Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Textbooks at center of evolution debate
Associated Press ^ | 10/31/03

Posted on 11/01/2003 4:14:09 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod

AUSTIN -- Texas will be under the microscope this week in the fight over teaching evolution in public schools as the State Board of Education votes on adopting biology textbooks that have been at the center of the debate.

The board meets Thursday and Friday and is set to consider proposed changes submitted by 11 publishers. The board's decisions -- which could determine which textbooks publishers offer to dozens of states -- will end a review process that has been marked by months of heated debate over the theory of evolution.

Religious activists and proponents of alternative science urged publishers to revise some of the 10th-grade books and want the board to reject others, saying they contain factual errors regarding the theory of evolution. Mainstream scientists assert that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern research and technology.

Board members can only vote to reject books based on factual errors or failure to follow state curriculum as mandated by the Legislature.

"There's a bait and switch going on here because the critics want the textbooks to question whether evolution occurred. And of course they don't because scientists don't question whether evolution occurred," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Among those questioning the textbooks are about 60 biologists from around the country who signed a "statement of dissent" about teaching evolution and said both sides of the issue should be taught. Several religious leaders also testified against teaching evolution.

Any changes to the textbooks will have implications across the country.

Texas is the nation's second largest buyer of textbooks, and books sold in the state are often marketed by publishers nationwide. Texas, California and Florida account for more than 30 percent of the nation's $4 billion public school book market. Three dozen publishers invest millions of dollars in Texas.

One of the most vocal advocates of changing the textbooks is the Discovery Institute, a nonprofit think tank based in Seattle. Institute officials have argued at board hearings that alternatives to commonly accepted theories of evolution should be included in textbooks to comply with a state requirement that both strengths and weaknesses are presented.

"These things are widely criticized as being problematic. They aren't criticisms we made up; they're criticisms widely held in the scientific community," said Discovery Institute fellow John West.

Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said there are no weaknesses in current textbooks' explanation of evolution. Publishers are required to cover evolution in science books.

The institute has referred to a theory dubbed intelligent design -- a belief that life did not evolve randomly but progressed according to a plan or design. No book on the mainstream market presents the intelligent design theory of evolution.

"We know that this is a very contentious issue. We know that, but the sorts of things we were proposing we thought were moderate," West said.

Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors religious activists, argues that the Discovery Institute's arguments are rooted in religion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that the teaching of creationism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.

"It says that the theory of evolution can't explain the diversity of life on this planet and that there must have been a designer," Smoot said. "That is a very valid and commonly held religious perspective, but not one that is upheld by scientific evidence. Therefore it's not one that belongs in science classrooms."

The Discovery Institute has maintained that its arguments have no religious foundation, but Smoot disagrees.

"The concept of intelligent design was crafted specifically to get around legal prohibitions against teaching religion in public schools," she said. "And as long as proponents of intelligent design deny that they're referring to God when they talk about the designer, they hope to be able to pull this off."

At least one publisher has submitted changes in line with the institute's recommendations.

Holt, Rinehart & Winston has submitted a change that directs students to "study hypotheses for the origin of life that are alternatives" to the others in the book. Students also are encouraged to research alternative theories on the Internet.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: crevolist; scienceeducation; textbooks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last
Threads on related topics have been going better recently. Let's keep it that way.
1 posted on 11/01/2003 4:14:09 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: I Am Not A Mod

2 posted on 11/01/2003 4:18:18 AM PST by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Politicians are up way too high on that tree.
3 posted on 11/01/2003 4:21:27 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
I love the tree!!
4 posted on 11/01/2003 4:21:28 AM PST by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I Am Not A Mod
"alternative science"....now there is a strange term. Science is objective, going whereever the data lead. What can 'alternative' possibly mean?

"The concept of intelligent design was crafted specifically to get around legal prohibitions against teaching religion in public schools,"

Well, of course. Evolution should be taught as theory rather than fact, but intelligent design by whatever name should be left to religious training.

5 posted on 11/01/2003 4:25:12 AM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: RJCogburn
Your own words contradict themselves.... "Science is objective going whereever the data lead." The data does in fact tell of a "CREATOR", it is man that lacks intelligent design by preaching a theory which cannot be proven as fact.
7 posted on 11/01/2003 4:33:44 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What data are that? Certainly there is some reason for existence and the universe but a 'Creator' of the kind you seem to suggest is a matter of faith, not data.
8 posted on 11/01/2003 4:37:58 AM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Certainly there is some reason for existence and the universe but a 'Creator' of the kind you seem to suggest is a matter of faith, not data.

