Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unintelligible Redesign
fleeming
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 33 (7373)
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


Hello I am new to the Forum however have been lurking for a week or two, it can be frustrating joining old arguments so I thought I'd put this article I found on the web in and let you all go for it.
Intelligent Design
According to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban has invaded Ohio. Creationists have devised a theory called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside Darwinism. Unlike creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years old and that species evolve through natural selection. It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom. Liberals call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools. They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science.
Creationism used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost the war on both fronts. Courts struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it mixed church and state. Meanwhile, scientific evidence discredited the belief that the Earth was created in six days and was only 6,000 years old. Like the Taliban, creationists were washed up. Their only hope was to flee to the mountains, shave their beards, change their clothes, and come back as something else.
What they've come back as is the Intelligent Design movement. Gone are the falsifiable claims of a six-day creation and a 6,000-year-old Earth. Gone is the God of the Bible. In their place, ID enthusiasts speak of questions, mysteries, and possibilities. As to whether God, the Force, or ET created us, ID is agnostic. "We simply ask the question as to whether something can form naturally or if there must have been something more, a designer," Robert Lattimer, an ID proponent in Ohio, told the Columbus Dispatch. "Our main contention is that [evolution-focused curriculum] standards are purely naturalistic and leave no room for the possibility that part of nature can be designed."
This soft-headed agnosticism matches the soft-headed arguments for including it in the curriculum. They're the same arguments leftists have made for ebonics. According to ID proponents, the committee in charge of Ohio's science curriculum is too "homogenous" and lacks "diversity." It marginalizes alternative "points of view" to which students should be "exposed." A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored." A conservative member of the state education board says Ohioans deserve a science curriculum "they can all be comfortable with."
Behind these pleas for diversity is the kind of educational relativism conservatives normally despise. "Biological evolution, like creationism and design, cannot be proved to be either true or false," writes one ID enthusiast in Ohio. Since evolution is an "unproven theory," says another, "belief in it is just as much an act of faith as is belief in creationism or in the theory of intelligent design."
The response of liberals, teachers, and scientists has been hysterical. They accuse the ID movement of peddling "intolerance," fronting for the Christian right, and trying "to force a narrow religious ideology into our schools." If Ohio lets ID into its curriculum, they prophesy, the state will become an "international laughingstock," triggering a corporate exodus, a decline in property values, and the collapse of Ohio's standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge a difference between ID and creationism. "This is just a new paint job on the same old Edsel," says an Ohio University physiologist.
The analogy is inside out. Creationists haven't repainted their Edsel. They've taken out the engine and the transmission. Without distinctive, measurable claims such as the six-day creation, the 6,000-year-old Earth, and other literal interpretations of the Bible, creationism no longer materially contradicts evolution. The reason not to teach intelligent design isn't that it's full of lies or dogma. The reason is that it's empty.
Advocates of ID do offer interesting criticisms of Darwin's theory of evolution. They argue that natural selection doesn't account for the rise and fall of species, that many biological mechanisms wouldn't make organisms more fit to survive unless those mechanisms appeared all at once, and that the combinations necessary to create life are so complex that it would be statistically impossible to generate them by chance. My colleague Bob Wright answered these criticisms in Slate last year. I don't know whether they stand up to his rebuttal or not. But I do know this: They don't add up to a theory.
A theory isn't just a bunch of criticisms, even if they're valid. A theory ties things together. It explains and predicts. Intelligent design does neither. It doesn't explain why part of our history seems intelligently designed and part of it doesn't. Why are our feet and our back muscles poorly designed for walking? Why are we afflicted by lethal viruses? Why have so many females died in childbirth? ID doesn't explain these things. It just shrugs at them. "Design theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features of living things may be designed by a mind or some form of intelligence," says one ID proponent. Some? May? Some? What kind of theory is that?
As Wright explains, Darwinian theory makes predictions that can be tested. It predicts that the average difference in size between males and females will correspond to the degree of polygamy in a species, and that in species in which females can reproduce more often than males, females will be more sexually assertive and less discriminating about their sex partners than males will be. These predictions turn out to be true. Darwin claimed that humans had descended from apes. If fossils unearthed since his death had exhibited no such connection, his theory would have been discredited. What empirical predictions does ID make that, if proven untrue, would discredit the theory?
John Calvert, the country's principal exponent of ID, answered that question in a treatise he presented to the Ohio board. Calvert described the "methods" by which scientists can "detect" design in nature.
In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. the product of a mind.
That, in a nutshell, is ID. It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-20-2002 1:45 AM fleeming has not replied
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 1:56 AM fleeming has not replied
 Message 5 by Xombie, posted 03-20-2002 9:43 AM fleeming has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-21-2002 10:10 AM fleeming has not replied
 Message 9 by GregP618, posted 03-21-2002 7:30 PM fleeming has not replied
 Message 12 by KingPenguin, posted 03-21-2002 11:46 PM fleeming has not replied
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 04-24-2002 11:16 AM fleeming has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 33 (7376)
03-20-2002 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by fleeming
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


