[quote]PGA200X wrote:
It boils down to evolutions can back up their claims with at least some evidence where as intelligent design followers can only back up their claims with faith. I’d much rather have physical evidence rather than somebody’s belief determining the scope and direction of a classroom.
A succinct point. Sun burns out I die. Thats a pretty big fucking flaw in something thats supposed to be “intelligently” designed.[/quote]
Right…as you conveniently ignore that the planet isn’t slated as lasting forever in the first place. That was also in that bible you just ignored with that statement.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Floortom wrote:
ID is purely a religious dogma. There is not one shred of evidence, not one peer-reviewed article, noe one iota of evidence that would ever suggest such hogwash. The only people that are able to delude themselves into giving this theory credibility are religious folks who need to assuage the immense cognitive dissonance that they face due to the insurmontable evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Even the vast majority of religious scientists are able to separate their blind faith from reality and can recognize the hoax that is ID.
This is the exact type of post I was referring to. Some of you can pretend that “evolutionists” (even though most Christians understand simple evolution within species) are being attacked…but it seems to be quite the opposite.
[/quote]
Stupid ideas deserve derision. The attempt to forcibly introduce these stupid ideas to a captive audience of children in science class deserves even more derision. Keep it in your church and I wont say a damn thing about “creation science.”
Stupid ideas deserve derision. The attempt to forcibly introduce these stupid ideas to a captive audience of children in science class deserves even more derision. Keep it in your church and I wont say a damn thing about “creation science.”
[/quote]
Gee, have you actually read this thread? Who is “forcing” anything on anyone?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
in a system of utter chaos, it would get more and more organized as time went on.[/quote]
Actually, delineating the laws of thermodynamics, it does not get more and more organized as time goes on. The majority of biomass on this planet consumes energy from the local fusion source to generate organization (or more specifically, abolish disorganization). The majority of the rest of the biomass spends its time dis/reorganizing the “primary organizers”. Once again, we’re back to the theoretical physics that lies way outside H.S. science on what you believe about the size and composition of the universe and whether we end up in a Tipler, Linde, or Dyson scenario. Not to lecture you (I think we pretty well agree), but I think this further illustrates the point.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Right…as you conveniently ignore that the planet isn’t slated as lasting forever in the first place. That was also in that bible you just ignored with that statement.[/quote]
So the world isnt slated to last because the bible says so?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
in a system of utter chaos, it would get more and more organized as time went on.
Actually, delineating the laws of thermodynamics, it does not get more and more organized as time goes on. The majority of biomass on this planet consumes energy from the local fusion source to generate organization (or more specifically, abolish disorganization).[/quote]
Why would energy do this in a system of chaos?
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t explain the believed symbiotic relationship we have with mitochondria, or how so many biological systems on this planet are believed to be evolving into more efficient machines. How does what you wrote explain that belief?
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Right…as you conveniently ignore that the planet isn’t slated as lasting forever in the first place. That was also in that bible you just ignored with that statement.
So the world isnt slated to last because the bible says so?[/quote]
Not just that. I would expect human nature would lend itself to the eventual destruction of mankind. It really doesn’t take a prophet to understand that.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Can one of you anti- ID types please explain to me how we got from amino acids to mammals?
I understand evolution from that point on and there is a good bit of supporting evidence.
[/quote]
Speaking for only myself, Zap, I would assert that the origin of life is aside from the OoS. This is something else the “ID types” don’t quite get, and why I mention evolution with respect to economics and systems design and yet another reason why ID needs to stay out of H.S… Evolution is merely the passage of traits, from one generation to the next, under the tenets of natural selection. It answers your question no better than Keynesian Economics explains how we go from bartering milk for sheep to the current world economy (and humans have been around for all of that). Actually, evolution ASSUMES an established population in order to have natural selection.
Reference Genesis. It’s the fall of man that introduced decay/breakdown into the universe. Science might refer to many of it’s attributes via the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An observable, repeatable law that is in direct conflict with the self actualizing basis of macroevoltion.
[quote]pookie wrote:
A few more questions for the Intelligent Designer:
Why must humans get vitamin C from their diet? If we don’t, we develop scurvy and eventually die from the deficiency. We have the pseudogene for vitamin C production, but, being a pseudogene, it’s there but inactive. Dogs, on the other hand, have the real thing. They can produce their own vitamin C even when it’s absent from their diet. So remember that if you run out of oranges, you can always eat Rex to tide you over.
Why does hemoglobin have such an affinity for carbon monoxide? Carbon monoxide is a clear, odorless gas which we can’t detect. Hemoglobin binds with it much more readily than with oxygen, which leads to unpleasant phenomenons such as dying. Is this a prank pulled off by the ID? Or is it that because carbon monoxide poisoning is a very recent possibility and that it’s never been an environmental pressure we’ve had to adapt too? Wasn’t the ID able to design hemoglobin so that it would favor oxygen in all circumstances?
