Zogby poll on evolution is released

UPI web site ^ | 7 March 2006 | UPI

[Greg o the Navy]

SEATTLE, March 7 (UPI) -- A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.

[RunningWolf]

Well we have one problem to start with. This notion that something will be proved to you or your compadres is as improbable as that something is ever 'proved' in science.

I am not up on the jargon and acronyms you guys are, so is this the false dichotomy, the logical fallacy?

Anyway you drew to quick Ichneumon, and you were only half cocked.
Yes it looks to me like a .005 batting record for Dim and answering something directly and honestly and on its face. And I don’t think I said to me only. I think you are trying to define and narrow the arena yet once again to claim a victory.

Think about it, it might be hard but don’t infer what is not there. However even I appreciate that you came in to buck up Dimi, lord knows he needs it LOL.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

That should be the end of this discussion then.

I do not understand. Why should that end the discussion?

[Dimensio]

The fact that God exists, does not impede science and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. To say science must be taught without acknowledging that there is God is like walking around with your eyes shut because you don't want to see the alternate paths to your destination.

Why should a "God" be assumed?

[RunningWolf]

Oh okay now I see. I should have been more clear with the separation of those two thoughts-sentences.

A: honestly answer some questions that I have asked.

and

B: a .005 batting record for Dim and answering something directly and honestly and on its face.

Wolf

[WKB]

The "intelligent design" folks keep swearing that it's *not* about religion, and in fact the "designer" might well be aliens,



The creator was from outer space and an alien, don't you know?


John 17:14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
John 17:15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.(EVO)
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.

[WKB]

Only for the extremely simple-minded




You really shouldn't talk about your fellow
evilones(EVOS). PH told yall to "be nice"

[ahayes]

I thought your question was regarding the Second Law and that your complaint was that light would inevitably degrade molecules. Why don't we stick with that for now?

Light is used by chemists to catalyze a wide variety of reactions that are thermally forbidden, and yes, most of these are irreversible. Previously these reactions used to be done just by setting the reaction flask in the windowsill or on the benchtop. Now we have apparatuses that produce the optimal frequences, but the principle is the same. Here is an example:

This is a nice example because it is an intermolecular reaction resulting in a product that is very highly functionalized.

"Photochemistry of Benzotriazole: An Unprecedented Tautomer-Selective Intermolecular [2+2] Photocycloaddition." Booker-Milburn, K.; Wood, P.; Dainty, R.; Urquhart, M.; White, A.; Lyon, H.; Charmant, J. Organic Letters, 2002, 4, 1487-1489.

Obviously then light can initiate such reactions and objections on Second Law grounds are not in keeping with reality.

[ahayes]

Make that "wavelength," not "frequency." Neater.

[elfman2]

" Ok you lost me there. I used to build nuclear power plants so I doubt I hang with these evil doers. Do you have any specific cases in mind? "

BP, I don’t know who you’re referring to, the environmentalists that I mentioned or people like yourself insisting science class teach radically unscientific assertions consistent with your faith at any expense? I equated the two.

You know the old adage, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”? Introduce divine intervention into science, and it’ll be endlessly ridiculed, student’s interring it into formulas, suggesting it while brain storming, excusing failure with it, etc… Go ahead a put it into Calculus while your at it.

Many Christians reconcile evolution with creation by more or less believing God set it up. AFAIK, there are no good scientific theories on what created the big bang. God is about as reasonable as anything I’m aware of. I think you’re arguing for nothing, against something that’s of no threat and for something that’s of no benefit .

[Dimensio]

I still do not understand why you believe an earlier sentence of my statement ends the discussion.

[WKB]

All scientific theories are "unproven".]




If it can't be proven why even discuss it.

[Dimensio]

If it can't be proven why even discuss it.

That an explanation cannot be "proven" conclusively does not mean that it cannot be well-supported with independent lines of evidence. It only means that there is no point at which an explanation in science cannot be declared immune from any potential, hypothetical, contradictory observation.