Some of the data is the data of fact that there is no possible way that the number of life forms we have on this planet and the number of positive "mutations" that would have had to take place are even remotely possible. You want to talk about faith. It takes much less faith to belive in God than it does to buy the outlandish "hey, I need to reproduce, I think I will grow a dingle" sequence.

9 posted on 11/01/2003 4:47:01 AM PST by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Evolution uses existence as proof with no explanation of existence ... it happens (( big bang ))---

you 're comfortable with that gobble - gobble - turkey !

10 posted on 11/01/2003 4:48:03 AM PST by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
What if the evidence points to inteligent design? Should "science" lie to the kids about the evidence or pretend that there is a materialistic explanation when there isn't one?

The Blind Atheist

11 posted on 11/01/2003 4:54:56 AM PST by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Raymond Hendrix
Should "science" lie to the kids about the evidence

Of course not. One need not be an atheist to be willing to follow data whereever it leads.

13 posted on 11/01/2003 5:16:31 AM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: milan
Some of the data is the data of fact that there is no possible way that the number of life forms we have on this planet and the number of positive "mutations" that would have had to take place are even remotely possible.

Okay, but a negative such as that does not answer questions with data. As I said, evolution is a theory, imo, not a proven.

14 posted on 11/01/2003 5:20:15 AM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn

15 posted on 11/01/2003 5:23:02 AM PST by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
LOL!
16 posted on 11/01/2003 5:53:59 AM PST by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
cool it
17 posted on 11/01/2003 6:08:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Some argue that there is no basis to be making speculations on supposed data at a macro level if the fundamental issues on the micro are unresolved. I listened to the author of the book, 'Darwin's Black Box' on MPR a couple years ago. He is an evolutionist that holds most current arguments in favor of the theory are, at best, specious wool gathering and doomed to collapse due to the profound lack of supporting evidence at the molecular and cellular levels.

The leftist listenership at our affiliate public radio station jammed their lines and went ape-sh*t on the poor guy even though he is an evolutionist.

Since I usually hold that lefties navigate 180 degrees from the truth on most issues, it got me to thinking.

Here's his book, if you're interested:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/qid=1067695125/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-1268934-7829614

18 posted on 11/01/2003 6:11:24 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (DEFUND NPR & PBS - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that the teaching of creationism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state

Well then, what's the problem for these lefties? Darwin was very definitely a creationist.

19 posted on 11/01/2003 6:16:35 AM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
River city !

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

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)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

20 posted on 11/01/2003 6:27:32 AM PST by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Ping.
21 posted on 11/01/2003 6:54:40 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
22 posted on 11/01/2003 7:04:04 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the heads up!
23 posted on 11/01/2003 7:12:57 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All
An article about one of the witnesses in the Texas schoolbook controversy: Physics Nobelist takes stand on evolution.
24 posted on 11/01/2003 7:35:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
As I said, evolution is a theory, imo, not a proven.

This is one of the anti-Evolutionists' favorite straw men to bash: "Evolution hasn't been proven." But it is based on a misnomer.

What is not well-known outside of science is that scientific theories are NEVER proven. The reason is that since all it takes to refute one is a single counter example, and since there are virtually an unlimited number of potential "test cases" for most theories, it is impossible to exhaustively exclude every one of them.

Therefore, all scientific theories are held tentatively, based upon their ability to withstand attempted falsification: the more attempted falsifications, the more strongly the theory is held to likely be correct.

This is why it is a requirement for a theory to make "useful predictions" in order to be considered "scientific" -- because the theory that makes NO predictions cannot be tested or falsified, even in principle. Similarly, theories that are consistent with ALL possible outcomes are similarly "unfalsifiable" and are thus not "scientific" theories. Examples would be Creationism ("That's just the way God did it!") and it's kissing cousin so-called Intelligent Design Theory (The designer designed it that way!") Neither one can be falsified, even in principle, because they are compatible with virtually ANY possible data.

Science embraces the Theory of Evolution tentatively, just as it embraces the Theory of Gravitation tentatively. And as for that other anti-Evo canard: "Evolution isn't falsifiable!" I respectfully suggest that discovering widespread mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata is just ONE example of data that would turn the Theory of Evolution on it's head.

25 posted on 11/01/2003 7:52:07 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Great pics! Watch out, I may steal them!
26 posted on 11/01/2003 9:52:09 AM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
And here's a Professor of Biology doing a critique of Darwins Black Box.

