Darwin's Influence

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

One last time. Evolution doesn't concern itself with Abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with how life evolved once it was here.

As a personal matter it would not bother me in the slightest if God used Abiogenesis to get it all started.

Nonsense. God is where he always has been, controlling the universe. What I can not do as a scientist is put Him in my science.

Science is the explanation of natural events using natural causes. Anything that is unnatural or supernatural is not science by definition. That we do not have a completed natural explanation for a natural event right now, does not necessitate a supernatural one.

The origins of life is part of the field of evolutionary theory. That much is not debateable.

Your extrapolation of "science" is thus godless, purposless and outside of recognizing what may in fact be reality and the truth. I thought science was for understanding truth? Just because something can be said to be intelligently designed and created does not invoke the supernatural (unnatural and outside of known laws), perhaps it may invoke an understanding we are not aware of within natural laws, but it does not necessitate discount based off of a lack of understandingh or aknowledgement. By your very definition, as we are created in Gods image, we are "unnatural" and "supernatural", unless of course you do not believe we came from an intelligent creator.

[littlechild]

Rob:

One last time. Evolution doesn't concern itself with Abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with how life evolved once it was here.

As a personal matter it would not bother me in the slightest if God used Abiogenesis to get it all started.

Nonsense. God is where he always has been, controlling the universe. What I can not do as a scientist is put Him in my science.

Science is the explanation of natural events using natural causes. Anything that is unnatural or supernatural is not science by definition. That we do not have a completed natural explanation for a natural event right now, does not necessitate a supernatural one.

OK fine. I'll pretend for a moment that it is possible to talk about Origin of the Species while at the same time shutting down any conversation about how life came to be. Let's get back to the original post. If evolution is taught in the classrom, but it totally ignores a discussion about ABIOGENESIS - then, what is wrong with having some alternatives in the classroom that WILL?

I'll tell you why. Stay with me for a moment. What we have among the pseudoscientific intelligentsia is a UNION of INTELLECTUAL THUGS who want to control the conversation, and disallow any common sense alternatives from rising to view. Hard to believe that our so pragmatic, so impartial, so intellectually sterile group of eggheads would stoop to lowball tactics to keep their academic monopoly going, right? That's just too incredible too think of, right? I mean, that stuff only happens in politics and religion, right? Wouldn't EVER happen in scientific cirlces, right?

BULL.

I have repeatedly asked you to define science but you can't. I'll tell you what science is. It is an unabashed straightforward investigation into the hows, whys, and wherefores of the physical universe. It doesn't exclude ID and it does include all possible viable explanations.

You are no scientist. You are a shill, witting or unwitting. There are plenty of known scientists WHO ASCRIBE IT ALL TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. You may have heard of them if you are truly a scientist. But I'm not going to give a you lesson in science history. Do your own homework.

[Arc]

OK fine. I'll pretend for a moment that it is possible to talk about Origin of the Species while at the same time shutting down any conversation about how life came to be. Let's get back to the original post. If evolution is taught in the classrom, but it totally ignores a discussion about ABIOGENESIS - then, what is wrong with having some alternatives in the classroom that WILL?

I'll tell you why. Stay with me for a moment. What we have among the pseudoscientific intelligentsia is a UNION of INTELLECTUAL THUGS who want to control the conversation, and disallow any common sense alternatives from rising to view. Hard to believe that our so pragmatic, so impartial, so intellectually sterile group of eggheads would stoop to lowball tactics to keep their academic monopoly going, right? That's just too incredible too think of, right? I mean, that stuff only happens in politics and religion, right? Wouldn't EVER happen in scientific cirlces, right?

BULL.

I have repeatedly asked you to define science but you can't. I'll tell you what science is. It is an unabashed straightforward investigation into the hows, whys, and wherefores of the physical universe. It doesn't exclude ID and it does include all possible viable explanations.

You are no scientist. You are a shill, witting or unwitting. There are plenty of known scientists WHO ASCRIBE IT ALL TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR. You may have heard of them if you are truly a scientist. But I'm not going to give a you lesson in science history. Do your own homework.

littlechild,

I have been following this thread with some amusement. Like thesometimesaint, I am a scientist. I hold a Ph.D. from a leading European university, did a postdoc at MIT, and currently serve as the CEO of my company as well as on the boards, or as an advisor, for several other technology companies.

