Evolution Disclaimer Supported

"hear" begging. Not here. Wow.

Last time I checked sciences classes were required in public schools.

So what? Since you've already essentially agreed that not every fool with a theory should be allowed in science class, the fact that science classes are held in public schools is totally irrelevant. Raven and Genesis don't belong in science class.

Real teachers, just like real scientists, know how to keep their mouth shut when they are ignorant.

Who is the creator, in your opinion?

School choice would resolve this dispute. I suspect that the schools that refrain from teaching evolution as a done deal, will end up having the most successful students -- and the least pathological.

Indeed it would. And I would be willing to take that bet ;)

I mean, just because all communists happen to be evolutionists does not mean the treaching of evolution is responsible for bringing about communism. A conclusion like that would be like, . . . well . . . drawing a line between two similar fossils and assuming one evolved from the other.

Or an even bigger jump: That because an old book says something about the world that science hasn't quite figured out yet, it must be telling the truth.

And I would be willing to take that bet ;)

A bump for serendipity ;-)

"But do you concede that the entire movement for creationist teachings in public schools would instantly halt . . . "

Hmmm. The practical ramifications of teaching both creationist and evolutionist views in public schools. If those who engage in school policies are unable to control the issue I do believe it would cause harm.

General_re makes a good point insofar as the appearance is given that no one can commit to a particular point of view, as if all is up for grabs. The more I think about this, the average student is not so stupid as to believe at heart that everything around him happened by accident. Creationism in public schools would be like force feeding a moot point.

But it sure is amusing to see the evolutionsts trying to make a kid dumber by conjuring up all kinds of hocus pocus to explain away the obvious.

Thank you so much for your post!

I'll beg off on the evidence of God's shout producing the cosmic background radiation variation, which, while charmingly clever, doesn't seem altogether pursuasive to me.

Perhaps you would be more persuaded if the sound waves found in the cosmic background radiation, played back in reverse, actually said something like “Let there be light” in ancient language?

What I did want to talk about was the proposal that we look for an instruction manual in the junk DNA. Or, for example, a decoded message saying "I, God, did this!" …. When IDers are challenged to come up with an experiment, what we mean is a critical experiment--one that might say yea or nay to a thesis on the table, and expanded to sufficient detail to make such an experiment constructable. As you know, this the Popperian commitment to falsifiability in science.

I understand that Dembski is formulating the steganography question for the very reason you describe: Becoming a Disciplined Science

The others which I mentioned are from my point of view as a layman. I observe that scientists are already deep into research which will prove intelligent design as a byproduct:

Pattee: The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

Rocha: Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Systems Might Evolve Them

Huen: Complexity International – Brief Comments on Junk DNA (pdf)

Language Like Features in Junk DNA

I arrived at this conclusion after Freeper Nebullis confirmed to me that the genetic code includes conditionals and recursives as well as process. These of course require symbolizations, e.g. information content. She directed me to research in Santa Fe, which took me to the genetic algorithm work of Rocha at Los Alamos – and on a parallel path, the work of Yockey (“Information Theory and Molecular Biology”.)

To sum it up for lurkers following our discussion, I’ll paraphrase a few statements by Roger Penrose in Emporer’s New Mind. An algorithm, briefly, is a step-by-step instruction. In chapter 2, Penrose uses Euclid’s algorithm for finding the highest common factor between two numbers as an example. Rather than trying to figure out how to do a flow chart of the algorithm, I’ve illustrated the algorithm in BASIC program code, where the two numbers are A and B:

Again:
C=A-(Int(A/B)*B)
Print A;" divided by ";B;" gives a remainder of ";C
If C<>0 then
A=B
B=C
Goto Again
End If
Print "Euclid algorithm complete!"

This algorithm includes a conditional, symbols, recursive logic and process. This is the kind of information content being discovered in the genetic code.

Although researchers such as Rocha touch on this as a byproduct of their work on genetic algorithms, the actual question – addressed by Yockey - is whether or not such information content could arise by random chance. Yockey’s conclusions were that they could not. Here are some of Yockey comments on another forum.

And there’s more: Chaitin papers (ps)

We now turn to Kolmogorov's and Chaitin's proposed definition of randomness or patternlessness. Let us consider once more the scientist confronted by experimental data, a long binary sequence. This time he in not interested in predicting future observations, but only in determining if there is a pattern in his observations, if there is a simple theory that explains them. If he found a way of compressing his observations into a short computer program which makes the computer calculate them, he would say that the sequence follows a law, that it has pattern. But if there is no short program, then the sequence has no pattern--it is random. That is to say, the complexity C(S) of a finite binary sequence S is the size of the smallest program which makes the computer calculate it. Those binary sequences S of a given length n for which C(S) is greatest are the most complex binary sequences of length n, the random or patternless ones. This is a general formulation of the definition…

Donh, my point is that - completely independent of anything that the Intelligent Design movement (Dembski, Behe, et al) might offer as testable claims - the information theory and mathematical efforts broaching molecular biology will debunk the randomness pillar of natural selection. The presence of algorithm from inception is proof of intelligent design.

