And finally, if evolution has “gaps”, then it doesn’t sound like it was designed to intelligently. I.D. IS a (non-scientificly modified) theory of evolution, plain and simple. It says that God had to actively step in to keep evolution going in the right direction.
Now some quantum physicists have said that our universe is real because its the one that God decided to care about (that he created all possible universes or something). This would be different, but clearly unprovable.
Harvard to Investigate Origins of Life
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815/ap_on_sc/harvard_evolution
My problem with intelligent design is that it is not science. It is religous dogma. If you want your kids to learn about it send them to church. If we do teach itelligent design then we should teach every religions version. A new “theory” every day.
Another problem I have with creationism is that modern biology has brought us many great inventions and made many things much easier. If you understand biology (including evolution), than making vaccines, antibiotics, and even steroids becomes more effective. If one belives in intelligent design it helps nothing. Nothing is explained and we are no closer to understanding the universe.
The “holes” in evolution are usually holes in someones understanding. science is hard work to read and understand. It is easier to have someone tell you how it is instead of working it out yourself. I’m an amature astronomer and I’m often shocked at how little people know about the universe. Even worse is that they don’t know how the scientist found these things out.
Everyone should read bill bryson’s “a short history of nearly everything” to get a grasp on how we know what we know.
here are my favorite sites to point out the problems with teaching creationism (intelligent design):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/index.shtml
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Now some quantum physicists have said that our universe is real because its the one that God decided to care about (that he created all possible universes or something). This would be different, but clearly unprovable.
[/quote]
Please quote your source, because I read a lot on quantum physics and have never seen anything like that.
[quote]fatsensei wrote:
Two, if you had never seen an automobile before and one day you stumbled on a H2 Hummer in a field would you think that it just happened? Maybe a storm created it, or it manifested itself from iron?
FatSensei
[/quote]
I don’t think biology and modern industrial creations are related at all. The watch maker argument doesn’t seem to answer anything in biology. Nor does it do anything to weaken evolutions ability to make predictions about things we are studying today.
Let me ask you a question IF god created everything, who created god? If god was always there couldn’t we just cut him out and say the universe had always been there? who needs the extra step. the only proof we have of the chrisian god comes from a bunch of crazy half starved semitic goat hearders. Hell that has to be better than science.
How about my theory called super intelligent design where a mega god created the god that made man. god is not quite as good as the mega god which is why he has a hard time making himself understood and is bipolar. It would explain a lot more than the intelligent design.
[quote]ScottL wrote:
BB,
There are…holes in the theory of evolution (see Jerry Pournelle’s site for discussion) to varying degrees. However admitting them (and admitting there may be an inteligent cause) is kinda like…oh I dunno…admitting that global warming ain’t due to man’s carbon dioxide emissions. It’s un PC.[/quote]
Sadly , no one can prove that man has anything to do with global warming or if in fact it’s even occuring. Since the earth has gone through periods of climate change throughout it’s history from ice age to tropical climate to back, it’s really egocentrical to claim to know one way or another, as with darwinism and intelligent design. Should we continue to research the possibilities? Of course, I just don’t generally buy into the “my side is right” type claims.
V
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Now some quantum physicists have said that our universe is real because its the one that God decided to care about (that he created all possible universes or something). This would be different, but clearly unprovable.
Please quote your source, because I read a lot on quantum physics and have never seen anything like that.
[/quote]
This sounds like a quote from “What the BLEEP Do We Know”. An entertaining movie from an outsider’s perspective but not real science. The beauty of science is that it allows for elegant hypothesizing as was portreyed in the movie. The problem is that once you hypothesize it it must then be explained in a purely scientfic way as laid out in the scientific method. Unfortunately this movie was nothing more than science fiction and if you read the credits there were only a few actual scientists in the movie and most if not all were scholars from religious/sprirtual institutes. This was very disturbing to real scientists like myself.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Sadly , no one can prove that man has anything to do with global warming or if in fact it’s even occuring. Since the earth has gone through periods of climate change throughout it’s history from ice age to tropical climate to back, it’s really egocentrical to claim to know one way or another, as with darwinism and intelligent design. Should we continue to research the possibilities? Of course, I just don’t generally buy into the “my side is right” type claims.
V
[/quote]
V,
there is not hard proof but analysis of data collected over the last century point to an anomoly in nature. The anomoly being that we can’t explain why there are shortenings in the cycle of the said climate change. Since this climate change coincides with the industrialization of the planet we naturally question man’s hand in this anomoly. Is it coincidence? Perhaps it is, perhaps not.
However, we will never know if we do not take responsibility and allow for the proper research to be done. Since I am not a climatologist I don’t know what the proper studies would include–but I assure you they are far from untenable as you state.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Flop Hat wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Now some quantum physicists have said that our universe is real because its the one that God decided to care about (that he created all possible universes or something). This would be different, but clearly unprovable.
