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 ...
Careful my Darwinist friend, you may be contradicting your own arguments...
State your objection. Support your objection. Blind accusations are a waste of electrons.
No. But you are limiting yourself to what you CAN see. Careful, you may be contradicting your own arguments...
Another bit of false science...
Objection: You are not considering thermodynamic principles and chemical processes.
Support: If you are determining biological processes, you have to consider thermocynamic principles and chemical processes.
I know it may be hard to believe, but I am a scientist...no kidding, degree and everything. Change the assumptions, collectively or individually, as long as they are reasonable. Then recalculate the probability. Given the magnitudes of the problem, probability will remain zero.
As far as biologists, I work with a couple. They agree that the polypeptide chain would need to assemble. Where "the spark of life" comes in is debatable. So I said, let's just look at the physical structure. What are the probabilities of a nucleic acid molecule self assembling? I did forget one other assumption--namely that energy sources are assumed to be plentiful. This is just to avoid arguments about primeval lightning and geothermal activity, and give evolution every benefit of the doubt.
Cheers!
What degree, which university and what year?
"Datum" is singular.
Where did you get your degree in English?
There are four laws of thermodynamics. Pick one, and show how my argument contradicts it.
met·a·phor
Pronunciation: 'me-t&-"for also -f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear -- more at BEAR
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor
Of course feel free not to trust me...matters not.
I even called you an empiric and you missed it. Empiric: NOUN. Archaic - Charlatan
No. It's a statement of fact, supported by the remainder of my post. Your calculations are worthless.
I also notice you offer no alternative calculation.
I don't have to in order to point out that yours is a crock.
You still can't produce a probability that isn't zero.
Of course not - you've very carefully stacked the deck to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Your entire model is worthless, so tweaking the numbers is an exercise in futility.
Humans should be considered the prime organism?
I point out that you don't know what such a "prime organism" should look like, and therefore, your estimates of what it takes to make one are worthless. Worthlessness, further compounded by your selection of one of the largest known genomes in existence. Why should the "prime organism" require a genome of 29,000,000 base pairs, especially when we know of contemporary organisms with genomes less than 2% that large? Answer: it doesn't. Your postulate of 0.0001% of 290 billion is, prima facie, a crock.
Mine are within an order of magnitude...
No, you've simply invented them out of thin air. You don't know what you should know to make such a model work, but you behave as though you do. This is, needless to say, practically the dictionary definition of irrationality. You have nowhere demonstrated that any evolutionary theorist claims that the development of life proceeded in the manner you suggest, but you spend an awful lot of time knocking it down nonetheless. This is a classic strawman argument. Go away and learn something about what evolutionary theory does and does not claim, and come back when you are ready to have a serious discussion about the theory as it actually is, rather than discussing some theory you just made up all by yourself.
I don't know. How big are they, and how big are the components of them that might be expected to exist in a primordial pool? And how many potential ones are there? (I take it we aren't talking about a particular nucleic acid, any one will do, right?)
Well, there's the rub - not only do we not know what this presumed "prime organism" was supposed to have looked like, we haven't got a clue how big the solution space is. Nevertheless, despite the fact that I doubt your interlocutor has actually gone into the lab to figure out how many possible genomes of length n result in viable self-replicators, I predict that a firm number will be presented regardless. Or the (currently) implicit assumption that one and only one solution exists will be made explicit. Take your pick.
Judging from his evaluation, I am your he has gone onto the creationists' websites ...
This thread is about teaching ID. Nowhere do I purport to be arguing against evolution theory. Here's a flash: ID and evolution may not be mutually exclusive. My understanding of the tangent we have been following was origin of life--a purely ID issue.
You argue the parameters. I offer that you propose alternatives and recalculate. The response goes straight to emotion. I didn't know that "crock" and "garbage" are meaningful scientific assessments. Nor did I know we were debating evolution. I though the origin of life was out of evolutionary bounds.
Do you have a theory of molecular self-assembly? At what point did the "spark of life" occur?
This exercise is simply showing that based on our current knowledge of nature, there isn't enough time for life to develop at random.
Orthodox Christianity believes we inherited a sin nature from Adam and because of Adam's sin, God allowed the curse. A person becomes accountable for their decision to sin at a certain age. Because God gave the age of those over 20 years of age for those who were condemned to wander in the desert.
This is why we universally believe that children who die in their original sin are not yet accountable, and get the fast track to heaven. The Jews that were over the age of accountability required a blood sacrifice to cover their sins. Hence the institution of sacrifice by God when He killed an animal to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. He also rejected the non-blood (agricultural) sacrifice that Cain offered for his sins, where as He accepted Abel's blood sacrifice from one of his flock.
God provided His Son to wash away the sins of believers in an eternal covenant with those who have Jesus Christ as Lord. Christ's innocent blood was shed to make restitution for our sins, so that we could reestablish fellowship with our Creator, and attain eternal life!
Again, you are limiting yourself to things you know. A VERY limited set of ideas to work with.
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.