This is science and it can be proven to be not true (Popperian falsification) by showing that there are no such algorithms or information content or that such algorithms and information content can arise from null.

Moreover, algorithms are being discovered beyond biology - throughout all of nature. Penrose touches on this in his book, and of course Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science explores the subject in depth. There are many other examples and I’d be glad to link a few if anyone is interested.

I'm pinging tortoise also, because this ought to be "up his alley" so to speak - and Nebullis whose information was so very helpful and to Doctor Stochastic, who is also an expert in much of this.

Think again of the South Pole: at that point (not south of it), all the directions point north.
I understand your South Pole example. It is well put. I also enjoy your geek alerts . I find them interesting. Contrary to what some may believe, people that subscribe to the Genesis account of creation can have inquiry minds too.

I'm not clear about what you're asking in the rest of your post

I'm sorry. I don't know how to explain what I'm asking in more simpler terms. To my knowledge no mathmathical rule can explain my question in which you admit yourself the question of what happened before the "Big Bang" is one of a mathmathical nature. In a nutshell, you say my God played no role in the creation of the universe & I say I believe Genesis 1:1.

These discussions have been engaging, but I must get back to work now. However, my curiousity has only scratched the surface of the many questions & will make a point to study more of the evidence & angles in the future.

Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, I could accept the concept that a null field is an empty set. Hugs!

Amazingly, the other "big 3" of world religions differ in their own creation myths, but what I find interesting is they at least try to reconcile them with modern day science. I'm not trying to pretend any of these religions are somehow better than christianity (or worse, for that matter), just that lo! Adam and Eve isn't universal! Yes, we've discussed the Inuit Raven myth, but I found the following (and the following posts) interesting... sorry for the poor formatting.

Islam:

How Islam Views the Universal Creation

Wilson: With the progress of science, many questions may arise about the creation of the universe. These questions do not seem to have their answers in the Bible, and sometimes we find some Biblical statements contrary to the scientific knowledge of today. I wonder if we can find answers to some questions in the book of Islam.
The universe now has been proven to be very old. Its age is estimated to be billions of years. It seems that the Bible reduces the age of the universe to just a few thousand years. Does the Holy Qur'an contain any definition of the age of the universe?

Chirri: The Holy Qur'an does not define the age of the universe in any way. Science so far is not able to tell exactly when the universe began. The Holy Qur'an had been introduced in a non-scientific age when people were not able to conceive the stretch of time into billions or millions of years. Had the Qur'an stated that the stars were originated billions of years ago, people may have rejected the whole concept of Islam. The Qur'an, therefore, wisely kept silent on this matter. To be true, you do not need to tell all of what you know of truth; you need only to refrain from misinforming the people. Thus, the door was kept open to any scientific theory, so the religious information will not clash with any scientific knowledge.

Wilson: The celestial bodies, the stars, and the planets now are being counted by billions and hundreds of billions. The size of each is tremendous and, sometimes, beyond our imagination. To form such countless bodies, it would take amounts of materials beyond our ability to calculate. Do we have any statements in the Qur'an on the kind of material out of which these bodies were built?

Chirri: The Holy Qur'an states that the material out of which these bodies were built was a kind of gas. This is in accordance with the modern theory which says that the celestial bodies were built out of hydrogen gas. From the Holy Qur'an:
"Then He directed Himself to the heaven, and it was a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: 'Come both of you, willingly or unwillingly.' They both said: 'We come willingly.' " 41:11

Wilson: Does the Holy Qur'an contain any statement about the first material thing that was created?

Chirri: The quoted verse indicates that the vapor or what constitutes the vapor of molecules and atoms was the first material thing which existed in this world.

Wilson: Of what material did the Almighty create life?

Chirri. The Holy Qur'an declares that God has created all living beings out of water:
"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the Earth were closed up, so We split them, and We made from water everything living? Will they not then believe?" 21:30
"And God has created every walking life out of water, of them that which crawls upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them that which walks upon four. God creates what He pleases. Surely God is Possessor of power over all things." 24:45

THE ORDER OF CREATION

Wilson: Does the Qur'an confirm the statement of the Bible which is contained in the Genesis book about the order in the creation of the universe?

Chirri: The Qur'an does not contain such a statement on the order of the creations. However, Muslims do not subscribe to the contents of the first chapter in Genesis book because it shows some discrepancies.

Wilson: Give me some examples of those contradictions to which you refer.

