If It Quacks Like A Duck.. God Did It
by marc at 6:00 am on January 3rd, 2006 in Religious Right / Extremists, ScienceFaithful readers will note that while the topic of Intelligent Design has come up from time to time here, it hasn’t exactly been flagellated from a scientific or philosophical perspective. Truth be told, while it’s fun to crack jokes about flavoring religion with pasta and Hollywood icons, it’s easy to label ID as just another right-wing conspiracy to push the agenda and sneak religion into schools. Not so fast, Lefty. Let’s first justify our standpoint by defining and picking apart the three main talking points behind ID - irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and the anthropic principle:
1) Irreducible complexity
a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p. 39)
The human digestive system is often given as an example of such a system. One thing you will notice, though, is that the exact “parts” of the “system” are never labeled. Do we go by the accepted definition of “digestive system” or some other definition? Most people will agree that salivation and chewing are part of the digestive system, but if you lost your salivary glands or teeth you could still swallow liquids and even some solid foods. The rest of your digestive system would still work properly. Likewise, if you fall into a coma, you can be kept alive for years with a feeding tube - as we all know.
We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system.
ID proponents often give other examples of flagellate tails and such that are equally arbitrary in their definitions. But who could seriously suggest that the “human digestive system” didn’t have more “parts” than it does now? What if the current version has been reduced from something more complex? This possibility goes completely unaccounted for.
A true example of an irreducibly complex system has never been found, because the term itself is defined using faulty assumptions.
2) Specified complexity
since specified complex patterns can be found in organisms, [then] some form of guidance must have accounted for their origination. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random processes. (source)
The same fallacious “it’s just impossible because we said so” argument. There’s a whole mess of mathematics by the main purveyor of this point, William Dembski, that essentially says “I’ve decided that these meaningless statistics apply here, so I scientifically conclude a designer must be responsible” and etc. It invents the idea that nothing in nature can become complex on its own, therefore God The Designer did it:
Let’s say you are walking in a field and find a TV set. You don’t necessarily know anything about who or what designed that TV set, but you can tell it is designed because, at some fundamental level, it exhibits specified complexity. But scientifically speaking, that’s all you can infer–that it was designed! (source) (emphasis added)
“It just has to be!” Sounds too much like a creationist argument. That’s because it is. Also, just because one uses “scientifically speaking” as a qualifier, doesn’t make it so. I have a better analogy:
Let’s say you are sitting in your cozy government office and find a hurricane approaching the Gulf Coast. You don’t necessarily know anything about who or what designed that hurricane, but you can tell they got it from Nordstrom’s because, at some fundamental level, it exhibits specified complexity. But scientifically speaking, that’s all you can infer–that it was designed by the fashion gods! You can quit now! You can go home!
Couldn’t resist.
3) Anthropic principle
An amazing discovery of scientists, in recent decades, is that many properties of the universe are “just right” for life. Most scientists are convinced that the fine-tuning constraints on a life-allowing universe are very tight, that small changes would make the existence of intelligent life impossible, and that the probability of a universe having these properties (fine tuned to be “just right for life”) is extremely low. (source)
Ah. Now it’s obvious who the Designer is.
It’s painfully clear that the Earth has properties that allow humans to exist, therefore humans exist. Anthropic principle is simply a backwards argument, going from effect to cause instead of vice versa: humans exist, therefore the Earth has properties that allow humans to exist. Wrong direction.
With all the geological processes and biotic respiration going on, the Designer apparently needs to “tune-up” the planet every once in a while. (Infer: Global Warming) That explains all the evidence in ice core samples of the atmosphere changing throughout history. Did all life just cease to exist during the periods when it was “out of tune”?
In all three points you might note the theme of “low probability of evolution” being used as a basis for Intelligent Design, employing fallacious arguments as “proof” in place of logical conclusions based on sound hypotheses. The probability of intelligent life coming about randomly really is small, but that was never under dispute. Even if it’s only a one in a million chance, there’s nothing to say we can’t be that one success or that we are the only one.
I leave you with the words of ID proponents attempting to describe their religion science fashion sense:
Intelligent design originates in a mind. The ‘intelligence’ in Intelligent Design is an awareness, or consciousness, that is purposeful, that conceives of
something it wants to see actualized and directs whatever activities are necessary to achieve that end. It doesn’t have to be smart. (source) (emphasis added)
On deck: ID and the “liberalizing” of education.
Captain~Seven wrote:
Irreducible comlexity stands, and cannot be knocked down. The living cell contains several organelles. If ANY of these organelles were not present the cell would cease to be. The cell couls never have evolved in stages. In order for the cell to ever have existed, it would have to exist as a whole cell to begin with. This point cannot be gotten past. It is also translateable to other areas: without carbon dioxide producing, oxygen consuming animals, no plant life could ever have existed. From the smallest cell, to the largest environment, the world we live in IS absolutely irreducibly complex.
Some omnipotent force outside the dimensions of time and space is the only logical idea of our world’s existence. Call it God, or not, the shoe fits. And unlike evolution, ID is consistant with the principle of occam’s razor.
BTW…the earth isn’t flat either. ; P
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 6:56 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Some omnipotent force outside the dimensions of time and space is the only logical idea of our world’s existence. Call it God, or not, the shoe fits. And unlike evolution, ID is consistant with the principle of occam’s razor.
i think our bullshit filter is broken again. you’re using occam’s razor to prove there is a god?
when occam said “simple” he didn’t mean:
Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence.
Uneducated; ignorant.
Unworldly or unsophisticated.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 7:17 am ¶
marc wrote:
But your argument is.
Again, what are the parts of the system? Why could they have not evolved from more primitive forms? Where’s your proof that modern cells have more or less parts than prehistoric cells? You say that it “just can’t” happen. Sorry, no dice.
Oh my. What an awful conjecture. You could not have passed high school biology with that kind of thinking.
Where are our creationist friends to ask you which came first, the plant or the animal? They are never there when you need them.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 7:21 am ¶
marc wrote:
(Side note: And do be advised that I’m using the word “proof” to mean “scientific evidence”, since we are discussing theories..)
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 7:27 am ¶
Captain~Seven wrote:
To Matt: I’m not trying to prove there is a God at all. I’m merely stating that the ‘God’ hypothesis is the only one currently which cannot be disproven, therefore it is also the least complex.
To Marc: the burden of proof is on you. There is no scientist who would state that ANY living cell can exist and function without the golgi apparatus, ribosomes, lysosomes, and all of the other organelles. The cell could never have existed without all at once. Get it? So primitive cells never enter into it.
