I get 3 and 6. That's pretty complex, right? ;)
Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:04 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Evolution bill stirs debate on origin of life, religion
TIM TALLEY
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY - While other states are backing away from teaching alternatives to evolution, the Oklahoma House passed a bill Thursday encouraging schools to expose students to alternative views about the origin of life.
The measure, passed on a 77-10 vote, gives teachers the right to teach "the full range of scientific views on the biological or chemical origins of life." The measure stops short of requiring the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside the theory of evolution in science classes.
Its author, Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said evolution is taught in some classrooms as if it were scientific fact although the theory, developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, is neither observable, repeatable or testable and is not solid science.
"They are getting a one-sided view of evolution," said Kern, a former teacher. "Let's teach good, honest science."
Critics said the lessons would be more appropriate in religion or philosophy classes than in science class. They said the measure would take control from local school boards on developing lesson plans and violates the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of specific religious views.
"I think we're about to open a slippery slope here," said Rep. Danny Morgan, D-Prague. In December, a federal judge blocked attempts to teach intelligent design in high school biology classes in Dover, Pa.
"We're going to be right back in the courthouse," Morgan said.
Kern said her bill does not promote a particular religious point of view but promotes critical thinking by students by exposing them to all sides of a scientific debate.
"This bill is not about a belief in God. It is not about religion. It is about science," Kern said. "I'm not asking for Sunday school to be in a science class."
Evolution teaches that all organisms are connected by genealogy and have changed through time through several processes, including natural selection.
Intelligent design teaches that life is so well-ordered that it must have been created by a higher power. Critics argue that the theory is merely repackaged creationism, which teaches that the Earth and all life were created by God.
Supporters said exposing students to different viewpoints will create lively classroom debate.
"Do you think you come from a monkeyman?" said Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore. "Did we come from slimy algae 4.5 billion years ago or are we a unique creation of God? I think it's going to be exciting for students to discuss these issues."
Opponents said alternative theories on the origin of life are a matter of faith, not science. "God truly is the creator of heaven and Earth, but I can't prove that," said Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City.
The bill now goes to the state Senate, where similar legislation has been defeated in the past.
On Tuesday, lawmakers in Utah defeated a bill requiring public school students be told that evolution is not empirically proven. In Ohio, school curriculum is undergoing change following the Pennsylvania ruling that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Kansas has adopted language to encourage students to explore arguments against evolution, but the standards have not been tied to any lesson plans or statewide testing.
Interesting assertion. discuss.
You should try telling that to a Mathematician. My point was not that it could not be solved because it hasn't been solved, but that the very nature of probability requires a narrowing of the search space -- it is mathematically required. See the No Free Lunch theorems, or, more specifically tuned to this discussion, Dembski's views on the subject.
"So there must have been systematic studies, then, correlating birthdate with destiny?"
I don't know if there have, but that is not the astrology I was specifically referring to. However, such a study would in fact be a scientific study, but I am very sure that it would have not have a confirming result.
"No one claimed it was a priori."
Then you haven't been reading the threads.
"They need to be answered to integrate ID with the rest of science. We don't explain things in a vacuum. A biological theory, however well it explains life, cannot violate the laws of physics."
So you are making a priori judgments now :)
Anyway, there is no reason that they would have to violate the laws of physics. Do you think that humans may someday figure out how to make life? Would that require violating the laws of physics? Would that not also have an intelligent cause? Why, then, if we don't think that such things would violate the laws of physics, would we assume that the original designer (or designers) had to do so?
Invention is not a narrowing of the search space, and invention is among the observed activities of living things.
You assume that mathmatics can define the limits of what is possible, but this is simply not true.
As for SETI, they misunderstand what complex specified information is.
"Complex" refers to the unlikelihood of it happening, while "specified" refers to it matching a pattern.
The signals that SETI are looking for are complex and specified by those exact requirements. They are "complex" because they are looking for narrow-band signals, quite unlike what is known to be generated from space. They are "specified" in that it is a regular pattern they are looking for.
The interviewee tries to weasel out of it using the term "artificiality", which is really just a way of saying "complex specified information" by another route. Either the interviewee didn't understand ID, or else he was intentionally being weasily.
The rest of it is the "bad design" argument, which has been proven over and over to simply be an argument from ignorance.
"Invention is not a narrowing of the search space, and invention is among the observed activities of living things."
