Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The reason that evolutionists haven't insisted on teaching the fundamentals is that it would deadly to the theory of evolution if students were allowed to question it and dissect it.

When you arrive in hospital about to undergo scheduled (or emergency) surgery, will you be planning to demand that surgery be done by a Spenglerian shaman or by a surgeon trained in one of those horrible scientific medical schools?

But here's your chance, tell us why the analogy of a tornado in a junkyard which constructs an airplane by chance, is NOT a valid analogy for the process of evolution.

Perhaps you are referring to this post:

real life wrote:

Some also refer to evolution as a 'tornado in a junkyard producing a Boeing 747' type of an idea.

I don't disagree.

to which you replied:

rosborne979 wrote:

Abiogenesis is not part of the basic theory of biological evolution. However, unlike most people who understand evolution, I will not dodge the obvious implication.

The basic foundational mechanism of evolution (natural selection) strongly implies that abiogenesis occured due to selection mechanisms at the chemical levels in similar fashion to biological evolution.

The desire of some evolutionists to avoid discussion of abiogenesis is very strong.

Who can forget when we were discussing the article by Shapiro, what fits it gave the evolutionary contingent here to see mainstream scientists referring to abiogenesis as 'the first step in evolution' ?

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

When you arrive in hospital about to undergo scheduled (or emergency) surgery, will you be planning to demand that surgery be done by a Spenglerian shaman or by a surgeon trained in one of those horrible scientific medical schools?

I don't plan on the scenario you depict. I plan to fade away like a (what's the flower that lasts longest) in autumn or the Fall as you call it.

With a bit of luck it will take place in the pub.

all modern dogs can be traced back to the wolf .......

we can breed corn plants such that.......

real life wrote:

Who can forget when we were discussing the article by Shapiro, what fits it gave the evolutionary contingent here to see mainstream scientists referring to abiogenesis as 'the first step in evolution' ?

Who had fits over that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Abiogenesis came first, in whatever form, and eventually led to the process of evolution. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

In a germinal 1986 article, Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert of Harvard University wrote in the journal Nature: "One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves. & The first step of evolution proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup." In this vision, the first self-replicating RNA that emerged from non-living matter carried out the functions now executed by RNA, DNA and proteins.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.

You do understand, I trust, how predictable that non-answer was?

Here, Shapiro quotes Gilbert describing 'the first step of evolution' -- abiogenesis.

Note he doesn't say , ' a step that came BEFORE the first step in evolution '.

In discussing evolution, you seem to want an inviolable wall between origin of life and discussion of origin of species.

Just as life is a continuum, scientists see the process as continuous and even well known evolutionists consider abiogenesis as part of evolutionary theory -- which you vigorously deny.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested.

rl

Quote:

Here, Shapiro quotes Gilbert describing 'the first step of evolution' -- abiogenesis.

Note he doesn't say , ' a step that came BEFORE the first step in evolution '.

the Shapiro article supported abiogenesis but from a standpoint of how very simple molecules became "ALIVE" and RNA/DNA probably came much later.

Which well known evolutionists see abiogenesis as part of evolutionary theory? Shapiro certainly doesn't. He sees abiogenesis as the first step in an evolutionary process

I know he won't change his mind. It's just fun to yank his chain occasionally.

I know. I'm a bad boy. I'll sit in the corner now.

Evolution being taught, so call it 'evolution'
(Palm Beach Post Editorial, January 03, 2008)

Evolution is scientific theory. Creationism is religious belief. Only one of them should be taught in Florida's science classrooms.

The state Department of Education holds hearings today in Jacksonville and Tuesday in Miramar on a proposal to explicitly acknowledge that Florida's public schools will teach evolution. That would be one change among many designed to improve science education.

The curriculum already requires science teachers in the state's public schools to teach their students that forms of life change over time. That's evolution in all but name. Still, some groups object to specifying evolution. Inevitably, critics of the change will argue that students who learn about evolution also should study intelligent design, which is creationism that has been repackaged and rebranded.