As to your second point…well there wasn’t one, you just tried to poke sophomorish fun at me, without any substantive criticism. Typical…lemme guess…you are a liberal? I could kinda tell….heehee.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 7:33 am ¶
matt wrote:
>To Matt: I’m not trying to prove there is a God at all. I’m merely stating that the ‘God’ hypothesis is the only one currently which cannot be disproven, therefore it is also the least complex.
with logic like that, you have a bright future in…something.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 7:37 am ¶
marc wrote:
>the burden of proof is on you
Again, this mistake of non-scientists to assume that science must offer 100% proof of everything. It does not and can not. Let’s get over this fact quickly, please.
>The cell could never have existed without all at once. Get it? So primitive cells never enter into it.
No, and I don’t think anyone else does either.
>As to your second point…well there wasn’t one
I did have a second point, and I was poking fun at you because you offer no evidence of your claims, nor have I found any in other forums. You assume the carbon-dioxide producing animal came before the oxygen-producing plant. You discount the possibility of coexistence in everything because you go under the assumption that it was created spontaneously. There’s nothing scientific there at all.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 7:45 am ¶
marc wrote:
>There is no scientist who would state that ANY living cell can exist and function without the golgi apparatus, ribosomes, lysosomes, and all of the other organelles.
More accurately, there is no scientist who would state that ANY living cell was spontaneously created. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. The “organelles” you speak of are made of proteins, lest you forget, which are made of amino acids which are made of molecules which are made of subatomic particles, and it may go deeper than that. If I remove some of the proteins or particles of one of the organelles, the cell still functions and your claim is false.
Evolution does not claim to work only in one direction, ie. by building. Things can also evolve by reduction. Please explain why your irreducibly complex cell did not previously have other parts in addition to what is currently in place.
The problem with your arguments is philisophical, not scientific. Every argument you make, like all the other ID proponents, is based on a fallacy.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 8:25 am ¶
island wrote:
It’s painfully clear that the Earth has properties that allow humans to exist, therefore humans exist. Anthropic principle is simply a backwards argument, going from effect to cause instead of vice versa: humans exist, therefore the Earth has properties that allow humans to exist. Wrong direction.
Ho hum… No that isn’t the reason that it’s called the anthropic principle… so why do antifanatics always reach for rationale that attempts to “explain-away” the implication for specialness rather than to act like real scientists and try to find a good physical reason why intelligent life might be specially required in the universe?
Oh yeah… it’s because they believe exactly what creationists want them to believe… that goddidit if we’re not here by accident… so we’d better wilfully ignore that the cosmic coincidences note that life ONLY appears balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies, which is a HELL OF A LOT more significant than simply saying that “Earth has properties that allow humans to exist”.
Let’s all kneel and pretend that this is ’simply a backwards argument’ …
Praise Chaos…
Ah-Man
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 8:56 am ¶
Captain~Seven wrote:
You guys are killing me. Marc: How could the very first cell ever have come about? The first one. With no organelles to write RNA scripts, where did the exceedingly complex genetic code come from? Intelligent amino acids who wanted to try communal living? My argument said nothing about particles within the organelles, so my claim is not false. Remove just one organelle, and the cell dies. It also cannot re-create itself, because it’s dead.
So how could the very first cell have arisen. Granted the ‘God’ hypothesis is a neat package, and an easy answer. But digital genetic code doesn’t just ‘happen’. Ever.
I don’t suggest we supplant the scientific method, and start with God. In fact we will seemore and more prominent scientists working in ID theory every year. There are hundreds of them now, they will be thousands soon. Evolution fails everywhere it is used, when trying to account for the origen of life. So other explanations must be researched, along with evolution. More ideas (and better ones) always add to the richness of a discussion. The only real religious aspect to this debate (worldwide), is Darwinian fundamentalism. i.e. the belief that there was a big-bang, and a ridiculous series of statistically impossible accidents must be the answer, even if there is no evidence for it.
Logic always applies. First there was nothing…then SOMETHING exploded and created the entire universe. From nothing to something. We reside in a cause-and-effect universe. The big-bang is not possible. So science demands we look elsewhere for answers. that is what ID researchers are doing. Looking for answers, even if they upset the arrogant athiests (Darwinian fundamentalists) who populate much of accademia by their conclusions. Just as Galileo upset the ’scientists’ of his day with heliocentric theory. He was ridiculed, and ostrasized….but he was correct, and has since been proven so.
BTW… plants need CO2 to live, animals exhale CO2. Animals need oxygen to live, plants release oxygen. That’s not science? It was when I was in 1st grade. They had to exist simultaneously from the onset of life, or couldn’t have existed to begin with. These are very very small examples, but apparently out of your grasp….stick to trying to make fun of people then, it worked for Michael Moore….oh wait no it didn’t. Oh well gl.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 8:58 am ¶
Fernando wrote:
Capt. Seven-
What everyone’s basically trying to tell you is that your God “hypothesis” is unprovable, and therefore not a real, testable hypothesis. Lack of current evidence for other hypotheses (in your view) does not prove your hypothesis. I can make an equally unprovable hypothesis that the universe was created by Carrot Top and it would be just as valid as your God hypothesis.
As far as the burden of proof goes: you’re the one claiming that an invisible super-being created the universe, not me.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 9:02 am ¶
Captain~Seven wrote:
Now that was at least funny…Carrot Top lmao. You are correct, that it must be a testable, and reproducible hypothesis to be science truly. Since we can’t time travel, neither ID, nor evolution is science. Evolution can be shown to be impossible, where ID cannot. I am not trying to prove ANY hypothesis, I’m merely stating that research should be done in any direction that yeilds logicall conclusions.
Darwinian evolution has ALWAYS been about philosophy. If he was right, humanists and atiests alike could kill God. So we have the decades of frauds…piltdown man..java man…lucy…peking man, all created as evidence for his theory. All subsequently proven to be frauds, because there is no real evidence of speciation. Not one transitional fossil form found, ever. Not &^$$&^ one. But I suppose that is science?
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 9:29 am ¶
marc wrote:
>My argument said nothing about particles within the organelles
Precisely the point. Your convenient choice of “organelles” as the “parts” of a cell is the problem.
>so my claim is not false.