Wisdom Teeth: Why give us more teeth than will fit in our mouthes? Was there an end-of-season special on molars that day? They generally come out (if they come out at all) rather late in the development cycle, and we live quite nicely until then; so they’re not useful for chewing better. In many cases they have to be removed since they push underneath the other molars, causing quite a bit of pain.
Male nipples? Enough said.
Plantaris muscle: Useful in apes who swing from trees, in humans it is atrophied and sometimes completely absent.
Color blindness: Color blindness is slowly on the rise in humans. Why should our “perfect eyes” be losing the ability to distinguish colors? Does the Designer recycle cones for some other specie? Or is it because we’re not adversely affected by color blindness and currently not “selecting” against it? It also shows that less than 100% of an eye can be useful, refuting a common argument of IDers.[/quote]
Below is one of them there “stupid” things that leads “uneducated” folks to question evolution. Anybody, scientist included, is relegated to idiot status and unable to see basic reality who might question the Darwinian Religion. How biased and dogmatic. Evolution has more holes than swiss cheese.
Evolutionists have “Physics Envy.” They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It’s not.
The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact?no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. . . . I think this is what the public discerns?that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.12
John Chaikowsky, “Geology v. Physics,” Geotimes (vol. 50, April 2005), p. 6.
Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings."13 They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.
David Weatherall, “Conduct Unbecoming,” American Scientist (vol. 93, January-February 2005), p. 73.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would energy do this in a system of chaos?
[/quote]
This is part of the anthropic principle, I ask ‘Why wouldn’t it?’ and we complete the cycle, see Frank Tipler’s works on the Omega Point and the rest of this post.
[quote]
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t explain the believed symbiotic relationship we have with mitochondria, or how so many biological systems on this planet are believed to be evolving into more efficient machines. How does what you wrote explain that belief?[/quote]
Sorry, I should’ve been more clear, what I wrote doesn’t explain THAT belief (there can/can’t be ID/evolution). What I meant was that what I wrote explains why I don’t believe ID and/or the origin of life should be taught in H.S. so much as evolution THEORY. It think the initial question you ask; “Why would energy do this in a system of chaos?” is along those lines. While the question ‘Why would energy assemble and disassemble matter in ever-changing form?’ is a valid question in the debate about a supernatural intelligence, it’s a little outside the scope of H.S. biology and/or evolution.
From “Science Matters”, a book by two evolutionary naturalists.
Chapter 17 is entitled, “Evolution” Pg. 243
If you are a Creationist, the Bible ? not nature ? dictates what you believe. Creationists subordinate observational evidence to doctrine based on their interpretation of sacred texts. The tenets of biblical Creationism are not testable, nor are they subject to dramatic change based on new data. In other words, Creationism is a form of religion.
Let’s rearrange a few words that would make this paragraph much closer to the truth:
If you are an evolutionist, Darwin ? not nature ? dictates what you believe. Evolutionists subordinate observational evidence to doctrine based on their interpretation of On the Origin of Species. The tenets of evolutionary naturalism are not testable, nor are they subject to dramatic change based on new data. In other words, Evolutionism is a form of religion.
To those who would protest (too much!) the above restructuring, I would defer them to an introduction a British biologist wrote for Darwin’s infamous book:
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory ? is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation ? both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.2
The fossil record reveals an abrupt appearance of highly complex creatures ? whether they are trilobites or whales ? followed by stasis (no change). Science done in the laboratory (observational evidence) clearly shows there are natural limits to biological change. There simply is no indication of radical change (macroevolution) that Darwinism demands.
We now conclude that science ? what we really know through empirical research ? certainly does matter. Science demonstrates design/creation.
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact?no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. . . . I think this is what the public discerns?that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.12
[/quote]
This is the part of ID that I really hate. No observations? Natural selection is directly observable from cells in a petri dish to bones in the ground. No repeatability? Dig up all the bones you like, all the ones so far don’t refute evolution, grow all the cells you like ALL of them respond to natural selection. No falsification? Any fossil found outside the evolutionary timeline would contradict evolution (e.g. a dinosaur skeleton on top of a human skeleton) not one has. Do you even know what empirical means? And evolution along with Mendellian genetics can and does help to cure diseases (maybe not in a ethical manner, but that’s politics/sociology, not science).
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory ? is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation ? both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.2
[/quote]
I would argue this point, evolution is not the backbone of biology, anatomy and physiology existed long before evolution, Mendel’s genetics experiments were performed to support Lamarck’s theory, Darwin’s theory superceded Lamarck’s as an explanation for diversity and inheritance. Mendel’s experiments reflected this independently of Darwin. Even without evolution theory, Mendellian genetics is still empirically observable and applicable. Biochemistry and molecular biology both exist independently of evolution theory and would be largely unchanged without it.
