'Monkey trial' continues in Roseville

dailydemocrat.com ^

[chance33_98]

'Monkey trial' continues in Roseville

ROSEVILLE (AP) - Nearly a century has passed since the famous Scopes "monkey trial," but Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is still being tested - most recently before the Roseville Joint High School District.

At issue was how high school students should be taught evolution and if competing ideas about man's place in nature should also be included in a science textbook. But after a lengthy debate from dozens of residents and parents, board trustees approved a new science book that presented only Darwin's side of the story. School officials said there is no book on the mainstream market that presents what some call the "intelligent design" theory of evolution - a belief that life did not evolve randomly but instead progressed according to a plan or design. Officials said the book selected is readable and provides material that students will be tested on by the state.

[RadioAstronomer]

Scientists agree that the universe, life and the bacterial flagellum were intelligently designed.

Let's see this in peer-reviewed sources instead of some creationist web site or screed. (peer reviewed such as "The APS Physical Review Letters")

[RadioAstronomer]

Fortunately, there are some great scientists who are gradually refuting Darwin and other scientific "givens" of the last hundred years, using 20th century findings to do so. It is driving the Evolutionists wild.

Cite sources.

[RadioAstronomer]

I didn't know this thread was still going on

LOL! It's my fault. :-)

[PatrickHenry]

For information about all those scientists who are abandoning evolution: Project Steve: FAQs (National Center for Science Education)

[CobaltBlue]

What is this, a floating craps game? The vice squad shuts it down so ya'll find another back room?

[RadioAstronomer]

What is this, a floating craps game? The vice squad shuts it down so ya'll find another back room?

????

[vaudine]

First, as to your statement that many evolutionists are devout Christians, I do realize that. They usually still
believe that God directed or created through Evolution.

The ID theorists are also divided. Some will not go so far as to name a/the designer, and many consider it an agnostic theory. Rather, they are trying to prove ID as opposed to natural selection. It is my own thought that the Designer would be God. They also deny any connection with Creationists, although to the layman their connection seems natural.

Creationists would be 100% for God as creator/designer of the universe, but many of them would entertain the idea of some sort of process.

As for your citing of sources, first let me say that my take on the teaching of the origin of the universe would be to teach pros and cons of all the major and many of the minor theories/hypotheses/legends/stories.

Now to cite my sources. First, a science prof. in the 60's who discussed Evolution, Creationism, the Big Bang theory among others, in a very fascinating way. This was a geology course, so we did have only an overview of these.

I am a very eclectic reader, so often I read something and absorb it and generalize it. I do see that you want to get very factual, but there are so many things to say about this subject. Most recently I have read some articles by Jonathan Wells (I think)--anyway, a biologist teaching in CA; a Chuch Colson article about a documentary shown on PBS, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", am in the process of reading Prof. Stephen M. Barr's "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith." I ordered it because of its good review in "Natioinal Review".
I also sometimes read things on the Intelligent Design Network--I think it is www.discovery.org.

Do you remember when science had proven that eggs were really bad for the cholesterol? I never believed it, because God provided us a great protein source in eggs. I kept on eating them every day even when my RN daughter scolded and advocated no more than three a week. Then, a couple of years back science reversed itself--eggs are now okay.

Well, somehow or other, God the most Intelligent Designer, created this universe and all the creatures therein. Man, in all his intellectual pomposity has deigned to deny God's creation by proving scientifically that it all evolved naturally. I'm for open discussion and skepticism of everything that man thinks he has proved, just as man is skeptical of God's work. It just might turn out with enough
work that they are not mutually exclusive.

Thanks for the urls. I need to learn to put those in. I think a great-grandma could learn.

Vaudine

[gore3000]

Let's see this in peer-reviewed sources instead of some creationist web site or screed.

Denying what you know to be true and what you have seen proven many times is completely dishonest of you. As a supposed astronomer, you should know that it is so obvious that the Universe was designed that the atheist Steven Hawkings, one of the greatest physicists of today has only been able to give the ridiculous proposal of multiple Universes as a refutation. Such a proposal of course is ridiculous because someone as smart as he knows that such a theory is quickly decapitated by Occam's razor.

Instead of going over what we have gone over many times, I will give you proof of another thing which has been intelligently designed - birth:

Competence may reflect the expression of receptors specific for a given signaling molecule, the ability of the receptors to activate specific intracellular signaling pathways, or the presence of the transcription factors necessary to stimulate expression of the genes required to implement the developmental program induced.

...

