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 ...
The problem is, you don't know what you'd need to know to make these sorts of calculations meaningful - nobody does. And your estimates are basically pulled straight out of your hat. Of the vast ocean of possible chains, you haven't got a clue how many of them are viable self-replicators, nor do you have any idea what a real minimum length for a viable self-replicator might be. There exist self-replicating polypeptides that are a mere 32 amino acids in length, so how on earth can you justify setting a minimum viable length of 29,000,000 nucleotides? You can't, and it's as simple as that.
To characterize this proposal, I considered a population of sugars and phosphates large enough to ensure no starving, densities facilitating bond trials averaging every second, no external interdiction, and energy sources sufficient for any of the biochemical and biophysical actions.
So you believe in God too?
The problem is, you don't know what you'd need to know to make these sorts of calculations meaningful - nobody does. And your estimates are basically pulled straight out of your hat. Of the vast ocean of possible chains, you haven't got a clue how many of them are viable self-replicators, nor do you have any idea what a real minimum length for a viable self-replicator might be. There exist self-replicating polypeptides that are a mere 32 amino acids in length, so how on earth can you justify setting a minimum viable length of 29,000,000 nucleotides? You can't, and it's as simple as that.
longshadow sent me over here to see this. You have done quite well, certainly better than I could. The only difference is that i would have said "why bother"?
Let him stir the pot; it won't make a bit of difference. For the reasonable creationoids out there, they must be thinking exactly what the "reasonable" democrats are now thinking about their party leader.
Interesting. You cite an example of an intelligent agent, or shall we say "designer" setting conditions for a chain to self replicate.
Can you provide a link to the website you got that proposal from?
Gimme a break. Try not to assume that every quality that the model possesses is also possessed by the actual thing being examined.
"Why bother?" may be the only sensible answer ;)
I guess he has never met my Jewish high school biology teacher who refused to teach evolution as anything more than a theory and spent as much time on Intelligent Design that was not in the bio text book.
I: first person singular. It might be hard to believe, but the internet is not the source of all irrefutable knowledge. Some people do their own analysis and reasoning, and don't just recycle tired old ideas. They also like to spin up the insecure.
But not for scientific terms.
Ever heard the term "Hasty Generalization?"
You are the one who proposed a paper where someone had to interfere in order to enable replication. Our argument all along assumed no designer...that it all had to be random to some point where the magic of genetic efficiencies could take over. And our result is that it's impossible.
Try not to assume that every quality that the model possesses is also possessed by the actual thing being examined.
What? A model is supposed to represent the reality of the subject, otherwise its just an exercise in mental gymnastics.
You neglect to account for changing geometry during bonding ...
False premise. Chemistry is not random. If you put H2 and O2 together, you will not get a "random" combustion.
You are right on both accounts (193 and 194). To provide the maximum chance for life, I assumed these challenges to be sufficiently small. Were I to include them, the probability would be even less.
I don't believe you did. Can you show me your solution?
Yes. I'm also familiar with the term "non sequitur", which is what you're engaging in now.
You are the one who proposed a paper where someone had to interfere in order to enable replication
No, I am the one pointing out that your assumptions are invalid by showing you an example of a self-replicator that is much smaller than the one you propose. Hence, your assumption of 29,000,000 as the minimum length is unwarranted.
A model is supposed to represent the reality of the subject, otherwise its just an exercise in mental gymnastics.
Ridiculous. A model is supposed to faithfully reflect the aspect of reality we are interested in studying, not reflect every single aspect of the real thing. By your "logic", such as it is, studying the process of nuclear fusion tells us nothing about what happens inside stars, because neither thermonuclear explosions nor fusion reactors are nearly as big as a real star.
Try again.
Okay, I'll agree to a smaller chain if you agree to insert a designer such as the ones in your example into the discussion. That's the point.
Your quote: Try not to assume that every quality that the model possesses is also possessed by the actual thing being examined.
If, you agree that you reversed your sentence construction, there is no issue.
Too easy my dear General...
Show what? That I set these parameters to zero in order to give the greatest possible chance for life?
What makes you think I care if you "agree"? Your numbers are ludicrous, whether you "agree" or not. Reality is funny that way - it's not contingent on your approval.
If, you agree that you reversed your sentence construction, there is no issue
Now I think you're just looking to save face as you back out the door. Models represent reality - the model is not the thing itself. Do you want lessons in the epistemology of science in addition to correcting your math?
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.