PDA

View Full Version : On Theories and Facts


Turntime
01-18-2005, 06:42 PM
Members of a Georgian suburban district's school board plan to challenge a federal Judge's orders to remove stickers in science texts that call evolution "A theory , not a fact". The disclaimer reads "This text book contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered". The good intentioned school board is making a fundamental error in their understanding of the words "fact" and "theory" as used by science. I'll quote from Steven Jay Goulds book 'Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes'.
"In American venacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus, creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory , and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make their minds up about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the worlds data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret the facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravity replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty". The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do. In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in the classroom".
Evolution is one of the best documented theories (and facts) in the history of science and should be taught in the classroom without disclaimers - and everyone is free to agree or disagree based on their beliefs.

ceejay
01-18-2005, 07:39 PM
The entire "only a theory" argument against teaching evolution offends me. It diminishes the power of a theory. From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
theory is defined as #1A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Theories explain facts! There is serious scientific debate about the mechanism behind evolution, not whether it has occured.

Creationism cannot be tested. It is faith. It is not science.

46zilzal
01-18-2005, 08:42 PM
Outlawed creationism so they re-lable it "intelligent design" and is is stiil without a shread of evidence

Secretariat
01-18-2005, 09:59 PM
CJ,

We rarely agree, but well said. Let's hope the O's sign Delgado.

ceejay
01-19-2005, 09:41 AM
CJ,

We rarely agree, but well said. Let's hope the O's sign Delgado.I don't know that I've ever posted an agreement or disagreement with you. I'm not the same as the other CJ, some of us call him CJ-1a, if that's who you are refering to. (And, I want the Mets to sign Delgado!)

boxcar
01-19-2005, 11:54 AM
ceejay wrote:

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
theory is defined as #1

Theories explain facts!

There is serious scientific debate about the mechanism behind evolution, not whether it has occured

Creationism cannot be tested. It is faith. It is not science

Ahh..."theories explain facts", you say. But one "small" element is missing from this defintion: "Facts" require interpretation, according to one's own presuppositions, I might add. Most often theories are designed to house one's own presuppositions (read biases).

Also, Evolution has been tested? Evolution has been subjected to the Scientific Method?

Boxcar

Secretariat
01-19-2005, 05:29 PM
ceejay wrote:

Also, Evolution has been tested? Evolution has been subjected to the Scientific Method?

Boxcar


As a matter of fact, over and over.

Tom
01-19-2005, 06:53 PM
If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Secretariat
01-19-2005, 07:21 PM
If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Maybe this can help you Tom.

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

Dave Schwartz
01-19-2005, 07:57 PM
Intelligent design is not being properly presented in the press (by the educational community). It is NOT "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo," as it has been referred to.

The SanteFe Institute has done some research on this topic, though I would not be surprised if it disappeared considering the educational community's response to this. (one such link, pertaining to AI development: http://www.santafe.edu/~jpepper/papers/ALIFE7_modularity.pdf )


As a producer of A.I. software I recall reading in one of the artificial life books a few years ago (might have been Levy's of that same title) about how pure Darwinism was impossible.

Now, Darwinism is based upon "natural selection," and nobody disputes that.

But it also seems that Darwinism is based upon random mutation and that there are just too few mutational occurences in nature for all of the improvements (evolvments?) to have happened by chance.

At the heart of ID theory is the theme that what is referred to as "evolution" is not caused by mutation-based change but rather by "crossover." That is, the gene was already in place in its DNA but was inactive (or active, as the case may be). In other words, the theory says that no creature can develop a trait that is not already in its genes. (Key words: latency or dormancy.)

Thus, what we currently think of as "evolution" is really "adaptation," which is driven by Darwin's natural selection process.

As a science-minded person, I bought into "intelligent design" as a potential correct answer to the question about 10-12 years ago.

In the AI which I produce, "seeding" the DNA is much more likely to produce good outcome than doing it unseeded. The concept works. Then you let the natural selection take over.


My real problem with what is going on in this national debate is that the representatives of the educational community are not discussing the real issue. Instead, they are turning it into a religious issue.

We should be talking about the science!


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

formula_2002
01-19-2005, 09:52 PM
Two things.

First I'm a very big fan of Steven Jay Gould.
It's unfortunate he is no longer with us..But his work remains.. and I'm still trying to understand much of it.

But I did get to understand the meaning behind his book
"Full House...."

Two, theories never die, they just keep evolving.

Just an aside. Creationism is not a theory. It's a religion.

Dave Schwartz
01-19-2005, 10:33 PM
>>Creationism is not a theory. It's a religion.<<

You are absolutely right. Who is talking about "creationism?"

Show Me the Wire
01-19-2005, 11:41 PM
Dave:

Thank you for your explanation about Intelligent design. I was not familiar with the real facts of the debate.

Sounds like crossover is just as sound of a theory as random mutation, at this point in time. And living in the politically correct culture it would be tantamount to censorship for natural selection believers to try and silence supporters of a competing theory based on scientific principles, specifically the presence of an inactive gene that could lead to the evolutionary change once activated.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Show Me the Wire
01-19-2005, 11:44 PM
Dave:

On the other hand random mutation would satisfactorily explain the presence of a select number of posters on this board.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Tom
01-19-2005, 11:50 PM
There was once even an example of natural selection - the thinning of the heard. There was a Frank :rolleyes: dicussion of this a few years ago.

Show Me the Wire
01-19-2005, 11:55 PM
Tom:

You showed Amazin' powers of recall.

You put a :) on my face with your quip.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Turntime
01-20-2005, 12:40 AM
Intelligent Design, from what I can gather, fails to be science. Evoking supernatural processes voids testability. Also, implying a designer is, in effect, allowing for non-natural causation, but science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation. Intelligent Design raises some interesting questions, but I don't think it merits equal time in the science classroom for the above reasons.

boxcar
01-20-2005, 12:44 AM
As a matter of fact, over and over.

In your case, I could see how they could test to see if you descened from a baboon. Probably could do that with DNA.

But for the rest of mankind, if evolution was subjected to the Scientific Method, and passed one test after another conclusively, then it should have passed from a theory into Scientific Law. No?

Boxcar

Lefty
01-20-2005, 12:52 AM
Evolution, Intelligent Design: personally I have no prob embracing both concepts. Don't know why libs have so much trble with it.

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 01:05 AM
Turntime:

Is the debate about equal time in the classroom or about stickers in science texts that call evolution "A theory , not a fact". And the content of the disclaimer stating "This text book contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".

All the sticker seems to state that the theory of evolution is not the Gospel of the orgin of mankind. I have no problem about students being advised to carefully and critically consider the theory set forth.

But most of my liberal friends have a problem with critical thinking when it comes to the dogma they support.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

46zilzal
01-20-2005, 01:11 AM
Evidence for evolution: volumes and volumes from some fo the BEST minds of the twentieth century.

Evidence for inteligent design: NONE

46zilzal
01-20-2005, 01:14 AM
Intelligent design is a atttempt to circumvent the courts decision not to allow creationism to be taught in the schools because it is CRAP!

46zilzal
01-20-2005, 01:15 AM
Eohippus as ONE example of an intermediate form

The fundamental aspect of evolution is that a random change (mutation) is TESTED by it's reaction to envirnomental pressures.....If it is an adavantage, MORE animals with this trait will survive to mate, and over time, the majority of the individuals will have said trait. THAT'S IT!

Just when I thought Old Wilberforce and his ILK were rationally gone, fundamentalsim rears it's ugly head trying to convince folks of FOLLY. Amazing ...we are heading for another DARK AGE.

Turntime
01-20-2005, 01:22 AM
Show Me The Wire:

Why single out evolution to be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered"? The mindset of the people behind the sticker seems pretty clear.

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 02:33 AM
Turntime:

To answer your question, because we are talking about a specific topic. In general I believe all subjects should be approached with critical consideration.

I do not mean to give the impression I am singling out evolution.

Also, I believe in tolerance regarding other people's mindsets and since I do not personally know these people I cannot say what there mindset is.

I stayed out of this discussion, until I read Dave's post explaining the theory of crossover as the scientific foundation of I.D. This theory sounds just as plausible as random mutation, so why exclude it denying students the opportunity to compare and contrast theories?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

GameTheory
01-20-2005, 04:25 AM
If evolution can't be considered fact, then nothing can and the word "fact" has no meaning. Evolution is so well-supported it is staggering. My experience with listening to anti-evolution arguments is that the anti-evolutionists don't even understand evolution or know what it is really. I have never heard anyone who both actually understood what evolution is and at the same time denied it.

Just who exactly doesn't accept evolution? I was taught evolution in both Catholic & Lutheran schools growing up. We were shown "Inherit the Wind" one time to help make the case for the absurdity of fundamentalism. I know Bapists are fundamentalist -- not only do they believe that there was no evolution, they believe that the Earth itself is only a few thousands of years old.

Anybody have any idea just what the percentage of the population we are talking about? Are their religious groups outside of this country that don't accept evolution?

hcap
01-20-2005, 06:06 AM
Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by scientists throughout the world.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

NCSE Project Steve

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend."



My personal feeling is that evolution is not threatening to those that believe in a Creator. After all, if the Creator created the universe, the LAWS of biology, chemistry and all other sciences, were also created. Laws that could produce everything we see around us, including the complexity of intelligent life. But it seems, that may beyond what is "knowable", and not answerable by any scientific inquiry.

GameTheory
01-20-2005, 06:45 AM
My personal feeling is that evolution is not threatening to those that believe in a Creator. After all, if the Creator created the universe, the LAWS of biology, chemistry and all other sciences, were also created. Laws that could produce everything we see around us, including the complexity of intelligent life. But it seems, that may beyond what is "knowable", and not answerable by any scientific inquiry.
Exactly, and that is what most churchs teach also. I've never really understood what the fuss was about, although like I said I've also never heard an anti-evolution zealot appear to actually understood what evolution really is. They just make up stuff (that no scientist believes) and then argue against that.

hcap
01-20-2005, 07:39 AM
I believe that most of us have "awe" moments. Wonder is a powerfull emotion.
How we chose to interpret what is difficult to fathom, starts us looking for answers. Whether it be religion or science, or both.

Dogmatic beliefs destroy this sense of wonder. Fundamentalists tend to replace the original openess and wonder with a pre-written script. Not always but often.

The "fuss" is re-writing the script

ceejay
01-20-2005, 10:27 AM
Even scientific laws are not uncontested. For example, from http://www.fredonia.edu/department/geosciences/scimeth-2.htm Even Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has come under fire because of its inability to explain certain unpredicted anomalous behaviors associated with planetary motion in strong gravity fields (notably, Mercury). Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is better at predicting behavior under such conditions. Also, the Universal Law breaks down completely at very small scales, like that in an atom. The idea that any scientific premise -- even laws -- are open to debate or re-definition, is one of the hallmarks of science . It is one of the prinicipal tenets, for example, separating science from religion.

I wonder why other "theories" don't draw the same attack as evolution. For example, plate tectonics. I am just as certian that it occured as I am that Smarty Jones won the 2004 Derby, but it is is still a theory. There is serious and substansial debate about why plate tectonics occurs, but not that it occurs. So, why not have a sticker on earth science books stating that "plate tectonics is a a theory, not a fact, regarding movement of oceans and continents." I don't think that literal interpretation of Genesis Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?ViewBible=Genesis+1&Version=KJV) would support plate tectonics.

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 10:40 AM
Intelligent Design can be extrapolated to extraterrestial influence too. It is possible life on this planet was influenced by extraterrestial beings. I am not saying this is my belief, I am saying it is a possible theory and such would go hand-in-hand with the theory of intelligent design.

I don't see a problem stating the fact that something is a theory, and is not yet proven to be a fact. The theory of evolution is in fact a theory, so what wrong in clarifying the fact that it is a theory by use of a sticker.

After all it is a theory.

A great example of theory is currently being discussed on this board. Formula'a theory on the impossibility of beating the take out. He can prove mathematically you can't beat the take out. Do most of us believe this to be true? After all he can show facts proved by mathematical means.

The problem is Formula limits his proof to a specific subset of odds, be it at 3 to 1 or any other odds range for all horses. However, his provable theory does not take into account that the majority do not limit play to every horse in specific subset of odds.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that Intellegent Design appeals only to fundametalist religious groups.

As the line in the movie Contact states, "it would be a waste of all that space." to the question of extraterrestial life.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

chickenhead
01-20-2005, 10:53 AM
SMTW --

The problem is that ID practitioners do not want a sticker in textbooks, they want their theories in textbooks. If they can convince more than a insignicant miniscule portion of their peers of their correctness i would say perhaps they belong there.

I have always had a theory that in fact the external world does not truly exist, that it is all a fiction created by my mind for entertainment purposes.