If you remove an organelle from a cell, the cell will die. That’s a brilliant piece of scientific reasoning, bravo. It’s just not an example of an irreducibly complex system, because you STILL haven’t accounted for the possibility that there was another part to the system which was weeded out by the evolutionary process. Or the possibility that the current “organelles” had different functions at one time.
>I don’t suggest we supplant the scientific method, and start with God.
I seriously don’t believe you. Nothing that you speak of uses the scientific method in any way. Just because you say it’s science, doesn’t automatically make it so.
>Evolution fails everywhere it is used, when trying to account for the origen of life.
You forgot to add “..in the context of ID and creationism”.
>Darwinian fundamentalism. i.e. the belief that there was a big-bang, and a ridiculous series of statistically impossible accidents must be the answer, even if there is no evidence for it.
The Big Bang Theory is not part of the current discussion. We are talking about the origins of man, not the universe. They are not one and the same. The term “statistically impossible” is ascribed to much of evolution, by ID’s standards, but the mathematics are as faulty as the philosophy. “Statisically impossible” is.. what exactly? One chance in a million? A billion? We are here, but as far as we know, alone. If life had a billion chances to evolve and only one success, it is statistically impossible but that fact does not invalidate our existence, does it?
>The big-bang is not possible. So science demands we look elsewhere for answers. that is what ID researchers are doing.
Again, you are trying to go outside the current debate. As I have been saying all along, and as you have been ignoring all along - science can only do so much. I am not discussing the origins of the universe. I am discussing the origins of man. It’s like me asking a creationist about who created God, or an ID proponent about who designed the designer. If there were an easy explanation for any of it then we wouldn’t be having this debate at all.
>arrogant athiests (Darwinian fundamentalists) who populate much of accademia by their conclusions
Again this brand of religious standpoint removes all air from your supposedly “scientific” argument.
>Animals need oxygen to live, plants release oxygen. That’s not science?
That’s science.
>They had to exist simultaneously from the onset of life
That’s religion.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 9:42 am ¶
island wrote:
Logic always applies. First there was nothing…then SOMETHING exploded and created the entire universe. From nothing to something. We reside in a cause-and-effect universe. The big-bang is not possible.
No, you don’t have to have a perfect cosmic singularity to have a big bang. In fact… your buddy “occam” would say that inflationary theory isn’t necessary if the universe had volume when the big bang occurred.
Creationists usually use the big bang as proof that god started the universe… so I wish that you guys would get on the same page of the bible… lol
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 10:10 am ¶
marc wrote:
Island -
Finally, a respectable assessment.
As defined within the bounds of ID, that is essentially how the proponents are using anthropic principle. I’ll accept that it’s oversimplified but it’s all from what I have read.
A link may illustrate - see (3) on this page for an example of what I mean. I have seen this logic on other pages but will have to go find them again.
Maybe this definition of AP will be more accurate:
The argument still assumes that constants in physics and mathematics are true for the entire universe, which they may not be. The constants may be skewed elsewhere and life on distant planets may exist anyhow. There’s also no way to find out whether different constants could produce results similar or different.
>All hail the god, Chaos…
I’m definitely a fan of Chaos Theory, if that’s what you’re referring to.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 10:26 am ¶
island wrote:
The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common–these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth.
I think that this point still neglects the significance of the point that I made.
But… IDists make an unfounded leap of faith to presume that there is an intelligent agent behind the “appearance” of design, since design/structure can be perpetually inherent to the energy of the universe, as I suggested, this is all that we actually have evidence for.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 11:12 am ¶
island wrote:
… and no… I don’t mean Chaos Theory… I was talking about absolute random accidental arbitrariness that falls out of theoretical speculations about multiverses and uncertainty in the wave form of the universe prior to the big bang… etc…
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 11:16 am ¶
marc wrote:
Assuming you are referring to this -
- would you mind elucidating as to which tendencies specifically? A link or an example would be helpful.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 11:20 am ¶
island wrote:
Yes, all of the cosmic coincidences are balanced in this manner, that’s “the Goldilocks” facet of the AP.
Like, the near-perfect flatness of the universe, any sustained difference causes a cumulative runaway effect that sends conditions so far away from your wildests dreams for what constitutes life that it would make your head swim.
The Earth’s balance between cumulative, runaway, long-term glaciation and the runaway greehouse effect are another example for which we are innately acting players.
The anthropic coincidences all define “ecobalances”… which is no coincidence.
This is a pretty decent link, and it includes all sides of the arguement, for the most part:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec19.html
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 11:40 am ¶
marc wrote:
Looks very interesting at first glance - I will read through it and comment more on it later.
Speculate for a minute though: what about the existence of interacting feedback loops in nature? In mathematics, it is possible for stable patterns to arise from chaos, as you probably already know. Are you sure those “ecobalances” and other anomalies aren’t just that, a reflection of mathematics in nature?
Agreed. From your points it seems as though your contention is that ID proponents are just misusing the anthropic principle, or that the two are mutually incompatible.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 12:41 pm ¶
island wrote:
Mathematics in nature!??… this charlatin should have their head removed!
I think you’re close to hitting the nail on the head, the flatness of the universe is a natural damper that keeps an inherent imbalance from running away.
It’s a number provided by nature and we should expect that a theory will someday provide a reason for it.
~ Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac ~
I think that creationists have caused scientists to auto-react adversely to the sceintific implications of the anthropic principle in a manner that hurts science, since the anthropic principle defines the ToE, if the most accurate cosmomological principle is anthropic, or more likely, “biocentric” in nature.
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 1:06 pm ¶
island wrote:
cosmomological… Now THAT is a multiverse… lol
Posted 03 Jan 2006 at 1:47 pm ¶
marc wrote:
I found the link (among other sources I checked out) a good read, regardless of whether these mathematical and natural “coincidences” are just that or not. I still think there’s a lot more we have to discover before we mull on the origins of the universe - in fact I think that every time I pick up Scientific American.
ID is a “science” of convenience. It follows that they’d twist something like AP or exclude information from it until it becomes impossible for the layman to deny. The sole reason this is even up for debate is because of the wording of their claims.
So I stick with my original point. Which is that it’s the way of ID to take a scientific argument and bastardize it by inserting an “easy explanation”, in its attempt to bridge the gap between religion and science. There is no bridge. While it admittedly takes an amount of ‘faith’ for the scientist to believe that his constants are constant everywhere, all the time, there is nothing in religion or ID that truly employs any part of the scientific method.
