Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All you have in natural sciences are theories. There's no promotion from "theory" to fact. It is still the theory of gravity, the theory of molar equivalence, and the theory of plate tectonics.
So you, donh (a frustrated junior highschool science teacher, I'm guessing? Or just an unpublished Junior College professor?)
Grow up.
don't think Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle et al are "scientifically respectable?" Mein Gott!
Neither Einstein nor Hawking has ever made the mistake of claiming such a thing. I suspect you're grossly misreading donh's actual statement.
As for Hoyle, he hasn't made that claim either, but he hardly deserves to be mentioned with Einstein and Hawking. He was a fine astronomer, but he was rather a complete crank on other subjects. He believed that insects may be as intelligent as humans, for example, and that life on Earth was seeded by aliens. He also devised a grossly inappropriate and inaccurate "analogy" for evolution which revealed a complete ignorance of the subject -- that's probably why the creationists like it so much.
What are you so afraid of that you would say such a thing so obviously at odds with the "gods" of your profession?
You're very confused if you think that accomplished scientists are "gods" to other scientists.
"And obviously so. Especially your neglecting to back it up when asked. And hypocritical considering your argument with dsc.)"
"I didn't feel any need to respond, since another poster gave you a reference to "6 Not So Easy Pieces", without a doubt the best exposition that exists on origins symmetries, by one of the best scientists we ever sported."
Still avoiding, huh? I asked YOU for an article, not a second-hand reference to an out of print book. Pretty amazing considering that your unpopular theory was your ONLY defense of your non-Intelligently Designed universe. Quite telling, especially since I provided you with so much evidence to the contrary and in support of Intelligent Design of the universe.
"Science's official spokespersons"?!? You mean "Defenders of the Faith" don't you? Secular Fundamentlists. Sheesh! What a wacky bunch!Is there an argument in here somewhere? Do you think there's something particularly disreputable or inappropriate about heads of museums, colleges, and scientific societies having a public opinion as to what is a science and what is not? I would have said that was their job.
Where?
If you mean the "fine-tuning" stuff, that hardly counts as evidence. What else do you have?
You were already provided specific pointers to it, much earlier in the thread.
According to Hoyle (pardon the "all-caps"):
"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."
-------
"Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium," Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It," Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence - as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer crafted our universe and all that is within it."
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
Albert Einstein
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
Albert Einstein
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Albert Einstein
"I am convinced that God does not play dice with the universe."
Albert Einstein
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." (I think he was speaking specifically to the donh's and Narby's of his day)
Albert Einstein
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Albert Einstein
-----
In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).
"For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty." Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)"
'Nuff said.
A) The universe could be static. It might be an infinite splash of stars and planets exhibiting no uniform motion. Even according to this theory, the mutual gravitational attractions of stars and planets might hold these astronomical objects together in the form of solar systems and galaxies. But each of these stellar/terrestrial groups would slide through space along its own random trajectory, unrelated to the courses tracked by other groups of stars and planets. The beauty of the static model is that it works for atheists and believers: Such a universe could have been created by God at some point in history, but it also could have existed forever without God.
(B) The universe could be oscillating. It might be a cosmic balloon alternately expanding and contracting. For a few billion years it would inflate into absolute nothingness. The gravitational attraction of every star and planet pulling on every other would eventually slow this expansion until the whole process would reverse and the balloon would come crashing back in upon itself. All that existed would eventually smash together at the universe's center, releasing huge amounts of heat and light, spewing everything back out in all directions and beginning the expansion phase all over again. Such a universe could also have been created by God or could have existed forever without God.
(C) Or, finally, the universe could be open. It might be a cosmic balloon that never implodes. If the total gravitational attraction of all stars and planets could not halt the initial expansion, the universe would spill out into nothingness forever. Eventually the stars would burn out and a curtain of frozen darkness would enshroud all existence. Such a universe could never bring itself back to life. It would come into existence at a moment in history, blaze gloriously, and then pass into irrevocable night. Crucially, this model proposes that before the one-time explosion, all the universe's matter and energy was contained in a singularity, a tiny dot that sat stable in space for eternity before it detonated. This model proposes a paradox: Objects at rest - like the initial singularity - remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force; and yet, since the initial dot contained all matter and energy, nothing (at least, nothing natural) existed outside of this singularity that could have caused it to explode. The simplest resolution of the paradox is to posit that something supernatural kicked the universe into being. The open model of the universe thus implies a supernatural Creator.
"There are, of course, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists who choose not to believe in God today. For a variety of reasons, they choose instead to have faith that new natural laws will be discovered or that new evidence will appear and overturn the current model of an open, created universe. But for many in the scientific community, the evidence is persuasive. For many, modern cosmology offers permission to believe."
Read more at:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Cosmology.htm
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."
.I can't believe this. So the "theory" presented that the earth revolves around the sun has not been promoted to fact? The "theory" that the earth is round has not been promoted to fact? That is the dumbest thing I have seen posted tonight. Amazing...
