Darwin's Influence

[Mordecai]

Duplicate post.

[Mordecai]

Mordecai,

Behe is wrong. And your statement that (Behe said) there are no peer reviewed papers on evolution in the area of microbiology gives me the uneasy feeling that I have been wasting my time trying discuss science science with a couple of parrots.

Did it ever occur to you to type in "cellular evolution" as search terms into Google and see what came up? What about entire journals such as "Molecular Evolution" in the "Cell Biology" series by Springer? There are hundreds if not thousands of papers on evolution in microbiology. And with your statement that there are none, you are looking pretty silly right now.

Since molecualr evolution isn't the same thing as relying on Darwin's theory, then you've missed the boat on that one. Behe doesn't argue against evolution per se. He argues that Darwin's theory, that random mutations and selective pressures can produce increases in complexity, has no place so far in microbiology. Evolution does. But so what? Change over time and common descent is not the enemy of Behe nor is it my enemy. I have no problem with it.

Your quoting the Discovery Institute after my explanation that they are an anti-science organization (or a pseudo-science organization if one wants to be very kind) does not help your case.

Your explanation was mindless drivel. You conflated the FTA with the Discovery Institute. Not the same organization, although your side insists on combining them into one group as a means to smear ID. While Dembksi, who is with the Discovery Institute, did do work on Of Pandas and People, that wasn't official Discovery Institute business. Behe wrote a chapter in the book. He doesn't work for the Discovery Institute. Dembski has creationist friends and doesn't hide that. He admits it. So is Dembski's WORK tarnished because of that (much less would Meyer or Berlinski's work be tarnished)? Maybe they got creationist cooties.

When you say Behe has papers in peer reviewed journals you are being less than forthright.

Hey, genius, I didn't say Behe has papers in peer reviewed journals (although he has published a few... I wasn't talking about him). I said ID proponents do. Meyer had his work published out of the Smithsonian through an editor with two PhD's and three other credible scientists who added input to the paper. So my "lack of forthrightness" is only in your imagination.

So let's end it here my friends.

Yes. Quit while your behind. That's the prudent thing to do. You certainly can't attack the content of ID, seeing as you don't appear to know what it is and avoided addressing actual content. Typical group-think influenced behavior, it appears.

[Rob Osborn]

I would be happy to discuss (or debate) cellular structure and function as manifestations of evolution with you, if you had some evidence with which to defend you position. Problem is that all of your imagined irreducible or specified complexities are explained perfectly adequately by evolution, especially when one looks at the underlying genetic code.

In the final analysis, scientists understand that ID offers no more value to science than does creationism, Behe, Demski and their imaginative fellow travelers notwithstanding.

I seriously doubt you would wanna discuss cellular structure and function with me. You seem quite content to bash on ID without knowing what it is and what it proposes. It seems you are happy in your own place- a very close-minded space where you let dogmatic influence keep you chained in the cell. I would be happy to let you out- give you the key- let you experience freedom. But, I wonder if you would. You seem content chained down to the dogmatic closeminded views that dominated the dark ages.

Mark my words, you will see the day when ID is taught alongside evolution in school- as a competeing theory. Yes, mark my words.

[littlechild]

Mordecai,

What is it about the following factual statements that you do not understand?

- A Federal Judge, after hearing extensive arguments from creationists ID

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

[Rob Osborn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

I don't know how a scientific theory like ID can be classified as "junk science". Does Darwinian evolution also get called "junk science"?

I would like for someone to please explain why a theory that proposes a pre-design before building would be called "junk science". How about why a theory that proposes complexity and order from complete random chance acts gets called sound science when it has never been observed?

It baffles me to see common sense replaced with a fantasy of unseen, unknown heretical thought!

[Mordecai]

"creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17]

This is a great illustration of a straw-man argument. The premise upon which they're basing the claim that ID isn't science is that ID is claiming supernatural intervention. This is combining a straw man argument and argument from hidden premises, two common logical fallacies employed by group-thinking sophists. Why would they do that, if science was on their side? So are you knowingly proliferating this deception or are you just ignorant?

The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

Show me their arguments, and I'll show you another straw man.

[Rob Osborn]

Here is a link to the proper definition of ID-

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design

[LeSellers]

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

"Unequivocal consensus in the scientific community" has no bearing on the OP. Ten days ago, I shoveled 18" of global warming from my sidewalk, despite the "unequivocal consensus in the scientific community" that mankind is heating up the planet.

The OP asks whether children ought to be forced to listen to Darwinism in their classroom unopposed by any other hypothesis or with alternatives presented.

"Across the board, most respondents from the ten countries polled thought that

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Your argument is nonsensical. It is tantamount to saying because it is night time in half the world, it must be night time everywhere else.