Chirri: Take the following examples:
1. "Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." Genesis 1:3-5
This statement indicates that the first thing created was the day and night.
But we know that day and night would come after the existence of the sun and through its rise and set. However, verse 14 from the same chapter indicates that the sun was created on the fourth day:
"And God said, let there be lights in the firmaments of the heavens to separate the day from the night: and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let there be lights in the firmament of heavens to give light upon the earth, and it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning. A fourth day." 1:14-19
This statement indicates that the sun was created on the fourth day, and from here the days should start. This, of course, disagrees with verse 3 which informs us of the start of the day three stages before the formation of the sun.
2. The same chapter states that the vegetation, plants yielding seed, and the fruit trees were created and grown on the third day:
"And God said, 'Let the Earth put forth vegetables and plant yielding seed and the fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the Earth. And it was so. The Earth brought forth vegetation, plants, yielding seed according to their own kinds, and the trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day." 1:11-13
But we know that none of these vegetation and plants could grow without sun, while the same chapter tells us that the sun was created on the fourth day as mentioned before.
3. The same chapter states that God, on the sixth day, created man in His own image:
"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our own image, after Our likeness; . . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." 1:26-27
Muslims believe that God has no image and no form. He is the Infinite Who encompasses the whole universe. He has neither a body, nor is He material, nor do the visions comprehend Him. To think that God has a form of a man, to the Muslims, is degrading to the whole concept of God.
4. Chapter two contradicts the first chapter. The first chapter, as you know, has stated that vegetation and plants and the trees were created on the third day, before the creation of man, who was created on the sixth day. The second chapter tells us that man was created before vegetation and plants:
"These are the generations of the heavens and the Earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens . . . when no plant of the field was yet in the Earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the Earth, and there was no man to till the ground ... but a mist went up from the Earth and watered the whole face of the ground . . . then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being . . . And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the East; and there He put the man whom He had formed.... And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Genesis 2:4-9
This statement clearly indicates that there was no plant before the creation of man.
There is another point in this statement, namely, that there is a tree of knowledge of good and evil. But we know that knowledge does not grow on trees; it comes through experience and learning.
5. The first chapter has stated that the animal kingdom was created on the fifth day:
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the Earth across the firmament of the heavens.' So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God blessed them.... And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.... And God made the beasts of the Earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind .... Then God said, 'Let us make man in Our image.... ' " 1:20-23
This statement clearly indicates that man was created after the creation of fish, birds, beasts and cattle, but the second chapter indicates that man was created before any of these things:
"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' So out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them...." 2:18-19
6. We find in the third chapter of the Genesis that Eve was deceived by the serpent which persuaded her to eat from the prohibited tree:
"He (the serpent) said to the woman, 'Did God say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'. . . But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be open....' " 3:1-5
But we know that a serpent is not capable of speaking, deceiving or persuading. A serpent is not endowed with a mental capacity or ability of pronouncing words and carrying on a conversation.
7. In the same chapter we find what indicates the limitation of the knowledge of God, and that He is a walking body, and that Adam and Eve were able to hide themselves from Him:
"And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?' and he said, 'I heard the sound of Thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.' He said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?'..." 3:8-1 1
No one can hide himself from God Who is Ever-Present and Who knows everything. God does not need to ask Adam where he is, nor does He need to ask Adam if he had eaten from the tree.

Hinduism:

In the classic myths of Hinduism, there is no primeval emptiness: just different stages of gods and the universe, recycling themselves like crops

There is no single Hindu myth of origin. There are as many myths as there are texts; sometimes, the same text has more than one. The earliest myths date back to the Rig Veda, the first of the four Vedas, composed over a period of time, though certainly before 1000 BC, and eventually committed to writing many centuries later.
Contrary to what some believe, the bulk of Rig Vedic hymns–all told, there are 1028 of them, spread over ten books–are not spiritual or metaphysical at all, consisting mostly of tributes to an entire pantheon of anthropomorphic gods. But books one and ten, which coincide with the emergence of varna, the four-fold hierarchical division of society, which rapidly led to the proliferation of hundreds of castes, also contain the origin hymns.
The most celebrated of these is the hymn that contains the earliest known reference to varna. Creation is the result of the sacrifice of Purusha (Man), the primeval being, who is all that exists, including “whatever has been and whatever is to be.” When Purusha, who had “a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet” was sacrificed, the clarified butter that resulted was made into the beasts which inhabit the earth. This same sacrifice produced the gods, Indra (the menacing king of gods), Agni (Fire), Vayu (Wind), as well as the Sun and the Moon. From Purusha’s navel the atmosphere was born; his head produced the heaven; his feet produced the earth; his ear the sky. The four varnas were born too: the mouth was the brahman (priest); the arms the kshatriya (warrior); the thigh the vaishya (general populace); the feet the shudra (servant).
Primeval incest is the other method by which creation takes place in the Rig Veda, and this idea recurs throughout Hinduism. Later mythology claims Manu, the first man, gave birth to the human race through the act of incest; Manu himself is also born of incest that the creator indulges in. By the time we come to the texts known as the Puranas (dates between 300 and 1500 AD), the story of creation becomes more complex: the creator of the universe was the god Brahma, who came from the primeval waters, and was swayambhu (self-existent). Brahma transformed himself into a giant boar (varaha) to bring forth the earth from the depths of these waters. The first man, Manu, was born directly of Brahma. Manu was a hermaphrodite, and created two sons and three daughters from his female half.
What is striking in all this, of course, is that none of these stories actually say how the universe began. There is no sense of things being created out of nothing, the stuff of the universe only happening to be reused and recycled periodically, like in a giant ecofriendly enterprise. In a sense, of course, this is a natural outcome of the Hindu view of the eternally recycling universe, that goes through the four successive periods, yugas, forever condemned to the cycle of regeneration and destruction. The four yugas are said to be respectively 4800, 3600, 2400, and 1200 god-years long. A god-year, in turn, lasts 360 human years. The quality of life, as well as of humans, progressively deteriorates in each successive yuga until we reach the present dark (kali) yuga, which will end in the great universal deluge, followed again by a new golden age and the birth of man from Manu.
This great cosmic cycle, eternally chasing its own tail, this depressingly monotonous ebb and flow in which all illusion of forward movement is actually retrogression, fairly accurately sums up the Indian peasant’s life over centuries. The hard summer is followed by the great deluge of the monsoon, which rekindles the eternal hope that at last hunger, misery, and want will come to an end. Thus every agricultural cycle is actually the great cosmic cycle in microcosm. Practically all festivals in various parts of India coincide with the major punctuations in this agricultural cycle; for instance, even as I write these lines in late March, the traditional Indian new year is being celebrated in most regions, now that the crop is ready.

Buddhism:

How did our earth form? In Buddhist Texts, it is said that our earth began its history as a great sphere of hot gases from fires (presumably from the Big Bang). Over millions of years, it cooled down to liquid and then to solid earth as we know it now. How did life arrived on Earth? In Buddhist Texts, it describes that some beings called Abassara Brahmans (meaning: Light Sound Deva), arrived on earth from outer space, and fallen in love with the beautiful environment here. They ate the food on earth and were trapped by the Earth's gravity. Over millions of years, they were reborn again and again until they evolved into present day life form. Initially, they also brought with them huge bird-devas (called "Garuda" in the Buddhist Sutra), which later became Dinosaurs. What are materials made of? In Buddhism, all materials are made from small particles of dust. Further, each dust particle is made of seven sub-dusts which is even smaller. Each dust and sub-dust occupies no specific position in space - and therefore we have the famous Buddhist Text from the Heart Sutra: "All Forms are Voidness and all Voidness are Forms". The Buddhist idea of "everything in this world is impermanent" also applies to the structure of matters. It is amazingly close to modern Quantum Theory of Uncertainty! Of course the Buddhist description in the Sutras is not exactly the same as what modern sciences had discovered today. But, considering that they were written some 2,500 years ago, Buddhism and Science are amazingly close. By comparison, other religions such as Christianity and Science are miles apart.

tm...

The evolutionists are going to lose in America and they may end up having to find some other place to peddle their wares. Perhaps Haiti...

1877 posted on 01/01/2003 7:14 AM PST by titanmike

fC...

yeah...papa b rabbit--doc rye---henry---retroll!

Going for a new record.

To be a Communist one must subscribe to evolutionist theory.

We've covered this in earlier threads. Some examples of communists who were NOT evolutionists: The population of classical Sparta, the Mayflower passengers, the Oneida commune, and -- after Darwin's work was published -- the ever-popular Jim Jones congregation. And possibly a few of the gay commie "liberation theology" priests in South America.

To assert that "to be a Communist one must subscribe to evolutionist theory" is to reveal a complete ignorance of the subject.

to be a Communist one must subscribe to evolutionist theory.

I though we were making progress when you responded to me in post 2011. Looks like you fell off the wagon.

I suppose old habits die hard, but I, for one, think this poor dead horse has about had enough.

Bondage & Discipline

Ah, the domains of mathematicians! ;^)

Yes. Along with a long tradition of Christian socialism - more than a hundred years old, in some cases - an example of which I linked to there.

wj...

By comparison, other religions such as Christianity and Science are miles apart.

2192 posted on 01/02/2003 9:26 AM PST by whattajoke

fC...

spontaneous/morphing matter/life is science?

...reminds me of a toy turtle(evolution) being pulled(guided) across a busy highway(real science)---

squashed!

2000?