TONIGHT! 6pm PDT/9pm EDT Unspun With AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!
ELECTIONS and OMISSIONS!
Plus, let's hear from FReepers around the country about what you're doing in YOUR local area with the midterm elections!
Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!
Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
| The Associated Press
|
| COLUMBUS, Ohio Oct. 14 — A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity.
The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence. The guidelines for the science curriculum simply put into writing what many school districts already do. The current guidelines do not even mention evolution. "What we're essentially saying here is evolution is a very strong theory, and students can learn from it by analyzing evidence as it is accumulated over time," said Tom McClain, a board member and co-chairman of the Ohio Board of Education's academic standards committee. Conservative groups, some of which had tried and failed to get biblical creation taught in the public schools, had argued that students should learn about intelligent design. But critics of intelligent design said it is creationism in disguise. On Monday, the committee unanimously forwarded a final draft without the concept in it to the full 19-member board. Board member Michael Cochran, who had pushed for intelligent design in the standards, said, "The amendment allows teachers and students in Ohio to understand that evolution really is a theory and that there are competing views and different interpretations. This allows them to be discussed." The Ohio school board will decide Tuesday whether to adopt the new standards or order that they be revised.
On the Net: Ohio Department of Education: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ |
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age
Nice pair of posts, but how about a title? Let me suggest, "Behe's Dead Horse."
RWP has answered Behe on the flagellum, so it's nice of you to remind us what question is now off the table.
You haven't posted a reference for this piece of utter nonsense. In fact, there are considerable energetic interactions between DNA nearest neighbors, and differences between the energy, enthalpy, and free energy of an A followed by an A, for example, and a T followed by a T, are very well known. In the terms that should be understandable to the dumbest creationist, DNA bases stack, and the flat edges attract each other by something called a van der Waals interaction. Van der Waals interactions between the bases are bigger between larger bases (A and G) than between smaller bases (C and T.)The thermodynamics were worked out by Breslauer and Markey in the mid 1970s, and can be looked up in any undergraduate textbook of biological thermodynamics. Try Tinoco et al.
Michael Behe, your creationist pal, did quite a bit of research in this area. He should know about this. Or you could even type in numbers ot this neat little online program:
http://corndog.chem.wisc.edu/ming/Programming/method.html
Go on, play with the base sequence. Put in two As, two Gs, two Ts and two Cs, and rearrange the order. See, the order does matter, and what you posted was crap! So what 'great mind' of the creationist movement wrote this nonsense?
This is particularly bad, since you can't claim this is any part of the evolution/creation controversy. Sequence-dependent energetics are simple physical measurements, and don't depend on a particualr theory for an origin of DNA. They've been reproduced over and over again. What a wonderful example of the utter disdain creationists have for any sort of science! Just make up whatever 'facts' are convenient, and count on the fact your creationist audience won't question whatever you say!
If I were you guys, and I thank God I ain't, I'd be insulted!
The same way you refute anything else - with facts.
How do can people look in the mirror after writing such seriously twisted nonsense? And, Heartlander, how can you quote this stuff? (No, I'm not going to cry.)
The chemical bonds called phosphodiester bonds hold the nucleotide bases together along the strand. Hydrogen bonds pair the complementary bases between the DNA strands. Be sure that all reactions involving DNA, including the addition or change of the specific sequence, use normal physical and chemical forces.
I see you responded already. Heartlander's post hurt my eyes too much to let it go.
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! If you had ever, ever, in your tiny little, stupid, insignificant life, understood what a fact was, I might even try that.
If you want to know what Intelligent Design is about, read the following little story. In addition check out the links on Intelligent Design to be found in Evidence Against Evolution . If you need further explanation, just ask me.
A Moment in History
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall
What Andrew was trying to point out to you was that these crystals which are formed from far simpler systems are all the same, they have the exact same chemical composition for the same reaction. This is not the case with DNA. The DNA code is highly different not just for each species, but even to a smaller degree different for just about every individual in a species. It is ordered, but there is absolutely no chemical reason for the order. The four DNA bases A, C, G and T can follow each other in any way conceivable. Therefore while it is ordered, while it is complex, it is not determined by any physical or chemical necessity. Therefore there is a difference in kind between the order in DNA and the order found in crystals.
TONIGHT! 6pm PDT/9pm EDT Unspun With AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!
ELECTIONS and OMISSIONS!
Plus, let's hear from FReepers around the country about what you're doing in YOUR local area with the midterm elections!
Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!
Books are probably subjected to much stronger review than scientific journals. Nobody reads that darned stuff and if a person can find a hungry journal that needs an article, they can get it published regardless of how silly it is and get away with it. However, books are reviewed in many different places - including in scientific journals. While all the reviewers may not be scientists in the field, many are usually selected to write the review because they do have a knowledge of the field. I have seen for example many reviews of Behe's "Black Box' by many people in the sciences. In fact, one of the large academic presses was going to publish Behe's book, but the money was less than where he finally published it at Simon and Shuster which is itself not a craddle of conservatism.
Key word: Specific
That's a very silly argument which evolutionists often make. It is like saying to a person that has won the lottery that because he won the lottery there was a one in one chance of his winning. No, there was a one in 100,000,000 or so chances of his winning before it happened. Unless evolutionists can show that there was a necessity to man descending from bacteria by some sort of materialistic way then the argument of probability is perfectly justified against evolution. Since evolution admits and postulates that the transformations of species are due to random chance, this refutation is not open for evolutionists even if such a necessity were to be found.
Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute. Quoting from this article. (My, but you're forthcoming.)
Quoting his letter to Science
"intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable"
Behe can wriggle all he wants, but 'design' is creation, unless you think the designer at the last minute left the blueprints on the table and let the universe evolve on its own. My own theory is that Behe, a Catholic like myself, was utterly naive about the lunacy biblical literalists can come up with, and is embarassed and perhaps a little scared by his new fan-club, so he's backing off.
It's a crappy DNA picture, too. The bases are flat, lie perpendicular to the helix axis, and are stacked on top of each other. Any basic biochemistry textbook will show you this.
As a Catholic, do you really believe that there is no directed goal, ultimate purpose, and intelligent design, to life?
Poor analogy. A better analogy is if the lottery winner had no memory of life before the drawing, and all the non-winners were shot. Therefore, he can truly say, 'I exist, therfore there is 100% probability I won the lottery.' We know we exist. Therefore any a priori calculation of the odds of our not existing involves counting scenarios that simply did not, and could not have happened, without some exterior alteration of reality. In other words, a violation of physical laws. And we can't count the odds a posteriori, because we aren't aware of any set of other universes in which we don't exist.
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.