As I have asked on other threads, what is it that you and your creationist friends do not understand about the statement that ID, by definition, is not science?

TSTS has explained this to you.

Why do you keep asking TSTS for a definition of science? Why not just look it up for yourself?

Just to help you out, here is a good working definition: Science is knowledge attained through study or practice concerning natural laws and the physical universe, especially as obtained and verified by application of the scientific method of hypothesis generation and testing, statistical analysis of resulting data, modification of hypotheses based on results, and further hypothesis generation, testing, and refinement.

Since the application of the scientific method requires generation of testable hypotheses, and to be testable a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and any possible hypothesis based on ID is not falsifiable (by definition), ID is not science, by definition.

What is it that you and your creationist friends do not understand about this simple logic? My kids could all understand it by the time they were in middle school.

You and your friends are in the position of one who brings a football to a basket ball court and insist that those playing basketball should use your football instead. If you want to play with a football, have at it. Why keep trying to convince folks that just because you have a ball, you are playing basketball?

I have no idea why TSTS would waste so much time with you folks. You are obviously in your own little world. Thank goodness our interaction with you can be confined to message boards and we do not need to be concerned about contending with you or your ilk in the laboratory.

[littlechild]

littlechild,

I have been following this thread with some amusement. Like thesometimesaint, I am a scientist. I hold a Ph.D. from a leading European university, did a postdoc at MIT, and currently serve as the CEO of my company as well as on the boards, or as an advisor, for several other technology companies.

you've been following it with amusement .... and condescension. As though education and authority make you correct and all-knowing. Rather than discuss the merits, you discuss your diplomas.

As I have asked on other threads, what is it that you and your creationist friends do not understand about the statement that ID, by definition, is not science?

TSTS has explained this to you.

Why do you keep asking TSTS for a definition of science? Why not just look it up for yourself?

There is nothing that I do not understand. It is a common enough thing in discussion to define one's terms. Nothing sinister about it, and I have looked it up myself, thanks for that rather obvious attempt to condescend to me once again.

Just to help you out, here is a good working definition: Science is knowledge attained through study or practice concerning natural laws and the physical universe, especially as obtained and verified by application of the scientific method of hypothesis generation and testing, statistical analysis of resulting data, modification of hypotheses based on results, and further hypothesis generation, testing, and refinement.

Very well. Then ID fits the bill. Are you familiar with No Free Lunch, by William Dembski? A mathematical proof against Darwinian notions of origin and ample statistical analyses in favor of ID.

Since the application of the scientific method requires generation of testable hypotheses, and to be testable a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and any possible hypothesis based on ID is not falsifiable (by definition), ID is not science, by definition.

False. An hypothesis need not be falsifiable in order to be scientific. This is an erroneous bit of scientific philosophy by philosopher Karl Popper, some say GK Chesterton originated it. Nevertheless it is philosophy, not science. The reason the claim is made that ID is not science, according to the Dover decision, is because it is a trojan horse for creationism, which it is not. And even if it were - that would STILL not disqualify it from the realm of scientific inquiry. The real question here, the real scientific inquiry, is, IS ID TRUE? The activity known as science can help us pursue answers to this question.

If a supernatural being DID create the universe, your version of "science" would never discover this fact.

And anyway, common descent is unfalsifiable - is it also not science? TSTS said that humans and apes share a common ancestor - this is not an observed fact and is not falsifiable - did you catch that?

You and your friends are in the position of one who brings a football to a basket ball court and insist that those playing basketball should use your football instead. If you want to play with a football, have at it. Why keep trying to convince folks that just because you have a ball, you are playing basketball?

This is merely your opinion. I feel the same way about you

I have no idea why TSTS would waste so much time with you folks. You are obviously in your own little world. Thank goodness our interaction with you can be confined to message boards and we do not need to be concerned about contending with you or your ilk in the laboratory.

Again, this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You have yet to respond in substance to any of the scientific questions I have posed. If you were a true scientist you would have been able to defend your science without resorting to the authority of your credentials - but since that's ALL you have ..... we are at an impasse

It would really impress me if you had less catharsis and more analysis in your analysis.

Here's an interesting bit of info about falsifiability:

[Mordecai]

littlechild,

I have been following this thread with some amusement. Like thesometimesaint, I am a scientist. I hold a Ph.D. from a leading European university, did a postdoc at MIT, and currently serve as the CEO of my company as well as on the boards, or as an advisor, for several other technology companies.

