Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

You might add, ramoss, that science doesn't have to "proove" things (as in the mathematical sense). It offers the most resonable explanation with the available evidence.Evolution has become VERY resonable indeed with over a century of further evidence and exploration of it's ramifications.I might also add ramoss that there are two admins who would REALLY like it if you paid attention to the sub titles since your post as nothing to do with "T o p i c !" as an admin issue.ABE
edited to correct subtitle, uh he he he This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-03-2006 01:31 PM

John, you have to get your facts straight before you use them to defend a position. Everytime you base a position on things which are wrong your position is built on sand and is unsupported (and looks like it might be wrong) as you state it. The more you do this the more likely it appears that you position looks wrong because it actually is. There is no hint of such logic. Only that it feels better to you. Please show how there is any logical support for your position. "completely change" -- the DNA of even rather distantly related species has a large number of similarities and long stretches which are identical. (see some references below) There is no complete change required at all.The changes that are there are easily explained by mutations.We aren't after "proof" in some kind of mathematical sense. We are trying to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion based on what we do know. It makes far better "logical sense" that the changes we do see taking place account for the life we see than any other available explanation. Mutations are far, far from the only evidence. If you think you prefer another explanation that is obviously based on the fact that you have no idea what the evidence really is. Founding an opinion on utter ignorance isn't something that inspires respect for said opinion.You have carelessly used the word species. The larger, more influential creationist organization have given up on species some years (and decades) ago. They recognize that species can and DO arise. They have even been forced to accept genera and then they get fuzzy on just what they do mean.Your logical sense is no longer supported by most if not all creationists. That is because it is not logical and has been shown to be wrong by actual evidence.Our DNA and chimps are hugely identical. If you saw two cars with as many identical parts you'd wonder about paying a lot more for one than the other.Here is a discussion of us and the mouse:
Human Genome News Vol.11, No. 3-4, July 2001andfrom: Humans and Mice Together at Last

quote:

---

The first head-to-head comparison of draft human and mouse genome sequences can be summarized in one word”fourteen. Fourteen genes on mouse chromosome 16 are not found in humans. All the others”more than 700 mouse genes”have counterparts in the human genome, most of which are grouped together and in the same order as in the mouse genome.

---

You mixed replies to two posts in one of your own. It might be a good idea to link back to posts in that case or use two replies. You can link by useing what I do below to point to your post 45. Use the peek at the lower right of the post to see what is entered to do it.You said "then completely change their DNA into different species". Where we are now is that we have finished with your post Message 45 and there was not meaningful assertions in it.Let's move on:
When one is making statements about "odds" or using terms like "astronomically high" one is refering to things which are represented by numbers. Before you can make such statements you have to supply input assumption and the calculations used to arrive at your final values.Once again you are making statements based on knowing nothing at all about the subject. What is true is that the odds involved here can not be calculated at all. Thus your claim is based only on personal incredulity. That isn't a very firm foundation. It is utterly useless as a reason for a claim when that incredulity is based on knowing nothing about the subject.You should also be more careful about saying that the complexity of nature means, when compared to human design, that there must be a designer.What you don't know is that the complexity of nature is of a strikingly different nature than human designed objects. In fact, the best of humand design exhibits traits that are opposed to the apparent design in nature. An understanding of human design shows that nature exhibits traits totally contrary to the idea of "design" (in the sense we apply it to the only intelligent design we know about).This is a rather more complex area than can be discussed without derailing a thread about science classrooms. You might want to take this to Message 1 to discuss it. That thread hasn't really gotten off the ground.I would, however, suggest that you aren't ready for that yet. You need to build up your understanding of the sciences involved before you continue to restate things you've been told by others while having no understanding of them yourself.

I suggest you read over:http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.htmlIt seems that your sources are being misleading in the case of this quote. It does not support your viewpoint.This is an example of the kind of "support" for the ID position that proponents attempt to use. It is a small example of why many of us here treat it with such derision. If you like that treatment then keep doing what you are doing. You are using weak, tired and not altogether honest arguments to support your position.

John, there is something that you , being a relative newcomer, may not recognize:Most people here don't have any quibble with whatever you want to believe. What we do have a big argument with is the idea that there is any support for some of those beliefs from a scientific point of view. There are significant creationist organizations who claim that they can support a young earth, the flood and separate creation for different animals with science only. They use this to try to force their beliefs into the science classrooms.If you don't intend any such interference with the education of those who actually want to learn about the natural world we don't have any disagreement with you.If you wish to suggest that there is objective evidence to support your views about nature then you have to supply that evidence and logic. This is a very demanding game to play. Is, however, fun and rewarding.Please let us know just what game you want to play so we know what rules to apply. This thread is in the "Science Forums". The rules here are pretty stringent.

It would be nice to see some examples of actual thinking from you. However, let's start easy; let's just see some examples of reading with comprehension. It is necessary to have knowledge of subjects before it is possible to think critcally about them. Here you have an opportunity for learning a little which you appear to be squandering.Those of us who have seen a little (or a lot) of the workings of science in acedemia know that robots is not what is aimed for or produced. You statements don't seem to match reality in at least some places.

But there are perfectly good theories that are not currently disprovable. That isn't the point.It would appear that ID isn't disproveable in principle.

One might point out that he may look at biology as a computer code but it isn't anything like a computer code. You may, if you wish, open a topic on that.And Jelsma is supposed to be talking about evolution but instead discusses the origin of life. Since the ToE is about the behaviour of biological organisms it obviously can't have anything to do with the origin of life.Both you references obviously don't really know what they are talking about.

You have received some rather detailed replies to this. Also a note that it is off topic.I'm not sure if this is on topic or not (ID is so maybe). I think you will have a large problem understanding the answers you have been given so I want to try to help with a simplified way of looking at a deep flaw in the kind of reasoning that you are copying here. (Copying because I know it is not your reasoning).Someone here a year or so ago posted the following little bit and I found it very amusing but containing a deep point that you need to grasp (grasp but maybe not agree with but still "get").All these fine-tuning arguments that go on about how amazing it is that the earth, universe, etc. is so amazingly fine-tuned to be just what we need to live in is just like the puddle which wakes up one morning and looks around at the hole it is in and is amazed at how the hole is so perfectly shaped to fit our puddle exactly.Life on earth is fluid (in a sense); it flows to fit the hole available to it. Damm good thing too; the hole, as others have noted, keeps changing shape . The hole is NOT designed to hold the life in it; life in it has been forced to fit to the hole or die. That is why the believers in God who also accept evolution (the majority of believers) appreciate how clever God was to set life up in a way that allows it to evolve. The only other choice He would have is a static, unchanging (read B o r i n g ) world.