The trouble with Darwin (Bush's I.D. comments changed Australia's Educational Landscape)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 24 Sept 2005 | Damien Murphy

[gobucks]

The brawl between evolutionists and religious neo-conservatives over how life began is coming down to the survival of the slickest.

For about 150 years Charles Darwin's evolution theory has held sway. But a new American theory, intelligent design, is getting a lot of press as scientists and intellectuals rush to the barricades to dismiss intelligent design as little else than "creationism" rebadged.

Already a DVD featuring American scientists claiming intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and life has become Australia's biggest-selling religious video and intelligent design is starting to permeate school courses.

Next year, hundreds of Catholic schools in the dioceses of Sydney, Wollongong, Lismore and Armidale will use new religious education textbooks that discuss intelligent design. At Dural, year 9 and 10 students at Pacific Hills Christian School have begun learning about intelligent design in science classes.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, says it is inevitable other schools will follow suit. Until last month, few Australians had heard of it. But debate broke out internationally on August 1 when the US President, George Bush, told reporters he supported combining lessons on evolution with discussion of intelligent design. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," Bush said.

Last month, the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, gave intelligent design ministerial imprimatur, telling the National Press Club he thought parents and schools ought to have the opportunity - if they wished - for students to be exposed to intelligent design and taught about it.

Nelson's office said his comments were unplanned.

But his interest had been pricked by a parliamentary visit on June 20 by Bill Hodgson, head of the Sydney-based campus Crusade for Christ, who left a copy of a DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life with Nelson.

The DVD featured a US mathematician, William Dembski, and other leading American intelligent design proponents claiming the complexity of biological systems is proof of an organising intelligence.

"ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence," Dembski said.

The DVD is distributed in Australia by a Melbourne-based Christian group, Focus on the Family. Its executive director, Colin Bunnett, says until Nelson's comments only 1000 copies had been sold over four years. "But it's taken off. We've sold thousands in the last few weeks," he says.

The intelligent design debate has more resonance in the US, partly because teaching about the beginning of life is problematic. A Harris poll in June found that 55 per cent of American adults support teaching evolution, creationism, and intelligent design in public schools yet many who favour a literal interpretation of the Bible found it difficult to accept Darwin's The Origin of Species.

One teacher, John Scopes, was convicted for violating a Tennessee ban on teaching evolution in 1925's famous "monkey trial". It was not isolated legislation. In 1968, when the US Supreme Court struck down similar laws, some states began pushing the teaching of "creationism" alongside evolution.

In Australia, the issue has been less hard-edged. The last tussle was in 1978 when Queensland's Bjelke-Petersen government bowed to creationists' opposition to social science courses. Of late, leading scientists have rebuffed intelligent design. The Nobel Prize-winning scientist Peter Doherty says it has no place in a science curriculum and the physicist Paul Davies rejects it as creationism in disguise.

Dembski, an associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University in Texas, the world's largest Baptist university, said it should be taught with evolution in schools but not be mandated.

"Evolutionary theory and intelligent design both have a scientific core: the question whether certain material mechanisms are able to propel an evolutionary process and the question whether certain patterns in nature signify intelligence are both squarely scientific questions," Dembski says. "Nevertheless, they have profound philosophical and religious implications."

[Just mythoughts]

CRybaby, YOU a professional insulter, and name caller so typical of the liberal I mean evolutionists mind.

Your head is solid cement and it will take an sharper tool than given to me to crack down to your soul/spirit.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"DNA disproves this and it is written that two of ALLLLL flesh were upon that ark. Whether it covered the WHOLE earth or only the WHOLE KNOWN earth to the writer, Moses."

If every species had only 2 founder members, genetics says that the offspring of such a union will be subject to extreme stress due to inbreeding. How do you propose to account for the inevitable genetic bottleneck resulting from Noah only raking two of each kind? Do you know what a genetic bottleneck even is? :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"CRybaby, YOU a professional insulter, and name caller so typical of the liberal I mean evolutionists mind.

Your head is solid cement and it will take an sharper tool than given to me to crack down to your soul/spirit."

So, you have no evidence that mind is not anything more than matter?

BTW, your whining doesn't constitute evidence or a logical argument. I am not oblivious to your evasion of my questions.

[voteconstitutionparty]

You mean just sort of happened over a long period of time as a result of interacting with the environment according the the laws of nature.

Things evolved, that's obvious if you look at the many layers of rock that have been laid down, and the many different creatures that can be found in those layers.

Sure, God is responsible for everything.
That doesn't mean God must be taught in Science classes, any more than God must be taught in Math classes.

