Posted on 12/22/2005 7:15:18 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
WHEN Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he gave a convincing account of how life has evolved over billions of years from simple microbes to the complexity of the Earth's biosphere to the present. But he pointedly left out how life got started.
One might as well speculate about the origin of matter, he quipped. Today scientists have a good idea of how matter originated in the Big Bang, but the origin of life remains shrouded in mystery.
Although Darwin refused to be drawn on how life began, he conjectured in a letter to a friend about "a warm little pond" in which various substances would accumulate.
Driven by the energy of sunlight, these chemicals might become increasingly complex, until a living cell formed spontaneously. Darwin's idle speculation became the basis of the "primordial soup" theory of biogenesis, and was adopted by researchers eager to re-create the crucial steps in the laboratory. But this approach hasn't got very far.
The problem is that even the simplest known organism is incredibly complex. Textbooks vaguely describe the pathway from non-living chemicals to primitive life in terms of some unspecified "molecular self-assembly".
The problem lies with 19th-century thinking, when life was regarded as some sort of magic matter, fostering the belief that it could be cooked up in a test tube if only one knew the recipe.
Today many scientists view the living cell as a type of supercomputer - an information-processing and replicating system of extraordinary fidelity. DNA is a database, and a complex encrypted algorithm converts its instructions into molecular products.
(Excerpt) Read more at smh.com.au ...
Bolding is mine.
Ping
What went "Bang"?
> The problem is that even the simplest known organism is incredibly complex
Not really. Some virii are quite simple. And simpler-still free-floating RNA chains could be definable as organisms.
I'm sorry, but questioning the religion of evolution is not allowed. To do so makes you a big, dumb, stupid poo-poo head.
Faith and evolution coexist. Just remove the word "unguided" from your post.
There are many missing pieces even if we conveniently skip over how life started. But the judge ruled and he's the king.
>>>Judge Jones and the ACLU have said that unguided evolution is the only possibility and competing theories can't be discussed in science class
Competing theories are welcome in the science classroom, but Intelligent Design is not science. It generates no testable hypotheses and otherwise does not conform with the scientific method. This does not mean ID is not true. It simply means that the existence of an intelligent designer is not a question that science can address.
If they can come up with testable hypotheses, ID will be welcomed. If the creationists can come forward with scientific evidence of life coming forth on this planet over a period of 6 days about 6,000 years ago. I'm sure it will be given consideration in the classroom.
PING
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
What's your relativistic inertial reference frame? A perpetual calendar travelling at 99.99999999999% of the speed of light would mark out 6,000 years while 13.4 billion years elapsed here on Earth.
The hand-waving would be funny if it wasn't textbook orthodoxy.
Sad truth is that Mr. Darwin NOW knows the truth. Don't you know he wishes he could set it straight.
I don't want to lay a bum trip on you, but neither is "evolution."
Either they both are, or neither is.
Attempting to use science to validate faith is a fools errand. Faith in G-d allows the mystery of his methods to not line up directly with the observable world. It is mankind's hubris to try to tie down G-d with man-made science (Darwinian or Intelligent Design).
Similiarly, scientists can't (and probably shouldn't try to) use theological argument to disprove G-d.
Let's believe, and let our good works and results speak to the unbelievers. Science and belief can stand apart and salute one another from a respectful distance.
I discuss it in my science class. I discuss why it may be true, but it isn't science.
Science doesn't deal with right vs. wrong or good vs. bad, either. That doesn't mean those concepts don't exist; it just means they aren't part of science.
I didn't learn much, if anything, about "least common denominator" in English class, but that didn't make it a less valid topic in math class.
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.