So far as I know, this theory of mine is impossible to prove incorrect...therefore it is just as likely to be correct as ID or Evolution, right?

Perhaps I should make a call to the local school board, to see if they're interested?

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 11:05 AM
chickenhead:

I think in the academic field it is called philosphy and that theory is covered, I think. therefore I am.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

chickenhead
01-20-2005, 11:10 AM
No...I THINK, therefore you are. :D

ceejay
01-20-2005, 11:13 AM
A great example of theory is currently being discussed on this board. Formula'a theory on the impossibility of beating the take out. He can prove mathematically you can't beat the take out. Do most of us believe this to be true? After all he can show facts proved by mathematical means.
Actually, I would say that this is still in the hypothesis stage being tested, not theory.

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 11:21 AM
No...I THINK, therefore you are. :D

:D Your perception is your reality.


Regards
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Lefty
01-20-2005, 11:38 AM
I find it amusing but weird that most of the people in this thread find that the teaching of Intelligent Design is somehow an attack upon the theory of Evolution. Seems to me that it's intelligent Design is the belief or theory under attack.
I embrace both under the concept that God or the Intelligent Designer, if you will, was the first and ultimate scientist.

46zilzal
01-20-2005, 12:22 PM
The greatest time in one's education generally occurs at this level when you have LEFT the "incubator" public school and anything goes....that is as long as you can defend your thesis. Spoon feeding is the norm in public school...don't think because it is dangerous!

Can remember that I was kicked out of class in high school "regularly" for asking the WRONG questions: When we had finisihed with discussions of WWII the instructor asked if we had missed anything or was anything NOT clear. I aksed about the Japanese Americans who had been interred and had their Constituional rights suspended without due process (a freind's family had all their property siezed and NEVER returned)..."That never happened" was the response to which I unveiled a book by the Oxford University press (with photos) of the whole debacle. "Why would Oxford write a book about something that NEVER happened? Boom! out of class.

That never would happen at the University level: a thesis is supported or rejected based upon the merits of the position and INTELLIGENT DESIGN is PURE conjecture without a shread of evidence. An inroad to trying to subjugate susceptible minds, at a young age, with unsubstantited malarkey.

Secretariat
01-20-2005, 01:45 PM
Intelligent Design, from what I can gather, fails to be science. Evoking supernatural processes voids testability. Also, implying a designer is, in effect, allowing for non-natural causation, but science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation. Intelligent Design raises some interesting questions, but I don't think it merits equal time in the science classroom for the above reasons.

Exactly. No one has problems stating that there are unexplainable factors, or aspects of a theory that can be challenged and tested.

The whole concept of Intelligent Design is nothing more than an end-around to promote creationism in schools, whatever you want to call it. I think if you see what is happening at Dover school in PA that is exactly what is occurring. I like when people are honest.

There's no place in a science class for the ideas of the Koran, Buddhism, Greek myth or Christianity.

I differ from some in that I have no objection to teaching an introduction to religion in school providing the concept of religion and the varieties of religion are presented and the reasons for not being religious.

But the phrase Intelligent Design permits no real testing, and is based on myth.

Personally, most kids are smart enoguh to realize they're being manipulated for a politcal end run to get creationism in the schools. They're not dumb, and can see manipulation for what it is. But in a "science" class, C'mon...you guys know what's going on. Get real.

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 01:54 PM
Lefty:

They are afraid of the attack of the right wing christian fundalmentalists. the re-election of Pres. Bush has the liberals making skid marks in their pants.

in part of the statements " a return to the Dark ages", "Fundamentalist beliefs", "the mindset of these people', etc.

If the theory of evolution is scientifically sound any rational critical thinking person should accept it notwithstanding it being labeled a theory that has not been proven. If you believe in something you must have enough confidence in the belief that your rational thought process is clear enough that other rational people will come to the same conclusion as you.

That is the problem with the liberal mind set, as I stated numerous times before, the liberal thinking person believes he knows what is best for everyone and you as an individual do not know what is best for you. In other words you do not have enough of a rational thought process to understand the elite concepts put forth by the liberal elite

What really is sad is that these so called rational people have no perspective. The Dark Ages lasted due to the abuse of power by the elite ruling class. The elite ruling class, prior to the invention of the printing press, abused religion using it as a tool of ignorance, encouraging ignorance to keep power over the masses.

What is overlooked by most of the hand wringers is that the Bible is a major reason for the elimination of ignorance under those oppressive rulers. Mass publication of the Bible allowed the common person to become literate through reading the Bible, which eventually resulted in the age of reason.

The problem is not religions per se, the problem is the use of religion by so-called educated people to oppress the less educated. I enjoy the irony of it, publishing the Bible was the important step to the Age of Reason and now the offspring of the Age of Reason are alleging that the Bible will hurl society into to the Dark Ages.

ceejay
01-20-2005, 02:15 PM
SMTW,

Are you implying that you think that most scientists are liberals?

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 02:47 PM
Ceejay:

A big NO to your question. My comments are directed at people who use those descriptive comments I inserted in my post and pass themselves off as rational thinkers.

I do not believe that most scientists are liberals and I do not think most scientist would believe that a sticker stating something is a theory would cause a rarional thinking person to revert to medieval thinking.

Hope the above satisfactorily answers your question.

BTW do you believe a rational thinking scientist can summarily dismiss the possibilty of extraterrestrial influence on evolution? Does it?

I understand it maybe highly unlikely according to our knowledge at this time, but unlikely does not mean impossible.

kenwoodallpromos
01-20-2005, 03:04 PM
When I believed in evolution I handicapped only based on pedigree; when I believed in creation I handicapped based only on 1st maiden race Beyers. Neither worked by itself.
Now I cover all my bases in betting and in the beginning of life.

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 03:09 PM
Ceejay:

Another question, what statement did I make in my post that triggered the idea I implied that any scientist is a liberal? I never mentioned scientists, as a group, as abusing religion as a tool of ignorance to control the masses.

Unless you know something I don't, namely the majority of scientist are against a sticker stating that natural selection is only a theory. If that is so I am disappointed in the scientific community as that type of thinking is akin to believing the Earth was the center of the universe, because most scientist or learned men of that time believed it to be so. That is a pure example of medieval thinking.

Where would we be today if Galleo, and others, did not have the guts to buck the commonly accepted learned principles of their time?

Steve 'StatMan'
01-20-2005, 03:14 PM
No...I THINK, therefore you are. :D

Dear Chickenhead,

Can you start thinking of me as being successful at the windows and having a lot more money and a pretty wife who is nice to me?

Thanks A Lot!

Your Pal Forever!

Steve 'The Stat Man In Your Head' Miller

:D :D :D

ceejay
01-20-2005, 03:18 PM
SMTW,

Thank you for your replies.


I do not believe that most scientists are liberals and I do not think most scientist would believe that a sticker stating something is a theory would cause a rarional thinking person to revert to medieval thinking.
No it wouldn't. But then shouldn't all theories should be critically considered? Why single out evolution on the book stickers? Why not include plate tectonic theory, atomic theory, quantum theory, cell theory, the big bang theory, ...?

BTW do you believe a rational thinking scientist can summarily dismiss the possibilty of extraterrestrial influence on evolution? Does it?
No. In fact, I think that extra-terrestrial factors (meteors, solar radiation) do influence evolution. There are even scientists who think that the building blocks of life came to earth on meteors or comets.

Another question, what statement did I make in my post that triggered the idea I implied that any scientist is a liberal? You did not say it per se. It was my inference from the general tone of your post. That's why I asked.

46zilzal
01-20-2005, 03:19 PM
Ostracaderms and the evolution of the malleus, incus, and stapes from the jaw bones of reptiles

The 3 to 3 1/2, to 4 chambered heart through reptiles and amphibians to mammals.

Archaeopteryx - the bifurcation between reptiles and avians


Goes on and on

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 03:42 PM
Ceejay:

Thank you for your insights and your thoughtful question of why single out evolution.

My simple response is it is part of the standard curriculum and taught to every student in the general population via one class in biology (life sciences).

The other theories are explored more thoroughly through other related curriculum. There is a continuum that is not present with the theory of evolution.

At least that is the way it was when I was receiving my formal education.

Show Me the Wire
01-20-2005, 03:48 PM
Ceejay:

The Big Bang theory probably should have a sticker too. The universe could have been created through Intelligent design. ;)

chickenhead
01-20-2005, 03:59 PM
Dear Chickenhead,

Can you start thinking of me as being successful at the windows and having a lot more money and a pretty wife who is nice to me?

Thanks A Lot!

Your Pal Forever!

Steve 'The Stat Man In Your Head' Miller

:D :D :D

I guess I can throw you a bone ;)

ceejay
01-20-2005, 04:47 PM
Ceejay:

The Big Bang theory probably should have a sticker too. The universe could have been created through Intelligent design. ;)How about string theory! :D

Kreed
01-20-2005, 05:54 PM
Never thought Lefty & I agree on anything but I also beleive in a God & in
evolution as a theory.

ceejay
01-20-2005, 06:57 PM
As do I, Kreed. In fact, most people that I know who believe in evolution also believe in God; however, the belief in God is not science.

DJofSD
01-20-2005, 08:58 PM
There's no place in a science class for the ideas of the Koran, Buddhism, Greek myth or Christianity.

On the contrary. And if you truly believe this, you've demonstrated how closed a mind you have.

DJofSD

toetoe
01-20-2005, 09:37 PM
Ceege,
How about the coriolis force. My teacher said it is an apparent force only. I didn't get that distinction. If you don't know exactly what a wave is per se, you can still see it moving across the surface of water. Just call it something! Everything is only apparent, or percipient, maybe. But yeah, singling out evolution, that's too weird.

toetoe
01-20-2005, 09:40 PM
Oh, I think it WOULD happen @ university, if you were far enough to the right and not ashamed of it.

Secretariat
01-20-2005, 10:01 PM
There's no place in a science class for the ideas of the Koran, Buddhism, Greek myth or Christianity.

On the contrary. And if you truly believe this, you've demonstrated how closed a mind you have.

DJofSD


Right...Let's throw out Quantum Physics and have our children study Wahabbism as science?

Bob Harris
01-21-2005, 12:01 AM
Dave,

I saw two members of the staff of San Diego based Institute for Creation Research debate faculty members of San Diego State University roughly 25 years ago. What stands out in my memory was that the creationists went toe to toe with the evolutionists without once mentioning the Bible...everything was based on carbon dating, fossil records, etc.

While just about everyone has been exposed to evolution in school, very few people are aware of the scientific arguements against the theory...it is usually blown off as strictly a religious belief.

A good book to read if you haven't seen it is "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe....not an easy read but very informative.

Bob

GameTheory
01-21-2005, 02:50 AM
Dave,

I saw two members of the staff of San Diego based Institute for Creation Research debate faculty members of San Diego State University roughly 25 years ago. What stands out in my memory was that the creationists went toe to toe with the evolutionists without once mentioning the Bible...everything was based on carbon dating, fossil records, etc.

While just about everyone has been exposed to evolution in school, very few people are aware of the scientific arguements against the theory...it is usually blown off as strictly a religious belief.

A good book to read if you haven't seen it is "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe....not an easy read but very informative.

What are those arguments? The only ones I ever hear are straw-men or just plain not true -- things the evolutionists don't believe. (The odds of us evolving by blind chance are astronomical, there are no transitional species in the fossil record, order doesn't arrive from disorder, etc are all false arguments.) Where are the actual arguments?

46zilzal
01-21-2005, 10:35 AM
On a larger scale the fossil record of the HORSE alone (splint bones as remannts of toes) is widespread. What are Neanderthals, Australeopitheucs, Homo erectus, Homo Habilus??

Emergent complexity adn order within apparent chaos has been documented in both Gleick's "Chaos" and more importantly by the Sante Fe Institute (documented in Waldrop's book COMPLEXITY). Self organizing systems are reviewed there ad nauseum.

Lefty
01-21-2005, 11:33 AM
sec, the people for Intelligent Design are not asking that Evolution be thrown out, only that another theory be included. Seems to me, the irrational liberals who want only their belief included are the exclusionists here.

GameTheory
01-21-2005, 12:39 PM
sec, the people for Intelligent Design are not asking that Evolution be thrown out, only that another theory be included. Seems to me, the irrational liberals who want only their belief included are the exclusionists here. But there has to some basis for the theory. We can sit here and make up "theories" all day long -- should all of them be book in science books just because we can put it into words?

