Replies

Why don't you continue your "research" and read "Darwin's Black Book" by Michael Behe who is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania Lehigh University. His concept of "irreducible complexity" proves the fallacy in Darwin's theory. In his book, Behe illustrates that an interdependent system such as a mousetrap needs ALL components interlacing in order to function as a mousetrap. If only one component is changed, the entire system would cease to function. Living things do not change one piece at a time in isolation, as Darwin's theory would have you believe, whether a single cell or an entire organ, each system has many interdependent components. The ID theory which uses scientific findings to say we see evidence of design in the natural world explains this irreducible complexity. Open-mindedness, critical thinking and careful study should be the badge of scientists. But today in the public schools, this is not the case. Evolution curriculum ridicules creationism and the Christian faith. If you are Christian,madam and your children are getting evolution taught to them, you will see a difference that you will not appreciate.

You forgot to credit this post to Mary E. Traeger:

http://states.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8947&department=FIELD&categoryid=education

"Michael Behe who is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania Lehigh University. His concept of "irreducible complexity" proves the fallacy in Darwin's theory."

Behe has accepted

1) Common descent
2) Descent with modification
3) The old age of the earth
4) The designer may be dead
5) That science will have to be redefined to include the supernatural in order for ID to be scientific.

Also, *irreducible complexity* is a bastardization of an engineering concept called irreducible simplicity. Every *irreducibly complex* example Behe has presented has shown to NOT be IC. Such as the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, and even the mouse trap. IC is an argument from incredulity. BTW, Darwin never recanted. :)

Why don't you continue your "research" and read "Darwin's Black Book" by Michael Behe who is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania Lehigh University. His concept of "irreducible complexity" proves the fallacy in Darwin's theory. In his book, Behe illustrates that an interdependent system such as a mousetrap needs ALL components interlacing in order to function as a mousetrap. If only one component is changed, the entire system would cease to function.

Behe's ideas are essentially nothing new, and are identical in principle to the flawed watchmaker arguments of William Paley over a century ago. Behe's claims that complex systems systems cannot evolve their components individually is false (it ignores the principle of exaptation, for one).

Behe's work on intelligent design has never undergone any significant peer review. Bypassing peer review and publishing "findings" in a (very bad, in this case) book is not considered a reputable method of conveying scientific information. One should always be wary of any scientist who bypasses professional evaluation of their ideas and goes straight to the public with their ideas (lest concepts like these become part of high school science curricula.)

An identification of the fallacies in Darwin's Black Box

Open-mindedness, critical thinking and careful study should be the badge of scientists.

And they are. But one can't be so open-minded that his/her brain falls out. New ideas have to fit existing data, and use of the scientific method has to be self-consistent. One cannot rightfully decry that someone who ignores the vast evidence supporting evolution isn't getting their fair shake in the scientific theater. Close-mindedness is anathema to science; but so is ignoring information.

But today in the public schools, this is not the case.

"Lack of open-mindedness" is hardly the greatest problem in public schools (contrary to the opinions of many liberals in the field of education). A lack of basic understanding of English, math, history and science is the greatest problem, and the efforts of creationists contribute to the problem.

Evolution curriculum ridicules creationism and the Christian faith. If you are Christian,madam and your children are getting evolution taught to them, you will see a difference that you will not appreciate.

Creationism in the science arena deserves to be derided. As a scientific concept, it has been repeatedly and utterly falsified. Evolution has nothing to say about the Christian faith; and many of us are quite fine reconciling the two with one another. As for those who aren't, maybe it's high time to realize that science is not their enemy lest they themselves become fossils.

I do appreciate your leading me to another source to read, and after the Christmas activites, I will be doing a good deal of researching given to me by many different sources...

However, I disagree with what you have said, in the end of your post #2144...you state that the evolution cirriculum ridicules creationism, and the Christian faith...now some 'individuals' may do that, but the evolution cirriculum itself, does not 'ridicule'...that assumption of being 'ridiculed' is in the eye of the one who believes it to be so...

The mistake that you seem to make, is in believing that anyone who believes in evolution, must also be an atheist...that is a leap that many make, and its just wrong...and I do not believe, for even one little second, that because ones children are taught evolution, that somehow their behavior is going to be rotten behavior...I am quite positive that whether a child is taught evolution or creationism, that particular belief that is taught will have little influence on the childs behavior...you, however, do seem to be believing that if one raise a child to believe in evolution, that somehow they are going to be horrible children, and on the opposite side, you seem to belief that a child taught to believe in creationism will be a wonderful child...well, I disagree...you have your 'opinion' on this matter, and so do I...we disagree and thats fine...I just think you are completely wrong...