You are making my point for me. Intelligent causation is completely distinct from material causation, and thus doesn't have to be limitted by material concerns in all respects. Unfortunately, without Intelligent Design, there is no way of accounting for the unique aspects of intelligent agency.
"You assume that mathmatics can define the limits of what is possible, but this is simply not true."
Using mathematics to define the limits of what is possible, at least in the realm of material causation, is _precisely_ what makes modern science possible.
I'm glad you made this clear.
With all due respect, you are not making much sense here. How many astrologies are there? And which one has incorporated features that we associate with all scientific fields?
So you are making a priori judgments now :)
Are you sure you know what a priori means?
Biological theories need to be consistent with physical laws because science, above all, is a unified endeavor. Two hundred years ago, biology and chemistry and physics were essentially autonomous. No longer. If a synthetic organic chemist wants to build a new molecule, he/she now almost has to run what amounts to a quantum physics simulation to see if the molecule has the properties he/she wants. Why? Because he can, and it's so much cheaper than actually doing the work. If a synthetic organic chemist proposes to build a non-dissipative Feynman ratchet, I can, without knowing any synthetic organic chemistry at all, tell him/her that it won't work.
Science in this respect has undoubtedly changed, and the demarcation criteria have changed with it, but there's no reason why they shouldn't have. The way we do science now is not the way Isaac Newton did science. So when you posit a biological designer, we can legitimately ask - by what physical and chemical means was the design implemented? Where does the designer hang out? We're asking you those questions because those are the kind of questions we ask ourselves. When we postulate an asteroid impact was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, we ask not just the biological questions, but what questions like what was the chemistry of the asteroid? Where did it hit? What did it do to the atmosphere, to the earth? How can we detect the remedy. Where did it originate? If those questions lead to serious problems, then whether or not the asteroid solves the extinction problem, it's not going to work as a scientific theory.
That's what people like Dembski don't understand. Even stipulating the unproven and unlikely contention that we can detect design, no scientist in this century will permit you to treat that as an isolated question. A better explanation has to be a better explanation for all of science, not just some narrow problem.
remedy=residue
I mean this as a legitimate query: in the YEC geological schema, are dates assigned to the Cambrian era, and the K/T boundary?
So you think looking for a 10 kHz modulation at 9.5 GHz is the same or even a similar problem as looking at a ribosome for God's handiwork?
A single frequency can be specified by a single real number. Any theory that claims that that is 'complex' smells bad. A pure frequency with a regular modulation would make SETI sit up and take notice. That could be specified by two real numbers.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The fact that sexual education classes came at the same time as the rest of the Sexual Revolution does not mean that sexual education caused it, or that it had no effect. For all we know, teenage sexuality or unwed pregnancy would be worse but for sexual education.
This is a canard. George Washington lived in what was essentially an agrarian society, and he was an upper-class figure whose informal education continued well into adulthood. Good luck supporting yourself in today's increasingly technical, increasingly specialized economy with only an eighth-grade education.
"I mean this as a legitimate query: in the YEC geological schema, are dates assigned to the Cambrian era, and the K/T boundary?"
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The flood is believed to have lasted for about a year, and taken place sometime within the last 10,000 years.
I get 3 and 6. That's pretty complex, right? ;)
I meant, if I consult standard text books on Geology, I am told that the Cambrian period is marked by certain characteristics, and ended something like 490 million years ago. Similarly, such texts describe the K/T boundary as something like 65 million years ago.
Clearly, Young Earth Creationists reject this--but I had previously assumed they rejected the notion that there had ever been anything like a Cambrian period, or a K/T boundary. Your post suggested to me (though I have perhaps not understood you aright, in which case, my apologies) that YEC geology does recognise such geologic events as the Cambrian period, the K/T boundary etc., but must presumably fit them into an altogether different timescale.
And that was my query: does the YEC school have a formal geological timeline? Does it recognise the same geologic periods and events as standard geology (or only some)? And if so: how long ago was the K/T boundary? How long ago the Cambrian period, and of what duration was it? And can the flood, if it indeed occured, not be dated more precisely than the apparant 5000 years ago plus or minus 5000 years you have offered here?
:)
The date of the global flood:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
Interesting questions. And how would the YEC's have established such dates in the absence of their mention in some random holy book?
Just multiply 100 times 42 (the Answer), add a couple of 19s, and subtract from today. Easy.
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.