Posted on 06/08/2007 10:45:45 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?
It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.
At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.
Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.
In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."
(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)
Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.
But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.
"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."
Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.
"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.
On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.
School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.
"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.
Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."
Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"
"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.
Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.
"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."
Students will begin using the new textbooks this fall.
No. When you see the term “worldwide” you would expect a much greater number than 700. And again a list and qualifications? And of course you you disagree. With nothing but folklore and legends to support your view. Typical of creationists. Good luck with that. Maybe when you win this fight you can move to proving the world is flat.
It's also obvious that you have no arguments other than the fallacy of appeal to popularity. "Everyone believes this!"
"Based on what you wrote, you seem to think that both Judge Jones and Professor Minnich are mistaken. Don't tell me, tell the professor. If your anger made you unable to see that, my apologies."
The point was that you appeal to authorities because they support your beliefs. You rely on these authorities because you don't understand the issues well enough to defend your beliefs with reasoned arguments.
You completely misunderstand the effect that an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism has on your beliefs. It is a purely metaphysical belief and would never allow you to recognize a created biology if you were looking at it. As such, it is totally inadequate as an absolute arbiter of truth (which is how you use it). Your inability to understand that argument shows how credulous your belief really is.
That you must project the emotion of 'anger' onto me in order to dismiss my arguments again shows how immature your critical-thinking skills are. That's not anger son, it's just the truth.
First, please note that I take your insults as compliments because I know where they come from. Provided that the concepts I did grasp were correctly understood, I would much rather have a pre-elementary level knowledge of evolutionary biology (i.e. child-like, your words) than a “God did it, the Bible says so, therefore it’s true” mentality.
To reiterate, I would much rather have an incomplete understanding of science than have a “God did it” mindset. I think relegating everything to God makes life boring. It takes the fun out of inquiry. It makes the quest to obtain strong critical-thinking skills (c.f. “God did it”) enjoyable. Agreed?
Now, on to your points.
It's a problem because the term is defined to match observations which do not uniquely support evolution and is then used as though it is unique support for evolution. It's a circular thought-pattern and most naturalists don't have the critical-thinking skills to understand that.
Sure, you can say that the change in allele frequencies of the moth populations were an act of God as opposed to natural selection, or in your words, “created genetic code.” If that’s what you think constitutes science, be my guest. As I wrote, I’m for your right to believe that. I’m just not supportive of any attempt on your part to try to add that to the public science curriculum.
Antibiotic resistance was already present before antibiotics existed and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there.
I think you’ve forgotten the basic principle of natural selection, so as long as you don’t mind reading an explanation from a college student with a pre-elementary grasp of evolutionary biology, I offer clarification which can be checked by any introductory biology textbook of your choice, as follows:
Natural selection picks traits that are already there; it does not create new ones. New traits can only be created through mutations1. What you wrote does not contradict evolution by natural selection; it just demonstrates poor understanding that can be revealed even by a guy like me. Antibiotic resistance was indeed already present. Some bacteria have this antibiotic resistance, and others don’t. So, when the population is exposed to an antibiotic, only the ones with the resistance-conferring gene will survive to reproduce. The next generation of bacteria in the population is composed of individuals that have this gene. The allele frequencies of the population have changed, therefore the population has evolved.2
Darwin's finches have been shown to fluctuate back and forth between beak sizes and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there.
Woah! Already there? You’re making a pretty bold assertion here. I request some sources. You’re directly contradicting the text I linked to earlier by Dr. Campbell.
Thanks for the nice evening wish. It’s going along nicely thus far.
For a guy who criticizes me for playing “cutsie [sic] word games,” you seem to enjoy them yourself.
Evolution is unobservable? Just because you don’t like the commonly accepted definition of evolution does not render it null. Evolution is, one more time, just for you, change in allele frequencies of a population over time. That has been both observed and tested.
