Posted on 01/20/2005 12:54:58 PM PST by Jay777
ANN ARBOR, MI — The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution. In what has been called a “measured step”, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin’s theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells - the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, “Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.”
“It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin’s theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it,” continued Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
And "atheists", which while situationally true even here on FR, is certainly not universally true. There are some idiot creationists who cannot get it into their thick skulls that not everyone who accepts evolution lacks belief in gods.
Reducing things to a single sentence isn't science, in fact it's the exact opposite of science. Science is about expanding a single sentence to understand the mechanics behind that sentence. Gravity is a fine example, everybody already knew that when you held an object above all support and let go of it the object fell, that was the single sentence everybody was happy with "unsuported things fall", Newton wasn't happy with that and expanded that into a large series of sentences explaining how it fell down how different objects fell at different rates and how falling could be manipulated. Reducing things back down to one sentence is undoing science.
Actually, you meant to say that the cause of evolution is "adaptive speciation via natural selection", however you meant that. If "adaptive" is inherent in your term, natural selection, then isn't it redundant? Perhaps your particular Theory of Evolution might read - evolution is caused by natural selection. The 'speciation', however you define it, would be part of the 'fact' of evolution, correct?
I'm curious - does mutation play a role? And might that find its way into your Theory?
those are two components of the explanatory theory of the mechanism, yes.
there is also the explanatory theory of the evidence, which led to the development of several evolutionary theories, most of which disproven by science, one of which generally supported and expanded by science.
but this is well beside the point: I have -by your posts- been led to believe that there is no valid purpose served in even attempting discourse with you.
Depressing considering we are in the golden age of molecular biology.
Not to mention the incalculable damage this nonsense is going to do for conservatism.
That's enough. So you believe that The Theory of Evolution reads: Evolution is caused by genetic mutation and natural selection? In what order? In what way? And what other sort of mutation is there? Why use the word, genetic?
Might you mean, rather: evolution is caused by natural selection of mutation?
I wonder, if that's suitable, if the idea of a population comes into play at some point? or are we just talking a couple of thoroughbreds and stud fees, here? Or is that really included in your sense of natural selection, itself, and so redundant in your opinion, when stating just what you believe might be causing this evolution?
Actually, you meant to say that the cause of evolution is "adaptive speciation via natural selection", however you meant that.
Umm, no. I meant to say: Evolution is adaptive speciation via natural selection. And, I meant that precisely as I said it.
If "adaptive" is inherent in your term, natural selection, then isn't it redundant?
No. One might adapt to any number of things - including the commandments of an intelligent designer.
Perhaps your particular Theory of Evolution might read - evolution is caused by natural selection.
You might read it however you see fit, but the accurate way to read it is exactly as I wrote it.
The 'speciation', however you define it, would be part of the 'fact' of evolution, correct?
I define the 'speciation' exactly the same way a dictionary does. Look it up. And, yes, it is indeed part of the fact of evolution, which is why it is what evolution is, which is what you asked for.
I'm curious - does mutation play a role? And might that find its way into your Theory?
Mutation is by definition an inherent process of speciation, so the answer to your misconceived question is obvious.
??? Care to elaborate on this?
Refusing to clarify what you mean isn't science.
Science is about expanding a single sentence
I thought you said there was nothing to "expand".
unsuported things fall
You're confusing theory and fact. The fact is you might be hard pressed to explain to me what causes gravity, particularly if you are reduced to reducing it to an indivisible fundamental force of nature. Gravity is not a fine example, unless you wish to suggest that evolution has no theory, and is rather a similarly irreducible force of nature. Gravity - is. A theory about the effects of gravity might be falsifiable.
Is this what you're suggesting - that evolution not only just is, but that it cannot be further explained? Are you suggesting that only theories concerning the effects of evolution can be falsifible?
What might be one such theory, even one such prediction, about the effects of evolution?
I told you what it is: the changing of one species or a part of it into or more other species. The gut of the science is trying to figure out how it works. One of the major problems evolution has is that it's actually not a distinct science in itself, it's a place where multiple sciences (primarily paleontology and genetics) meet, changes in either science create changes in evolutionary thought. And all three are incredibly young sciences.
Funny first you want it in one simple sentence, then you want specifics. Thus proving that what you really want is to remain unchallenged.