[acapesket]

There is obviously a reason that your screen name is "Blowfish"
God gave you a purpose also and you are apparently quite good.. at "it"

[Invincibly Ignorant]

ID removes all investigation as everything is Gods (lets call it what it is) design, no need to look deeper than that. If you don't understand something blame ID and walk away.

I really don't understand why why it seems to come down to an "either/or" argument on both sides of the debate. ID'ers feel their beliefs are threatened should evolution proove to be true and evolutionists seem threatened should an Intelligent Designer proove to have set in motion an evolutionary process. I believe both sides protest too much.

[Just mythoughts]

"If every species had only 2 founder members, genetics says that the offspring of such a union will be subject to extreme stress due to inbreeding. How do you propose to account for the inevitable genetic bottleneck resulting from Noah only raking two of each kind? Do you know what a genetic bottleneck even is? :)"

Personally speaking, I do not find the words WHOLE EARTH to have to mean a LITERAL complete covering of this earth. Reason, we are given the specific reason for the flood and to whom it applied to.

When one looks to the numbers of populations of different peoples, a localize flood of the whole known earth to Moses could apply as well.

I do not exclude the "inbreeding" as outside of the realm of possibility and one might well made a case for a genetic bottleneck. Interesting thoughts when discussing the flood.

Point is the reason and the purpose of the flood set the boundaries of where the water flowed.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Personally speaking, I do not find the words WHOLE EARTH to have to mean a LITERAL complete covering of this earth. "

What makes you able to contradict the plain meaning of scripture? Why can you and nobody else?

"When one looks to the numbers of populations of different peoples, a localize flood of the whole known earth to Moses could apply as well."

A localized flood goes against the word of God. Are you above the Word? The Bible says the world was covered with water, not the *known world*. If you can fudge that, what else is malleable?

"I do not exclude the "inbreeding" as outside of the realm of possibility and one might well made a case for a genetic bottleneck. Interesting thoughts when discussing the flood."

Except that inbreeding and a genetic bottleneck argue against any kind of worldwide flood ( Sorry, the Bible meant worldwide. It makes no sense otherwise.)

[tamalejoe]

Hey, Sally Lou, if we get divorced, can we still be brothers and sisters??

That would apply to Noah's children.

Depends on who you read or listen to. According to other classical sources, people survived here and there on mountains and anything which could float for the better part of a year. Nobody else (aside from Noah) saved a large sampling of animals.

Aside from that, once the flood had been over for five or ten generations, the only ones who went on marrying first cousins were jerks and losers, same as now.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Depends on who you read or listen to. According to other classical sources, people survived here and there on mountains and anything which could float for the better part of a year. Nobody else (aside from Noah) saved a large sampling of animals."

There never was a worldwide flood. Classical sources don't speak of one. The idea that other people other than those on the Ark survived goes against everything that the Bible says. Why do you feel you can make up what any particular passage means to suit your need?

"side from that, once the flood had been over for five or ten generations, the only ones who went on marrying first cousins were jerks and losers, same as now."

There is next to no reason to ban first cousin marriages, which is why most people in the USA can legally marry a first cousin.


"http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml"

And if that's your best argument against Darwin, we have nothing to fear.

[Just mythoughts]

"What makes you able to contradict the plain meaning of scripture? Why can you and nobody else?"


Please point out the contradiction? Now given exactly what we are told about the reason for the flood, why exactly it was Noah and his family "FIT" to be saved from a flood and everything else described, how does that contradict what is given.

Do you even know why the flood? Why Noah was elected to be saved? How long exactly does it take from total and complete destruction for an olive leaf to be found?

What do you even care about the supposed plain meaning of scripture after all you are an evolutionists and doesn't even apply to you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Please point out the contradiction? "

In the Bible, the flood is worldwide. God is wiping out all of humanity except Noah and his family. In your revised version, other people survive too, implying the flood was not as affective as God hoped.

" Do you even know why the flood? "

I know *why the flood*; do you? It was a punishment against all of humanity except Noah and his family. Not Noah and his family and some other people who somehow survived.

"How long exactly does it take from total and complete destruction for an olive leaf to be found?"

You said that it wasn't total destruction, just local. Why does the Bible say otherwise?

"What do you even care about the supposed plain meaning of scripture after all you are an evolutionists and doesn't even apply to you."

Because it means so much to you, and that makes it important to me. :) And you are trying to use it as evidence against Darwin, even though you have issues with the actual version in Genesis.

[Doctor Stochastic]

[Just mythoughts]

"In the Bible, the flood is worldwide. God is wiping out all of humanity except Noah and his family. In your revised version, other people survive too, implying the flood was not as affective as God hoped."

