Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design

Townhall ^ | May 27,2007 | Ken Connor

[Pietro]

"Dr. Gonzalez, who fled from Cuba to America as a child, earned his PhD in astronomy from the University of Washington. By academic standards, Dr. Gonzalez has had a remarkable career. Though still a young man, he has already authored sixty-eight peer-reviewed scientific papers. These papers have been featured in some of the world's most respected scientific journals, including Science and Nature. Dr. Gonzalez has also co-authored a college-level text book entitled Observational Astronomy, which was published by Cambridge Press."

Doesn't appear to be a slacker to me.

[Pietro]

"....point of ridicule is your strong point."

Your doin' fine all by yourself son, keep it up.

[Pietro]

"There is an idea 'filter' which eliminates junk from science to keep bad ideas from taking up valuable time and effort. ID may become, sometime in the future, a science on par with chemistry (or others) but it hasn't made it there yet."

I agree w/ that fully. However, can you honestly say that someone who approaches ID w/ an open mind would be accepted at most universities in this country.

Or rather would they be mocked and ridiculed?

[ColdWater]

Doesn't appear to be a slacker to me.

You are proof that everything is relative to the viewer.

Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.

[sirchtruth]

Repeated effectiveness in surviving.

How does "surviving" produce information to direct a cell in becoming part of what it will end up being?

[ColdWater]

How does "surviving" produce information to direct a cell in becoming part of what it will end up being?

Can you re-phrase that?

[editor-surveyor]

"Astronomy--that big bang stuff, and all those really old ages. GONE!"

You're still whipping that dead horse?

The big bang never did work, and all the bandaids that have been stuck on it have made it a total joke. Humphreys bounded, spherical, expanded universe works without bandaids, and fits all the observable evidence. The gravitational dilation of time perfectly fits a 6000 year old universe that has expanded, and thus presents distant objects that give an illusion of great age.

Real, objective science fits god's word every time. (but since you don't do real science it wouldn't concern you)

[ColdWater]

Humphreys

Humphreys' salt in sea water calculation puts the earth's age at 42 million years.

[sirchtruth]

Can you re-phrase that?

Cells make up everything. What directs them?

Ex: How does a cell know/chose to become a brain cell?

[editor-surveyor]

The salt in sea water likely got there 4500 years ago when the “fountains of the great deep” ruptured, bringing the salt to the surface.

Anyway, there is no basis for age determination by the presence of salt, unless you assume distilled water to start, and a constant rate of accretion,which is illogical on it’s face.

[ColdWater]

Cells make up everything. What directs them? Ex: How does a cell know/chose to become a brain cell?

DNA and chemical reactions.

[ColdWater]

The salt in sea water likely got there 4500 years ago when the “fountains of the great deep” ruptured, bringing the salt to the surface.

So all previous fish were fresh water fish which would have resulted in mass death since they could not survive the rapid change.

[Rudder]

Well, when you think about it, the anthropic principle itself is, “duh.” It shouldn’t even be necessary to come up with it, but there you go. The alternative, that man is the be all and the center of the universe, is too arrogant. Copernicus should have disabused us of that.

Precisely. It appears to exist by a subliminal fiat---'anthrocentric' bias---and is one which is presumed to such a degree it's no longer perceptible by its adherents.

I had the same "well, duh!" reaction upon my first encounter with the concept via one of these 'crevo' threads.

[Rudder]

Read Arnold Giese's text in Cell Physiology for a good discussion of this issue. Now, where did the introduced noise come from?

To name just one, of many, major sources, : Cosmic Radiation.

[Rudder]

"Read Arnold Giese's text in Cell Physiology for a good discussion of this issue. Now, where did the introduced noise come from? To name just one, of many, major sources, : Cosmic Radiation."

The above was my reply to MacDorcha.(and I should have included you, sorry.)

Merely by living on the planet the DNA is acted upon by many forces. Changes of DNA sequence are common, most are lethal, but some survive. Forces contributing to changes: cosmic rays, replication process errors, mutagens in the environment, viral infection...the list goes on. Natural selection sorts it all out.

[MacDorcha]

I’m sorry, but “cosmic radiation” is just a rock the noise echos from.

Metaphorically, of course.

[Rudder]

I’m sorry, but “cosmic radiation” is just a rock the noise echos from.

One of us will have to back away from the bottle. You lost me here...

[MacDorcha]

Well, Iraq is “dry country”, so it’s likey you. :p

Cosmic rays are a force that perpetuates change in DNA- it is not the source of DNA.

Ergo, DNA (noise) is distorting from rays (echoing from rocks) the rays (rocks) are not a source any more than the moon is the source of moonlight.

[Rudder]

Hey, my son is there.

I think this discussion has gone far afield from the original question. I thought it was about how DNA gained new information. Now it appears it's about how DNA originated, correct?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I am merely trying to show that science and conservatism are compatible. The left is fond of saying conservatives are anti-science

This is a conservative forum. We already know that science and conservatism are compatible. Maybe you should preach your message to a forum that doesn't know it. Like a leftist one.