Another common feature of developmental programs is the highly regulated death of certain cells. [emphasis mine]
From: Molecular Cell Biology



Note that the book includes one Nobel Prize winner in the field, and is on the web from the National Institute of Health.

[RightWingNilla]

This is such a vast subject, that I do not believe either side will convince the other.

How would you present the theory of Intelligent Design to high school biology students? What exactly should be put in the textbooks?

[gore3000]

Fortunately, there are some great scientists who are gradually refuting Darwin and other scientific "givens" of the last hundred years, using 20th century findings to do so. It is driving the Evolutionists wild.

Evolution has already been refuted, numerous times as I showed in post#66. The evos cannot even give a statement as to what their theory is because every single part of it has been refuted. Some scientific theory!

The irony of the situation is that it was the evos who claimed that once science progressed the idea of God as the Creator would dissappear. Instead, the more science has learned, the more obvious it is that life, the Universe, and all things were created by God.

[RadioAstronomer]

Hi Vaudine,

I was kinda harsh and you have my apologies. I had just gotten off of another thread where things had gotten a bit heated. SORRY! :-(

I do not have a problem at all with teaching "theories/hypotheses/legends/stories" in a comparative theology or historical context. However, what should be taught in science is the best scientific model we have to date. That model is currently called evolution. The amount of evidence backing it up is staggering.

I do hope you take a look at the links I provided. There may be some stuff that will fascinate you. :-)

Again, sorry for being so grumpy earlier.

Michael

[gore3000]

How would you present the theory of Intelligent Design to high school biology students?

Easy, one only needs to show the complexity of living things, the complexity of life and the Universe. One can also teach how mutations are invariably bad and to propose that destruction = creation is ridiculous and totally backwards thinking. One can also ask if anyone has ever seen a species transform itself. In addition one can use the nine questions which evolutionists will never answer or some of the articles which show design at DesignedUniverse .

[gore3000]

I do not have a problem at all with teaching "theories/hypotheses/legends/stories" in a comparative theology or historical context.

I have no problem discussing evolution in a comparative theology class either. However, I do have a problem with it being taught as science in a science class. I show in post# 66 that it is not science and none of you can refute my statements.

[CobaltBlue]

The other thread got shut down by admin, on the grounds of "enough already."

I've been out all evening taking care of business, was wondering what happened.

[RadioAstronomer]

As a supposed astronomer

There are a number of people here who know me personally and know I am not a liar.

so obvious that the Universe was designed that the atheist Steven Hawkings, one of the greatest physicists of today has only been able to give the ridiculous proposal of multiple Universes as a refutation.

Please post a reference.

Molecular Cell Biology

This book "proves" ID? Show me in this book where they conclude ID please.

[RightWingNilla]

Note that the book includes one Nobel Prize winner in the field,

Nobel laureate David Baltimore (on the first draft of the human genome):

"How does the genome change our lives now that these secrets are laid so bare? First, it confirms something obvious and expected, yet controversial: our genes look much like those of fruit flies, worms and even plants. Should there be any doubt -- and, unfortunately, there is vehement doubt in some circles -- the genome shows that we all descended from the same humble beginnings and that the connections are written in our genes.

That should be, but won't be, the end of creationism."

[RadioAstronomer]

I've been out all evening taking care of business, was wondering what happened.

I think it ended up being too vitriolic.

[VadeRetro]

Your post shows the very poverty of ID. All ID has to tell us is, "Whatever's going on there, it sure didn't evolve." Were it not for evolution, there would be no body of knowledge, no intellectual content at all.

Here, for the first time this year, is something I posted last year on how to "do ID:"

1) Publish a paper claiming that evolution could not have happened. Yes, the first step is publication, not research.

2) Join with like-minded authors and declare a scientific movement.

3) Since your movement is not accepted by science, go around science by directly appealing to school boards around the country to get your subject matter taught to a sufficiently naive audience.

4) If challenged to show a certifiably scientific basis for your movement, creatively quote selected authors in the real literature whose words or works can be twisted in your favor.

5) When your victims denounce you, call them liars or cowards for bowing to obvious coercion from the conspiracy to oppose you. Ignore any seeming contradiction in being largely "supported" by people you are now calling liars and cowards.

[VadeRetro]

I think it ended up being too vitriolic.

It had been for 2500 posts or more, of course. Somebody decided to bury the evidence.

[RightWingNilla]

Easy, one only needs to show the complexity of living things, the complexity of life and the Universe.

This is a start, but you have to build on it quite a bit more.

The rest of your post is just an attack on another theory.

You need to present an alternative theory to eager students.

So please continue...