Posted on 01/23/2014 9:19:28 AM PST by Heartlander
DNA has the following:
1. Functional InformationHow could such a system form randomly without any intelligence, and totally unguided?
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
1. EUGENICS
Eugenic racism in 1925 was consensus science in the field of human evolution. By 1928 there were 376 university-level courses on eugenics, and there was widespread support from scientists and other academics at leading universities -- Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, to name a few -- as well as enthusiastic support from media and government. Eugenic science was funded lavishly by the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harriman Railroad foundation, and the wealthy businessman J.H. Kellogg. Many national and international conferences on eugenics and human evolution were hosted at leading research institutions, including the American Museum of Natural History, and eugenic science gained the imprimatur of leading scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. Wealthy donors created the Eugenic Records Office on Long Island, later to become the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. By the 1930s, thirty-one states in the U.S. would pass compulsory sterilization laws based on mainstream eugenic science and human evolution, and eugenics would receive the explicit endorsement of the Supreme Court in 1926. By the end of the first half of the 20th century, sixty thousand Americans had been sterilized involuntarily on the basis of consensus eugenic science.…Racism and eugenics were the hallmarks of the theory of human evolution in the early 20th century, representing a clear consensus of evolutionary biologists as well as other scientists and leaders in higher education and government. There were a few dissenters, but such skeptics were disdained in mainstream scientific circles.
- Michael Egnor
Improvement of Man. - If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection.Eugenics. - When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, that dread white plague which is still responsible for almost one seventh of all deaths, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science is of being well born is called eugenics.
Parasitism and its Cost to Society. - Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.
The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country. - Hunter’s Civic Biology (the textbook at the centre of the Scopes Trial)
In the Darwin view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data is well supported in animal husbandry. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.
2. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
“Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.
3. JUNK DNA DISEASES
Uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes).”
Excerpt: By 2005 fundamental problems with underlying axioms of genomics became too obvious. Meanwhile, millions, if not hundreds of millions were dying of junk DNA diseases while 98.7% of the human DNA was officially still considered untouchable.
- International HoloGenomics Society – “Junk DNA Diseases”
In exactly the same way the founders of Science, Mendel, Pasteur, Newton, Faraday studied Science. They all believed hat God made things in an orderly fashion.
Generally good article. But this part doesn't make much sense.
I don't know anyone who expected to find evidence of life on Mars and has therefore been forced to drop back to expecting life to be present on exoplanets.
It's been pretty thoroughly known for upwards of 50 years that we are unlikely to find evidence of life in this solar system away from Earth.
Recent evidence is that planets and solar systems are common if not ubiquitous. It is likely that the basic conditions for life are also fairly common, which of course does not necessarily mean that life itself is.
“Denyse O’Leary” Ping
What you mean "we," Kimosabe?
Seriously: What need is there to prescribe how scientists should study Nature?
I assume that some scientists are proponents of "Intelligent Design," while others are not. So, why not let each individual scientist study Nature as he sees fit?
Astrophysicists who prefer to use Ouija boards - rather than established scientific theories - to predict astrophysical phenomena are free to do so.
Geologists who prefer to use "dowsing rods" - rather than logic based on established scientific theories - to find veins of valuable minerals are free to do so.
Chemists who subscribe to the "Phlogiston Theory" - rather than accepting the existence of oxygen - are free to proceed under those assumptions.
Etc., etc.
We'll see who derives the more useful findings.
Regards,
This is not necessarily true. There have been physicists who claiml they have been able to identify at least 25 finely tuned variables (ie, temperature, gravitational force, radiation level, etc. etc.) which must all be present for life as we know it to exist. The probabiliity against all or even half of these finely tuned variables to be present on any given planet is off the charts. Something like 10 to the negative 250th power or, in other words, impossible.
bookmark
The chance that science will advance mankind to the stars: 100%
The chance that religion will advance us to the stars: 0%
Would be interested in reviewing these claims.
Science long ago embraced empiricism and adopted the scientific method. If you want to change that, you should have something equally rigourous and objective to replace it with.
Sorry, accidentally clicked Post too soon.
One thing we do know is that our sun is a relatively common type.
Given the recently proven abundance of exoplanets in the universe, there is no particular reason to assume that our solar system and its planets are particularly unusual either.
The earth may be extremely unusual. In fact it may be unique. But recently discovered evidence tilts against that assumption, not in its favor.
As I said, I’m interested in reviewing the claims your mention.
ID as a guiding principle for research is a double edged proposition. Unlike the mechanistic approach, ID assumes some form of “master plan” or “central organizing principle” that defines life. It becomes not unlike a Philosopher’s Stone and runs the risk of being every bit as quixotic, or it may help. That would be “help” in the sense of being better able to control, understand and predict Nature’s way.
Alternatively, ID can cause intellectual laziness. Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.
Now, for the disturbing part. ID does not preclude Darwinism. How we think about the relationships between randomness and order in Nature is really piss poor superficial. Reverse thermodynamics there is a little dabbling, Chaos Theory, maybe a little better, but there is no developed system of thought on the subject. Unless someone else knows about something...
ID as a guiding principle for research is a double edged proposition. Unlike the mechanistic approach, ID assumes some form of “master plan” or “central organizing principle” that defines life. It becomes not unlike a Philosopher’s Stone and runs the risk of being every bit as quixotic, or it may help. That would be “help” in the sense of being better able to control, understand and predict Nature’s way.
Alternatively, ID can cause intellectual laziness. Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.
Now, for the disturbing part. ID does not preclude Darwinism. How we think about the relationships between randomness and order in Nature is really piss poor superficial. Reverse thermodynamics there is a little dabbling, Chaos Theory, maybe a little better, but there is no developed system of thought on the subject. Unless someone else knows about something...
Granted, but most of the attributes of our Sun are destructive of life rather than conductive to it. For example, unless the heat of the sun is within a very narrow temperature range life cannot exist. Same with radiation and gamma rays and other emissions. The studies I mentioned are discussed extensively in Norman Geisler's book, "I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist".
Advancing naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is) produces both expected and unexpected effects. The Harris poll found that belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution increased to 47 percent, up from 42 percent in 2005
As a result, some will crow that “Science is winning over superstition!” But it isn’t. Between 2005 and 2013, belief increased in
– ghosts from 41% to 42%
– UFOs from 35% to 36%
– astrology stayed the same at 29%
– witches decreased significantly from 31% to 26%
– reincarnation increased from 21% to 24%
While the noted increases are small, we should expect declines nearly across the board instead, if the “science wins” thesis were correct. (The one exception is UFOs; as a “sciencey” belief, they correlate with naturalism despite lack of evidence.) Further, we would expect young people (18–36) to reject ghosts and reincarnation more strongly than older people (68+) do.
And they don’t. On the contrary, younger folk believe in ghosts at 44% to seniors’ 24%. In UFOs at 36% to 30%. In astrology at 33% to 23%. In witches at 27% to 18%. And in reincarnation at 27% to 13%.
In short, naturalism offers liberation, not from the bonds of superstition but from the burden of rationality. And we must address the fact that increasing numbers of young people are embracing that liberation. More.
They’re at it . . . again.
Well, we definitely should not replace it with irrational paranoia .
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Werner Heisenberg
/One of my favorite quotes
//consider the source
Nobody told you thread jumping was considered bad practice?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.