As I have asked on other threads, what is it that you and your creationist friends do not understand about the statement that ID, by definition, is not science?

You may be a scientist, but you lack class and completely lack any arguments. I could say, "Darwinism, by definition, isn't science." That doesn't make that true, though. Furthermore, your ad hominem attacks and arguments from false premises just make you seem obtuse and perhaps even frightened of a real debate. I don't think you have any real arguments. You have word games and sophistry. Pathetic.

Why do you keep asking TSTS for a definition of science? Why not just look it up for yourself?

I've done that. Seeing as I know what ID is, and you do not, I am more qualified to determine that ID is science than you are, PhD or no.

Since the application of the scientific method requires generation of testable hypotheses, and to be testable a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and any possible hypothesis based on ID is not falsifiable (by definition), ID is not science, by definition.

You and your low-class friends have redefined ID. That's cheating. Is that what you learned from your college professors? I learned critical thinking in college, and I actually apply what I learned. You should do the same.

From a previous post:

List of some predictions made by ID, from Stephen Meyer, PhD

*No undirected process will reveal that sources of active information are responsible for putatively successful computer-based evolutionary simulations.

*Informational accounting will reveal that sources of active information are responsible for putatively successful computer-based evolutionary simulations.

*Future experiments will continue to show that RNA catalysts lack the capacities necessary to render the RNA-world scenario plausible.

*Informational accounting will reveal that any improvements in replicase function in ribozymes are the result of active information supplied by ribozyme engineers.

*Investigation of the logic of regulatory and information-processing systems in cells will reveal the use of design strategies and logic that mirrors (though possibly exceeds in complexity) those used in systems designed by engineers. Cell biologists will find regulatory systems that function in accord with a logic that can be expressed as an algorithm.

*Sophisticated imaging techniques will reveal nanomachines (turbines) in centrioles that play a role in cell division. Other evidence will show that malfunctions in the regulation of these machines are responsible for chromosomal damage.

*If intelligent design played a role in the origin of life, but not subsequently, prokaryotic cells should carry amounts of genetic information that exceed their own needs or retain vestiges of having done so, and molecular biology should provide evidence of information-rich structures that exceed the causal powers of chance, necessity, or the combination of the two.

*If a designing intelligence acted discretely in the history of life, the various subdisciplines of biology should show evidence of polyphyly.

*The fossil record, in particular, should show evidence of discrete infusion of information into the biosphere at episodic intervals as well as a top-down, rather than bottom-up, pattern of appearance of new fossil forms.

*If an intelligent (and benevolent) agent designed life, then studies of putatively bad designs in life--such as the vertebrate retina and virulent bacteria--should reveal either (a) reasons for the designs that show a hidden functional logic or (b evidence of decay or originally good designs (!).

*If the flagellar motor was intelligently designed and the type-3 secretory system devolved from it, the genes that code for the bacterial flagellar motor should be OLDER (!) than those that code the proteins in the T3SS, and not the reverse. Alternatively, if the T3SS and the flagellar motor arose by design independently, T3SS should have unique (nonhomologous) genes that are not present in the genome for the flagellar motor.

*The functional sequences of amino acids within amino acid-sequence space should be extremely rare rather than common.

Well, there are a set of predictions made by Meyer, PhD in philosophy of science, which fulfills one requirement for something to be a scientific theory. While it is not a theory, it obviously has predictions that are scientifically disprovable. So that judge who says it's not science is at least half wrong.

[ERayR]

littlechild,

I have been following this thread with some amusement. Like thesometimesaint, I am a scientist. I hold a Ph.D. from a leading European university, did a postdoc at MIT, and currently serve as the CEO of my company as well as on the boards, or as an advisor, for several other technology companies.

I too have been watching this thread with some amusement at some of the posters. The ones that amuse me are the ones who indulge in what I call acedemic arrogance, i.e. I hold a Ph.D. "from a leading European university" or "my doctorate is from (fill in the blank)". You then become very dismissive of those you don't think measure up to your perceived importance of your college and ignore the data.

I too have some letters behind my name so I do understand the work and sacrafice it takes to earn those letters. However, it is not the letters that make you smart but how you use the skills you should have learned in attaining those letters.

As I have asked on other threads, what is it that you and your creationist friends do not understand about the statement that ID, by definition, is not science?

Why is it that you and your friends continue to ignore that according to the definition you are using, ID also fits. It is only excluded by your regal fiat that it does not fit.

