Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

It is strange that school boards are trying to introduce intelligent design at the high school level before it has become accepted at the university level. No wonder parents of high school students are suing school boards!

0 Replies

Quote:

However, it's important to note that even if biological evolution were to be proven impossible, it still wouldn't validate ID. So the use of Irreducible Complexity to support ID is somewhat misguided.

Excellent point rosborne.

Wandlejw-rmember, Intelligent design is just the latest go round of what they call Creationism. Its only been done,IMHO, to skirt the USSC decision when trying to teach Creationism. Since its apparently not related to a religious teaching, its just allowable because its along the fringe. Thats why the Dover Case will be so interesting.the Creationists will argue against that but their entire stance wasnt made an issue until Behe published his book"Darwins Black Box".

0 Replies

THE NATURE OF GENE MUTATIONS - What evolutionists have stated.

Modern evolutionists have been unable to discern any biological mechanism for producing real evolutionary changes except that of gene mutations. The problem is that all mutations so far observed either in nature or the laboratory have been either neutral or harmful. The necessary "beneficial" mutations are evidently only wishful thinking. This, of course, is only to be expected in light of the universal law of entropy. Mutations are essentially random changes in highly ordered systems and the probability of a chance increase in order is vanishingly small.

QUOTATION#8 - repeated

Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), p63.

"It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."

Where is the scientific evidence from gene mutations that is supposed to be the machanism for Evolution? Even evolutionists like Professor Ayala are not aware of it!

0 Replies

Ayala wrote that at a time when sequencing a genome was only a future dream and NeoDarwinism was still fashionable, so he was prescient wasnt he. He didnt know that coding occurs in 3 base pair sets, and he didnt know about effectiv mutations that arise from replicating controller genes in the "junk". He wasnt familiar with tte effectiveness of a set or sets of three tthaat turn a trait off or on in the spcific gene
Your arguing what YOU think is the source of evolutionary stock, not what most scientists or those familiar with evolution understand

GOULD 2002-. genes are merely the "bookkeeping" of evolution

MAYR 2001-genetic diversity accounts for most macro and microevolution.

WATSON 2003-The human genome project has proved Darwin more right than he himself dared dream.

MARGULIS 2002. Chaarles Darwin never used the word volution. He, instead termed it"decent with modification" ...If we swear that we are DArwinists we also swear that we do not agree with the "NEoDArwinists " that developed between 1900 and 1960. Everyone who studies modern biology today , is a Darwinist

If you ntry to create controversy, lets at least be current with what the most of the biological (and paleontological) community writes.

For a rocket scientist, you sure dont atempt to get recent wit other disciplines. Did you use fuses to light off your rocket engines?

0 Replies

Farmer, let's stick to the "science" and "evidences" regarding "Evolution", and leave the personal sleights aside - agreed? Please confirm. I want to move this debate along, seriously, to look at real data - agreed?

0 Replies

my entire previous post was purely fact and evidence in response to your previous post that attempted to debate with itself. I could not avoid the comment that you seem a bit out of date in your literature.(even though I said that Ayalah was prescient)

Is your selective reaading not a perfectly sound target of anyones critique ? What rules do you wish to follow? I will comment on your ideas and your sources and, if I see that they are a "bit out of date" excuse me if I remind you of this shortcoming. It is by such an approach that you appeared to foment controversy in the preevious Bib post.
Please dont take this as a personal slight. Its only business. If you wish to "move this along" come forward about 30 years and we will discuss from the same page of data.

pS, how do you apply entropy to living organisms/ I agree that disorder increases after death, but we are dealing with an active metabolic system

0 Replies

DOVER, PENNSYLVANIA UPDATE

The evolution disclaimer fashioned by the Dover school district was read by admininistrators in two high school biology classes this morning. It advised students that the school library has copies of a book on intelligent design that students should consider if they wish.

The lawsuit against the school board is still pending. If the lawsuit is successful it would remove intelligent design from the biology curiculuum and also prevent future disclaimers.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

The evolution disclaimer fashioned by the Dover school district was read by admininistrators in two high school biology classes this morning. It advised students that the school library has copies of a book on intelligent design that students should consider if they wish.

I'm just trying to picture this...

"Ok class quiet down. You all know Mr. Administrator, well, he's got a little announcement today before we start class. Good Morning Students, before we start class today, the School District would like for us to inform you that the school library has copies of a book on Intelligent Design that you should consider if you wish. Thank You."

Tom: "What was that all about?"
Bill: "The Library has a book on Designing Intelligence"
Tom: "What's a library?" Wink

Big laughs, and high fives all around. "Is this class over yet, sheesh".

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Like your keyboard, Farmer, you're out of date, rusty and in need of some modern tuning. Darwinism is dead - NeoDarwinism is not far behind it. do the decent thing and give them both a suitable burial - along with your keyboard.

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Farmer, let's stick to the "science" and "evidences" regarding "Evolution", and leave the personal sleights aside - agreed? Please confirm. I want to move this debate along, seriously, to look at real data - agreed?

0 Replies

DREW DAD- WELCOME, NOW , WHATS YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

DOVER, PENNSYLVANIA UPDATE

The evolution disclaimer fashioned by the Dover school district was read by admininistrators in two high school biology classes this morning. It advised students that the school library has copies of a book on intelligent design that students should consider if they wish.

The lawsuit against the school board is still pending. If the lawsuit is successful it would remove intelligent design from the biology curiculuum and also prevent future disclaimers.