The main problem with ID is that it is essentially old school religion in the emporer's new cloths. When humanity lacks an explination or understanding of some natural event, there are those that will say it is the work of spirits, gods, god almighty, ect. ID tries to imply that since our understanding of the mechanics of evolution is incomplete, then it must be another "being's" work. I will be the first to admit that science doens't have all the answers, but it does try and find them. If ID has solid evidence for its mechanics (does it even have any?), if it makes definite predictions that can be tested, and if those tests support the theory, then it would be a valid scientific theory, or at least the beggining of one. Till then, its simply old school faith dressed in new age cloths. Evolution has a large body of scientific evidence behind it, and has repeatadly be tested succefully as a scietific theory. ID isn't even a testable hypothesis yet, and as such, shouldn't be taught in schools. Its like cold water table top fusion. It sounds really nifty, but till there is repeatable experimental tests that support the hypothesis, it is nothing more than an inquiry. That isn't to say it may not one day be scientifically supported, but till then, it really has no place in a classroom. If the hypothesis isn't scietifically supported, well, then it goes the way of previous bogus hypothesis, into the trash dump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 12:09 AM fleeming has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 3 of 33 (7377)
03-20-2002 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by fleeming
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


You found this on the web. Yes, I recognize it. But I do not recall where I have seen it. You should provide the link or at least name the author. That is the custom here. In fact, it is one of the guidelines posted by the founder.
Besides, I'd like to go there again someday. It's probably in my favorites somewhere...
Know how that is?
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 12:09 AM fleeming has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brachinus, posted 03-20-2002 9:27 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 33 (7387)
03-20-2002 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
03-20-2002 1:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
You found this on the web. Yes, I recognize it. But I do not recall where I have seen it. You should provide the link or at least name the author. That is the custom here. In fact, it is one of the guidelines posted by the founder.
Besides, I'd like to go there again someday. It's probably in my favorites somewhere...
Know how that is?

It was in Slate, I think the author was Robert Wright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 1:56 AM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 10:12 PM Brachinus has not replied

  
Xombie
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 33 (7388)
03-20-2002 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by fleeming
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


I know this isn't your argument, but i'd like to reply to it nonetheless.
quote:
It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom
This is where it falls apart. There is no evidence that life would have to be designed. There's not even any reason to think so. The argument has no real base. It isn't really a theory.
For the theory of gravity to be true, things would simply have to fall to the ground. We can test this. We can observe what we call "gravity", in action.
ID, while not necessarily christian, is a deistic belief. If we were to, however, see planets pop up out of no where for no apparent reason, then it MIGHT be a viable idea. But that simply doesn't happen.
quote:
This soft-headed agnosticism
I know this is a bit off-topic, but Agnosticism isn't a separate religion. Agnosticism is just the belief that god cannot be proven or disproven. Any agnostic must still be a deist or atheist.
quote:
A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored."
I agree. They should be explored in a humanities class. It is not the place of science class to study anything that anyone happens to think up.
quote:
A conservative member of the state education board says Ohioans deserve a science curriculum "they can all be comfortable with."
I live in Ohio. I much prefer a science curriculum based on real study and logic.
quote:
If Ohio lets ID into its curriculum, they prophesy, the state will become an "international laughingstock,"
Ohio is already a laughingstock for the quote on its state seal. I really don't think we should be trying to put any more religion into the government of Ohio.
quote:
creationism no longer materially contradicts evolution
Of course it doesn't. Now they have theistic evolution, which is STILL an unscientific religious belief.
quote:
They argue that natural selection doesn't account for the rise and fall of species
Actually, that's what natural selection IS.
quote:
that many biological mechanisms wouldn't make organisms more fit to survive unless those mechanisms appeared all at once,
This is untrue. An organism better suited to survive is able to breed more. This has been observed within the past 20 years with organisms such as bacteria.
quote:
and that the combinations necessary to create life are so complex that it would be statistically impossible to generate them by chance
It is NOT statistically impossible (in fact there is no such thing), it is statistically IMPROBABLE. But by far that does not mean impossible.
quote:
I don't know whether they stand up to his rebuttal or not. But I do know this: They don't add up to a theory.
Quite convenient for him to not mention those rebuttals, eh?
quote:
Darwin claimed that humans had descended from apes
Can someone tell me where in the hell Darwin did that? Last I checked, he discovered speciation in things like BIRDS. Correct me if i'm wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 12:09 AM fleeming has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 03-21-2002 1:21 PM Xombie has replied

  
fleeming
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 33 (7445)
03-20-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brachinus
03-20-2002 9:27 AM


