Posted on 10/07/2005 7:35:38 AM PDT by Sopater
University of Idaho President Tim White has entered the debate pitting Charles Darwin's theories of life against religious-based alternatives by forbidding anything other than evolution from being taught in the Moscow school's life, earth and physical science classes.
"This (evolution) is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our biophysical sciences," he wrote. "Teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses."
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
The science class is not a proper setting for debate on non-scientific topics. Especially one that rejects science and embraces ignorance, irrationality and impotence with open arms. Keep it in philosophy, or wherever.
Hope you have a better evening.
It was pretty much one in the same.
"Just piling on now, but I'm bored..."
I agreed with your response.
Hopefully you realized that I did not author that quote but was myself responding to it.
Indeed. How dare the university oppose teaching non-science in science classes!
Sorry, that is abiogenesis (or biogenesis). Evolution needs something already alive to work on.
"In the instant "life" first came to living existence, the living matter contained not only measurable mass and chemical properties, but essential, reproducible information that permitted the "life" to reproduce more "life" within it's original lifespan.
That isn't even a good description of abiogenesis, let alone evolution. In abiogenesis there is no 'point' where life starts, it is a gradual process and the 'information' that you mention is not just suddenly there but increases as the organism evolves.
"Either one of these [ooze/comet] postulates requires a lot more "blind faith" than the central premise of intelligent design - that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.".
Except you haven't shown where this 'God' comes from. You also haven't addressed evolution yet.
"By definition -- under normal circumstances, a scientific theory is usually proven and accepted as "scientific" and factual truth when it can be reliably duplicated.
Your explanation is a bit out there. Scientific theories are not proven, and are always couched in language that reinforces their tentative nature. A theory is constructed on one or more hypothesis which are tested and accepted or rejected based on whether or not they are falsified by the test. The remaining group of hypotheses are used to explain the phenomena under investigation and are used to make predictions. The successful predictions and the tests are what need to be reproduced by independent researchers.
"Except, of course, for Darwinian thought; which is accepted and taught as a "fact".... when in fact -- it remains quite unproven -- if not far-fetched by true scientific standards.
I don't think you recognize that there are two separate 'things' to which the term volution applies. One is the thing that Darwin noted and we still observe, the variation in allele frequencies within a population through differential reproduction, and the 'Theory of Evolution' which is the set of hypotheses that are explanations of how evolution occurs. One is fact - the observation of evolution - and one is theory.
"Hmmmm evidence....
"Like the biologists of the 19th and 20th centuries who established Darwinism as scientific orthodoxy while knowing only the tiniest fragments of biochemistry, genetics and cellular science compared to what we know today?
Those are only tools of verification of what Darwin developed through his own observations. His theory has been tested by numerous scientists whose tools have improved exponentially of the last 150 years, yet none have falsified the theory. All that has occurred is a refinement of the hypotheses underlying the theory. Science is a process of exploration and discovery, it does not start knowing all the answers, and your implication that it needs to before being considered a 'true' science shows your massive misapprehension of science.
"Like the remainder of the existing body of cellular science and biogenetics we enjoy today -- that clearly shows that the intrinsic molecular mechanisms are much more complicated that any computer we could design, build, or even imagine?!?
Since we are unable to create such complexity what makes you think that intelligence is necessary to create complexity. It is an unfounded assumption underlying ID that only intelligence can create complexity. This underlying assumption leads a process of identifying design by appealing to incredulity and assuming the conclusion. This is hardly scientific.
"Like the evidence plainly considered by British scholar and renowned atheist Anthony Flew; Who last December ('04) conceded that the scientific evidence points to the premise that a superior intelligence must be involved in light of the almost unbelieveable complexity of arrangements which are needed to produce life?
Flew was pretty much an unknown before creationists latched on to the story as if the change of one person's belief system invalidates all of evolution. Creationists relying on the 'turning' of one person to convince themselves that evolution is 'wrong' is a foolish impotent action. By the way, not that it is really important, but Flew changed his mind about his statement once he really looked into the evidence, he is now more a Deist than anything else.
"Anthony Flew admitted to an interviewer:
"My whole life has been guided by the principles of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads
See above. The information he was basing his 'turn of mind' on was incorrect and possibly purposefully misleading.
"Please refer to The Wonder Of The World by Roy Varghese.
???
"There is a lot more evidence;but we are not talking about the "bones" or "teeth" of "early man-like creatures" that were intellectually sold as such to willing or gullible academes-- but later proven to belong to a non-extinct wild pig...
Mistakes are made in all sciences. What is more important than the mistake is the correction of the mistake. -Or-
"The high probability of large mathematical errors that exist in "scientific" back-dating processes...
Many radiometric dating methods are accurate to within +-1%. The high probability of error is a creationist creation based on the use of incorrect methods for specific circumstances, ignorance of the correction techniques real scientists use, and willful misinterpretation of the results. -Or-
"The fact that there are to date NO reliable evidences of transitional species (Everytime we tried to get away with that -- the DNA blows it away....)
So far all DNA results have verified the ToE, including the concept of common descent.
"I think it might be helpful to learn to distinguish between what scientists assume and what they really investigate-and thus prove."
Aside from your misguided use of the term 'prove' I agree that we should know the assumptions and results.
