Posted on 01/19/2009 9:42:35 PM PST by Coyoteman
The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.
Continues...
(Excerpt) Read more at texscience.org ...
[[Problem is that Russel Doolittle from UCSD just published last year a study of the lamprey genome, and factor V (in the red box) does not exist.]]
Not sure what your point is? Factor V is missing in lampreys? Big deal? Again, how does this relate to humans or species that rely on Factor V? Have they shown lampreys had it in the past, but lost it without ill effect?
It’s plain to see there’s no answer you’ll accept because your cult has a grip on you that you do not understand nor recognize.
Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
There are so many problems with your statement that is is difficult to know where to begin. First, simply because a scientific theory (like the theory of evolution) conflicts with *your* religious belief, it does not follow that it is itself a religious belief. Further, simply because a legitimate scientific relies upon natural explanation for natural phenomena (as opposed to a supernatural cause), it does not follow that it is a "secular humanist and atheist" theory.
For example, modern germ theory is not a religious belief, even though it is in direct conflict with some religious beliefs that illness is caused by demonic possession. Although it does not rely upon supernatural explanation for natural phenomena, it is silly to refer to it as a "secular humanist and atheist" theory.
Science has not actually disproved the creation account in Scripture.
Well, I don't know how literally you are interpreting the creation account in Genesis, but the fields of astronomy, physics, biology, cosmology, geology, and archeology all indicate *very* strongly that the earth and universe were not "created" in six literal days approximately six thousand years ago. I do not say this to try to convince you to abandon any religiously inspired belief you may have, but merely to point out that there are certainly aspects of some religions' creation stories that stand in pretty direct opposition to what we can observe.
There is no legitimate way to equate creation and astrology without it being an attack on Christianity.
I do not seek to equate Christianity with astrology. I am pointing out that there is no intellectually consistent position that would allow the non-science of creationism/ID to be taught as "science" in public schools while denying astrology the same position. If you can formulate such a position, I would be eager to hear it.
Modeling observed biological systems does not by default mean that they can arise without an intelligent agent. It simply means that you're modeling something that has been successful. It says nothing about cause or origin aside from the fact that there is no precedent established that biological systems can form themselves and arise on their own. Just as your work requires an intelligent agent (you) other complex information systems require intelligence as well.
Information just does not happen. Increasing chemical complexity violates the 2nd law and is not observed to happen spontaneously within nature without a known intelligent agent behind it.
[[I find to be of questionable intent and utility,]]
I didn’t mark you as a macroevolutionist- so your objection isn’t relevent
[[My interest in science and objectivity is entirely and completely functional in nature. I could not care less about the ontological Truth of any given theory, only it’s ability to help me predict, and hence engineer the given domain in which I work.]]
That’s fine- just poijnting out hte differences between designed computational info and natur’es metainfo
[[That said, the biggest problem I have Ever had with ID is simply this- I have yet to find a single situation where an ID theory provides any additional functional predictive benefit above and beyond it’s evolutionary antithesis.]]
Huh? Since when is ID suppsoed to ‘add’ anything? ID and IC are already complete- created in whole
[[So yes, There are plenty of Scientifically rigorous Intellectual Theories which falsify parts (or all, I don’t claim to know) of macro-evolution by proving the predictions of macro-evolution wrong in specific cases, but is there a single I.D. Theory which, in addition to falsifying some aspect of macro-evolution, also provides verifiable, testable and practical rules of thumb which enable scientists and practical professionals such as my self to better predict, model and affect their world?]]
Sure- ID is falisifiable (Not htat htis is even a requirement of sciebce- Popper imposed his opinion about falsifiability and testabiliy upon science- but it’s not actually necessary, but yes, ID is falsifiable- if it can be shown that nature is capable of ID and metainfo, then the hypothesis is falsified- As well, IC systems can be tested for. Can it help you in your profession? I guess- if we udnerstand metainfo better and see how it predicts what is to come within species specific parameters, we can then ttranslate that I think to computational models- but hten again I don;t know much about digital algorithms and such- so not sure.
[[Could you give me an example of a practical engineering breakthrough brought about by I.D. Theory that would not have been possible with merely macro-evolutionary theoretical modeling?]]
Sorry- wasn’t aware that ID had to jump through htis hoop requirement too in order to be concidered science?
What is plain to see is that you have no answer to offer, and you have conceded by default the point that there is no intellectually consistent position allowing for the teaching of creationism/ID as a "science" that does not also allow for the teaching of astrology as a "science."
I consider this particular point put to rest for the sake of our discussion.
ID is observable though, just like medical miracles are observable that remain unexplained. Scinece is not etched in stone, it’s about exploration.
