Posted on 08/26/2005 8:57:58 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
My mother says she is a Darwinist. Im not sure of all the things that could or should imply. I take it to mean the she does not believe that the Cosmos and all that it contains is the result of the will of a Supreme Being. Nature just exists and that is all there is to it. Asking what is the purpose of human existence is a nonsense question. It has no meaning. As we have no conscious origin, we have no conscious destination. Hence no purpose.
This idea is quite troubling to many humans as we are quite reluctant to attach no meaning to the thoughts and desires coursing through the synapses of our brains. And so, for most of human existence, the idea that there was no God was a heresy to be condemned, punished, reviled, tortured and even burned at the stake.
When our social institutions evolved to the point where asking such a question wasnt as quite as painful or harmful to ones health, science, in the sense that we use today, began to blossom. And it bloomed because of its explanatory power, its predictive power. If you combine A, B, and C bingo! you get D. And no one had ever seen, heard or thought of D before!
One of the best and most widely known examples of this is Einsteins famous equation, E = mc^2. Exactly what this means is not, for the purposes of this discussion, important. What is important is that this conclusion results from a very simple postulate. Namely, that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer hence the term relativity theory. The other postulate is that we are only dealing with non-accelerated frames of reference. That means constant velocities and no gravitational fields. Hence the term special relativity. General relativity, dealing with accelerated frames of reference, is, both conceptually and mathematically, a great deal more abstract and difficult. And, unfortunately, Im not one of those privy to its secrets.
We still believe, given compliance with the postulates, that the mass-energy equivalence equation is an accurate description of physical reality. For someone with an undergraduates knowledge of physics and fair skill with the calculus, it isnt even very difficult to derive. But that is not the reason for its endurance. Our faith in this equation is borne out by innumerable observations, experiments and even a couple of unfortunate events in Japan that took place just about sixty years ago. Though the details of specific processes may, to some extent, still elude us, we have an explanation for the enormous energy levels and extreme duration of the power generated by stars. It was this question that stumped some of the greatest scientific minds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Einsteins answer still has no competing theory and it does not leave unanswered questions as to its validity lying about unaddressed.
The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions. Evidence that does not fit. Facts that have proven illusive or false. Fabricated evidence. Explanations that are logically incomplete. Jerry-rigged computer models oops! sorry, thats global warming. Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwins rumination. Is this unscientific as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep God out of science? No. Its an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.
If you would like to bone-up on the fundamentals of ID, I suggest that you read Dan Petersons piece in the American Spectator, The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism. He gives a rundown of the main players in the ID debate along with their academic backgrounds and achievements as well as the main arguments supporting their positions. For an opposing view by a man of science in the field of evolutionary theory, read Jerry Coynes offering in the New Republic Online, The Case Against Intelligent Design. This was at one time linkable without a subscription as I have a copy saved. But alas, one now seems mandatory.
Based on my brief acquaintance with the subject, there seems to be two fundamental lines of argument used by ID theorists. The first is that which asserts the probability of the complex molecules that form our DNA occurring by chance is infinitesimally small and therefore unlikely to have ever happened by chance. This is the argument put forth by the mathematician and physicist William Dembski.
Michael Behe, who popularized the flagellar motor found in e. coli and other bacterium as an example of intelligent design, is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His arguments are based on the concept of irreducibly complex processes or structures as opposed to those that are cumulatively complex. Those that are irreducibly complex do not lend themselves without great difficulty to explanation by a theory of evolution. For Darwin himself stated that if one could show that a blind, incremental process could not explain a natural phenomenon, his theory would fall apart.
Darwins theories are being questioned, but here we are not talking about religious zealots making the inquiry. Were talking about real, live, grown-up scientists, who, because of our advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life, and not just bible stories, are asking legitimate and profound questions that are undermining the basis of Darwinism. And theyre not doing so with the desire nor intention of substituting scripture for textbooks. God, as the Jews or Christians or even Muslims perceive Him, is not being offered in place of Darwin.
What is? Good question. Ill ask my mom. She always had the answers.