There is no NEED for another theory until the first one breaks down. Evolution is as well-established as the earth being round. Should we put a sticker on our astronomy books that says, "Remember, some people think the earth is flat -- have an open mind." This urge to deny evolution comes from a WANT that is religiously motivated, not because good science demands it. Certain people don't like the implications of evolution (although I've never been able to figure out why -- it is not a threat to God or religion in any way), so they seek to deny it. It is not "being exclusionary" not to teach alternative theories, it is simply having standards (because there are no alternative theories that hold any water). Our schools are already full of wishy-washy moral relativism (all cultures are equally good, etc.), let's leave science as clear as it can be. I would hate to see us teaching, "All theories are equally valid -- evidence be damned -- we don't really know anything about anything. If you can think of a new theory off the top of your head, that's just as good as anything we've established."

This is not a right/left issue. This is a religious fundamentalist view vs. everyone else issue. It is also a battle that cannot be won by the fundamentalists -- they won't even be able to make a dent. It is the process of evolution in action, really. As the fundamentalist loses more and more credibility, they will either have to adapt to survive or suffer extinction, just like any species....

Turntime
01-21-2005, 01:11 PM
Lefty,

You're completely missing the point. First, don't assume that all science minded individuals are "irrational liberals". Most people's political views are complex, and can't be reduced to a single category. I've been called a lot of things before, liberal has never been one of them (although,come to think of it, I may have been called irrational before).

No one is trying to be exclusionist. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom simply because IT IS NOT SCIENCE (see my previous posts). Everyone is free to buy books and discuss alternate theorys and even pose the question "what about intelligent design?" in the science classroom, but it does not merit equal time in science texts as part of school curriculum.

The sticker on science texts is misleading due the the venacular misuse of the words "theory" and "fact" and only serves to confuse young minds while furthering the agenda of the school board.

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2005, 01:32 PM
Turntime:

Is your objection to to Intellligent Design is two fold?

1. foremost it is not science, and

2. the words "theory" and "fact" are used out of context with their true meaning.

Are those the foundations of your objection to the use of the stickers?

Turntime
01-21-2005, 01:47 PM
SMTW,

My objection is not with intelligent design, my objection is with intelligent design in the science classroom since it is not science. You seem to have difficulty understanding this point.

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2005, 02:18 PM
okay guys let us get on the same page. The discussion is Intelligent Design in the classroom, not whether you believe in it or not.

So every time I talk about intelligent design in this thread it is in realtion to the teaching or discussing of Itelligent Design in the classroom

Therefore, Turntime you do not believe Intelligence Design does not qualify as science. Is that corrret?

If you cannot understand the concept of usage in context I don't have much faith if you are telling me something does not fit in a context.

Are we on the same page now as far as communication?

If you like you may answer my original questions to you about your two fold objection.

Equineer
01-21-2005, 08:21 PM
And If Creationism Doesn't Fly, There's Always Something Else! :)

Link: Fundamentalist Neo-Cons Identify SpongeBob As Next Imminent Threat (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/20/sponge.bob.reut/index.html)

Where is this country headed when fundamentalist neo-cons feel threatened by sponges, starfish, squids, and crabs?

Ironically, because interaction among featured Spongebob characters is usually between different species, neo-cons are faced with the predicament of arguing that homosexuality between different aquatic species is as common under the sea as it is uncommon on dry land, where most good old boys prefer ewes to rams.

Furthermore, the science community is reportedly poised to launch an educational campaign to explain that most sponges are hermaphrodites, and many starfish reproduce via asexual regeneration.

However, some political analysts believe the real fundamentalist neo-con agenda is to convince Bush to go to war on two fronts by sending the Navy after aquatic homosexuals while directing the Army to wage a war against science.

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2005, 08:25 PM
Always wonderd why Bob had all those holes in his face, chalk it up to poor aim or multple participants at once.

Secretariat
01-21-2005, 08:32 PM
I thought that No Child Left Behind had strict requirements for these tests that kids take, and i don't beleive creationism, er intelligent design was included in those tests.

But for those who want to replay these type of discussions in a "science" course, perhaps youd like to re-read Clarence Darrow's questioning of William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial.

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/darrow.html

Lefty
01-21-2005, 09:11 PM
EQ, seems to me that is you strict evolutionists who feel threatened. And you couldn't even have this discussion without taking a cheap shot at the Pres. My My.

Lefty
01-21-2005, 09:14 PM
se, as I recall, i blve Darrow LOST that trial.

Lefty
01-21-2005, 09:16 PM
tt, I am a conservative and i'm very science mined; i'm just not a fanatic about it.

Secretariat
01-21-2005, 09:29 PM
se, as I recall, i blve Darrow LOST that trial.

Were you alive back then?

Actually, Darrow won on appeal. Gotta admire Scopes' guts. Too bad we don't have more like him and Darrow today. I've been to Dayton, TN, where the trial was held in 1972 and it is like going back to 1927.

“Darrow had set his trap and Bryan walked right in. Darrow asked for and was granted an immediate direct verdict, thereby blocking Bryan from giving his speech. Within eight minutes of deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty and the judge ordered Scopes to pay a fine of $100, the minimum the law allowed. In his last words to the court, Scopes, the man who was reluctant from the start, said, "Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future ... to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my idea of academic freedom"

The trial itself also passed on when more than a year later, on January 14, 1927, the State Supreme Court in Nashville handed down a decision which reversed the earlier one.”

Show Me the Wire
01-21-2005, 10:55 PM
Sec:

What is with the monkey trial transcript being relvant? Talk about comparing apples to oranges.

Nobody is trying to criminalize the The Theory of Natural Selection, some rational people are questioning its validity, just as Mr. Darrow questioned the validity for keeping it out of the classroom.

If we all walk down the same path we will see the same thing, it is the ones who stray from the path that make the discoveries.

It seems the Intelligent Design people need a Clarence of their own to ask an expert to expalin why it is not possible for species to have "crossover" genes, or to summarily dismiss that extraterrestial forces impacted creation or evolution.

PaceAdvantage
01-21-2005, 11:30 PM
Where is this country headed when fundamentalist neo-cons feel threatened by sponges, starfish, squids, and crabs?

I hope you were this animated (pun intended) when your hero Tipper Gore was censoring my heavy metal records back in the 80s.....

The more things change, the more things stay the same...no matter which side of the aisle you're farting on....

Lefty
01-22-2005, 01:26 AM
sec, read the book saw the movie, etc.
EQ, we're not threatened by the starfish and the crabs. Most of us, as i've said, blve in Evolution. It is you and your ilk that are threatened by God or Intelligent Design. Yours is the side that is sqawking.

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 02:37 AM
I admire anyone (even those with whom I vehemently disagree) who steadfastly defend their convitctions, but this one is a real laugher!

FROM the Intelligent design explianed web site:

"In biology, some systems have many interacting parts and are thus complex (high information). However, the arrangement of these parts must conform to a specific pattern in order for the system to work properly. Much like machines whose specifications must be "just right" to function, biological systems must have all the proper parts present in the proper places, or they don't work. If parts of these systems are changed, removed, or re-ordered, then the function ceases. Enter Michael Behe's concept of "Irreducible Complexity". IC, according to Dembski, is a special case of SC where many interacting parts must conform to a specific pattern: biologically advantageous functionality."

Retro-egineering something JUST won't cut it...can't JUST look at the FINAL product and SAY it HAS to be designed by a higher power...Intermediate stages quite like the evolution of the EYE, have many progressional forms.


Life is in a constant state of CHANGE and experimentation. There are LOTS of forms of life only NOW emerging: Legoinnarie's desease is calculated to have been around SEQUESTERED in air contioner's unitl it was noted as a pathogen. Studies oif the HIV virus...THE FLU ITSELF MUTATES, experiments, and then the PATHOGENIC mutants become the NEW strain and are SELECTED FOR because we become IMMUNE to the protein capsule and can't usually (unless you are immunodepressed) get the older strain again. No new infections, no host, the older strain dies out. New ones inhabit the bodies of the HOST, are successful, propagate. are expelled and infects others therby making THE MUTANT THE NEW ORGANISM. These have to be species specifc UNLESS they mutate (like many of the Avian flu strains have).

How does intelligent design answer that???

Secretariat
01-22-2005, 10:09 AM
Sec:

What is with the monkey trial transcript being relvant? Talk about comparing apples to oranges.

Nobody is trying to criminalize the The Theory of Natural Selection, some rational people are questioning its validity, just as Mr. Darrow questioned the validity for keeping it out of the classroom.

If we all walk down the same path we will see the same thing, it is the ones who stray from the path that make the discoveries.
seems the Intelligent Design people need a Clarence of their own to ask an expert to expalin why it is not possible for species to have "crossover" genes, or to summarily dismiss that extraterrestial forces impacted creation or evolution.

Actually it is very relevant if you read it. Darrow exposed the literal truth of the Bible to questions of science and shattered both it and Bryan. I've been thinking, maybe it would be a good thing to bring the bible's ideas into a classroom and destroy its literal truth via scientific method or cross examine it everyday as Darrow did. Be careful what you guys wish for, you just might get it. Most likely in a science course it would create more doubt than the evangelicals hoped for due to its lack of scientific evidence.

I don't beleive in the literal truth of the bible like Bryan did, but beleive it contains many wise sayings. It' would be a good part of an Intro to Religion course along with many other holy books and myths, but really it has no place in a science course. But maybe i'm wrong, maybe it's exactly what we need. If the scientific work that has been associated with Darwin is placed next to the scientifc evidence of creation in the bible perhaps we can convert some evangelicals. Now if we can only get Scopes to teach it. Gotta love that way Darrow spoke of the sun standing still, or the measurement of the length of a day, or the biblical explanation of the fossil record.

Does a religion based on faith really want to be thoroughly examined via the scientific method, and not just tested by those wishing to find support for it, but those significantly trying to challenge it? Remember the Shroud of Turin which is supposedly the garb Christ wore? People worshipped it and I guess they still do as a direct relic of Christ, and the Vatican was reluctant to allow any scientifc analysis on it. When they finally did carbon dating on it it was identified as coming out of the Renaissance period. That's what science will do.

Show Me the Wire
01-22-2005, 05:00 PM
sec:

Per ususal you did not respond to the direct question and are off topic again. I did not say teach the bible in science class. Please read my post again.

Additionally, I believe it was illegal to teach monkey theory evolution in State of Tennessee at that time. There is no issue of crime in this discussion.

Therefore, your whole post about the testimony, is irrevelant to this discussion.

However, it seems you only want to slander the Bible and a certain segment of society via your answer to me.

hcap
01-22-2005, 05:02 PM
More than just Scopes.

http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Feb/20040217Comm010.asp

"Intelligent design isn’t real science

Published Tuesday, February 17, 2004

The following statement was released Thursday with the endorsement of more than 250 Missouri scientists and science educators, including 96 from the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Missouri House Bill 911 wants to change education statutes to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" creationism alongside Darwinian evolution in public school science classes. Missourians of all persuasions should reject this attempt to force non-science into the science curriculum.

Proponents of intelligent design advertise it as an "alternative" to biological evolution. Advocates of HB911 frame their argument in terms of fairness, pointing out it is necessary to teach all sides of a controversy. If the controversy about Darwinian evolution vs. intelligent design were truly scientific, we would enthusiastically support its inclusion in the curriculum. As educators, we know one of the best ways to engage students in studying science is to present them with an unsolved problem. Look at how the search for evidence of past life on Mars excites students at all levels.

Intelligent design, however, isn’t science. The characteristics of science that are accepted in U.S. law derive from a 1982 court decision, McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education.

The essential characteristics of science are:

● It is guided by natural - physical or biological - law.

● It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.

● It is testable against the empirical world.

● Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word.

● It is falsifiable - or, more accurately, makes predictions that can be tested by observation.

Intelligent design doesn’t meet these tests because it is a philosophical or theological perspective, not a scientific one. A Berkeley law professor, Phillip Johnson, started the intelligent design movement. As Johnson’s own writings assert, anti-evolution is a "wedge" to get religious "values" inserted into the public school curriculum. Thus, the motivation behind intelligent design has nothing to do with advancing science.

Intelligent design, however, isn’t science. The characteristics of science that are accepted in U.S. law derive from a 1982 court decision, McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education."

http://mclean_project.home.att.net/

"In 1981, a remarkable court case in Arkansas pitted creationists against pastors, priests, teachers, and scientists. "McLean et al. vs. Arkansas" sought relief from Arkansas' Act 590, which mandated that evolutionary biology instruction be balanced with "creation science". Unlike the 1925 Scopes trial in Tennessee, the Arkansas court heard testimony from a large number of witnesses on both sides of the case. Judge Overton ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Act 590 was deemed unconstitutional. Overton's clearly written decision has been widely reprinted, and is available on the Web at several locations "


An example of religious thinking of one of the witnesses for the state in the defense of keeping the original pro creationist ruling by the State of Arkansas.
Act 590

http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/docs/geislerbook.htm

Dr. Norman L. Geisler

Dr. Norman L. Geisler, professor of theology and philosophy at Dallas Theological Seminary was the first witness called by the defense (to testify] about the philosophical presuppositions of science and religion and their interface with each other.