Here's the link, enjoy!!

http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html
27 posted on 11/01/2003 10:05:12 AM PST by Ogmios (Since when is 66 senate votes for judicial confirmations constitutional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
Oh, and here's Dr Millers Homepage, you might find it fascinating, or upsetting, All depending on your views of ID.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
28 posted on 11/01/2003 10:07:42 AM PST by Ogmios (Since when is 66 senate votes for judicial confirmations constitutional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
The data does in fact tell of a "CREATOR"

It does? Perhaps you could provide references?
29 posted on 11/01/2003 10:49:59 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank Jones (as "Earl"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: milan
Some of the data is the data of fact that there is no possible way that the number of life forms we have on this planet and the number of positive "mutations" that would have had to take place are even remotely possible.

Evidence?

It takes much less faith to belive in God

Are you referring to any generic god, or a specific God in particular?

than it does to buy the outlandish "hey, I need to reproduce, I think I will grow a dingle" sequence.

Given that no scientific theory posits such a thing, I don't know why you bring it up. Are you ignorant of scientific theory, or are you trying to muddy the debate with strawmen?
30 posted on 11/01/2003 10:51:26 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank Jones (as "Earl"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
Is the universe really "like" a design?

This is actually pretty easy to determine. Just compare this universe to several other universes that you know are not designed. If you find significant differences between this one and the undesigned ones, then you've got good reasoning to assert that something special has happened here.

Alternatively, find some universes that you know are designed and compare them to this one for similarities.
31 posted on 11/01/2003 10:53:11 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank Jones (as "Earl"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
Darwin was very definitely a creationist.

So? A concept is not religious just because it was thought up by a religious person. Issac Newton's theories aren't religious in nature just because he was a devout Christian (and Alchemist, but that's another matter).
32 posted on 11/01/2003 10:54:43 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank Jones (as "Earl"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the pings as always.

Some state that "99% of mutations are harmful"
Y'all are much more up to speed on this point.

I can give one example of where a 'harmful' mutation, was of a benefit. Sickle cell anemia. In the old areas of malaria, the mutation allowed the mutants to survive longer than the non-mutants who had no resistance to it. In the short term, it conferred a great benefit, in todays world, it is a miserable affliction. I thought Tay-sachs had something similar to it. What about Lactose-intolerance?

Any clues are appreciated!


33 posted on 11/01/2003 12:14:41 PM PST by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"but intelligent design by whatever name should be left to religious training. "

Why? If intelligent design fits the data, why not allow it as a hypothesis?

34 posted on 11/01/2003 12:21:11 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
I'm not an expert on mutations. I suppose there are as many possible mutations as there are possibilities for imperfect replication of genetic material. Many are irrelevant. Some are lethal. Some turn out to be beneficial. Natural selection is what sorts them out, like a filter, for the next generation.
35 posted on 11/01/2003 12:21:51 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
If intelligent design fits the data, why not allow it as a hypothesis?

Because it fits all data, so it serves no explanatory purpose. Nothing will ever contradict ID. It can't be falsified. It's scientifically useless. Pleasant concept, however. But it's not science.

36 posted on 11/01/2003 12:24:26 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
I read in Discover about a physicist who is an proponent of "modified gravity" While he is dismissed; his thories do away with the need for 'Dark matter/energy'

But he will have to 'prove' it. I'm kinda rooting for him.


37 posted on 11/01/2003 12:35:02 PM PST by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Oh do not bother.

The ID people are doing a fantastic job of proving that there is no God. That may not be their goal, but it is what they are doing.

Those of us who do believe in God, have enjoying this debate. It teaches us how religions can be distorted for political gains, by false profits who have a vested interest in deception.

Science is the understanding of how God did it. To the mind of an ID person, they are trying to invalidate everything that God has shown us.

I find that rather sad.

38 posted on 11/01/2003 12:38:29 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Because it fits all data, so it serves no explanatory purpose."

What do you mean it fits all data? I can say my car is designed. That fits all data, but it is a fact. If only because I have the testimony of the car dealer and news organizations. Should science be in the business of disallowing facts or theories, simply because it fits?

What do you mean it serves no explanatory purpose? Design works as an explanation in the car example, why not with life? Does either evolution or ID really offer that much in the form of an explanatory purpose? Neither really advances our understanding of anything useful. Advances in biology, genetics, microbiology, etc, could all have come with either or neither of the two theories. Because advances in both are from observations at a lower level. Does faith in evolution advance my doctor's ability to treat the human body? Not one iota. Does it advance my ability to train my dog? Again, not one iota. Name one useful thing that evolution has added to science that couldn't have been discovered in the absence of the theory.

