Did someone mention Lamarck?
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 ...
Did someone mention Lamarck?
The first section quotes 4 different prominent evolutionists with statements that include abiogenesis as part of evolution.
It should be obvious by now that many Evolutionists did include abiogenesis as part of the theory. It is the logical underpinning of taking a purely naturalistic approach.
Myths of Origins and the Theory of Evolution
It is ridiculous to adopt the position that all living things must have a natural origin because you consider anything other than evolution to be "supernatural", regardless of the evidence. It is even more ridiculous having adopted that position to exclude abiogenesis from the discussion.
Cool! Great find, thanks for the link. It's amazing how many of the "current" creationist arguments against evolution seem to be taken verbatim from this 1925 book. Science advances over time, but creationist arguments apparently don't.
I remember posting my displeasure with someone's "raving looney ping" post about an evo-dissenter. I see nothing better about that which you had to respond to.
A subject such as this promises both spirited opinion and predictable repetitions, yes, but I see we're at 500+ so...
That being said, if Darwin did not, it is today's DarwinISTS who often-or-always do reach beyond. Which "species" did he refer to? All, correct?
It is neither.
With all due respect, no, it doesn't.
It is ridiculous to adopt the position that all living things must have a natural origin
No, because barring evidence to the contrary, that's the appropriate null hypothesis.
because you consider anything other than evolution to be "supernatural",
No, we don't, actually. Please do not misrepresent our position.
regardless of the evidence.
What evidence might that be?
It is even more ridiculous having adopted that position to exclude abiogenesis from the discussion.
Abiogenesis is not "excluded from the discussion". It is discussed quite often. The point, however, is that strictly speaking, evolutionary biology deals with how reproducing life forms change over time due to the way in which the environment interacts with the act of reproduction (and survival) itself. Since abiogenesis is, by its very nature, a process involving NON-living things (or "pre-living", if you will), the processes by which it occurred are OUTSIDE of the scope of evolutionary biology.
For a more mundane example of the same point, the field of physics known as Fluid Mechanics and Dynamics deals with how liquids behave -- and it is outside the scope of this field to analyze whether the liquid in question arrived at its current location via the melting of a glacier, the condensation of a steam cloud, was poofed into existence by God, was shifted into place through an interdimensional wormhole by aliens from the Universe next door, etc. NOR does one even *need* to know where or how (or explain) the origin of the liquid in order for Fluid Mechanics to be able to accurately analyze its behavior now that it *is* here.
Similarly, the theory of evolution (which again, deals with how life changes *as* it reproduces across generations) neither needs to be able to explain where life came from originally or how (or even where a *specific* population came from -- fruit fly genetic experiments don't depend upon whether the flies were captured locally or arrived by UPS), nor do its results change in any way (or become any more or less valid) depending upon any discoveries that may or may not be made about life's "ultimate" origins.
Abiogenesis is, in short, A SEPARATE TOPIC.
We're happy to discuss both topics if you wish, as well as many others, but the point is that first creationists (or anti-evolutionists) need to get it out of their heads that the two topics are somehow inextricably intertwined, because they most certainly are *not*, and because such fallacious ways of looking at these subjects inevitably keeps the creationist running in mental circles and unable to see the forest for the trees.
It's like a beginning student of meteorology (the study of weather) getting bogged down by fixating on "where the air came from" every time the instructor tried to teach him about clouds or cold fronts or convection. The dynamics of weather systems depend only upon the physics of air and heat and moisture and such, and it DOES NOT MATTER where the air etc. might have come from "originally". Maybe the aliens delivered it in big balloon-shaped spacecraft, but it DOES NOT MATTER -- the principles of meteorology are still correct and verifiable REGARDLESS of how/why/where the atmosphere came from.
Similarly, evolutionary biology really doesn't give a crap where or how life may have originated in the beginning. NOW THAT LIFE IS HERE, evolutionary biology studies how it interacts with the world and how this interaction affects subsequent generations.
Abiogenesis is. a. separate. topic. It's philosophically related, sure, but that doesn't make abiogenesis dependent upon evolution, nor evolution dependent upon abiogenesis. If either field was somehow revolutionized, confirmed, proven, or disproven, it would have *no* affect on the *other* field. In the same way, even if we learned that our current understanding of weather was way off base, that would say *nothing* about how the atmosphere originated way back when, and likewise if we discovered that the atmosphere got here by some shockingly surprising manner we had never conceived of before, that would *not* invalidate anything we know about weather analysis. Separate, independent fields of study, neither of which is built or dependent upon the other in any way.
No apology needed. Nor did I even consider your post to be "rude". I'm used to forthrightness and strong opinions in these sorts of discussions. Heck, you should see some of the arguments that take place in the peer-reviewed science journals... Crockery flying and whatnot.