Many apologies guys.....I should have put the link in..
Bad form
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2062009

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brachinus, posted 03-20-2002 9:27 AM Brachinus has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 7 of 33 (7487)
03-21-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by fleeming
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


One of the biggest problems with ID is that there is absolutely NO supporting science. I read Michael Behe's book, "Darwins Black Box" a while ago and while it is a good read there are a number of problems with the central thesis. They generally revolve around the lack of any real data for design as well a number of theoretical errors and problems with his Irreducuble Complexity concept, not to mention what I considered poor literature searches for biochemical support for evolution. I am currently putting together a short critique on his blood clotting arguement based on the horseshoe crab and the LAL assay for endotoxin, I hope to have it posted on my sorry excuse for a web page on yahoo by the end of April. Basically it (my critique) trashes his concept that the clotting mechanism could not have evolved. Other problems with his arguements are that 1) he uses arguements against abiogenesis as arguements against evolution, and they really are apple and orange arguements, nothing in any of the theories on how evolution occurred/occurrs rely on abiogenesis, 2) a number of his statistical calculation are based on a numebr of a priori assumptions that are questionable at best, 3) he ignores/ignored some relevant research on cillia and flagella that undercut his arguements in those areas. One of the laeding founders of ID, P. Johnson, called M. Behe's work the leading edge of biological/biochemical ID, I am sorry to have to report that it looks like a rather blunt edge to me.
There is another book that I just purchased, "Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics", edited by Robert Pennock the author of "The Tower of Babel". So far (I am only into the first chapter) the book appears to be quite good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 12:09 AM fleeming has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 03-22-2002 1:57 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 33 (7506)
03-21-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Xombie
03-20-2002 9:43 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xombie:
[B]I know this isn't your argument, but i'd like to reply to it nonetheless.
quote:
It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom
This is where it falls apart. There is no evidence that life would have to be designed. There's not even any reason to think so. The argument has no real base. It isn't really a theory.
For the theory of gravity to be true, things would simply have to fall to the ground. We can test this. We can observe what we call "gravity", in action.
To be accurate, we should say that we have never actually observed gravity itself, only the effects and evidence of it and for it.
quote:
This soft-headed agnosticism
Agnosticism is just the belief that god cannot be proven or disproven. Any agnostic must still be a deist or atheist.
Huh? How is an agnostic either a deist or an atheist? The whole point of agnosticism is that one doesn't know if God exists or not. There is no choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Xombie, posted 03-20-2002 9:43 AM Xombie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Xombie, posted 03-22-2002 1:01 PM nator has replied

  
GregP618
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 33 (7535)
03-21-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by fleeming
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by fleeming:

According to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban has invaded Ohio. Creationists have devised a theory called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside Darwinism. Unlike creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years old and that species evolve through natural selection. It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom. Liberals call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools. They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science.
Creationism used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost the war on both fronts. Courts struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it mixed church and state.