Thanks for the extra insight.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 6:24 am ¶
island wrote:
I agree, but I stick to my point that neodarwinians are *typically* equally antifanatical knee-jerk reactionaries.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/qualiatative/113584127244700172/
I still think there’s a lot more we have to discover before we mull on the origins of the universe…
Maybe not. It may have actually be resolved a long time ago, only we didn’t realize it.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 9:02 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I still want to know how evolution can use DNA as proof when we can’t extract DNA from specimens older than 100,000 years old? And if DNA can’t be used, jsut what exactly is the “proof” similar looking jawbones? Partial skulls look similar? Look at the evidence for the “human evoltuion”, most evidence is simply a bone fragment(s) from one site. So how can it be called science if it is merely guessing?
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 11:55 am ¶
marc wrote:
http://www.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc150/One/science.html
Despite your claims to the contrary, you either slept through your science classes or are having selective amnesia. You still look at science through religion’s bifocals. If you want to beat a dead horse, do it over here.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:51 pm ¶
island wrote:
I still think there’s a lot more we have to discover before we mull on the origins of the universe…
These are some relevant and testable predictions of the anthropic principle in its current incomplete form, (without an entropic interpretation):
The principle readily extends to every banded spiral galaxy that is on the same evolutionary “plane” as we are. This falls from the “preferred location and time” aspect of the principle, we are far from alone on this layer of applicability, fine as it may be.
So as a consequence, life elsewhere will have developed at about the same rate as us.
This means that they will also be at approximately the same level of technological development as us.
This commonality in “location and timing” clearly indicates that life is no accident, and we should expect that first contact is going to be one hell of a lot bigger than Jodi Foster ever did a movie about.
So don’t be surprised to find out that evolutionary theory is about more than life, if the “biocentric” universe evolves by the same mechanism as humans do.
The previously linked website:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html
lists some “anthropic problems” that are easily resolved by the physics that falls from an entropic interpretation of the anthropic principle.
This physics, as well as a small mountain of other relevant information can be found on my website:
www.anthropic-principle.ORG
Don’t be so sure that we need to discover more than we’ve already passed-up.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 2:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
That’s pretty and all but it still doesn’t answer my question…if DNA is not a factor, what other evidence can be used to even support evolution beyond mere speculation?
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 10:46 pm ¶
marc wrote:
While I have no qualms about the general questions raised by AP, especially because I am not arguing any specific point on the origins of the universe, I take issue with this statement.
For one, this assumes that there is another quasi-Earth with equally approximate qualities, comparable size and gravity, similar atmosphere, same propensity for catastrophic events such as meteors and sudden changes in climate - there are too many factors that this is overlooking.
How do changes in any or all of these conditions affect the rate of development of a species? How can we say that one or more species will be on our level, way behind it or way beyond it?
I have no problem with that possibility.
Being the novice physicist, as it were, I would require more study to truly understand/debate it - until then I’ll leave the physics to you.
I love science, as should be obvious, but I am still aware that in the universal sense we are still pretty limited. New ideas and theories are being written and rewritten all the time, as more evidence becomes available, more things come within our comprehension.. science has built so much on itself in the recent past, and quite a bit of it is completely unrecognizable from just a century ago. Even things we take for granted, like the idea that there are three dimensions - they are being challenged now also.
I’m just not ready to say, okay, we’ve figured it all out because I’m convinced there is an incredible wealth of information about the universe which we may never even possess the ability to reveal. This is why I and others are at such odds with religious devoutees - they want to say no, no, no, stop learning, we already know everything, read the Bible and all your questions will be answered. But we wrote those answers - not the universe. That’s why that dichotomy exists. Perhaps you already realize that.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:30 am ¶
marc wrote:
I wasn’t answering your question at all. It was already discussed.
http://www.1115.org/2005/12/20/us-district-judge-john-e-jones-iii/#comment-5506
But despite that, you are just trying to start the same pointless debate all over again. If you had any remote interest in science, I would take you seriously and we would have something to discuss. But you do not. You are still pandering your “absolute proof” and I am still contending that science does not offer absolute proof of anything, only the use of scientific method based on available evidence.
If burden of proof was required in science then we would never learn anything because there is too much we simply can’t prove. That’s what the link was for, to reteach you about what science really is. But all you can say about it is that it’s “pretty”. I don’t care if you have a science degree or not - it became meaningless when you took up the Bible.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:56 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Proof or no proof, if DNA is not and cannot be used for the vast majority of “evolution” findings, how then are they to come to their results if not by mere speculation? IF they can’t test it, how then do they decide that one skull fragment is the ancestor to another skull fragement….I’m trying to get you to think for yourself of what actually is happening here…..
“Pretty”, I was being sarcastic in that I know that process. I had to learn that process in in the college of science from which I have a degree as you stated. Taking up the Bible does not invalidate any scientific thought, if so, Sir Isaac Newton’s work would be cast out.
My point is that evolution doesn’t even come close to meeting the scientific process in that most findings are based on untestable/unverifiable data but yet evolution is most definitely taught as if it were fact, not theory. THAT”S MY POINT!!!!
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:40 am ¶
island wrote:
While I have no qualms about the general questions raised by AP, especially because I am not arguing any specific point on the origins of the universe, I take issue with this statement.
For one, this assumes that there is another quasi-Earth with equally approximate qualities, comparable size and gravity, similar atmosphere, same propensity for catastrophic events such as meteors and sudden changes in climate - there are too many factors that this is overlooking.
How do changes in any or all of these conditions affect the rate of development of a species? How can we say that one or more species will be on our level, way behind it or way beyond it?
I think that the principle of mediocrity, which is the basis for all SETI research, works just fine here, except that it only applies to the fine layer of galaxies that are on the same evolutionary plane as us.
This doesn’t mean that life has to be exactly like us, nor does it mean that conditions have to be “exactly” the same, rather, it means that these things will be similar enough, is all, and that life on these other galaxies will appear balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies.
It’s a real testable prediction, not a matter of “how can we say”. One that SETI is testing as we speak. One that the Mars Rovers test daily, life will NOT be found on Venus nor Mars, for the reasons given… is the same testable prediction, for the same exact reasons, except that it applies more locally, in this case.
The proof is in the radio waves. If other civilizations were that much ahead of us, then SETI would have heard from them.
Being the novice physicist, as it were, I would require more study to truly understand/debate it - until then I’ll leave the physics to you.
Actually, the physics can be described in very simple terms that a layman can easily understand and determine for themselves whether or not it will work. It’s knowing enough about it all to decide whether or not it supecedes current thinking that’s the trick. The bottom line… Einstein was right, all along, because his finite static model is not unstable after all.