Clearly, you deserve better from me.
I'm not so sure that I do. ;-)
I could give excuses for my bad behavior, but won’t. If the behavior is objectively bad – and it was – then excuses don’t count anyway. In the end, the abuser is personally responsible for the abuse, and the abuse ultimately redounds to the account of the abuser.
Well, I don't feel abused in any way. But if you still feel bad about it, perhaps sending me a sizeable check will help ease your mind.
As I said, you are entitled to better treatment from me. Please forgive me, Ichneumon.
Nothing to forgive, but I do thank you very much for your kind consideration, your willingness to be the first to extend an olive branch, and your desire to keep things civil and sincere. We could all benefit from your example; manners often seem to have gone out of fashion these days.
(Dang it, does this mean I have to be *nice* now? Curses!)
I really do want to respond to the points you've both made about quantizing/life/abiogenesis/etc., but it's late (early?) since I've been up all night, and I don't have the time right now to give your posts the attention they deserve, so if you don't mind waiting until tomorrow... (or make that "later today", I guess)
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (p. 409) - Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos - from heavenly bodies to human beings - has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes. " (p. 6) René Dubos
Ok maybe it's only two that are clearly linking it in that article.
Actually, that is a learned skill, not an intuitive one. You can watch the process by visiting peewee league baseball games. We don't intuitively know how to catch a ball. We learn how to catch a ball.
Furthermore, let's not get carried away in patting our species on the back for the way "the human mind" is capable of "intuitively grasping" things (like anticipating the movement of a thrown object and catching it) that *nonhuman* species can also do:
And when it comes to "intuitively grasping" ballistic trajectories and aerodynamics and so forth, most birds have humans beat by a longshot...
Finally, it turns out that people's "common sense" experiences with motion often result in misunderstandings about how moving objects actually behave: Naive Theories of Motion.
If you want to call a bluish tinged bacteria a different species that it's purplish cousin, feel free. I'm not interested in silly discussion.
The first one's good, but I'm not sure if the second one really qualifies:
"Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos - from heavenly bodies to human beings - has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes. " (p. 6) René DubosWithout seeing more of the quote's context, it's not clear whether Dubos is speaking of "big 'E' Evolution" (i.e., natural selection / 'the theory of evolution' / Darwinian evolution / etc.), or "small 'e' evolution" (i.e., any process(es) which lead to change over time by any means).
Remember that "evolution" in a non-scientific sense just means "change". (Interesting sidebar: Darwin himself didn't name his notion about biological change "evolution" -- that was the label applied to it by the public.) It seems to me that when Dubos uses the phrase "evolutionary processes" in this quote, he means it in the "processes which cause change" sense, not in the "Darwinian" sense. He's saying that everything in the universe "develops", as opposed to remaining constant and unchanging. Like the old saying, "the only constant is change".
Nor do I see any specific reference to origins in that quote (of life, or anything else).
If you're not interested in "silly discussion", why do you engage in such time-wasting games as misrepresenting the nature of the examples? That's known as a "straw man fallacy", by the way.
Horrible article, though. If that's what passes for science at AiG and ICR, and you read that everyday, I'm surprised that your brain hasn't turned to mush. Bad, bad arguments and more strawmen than a cornfield.
Interestingly, 1925 was also the year of the Scopes trial. Everything's up to date in Kansas City. Twenty-three skidoo!
But YOU said the Creeds were like the the tablwe of contents, these are YOUR words:
Consider the four principal Creeds of The Church as your Table of Contents. It's not unknown for catechisms and lengthy treatises to be organized in that way.
All I'd been saying the whole time was that the Creeds weren't the whole thing, and they YOU turned around and said it too. Tables of contenst are not, never have been, and never will be the the complete statement, they're just a table of contents. YOUR metaphor that YOU chose with no help from me agreed with my position entirely.
I never said they were essentially worthless, quite the opposite. You tried to stick me with that position, but it's a lie, I said the Creeds were very good and very useful but not the whole thing. "Very good and very useful" are not terms used to describe something that is essentially worthless.
And we demonstrated with this your entire problem. You make ASSumptions about what people think, and when what they write doesn't match your ASSumptions you ignore what they write and insert what you think they should have said based on your ASSumptions. This is, of course, why it's best never to ass-u-me. Read what I actually wrote, not what you guessed I'd say, you'll find it eye opening.
Let's get real then. Give me your best example of a new 'species' in a century and a half of desperate darwinite digging. Please, no links. Just tell it!
Which you twist to mean something else, even after I've REPEATEDLY clarified this, and restated it, again and again.
Go back and read what I wrote. You're repeating yourself, pointlessly. You refuse to consider what I say to you and proceed, in each new message, as if I'd posted not a word. Read those words. Go back and read what I posted.
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.