Opponents of origin theories plan presentation [Montana schools & Evolution]

MontanaForum ^ | 20 January 2004 | JENNY JOHNSON

[TigerTale]

ID is philosophy, not natural science. Start teaching philosophy in high school again, and you could discuss ID all day long.

[Oztrich Boy]

And what about the eye doctor who teaches a Sunday School class at my church and says "I'm no expert on 'evolution of protozoa,' but I'll tell you this: As an expert on the subject, the eye did not evolve." How could he be so successful at eye surgery, when biology doesn't make any sense to him?

Because doctors are basically technicians and mechanics, not scientists. They maintain the equipment, not evaluate the design.

[donh]

Does anyone here have a degree from an "Atheist school?"

Maybe I do. UCBerkeley. Solopsistic, at least.

[hosepipe]

They've over looked a group even more powerful than the Montana legislature... THE NEA... or Congress for that matter..

[Dimensio]

Well, at least where I'm taking classes, they're teaching alternative mathematics theories. I learned that 110+101 = 1011!

[Dimensio]

Neither is the idea that from inorganic materials, life developed and evolved, baby-step-by-baby-step to we'uns.

Evolution is a theory about "natural history," not science.

Uh, where did the "from inorganic materials, life developed..." bit come from? Evolution doesn't address anything that occurs before life exists.

[Dimensio]

Tell your kid's school to get a new biology text, and tell them exactly why. Do this after actually reading the text for context just to make sure that they're not presenting evolution as a "history" and including life origins as a "prehistory" without actually asserting it as part of the theory of evolution (which it is not, despite an elementary or high-school level textbook's claims)

[Dimensio]

So 50/25 is actually 0/2, or 0!

[VadeRetro]

Well, if you look at it there really aren't any 25s in 50, only half of one.

[PatrickHenry]

15/45, cancel out the 5s, you get 1/4. Looks pretty good to me.

[VadeRetro]

Somehow when I do it it doesn't work much. But 22/2 really is 2, right? After all, there are two 2s in 22.

[PatrickHenry]

But 22/2 really is 2, right?

Right. Surprisingly, 25/5 is also 2. You can get a lot of insights this way. It's "creation math," and it belongs in the schools. Let the students decide.

[RightWingNilla]

"creation math,"

Ahh yes I am familiar with the subject.

Take 1⁷²⁰ for example...an almost incomprehensibly large number.

[PatrickHenry]

Take 1⁷²⁰ for example...an almost incomprehensibly large number.

Yes. But very useful when computing the odds against evolution. It's the mystical nexus between "creation science" and "creation math."

[RightWingNilla]

"creation science"

Grade schools really need to find equal time for these underappreciated disciplines.

For just imagine all the lead just lying around that could be gold if mankind hadn't abandoned creation chemistry. These marxist liberals and their fancy "periodic table" are brainwashing our kids!

[js1138]

Does anyone here have a degree from an "Atheist school?"

Quaker. Does that count?

[Virginia-American]

And, due to the nature of evolutionary theory (vast change over great amounts of time) we'll have to wait a long long time for the first "scientific" evolutionary experiment.

This is not true. It is a claim in the ToE that people, gorillas, and chimps share a common ancestor that is not also an ancestor of monkeys. Monkeys make vitamin C, but people and apes cannot. Assuming that ToE is true, one *deduces* that the *same mutation* is responsible for the fact that we and the (other) apes can't make ascorbic acid.

In fact, when the relevant parts of human, chimp, and gorilla DNA were analyzed, the prediction made by ToE, as always, proved to be correct.

In other words, the facts had a chance to falsify ToE. Instead, they confirmed it.

This same sort of thing keeps happening, over and over. There have been thousands of observations, of fossil digs and genomes, and never once has one of them shown ToE to be false.

Unfortunately for the ID-ists, ID cannot in principle be falsified:

Wow, chimps and people share a mutation that blocks vitamin C formation. What a subtle creator!

Wow, chimps and people have different mutations that blocks vitamin C formation. What a subtle creator!

Therefore, ID isn't even a theory - it's an untestable hypothesis, mere armchair speculation.

ID has its own set of problems, but the point is....so does everyone else.

It's main problem is that it's content-free; there is no possible observation, in a fossil dig or a lab, that could, if it went against prediction, show ID to be false. Until there are, it has no place in the classsroom, outside of rhetoric class.

[Virginia-American]

..."I'm no expert on 'evolution of protozoa,' but I'll tell you this: As an expert on the subject, the eye did not evolve."...

The origin of the eye has little bearing on eye surgery, somewhat like the origin of water has little bearing on meteorology.

Personally, I'd be very wary of such a person; a lack of integrity when it comes to science may very well spill over into other areas. And anyone who claims not to be an expert on ToE, and then uses his expertise in some branch of medicine to act as though he's qualified to opine on the theory, isn't being very consistent.

[BartMan1]

Further, in what way are students qualified to distinguish between competing scientific theories -- even if ID were a scientific theory (which it isn't).

I suppose the gift of reason might qualify them to opine on the relative merits of these and other ideas presented.

[metacognative]

I.D is not 'creationism..whatever that cliche is supposed to mean. It is modern evidence from electron microscopes, fossil facts, empirical anthropic "coincidemce, etc.
Old timer darwinite believers are in denial about science and wishful thinking about religion.