Please quote your source, because I read a lot on quantum physics and have never seen anything like that.
This sounds like a quote from “What the BLEEP Do We Know”. An entertaining movie from an outsider’s perspective but not real science. The beauty of science is that it allows for elegant hypothesizing as was portreyed in the movie. The problem is that once you hypothesize it it must then be explained in a purely scientfic way as laid out in the scientific method. Unfortunately this movie was nothing more than science fiction and if you read the credits there were only a few actual scientists in the movie and most if not all were scholars from religious/sprirtual institutes. This was very disturbing to real scientists like myself.[/quote]
I was so disappointed with that movie. It had such a huge hype about it. Most of the “scientists” interviewed are followers of Ramtha - the blond woman interviewed. Oh but her name isn’t Ramtha. She is channeling Ramtha, who is a 35,000 year old man from Atlantis. I wish I was making that up.
The others interviewed are fringe scientists who are looking for a connection between quantum physics and god. Except for the Math PHD from Columbia (he was in a black shirt). He said he was edited so much that they really twisted his words, and if he knew what the movie was going to be about he would have never done it.
Here are some specific arguements regarding gaps/hole in the theory on evolution:
In the primodail soup of amino acids(Miller/Urey experiment) the probablility of one rung on DNA forming is 10^87
one molecule of DNA 10^130
If the earth is 4.6 billions years old(10^18secs) and you tried random combinations of atoms 1 billion times a second it would be only 10^27 tries
The probability of forming 124 proteins (amount for the simplest cell) would be 10^210
These statistics just go to show how hard it is for something to develop by random chance. Without some sort of direction or informtion(i.e. Intelligent Design) What is understood as simple cells i.e. prokayotes are actually more complex than a metropolis. See Darwin’s Black Box by Michael j. Behe. (by the way he is one of many renowed molecular biochemists who are rejecting evolution when they see the complexity of life’s building blocks)
One on the problems with the controversy of Itelligent Design and Evolution is that neither are “testable.”
A scientific theory by definition must be testtable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Neither Creation or Evolution fit this they are both belief systems or explanatory scientific models.
It is incorrect to assume either is scientific fact.
[quote]Nicole wrote:
Here are some specific arguements regarding gaps/hole in the theory on evolution:
In the primodail soup of amino acids(Miller/Urey experiment) the probablility of one rung on DNA forming is 10^87
one molecule of DNA 10^130
If the earth is 4.6 billions years old(10^18secs) and you tried random combinations of atoms 1 billion times a second it would be only 10^27 tries
The probability of forming 124 proteins (amount for the simplest cell) would be 10^210
[/quote]
what is the uncertainty in the data you provided and what journal did you take this information? I think you probably meant 1/10^87, etc.
[quote]Nicole wrote:
One on the problems with the controversy of Itelligent Design and Evolution is that neither are “testable.”
A scientific theory by definition must be testtable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Neither Creation or Evolution fit this they are both belief systems or explanatory scientific models.
It is incorrect to assume either is scientific fact.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but mutation in DNA is certainly testable, repeatable, and verifiable–however, explianing what makes them mutate may not be.
[quote]Nicole wrote:
One on the problems with the controversy of Itelligent Design and Evolution is that neither are “testable.”
A scientific theory by definition must be testtable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Neither Creation or Evolution fit this they are both belief systems or explanatory scientific models.
It is incorrect to assume either is scientific fact.
[/quote]
Aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directly-such as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics. So, yes it can be tested.
And I believe Behe has yet to publish a scientific article in a science journal.
[quote]Nicole wrote:
If the earth is 4.6 billions years old(10^18secs) and you tried random combinations of atoms 1 billion times a second it would be only 10^27 tries
The probability of forming 124 proteins (amount for the simplest cell) would be 10^210
These statistics just go to show how hard it is for something to develop by random chance. Without some sort of direction or informtion(i.e. Intelligent Design) What is understood as simple cells i.e. prokayotes are actually more complex than a metropolis. See Darwin’s Black Box by Michael j. Behe. (by the way he is one of many renowed molecular biochemists who are rejecting evolution when they see the complexity of life’s building blocks)
[/quote]
I think your use of statistics here while valid are a bit misinformative to the layperson. First, you do not explain where you get the age of the earth and then you falsely make an assumption that proteins will try to form a mere billion times a second.
In the span of the universe your statistics are meaningless. All it takes is for it to happen one time and succed in reproducing. You falsly imply that the statistics, if correct, would need to be repeated. This is not so, otherwise it would be like saying we need to wait on average the same amount of time for an exact copy to be reproduced, i.e 10^210 sec. It would be like saying, I should not be able to win a lottery with a 1:100,000,000 just by buying one ticket because the statistics are improbable. Should I then assume that it must have happened by some intervention if I did? Do not get caught up in the statistics. They are merely a tool. Improbable does not mean impossible.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nicole wrote:
One on the problems with the controversy of Itelligent Design and Evolution is that neither are “testable.”
