No, this would be the Chattanooga Chew-Chew on track 29.
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/ |
No, this would be the Chattanooga Chew-Chew on track 29.
Relatively unintelligent actors interacting freely according to a limited set of basic constraints end up quite spontaneously creating enormously complex systems that - if they had been designed - would have to be the product of a much more formidable intelligence.
An industry is a collection of companies & customers - real, physical entities.
There is no way that a mousetrap could evolve and there is no way that a bacterial flaggelum could evolve.
Yes, just like there is no way that the Dell Computer we know today, with all its myriad interdependent divisions & factories & procedures & rules, etc. could have evolved gradually from one guy building PCs in a dorm room to what it is today. It could only have sprung fully designed from Michael Dell's head.
Look, the proteins that make up the flagellum are built from the genes. They're not exactly goal-seeking in a positive sense, but the effect is the same in that they're selected out if their presence harms the organism they're part of. Biological complexity takes a lot longer to develop, because the intelligence of the components is essentially zero and there's no Lamarckian evolution and way less horizontal gene transfer than in economics, but the principle is the same: relatively simple "goal-seeking" components interacting according to relatively simple rules produce the kind of complexity that could only be intentionally designed by vastly more intelligent agents.
It would be like a flexible oar that is pushed side to side about a fulcrum by a single protein that shrinks & expands after contact with a single ATP molecule. Much simpler, IMO.
(I wish I had a good animation package; I'd illustrate it for you.)
At the very least you'd think the Designer would've made the whip more like a rigid propeller. I mean really, what the heck is that thing??? If it's so darn intelligent a design, then why don't we see boats being pushed along by a rotating whip instead of a rotating propeller? Just where are the real-world benefits of ID as a research program, anyway? :-)
I wait with bated breath to see the jennyp created and working flagellum. But remember you have to get your own dirt.
The ID numbers "game" is very important. How anyone can expect to arrive at some "truth" or other by making up a bunch of "probability" numbers without having any idea of the number of variables, how they interact or how many times, and the times frame involved is fraudulent, no more, no less.
It is not a 'numbers game'. The numbers are derived from scientifically known facts. Numbers are very important in science and intriguingly, evolution can never give any numbers for its propositions. The chances of a recessive gene being expressed in a child are a scientific fact for example and they are very important. The chances of a new gene arising at random can also be easily calculated based on scientific facts. What ID is showing and is showing brilliantly is that evolution requires a long string of nearly impossible events. Now one nearly impossible event over 4 billion years can be contemplated and considered reasonable perhaps. However millions of nearly impossible events following each other in a logical order is utterly impossible. Anyone who denies such a thing does not believe in science and is holding on to an ideology totally based on faith - a faith based on some deep personal predilections.
Which proves nothing for your side even if true. The order of DNA base pairs does not show any such predilections. What that means is that such a chemically 'disordered' (according to you) arrangement would be much more difficult to arise at random than if there were no chemical 'likelihood' (as you claim) for certain arrangements. So at best all you have achieved is create confusion, at worst, you made your materialist explanation even more unlikely.
More utter nonsense. Is there anything on which you're capable of an informed opinion?
I think you need to look in the mirror:
These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
So your statement in a previous post that:
Parasites as a general class tend to lose the organs they don't need, and so in a sense become less complex.
Shows quite well that you are either completely ignorant of what evolution is about or just plain trying to get away with a lie by insulting the messenger. Take your choice.
‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ ( Mark 2:24)
"Except for God himself, there is nothing in the practice of religion that is more sacred than humanity. Men and women lose their dignity under any regime that sanctifies anything above men and women."
"In Communism, and Fascism the... system---is everything. The individual is subservient to the plan; to the state."
"Years ago a novelist, Barbara Goldberg wrote:"
"You see that bridge; that huge red naked thing of steel? Magnificent eh?
And there-no, there, right at the top. A little dot that sways and crawls along,
fearful lest it lose its dizzy head, and dash into oblivion. Pitiful isn't it?
That pygmy being with its two small hands, and smaller brain,
you see him? Well, he made the bridge!"
"People are greater than things. They are not like bridges; they build them! It is therefore as it should be, that God, when he sought to reveal himself to the world, did so through a human personality-the noblest thing in all creation. Not only were human beings honored by the incarnation, they were dignified by Jesus' own treatment of his fellows. Habitually he reserved his kindest attentions to human life in its frailest forms. Jesus gave the world a spiritual perspective that every religious obedience secondary, to our duty to care(love) for one another."
Is that quote the best you could do? Living things, and indeed the Universe itself shows a high degree of elegance and efficiency. The simplicity of DNA - essentially just 4 codes creating and enabling life is absolutely gorgeous. The laws of the Universe have led many scientists to wonder at the beautiful order of it. It is hard to see how any of the ignorant atheists which do not even understand how life and the Universe works can hurl such criticisms.
Are you so ignorant evolution that you do not know that it proposes descent of higher more complex species from lower less complex species or are just lying to support a fellow evolutionist?
See Andrew's post#282 or my post#357 to see what your petty god Darwin had to say.
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.