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 ...
What are you going to do, gum my ankles and slobber on my shoes?
[[ If you notice, I mention that this correlation does not imply causation, nor was I trying to assert that it did.]]
I did notice that- was just making sure we’re clear and others who might be following the exchange understand the differences-
[[Interesting assertion. On one hand, I can give you countless examples in the computational/simulation world where purely random processes “increase information and complexity”,]]
But again, this info is all directed by input that is very specific to the programs- introducing noise on the other hand would result in nothign but chaos and an unfunctional program. The only way to avoid this would be to somehow filter out al lthe unwanted noise intelligently- non useful noise, and only keep that which is, or might becoem, useful- .
Bottom line is you still need to act as a sort of metainfo- while hte actions might be soemwhat random, they are still controlled intelligently behind hte scenes- much the same way computer models of supposedly random ‘evolution’ are carefully controlled despite the claism otherwise.
[[ On the other hand you mention that “Increasing chemical complexity” is not observed to happen within nature without an “intelligent agent” behind it, I assume then that you agree that any life-form should be considered an “intelligent agent”, ]]
No- can’t agree with that because it is not the life form’s doing, it is simply hte vessel of the intelligent agent’s metainfo- the intelligent agent’s predesigned complexity.
Here’s a thread on this very issue (Life’s metainfo and heiararchal systems beneath the metainfo)- you might enjoy the discussions- start abotu 1/2 way down with Betty Boops post, and note also AlamoGirl’s contributions- quite and interesting discussion, and akin to you and your fellow worker’s discussions: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts?q=1&;page=551
If you’ve got a problem with CM, take it up with him. Do you want to be treated and addressed as an individual, with your own ideas and arguments, or “just one of those creos”?
[[Which raises an interesting question, if an intelligent agent designs unintentionally, is it still intelligent design?]]
No- it’s a happy coincidence- however, that isn’t what happens in life systems, as the metainfo is forward looking, and can be demonstrated by the fact that certain arangements are ‘primed’ as it were to deal with changes- this shows intelligent intention- not unintentional consequences. The metainfo in living systems id designed to work with problems that might occure under environmental stresses that might crop up. And htis is a very important point, because simply piling info on top of info, the way mutations do, you can not arive at this intelligent intentional forsighted preparedness that we see in living systems.
Your models do have a built in preparedness- whether itnentional or not, and if somethign gets added, and it works out, it was eaither intelligently designed to work out properly, or it was unintentionally predesigned to do so without hte programmers understanding what would have happened, how a change woudl affect the whole system, and so on. Again, while yes, programmers can design complexity, it is still a minor complexity compared ot hte actual metainfo designed into livign systems right vrom the very simplest cells, all the way to full creatures.
I’ll think on htis a bitm ore later tonight (early tomorrow a.m) but I think you’ll find soem answers in that thread I linked for you- The whole issue with metainfo is quite fascinating, and a very important part of IC systems- not just in a few examples such as Ecoli, but htroughout the whole species- their whole structures, every single system. Bottom line, predesigned- another bottom line is that chemicals in the natural state are dirty, chemicals in living systems are pure- Nature is incapable of purifying those chemicals, yet somehow, each system has entirely pure chemical structures which are selected for precisely by higher heiararchal systems for species specific functions.
Computer models are fun and fascinating, and as complex as they might be, they don’t compare to living complexity’s predesigned metainfo. If you were to allow a fully random ‘manipulation’ by foreign forces (simulating mutations) on the computer system, the result would not be the nice neat evolutionary changes you now see- there is still soem intelligent direction goign on- there has to be- otherwise you’d have one giant mess of a program as an end result.
As well, before I break for awhile, what you’re talkign abotu are in essence microevolutionary changes- changes that work entirely within the system’s already present ‘species specific’ ifnromaiton- You’re not talkign about the creation of novel, non species specific results that fall outside the species spefific paramters- which would be absolutely necessary for macroevolution of hte system in question.
No, I’m going to remind you that you’re slobbering on everyone else’s shoes.
The percentage of families sending their children to church schools will increase. (John Leland)
If they replace science with theology then why bother? (Non-Sequitur)
But I’ll say here that I only hope that teaching on evolution will be replaced with true science.
They will neither replace Darwinianism with true science nor theology.
Actually, as we both know, I differ with you hardly at all! { 8^)
Still and all, I suspect in the event that a board should adopt any of the unlikely candidates you raise (YEC, Flat Earth, or Bigfoot), you would be in the forefront howling to impeach the board and to take the governing district to court. I really can’t envisage you being content to shrug your shoulders and observe, “Well, it’s their decision, but that sure was dumb and they’ll come to regret it.”
And now this in this post....."If you’ve got a problem with CM, take it up with him. Do you want to be treated and addressed as an individual, with your own ideas and arguments, or “just one of those creos”?"
So which is it? You want specifics or not? You aren't interested in unsubstantiated comments and when I give specifics, you criticize that as well.
Make up your mind.
Nice argument, but unfortunately it isn't true. There are living creatures whose blood clotting works just fine without fibrinogen.
I'm trying to talk to you about your ideas and arguments. I'm finding that very hard to do. You want to talk to me about someone else's arguments, and I've got someone else who can't seem to understand the I don't want to talk to them about yours, I want to talk to you about them.
Why don't you just run along and let them do that. We're all big people here, and we can all speak for ourselves.
Thanks for the ping!
[[Nice argument, but unfortunately it isn’t true. There are living creatures whose blood clotting works just fine without fibrinogen.]]
Not sure what your point is? fibrinogen is missing in a certain species? Big deal? Again, how does this relate to humans or species that rely on fibrinogen? Have they shown the species that doesn’t need it had it in the past, but lost it without ill effect? Have they some other mechanism/system that precluddes them from needing it like the vast majority of species do? If so, this argues against IC how? It doesn’t- and you know it- IF you or any other critic of Behe can show that species that doesn’t need it doesn’t have any other species specific system, and that common descent is fact, and that that species lost the need for Fibrinogen at some point, then and only then woudl you have a case that human and the vast majority of species blod clotting system isn’t IC- but as you full well know- that species could very well have been created with different mechanisms at play than most other species- Do we see the need for Fibronigen arising in other species down through time? You coutner argument is weak.
Because you harass people with endless projections and dishonest strawmen from thread to thread day after day, like a 15 year old that’s why.
You shouldn’t mind, after all you’re a proponent for speaking for all parents when it comes to origins.
I’m trying to talk to you about your ideas and arguments. I’m finding that very hard to do. You want to talk to me about someone else’s arguments, and I’ve got someone else who can’t seem to understand the I don’t want to talk to them about yours, I want to talk to you about them.
You SHOULD find it hard because you’re such a bore!
It’s the exact same issue, the essence being science has degraded as well as education in general since the NEA godless secular humanist separation of church and state loons hijacked evolution and the courts.
It’s not that hard to understand.
Unless of course you’re a liberal cultist yourself.
They should lose, and science classes should be spent teaching science.
WHY should they lose?
Can you show us what’s not scientific in this observation?
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
You came to me. If you think I’m such a bore, then quit trying to get into the middle of discussions I’m having with other people.
That would depend on whether astrology is held to be naturalistic. If so, the claims could in principle be subjected to double-blind tests.
One thing making it harder is that the very terms used in astrological forecasts tend to be vague and non-quantified.
Creationism/ID is a more difficult nut to crack, since one cannot (by definition) experiment on God, nor have we been vouchsafed the CDD (comsmological design documents) to indicate what goals and metrics were in place when designing various organisms. So many of the oft-cited criticisms of anatomy which seek to discredit Creationism / ID, do so by implicitly assuming that the design (if there *were* one) was necessarily looking at engineering considerations alone. Whether the designer was given constraints unknown to us, or was simply being artistic, or other possibilities, are left out of consideration. A reasonable assumption, from our experience as designers, or not? (Look at the current state the US government is in compared to the stated elegance and simplicity of the Constitution.) See also the movie Time Bandits.
Cheers!
Please re-visit the definitions of "closed" and "open" thermodynamic systems.
Cheers!
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.