Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
Hows this?
Don't teach gospel as science; and don't teach science as gospel.
Fooled me. I thought it was the result of gene sequencing.
Get it straight in your mind: the chart I posted is **Fact**.
It is also a *Fact* that there are other charts for other ERVs.
It is also a *Fact* that **all** of these charts have **exactly** the same shape.
From these results we can make a few reasonable hypotheses:
1) If an ERV is in the same spot in the genome of any species of New World monkey and Old World monkey, it will be in the corresponding spot in the genome of all apes, including ourselves.
2) If one is in the same spot in the genome of an orangutan and a gibbon, two Asian apes, it will also be in the genome of all African apes, including ourselves.
(And many other hypotheses of the same form)
There has never been an observation that contradicted these hypotheses. So I'd say they're pretty well-supported.
The obvious theory to explain these hypotheses is that the chart is in fact phylogenetic tree.
This certainly satisfies Occam's Razor.
The claim that the observed regularities can be explained as designed-in to deal with common problems faced by the apes is contradicted by 2) - one would think that there would be things that Asian apes have to deal with that aren't in Africa.
NEW Ichneumon's Discussion of Peppered Moths. FreeRepublic post (#438).
I was taught about all those things in high-school science -- along with the ways the scientific method was used to debunk them. It didn't take a lot of class time; and it helped us understand why the scientific method is so important.
You had a good teacher.
The problem we have now is that folks want ID taught not as an example of almost-science or not-science, but as "truth" (it is a belief, not science).
I think it is the implementation of theistic science, designed to end materialistic science.
Read the The Wedge Strategy and tell me if you don't see this as the impetus behind the current ID movement in the US.
I rejoice in your freedom.
You need to hear Bocelli with Sarah Brightman will bring a smile to your jaded ears
You say there's no evidence for evolution, Ichy provides a link. You won't read it, then you show up on the next thread saying there's no evidence.
Ichy posts it on the thread so you don't have to load the link, then you claim he's spamming the thread.
Why don't you just give us your latest explanation of the fossil record? And please skip the cement flood that encased the fossils in rocks like someone tried to tell me the other day. There's no evidence for that.
And it did. Multiple followup studies have confirmed this, not only in England but elsewhere. *And* when sooty pollution was reduced, lightening surfaces, the moth populations shifted back towards the light polymorphism. Evolution in action.
It was a fraud, because the moths don't rest on tree trunks, the primary assertion for the population shift.
Wow, *two* lies in one sentence! Unfortunately, you'll have to try harder than that if you want to beat the creationist record. Your first lie is that it was a "fraud". It was not. The only fraud here is your lies about the studies. Your second lie is that the "primary assertion" of any study was that moths "rest on tree trunks". They do, in case you were wondering, but no study asserted that "the primary" disruption to the moths' camouflage necessarily involved "tree trunks" as opposed to any other surface. The only people fixated on tree trunks are the creationists.
Yet, it is taught to this day as a case study of natural selection at work in a species.
Because it remains valid, despite lies told about it by creationists.
Not that you care but first time I heard that was on a Tom Rush album.
-Who do you love-
I agree with what you're saying in this message. I believe I pinged you because you expressed (strong but unspecified) agreement with a message in which phelanw asserted that: "Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints." (Emphasis added.)
The pretense that there is always an opposing view worthy (on merit) of heuristic attention can only be maintained by some sort of intellectual relativism. The actual case is that sometimes there is a (or are multiple) viable and worthy opposing view(s), and sometimes there isn't/aren't. Intellectual honesty and academic integrity do not permit us to pretend (lie) to learners about the actual state of affairs.
Oh I care, I care. I need to hear it- useda love Tom Rush (and might have heard it before.)
"Gravity isn't exactly very well-understood, unlike evolution."
And yet, you've only been taught one theory.
Not long ago Newton's law of gravitation was considered proven. Even then, students were also taught about Aristotle's theory as a counter-example.
Is the matter now settled? Perhaps not -- maybe the holographic principle will show it's all an illusion. We should always be open to new possibilities.
You made the statement, you should verify it. Or is that how you do science? Publish an article and challenge anyone to prove you wrong? Last I saw, any good scientific paper is referenced.
I don't post them to "overwhelm" anyone, I post them to correct the overwhelming flood of lies and disinformation that "you and others" post in misguided attempts to attack biology.
prove
Science does not deal in "proof". Neither does anything else in the real world. But it does rigorously demonstrate the evidence which validates, in multiple cross-confirming ways, and in tens of thousands of ways, large and small, the conclusions of evolutionary biology.
that we all originated naturalistically and could not have resulted from creation?
Define "resulted from creation". In any case, most people have no problem accepting the validity of naturalistic processes originating [fill in the blank], *and* the possibility that those processes were set in motion by some kind of act of creation. It's not either/or.
And, since you state that 12 transistional forms have been found are you disagreeing with evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz of Pitt U when he suggests that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet, but argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors--like extreme heat, cold, or crowding from years earlier? (Recently posted, I think.) Or are we just in for another round of revision of your biology?
No, I'm not, because I understand what he's saying, unlike yourself. It is not in contradiction to existing models of Darwinian evolution. Hint: As Stephen Gould correctly points out, "sudden" change at one time scale translates to gradual change when viewed across longer periods of time. And no, Schwartz is not suggesting that "poof", a reptile egg hatched out a bird, or that an ape gave birth to a modern human. That's *not* the kind of "sudden change" he's talking about.
Stop grasping at every new hypothesis in the desperate hope that it "overturns" everything that came previously. It's certainly not true of Schwartz's paper, even if it turns out to hold water, which is rather questionable at this point.
And (I can't resist), "May the Schwartz be with you."
I will never apologize to you for anything.
Your lack of honor is duly noted, as is your habit of flinging false slander without a hint of shame.
You think you have all the answers
No, just a lot more of the answers than those who foolishly attempt to argue against subjects they don't know anything about.
and those who disagree are stupid and ignorant.
Only the ones who are being stupid and/or ignorant about it.
I also point out when people are being dishonest, telling lies, and have no shame about it. Such as yourself, as I have documented numerous times.
I'm really not in a position to judge what the underlying motives, or strategies are. I've been trying to stay out of the substantive debate & confine myself to discussing teaching strategies and the scientific method.
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.