Intelligent design - coming to a school near you

The New Zealand Herald ^ | August 27, 2005 | Chris Barton

[sauron]

Coyoteman wrote: Creation of the Earth The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black Mountain.

HERE'S AN EXERCISE: (1) Compare the creation accounts for all cultures. (2) Compare the account given by cosmogeny. (3) Compare and contrast the differences between Genesis and (1) and (2). You'll find that the ancient Jews had, by far, the account that most closely approximates that of cosmogeny.

Coincidence?

Keep in mind that Genesis wasn't written as a scientific explanation, but a cultural explanation to the Jews on how things came to be.

Not bad, for something 3,000 years old, give or take.

[grey_whiskers]

Sorry I can't join the thread, guys, I'm hooked on the Hurricane Katrina stuff.

Full Disclosure: Stephanie Abrams on The Weather Channel is HOT! :-)

[Coyoteman]

You'll find that the ancient Jews had, by far, the account that most closely approximates that of cosmogeny.

Most of the replies I receive to the "alternative" creation stories I post are similar to yours. They place the Hebrew creation story far above those of other cultures, so much so that it is different in kind, not just in degree.

This suggests to me that the ID movement is really about teaching the bible in public schools, not about ID in general--as that would embrace all of the alternative stories I post. But in fact, the stories I post are rejected by IDers.

It is beginning to look to me like the IDers method represents a Trojan horse.

[snarks_when_bored]

A rational deity ought to at least insure that the punishment fits the crime. So because one chick decided to take a bite of a forbidden apple, all later generations are condemned to die—in many cases, in great pain and suffering. Sorry, that's a disproportionate punishment and, as such, it offends the rational mind.

[js1138]

I'm still trying to determine what the Creationist/ID crowd really want.:

You're going to have to be patient. I've been asking for three weeks what ID advocated would teach if they ran the science classes.

Saying that Darwinism doesn't have everything explained makes a rather short lesson plan.

What is it they would tesch?

[snarks_when_bored]

Understood...and agreed!

[silverleaf]

Not what I suggested. In this case, first they have to build the molecule. From nothing. From whatever they theorize existed before the Big Bang, First Event, the moment of singularity, or whatever they choose to call the pre-born Universe.

Evolutionists have assumptions. They take many necessary steps for granted in the molecules-to-man model. Evolutionists assume that non-living chemicals gave rise to that first living cell which, in turn, evolved into ever and ever more complex forms of life. There are no scientific experiments to prove the molecules-to-man scenario.

Writing as an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut lists the major assumptions of evolution. These are the basic theories an evolutionist takes for granted or “supposes” to be true. All of the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon these assumptions, but you rarely, if ever, see them listed in a high school or college textbook.

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

MOLECULES-TO-MAN IS ASSUMED

What Dr. Kerkut has listed as “assumptions” is the whole of evolutionary teaching. In other words, there is no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible) science which supports evolution. The process of moving from non-living things to the first living, reproducing cell to man and giant Redwood trees is all an assumption.

Grasshopper.

[silverleaf]

Not what I suggested. In this case, first they have to build the molecule. From nothing. From whatever they theorize existed before the Big Bang, First Event, the moment of singularity, or whatever they choose to call the pre-born Universe.

Evolutionists have assumptions. They take many necessary steps for granted in the molecules-to-man model. Evolutionists assume that non-living chemicals gave rise to that first living cell which, in turn, evolved into ever and ever more complex forms of life. There are no scientific experiments to prove the molecules-to-man scenario.

Writing as an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut lists the major assumptions of evolution. These are the basic theories an evolutionist takes for granted or “supposes” to be true. All of the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon these assumptions, but you rarely, if ever, see them listed in a high school or college textbook.

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

MOLECULES-TO-MAN IS ASSUMED

What Dr. Kerkut has listed as “assumptions” is the whole of evolutionary teaching. In other words, there is no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible) science which supports evolution. The process of moving from non-living things to the first living, reproducing cell to man and giant Redwood trees is all an assumption.

Grasshopper.

[snarks_when_bored]

Good creation story. About as plausible as any other creation story, it seems to me. Good for telling to 3-year-olds with a smile on one's face.

[Gumlegs]

Doesn't count because:

A) It proves intelligent design.
B) They didn't make their own dirt.
C)Who are you to think you understand the mind of The Designer?< /ID > < /Creationist > < Brain >

[snarks_when_bored]

Not what I suggested. In this case, first they have to build the molecule. From nothing. From whatever they theorize existed before the Big Bang, First Event, the moment of singularity, or whatever they choose to call the pre-born Universe.

I was trying to put a reasonable spin on what you wrote. You're asking for scientists to create a new universe, it would seem. If they could, the act would quite probably destroy our present one, which isn't a pleasant prospect. They're under no obligation to do any such thing anyway. The proof that life (as opposed to, say, the entire cosmos, which evolution doesn't discuss) is not the result of some sort of divine intervention will, in my view, be forthcoming from the labs of the sort of very smart folks mentioned in the article I linked to earlier. Once they've managed to construct an artificial organism by assembling chemical units, only the most obstinate will continue to argue against the possibility. (Of course, there will be some such...there are always Flat-Earthers.)

