Posted on 01/30/2005 2:25:47 PM PST by gobucks
*snip* The conservatives who attacked evolution because it conflicted with the Genesis account of how the world was created have faded into the background.
In their place are professionals such as Harris who support intelligent design, a theory that states some aspects of the universe and living things are best explained by intelligent causes, not chance. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't always add up, they say, and students should hear more about its shortcomings.
“There are only two options,” said Harris, who is leading this year's fight. “Life was either designed or it wasn't.”
That's not the point, evolution defenders reply. Science is about searching for natural explanations of the world, they say, and has no room for a theory based on faith.
The public will join the debate beginning Tuesday, when the first of four public hearings on new science standards will be held in Kansas City, Kan.
*snip*
So far, no state board of education has required the teaching of intelligent design. And the Kansas supporters of intelligent design are not asking that it be mandated, said Harris, who is on a committee that is rewriting the science standards.
Harris and seven other members of the 26-member committee instead propose students be “more adequately informed” on evolution.
The eight submitted a proposal to the state Board of Education. One recommendation was to change the definition of science. The current definition, they say, limits inquiry because it allows only “natural” explanations. They want it to be more objective and to allow students “to follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
Evolution supporters said such a change would shake science at its foundation.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Faulty conclusion due to being based on unsupported premises and numbers pulled out of a hat instead of from real-world testing.
The biggest problem with these computations that take all the mutations that ever happened and then whomp up some kind of factorial result by stringing together all the generations is simply that ... each generation is mathematically on its own!
Whatever accumulated mutations you may have hanging around in your gonads, that's the initial state as far as your offspring are concerned. Either a mutation will happen or it won't, and all the generations before you, going right back to the proverbial pond scum, are irrelevant in "computing the odds."
I could have sworn that you indicated big problems in this part of your life prior to Christ in another thread. Stuff about unsatisfying sleeping around. But if you call me on it I can't be bothered to search for it and I'll retract.
What I think the 'rest of you' should consider is this question: why is discussing Christian-based sexual experiences avoided like the plague?
You'll have to ask Christians that. Maybe they aren't interested in your wild theories either?
Why is the total amount of discussing how little kids are being exposed to preverted sexual agendas at younger and younger ages being avoided like the plague?
Doesn't this kind of stuff get discussed endlessly in other threads. It just isn't relevant here.
Why are the most ardent defenders of ToE the most quiet regarding how the priests of the 'sexual revolution' use 'evolution' to justify their actions and behavior?
Maybe because this behavior is in your imagination only. That sound you can hear is the rest of us laughing at you when you come out with this stuff.
No, I am dismayed at how folks like yourself can willingly (dare I say bizarrely? yes I dare say indeed), remain so blind to the impact of the ignored moral dimensions of the currently held scientific positions. Maybe it is because you don't teach Sunday School, like I do, where teen kids ask for prayers about their parents.
Presumably their Christian parents, like you, if they are at Sunday School. What his this got to do with ToE? (Hint: Nothing)
Maybe it is because you live in a fish bowl and deliberately avoid getting your hands dirty with the day to day reality of kids who suffer at the hands of parents who .... well, let's say this: many of them are screwing up big time.
Well, from your experience it certainly sounds like the Christian parents are screwing up big-time. What has this got to do with ToE? (Hint: Nothing)
But, you likely avoid learning these details in your wine and cheese world I would have to guess. For if you knew them, I strongly suspect you wouldn't post the air-headed nonsense you post here...
The air-headed nonsense all comes from your direction. A steady blast of ad hominems and insubstantial assertions.
Where do you get your presumption of moral authority from?
(but at least you we're polite enough to ping me when you offered your helpful criticism of who gb is .... so you are not beyond hope :))
I agree that mainstream bio departments withhold funding for research in this topic, and thus I agree that the imagination of scientists is being truncated regarding developing theories regarding this issue. I also suspect that you'd believe SETI has no bearing what so ever on this topic either. But that aside:
"Dr. Leroy Hood is one of the most successful of modern scientific entrepreneurs. Among other accomplishments, he invented the DNA sequencer, the machine that made the Human Genome Project possible. Hood has an instinct for knowing where the action is, so he can establish himself in promising new research areas ahead of the pack. Now he has decided that universities are not suited to solving the problems of contemporary biology, because their departmental structure makes interdisciplinary work difficult. According to the New York Times:
So now, at 62, Dr. Hood is starting over. He has formed a nonprofit research center, the Institute for Systems Biology, which he hopes will transform the study of biology. Systems biology is a loosely defined term, but the main idea is that biology is an information science, with genes a sort of digital code.
Moreover, while much of molecular biology has involved studying a single gene or protein in depth, systems biology looks at the bigger picture, how all the genes and proteins interact.
Ultimately the goal is to develop computer models that can predict the behavior of cells or organisms, much as Boeing can simulate how a plane will fly before it is built. But such a task requires biologists to team up with computer scientists, engineers, physicists and mathematicians.
" from http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_010430.htm ... (but of course, anything Johnson has to say is useless, right?)
Hard to say. If you consider only the published statements of scientists in academia, then I agree you would find them more liberal than the public at large, but I suspect less so than university faculty as a group.
I'd want to see some solid evidence before agreeing to your contention as it applies to -all- scientists as an aggregate.
"why have the scientists been so successful in failing to explain it in such a way that it is as believable as ..... gravity"
Gravity is inherently "believable" because it operates at a physical level and over a time scale that is easily observable. Evolution does not.
By analogy, if the sun was in our time observed to stop moving in the sky at occasional intervals, the account of Joshua 10 would be assumed based on fact by even the most skeptical.
I did say bed hopping was now calibrated against a Christ-based sex life; I did say that Christian-based sex was far more satisfying than bed hoppping. You recollection is pretty good, but not as accurate as I'd like. You must be getting close to mid-life.
Doesn't this kind of stuff get discussed endlessly in other threads. It just isn't relevant here.
So you and your compatriots endlessly hope that we will eventually lay down and accept. But gee whiz, I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
Where do you get your presumption of moral authority from?
I'll answer that, but first, please ... you go first.
Nice catch. I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a reply.
Thanks for the ping!
So, I as a limited creature, can believe what scientists say about gravity, because I can calibrate what they say to my own experience.
But, scientists, being less limited creatures, can perceive something called evolution, which operates at a physical level, still, but over a time scale that is not readily experienced by us, the more limited creatures.
And you think you folks are not percieved as 'priests'?
Sorry :-)
Is there any other kind?
Punctuated Equilibrium just isn't as satisfying.
As long as you stay within your own kind.
One gets the impression the average Christian thinks that non-Christian folks have no concept of duty, honor or family.
Have these researchers contact that parasitic bastard, Matthew Lesko. He says he can get you government money for just about anything.
Christian-based sex = Love your neighbor.
Curious, isn't it. It certainly looks that way, yet I don't know what evidence they have for that position other than the word of their preacher.
C'mon. I did that in a thread where you were an extremely active participant at the time, in the full knowledge that you would read it (and be stung). Hardly behind your back. And it worked. ;)
As long as you stay away from his goats, and his ass. :))
That should bring JudyWillow into the thread :((
I agree. If it can be tested (note: not "proven") then it's science; if it can't then it's philosophy. If it's philosophy then it should be taught with other forms of philosophy: eg: religious studies (which I *do* think should be taught in schools).
No possibility of that. JW was simply another one of Ted Holden's alter egos. That account's been banned or suspended.
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.