Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed

Washinton Post ^ | Wednesday, May 29, 2002 | Michael A. Fletcher

[Gladwin]

Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.

In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....

[mindprism.com]

How about teaching an alternative to a socialist schooling system?

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[OBAFGKM]

"As to your question: what came first -- the fruitfly or the fruit?"

The fruit. The fossil record is absolutely clear on that.

[VadeRetro]

So that's where my women went.

[EBUCK]

The fruit fly would just be a regluar ol fly without the fruit dontcha know?

Here is a good question....

Was the fly a fly before it developed wings?

And if so would we have called it a no-fly

EBUCK

[r9etb]

You: What do you reckon they ate before fruiting plants evolved?

Me: "As to your question: what came first -- the fruitfly or the fruit?"

You: The fruit. The fossil record is absolutely clear on that.

So I guess your initial question is not relevant.

[RickyJ]

Only immature losers would post such crap.

[tortoise]

His opinion is that information theory and evolution do not conflict, since evolution is not random.

This isn't actually my opinion, or at least not the way I would represent it. Creation/speciation/evolution has no meaningful mathematical (or physical) relation to information theory, and I am really arguing against people using it at all to "prove" their point. I know this isn't immediately obvious from the directions some of these discussions have gone. Any apparent relationship is largely a result of misunderstanding and/or misapplying the concepts of one or both.

That said, evolution is a mathematically solid concept with lots of practical application in the domain of system optimization. Whether or not it is the actual mechanism of speciation and original critter creation is certainly arguable; the mathematics only says that it is feasible.

[Lurking Libertarian]

That's what I thought SETI was all about, though

My understanding is that SETI is merely looking for narrow-band radio transmissions (which, in our experience, come only from technology) as opposed to broadband transmissions (generated by many stars), and is not trying to tell if radio signals contain "information."

[PatrickHenry]

I want to remind you all of further proofs that RickyJ still needs to provide:

Darwin only got it right when he accepted Jesus Christ as his savior on his death bed. He also admitted evolution was wrong and wished people would stop talking about it. ... I have MORE proof that it this did happen than evolutionist do that evolution happened.

We're waiting for the proof of that one. Big time.

Here's a re-cap of earlier claims which are to be proven. Everyone should be aware of the astonishing promises made by RickyJ on another thread. He may become the most famous man in the world. He claimed:

By using probability you can also be about 99.9% sure that God does exist.

After repeated requests, he posted this:

If you realy want the info I can give it to you, but it would require several more threads. I'll gather the data together as soon as I can.
110 Posted on 03/08/2001 18:21:23 PST by RickyJ
Source: Pro blematic Chemical Postulates of the RNA World Scenario.

Ricky did, eventually, post a thread with some weird number-crunching voodoo, which was so absurd as to be embarrassing. But a simple link to that junk would have been sufficient. Why did RickyJ need time to "gather the data together"? And does he think he's proven anything? I tried to locate that thread to give you a link, but I can't find it. Was it pulled? If so, it was a w ise thing to do.

Then he made this claim, at post 114 of the same thread:

Actually there is no evidence of evolution at all, and ample evidence of creation. You need to open your eyes. I soon will be posting evidence that creationism is true, but you must look at the data rationally and leave your emotions out of it if you want see why it is I believe creationism is true. The evidence for creationism is overwhelming. I will be posting this data hopefully by Saint Patrick's day.

So we're all waiting, RickyJ. Come through with your promised proofs. Or at least some evidence.

[OBAFGKM]

"No, I'm saying that until you observe it then it isn't science. You have a theory but not fact until you have observed your theory in action."

A scientific theory is a set of observations and hypotheses. The only facts involved (scientists hope!) are the observations themselves.

[Stultis]

I'd really like to see evidence of intelligent design. Specifically I'd like to see what the theory states, what it predicts, how it can be tested and how it can be falsified -- presumably through observations that run contrary to the tests. I want to know exactly what observation would falsify intelligent design, and I've never heard anyone offer an explanation.

Really, is it so hard? What observation would prove that intelligent design was false?

You also beg questions like what the nature of this "intelligent designer" is and what methods were employed in this "design" (and how the designer was able to employ such methods), but I suppose you can address those later. You might also touch on the motives of this "intelligent designer", but that might be better reserved for philosophy.

Excellent questions, but I think you will find that nearly all of them are systematically avoided rather than engaged in presentations of ID. IMHO the "Intelligent Design Proposal" has been intelligently designed for the specific purpose of counterpoising evolution in public school curricula without having to engage such substantive issues, or subjecting creationistic ideas to the possiblity of failure that any standard scientific theory must remain vulnerable too.