Start your own school if you don't want your children to have a publicly funded one. Teach them anything you like.

You are represented in the various legislatures around the country. Just because you pay some taxes, doesn't give you a greater say than others.

Again start your own school. No one is stopping you.

We have laws against proselytizing for religion in the publicly financed classroom. Believe anything you like.

No parents were not ignored.

Look Lehi you can believe anything you like. You can believe the sun travels around the earth for all I care. But your beliefs do not change the fact that it does not.

At least in this country we have the opportunity to throw the bums out every election. BTW What are the first three words in the US Constitution?

This sad old world has an ignoble history of religious violence that puts anything happening in field of education to realm of incredibly small.

ID is not science. It has no means of falsification. To even claim that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis does violence to science. Again no one is topping you from believing anything you like. But that belief does not mandate a concurrent belief in anyone else.

[Mordecai]

Start your own school if you don't want your children to have a publicly funded one. Teach them anything you like.

Sounds fair... except he has to pay taxes to pay for a school he doesn't want, out of the money he worked for. If he sends his kid to a school he starts, can he get his money back? "Crazy" and "stupid" people like Lehi and I are for freedoms instead of your control freak form of government.

This sad old world has an ignoble history of religious violence that puts anything happening in field of education to realm of incredibly small.

Combining the government and religion typically results in tyranny... kinda like your Darwinian political dogma being forced upon a captive audience in government schools.

ID is not science. It has no means of falsification.

It is science and does have means of falsification.

To even claim that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis does violence to science.

[littlechild]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

This is a junk answer. The question is not whether ID is science, but whether it is true, and whether it should be taught as an alternative. If you were confident Darwinism could stand up to comparison, you would have no problem - in fact, you would welcome - a discussion of the alternative. Much as I welcome a discussion of politics or a comparison or other's religions against mine - I am confident that one of two things will happen. Either my knowledge and confidence will grow in my conclusions, or they will be shaken for good reason - and both of those outcomes are OK with me.

For instance I love to hear about alternative medical practices. Many of them have benefitted me and my family. And this provides the medical establishment a foil to keep them on their toes.

I have weaned myself off dangerous prescription medications and am a healthier person today, and much more knowledgeable about how such things work than I would be if I had dumbly assumed the doctors knew it all and I should not question their authoritarian preaching. They were wrong. Who knew? I didn't. I used to worship allopaths; now I see they are just one branch of an infinite tree of knowledge.

Anyway, unless you can show me a rational and coherent reason why the premises of intelligent design are flawed, rather than your commentary that it "isn't science" you will have to peddle your wares to some gullible cretin who accepts authoritarian fiats. I want to know why things work or why they don't. I refuse to bow to your pseudo "science" as long as it behaves like a petty tyrant who can't be questioned.

[littlechild]

The myth of falsification is another lie perpetuated by pseudo-scientists trying to protect their turf. You've yet to define science. Until you do, your protestations are as hollow as a politician's promise.

I've been on this board for over a year and asked many Darwinists to define science. The fact that not a single one of you can define it shows me you're only interested in turf protection, not the truth.

[LeSellers]

Your argument is nonsensical. It is tantamount to saying because it is night time in half the world, it must be night time everywhere else.

What are you talking about?

My only position is that parents, not bureaucrats and politicians, should make the decisions about their children's education.

Start your own school if you don't want your children to have a publicly funded one. Teach them anything you like.

I just don't want a publicly funded school system. It does

not work, fails in every publicly stated purpose, and succeeds only in making children mental wards of the state. Your method (open a different school) does not allow me to stop paying for the undesired option, does it? In order to have my choice, I must also pay for yours.

You are represented in the various legislatures around the country. Just because you pay some taxes, doesn't give you a greater say than others.

And I made such a claim where, exactly?

We have laws against proselytizing for religion in the publicly financed classroom. Believe anything you like.

Only in grtf-welfare school classrooms. Eliminate government from the equation and many things become possible. In a governmental environment, he who believes much must give way to him who believes little, and he who believes little must give way to him who believes nothing.

No parents were not ignored.

Had parents not been ignored, there would have been no problem: those who wanted creationism taught would have had creationism, those who wanted Darwinism would have had Darwinism. As it is, one group (or the other) loses and the other wins. The problem is what they win: the minds of the others' children.

Look Lehi you can believe anything you like. You can believe the sun travels around the earth for all I care. But your beliefs do not change the fact that it does not.

Yet I do not believe that. Why do you continue to bring up idiotic points that I do not make?

All I ask is that parents, not bureaucrats, make the decision as to what their children learn. That cannot happen with government in control of what children learn.

