'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]

Intelligent design is a theory, and therefore eligible to be taught.

Wrong. ID is religion in disguise.

[Aric2000]

Did your fingers get tired from all that doubletalk and BS?

[Dimensio]

I'm no scientist.

That is hardly surprising, given that you seem to think that ID is a scientific theory.

If you are, you can formulate these answers/questions, yourself.

Why should I? I'm not the one who claims that ID is a theory.

My dictionary defines science as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and THEORETICAL EXPLANATION of phenomena.

An incomplete definition, then, as it does not mention that it only relates to the natural world.

Also says theory and hypothesis are synonyms.

Get a new dictionary. A hypothesis is basically an "educated guess", speculation based upon known physical properties and given circumstances. A theory arises when a hypothesis has been tested sufficiently.

There are a great many theories/hypotheses that have been formulated which will forever be irrefutable because they are beyond physical observation

If they are irrefutable, then they are not theories. They might be hypothesis, but they are not theories. Theories must, by definition, be falsifiable.

[UnChained]

"Irreducibly complex is just another way of saying, we haven't a clue.

The evolutionists say, "we don't know either, YET."

BIG difference, Irreducibly complex, OK, Goddidit, all done, no more research necessary. "


That's an unfair accusation. Believing in an active God actually encourages study. There is beauty and elegance wherever we choose to look. Many scientists have been so impressed by the subtlety of God's handiwork that they felt compelled to discover more. Scientists in the "hard" sciences are often theists. Their belief in a miracle working God doesn't harm their curiosity about how things work.

Have you looked at Behe's answers to his critics BTW?
A good site is: http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_response.htm

[Virginia-American]

Intelligent design is a theory, and therefore eligible to be taught.

Rather like Afrocentrism (the theory that the Greeks got all their philospohy and science from the Egyptians, that Socrates was black, etc.) This nonsense is being taught in some schools today.

I don't see a lot of difference betwen it and creationism. It's just as easy to laugh at archeology as paleontology - "nobeody has ever seen a live Socrates, many relics are hoaxes, they're all racists, etc".

In fact, I believe there are moer fake archeological relics than fossils.

[xm177e2]

Well, your statement above shows very well why evolution cannot be science. For a theory to be scientifically proven, it must first be a theory, not just 'any old theory'.

No theory cannot be "scientifically proven." You obviously don't know even the most basic aspects of the epistemology of science.

Evolution cannot be "proven," all we can do is show that evolution is a (much, much, much) better theory to explain the past and plan for the future than creationism.

[xm177e2]

Here is a quote from Robinson's attack

Antibodies bind to other molecules. Suppose you have a poison. The poison acts by binding to a molecule in the human body, using a very specific mechanism. Particular atoms on the poison must interact with particular atoms on the target molecule. If the antibody binds to, and covers those atoms on the poison, then the poison will not function.

And here is Behe's response (link goes to the same article as above):

Sure, that's true. Not only antibodies, but any protein might bind serendipitously to some molecule. "Binding" is not irreducibly complex. But the point made in the book stands. Antibodies do not kill off invading organisms, so they are no help in explaining the systems that do kill them.

Behe's response is ignorant... at best. At worst, he's knowingly dishonest. Antibodies do not just bind to poisons "serendipitously" like some proteins might, they are manufactured for that sole, specific purpose (when they are manufactured to fight against poisons, binding to the poison is our bodies' only way of fighting it--when they are made to fight against viruses, bacteria, and other living organisms they do different things, but for poisons all they can do is bind them).

"Binding" is not irreducibly complex.

Right here, he admits it.

But the point made in the book stands. Antibodies do not kill off invading organisms, so they are no help in explaining the systems that do kill them.

It's infuriating to read something this dishonest, which is why us evolutionists here on FR sometimes lose our tempers.

Antibodies do all sorts of things to harass invading organisms. In addition to binding to viruses (which prevents them from docking with our cells, thereby preventing infecting them), the antibodies bind to bacteria, which can do several things:

1) it can coat a bacteria, which slows them down makes it much easier for macrophages to "eat" them. (the process of surrounding a bacterium like that is known as "Opsonization.")

2) it can bind one bacterium to another bacterium--when this happens enough, it causes the bacteria to clump up, making it harder for them to attack our cells/eat/operate in general

Function #2 is NOT irreducibly complex (it can operate independently of anything else, or other parts of the human immune system can take advantage of the clumped bacteria to more easily kill them.

Behe mentions ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THIS in his book because he is a filthy goddamned liar.

All he points out is the role of antibodies in the complicated complement cascade. That is another very important role of antibodies (it is a major way the human body kills bad bacteria), but it is hardly the ONLY thing antibodies do. Behe has to say antibodies only have one function, or he would have to admit that THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM IS NOT IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.To better understand how antibodies could have evolved, you have to understand how the human body produces antibodies.

When a "nasty" substance/bacteria/etc. is found and attacked by a macrophage, pieces of that substance/bacteria/etc. are displayed on the outside skin of the macrophage. Then, a certain kind of immune system cells harvest those proteins from the skins of the macrophages, and use them as a template to produce antibodies capable of binding to them. Binding is not just something that happens "serendipitously," it is the sole purpose of normal antibodies to float around looking for a specific kind of target to bind to--that's the ONLY thing antibodies do!

What is needed for this problem to be "irreducibly complex?" You would have to show, as Behe claims, that antibodies have only ONE single function (the complement cascade), which I have shown to be false (I pointed out many different things antibodies do, above). It's also an absurd claim to make, on its face, because antibodies function within the "complement cascade" by BINDING to the target cells. Binding is ALWAYS the ONLY thing normal antibodies do. If I'm repeating myself, it's because this is important.

The system of producing antibodies probably came about as a defense mechanism against invading enemy cells by binding them (which would hinder their movement, and make them easier targets for PRE-EXISTING MACROPHAGES). From there, it was extended to carry out more and more functions.

The role of antibodies in the human immune system is ABSOLUTELY NOT irreducibly complex. They can hinder a bacterial invasion completely on their own, and they can aid other defensive killer cells. When they bind to bacteria or helminths (worms), the killer cells have a much easier time of killing them. This is obviously not "irreducibly complex" either, because killer cells can exist and function without antibodies!

So I've shown 1) how antibodies came about (in a non-irreducibly complex manner) and 2) how Behe is willfully dishonest (he's either deliberately lying about antibodies, or he's lying about not being a completely ignorant jackass)

To Summarize: Behe says the role of antibodies in our immune system is irreducibly complex, because they have only one useful function, which is to be a part of the irreducibly complex complement cascade.

I have shown that antibodies have many other useful functions (and I think there are more that I've already forgotten), NONE of which are irreducibly complex.

This is such fundamental, basic microbiology, that I cannot believe Behe doesn't know about it. I mean, the roles of ANTIBODIES in the immune system--that's REALLY FRIGGIN' BASIC MICROBIOLGY. Now that I've shown that Behe is a filthy liar, maybe you will pick someone else to be your champion?

[drlevy88]

There is no valid philosophical escape in that direction.

Shut out all miracles, and human existence, including its most vauntedly brilliantly creative thought, is but the equivalent of the toppling of a vast board of quark-dominos.

Hey, I thought you raged against the machine. Now you seem content to be its slavishly propelled cog.

[Servant of the Nine]

Shut out all miracles, and human existence, including its most vauntedly brilliantly creative thought, is but the equivalent of the toppling of a vast board of quark-dominos.

Let in a miracle and everything degenerates into magic and superstition. I don't think you can manage a quark dominoe. There is too much acauslity and randomness, or at least statistical choices so vast as to mimic randomness in a finite universe.

So9

[HiTech RedNeck]

Let in any acausality and you let in all acausality.

[chuckles]

People keep saying that God cannot be proven. One day my mother in law was dying of aplastic anemia. She had been diagnosed for about 18 months. She was on her death bed, as she had lasted longer than most in her condition. The only cure might have been a bone marrow transplant, but she was told she was too old. Her white count was around 20k and headed south. 100k is considered normal and 20k and below is hemopheliac. She was about to go into surgery for a hip replacement, which the family felt would kill her with a low platlet count. The doctors wanted to do it anyway because they were on grant money and wanted to make somemore before she died. My mother in law wanted it because she had no socket for the non exsitant hip ball to fit into. She was bedridden and screaming in pain. She wanted to die and said as much to everyone.

My wife knew the operation would most likely kill her, so she prayed. We had all prayed for everything we could think of, but to no avail. Suddenly, my wife said "IT" came to her. She said something told her to pray for something specific. She imeadiately prayed that Jesus would give her one stem of His bone marrow. This was about 30min before surgery. She had just been checked for platelets and they hovered at ~20k. When surgery was over, her platelets were at 70k and rising every hour. She was released from the hospital and has been fine ever since. That was 10 years ago. My daughter is spending the night with her tonight.

Then you might say, "Well and good, but science is repeatable". Well, 2 years ago my daughter was diagnosed with Crohn's disease. It is incurable. It can only go into remission. She suffered for a year on steroids to try and stop the pain and bleeding. It stoped for only a couple of months. We called the doctor to see if he wanted to up her steroids and he said yes. We did, but it did no good. He said we will have to try Remicade. We asked,"what if that doesn't work?", and he said he didn't know. We went for a second opinion and he decided to have her re-examined. We had pictures of the diseased colon and the pathology reports saying she had Crohn's. As my daughter waited for her colonoscopy, we prayed for her in the prep room. We asked her what she wanted to pray for and she said,"NO CROHN'S!" My wife again said she was given wisdom that God wants His children to have the desires of their hearts. We prayed that she would be cured. Up until then, we prayed that the bleeding would stop or the steroids could be lessened. She went in for the tests bleeding and in pain. She came out cured. The doctor saw no signs of Crohns and the pathology reports came back negative for Crohn's. Even a DNA test was negative for the Crohn's marker.