[Tokra]

I guess I'm not clear on just what Intelligent Design is.

If it means that God designed the evolutionary process - I'm all for it.

If it means the Earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs lived along side humans (like in the Flintstones) - it has no place in science classes.

[Boiler Plate]

You know the old adage, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”? Introduce divine intervention into science, and it’ll be endlessly ridiculed, student’s interring it into formulas, suggesting it while brain storming, excusing failure with it, etc… Go ahead a put it into Calculus while your at it.
Many Christians reconcile evolution with creation by more or less believing God set it up. AFAIK, there are no good scientific theories on what created the big bang. God is about as reasonable as anything I’m aware of. I think you’re arguing for nothing, against something that’s of no threat and for something that’s of no benefit .

EM2,
I don't know what or where you have studied, but your point is pure speculation at best and down right paranoid at worst. My experience simply did not even come close to what you are worried about. As far as "many" christians reconciling God and evolution, it seems apparent from the poll that it "many" is a smaller number than you speculate.

I asked you for examples of how a belief in God impedes science and you have not provided any. So here is a list of notable scientists how really did not have any problems introducing the concept of God into science. Maybe you have heard of some of them.

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY	JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY	LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS, DYNAMICS	ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS, PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY	JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY, GAS DYNAMICS	ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY	GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE	CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS	LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
ELECTRONICS	JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS	JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS, FIELD THEORY	MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS, THERMODYNAMICS	LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS	HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FLUID MECHANICS	GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY	WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GENETICS	GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY	LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY	JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS	LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY	MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS	BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY	LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY	WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS	LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY	JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY	BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY	MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY	DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY	JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY	RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS	JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS	JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY	NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY	CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMOKINETICS	HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY	GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

Of course there are many more, but I think that should suffice for now. And here is an excellent article to read that deals directly with your fears.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=427


Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

PS "Old Adage" is redundant, kinda like saying "Female Lady"

[busstopsindetroit]

"Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. "

And personally I believe the theories are not mutually exclusive. However, evolution is based on scientific evidence, while ID is based on philosophy. Leave science to science class and the nature of existence to philosophy class. I see no conflict, and I really don't understand what all the brouhaha is about. If the theory of evolution is correct, one can only assume the design was MORE than intelligent, it was positively ingenious.

Those who believe the Bible is literal, word for word truth, I'm sorry, but your beliefs do not coincide with many proven scientific facts. You have every right to believe them if you choose, but your religious beliefs have nothing to do with science. I may believe that my mother is in heaven, however the existence of heaven or life after death is not something that can or should be taught in science class.

[elfman2]

I initially disagreed with assertions in your first few posts, but your last couple just look like unfocused nonsense to me. I have nothing more to say to you on this.
God bless you,
Bill

[Dimensio]

So here is a list of notable scientists how really did not have any problems introducing the concept of God into science.

I am not aware that the scientists in your list actually used God as an explanation in their scientific works. Do you have references to support your claim?

[Boiler Plate]

Dim,
I didn't make that claim. I merely pointed out that their belief in God apparently did not impede them, contrary to EM2's paranoid fears of God being mentioned in science classes. Nice try though.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Boiler Plate]

EM2,
Actually I was seeing the same pattern in your posts. It was becoming more and more difficult trying to understand and respond to your unsubstantiated paranoia.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Dimensio]

I didn't make that claim. I merely pointed out that their belief in God apparently did not impede them, contrary to EM2's paranoid fears of God being mentioned in science classes.

Actually, you claimed that they "did not have any problems introducing the concept of God into science." This suggests that you believe that they introduced their belief in God directly into their scientific workings. Thus far, however, I have seen no evidence that the scientists that you listed mentioned God as a part of their scientific research.

There is a difference between beleving in a God and implementing actions or influences of that God into scientific explanations. The opposition is to the latter, not the former.