theory. A true creationist cannot believe in it because it too contradicts the bible. It is an attempt by certain other christians to get religion into government run schools, which of course is forbidden under the US constitution. If ID was successfully brought into the US education system. It leaves the door open for the creationists to have their little fable entered too. ID is a form of Trojan horse for creationists. Once inside the gate, it's belly will open and out will hop lots of creationists with their faith as the sword and their bible as their shield.
A peculiarly American situation
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
January 23, 1808: Thomas Jefferson wrote to Rev. Samuel Miller saying:
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. . .
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
—George Washington, Farewell Address to the United States, 1796
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams, October 11, 1798
In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
—Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural address, March 4, 1805
I think there's sufficient evidence that the First wasn't intended to remove all references to God from our government. Seems plain that it was intended to keep our government from controlling and manipulating religious practices.
-
Hi All,
There are currently several threads going that I wish I could fully participate in, but cannot due to having family coming into town, looking for a house we can afford, and preparing for Sunday. So I'll try to put what time I can into responding to these threads, but please accept my apologies if I don't have time to respond to you. It's not for a lack of desire to do so.
Anyway...
Before I respond to some of the other posts in this thread, it might be helpful to post a definition of ID that actually outlines its origins and what it seeks to do, rather that trying to work with the reactionary and frankly histrionic "definitions" given by advoctates of Neo-Darwinism. This is after all only fair, for instance you wouldn't be satisfied with me if you asked for a definition of Scientology and I responded, "It's a heresy, a stupid made-up science fiction Religion designed to make money" and I hope I'd never do so. Rather, I hope I'd try to answer the question by producing a definition that Scientologists could accept and recognize before I began critiquing it. The following article written by the staff at the Discovery Institute appeared in the National Post of Canada on December 1, 2005, (I'm going to have to split it in two, because it's slightly too long for the BB)
What is Intelligent Design?
By: Stephen C. Meyer
National Post of Canada
[Part 1]
In December 2004 New Mexico Public Television scheduled, advertised and then, under pressure, canceled a documentary explaining the scientific case for a theory of biological origins known as intelligent design.
In the same month, a renowned British philosopher, Antony Flew, made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism, citing among other factors, evidence of intelligent design in the DNA molecule.
Also in December, the ACLU filed suit to prevent a Dover, Penn. school district from informing its students about the theory of intelligent design.
In February, The Wall Street Journal reported that an evolutionary biologist with two doctorates had been punished for publishing a peer-reviewed scientific article making a case for this same theory.
More recently, the Pope, the President of the United States and the Dalai Lama have each weighed in on the subject.
But what is this theory of intelligent design? And why does it arouse such passion and inspire such apparently determined efforts to suppress it?
According to a spate of recent media reports, intelligent design is a new "faith-based" alternative to evolution-an alternative based entirely on religion rather than scientific evidence.
As the story goes, intelligent design is just creationism repackaged by religious fundamentalists in order to circumvent a 1987 Supreme Court prohibition against teaching creationism in the public schools.
Over the last year, many major U.S. newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets have run stories repeating this same trope.
But is it accurate?
As one of the architects of the theory of intelligent design, and the director a research center that supports the work of scientists developing the theory, I know that it isn't.
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.
In the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, Thaxton and his colleagues first developed the idea that the information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified designing intelligence. Mystery was published in 1984 by a prestigious New York publisher-three years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.
Even as early the 1960s and 70s, physicists had begun to reconsider the design hypothesis. Many were impressed by the discovery that the laws and constants of physics are improbably "finely-tuned" to make life possible. As British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that "a superintellect had monkeyed with physics" for our benefit.
Nevertheless, only the most committed conspiracy theorist could see in these intellectual developments a concealed legal strategy or an attempt to smuggle religion into the classroom.
But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?
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.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.
But why do we say this? What tell-tale signs of intelligence do we see in living organisms?
Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.
Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.
Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.
This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.
Is there a better alternative? Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems, namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter irreducibly complex systems--such as an integrated circuit or an internal combustion engine--and we know how they arose, invariably a designing engineer played a role.
Thus, Behe concludes--based on our knowledge of what it takes to build functionally-integrated complex systems--that intelligent design best explains the origin of molecular machines within cells. Molecular machines appear designed because they were designed.
The strength of Behe's design argument can be judged in part by the response of his critics. After nearly ten years, they have mustered only a vague just-so story about the flagellar motor arising from a simpler subsystem of the motor -a tiny syringe-that is sometimes found in bacteria without the other parts of the flagellar motor present. Unfortunately for advocates of this theory, recent genetic studies show that the syringe arose after the flagellar motor-that if anything the syringe evolved from the motor, not the motor from the syringe.
-
What is Intelligent Design?
[Part 2]
"But consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions--the information--for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.
Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis" according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of "sequence specificity" that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." As Bill Gates has noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
After the early 1960s, further discoveries made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system-an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.
Where did the digital information in the cell come from? And how did the cell's complex information processing system arise? Today these questions lie at the heart of origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly "something else" is at work.
Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, they also argue for design because we know from experience that systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes. The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer-from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "information habitually arises from conscious activity."
This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI's search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals from distant star systems. But closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting--by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts--an intelligent source for the information in DNA.
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information-whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal-always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence.
Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or religion but instead upon recent scientific discoveries and upon standard methods of scientific reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about what happened in the past.
Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.
Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads." "
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Never let "learning" get in the way of a good imagination. That's the road to "education". Once you go down that path you are doomed to "knowledge".
:O
You need to learn to separate 'education' from 'training'. An education teaches you to think. Training teaches you facts.
Most schools train, but don't educate. Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:
Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject. Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side? If you can, you're being trained. If you can't you're being educated.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Most schools train, but don't educate. Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:
Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject. Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side? If you can, you're being trained. If you can't you're being educated.
Good post and very true.
It was suggested that my wife and I have my daughter try out for an advanced class. We turned it down because if you look closely at the Curriculum, it's completely geared toward passing the state placement test at the end of the year and not on educating.
We now take you back to your regularly scheduled program of ID VS Evolution.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
intelligent design? You mean like a North American P-51D ?
Ha. The F4U-4 is the pinacle of intelligent design (water cooling, pppht)
[Brace yourselves for a truly religious argument]
-
Originally posted by rshubert
You need to learn to separate 'education' from 'training'. An education teaches you to think. Training teaches you facts.
Most schools train, but don't educate. Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:
Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject. Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side? If you can, you're being trained. If you can't you're being educated.
Very well written Rshubert.
Les
-
One other thing I forgot to mention. ID is an attempt to 'prove' God exists. If you take the view that something or someone helped the process of life along. Then QED you have God. Not only that you have the existence of God proved by science. It's using science against itself.
So to summarise:
Evolution has evidence on it's side but it neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.
Creationism is faith in the infallibility of the bible. No more, no less. Evolution threatens that faith even though evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a God.
Intelligent design is an attempt by some Christians to 'prove' the existence of God by means of a mixture of junk science and real science.
It has no credibility.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
You need to learn to separate 'education' from 'training'. An education teaches you to think. Training teaches you facts.
Most schools train, but don't educate. Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:
Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject. Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side? If you can, you're being trained. If you can't you're being educated.
Silly stuff. Training and education are different. Got it... making a note... filing it in the round file.
When I don't have any idea which way my SCIENCE teacher leans I will get a new teacher. Because he/she better lean towards SCIENCE. Holy crap! You even had 2 attaboys outta that one.
Training is required in science so you can discern the difference between junk and evidence. So you can read a scientific paper and understand the language. So you can have an intelligent discussion about a topic and actually understand the other sides point or lack thereof. Hey wait... that sounds like an education... it is!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Silly stuff. Training and education are different. Got it... making a note... filing it in the round file.
When I don't have any idea which way my SCIENCE teacher leans I will get a new teacher. Because he/she better lean towards SCIENCE. Holy crap! You even had 2 attaboys outta that one.
Training is required in science so you can discern the difference between junk and evidence. So you can read a scientific paper and understand the language. So you can have an intelligent discussion about a topic and actually understand the other sides point or lack thereof. Hey wait... that sounds like an education... it is!