Asked if he believed in the “inerrancy of Scripture,” Geisler replied that he believes that “everything the Bible affirms is true is true.” Siano then asked him about his beliefs about Satan, and Geisler responded that he believes Satan is a personal, supernatural being who is a fallen angel, that other angels fell with him in rebellion against God, that he is a deceiver, and that some satanic phenomena are demon possession, exorcism, parapsychology, and UFOs. When asked about the purpose of UFO encounters he said he believes they are “Satanic manifestations in the world for the purpose of deception.”

Show Me the Wire
01-22-2005, 05:25 PM
Hcap:

So by your own definition The Theory of Natural Selection is not science. The theory cannot by validated through the scientific method, it is not explanatory by reference to natural, etc.

Bottom line natural selection is based on the survival of the fittest, meaning the necessary genes for continuing survival is passed from one generation to another generation of organisms. A major flaw, evolution cannot explain the initial "design" of the reproductive systems, digestive systems and other basic systems.

Where is the missing link? Is there really a missing link? Prove that by the scientific method. What's that you say you can't.

Then I guess evolution really does not qualify as science either, but juxtapose to creationism.

hcap
01-22-2005, 05:29 PM
by SMTW
So by your own definition The Theory of Natural Selection is not science. The theory cannot by validated through the scientific method, it is not explanatory by reference to natural, etc.

Bottom line natural selection is based on the survival of the fittest, meaning the necessary genes for continuing survival is passed from one generation to another generation of organisms. A major flaw, evolution cannot explain the initial "design" of the reproductive systems, digestive systems and other basic systems.Where does MY DEFINITION state "cannot be validated through the scientific method"? Evolution can explain all of the above. Naturally. Read people like Dr. Stephen Jay Gould


From the McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project

Deposition of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (Prof. of Geology, Harvard University)

http://mclean_project.home.att.net/depos/pf_gould_dep.htm

Q. What is your personal belief as to the existence of a God?

A. Difficult question because it depends so much on a matter of definition. If you ask me whether I think there's a male figure with a beard sitting in the clouds, I certainly don't. But if one were to define God as the source of order in the universe, I might be tempted to say yes.

Q. You might be tempted to. Is that your -

A. I reserve judgment, because that's an issue far too difficult for the human mind to answer.

Q. So to the extent that you would consider the possibility of a God, you would define it as a source of order in the universe?

A. No. I didn't quite say that.

Q. I just want to understand what your position is.

A. I said if one were to define God that way, I might be willing to give my assent.

Q. What is your present opinion as to the existence of a God?

A. It's again a definitional question. If one chooses to -

Q. Define God.

MR. ENNIS: If you can. If the witness has a definition.

A. No, I really don't. It means too many different things to too many people.

Q. That's why I am trying to ask you what it means to you, because I understand that it can be given different meanings.

A. No, I really can't. Mysteries have no definitions.

Q. Would you characterize yourself as an agnostic, an atheist, deist, sir, or any of the other labels which have arisen to put people in nice pigeon holes?

A. The problem with academics is we tend to perhaps traversely and certainly ardently to value our personal approaches so much that we really decline to impose any label upon ourselves, and therefore I have always resisted such characterizations. As the literal meaning of the word, and agnostic is one of them, is unsure. In the literal meaning of course I am, in the vernacular agnostic, and have done many things. Let us say I regard the issues too difficult for either my mind or anyone else's to solve.

Q. To the extent that any of those are a label concerning your position on the existence or lack of existence on a God, would agnostic be the closest that you are aware of?

A. When something is close it's not necessarily good enough. I will certainly admit that agnostic is certainly a closer word than creationist. But any word is so far from my personal beliefs that I decline to be labeled by the terms.

Q. You say that mysteries have no definition. What do you mean by that, that the existence of God is a mystery?

A. However we define it, we know so little that the subject is beyond our comprehension.

Q. Beyond our intellectual comprehension?

A. That's the only way I know to comprehend. To comprehend literally, that doesn't mean that we don't have other sources of feeling, et cetera.

Q. Do you think that a religious person can be a competent scientist?

A. Of course. The empirical record proves it. There are thousands upon thousands of religious people who are competent scientists.

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 05:37 PM
One of the best documented of all evolutionary records with MANY intermediate forms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2

Show Me the Wire
01-22-2005, 05:43 PM
Hcap:

What does your above post supposedly prove?

Please enlighten us. Is it you cannot prove the Supreme Being exists? If so than conversely you cannot prove the Supreme Being does not exist so how does not being able to prove something the oppositon cannot disprove validate the oppositon?

Also you are solely defining your opposition to Intelligent Design through your attacks on Christianity.

What if christianity was elimintated from the equation, would you still be vehemently opposed to the idea of a crossover gene?

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 05:55 PM
Crossover occurs during meiosis where genetic information is re-combined, a well know function of biology...how the heck does this support I.D.?

Genetic material is there. re-mixes that's it.

Traits (phenotypical ones) require MUCH more mixing than a crossover. LINKED genes, impartial penetrance........Ever study this???

Tom
01-22-2005, 06:07 PM
I don't know about evolution, but it seems that is a lot of evidence of in-breeding on this thread! :D

Show Me the Wire
01-22-2005, 06:25 PM
No, I am not an avid student of evolution or Intellligent Design I may have misused terminology. I am using Crossover as Dave used meaning a gene that is already present and is waiting to be switched on versus random mutation of a gene.

Saying crossover gene may have implied recombination of the male and female genes.

I am interested in the debate over what our young people should be taught.

The way I look at mans' most likely first real rational intellectual pursuit is where did we come from. From that question arose religious beliefs and that was the commonly accepted way to explain existence and nature until the discipline of philosophy, the first rational attempt to explain nature and existence, philosophy begat physics and physics begat mathematics.

What I am saying is don't be exclusionists, because of irrational fears of religion. Intelligent Design might be attributable to extraterrestial influence. What if we all are a big biological experiment?

hcap
01-22-2005, 06:26 PM
by SMTW
"Please enlighten us. Is it you cannot prove the Supreme Being exists? If so than conversely you cannot prove the Supreme Being does not exist so how does not being able to prove something the oppositon cannot disprove validate the oppositon?

Also you are solely defining your opposition to Intelligent Design through your attacks on Christianity.

What if christianity was elimintated from the equation, would you still be vehemently opposed to the idea of a crossover gene?"I am not "attacking Christianity". I am opposed to dogmatic beliefs masquerading as science. I believe Christianity, has in its highest form, great truths. As other religions as well. But truths that are not science.

There is no need for me to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a creator.
Such proofs are beyond the realm of logic. Science however is the realm of logic. Evolution is science, natural science. Although not perfect, capable of providing rational explanations for the complexity we see around us. And there is much empirical evidence for its support. And only spurious arguments for Intelligent design, and no evidence.

I have been thru this with Boxcar.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16771

One of my replies to Box.

Intentionally shifting the burden of proof, in order to avoid offering support for one's premises, is a logical fallacy.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god. This, a special case of Appeal to Ignorance, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions an assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Example: "If you can prove to me that God does not exist and therefore cannot punish me, I will stop praying for success and start working to achieve it."

Intelligent design is not science. It is a religious point of view. The burden of proof is yours. There is ample evidence for evolution

Tom
01-22-2005, 07:01 PM
Perhaps schools would be better off teaching - effectively- reading, writting, and arithmetic, skills that seem to be sorely lacking in far too many students these days.

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 07:30 PM
There is a lot MORE evidence of fundamental chemicals coming here from extra-terretrial sources than there ANY evidence of Intelligent Design.

SCIENTIFIC MENTHOD: express an idea, set up an experiment to TEST idea, EVIDENCE establishes the idea

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 08:07 PM
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html?pg=4&topic=evolution&topic_set=

Lefty
01-22-2005, 08:53 PM
Science says a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly, but it does. Hmmmm...

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 09:11 PM
http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/insects/beeguide.html

Show Me the Wire
01-22-2005, 10:40 PM
There is a lot MORE evidence of fundamental chemicals coming here from extra-terretrial sources than there ANY evidence of Intelligent Design.

SCIENTIFIC MENTHOD: express an idea, set up an experiment to TEST idea, EVIDENCE establishes the idea

Which is something evolutionist and archeologists can't do. These disciplines cannot be proved by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. No controlled experimentation, these disciplines are assumed to be areas of science, because we assume so.

Wouldn't extra- terretrial intelligence fit under the definition of Intelligent Creation?

When I use the term Intelligent Creation, I am not limiting myself to Christian beliefs.

To me it sounds like most of the opposition to Intelligent Design is a knee-jerk reaction relating the theory to the story of creation contained in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.


For example mtDNA is not recombined how does The Theory of Natural Selection explain mtDNA and the appearence of 4 separate distinct female lines or 4 Eves. Four separate and distinct female lines of the human species seems to be something more than random mutation as Darwin's theory would suggest.

I do not know the answer and that is why I am inclined to think there are better theories than just the current theory of evolution. There are too many things that do not conform to the current theory and it should not be accepted as the only viable alternative.

Secretariat
01-22-2005, 11:36 PM
Aww heck...after reading this stuff and listening to these guys, i'm coming around. I think I do want "Intelligent Design" taught in science right breside evolution. I want these kids to be exposed to it so when they go to MIT or Harvard or any college science program they can be laughed right out of their major.

Can you imagine a college prof listening to this?

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 11:37 PM
Human mitochondrial DNA is 16,569 bp; encodes a number of mitochondrial proteins

* Subunits 1, 2, and 3 of cytochrome oxidase
* Subunits 6, 8,9 of the Fo ATPase
* Apocytochrome b subunit of CoQH2-Cytochrome C reductase
* Seven NADH-CoQ reductase subunits

The nucleus encodes the remaining proteins.

Also the current theory is that it is a "captured" organelle

Tom
01-22-2005, 11:49 PM
Aww heck...after reading this stuff and listening to these guys, i'm coming around. I think I do want "Intelligent Design" taught in science right breside evolution. I want these kids to be exposed to it so when they go to MIT or Harvard or any college science program they can be laughed right out of their major.

Can you imagine a college prof listening to this?

You have no problem with a college professors teaching a liberal agenda, cow-towing to muslem studies, teaching students what to think instead of how to think?
You use the term college proffesor like it has some kind of built in intergrity. It does not. Many college proffesors are scam artist, pawnig the teaching off on assistants while using the college as a vehicle for thier own books, lecture series, etc.
Why are you afraid of exposing kids to other ideas?

Show Me the Wire
01-22-2005, 11:53 PM
46zilzal:

Great, could you explain how that answers my question, in dumb down mode please, about the appearence of four separate female lines of the human race in relation to natural selection and random mutation.

I concede you know more about cell structure than I, but we are not discussing cell structure we are discussing theory of how mankind evolved.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

46zilzal
01-22-2005, 11:55 PM
I am not talking about MAN KIND, just evolution and mDNA has NOTHING to do with it.

STRUCTURAL proteins, enzymatic proteins...all the PHENOTYPICAL aspects of animal traits come from NUCLEAR material. Changes in animals come from changes in NUCLEAR material.

Many parts of the genome are active only during gestation, maturation, and many of the OLDEST parts (common ancestoral) are NEVER active in animals higher up the evolutionary tree.

Show Me the Wire
01-23-2005, 12:05 AM
Tom:

A certain segment is afraid of exposing kids to varied ideas, because it may make them think for themselves. Now we wouldn't want that now would we?

This segment knows all we need to know. Since they know all we need to know there is no room for critical thinking. No that is not correct, critical and rational thinking are encouraged, but the definition of critical and rational thinking is defined as thinking only like this certain segment.

Any thinking or idea not embraced by this certain segment is irrational.

And facts are substantiated by saying the same thing over and over, the more you say it the more factual it becomes, there is no need to provide evidence or any background for you position. Anyone that does not agree with your factual repeating dogma is intellectually inferior.

Therefore that certain segment does not want intellectually inferior people as that would violate the rules of natural selection.

Show Me the Wire
01-23-2005, 12:12 AM
Re: obtuse direction,

My mistake. Standard high school biology must have changed from when I went to school. So the evolution theory no longer states man evolved from monkeys or some primate species.

What a waste of time on this whole discussion. Well if we were just talking about non-human cells, hell yeah I am on board the evolution train and random mutation.

Tom
01-23-2005, 11:31 AM
SMTW......reading some of the posts here makes wonder if it is DE-evolution at work, not evolution. Some of these guys seem to be heading towards monkeydom rather quuickly. Ooo Ooo Ooo!

