Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway
Thomas More Lawcenter ^ | Tue, Jan 18, 2005

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; unknownorigin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 781-789 next last
To: betty boop
BTW Alamo-Girl, my little screed was almost entirely addressed to Ichneumon. I hope you don't think I was ranting at you personally!

LOLOLOL! I never take things personally - but, hey, if the rant fits, I've gotta wear it.

Thank you for your reply!

401 posted on 01/21/2005 11:22:03 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: sevry

Which is exactly what I was getting at. The Creeds can't stand on their own, they need support. A table of contents without the rest of the book might be interesting but isn't terribly useful.


402 posted on 01/21/2005 11:29:24 AM PST by discostu (mime is money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: sevry
Care to say what those are, and phrase it in the form of a sentence?

Care to tell me why it matters whether or not the collection of concepts within the theoretical framework of evolution can be conveniently reduced to a single sentence? It is not particularly difficult to discover the actual concepts at issue, e.g., variation through random mutation, changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, genetic drift, and natural selection.

It is particularly difficult to put those concepts on a postcard.

But why is that exercise even necessary? What point is served?

403 posted on 01/21/2005 11:30:40 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
"They're actually attacking Abiogenesis theories, by people who are under the mistaken impression that Evolution and Abiogenesis are the same thing."

Evolution used to include the concept of Abiogenesis. Only once hard scientific problems with abiogenesis started turning up did evolutionists start distancing themselves from it. And it's been fairly recent. 10 years ago, hardly anybody talked about abiogenesis and evolution being two different things.

404 posted on 01/21/2005 11:37:11 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
The science nazi's are those who take the position,

"I can't figure out how there could be a God, so we must have happened by chance"

and they defend their position by accusing us of not being able to figure out evolution so there must be a God.

405 posted on 01/21/2005 11:39:56 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins; betty boop
A very, very interesting speculation xzins! Thank you!

We often speak of the "will to live" which we observe in everything from bacteria to whales, the struggle to survive, the "want to". I hadn't meditated on it as waxing/waning force.

406 posted on 01/21/2005 11:50:49 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: \/\/ayne

no, the antibodies I don't believe have a fixed number of prordained shapes they fit to, instead they have an A and B portion, one of which is not stably encoded and so might essentially be considered a quickly mutating protein, sort of like HIV quickly mutates.

But this is a long time ago to remember, so one of us needs to take the time to look it up. If I get time, I will.


407 posted on 01/21/2005 12:04:57 PM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; Northern Yankee
Darwin's theory of evolution ultimately concludes that modern day humans are a classification of beings that have evolved (via survival of the fittest) after millions of years, right? Therefore in the context of this discussion, the origin of human life (and humans themselves) is the subject that Darwin theorizes upon. The theory of Intelligent Design similarly theorizes upon the origin of human life. Why then would you not want to discuss the two theories conjunctively, after all the subject is the same?
408 posted on 01/21/2005 12:19:11 PM PST by Raquel (Abortion ruins lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Er, if I might ask, how can you not see that there is a sharp dividing line between life and non-life?

What is that sharp dividing line? (It's not obvious to everybody.)

409 posted on 01/21/2005 12:42:41 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl

Part of the problem is the assumption that simple, single-cell life forms are simple. In actual fact, they are not so simple. They have moving parts, they have a control system that directs the operation of those parts, and a basic logic blueprint that directs how they are formed, how they operate, and how they fit themselves into their environment.

What distinguishes "life" from "non-life" seems to be a philosophical problem when we don't have a powerful enough microscope, and we can't see the moving parts. But our very basic lifeform has a built in logic that guides how it does what it does. When the signals that trigger its actions are no longer interpreted correctly, it starts to fail. When the signals are no longer generated at all, we would say that it is dead.

The signals, be they chemical or electrochemical in nature, and its response to those signals are the indicator that it is alive. As others have pointed out, the DNA (which is presumably where the logical blueprint exists) is still there even after it is dead, but the signals that keep the little mechanism working have stopped.

I realize that I am treading in way over my head. Cars are mysterious to me, but they are not magic. They have moving parts and a logic that controls their sequence of operation. There is a continuum I suppose between an engine and a raw block of iron ore, but the relationship between the two should not obfuscate the fact that an engine is not ore. But cut the cord from the ignition coil and it stops dead in its tracks.


410 posted on 01/21/2005 12:43:36 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: marron
Another great post, marron! Thank you! I'm posting it over to the Plato thread, too.
411 posted on 01/21/2005 1:01:09 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
no, the antibodies I don't believe have a fixed number of prordained shapes they fit to, instead they have an A and B portion, one of which is not stably encoded and so might essentially be considered a quickly mutating protein, sort of like HIV quickly mutates.

