Theory of intelligent design making its way into Broward textbooks (Florida)

Sun-sentinel.com ^ | December 9, 2005 | Chris Kahn

[mlc9852]

Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.

Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.

[b_sharp]

"Do scientists have a different definition of truth than the rest of the world?"

Do you assume your idea of truth is universal?

Physical truth - I drop a bowling ball on my toe it will transfer much of its energy to my toe.
Spiritual truth - God(s) exists.
Allegoric truth - Necessity knows no law. (Aesop's Fables - The Birdcatcher the Partridge and the Cock)
Logical truth - A != !A

Do you get my point yet?

[dread78645]

> "Maybe scientists some day will be able to prove God exists. They should at least try.

How?

The God-O-meter, you silly.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If the supernatural can affect the outcomes, tests become useless.

I don't see the logic in this. If the supernatural can affect the outcomes but in no way directly manifests itself either by choice or by constraint, why does that negate the value of the tests? Science works with what it has, and if at some point a "supernatural" occurence introduces a phenomenon that heretofore has never been observed, then science is perfectly capable of coming up with a "natural" explanation for that, too.

I would also ask again how it is that science, in generating terms to explain the known universe, has somehow eliminated or changed what in fact may be altogether supernatural in the first place. How do you know science is not simply in the business of ascribing "natural" terms to what is purely the activity of angels?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Although you've denoted various types of truth, the idea of truth transcends them all. I would like to define truth as that which is in accord with objective reality.

[Coyoteman]

I consider world-wide geologic stratification and fossil records to be decent evidence in favor of a worldwide flood, in addition to human records regarding such a thing.

I know you would, but scientists don't.

In fact, at the age given for the flood you are generally dealing with sediments, not geological formations. In the western US where I work we have a lot of sites with good continuous records of sediments, faunal remains, radiocarbon dates and human occupation (mtDNA haplogroups) before, during and after the dates given for the flood. No evidence of the kinds of erosion you would have, nor of the deposition of all of the eroded soils. (Don't bother bringing up geological strata, they are millions of years too old.)

But none of this will matter; judging on your past posts your belief is sturdier than any pesky facts.

[b_sharp]

"These type of mutations were not a help for the theory of evolution. The additional limbs, such as extra wings, did not have parts to supply motive force. They were simply appendages, which actually were a crippling mutation (gee, aren't they all, though), not an advantageous one as required for evolution.

There was no attempt by scientists to create beneficial mutations. It was simply a fact finding mission that as a side benefit proved that small changes in a gene can produce large morphological changes. The researchers knew the mutations they were producing would likely be nonfunctional and probably detrimental in all cases, simply because of the size of the change. They used what James Watson (from Watson and Crick fame) called 'macro-mutations' simply because micro-mutations would result in morphological changes very small and difficult to see. This shows they were not concerned with producing viable morphological changes. Your criticism is unfounded.

"Fruit fly experiments, in fact, due to their utter failure to create an advantageous mutation, actually hurt Darwin's theory.

They did no such thing. They produced what was expected and more. We don't need those particular tests to show us that beneficial mutations occur and can produce morphological differences large enough to warrant the conclusion of speciation. Evolution does not expect speciation to result from saltation events (which is what those large changes are called).

"But, like the fake moths and the finches that didn't really change, they're all ya got. Sorry.

The only thing fake about the moths was that they were pinned to the tree so they could not fly away before pictorial documentation was finished. The part that applies to evolution, the change in colour as produced by selection was not faked in any way.

The finches did change. Size and beak shape were affected by availability of food type. This is part of the original formulation of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE states that all change is the result of variation in inheritable traits that are filtered by selection. Since Darwin's time this definition has been expanded and modified to be more accurate, but adaptation to environment is still part of evolution.

[b_sharp]

Thanks. I had forgotten about Denton.

There are a few at t.o. that have been 'converted' so to speak.

[b_sharp]

Thank you for that note. I'm always a bit concerned that my ideas are not being communicated well and are thus not useful. This will encourage me, at least, to continue.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . you are generally dealing with sediments, not geological formations.

As I understand it, stratification is found on a global scale, and that stratification is chiefly observed by those who indulge geological sciences. Some of it is doubtless due to the laws of physics at the time the planet was formed. If there was a world-wide flood one would expect the world to be replete with examples of mixed up remains of biological entities, much as is found in the fossil record and other bone deposits denoting a catastrophic occurence. It generally takes water and sedimentation to make a fossil, does it not?

Not all scientists dismiss a world-wide deluge as quickly as you. Not all scientists begin with an atheistic set of ground rules. The evidence is decent for accepting a world-wide deluge at some point in the planet's history.

[b_sharp]

"The God-O-meter, you silly.

I was wondering what that device sitting in the corner on top of the old broken spectrometer was. I had no idea.

[Coyoteman]

The evidence is decent for accepting a world-wide deluge at some point in the planet's history.

The evidence borders on the non-existent at the time given by the biblical scholars.

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

For the lurkers, here is a good scientific examination of the flood claims:

Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak

[mlc9852]

If they found Noah's ark, would you believe in a world-wide flood?

[andysandmikesmom]

I do encourage you to continue...you along with many others, have helped me very much...I have a very meager understanding of science and not ashamed to admit as much...so I do appreciate anything of good scientific study, which helps me, and I am sure helps many others, posters and lurkers alike..

[mlc9852]

Belief in God but not the Bible.

[mlc9852]

No

[Fester Chugabrew]

I am speaking from the general facts of global stratification and a global fossil record. I am not speaking to particular dates and times. These two prominent records are decent evidence for a world-wide flood.

[mlc9852]

But the finches were still finches.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"If they don't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead."

Noah's Ark? That could easily be explained as a geographic formation that has the appearance of design, but could not possibly be Noah's Ark. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained as occuring by natural processes.

[andysandmikesmom]

I feel you are wrong......many do claim belief in God, belief in the Bible, and also a belief in evolution...now you may not agree with someone elses interpretation of the Bible, but they on the other hand dont agree with your particular interpretation....

Which fairly well explains why there are so many different Christian religions, as well as different views on the compatibility of the Bible, with evolution...

[Coyoteman]

If they found Noah's ark, would you believe in a world-wide flood?

If you found an ark that would be hard data. They would have to figure out the likely dates and compare manufacturing techniques, to see if more information could be derived. The location would be important too; top of a mountain would be different than bottom of a river.

What I am saying is I would look at and evaluate evidence. I might accept the ark theory, if it could be documented, that this pile of wood was the ark, but I do not accept "belief" as a part of the scientific process. As one of our wise men said, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

Secondly, it is a long way between finding an ark, or even the ark, to the overturning of 99.9% of geology, archaeology and several other disciplines.

I have told several people on these threads that I do archaeology, and I routinely deal with the time period posited for the flood. We have lots of evidence of habitation, culture change, population movements, even climate change, but no evidence for a flood on the scale you believe in.