Secretariat
01-23-2005, 12:39 PM
You have no problem with a college professors teaching a liberal agenda, cow-towing to muslem studies, teaching students what to think instead of how to think?
You use the term college proffesor like it has some kind of built in intergrity. It does not. Many college proffesors are scam artist, pawnig the teaching off on assistants while using the college as a vehicle for thier own books, lecture series, etc.
Why are you afraid of exposing kids to other ideas?

No Tom. I'm not afraid, bring it on. Please, let them teach creationism in science class. It would be wonderful to fully expose it to scientific testing as was done with the Shroud of Turin. In fact I hope you ignore evolution and send your kids to college to study biology. You'll be doing them a real service.

Turntime
01-23-2005, 01:08 PM
A common misconception among anti-evolutionists (or those who want equal time for I.D.) is confusing evolution with origins theory. Evolution only deals with what happened after life existed. Origins theory deals with how life emerged and, even in scientific circles, are very muddy waters indeed. The late Steven Jay Gould, and expert on biological evolution, testified that he knew "very little" about origins theory.

Of course proponents of I.D. have the answer - that God as designer stuck his finger in the primordial soup. But this begs the question of who created the designer. We are then forced to say things such as "God always was". But if we are to take this lazy way out, why not just say "DNA always was" or "life always was" and be done with it. If we did this we would not be practicing science (before I am pelted with cries of blasphemy, please note I am only making a strong point about scientific and non-scientific thought and not about the existence or non-existence of "God").

As one poster said, be careful what you wish for. If I.D. were part of school curriculum and was subject to scientific scrutiny alongside evolution it would quickly be exposed for what it is - a theory with no scientific proof that can only take pot-shots at evolution to prove its point.

ceejay
01-23-2005, 01:08 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/23sun1.html?oref=login Some highlights from their editorial:
One line of attack - on display in Cobb County, Ga., in recent weeks - is to discredit evolution as little more than a theory that is open to question. Another strategy - now playing out in Dover, Pa. - is to make students aware of an alternative theory called "intelligent design," which infers the existence of an intelligent agent without any specific reference to God. These new approaches may seem harmless to a casual observer, but they still constitute an improper effort by religious advocates to impose their own slant on the teaching of evolution. A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. That said, in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course. But school boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life.

Show Me the Wire
01-23-2005, 01:25 PM
ceejay:

I agree with most everythingyou quote. There is a perception that religious groups are making improper efforts to teach creationism, the quote ny times substantiates the percetpion. That is why I asked what arguments evolutionists have if Christianity's theory of orgin is taken out of the equation, because a perception is not necessarily absolute truth.

I agree more precise and better language would be that the theory of natural selection is the dominant theory at this time, etc.

I especially, agree the schools should offer forums where the criticisms of evolution can be discussed.

See we agree on lots of things.

46zilzal
01-23-2005, 01:29 PM
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html


At the university level ANYTHING should be explored....tested then validated or rejected....and that is where ID should go.

As a undergraduate junior, I had to write about two differing positions on the phospholipid make up of the cell memebrane....did not like EITHER model so a friend and I made up a third model which fit the data and was JUST as logical as the other two. ROOKIES without lab expereince, it was WRONG, but we got high marks for logic and defending the possibility of the model we suggested. THAT is how the OPEN MINDED university works...a thesis is out there and it is defended or not

46zilzal
01-23-2005, 01:35 PM
I agree with most everythingyou quote. There is a perception that religious groups are making improper efforts to teach creationism, the quote ny times substantiates the percetpion.


PERCEPTION????? more than that

ceejay
01-23-2005, 01:49 PM
See we agree on lots of things. I recognized that earlier in this thread! :)

GameTheory
01-23-2005, 05:23 PM
I recognized that earlier in this thread! :)
I've been reading over some of the pro-ID sites I could find and I can't find any science. This really is creationism in disguise. And I say that because all ID seems to be is a collection of anti-evolution arguments -- there is nothing positive about it, it predicts nothing, etc. And guess what? They are THE SAME SET of arguments that creationists have always used -- the same set that has been refuted time after time. That doesn't mean creationism is wrong, because EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION. There is nothing atheististic about evolution, which is why I don't understand the fight.

But I can't find any substance to ID, there is just nothing there. (Science-wise, because it is really philosophy.) But let's say I'm missing something, maybe there is a kernel of an idea there that could be developed into some coherent theory SOMEDAY that could really challenge the legitimacy of evolution. THAT IS THE DAY you put it in the high-school classroom. ID is brand new. You don't think of something on Monday and then teach it to high-schoolers on Tuesday. Let it establish itself first. Considering it is only a collection of anti-evolution statements backed up with untruths (like there being a lack of transitional species, when there isn't) and faulty logic (the unreducable complexity argument, which is just silly) I don't see it ever gaining much ground. Let them teach it in Philosophy class if they want.

We can argue that scientists shouldn't make general policy just because they came up the the science, but surely the scientists should get to decide what is science and what isn't, what is backed up by evidence and what is mere conjecture.

46zilzal
01-23-2005, 05:38 PM
I
We can argue that scientists shouldn't make general policy just because they came up the the science, but surely the scientists should get to decide what is science and what isn't, what is backed up by evidence and what is mere conjecture.
BRAVO literate, cogent, accurate.

Show Me the Wire
01-23-2005, 08:28 PM
We can argue that scientists shouldn't make general policy just because they came up the the science, but surely the scientists should get to decide what is science and what isn't, what is backed up by evidence and what is mere conjecture.

GameTheory:

I respect your thoughts on many issues and I hope you read this post in the spirit it is meant.

My reading of the above words, smacks with elitism. Elitism that is subjective.

Science already has an objective definition, we do not need scientists to define what is science and what is not.

We need scientist to explain why something happens or does not happen.

GameTheory
01-23-2005, 09:57 PM
GameTheory:

I respect your thoughts on many issues and I hope you read this post in the spirit it is meant.

My reading of the above words, smacks with elitism. Elitism that is subjective.

Science already has an objective definition, we do not need scientists to define what is science and what is not.

We need scientist to explain why something happens or does not happen.Let me put it another way. Doesn't it seem questionable (at best) to force something into science textbooks that the entire scientific community the world over rejects?

And "elitist" or not, aren't the scientists best equipped to decide what is scientific? I mean, if there was some controversy WITHIN the scientific community I could see it, but there is none. Evolution is as well-accepted as the earth being round and the sky being blue.

DJofSD
01-24-2005, 01:10 AM
SCIENTIFIC MENTHOD: express an idea, set up an experiment to TEST idea, EVIDENCE establishes the idea


Which is something evolutionist and archeologists can't do. These disciplines cannot be proved by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. No controlled experimentation, these disciplines are assumed to be areas of science, because we assume so.

There's more to the scientific method than just asserting an idea then testing to see if it is true. You propose a model, an explanation of things you're investigating or are trying to understand. The essence is a determination of cause and effect.

When a test is done and the results support the model, you haven't proved you are correct. You've only proved the experiment doesn't blow your model out of the water.

After experiments are successfully repeated and the results agree, and, after sufficent agreement within the community exists then a theory is accepted.

It does not mean it is correct. It just means the working theory passes muster. It explains the observable phenomena.

And we are not dealing with a legal issue -- perponderance of evidence -- all it takes is one repeatable experiment that does not yield the predicted result and then the whole thing comes into question. A classical example is Newtonian mechanics. It ruled the roost for what, 200+ years but then little cracks appeared in various observations of the orbit of Mercury. They could not explain it. Einstein had a better idea. And to this day, it passes muster.

And continuing in an astronomical vein, astronomers can not set up controlled experiments. Does that mean what comes from astronomy and astrophysics is not science?

DJofSD

Show Me the Wire
01-24-2005, 10:49 AM
GameTheory:

Are you absolutely sure every scientist believes evolution as taught is correct. I do not know the answer to this, but I would assume some scientist support Intelligent Design or Inteligent Design would be a non-issue.

I agree the theory of natural selection is commonly accepted in the scientific community as the earth being round, but remember at one time some other theory was commonly accepted in the scientific community as the earth being flat.

Because most scientist accept something in relation to the time period they are living in does not make it the truth? Thus, my observation about the subjectivity contained the earlier statement.

Scientist are best suite to explain fact, not define what is or is not science.

DjofSD:

The scientific method is part of the definition of science. Science established objective guidelines, for itself, to separate itself from faith type beliefs.

So we should modify the objective definition to conform to the exceptions we like and exclude others. Doing so invalidates the purpose of an objective definition.

If an field of study does not meet the objective definition of science than it is not science, unless we modify the definition.

Show Me the Wire
01-24-2005, 11:47 AM
Part of the transcript from the “Monkey Trial”

"DARROW: It is your opinion that the passage was subject to construction?
BRYAN: Well, I think anybody can put his own construction upon it, but I do not mean that necessarily it is a correct construction. I have answered the question.
DARROW: Don't you believe that in order to lengthen the day, it would have been construed that the earth stood still?
BRYAN: I would not attempt to say what would have been necessary, but I know this: that I can take a glass of water that would fall to the ground without the strength of my hand, and to the extent of the glass of water I can overcome the law of gravitation and lift it up, whereas without my hand, it would fall to the ground. If my puny hand can overcome the law of gravitation, the most universally understood, to that extent, I would not set a limit to the power of the hand of the Almighty God, that made the universe.
DARROW: I read that years ago, in your "Prince of Peace." Can you answer my question directly? If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth?
BRYAN: Well, I should say so. Yes, but it was language that was understood at that time, and we now know that the sun stood still, as it was, with the earth.
DARROW: We know also the sun does not stand still."

Based on our knowledge of physics, in relation to geographical location of Tennessee on the surface of the earth and the orbit of the earth around the sun, it would be absurd to even think the sun seemed to have stopped in the sky making daylight last longer than usual. If the earth stopped havoc would have resulted and most likely terrible catastrophes, at the least.

But is the above-scenario so far fetched that the people involved did see what amounted to them that it seemed the sun stopped? I submit it is not. We know for a fact that in the Northern part of the hemisphere the surface of the earth experiences continual periods of light and darkness up to months at a time.

How do we know the actual physical location where the story took place? Simple answer, we don’t. However, there is evidence ancient, pre-biblical, people inhabited the northern regions based on migration patterns from Asia across the Bering Straight to North America. So is it within the realm of possibility these people experienced the sun standing still for a long period of time? Not only is it in the realm of possibility, but also more likely than not these people experienced the natural occurrence of extended daylight.

Therefore, if you asked me I believe the sun could appear to stand still in the sky, regardless the Earth’s physical movements. I can understand an ancient person observing this event and relating the story of how the sun stood still.

However, if I only limited myself to thinking relative to my actual physical location at the time I heard the statement ancient people thought the sun stood still, my only rational conclusion is these people’s experiences are ridiculous as I know the sun could never appear to stand still, because I know the sun rises in the East and sets in the West within a certain time period every day..

As for me I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water based on perceptions of experts that summarily dismiss ideas that do not fit within their comfort zone.

I for one do not know if this natural physical event is being described in the Bible, but I am not ready to dismiss the story as being ridiculous as there is basis for the description of such an event and for that event to be reported in the Bible.

If this biblical event has a factual basis, I then can logically conclude there maybe other factual basis for other seemingly ridiculous accounts in the Bible.

Therefore, if I just dismiss the Bible as a collection of ridiculous stories based on my current reference, I am limiting my scope to my perception and not possibly others perceived.

Show Me the Wire
01-24-2005, 12:33 PM
Sorry for the long-winded verbose post illustrating the points a natural occurrence could have been reported in the biblical story and how our current perspective clouds our decision making.

I tired to edit my post, but edit time expired.

GameTheory
01-24-2005, 12:57 PM
GameTheory:

Are you absolutely sure every scientist believes evolution as taught is correct. I do not know the answer to this, but I would assume some scientist support Intelligent Design or Inteligent Design would be a non-issue.

I agree the theory of natural selection is commonly accepted in the scientific community as the earth being round, but remember at one time some other theory was commonly accepted in the scientific community as the earth being flat.

Because most scientist accept something in relation to the time period they are living in does not make it the truth? Thus, my observation about the subjectivity contained the earlier statement.
No, just because all the scientists believe something doesn't make it true, absolutely not. And strictly speaking, NOTHING in science is deemed to be irrefutable truth. But the science textbooks in *high-school* should certainly be restricted to those things that are currently accepted or at least have some support. ID is not accepted and has no support from scientists. Its support is from fundamentalists who see (belief in) evolution as a threat to their religion because it contradicts what they teach IN CHURCH.

The trouble here is that certain religions want to not only teach values and wisdom (which I think is their proper sphere), but also literal history and factual knowledge (which I think is the proper sphere of history & science). The fundamentalist takes this to the extreme, insisting for instance that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that most of astronomy and geology is wrong, etc. Their ideas are so silly on the face of them they must indoctrinate them into people at a young age, hence their worry that school children might actually believe the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution. Anyone who thinks the ID movement is motivated by any kind of "quest for knowledge" is being seriously naive.

boxcar
01-24-2005, 05:54 PM
My, my...I see this thread might set new records for the sheer number of posts. Nice to see so many er..."anima[l]ted" people. :) But without further ado, I will simply get on with it.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

Was Denton’s observation of Darwinian theory correct? Did Darwin himself want to break the link between himself and God? Did he have any ulterior motives for inventing his theory of origins? Did he have any axes to grind against God, the Bible or Christianity? Why did Darwin say so little publicly about his personal religious beliefs? Is anything at all known about those beliefs?

And what did Darwin himself think about his own theory? Did he believe it was true science?

Fortunately, we can glean some very useful insights into Darwin’s religious beliefs, and even what he believed about his own "speculations" (to borrow his term) from an extract taken from his autobiography. What we’ll find may surprise a good number of readers of this thread and may even serve as an eye-opener to some – to those, that is, who aren’t blinded by their anti-God biases (a/k/a presuppositions).

There is quite a bit of material to cover along with considerable commentary with respect to how the bible speaks to various things Darwin wrote. To try to keep the posts at reasonable lengths, I will send them up in segments so they can be read at your leisure (if so desired), instead of trying to laboriously wade through one or even two long posts.

Boxcar

boxcar
01-24-2005, 06:01 PM
Darwin:
During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

Here we have a classic case of the the pot calling the kettle black! If Ignorance was currency, Darwin would have died a very wealthy infidel! He never had the first clue that in the scheme of progressive revelation, God was unfolding before readers’ eyes his redemptive plan for mankind through the Ages, which started way back in Genesis 3:15 at the Fall, and ends with Revelation 22:21 - a book which, incidentally and ironically, is steeped in OT language and imagery. Yes, indeed, Christianity is very much “connected” to the OT; for the promised Messiah was to come through the nation of Israel! What in the world was Darwin expecting - the Savior of the World to be beamed down out of a space ship!?

Also, note carefully how he thought about God - very much along the lines of Einstein, i.e. a “revengeful tryrant”. And one that must not be trusted! It never crossed Darwin’s mind, evidently, that all mankind is morally culpable before the Creator because all men are naturally born enemies of God. All men are in open rebellion against their Creator and hate him! Darwin and Einstein had it all backwards. They thought in their hearts that God is the Bad Guy (a “revengeful tyrant” not to be trusted) and Man is the Good Guy.

Darwin continues:
By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supposed, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.

As we’ll see soon, Darwin manifested his personal hatred for the God of the bible by his distrust of and subsequent disdain for his Word. And little did he realize that the Lawgiver of those “fixed laws” was able to suspend any of them at will and intervene in his creation. Evidently, Darwin never read:

Jer 32:27
27 "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"
NASB

Boxcar -- (to be continued)

boxcar
01-24-2005, 06:15 PM
Darwin continued:
The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me.

Foolish man! If he had read his bible as he ought and understood its plain language, he would have known that the bible predicted such things! But even more importantly, there is a serious flaw in his logic: By what standard did he judge that all the other religions that had “spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire” were “false”? It must be asked: False compared to what!? To make a propositional truth claim that something in Reality is “false” presupposes that one knows what is “true” - or that he has been able to Falsify all those other religions!

Darwin:
Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

Nothing like a little self-glory! As “beautiful” as the morality of the NT is, it’s “perfection”, i.e. it’s “beauty” depends in part on the interpretation put upon it by its interpreters! I would have loved to ask this infidel on what else does it perfection depend!?

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; -- I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me.

More vain self-glory! How arrogant man is! Man loves to glorify himself - to put himself on the throne of God - just as Satan wanted to do at the very beginning! Darwin was looking for external sources from other sinful men or societies to validate a Holy God’s Revelation. God’s word wasn’t good enough for him. If he had read his scriptures, apart from distorting and perverting them through the allegorical method of interpretation when it wasn’t warranted, he would have known that God cannot lie! And for this very reason God can swear by no one greater than himself, as it is written:

Heb 6:13
13 For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,

When God made his great covenant with Abraham, Abraham, afterwards, didn’t run out to seek validation from sinners like himself. As it is written,

Rom 4:3
3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God , and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
NASB

God doesn’t need man to bear witness of Him. Most especially, since all men generally, are liars!

Rom 3:4
4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..
NASB

And again:

Ps 116:11
11 I said in my alarm,
"All men are liars."
NASB

Boxcar -- to be continued

boxcar
01-24-2005, 06:36 PM
Darwin continues:

Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

It becomes increasingly clear that Darwin hated Christianity, the Christian religion, God’s revelation and God himself, for he thought of God as a “revengeful tyrant”. Truly, Darwin epitomized what an antichrist is like, for as it written:

1 John 2:18
18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.
NASB

Like Einstein, Darwin’s own words condemn him in the Light of Scripture! Jesus spoke directly and plainly to the requirements of discipleship, and how He must be placed First before all things and all people and all relationships. Speaking hyperbolically to drive home his point, Jesus said:

Luke 14:26
26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
NASB

To Darwin, his “Father, Brother and “almost all” his “friends” became huge stumbling blocks between him and Christ. These people were much more important to him than Christ was. They were more important to him than acquiring the humility to seek out God and to seek forgiveness of and repentance from his own sins. These people were more important to him than asking for God to mercifully give him a good and honest heart so that he could rightly understand the Scriptures. For this reason he was, as Jesus essentially stated, unworthy of and unfit for salvation.

Manifestly, Mr. Darwin had a very large spiritual axe to grind against biblical Christianity. Like Einstein, he was repulsed at the idea of being judged by his Creator. How dare the Creator of Heaven and Earth sit in judgment of him! How dare he! And then to find him and his loved ones guilty and consign them to everlasting punishment for living a life that was in open rebellion against their Creator!?

It’s very interesting that Bernard Shaw, with respect to “axes to grind”, apparently made this observation once that was shared by a scientist in one of his works:

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."-*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

Whether said in jest or not by Shaw, this was a very perceptive observation by him. The vast majority of the world has a very large axe to grind against God, his Christ and his Special Revelation. It’s no wonder at all, therefore, that Mankind is most eager to break its link with the Creator, while simultaneously speculating a mythical link with God’s Creation, i.e. apes, monkeys or whatever, who are not made in God’s image or likeness..

It should also be known that Darwin lost his daughter Annie at a very young age - 10 years. From what has been written of him and his great love and affection for her, he was devastated by his loss. He was so bereaved at her death, that it is said that he couldn’t bring himself to attend her funeral. I don’t believe it would be far-fetched to think that her death also greatly impacted his view of God and that in all probability, he blamed God for her untimely and premature departure from this world.

The bottom line here is that when spiritually unenlightened people like Darwin and Einstein consider the Problem of Evil in the world, they inevitably conclude that God must be responsible for the Evil and, therefore, reject the doctrine of the Fall of Man and that Man is morally responsible for all the woe, want, suffering, misery and ultimately death in the world . Since to their darkened minds, Man is “innocent”, then the only remedy to their spiritual plight, other than completely rejecting the existence of God, is to reject his Special Revelation. This is the one way of breaking the “link” between Man and God, while at the same time clinging to a form of religion.
As long as man can reject God’s word, he feels completely free to believe and do what he wants. And in his Ignorance and Self-Deception, he feels quite comfortable with this arrangement, for he has deceived himself into basically thinking: I still believe in God. I’m still a religious person. And I’m comfortable with all this as long as it’s a God made in my own image.

Even the well known Atheist and noted Evolutionist Aldous Huxley was honest enough to confess ulterior motives for putting his blind faith in evolution.

Huxley frankly stated:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century.

Huxley’s liberation, i.e. “the liberation we desired” is addressed in the Second Psalm, of which I partly quoted several weeks ago in another thread, but it’s worth pointing out again, since Huxley’s words were also self-condemning:

Ps 2:1-3
Why are the nations in an uproar,
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand,
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His
Anointed:
3 "Let us tear their fetters apart,
And cast away their cords from us!"
NASB

All natural born God-haters categorically refuse to accept any moral responsibility for their own actions specifically, or for mankind’s responsibility for the ills of the world, generally. H’cap’s observation that all men have world views and, therefore, bring their presuppositions to bear upon all spiritual issues is right on the mark. I showed how the bible, too, is in agreement with this fact; for all men come into the world with an exceedingly deep anti-God bias - a bias that the bible calls . the world, the flesh and the devil. Christ himself said the world would hate him and, indeed, it does.
Einstein and Darwin both “believed in God”, just as the condemned Demons do (Jas 2:19)

Joseph, in the OT, is a type of Christ, and it was written about him:
Gen 37:8

8 Then his brothers said to him, "Are you actually going to reign over us? Or are you really going to rule over us ?" So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.
NASB

If one were to study the life of Joseph, it would become evident that he was hated without any just cause - just as it is also written of the Messiah in this OT prophecy. But note carefully, too, that Joseph’s revelations (“words”) were hated, just as God’s word today is hated by the world, generally. The reference to “dreams” in the above text was how God prophesized through Joseph. And, of course, Joseph’s brothers hated him all the more because all the prophecies were fulfilled.

Shortly before Jesus was to die, he gave a long discourse on many things, including his death, his resurrection, and the promised Holy Spirit who would be sent to them to lead them into all truth.

John 15:21-27
22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 "He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. 25 "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, 'They hated Me without a cause.' 26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, 27 and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.

The “Helper” (or in some translations the “Comforter) and the “Spirit of truth” is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead. Also, Jesus was clearly alluding to such OT texts as Ps. 35:19; 64:4; 109:3 with respect to him being hated without cause. These prophecies, and all the others pertaining to the Messiah’s first advent were fulfilled as written (Lk 24:4; Jn 10:34; 19:36).

Jesus continued:

John 16:5-15
6 "But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. 12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 "He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. 15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you.
NASB

In v. 8 above, we get to the very core reason why the world rejects Christ and his Special Revelation - revelation which he promised to give through the Holy Spirit, and that promise was fulfilled when the Spirit inspired the Apostles to write the NT. Tthe world loves the Darknesss and hates the Light, since its deeds are evil (Jn 3:19). Men hate the Light of God’s Revelation because that Light exposes the sins of Men and condemns them in their sins. This explains the reason for why the “nations are in uproar” and are in open rebellion against God and his Christ (Ps 2:1-3) Jesus could not have said this any plainer:

John 7:7
7 "The world cannot hate you; but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
NASB

Darwin certainly had his motives for turning everything on its head, that is, for denying the Creator of the Universe his rightful role in Creation and by assigning that role instead to the Creation itself!

Darwin:
And this is a damnable doctrine.

· [2] Mrs Darwin annotated this passage (from "and have never since doubted"... to "damnable doctrine") in her own handwriting. She writes: -- "I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published. It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief -- but very few now wd. call that 'Christianity,' (tho' the words are there.) There is the question of verbal inspiration comes in too. E.D." Oct 1882. This was written six months after her husband's death, in a second copy of the Autobiography in Francis's handwriting. The passage was not published. -- N.B.

How Mrs. Darwin felt about the doctrine of God’s justice and verbal inspiration of the scriptures speaks for itself. Nothing more needs to be added.

Boxcar -- to be continued

boxcar
01-24-2005, 07:02 PM
Darwin continued:

“That there is much suffering in he world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentinent beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.”

Once again, see how the Problem of Evil weighed heavily on Darwin’s mind. He just couldn’t understand how it is that an all-loving God wouldn’t be able to just “wink” at everyone’s moral shortcomings and ultimately save all mankind from itself.

(If P.E.T.A. had been around in Darwin’s day, I have no doubt he would have been elected president for life in this organization!) Darwin had more concern, compassion and empathy for the “millions of lower animals” (the Creation) than he did for anything else in life! Darwin being entirely blind in the spiritual sense never realized that the Fall of Man had profound detrimental effects upon all Creation - not just man. The most profound of all the effects was death entered into the Universe! Obviously, Darwin never read:

Rom 8:18-19
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God

What the Creation is anxiously waiting for is for the End of the Age - when Christ will raise the Saints from the dead. After this event, Christ will create the New Heavens and New Earth - a whole new perfect world - a world completely free of sin, of corruption, of misery, of want, of sorrow and of death. The “revealing of the sons of God” and the “glory that is to be revealed” is even more specifically referring to the General Resurrection when Christ returns with all the saints who have died. Of this resurrection, Paul wrote:

1 Cor 15:54-56
54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;
NASB

What Paul is essentially saying here is that all the suffering and misery in the world which ultimately terminates in death, and which came by one man’s sin and subsequently through all of Adam's progeny (Rom 5:12), will come to a complete end at the Resurrection of the Just. This is how he could say that “death is swallowed up in victory” - the “victory” will manifest itself when Christ returns to resurrect the dead and judge the world.

