Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?

I'm not a great fan of trying to force public schools to teach creation etc in science courses but I would support limited content on evidence for biological design and the rapid fromation of the geological column. I truly believe the data calls for this and that this is how it could be approached (in the case fo the GC for example):Geological column
------------------The sedimentary rocks of the world are water and wind laid rocks that cover blah blah. . . .The geological column on land is charactersied by alterations between vast marine and smaller non-marine beds. Much of the earth was innundated by the oceans on multiple occasions generating 'epeiric sea' deposits on land that represent the majority of the geological column. The smaller portion of the column in between consists of fresh water deposits, some of which are nevertheless correlated half way across continents.A very small minority of scientists believe that the geological column is evidence of a global flood that occurred in alternating marine and non-marine surges generating much of the sedimnetary rocks on earth. Most scientists disagree, citing evidence of habitated surfaces at many levels in the local geolgocal columns and radiodating. The global flood geolgoists counter that these habitats may not have been long term habitats and that radiodating methods may not be true indicators of time for various reasons. They point to evidence that the majority of the sedimentary beds were laid down as high energy events rather than gentler local environments such as lakes. Needless to say, the vast majority of geologists has adopted the long-age view of the geolgoical column and it is that that we investigate for the remainder of this course._____________This of course was typed 'off the top of my head' but I could imagine coming up with a more polished version that would be difficult to scientitfcally refute (IMO becasue it was true!). I personally believe that not having such an alternative for geology or biology is tantamount to mainstream brainwashing.The point about this post is that a two or three paragraph introduction to the alternative need not take much time and yet can also be written to not make flood geologists look like complete idiots!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

I forgot about that thread - sorry Moose, it's very relevant. Having said that I'm happy to keep it separate becasue I would like to see multiple responses to my 2 paragraphs.

Edge, you show me a high school geology text or syllabus which has anything like this in it.The point is not a catastrophism issue per se but that a global flood could have generated most of the column in one hit.You want to bring up Mancos Shale in a high school 2 paragraph intro to flood geology? We can go back and forth all day rebutting each other. That is not the point of a 2-paragraph intro. The point is that multiple PhDed geologists believe that a global flood is called for by the data. It is an alternative way to interpret the data. I find it hard to believe that you can't accept that in any sense but I have to live with that.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

PercyI generally agree with you but this is a somewhat special case. Whether you like it or not these areas of science are related to religion via the origin of life issue. Hence we strongly believe, and can argue it, that mainstream science is atheistically biased so that even the most obvious arguements for either design or the flood are treated as automatically naive. That is the source of the problem and that is why we almost never can publish mainstream.The fact that mainstream papers do not contain statements 'this argues for design' is not becasue the statemnet is without evidence but becasue of mainstream bias. Evidence for design would be agreed by a good proportion of publishing scientists but can not be said mainstream. That is an utter, absolute fact.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

My 'religious appeal' was nothing of the sort. I explained why something that sounds religious needs to have some representation in science, not to take away from the call of the data.We're talking about the orign of life here, not cloud formation! You think that can be neatly sepaated into sceince and religion. That is utterly ridiculous becasue that assumes outright that God doesn't exist.I'm saying that an alternative scientific interpretation of the geological column could be presented as I did above. And similarly for design. I don't want to sway anyone. I simply suggest it be rasied as an alternative to be mowed down if you wish.Can you deny that(i) Many publishing scientists would say that molecular, cellular and/or organismal data, whether completely conclusive or not, suggests design
(ii) That view is not represented in contemporary mainstream literatureWhether it is proof, a hint, circumstantial evidence or a hypothesis it is not in the mainstream literature. This is utter proof of mainstream bias whether professional or atheistic.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

I simply tried to explain to you that something you think has to be devoid of any link to religion may have a crucial link if God created life! The folly of explaining it naturalistically if God did it! In my definition of science I would distinguish science from forced naturalism. IMO, you guys are studying forced naturalism.Substitue origin of life for origin of life/lifeforms in my earlier post.Can you deny my two points in the previous post?Science is not as cut and dry as you think Percy - and I think you know this. The scientific literature is full of hypotheses and hints from circumstantial evidence. Design is very evident from the data in many professional scientists opinions.