It can't be falsified. It's scientifically useless.

Can't you really say the same thing about evolution? Even when the evidence contradicts evolution, evolutionists just blindly say, there must be some "natural" explanation. Isn't that the same as the creationist saying, there could be either a "natural" or "supernatural" explanation? Does either really contribute to science? But aren't both equally valid theories on our origins?

39 posted on 11/01/2003 12:43:40 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"Certainly there is some reason for existence and the universe but a 'Creator' of the kind you seem to suggest is a matter of faith, not data. "

Isn't that statement itself a statement of "faith", not data?

40 posted on 11/01/2003 12:47:15 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I think you need some background information on exactly what a scientist means when he speaks of a "theory." Take a look at this website: Is Evolution Science?. It will help you to understand why evolution is regarded as a scientific theory, and then you will see why ID is not.
41 posted on 11/01/2003 12:48:11 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Great pics! Watch out, I may steal them!

LOL! The hominid tree is from Science Made Stupid. More:


42 posted on 11/01/2003 1:04:43 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
I thought Tay-sachs had something similar to it.

Tay Sachs usually leads to a very early death, so I don't see any reproductive advantage to it, even if there are very short-term "benefits".
43 posted on 11/01/2003 1:06:32 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Evolutionists say ID is not falsifiable and in the same breath say that the evidence falsifies ID. Which is it? "Take a look at this website"

Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed. While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?

ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.

44 posted on 11/01/2003 1:19:54 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
Darwin was very definitely a creationist.

For part of his life, he was. But he abandonded special creation some time in his mid-thirties, and the idea of mediated creation some time later during middle age.

45 posted on 11/01/2003 1:21:19 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
What a great site!

Science made Stupid

I love this graphic on scientific methods.


46 posted on 11/01/2003 1:26:26 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Evolutionists say ID is not falsifiable and in the same breath say that the evidence falsifies ID

Who has made such a statement? Be specific, what exactly was said?
47 posted on 11/01/2003 1:33:14 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil.

No, they (there are a number of ancestral whales showing gradual adaptation from land to sea) are not disputed as "bonified" whales (or proto-whales) by qualified experts. What you may be thinking of is a fit of what can only be described as panic-induced-extreme-stupidity by creationist Duane Gish, following the discovery that the long known archaeoceticean (early whale) Basilosaurus isis had rear limbs. Gish suggested not only that Basilosaurus wasn't really a whale, but that it wasn't even a mammal! Apparently this made him feel better as marine reptiles with rear limbs were already known. However Basilosaurus was unquestionably both a mammal and a whale, and several other fossil whales have since been discovered that have even better developed legs.

48 posted on 11/01/2003 1:33:33 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Evolutionists say ID is not falsifiable and in the same breath say that the evidence falsifies ID. Which is it?

The falsifiable part of ID is where someone says that a specific organ (or whatever) cannot have evolved. That claim is falsified whenever an evolutionary path is demonstrated. If it could have evolved, than it can't be irreducibly complex. Otherwise, when we say that ID isn't falsifiable, we mean that every species one can point to will be said to be just what the designer had in mind. What kind of theory is that? Everything fits. Nothing is excluded. So in that sense it has no scientific value at all. Unlike evolution, where (to use the commonly given example) a mammal fossil in the pre-Cambrian period would definitely falsify the theory.

"Take a look at this website" Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed.

I figured that.

While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?

You tell me. I don't think that one is bogus. But scientists make mistakes. And admit them. If there's confusion about whale ancestry, and there may be, it will get sorted out. This doesn't affect evolution. It's a detail. There are many such that haven't yet been worked out.

ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.

I missed that. If you could re-post it, I'll comment.

49 posted on 11/01/2003 1:43:39 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The following is from this site: Falsify

It appears that columns 2 and 3 in the last row are reversed and that row should probably go to descent, although descent is losing ground in that row with more functionality being ascribed to DNA previously labeled as "junk".



Line of Evidence

Prediction of descent

Prediction from design

Data

Best explaining theory:

1. Biochemical complexity

High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.

High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found.

Design.

2. Fossil Record

Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.

Forms will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors.

Forms tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors.

Design.

3. Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics

Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.

Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

Genes and functional parts often are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms.

Design.

4. Genetic Code

The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA."

The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA."

Increased knowledge of genetices has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA"; examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but function can be expected or explained under a design pardigm.

Design.


50 posted on 11/01/2003 1:58:40 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson