Posted on 10/09/2005 11:50:56 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"How do you figure that? "
It allows him to imply that those of us who do separate the two are nonthinking humans.
Well, that depends entirely on which IDer you talk to...
YEC INTREP
Ahhhhhhh ... you were quoting Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics University of North Carolina at Wilmington and attributing them to me throughout. LOL
It's not my fault you so poorly formatted your post that it wasn't apparent that you were parroting someone else instead of writing your own words. The links at the end appeared to be citations for the final quotes.
Next time, try indenting the material or provide an introductory line if you want to make it obvious that it's not your own ramblings.
But I'm curious: are you trying to say that the material you chose to post *doesn't* contain views you actually agree with? And you're still responsible for their appearing here, and are responsible for any errors it contains. You don't get a pass just because you're using someone else as a "guest speaker" in your post, when you chose to post it.
Are you going to attempt to debunk my theory on the evolution of makeup AGAIN??? Hahahaha
No, since *that's* something I can agree with... (It is amazing what a difference it makes, isn't it?)
I suspect it's more along the lines of the old, "thinking human beings use intelligence, therefore intelligence is part of everything we do, including study biology, therefore intelligent design is involved, etc."
Hmm, let me guess...
Y)oung-
E)arth
Cr)eationism
I)s
N)ot
T)he
R)eally
E)nlightened
P)osition?
Okay, I give up. What *does* that mean? I've seen it posted a lot.
This is also important becasue Gov. Bush is trying to sell Florida as a place to do advanced research. There has been a lot of investment in post-secondary education along these lines because the governor knows that those degrees bring businesses that pay high salaries compared to those of the employees in the citrus or tourism industries. Working in FL in such a sector, one of the difficulties in attracting high tech workers is the low performance of schools relative to the rest of the country. If ID is brough in, even fewer scientists are going to want to raise their families in this state. On the other hand, there is a strong CHristian base to the Republican party here and they are vocal on such issues. It's a real political balancing act so it's no wonder Jeb gave the answers he did.
What I'm addressing is that the ideas work together. If you just refuse to recognize the possibilty of ID and are an atheist...just say so.
You "scientific" people are a hoot, no kidding.
Study another science. Mathematics. Tell me the mathematic probability of what you all stand for...talk about faith...hah.
All I'm saying is ID and Evolution can certainly go hand and hand...if you deny a Creator, well then tell me, be honest. If you think that when you die, you are gone from history forever, why bother to put forth your ideas?
He is not separated from science...it seems you want science separated from Him. Not possible.
FReegards,
FMCDH(BITS)
Simple answer: FCAT and standards. The required material is established by the State Board of Education - also a product of the Governor's A+ program.
(I think I'm right, eh LiteKeeper?)FMCDH(BITS)
This is the qoute that really tells the story:
"University science professors and a national group that had concerns about how science curriculum was rewritten in Minnesota say it's ironic that Florida would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to woo The Scripps Research Institute to the state, yet hire a top educator who does not accept Darwinian evolution — something Scripps scientists say they prove every day in their experiments.
"It's inconsistent," said Wesley Elsberry, information project director for the National Center for Science Education and a critic of Yecke. "Essentially, if a creationist curriculum passed, the people graduating from Florida public high schools will be at a disadvantage to get into colleges and into programs that would help them get jobs at Scripps."
And very true. The Florida education system would be incapable of producing graduates who could work for one of the shining stars in the state's research and development efforts!
"What people object to is the teaching of an atheistic world view in the guise of science." Moorad Alexanian Theoretical Physicist / Professor of Physics University of North Carolina Wilmington http://origins.swau.edu/who/moorad/cmoorad98.html
"If you ever find anyone actually doing that, feel free to let me know and I'll object to it too. But don't try to pretend that that's what the anti-evolution crusaders are actually objecting to. They're objecting to the teaching of the *science* itself." ~ Ichneumon
If you want to know what he's referring to, you should ask him, not me - since he's the one who said it. LOL
In the meantime a quick search of google turned up this tip-of-the-iceberg gem (excerpts):
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl22.htm
"...It is almost as though biology consists of two very different sciences, a reductionist science that seeks to emulate chemistry or physics (113), and a much more philosophical science that is interested as much in the subtleties of history as it is in rigors of the more exact physical sciences (114). This is not to say that we will not be learning real science in Biology 114, but instead that the general approach of learning that we will employ in Biology 114 will be different from that of Biology 113. In Biology 113, basically, you sought to understand how a cell works. Here we will deal with such squishy topics as why it is the cells that we observe exist at all. .."
"Darwinian thinking is not confined to biology; it anchors a naturalistic understanding of all complex order, even including our own intelligence. Hence today, Darwinism is central to a thoroughly naturalistic picture of the world."
Ultimately, if we go back far enough in time, all living (i.e., extant) species may be collapsed into a single, universal ancestral species (which in all likelihood was a bacterium)
(Anonymous, Iconoclast of the Century. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Time December 31, 1999, p. 186) “Darwinism remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever promulgated. There is hardly an element of humanity – not capitalism, not gender relations, certainly not biology – that can be fully understood without its help."
"Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated.
But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today.
Evidence [not the same as "proof"] for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study. These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record." (Talk.Origins)]
(19) Extant populations
(a) Evolutionary change is easily observed in extant (i.e., currently existing) populations as changes in genotypes that occur over time
(b) The hard part is attributing that change to natural selection
(c) Your text examines one such attempt on pp. 437-438 (Campbell & Reece, 2002) [snip]
"That's fine for philosophy and theology class. Students looking for a career in science need to be studying science without the philosophical and theological baggage." ~ shuckmaster
Jeb Bush isn't stupid. By now he's working on how to undo the flap he created. I suspect he'll work it out.
Correct, but not in the way you mean.
It takes as much faith as "creationism".
Utterly, completely, dead wrong, from top to bottom.
By an interesting coincidence, I wrote a post on this topic just yesterday. Read it and see if the little light comes on: Post #417 in another thread.
You might also benefit from reading this post on how science demonstrates the truth of its propositions without achieving "proof" in a mathematical sense.
Also check out the essay, "Do You Believe in Evolution?".
And: An Introduction to Science.
What I'm addressing is that the ideas work together.
In what way?
If you just refuse to recognize the possibilty of ID and are an atheist...just say so.
I won't say that, because it's not true. Of course there's the possibility. The point, however -- and you obviously didn't bother to read the linked post, because it said this quite clearly -- is that the problem isn't in the *concept* of ID, it's in the *practice* of it. As ID stands today, it's just pseudoscience and propaganda, *pretending* to be a science.
You "scientific" people are a hoot, no kidding.
Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."
Study another science. Mathematics.
Been there, done that.
Tell me the mathematic probability of what you all stand for...talk about faith...hah.
Try to remain coherent. You're not making any sense here. If *you* think you have any probability calculatinos which somehow demonstrate a flaw in evolutionary biology, feel free to present it.
All I'm saying is ID and Evolution can certainly go hand and hand...if you deny a Creator, well then tell me, be honest.
I deny that anyone has put forth any compelling evidence that some intelligence designed some part of life on Earth. And until they do, "ID" isn't a science, it's a postulate.
If you think that when you die, you are gone from history forever, why bother to put forth your ideas?
The same (ridiculously shortsighted) question could be put to anyone who believes in "life after death". Why do anything in this life that isn't strictly necessary for getting to the next one?
Why put forth my ideas? Because I care about improving this life, for myself, for others, and for those who will be born long after I'm dead. Because by putting forth my ideas, I'm forced to examine them and think them through., and I get feedback which can add to them, or point out flaws I hadn't realized.
You know, all the obvious reasons.
He is not separated from science...it seems you want science separated from Him. Not possible.
Who? And what makes you think I want to separate anyone from science?
Or more accurately, "ID" is testable, but "supernatural ID" isn't, and neither is "unspecified ID".
We *can* test for for the intervention of intelligence in such things as coded messages, whether a particular pathogen is naturally occurring or engineered as a weapon, etc.
But the IDers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to pretend that "ID" is a science without allowing anyone to pin down anything about the identity, motives, or methods of the hypothetical creator. This is what I refer to as "unspecified ID" above. And you can't test for the products of design if you refuse to make any conclusions whatsoever about the design goals or methods. The *reason* they don't want to be pinned down is twofold: 1) They think it's God, but don't want to be outed as creationists, and 2) whenever ID *has* made a testable (i.e. falsifiable) proposition, it has been quickly falsified.
The creationists, on the other hand, admit that God is their idea of a creator, but this puts them into the "Supernatural ID" category, and that's just flat-out impossible to test for, because of when "anything's possible", nothing can be tested for or against. You found X? Maybe the creator *wanted* it there. Or maybe he had nothing to do with it and it's a natural occurrence. You didn't find Y? Maybe the creator didn't wnat it there. Or maybe it's not there just by chance. Or maybe it's there and the creator is hiding it for his "mysterious ways" reason. NO observation, of any sort, could decide anything for or against the proposition of a supernatural designer.
I am an atheist and I am willing to accept that life on Earth originated elsewhere. I am not willing to accept that a God created earth and life as stated in the bible without evidence that this God exists and that we understand his/her/its motivations and capabilities.
The reason I do not accept ID as it stands, is its lack of a method to successfully differentiate design from nature. The methods so far advertised make the assumption that nature could not accomplish the complexity nature exhibits and use that assumption to prove the point. Those same methods provide for false positives and false negatives. There is no way this can be considered scientifically stringent, therefore ID is not science.
Develop ID into a science with a methodology that can differentiate between design and nature or prove that nature does not produce complexity and the designer would not emulate nature, and ID may be worth looking at.
Only to the extent that the design is humanesque in appearance. We recognize design in terms of our own experience, we would not necessarily be able to recognize design that was not human-like.
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.