I see you've been well trained. ;)
-
I think Seagoon has described ID for what it is. It sounds more like deductive reasoning, which is one of the two different kinds of scientific methodology. Inductive reasoning being the other method and depending on impirical facts and data, deductive very much does work off a hunch or insight based on observation.
I'm not so sure the idea of ID is to prove there is a God. This is something science cannot do. It sounds to me like another point of view which should be considered. Science does not automatically dismiss an idea that might not fit the norm. For all we know scientifically, this may be that there is design, and if so, it would be contrary to science not to consider it with an open mind.
Now I will give an example of a much less theoretical and hard core science. When scientists first landed a man on the Moon, there was some apprehension about what would happen. Even with all the mathematical problems worked out, with all the real lunar landers sent ahead of time to test things out...physicists still had no idea and some apprehension about what would happen to a man when he set foot on the Moon. Some physicists even voiced private concern that the laws of physics may not be the same there. They were legitimately concerned because they were dealing with human life about to walk on the Moon. So any thought, no matter how preposterous was listened to and taken seriously.
Now to me this is science, the ability to seriously consider any and all ideas, in my example that the laws of physics may be different on the Moon. This was proven to be a non-issue after the risk was taken. Wouldn't it be a surprise if we went to Mars and physics were different there? Do we really know for sure? Easy to say yes. Do you think there would be concern about our known science? It worked on the Moon. Would there be a need to worry about it all over again?
What I guess I'm trying to say is, science should be open minded to new ideas. It just doesn't seem scientific to outright dismiss something unless there is absolute proof it is not so. The case of darwinian evolution has yet to provide absolute proof, so to refuse to listen to another point of view....is just not scientific.
Les
-
It is logical to shut out any answer that is untestable and unalterable. Once you decide "god did it", debate ends.
-
Yeah, I just don't get the creationist thought process. Their scam to push religion into school gets thoroughly exposed in federal court and yet they march blindly on as if didn't happen and it's not clearly visible to all.
Did you guys miss the ruling by a conservative, church-going republican judge appointed by GW Bush???
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf
excerpt:
The overwhelming evidence at trial established
that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling
of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
US District Judge John E. Jones III
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Did you guys miss the trial transcripts where the Intelligent Design "Scientific Expert" darling Michael Behe himself admits under oath that ID is no more science than astrology???
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=11
Did you guys miss in these same transcripts where the recomended ID book "of Pandas and People" had the term creationism (0ver 150 occurences) blindly changed to "intelligent design" to be more palatable and get by the 1987 SCOTUS ruling????
Even the definition of creationism within the book was left unchanged other than now it defines intelligent design. sheesh.
Did none of this happen?? Am I in a Twilight Zone episode???
btw- those trial transcripts are really a fascinating read if you take the time.
-
What about NID "Non Intelligent Design".
The theory that the universe was made by a supreme being, and or design, but he or it was a total f***up?
:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It is logical to shut out any answer that is untestable and unalterable. Once you decide "god did it", debate ends.
Probably a good thing too. Merry Christmas MT.
Les
-
Hello Booz,
Originally posted by Booz
Did you guys miss the trial transcripts where the Intelligent Design "Scientific Expert" darling Michael Behe himself admits under oath that ID is no more science than astrology???
Yes, I did miss it, because as far as I can tell, despite Mr. Rothschild's best attempts at getting him to say that, using lawyerese he never did. Rothschild was the one who brought up astrology and attempted dilligently to get Behe to say that ID was the same kind of outmoded superstition. Throughout, you can tell both the Judge and Mr. Rothschild had "Inherit the Wind" going through their minds. See, now in this cross I am Spencer Tracey confusing the stupid bible thumper in humorous fashion:
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
16 scientific theory, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,
39
1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
2 many other -- many other theories as well.
3 Q The ether theory of light has been discarded,
4 correct?
5 A That is correct.
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.
20 Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been
21 accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor
22 Behe?
23 A Well, I am not a historian of science. And
24 certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the
25 educated community has not accepted astrology as a science
1 for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle
2 Ages and before that, when people were struggling to
3 describe the natural world, some people might indeed think
4 that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what
5 we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the
6 earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the
7 earth.
Behe's point: ID is a theory, Evolution is a theory, some theories are wrong.
Rothchild's point: Teaching ID is as stupid as teaching Astrology.
What really is the point of continuing the inquisition in any event?
The "gubment" skools are going to teach Neo-Darwinism long after every hope of finding evidence to support it has disappeared. Long after palentologists have given up on the hunt for non-existent transitional lifeforms, long after biochemists have accepted that chemical reactions do not create information, and long after astronomers have accepted that we are in fact in an enormously "privilleged position" in the galaxy, high school biology teachers will be trotting out the outdated and outmoded theories of Darwin and performing the yearly ritual of dogmatically teaching were we came from in accordance with their roles as the new priesthood of the reigning paradigm - Darwinian Fundamentalism. Meanwhile those schools will continue to decline, to become more and more toxic to kids, until anyone with a shred of sanity and enough money, will have moved their children to private schools or started homeschooling. That is if the NEA hasn't managed to legally end both of those practices by then.
Have fun in your brave new world. Having grown up there, I can honestly say I just wish it were somehow possible to keep my kids from having to interact with it.
-
You should start a commune, Seagoon. Just make sure to pay your taxes and don't have a small arsenal. Then your kids could be sheltered from the evil non-Christians.
-
Seagoon, all behe manages to do there is to paint himself into a corner with an age old (and still as wrong as ever) lofical fallacy I call it the Layman's Switch-n-bait, but it's real name is a fancy Latin one I cannot remember.
In essence, a word has one meaning, which is what is being discussed and someone use another meaning for it and argues based on that.
In this case Behe demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge (or even worse, he intentionally misrepresents) of scientific theories.
A theory on the JFK assassination or why Santa's reindeer has a red nose is pretty different from a scientific theory.
Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Science:_fact_and_theory)
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In this popular sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think. In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation. In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories – they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship – for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation. In this same sense evolution is a fact and modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution, variation and speciation. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.
Fact: life exists on earth
Speculation: the creation of life is infinitely complex
Conclusion: therefore god did it.
is not as good as:
fact: life exists on earth
Totally dumbfounded: how did *that* happen?
At least the latter is not comitting another logical fallacy - "we don't know, therefore it must be [insert choice]
So, it's easy to seem to win a argument if your supporters support you with religious fervor and are not afraid of misrepresenting issues to fit their own agenda. It's a disingenious and dishonest thing but it happens all the time.
This ain't a personal attack on you or your faith Seagoon. What sometimes baffle me is that people of obvious above average intellect such a Behe simply decide not to let the world affect their worldview and have it it the other way around instead. People who can do understand advanced philosophical concepts fail on a most basic level. It's actually a bit scary. I wouldn't want these people to lead me or educate me.
-
From Seagoon.
The "gubment" skools are going to teach Neo-Darwinism long after every hope of finding evidence to support it has disappeared. Long after palentologists have given up on the hunt for non-existent transitional lifeforms, long after biochemists have accepted that chemical reactions do not create information, and long after astronomers have accepted that we are in fact in an enormously "privilleged position" in the galaxy, high school biology teachers will be trotting out the outdated and outmoded theories of Darwin and performing the yearly ritual of dogmatically teaching were we came from in accordance with their roles as the new priesthood of the reigning paradigm - Darwinian Fundamentalism. Meanwhile those schools will continue to decline, to become more and more toxic to kids, until anyone with a shred of sanity and enough money, will have moved their children to private schools or started homeschooling. That is if the NEA hasn't managed to legally end both of those practices by then.
Those comments are all very fine and a legitimate view for a skeptic against evolution. Hey, it's a free country. You are entitled to your view. I could even agree with you (in theory) and say there could even be an alternative to evolution. A better, more elegant, more proveable process which demonstrates how we came to be in this world. I'm not a Darwinian fundamentalist. (If such a person exists).