There is no official proposal to require teaching of intelligent design. Still, as The Post reported this week, some school board members in this area support teaching intelligent design in science classrooms. Those board members include Carol Hilson and John Carvelli in St. Lucie County.

Debra Robinson of Palm Beach County has supported it. Martin County's David Anderson opposes the teaching of evolution because "I am a Christian."

In fact, many Christians are persuaded by the extensive scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. They also understand that Darwin's theory is about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Acceptance of evolution doesn't rule out accepting the belief that evolution is one of God's tools.

The accumulation of scientific evidence also is why critics of evolution are wrong to dismiss it as "just a theory." The word theory, as scientists use it, doesn't just mean something that somebody believes in. A theory is a reasonable explanation supported by considerable empirical evidence. Students in Florida classrooms already learn about that evidence. Most already are taught that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

But students are not taught the empirical scientific evidence for creationism and intelligent design because there is no empirical scientific evidence for creationism and intelligent design. If those subjects are worth teaching, they belong in comparative religion classes or, these days, classes on politics.

Florida hopes to become a leader in scientific discoveries. Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast want to play a major role in the biotech industry. To have any chance of achieving those goals, Florida has to teach science in its science classrooms. The state Board of Education votes next month on whether to require students to be taught evolution. If Florida can't do that, the state has little hope of evolving into a world leader in science.

blatham wrote:
all modern dogs can be traced back to the wolf .......

real life: Since modern dogs may interbreed with the wolf, are they really a separate species?

blatham wrote:
we can breed corn plants such that.......

real life: If that variety of corn would've eventually shown up on it's own and become dominant, thus protecting the species thru evolution, why didn't it?

Quote:

blatham wrote:
all modern dogs can be traced back to the wolf .......

real life: Since modern dogs may interbreed with the wolf, are they really a separate species?

Irrelevant. The transition or branching out from a single progenitor into myriad other forms (over time, through the understood 'darwinian' mechanisms) is the story that the scientific evidence tells us about the history and causes of change in biological forms. Given enough change, or rather, given a particularly critical change, two divergent lines will no longer be able to breed successfully (apparently that is your measure for speciation). The mechanisms are the same in either case and can be duplicated in husbandry. Prior to the wolf sit other progenitors.

real life wrote:

blatham wrote:

we can breed corn plants such that.......

If that variety of corn would've eventually shown up on it's own and become dominant, thus protecting the species thru evolution, why didn't it?

Because the range of characteristics that offspring manifest is established by chance. Had you, by chance, married a different partner and had you conceived at 3:12 AM on June 14, 1982 after having suffered a period of brief illness, your child may have become a skinny blonde chess genius with a taste for dangerous middle eastern men and french pastry. Or with a taste for methedrine. There's no "why" involved other than if the observer feels he is uncomfortable in a universe without the why being provided like a five AM feeding.

In the conclusion to his rambling, diverting, if sometimes unreliable study, Morris suggests that for secular modern man, at least, his "soul", his only chance of immortality, resides not in his brain, or his heart, or his pineal gland, as our more credulous ancestors and non-western contemporaries believe, but only in his genetic material. So there you have it. Not only is there no God, not only are we close relatives of the chimpanzee, not only do we face personal extinction in a cosmos of chilly and infinite indifference, but as a final indignity, it turns out that the modern man carries his soul in his underpants.

MY measure for speciation??

My wife handles the pregnancies around here, not I. We won't go into your implication that the various behaviors you detailed are genetically based. What nonsense.

real life:

Quote:

MY measure for speciation??

Yes, yours. It is not the sole or universal criterion used.

Quote:

My wife handles the pregnancies around here, not I. We won't go into your implication that the various behaviors you detailed are genetically based. What nonsense.

I didn't speak of behaviors but of propensities. I'm a twin (fraternal) and have always had an acute interest in twin studies. These studies, and there are lots of them, demonstrate quite clearly that identical twins share propensities (of various sorts) much more so than do fraternal twins or non twin siblings.

But, more to the point, you've again chosen to avoid anything like an honest or forthright address to the matters in question or to the logical or evidentiary challenges put to you.