Fact is, this theory is under attack (Evolution Revolution Alert)

Baltimoresun.com ^ | 5 Feb 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[gobucks]

ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.

With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.

*snip*

The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.

*snip*

At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.

*snip*

The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."

*snip*

Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."

*snip*

Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.

"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"

[jwalsh07]

Me, I had a daughter born at 33 weeks gestation. I saw kids in the preemie ward who had been born at 24 weeks, well within the second trimester. You don't need to instruct me on killing babies.

I didn't instruct you on anything Professor.

We got a lot of schemes to stick Genesis into the biology curriculum, but surprisingly little of any effectiveness to stop abortion. Yeah, we got little old ladies doing prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood in Lincoln, and more power to them, but the GOP is scared to do anything but rattle sabers on the subject. And you know it as well as I do.

All of this interesting and a lot of it is undeniably true but none of it addresses my original proposition which is that religion addresses this particular moral problem much more than the secularists or non practicing religionists. Do you agree with that statement or not?

[Step_Into_the_Void]

Why don't you tell us one law in the US Code that doesn't contain a moral component.

I was referring to making laws about morality based upon religion. This is a clear violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.

[FreeReign]

I was referring to making laws about morality based upon religion. This is a clear violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.

Can you give a specific example?

[nasamn777]

Now, you're going to say, "But, but, the robots were designed", and thereby miss the point. The group behavior (i.e. the characteristics of the overall system) were never designed. They just popped up. And that shows the power of self-organizing systems, which is only a small part of the engine of evolution.

This statement is a philosophical statement rather than a scientific one. Self-organizing systems are limited by the physics of the system and the boundary conditions. You are not going to see these systems writing out dictionaries! They are limited by the thermodynamic mechanism which constructs the "self-organizing" paterns.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I can heartily concur with what you have described as self-organization when it comes to economics. But I would hesitate to believe such organization developed apart from information, communication, and intelligence.

Take your example of the NYC food supply. Even though the individual components may be unaware of each other, the end result is still due to intelligence and design. It is sloppy, to be sure. Anyone's analysis of NYC food supply will be a self-imposed construct, fitting the current system into a pre-conceived image of "organization."

In short, I don't think this example can serve as one to show that all matter has the capacity not only to remain consistent but also to be observable, apart from any kind of intelligence or design.

We have to be careful what we mean when we say "self-organization." As far as I have been able to observe there has not been any kind of organization completely apart from intelligence and/or design. Your experience and understanding is probably different.

Thanks.

[jwalsh07]

I was referring to making laws about morality based upon religion. This is a clear violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.

Then you don't understand the first amendement. Are you suggesting that a law maker has to disregard his religious foundation of morality when voting on legislation?

Because if you are, you're in the wrong country amigo, the old Soviet Union is what you're looking for.

For instance, my religion tells me not to murder. Are you suggesting that having a law proscribing murder is unConstitutional?

[Northeast]

Religion is the problem in the country because it has created rifts in the populace, embarasses other Republicans, tries to legislate morality and it perpetuates the war on drugs.

Oh boy. It's been over a year since I posted here (But lurk all the time).

But I have to speak up on this one. Religion is the Problem? In the US? And it perpetutes the war on Drugs?

Please, lead us into the humor zone, you're off to a great start!

[jwalsh07]

But of course. :-}

[Fester Chugabrew]

For what reason does your not-so-humble-opinion fear havoc? What kind of havoc do you fear? Is it greater than a meteroid striking your neighborhood?

Get a grip.

[FreeReign]

For instance, my religion tells me not to murder. Are you suggesting that having a law proscribing murder is unConstitutional?

Since you are a religious person, you should disqualify yourself from the advocation of all law.

The Constitution according to SItV

[FastCoyote]

"If you really study the field of self-organizing systems, you will be astonished how complex systems can evolve from unconscious and dumb parts."

Here's where the argument gets interesting. What if "self organizing systems", which promote global entropy and therefore conform to the 2nd law, ARE the image of God, and the universe itself is a self organizing system which is sentient (having a memory of past events - seen by Hubble).