Also, didn’t you previously respond to my acknowledgement that evolutionary theory has been falsified? I am thus confused as to why you included “falsifiable” in the second sentence I quoted above. Perhaps you simply forgot?/p>
Oh, insults and complete disregard for commonly accepted definitions don't count as rational debate, either. Just so we're on the same page.
Exactly what kind of “reasoned argument” and “critical thinking” have you demonstrated?
I’m aware that I’ve got a ways before I regress reach the level of your flaunted critical thinking skills. Nevertheless, I request some “reasoned arguments” and “critical thinking” for your claim that life is created.
So far, the only thing I've read from you is "God did it. If you can't see that, too bad."
“You brought it up a second time after I already told you of Crick’s retraction of that position in light of scientific advances. This is no longer a mistake, it is dishonesty to use materials known to be false.”
Oh no, the quote police are after me!
Hey, dude, I quoted Frances Crick straight out of a book he wrote in 1981 called Life Itself. If that doesn’t meet with your approval, too darn bad. He had already co-discovered DNA at the time he wrote it, so he was hardly a babe in the woods.
I am not aware that he retracted it. I suggest you provide documentation. But even if he did, the point is that at one time he realized how unlikely the random origin of life is. If he really did retract it, it is probably only because the PC police got after him.
And by the way, you still don’t have a clue about the probability of a random origin of life. But then that’s very common for the mathematically illiterate.
Use something once. Told it's wrong. Use it again to the same person. Not good.
I am not aware that he retracted it. I suggest you provide documentation.
here You could have asked for it the first time if you did not believe me.
But even if he did, the point is that at one time he realized how unlikely the random origin of life is. If he really did retract it, it is probably only because the PC police got after him.
Nice try on the PC thing, please remove the tin foil hat. He retracted it because of advances in science that he admittedly did not anticipate. His ideas of the possible mechanisms of origin did not include the simpler, more probable mechanisms later discovered.
I expect that I will not see Crick disingenuously quoted out of context again?
And by the way, you still don’t have a clue about the probability of a random origin of life.
Neither do you. In fact, all we have are guesses about probability that have an a priori assumption that we are the desired end result, thus invalidating the entire exercise.
Let's see, one was made up, and the other was derived from direct observation (in this case by a man who was highly religious at the time, so no naturalist conspiracy there). They are most definitely not the same.
You already have competing creation myths for naturalism, why do you think that's a problem?
We have theories that can be falsified. A properly constructed creation myth cannot be falsified, thus all such myths are objectively equal.
Only faith differentiates. That is the reason for the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody of ID. Every single argument supporting creation and ID fits the FSM theory; therefore, the FSM theory of design is equally valid, equally unfalsifiable, although it is entirely made-up, a joke. There is nothing in theological "science" that can prevent such a fraud from being on an equal level with sincere beliefs.
Do you see where your attempt to destroy the science that has brought us so much is headed?
Again, an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism
He had no such commitment to naturalism.
I would bet that the number is considerably more than just 700 intelligent scientists. Of course the evo lobby needs to cut the number down in order to try and convince people that they are legit.
By the way, one God stands against your thousands of misdirected scientists. You lose.
“Use something once. Told it’s wrong. Use it again to the same person. Not good.”
Excuse me, but you are making more of a fool of yourself with each post. Are you seriously telling me that I am violating some ethical rule by quoting the co-discoverer of DNA straight out of his own book? So he revised his views, and that means I am not allowed to quote him. According that rule, nobody would ever be able to quote anyone.
By the way, the link you sent was a two-pager of new twists in the ongoing wild speculation about how life could have started. It contains no real results, and no calculation of odds at all — probably because the authors have good reason to avoid those considerations and hope nobody brings up the subject.
So what is the upshot? That the odds of a functional cell forming at random has been revised up from 1/10^40,000 to 1/10^39,000? I doubt that either you *or* Crick are capable of even comprehending such probabilities let alone estimating them.
As for Watson and Crick, I get the impression that they think they *invented* DNA rather than just discovered it.
I am still waiting for the 700 list and their credentials. And oh, anyone with a degree in theology or a degree from someplace like Liberty U is automatically disallowed. LOL! But hey, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for the info. As you can see from the large numbers of posts on this subject, no one ever wins or loses. You cannot convince me to believe in magical beings and I can likely never drag you into thinking like you belong 21st century. Have fun.
You brought up Crick as an appeal to authority. That is, you were using a view of Crick's that supported your side in the debate. However, that view was considered by Crick himself to be incorrect. What's really nice in this is that you yourself established Crick as an authority to be trusted. Thus, Crick's retraction and statement to the opposite of your point works against you.
You essentially debated my side. Thanks.
According that rule, nobody would ever be able to quote anyone.
According to that rule, nobody should ever quote only half the story. That is called taking something out of context, a dishonest debate device. First time's a mistake, second time after notification is on purpose. Dishonesty in the ID movement rears its ugly head again.
By the way, the link you sent was a two-pager of new twists in the ongoing wild speculation about how life could have started.
You brought him up as an authority, he refuted you. Live with it. Next time don't cite from the Creationist Handbook, and choose your sources more wisely.
That the odds of a functional cell forming at random has been revised up from 1/10^40,000 to 1/10^39,000?
Please show the methodology behind those numbers.
“You brought up Crick as an appeal to authority.”
I quoted Crick because he is recognized by *your* side as an authority. Are you saying that he is not an authority? If not, then why do you care how he did or did not revise what he had written in his book?
Oh, by the way, the link you provided that supposedly showed Crick retracting his quote did no such thing. He said that he had “rethought” certain things, but it did *not* say that he retracted the passage that I quoted.
Nice try though. Let me know if you ever find evidence that he retracted it.
As for the probability computations, get Hoyle’s book The Intelligent Universe — and try to educate yourself on the basics of the probabilities involved in the origin of life by purely naturalistic mechanisms.
You can also check out chapter 11, The Enigma of Life’s Origin, in Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Sorry, but I don’t have time to tutor you now.
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” —Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA and Nobel Laureate
Folks, this is straight out of the book Life Itself (1982), by Francis Crick.
Our evolutionist friend doesn’t like it, so he claimed that Crick has retracted it, but of course he provided no evidence of such a retraction. He provided a link which supposedly contained the retraction, but it didn’t.
Yet he has the audacity to call me “dishonest” for simply quoting Crick out of his own book! This is the kind of crap we must put up with here.
This quote made me think of you:
“When you’re arguing with a fool, make sure he isn’t doing the same thing.”
Keep waiting. I’m still waiting for your intelligent scientists to explain the beginning of time. Oh I know, they don’t have to. They just have to say time began and evos believe them.
“The problem is that by the very concept it is impossible to falsify theological explanations, and science depends on the concept of falsification. Falsification is how science rids itself of theories that cannot support themselves.”
Please explain to me how the idea of random origin of the first living cell can be falsified.
When I try to explain to you the staggering odds involved, you simply dismiss the idea of probabilities with a wave of the hand.
Well, if probabilities are not allowed, then how can the random origin of life be falsified?
It would be like trying to “falsify” the claim that the entire text of the Gettysburg address once appeared on the Sahara desert due to random winds. How can that be “falsified” without recourse to probabilities? It can’t.
I realize that you are more than a bit dense, so let me try to spoonfeed this to you. The purely naturalistic version of the origin of the first living cell cannot be falsified, so it is not scientific — according to the very criterion you just parroted.
Let’s see what kind of crap you can come up with on this one. I’m sure it will be entertaining.
This statement was posted earlier, but it really,really
does seem a stretch doesn't it? But the larger problem
for me are the following: gravity, strong force, elec-
tromagnetism, quarks, etc. Because without those how
does one get life?
How many googles (ten raised to 100th power) of tons
must be used to represent the mass of the known
universe, including 'dark matter'? And all that
started out smaller than pin head! WOW! I thought we
only count how many angels fit on a pin.