A scientific theory by definition must be testtable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Neither Creation or Evolution fit this they are both belief systems or explanatory scientific models.
It is incorrect to assume either is scientific fact.
I’m sorry, but mutation in DNA is certainly testable, repeatable, and verifiable–however, explianing what makes them mutate may not be.[/quote]
Mutations are a far cry from testing to whether or not evolution what responsible for the origin of life.
It is one thing to make amino acids(that in it’s self has a number of “holes” but it is irrelevant to address in this post) or observe or induce mutations but that is nowhere near creating life.
Secondly, when experiments are done are they not being guided by the intelligence of the scienctist. Is there not some one guiding the experiment?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Anyway, I would love for someone to explain to me…[/quote]
Well, pardon me if it sounds a bit harsh, but I hope you realize that it is not a reasonable request. A much better approach, that is if you really want to know, is to educate yourself on this subject and then come back and discuss specific points.
Fist of all you have to ask yourself which flavor of ID would you like to be in the textbooks? There’re many different flavors and the proponents of ID often fight with each other like girls over a sunflower cookies. Would you prefer Dr. Hug Ross’s flavor or young-earth creationists’s flavor? Or maybe Demski’s and Behe’s flavor or maybe we should print the textbooks according to self-proclaimed leader of ID Phillip E. Johnson?
But to answer your question, precisely the problem is the same as asking what the problem would be with teaching that the Earth is flat.
If “young-earth creationists” print ID textbooks then your child will be taught that modern astronomical data, together with the facts established by physics (such as the value of the speed of light) is just an illusion.
Let me ask you a question. Would you fly in an airplane built by a doctor or would you fly in an airplane built by Boeing? The reason I ask because Phillip E. Johnson is a lawyer for example. What qualifies him to debate scientific data in biology or the mathematical group theory? By all means he has a right to discuss any problems of his choice, but there is no reason to attribute to him the status of an expert in any fields beyond his legal expertise. His discussions, no matter how popular his writings are, is that of an amateur as was demonstrated by numerous real full time scientists.
There is a big difference between a controversy and a nonsense written to appeal to ignorant.
-Yustas
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nicole wrote:
If the earth is 4.6 billions years old(10^18secs) and you tried random combinations of atoms 1 billion times a second it would be only 10^27 tries
The probability of forming 124 proteins (amount for the simplest cell) would be 10^210
These statistics just go to show how hard it is for something to develop by random chance. Without some sort of direction or informtion(i.e. Intelligent Design) What is understood as simple cells i.e. prokayotes are actually more complex than a metropolis. See Darwin’s Black Box by Michael j. Behe. (by the way he is one of many renowed molecular biochemists who are rejecting evolution when they see the complexity of life’s building blocks)
I think your use of statistics here while valid are a bit misinformative to the layperson. First, you do not explain where you get the age of the earth and then you falsely make an assumption that proteins will try to form a mere billion times a second.
In the span of the universe your statistics are meaningless. All it takes is for it to happen one time and succed in reproducing. You falsly imply that the statistics, if correct, would need to be repeated. This is not so, otherwise it would be like saying we need to wait on average the same amount of time for an exact copy to be reproduced, i.e 10^210 sec. It would be like saying, I should not be able to win a lottery with a 1:100,000,000 just by buying one ticket because the statistics are improbable. Should I then assume that it must have happened by some intervention if I did? Do not get caught up in the statistics. They are merely a tool. Improbable does not mean impossible. [/quote]
I simply put the age commonly agreed on by most evolutionists and which is in most biology books including both of mine. (although personally I disagree)
1/1,000,000 is a drop in a bucket compared to 1/10^130(molecule of DNA)
six zeros as compared to 130!
Physcists generarlly conclude probabilities over 10^50 never occur.
I don’t think you grasp how much 10^130 is compared to 10^6
I am not saying that you would have to wait that exact amount of time for each copy to be produced that is not how statistics work. Each “try” is unaffected by the other. You could have had 10^130 combination attempts and there is no reason that the next one will work. The chance is the same each try.
[quote]Nicole wrote:
One on the problems with the controversy of Itelligent Design and Evolution is that neither are “testable.”
A scientific theory by definition must be testtable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Neither Creation or Evolution fit this they are both belief systems or explanatory scientific models.
It is incorrect to assume either is scientific fact.
[/quote]
Evolution is a fact, period. Its happening now and is easily observable, Darwin’s theory of how eveolution happened its whats up to debate.
People believe what the want to believe…their emotions guide them and get them to decide what evidence to believe.
Hmmm. I suppose I could phrase this differently and see what the responses are:
Should teachers be prohibited from teaching atheism in conjunction with evolution and any other subjects related to the origin of life and the universe in science classes?
In other words, should they be prohibited from claiming or disclaiming divine influence, and just have to stick to the science?