Posted on 02/13/2006 4:31:16 PM PST by MRMEAN
Biologists are beginning to solve the riddles on which intelligent-design advocates have relied
To advocates of intelligent design, the human sperm's tiny tail bears potent evidence that Charles Darwin was wrong--it is, they say, a molecular machine so complex that only God could have produced it.
But biologists now are starting to piece together how such intricate bits of biochemistry evolved. Although the basic research was not meant as a response to intelligent design, it is unraveling the very riddles that proponents said could not be solved.
In contrast, intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories, which many biologists find revealing.
The new insights on evolution at its smallest scale were a major yet little-noticed reason why a federal judge late last year struck down a plan in Dover, Pa., that would have put intelligent design in public school classrooms. The findings the judge cited will provide the ultimate test of ideas about the origins of life, more lasting than court rulings or the politics of the moment.
Most scientists have long rejected intelligent design, or ID, on the grounds that it is a religious proposal not grounded in observation. ID adherents say biochemistry actually supports their view. They argue that many tiny mechanisms--the tails of sperm and bacteria, the immune system, blood clotting--are so elaborate they must have been purposely designed.
Yet biologists have made major strides on each of those phenomena since the first ID books were published in the mid-1990s.
Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish evolved the crucial ability to clot blood. A wave of new research on the evolution of the immune system seemed to stump ID witnesses in the Dover case. And even ...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Again, thanks.
And thank you for a civil discussion.
Scientific study like chemistry, astronomy, geology and biology are good as well (but less important to the masses).
One of the greatest danger that America faces today is that countries like India and China are outperforming us in scientific research and development. Our innovative science and technology has been the making of our wealth and success. The whole anti- and un- scientific attitude of Creationism and ID, is probably as dangerous or more so to American's future as is Communism or Militant Islam. If you love America, you better start loving science.
Important to the masses.
With the astronomical costs of medical care, the masses better learn all they can about their bodies. An informed consumer can get much better and more efficient medical care, saving lots of money in the process.
The masses may not need to know geology, but without it where would we find the oil to fuel those fun SUV's. Forthermore, without knowledge of the stratigraphy and age of evolving marker organisms like foraminifera, geologists would find it almost impossible to locate oil and gas reserves. Either evolution of these marker creatures exists or geologists are finding deposits by divine intervention.
Regarding neo-Darwinism. There have been a number of developments updating Darwin. Gregor Mendel's work on genetics is one. Thought they were contemporary unfortunately Darwin never knew of his work, which he would have found fascinating. The recent discoveries of molecular biology, RNA, DNA, the double helix, etc. raise even more questions as well as answering some raised in this thread.
See my post #21. Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated, is really a fascinating book and either answers or points to answers for some of the more interesting and intelligent questions asked on this thread.
Some people will have a spark go off in their mind and find a calling in pursuing a science degree. Others will be driven in the arts/music realm.
Should all students be required to learn to play an instrument or act in a play? Control of body language and presentation are important skills in business, law, and politics.
In the high schools and colleges I went to we were required to have a well rounded exposure to most significant areas of learning. This included the arts and physical education. There were also requirements for English, foreign language, science, math, and social science subjects.
I do not know what you mean "by being in the image of god". Your post seems to say "in the image of dust and dirt, from whom we were created". Maybe you did not mean this, but this is what I understand from your post.
Looks more like a misplaced clause. How about: in the image of God, from the dust of the earth. Perhaps either way it could be misinterpreted. There has been a lot of discussion about what the image of God means but I have never heard that anyone considers dirt to be the image of God. It could be physical but there is also the thought that it could be that we have a soul and spirit, although I am not sure where the dividing line between those is so don't bother asking. It could be that it's because we have a free will, or that we can reason, or have self awareness and consciousness. There are other non physical ways of being in someone's image.
This has the ring of a theological argument, but is quite divorced from reality--we have bodies. What we are made of is quite clear--water, carbon-compounds, some nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfer, and a sprinkling of iron and other metals.
It would have the ring of a theological argument because it certainly doesn't fall under what science can determine. I mean that science can anaylyze our bodies chemical composition but even then, a dead body would have all those characteristics, too. So what sets a living body apart? What is it that makes that group of chemical compounds think, love, hate, reason, enjoy, laugh, cry,.... ? How is it that chemicals coming together and then somehow becoming life and evolving could produce poetry, music, art, religion, and general awarenss and curiosity of the world around them? So what we are physically is quite clear; what it is that defines us as humans and sets us apart from the rest of the animal life is not from a scientific standpoint. That is not divorced from reality at all. That is reality.