Getting Very Desperate
After scientists discovered the vast complexities of the DNA code, and that these codes are to be found in even the most simple forms of life, they started to see "scary visions of a God." Its massive complexities clearly pointed to a Great Designer, and that was no good. So they made up a new far-fetched theory which in essence was saying - we see that there must be a God, but we do not want to acknowledge Him, so we must place God somewhere else and are saying the following theory. However, before we tell you the "latest theory" we must first tell you that this theory is taken seriously by many in the scientific world, even though the ones that expounded it really didn't believe it themselves. (We'll speak about this shortly.) The second thing is, that you must know the credentials of the ones that said this theory, and they have great credentials. First, let's hear a little about Sir Francis Crick. Sir Francis H.C. Crick, a noted biologist, is the one who deduced the double-helical structure of DNA, for which he, together with his partner James Watson, later received the Nobel Prize. Crick went on to contribute to the elucidation of the genetic code. In short, he is a very respected scientist. And what led Crick to give the following view was the feeling that it's virtually impossible for the origin of life to have been undirected (accident). So Crick, together with noted chemist Leslie Orgel (who are trained scientists, who always look for naturalistic explanations to their problems - and to admit to a God wouldn't be scientific) said the following wild theory. And mind you that this theory was proposed in 1973, and reaffirmed in 1983 when Crick wrote it in a book called Life Itself, and reaffirmed again in 1992 during an interview in Scientific American.(6) The wild theory is as follows. They say that some extraterrestrial civilization of another solar system, because of the fear of extinction, decided to "seed" other planets with the essence of their live matter. So they sent frozen bacteria out into space, and eventually it reached earth. While on earth, it was these live bacteria from outer space that evolved into life as we see it now. This is their theory. And this wild theory was necessary, since it helped explain a hurdle that couldn't be made. They, as well as many other scientists, couldn't explain how an inanimate object could turn into even the most simple of life forms, bearing in mind the vast complexities that are found in all life forms. So "necessity, the mother of all inventions" led them to make up this story, which supplied them with instant life, without having to recognize God. Pretty wild, huh? Really desperate. This is the theory of Drs. Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.(7) Now you know what weight the word "theory" has.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/did-life-form-by-accident.htm
"Crick confided to Professor Robert Shapiro(10) that he personally wasn't really sold on the (Panspermia) theory, and his real purpose in espousing this new theory was to get people to drop all previous theories that they held as true (such as the chemical soup theory, and the mutation theory, etc., all of them built on the idea that live matter can evolve from dead matter, which he held can't be true) and give them an idea which they can relate to, such as unmanned rockets with live bacteria in them, to hold on to. Not that he really believed this story, but it was to help people understand that this world could only have developed form live matter. So even though in public Crick says that he still believes his theory to be "reasonable," in private he told Shapiro otherwise.
"Nothing illustrate more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.
"Desperate people indeed. After hearing such "theories," one sees the staunch loyalty these scientists have to "science," for the sake of science. But it would be more honest if they would express more openly the problems that they face, and maybe, just maybe, suggest that there is an alternative solution to the origin of our universe - God."
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/did-life-form-by-accident.htm
I can't believe thisYou better, that's how science works.
The "facts" in science are "observations", like an falling apple. A scientist then form a hypothesis to explain the observation and rigorously test it. If nothing is found to falsify the hypothesis and the tests are in agreement, the hypothesis graduates to theory. From there it can only be demoted, as it has already reached the top.
You're in for a lot of shocks then. The earth revolving around the sun is a matter of mathematical economy, you can just as easily assume the sun rotates around the earth, if you are willing to do way more math in predicting orbital mechanics (way less, in some cases). The assumption is arbitrary, and there's nothing in the overall shape and structure of the universe, that we can now perceive to suggest why you should one assumption to another. The earth might very well be the center of the universe, for ought you can tell from measuring the outer boundaries of the universe. If you have a binary star, which one is in orbit around the other?
As for the earth being round, it's not, it's not spherical by a long shot either.
The Theory of gravity is usually cited by folks of your opinion as the flagcarrier of proven natural science theories, but gravity is in far worse shape now than evolutionary theory, by a long shot: it is reeling from the quantum gravity dilemma, it's conspicuous subnuclear flightiness, the dark matter problem, the outer orbits problem, and recently, because of anomolous navigational behavior by artificial objects leaving our solar system.
"you didn't want to hear any anecdotal stories to the contrary. Are you being intentionally hypocritical?"
Thimk, dewd.
I didn't say I didn't want to hear them, I said "don't bother." The implication of that is to stipulate that such anecdotes are available and indicate that *some* teachers don't do that. My anecdote counters the assertion that *no* teachers do, also indicating that *some* do.
Perfectly congruent, and not a hypo or a crypt in the lot.
"I lkei talllllllllll blondses yuo ese."
mmmmmmmmM. Tlllllla blondses.
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.