I love science, as should be obvious, but I am still aware that in the universal sense we are still pretty limited. New ideas and theories are being written and rewritten all the time, as more evidence becomes available, more things come within our comprehension.. science has built so much on itself in the recent past, and quite a bit of it is completely unrecognizable from just a century ago. Even things we take for granted, like the idea that there are three dimensions - they are being challenged now also.
I’m just not ready to say, okay, we’ve figured it all out because I’m convinced there is an incredible wealth of information about the universe which we may never even possess the ability to reveal. This is why I and others are at such odds with religious devoutees - they want to say no, no, no, stop learning, we already know everything, read the Bible and all your questions will be answered. But we wrote those answers - not the universe. That’s why that dichotomy exists. Perhaps you already realize that.
Easy boy, the question was about causality, is all, so don’t read too much into it.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:08 am ¶
marc wrote:
Observation, just like all other fields of science get their results. But we never physically observed it, you say. Not true. Simple examples include insect populations adapting to pesticides, bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, etc. Evolution is supported by genetic, anatomical, ecological, behavioral, and fossil observations, et al.
Right, you who let a bunch of storytellers think for you. Sorry pal.
In this context, ie. the debate against evolution, I disagree. No one claims that Newton’s physics are false because the Bible says Jesus walked on water.
First of all, evolution isn’t even the topic of this post, in case you forgot to read it (see above). Secondly, you already discussed your “point” over here:
http://www.1115.org/2005/12/20/us-district-judge-john-e-jones-iii/#comment-5452
where you even plainly admitted that you’re putting forth a “self-defeating, illogical argument”. You didn’t offer anything different than the standard “where’s the proof?” and chicken/egg questions, not to mention unresearched and unverified claims of “lacking evidence”.
Evolutionary theory agrees with the observations made and most importantly is useful to real-world knowledge, which is why it’s taught in schools instead of religious alternatives. If there is another theory that fits the evidence, that isn’t based on philisophically incorrect claims (see post) and employs the scientific method, then perhaps there will be room for another theory to share the spotlight.
Think for your self for a minute: if evolution were false, why are we allowing ourselves to change and/or damage the global environment? Every living thing on the planet would lack the ability to adapt to environmental changes and would die out.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:27 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Adaptation is not evolution, it is a behaviorial change, learning. Evolution that speaks to species in this context is that one species beget another and is no longer the same species. This is what has little evidence or support and fails the scientific method.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:53 am ¶
marc wrote:
Somebody better tell Thesaurus.com, because they have these listed as synonyms.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=natural%20selection
An organism adapting to its environment (in the broadest sense) is evolving. If bacteria exposed to an antibiotic survive, they mutate, and pass on their antibiotic-resistant genes to the next generation, which then have full antibiotic resistance. Nowhere will you find support of your suggestion that this is merely due to a behavioral change. You’re dangerously close to saying that bacteria are sentient beings.
Like how “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas”? No. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time; I assume you are familiar with genes and chromosomes. That’s a small part of it.
You’re exactly right, there is no evidence to support that a species can just “change” into another species on a whim.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:30 am ¶
JimC wrote:
The meaning of evolutio nfor which there is no support is that one species gradually evolved into another species. An organism that has population that have adapted or changed physically is not evolution in the darwinian sense. Even if one population has slight genetic differences from another, they are still the same species and are compatible genetically. Asians have physical differences than Euorpeans but they are still Homo Sapiens. People of African decent have gentic differences from those who came from Europe but are still compatible genetically and can produce offspring. However, these genetic differences are not “evolution” in the sense that man evolved from apes…I don’t dispute that differences in genetics have occured across a species. I dispute that these differences result in a species
Posted 06 Jan 2006 at 11:25 am ¶
Mark wrote:
Both of these posts show a pretty impressive lack of knowledge on how fossils are formed. Fact is, it’s pretty amazing that any have been found, considering the soil acidity, temperature, moisture, et al have to be within a pretty slim range in order for one to form.
Add in the fact that paleontologists have searched about .01% of the Earth’s surface, and the argument blows up.
Now, had we searched almost all of the earth’s surface (including the 2/3 of it currently under water) then there’d be an argument. But we haven’t, and there’s not.
So please, try to use a different tact because this one doesn’t hold up to even the most basic logical scrutiny.
Actually, that’s EXACTLY Darwinian evolution — the species that adapts best to its environment survives, while the ones who don’t die off.
But that’s okay … you’re usually wrong anyway, so we’re used to it.
;-p
Posted 06 Jan 2006 at 12:03 pm ¶
marc wrote:
Thank you for that clarification. I will gladly talk about that.
Speciation occurs two main ways: reproductively and geographically. Most commonly, two or more segments of a population (via migration patterns, climate changes, etc.) become isolated from each other. Over many generations the genetic differences between the populations become so great that they are no longer capable of interbreeding, and are thus classified as new species.
Reproductively speaking, populations can diverge this way by choosing another ‘niche’. The usual example I have found for this is part of an insect population feeding on a new host plant and then no longer breeding with the original population.
In all cases of speciation, gene flow between the parts of a population is reduced or blocked altogether, thus forcing them to genetically develop independently of one another. You’ve already noted the differences between humans living on different continents, ie. isolated populations, so this point should be fairly evident.
Biologists do not all agree on the exact genetic mechanisms of speciation, due to the complexity of most populations, so more study does need to be done in that respect. There are few examples of observed speciation because of the length of time it takes, but that fact does not invalidate the evidence.
A few links for more info:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1eSympatric.shtml
Posted 06 Jan 2006 at 12:41 pm ¶
marc wrote:
Also a nice example of speciation experimentation, with some helpful illustrations, on the same site:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
Posted 06 Jan 2006 at 12:53 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
The problem with the Fruit Fleis experiment is that it was a preference to mate with the same population but not a genetic requirement. This is without being racist can be observed in humna population as well and thus does not prove speciation but only speculates how speciation could occur, theoretically. But this theoretic view point is not being taught in HS science classes. It is being taught as fact. For example, when a comment like x species and y species had a common ancestor…..bing….what? How? Proof?…This is what I am talking about.
>Mark Says:
January 6th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
….
You actually valdiated my point. Your argument that fossil remains are rare and often incredibly incomplete goes to further my argument that believing evolution, that is speciation and common decent aremore than a guess at best, is not science…
Posted 09 Jan 2006 at 11:03 am ¶
Mark wrote:
JimC–
Actually, no it didn’t.
They have found ample evidence of speciation within the fossil record. And Robert Bakker’s book, The Dinosaur Heresies has some great info in it about how dinos evolved into birds.
What they haven’t found (yet) is the every-single-animal-must-have-a-complete-fossil-record proof that you and others seem to demand.
It’d be like showing you a Honda Civic, and then allowing you to drive it in order to prove that the internal combustion engine works.
You’d just turn around and say, “Well, prove it works in a Toyota.”
That was my point — the amount of evidence you and others on the right are demanding has yet to be done, so you just throw your hands up and say, “You don’t have enough proof! God did it!”
It’s an intellectual cop-out that ignores certain facts.
Posted 09 Jan 2006 at 12:23 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Fruit Fleis…mmmm, is that Heidi’s sister?
Posted 09 Jan 2006 at 12:23 pm ¶
marc wrote:
You’re leaving out the fact that the passage you read said the following: “the first steps of speciation have been produced in several laboratory experiments.. although, we can’t be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we’d expect“. The theory is backed up by the initial results. There are many other ongoing observations to see if speciation is indeed experimentally true - look up polyploidy and hybridization for some of the many examples.
You mean it’s a.. theory? Still struggling with the definition of the word, I see. That’s all that has ever been officially said about speciation - and evolution for that matter - it’s a theory. I have yet to see anywhere this theory touted as “proven” aside from a couple examples and a few experiments that only show the initial steps of speciation, such as the aforementioned fruit flies.
Since you’re so big on proving things, please offer proof of this. In my experience, that statement is completely false.
I know what you are talking about, and it is precisely that to which I responded. It is impossible to debate with someone who simply keeps restating their point when they are challenged. I told you what it is, how it works, and gave you as much “proof” as you are going to get. You haven’t offered anything to debunk the theory of speciation at all. On the contrary, many examples of speciation occurring have been found (please read up on the genus Tragopogon for one) to debunk the idea that species appear spontaneously.
Where’s your rebuttal against geographic and reproductive speciation? What evidence and/or experimentation has shown either of these not to be true? What competing theory has been offered that uses the scientific method and isn’t rooted in religion?
You don’t dispute that genetic differences occur within a species, so naturally if you divide a population in half and cut off the gene flow between them, their genetics will continue to go in different routes until they are no longer reproductively compatible. Isn’t that a sound logical conclusion that has thus far been backed up by the existence of different species of the same genus existing in isolated geographical locations? There is nothing to rebut against that.
If you found such evidence, we’d be talking about JimCism instead of Darwinism.
Posted 09 Jan 2006 at 1:33 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>They have found ample evidence of speciation within the fossil record.
How? What physical evidence did they use to come to this conclusion? They can’t test the DNA since DNA over 100K years cannot be tested, so what is left? Bone structure and approximate aging?
Posted 09 Jan 2006 at 5:15 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
One day a creationist and a scientist were arguing evolution. The creationists pointed to two fossils and said, “Evolution is flawed! There is a gap in the fossil record!” The scientist then showed him a fossil that fit between them, filling the gap. The creationists said, “Now there are TWO gaps!”
There is no evidence enough to change their minds. They call it ‘faith’.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 6:16 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>screwtape Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 6:16 am
One day a creationist and a scientist were arguing evolution. The creationists pointed to two fossils and said, “Evolution is flawed! There is a gap in the fossil record!” The scientist then showed him a fossil that fit between them, filling the gap. The creationists said, “Now there are TWO gaps!”
There is no evidence enough to change their minds. They call it ‘faith’.
>
Clever, but I want to know how someone can argue that evolution in regards to the fossil record can be called science when all it is based on is a comittee of people who make conjecture about what bonefragment’s source msut have looked like and then find the nearest thing that it looked like followed by when they think it walked the earth and presto, evolution has been proven!
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 7:03 am ¶
Mark wrote:
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 7:24 am ¶
marc wrote:
Wow, way to completely ignore my comments. I suppose, then, I will take this as your agreement that speciation does have scientific basis.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 8:03 am ¶
Mark wrote:
Okay — I forgot to close my blockquote tag. Hate it when that happens …
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 8:15 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I know exactly how scientist dream up these evolutionary trees, I just want you to say it…..that it is done not from anything that is even remotely close to concrete. At every level it is a guess. It is a guess to determine the age of the bones, it is a guess to determine what the animal looked like, it is a guess….
Look, I know exactly what you are saying, I’ve had to study it in college. I watch on Discovery channel, my point is that all these claims by scientists cloud the reality that when it is boilded down, the basis on the speciation idea is a very shakey frame of speculation.
For example, strata is often used to age fossils however when it is found that two fossils which are known to exist in different ages are found in the same strata, those findings are thrown out.
“Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth’s land surface does not have even three geological periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods” (John Woodmorappe, geologist).
“Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation” (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
“most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply” (J. O’Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
“In most people’s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It’s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation” (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist)
“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
“I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition” (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
And finally, a quote which speaks to the heart of my arguments, and this from a paleontologist and evolutionist…
“I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we have a problem” (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 1:06 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>1. How is ID science?
Because it is the persuit of knowledge and even at the risk of rejection…
>2. If you don’t attribute it all to god, then to what?
I do attribute the origin to life to the Almighty God, however, the origin of life can be taught without regards to what force created it, based totally on the design itself. Which in fact evolutionst always argue that evolution isn’t to disprove God same that ID should not set out to prove God.
To me the idea of ID should be focused on the intelligence behind the design of life not on the persuit of what that creator was…
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 1:13 pm ¶
marc wrote:
Again, nothing in your comment is even remotely close to what I was discussing. You completely sidestepped the topic. Didn’t this happen last time? You just stopped debating and started quoting wildly from any source that sounded even remotely intelligent. How did we suddenly shift from genetics to fossils? It’s just a distortion of the argument.
What is this? What part of the word THEORY do you not understand? Hasn’t it been maintained all along that the majority, if not all of science is an estimation? Where has evolution been taught as concrete fact? I still haven’t had that answered.
I don’t think anyone has strayed from that point except you, who will perpetually, it seems, believe that everything revolves around 100% exact proof. All you are saying in all of your arguments is that everything is speculative, but that reasoning alone doesn’t disprove evolutionary theory nor make it unscientific. Nor would that approach work for any other branch of science.
Face it, you’re up against a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. Speculation or not, you’re in the minority when you say that this is not science. The vast minority.
