Posted on 11/01/2005 6:42:25 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On Nov. 4, 2003, Republican candidates made a strong showing in York County, Pa. Among the winners were Republican Heather Geesey, who was the top vote-getter among candidates for the nine-member Dover school board, with 2,674 votes. Democrat Aralene Callahan finished out of the running -- dead last, with 1,276 votes.
School board members voted 6-3 in 2004 to include these books as an optional supplement to freshman biology classes.
To hear Mrs. Callahan tell it, the school board thereby surrendered Dover's science curriculum to a Bible-thumping theocracy. If all you know about the case is what you've seen in the New York Times, then you might imagine that freshman science classes in Dover now resemble a Pentecostal revival meeting, complete with snake handling, faith healing and speaking in tongues.
But fear not, ye lovers of science, for Mrs. Callahan quickly rode to the rescue, sparing Dover's 14-year-olds a one-way ticket to the 13th century. The unpopular Democrat, who a year earlier had told the York Daily Record that her post-election plans included spending more time with her family, instead decided she needed to spend more time with the ACLU. And so it was that the board's plan became the object of a federal lawsuit, with Mrs. Callahan among the plaintiffs and Mrs. Geesey among the defendants.
The Dover evolution trial, then, represents the effort of Mrs. Callahan and her allies to win in court what they could not win at the ballot box.
...I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about schools or scientific theories. In fact, I think it fair to say that James Madison and his fellow Founders would have been horrified at the prospect of a federal judge telling folks in Dover what they should or should not teach their 14-year-olds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It is an undoubted fact that life exists. Spontaneous generation is pretty much discounted.
There is evidence RNA preceded DNA,
No there is speculation by some, not many, that RNA preceded DNA. Here's Wiki on RNA World
Modern spontaneous generation is discounted. If primitive life were to appear today, it wouldn't stand a chance in competition with already evolved life forms.
No there is speculation by some, not many, that RNA preceded DNA. Here's Wiki on RNA World
The article is rather unbalanced; I suspect much of it was written by an anti-RNA person, and possibly an IDer. For example it quote-mines Gerald Joyce to make it appear that he is anti-RNA world, when in fact he's one of its biggest protagonists. As with most quote-mining, any identification of a current issue with a scientific theory will be seized on, and quoted out of context to try to misrepresent the quotes author as believing the opposite of what he actually believes. It does not mention the obvious counterarguments: that DNA nucleotides are actually synthesized from RNA nucleotides by an unusual and complex enzyme; that RNA is directly involved in protein synthesis; that there are RNA-based lifeforms and long-lasting RNA in the cell (in the riobosome, for example); and that the oldest cellular constituents are RNA.
Few people believe life originated with RNA world; the problem is, there are as yet few identified chemical relics of anything earlier. But we're working on it. In contrast, all ID can say is 'gee, it's complex; something really really smart and really really powerful (wink wink) must have done it'.
After being raised a Roman Catholic and attending various protestant denominations, my family has settled into a church which teaches through the entire Bible. The significance of having fairly exhaustively gone through the Bible four or five times with the church (as well as extensive personal study), reveals how integrated the Old and New Testaments are.
Ernest Hemingway marveled at how the texts of so many men (40 or so in 66 books) doesn't reveal an ego-centric orientation as do all other books. Spending a significant amount of time in the scriptures makes the supernatural origin of the entire book, obvious. This does not hold true for any other Holy Book. To have 40 authors write text that has been examined by rational Western thinkers for thousands of years, and not be thoroughly discredited, says volumes.
For this reason, thousands of the most brilliant minds in history have become students of the Bible and followers of Jesus Christ. The record is undeniable on this point. To chalk them off as overly superstitious, or brainwashed to believe in the Bible by their parents, is to deny these people had intelligence.
What's new in the last 150 years is Darwinian Evolution has given the modern person an excuse not to seriously pursue knowledge of their Creator.
Bertrand Russell (no Pomost Modernist) said this was the sign of a great mind.
The adult mind in which A can be both A and non-A at the same time is not sane. We cannot be sure which side of the line Russell was on at any given time.
Wink-wink placemarker.
On the flip side, you could let the good people of Dover start teaching about pink invisible unicorn creators in class and let the "science" curriculum be mocked openly.
Then pomo is also an assumed artificial construct. It's self-refuting.
And a good PoMoist would be the first one to admit this!
You are certainly correct. Scientists are human, after all. So I agree with essentially your entire post.
Moreover, ID could have been a reasonable hypothesis.
Where we disagree, though, is the issue: "where's the beef?" No matter how many times or how many different ways we ask, we still do not get a simple, direct answer as to what ID is and what the pedagogical, logical, step by step proof is. We never get the math that is promised.
So, if ID can't get published in a peer reviewed journal, then post the rejected papers. Let's at least see something.
Yeah, right.
Try to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion with a creationist.
When will I ever learn.
A fair reply, bondserv.
Right Wing Professor has also answered your post in part. I will also answer.
My answer to your question: Clearly "b" is more important to me.
However, where we apparently disagree is that "a", although less important, is not of zero importance. Science still has value. You apparently disagree????
"As an evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design Theory accepts that evolution does in fact occur, and is therefore fundamentally opposed to biblically literalist "creationism.""
Intelligent Design advocates spend most of their time attacking evolution. How much evolution, exactly, is it supposed to accept? This is exactly why Intelligent Design can't even begin to be considered science- there isn't even agreement on what the "Theory" is supposed to say. Forget about there not being any evidence for it, there isn't even a clear statement on what it describes.
Actually, the correct wording states: (in part)"..an establishment of religion.." which means a church.
The ACLU and SCOTUS have given most people an incorrect interpretation.
And there is no problem with that, but at what point do you give up?
In contrast, all ID can say is 'gee, it's complex; something really really smart and really really powerful (wink wink) must have done it'.
No, what ID says is that the most rational belief is the belief in a designer. There are plenty of reasons not to believe in an RNA world -- RNA is delicate etc. -- but you do. What reason do you have for this?
No, what ID says is that the most rational belief is the belief in a designer.
...for which we have no scientific evidence and no even plausible mechanism for implementing the design (other than 'poof!'). I don't think so.
There are plenty of reasons not to believe in an RNA world -- RNA is delicate etc. -- but you do.
RNA isn't that delicate. The main reason it hydrolyses easily in a lab is the ubiquity of nuclease enzymes - which obviously weren't a problem in prebiotic environments. Cytoplasmic ribosomes, for example, whcih are largely composed of RNA, have lifetimes of several days. I've listed already the reasons why I think RNA preceded DNA as the genetic material, although I don't think it was the original self-replicating material.
Sorry in advance for the length. Sometimes it takes many words to formulate an argument. Thank you for the interesting discussion. I am interested in your response to some of the things I have said here.
Of course science has value. Many lives have been lengthened, or in the case of premature babies, enabled because of mens pursuit of scientific knowledge.
We lose sight of the fact that science has no answers regarding living a good life. As in, a good child, a good sibling, a good spouse, a good parent, a good citizen, a good employee or employer...
A person's worldview directly effects the above crucial aspects of life. Science and knowledge should have no bearing on any of these character attributes. However, what I find myself reading is how influential modern science is on peoples worldview. People look to legal wrangling and scientific studies rather than moral absolutes to take positions on watershed issues.
One of the things I love about George W. Bush is his commitment to making decisions based on principles, rather than the latest intellectual focus groups conclusions, like Clinton did. It seems the scientific establishment has chosen to travel down the Clintonian elitism path.
A logical conclusion of a worldview based on belief in evolution is that we (humans) are a product of pure chance. Killing, via survival of the fittest is a way an organism can improve it's environmental security. Death of disabled, elderly organisms contributes to the survival of the organism by increasing the amount of shelter, food and water.