But the problem is this: Your belief, no blind faith that the world was created in six days by a supernatural being you call God. Your reigning paradigm, consists of a single chapter in a 2000 year old book.
You see the problem? It's not your skeptisicm about evolution but your so called alternative. Which in fact is a view only held by a minority of Christians like you.
Like I said before, creationists have zero credibility when it comes to criticising evolution.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Your reigning paradigm, consists of a single chapter in a 2000 year old book.
That chapter is from a book that is 3,000 or maybe 4,000 years old. Only the last part is 2,000 years old.
However,
Evolution is a process which is well documented in the fossil record.
In our own lineage, Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) is presently considered the oldest known bipedal "ape". She is different species to our own homosapien, and a fossil ancestor to us that follows thru many succesive steps to present humanity.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That chapter is from a book that is 3,000 or maybe 4,000 years old. Only the last part is 2,000 years old.
However,
Evolution is a process which is well documented in the fossil record.
In our own lineage, Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) is presently considered the oldest known bipedal "ape". She is different species to our own homosapien, and a fossil ancestor to us that follows thru many succesive steps to present humanity.
Burn in Hell, you heretic!!!!
-
Hello SOB,
Originally posted by SOB
You should start a commune, Seagoon. Just make sure to pay your taxes and don't have a small arsenal. Then your kids could be sheltered from the evil non-Christians.
Forgive me for being somewhat bitter in my reply above. It was inappropriate.
Please don't misunderstand me, I understand that I am commanded to remain in the world, rather than withdrawing to form some sort of commune, or adopting an Amish approach to life (as much as I am sure there are many who would prefer it if I did ;) ). In fact, to do so would be to go against Christ's commandment to go into the all the nations, and to teach men to be his disciples (Matt. 28:19-20) and to be the light and the salt of the earth. But sometimes I chafe under the other assurances Christians have received from Christ, that in the world we will have tribulation and be hated. (John 16:33, John 15:18-20). Intellectually, I can understand it, but the practical outworking of living through it for many years begins to grind. But hey, then again, I have no cause to be ungrateful, especially considering I live in the most "Christian friendly" nation on earth.
It is not so much wanting my kids to be sheltered from the "evil non-Christians" nor would I for a moment allege that I and my children don't have our own sin problems. What I would like to shelter them from if it were possible, is the coarsening of society that has come as a direct result of our being cast adrift into the moribund sea of secular humanism. The long term effects on our society, of refusing to acknowledge God, biblical ethics, the concept of absolute truth, or the concept that there will indeed be a final judgment, is making western society a progressively more horrible place in which to raise children.
Just going to mall and seeing the general decline in civility and behavior since I was a young pagan thug in High School 20 years ago is depressing. Walking in the other day with my kids, we had the fun of witnessing a catfight at the entrance between two teenaged girls after one screeched a warning to the other about the dangers of trying to "xxxx my boyfriend". I'm guessing they were 15 or 16. Behavior like that used to be reserved for the worst sections of the dockyards 100 years ago, but now its becoming all-pervasive.
This past weekend we went to Chuckie Cheese (man I hate that place) and my daughter got "farmed" of her tokens by some older boys while I was taking my son to the bathroom. They discovered that since we have taught her to share, if they asked for some tokens she would give them. By the time I got there they were taking handfuls out of her cup. The mothers of these boys were actually sitting at a table not too far away as their boys stole tokens from a 5 year old. My three year old Son on the other hand, learned a wonderful lesson. The boy next to him played a game and won some tickets but didn't take them with him when he left the machine. My son spotted the tickets and immediately snatched them up before I could say anything and ran after the boy finally finding him across the room with his parents getting ready to go. My son handed him the strip and said "You forgot your tickets." The boy snatched them up and turned around. That kind of impolite behavior didn't amaze me, what did is that neither of his parents did anything either. The idea of saying "thank you" was apparently lost on the entire family of old. But then again, if might makes right, and the strong prosper and the weak die, and we are all just animals constructed by time and chance and life is the oddity and death the constant, then what does saying "thank you" to a three year old matter? In that case neither saying "thank you" nor pushing him down and taking his is wrong or right. More fool my son for not pocketing the tickets, eh?
By contrast, the funny thing is, although our congregation is made up of converts to Christianity like myself, you can already see a difference in the behavior of our kids. Is their behavior perfect? Not at all. You can still see selfishness and so on. But the difference in their language, general level of respect especially towards elders, willingness to obey, patience, modesty of clothing, and attitude towards learning (seeing it as a gracious benefit rather than a mark of being a dweeb) is profound. Why? Because they are both being affected bit by bit by grace, and also because they are being taught to deny self, to take up the cross, to esteem others more highly themselves, and to obey God's commands out of love. You may end up hating and despising everything they believe, and think they are a bunch of brainwashed throw-backs to an earlier era, but in a few years when you are elderly, and they are grown up, these are the kids you'll hope are walking towards you in the dark alleyway, not the "I'll do whatever seems right in my own eyes" type.
The funny thing is even immigrants from other countries can see what our "Death of God" Nihilism is doing to our cultures. Recently for instance, David Lacy, the Moderator of the tremendously liberal "we don't believe the bible either" Church of Scotland was one of many British religious leaders approached by Muslim and Hindu leaders who begged them to abandon multiculturalism and be more "strident" in teaching Christian beliefs. They see that British culture is falling apart at a rate that far exceeds their ability to convert Britons to their faiths, and which has a negative effect on their children and families. The response of Lacy was predictably "NO", they are committed to following the humanist bandwagon off the cultural cliff. Atheistic Humanism and absolute autonomy uber alles. What does it matter if it is a death sentence for the institution of the family?
Ah well, thats the culture. I'll live in it, I'll work with it, but I'll demure from sending my children to its schools as long as I can.
-
Hi StSanta,
Originally posted by StSanta
This ain't a personal attack on you or your faith Seagoon. What sometimes baffle me is that people of obvious above average intellect such a Behe simply decide not to let the world affect their worldview and have it it the other way around instead. People who can do understand advanced philosophical concepts fail on a most basic level. It's actually a bit scary. I wouldn't want these people to lead me or educate me.
I am someone who was once a strident believer in Darwinian evolution, many of the scientists currently on the fringes of the ID movement were as well. For most of them, it is not ignoring the facts that caused them to change their minds. Rather it is the fact that the old Darwinian paradigm can no longer explain the available data, and therefore they are searching for a paradigm that can. I realized that before I ever became a Christian, so I began reading about novel ideas like "punctuated equilibrium" which attempted to "remold" the old evolutionary theory in order to wrap it around the new data. Even as I was becoming a Christian, I realized that endeavor was failing and that the advocates of the old paradigm were becoming more and more aggressive in the defense of what Stephen J. Gould (who was himself an evolutionist and an atheist right up to his death) had begun to call Darwinian Fundamentalism.
You see, as it has become more and more evident that mutation is not capable of producing the diversity of life we see in the time posited, that the transitional life forms Darwin hoped we'd find in the fossil record don't exist, that the information in DNA cannot be created by chemical reactions, that certain cellular structures and processes cannot have been gradually built, that the fossil record indicates a progression from more to fewer life forms not the other way round, that the Cambrian explosion of advanced lifeforms had no fossilized precursors and the discovery of soft tissue spore fossils in the preceding strata indicates that these precursors would have been preserved, elements in the Darwinian community have been falling increasingly into a faith mindset to plug the gaps. Ok, so we don't know now and it doesn't seem possible but we believe in the system, we have to, so we'll continue on with it until we someday the unified field theory Huxley hoped for materializes. In addition to that, they are increasingly screaming "heretic" at ANYONE in the scientific community who points out that the emperor isn't wearing clothes. To disagree with the Darwinian establishment is usually an E-ticket to being ejected from the scientific community, your grants, and being forever labeled a "Fundamentalist" if they can find your church affiliation or a "crypto-Fundamentalist" if they can't.
I hope he won't mind me quoting him, but another user, who is clearly not religious posted an excellent message to that effect in another thread:
"Hi all. Good debate. One that I do not dare tread in my workplace.