If that’s all you’ve got then there’s nothing to debate.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 1:58 pm ¶
Mark M wrote:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (cough) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (wheeze) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA … HA HA HA … HA … ahem.
Yeah … and I’m starting for the Colts this weekend.
ID/Creationism isn’t KNOWLEDGE … it’s faith. Period.
Finally … you admitted it.
Bullshit.
By stating, in a classroom meant to teach SCIENCE, that there is some all-powerful creator, is putting religion into the discussion.
Again, that’s not knowledge or truth or fact. It’s faith.
Thanks for playing.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 2:04 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>marc Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
you missed the point. Yes science is made up of scpeculation and there are MANY Scientific facts. My point is that evolution doesn’t even meet sciences own standards, yet as in the quote I provided, it is passed off whether you want to admit it or not as fact. How many times have we heard on the news about some new finding. For example..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html
“But there is no absolute proof that this is what in fact happened with this small human. ”
When this story was splashed on the nightly news, no where was it mentioned tha this was speculation nor was it sold as theory, it was passed off as fact.
Furthermore, look at the following quote which shows how ridiculous these stories become. Look how only fragments have been found yet specualtions abound…
“The newly found remains, dug up in 2004, consist of a jaw, as well as arm and other bones which the researchers believe were from at least nine individuals.
A jaw bone reported last year and the latest one were probably from the same species, according to the scientists. Both share similar dental features and lacked chins.
The new species, dubbed “Flores man,” is thought to be a descendent of Homo erectus, which had a large brain, was full-sized and spread from Africa to Asia about 2 million years ago.
“Although the original skeleton is estimated to be 18,000 years old, a child’s radius (arm bone) was found in deposits estimated to be 12,000 years old,” Daniel Lieberman, of Harvard University in Massachusetts, said in a commentary in the journal.
So from a jaw bone, they know that size of the brain? hmmmmm
I know perhaps these hobbits were actually a crew of aliens that were marooned on earth after their spaceship crashed. About as plausible as these creatures being a “species” of humans.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 2:29 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>When this story was splashed on the nightly news, no where was it mentioned tha this was speculation nor was it sold as theory, it was passed off as fact.
For someone who is either not paying thorough attention or not a critical thinker (or watching FoxNews), this might be the case. However, whenever I see a report like this verbs like “believes” and “thinks” as in:
“SciencePerson-X believes that this species belongs between A and B on the evolotionary path”
The statement you made, here, sounds a lot like the alarmist bullshit you’d hear from the pulpit.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 2:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You can teach the design of a computer chip without regards to the manufacturer, same with ID. You study how the design of life is not based on random mutations and chance but rather was intelligently designed with a purpose. Who or what that purpose is, can be irrelevant in the study.
Look, I really don’t care to have ID taught in school either, I simply object to teaching evolution and even the passive acceptence of evolution as fact in the media and in text books.
Do you honestly believe that in schools, the science teacher stresses the “theoretical” aspect of evolution clearly? No, it wasn’t in my HS nor at college. It was just assumed to be fact. Mainly because the theoretical is rarely even touched on, but by saying things like humans have ancestors in common with modern apes without qualifying the theory implies its factual standing with the student or the observer.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 2:39 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>The new species, dubbed “Flores man,” is thought to be a descendent of Homo erectus, which had a large brain, was full-sized and spread from Africa to Asia about 2 million years ago.
…”is thought to be”…it sounds like a theory, an idea, a hypothesis. Were it indisputeable, “is” would be sufficient, dontchathink?
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 2:41 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>So from a jaw bone, they know that size of the brain? hmmmmm
From the earlier quote in the article: The new species, dubbed “Flores man,” is thought to be a descendent of Homo erectus, which had a large brain, was full-sized and spread from Africa to Asia about 2 million years ago.
Homo erectus was not the new species, homo.
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 2:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I was not talking about this article, I was talking about the news reports at the time did not give any indication oftheory….
forget it…have fun, monkey boy, I don’t care anymore….
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 4:15 pm ¶
freedom of teach wrote:
Dear JimC and all the other Bible thumpers who claim to have taken Biology but choose only to remember part of what they learned:
One of the main flaws in your argument for IC is that cels could not survive without the function of a singel subcellular organelle. What you have chosen to omit is that there’s an entire KINGDOM of organisms that have NO ORGANELLES AT ALL: Prokaryota. They do OK as far as I can tell. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t be able to digest your food soo well because billions of them live in your digestive tract.
Also, early Earth was a pretty shitty place full of CO2, CH4, H2S and a whole bunch of other noxious gases in the atmosphere, but NO O2 AT ALL. Some of the first organisms that did evolve (after biological molecules like amino acids etc formed as has been shown by Miller and Urey and replicated by countless othe biologists) were CHEMOsynthetic. (There were of course heterotrophs before them that simply munched on amino acids and proteins that were floating around). They used compounds containing Sulfur to build high energy molecules that they could break down to use the energy. It wasn’t until MUCH later that any photosynthetic organisms showed up and they weren’t leaafy plants as we know them today. Those photosynthetic guys had to crank out O2 for a few million or billion years before anything that needed to use O2 for cellular respiration had a chance. Plants (photosynthetic organisms) don’t “need” animals to live. I have no idea why anyone would think that. Sorry…go back to class and try to learn this stuff before you try to argue about the science.
Oh and Biology has never claimed that humans evolved from apes/monkeys. Humans and all other primates share a common ancestor: a population(s) of this ancestor split into 2 groups due to an environmental change (one criterion for natural selection). One group was better adapted to live on the ground and one group was better adapted for living an arboreal life. Guess which group eventually led to modern humans and which became the apes monkey man? Learn it before you use half-truths and MISCONCEPTIONS to try to make a point.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 3:51 am ¶
marc wrote:
Don’t lecture me on passing off your points. Especially after you completely avoided further discussion of speciation when I provided sound reasoning that it is in fact a quite valid, logical scientific theory. I know what your points are (you’ve restated them more than enough times) and I’ve been responding to them all along, just like everyone else.
Whether the designer and its purpose are irrelevant in the study or not, if you are teaching that something was intelligently designed you are saying that it is not a product of unguided natural processes. You are saying that someone or something is fine-tuning the mechanisms that make life possible. This is the equivalent of saying that a God is responsible.