Much like the principle creeds of a religion statements of scientific theor are just the beginning. The meat of the matter isn't in the creed or the theory, but the meaning of the creed or theory and how it works. there is no evolutionism that's YOUR invention to turn a science into a quasi-religion. You've had the precis of the theory posted to you many times already, but that's just the grossly oversimplified view that can be expressed quickly and holds none of the meat of the matter; much like someone saying Christianity is worship of this guy that died and was reborn, yeah that's part of it but there's so much more.
The only thing we can see that causes evolution is environment, changes to the world animals live in (something we know is constant) and competition between living things for the same resources (something that's even more constant). Things seek an advantage and they change, this makes other things change or die. One of the creeds of the Marine Corps is adapt and overcome, that's the cause of evolution, adaptations to overcome. Now those adaptations could be guided by a devine hand, there's nothing that rules such out. One thing science learned a long time ago is that if there is a God He's really orderly and likes to do things in a way that they're self sufficient, self perpetuating, and can eventually be quantified and explained. That's why Ptolemy lost out, his model was high maintenance and required constant deific intervention, which doesn't match how anything else works.
That's an interesting article but I understood that fossil was longed proved to a hoax and that Chinese villagers were gluing together and selling "feathered dinosaur" fossils to gullible Americans. What about that?
That's incorrect. There was one (1) case where a villager glued together two different specimens, and for a very short time (weeks) National Geographic (*not* science journals) overlooked the "red flags". And it wasn't Archaeopteryx -- there are multiple archie fossils from different geographical locations, and they've withstood all validity tests (plus they're whole, not fragmented). The same goes for the other transitional fossil birds. Here's a previous post of mine which describes what happened with the one bogus case:
(unlike Archaeoraptor which was a known hoax)
That's overstating the case. It's more accurate to say it was a fraud. And not by those evil(tm) evolutionists, either, as creationists like to imply. More than anything else, it was a comedy of errors.
The Chinese farmer who found the original specimen knew that it would sell for more money to fossil collectors if it was more complete, so he shaped and glued plausible (to him) pieces he had found nearby onto a broken specimen. He was just trying to make a buck, not hoax anyone into any particular scientific conclusion. He may have even believed that the parts belonged together.
It was eventually bought by a husband-wife team of semi-professional fossil collectors (dubbed "hobbyists" in some accounts), who decided they had something interesting and brought it to the attention of National Geographic magazine, hoping for fame and fortune. If it turned out to be significant, it could be their Big Break in the fossil community.
National Geographic normally doesn't publish new discoveries without first having them peer-reviewed in advance by scientists (even though, note, National Geographic is not itself a "scientific" publication). For various reasons they neglected to do so this time, and the result was egg on their faces.
Through a number of communication failures, red flags raised by several members of the team examining the specimen were not communicated to the right people (some of which were out in the field working on other projects), and eventually National Geographic went to press with an announcment of a new "discovery" that turned out to have been incorrectly assembled like a jigsaw puzzle. (Note: The fact that the specimen was glued together in several places was not itself a tip-off, since specimens are often broken into several pieces naturally prior to being discovered, or broken during recovery, and then glued together to retain their form.)
It was only a matter of weeks before the attention created by the publication resulted in a flood of scientists pointing out the obviously inauthentic nature of the specimen, and National Geographic published an embarrassed retraction and post-mortem analysis of how they had managed to screw up.
Significantly, the two *science* journals to which the fossil owners had submitted papers on the specimen (prior to the National Geographic publication) had rejected them. The journal Nature rejected it because National Geographic would not give them enough time to properly peer review the matter before NG's publication, and they would not print it without peer review (good for them, this is why peer-review is a critical scientific "reality check").
The paper was then submitted to the journal Science, which rejected it, saying they required more proof of Archaeoraptor's birdlike qualities. The paper was rewritten and resubmitted, and again rejected as inadequate.
So contrary to creationist claims about this debacle, 1) the fraud was perpetrated by a Chinese farmer out to make a buck, not an agenda-driven scientist, 2) the mass-market magazine National Geographic was responsible for the premature announcement of its alleged "missing link" status, not the science community nor science journals, 3) actual science journals rejected it, and 4) scientists were the first to identify it as a fraud as soon as they got a look at it.
Rather than being a story of science's alleged frauds or errors, it's actually a story of how self-correcting science is.
"Psychotically enraged Darwinist-atheist-antiChristian"
Ah, there you are!
The 'record'. How did one end up here, and not there, what uplift, what stream, what flood, etc?