^ OK - modify design in (i) and (ii) to design by a higher intelligence.

QuetzalI think you'd be surprised at the number of scientists who think the data argues or strongly hints at an intelligent origin of life. ID/IC is a valid arguement and has far, far more support than YEC.You seem to be saying that unless a proposal is utterly proved beyond doubt it cannot be presented scientifically. You would have to reject 9 out of 10 research papers ever published if that was the case.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

Here's my high school introduction to bio-designThe cell is comprised of blah blah. . .Many scientists admit that the complexity of the cell argues for some sort of design in Nature. A significant proportion expect that some intelligent agent was responsible and an equally significant proportion suspect that future research will uncover general principles that explain the origin of cellualr complexity.In particular, scientists who believe the data argues for 'Intelligent Design' (ID) have noted that most of life's systems are 'Irreducibly Complex' meaning that these systems require a minimum set of the subsytems to function and that evidence for a gradual step by step evoltuion hasn't been discovered or hypotheised and isn't even conceivable. Sytems such as the human immune system, blood clotting, the human eye or the early cell do not have corresponding molecular explanations of their gradual origin. Similarly, the genomes of organisms appear to be distinct and characerizable by distinct families of genes which are unrelated to other gnees in that organisms DNA. Mainstream science assumes that these gaps will be filled in by future mechanisms and in the remainder of this course this will be assumed.Again this is of 'the top of my head'.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

QuetzalMany scientists undoubtedly see evidence of God in creation. I can't prove it to you with a poll but my guess would be something around 30-50% of scientists would say yes to a question like this. Just because their not YECs is not the point.Ireducible complexity is the empirical evidence. Behe outlines examples of IC in multiple cellualr systems including the immune system and blood clotting.Science aside I think you're trying to argue that there is no evidence at all that their might be a higher intelligence is proof of the extent of your bias. I can agree that there is evidence of evoluiton but you can never agree that there is evidence of God!

PercyWe all agree that 'design' of some sort is evident in Nature. Obviously one possibility for that is God and that should be stateable in the literature! As simple as that. Can you imagine how bizaree your POV is if God really did create? Have you ever thought of it that way?

PamboliI'm not trying to prove a God like higher intelligence. I'm simply wanting to say that the existence of a God-like higher intelligence is one possibility and should be stateable in the scientific literature.If for one moment you assume that God did create can you see how bizaree your POV is? We can't allow that possibility to be stated - it's not scientific. But God would say - you fool - I did create it all!

PamboliThe IC arguement is that most cellular and physiological systems examined at the molecular level display 'irreducible complexity'. That after it is reduced to it's essential components there are no examples in the literature, at the molecular level, demomstrating the discovery or even hypothesis of conceivable gradual steps of evoltuion that maintain some selectable function all the way.It proves nothing but is highly suggestive of a higher intelligence.Behe examined the moelcuar evolution literature and in 1995 no studies address this issue. 80% cover evolution within protein families, 15% cover chemical evoltuion experiments and 5% cover mathematical treatments but no (out of tens of thousands) papers identify gradual steps of evoltuion. The story sold to the layman is a bluff.At the organismal level eveoltuionists have got away for years with just so stories (feathers were used for catching prey etc) but at the molecular level Darwin's 'Black Box'is opened and these arguements fall apart because we see all of the components and discover that a certain minimal subset is required for function.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

EdgeEven my tiny summary addresses most of your concerns. It does not prove anything but it raises the possibility that this is how it happened.

JoeDo you descirbe the flood model as I did in my two paragrpahs or do you create a straw man? Why don't you post your power points or drop an excerpt of them here and we'll see. I suspect you create a straw man because I have never seen a mainstremaer not do that. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.