The result of removing the Creator reduces mankind to the animals that evolution dictates that we are. The Biblical model - which enhances the character and joy that life has for free-will creative agents with high intellectual capacities, differing from animals - presents an entirely different perspective on reality. God gave us dominion over the animals, so that they could serve us.
Science becomes a gift of discovery that no other creatures can indulge in. Relating ideas to one another perfectly lines up with a trinitarian Creator who within the Godhead models the most important aspect of our purpose. Valuable relationships that bring deeper meaning to our existence.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ to be a perfect model of how He wishes us to relate to one another. Most importantly, Jesus died on the cross to provide eternal life for us to live out our full potential with Him in eternity. we are only scratching the surface in this life. Quantum physics has opened an entirely new reality to modern scientists, that was revealed all along in the Bible thousands of years ago.
Our Founders found the Bible to be the reservoir of unchanging principles that a society can most effectively function with. Eliminating God and the Bible casts the forming of principles back to man via legal reasoning, and science. based on what I have postulated, we can see how mans reason will always fail because of our inability to know the cause and effect of everything. God has proven His principles are based on a supernatural understanding of cause and effect from an eternal perspective.
Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy;
Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
No, we're not. Evolution is not a process of pure chance. We evolved because our ancestors survived and propagated themselves. And that process was not entirely devoid of attributes we might call 'good'. In most but certainly not all cases, qualities that lead to our survival are good qualities. We do seem to have evolved as primarily monogamous creatures; as creatures that value truth-telling and have an innate sense of fairness; that display reciprocal altruism; that are innately repulsed by incest and the unclean. That's not to say that those things are wrong because we have a natural dislike of them, but it does mean that evolution isn't necessarily a force for brutal, amoral competition.
We shouldn't form a system of ethics based on any natural law, be it evolution, gravity, or the second law of thermodynamics. How the world behaves, and how we should behave, are entirely different issues. But science, to the extent that it lets us understand ourselves, does have a bearing on what it means to be a good father, spouse, citizen, etc.. In most cases, in fact, science reinforces what traditional morality preaches. Traditional morality preaches the integrity of the family; science tells us that biological fathers have far more invested in the well-being of their children than the casual lover who happens to be currently impregnating the mother. Traditional morality says we shouldn't have sex with close relatives; science tells us that leads to genetic defects. Even the arcane dietary rules of Leviticus seem to have had quite a bit of hygienic practical sense.
So I wouldn't say science has no answers. It has a part of the answers; and the rest of the answers shouldn't ignore science.
There is no scientific evidence for RNA world. RNA has never been seen evolving into DNA. No naturally occurring RNA molecules have been found that direct the replication of other RNA molecules. It's all supposition.
and no even plausible mechanism for implementing the design (other than 'poof!').
Well, no it would be a force unknown implementing the design. Sort of like how RNA would switch roles with DNA.
The main reason it hydrolyses easily in a lab is the ubiquity of nuclease enzymes - which obviously weren't a problem in prebiotic environments.
The prebiotic envirnoment is still subject to debate. Even without hydrolysis, RNA breaks down from background radiation. Anyway, the lack of enzymes is also a stumbling block. Without protein enzymes, researchers have not been able to produce a duplicate of a RNA template.
Did you just substitute “spontaneous generation” for a discussion about abiogenesis? Here’s part of a reply on EvoWicki when someone apparently did the same:
"spontaneous generation" is a scientific theory that was empirically refuted a couple hundred years ago, and "abiogenesis" is a scientific theory that is being investigated today. To conflate the two is incorrect (if not dishonest), IMAO, because doing so wrongly implies that the specific claim of spontaneous generation (i.e., that complex contemporary life forms can arise from nonliving matter) is indistinguishable from the specific claim of abiogenesis (i.e., that something which qualifies as 'life' can arise from nonliving matter). The two claims are not indistinguishable; the former is a subset of the latter, and the fact that former has been refuted does not in any way imply that the latter is equally invalid. Do we really want to encourage Creationists to keep on yammering about how Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis?
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.