My experience, and I suspect the experience of more than a few other people here, was very different, as I stated before. Maybe you are right, but what evidence is there that any certain percentage of schools still teach evolution this way? If it is such a problem why hasn’t a study been done? I suggest you ask your school board and/or science teachers to see what they teach and how.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 6:14 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
No it can’t.
Do you honestly think some kid isn’t going to ask who/what the “designer” is? Then what?
I’m not sure what color the sky is in the world you live in, but it sure as hell ain’t the same as the one the rest of us inhabit.
And your “monkey man” crack just shows that you, just as other Bible thumpers, find it insulting that we have decended from some other primitive species. It’s that kind of arrogance that has led to genocide (seeing some other culture as “primitive”), the wholesale destruction of habitats, and the general fucked up mess we now see all over the world.
Or is that all part of your designer’s plan? If so, your designer sucks ass.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 6:31 am ¶
JimC wrote:
You bet that I will be doing this, absolutely. Fortunately, I live in a nice little RED county in a RED state….
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:00 am ¶
JimC wrote:
True, and on the flip side, what if a child challeneges the teacher and asks for the alternatives to evolution or even refutes the teacher with creation theory, can the teacher then hold a discussion on ID? Probably not because of the one sided view that has been legislated by the courts onto our schools…
Yeah, the monkey man was a shot, if you think you have descended from a common ancestor with apes, have fun with that. But you are wrong to assume this makes me feel supior to other races, or are you racist somehow to think other races are inferior? I believe all men were created equal…wait what’s that from? Oh nevermind that historical document will probably get banned from schools as well…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:05 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Probably not because of the one sided view that has been legislated by the courts onto our schools…
still pissed off that your faith can’t be sanctioned by the government. why do some religious people feel the burning need to have their views officially validated? isn’t it enough that you accept it uncritically?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:20 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I don’t want my religion sanctioned by the government, just not discriminated against or forcably removed. Plus, if a student were to raise the question in class, the teacher isn’t allowed to discuss it, why?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:38 am ¶
matt wrote:
>I don’t want my religion sanctioned by the government
i think we both know that’s bullshit.
>just not discriminated against or forcably removed
so does that go for islam as well?
>Plus, if a student were to raise the question in class, the teacher isn’t allowed to discuss it, why?
because that’s for his preacher
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:52 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
The teacher should refer them to a mythology class, which is where the discussion belongs.
Actually, there’s this document called the “Constitution” that states there is a separation of church and state. Thus, if the school isn’t private, the only I would say they could discuss a religious issue like ID is to have a religion class (which I think would be fine). The key is to make sure they present ALL religions when having it.
I’m not the one going around acting insulted any time someone suggests that humans were descended by a more primitive form. Just stating that it’s attitudes like that have led to racism.
If you don’t want to be associated with stuff like that, then don’t take the same arrogant, moral high ground.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:53 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
Okay … the least part of my post was cut off.
Jim–We know damned well that the only men you consider equal are:
1. Men.
2. Christian men.
Your views on abortion, evolution, Bush, et al prove it.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:55 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Whatever…
Yes.
So you are in favor of censorship, at least that’s been cleared up.
I see you also are not in favor of free speach and think censorship is good…
I never linked race to monkeys, you did…
Are you completely deranged? I mean seriously, do truly think yourself an intellectual? How do you know anything about what I think other than your prejudices against Christians. I never once said anything about other people being less than me…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:25 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Oops
Oh really, please find it for me, the exact text that says there will be a separation of church and state.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:26 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
>if you think you have descended from a common ancestor with apes
some of us, cough*JimcC*cough, are more closely related than others…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
>Oh really, please find it for me, the exact text that says there will be a separation of church and state.
Does that mean you think it is a good idea to combine the two? And if you do, would you feel the same way if it was not your religion that was the official religion of the state?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 9:42 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No, I mean I get hammered on nitpicking my statements, so here’s my chance to hit back….
No, I think the Constitution is clear that the gorvernment will not be run by any religious establishment, but that’s all it means. It does not mean all things religious is banned from government or public arenas. It simply means that no one religion shall be the official or unofficial religion of the country. It is really only recently has ANY reference to a religion been demonized to condone or support one religion. The constitution never states that religion is banned from government or public areas.
Unfortunately, some misguided people take that mentioning ANY is an endorsement of that one and therefore cannot happen.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:19 am ¶
marc wrote:
Consider that a little more carefully. You won’t mind if they teach creation in an Islamic or Jewish context as an alternative to evolution? Or the Scientological view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
I could be a bit presumptuous on this, but it seems to me as though allowing the influences of alternate religions into the classroom would be devastating for more than a few people.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:00 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
No offense, but you’re a fucking idiot.
Yep … you’re a fucking idiot. My point is pretty clear and only an idiot could miss it.
You don’t have to — the arrogance you have toward the thought of us evolving from another, more primitive form prove that you do.
And I love the “prejudice against Christians” comment. You have been following James Dobson’s playbook perfectly.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:02 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
>I think the Constitution is clear that the gorvernment will not be run by any religious establishment,
>It simply means that no one religion shall be the official or unofficial religion of the country.
Okay, so far, so good. There may be hope for you. Take that last statement to it’s logical conclusion.
Baby steps now…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:16 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
attention JIM:
you do not have to be a creationist to be a churchy. here is how. the author is s big time churchy, but not a creationist. he did not completely check his brain at the door, like that whacko richard. enjoy.
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 9:50 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I’ll save a little time for everyone: Jim’s not so much pro-creation as he is anti-theory. He doesn’t want evolution or relativity taught in schools.
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 10:20 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I missed this gem. Thanks screwtape for bringing this thread back to the top.
Mark M, your way with words ought to make you proud. I know I have more respect for you when you use such language and your point comes across much clearer and more mature as well….of course I’m not serious…
Now back to screwtape, the idea of a Bbible believer rejecting creation is well, foolishness. Can one reject part of the Bible and still believe it to be the Word of God? I guess you can fool yourself into believing that but that falls under living for this world and conforming to it rather than relying upon the Word of God. So, I feel sorry for people who feel pressured by secular society to give up some of the promises of God in order to “fit” in to this world.
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 10:35 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Liar.
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 10:38 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
did you even read the link?
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 10:50 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Are you saying you accept every part of the Bible? Does that mean you follow all of the Levitical Laws?
Posted 10 Feb 2006 at 11:13 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>did you even read the link?
Yes, hence being infunced and pressured to reject the Word of God and fit in with this world. His idea that there are mutplie creation stories is a personal interpretation of scripture. The passages in Genesis 2 in which he claims that God created