Posted on 08/11/2005 8:28:30 AM PDT by 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
However the reverse is not true.Given a current state of the game of life universe, and using the rules, it is not possible to predict exact past states. This is because there are multiple possible past states that could have lead to the present state.
This is suggestive of the Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment. The present state, being the consequence of numerous possible outcomes of each past state, will inevitably appear to be highly improbable.
Reminds me of how FormerLurker snapped over crop circles.
Three jars are brought into a vacuum chamber. One vial is full of air. The other two are empty. All are opened.
Very quickly, the gas from the one vial disperses throughout the chamber. Can you determine which vial held the gas?
Yes and no. If you really knew the position and velocity of every molecule in the chamber, you could still model it all back to its origin. The information is somehow still there.
But of course you could never really do that.
The collapse of the QM wave function is another problem, though. In between the two is a certain physicist's kitty.
AAAAAAaaaaggghhhhh!!!!
Which hole did the ball drop through? Or did someone cheat and lift the lid?
The bowl has a curved bottom such that any ball dropped from anywhere must come to rest in the center. That in fact is the kicker. Some states are attractors, which pull a variety of initial conditions to the same outcome.
The extreme case is a black hole. You probably can't determine the contributions to its history.
"only if you can show ATTAGC turning into ATTAGCC,produces something the organism never had before."
In this obviously extremely simplified example it does, an extra C :)
Mutations occur on the microscopic level, not the macroscopic. Any change to even a single base is novel. I'm guessing you won't be impressed until an eye randomly pops into existence in a single generation, but thanks for listening anyway.
Olny srmat poelpe can.
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh, and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
"..Australia has a provision in its Constitution concerning religion that is very similar to the provisions in the US .."
Interesting, here is the specific section. Note, I'm not at all familiar with the Australian constitution so there may be other sections relating to this or amendments that override it, I have no idea.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT
- SECT 116
Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Ridiculous nonsense.
Evolution is an integral part of science because it explains empirical data, nothing more, nothing less; and does so very successfully. It is not an "attachment" on to science; it is a theory with consequences that span many categories of science.
With all due respect, it sounds like someone's been feeding you propaganda - don't be too eager to buy into such ad hoc comments against the integrity of the scientific community.
Well, you can determine if a deposit was made; you just can't tell post hoc what currency was used to do it.
Intelligent design sadly does not jibe with the evidence. It has great trouble dealing with extinctions, or with signs of clearly bad design (see Stephen Jay Gould’s The Panda’s Thumb and other writings on this subject). It has no observable, replicable evidence of the supposed “Designer.” It doesn’t say how or when the design was translated into creation. But this is only the beginning of its problems. Far worse is that it is not scientific, that is, it does not provide us with observable evidence. It is worse than a “fill in the gaps” theory; it is a “gaps are our proof” theory! It reminds one of the old Sid Harris cartoon with the two white-coated scientists looking at a board full of equations that does not quite add up. One simply puts in a variable and says “and then a miracle happened.” Imagine the state of modern physics, medicine, and the like if we took this method for more than a test spin!
yes. apt. especially that cartoon.
scary thing is... I *did* read that without much difficulty.
the misspelled contractions are jarring.
otherwise... butter.
that's freaky.
Loss of information as most people understand the word happens all the time. Every time I overwrite an old videotape of the Clinton impeachment with a B horror flick starring Linnea Quigley, some information is lost even as some is gained. That can be OK. Sometimes you want to forget.
According to some theorists, the "information" about what goes into black holes is somehow still in theory detectable in the pattern of Hawking radiation emitted as the BH evaporates. The question seems to still be up in the air. For instance, this page.
The people worrying over this stuff are not using "information" in the way you and I do. You and I would call it "information" that Tom Harkin refused to understand the evidence in the impeachment, calling it "a pile of dung." Information theory would worry over the number of letters in "pile of dung" versus "utterly convincing."
A description of evolution through variation and natural selection. The part of the process you call "design" is merely a collection algorithms arrived at through previous generations of trial and error, and preserved in the culture.
well...
1. I start by defining the function of the mechanism
2. I then figure out what the mech will have to do to accomplish that function
3. I then whomp up a general large-component assembled design
4. I then break it into sub-assemblies
5. I then figure out how each subassembly is put together, what parts it contains, how subassemblies mate to one another. Basically anything goes at this point - brainstorming, all variations are on the table, promiscuous and complex.
6. Then I sit back and look at the mess I have wrought and ask "ok... how many of these parts can be conglomerated as features of larger, simpler, more robust parts?"
7. then begins the process of simplification, balancing fewest number of components against robustness of the design and what I can actually manufacture/get
8. Then comes trial and error, the process of "whoopsie!" optimization.
so far as I can tell, Nature only performs steps 5 (second sentence) and 8, and does so "blindly" without "designing intent"
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.