The evolutionists were angry to have "this is a theory" pasted on textbooks.I wonder why...
Of course, no such sticker would be necessary for books about other religions, like the Quran.
Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1
Topeka — From Darwin to intelligent design to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The debate over teaching evolution in Kansas public schools has caught the attention of a cross-country Internet community of satirists.
In the past few weeks, hundreds of followers of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster have swamped state education officials with urgent e-mails.
They argue that since the conservative majority of the State Board of Education has blessed classroom science standards at the behest of intelligent design supporters, which criticize evolution, they want the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught.
“I’m sure you realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory,” writes Bobby Henderson, a Corvallis, Ore., resident whose Web site, www.venganza.org, is part FSM tribute and part job search. Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration
Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration
“It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” he wrote to the education board.
Henderson did not return a telephone call for comment. He says in his letter that it is disrespectful to teach about the FSM without wearing “full pirate regalia.”
Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, whose district includes Lawrence, said he has received more than 500 e-mails from supporters of FSM.
“Clearly, these are just supreme satirists. What they are doing is pointing out that there is no more sense to intelligent design than there is to a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Wagnon said.
Intelligent design posits that some aspects of biology are so complex, they point toward an intelligent creator.
ID proponents helped shepherd a report and hearings that have resulted in science standards that criticize evolution and have put Kansas in the middle of international attention on the subject.
John Calvert, of Lake Quivira, the lawyer who was instrumental in writing the science standards that criticize evolution, said he had seen the FSM e-mails, and was not impressed.
“You can only use that misinformation so long,” Calvert said. Calvert said the science standards do not promote intelligent design, but show that evolution has its critics.
Wagnon and the three other board members who support evolution have written Henderson back, saying they appreciated the comic relief but that they were saddened that the science standards were being changed to criticize evolution.
We were discussing mechanisms.
I am.
You apparently don't understand, so I'll explain.
If I were to say, for example, that Thomas Jefferson enjoyed Madeira sherry, I would need to cite a primary source since I can't just make random assertions about an individual. I would have to cite a primary source, say a letter written from Thomas Jefferson to his cousin Alfred in which he says: " I find Madeira sherry quite delicious." Or similar words to that effect.
Likewise, if I am saying that ID advocates say there is a "hole" in physics, I would need to cite a text by one or more ID advocates making that very assertion. Otherwise, it's not a primary source - it's just hearsay, speculation.
Just because you say that ID advocates say something does not make it so.
Welcome, may all your pasta be Rotini.
Didn't read my other posts huh.
I think it is terribly funny that we are doing intelligent design, people assert it is supernatural. I'm not a fan of its utility WRT to NS and ToE.
You may want to get up to speed in this thread, sit back and read some more posts...maybe confer with some pasta brothers and sisters on the tone. The great collander judges all.
DK
Do not mock He and His Noodily Appendage, lest thee be judged yourself, found wanting, and denied the eternal bliss of Noodledom.
But the mechanism is the same, and Darwin proposed it to be the same. The phenomenon of inheritance was well known and well established, and it was the mechanism Darwin proposed to explain evolution. Had he been aware of Mendel's work, he likely would have recognized it as the underlying principle of inheritance - Mendel did. In fact, Mendel's own copy of "Origin" has his notes in the margin indicating his understanding of how his work in genetics supported Darwin's work on evolution.
Well, that's precisely the point at issue.
No. You don't have to understand advanced aerodynamics to propose that a duck flies by the same mechanism as a goose. Darwin didn't have to understand DNA to propose that inheritance from species to species operates by the same general mechanism as inheritance from parent to child.
Here are some results of the evolutionary process applied to computing:
Ramen!
DK
The evolutionists were angry to have "this is a theory" pasted on textbooks.I wonder why...
Of course, no such sticker would be necessary for books about other religions, like the Quran.
"Behe's model shows NOT that his model is insufficient to explain the observations, but that Darwinian mechanisms are insuffiencent to produce the phenomena. There's a big difference."
No. No one has a realistic model. The claim that Behe uses "the" Darwinian mechs is bogus, because they aren't known. A good model doesn't exist. You see the scientists deny Behe's claim that the model is good. Behe's and those he conned are the only ones that say his model is "good".
"...your argument is a philosphical argument about science, not a statement of science.
Again, science studies what is real and can be readily observed by anyone. It also takes as unique, the simplest natural force(s), or process of forces. Supernatural forces are the art of shaman's, not scientists.
In his review of Darwin’s Black Box for Nature, Jerry Coyne, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago, explains why he also thinks intelligent design is unfalsifiable.
If one accepts Behe’s idea that both evolution and creation can operate together, and that the Designer’s goals are unfathomable, then one confronts an airtight theory that can’t be proved wrong. I can imagine evidence that would falsify evolution (a hominid fossil in the Precambrian would do nicely), but none that could falsify Behe’s composite theory. Even if, after immense effort, we are able to understand the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway, Behe could simply claim that evidence for design resides in the other unexplained pathways. Because we will never explain everything, there will always be evidence for design. This regressive ad hoc creationism may seem clever, but it is certainly not science. (Coyne 1996)Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or any equally complex system—was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
Michael Behe[1]Cordially,
Apparently you have been taught differently than I have been (and I have never gone to a religious school). I was taught that there is a distinct difference between scientific theory and law. Law can be observed and is therefore worthy to be unconditionally believed.
Because it's stupid! The book itself calls the theory of evolution, "The Theory of Evolution".
Mendel did not own a copy of Origin.
His monastery did own a copy and there is some underlining in that copy, but no verbal notes.
It is certainly possible that Mendel was the underliner.
What is the end result of forcing the theory of evolution down children's throats?
Will it help them build a better mousetrap? Perform complicated mathematics? Establish world peace?
If it could be proven EXACTLY what caused the "big bang" and what existed before the big bang, what could 99.9% of the public school students do with their lives? Would it stop some nagging voice that makes them take drugs as a way out from life's problems?
What good is it? With all of the things kids are not able to do after attending school, why is this such a high priority?
I WOULD like a "theory" disclaimer when teachers present materials on global warming and homosexuality as a genetic trait.
What public school permits that "textbook"?
Why isn't that taught in school?
I fear this thread has devolved into one not openly discussing the One True Noodle. Verily it has been many posts since talk of Holy Condiments and the Beauty of Extra Virgins (oil).
I fear these are unbelievers, looking to make this pastaorial discussion an Evo/Cre thread. Angel Hair, Angel Hair, smite the wicked!!!
DK
You must chose your words carefully grasshopper. as subtile differences between the multiple theories....and the Facts of evolution are spelled out....
I can give you the FACT of evolution,.....please read....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
If the unicorn is invisible, how do we know he/she/it is pink?
What public school permits that "textbook"?Of course, it'd be for the school library. Noone would object to such a sticker, or would they?
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.