Posted on 12/09/2005 3:55:11 AM PST by mlc9852
Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.
Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
That is a philosophical question. My take on it is that the designer chose certain building blocks and laws with which to work. The result is a universe that could be interpreted as evolving over a long period of time (if one operates with a certain set of assumptions). That is to say it only gives the appearance of evolving. I tend to consider the written records and observations of man to be more reliable in explaining what the universe has contained throughout its history. There is simply no record denoting a gradual progression of life from amoeba to man. Not in any case over 10,000 years. If it's alright with you, I'd like to see creationism presented as a viable alternative to evolutionism.
Scientific empiricism should apply to the dynamic processes we have on hand. These amply demonstrate the potential for new species to come about. They also demonstrate limitations. If one wishes to extrapolate history from a static record, then, as the construct goes back in time, the evidence, interpretations, and explanation are on more shaky ground, especially if one is operating with an atheistic definition of science.
In cases where science has been brought to bear on ghosts the best that can be ascertained, AFAIK, are fields of "energy" that persist where certain deceased people existed prior to assuming room temperature. There are many accounts of some kind of plasma that is visible in places attested as "haunted." At any rate, what reason is there to assume, if we should be able to put scientific terms on a phenomenon, that the phenomenon is now "natural" when prior to our understanding it was considered "supernatural?"
Is that your "Yo-God God Detector?" It seems to be stuck on "No." Says a lot. Do you believe the government should endorse atheism in the classroom?
It wouldn't be science that has done that, although it might be guys with fancy looking ghostbuster stuff.
If they use the programming analogy, then they are still saying we are decended from apes, since the designer would then have created us as a subclass of type Ape. Class Human would extend Class Ape. If the designer is cutting and pasting code instead of employing object reusaility via inheritance (or composition, but then we would be a mix of "kinds", and I don't think the creationists would approve), then he's not a good programmer -- although probably a cut above the idiots my company has offshored some of its development projects to.
I never bought the 6000 year view...Genesis states the earth itself was a formless void of water before God acted on it....how long it was that was might have been billions of years...before the water...rock heat dust ect. I can buy a 7 day creation, if one is God God can do anything he wants...that adaptations occur within species I have no doubt.
I'm always struck by the stand off commands the Lord makes when he "commands the Earth" to bring forth birds and grass and fishes, ect...but when he decides to make man he TAKES A VERY DIRECT ROLE IN THAT! "Let US make man in our own image and likeness and stating that he forms the man from the very RED DUST(Adam means red dirt man or red mud man) of the Earth. Why was red dust significant...it has to do with the heme molecule of red blood cells being iron based. It was never a skin color issue. The iron oxide in the dust was used to make the very blood of man...as well as the blood of animals and fish.
God may have used and may be using a natural selective process in the world....but man was not a part of this process at least it never was the intent for him to be so!
That site is a prime exampleof the reason why science treats Creationsm as a joke, and Creationist as crackpots.
George McCready Price (1870-1963) was the leading creationist writer of the first half of the 20th century. He eventually taught at four colleges and was president of a fifth, but still gave much time to researching and writing reports against evolution. In all he produced 38 books and numerous magazine articles.—p. 29.
That site is a prime exampleof the reason why science treats Creationsm as a joke, and Creationist as crackpots.
Not a word about the case which the site makes regading fruit fly experiments (why am I not surprised)...
You sort of remind me of the words of Rhett Butler in GWTW when he tells the gathered southern aristocracy something like "Gentlemen, all you have left, is arrogance." That seems to be all I'm hearing from the evolution crowd these days.
It deserves the treatment that would be given to an attempt to prove the case for extraterrestrial life by quoting George Adamski, Elron Hubbard, and Marshall Applewhite
I started with heavy rock (led zep, slade, uriah heep...) went to blues and am now doing my best to learn jazz. I have a younger brother who started the way I did but ended up joining a country band which he played with for quite a few years. He's been trying to turn me to jazz but at my age I'm finding the change of genre a bit difficult.
