Posted on 08/21/2005 1:18:04 AM PDT by MRMEAN
Compared with fields like genetics and neuroscience and cosmology, botany comes up a bit short in the charisma department. But when scientists announced last week that they had figured out how plants grow, one had to take note, not only because of the cleverness required to crack a puzzle that dates to 1885, but because of what it says about controversy and certainty in science -- and about the evolution debate.
In 1885, scientists discovered a plant-growth hormone and called it auxin. Ever since, its mechanism of action had been a black box, with scientists divided into warring camps about precisely how the hormone works. Then last week, in a study in Nature, biologist Mark Estelle of Indiana University, Bloomington, and colleagues reported that auxin links up with a plant protein called TIR1, and together the pair binds to a third protein that silences growth-promoting genes. The auxin acts like a homing beacon for enzymes that munch on the silencer. Result: The enzymes devour the silencer, allowing growth genes to turn on.
Yet biology classes don't mention the Auxin Wars. Again and again, impressionable young people are told that auxin promotes plant growth, when the reality is more complex and there has been raging controversy over how it does so.
Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, "Teach the controversy." That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-buddha.com ...
"I will not defend European "Christian" monarchs because I do not believe many (if any) were authentically Christian. (Your originally asked for a "Christian ruler" incidetially - not specifically a European one) "
Obfuscation.
There weren't a whole lot of Christian Monarchs that weren't Europeans. You wouldn't include Louis IX as authentically Christian? The Catholic Church certainly does (there was no other at the time - mid 13th century). Still, even he did nothing to establish Man's "inalienable rights".
Or are you complaining about the "Divine Right of Kings" not making any monarch "Christian"?
From the amino acid tryptophan.
You sweep with a broad brush. Now at least show where some critical scientific analysis of evolution is presented ...
Keep your fingers off that computer!
A telling concession not in the least excused by the excuses that follow it. But you can console yourself that hardly any creationists know jack about what they are saying is wrong.
It is completely useless, contradictory, fluid, and many extremely intelligent scientists (smarter than you, this is not personal, but factual) are seriously skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Creationists should never appeal to the credentials of the tiny handfuls of evolution skeptics. They are droplets in the sea of credentialled scientists who follow the evidence and accept evolution. If the opinion of a Ph.D in Biology means something, ID is a crock by a 99.99 to .01 percent margin.
Those who would forbid any challenges to Darwinian theory are displaying the same kind of partiality as the IDers they claim to despise.
There's nothing to prevent ID enthusiasts from actually doing some research and proving they have a useful idea. I do not expect this to ever happen. Even that leading light of ID, the prestigious Discovery Institute has taken time out from lying about science to admit that it has no content to supply classrooms just now, so teachers should instead teach something called "the controversy."
That wouldn't take an honest teacher very long. "The controversy is in school boardrooms, where simple dolts are telling scientists what to put into science class. There is no corresponding controversy inside science itself."
Defenders of “evolution-only” on this posts and others are taking rather unattractive tactic – accusing all critics of trying to bring religion into the discussion.
On this thread(?) or another one today I was criticized for bringing the Raelians into the discussion because everyone knows it's about God.
However, critical scientific analysis of Darwinian evolution is not religion, and exploration of all the facts should be encouraged.
Creationist lies, fallacies, and back-again-dumb-as-a-stumpisms are not science and are not an exploration of any of the facts.
I will however stick to real science, science I can touch and personally observe.
That can't be much and you're no advertisement for it.
"***God has never stepped in to make sure Man's or a man's "rights" are protected. ***
How can you be sure?"
By the hundreds of millions of dead people murdered in direct contradiction to their "endowed, inalienable rights".
I hear the Muslims are offering a great "faith" deal. Murder some innocents and get 72 virgins in heaven.
***By the hundreds of millions of dead people murdered in direct contradiction to their "endowed, inalienable rights".***
Ah - but you said NEVER.
How do you know that God did not step in to turn the tide of WWII?
It's very hard to prove a universal negative.
"I never specifically brought the God of the Bible into this discussion - other did so. All I have argued is that the fathers were CLEAR that out rights are granted to us by the Creator."
Is your Creator something other than Yaweh?
Yep, just take a look at some of the idiots on the "Atheism is Religion" thread.
From Human Rights:
If a right is inalienable, that means it cannot be bestowed, granted, bartered, or sold away (e.g., one cannot sell oneself into slavery). Rights may also be non-derogable (not limited in times of national emergency); these often include the right to life, the right to be prosecuted only according to the laws that are in existence at the time of the offense, the right to be free from slavery, and the right to be free from torture.
Notice the point about "cannot be bestowed [or] granted." That means even God cannot grant or bestow. Much like the concepts of good and evil, natural rights exist separate from God.
It's dangerous to think that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
Not stupid. Fundamental (though reading something into a post that was neither stated explicitly nor implicitly is also a characteristic of the fundamental mentality). There is a difference, even if you cannot fathom it.
"How do you know that God did not step in to turn the tide of WWII? "
A Creator that endows his creation with the inalienable "right" of life, does not allow 30-60 million to die just so he can step in at the last minute and "turn the tide of WWII".
There now, "All's well that ends well".
If this is your Creator, how can you depend on Him to do the right thing? The evidence is in. He's either not one that "endowed" people with rights, or he's done a pretty bad job and should be fired.
***Is your Creator something other than Yaweh?***
I believe in the God of the Bible.
That doesn't prevent me from arguing for Theism.
You might try reading that opinion. Its on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals website (Kaufman v. McCaughtry et al.).
Interesting.
(1) I doubt that the language of the case could be applied to evolution.
(2) It illustrates why legal scholars should never be confused with real scientists.
Isn't she kin to Ed?
Rights are never given, they have to be taken.
If the thousand year reign of European monarchs doesn't count as Christian government, then I am afraid there is no point in continuing the discussion. It is obvious to me if the church colludes with those in power at every opportunity, then religion has no value at all in insuring the rights of people.
The founders of this country were not following religion in establishing the laws and constitution. They were pi$$ed about taxes and specific injustices, and were willing to take up arms to defend themselves against injustice.
I notice, however, that the God of the Declaration did not see fit to condemn slavery, at least not enough to put an end to it. This was the bad kind of slavery, was it not?
***If a right is inalienable, that means it cannot be bestowed, granted, bartered, or sold away***
Hence the framers use of the term "endowed".
*** Notice the point about "cannot be bestowed [or] granted***
I do not accept the Wikipedia as a source of unquestionable authority. You can not quote the Wikipedia as if by it's pronouncements the issue is settled.
I don't believe you answered the question -
How do you "inherently" know that any person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
How do you know the supposed "rights" are real and not some fanciful illusion?
I'm no Bible scholar, but from my earliest days I could recite the Lord's Prayer. I believe the parts relevant to this issue are as follows:
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.Sounds like monarchy to me.
[snip]
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.
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.