1st, to Chairboy and Sandman...I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination. I don't go to church, I don't pray to God or god however I should be writing that. I laughed at my "religious nut" friends and throughout my college time in the deep South. One of my chemistry teachers even gave a lecture that touched on Itelligent Design. I buried my head in my arms and bit my tongue to stop myself from laughing.
However, my current work has me questioning my previous smug convictions. I'd take the time to explain why, but I can't post a trillion pictures/diagrams in here.
Suffice to say, I am not convinced that Darwinian evolution can explain the creation of DNA, the protein machinery to translate it into RNA and then into proteins.
In brief:
The mantra is: DNA-->RNA-->protein. Yet the process itself requires proteins to carry out the translation. It's like having machines build machines, but how did the first machines get built?
I don't care if you say God did it, aliens, space dust, Allah or whoever...just count me as one scientist who doesn't believe Darwin's theory of evolution in whole."
StSanta, the Neo-Darwinian community wants to frame the argument as being heroic scientists standing up to mindless believers, but what is actually going on at the moment is that the Neo-Darwinians have become the lock-step believers and will do anything to prevent the theory from being questioned. At this point, scientists could discover "MADE BY ALIENS FROM BETELGEUSE, GREETINGS EARTHLINGS" in tiny letters at the heart of the DNA Helix and they'd get to work trying to figure out how evolution created such an odd combination - no other course would be available to them unless they wanted to be permanently out of work and doing interviews on the Art Bell show for the rest of their lives.
So when we find irreducible complexity and information at the heart of cells, which are hallmarks of creation anywhere else in science, we are forbidden to even suggest "Errr, maybe these cells were manufactured?" because it has become a heresy. As long as no deviation from the paradigm is allowed, and anyone who questions becomes the target of vicious ad-homs and ostracism and EEO violations, you are going to end up stifling the very scientific development you claim to be safe-guarding.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The long term effects on our society, of refusing to acknowledge God, biblical ethics, the concept of absolute truth, or the concept that there will indeed be a final judgment, is making western society a progressively more horrible place in which to raise children.
Whose truth? Acknowledge whose God? What final judgement? Whose Bible? Who interprets it?
Sounds like a theocracy to me Seagoon.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
StSanta, the Neo-Darwinian community wants to frame the argument as being heroic scientists standing up to mindless believers, but what is actually going on at the moment is that the Neo-Darwinians have become the lock-step believers and will do anything to prevent the theory from being questioned. At this point, scientists could discover "MADE BY ALIENS FROM BETELGEUSE, GREETINGS EARTHLINGS" in tiny letters at the heart of the DNA Helix and they'd get to work trying to figure out how evolution created such an odd combination - no other course would be available to them unless they wanted to be permanently out of work and doing interviews on the Art Bell show for the rest of their lives.
"This looks like" has an entirely different meaning than "this is".
It seems to me as soon as someone stood up and said, "wait a minute, where's your proof?" the accusations of the grand neo-darwinian conspiracy started getting thrown about.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. That there may be information coded into DNA that we haven't yet deciphered, or for that matter been widely accepted as true is hardly proof of anything, let alone the extraordinary proof that the extraordinary claim "god did it" requires. Until it has been thoroughly researched and it has been proven that god's hand was indeed involved you haven't got a rational leg to stand on. And just because you are not aware of any current research into the question doesn't mean that it isn't happening or it isn't going to happen. Where there is an interesting question there is generally someone asking it and looking for the answers. If you can have faith in some magical unseen being, you should be able to muster up a little faith in the natural, and known, curiosity of the human species.
Art Bell indeed.
asw
-
Originally posted by detch01
woops- wrong button - apologies....:O
asw
-
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/?uc_full_date=20051218
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/?uc_full_date=20051218
We've already been over this. Creationists don't have any problem with existing DNA changing and evolving. It's new DNA appearing out of thin air without Devine intervention that presents problems.
Worlds apart.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
We've already been over this. Creationists don't have any problem with existing DNA changing and evolving. It's new DNA appearing out of thin air without Devine intervention that presents problems.
Worlds apart.
OK, lets assume for a minute that God created DNA.
You have NO problem believing that you and an oak tree have a distant common ancestor? Right?
I mean it (DNA) can change and evolve right?
(no "got wood" jokes... too easy.)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK, lets assume for a minute that God created DNA.
You have NO problem believing that you and an oak tree have a distant common ancestor? Right?
I mean it (DNA) can change and evolve right?
(no "got wood" jokes... too easy.)
Not sure what your getting at.
A tree can change it's rate of growth, root depth, number of leave, ect... But a tree is still a tree and will never be a human. That would require additional DNA, not merely redirecting of existing DNA. There was never a common ancestor.
The problem with the comic you posted is that it perpetuates the myth that creationists are stupid and don't believe that any organism, bacteria in this case, can change and evolve. There might be a couple quacks out there that don't believe in anything, even that we've landed on the moon, but by and large that just isn't true.
Inter species changes are a well documented fact that can be replicated in the lab. One species evolving into another has never been observed in any condition and never will no matter how many millions of years you throw at it.
That a popular comic writer is perpetuating this myth is sad but not really surprising. Creationists by and large have learned to grow a thick skin when it comes to unfounded accusations.
-
Oh for crying out loud... If a single instance of speciation is presented your argument becomes null and void. You want to google it?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh for crying out loud... If a single instance of speciation is presented your argument becomes null and void. You want to google it?
I don't have any problem with speciation. It too is a well documented fact.
I can only assume that you hold the belief that given enough time, speciation will give rise to a new and different life form.
I disagree. For that to occur would require new DNA. To my knowledge, science has not proven that new DNA can be added to existing to create a new species.
If that day ever comes, I'll be all ears.
-
Sorry CH but you are wrong. New DNA would not be required. In fact the code for a protien in an oak tree is the same as the code for a protien in a human. The series of nucleotides may change but the basic DNA in an oak tree and in a human is the same.
-
It was not my intention to argue the finer points of creation verses evolution because it's already been done to death on this board over the years.
I simply wished to point out that the Doonesbury comic you posted portrays creationists in an inaccurate way. Whether it was done in ignorance or malice by the author is really beside the point now because it's already 'out there.' It just goes to show that there are some people who are ignorant of the position of the opposition. And I'm sure this goes for both sides.
Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on this topic. You have a strong opinion on your position and I respect that. I don't believe in forcing my opinion down someone else's throat and if I came across like it, let me apologize. It just so happens that I agree with a good many of your political opinions :)
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on this topic.
I could not disagree more fervently with that statement.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
What I guess I'm trying to say is, science should be open minded to new ideas. It just doesn't seem scientific to outright dismiss something unless there is absolute proof it is not so. The case of darwinian evolution has yet to provide absolute proof, so to refuse to listen to another point of view....is just not scientific.
Les
Despite what Seagoon and the rest of the bible thumpers claim, there is no scientific evidence that supports ID. There is however ample scientific evidence to support Evolution.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Just going to mall and seeing the general decline in civility and behavior since I was a young pagan thug in High School 20 years ago is depressing. Walking in the other day with my kids, we had the fun of witnessing a catfight at the entrance between two teenaged girls after one screeched a warning to the other about the dangers of trying to "xxxx my boyfriend". I'm guessing they were 15 or 16. Behavior like that used to be reserved for the worst sections of the dockyards 100 years ago, but now its becoming all-pervasive.
This past weekend we went to Chuckie Cheese (man I hate that place) and my daughter got "farmed" of her tokens by some older boys while I was taking my son to the bathroom. They discovered that since we have taught her to share, if they asked for some tokens she would give them. By the time I got there they were taking handfuls out of her cup. The mothers of these boys were actually sitting at a table not too far away as their boys stole tokens from a 5 year old. My three year old Son on the other hand, learned a wonderful lesson. The boy next to him played a game and won some tickets but didn't take them with him when he left the machine. My son spotted the tickets and immediately snatched them up before I could say anything and ran after the boy finally finding him across the room with his parents getting ready to go. My son handed him the strip and said "You forgot your tickets." The boy snatched them up and turned around. That kind of impolite behavior didn't amaze me, what did is that neither of his parents did anything either. The idea of saying "thank you" was apparently lost on the entire family of old. But then again, if might makes right, and the strong prosper and the weak die, and we are all just animals constructed by time and chance and life is the oddity and death the constant, then what does saying "thank you" to a three year old matter? In that case neither saying "thank you" nor pushing him down and taking his is wrong or right. More fool my son for not pocketing the tickets, eh?
By contrast, the funny thing is, although our congregation is made up of converts to Christianity like myself, you can already see a difference in the behavior of our kids. Is their behavior perfect? Not at all. You can still see selfishness and so on. But the difference in their language, general level of respect especially towards elders, willingness to obey, patience, modesty of clothing, and attitude towards learning (seeing it as a gracious benefit rather than a mark of being a dweeb) is profound. Why? Because they are both being affected bit by bit by grace, and also because they are being taught to deny self, to take up the cross, to esteem others more highly themselves, and to obey God's commands out of love. You may end up hating and despising everything they believe, and think they are a bunch of brainwashed throw-backs to an earlier era, but in a few years when you are elderly, and they are grown up, these are the kids you'll hope are walking towards you in the dark alleyway, not the "I'll do whatever seems right in my own eyes" type.
The funny thing is even immigrants from other countries can see what our "Death of God" Nihilism is doing to our cultures. Recently for instance, David Lacy, the Moderator of the tremendously liberal "we don't believe the bible either" Church of Scotland was one of many British religious leaders approached by Muslim and Hindu leaders who begged them to abandon multiculturalism and be more "strident" in teaching Christian beliefs. They see that British culture is falling apart at a rate that far exceeds their ability to convert Britons to their faiths, and which has a negative effect on their children and families. The response of Lacy was predictably "NO", they are committed to following the humanist bandwagon off the cultural cliff. Atheistic Humanism and absolute autonomy uber alles. What does it matter if it is a death sentence for the institution of the family?
Ah well, thats the culture. I'll live in it, I'll work with it, but I'll demure from sending my children to its schools as long as I can.
It's funny how you imply that those kids and their parents from your Chucky Cheese story are rude because they are Godless heathens that have strayed from the Christian flock and no longer have any values or morals. And how only the Christians are the valient defenders of morals and family values. More BS drivel from you.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello SOB,
Forgive me for being somewhat bitter in my reply above. It was inappropriate.
Please don't misunderstand me, I understand that I am commanded to remain in the world, rather than withdrawing to form some sort of commune, or adopting an Amish approach to life (as much as I am sure there are many who would prefer it if I did ;) ). In fact, to do so would be to go against Christ's commandment to go into the all the nations, and to teach men to be his disciples (Matt. 28:19-20) and to be the light and the salt of the earth. But sometimes I chafe under the other assurances Christians have received from Christ, that in the world we will have tribulation and be hated. (John 16:33, John 15:18-20). Intellectually, I can understand it, but the practical outworking of living through it for many years begins to grind. But hey, then again, I have no cause to be ungrateful, especially considering I live in the most "Christian friendly" nation on earth.
I don't know that it was inappropriate for the Intardnet, but that's OK. Being a smart-ass can be fun, especially when it's taken in stride (and thanks for having the ability to do so yourself).
It is not so much wanting my kids to be sheltered from the "evil non-Christians" nor would I for a moment allege that I and my children don't have our own sin problems. What I would like to shelter them from if it were possible, is the coarsening of society that has come as a direct result of our being cast adrift into the moribund sea of secular humanism. The long term effects on our society, of refusing to acknowledge God, biblical ethics, the concept of absolute truth, or the concept that there will indeed be a final judgment, is making western society a progressively more horrible place in which to raise children.
I suppose I can buy what you're selling there to a degree, but I don't think it's that black and white. There are some bad people out there in the world, and there are some not-so-bad people who despite being not-so-bad are lacking either the smarts or the guidance to understand how to play nice with the rest of society. For the bad people, having faith that they will be judged for their deeds after they're dead, leading to either eternal bliss or damnation is a good thing. For the not-so-baddies, the same is true, but also having someone to (a priest, Jesus & the apostles & ect through the bible) guide them to make the proper choices in life is also a good thing. However, there are others who, through common sense and reasoning, can make sensible choices about how they live their lives. Karma isn't a mystical demon waiting around to smack you for being bad. Karma is your own actions coming back to bite you on the bellybutton in the form of people whom you've treated badly. If you try to lead a good life and are kind to the people around you, then chances are, good things will happen to you. Maybe you won't get a million bucks, maybe you're never going to fly a fighter jet, and you might even get cancer, but along the way you'll be blessed with strong relationships with good friends.
-Girls fighting in the mall, Rude parents in the Chuck E Cheeses...snip due to post length limits-
There are obviously a lot of jerks out there. That's life. You'll truly come out ahead when despite the jerks, your kids grow up to be kind and genuine people. As for these particular people, if they really are jerks, then Karma (as I previously defined) is probably gonna bite 'em on the bellybutton eventually. Maybe one day they'll win $100,000, get hit by a car, and learn about Karma from Carson Daily, and subsequently turn their lives around... or maybe they'll find religion and have some much-needed guidance in their lives... or maybe they'll just continue to be jerks... or maybe the parents that you had this experience with were actually devout Christians who lead a good life 99% of the time and you had the misfortune of witnessing them at a low point in their day when they just weren't paying attention to what was going on.
By contrast, the funny thing is, although our congregation is made up of converts to Christianity like myself, you can already see a difference in the behavior of our kids. Is their behavior perfect? Not at all. You can still see selfishness and so on. But the difference in their language, general level of respect especially towards elders, willingness to obey, patience, modesty of clothing, and attitude towards learning (seeing it as a gracious benefit rather than a mark of being a dweeb) is profound. Why? Because they are both being affected bit by bit by grace, and also because they are being taught to deny self, to take up the cross, to esteem others more highly themselves, and to obey God's commands out of love. You may end up hating and despising everything they believe, and think they are a bunch of brainwashed throw-backs to an earlier era, but in a few years when you are elderly, and they are grown up, these are the kids you'll hope are walking towards you in the dark alleyway, not the "I'll do whatever seems right in my own eyes" type.
Am I far from the mark in thinking that these people, you and your congregation, saw your lives headed in the wrong direction, and made a concious choice to turn things around. Maybe you didn't have the answers to make this happen, and turned to Christianity. Maybe you did have the answers to make this happen, and turned to Christianity simply because it fit with where you were headed. These adults in your congregation made this concious choice to lead decent lives, and their children coming along for the ride is a tangible benefit that could be expected.
I don't hate or despise anything that Christians believe in. I'm glad that Christianity can guide the weak and the evil to lead a decent life. I'm also glad that it can give comfort and guidance to the decent and the strong. And I don't even think of Christians as being brainwashed...some people have faith and some don't. That's human. I am not that fond of the idea put forth that non-believers are somehow lesser people for not following "the word", nor am I fond at all of the bigotry toward homosexuals or anyone else choosing to live a non-traditional lifestyle (whether that be a stripper working her way through college or a guy who's old and brittle before his time due to illness, seeking comfort in the viewing of a stripper).
The funny thing is even immigrants from other countries can see what our "Death of God" Nihilism is doing to our cultures. Recently for instance, David Lacy, the Moderator of the tremendously liberal "we don't believe the bible either" Church of Scotland was one of many British religious leaders approached by Muslim and Hindu leaders who begged them to abandon multiculturalism and be more "strident" in teaching Christian beliefs. They see that British culture is falling apart at a rate that far exceeds their ability to convert Britons to their faiths, and which has a negative effect on their children and families. The response of Lacy was predictably "NO", they are committed to following the humanist bandwagon off the cultural cliff. Atheistic Humanism and absolute autonomy uber alles. What does it matter if it is a death sentence for the institution of the family?
Ah well, thats the culture. I'll live in it, I'll work with it, but I'll demure from sending my children to its schools as long as I can.