Forget it. Charlatans never give their books away for free and simpletons who quote charlatans in forums never reply to thought out rebuttals with anything more than smart-aleck snippets.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution --A Notion Rooted Deep in Racism, but not in Science! It is Time to 'Out the Darweenies'
|
|||||
(Note: When Darwin refers to "races" here, there can be no doubt that what was intended was a meaning quite similar to the current meaning of the term. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, historically the term at that time meant: "A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common decent or origin." It is also clear, when taken in the context of his entire work, Darwin intended the term rendered in the English as "race" to mean basically the same thing as it means in current usage. You must remember, that while Origin did not specifically include a direct treatment of Darwin's notion of mankind's history, he fully intended us to make that connection. In fact, Darwin himself inextricably connected mankind's descent to his ground-laying work in Origin. He writes that through his Origin "[Much] light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" (Origin p. 407). Darwin himself further tied the knot with his words in his second edition of Descent: "...this [referring to the quote from Origin] implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on the earth" ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, p. 1). There is no doubt that Darwin viewed his Origin as a two-part series, as Origin/Descent. ...And that once he completed his total task, he intended that Origin should never be read without Descent. This effort was actually referred to as "one long argument" by Ernst Mayr in his so-titled book, "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought" (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991). In Origin Darwin was merely laying the groundwork for Descent. He knew that politically, that was the only way he could accomplish his task. Dr. H. James Brix writes in his Introduction of a recent publication of Descent that "...Darwin had not included a treatment of the birth and history of humankind in Origin, because he feared adding to the sharp ridicule that would surely surround his scientific theory..." ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, p. xvii.). I am convinced that it is safe to say that the only right way to regard Origin is as Origin/Descent. Only then can Darwin be fully (read "rightly") understood. To regard Descent merely as afterthought, or as a separate collection of subsequent thoughts, would be to miss the whole point Darwin was trying to make. It is totally obvious in the second part of his work that the so-called "savage races" were, in his racist mind, destined for annihilation, for he writes in Descent that: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp.162,163.). (Back to text) |
I agree, if there is any other scenario that is based on evidence other than simply a religious dictate.
Evolution is, at best, a theory. Its proponents weren't there to witness it any more than a creationist was there to witness creation.
Given that standard, history itself shouldn't be taught because the teacher was not there to witness it. But they can certainly go back and study the remnants of that history. Should we not discuss geological change either because we certainly weren't here to witness oceans where deserts lay today. Pretty tough standard.
The entire argument is about history, not science.
Seems easy enough to correct when your children get home. Just let them know that nothing they haven't physically observed happen ever took place. That should help them tremendously in this complex world.
But religion standing in the way of science is nothing new. Since the beginning of religion, there are those who feared science. The inquisitions murdered for "heresy". There are many who still would. Today we laugh at some of the religious doctrine from the middle ages, but it was nothing to laugh at. As far as creationism goes, there are several versions of it and each is firmly based in religion. Other than a mention in a classroom, it deserves no more attention in that environment.
I never got to read comic books at home when I was a kid. My parents thought that they were evil. I loved going to stay with my cousins. They had tons of comic books; fantastic four, silver surfer, spiderman, the hulk, etc. I could go through a trunk full in about a week.
I'm glad I read the last one first...
You are indeed correct. For example, if I suggest that God could just as easily used evolution as part of his grand design I am called a Christian/God hater. I see what you mean.
Did you ever think that God's revelation might be _corrective_ of some of our ideas about the world? If you say "God only operates where we have no facts" then you deny that God has any relevance in the factual world, and therefore are asserting that He is only fantasy, and only temporary until man fills in the rest of the gaps.
"You are indeed correct. For example, if I suggest that God could just as easily used evolution as part of his grand design I am called a Christian/God hater. I see what you mean."
Let me be more specific in what I am trying to say. The creationists tend to use ad-hominem attacks to attempt to impeach the integrity of the posters that disagree with them. The Evo's use the same tactics to impeach the integrity of the ID and creationist "experts" quoted and linked.
Translation: "They'll point out the flaws in the ID arguments. The horror, the horror..."
And most of them claim conservatism.
"Claim" conservatism? Oh, yeah, no *real* conservative could actually disagree with *you*, right? Since you're the standard by which all other conservatives should be measured, any departure from your "one true conservatism" beliefs is automatic proof of non-conservatism...
MIT biochemists calculated the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power .
You are grossly misrepresenting the work of the "MIT biochemists" you don't seem to remember the name of. It was Robert Sauer et al. You clearly haven't read the actual papers, and are making the mistake of just relying on Behe's misleading mention of their work. (Behe is a popular "ID" writer.)
And you even managed to mangle the description: You say that the odds of "finding a folded protein" are very small, but actually the odds of "finding" a folded protein are equal to the odds of finding a protein, period, because all proteins naturally fold. What you *meant* to say was that the odds of finding a protein which folds in the manner necessary to most efficiently fullfil a pre-specified biochemical function are pretty low. But even that doesn't mean what you think it means.
Contrary to your implication that low odds would preclude the "discovery" of functional proteins via evolution, your assumption is flawed on two counts:
1. Low odds are actually not that hard to achieve in the molecular domain, because counterintuitively *vast* numbers of "trials" are possible because of the utterly enormous numbers of molecules present in small volumes of reactant, and because of the speed at which molecular combinations and recombinations occur (a millionth of a second is a *looong* time on the scale of molecular reactions). See for example Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs .
2. But the main reason that you're grossly misrepresenting Sauer's work is that in the same papers in which he determined the 1x1065 odds of a protein producing the exact same functionality as an *optimal* functional protein of a specific type, he *ALSO* determined that proteins which fulfilled the same function to SOME degree of efficiency were extremely common, AND that the partially efficient proteins could be "ratcheted" up in efficiency towards the optimal form via stepwise evolutionary changes. You and Behe sort of "forgot" to mention *THAT* when you set out to misrepresent the difficulty of evolution, didn't you?
See:
Protein folding from a combinatorial perspectiveAbstract: Combinatorial mutagenesis experiments show the existence of many different solutions to the problem of complementary packing of non-polar sidechains in the protein core. They suggest that a significant amount of structural information is carried by the simple pattern of polar and non-polar residues along the polypeptide chain, indicate that the formation of buried polar interactions may be a fundamentally slow step in protein folding and show that proteins with many native properties occur at reasonable frequencies in random sequence libraries.
Combinatorial approaches to protein stability and structureExcerpts [emphasis mine]: However, the only way to rigorously examine how core sequence corresponds to stability and structure is to make many core variants and examine them for biophysical parameters. A number of excellent reviews have been written on this subject [31,8387]. The seminal studies of Lim & Sauer, and further work with Richards, are among the first and best-known attempts to address this issue. [...] Seven buried residues in the N-terminal domain of lambda repressor were completely randomized in groups of three residues [70]. Between 0.2% and 2% of mutants were active, depending upon the library and level of function demanded. [...] Proteins with full activity at low temperatures or reduced but temperature-independent activity (implying similarity of structure and/or stability to the wild type) varied in volume over a very narrow range (two methylene groups), but those with any activity varied almost as much as all possible variants in the library (including inactive variants). This suggests that the overall structure is very tolerant of steric changes, but that precise structure and high stability are specified by a much smaller range of sequences. [...]
Now, when will the atheist/darwinists prove a single protein arose unaided.
Even if they could,which they cannot,
Oookay... Try reading the scientific literature for a change, instead of all those creationist pamphlets.
it would probably be one single, isolated, worthless protein, which would quickly fall apart in the presence of water or ultraviolet light from the sun!
So you believe, anyway. Feel free to show us your analysis and evidence. Oh, right, you don't have any.
'Since science has not the vaguest idea how (proteins) originated, it would only be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research, and the public.' Journal of Theoretical Biology (yockey)
You sort of "forgot" to mention that this was written back in 1981, and there has been an ENORMOUS explosion of knowledge in biochemistry since then. Creationists are *really* fond of using old, obsolete statements about the state of knowledge in science, because they know that if they referred to *modern* findings, they'd be hard pressed to find any comfort.
They're also really fond of misquoting. The *actual* passage was:
"Since science has not the vaguest idea of how life originated on earth, whether life exists anywhere else, or whether little green men pullulate in our galaxy, it would be honest to admit this to students..."(Again, back in 1981, this was a correct statement. It isn't now.) Please explain why you dishonestly changed the phrase "not the vaguest idea of how life originated" to "not the vaguest idea how (proteins) originated"...
The rabid atheist/darwinists maintain life spontaneously created itself, IDers claim it`s a little more complex, and mathematically impossible.
IDers usually "claim that" by lying about the actual state of scientific knowledge, using obsolete quotes, dishonestly altered quotes, lying about the results of studies, and employing bogus calculations -- as you have done here.
If you guys promise to stop lying about science, we'll promise to stop pointing out the uncomfortable truth about you.
Nonsense. Ad hominem" is a fallacy when used in this form: "What the person says must be wrong because he's [something insulting]".
An ad hominem analysis, however, is the *appropriate* antidote for the creationist fallacy of "argument by authority" (they wave around quotes from alleged experts then imply -- or outright snottily say -- that the quote is unimpeachable because it's an "expert" in the field and we're just internet peons).
In reply to *that*, it's quite appropriate to point out failings of the "expert" in question in order to show that he's not the "objective expert" the creationists claim he is.
Additionally, we don't point out that the "expert" must be wrong because he beats his dog or whatever, we point out that HE ISN'T THE EXPERT HE'S HELD UP TO BE BECAUSE HE'S WRONG. And we point out exactly how and why he's wrong. We undercut the "expert" by addressing his ARGUMENT, not undercut the argument by attacking the expert.
Apparently post #63 was lost on you.
You now use it to try and gain sympathy from others...
Id be interested to know if you understand your tagline?
sounds like they had all the good ones.
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.