Refresh my memory - what is it you do for a living again?
:^)
Posted on 11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST by Nebullis
The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.
"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."
American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.
Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:
"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."
In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."
The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.
In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.
A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
Here's an idea.
As usual, I issue a challenge to evolutionists and they refuse to take it up. If evolution were true my challenge would be ludicrously easy to refute. It is not, that is why you and your friends cannot refute it. So I will issue it again:
Seems to me that if evolution is really science, you geniuses, Doctors, professors and assorted intellectuals should have no problem refuting my claim.
Refresh my memory - what is it you do for a living again?
:^)
Your personal shortcomings in comprehension are poor support for your position.
Well, let me repost what I said so that all can see that you are using insults to try to discredit the truth:
A non-sequitur indeed! I had played along with your irrelevant semantic question for quite a bit. I also knew that as here, your whole point was not to discuss the issue but to indulge in ad hominems on me as the following post by you shows. I could care less of your opinion of me the fact remains that the important question, the important point which you are trying to divert from with your semantics and ad hominems is that the definition you and others have given of evolution is a false one.
So the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency is a cowardly redefinition of the theory. -me-
Redefinition from what? On what authority do you subsititute your own personal pet misinterpretation of a theory for the actual definition?
Evolution, Darwinian evolution which is the subject of this thread implies increased complexity, new genes, new genetic information, and new functions as I already showed in Post#508 but which you seem to think you can ignore now that we are some 300 post later on the thread:
What evolution means is to be found all over this board, however since you are looking for 'proof' that my statement about what evolution means is true let's go to the original source:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
As you can see above from the words of the great charlatan, evolution is about greater complexity. The definition of evolution given in TalkOrigins and other evo sites that "Evolution is defined as change in allele frequency over time. That's quantified and measurable."In no way deals with the increased complexity and transformation of species. Every individual gets half the alleles from each parent so the 'frequency' of alleles in a population changes with each birth. This is a truism from genetics. However, this in no way implies any change in the genetic pool of a species or any new genetic information. It therefore does not account for the transformation of species into more complex species as Darwin's definition requires.
Nothing that you have said since that post has even bothered to refute the above statement.
842 posted on 11/12/2002 6:33 PM PST by gore3000
Yes, actually I can… As I have stated, I see ID as a ‘theory of everything’ but I will go into the world of biology (and psychology) – specifically, you. Let’s see if you believe in some kind of intelligent design.
Yes Vade, you are the next contestant on:
Who wants to be a Naturalist?
Question one:
Are variation, mutation, and natural selection ‘alone’ responsible for DNA’s intelligent grammar-like code, error correction, and beyond that – your own intellect?
Question two:
Does behavior arise out of the interaction between individuals with their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections?
Question three:
Is there is no finally correct way to behave, or finally justifiable goals, but only the desires and intentions that currently constitute us, all of which may change as human nature and cultures change?
Question four:
In seeking a coherent explanation for existence – an explanation incorporating an ontological design phase that is rational, coherent and therefore intelligent, what do you do?
Information Theory Vade, you are going to need to deal with it at some time because Darwinian explanations are becoming archaic with DNA research and life itself.
Did I say you could speak?
The car analogy is nice except that there are apparently no cars with F1ATPase engines. They have the out-of-nowhere MOTa, MOTb series of engines. Apparently export restrictions have limited the availability of the F1ATPase engine to the land of Mitochondria, but I could be wrong about that. The export restrictions might have had enough holes in it that a piece or two of the engine might be available on the black market.
Hey, you know what that reminds me of? A prop that got caught up in a big hunk of seaweed! (Or - a skier's line! =:-0 )
You have absolutely no idea of what you speak, but then again your every post bears this out. I believe God created life in such a way as to be indistinguishable from natural processes -- after all, God set the universe up in the beginning, didn't He? Why would he need to step in a tweak His creation afterward? Would that not indicate God was not perfect and capable of getting it right the first time? No. God makes Himself known to let us know He's still there and what He expects of us -- not to add or delete from His creation. The Bible specifically makes this point. God didn't zap new species into existence after the Flood, did He? No, He made sure that extant species survived. Even if the Flood story is an allegory (and I believe it is) it shows God's modus operandi when it comes to life on this planet: He works with what is already there.