Well, for my part, I'm not Athiest...I guess I'd be Agnostic. I don't know, and until I see some real proof, I'll continue not to know and not to believe. I am rich with good friends and family, some of which are strong Christians and some of which are die-hard Athiests, and many in-between. I am not $ rich, but I have a good life, and I do believe I have this because I am a genuinely good person. Not because of "God" or what he/she says I should do, but because I can see the effect of being a decent human being to the people around you. And I don't believe I am alone in the world.
To sum up, the bad things your seeing aren't the result of non-believers. They're the result of the weak and of the evil, who may or may not be believers, but certainly don't follow "the word". And for these folks, I join you in wishing they would. On the other hand, I also wouldn't mind real punishment for criminals, so they actually have something tangible to fear in the absense of a fear of the almighty.
-
Nice post, SOB.
I would like to add that a good education is not necessarily a value followed only by christians.
It took time, but my kids now say thank you without having to be reminded, and I still teach them to be respectful of others.
OTOH, you can't be sure that the parents of those ill-raised kids weren't believing in the same god as you.
Finally, it's ironic that some people rule out the apparition of life as a freak accident while believing into a omnipotent and aeternal being.
-
Interesting video on the natural evolution of the "complex structure" of the eye (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/real/l_011_01.html)
-
Hi there Seagoon. I know ya said you needed a break from the forums, but OTOH I think it was the more man-all-battlestations confrontational "discussions" that caused it, so I'll allow myself to respond.
We could turn this into a my-linklist is bigger than yours competition, but I'd rather address some other points first
I am someone who was once a strident believer in Darwinian evolution, many of the scientists currently on the fringes of the ID movement were as well. For most of them, it is not ignoring the facts that caused them to change their minds. Rather it is the fact that the old Darwinian paradigm can no longer explain the available data, and therefore they are searching for a paradigm that can.
Darwin's theory of evolution, as first presented, had major issues it did not explain or had a suggestion for. Punctuated Equlibrium, for instance, is a much later addition (Gould). The observance of speciation has also come late, compared to Darwin.
Morphological evidence, while scarce, has become more readily available and can be subjected to more rigious tests, applying past knowledge.
Genetic sequence evidence is also a new addition, dealing with phylogenetic similarities between species. An extremely interesting and well documented/supported area of interest.
So while I can fathom that people with an understanding of Darwin that is based on popular books or Darwin's own work think that there are holes, once the last century's worth of knowledge has been added, it does baffle me that intelligent people still equate it to a Wild Assed Guess.
I don't find Gould confrontational - he is on record stating unequivocally that science and religion can go hand in hand and may actually aid each other. Dawkins, on the other hand, is much more hostile towards religion, seeing it as an enemy of science. Your mileage may vary but Goulds popularistic books certainly aren't "fundamentalism" in the same way as http://www.godhatesstudmuffins.com is.
You're a man of good intellect Seagoon, I know that from reading your posts. It makes me curious as to how you have reached this conclusion. You have studied evolution, so you know about stratification and the circumstances necessary for fossil creation. You'd also be aware that the fossil record is continually being expanded - we're getting more knowledge, not less. You know about gene sequencing and probably have heard about the latest examples of speciation. Yet you come to the opposite conclusion that I do.
I'm no dumb guy so it's not a difference in intellectual capacity that'd lead to this difference. It must either be sources (an honest man must follow the truth) or personal values affecting the judgement. I'll readily admit my background is from a science family with little faith which has made me require evidence for everything, leaving me almost incapable of taking anything as faith. You have that capacity.
Of course, it could be the sources we base our knowledge on that is the key ingredient in which case we'd need to examine these before any sense can be made out of anything.
StSanta, the Neo-Darwinian community wants to frame the argument as being heroic scientists standing up to mindless believers, but what is actually going on at the moment is that the Neo-Darwinians have become the lock-step believers and will do anything to prevent the theory from being questioned. At this point, scientists could discover "MADE BY ALIENS FROM BETELGEUSE, GREETINGS EARTHLINGS" in tiny letters at the heart of the DNA Helix and they'd get to work trying to figure out how evolution created such an odd combination - no other course would be available to them unless they wanted to be permanently out of work and doing interviews on the Art Bell show for the rest of their lives.
I think you are doing as great a disservice to scientists with this comment as atheists do to theists when they call them "mindless sheep, weak of mind and spirit who need a happy-go-pretend friend to go through life". Really, your comment is equivalent to that for me. It's a bit uncalled for and I understand it comes from frustration.
It's a pretty funny comment though :D
If you say "err maybe these cells were manufactured?" I would say maybe. It's entirely possible and I hope you're right, because that'd mean a manufacturer is around and just the mere knowledge that such an entity is around would give me a bagful of hope.
If you say "these cells were manufactured and that's what I'm going to make sure your kids are taught!" my reply would be different. I would need the evidence supporting it, logical deductions and so forth. I would, in essence, require that your theory be falsifiable.
If the end argument (as in the case of the ID argument presented by Behe) is "this stuff is pretty complicated. We don't get it. My belief is we never will. Clearly a being much superior to us must have created it.", it will not be enough. Such an argument simply isn't science - it's not falsifiable and it's a logical fallacy - we do not know A, therefore B.
And, as such, it must not claim to be science. It is an alternative to evolution on a spiritual plane, on a philosophical plane but on a strict fact based, falsifiable plane, it is not. Such an idea, because it is so undefined, cannot be treated scientifically.
You may be right Seagoon - that guess might be right and evolution totally off the mark, so off the mark God himself gets a chuckle out of it. But it ain't good science. Evolution adheres to scientific principles and therefore it is proper that it is taught in science classes whether evolution is right or wrong. The methodology of science is the key here and science does to claim to have the one true answer to anything. It is, rather ironically, evolving.
:D:D
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
That a popular comic writer is perpetuating this myth is sad but not really surprising. Creationists by and large have learned to grow a thick skin when it comes to unfounded accusations.
The cartoon is showing the hypocrisy of Creationists/ID fanatics.
-
Originally posted by Silat
The cartoon is showing the hypocrisy of Creationists/ID fanatics.
And I'm saying there's no hypocrisy to be found in the situation portrayed.
A reader ignorant of a creationists position gets the impression that creationists don't believe any life form can make changes according to its environment. This of course is untrue and perpetuates the myth that they are stupid and don't follow the progressions of science. Everyone knows bacteria mutate and grow immune to antibiotics. Likewise everyone knows that plants and animals adapt to their environments also. Creationists work from the same data evolutionists work from, they just come to different conclusions.
The comic writer is showing his ignorance. There is nothing hypocritical about a creationist enjoying the benefits of science. Many are scientists themselves.
I can't speak for ID fanatics because I'm not one of them and they were not mentioned in the comic.
-
I'm actually confused now... ID is supposed to be a serious non-religious "Scientific Theory" and if we don't teach it to 9th grade biology students as an evidenced explaination for the diversity of life on the planet, then society will collapse and adolescent boys will steal tokens at Chuck E. Cheese??
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
And I'm saying there's no hypocrisy to be found in the situation portrayed.
A reader ignorant of a creationists position gets the impression that creationists don't believe any life form can make changes according to its environment. This of course is untrue and perpetuates the myth that they are stupid and don't follow the progressions of science. Everyone knows bacteria mutate and grow immune to antibiotics. Likewise everyone knows that plants and animals adapt to their environments also. Creationists work from the same data evolutionists work from, they just come to different conclusions.
The comic writer is showing his ignorance. There is nothing hypocritical about a creationist enjoying the benefits of science. Many are scientists themselves.
I can't speak for ID fanatics because I'm not one of them and they were not mentioned in the comic.
Let me help you understand with this:
Creationism = Intelligent Design
-
Originally posted by Silat
Let me help you understand with this:
Creationism = Intelligent Design
True. But Intelligent Design does not equal Creationism.
As it's currently being presented, the ID movement leaves open the possibility that life on earth was engineered by an alien race or some entity other than God. As a pure literal creationist, I have a big problem with that.
As such it affects me little and I don't really follow it.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It just doesn't seem scientific to outright dismiss something unless there is absolute proof it is not so.