Sure. And it is just as valid as a book, written by men, translated by men, and currently interpreted by men including the late Falwell and a TV Guide full of televangalists that tell followers everything they want them to....ooops excuse me, that they need to know. Hey bub, you have faith, fine, if it works for you. Personally, many people, including myself I can find my own way. And if some backward school districts want to have creationism inserted in science classes, fine. I will be sure to tell my kids why the inserts appeared and what total nonsense it is. But its unlikely to come up becuase I do not think I will moving to anywhere backward enough to do that. And you do not answer a question by demanding that I come up with scientists to explain evolution. The start of all this was someone claiming they have 700 signatures....got the list?
There are no insults except in your mind. You merely project your own personality onto me, an error.
"Provided that the concepts I did grasp were correctly understood, I would much rather have a pre-elementary level knowledge of evolutionary biology (i.e. child-like, your words) than a “God did it, the Bible says so, therefore it’s true” mentality."
You have the same mentality. "Nature did it, scientists say so, therefore it's true." Your mentality is the one you project onto creationists, yet you exercise exactly that mentality for yourself. It's no different. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.
"To reiterate, I would much rather have an incomplete understanding of science than have a “God did it” mindset. I think relegating everything to God makes life boring. It takes the fun out of inquiry. It makes the quest to obtain strong critical-thinking skills (c.f. “God did it”) enjoyable. Agreed?"
You have the same mindset, except you believe that 'nature did it'. I think relegating everything to nature makes life boring. It takes the fun out of inquiry. It makes the quest to obtain strong critical-thinking skills (c.f. 'nature did it') unenjoyable. Agreed?
Sheesh man, your silly game is rather tiring.
"Sure, you can say that the change in allele frequencies of the moth populations were an act of God as opposed to natural selection, or in your words, “created genetic code.”
Again, you project your simplistic understanding onto me where it is not valid. You totally miss the point and I'm not sure you are able to grasp it.
"If that’s what you think constitutes science, be my guest. As I wrote, I’m for your right to believe that. I’m just not supportive of any attempt on your part to try to add that to the public science curriculum."
What you are doing here is hiding behind the 'a priori' assumption of naturalism again. The belief in naturalism is in no way superior and is merely a different metaphysical belief system imposed on public school students.
"Natural selection picks traits that are already there; it does not create new ones. New traits can only be created through mutations."
That's correct. And mutations, when expressed, are overwhelmingly bad. That many are neutral is a function of the fault-tolerant *design* of the triplet-codon system. That any exist at all is a function of the efficiency of error-correcting systems *designed* into the replication system. That any are expressed is a function of the fault-tolerant *design* of the diploid chromosomal structure. Try thinking just a little bit, please.
"What you wrote does not contradict evolution by natural selection; it just demonstrates poor understanding that can be revealed even by a guy like me."
You are engaging in the bait-and-switch tactic again where you define an observation as 'evolution' and then use the term to mean something not observed. Either you are dishonest or your critical-thinking skills are really bad.
"Antibiotic resistance was indeed already present. Some bacteria have this antibiotic resistance, and others don’t. So, when the population is exposed to an antibiotic, only the ones with the resistance-conferring gene will survive to reproduce. The next generation of bacteria in the population is composed of individuals that have this gene. The allele frequencies of the population have changed, therefore the population has evolved."
Again, the fact that resistance was already present is no unique support for evolution. Previously existing information changing frequency in response to adaptation is equally consistent with a created biology.
"Woah! Already there? You’re making a pretty bold assertion here. I request some sources. You’re directly contradicting the text I linked to earlier by Dr. Campbell."
Look, the fact that larger beak sizes on finches is related to drought cycles has been known for a long time. When the drought passes, beak sizes return to their previous variations.
Since you told me that it wasn't your job to do my research, now I tell you that it isn't my job to do your research for you.
You like the game now that the shoe is on the other foot?
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.