But that's not evolution. You have the fact, however you define it, whatever you mean by it. And you have my question - do you have a theory, or some alternative theories, that might explain how it came to be, and continues to this day (supposedly)? Or is it just an irreducible fact, and that's as far as we go? No natural selection? No chance? No mutation? No populations? No genetic drift and the like? Evolution is just a fact - see - I drop this apple (just like that)?
Therefore we can reason that these overwhelmingly significant gaps between kinds of creature systems -- as a book with the same number of letters, using the same alphabet, using the same rules of language -- create %100 percent different systems/ stories.
Random editing of the text causes changes to appear, however those changes rarely produce cogent results. On the infinitesimal chance that a meaningful change occurs, the sentence is only slightly changed, but mathematically speaking the accuracy of the changes never produces a new story/ system. Given time -- absent any intelligent action -- random edits will geometrically always become gibberish.
Living organisms, with their incredibly complex interrelated systems, are even more mathematically impossible to improve upon. Absent intelligence things go from bad to worse, not good to better like you posit.
You're just being argumentative.
which is why it is what evolution is, which is what you asked for.
As a scientist, I specifically asked if you had a theory to help explain this supposed, 'fact', whatever you thought you meant by - the fact. I grant you that for sake of argument. You don't need to repeat it. Just the theory, please.
Mutation is by definition an inherent process of speciation
Perhaps you should define - speciation. I suspect it harbors your Theory, and you don't even know it. Does speciation also include notions of genetic drift, and populations as opposed to mere individuals, etc? All that would remain is to place natural selection under this all-inclusive rubric and the job would be done.
"If the Inquisitors had had you, the sun would still be revolving around the earth."
It's really so sad that God-haters can be so easily baited.
I entreat you to read the posts on this and similar threads and then tell me whose comments are the more irrational and threatening: the ones from your side of the issue or the ones from the other side of the issue.
You guys sound precisely like liberals, you know that? Name calling, invective, ad-hominem attacks just like what you said to me are all common feature from your side's posts.
If you are offended by my baiting then I can only assume that you see yourself as in the group of Psychotically enraged Darwinist-atheist-antiChristians and are duly offended at truth in labeling.
Considering you are the only one to respond to my bait I'm left to conclude the other folks on your side are, at least so far, demonstrably more rational.
So, care to rationally discuss the issue at hand or do I continue my battle of wits with an unarmed person?
Someday someone is going to say, "Man, that made sense. You have convinced me."
I am still waiting.
What we mean has been clarified to you over and over, but you don't like the answers given so you claim they lacked clarity. That's YOUR problem not ours.
Different nothing to expand.
No I'm not confusing theory and fact. What science is all about is developiong the theories to explain the facts. Especially early science, we knew the facts we could see the facts (these days most of the facts are subatomic and most of us can't see them), but they had no explanation. Things fell down, but nobody had figured out how they fell, what rates things fell at, or how those rates were determined. Thus the theory of gravity was born, things weren't going to stop falling down if Newton hadn't started mucking with stuff to develop a theory, the fact remained with or without explanation. But God created man as a very curious beast, we like to figure out how things work, we look at facts and want more facts and theories to explain them.
I'm suggesting almost exactly the opposite. Whether or not we can explain it has no effect on whether or not evolution is. Electricity existed for a long time before we could explain, fire existed for a long time before we could explain it and even continued to exist while our explanation for it was complete garbage. I don't believe that right now our explanation of evolution is correct, if it was it would be one of the fastest correct explanations mankind has ever come up with, and given the complexity of the thing that seems highly unlikely.
I'm not suggesting anything about falsifiablity. That's YOUR hangup. ANd also further demonstrates your lack of understanding. Science is not falsifiable, scientific proof can be but that's why science believes so strongly in reproducability (among the sciences where we can actually poke things to make stuff happen), verifiability (presenting the entire body of work for analysis, and peer review. To eliminate falsification. Unfortunately there's too much money involved so nothing can prevent it, but these steps help disprove falsified stuff rather quickly.
The effects of evolution are simple: new species. But understand that no theory of evolution has new species showing up in less than thousands of years and this science is less than 200 years old, it's gonna be a while before we get to see it in action.
"If the Inquisitors had had you, the sun would still be revolving around the earth."
Flawed logic. Read what you posted here. I find it entertaining in retrospect.
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.