Les
Great read ..Ty..:)
but there is absolutely no proof God ever lived....so i dissmiss religion entirely.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
True. But Intelligent Design does not equal Creationism.
So you are saying that an intellegent designer never created anything?
Of course ID = Creationism.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you are saying that an intellegent designer never created anything?
Of course ID = Creationism.
That is incorrect.
Creationism is a belief that God created life and the universe.
The ID crowd says someone created life but we're not sure who.
Personaly I disagree with the current ID movement.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
The ID crowd says someone created life but we're not sure who.
Oh they ALL say who, not a damn one of them can keep their mouth shut.
Behe, Demski, name an ID handsomehunk and I'll give you a direct quote where he sez "IT'S GAWD!!"
-
Originally posted by Booz
Oh they ALL say who, not a damn one of them can keep their mouth shut.
Behe, Demski, name an ID handsomehunk and I'll give you a direct quote where he sez "IT'S GAWD!!"
That may very well be. Like I said, it doesn't concern me so I don't keep up with it.
But it still stands that any theory that beats around the bush and doesn't come right out and say in their mission statement that God created life, can't accurately be called creationism.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
That may very well be. Like I said, it doesn't concern me so I don't keep up with it.
But it still stands that any theory that beats around the bush and doesn't come right out and say in their mission statement that God created life, can't accurately be called creationism.
Or a Theory, or sensical, or anything much more than a lie. ID had it's chance to present all it's evidence to the world in Dover...ID beats around the bush and says nothing
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
That is incorrect.
Creationism is a belief that God created life and the universe.
The ID crowd says someone created life but we're not sure who.
Personaly I disagree with the current ID movement.
When you say "Someone broke into my house." you assume the existence of someone, otherwise what you said would be idiotic.
When you say "Some intelligent designer intelligently designed this." you assume the existence of .... an intelligent designer. You assume that the intelligent designer created whatever you are talking about.
If the ID crowd says someone created life but we're not sure who, they are still assuming the existance of someone with supernatural powers who created that life. That is creationism.
-
The funny thing is that that creationism is a fact. Everything was created, right?
-
Not necessarily supernaturally however.
-
Holden, what I find funny is that people rule out an intelligence in favor of a complete random "miracle"
-
Nuke, the reason I do not subscribe to the teaching of ID in science class is because science is the technique of understanding nature by experiment and observation. ID is coming to an impass in that process, saying "I do not understand this and I have no imagination on how I can gather any evidence to further my understanding, so I'll be lazy and just say God did it."
Before Aristotle there were many ways primative peoples explained how the sun seemed to travel overhead daily. Some explained it by saying God carried the sun to the eastern horizon and made it rise daily. I am glad the ID'ers did not prevail then.
Even if you believe in God as many scientists do, you should do the painstaking hard work and figure out how he did it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If the ID crowd says someone created life but we're not sure who, they are still assuming the existance of someone with supernatural powers who created that life. That is creationism.
I'm talking about the title of two separate beliefs. And they are separate.
You are correct when you say the ID theory requires a creator, but that still doesn't mean you can call the theory creationism because that title was already claimed long long ago. Sorry, they had to pick another name, which they did.
I realize it would make arguing against both beliefs easier if you could call them the same thing but they are two separate theories. Calling them the same thing just shows a lack of familiarity.
Once again. Creationism: God did it.
ID: someone did it.
ID folks can claim they believe in creationism but a pure creationist can not say the same about ID.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
I realize it would make arguing against both beliefs easier if you could call them the same thing but they are two separate theories.
And a wolf is sheeps clothing is no longer a wolf... got it.
parphrasing Galileo, I surrender, you are correct ,"but it is creationism"
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Nuke, the reason I do not subscribe to the teaching of ID in science class is because science is the technique of understanding nature by experiment and observation. ID is coming to an impass in that process, saying "I do not understand this and I have no imagination on how I can gather any evidence to further my understanding, so I'll be lazy and just say God did it."
Before Aristotle there were many ways primative peoples explained how the sun seemed to travel overhead daily. Some explained it by saying God carried the sun to the eastern horizon and made it rise daily. I am glad the ID'ers did not prevail then.
Even if you believe in God as many scientists do, you should do the painstaking hard work and figure out how he did it.
I agree with part of what you have said. I don't think ID is science. I also don't think that science should be teaching anything other than science.
The question of creation of the universe and life is not within the realm of science, yet it is taught as part of science.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The question of creation of the universe and life is not within the realm of science, yet it is taught as part of science.
But the big bang and species evolution are scientific theories.
The big bang is an extrapolation of Einstein's genius. The mathematics says that the big bang is the most reasonable endpoint of extrpolation of relativity into the past. Everything seems to make sense until realtivity and quantum collide.
Evolution makes the most sense given the fossil record. T-Rex is not in the bible, yet it is in the rocks. Selective breeding of domesticated animals shows us that changes within species can occur in just a few thousand years and in a petrie dish in a very short time indeed.
These observations of processes and the predictions made by these scientific theories are within the realm of science.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And a wolf is sheeps clothing is no longer a wolf... got it.
parphrasing Galileo, I surrender, you are correct ,"but it is creationism"
I do agree that the ID folks seem to be a little shady and not completely honest. That's part of the reason I don't agree with their movement.
And I see that we understand each other perfectly on creationism. :cool:
Well now that you-know-who has joined the thread, I'm gonna bug out. I wish you luck. It looks like you may have a long night ahead of you.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But the big bang and species evolution are scientific theories.
The big bang is an extrapolation of Einstein's genius. The mathematics says that the big bang is the most reasonable endpoint of extrpolation of relativity into the past. Everything seems to make sense until realtivity and quantum collide.
Evolution makes the most sense given the fossil record. T-Rex is not in the bible, yet it is in the rocks. Selective breeding of domesticated animals shows us that changes within species can occur in just a few thousand years and in a petrie dish in a very short time indeed.
These observations of processes and the predictions made by these scientific theories are within the realm of science.
I agree, that they are theories. But if you use logic and retain science, the actual origin of matter and life does not reside in the realm of science.
Science is not capable of explaining the origins of matter and/or life.
-
An important point to remember about a theory. If a theory violates the facts, the facts may be wrong. If a theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the theory is wrong.
Is anyone seriously arguing that the theory of evolution violates the 2nd Law? If they are, I would love to hear it.
The irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum is often used to support the theory of intelligent design. On the face of it, the fact of irreducible complexity does seem to violate the theory of evolution. Here is the catch. One must always remember that the theory of evolution must obey the 2nd Law.
The 2nd Law states that entropy will be maximized or potentials minimized. There can be billions and billions of different paths and states to choose from, so how does the Cosmos know which one to take?
Add the Law of Maximum Entropy Production to the 2nd Law. It states that the system will take the path or paths, out of all available paths, that maximizes entropy at the fastest rate. Under the laws of our Cosmos, those paths almost always result in the production of ordered states. Stars maximize entropy faster than dispersed ionized gas. Life maximizes entropy on planets faster than atmospheric or geological paths.
The 2nd Law created the stars, planets, and life. It is embedded within the fabric of our Cosmos. In 2005, we do not understand how it created a bacterial flagellum. That does not mean we should throw the 2nd Law out the window and invoke unseen spirits in our science classes.
-
When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.
Use your brain and break it all down with logic. Science has no theory that can explain the origin of matter, or of life.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
An important point to remember about a theory. If a theory violates the facts, the facts may be wrong.
No... facts by their very nature are correct. We can be wrong thinking a falsehood may be a fact, but if a fact itself is wrong it is not, in fact, a fact.
Originally posted by Nuke
When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.
Faith has no answer either.
Who created the universe daddy?
God.
Who created God daddy?
Uhhh.... he's always existed... yeah that's it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.
Use your brain and break it all down with logic. Science has no theory that can explain the origin of matter, or of life.
I actually agree with you. We may never find the answer to where it all came from.
I disagree on the theories of where matter comes from. We have a lot of those theories. First, we have to know where mass come from. To find that out, we need to know what the mass of the Higgs boson is. We can’t find that out because Congress, in it’s budget cutting wisdom, canceled the SSC.