It certainly is a very interesting subject of which we all wish we had more time to explore! I did find this article The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. September 29, 2004

I barely had time myself to skim over over it right now.

In fact, by the time I get back to Freeperland again this post will just be history but I'll check and see if anyone answered any other of my questions. God Bless us every one!
412 posted on 01/21/2005 1:03:30 PM PST by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Evolution used to include the concept of Abiogenesis. Only once hard scientific problems with abiogenesis started turning up did evolutionists start distancing themselves from it. And it's been fairly recent. 10 years ago, hardly anybody talked about abiogenesis and evolution being two different things.

And you have proof of this statement where?

413 posted on 01/21/2005 1:04:34 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: metacognative

Life does not "defy" the 2nd law. Life does involve a kind of heat pump, but so does the evaporation of water.


414 posted on 01/21/2005 1:07:06 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis

There is a very sharp dividing line, or difference, between the presence or absense of life. There is no in-between state. A thing is either alive, or it is not.


415 posted on 01/21/2005 1:22:02 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
There is a very sharp dividing line, or difference, between the presence or absense of life. There is no in-between state. A thing is either alive, or it is not.

Right, betty boop, that's what you said earlier. My question is what is that sharp dividing line? What is it that demarcates something living from something non living?

416 posted on 01/21/2005 1:31:20 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Sorry, but if there had been an internet back in the days when Darwin first published his Origin of Species, I'm sure I would have seen posts just like yours attacking his book and arguing that Creationism was unassailable.
In other words, your position is a conditioned response to, "the accepted wisdom of the time" and you are just as blind to new theories as Creationist's were in their day.
All I'm saying is that some subtle seismic event has recently occurred in this field that has caused many scientists to doubt their blind acceptance of Darwin's theories and this debate has begun to occur. Why?
You never answered this key question. Up to now, none of Darwin's proponents would tolerate the slightest deviation from the accepted orthodoxy. Why now all of a sudden?
Please try to keep an open mind on a theory which may turn out to be the biggest red herring since Piltown Man, leaving you as red faced as the herring.
417 posted on 01/21/2005 1:36:09 PM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
What is it that demarcates something living from something non living?

Presence or absence. That is all. The DNA is the same regardless of whether the entity is alive or dead. But something is definitely "absent" in the latter case. We know this intuitively, we know this from direct observation. But that "something" may prove extraordinarily difficult to "isolate" experimentally.

418 posted on 01/21/2005 1:39:47 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Presence or absence. That is all. The DNA is the same regardless of whether the entity is alive or dead. But something is definitely "absent" in the latter case. We know this intuitively, we know this from direct observation. But that "something" may prove extraordinarily difficult to "isolate" experimentally.

It's something worth thinking about because that "something" seems obvious for straightforward examples like rocks and humans. But it is much less obvious for entities like viruses or viroids or even prions. Along those very murky lines, it is not obvious to anyone what constitutes life and what doesn't. Scientists draw up very precise definitions to include or exclude certain entities from life. And not all of them agree. There is no sharp dividing line and where a dividing line is drawn, it is done with definite measurable criteria. It's clear from your answers that even though you claim a sharp dividing line, you don't really know what that line is. You're in good company!

In thinking about abiogenesis, the same murky life-non life distinction exists. Afterall, nobody is suggesting that humans sprang from rocks (accepting some creationists). The gulf between life and non life is certainly not as clear-cut as you proclaim and it is possibly not a very big one.

419 posted on 01/21/2005 1:58:17 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Presence or absence. That is all. The DNA is the same regardless of whether the entity is alive or dead. But something is definitely "absent" in the latter case. We know this intuitively, we know this from direct observation. But that "something" may prove extraordinarily difficult to "isolate" experimentally.

Chiming in on a very difficult subject, I tend to agree with Nebullis. You state that the dividing line is "presence or absence," but that begs the question -- presence or absence of what? And if it is presence or absence of animation, this seems to apply only to the most rudimentary of examples -- biological life forms that have lost a preexisting animation.

The more difficult questions apply to the border line chemical structures, such as the (now proverbial) virus, which exhibits both dormant and active states. For that matter (to get really obtuse), we can measure both growth and cessation of growth in crystallization, and the chemical triggers in that process definitely have on and off switches. While these are certainly in a different category from biological life, they do render animation itself as less than a unique trait, or marker, of "life".

Perhaps the only (facetiously) known quality of life is its apparent weightlessness.

420 posted on 01/21/2005 1:59:46 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 781-789 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson