Intelligent Design Now Comes to Australia ( Issue is Going International)

Sydney Morning Heralkd ^ | Aug 11,2005 | AAP

[SirLinksalot]

Nelson brings intelligent design debate to Australia

August 10, 2005 - 7:47PM

Education Minister Brendan Nelson supports the teaching of a controversial new theory of creationism, but only if it is balanced by the instruction of established science.

President George Bush has started a debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in school by suggesting a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of intelligent design, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.

"Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don't think that it should be," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.

"In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.

"Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think that's fine."

Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.

AAP

[narby]

Intelligent Craterism. I like it.

[JohnnyM]

we can observe craters. We can make craters ourselves in labs with tests. We can see them with our eyes. We have not yet observed macro-evolution in action.

JM

[PatrickHenry]

The scientific case against Atom Bomb-ism

Or, Creationist Dialectics Applied to Hiroshima

1. Atomic theory is "just a theory."
2. No one has ever seen an atom, and certainly not one that explodes.
3. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits atom bombs.
4. There are no atoms mentioned in the bible.
5. Even if individual atoms decay, that's micro-fission. There's no proof for macro-fission.
6. Atomic theory leads to fear, depression, sexual promiscuity, and world domination.
7. There is no evidence that a so-called atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima.
8. Just because a so-called bomb dropped when the city blew up proves nothing. Correlation does not equal causality.
9. Many scientists believe that Hiroshima may have been destroyed by an encounter with Rodan.
10. Rodan's existence is well-documented and has never been disproved.
11. Atom bomb-ism is a product of materialism and a Godless, naturalistic worldview.
12. It takes more faith to believe in Atom bomb-ism than it does to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
13. More and more scientists are turning to "Rodan Theory" (RT). Atom bomb-ism is a theory in crisis!

Atomic explosion or Rodan? "Teach the controversy!"

[Gumlegs]

There is nothing whatever in the theory of evolution that rules out religion. Your position is based on a false dichotomy.

[narby]

we can observe craters.

And we observe that there are species.

We can make craters ourselves in labs with tests.

And we can evolve life in labs, and do so every day. Indeed, lab "evolution", is one of the methods used in the phamacutical industry.

We have not yet observed macro-evolution in action.

And we have not yet observed a macro-crater being formed.

Therefore according to the scientific method promoted by creationists, science cannot come to any conclusions regarding crater formation.

The theory that an intelligence, using ancient D-7 caterpillers, dug the craters on the moon is just as viable as creationism.

How do you know it didn't happen that way?

[Quark2005]

We have not yet observed macro-evolution in action.

Nor would we expect to, unless we were observe a biological system over millions of years. For a new family, order, or class to 'suddenly' appear faster than this would support creationism (of a sort), not evolution. We do, however, observe species in the process of macroevolution (read about ring species (#3) if you're inclined to learn something about it).

I don't know why creationists use this argument repeatedly; there is no fine line between microevolution and macroevolution. They're both the same process. What creationists call "macroevolution" just takes longer, and its past presence does produce testable consequences, even though not it is not directly observable. (Then again, neutrons aren't directly observable either - it doesn't mean they ain't there.)

[js1138]

The interesting thing about ring species is that they encompass every aspect of evolution that you might want to study in real time. We have living, breathing transitionals, just as theory would predict. We have an ongoing process that can be studied as it is happening.

And at each end of the ring we have distinct species that do not interbreed. A perfect laboratory experiment happining right in front of us.

[Chickensoup]

Do you accept the findings of mainstream biology, other than "blind natural selection"? Is this the seni-official stance of the ID movement?

I am, in no way, someone who can speak about the stance of the ID movement. I am just an interested reader who has been surprised by another perspective. I found Behe's book intriguing...not at all what I expected...

[js1138]

I am now in my fifth day of trying to find an ID advocate willing to state in a positive form, what they believe.

The standard summary of ID presented on these threads is that ID claims natural selection is insufficient to explain evolution. Please note that those ID advocates with scientific credentials generally acknowledge the historical fact of evolution and common descent. They merely believe that change was guided.

I am really trying to get this clarified. I want to know what the FReeper ID advocates believe about the bulk of mainstream science -- physics, geology, and so forth.

The main point of ID seems to focus on a rather technical matter, whether variation is stochastic or whether it anticipates need. This is something that can be studied with standard scientific methods and procedures. In fact it already is.

[Chickensoup]

I have taken a cursory look at your link and its links and read one of the papers that was cited almost gleefully:

"Determining the protein responsible for torque generation in Escherichia coli: a review of a paper from the Journal of Bacteriology -As a side-note, a number of sources that discuss flagellar mechanics are written by people who claim it as proof that bacteria were divinely created, rather than evolving, because of a principle called ‘irreducible complexity’, which claims that the flagellar structure is too complicated to have evolved, as it requires correct functioning of a large number of proteins, specifically including FliG, FliM, and FliN. The argument seems to run as follows: unnecessary genes randomly mutate, and it is unlikely in the extreme that all 40 (the number typically cited) of the proteins necessary for flagellar function could have somehow suddenly appeared at the same time and in the correct manner to form a macrostructure like the flagellum. No mention is made that Helicobacter pylori gets by with 33 proteins. One implication of this paper is that it is not necessary for FliM and FliN to be strictly conserved, but FliG must be basically invariant, reducing the number of strictly necessary proteins by another two."
.
.
.
The author is saying that irreducable complexity is somehow in question because instead of 40 protiens commonly cited in ID (?) literature, a certain different bacteria uses 33. It doesn't compute.

I will read more on the site later.

[ndt]

"When macro-evolution can be tested, observed, and repeated then it can be considered science."

If you accept micro-evolution then you accept that over X period of time, N number of base pairs (DNA code) change. now if we extend the period of time X to say Xx100, then N would be increased to Nx100.

Now please explain to me the process that would stop macro evolution.

[js1138]

Hey, if someone claims that a structure with 40 elements is irreducible, and someone comes along with a structure with 33 elements, the original claim is definitely in question.

More important, there is the real possiblity that simpler structures have a function, even if it isn't the same as the more complex structure. I think a bit of reading will show that this problem and this response was first discussed in detail in 1859.

It's like Wack-A-Mole.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Crikey!

[little jeremiah]

Unfortunately my busy schedule today prevents me from responding to your valid points.

I will get to them later tonight or tomorrow.

I am a hospice volunteer and have a lot on that score, plus other business related responsibilities.

So don't think I'm hiding, just can't freep much today.

[flevit]

why should one assume changes in DNA goes on indefinately and uniformly?

[Gumlegs]

The author presents the ID argument more-or-less accurately. It should be plain that it is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

[Ready2go]

You may not and that's your choice as God gave us all free will, but there's millions of folks that would tell you otherwise from first hand experience.

And their interpretation first-hand experience is not necessarily a reflection of reality.

And what about the one's that come back with physical proof of a problem they never had before? Isn't that worth some research and investigation?

[ndt]

"why should one assume changes in DNA goes on indefinitely and uniformly? "

Uniformly they do not, the rate mutations are based on many things from toxins and radiation to transcription errors, but standard rates can be calculated.

As for going on indefinitely, please tell me what would stop them. If you can answer that I'll nominate you for a noble prize because you have just cured cancer.

[mordo]

Very interesting. You question, confront, and make demands directly to the person, but you in turn respond in a totally different way.

[Kokojmudd]