RE:post 163 No, I am no Calvinist. I understand that Calvinism relates more to predeterming a person's salvation than determing every little detail of how the universe is run, although for a God who is able to create a whole universe, it doesn't seem to hard to manage that. It could very well be that some things were set on autopilot but that doesn't mean that God is still not ultimately in control and able to intervene whenever He chooses.
Randomness can be built into a system and is used in various fields regularly, so I suppose in one sense randomness can be predetermined but still be random.
In response to your post #169 that there are so many creation myths: I think that science has been able to disprove some. The ones like the infinitely tall stack of turtles or a gigantic man holding up the world. Since we have obviously been around the earth and seen that no such thing exists, it is not hard to disprove. Therefore you don't have to teach them all as viable alternatives and as equal because they aren't.
Good post. There's also no need in science class to get into the specifics of any creation story. Just allow the discussion of the possibility that a deity is behind the universe and its nature. I don't think that issue should dominate science class, but it shouldn't be prohibited, either.
My *flavor* of creationism? Ha. God doesn't address the issue in the Bible and IMO, it's totally irrelevant to any discussion of His creating our universe.
You're right, you just asked a question and there was no mockery in it. Nevertheless, the mockery of those who see the universe as the handiwork of God exists very clearly in these threads so it's not a matter of even having to look for it. It's being constantly offered up to the creationists and IDers on a regular basis. All one has to do is read. So that question was a question concerning the threads in general.
I know AiG is not highly regarded here by the evolutionists but I was curious whether or not you had ever seen what they had to say about natural selection. I found a link to an article on their site. I, myself, believe that God created the different kinds of animals with a wide variety of genetic material to allow for adaptation. This link provides some interesting thoughts on that issue, if you're interested.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i4/naturalselection.asp
I guess it doesn't. The response was to TW's statement:"I am amused by Bible and Qu'ran anti-evolution faith believers who loudly proclaim, "I am not descended from an ape". Then they accept, proudly, that they were created out of dust or dirt. It seems a queer stance.
He seemed puzzled why we would be willing to accept the concept that we are made from dirt and not willing to accept the concept of descending from apes. (His words, not mine; so I don't get flamed. I agree that we didn't descend from apes.) So the source of *pride* then is whose image we are made in, not what we are made from.
What if God made us in his image, using evolution as the process? What kind of "image" do you have in mind when you think of God. A fierce, kindly old bearded gentleman sitting in the clouds. Many of the "in his image" arguers seem to be arguing from that kind of viewpoint. Presumably you are thinking of something a little less material and a little more elevated. Would it be outside God's power to grant a soul to a creature that, through the evolution of its ancestors, had attained the mental capacity to have one? Why would such a creature, with its God-given soul, not be in God's image?
I don't really have the *grandfatherly* type image of God, because I don't think it's primarily the physical image that's important. In post 207 this came up and you can read my response.
I accept and believe the creation account and it states that animals were created as a group, as it were, (kind of in the same creation act) and man was mentioned as being created at a separate time specifically out of the dust of the earth. So I go with the idea that it was a distinct species, much as there are similarities with primates. For some reason, I never thought of the soul as being connected with the intellect. I guess that's because a persons moral character does not seem to be dependent on how smart he is. There have been some very bright people who have been very evil and from all accounts, the mentally challenged are reputed to have the sweetest dispositions. Intellectually, it makes no sense to be evil; it benefits no one, but it happens anyway. Thanks for the thought provoking questions.
Another pro-Darwin article in a lame-stream fish-wrap. They really are getting hysterical, aren't they?
She isn't trolling, GuitarMan. It's easy in the course of these threads to lose track of who posted a particular thing.
What always amazes me is that many of you assert that Christians can accept evolution, and that evolution isn't anti-Christian. But you're almost immediately undermined by some of your colleagues whose only function around here seems to be mocking Christians.
You don't do that, but you'd think those who do would have enough brain cells to at least not sneer at Christians in the middle of a thread where fellow evolutionists are trying to convince Christians that their faith and evolution aren't incompatible.
We've had cordial discussions in the past. You're an excellent debater and very bright gentleman, but you'll never get your points across until the Christian bashing from others stops.
It's not your fault and it's not your responsibility to regulate other posters here, but I guarantee that newcomers and lurkers around here are turned off to your side of the debate by a lot of the posts in these threads.
Certainly there are abusive posts on both sides, but since this is a conservative forum my guess is that the Christian bashing posts are the biggest turn off. I'm just giving my opinion.
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.