Your virulent tunnel vision is bordering on a psychosis.
So they say. I keep running into democrats who sincerely insist that their party isn't a pack of socialists. And when you start to offer them evidence, they react in shock: "Oh no, we're not socialists. We just want to do nice things. We want society to be fair. We want social justice." But it adds up to socialism, and it's never nice, or fair, or just. And just as socialism has its usefull idiots (Stalin's delightfully honest term), so does ID. Alas, there's really no way to debate with some of these folks.
[Note for the especially retarded]: I am not claiming that ID is socialism. It's just an analogy -- something you're not good at -- to illustrate that a movement can have lots of confused and clueless followers.]
That's not true at all. You insist on abiogenesis. You insist that life came about by random chance. You insist that it was not intelligently designed. In other words you insist on a totally materialistic/atheistic explanation for the origin of life. You completely reject any sort of divine design.
ID = "Goddidit" = theory of anything at all = theory of nothing.
Question one:
Are variation, mutation, and natural selection ‘alone’ responsible for DNA’s intelligent grammar-like code, error correction, and beyond that – your own intellect?
So far as I know.
Question two:
Does behavior arise out of the interaction between individuals with their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections?
Definitely not the latter.
Question three:
Is there is no finally correct way to behave, or finally justifiable goals, but only the desires and intentions that currently constitute us, all of which may change as human nature and cultures change?
Is moral absolutism tenable? Count me unsure. What I am sure is that it's not a question for biology or geology.
Question four:
In seeking a coherent explanation for existence – an explanation incorporating an ontological design phase that is rational, coherent and therefore intelligent, what do you do?
Realize that you're spouting question-begging gibberish, forget about science, and say a few prayers?
Information Theory Vade, you are going to need to deal with it at some time because Darwinian explanations are becoming archaic with DNA research and life itself.
Science uses math, but mathematicians are too ignorant of science to invalidate science. Since you're so impressed with Dembski and his demagoguery upon some misapplied math, here he is on the topic of what ID needs as a next step.
A problem we now face with intelligent design is that even if the educational mainstream opened its arms to us (don't hold your breath), we have no sustained course of study to give them. A curriculum provides that, and much more. It takes the crazy-quilt of science and systematizes it into an intellectually coherent position. Students are thus introduced to a research tradition and not merely to a disconnected set of claims and arguments, or worse yet to some effective but easily ignored criticisms. Darwinists, by contrast, have a curriculum -- indeed, one that is steadily gobbling up discipline after discipline (evolutionary psychology being one of the more visible recent additions). Daniel Dennett was right when he called Darwinism a universal acid. Darwinism's hold on the academy is pervasive and monopolistic. By building a design curriculum, we attempt to restore a free market.It's worse than he makes it sound. You have no content to put in a curriculum. You can only say what ID isn't (Evolution), how things didn't happen. (They didn't evolve.)Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID, by Wm A. Dembski.
That's not much content and it's very likely all false. Piss-poor excuse for a science, that.
Students are thus introduced to a research tradition and not merely to a disconnected set of claims and arguments...
Dembski is so unfamiliar with science that he doesn't realize that all claims and arguments are connected via a historical timeline and a progressive accumulation of evidence.
ID is the daydream that if you can point out an anomaly somewhere, a house of cards comes tumbling down and suddenly all ideas are equally valid. The way is then clear to bring back something falsified by a million "anomalies" in the last 150 years.
In such an environment, it is difficult to offer valid criticism of the theory of evolution. Anit-evolutionists immediately seize upon such criticism as reason enough to scrap the whole shebang, and the defenders of evolution, conditioned by such tactics, often reflexively dismiss such criticism as more of the same.
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.