I too have a few 'unfinished works' sitting on my desk.
blthrflop
(I would have used cheers, or adios, or something equally nice, but those have been taken.)
You: That is a philosophical question.
Philosophical, meaning what? Speculative? Not subject to the discipline of science?
You: My take on it is that the designer chose certain building blocks and laws with which to work. The result is a universe that could be interpreted as evolving over a long period of time (if one operates with a certain set of assumptions). That is to say it only gives the appearance of evolving.
"Certain building blocks and laws...". OK, some of the "building blocks" are the ERVs, and one of the "laws" is that a particular ERV may
1) appear in any one of chimps, gorillas and people, or
2) may appear in all three, or
3) may be in both chimps and people, but not gorillas.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of these ERVs, and they all follow the same rule. So do other mutations.
This is the exact pattern one would expect from common descent
So part of the "philosophical" answer is that we have the appearance of evolution, but if we hypothesize a designer, it looks the same.
Isaac Newton (in the Principia) had something to say about this: "Hypotheses non fingo" (I feign (to assert as if true) no hypotheses):
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
Basically, you're feigning the designer hypothesis. There is no test for it.
Another oldie but goodie is Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
What you're doing is increasing the number of entities by adding a hypothetical designer.
In summary, the "philosphical" approach you're advocating goes against both Newton and William of Occam!
(to be continued...)
"I am always amused when creationists/IDists attack evolution, but accept the Germ Theory of Disease and run to the doctor for every tummy ache."
Really?
And who runs to the doctor more - IDers or evos?
Have any kind of link or poll on that?
It's not about who goes to the doctor more.
It's about creationists not being intellectually consistent, deriding evolution as "just a theory" but accepting germ (and other) theories as the sound science that they are.
Exactly. And if we're going to bring William of Occam into the discussion, please explain what entity must be introduced to cause the presence of organized matter, i.e. particle matter that retains its consistency from generation to generation. If it is something other than intelligent design, then what is it? IMO the simplest explanation is a single, almighty intelligence, without which all matter would disintegrate into NOTHING. If you have a simpler explanation for the presence of organzed matter I'd like to know what it is.
Are you saying better medical science takes place when intelligent design is dismissed out of hand?
No, I'm saying that people who claim that evolution is "just a theory" and yet accept that germs cause disease are intellectually inconsistent.
Which is exactly what I said.
FC: Exactly.
Therefore, it should not be in a science class. Q friggin ED.
And if we're going to bring William of Occam into the discussion, please explain what entity must be introduced to cause the presence of organized matter, i.e. particle matter that retains its consistency from generation to generation.
I'd rather not change the discussion from biology to physics. Belongs in another thread.
IMO the simplest explanation is a single, almighty intelligence, without which all matter would disintegrate into NOTHING.
Whatever.
What I'm interested in here is what should be in biology texts and classes.
If I understand correctly, you've stated that there is the appearance of evolution, in particular the pattern of ERV insertions in primate genomes mimics the "family tree" that was theorized by biologists before DNA had been discovered.
So why should a designer hypothesis be feigned?
Why should Occam's Razor be violated in biology but not in other sciences?
I'm a tad bit older than you. I'm 50 so the bands I cut my pick on were not really 'metal' like some of the hair-bands and current crop. I was more into it for the sound than the lyrics. Even today I listen to the music first, lyrics second. The only purpose for lyrics, in my mind, is to allow me to keep my place in the song.
Learning to read music is one of those promises to yourself that just never seems to be kept. I took lessons when I was 10 so I have 'some' knowledge of music, but I prefer to use other methods, I read music soooo poorly.
Well, they are not intellectually inconsistent if they believe better medical science is based on intelligent design. Medical science takes place, by and large, without reference to philosphical underpinnings. One does not normally go to the doctor with evolution or intelligent design in mind. Maybe you do, and maybe you think you owe your life and health to the teaching of evolution. That's fine. If you're going to point put intellectual inconsistencies, why not point out the fact that evolutionists deny intelligent design while they are making use of it?
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.