Why do you keep asking TSTS for a definition of science? Why not just look it up for yourself?

I do not propose to speak for the others but what I am looking for is the definition you are using. Then your definition can be addressed directly.

Just to help you out, here is a good working definition: Science is knowledge attained through study or practice concerning natural laws and the physical universe, especially as obtained and verified by application of the scientific method of hypothesis generation and testing, statistical analysis of resulting data, modification of hypotheses based on results, and further hypothesis generation, testing, and refinement.

Thank you at least we can understand your definition now.

Since the application of the scientific method requires generation of testable hypotheses, and to be testable a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and any possible hypothesis based on ID is not falsifiable (by definition), ID is not science, by definition.

Littledhild has addressed this .

What is it that you and your creationist friends do not understand about this simple logic? My kids could all understand it by the time they were in middle school.

Arrogant and condescending uncalled for but not unexpected.

You and your friends are in the position of one who brings a football to a basket ball court and insist that those playing basketball should use your football instead. If you want to play with a football, have at it. Why keep trying to convince folks that just because you have a ball, you are playing basketball?

Arrogant and condescending uncalled for but not unexpected.

I have no idea why TSTS would waste so much time with you folks. You are obviously in your own little world. Thank goodness our interaction with you can be confined to message boards and we do not need to be concerned about contending with you or your ilk in the laboratory.

Try peeking around the curtain. You may be suprised at whose world is little.

Very arrogant and condescending uncalled for but not unexpected.

[Chaos]

I have no idea why TSTS would waste so much time with you folks. You are obviously in your own little world. Thank goodness our interaction with you can be confined to message boards and we do not need to be concerned about contending with you or your ilk in the laboratory.

You are one more nasty post away from being shown the door. We expect clashes of opinions but we don't put up with posters who can't even do one civil post.

[thesometimesaint]

arc:

Please don't misunderstand me. I am a Creationist. I fully believe God did it. I also fully believe He used Evolution to do it.

To paraphrase a man much smarter than I am. I look to the sciences to explain HOW God did it, and at the same time I look to the Scriptures to explain WHY God did it.

Ps.

I've got lots of letters to. The ones that means the most to me spell dad.

[Arc]

arc:

Please don't misunderstand me. I am a Creationist. I fully believe God did it. I also fully believe He used Evolution to do it.

To paraphrase a man much smarter than I am. I look to the sciences to explain HOW God did it, and at the same time I look to the Scriptures to explain WHY God did it.

Ps.

I've got lots of letters to. The ones that means the most to me spell dad.

I assumed that since you identified yourself as a scientist, that you had the requisite degrees. And, like you, I see my most significant role in life as that of a father. One of my solemn duties as a father was to teach my children critical thinking skills.

[Rob Osborn]

arc:

Please don't misunderstand me. I am a Creationist. I fully believe God did it. I also fully believe He used Evolution to do it.

To paraphrase a man much smarter than I am. I look to the sciences to explain HOW God did it, and at the same time I look to the Scriptures to explain WHY God did it.

Ps.

I've got lots of letters to. The ones that means the most to me spell dad.

How is one a creationist and an evolutionist? Does that mean that you believe in the creation as found in the bible and that it was evolution that God used in that creation? Or does it mean that you only recognize God as a figurehead and that evolution ran totally on its own?

You do realize that the creation as found in the Bible is not in the correct order that evolutionists have stated would be necessary for evolution to take place (example of whales before land animals).

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I am not a Bible literalist.

The KJV of the Bible also has God creating the stars after creating the earth. Which flies in the face of everything we know about astronomy.

The KJV of the Bible also has Pi as equal to exactly 3. I assume you accept Pi as 3.14.... Or I am and the rest of the world to toss out mathematics also?

[littlechild]

arc:

Please don't misunderstand me. I am a Creationist. I fully believe God did it. I also fully believe He used Evolution to do it.

To paraphrase a man much smarter than I am. I look to the sciences to explain HOW God did it, and at the same time I look to the Scriptures to explain WHY God did it.

Ps.

I've got lots of letters to. The ones that means the most to me spell dad.

All I'm saying is Darwinism is bad science. ID is good science, and furthermore it is evidence based.

[thesometimesaint]

littlechild:

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

I am not a Bible literalist.

The KJV of the Bible also has God creating the stars after creating the earth. Which flies in the face of everything we know about astronomy.