IOW "Intelligent Design" is a largely vacuous construct. It is not intended to compete seriously in the market place of scientific ideas; it has not been and never will be meaningfully forwarded on this front. Instead it is designed to be ammendable to inclusion in public school curricula on the basis of, and by the means of, a kind of intellectual affirmative action.

[tortoise]

Showing a monkey turning into a man would prove ID wrong, I would rather think.

It would also prove Darwin wrong. Lamarck would be pleased to be vindicated though.

[Quila]

I understand. It becomes quite a bit easier to accept after you meet Him.

I have no spiritual, emotional or moral need for a god; therefore, there's no "hook" with which to pull me in. I'm quite happy the way I am. That would leave rational reasoning as the only way for me. So at the invitation of a very nice FReeper, I've been reading this book. The point of the book is to show by rational and historical means that Christ was indeed the deity he claimed to be. It's not working so far, but I'm still at the beginning. No matter what the end result is, it's a good book, well worth the read.

[Semper]

It is currently accepted that human thought processes, including emotion, are a result of chemical reactions in the brain.

It is accepted that the reverse is also true. Thoughts and emotions can be externally influenced and in turn produce a chemical reaction in the brain. You are not going to have happy brain chemistry when informed of the passing of a loved one. It is also possible that most brain chemistry associated with conscious thought is ultimately caused by subconscious thought.

[Quila]

Overstated, pertaining to?

It seemed your post was stating that the length of time between Christ and the writing of the gospels greatly reduced any chance of historical accuracy. It may have been reduced, but not to such a large degree as you seemed to be stating.

[Quila]

It's just that here Evolution Theory is perceived to be somehow linked to the genreal decline of society by our Christian coutrymen.

Without some evil to chase after, some declining state of civilization to lift up, religions may lose some of their appeal to the masses. It's hard to convert people while at the same time saying "Everything's okay."

I guess anything that takes away from the collection plate is a threat to society.

I don't see how evolution has to take away from the collection plate. In fact, I'm sure the conflict adds to the collection plates of the ICR and the like. I'm also sure there are plenty of religious people here who don't believe Genesis literally.

[EBUCK]

I wouldn't say "greatly" reduced because oral tradition was a finely tuned system by then. I would say that the gap would certainly have left open the door to embellishment.

My real point was that the principle and all witnesses to every event described in the bible were certainly dead and dusty by the time it was actually written down. To add to that it seems that certain "un-desirable" portions have been purposely left out because they didn't fit with the agreed upon theme.

Truthfully, I have little doubt that a man named Jesus lived and preached some very good things. I also have little doubt that he was killed for opposing established belief (much of the same has taken place in his name since BTW). What I do doubt though are the supernatural occurrences surrounding his death and his life. Much in the same way we tend to embellish our own founding fathers and other historical figures in history it follows that the supposed son of God would be in receipt of same.

EBUCK

[Pete]

First off, we don't know what the processes are. The theory of evolution is descriptive -- it basically says organisms change over time, eventually giving rise to wholey different types of organisms.

I think it is possible, as in the case of protein building, to set out what at least would be minimally required. Such constraints might be broad, such as a mammal has to breathe, but they exist nonetheless.

Secondly, chemicals in general and amino acids in particular occassionally evince a stronger tendency to hook up with certain other chemicals, making random combinations a moot point. Additionally, certain short chains of chemicals may form readily and concurrently and later be joined up in a longer chain, meaning that one does not need to go through sequential steps to arrive at the longer chain, as several of the preceding steps were done simultaneously (sort of like erecting a prefab house). Therefore calculating how long it would take to form 100 amino acids into a single protein is moot if such factors as those mentioned above are not taken into consideration.

I am familiar with the theory of chemical affinity. I believe that this theory was first popularized by a book titled "Biochemical Predestination" in 1969, which was co-authored by D.H. Kenyon. In it, researchers studied the Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure to determine whether certain amino acids preferentially positioned themselves next to a particular neighbor. They looked at ten proteins and performed a supporting experiment that seemed to suggest there was merit to the hypothesis.

However, if 1986, a team of researchers wrote a program to analyze not just ten proteins but all 250 proteins in the atlas. The results demonstrated conclusively that the sequencing had nothing to do with chemical preference.

After the 1986 experiment, the theory fell out of favor. Even Kenyon, one of its biggest proponents, has repudiated the idea.