paper against evolution, for intelligent design

Rei, you said in responce to Sweetstuff..."Using the "irreducible complexity", one could argue that humans have to have always existed as they do now, because if someone took away modern technology, we'd all starve..."With all due respect, why do you use this as an example of the
"power" of the Irreducible complexity argument? Besides being the fallacy of Bad Analogy, I daresay that there are other forms of providing sustinence for a onesself rather than using modern technology! There are many more plausible and virtually innumerable alternatives to starving in a hypothetical situation as that one you provided. I don't think your analogy shows anything relevant about the Irreducible Complexity argument.Matt

Thank you for the suggestion, and if i had a choice i would try and write a paper in support of evolution. As it stands, however, i don't have a choice, and must write a paper either for creation or against evolution. But yes, i agree that the best way to learn about an opposing belief is to argue or write in support of it. Thanks for the suggestion anyway!~sweetstuff

Matt,I think it's a relevant point that Rei made about irreducible complexity. The assumptions inherent in calling something irreducibly complex are impossible to validate. She could just as easily have said that a motorist on the highway would be thrown against the road surface at high speed if you removed his vehicle, which proves that a motorist and a car constitute an irreducibly complex system.We can assume that a stone archway is irreducibly complex, since it can't stand with any of its parts removed. However, this ignores the fact that scaffolding was used to construct the arch. In biology you have no excuse for making judgements concerning a structure or function on the assumption that it has to have always existed in its present state.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

If you can't make judgments on biological organisms, what argument would you propose as a more conclusive and logical argument for ID?Matt

I was actually arguing against irreducible complexity with my example of the middle ear bones. People who support irr complex deny that evolution can produce these systems because intermediates will not work. However, the middle ear bones can plainly be seen to move from the jaw to the ear when comparing reptile to mammal transitional fossils. In mammals, if those bones are not in a precise arrangement then the animal is deaf (hence an irr complex system). So, look at these fossils of the lower jaw (middle ear bones are in color, reptiles on bottom mammals on top): As you can see, over time jawbones in reptiles moved and became ear bones in mammals. If we take a snapshot of what we see today and compare reptile middle ears with mammal inner ears it would seem like a gap that was undoable. However, these fossils fill in the gaps very nicely. The problem with the eye and the blood clotting systems is that we only have current snapshots, in other words there is no fossil record of biochemical pathways or the intricate systems inside the eye, nor can there be because of their inherently small or delicate nature.So, I would ask you, is it fair on your part to insist for evidence backing up the evolution of a system that does not fossilize? Better yet, is it fair to do so when irr complex systems that do fossilize display intermideate steps that would indicate evolution?

Matt, Surely that's your job?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

So you have to write a paper in support of creation or against evolution? Well, do you think your teacher is vindictive enough to give you an F if you do write a paper in support of evolution? Like FliesOnly said writing a paper in support of the other side is a excellent way to learn the information. And it is really useful to understand the other side when debating.

Be careful making the kind of recommendation that you are making. I'm guessing that this is a religious school. Doing too good a job on supporting evolution could very well produce a vindictive response. Some teacher's, without any particular axe to grind, don't like being corrected. The kind of possible correction you are suggesting may produce a very strong reaction.

Matt,Read the whole statement, okay? I stated that we can make no judgements concerning biological structures on the assumption that they always existed in exactly the same state. We've pointed out that the human auditory system almost certainly had the function of jaw articulation in our reptilian forebears, and there have been persuasive arguments that the bacterial flagellum once served in a strictly secretory function before being co-opted and refined for motility.I said I can accept that certain things are 'irreducibly complex,' but that fact says nothing about the way these structures or functions came into being. You assume that the fact that an artifact is so fragile that removing one part renders it useless means it was intelligently designed, but I think the opposite is just as likely.A decent argument could certainly be made for intelligent design creationism if what we saw in nature all seemed purposeful, well-designed, and economical. How much evidence of waste, jury-rigging and redundant complexity is sufficient cause to abandon the hypothesis of purposeful intelligence seems like an individual choice.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Hello again sweetstuff383: I don't want to read too much in to your reponse regarding my recommendation, but it does suggest to me that perhaps you have your doubts about the scientific validity of creationism...or at least it seems you have an open mind and want to learn more about the Theory of Evolution. If that's true then I applaud you. As someone who says they're interested in journalism, I would think you'd be pretty upset about censorship. If it's not true then you probably won't like the rest of this post.Does anyone else find it somewhat disturbing (and perhaps ironic) that this young lady is being forced to remain close minded? Creationist are constantly spouting off about "equal time", and "teach both", and "we're just as valid", and "blah, blah, blah". But yet, here we have a "teacher" who is requiring his or her students to write a paper that either supports creationism (I assume from a scientific standpoint, not a religious one) or refutes the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution. I guess that it's entirely possible that the class is structured and designed to do exactly what I suggested. That is, perhaps the course is designed to require the students to explore creationism so they can see its complete lack of scientific merit, but I have my doubts. Let me ask you this sweetstuff383: Is this paper for a science class? If not, then for what course is this paper is being required? Rand Al'Thor suggested you write a paper in support of evolution anyway, and see how the teachers reacts. NosyNed pointed out the potential downside to such a bold (and brave) idea. Why not try this. Approach your instructor, tell him or her about your visits to this web page and the suggestions that were made, and then explain to him the importance of writing a pro-evolution paper.On a side note to everyone else reading this, wouldn't it be a hoot if this teacher and the school received a "few" e-mails from concerned individuals about the narrow minded approach that seems to be taking place in regards to science? Wouldn't it be fun to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring "other" explanations about the diversity of life on this planet? Wouldn't it be a riot to point out that this is 2003 and that there have been a lot of scientific advancements made in the past 6000 years or so. Wouldn't it be fabulous to ask them what their school is so scared of, or how they can be so closed minded? I know that sweetstuff383 stated that it was a private school (I assume a religious one), which means they can teach pretty much anything they want (to a point...they still have to meet basic State requirements). But turn-about is fair play I think. The public schools in my State are constantly under attack from fundis demanding that creationism be taught as a scientifically valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Here's a chance for us to fight back with the same arguement.

Once, on a fieldtrip, we were sitting around talking about random things to kill time. Somehow Creationism came up and a couple of us ripped on the idea. To my surprise, one of my professors (a respectable geologist) jumped me for it. It could be, he said, that the world is six thousand years old...we do not know that it is not. All we know is that the evidence is that it is old so we just assume that the evidence does not mislead us, just like a chemist doesn't assume that an experiment gave an inconvenient result because of invisible wormholes sucking out a reagent. It could be that a higher being created the world and made it look old, six thousand years ago or six minutes ago, for reasons we cannot imagine. But that doesn't matter.Because if the Earth looks and acts like it is 4.5 billion years then from any conceivable practical standpoint it is 4.5 billion years old and our mineral resources and natural hazards which geologists are hired to find and study will be distributed as such and our old-earth worldviews will help us to manage them.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-11-2003]

Ashley (aka. Sweetstuff) is in my class @ Rockbridge, yes, a religious school. It is not that we are forced to be close minded at school, or that our teachers are vindictive. It is just that our final paper (due in may) is on the topic of A.) critiquing evolution, or B.) supporting creation. I am sorry, but any attempts to convert Ashley or I to Evolution is fruitless. It is impossible to convert a true Christian to a theory such as evolution. The evidence doesn't support the facts for evolution, and our religious beliefes are much more conclusive in our thinking. So, in conclusion, this young lady is not being forced to remain closed-minded. Not like she could possibly accept Evolution anyway. And for your information, e-mails to thew school would do nothing because you are setting forth a straw man. Our school is not that way, and the reason we are a religious school is because we have reasonably falsified the "alternatives." Oh, and we don't have to meet any State teaching requirements. We would know, My father is the chairman of the board there, and Ashley's father is a Maryland state Delegate. I know you would enjoy those e-mails claiming "hypocrisy!...scraed of evolution!, et al, but it would go unheeded. Sorry!Matt[This message has been edited by Matt Tucker, 12-11-2003]

quote:

---

It is not that we are forced to be close minded at school, or that our teachers are vindictive. It is just that our final paper (due in may) is on the topic of A.) critiquing evolution, or B.) supporting creation.

---

Which of the following two descriptions would you say better describes the teacher who assigned that topic?A) Substandard teacherB) Muslim haberdasherThese are your only two options. Choose.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-11-2003]

*Smacks head against wall*No True Scotsman Fallacy, and insulting to the hundreds of millions of Christians who accept evolution.------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Oh, marvelous! No one else has managed that before. Are you going to supply the data and logic of that? That would be very interesting.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-11-2003]