Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer
I have changed my approach. I do like to learn about the perspectives of others on this issue. Such help me to further formulate my own.
However, as I've said before, I'm much more concerned with where I'm going than where I've been.
Has he something other than his opinion to support this claim?
Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.
And that explanation is what?
(Following quote from the article that started this thread:)
This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.
"The school seems to be confusing where it's at, West said. Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that
no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."
while I agree that the theory of speciation through mutation and selection does indeed unify biology, I believe it is a bit of an overtatement to say that "nothing in biology makes sense without it"
In order for this to be science, Behe needs to PROVE all the pieces need to be in place first. Maybe he can find something similiar and apply that knowledge to flagellum.
How about an elephant?
When the Intelligent Designer decided to shake things up a little he said, "Hmmmm I think the world is ready for a huge animal with a big long tube nose thing sticking off it's face.
Of course ID requires this to happen in one generation because if the grand designer made this change. It could not be made over time. That would be evolution. Or under Behe's thoughts did the whole trunk grow off the elephant's face slowly with no function and magically animate itself one day? "All the pieces need to be there before it can function, Behe."
I can only imagine the lament of Elephant mothers everywhere saying, "Put that thing down. It's only for show." Or the whining of elephant older brothers, "Mom, Bobby can move that big long thing on his face, but I can't".
BTW: There is very good documentation about the evolution of elephants along with how long their trunks were at what time in the geological past. It's curious how it's trunk gets longer with time and seems to be used for first pushing food towards it's mouth until it gets so long it can grab food and pull it into it's mouth.
"Bud, you've confused organs and organisms."
Wonder how well he can play an organism--ewww that came out wrong:).
I'm used to hearing one side of the issues presented, being a teacher in all--but that's off the subject.
No doubt the UofI would ban astrology from science class as well. Is this a problem for you?
these IDiots and their flagellation fetish really ought to look at simplified parasites and symbiotes before squawking that evolution cannot explain an "irreducibly complex(sic: simplified)" system or organism.
"The school seems to be confusing where it's at, West said. Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."
Decent points, but then again many fellow ID'ers would have no problem banning evolution either. I think there's room for both and that we don't need to go into a poltical tizzy about it.
Well, not quite. If they wanna talk about "intelligent design" in a class on "comparative philsophy" or "comparative religion" in public schools, I've got no problem with that being done---but NOT in biology class.
The basis of falsifiable according to the human (and how the human can externalize such mechanisms) is not necessarily the only method to discover the rules of the Universe, although a very good method.
There are many metrics, and pareto simplification is but a special case of the 'compression as intelligence' metric.
You're losing us stupid people:).
Well, not quite. If they wanna talk about "intelligent design" in a class on "comparative philsophy" or "comparative religion" in public schools, I've got no problem with that being done---but NOT in biology class.
Both of you made good points. My parents and church were all I needed to teach me about ID--a religious-based issue. If one has to depend upon teachers, then I don't think that's good. However, I've got no problem with learning it as you describe or even discussing it briefly. One thing that people forget is that many people have many different versions of creation, even from the same religion. Among the 10 people in my Sunday school class, there were 10 different versions of how the earth was created. We all agreed in principle that God was the facilitator, but how the process happened is not very well defined. One guy thought that things had been placed here from another planet. Which version do we teach? I do think we need to be careful, but I don't mind having ID mentioned as long as it doesn't become some political fiasco.
Would the lawsuit in Dover qualify as a "political tizzy?"
What nonsense.
Like all creationist garbage, this argument is sheer assertion and no facts. So let me state a few facts, since I am one of the evolutionists and you are attributing opinions to me.
We don't mind people expressing their ideas about ID. What we do mind is when they want to teach it in schools and teach it as science. It is not science and it should not be in schools, or at least not in the science curriculum.
By contrast, if you want to add superstition to your curriculum, you could teach ID in the superstition class. ID belongs with Scientology, Palmistry, the occult, Wiccan, Astrology, and the rest of the superstition. So the fact is we don't "insist that the other side not be heard." We just want it characterized properly.
these IDiots and their flagellation fetish really
That sounds likd putting a "foot" in the mouth.
Not just both. If we've got to open up science class to things that scientists disagree with, then perhaps the old Stalinist Michurianism as promoted by Lysenko should be taught.
Most conservatives are not seen as "open minded", yet you seem to insist that science be open minded about a faith based idea. Why is that?
I was thinking maybe Abnormal Psychology.
The statement is polemic, no doubt. It is possible to be a first rate lab technician without considering the theoretical underpinnings of science. In fact, one of the legitimate scientists often listed as an ID advocate runs a cancer screening lab.
What the author of that quote means is that it is impossible to contribute new ideas to the science of biology without understanding evolution.
The Discovery Institute as much as admitted this when they backed out of the Dover trial. They said ID was not ready because it had no research and no research program.
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.