[longshadow]

In the interest of being fair and balanced, I also present a collection of links to some Jack Chick comics:

As it should be; all "Sunday Editions," even from DarwinCentral, should include "funny pages" for our amusement.....

[jonathanmo]

Well said. Thanks for the ping!

[snarks_when_bored]

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

In the first place, all sciences make certain assumptions, so to say that evolutionists make assumptions, as if this were a flaw, is to betray some degree of misunderstanding of how empirical science is carried out.

In the second place, let's look at your list of 'assumptions of evolution'.

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

Comment: This probably is a working hypothesis of most biologists, but it's part and parcel of the materialistic assumption that all empirical science makes. Empirical science tries to explain the phenomena of nature without appealing to extra-natural forces or principles.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

Comment: Ridiculous. Spontaneous generation might have occurred any number of times on Earth, and any number of times elsewhere. The early Earth was bombarded over millions of years by comets and asteroids. It's perfectly possible that during that time, early versions of living things came to be and then were completely wiped out, and that this occurred over and over again. The living things we see today happen to occur from the most recent successful spontaneously generated version of life.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

Comment: This is not an assumption, it's an observation. All of these organisms are made up of cells whose activities are controlled by DNA and related chemicals. If that doesn't show that they're related, I don't know what does.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

Comment: Again, that's the most likely scenario, but I'm sure that no evolutionist would be totally surprised if somebody could show that it happened otherwise.

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

Comment: See the comment on #3.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

Comment: See the comment on #4.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

Comment: The tree of life on Earth is not nearly so linear:

[longshadow]

Ignorance on parade.

Strike up a band, and they will march....

[silverleaf]

Once they've managed to construct an artificial organism by assembling chemical units, only the most obstinate will continue to argue against the possibility

OK Sparky, once they've "managed to do" that, in the lab or on a supercomputer, get back to us for more discussion of how they plan to jump their life form forward to mankind or something artifically equivalent.

Until then, molecule-to-man is an assumption and does not address how to create the molecules they are tinkering with. A child with enormous intelligence and an unlimited supply of building blocks could build the Golden Gate Bridge or an artificial equivalent....I'll concede that it "could" happen... But my suggested experiment is to put alll the world's intelligent children in an empty room and let them build the blocks, first. Which you support is possible in theory.

Signed, Grasshopper

[loveliberty2]

In the Year 2005--just one little sliver of time in the existence of the universe--one observes the "foolishness" and arrogance of human beings who, limited by the human brain's capacity for assimilating and incorporating adequate data for rational evaluation and understanding of profound questions about the origins of their universe, deem themselves "keepers" of the gate for the minds of rising generations.

Minds are finite tools for exploring infinity, and most proponents and vocal advocates of such tyranny in the classroom must rely on data provided by other, likewise limited, minds. Can any one, alone, apply the "scientific method" to every aspect of the dogma they defend?

If not of such serious consequence to the liberty of future generations, one could find it laughable, as the Creator well must!

In every "science" classroom, could there be a gigantic and invisible elephant, just waiting to be discovered by some young mind, not yet imprisoned by his/her captors?

And, what do we do with the underlying theme and foundation of our liberty, as expressed in the Declaration of our Independence, summed up in Jefferson's capsulization?

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

Ideas have consequences!

[loveliberty2]

Researchers Creating Life From Scratch.

Huh?????

Oh, the foolishness of the wise!

[b_sharp]

"Who are they kidding? Did the little blob of accidental randomness just decide "hey, I would like an eye, I think I'll just grow one"

You have it backwards. Originally a light sensitive cell was produced through mutation (it exists in extant organisms). Those with the cell had a better chance of surviving and reproducing, thus passing that cell to their offspring. The reproductive advantage those with the light sensitive cell had, allowed the cell to become fixed in the population. Further developments were simply modifications to the cell.

"Or why would a bird evolve wings, not knowing that flight was even possible, which wing stubs would be useless for millions of years until fully developed."

The development of wings was not a 'choice' birds made. Nor would a half wing be just a stub of a wing. It would have been a feathered front limb that would not have been changed in function from the limb's original use. The exclusive use of the front limb for flight would have been a rather late development, well after flight itself developed.

If you desire to debate in this subject I suggest you learn a bit about evolution rather than simply guess at the implications of a strawman version of it.

[headsonpikes]

The desire to have final answers NOW! is strong, but must be resisted by those who seek true understanding rather than palliative beliefs.

Well stated - but palliative beliefs are the foundation of the modern media-conditioned economy!

Besides, stoical skepticism will never be as popular as the notions of the likes of Sixpak Chopra and Pat 'Hitman' Robertson.