The words are WHOLE EARTH, and if you read more carefully you will find the flood was because of the Sons of God cohabiting with the daughters of Adam, specific peoples and their offspring were the purpose, NOT the peoples of the whole earth. Noah and his family were the only ones of Adam that had not blended shall we say.


"You said that it wasn't total destruction, just local. Why does the Bible say otherwise?"

Well now what is the plain simple meaning of finding an olive leaf within in a 150 day time frame? The olive leaf is not described as a miraculous growth, so where did if come from it all was completely destroy?

"Because it means so much to you, and that makes it important to me. :) And you are trying to use it as evidence against Darwin, even though you have issues with the actual version in Genesis."

I have NO issues with what I am told, thing of it is I do not read over and ignore when what is said seems to contradict what is evidence. Such as the supposed claim this is a young 6,000 year old earth, the BIBLE nowhere makes such a claim, in fact tells the complete opposite.

The Bible is instruction, telling The Adam's story, his generations, to Christ and allllll the other peoples he and his generations came into contact with.

Now Christ Himself said that a sign of His return was the reenacting of the days of Noe (Noah). So it seems it might be important to find out exactly what Christ was referring to about the days of Noah that would be replayed. We are NOT there YET!!!!

I also am quite willing to accept IF indeed this WHOLE EARTH was flooded, I just do NOT hinge everything else I read upon that being exactly required considering all we are told about it. DNA shows there were more than just one family that survived, considering it was reason they were saved to begin with.

Noah was the continuation of the SEED LINE to CHRIST, and there was not going to be any polluted seed through that line, which is the very KEY that makes evolution a LIE.

[blowfish]

There is obviously a reason that your screen name is "Blowfish" God gave you a purpose also and you are apparently quite good.. at "it"

Actually, I got my screenname from the encryption algorithm of the same name. I'm not sure what innuendo you're trying to hurl at me...and I don't really care.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The words are WHOLE EARTH, and if you read more carefully you will find the flood was because of the Sons of God cohabiting with the daughters of Adam, specific peoples and their offspring were the purpose, NOT the peoples of the whole earth. Noah and his family were the only ones of Adam that had not blended shall we say."

Where in the Bible do you get people who are not descended from The Adam? Was that in one of the books that didn't make it in?

"Well now what is the plain simple meaning of finding an olive leaf within in a 150 day time frame? The olive leaf is not described as a miraculous growth, so where did if come from it all was completely destroy?"

It was a very bad plot device. The whole earth was supposed to have been destroyed. Your wishes not withstanding.

"Noah was the continuation of the SEED LINE to CHRIST, and there was not going to be any polluted seed through that line, which is the very KEY that makes evolution a LIE."

Noah has no relation to Christ. Christ had no earthly father; the genealogical line leading to Christ was supposed to have been through Joseph, but this can't be. Problem is, he WASN'T Jesus' father. Or did you forget that Mary was a virgin? :) You will need to show Mary's geneological connection to Noah for that to work.

[Just mythoughts]

Genesis 1:26 And God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let THEM......."

Genesis 1:29 "And God blessed THEM..."

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was VERY GOOD. And the evening and the morning was the sixth day.

Genesis 2:2 the seventh day


Genesis 2:4 These are the GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH when they were created, in the day that the LORD GOD made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:


for the LORD GOD had not caused it to rain upon the earth,


and there was not a man to till the ground.


Note what dominion was given to the 6th day creation of men.


What follows is the forming/creation of THE Adam, is completely different that what is described about in the 6th day creation.

"It was a very bad plot device. The whole earth was supposed to have been destroyed. Your wishes not withstanding."


Has nothing to do with my wishes, I do not overlook what appears to be contradictions, that you personally claim as bad plot device.

"Noah has no relation to Christ. Christ had no earthly father; the genealogical line leading to Christ was supposed to have been through Joseph, but this can't be. Problem is, he WASN'T Jesus' father. Or did you forget that Mary was a virgin? :) You will need to show Mary's geneological connection to Noah for that to work."


HA Mary had to come from somebody. I do not need show you anything, all that comes from your silly mind is mockery, had you read for yourself you would indeed find Mary's lineage does in fact trace back to Noah. The Heavenly Father needed no flesh man to bring forth His Only Begotten Son.

[js1138]

Depends on who you read or listen to. According to other classical sources, people survived here and there on mountains and anything which could float for the better part of a year. Nobody else (aside from Noah) saved a large sampling of animals.

So animals are descended from the populations saved by Noah?

[tamalejoe]

>So animals are descended from the populations saved by Noah?

The overwhelming vast bulk of them. There might have been a few to survive on mountains and high places.

[js1138]

Are you familiar with the term genetic bottleneck?