Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

an unintelligent process has designed a radioParasomnium does a good job of discussing it here. Once you've had a look there we can discuss other examples if you'd like.

I would like to see how the idea of capacitance got around it's own design (as Feynman would have thought about it for instance) such that parity differences in the computers was not to be the lame blame for the appearence being fully formed.I'll read the details but I would guess this surmise will suppositionally stand and continue to support what I digrammed intelligently here::
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2006 08:54 AM

Everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. The issue is whose opinions are based on truth.I am trying my best to do this. Software engineer writes programs for everyone and every field. He does not have to be a biologist.In fact, non biologist software programmer writes better programs for biology as he will not have any preconceived notions. A new field has arisen. It is Bioinformatics.You can interpret the bible the way you want. You can take some parts and interpret the way you want. What does God say? this is the question you, I and everyone has to answer.

quote:

---

What does God say?

---

Since God does not exist, he doesn't say a whole heck of a lot.But that is off-topic. What is on topic is what evidence is there for the existence of intelligent design in naturally occurring biological systems? So far your sole evidence is, "Gosh, I and other people cannot believe that this could not have been designed!"Or perhaps you agree that there is no evidence for the existence of "intelligent design" in naturally occurring systems. In that case, why should it be taught in a public school biology class?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

no its a matter of whether what you say is factual and knowlegeable. he may not have to have a phd in biology but he had better understand what biology is about and what biologist do, which means its better to be a biologist! god hasn't said anything in 3000 years if he ever said anything

Do you mean to say that those 3 billion people who consider Bible as the true word of God are all fools or liars?

I had synthesized an antithrombic drug. In order to evaluate this, I had to study its effect on the blood clotting mechanisms. Every 2 weeks, I go to my doctor's office. They draw my blood. For some tests, they use the plasma after the blood had clotted. for other tests, they have to keep the blood intact. What does this have to do with ID?When they draw blood, some blood clots. If it does not, then I will bleed to death. The blood clots as a result of cascades of 10 different steps.They are all regulated by enzymes and cofactors. All these steps must function in order for blood to clot. They must also occur in the proper sequence at the right time. I do not understand how this process came into being. If I try to apply the theories on evolution, it does not make sense to me. All these steps must be in order and must be in place and be functional for the blood to clot. The drug that i sysnthesized blocks 5 steps.One more example: Take the tiny cell. It has the nucleus whci has the genetic material. Mitochondria is the power house that generates energy for all the cellular functions, the Golgi apparatus transports proteins,endoplasmic reticulum syhthesizes proteins,and the lysosome disposes the garbage. Ribosome has avery important role of synthesizing any protein for the cell.It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that existed on this planet from giant redwood to the human brain,can construct its own components in a matter of minutes and is of the order of several thousand million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.Here, we have some trucks carrying the components to the right places. They also have molecular motors attached to them. Each protein has a signal attached to it.When all the trucks arrive and deliver the goods, then, the cell is constructed.The question all of us have to answer is, how did this microscopic assembly factory
come into existence through along period of time. I have been asked by many in this forum about self assmebly of proteins. It is difficult for me to imagine that this microscopic molecular machinery "Self assembled itself" over along period of time to function. Now, it is either the cell is completely organized and is fully functional or nothing works. If it is partially assembled, it will not work.I do not understand how these came to be.

This is creationist claim CB200.2:

quote:

---

The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.

​

Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003).

---

CB200.2: Blood clotting and Irreducibly Complexity

If you are referring to the Jesus Seminar theologians, their objective is to discredit the Bible as a whole and I have nothing to say. You are free to believe whatever you want. But, the Professor in the Christian college is doing his duty. If this Christian professor came to your college and forced his views on you, then you have every right to object to it. As long as he is paid by the christian college and his curriculum has been approved by the administration, then he is doing his job. He is exercising his right to his beliefs and opinions. The constitution gives him the right to exercise his beliefs. I do not have any authority to "Establish any of my opposing viewpoints on him or his college" As long as my tax dollars are not involved, it is not a problem.I do not understand why A Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist or a Hindu can "establish" his beliefs whereas A Christian cannot even "exercise" his own beliefs.

That's a pretty strong unsupported assertion there sir. But no, these are not 6the Jesus Seminar theologians but rather over 10,000 Christian Clergy from the US. Just plain old mainline Christian Clergy. Who said anything about forcing views on anyone. If that school wishes to raise a bunch of ignorant kids and if parents wish to force ignorance on their children, that is their option.The Constitution does give the professor the right to be ignorant, and no one is opposing his right. But what we are doing is going public to tell everyone that Christians DO support both the Theory of Evolution and the old universe and that those who try to teach ID or Young Earth or Biblical Creationism are simply misleading both the students and their flock. That's totally off topic for this thread but if you want to try to start a thread and support those assertions, please give it a shot.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What in the world does this have to do with the topic?Should one be allowed to teach ID in the classroom? Why or why not?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The blood drawing is getting somewhat off topic.
Let us move back to the idea of ID in the classroom. For instance, let's say that ID is tought in classes. We will assume it is introduced as: “God/Someone/Something designed everything. That’s why it works so well!” How would the teacher respond to questions like:
- How come my mom/dad told me something different?
- Why did God/who/what make it?
- Can I talk to it?
- Where does it live?
- Isn’t that from the bible?
- Why are we learning about religion here?
- Why did it make things this way, and not another way?
- How can you prove ID?
- Where did the designer come from?You can’t exactly tell the students to shut up and have faith. If you’re response to their request to talk is prayer, well that could be seen as a stepping stone for prayer into public schools. If you tell them its not religious, then they’ll ask why most people who believe in it are religious. If they ask you to prove it, what do you say? If they ask for an example, what do you offer?It seems like to me, as a student in high school, you can’t let ID into the class room without giving religion a space too. It seems God (the Christian one) fills the space really neatly.From my perspective, bashing evolution is the key to ID. I do not think evolution is the perfect theory, it may not even be right. But what else do we have to go off of? Science is built off of what we observe. If we observe evolution, then that is science. If evolution is wrong, that does not mean it is not science.When god comes down here and tells us ID is right, and uses his/her/its magic powers or however he/she/it does things to convince me he/she/it is right, I will think ID belongs in science.The point of science is not the truth, its what we observe as true. Until I see God/designer making something, its not science.

quote:

---

The point of science is not the truth, its what we observe as true.

---

Nicely put. Did you come up with it?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Mostly, I took parts of it from my Physics teacher.

there arn't 3 billion people that believe the bible is the true word of god, that would mean half of the human population and i know thats not true
and a lot of christian groups do not consider the bible to be 100% the word of god
oh and an arguement from majority is a sad falicy to use