[quote]
The fossil record reveals an abrupt appearance of highly complex creatures ? whether they are trilobites or whales ? followed by stasis (no change).[/quote]
Depending on what you mean by abrupt, the trilobites and whales can be/are distinctly separate from one another (with respect to the age of the universe, abrupt, with respect to generations of trilobites or whales, no). As far as the explosion goes there are many explanations, it has been asserted that as species get more complex, they will require more time to evolve.
[quote]
Science done in the laboratory (observational evidence) clearly shows there are natural limits to biological change. There simply is no indication of radical change (macroevolution) that Darwinism demands.[/quote]
How radical a change is needed? Flies can be changed irreversibly in several generations (days to weeks in astrological time), the same with mice on a slightly longer time scale (months to years). What your asking for is absolute proof and it doesn’t exist, however, there is currently more empirical proof for evolution than ID.
DH, I hope you’re joking because this is in direct conflict with your prior post, this conclusion was reached with “no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification”.
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Reference Genesis. It’s the fall of man that introduced decay/breakdown into the universe. Science might refer to many of it’s attributes via the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An observable, repeatable law that is in direct conflict with the self actualizing basis of macroevoltion.
[/quote]
From Wikipedia.org:
2nd Law (Entropy): It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. (Kelvin-Planck Statement)
That said, the resevoir is the largely the sun (for now) and all the organisms on earth generate far less work than the sun puts out in energy. Where’s the contradiction?
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Reference Genesis. It’s the fall of man that introduced decay/breakdown into the universe. Science might refer to many of it’s attributes via the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An observable, repeatable law that is in direct conflict with the self actualizing basis of macroevolution.[/quote]
So Adam and Eve where created perfect, but loss that perfection when they “fell?” Am I understanding you right? Was it an instantaneous phenomenon – they went from perfect to flawed as they stepped out of Eden – or a slow degenerative one, with each generation slowly “devolving” from perfection to our current fatassimus americanus specimen?
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
If you are an evolutionist, Darwin ? not nature ? dictates what you believe. Evolutionists subordinate observational evidence to doctrine based on their interpretation of On the Origin of Species. The tenets of evolutionary naturalism are not testable, nor are they subject to dramatic change based on new data. In other words, Evolutionism is a form of religion. [/quote]
That’s false. The Origin of the Species was written nearly 150 years ago. Since then, the theory of evolution has changed. Advances have been made in biology; DNA was discovered, etc. Many of those advances confirmed parts of Darwin’s theory or explained some of the mechanisms used by evolution. But the fact remains that the theory itself has been revised and changed.
You can’t go and revise Genesis or Leviticus when you discover that they’re wrong. That’s the difference. Science is not (supposed to be) dogmatic. All scientific theories are always facing the possibility that they’ll be replaced with a better theory. But it has to be a better theory; one that explains just as many things as the old one and with less flaws and/or more empirical support. Unfortunately for ID, it is none of those things.
[quote]BigD777 wrote:
If the evolutionists think the theory is so easy to believe in and that ID is so stupid, then why are you worried if both theories are presented to our children? I mean if evolution is so obvious then aren’t you confident that children will see the “such clear truth.”
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”
–Darwin, Origin of the species[/quote]
ID is not stupid. Well the idea of ID is, but ID itself is cleverly presented. To most layman and probably to most high schoolers, ID appears to be scientific. It’s certainly wrapped up in scientific sounding lingo. It appears to reach its conclusions through reason and logic. The problem is that the “conclusion” is actually the base assumption. ID doesn’t start from objective facts and, through deduction, arrive to the conclusion that a Designer was involved in life as we know it; it starts from God and looks for flaws in other theories to use as supporting arguments.
Will children be informed that within peer-reviews biological journals, there are exactly zero articles dealing with ID? That nearly all ID publications originate from a few Christian organisations such as The Discovery Institute? We do want the kids to get all the facts, don’t we?
In that spirit, should we not also force Churches to give equal time to science during the sermons? Whenever it is mentioned that “God created man in his image”, should equal time be given for Darwin’s ideas? We could leave the choice to individual Churches, but remove their tax-exempt status from those that don’t wish to “preach both sides.” Use those taxes to fund education. Schools and teachers are generally underfunded; this plan would alleviate that problem.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Right…as you conveniently ignore that the planet isn’t slated as lasting forever in the first place. That was also in that bible you just ignored with that statement.[/quote]
Yes, well there are other planets out there, which no one appears to be using at the moment. I hope mankind outlives the Earth.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would energy do this in a system of chaos?[/quote]
Could you better describe this “system of chaos?” You’ve mentioned chaos a couple of times on this thread and I’d like to understand your idea of “chaos.”