Education panel stalls curriculum vote for creationism appeal [S. Carolina, another Kansas?]

MyrtleBeachOnline ^ | 14 December 2005 | Staff

[Sun]

"..tell a child he is the accidental offspring of an ape, and he will act like an ape."

I love reading the posts of ID proponents. They always nail it.

[thomaswest]

You wrote: " I am often very confused as to why otherwise intelligent people can believe that this big, beautiful and very complex world could have happened by CHANCE."

Reply:
You seem to have an odd view. If God has pre-determined everything, then there is no point is discussion--everything is pre-set by the Almighty. Everybody to be converted is already known to God. You can see this is a nutsy idea.

If there is free will, then there is chance.

IDists have a particular dislike for randomness, because they wish to think that everything is directed by some super-natural deity. Exactly how stars and planets coalesce from circulating clouds of matter is pretty close to a random series of events.

The dislike for randomness is curious. In fact, every individual is a product of at least quasi-random events. Who we meet and have children with. And from basic facts of sexual reproduction itself, every ovum has a slightly different DNA arising from meiosis, and likewise every sperm. Granted that some parts of the divided-in-two chromosomes carry genetic information from the parent, but it is random which ones happen to combine. There is increasing evidence for a degree of randomness, chance as to the chemical environment in the womb, which appears to have influence on the degrees of femaleness and maleness in the offspring.

There are, thus, a large number of random/chance events that are part of the heritage of every individual. (Unless, of course, one takes the view that each egg and sperm were individually directed by God. Nobody in biology would accept this, but as a matter of faith, it cannot be disproved.)

Over the long course of history, there has been quasi-randomness in which individuals get wiped out by natural disasters, from impacting asteroids to which succumb to disease. Chance has always played a role in life and always will.

From the above, what is your problem with CHANCE?

[RunningWolf]

I may use the strawman term incorrectly. But well lets just start with your post here and the one to Sun at #391.

If you subtract out all of your own rhetoric referring too, labeling as, inferring things about, creationists, fundamentalists, references to creation stories, you see where I am going here.

Take all of that out and what is there? Lets just do a simple text subtraction, take all of that out and what is there? You have made my point to some degree.

I say in true intellectual honesty, we all need to take a step back and look anew at this theory.

And to the evolutionism and its prognosticators TOE actually not a theory but a fact, it is only how it went down that is (is a package of morphing) theories to them.

And I do not want to be to harsh with them because of several reasons.

But what goes on in (the dynamics/static nature of posting to) these threads must be separated somewhat because it can be a polarizing thing

Wolf

[Dimensio]

I love reading the posts of ID proponents. They always nail it.

Indeed. They never fail to present logical fallacy after logical fallacy. In this case, you are applauding the logical fallacy of appealing to consequence.

[thomaswest]

You wrote: "My ABS breaking family..."

Reply: I am sorry if your family is breaking up. This is always difficult, and I hope you find another family you can feel a belonging to.

Perhaps you meant "braking"? Posted: "defining the language in a way that allows them to frame the debate."

Reply: If 'intelligent designerists' can't understand the English language and do not understand the difference between breaking and braking, then why should we accept IDists having anything of value in discussions about talking snakes or a flood in an old book?

Garbage language is easy: quoting you: "the ghostly shimmer of the fossil record gives us the reality of the way things work, and they proceed by design, intelligence, and not accident."

This makes just the same amount of sense as "irreducible specified complexity" and "It's a wet bird that flies by night."

[thomaswest]

You wrote: "And to the evolutionism and its prognosticators TOE actually not a theory but a fact, it is only how it went down that is (is a package of morphing) theories to them."

Reply:
Ah, this clarifies everything. “The adventitious application of plausibility of a Weltanschauung of reality invokes a desideratum of theological presumptions.”

I hope this makes my view clearer to you. "Specified irreducible complexity" makes just the same sense to me.

[kms61]

The ID'ers seem to be pointedly avoiding replying to your post...

[samtheman]

That's ok. I don't really want to spend my time arguing about this issue. Just wanted to make a point for those who feel like getting it.

[Louis Foxwell]

One of the major obstacles to a reasonable conversation vis a vis ID and Evo science is the baskets full of red herrings thrown rotting and putrid by both sides. Your post is obviously as full of such rank argument as mine. If there is a difference it is that mine was an attempt at humor. Yours, if I am reading correctly, is heartfelt.
Of course, there is no particular requirement that reason prevail or that the two sides engage in a meaningful conversation. There is ample motivation on both sides to keep warring parties, well, warring.
I would recommend that you struggle to get past the "ID is not science" and "ID is about justifying an arbitrary God." I was also particularly smitten with the science is sex premise. My take is that sex proves ID in that it is inconceivable under the rubric of evolution.
ID, by my understanding, does not necessitate God, theism or the like. It is merely an admission that the fundamentals of evo science are predicated upon reason and natural design. Surely all scientific studies assume logic and the coherence of data. This is pretty simple and basic.
My sense, then, is that the evo hysteria over ID is aimed not at the core of the ID argument but at the specter of God people having a say in the perambulations of science, horrors.