The KJV of the Bible also has Pi as equal to exactly 3. I assume you accept Pi as 3.14.... Or I am and the rest of the world to toss out mathematics also?

So, how then are you a creationist? What part of the creation do you believe in?

[littlechild]

littlechild:

Laughter is the last refuge of the tongue tied.

As for your much vaunted "peer-review" process, I suppose I should be the one laughing at you for your naivete. I know that this is treading on thin ice to postulate the existence of an unscrupulous scientist or group of scientists who would deliberately skew the data in order to keep their agenda foremost in the literature. I mean, why would a scientist have any interest at all in being deceptive? Or power mongering, or hoarding the funding money for their preconceived ideas? Wouldn't, couldn't happen, could it? No, of course not.

Well, Here are some emails intercepted by the New York Times between some climate scientists:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow..even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!

Phil Jones email to Michael Mann July 8, 2004

on the occasion of a paper disagreeing with the peer reviewed pulications:

..... Our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted.

Michael Mann email to Phil Jones Mar 11, 2003

Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis......

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Phil Jones email to Michael Mann May 29, 2008

Now I'm sure this is just an isolated incident, isn't it?

And I notice you still haven't responded in substance with a definition of science, nor have you responded to the fact that common descent is unfalsifiable, and so on. Oh well. None are so blind as those who believe they already see.

[littlechild]

So, how then are you a creationist? What part of the creation do you believe in?

He'll accept whatever part the scientists allow him to accept. But first they have to get it peer reviewed.

[Mordecai]

I am not a Bible literalist.

The BoMormon also suggests God created man in his image. So I keep telling you that Darwinism can only result in decreases in complexity or the same complexity. If the evidence doesn't support Darwinian processes being able to explain macroevolution, why not accept Jesus Christ's word for it, that He created man in the image of the body of his spirit? Even Dawkins admits that, prior to ten years, ago, it was mere assumption that Darwinism could produce increases in complexity:

...contrary to earlier prejudices, there is nothing inherently progressive about evolution."

The reason he says this is because in the last ten years, microbiology has been finally showing us whether the assumptions of the prior 150 years were correct. They are not correct. Darwinism is not an "arms race." It is, as Behe explains, "Trench warfare." It destroys only. It doesn't create... at least according to all observations.

You know that among the best example of Darwinism is the "arms race" between malaria and human beings. But that has resulted in regression! All human mutations that oppose malaria damage red blood cells! The mutations that occur in malaria to battle our anti-malaria drugs weaken them, which is made evident by the fact that as soon as the drug is withdrawn as a treatment, the old version of malaria makes a comeback.

Behe explains all of this and goes on to explain about the mutations that allowed malaria to resist chloroquine:

On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chances, we would need to wait a hundred million times ten million years... that is many times the age of the universe...

In fact, the malaria mutation is comprised of only two changes in amino acids. It is not an irreducibly complex structure. It is not an increase in complexity. It's relatively simple. Behe also explains that even if all mammals in the world were included in this examination of how much chances there is of this relatively simple mutation occurring, the chances would still be against the mutation ever occurring in the history of the world among mammals.

If it took malaria a decade or two to develop this relatively simple mutation, with their population and rates of mutation, seeing as there are a trillion malaria in a single infected person and that the life-cycle of malaria is a fraction of that of mammals, how much chance do you really think there is that mammals can develop a mutation as complex (yet relatively simple) as the chloroquine resistance mutation? Very little. If that tiny change is unlikely for all mammals in the history of the world combined, how much chance do think there is that the same process could produce a human from a shrew, much less the enormous diversity of mammalian life on earth? Are you looking for some magical solution to explain Darwinism? Why do you think that will be discovered?

[littlechild]

If it took malaria a decade or two to develop this relatively simple mutation, with their population and rates of mutation, seeing as there are a trillion malaria in a single infected person and that the life-cycle of malaria is a fraction of that of mammals, how much chance do you really think there is that mammals can develop a mutation as complex (yet relatively simple) as the chloroquine resistance mutation? Very little. If that tiny change is unlikely for all mammals in the history of the world combined, how much chance do think there is that the same process could produce a human from a shrew, much less the enormous diversity of mammalian life on earth? Are you looking for some magical solution to explain Darwinism? Why do you think that will be discovered?

The magic is in the peer review process.