You see why I must believe in a Creator. I've seen His work. I've wittnessed it with my own eyes, twice.(Really many times, but they weren't right in front of me so you could say it was hersay or an exageration. These miracles were meant for me, so you probably will pooh pooh them, but that doesn't mean they aren't miracles. Evolution is just foolish to me. It sounds so absurd to talk of things changing from whales into cows and such. To a non believer, they must have something to explain their rebelion to God. Evolutionist can't prove anything they say but they insist it is the gospel. I have a living mother in law that the doctor said was going to die. I have a daughter that is free from Crohn's. I can show you medical records from both proving what I say. The doctors cannot explain it, but there it is, in there faces. Only a fool says there is no God. I have many more miracles I could show you, but if you don't believe, all the typing in the world won't fix that.

BTW, it always strikes me funny that these articles start with something like "Monkey Trial still going" or Monkey still on trial". If you look it up, the monkey worshipers lost. The teacher was fined and forbidden to teach Darwin, yet everyone assumes the evolutionists won. It's kinda like Communism, it doesn't work, it's been proven never to work, but people believe that if you just did it right, we could have nirvana on earth. The UN is dedicated to world communism, and China, N Korea, and Cuba are still hanging on waiting for the capitalist pigs to give up so the inevatable revolution can progress. It's the same with the evolutionists. Darwin has been completely debunked by most scholars, but they still tweak and twist the same old axioms, trying to make it fit because the reality of ID is too frightening to them. They can't face an almighty God that they must bow to and confess that He is Lord, and not them. Seems like the same problem Satan had when he was thrown from Heaven.

[gore3000]

No theory cannot be "scientifically proven." You obviously don't know even the most basic aspects of the epistemology of science.

Wrong. That evolution cannot be scientifically proven because it it not even a theory does not mean that other theories cannot be scientifically proven. Scientific proof is not the same as mathematical proof but it is proof nonetheless. Science is proven by experimentation, repetition, observation and even by the ability to apply the theory to useful purposes. It is this last form of proof that has given science its good reputation and it is in this last kind of proof that evolution is sorely lacking.

BTW - now that you have admitted that there is no scientific proof for evolution, kindly stop saying that evolution is science.

[gore3000]

That is hardly surprising, given that you seem to think that ID is a scientific theory.

Not only is it a scientific theory, it is a proven scientific theory. Scientists agree that the universe, life and the bacterial flagellum were intelligently designed.

[RadioAstronomer]

Darwin has been completely debunked by most scholars,

Cite sources. This is going to be interesting.

[drlevy88]

IC is inferred when you have a significant number of features which must fall into place simultaneously to get a functioning system. Screw up any one feature, and it won't work for that purpose or for anything else, which makes any purported naturalistic evolutionary path into something too tortuous to give credibility to. I think Behe is claiming that the particular antibodies we see working in concert with the rest of the immune system, don't do any good by themselves. Not that others, in general, can't. I think of cleaning tools. A dusting brush that works OK as a manual tool will not be a good attachment for a vacuum cleaner because the dust it gathers will clog it up. One that works well with a vacuum cleaner will only push dust around if used manually.

[vaudine]

If ID is religion in disguise, then so is evolution--the disguise of atheism, secularism, the anti-god group. Their view--If man didn't do it, then it must have been done without any outside help, because to imagine ID is to admit there is a Grand Designer--i.e., God. Those who feel superior to deluded believers in an Almighty designer prefer to espouse evolution as the only possible "scientific" explanatiion. Just the fortuitous coming together of organisms, which like living pieces of a puzzle, rejected each other until finally, out of the millions/billions of possibilities they, like true lovers, finally found each other and began the long, long road to becoming the intricate universe we know today.

Please, I'm smarter than that. However, if it makes your day to call me ignorant, that's okay. Some people just have to denigrate the beliefs of others in order to elevate their sense of self-worth.

Have a nice day in God's intelligently designed universe.

Vaudine

[vaudine]

Thanks for the post. This is such a vast subject, that I do not believe either side will convince the other. Some of these posters like to split hairs over what is science and what is not. And if they are into denying ID or Creationism, there is no limit to the ends they will go to discredit them. 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.

vaudine

[goodseedhomeschool]

Good post :)

[RadioAstronomer]

If ID is religion in disguise, then so is evolution--the disguise of atheism, secularism, the anti-god group.

No. Evolution is a scientific theory. It has nothing to do one way or the other with the concept of God. I know a number of people who accept the mountains of evidence that underlies the Theory of Evolution who are quite devout. It is a fallacy to equate evolution with atheism.

Their view--If man didn't do it, then it must have been done without any outside help, because to imagine ID is to admit there is a Grand Designer--i.e., God. Those who feel superior to deluded believers in an Almighty designer prefer to espouse evolution as the only possible "scientific" explanation. Just the fortuitous coming together of organisms, which like living pieces of a puzzle, rejected each other until finally, out of the millions/billions of possibilities they, like true lovers, finally found each other and began the long, long road to becoming the intricate universe we know today.

Cosmology and Evolution are models that describe the origin of the universe and the diversity of life here on this planet. And it is not just a "fortuitous coming together".

Here is a site you may want to read to further your understanding of the Theory of Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And here is a site you may want to look at to further your understanding of Cosmology:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

[PatrickHenry]

I didn't know this thread was still going on.