Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
You didn't read the article, did you? Or at least you completely misunderstood the author's references to Relativity and Quantum physics, which modified Newton's physics. Yet he was originally taught Newton, and I would hope today's kids are taught Newton as well.
Newton is basically correct, and is valid and useful for many computations in engineering. But it's not possible to teach how Newton is wrong, until a student understands it.
Likewise it is not possible to teach fine details of how Darwin was "wrong", until a student understands how Darwin was basically correct.
That's actually a classic example of gobbledygook.
Bush is a great politician. But he was stupid enough to stick his neck into this one (maybe he thought the uproar would detract from this Cindy business, and he expended some political capital in the effort).
And yes, the evolutionists on this forum are still conservative. Thank you for your concern.
It's people like this and atheistic fools like you that want us to believe life on his planet evolved by random chance. Believing that is is the equivalent of believing a tornado could sweep across a junkyard an assemble a 747.
For example for one to reject intelligent design one must believe a bacterial flagellum -- a motorized system the size of a virus somehow came into existence by random chance when mankind doesn't possess the intelligence to create it.
Dr. Michael Behe, who could outdebate you or this clown with 99% of his brain tied behind his back:
An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works - a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.
The intracellular transport system is also quite complex. Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments; supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between these compartments. Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks, and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination. Other proteins act as loading docks, opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.
Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell - the very basis of life - is staggeringly complex. But doesn't science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
A few scientists have suggested non-Darwinian theories to account for the cell, but I don's find them persuasive. Instead, I think that the complex systems were designed - purposely arranged by an intelligent agent.
Whenever we see interactive systems (such as a mouse trap) in the everyday world, we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity. We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism, including Darwin's, which produces such complexity. Only intelligence does.
People like you have to believe the symmetry of solar eclipse is a result of random chance. The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, yet the exact distance from the moon to form a perfect eclipse. If you think that happened by accidernt, you and the author of this tripe are morons.
Thanks for the ping!
Sounds reasonable. Except that Derb does have a clue about how and by whom science is taught in the American high school. Assuming that he/she is typical, we may assume that he.she was not among the top students in his/her biology class. I think we may also assume that all he/she really understand about this issue is the obiter dicta of his college teacher, likely some wet-behind-the-ears TA. The actual content of evolution will not come from the teacher but from the textbook. That hardly rises to the same level as discussion in" Scientific American." Leading me to the conclusion: How in the world do they expect the issue to be engaged meaningfully? And finally consider WHo the students are. How are THEY to be raised to a level of understanding necessary to partoicupate in this dialogue?
The fundies' version of "intelligent design" has no place in public schools. However, the basic concept that intelligent design may have played a PART in evolution is well worth considering. We're doing quite a bit of it ourselves right now, and are already capable of doing a lot more if we got a mind to. Absent the concept of intelligent design, a couple of thousand years from now, scientists may be struggling to devise theories whereby evolution alone resulted in the appearance of of those incredibly handy strains of bacteria which produce human insulin (how about this: maybe a human got infected with one of these little bugs, and then somehow some human pancreas genes accidentally got into the bacteria, and then the human pooped, and out went the bacteria into the world). And bioengineering experts today would only need a few million dollars at most, to cook up single celled organisms which would thrive on Mars, and over time, evolve there into more complex organisms. By all means, let's teach "intelligent design" in public school science classes, but make sure it's taught with the message that the students are themselves capable of becoming intelligent designers.
Major Premise: If Bacterial mutation yields resistant strains due to natural selection, simple organisms evolved to man by the same mechanism
Minor Premise: Bacterial mutation DOES yield resistant strains due to natural selection
===================================
Conclusion: simple organisms evolved to man by natural selection
The argument has a valid stucture and conclusion, but the Major premise is untrue, and fatally flawed.
If it were true, we would find "tons" of transitional fossil remains, but we have not. Hence Mr. Gould developed the "Puntuated Equilibrium" theory, which is not testable.
this thread is rapidly turning into a Festival of Ignorance. Is it "Internet Day" at the saw mill or something?
Okay let me clarify - the consensus of scientists is that mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms of evolution.
An Argumentum ad numerum.
Just because the majority of people believe it, does not make it true. The majority of Americans believe that "Heaven helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible, but this does not make it so.
Lamarckism and Recapitulation theory were 19th century theories. Neither were correct, but neither were they psuedoscience. None of them survived testing.
Eugenics is not even pseudoscience, it has nothnig to do with science. It has as much to do with Creationism as evolution.
Pseudoscience seldom crept in to as high a level in any other natural sciences discipline.
Well if you are going to lower the bar to allow Lamarckism and Recapitulation theory to be called pseudo science then I will mention Einstein's cosmological constant as an example of pseudoscience. The geocentric model as another.
Astrology or orgone field never entered in to legitimate institutions of science in astonomy or biology in the manner the above mentioned did in evolutionary biology.
Neither did eugenics.
Or bad science, peppered moths and the like.
Peppered moths is good science, not bad science.
The slipshod nature of so much evolutionay teaching, and use of it to promote sociopolitical belief or agenda, has contributed to a widespread skepticism of the field.
I think the root of the skepticism is ignorance personally. On another thread it mentioned a poll done that showed 20% of people believe the Sun orbits the Earth.
Good thing you showed up in time to call them (us?) names!
Yes and if the modern school system existed back then, it should not teach Copernicus' theory until it had consensus support.
Just because the majority of people believe it, does not make it true. The majority of Americans believe that "Heaven helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible, but this does not make it so.
Yes but we are not talking about the majority of the public, or about the truth of something. We are talking about the majority of scientists and what should be taught in schools. Teach things when they have consensus support, otherwise 9 times out of 10 you will be teaching something that doesn't survive the years end.
onsider this:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
Forget how to do a link. Neat, nuetral article on the "Peppered Moth" evidence.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just sying that ID advocates are not saying anything that would give comfort to the religious opponents of evolution.
The ID advocates who have qualifications in science, loosely including Behe, Dembski and Denton, accept the fact of evolution.
Most of the people on these threads couldn't care less about the arcane disccussion of the details of evolution. They want the whole subject shut down.
Thats evolution through natural selection.
Thats evolution through natural selection.
What is the "evolution" aspect?
I agree. Macro-evolution is not science in the testable sense, but rather a belief of "scientists" who were taught evolution from childhood, have never considered an alternative, and are ridiculed when they do.
Where is the debate? If it were such a settled "fact" why would anyone question it?
Give solid, irrefutable evidence for macro-evolution. See post 48 before you trot out bacterial "mutation".
In other words, take the understanding out of biology as well as the unifying theory so the kids will have no idea of what connects all these things. Evolution is the foundation of all these things in one way or another.
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.