No problem. The Euros in their budget busting stupidity, were kind enough to build a LHC at CERN which comes on line in 2007. That loud sucking sound you hear, is the sound of the handful of particle physicists that we produce domestically ever year. They are migrating to Europe to continue their useless studies on the nature of matter.
The good news is, we can easily replace them with lawyers and ministers. As we sue ourselves into oblivion, we can at least be secure in the knowledge that God is on our side.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No... facts by their very nature are correct. We can be wrong thinking a falsehood may be a fact, but if a fact itself is wrong it is not, in fact, a fact.
[/b]
A fact is as factual as a fact can be unless there is a falsehood in the fact in which case the fact is false.
I thought I said that?
I should have provided an example. In 1915 the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the Cosmos was expanding. The facts of that time were that the Cosmos was static.
My point was, just because a theory does not fit the facts, do not automatically assume the theory is wrong.
I thought I said that too?
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
A fact is as factual as a fact can be unless there is a falsehood in the fact in which case the fact is false.
I thought I said that?
I should have provided an example. In 1915 the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the Cosmos was expanding. The facts of that time were that the Cosmos was static.
But in fact the fact was not a fact but a falsehood falsley believed to be a fact.
My point was, just because a theory does not fit the facts, do not automatically assume the theory is wrong.
I thought I said that too?
If the theory is correct but does not fit the circumstances, then it is true that that which was formerly thought to be a fact was in fact a falsehood falsely masqurading as a fact, and more careful experimentation and observation can bring out the facts.
Theoretically, theories are reasoned from a set of observations, then tested by predicting what further observations should show before those observations are observed... obviously.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But in fact the fact was not a fact but a falsehood falsley believed to be a fact.
If the theory is correct but does not fit the circumstances, then it is true that that which was formerly thought to be a fact was in fact a falsehood falsely masqurading as a fact, and more careful experimentation and observation can bring out the facts.
Theoretically, theories are reasoned from a set of observations, then tested by predicting what further observations should show before those observations are observed... obviously.
Very Good :D
Based upon your theories, facts, and observations, I agree. :aok
-
So would this be a good time to mention that it is UK law that all children up to the age of 15 have to pray everyday in state schools.
-
Do they steal tokens at pizza parlors?
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
And I'm saying there's no hypocrisy to be found in the situation portrayed.
A reader ignorant of a creationists position gets the impression that creationists don't believe any life form can make changes according to its environment. This of course is untrue and perpetuates the myth that they are stupid and don't follow the progressions of science. Everyone knows bacteria mutate and grow immune to antibiotics. Likewise everyone knows that plants and animals adapt to their environments also. Creationists work from the same data evolutionists work from, they just come to different conclusions.
The comic writer is showing his ignorance. There is nothing hypocritical about a creationist enjoying the benefits of science. Many are scientists themselves.
I can't speak for ID fanatics because I'm not one of them and they were not mentioned in the comic.
They have proved their stupidity as you put it by asking for a religious concept to be taught as science. It is very simple. IDcreationism fails all scientific and theory tests.
I fail to see how you cant see that this is a religious issue and not scientific.
-
Tautological dialectics, huh? :lol
-
Originally posted by lada
The question is.... how did that "chit" manage to get into the school ?
Was it private action of 1 teacher or what ?
Guess the answer lies somewhere between science and theroy. Isnt Evolution taught as Theroy? ROFL..youd think NOT when you start asking school kids how we got here. Intelligent Design would be taught as theroy also. I dont see the problem. unless someone has a phobia or sumthin. ;)
Originally posted by Silat
It is very simple. IDcreationism fails all scientific and theory tests.
As does evolutoin (Many Gaps are proven to exist) But we still teach it as a Theoretic science in our public Schools. LOL
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.
Use your brain and break it all down with logic. Science has no theory that can explain the origin of matter, or of life.
ROFLMAO that is some 'logic' indeed! So you need a 'creator' to explain the origin of everything. And how do you explain the origin of said 'creator'?? A super-creator?
-
Does ID theory put forward any testable hypothesis, surely if something is called a theory, it should include one? For example, how does it explain, why there are buried fossilized skeletons that can be dated back millions of years.
-
It reasons that reason is reasonable wrong.
-
If ID is allowed to be taught in schools then all the multiple theories that fall under ID should be allowed.
For example The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) should also be included under ID. Who's to say they're wrong? They've even got charts and graphs to back it up, all very scientific like because like ID *cough* it's based on science and not faith *cough*.
(http://www.venganza.org/images/noodledoodlewall.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Why not teach intelligent design is religious studies classes? There doesn't seem to be much common sense applied in this situation.
Hiyas Dowding...how goes?
As to your remark, in America, more and more liberals want God out of our nation and kept in the privacy of our homes...hard to champion Abortion, Gay Marriage and Child Porn with pesky Christians in the mainstream.
A persons faith is private and should not be fed down someones throat...however, as you pointed out, if one is going to study religion, the Christian Bible and God might be included.
-
Originally posted by Rude
As to your remark, in America, more and more liberals want God out of our nation and kept in the privacy of our homes...hard to champion Abortion, Gay Marriage and Child Porn with pesky Christians in the mainstream.
Wow, what a steaming pile of garbage that is. I know you may not agree with, and may even be angered by those that are Pro Choice and not against Gay Marriage, but trying to somehow link them to supporting Child Porn is simply rediculous. I don't know why I'm pointing this out to you, though, because you know this. Grow up.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Wow, what a steaming pile of garbage that is...
But SOB...don't you know that the only moral compass is the Christian one? Without believing in the Christian god, people would have nothing to keep them from committing all manner of crimes.
-
A vote for Evolution is a vote for Child Porn!
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
[B
As does evolutoin (Many Gaps are proven to exist) But we still teach it as a Theoretic science in our public Schools. LOL [/B]
gaps??? where?? Say you have a puzzle of a ship, you are missing 11 pieces but without them it is clear it is a picture of a ship. Does the missing 11 pieces make it a picture of a car? Why are people so scared of evolution? I know people who get outright offended even by the mention of evolution!
-
Hey!!! You would too if people said your ancestors were apes. Well I don't know about you, but I sure would.
Les:D
-
Let’s follow the ID Theory to it’s logical conclusion. God created heaven, earth, and life. We know this because we cannot explain how they were created. We know this because God told our ancestors this.
We live our lives in this Cosmos for one reason; to determine, when we die, whether our souls will go to heaven or hell. There is no point in studying astronomy, physics, or biology. We can never understand that which God created. Worse yet, we may actually interfere in matters of life and death itself.
Our population is low, a few tens of millions of us scattered across the earth. We toil from sun-up to sun-down, tending crops in the fields. We pray for sunshine, we pray for rain, we pray that God keeps the locust away. Our lives are filled with prayer.
Is this the paradise we lost? Is this the paradise that ID whishes to lead us back to?
-
The Bible does not contradict science.
Les
-
Is the only true religion Christianity with its almighty god? :rolleyes:
-
I hope you will not take offence, but I don't think this is a respectful comment. And certainly has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Les
-
Why do the liberals hate jesus ?
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Hey!!! You would too if people said your ancestors were apes. Well I don't know about you, but I sure would.
Les:D
Christian arrogance! Humans, along with Gorillas, chimps, orangutan's are in the same family genetically speaking. Does that truth offend you? At least you said "apes" and not monkeys! :)
-
Originally posted by Leslie
The Bible does not contradict science.
Les
According to the bible, the earth is about 5-8000 years old. Eve was created from a rib. Men lived to be nearly 1000 years old. Women instantly turned into salt. There are many contradictions to science found in the bible!:aok
-
Don't forget the lowly Gibbon!
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
But SOB...don't you know that the only moral compass is the Christian one? Without believing in the Christian god, people would have nothing to keep them from committing all manner of crimes.
Crow, we cannot erase the effects of religion on mankind. The sad truth is it has left a trail of death and destruction. How many thousands of innocent people have been killed in the name of religion? It is a crutch for ignorrance.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Don't forget the lowly Gibbon!
Silat doesn't count!