I was interested to read this as only recently a similar story has come to light here in the UK. A school in Gateshead has begun to teach creationism, causing a bit of a stir and bringing the great debate back into the public eye. (See link + related links)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1872000/1872331.stm
Prof Richard Dawkins has written to the school inspectors Ofsted, asking for the school to be inspected. The thing that annoys me most is that I thought people weren't supposed to be teaching religious beliefs in a science class, but we appear to have a one-way street which is hardly fair. Let me explain.
There is an uproar when a creationist viewpoint is taught in schools, and yet evolution in my opinion, is every bit as much a religious viewpoint as creationism, and yet no-one bats an eyelid when it is forcefed to our children!! Evolution is a religious philosphy and a worldview. It is a belief system about the past based on the words of people that weren't there trying to explain the evidence in the present. Creationism is the same - a religious philosophy.
I personally believe, (and I know many of you will shoot me down demanding evidence I can't give) that it takes more faith to believe in big bangs, dark matter or abiogenesis, than it does to believe in an all powerful creator God who put us here.
Our children should be taught the FACTS at school, and then be allowed to decide for themselves whether to believe the creationist or evolutionist worldview. We shouldn't be biasing their opinions, we should be allowing them to make up their own minds. Right across the country, schools are encouraging children to change their religious beliefs in order to accept evolution, and this goes by virtually unchallenged!! A small minority of schools decide to stand up for a creationist view, and look at the uproar!!
Remember that Copernicus was ridiculed when he said that everyone was wrong to believe that the Earth was the centre of the universe. He had the boldness to stand up and say that the Earth was moving in an orbit around the sun.
Give science enough time and it will eventually catch up with the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 12:09 AM fleeming has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-21-2002 8:39 PM GregP618 has not replied
 Message 11 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-21-2002 10:08 PM GregP618 has replied
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 03-22-2002 8:05 AM GregP618 has replied
 Message 17 by Xombie, posted 03-22-2002 1:04 PM GregP618 has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 10 of 33 (7552)
03-21-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GregP618
03-21-2002 7:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:
I was interested to read this as only recently a similar story has come to light here in the UK. A school in Gateshead has begun to teach creationism, causing a bit of a stir and bringing the great debate back into the public eye.
The situation isn't quite the same as the school is elective - it is a city technology college, privately funded, and free to set its own curriculum. It also an avowedly Christian school with a strongly theistic slant on the curriculum.
You can read its science policy here ...
http://www.emmanuelctc.org.uk/curriculum-candc-science.htm
The difference from Ohio's proposal is that no-one need send their children to this school and being elective, children aren't sent here by default.
The big issue, to my mind, is whether the English government should in any way subsidise or support such selective treatment of pupils and education.
Fortunately, this is an issue for the English to solve - in Scotland we don't have these institutions. One hopes that the traditions of rigorous theology, philosophy and science of which all major denominations are proud would guard against it. There is the occasional whimper of creationism amongst some of the fringe groups, but on the whole theology and science are well reconciled to each and flourish in pretty much mutual respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GregP618, posted 03-21-2002 7:30 PM GregP618 has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 33 (7566)
03-21-2002 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GregP618
03-21-2002 7:30 PM


Greg, I must say I find your description of TOE as a religion very amusing. TOE, like all scientific theories, follows the scientific method. For some reason, creationist like to call it a religion. Of course, the reason for this is quiet simple. Creationism isn't scietifically valid, and since TOE conflicts with your world view, despite being a solid scietific theory, you choose to label it a religion so you can dismiss it without having to invalide it. Course, that is like saying gravitional theory is a worldview, and there for isn't valid. What drivel!
However, privatly funded institutions should have the right to teach what they will. If you wish to send your children to a private school that teaches creationism, fine. Personally , I think you are handicapping your children intellectually. Besides, it isn't like you arn't teaching your children YEC at home. Asking a public instituition to teach mythology as science, however, is not acceptable. Science isn't about popularity. It isn't about what makes us feel good. Its simply a method to formulate theories that best describe the observable universe around us.
As for Copernicus, and subsequnetly Galileo, it was the CHURCH that tried to supress VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES to DEFEND A RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW. I am amazed at the audacity of your attempt to use copernicus as vindication of relgious dogma , when relgious dogma was the reason Copernicus and Galileo were ridiculed and persecuted. How very ironic. Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GregP618, posted 03-21-2002 7:30 PM GregP618 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Xombie, posted 03-22-2002 1:06 PM Darwin Storm has not replied
 Message 21 by GregP618, posted 03-24-2002 3:36 PM Darwin Storm has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 12 of 33 (7583)
03-21-2002 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by fleeming
03-20-2002 12:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by fleeming:
According to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban has invaded Ohio.
your first post and youve already lost my respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fleeming, posted 03-20-2002 12:09 AM fleeming has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 33 (7601)
03-22-2002 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-21-2002 10:10 AM


Dr. T: I'm sure you've read George Acton's TalkOrigins piece on Behe's blood-clotting argument, but for those who missed it: Behe and the Blood Clotting Cascade. Looks like Dr. Behe missed out on a few published papers when writing his book.
With serial endosymbosis theory, in the very real person of Mixotricha paradoxa showing at least one living example of a ciliate coming from a collection of bacteria, two of Behe's best examples of irreducible complexity are reduced... He needs to find a new theory about something the gullible will pay him money to write about IMO, since he's rapidly running out of examples for IC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-21-2002 10:10 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-22-2002 7:38 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 14 of 33 (7608)
03-22-2002 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Quetzal
03-22-2002 1:57 AM


