Posted on 08/14/2005 8:06:45 AM PDT by CarlEOlsoniii
Harvard University is launching a broad initiative to discover how life began, joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions that are central to the debate over the theory of evolution.
The Harvard project, which is likely to start with about $1 million annually from the university, will bring together scientists from fields as disparate as astronomy and biology, to understand how life emerged from the chemical soup of early Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets.
Known as the ''Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative," the project is still in its early stages, and fund-raising has not begun, the scientists said.
But the university has promised the researchers several years of seed money, and has asked the team to make much grander plans, including new faculty and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.
The initiative begins amid increasing controversy over the teaching of evolution, prompted by proponents of ''intelligent design," who argue that even the most modest cell is too complex, too finely tuned, to have come about without unseen intelligence.
President Bush recently said intelligent design should be discussed in schools, along with evolution. Like intelligent design, the Harvard project begins with awe at the nature of life, and with an admission that, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution in the Origin of Species, scientists cannot explain how the process began.
Now, encouraged by a confluence of scientific advances -- such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth -- the Harvard scientists hope to help change that.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You miss Adam Smith's point. Individual's plan for their on benefit, but contribute to something greater. the economy as a whole is unplanned.
In the case of livng things, each individual works for its own survival, and in doing so contributes to the design of populations. It is the population that evolves, not the individual.
You might check this out:
http://www.dailyspeculations.com/derosa/derosareview051303.html
Thanks, but, I don't think so. You probably miss mine.
There are no serious experiments in natural science that "attempt to deductively show" anything. I think you et too many syllogisms in your formative years, and it has given you an unrealistic sense of their intellectual value. Let's try your ban on historical data derived from this rejection of inductive reasoning over historical fields of discourse on a practical example:
Since I only have historical data to tell me that the sun rises in the morning, obviously, it would be unscientific to make plans on the basis of the sun rising in the morning.
I understand your poinbt perfectly, but you ignore Adam Smith's central point, that the largest objectives are achieved without planning.
No one plans to feed New York City, but the combined activities of countless individuals, most of whom have never seen the city, work to achieve an unconsidered goal.
In the same way, the genetic makeup of populations changes over time, not because it is planned, but because the natural economy of survival and reproduction selects for different traits at different times.
Only a socialist at heart would think you could central plan an entire ecology.
Incoherent - you are the one posting the bigoted comments. Not a very "scientific" response unless you plan on presenting supporting evidence for your broad-brush unsupported claims.
4. Hmmmm. Who was it who said, in post 48, that "Yeah, evolution accurately describes the fossil record as we know it...
Nice try but next time read the entire thread unless you are trying to deceive. This is my first statement in that exchange:
"This thread is a about the origin of life, not Darwinist Evolution which BEGINS at a point in which life already exists and the mechanism to genetically pass on extremely complicated information has already been created.”
Speaking of incoherent - it amazes me that evo's play their cut and paste game in threads on origin of life when their beloved theory has absolutely nothing to say on the subject.
Well, it's sort of like that old saw about democracy: it's a lousy system, unless you compare it to any other that's been tried. Deductive reasoning is powerless to talk about anything interesting, until murky inductive processes have invented them. It's a lousy slate of candidates, but, hey, that's democracy for you. Feel free to point me to the deductive proof of the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics whenever you are ready.
In two hundred years adherents of evolution have not been able to posit a strong enough theory that would effectively over come the "so called" religious view on the origins and development of life.
Not in the job description. There are many religeous views, including those held by the majority of christians, that do not posit a conflict between naturalistic biological theories, and religious views.
Simply labeling adherents of a God centered view as having too strong a religious bias leaves those doing the labeling open to charge of bias them-selves.
You give your side too much credit for being on the minds of most scientists, to any degree whatsoever. Save when they choose to claim a chair at the science table, at which point, they, quite rightly, get the same treatment as is the case with crystal healers and astrologers. It's not that they can be "proved" wrong. They can't. It's that they don't anti up in the coin of the realm to earn a place at the table. Whining and ranting and trying to get the government to declare that you're a science, ain't it.
We can't go back in time to see what really happened despite the best planned experiments that attempt to deductively show what might have happened X years ago.
You pin your hopes on a mighty feeble reed. It is perfectly sensible (and therefore, perfectly scientific) to reason inductively about the past, and to test the reliability of our theories using data we recover after we form the theories. If we didn't, we'd have perished long before we ever made it off the african veldt.
wrong, wrong, wrong. I do not ignore it. I never even addressed it. Puh leeze. assume = ass+U+me. Thank you.
Seems you have it backwards - it is the evo's, like the Communists, that want only one theory taught in schools and all opposing views or uncomplimentary evidence are to be banned and/or ridiculed. (Seems you may be from the ridicule wing of your party)
The IDers have retreated far from their original party line back in the mid '90s, because they keep getting slapped down by the courts whenever they try to push a positive curriculum for ID. But they're still fabian creationists.
Speaking of incoherent - ramble on!
Youu responded to my post, disagreeing with it. The fact that you did not even address the central point means you ignored it.
I have no idea what you are rambling about - I directly addressed the red herring question. I have a question for you - when did you stop beating your dog. You might want to focus more on the topic of the debate and less on empty, childish, inapplicable name-calling.
And you'd be wrong. Again.
If your only tool is a hammer - everything looks like a nail.
Think about it - be specific.
This thread is about the creation of life and the issue in schools (for the most part) is how to approach the study of the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to say whatsoever about the origin of life. You may what to apply your hammer to this subject but it really is not applicable.
There's little debate going on, mostly dogmatism from both sides. Since dogma is a fact of our transient and ignorant lives, we simply cannot get by without it, I'll take my dogma at church and not from hypocritical and imaginative theorists. As for my kids, I give them the healthy advice that they should not believe everything they hear or read, unless it comes verbatim from the Bible.
it means I did not address it.
Piltdown Man might have. I'm still waiting for creationists to wake up and claim that the exposure of the fraud was in itself an elaborate cover-up. Wheels within wheels.
Birth of an evil meme placemarker.
Because, well, we "evolution fanatics" don't want to attack religion.
Actually that question followed an absolute statement about the known fossil record and that is what I addressed. Now I will answer your second red herring comment - the answer is No (and the question is illogical and totally inapplicable). What the heck does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
My second question was: Are there any honest anti-evolutionists?
That was not a question - that was an attempt to both present me with a loaded question (correlative based logic fallacy) and call me names (anti-evolutionist).
1. I am not nor have I said anything that is anti-evolution
2. This thread is not about evolution
You ducked both even after going to all the trouble of cut & pasting the 1st
I directly addressed you first red herring statement pointing out that anybody that makes absolute statements about conclusions based on the fossil record does not understand the subject or the nature of the evidence. I did not answer your second red herring question because it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand or my comment. I have since answered your question and put to rest your baseless assumption that I am “anti-evolution”
The key point is this thread has nothing to do with evolution just as evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. Clearly all you want to do is pick a fight about evolution no matter how inapplicable it is to the subject at hand.
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.