But let’s continue with the Romans passage:

Rom 8:20-23
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
NASB

Or as the KJV renders v. 22:

Rom 8:22
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
KJV

Or as the TLB renders the same verse, which even more accurately captures the essence of Paul’s teaching:

Rom 8:22
22 For we know that even the things of nature, like animals and plants, suffer in sickness and death as they await this great event.
TLB

Truly the text above testifies to one of the most Basic and Universal Laws of Nature, i.e. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here is what the Law states:

2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
· Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241.
· Emmett Williams (1981), p. 19 (endnote above).

To state this in even more simple and concise terms, it would not be wrong at all to say that this irrefutable, irrevocable, undeniable and unbroken Scientific Law states: The Universe is dying!

It’s no wonder at all, then, that Paul could write that the whole Creation “groans” and is “in travail” and is "anxious" for its redemption at the time the saints receive their glorified bodies; for the Universe is winding down - not up, as evolution would require! The Universe is in its death throes!

(As an aside, this Second Law provides an insurmountable problem for evolution, even though evolutionists will deny this. This Universal Law is often referred to as the Law of Entropy - and Evolution and Entropy are mutually exclusive concepts! The word, “evolution” comes from the Latin meaning “out-rolling.” While “Entropy,” on the other hand, comes from the Greek “en” meaning “in” and “trope” meaning “turning.” Thus, it means “in-turning.” Both concepts are defining change, but in opposite directions!)

So, once again, Special Revelation passes another Undeniability Truth Test for propositional truth claims; for Natural Revelation bears witness to the truth of Rom 8:22 by giving us a reason from Nature as to why the entire Creation is “groaning” and is “in travail”.

With further regard to Darwin’s misunderstanding of the plight of the innocent animals in the animal kingdom, the OT prophet Isaiah uttered an amazing Messianic prophecy in poetic language that spoke to the end times Judgment of the World and what the nature of Christ’s New Creation will be. The “shoot” in the following passage is referring to King David (a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, cf. 1Sam 16:1ff) and the "branch" is referring to the Messiah who in turn would descend from David's line.

Isa 11:1-5
1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, And He will not judge by what His eyes see, Nor make a decision by what His ears hear; 4 But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. 5 Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

In vv. 4, 5, the prophet is talking about the Great Judgment at the End of the Age, and how Christ afterwards will destroy this present world “with the rod of his mouth and breath of his lips”, i.e. by the power of his word. The Apostle Peter describes this judgment and end times destruction in even more graphic terms (cf. 2Pet 3:1ff).

The prophet continues:

Isa 11:6-10
6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. 7 Also the cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. 9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. 10 Then it will come about in that day That the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, Who will stand as a signal for the peoples; And His resting place will be glorious.
NASB

In this portion of the prophecy, the prophet beautifully portrays poetically what the New Earth in the next Age will be like - and how it will be restored to its former pristine Edenic glory. It is evident from the Genesis account that all the creatures of God’s Creation, prior to the Fall, existed in complete peace, tranquility and harmony with one another. Adam and Eve, for example, were prohibited from killing any animal to eat of its flesh; for they were specifically commanded by God to eat only of the fruit from any tree of the Garden, except from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Indeed…even the animals would eat of the fruit of the trees of the earth and would not harm one another.

But because Darwin rejected God’s revelation in these matters, he gave his mind over to vain and stupid speculations, and thought in his heart how unfair and unjust it was for any supposed Creator to subject the animal kingdom, also, to the sufferings and misery of the world - misery and death brought on by the sin of Adam .

It should become obvious to all readers by now that Evolution, at its very core, is nothing less than a form of Pantheism. Darwin, in essence, worshiped, adored and venerated the forces and laws of the Universe. To Darwin’s mind the Creation created itself! He turned everything on its head; for no God was necessary for the origins of Man or the Universe. All that was necessary was Creation, i.e. Nature or Natural Laws. Darwin, essentially, made Nature into a god. By so doing, he once again unwittingly bore witness to what Paul wrote in Romans:

Rom 1:21-23
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASB

Boxcar -- to be continued

Turntime
01-24-2005, 07:14 PM
Boxcar:

At least SMTW tried to bring some logical arguments into this discussion to support his point of view (that alternate theorys such as I.D. should be discussed in the science classroom). I fail to see how attacking Darwin addresses the crux of this thread. Darwin is not on trial and he did not invent evolution.

OK, so you have a strong set of beliefs that are based on the Bible. I have no problem with that and I sense that niether do any of the other posters. Your beliefs, however, do not belong in science classrooms.

boxcar
01-24-2005, 07:17 PM
Darwin continued:

Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember by conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.

Darwin, writing this late in his life, of course, had already elevated Nature to the Throne of God, and, thus, no longer had a any significant convictions as to the existence of God or even to the immortality of the soul. God by this time had truly given this infidel over to a reprobate mind.

And then Darwin went on to make this amazing statement:

It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence.

He, too, was self-confessed blind man. And as a blind guide, how many equally other blind people did he lead into the ditch to fall beside him…to this very day!? Once again, Darwin bears witness to the truth of scripture (cf. Mat 15:14).

Darwin continues:
At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God. There are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with any truth to believe in what we call God: they believe indeed in spirits or ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler and Herbert Spencer have shown, how such a belief would be likely to arise.

Just utterly amazing how many times Darwin’s own words bore witness to the truth of scripture; for in the Romans One passage Paul speaks to Intuitive Revelation which most certainly accounts for “the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most people” as to the existence of God - even though, as Darwin pointed out, different cultures have different concepts of what this “higher power” or “intelligent God” is. These different concepts arise not only because cultures differ, but because people suppress (in unrighteousness) different portions of God’s truth in varying degrees.

Here is, perhaps, his greatest confession of all:

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic

And here we thought that this was what his inane theories were all about - “the beginning of all things”. But he was forced to admit that he didn’t have the first clue! That at the end of the day - after all his “research”, after all his work, after all his speculations, after all his note taking, after all his consultations with other like-minded people, etc, etc., he had to content himself with being an Agnostic in the field of “beginnings” or “origins”! What we see is that Darwin was in complete agreement with this Institute for Creation Research’s assessment of “beginnings” or “origins:

ICR wrote:

Evolution is accepted as fact by a majority of scientists, but one should remember that scientific principles are not established by majority vote. 7-2 There is a significant number of scientists today (undoubtedly numbering in the thousands) who either reject the theory altogether or who regard it as a still unsettled issue. Even those who do accept it, in many cases, do so not because of the actual scientific evidence (with which even most scientists are only superficially familiar), but because they have been intimidated by the myth that all scientists accept evolution!

ICR is on the mark here. There are many scientists in various disciplines, both Christian and non-Christian alike, who either greatly discount the theory or dismiss it altogether as sheer nonsense. The only thing I would add to the above statement about the “intimidation” factor is that this is very strong reason for why many, in all probability, pay nothing more than lip service to the theory. Peer Pressure, as we all know, can often exert a very powerful influence over people’s words and actions. Scientists are not immune to this or to what we call today "political correctness".

Another reason why many scientists will feign true belief in the theory is because they probably think that other scientists, in disciplines different from their own, really do know what they’re espousing - when in fact, they don’t. They’re as much in the dark as everyone else! In such instances, we’d have the classic case of many believing that everyone else is running with the ball, when, in fact the ball is in no one’s possession.

If anyone doesn’t believe this, there are numerous quotes out there by reputable and, in many cases, well known scientists stating as much. The detractors to Darwin's inane speculations number more than a few.

ICR continues:

As a matter of fact, no theory of origins-evolution or special creation or anything else-can possibly be scientific. “Science” means “knowledge” and by definition means that which we actually know concerning the facts of nature and their interrelationships. The very heart of the “scientific method” is the reproducibility of experiments. That is, if a certain process is observed and measured today, and then the experiment is conducted again in the same way tomorrow, the same results should be obtained. In this way, by experimental repetition and verification, a scientific description of the process is eventually developed.

“Since it is impossible for us to repeat the supposed evolutionary history of the world and its inhabitants, and since no human observers were present to observe and record the supposed evolutionary changes of the past, it is clear that evolution in the broad sense is beyond the reach of the scientific method. The theory of evolution is, therefore, not science at all.

It’s no wonder at all, then, that Darwin had to concede that the “mystery of the beginnings of all things is insoluble”. The mystery offers no viable solutions because it’s not grounded in or based upon true science - upon true knowledge. Was this why Darwin had to admit to being an “Agnostic”? Because he knew that, when all was said and done, his life’s work was entirely “beyond the reach of the scientific method”, as ICR says? This would certainly seem to be the case. For why else would he make such an amazing admission? But, thankfully, we don’t have to guess about this matter at all. Once again, Darwin provides the conclusive answer for us in a letter he wrote to his best friend and confidant Asa Gray. This is what he told Gray about his speculations:

In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."-*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 University of Chicago book.

Once again, Darwin damns himself with his own words; for as Paul warned:

1 Tim 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
KJV

And false science is precisely what Darwin confessed to espousing. But nonetheless, the Blind will continue with their mindless mantra that this inane, insidious, pernicious theory is “fact”. And all of us can bank on this fact!

Boxcar




.

DJofSD
01-24-2005, 10:07 PM
What turntime said -- ditto.

At most what I gather from the series of postings from Boxcar about Darwin is he experienced a crisis of faith. Seekers often do.

As to Einstein claiming God as a wrathful and wicked, how does that jive with his unwillingness to accept Quantum Mechanics? I'd think that it would be consistent for him to say, "Sure, God does play dice with the universe."

DJofSD

46zilzal
01-24-2005, 10:50 PM
Keep quoting form that Book of FICTION and simplistic mysticism

Tom
01-24-2005, 11:10 PM
Keep putting it down, like you really take joy in it.
Talk about fiction, look no further than the Hippocratic Oath.
Physician, heal thyself.

46zilzal
01-24-2005, 11:35 PM
First you should get it correct:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.


AND, like that BOOK I am referring to, it is ancient mythology written by simple people who did not know much about thier worlds

boxcar
01-25-2005, 12:26 AM
Boxcar:

At least SMTW tried to bring some logical arguments into this discussion to support his point of view (that alternate theorys such as I.D. should be discussed in the science classroom). I fail to see how attacking Darwin addresses the crux of this thread. Darwin is not on trial and he did not invent evolution.

No...but he was the one who popularized it! And he did, as far as I know invent the the theory of Natural Selection. And...he was most concerned with getting the science communtiy of his day to accept his speculations.

OK, so you have a strong set of beliefs that are based on the Bible. I have no problem with that and I sense that niether do any of the other posters. Your beliefs, however, do not belong in science classrooms

What kind of straw man is this? Did I say my beliefs did? However, since you failed to see the logic in my "arguments" against Evolution as it pertains to "science in the classroom", permit me to spell out for you what I thought most here would have inferred: Evolution is not Science for the reasons stated in part 6 of my series and from same the question asked in the title line in each post . Once you understand this fact, you'll be well on your way to realizing that the best one can do when discussing origins or beginnings is to develop models and see what facts, as we know them today best fit what model. So, what is wrong with viewing Creationism alongside Evolution, since neither are verifiable with the Scientific Method? Do you have a problem with this?

The only reason the "caste of priests" in the "science priesthood", who espouse the religion of Materialism (which is what Evolution is), vehemently oppose side-by-side model comparisons is because their model would be exposed for what it is: woefully and pathetically inadequate. One would think that if they had such great faith in their theory, they would eagerly welcome such comparisions. But Evolutionists no more welcome this kind of study, investigation and scrutiny now, than they welcomed outsiders (those not in the science priesthood) to attend the virtually closed meeting of evolutionist authorites in Chicago in 1980. (In case you're not familiar with this meeting: This was the one wherein the body of believers decided that Gradualism wasn't cuttin' it for them in terms of the fossil record, so they hatched a new idea to escape the great embarrasment the former caused them, and conveniently named their latest bit foolishness Punctuated Equilibrium.)

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

Boxcar

46zilzal
01-25-2005, 12:42 AM
Only Wallace (who was given co-credit in the first paper) EVER came up with evolution. The truly amazing thing was his ability to see the changes in phneotypes (look of an animal) NOT KNOWING what the genotypes (chemical genetic nature) were, or even what mechanism which was at work. He did not know the work of Mendal. He followed the work of Linneaus:

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) He invented the practice of naming all species by two names, a genus name followed by a species name, a practice that is still followed by all biologists. He also invented the practice of grouping species hierarchically into orders, classes, kingdoms, phylums, and families. His works lead to hunderds of naturalists who began grouping ALL animals into these calssifications.