At least in this country we have the opportunity to throw the bums out every election. BTW What are the first three words in the US Constitution?

Statists focus on those words and ignore the rest. The judiciary seems bent on forcing exactly what people have said they do not want down their throats. In a non-governmental environment parents could choose what their children learn without having to pay for what they do not want and getting what they do want with the left overs.

This sad old world has an ignoble history of religious violence that puts anything happening in field of education to realm of incredibly small.

"This ... old world" is not USmerica, which was the subject of my assertion.

But we do have a long history of school wars: math wars, reading wars, life science wars, et cetera, etc., &c.

ID is not science. It has no means of falsification. To even claim that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis does violence to science. Again no one is topping you from believing anything you like. But that belief does not mandate a concurrent belief in anyone else.

You miss my point completely. I do not want a mandate to force my beliefs (which you misrepresent, yet again).

All I advocate is the freedom for parents to choose what their children learn. To do so requires that the state get out of education altogether. (A solution that solves all of the school wars and education problems in this country, and, indeed, in the world.)

Lehi

[littlechild]

I agree Lehi, we need to get back to the freedom model. Freedom in school choice, freedom in economic choice. The more centralized government planning we have, the less freedom and quality we get. The central dogmatists who try to control everything are succeeding only in lowering us all to the same mediocre level.

If science is so smart, why can't it function in an open field of discussion - why does it need the crutch of monopolistic control to maintain its power and influence? BECAUSE OUR KIDS ARE TOO STUPID TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG WITHOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROLLERS TO PROGRAM THEM?

[Rob Osborn]

What bothers me the most (and getting back to the original OP) is that our education is oppressed by the so called various civil liberty groups (I could have just said the ACLU) running their dogmatism to extremes. They have effectively formed an exclusionary science standard. I call them the devils advocate (no joke there brother!).

The NCSE and the ACLU have tag-teamed and set an exclusionary standard which is unconstitutional. This tag-team has been successful in several states bids to exclude stickers or references in piublic school biology books/classes stating that evolution is just a theory and that not all scientists believe in the theory of evolution. They have made an affrontal attack on ID and creationism to totally deny them of any time in public education. They do so in perfect knowledge that in doing so they uphold and promote their idealistic views and push their views onto lawyers, congressmen and judges to rule in their favor- and, the big- AND children who hold religious views not in line with the ACLU and NCSE . Now you tell me- is that unconstitutional or what!

Someday, the ACLU is going to have to answer for all their dirty laundry (and boy is it piling up deeeeeep!!!).

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

So your argument is not scientific it is political.

[HiJolly]

Alternatives should be mentioned, but not taught, until they can hold to the same scientific criteria as the theory of biological evolution.

ID is not science.

Littlechild has been informed ad nauseum concerning science, and chooses to be willfully ignorant. As such, he adds practially nothing to the conversation, unfortunately.

HiJolly

[thesometimesaint]

HiJolly:

I don't know how a biology teacher would even bring up ID in the context of a biology class. It would be the same as that biology teacher telling that another equally valid theory that has foul odors as the cause of Bubonic Plague.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly:

I don't know how a biology teacher would even bring up ID in the context of a biology class. It would be the same as that biology teacher telling that another equally valid theory that has foul odors as the cause of Bubonic Plague.

I never said the teacher would need to bring it up as a scientifically valid theory, which of course he couldn't. I can think of some things to say, though.

HiJolly

[thesometimesaint]

HiJolly:

I can too, but they're rather disparaging of a certain religious belief. And I'd rather not go there.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly:

I can too, but they're rather disparaging of a certain religious belief. And I'd rather not go there.

Agreed.

HiJolly

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

So your argument is not scientific it is political.

Ask that to your ACLU and NCSE. They are in it not to preserve escientific thought, but to exclude any other competeing theory- and that my fellow saint, is politics.

[Rob Osborn]

HiJolly:

I don't know how a biology teacher would even bring up ID in the context of a biology class. It would be the same as that biology teacher telling that another equally valid theory that has foul odors as the cause of Bubonic Plague.

Very easy there my fellow cheeto. After extensively studying the working of a cell, the teacher then presents the two theories in regards to how it may have originated- whether it could have happened by chance encounters in nature, or if it was created because of some design or purpose that existed beforehand.

Its simply a question if nature, through random chance has the ability and power to create life on its own or not.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Sorry I don't get my science from the ACLU. They are fine however when someone tries to force, by law, me or mine to believe any religion.

I don't know how many ways and times I need to tell you ID is NOT science. It is NOT a Theory. It CANNOT be falsified. ID has NO place in a science classroom.

You want to disprove Evolution? It is easy. Just find a fully formed human skeletons in undisturbed Precambrian rock