Posted on 09/30/2005 9:17:50 PM PDT by indcons
I think the author's point is that ID cannot be examined scientifically."examined scientifically" is to "icr.org" as "jumbo" is to "shrimp".Yes it can. http://www.icr.org/
And making wild ass guesses about how the earth and man were formed is science?
Don't stop there; show them where else this leads if you let the camel nose into the educational tent:
If we teach that ID is an alternative to Evolution in biology class, then fairness demands we must also teach:
Numerology as an alternative to Mathematics
Homeopathy, Chiropathy, and "aroma therapy" as alternatives in Medical Science classes.
Alchemy as an alternative to Chemistry
Astrology as an alternative to Astronomy
and on it goes, as every form of psuedo-scientific hokum demands a place at the educational table, until eventually there is no time left to teach real science and math in between the time we set aside for all the pseudo-scientific "alternatives."
At that point, America will be graduating ill-educated dunces who will be unable to understand 21st Century Technology, and we we be relegated to becoming a society of superstitious idiots falling for one fraud after another while most of our population will by incapable of doing anything more technically demanding that flipping hamburgers at fast food joints for the rest of the educated people of the world who were taught real science while they were in school.
O.K. let's turn it around: Can you scientifically examine the basic precepts of the theory of evolution (i.e., random mutation followed by natural selection)?
I have never seen a valid experiment that actually tests this. I have seen faked data that claimed to show this but it was later found out that the data was faked (i.e., pepper tree moth fraud).
This is probably one of the reasons that over 400 major league scientists have gone on record saying they seriously doubt that evolution adequately explains the origin of life/species.
No.
Sounds like someone REALLY slept through their science classes! :^)
Well, why not give it a try?
The evo-fundie crowd considers anyone who even slightly disagrees with neo-Darwinism as a fringe wacko, by definition of not adhering cent percent to the evo line of belief. Good way to keep the line pure, so to speak. If someone like Behe, for instance has any doubts about the basic evo premises, by that alone he is not allowed a place at the table. The door is shut to all but avowed true believers.
Evidence of that "in crowd" mentality is all over these threads. Anyone with a reasonable doubt is a blaspheming apostate and doesn't even deserve a hearing. That's why I pretty much avoid these threads.
Cheers!
Projection thy name is "little jeremiah".
Sssssssssssssssss
LOL!
:-) I just calls it like I sees it. What are evo-fundies so terrified of, pray tell?
The teaching of lies to our kids.
That claim is the standard type of lie that the Discovery Institute folks are pushing as part of their "Teach Our Controversy" demand.
Check here for a list of over 29 lines of evidence for why evolution is falsifiable (that is, subject to testing) and how it has survived those falsification attempts.
Mmm hmmm. Yup, that's it. Can't even read Behe's book to discuss his criticisms. Too dangerous. Can't have impressionable youth exposed to blasmphemy.
It's a flapping corpse.
That would be "blasphemy". That's what I get for not proofreading.
As I understand it, Miller is saying that subatomic quantum events are the underlying cause of most genetic mutations, and these events inherently can neither be predicted nor even investigated.
(1)Is he actually saying that, or am I misunderstanding him?
(2) If this isn't correct, then what IS the underlying cause of all those "spontaneous" mutations, the copying "mistakes," the transcription "sloppiness" and "errors"? (I use quote marks because these are terms Miller uses, but I don't feel quite sure that you can call anything so basic, so common, and so universal in nature a "mistake." Mutation seems to be a built-in part of the gene-copying program. Yes?)
BTW, I know that things like cosmic radiation, inhalation or ingestion of radioisotopes, oxidative stress, and other external mutagens can cause mutations. What I'm talking about is the many "spontaneous" mutations that seem to be happening without reference to radon gas in your basement and aflatoxins in your peanut butter... (I'm puzzled here and I hope somebody can straighten me out)
(3) And if we push everyhting back to quantum physics, aren't we again saying, "This is beyond the universe as we know it" -- saying essentially that it's inexplicable? Doesn't that put us beyond the mechanistic cause-effect, hypothesis-test paradigm of naturalistic science again?
If anyone responds to these sincere questions, please respond at the same level of technical-ese as Miller in "Finding Darwin's God." I have excellent reading comprehension but the only MS I have is Menopausal Syndrome :-P
Wolf will always be on your side, cover your flank.
Wolf
Biochemists are working their tails off to understand the mechanics of DNA, and none of them will claim that we're anywhere near to understanding all the details. They are uncovering those details at an amazing rate, and we are nowhere near the limits of what we can discover in time. Using existing scientific methods.
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.