Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Politics and religion enter into evolution debate (71% of Bush voters support teaching ID
MSNBC ^ | Feb. 10, 2005 | Jon Hurdle (Reuters)

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evangelicals; evolution; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-238 next last
To: animoveritas

A scientist is not afraid to subject his work to peer review. I thought you said you were a scientist. I guess not.


201 posted on 02/15/2005 4:13:20 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Lady Heron
I guess he has never met my Jewish high school biology teacher who refused to teach evolution as anything more than a theory

Well, um, what else would it be?

and spent as much time on Intelligent Design that was not in the bio text book.

Did he propose a mechanism by which "Intelligent Design" could be tested? Perhaps you could offer up the hypothetical falsification criteria that he taught you?
202 posted on 02/15/2005 9:04:04 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Would you like me to recommend a freshman textbook on statistical mechanics? Or you could look up "Huxley's monkeys" for an introduction into the reality of very large numbers and complex problems.

On a side note, may I ask if your moniker refers to hunting or bourbon? I have interest in both.

203 posted on 02/16/2005 5:47:25 AM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You are flailing General,

A valid model represents some subset of reality it wishes to study. If a model has factors not in that reality, it is not valid. Your quote has this 180o off.

I still see no alternative proposal.

I have given anti-IDers and anti-creationists the benefit of every doubt. The magnitude of the numbers are just too great. I have been more than fair in giving spontaneous generation of life a chance. More fair than I have been to the creationist and ID desired result. Consider:

I have assumed that amino acids existed from the instant the planet formed, and in enough quantities to prevent starving or steady state equilibrium. Surely, C, H, O, N, and P had to first work out efficient molecular arrangements, and this took some time.

I have assumed that enough energy to facilitate the necessary reactions was continuously present throughout the local densities where the molecules would form. Surely there would be moments of insufficient solar, geothermal, and electric (lightning / plasma) energy and moments where large amounts of these same energies would be destructive.

I assumed a geometric curve for genetic efficiencies of scale. Nothing in empiric data suggest anything more ambitious than linear or maybe quadratic curves.

I assumed that the chemical assembly of the molecule was all that was required for life. We have no understanding of where or how the “spark of life” enters the process. So this crucial aspect of ID and creationism is simply ignored to give randomness the greatest chance of success.

All this generosity to the opponents of ID and creationism in making the calculation, and your very professional and scientifically rigorous assessment: garbage, ludicrous, et al.

LOL. Barricade yourself with Huxley’s monkeys if you wish. The rest of us will continue to seek the truth.

204 posted on 02/16/2005 5:55:47 AM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
Nothing in empiric data suggest

Definitely not an English major ...

205 posted on 02/16/2005 6:44:45 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
I assumed a geometric curve for genetic efficiencies of scale. Nothing in empiric data suggest anything more ambitious than linear or maybe quadratic curves.

One can construct a linear curve with a steeper slope than a "geometric" curve. Your statement makes no sense. The fact that you won't release your solution makes it very suspect. Perhaps you don't have a "solution" ...

206 posted on 02/16/2005 6:46:50 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas

Hunting.


207 posted on 02/16/2005 7:27:20 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas

Which is more probable. The spontaneous generation of life OR the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, everlasting God?


208 posted on 02/16/2005 7:29:40 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
A valid model represents some subset of reality it wishes to study. If a model has factors not in that reality, it is not valid.

LOL. You've just destroyed the validity of modeling entirely. Go back to that model of a tornado I posted earlier. Are real tornadoes contained within glass jars? No? Obviously, by your logic, this model is invalid.

Get real. The model is not the thing itself. So long as it accurately reflects the aspect of the real thing we are studying, no amount of handwaving by you will make it invalid.

I still see no alternative proposal.

Nobody is required to provide one in order to demonstrate the absurdity of your calculations. They fall apart all by themselves, on their own merits - or lack thereof - regardless of whether alternatives exist or what the merits of such alternatives might be.

I have given anti-IDers and anti-creationists the benefit of every doubt. The magnitude of the numbers are just too great.

The magnitude of the numbers you invented with no basis in reality? Convenient, that.

The rest of us will continue to seek the truth.

Obviously not. It is increasingly apparent that you are simply inventing this schema as a means of propping up a predetermined conclusion, that this is not a search for truth at all, but is instead a search for a rationalization.

209 posted on 02/16/2005 7:41:52 AM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
Hi animoveritas!

You're working with really big numbers but something made me startled.
You were talking about 109 primordial pools were it may happen.

Do you know the size of one mol sugar?
210 posted on 02/16/2005 11:12:05 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Got a 32 pound Tom last April. He was at about 50 yards in some brush. The maiting pair decoy drew him right in to about 35 yards where the #5 copper plated lead stopped him cold. Spurs were 5/8 left and 1/2 right, with two beards 9" and 9.5"

Not the biggest bird ever, but the way he came in on that jake mounting the hen...

Moments that make getting up at 3 and setting up before 5 all worth it.

211 posted on 02/16/2005 11:48:34 AM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: general_re
So by your esteemed reasoning...

Perpetual motion is possible. All I have to do is have an experimenter spin a flywheel with instructions to his progeny to do the same.

Come on General...Modern Physics may have problems with the laws of thermodynamics...now you too?

212 posted on 02/16/2005 11:51:52 AM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Sure a little stoichiometry never hurt anyone.


213 posted on 02/16/2005 11:52:57 AM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
Perpetual motion is possible. All I have to do is have an experimenter spin a flywheel with instructions to his progeny to do the same.

Is this an attempt to wear me down with sustained silliness? You can invent a crappy model, therefore all models are crappy? Is that really your argument?

perpetual motion, n. - The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source.

If'n yer always givin' it a push, it ain't operatin' "without a sustaining energy source", right? Therefore, your model does not reflect the critical aspect of the thing you're supposed to be studying, now does it?

214 posted on 02/16/2005 11:59:38 AM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: general_re; animoveritas
Therefore, your model

What model. He has refused several requests to reveal it.

215 posted on 02/16/2005 12:04:34 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Well, the model that's currently based on junk numbers, anyway ;)


216 posted on 02/16/2005 12:12:58 PM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
Sure a little stoichiometry never hurt anyone.

Then you knew the Amedeo-constant!

Can you please post a source where I can read the calculations you presented.


I still wait for an answer to my first question.
(Accepted tolerance factor is 1000 {104 })
217 posted on 02/16/2005 12:34:01 PM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
Hi MHalblaub,

All the parameters and assumptions are posted. The rest is statistical mechanics...calculate capabilities, determine probability of success within these capabilities. There is nothing tricky here, just simple probability and statistics...

Previous posts have been answered the same. There is no secret model. This is stubby pencil work I think any concerned party can do for himself.

As for your question, not sure what you are trying to get to here. I think tangents pursuing the number of photons in a Watt are irrelevant.

218 posted on 02/16/2005 2:27:17 PM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: general_re

The sustained silliness my dear General is with your logically flawed assertion that intelligent interdiction in your cited experiment somehow proves there is no intelligent interdiction in reality.


219 posted on 02/16/2005 2:27:35 PM PST by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
What a shame I never made that assertion.

Game, set, match.

220 posted on 02/16/2005 2:45:58 PM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-238 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson