FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU, I needed a good laugh today.
People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
Variation within species, not *evolutionary change*.
The ones who have contributed to anti-biotic resistance in bacteria are the medical professions, who supposedly have some background in biology which, according to evos, would include evolution, and so THEY should have known better and not over prescribed anti-biotics in the first place, which they should have foreseen would become resistant as an understanding of the ToE would have told them.
The patients CANNOT get antibiotics to use without a prescription from their doctors, who SHOULD HAVE known better with their education in science and biology, which SHOULD HAVE included the ToE.
The people most vocal about the overuse of antibiotics and warning of the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria were the naturalists, whom the scientific and medical communities pooh-poohed as being........ unscientific.
So why do you suppose a bacteria would have a stress induced gene for an error prone DNA polymerase - if not to create variation that did not previously exist?
The idea that all variation has to already be in a bacterial population for it to come about is easily tested. And that idea FAILS the test.
To deny that variation arises in non resistant populations due to incorrect use of antibiotics is idiotic and can only lead to the more rapid evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic strains of bacteria.
Creationism is once again useless if not actively harmful in explaining or predicting reality.
“pooh-poohed as being........ unscientific”
Coincidentally, another “intellectual” in history used this same “argument” to dismiss critics of his theories. His name was Karl Marx.
metmom: "Variation within species, [is] not *evolutionary change.*"
It seems to me that AMD's comment is an exercise in circular reasoning from an unexamined premise, while metmom's comment gives us something to think about. For it seems that, to a Darwinist, all change is "evolutionary" (and thus is to be regarded as a progressive development in terms of species [group] survival). But this is an untested — and untestable — presupposition.
BTW, how did an article on the age of the earth get turned into a defense of Darwin's theory — by, e.g., allmendream and tacticalogic?
I am not "anti-science." I strongly doubt metmom is "anti-science." I think it may be fair to say, however, that both of us are "anti-scientism." That is to say, we deplore abuses of science.
Let that go for now, and return to the subject of the article at the top, the age of the earth.
I for one have no difficulty with the scientific finding — inferred from data extrapolated from observations of the Cosmic Background Radiation — that the universe is ~15 billion years old. The Earth system was seemingly a late development, with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years. Within the Earth system, it took another several billion years before the first life forms emerged.
At the same time, I find nothing in the above understanding that conflicts with the Genesis account of Creation.
For while Genesis tells us that the Lord made the whole Creation in six days, we have absolutely no idea of how "long" a "day" is for God; for He is entirely outside of space and time as we humans know/experience it.
Note the interesting juxtaposition of "long" (which refers to spatial extension), and "day" (which refers to a temporal unit). Einstein "unified" space and time, giving us a new concept, spacetime. Provided it is true that the "universal speed limit" is C — the speed of light — then it seems this unification holds up.
The quantum world tells us something likewise:
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10–20 times the size of a proton.These statements implicitly recognize a beginning of the Universe. At the same time, they show the Limit that the human mind runs up against when it seeks to understand cosmological origins. To put it bluntly, we do not "see" as God sees: We are utterly captured within the order of spacetime; God is not. The eternal, timeless God sees the "all that there is" from outside the category of spacetime.
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds. [see here]
So if He tells us He made the Universe in six days, I'm sure from His vantage point, that is entirely true. From our (materialist, reductionist, time-bound) vantage point, such a declaration seems, if not utterly false, then simply unintelligible.
I don''t know what it is with Darwinists, but it seems that they regard the simplest bacterium as the "Rosetta Stone" that yields insight and understanding of all biological organisms. What is "true" about this single-cell crittur applies equally to the most complex biological system in Nature, Man: So once you understand the bacterium and its processes, then you know all you need to know about any biological organism, including Man.
What idiocy!
For in addition to creating the world, God made it intelligible; and created human minds capable of appreciating its intelligibility.
Indeed, this is the fundamental premise of science, without which there would be no science.
Also, it has been pointed out that reason and logic themselves have an irreducibly non-natural element. As Alfred North Whitehead famously pointed out, mental functionings are not completely explained or determined by natural processes alone. If they were, we'd have no warrant for believing they are true. If natural processes are the result of "random flux," then how can logic and reason — which are universals — derive from them?
Thus here is a "lethal self-contradiction" in applying evolutionary theory to the understanding of human cognitive capabilities that can only, in the words of Thomas Nagel, undermine our confidence in them.
But the silly reporter who baited Marco Rubio with a stupid question, the significance of which he does not himself understand, pretty much tells you how idiotic the public discourse has become where scientific issues are involved, and GOP "targets" are at hand.
Marco needs to learn to handle himself better when targeted by such stupid attacks.
JMHO FWIW.
Thanks for the ping, metmom, my dear sister in Christ — and thank you for your outstanding analysis of AMD's "challenge" to you.