Posted on 02/10/2005 6:39:50 PM PST by gobucks
PHILADELPHIA - Evangelical Christians, buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, are turning American schools into a battleground over whether evolution explains the origins of life or whether nature was designed by an all-powerful force.
In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach “intelligent design” — a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design — alongside Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“It’s pretty clear that there is a religious movement behind intelligent design,” said Steve Case, chairman of the Science Standards Committee, a group of educators that advises the Kansas Board of Education. The board will decide later this year whether to include intelligent design in biology classes.
Some scientists who espouse the theory say intelligent design does not question that evolution occurred, but how it occurred: They believe more was at play than random mutation and natural selection. The theory, they insist, does not support the religious concept of a creator.
Those who advocate giving it equal treatment in schools have a different interpretation.
*snip*
The poll found greater support for teaching creationism among Republican voters — 71 percent of Bush voters favored teaching creationism alongside evolution.
*snip*
John West, (located) at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which pioneered intelligent design research, said the theory was too complex to teach at high schools and was better-suited to a college setting.
“There is a concern that intelligent design has been hijacked by people who don’t really know what it says,” he said. “We don’t think it should be a political football.”
*snip*
“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"John West, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which pioneered intelligent design research, said the theory was too complex to teach at high schools and was better-suited to a college setting."
Now I know why the creationists don't really understand ID, much less evolution ...
No. Science should be guided by the truth compass. Human relationships guided by the moral compass.
Actually, since there are infinite universes with infinite sun with infinite earths, the probability of life is Infinity / 10E164314 or rounded, 100%.
The Biblical truth would enlighten you to the fact that the dominion of Adam was cursed by his and all of our decision to sin. That is what caused the Tsunami. The original creation was very good not having Tsunamis.
Gen 3:17
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;Rom 8:21-22
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
The Bible teaches that one time again God will return the earth to being as it was originally, very good.
Gen 1:31
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.Isa 11:7
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.Rev 21:1
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;
Jesus reclaims the title deed to the earth which Adam forfeited.
Rev 5:1-6
1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain,
Probability of choosing a specific card is the same for any deck of cards...or life on any planet. Should we wish to stack the deck and use 52 decks to get a specific card...each individual probability is still 1:52. But to be fair and open to the possibility earth is the only lucky (or for democrats--unlucky) life place in the universe, the numbers are still daunting...and still probability zero for random life generation.
Current cosmologic models postulate that the universe is finite--about 109light years in radius. And remember most of it is empty space. Current estimates by cosmologists put the number of life supporting planets at about 1010. The magnitudes just aren't there given the complexity of assembling chemicals into life.
As for infinite universes...nice theory
And finally if you consider the entire known universe--increasing the number of primordial pools, assume all life would have not necessarily the same chemical structure, but the similar chemical processes, and give the entire age of the universe as available for genesis, the probability only reduces a few orders of magnitude. The probability life would develop at random still exceeds 10-100 000
Try it yourself. It's just simple statistical mechanics.
Guess you're just not gonna get an answer. Sorry.
Wow.
I meant to italicize that top bit since it's a quote, but my italians are apparently MIA ;)
You still haven't shown the model that you use as the source of your calculations. What are you figuring needs to happen in order for life to come into existence that leads you to your probability calculations?
Have you figured out that Modern Physics problem yet? Just Kidding...Good to hear from you.
Here are your boundary conditions:
Time available: 3(1016)sec.
Material available: 109 primordial pools.
Task: Assemble 0.0001% of a genetic chain for a prime organism with time for geometric growth.
Assumptions: (1) Amoeba proteus with 2.9(1011) base pairs would be a representative prime organism. (2) A geometric growth curve will account for increasing genetic replicative efficiencies. (3) Pairing trials would occur every second. (4) Geometries and distinct assemblies give each trial a success rate of 20%. (5) Only four distinct sugars need be considered.
The rest is statistical mechanics...
As I understand it we are inherently incapable by nature of avoiding sin. We are born that way. Why are we to be punished for unavoidable sin?
How many universes are allowed? You didn't specify that.
One. See #146.
3(1016)sec
A number you've simply invented. That translates to 951,293,759 years. The age of the earth is known to be 4.55 billion years, and the very oldest fossils are 3 billion years old. You have no way of knowing when during that 1.55 billion year period before known fossils life arose, and hence no justification whatsoever for cutting the available time by 1/3'rd. This is a habit I notice you've engaged in consistently, stacking the deck to manipulate your way to a predetermined outcome. But I digress...