Thanks for the update, Wandel.
Is there a timeline for the existing lawsuit, i.e. when will it be settled?

0 Replies

Bib-This is a lawsuit that, like many other "big issue" suits, will slowly and deliberately move through higher and higher courts till ultimately the Supreme Court will rule on the case and its probable numerous appeals as it relates to the US Constitution.
The last time Creation was shot down as science by the USSC was in the 1987 Louisiana case Edwards v Aguillard, where Edwards was the gov of Louisiana.

In the present filing the 8 families bringing suit , are claiming that Intelligent Design, in essence , is just Creationism in a more 'scientific " dress.
ie "Due to its complexity, life was created by an intelligent entity ..."
Now , I wonder who, or what that entity is?

The case could go for summary judgment but the plaintiffs, through ACLU, have apparently refused, saying that theyd rather the trial take place. I suppose its a legal point that escapes all but the lawyers.
Ive asked for one of our resident legal types to opine, but no responses. Maybe you, as the host of this thread should ask.
In the US its a favorite legal statement that goes something like
" A loss in court is the first step to a successful appeal"
In any case , the ID proponents want it to appear that ID is a true science wit no ties to a religious conviction. Its gonna be a tough and interesting road for them. There are about 50 scientific organizaions already lined up to provide "friend..." briefs and the list of about 200 living Nobel Laureates from Edwards v Aguillard will possibly be re-entered on behalf of the plaintiffs ( members of 8 families who wish to see that the sciences remain the only subjects taught in the science curriculum)

0 Replies

Bibliophile,

Farmerman is correct about the lawsuit. No matter what the initial decision, the losing party will appeal. The initial trial will not start until September 26!

The attorneys for the school board issued a statement yesterday: "A revolution in evolution is underway."

(Personally, I have never heard of a scientific revolution being waged at the high school level.)

0 Replies

Successive generations will continue to debate and legislate for both sides of the "Origins" question. All that it will achieve is the alienation or increased propaganda techniques of one side versus the other, in order to win the hearts and minds of the masses!

The claims for "truth" "scientific fact" and "real evidence" are all, quite frankly, bogus. Neither worldview can EVER be proven as a scientific fact, simply because they are both unobservable.

The sooner "scientists" face up to this reality, and stop messing around with definitions for "scientific fact" to suit their own prejudices, then the better it will be for inquiring minds to come to their own conclusions on the matter.

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

The claims for "truth" "scientific fact" and "real evidence" are all, quite frankly, bogus. Neither worldview can EVER be proven as a scientific fact, simply because they are both unobservable.

There is a difference between "scientific" fact, and "absolute" fact.

Science has never claimed to have absolute knowledge.

Please don't tell me that your whole argument to the scientific method revolves around the philosophical definition of "knowledge". I would venture to say that most of us on this thread are well aware of the difference between the two types of knowledge (scientific vs. absolute).

I for one have never claimed to "know" anything outsiide of the assumptions of science (naturalism being the assumed philosophical foundation), and I haven't seen anyone else here try to claim "fact" beyond this boundary either.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Please don't tell me that your whole argument to the scientific method revolves around the philosophical definition of "knowledge". I would venture to say that most of us on this thread are well aware of the difference between the two types of knowledge (scientific vs. absolute).

I for one have never claimed to "know" anything outsiide of the assumptions of science (naturalism being the assumed philosophical foundation), and I haven't seen anyone else here try to claim "fact" beyond this boundary either.

"Philosophical definition of knowledge" ? That's your thoughts, not mine.
Scientific Facts are based upon testable, observable and repeatable experimients, not philosophical Naturalism! Do you agree with this?

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Please don't tell me that your whole argument to the scientific method revolves around the philosophical definition of "knowledge". I would venture to say that most of us on this thread are well aware of the difference between the two types of knowledge (scientific vs. absolute).

I for one have never claimed to "know" anything outsiide of the assumptions of science (naturalism being the assumed philosophical foundation), and I haven't seen anyone else here try to claim "fact" beyond this boundary either.

"Philosophical definition of knowledge" ? That's your thoughts, not mine.
Scientific Facts are based upon testable, observable and repeatable experimients, not philosophical Naturalism! Do you agree with this?

Of course not. What makes you think that something must be observable before it can be considered a scientific fact? I didn't observe the tree outside my window growing, but I can deduce that it did grow based on extensive evidence to that effect.

Likewise for Evolution, it's a scientific fact. Unless of course, you are using a different definition of scientific fact.

Please provide the definition of "scientific fact" which you are using to make your arguments.

0 Replies

The definition has been posted TWICE - didn't you pay attention, or has your naturalistic bias conveniently overlooked it?

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

The definition has been posted TWICE - didn't you pay attention, or has your naturalistic bias conveniently overlooked it?

Come on Bib, this thread has 62 pages so far. Rather than me scanning back for one of multiple definitions buried in the thread, and possibly not getting the one which you agree with, wouldn't it be simpler for you to simply tell us what definition you are using?

0 Replies

The second time it was posted was on page 58 - here it is again, just for you, Ros:

"In standard scientific terminology, a "hypothesis" is a statement that can be tested scientifically by some kind of experiment that could refute it if it is wrong.
A "theory" is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested in various ways, but has not been refuted as yet.
Finally, a scientific "law" is a theory that has been tested, with positive results, so often and in so many different ways that it is almost certainly a confirmed fact of science."

0 Replies

Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know