So based upon these groupings of animals with similar LOOK (Phenotypes), Darwin set out to try to understand HOW things changed between animals which looked as much alike, as apart. By observing hundreds of different animals CLOSELY (finches, lizards etc.) he was able to predict what has been substantiated NOW for over a century with microbiological tehcniques: closer an animal is to another, the closer the DNA matching which lead to many changes in the older PHEONOTYPICAL classifications of Linneaus.

Mix DNA from reptiles. they match. Mix it with avian DNA, they match less.etc.

46zilzal
01-25-2005, 12:49 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/whale.hippos.reut/index.html

Tom
01-25-2005, 08:06 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html


I like the one with Apollo and the other gods better.

Turntime
01-25-2005, 11:11 PM
From the Feb. Issue of Scientific American.

Sticker in 'Physics for Freshman':
"We know that a lot of what's in this book is wrong, and with any luck they'll eventually find out that even more of it is wrong. But it's not so far off, it took some real geniuses to get us this close, and it's way better than nothing".

boxcar
01-25-2005, 11:19 PM
Turntime wrote:

From the Feb. Issue of Scientific American.

Sticker in 'Physics for Freshman':
"We know that a lot of what's in this book is wrong, and with any luck they'll eventually find out that even more of it is wrong. But it's not so far off, it took some real geniuses to get us this close, and it's way better than nothing".

How profound...NOT!

I guess to these "scientists'" minds, the old agae applies: Nothing ventured, nothing gained? Let's slap some of our foolish speculations up against the proverbial barn and see what sticks, eh?

And while on the subject of "nothing", don't many, if not most, evolutionists really believe that the Universe orginiated from nothing?

Boxcar

Equineer
01-25-2005, 11:56 PM
M = E / C^2

E: Boxcar's energy.

C^2: Creationist mythodology ad nausem.

M: More mass than Einstein would predict or care to read.

46zilzal
01-25-2005, 11:58 PM
NOTHING in this life, NOTHING is so certain as change. New facts, new techniques, new interactions with others ALL results in looking differently and finding NEW things..

That is what is at the HEART of evolution: life undergoes experiements (akin to the many dot coms that were out there at one time: the sytem tried hunderds of NEW businesses and many did not make it)....when life changes, many experiments are attempted, MOST don't last...THINGS CHANGE universally and little by little ALL the time.

DJofSD
01-26-2005, 01:19 AM
"As the years go by, I have come to realize the limitations of numbers, logic, and statistics; nevertheless, those early experiences inoculated me for good against the temptation to lapse into prejudice, superstition, or irrationality. I now feel toward the emperical method as Churchill felt about democracy: It may be a wretched system, but the alternatives are far worse."

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,
"Curious Minds, How a Child Becomes a Scientist", 2004, by John Brockman

boxcar
01-26-2005, 11:17 AM
46er wrote:

NOTHING in this life, NOTHING is so certain as change. New facts, new techniques, new interactions with others ALL results in looking differently and finding NEW things..

Another not-so-profound statement -- probably rescued from someone's garbage can. First, there are many things in life that don't change, and will never change -- and the fact that they won't change is a good thing

Secondly, not all change is good. Just because something is "new" doesn't mean it's necessarily better.

That is what is at the HEART of evolution: life undergoes experiements (akin to the many dot coms that were out there at one time: the sytem tried hunderds of NEW businesses and many did not make it)....when life changes, many experiments are attempted, MOST don't last...THINGS CHANGE universally and little by little ALL the time.

I just love it when a blind squirrel inadvertenly stumbles upon some truth for a change -- but then when he does misapplies it!

The problem with your inept analogy is that when "new businesses" fail, the fall by the wayside, as they invariably will. But this is not the case with the dumb "scientific" theory of evolution. No matter how impoverished, how bankrupt, how bereft of any true evidence, the theory refuses to die! It won't fall, like a failed business. The theory has more lives than a Humane Shelter full of cats! The High Priests in the Religion of Sceincedom (just coined a new word) must keep it alive because they don't care much for the alternative. And when it comes down to it, the only reasonable alternative is Creationism.

Here is what I liken the theory to. A kid in a football game has a 40 yeard FG to kick to win the game, but everyone knows that he won't be able to kick it that far. So, the coach goes to one of the games officials and asks if he wouldn't mind accomodating his young kicker by moving the FG posts closer.

The official responds, "Will 5 yds. do it"? "
Coach: "No, it's still too far out",

The official: "Will 10 yds. closer do it?"
Coach: "No, I sitll dont think that will cut it".

The official: "Geesh, what about 20 yds. in?"

This is how the theory works and stays alive today: Essentially, the High Priests keep changing the rules of the game. They keep moving the goal posts in the hope that one day they'll be able to score!

Boxcar

ceejay
01-26-2005, 11:36 AM
Just curious, are you a scientist? If so, what field is your specialty?

Mine is geology.

boxcar
01-26-2005, 11:41 AM
DJofSD quotes:

"As the years go by, I have come to realize the limitations of numbers, logic, and statistics; nevertheless, those early experiences inoculated me for good against the temptation to lapse into prejudice, superstition, or irrationality.

Unless this scientist stuffed his mind in a vacuum, it's not very likely he would be able t resist the "temptation" of which he spoke. Scientists are by no means immune to their own presuppositions.

I now feel toward the emperical method as Churchill felt about democracy: It may be a wretched system, but the alternatives are far worse."

Ahh...the "empirical method" probably explains why Darwin had to admit that when it came down to the nitty gritty of "origins", he had to confess to being an "Agnostic". And he wasn't alone in this either.

This is the question posed in the April 10, 2000 issue of Time magazine. The issue dealt with the theme: what questions will the 21st century answer for us:

Stephen Jay Gould, professor at Harvard and New York University, was selected to give us the answer. Mr. Gould is (was, he is now deceased) perhaps the most fervent evolutionist evangelist and anti-creationist of our day. Therefore, he was especially qualified to tell us a story about the future due to his years of experience perfecting the evolution fairy tale.

Gould avoided addressing the question of ultimate origin. This is amazing since, isn't that what's really being asked by the question, "How did life begin?" That is, where did the primordial soup come from?

The reason Gould so skillfully avoided the essence of the question is because he does not have an answer. He said in volume 96, number 10, page 21 of the journal, Natural History, "evolutionists can't resolve the ultimate origin of the inorganic components that later aggregated to life."

Ahh...so "evolutionists can't resolve" the ultimate question. Like Darwin, he evidently, thought (at least at the time) that questions pertaining to "ultimate origin" was "insoluble mystery". Fair 'nough.

But the "unbiased" Gould entertained a double standard when it came to creationists not being able to resolve problems, to wit:

He also said, "creationists can't explain life's beginning…this inability is at the very heart of creationist logic and central reason why their doctrine is not science."

Now...what was it again that Csikszentmihalyi said about the the temptation of "prejudice, superstition and irrationality"?

Boxcar

46zilzal
01-26-2005, 01:01 PM
The market system applied "selective pressure" in the dot com example, just like the REAL world applies slectrive pressure to evolving animals systems and has since time immemorial

Turntime
01-26-2005, 01:02 PM
Boxcar:

See my post #104. Evolution does not deal in origins theory. Two entirely different things. Your posts are quite entertaining, though.

46zilzal
01-26-2005, 01:03 PM
Just curious, are you a scientist? If so, what field is your specialty?


B.A. in Zoology and master's in Biology before medical school

GameTheory
01-26-2005, 02:54 PM
NOTHING in this life, NOTHING is so certain as change. New facts, new techniques, new interactions with others ALL results in looking differently and finding NEW things..

That is what is at the HEART of evolution: life undergoes experiements (akin to the many dot coms that were out there at one time: the sytem tried hunderds of NEW businesses and many did not make it)....when life changes, many experiments are attempted, MOST don't last...THINGS CHANGE universally and little by little ALL the time.This is quite apt, actually. The more you think about it you realize that at an abstract level, "evolution" is just another word for "time". It might be summed up with a statement like, "What survives, survives." And it is also difficult or impossible to imagine things working any other way once you understand the concept clearly. Once again all the arguments I'm hearing show an fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution actually is...

DJofSD
01-26-2005, 03:49 PM
My own personal favorite quip is: the only absolute is there are no absolutes.

DJofSD

Turntime
01-26-2005, 04:09 PM
Let's see, there's absolute zero, and what about that vodka?

boxcar
01-27-2005, 12:37 AM
Turntime wrote:

See my post #104. Evolution does not deal in origins theory. Two entirely different things.

Really? Do the evolutionists who believe in the "big bang" theory know this?

Your posts are quite entertaining, though.

Well...I'm glad you enjoy them. Stay tuned. I have something planned that will soon have you and others here gnashing teeth non-stop. Hope you have good dental coverage. ;)

Boxcar

chickenhead
01-27-2005, 10:41 AM
Perhaps you could define what you mean by origins theory boxcar, I'm no astrophysicist, but so far as I can tell the big bang does not attempt to explain where everything came from, merely what has happened since a point in time. It's a singularity before that, noone know what the hell was going on. Another piece of science that shouldn't threaten religious people.

GameTheory
01-27-2005, 11:33 AM
Perhaps you could define what you mean by origins theory boxcar, I'm no astrophysicist, but so far as I can tell the big bang does not attempt to explain where everything came from, merely what has happened since a point in time. It's a singularity before that, noone know what the hell was going on. Another piece of science that shouldn't threaten religious people.It should be noted that the vast majority of religious people in this country do not find the big bang, evolution, etc threatening to their religious beliefs. I was taught this stuff in religious schools, for instance...

Lefty
01-27-2005, 11:37 AM
chick, from reading this thread and from the argument goin on in schools, it's not the so-called religious people who are acting like they're threatened but rather the other way around. Noone on this thread called for the abolishment of teaching evolution in schools.
Since nnoone knows what the hell was going on, as you put it, why feel threatened by a religious theory?

Show Me the Wire
01-27-2005, 11:50 AM
I agree with Lefty, the movement is to prevent another theory, Intelligent Design, from being taught, not the abolishment of natural selection.

Exactly, if natural selection can not explain the orgins of mankind or the orgin of the universe why should evolutionist feel threatened by religious doctrine.

As Game Theory stated he was taught, in religion classes, the big bang theory. During religion class, I too was taught evolution and that religious beliefs and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

GameTheory
01-27-2005, 12:16 PM
chick, from reading this thread and from the argument goin on in schools, it's not the so-called religious people who are acting like they're threatened but rather the other way around. Noone on this thread called for the abolishment of teaching evolution in schools.
Since nnoone knows what the hell was going on, as you put it, why feel threatened by a religious theory?The "you're the one that is acting threatened" argument doesn't really hold water. That sounds just like a wishy-washy liberal -- "don't be judgemental" etc. Having standards is not the same as "acting threatened" as if it is just some irrational fear. I view this as just the same as if they were to teach Marxism in algebra class and tried to call it algebra.

chickenhead
01-27-2005, 01:00 PM
I agree they're not mutually exclusive, I wholeheartedly agree to that. But as GT says, that doesn't make them the same thing.

I don't feel threatened by any religious theory, but it is exactly as you defined it, a religious theory. Belongs in religion class, not science class.

Natural selection and big bang don't attempt to explain the origin of the universe, that is the realm of religion. Natural selection and big bang only describe what has happened over a period of time since the "origin". What happened after all of this energy existed. I don't think there will ever be a "scientific" theory of where it came from, you just can't look through that keyhole, there is no information.

And btw, I would be fine with them discussing this fact in science class...on the limits of science.

boxcar
01-28-2005, 01:54 PM
chickenhead wrote:

Perhaps you could define what you mean by origins theory boxcar, I'm no astrophysicist, but so far as I can tell the big bang does not attempt to explain where everything came from, merely what has happened since a point in time.

Then tell me, please, specificaly what does the "big bang" theory attempt to explain? You say, "where everything came from"? Isn't it more accurate to state "from what and how everything came to be"?

So...when I say "origins" , I'm speaking of the "beginning" What happened at the "beginning"? How did the Inorganic beget the Organic? How did the Impersonal beget the Personal? How did the Amoral beget the Moral?

Boxcar

kenwoodallpromos
01-28-2005, 07:02 PM
Organs on left, people and animals protect left side and use right most. That is by Creation.

Tom
01-29-2005, 11:36 AM
I am left handed. So is the monkey. :eek:

kenwoodallpromos
01-29-2005, 07:58 PM
You and your monkey are geniuses who use the brain and outsmart those who depend on brute strength. That is why I am a lefty too!

Tom
01-29-2005, 08:25 PM
:D