[TheWormster]

The simple facts of the matter are as follows: Evolutionary biology fits the definition of science. ID/creationism does not. Claiming the opposite is a lie.
Your snarly rationale defines yourself as a liar. Thus you shall be known.

Ad hominem is perfectly clear to me, as it clearly is not to you.

---

So, knowing the definition of science makes one snarly? Interesting again.
And as a point of interest, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy wherein you attack the person, thus hoping to refute the argument. For example, "He smells of poo, therefore his argument is wrong". That is most obviously not a tactic I have used.

[TheWormster]

Evo is a science THEORY - guesses.

--

In science, theory is not a synonym for guess.

--

So what's it doing in a science class?

---

ALL of science is theory. The very nature of science demands that ideas be tentative, but that does not mean they are guesses. General relativity is a THEORY, should we not teach that?

--
I don't care where they teach evo and ID, but they need to be taught side by side, so students can judge for themselves.

--

Really? Should they also teach the idea that the universe was formed from the semen of an ancient deity? What about the idea that the uuniverse was created last Thursday and just LOOKS older?
All of those ideas are fine to teach if you want, but none of them are science and have no place in science classes.

--
I am often very confused as to why otherwise intelligent people can believe that this big, beautiful and very complex world could have happened by CHANCE.

--

Well, science doesnt care much about how confused you are. Your lack of understanding does not change much.

[farmer18th]

Actually, there is no theory that purports to explain the mere presence of life in this universe, uninhabitable or not.

So the theory of evolution doesn't take us from simple elements up to complex proteins? That's a relief.

Now you're just lying. The mechanisms of evolution have, in fact, been observed and you have been told as much before.

So you equate the creation of an organism outside the parent mating community as the same thing as an observed and recorded chronical of fish mutating into man? You have so much faith in your extrapolation you equate it with observed confirmation. Are you aware of the unquestioned leap you have made?

Fortunately, science is about actual empirical observations, not just "what seems to you".

So you have empiraccly observed the putative chain of events of dinosaur morphing inter-generationally into blue bird? You have this on tape, man? If not, you are a fable-monger, just like the creationists you detest.

I'll take observed reality over "ancient texts" any day.

That much is clear. What you might not realize is that you dismiss, in such case, the empircal observations of sentient human beings, in favor of an extrapolation based on dried mud. That just doesn't seem very scientific to me.

[Louis Foxwell]

LOL
Your denegration of ID proponents as liars smells of poo. Therefor your argument is wrong.
Snarly is as snarly does.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to your engaging post and sidebar!

One of the major obstacles to a reasonable conversation vis a vis ID and Evo science is the baskets full of red herrings thrown rotting and putrid by both sides. Your post is obviously as full of such rank argument as mine. If there is a difference it is that mine was an attempt at humor. Yours, if I am reading correctly, is heartfelt.

I went back to the subject post 390 and came to the same conclusion, i.e. thomaswest was not speaking tongue-in-cheek.

IMHO, it is very difficult for some to separate the Intelligent Design hypothesis from the Intelligent Design movement. And conversely, it is very difficult for some to separate the methodological naturalism of science from the metaphysical naturalism of atheists.

The objective of the Intelligent Design movement is to remove methodological naturalism as a presupposition of science. It has no Holy writ, no articles of faith, no doctrine – it is not religion.

The Intelligent Design hypothesis simply says “that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Because it refers to “certain features” and not “all features” it is not a replacement for evolution theory.

The “intelligent cause” can be either a phenomenon (intelligence as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence) or an agent (God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.).

For instance, if it is shown that selection of mates is the best explanation for “certain features” in life, then the intelligent design hypothesis is vindicated.

Like evolution theory, the intelligent design hypothesis is not a theory of origins. And just like it is inappropriate to label the theory of evolution as abiogenesis, it is inappropriate to label the intelligent design hypothesis as biogenesis.

Truly, we ought to be much more judicial on the forum and discuss both the ID hypothesis and evolution theory without all the angst over metaphysics.

My sense, then, is that the evo hysteria over ID is aimed not at the core of the ID argument but at the specter of God people having a say in the perambulations of science, horrors.

Indeed. Or even worse, those who look to science (methodological naturalism) as justification for their metaphysical naturalism may feel threatened by the hypothesis per se. This is the converse of young earth creationists feeling threatened by computations of the age of the universe.