Yes, I have read the article. I was very underimpressed with the lit. searches that M. Behe reported that he had performed w.r.t. his book. I am sure that he does much better ones for his work at LeHigh. One reason that I am interested in the horseshoe crab example is due to the standard biological/biochemical practice of the "co-opting" of enzymes for novel purposes. The horseshoe crab has a wonderful system in liu of an active immunological system which blocks the entry or massive invasion of bacteria into it's system. It is a clotting system which uses many of the same components of the clotting system of "higher" organisms, if a massive infection occurs it will form a whole body clot but generally just seals the site of potential infection.
A fatal flaw in Dr. Behe's statement concerning the Rube Goldburg machine is that if there is an organism with a simpler system or a similar system used for a different purpose then his arguement fails, the arguement is very similar to the one that Darwin used for the eye. It is even more supoprtive if the species has been around for a long time. At close to 500 million years the horshoe crab is a wonderful example.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 03-22-2002 1:57 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 33 (7612)
03-22-2002 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by GregP618
03-21-2002 7:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:

There is an uproar when a creationist viewpoint is taught in schools,

I was taught the 'creationist viewpoint' in school. It was in a
religious studies class ... not mis-represented as science.
The RS teacher even pointed out the evolutionary progression
of forms matching fairly closely the order given in Genesis.
She left US to make our own conclusions on what that meant.
quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:

and yet evolution in my opinion, is every bit as much a religious viewpoint as creationism, and yet no-one bats an eyelid when it is forcefed to our children!!

Evolution is not a religous viewpoint at all, and it is NOT forced
upon anyone. As with ANY science teaching, it is presented as a
current theory ... and the evidence is examined (to a varying
level depending on the level of the class). I KNOW
this is the case in the UK having been through the school system
taking biology at both O and A level. Eviolution wasn't even touched
upon in O level (about 15-16year olds) biology in my day, and at A level (17-18 year olds) the THEORY was explained, and supporting
evidence detailed.
NO science teacher I have ever been taught by, or met (and some
of my friends ARE science teachers) would ever presume to present
scientific theory as FACT. At best we have compelling evidence
FOR a theory if there are no data/observations which refute it.
quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:

Evolution is a religious philosphy and a worldview. It is a belief system about the past based on the words of people that weren't there trying to explain the evidence in the present. Creationism is the same - a religious philosophy.

Again ... No its not. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory which attempts
to explain observed data. If new evidence does NOT fit the theory
the theory (or part of) will be revised or rejected.
In comparison ... provide some snippet of evidence against a
creationist view and the view remains the same ... but the
evidence is refuted. 'Oh it's not really that old because
atomic decay happened at a different rate back then' or
'radiometric dating techniques don't work' or 'the earth got
sucked into a white hole thingy so time went slower here than
in the rest of the universe' or ...
quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:

I personally believe, (and I know many of you will shoot me down demanding evidence I can't give) that it takes more faith to believe in big bangs, dark matter or abiogenesis, than it does to believe in an all powerful creator God who put us here.

You may believe whatever you wish ... but I don't BELIEVE in
abiogenesis, dark matter, or the big bang (only one of several
universe creation senarios) ... I have read about the theories,
looked at reports of evidence/experimentation and concluded for
myself that they are promising theories.
quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:

Our children should be taught the FACTS at school, and then be allowed to decide for themselves whether to believe the creationist or evolutionist worldview.

So you agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools,
since there are no FACTS concerning creationist views.
quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:
We shouldn't be biasing their opinions, we should be allowing them to make up their own minds. Right across the country, schools are encouraging children to change their religious beliefs in order to accept evolution, and this goes by virtually unchallenged!! A small minority of schools decide to stand up for a creationist view, and look at the uproar!!

Evolution does NOT threaten religous belief ... it only threatens
the power of the church over its flocks.
quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:

Remember that Copernicus was ridiculed when he said that everyone was wrong to believe that the Earth was the centre of the universe. He had the boldness to stand up and say that the Earth was moving in an orbit around the sun.

A belief emanating from the Christian Church at the time.
Are we evolutionists not in Copernicus' position ?
quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:

Give science enough time and it will eventually catch up with the Bible.

What scientific knowledge is contained within the Bible that requires
'catching up with' ? I'm not aware of any scientific principles
being expressed within the Old Testament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GregP618, posted 03-21-2002 7:30 PM GregP618 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GregP618, posted 03-24-2002 4:19 PM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024