Limiting science to your ideology as you demand harms science and hinders it, it doesn’t advance it.
And no one gave you the keys.
The only people demanding science somehow be natural, observable and testable are the same ones that give string-theory and multi-verse theory a complete free pass.
Again, ignoring the answers doesn’t invalidate them. You should look into a deprogrammer.
[[I’m afraid this assertion is mistaken, as in fact simple patterns in computational security do in fact correlate quite clearly and explicitly with biological models of pathology (virii), and this is currently a field of an incredible amount of research.]]
True- however, they do not correlate with compelx biological metainfo- nor do they represent the leap from chemical to biological life- simple patterns can not create the life sustaining complexity necessary to keep species alive- You are referrign to simplistic patterns in Virii that are simply a subset of the overall complexites within-
[[The point, however, is that I can assure you that indeed, these simple patterns can and do “evolve” into systems which mirror complex biological realities, to the point that the functional predictive potential of biological immunology theory can be made to directly translate to a form of “Computational Immunology Theory.”]]
Again, what you are overlooking is hte fact that higher complexity is invovled in the DESINGED aspects of life- Whiel simplistic complexity can be modelled, nd can result in predicitve outcomes, it can’t even coem close to mathcign hte complexity in the overall complexity of life and all the metainfo that controlls everything. As well, you are appealing to the itnervention of the designers and underplaying hteir key role in manipulating the emerging complexities via artifical means- The intelligent designers are simply mimickign the simplistic complexities exhibitted in nature that simply can’t be accouitned for via naturalistic means.
You have offered nothing to ignore, and again, I consider this point to be closed. You can post what you wish, but until you actually provide something responsive to the question, you have conceded the point by default.
Science has not demonstrated that the universe and the life in it were not created.
I do not seek to equate Christianity with astrology.
When you keep putting them in the same sentence as you have been, you are. The Bible is the source of the creation account that Christians believe in. Jesus Himself referred to it and He would know if anyone would.
Scripture is very clear that when God created the various animals and man that He did not create them from each other. The different groups were created on different days in different acts of creation. When God says that He took the dust of the earth and formed man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being, there is simply no way that that can be interpreted as saying that God evolved man from some apelike ancestor.
Evolution has not disproved that man was created.
but merely to point out that there are certainly aspects of some religions' creation stories that stand in pretty direct opposition to what we can observe.
Then you're resting on the assumption that the interpretation of what you observe is accurate and true, and that's getting into the philosophical realm. It's also as likely as not, that the interpretation of what is observed is flawed. In the conflict between religion and science, the default option is that religion is wrong. But the possibility is more that likely that science is what's wrong.
Science and the interpretation of data is not infallible.
When scientists declare that religion is wrong because it conflicts with their conclusions, what happens when the scientists realize that their conclusions were wrong as the new data comes in? Usually, it's ooops, we were wrong, but you're still wrong too, even though we really don't know what's right.
Here we are at the crux of the matter: if science conflicts with your interpretation of scripture, it is not the responsibility of scientists or educators to change their work to conform to your religious beliefs. I have no doubt that your religious beliefs are sincerely and deeply held, but that does not give you the ability to dictate either that those religious beliefs should be taught to others, or that anything conflicting with those beliefs be kept out of public schools.
If anyone has demonstrated anything “by default” that would be you with the grip your cult has on you: just putting your hands over your ears and humming “I can’t hear you” doesn’t wear so well.
You keep getting it backwards...it is your side enforcing it’s religious views on everyone. The godless ideology is not the default position.
Normal rational scientists observe intelligent design, this is just a fact.
Why?
Do you believe that you should be able to make claims that are pure speculation, provide absolutely no evidence to back them up, and expect that I should accept them until and unless I can provide evidence to the contrary?
Or is this another one of those "Well, the evos are doing it!" gambits to provide an opening to throw around another bucketful of perjoratives?
If there are any direct questions you have put to me to which I have failed to respond, please point them out. Otherwise, you remain the party in this discussion unable to respond to a direct, repeated question.
If that's the case, you should be able to easily provide examples of other countries that teach creationism as science, and are ahead of us in science education because of it.
Can you do that?
Not the point and not an honest question worthy of answering.
You’ve already demonstrated your dishonesty to metmom by denying that which you plainly do...equating Christianity to astrology and the like.
Any challenge to evolution is met with a flurry of alchemy, astrology, religious beliefs...the stark signs of cultism.
Yours is just the same old failed tired tripe and rot.
> Not sure what your point is? Factor V is missing in
> lampreys? Big deal?
See post 196. Behe’s claim that the blood clotting cascade (he specifically cited Factor V) is irreducibly complex is falsified.
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.