Sigh…

[unlearner]

Right. They can't all be correct.

You are responsible for one person's beliefs and behavior - your own.

I have stated I have empirical evidence of God's existence. That is not the same thing as science. Empirical evidence is part of science, but not the whole. Science also cannot answer some questions. Epistemology encompasses more than science. Science itself is based on philosophy.

So I can attest to the truth of what I am saying and base what I am saying on my own experiences. I can also explain my reasons for accepting the experiences of others as true (on the basis of rational faith).

A person can accept or reject what I say. What a person personally experiences is something only they can attest to. If other's disagree in their religious beliefs I may examine my own based on evidence I consider truthful and accurate. I may also choose to reject their claims if I do not find them credible.

I advocated embracing the message of Christ on the basis of His death and resurrection being substantiated both historically and experientially. I do not believe in coercing or badgering people into embracing my faith. If they did, it would not be faith anyway.

Jesus said that if anyone is willing to do the will of the God, he will know the teachings of Jesus are from God. (John 7:17)

[Dimensio]

So the theory of evolution doesn't take us from simple elements up to complex proteins?

Never has. It's only been about existing reproducing life forms. Darwin himself suggested that the very first life forms may have been placed by a "Creator".

So you equate the creation of an organism outside the parent mating community as the same thing as an observed and recorded chronical of fish mutating into man?

Fish don't "mutate" into humans, at least not in a single generation. The mechanism by which an organism that might be termed "fish" could, through a chain of descendents, eventually become "human" is in fact an observable mechanism as it occurs from generation to generation.

[farmer18th]

So the theory of evolution doesn't take us from simple elements up to complex proteins? Never has. It's only been about existing reproducing life forms. Darwin himself suggested that the very first life forms may have been placed by a "Creator".

All the more reason to include traditional creationism in the science curriculum, if the great expositor of evolution himself finds his theory incapable of defining origins. It's interesting that anthropologists wouldn't rule out cave drawings as a data source for studying early civilization, but contemporary evolutionists won't consider ancient texts, far more continously preserved, as a credible story of creation. Data is data.

Me: So you equate the creation of an organism outside the parent mating community as the same thing as an observed and recorded chronical of fish mutating into man? You: Fish don't "mutate" into humans, at least not in a single generation.

You need to read a little more carefully. I wrote "an observed and recorded chronical," meaning a sequence that takes place over the amount of time you would propose necessary for such a genetic migration to take place. No evolutionist has observed such a migration. It would be like saying "I have observed a rap artist accidentally change his tune slightly, and therefore, it is reasonable to assume successive tonal accidents will create something like Beethoven's ninth symphony." That is such a blind stretch, it's surprising to hear scientists taking it seriously.

[Sun]

Just because scientists CONVENIENTLY have their own dictionary, and don't call theories, guesses, does not mean that theories are not guesses.

If you combine theory with logic, like the gravity theory, you might win me over. With the gravity theory, my logic tells me that when I drop my dish, it falls to the floor. So I believe it.

However, if scientists get together and decide to call something a theory, based on out-dated "evidence," I don't believe it, especially when it is not backed with logic. Evolution is nothing but dogma.

To believe this magnificent world of ours could have happened purely by chance is nothing but blind faith.

[Sun]

"Evolutionists need the straw-man of ID or fundamentalists.

For TOE fails when an independent thinker takes an impartial objective look at the whole package of TOE theories, or a close look at each theory in its minutia.

Wolf"

The evos are always misrepresenting the position of ID.

There is absolutely no evidence that one species has ever changed into another. In fact, there is no evidence for any of the evo THEORIES. That's why they are called scientific THEORIES, not scientific FACTS.

thomaswest, I think you either need more sleep, or .....

One of your posts to me was a put-down ATTEMPT, and another claimed that I said my family was breaking up?? Have you been drinking, sir?? I never said such a thing, and my family is VERY strong and happy.

Your posts are not worth my time.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Just because scientists CONVENIENTLY have their own dictionary, and don't call theories, guesses, does not mean that theories are not guesses."

Just because you put your hands over your ears and close your eyes and start yelling "It's not true! It's not true!", doesn't mean you are right. Scientific theories are not guesses. Only a postmodernist would so willfully and maliciously distort the definition of words like that.


"With the gravity theory, my logic tells me that when I drop my dish, it falls to the floor. So I believe it. "

That is not the Theory of Relativity. People knew that things fell when dropped for thousands of years. Relativity says much, MUCH more than that.

"To believe this magnificent world of ours could have happened purely by chance is nothing but blind faith. "

Luckily, no evolutionist believes that evolution is random. Natural selection is an anti-random process.