[littlechild]

arc:

Please don't misunderstand me. I am a Creationist. I fully believe God did it. I also fully believe He used Evolution to do it.

To paraphrase a man much smarter than I am. I look to the sciences to explain HOW God did it, and at the same time I look to the Scriptures to explain WHY God did it.

Ps.

I've got lots of letters to. The ones that means the most to me spell dad.

Interesting new article out. 52 percent of Americans think that the development of life was guided by intelligent design.

Do you believe this is a scientific question: How did life arise on Earth?

If so, then why should we not discuss it in science class? Because Darwinism does not address it?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I believe God did it.

[thesometimesaint]

littlechild:

A significant percentage of Americans also believe the sun revolves around the earth. That is NO reason to toss Galileo in favor of a Ptolemaic worldview of the universe.

[Mordecai]

littlechild:

A significant percentage of Americans also believe the sun revolves around the earth. That is NO reason to toss Galileo in favor of a Ptolemaic worldview of the universe.

From a paper by biophysicist, Cornelius Hunter:

Geocentrism dates back to antiquity. The idea that the objects in the sky rotate around the earth seems quite reasonable. After all, the stars can be seen to move across the sky every night. So do the moon and planets, and the sun by day. Was not the earth at the center of the universe? But there are anomalies in these motions. Sometimes the planets move backwards, for instance, and the geocentric model did not always work very well. Its false predictions, however, could be accommodated by adding adjustments. The anomalous motions of heavenly objects were described with dozens of epicycles. This highly complicated version of geocentrism worked very well. The positions of objects in the sky, and even eclipses, could be predicted in advance. Heliocentrism eventually replaced geocentrism not because it was more accurate, but because eventually it could be made to be so much simpler. [3] In this example, it seems obvious that the failures of geocentrism are not merely a case of refining the theory. In this case it seems that the theory is false.... This brings us to the issue of simplicity, or parsimony, in scientific theories. It has long been understood that elaborate explanations can always be contrived in order to explain observations. But why should we believe they are true? The backward motion of planets can be explained by a series of epicycles, designed specifically to fit the peculiar motion. But with heliocentrism no such adjustments are required

[littlechild]

littlechild:

A significant percentage of Americans also believe the sun revolves around the earth. That is NO reason to toss Galileo in favor of a Ptolemaic worldview of the universe.

Let's analyse your response:

I said:

Interesting new article out. 52 percent of Americans think that the development of life was guided by intelligent design.

You said

A significant percentage of Americans also believe the sun revolves around the earth. That is NO reason to toss Galileo in favor of a Ptolemaic worldview of the universe.

I say:

Your reply is incomprehensible. The comparison doesn't make sense. There are nowhere near 52 percent of Americans which believe the sun revolves around the earth. If there are, isn't that a failure of science education?

Additionally, you get to cherry pick the easy to answer questions, the ones you are comfortable asking. You seem to wiggle out of anything that requires a more complex explanation.

I ask again, respectfully:

Do you believe this is a scientific question: How did life arise on Earth?

If so, then why should we not discuss it in science class? Because Darwinism does not address it?

[littlechild]

From a paper by biophysicist, Cornelius Hunter:

So, I recommend reading about the repeated false predictions of Darwinism in the link I provided above and consider the past ten years have shown a substantial increase in evidence against Darwinism, as Darwinism apparently can only keep DNA the same or diminish its function. It doesn't create, based on the ALL of the evidence from microbiology in the last ten years.

Yes I have read that paper and it makes thinking people reconsider and nonthinkers justify their previous conclusions.

That's why I like having a diversity of opinion in the classroom. It opens the debate to honest analyses. It keeps the teachers sharp and the students interested. Isn't that what science study SHOULD do? Encourage exploration, thought, and promote discovery? Surely having a dictatorship in the classroom discourages discussion and stifles learning.

[littlechild]

Rob:

One last time. Evolution doesn't concern itself with Abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with how life evolved once it was here.

As a personal matter it would not bother me in the slightest if God used Abiogenesis to get it all started.

But the article you quoted states that it is no longer a question of IF chemical processes begat life, but which biologic pathways were used in the creation of life. So is it important to analyze the evidence and have a discussion whether those pathways exhibit intelligent intervention or whether they are the product of chance? I believe so. And I believe that having an honest discussion about it in scientific circles as well as in our classrooms is the best way for us to move forward as an intelligent society. I don't think cutting off an entire realm of discovery serves anyone.