"Perhaps we should not confuse the adaptation of the species to envrionmental factors -- with evolutionary propositions that you can unzip a dinosaur and a bird flies out; or that in the somewhere of unknown eventualities during the epochs of pre-history -- therapsids walked up out of the ocean and became "pre-" mankind organisms.
Since adaptation is a big part of the 'propositions' you specified, it would be difficult to confuse them.
"I think the reliable and proven mechanism of evolutionary process is the all important key to Darwin's puzzle -- this is yet to be even offered for scientific consideration.
Pseudo-random mutations filtered through selection has been offered and shown to be functionally accurate. This process is observed in all extant populations. What hasn't been shown is the mechanism that restricts this process from going beyond the species level as has been proposed by creationists. The 'information' canard used by IDCists is designed to show a restriction through a misuse of 'Information Theory' and has not been shown, or 'proved', to apply to biological organisms.
"What have we found in existing life forms-- that triggers the change from one species into a new and separate species--with different organs and functions that define it as a "new" species?? I haven't seen it-- and, for the record, I have looked!
In all the wrong places. There is no 'trigger' that changes one species into another - this sounds much like saltation btw - the change is through the accumulation of more or less imperceivable minute changes. If you need to know where information is added to DNA, (the sequence is increased in length) take a look at which mutations occur on a regular basis.
"Likewise, it would be helpful to discern the difference between testing a theory against the totality of the evidence, instead of using selected bits of evidence to support the theory-- even when flying in the face of the remainder of the body of evidence.
I think this wild accusation needs a bit of evidence. Show us where this is true.
"I think we have all observed some slick debating gimmicks in motion; And each... to some degree fallen for the bait & switch salesmanship that permits and endorses the "facts vs.theory" substitutions.
If you are referring to the Evos here with that accusation you need to educate yourself as to what a theory is and what a fact is. You are simply wrong.
"Respectfully submitted, folks...
Respectfully refuted.
"Check the tagline!!
Why?
"Have a nice day
You too.
How much freedom does a progressive have here to debate the theory the GWB used political influence to get into, and evade punishment for inadequate service in the Tezas ANG?
That's a "theory" too - Ilke ID/Creationism, a theory based on fake evidence manufactured by scoundrels - but still "a theory". Should we "explore the controversy"?
Answer- we don't. We examine the claimed evidence and find it lacking.
And the Creats behave exactly like Mapes, Rather, and DU - bringing back the same mauled "evidence", refusing to address the mauling it received when it was put forward last time, and demanding the deeper "moral" inplications and their own feelings about Bush/Darwin are more important than science
If you can't measure it, is it science? Or is it conjecture, divine revelation, astrology, tarot cards, superstition and/or opinion?
Really, what would you have scientists do? Come into your church and examine your belief system (which presumably is not restricted to objectively measurable evidence)?
Any objection to leaving the two fields separate and going about our merry ways?
Better be alive or we gonna call the SPCA!
Archaeopteryx and Rodhocetus will do.
Chirp chirp chirp, sing the Cretaceous crickets.
INTREP
Hey, it's just a theory.
If it not possible to verify that evolutionary transitional forms exist because we cannot go back in time to observe and falsify whether they exist or not, then it is not possible to verify that cell structures could not have evolved from more primitive forms because they are irreducibly complex; because we cannot go back in time to observe and falsify that could not have evolved that way.
All arguments refuting evolution also refute ID.
Go knash your teeth and weep.
Thanks for that explanation. I suppose I was trying to say in a subtle way that the issue is really about personal beliefs any way you slice it - and depending on where that personal belief lies, the believer will defend and promote it over the opposing belief...
There is a fundamental distinction between the origin of spacetime and the origin of a hypothesized designer. If we assume that the energy of the big bang was "just there to begin with" and then describe what happened, we arrive at a perfectly valid theory. That's because, contrary to the popular characterization of the theory, the big bang theory doesn't really purport to explain the origin of the universe, merely to explain certain observations, such as the cosmic background radiation and the red shift of distant galaxies. Other ideas, such as certain ideas about quantum fluctuations in spacetime, coiling up of certain spatial dimension, etc. may provide the explanation of the origin of energy.
In contrast, ID does purport to explain the origin of the complexity that we call life. Presumably, to exhibit intelligence, a hypothesized designer must possess the very complexity that said designer is introduced to explain. ID then is tantamount to stating that life exists because some living creature created it. Certainly that's no explanation of the origin of life. Unless ID'ers are willing to identify the designer with an eternal being, ie. God, then ID has an inherent logical problem. If life, including intelligent life, is too complex to have formed naturally, then how did an intelligence exist to do the job?
Actually, all of science is based on this worldview, so why single out evolution? There are in fact scientific theories that have FAR greater anti-religious implications than does evolution. For example, quantum mechanics specifically prohibits an omnipotent God. QM states that it is not possible to observe both the position and the velocity of a particle simultaneously to an arbitrary degree of precision. This is a fundamental feature of physical reality, so presumably even God couldn't do so. Why then is there not more outcry against QM from religious people?
None. Science never embraced PM because the finding was contradictory to what was expected based on evolution. It took several decades to conclusively prove that PM was a fraud, and it was done by evolutionary biologists. Hardly the actions of a group of people who were using a fraud to prop up their theory.
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.