That means the concept of evolution would be intrinsic to a being some call God and others call the Universe. A sentient evolving Universe/God.


In this case, Satan would equate to the second law processes of devolution. Because we know of vitual particles and black holes (and possible wormholes to other universes), we also suspect instantaneous creation can occurr. But evolution would be possible as well.

In such a theory, atheism would be a worship of physical processes, which would be the image of a God/Universe, so atheism would in fact be a theism. Traditional religions would also be manifestations of the self organizing Universe and therefore valid in their sphere as well.

There ya go, that's what I believe.

[Step_Into_the_Void]

Just think for yourself. Read the Supreme Court rulings in detail, it will come to you. The Supreme Court has had to overthrow these laws time after time. Engel v Vitale, Griswold v Conneticut, the recent Kansas anti-evolution law and they will probably have the smash the silly Behe-ID nonsense; there are many.

[_Jim]

Get a grip.

No.

Let me rephrase that: "No way in __________"(fill in the blank with a metaphor of your own choosing).

Let me also add that you 'butt out' in the future any time I am addressing another poster.

Now, back to out regularly scheduled pitchfork thrusting!

[ValenB4]

"We got a lot of schemes to stick Genesis into the biology curriculum, but surprisingly little of any effectiveness to stop abortion. Yeah, we got little old ladies doing prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood in Lincoln, and more power to them, but the GOP is scared to do anything but rattle sabers on the subject. And you know it as well as I do."

Bravo!!! Judge them by the fruits they bear. The current head of the RNC is the head of Republicans for Choice. At least the Democrats, in regards to abortion, follow through on their beliefs. Prove me wrong Republicans. Nothing would make me happier.

[Northeast]

Since you are a religious person, you should disqualify yourself from the advocation of all law.

Not really. (And I'm not a church goer here) The Bible teaches to follow laws laid by governments, but to follow the commandments (and the words of Jesus if you are a Christian).

Y'know, if the Bible said "Thou shall not wear Seatbelts" Some folks could have saved a lot of cash!

Regards

[Stultis]

....and the most interesting fact is not that fraud has occurred, but that the community as a whole was so rabidly enthusiastic about embracing those frauds.

Uh, can you give an example, even a single one, of a fraud (or even an error) that was embraced "rabidly" and "enthusiastically" by the community of evolutionists/scientists?

The message you are replying to here, for instance, traces back to a comment that appears to reference Piltdown (although it was the jaw of an orangutan, not a baboon). Certainly this doesn't qualify. The anthropological community was so unenthusiastic about Piltdown that the hoaxer had to engineer a second find. Granted that no one suspected a hoax, but an otherwise correct consensus rapidly developed that the original find was a fortuitous association of a human skull and an ape's jaw. Only a second association of the same material, too much to attribute to chance, compelled critics to accept it as a single creature.

Nor was the attachment to Piltdown "rabid" even before its true nature was divined. As genuine fossil evidence began to accumulate that was inconsistent with it (showing, opposite to Eoanthropus, that jaws became more human while skulls remained apelike) Piltdown was shunted aside as an anomaly, not on any of the main branches of human evolution.

[nasamn777]

The argument is that without Christianity, we will devolve into amoral chaos. But if Christians' minimal standard of behavior is to be no worse than the people they're inveighing against, that's not terribly persuasive, is it?

I know you may not like my engineering thermodynamics. You don't even have to accept Creationism. But it sounds like you would make one hel-of-a good Christian -- well excluding the h--! I pray that you would see the reality of Jesus Christ. He did rise again and new life can be found in him! Carpe Diem.

[stormer]

What a wonderful analogy. It can also illustrate why planned communities (ID), have so many unforeseen difficulties. Complex systems evolve due to myriad minor pressures and, when more fully developed, are very difficult to analyze.

[jwalsh07]

:-} I got the sarcasm FR.

[FreeReign]

I was being sarcastic with that statement.