Material available: 109 primordial pools
Another number you've simply invented - based on what, I haven't a clue. Given the size of the earth, there are millions, if not billions, of potential locations for life to have begun right here on this planet, without invoking the size of the universe or some such nonsense. Nobody suggests that each trial took place one single place in sequence, so insofar as you're suggesting that only one place on earth was available for such development, you're arguing against a model that you've simply invented out of whole cloth. Parallelism is widely understood as one of the mechanisms you've - conveniently, I note - overlooked.
Task: Assemble 0.0001% of a genetic chain for a prime organism with time for geometric growth
Why? You've offered no justification for using this percentage over any other. Why not 0.01%? Why not 0.0000001%? And 0.0001% of what, exactly? Well, that's where the dissembling just becomes exceedingly silly:
Assumptions: (1) Amoeba proteus with 2.9(1011) base pairs would be a representative prime organism
LOL. Oh, I see. We want 0.0001% of one of the largest genomes in existence! LOL - how very, very convenient. You point to an organism with a genome of 290 billion base pairs as "representative"? How on earth can you possibly justify that? Humans have, for crying out loud, a genome that's 1% the size of A. proteus, at 2.9 billion base pairs, but 290 billion is supposed to be "representative" of early life. Why not M. pneumoniae? That organism has a genome of only 800,000 base pairs - why not make that "representative"? Because it doesn't properly stack the deck, I suspect.
LOL - bring out the hook, and bring me someone who knows what they're doing.
(2) A geometric growth curve will account for increasing genetic replicative efficiencies.
Sez who? You? Based on what? Why not allow for natural selection to account for that? That is what the actual theory of evolution says, after all.
Pairing trials would occur every second....Geometries and distinct assemblies give each trial a success rate of 20%
Why? Why not every ten seconds? Why not every millisecond? Why not a success rate of 40%? 4%? Why invent numbers - again - with no basis in reality whatsoever?
The rest is statistical mechanics...
No, it's pure garbage. You put garbage numbers in, and you get garbage numbers out, and it really doesn't matter what you do to manipulate them in between those two events - you can polish that turd until your arm falls off, but it's never going to be anything more than that.
Your collective assumptions effectively presume your conclusion. Does any biologist say that what you are postulating is what happened?
Why would you look into that, when you can "refute" evolution so much more easily by simply inventing your own model and then beating the tar out of it? There's a term for that sort of argument, come to think of it, but it slips my mind at the moment...
Oh, yeah - now I remember...
No. That is only the radius of the "observable" part of the universe. Please.
Since you are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and chemical reactions, you are out to lunch.
Typical emotional Darwinist assessment. LOL. Now we will go through the inevitable nitpicking whether we should use 106 or 107 as a parameter. Bottom line is that you still cannot reach a probability that isn't zero. What the heck, I'm on lunch, and your emotional argument is too juicy to ignore.
I also notice you offer no alternative calculation.
Contemporary timelines place the time from formation of the earth (1.4 (1017) seconds) to genesis of life (1.1(1017) seconds) at 3 (1016) seconds. Use something larger if you wish. Use 1018 seconds...the entire life of the universe. You still can't produce a probability that isn't zero.
Careful on your argument as to primordial pools and parallelism. You may skew the results in the opposite direction.
there are millions, if not billions, of potential locations
BTW 109 is a billion
Humans should be considered the prime organism? Well maybe I better stop here and thank you for your defense of creationism. Do you know what the prime organism is? Oh that's right. Darwinists aren't interested in the prime organism.
Know much mathematics? A geometric curve is about as generous to evolution as you can get. No linear curve, not even a multi-order polynomial, just a very generous gift that isn't enough. As for 0.0001%...again let's be generous. Empiric data don't even support 0.01%.
Again being generous to Darwinists, I simplified the possible interactions from 40-50 (which would yield 1/40 or 1/50 success rate) to 16 elementary cases. Given the sugars, and the fact that they are three dimensional, when two entities try to bind there is one binding angle that is always successful, twelve that are always unsuccessful, and three that may be successful. So round up to 0.20 to be generous.
Feel free to make your own estimates. Mine are within an order of magnitude, but when you're talking 10-100 000 probabilities it's like spitt'n in the Rhine.
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.